I do believe Jupiter's moon Io is known to cause electrical discharges and cause storms in the atmosphere of Jupiter. It is, of course, a lot closer to Jupiter then our moon is to Earth.

Do we got any plan to tap this massive free energy one day ?
Imagine how it can help space exploration. I wish one day in my living i see man mission to Jupiter moon !

Originally posted by Dolby_X
Do we got any plan to tap this massive free energy one day ?
Imagine how it can help space exploration. I wish one day in my living i see man mission to Jupiter moon !

Why yes, we do.

TiPS is a program by NASA to use Tethers to 'fling" objects into space (instead of using rockets, simply use inertia).

But another aspect is the one in which electrical energy is generated by dragging a long tether through the ionosphere. STS 75, "The Tether Incident"? All those "UFO's" are not even the best part about that particular shuttle mission.

You should ask yourself why, when they fried a 10mil dollar satellite, they still declared it a success?

Well a gravity movement would cause splits in the Earth and
the disturbing body.
And some electrification as well.

Now according to ancient writings and earth features pointed out
by Velikovsky the Earth moved at least three times that I can recall
from a recent reading.

One interesting note as I recall "Lawrence of Arabia" as the warriors
crossed a rock filled land from inland to the Red Sea.
Velikovsky points out many unusual Earth features and I suppose
this happened years ago at the time of the Exodus.
As the Arabian side of the Red Sea was battered by cosmic forces
so was Egypt. We don't see Grand Canyons around there so a great
break like that needed more force.

The idea that surface features on Mars were caused by electric arcs between the planet and some other celestial body is pure electric-universe hokum.

The features formed the same way Earth's did: by geophysical activity, erosion and meteorite strikes.

Originally posted by Astyanax
The idea that surface features on Mars were caused by electric arcs between the planet and some other celestial body is pure electric-universe hokum.

The features formed the same way Earth's did: by geophysical activity, erosion and meteorite strikes.

A very respected member of this fine forum, to say the least, what you say carries quite a bit of weight.

I would challenge your thought on this, however, by pointing to the extreme nature of the features on Mars, combined with the relatively smaller size and lack of geophysical activity.

Take, for example, Mons Olympus. That is quite a peak on that mountain, being not only visible from space, but dominating the Martian landscape.

Or Valles Marineris....there isn't a parallel on Earth for it.

Now, it may be quite a leap to claim it is electrical in nature. I will not argue that. But there is plenty of room for speculation on the basis for these landmarks.

FWIW, i am a Plasma Cosmology proponent. I believe that the electrical nature of Mars past was controlled by the Suns highly charged electrical atmosphere. But, who am i kidding...i really don't "believe" much. My beliefs generally tend more towards assigning probability, and daydreaming of conjecture.

But we do theorize that Mars used to be geologically active, but something happened (be it an armageddon style impact or something unknown) that caused the planet to lose its magnetic shield and atmosphere and cooled the planet to the core

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by Astyanax
The idea that surface features on Mars were caused by electric arcs between the planet and some other celestial body is pure electric-universe hokum.

The features formed the same way Earth's did: by geophysical activity, erosion and meteorite strikes.

A very respected member of this fine forum, to say the least, what you say carries quite a bit of weight.

I would challenge your thought on this, however, by pointing to the extreme nature of the features on Mars, combined with the relatively smaller size and lack of geophysical activity.

Take, for example, Mons Olympus. That is quite a peak on that mountain, being not only visible from space, but dominating the Martian landscape.

Or Valles Marineris....there isn't a parallel on Earth for it.
Now, it may be quite a leap to claim it is electrical in nature. I will not argue that. But there is plenty of room for speculation on the basis for these landmarks.

FWIW, i am a Plasma Cosmology proponent. I believe that the electrical nature of Mars past was controlled by the Suns highly charged electrical atmosphere. But, who am i kidding...i really don't "believe" much. My beliefs generally tend more towards assigning probability, and daydreaming of conjecture.

Valles Marineris is tied into the creation of the Tharsis Bulge which are shield volcanoes similar to the Hawaiian Island chain. The reason Olympus Mons is so big is because of the lack of recent plate tectonics has kept it situated over the hot spot for so long.

Originally posted by cowboys703

Valles Marineris is tied into the creation of the Tharsis Bulge which are shield volcanoes similar to the Hawaiian Island chain. The reason Olympus Mons is so big is because of the lack of recent plate tectonics has kept it situated over the hot spot for so long.

wow, quite the analysis. and you never even put a shovel in the ground.

quite prodigious.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by cowboys703

Valles Marineris is tied into the creation of the Tharsis Bulge which are shield volcanoes similar to the Hawaiian Island chain. The reason Olympus Mons is so big is because of the lack of recent plate tectonics has kept it situated over the hot spot for so long.

wow, quite the analysis. and you never even put a shovel in the ground.

quite prodigious.

Thank you

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
A very respected member of this fine forum... what you say carries quite a bit of weight.

Thank you, sir, though 'reviled' might be nearer the truth than 'respected'. Be that as it may, you're pretty well respected yourself.

I would challenge your thought on this...

Of course you would: have at it, as the Three Musketeers might have said. But the OP seemed to be under the impression that the electrical-discharge hypothesis was a genuine, generally accepted scientific theory. I am merely pursuing my self-appointed educational mission by pointing out (in my preferred style, of course) that it is 'alternative'.