Electric Comets, Comet Elenin, Electric Universe Theory, Is NASA Lie Us For Comets

reply to post by avatarded1


Yep Bosnian scientist just had another astounding prediction right on the money. He said mid two weeks of August will so NO 6+ quakes and so it was: NONE! Then on the 14th day of those 2 weeks we had 6.3 in Japan and 7.5 and 7.0 VANUATU.

and it just happened so that NASA issued a statement one day before saying Omerbashich theory is nonsense. LOL what a slam in the NASA face by good Dr. that was!

Dr. Omerbashich is a GENIUS!!! His hyperresonance theory is revolution in science.

Solar Lightning
Aug 29, 2011

Solar flares can be thought of as giant lightning discharges.

www.thunderbolts.info...

reply to post by Dalke07

Solar flares can be thought of as giant lightning discharges.

Except that lightning discharges occur when electrons rush across a charge differential and solar flare consists of electrons, protons and electromagnetic radiation that escape from a kink in the Sun's magnetosphere.

Imo you really can't trust anyone anymore, there is so much disinfo trash out there. The flurry of disinfo that began as soon as Elenin was discovered is telling in and of itself. There is a very organized campaign of pro debunkers trashing anything related to Elenin, tying it with planet x, and blah blah blah. I see it now, the snake debunker(LIARS) are out in full force on youtube and beyond, right here on ATS as well. There is not one area they have'nt infected with their BS.

It is clear to me Elenin is a psy op, and no one outside the conspiracy community knows about it. Why would NASA all of sudden address conspiracies? This is unprecedented, No one I know in person even knows what Elenin is, so who is David Morrison speaking to? If something is an obvious nutcase conspiracy they would do like they always do, dismiss it entirely and never bring it up again.

I am honestly had it up to my ears with Elenin this, Elenin that. Wake up, deny ignorance, stop eating the bull# that trolls and NASA feed you.

reply to post by DJW001

Hmm. The magnet on my desk has a magnetic field. It's made of metal, magnetite. It doesn't have a molten core. Neither does my iron magnet. Neither does my TV or the power lines behind my house, but they have magnetic fields. To make a piece of metal behave like a magnet, all that is needed is a flow of electrons around it.

reply to post by consciousgod

Hmm. The magnet on my desk has a magnetic field. It's made of metal, magnetite. It doesn't have a molten core. Neither does my iron magnet. Neither does my TV or the power lines behind my house, but they have magnetic fields. To make a piece of metal behave like a magnet, all that is needed is a flow of electrons around it.

Correct. That is why bodies in space that lack a ferromagnetic core sometimes have an induced magnetic field.Where do I say otherwise?

Originally posted by Centurionx
Imo you really can't trust anyone anymore, there is so much disinfo trash out there. The flurry of disinfo that began as soon as Elenin was discovered is telling in and of itself. There is a very organized campaign of pro debunkers trashing anything related to Elenin, tying it with planet x, and blah blah blah. I see it now, the snake debunker(LIARS) are out in full force on youtube and beyond, right here on ATS as well. There is not one area they have'nt infected with their BS.

It is clear to me Elenin is a psy op, and no one outside the conspiracy community knows about it. Why would NASA all of sudden address conspiracies? This is unprecedented, No one I know in person even knows what Elenin is, so who is David Morrison speaking to? If something is an obvious nutcase conspiracy they would do like they always do, dismiss it entirely and never bring it up again.

I am honestly had it up to my ears with Elenin this, Elenin that. Wake up, deny ignorance, stop eating the bull# that trolls and NASA feed you.

And listen to you? You haven't said anything of substance. Why should we listen to you?

reply to post by DJW001


You stated that comets are magnetically inert because they don't have a molten core. You are flip flopin like a politician.

reply to post by consciousgod

You stated that comets are magnetically inert because they don't have a molten core. You are flip flopin like a politician.

Comets have no intrinsic magnetic field because they do not have a nickle iron core. When they are inactive, they are magnetically inert. As they approach the Sun, the solar wind forms a shockwave around them; this is an induced magnetic field. As they move further from the Sun, this goes away and they become magnetically inert again. What part of this do you not understand?

reply to post by sunev

Yep Bosnian scientist just had another astounding prediction right on the money. He said mid two weeks of August will so NO 6+ quakes and so it was: NONE! [

That's wrong, of course:

2011 08 19 035426.78 -16.52 -177.00 407 6.2

2011 08 19 053633.08 37.67 141.67 47 6.2

USGS

reply to post by DJW001


RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

You said comets do not have a magnetic field because they do not have a molten core. What part of your own statement do you not understand? They don't have to have molten cores to be magnetic like you said in the above post. You are contradicting yourself. A comets magnetic field can range from very low to very high depending on its composition and position, but it is never inert. That's just a ridiculous assumption.

It doesn't make sense to think that all comets are alike. How many planets in the solar system are alike? Not a single one yet they all look about the same with the naked eye. Some are brighter than others, but when we look at them up close, they are entirely different. So why do you ASSume all comets are the same? These assumptions have been proven wrong. Explain the absence of ice, the black charred color, the evidence of electrical etching. If comets were balls of ice, shouldn't they behave as predicted for dirty snowballs and not as predicted by EU theory? Shouldn't they appear as dirty snowballs and not chared, etched, burnt rocks.

Denial isn't a river in Egypt.

If the source of water in the tail is the nucleus, then how come water isn't detected in the nucleus is sufficient quantities to support your position?

Are all stars the same? Are all moons the same? No.

Then there is no reason to believe that all comets are comprised of the same material. The ice and dust are by products EM activity. It's obvious. The evidences points to this as being correct.

Again, RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

reply to post by DJW001


Here is something I would like you to explain using your dirty snowball theory.

www.youtube.com...

Pay close attention to the comet tails. The tails do not appear to be in the direction opposite the sun. The tails behave like they are products of the vector of the comet's speed and the speed of the solar wind. The comets speed causes the tail to be behind the comet and the solar wind makes the tail fan out. As the comets fly through space, the tails project behind it and is blown away from the sun, but it is definitely not pointing directly away even when the comet is moving away from the sun.

Look at time 1:25 comet 96p.

When this comet passes the sun, its tail points in the opposite direction until it gets hit with a CME. Then the tail reverses direction. Why? It's an electrical effect.

This doesn't fit your dirty snowball theory that says tails always point away from the sun.

Do we need to buy you a new pair of glasses. Those "birth control" glasses you are wearing may not be strong enough if you can't see which direction the tails are pointing.

reply to post by consciousgod

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

You have made that emphatically clear. There is nothing I can say or do that will help you to understand that the electromagnetic aspects of comet behavior are caused by the Sun, not by the comet. A comet's ionization tail, which is caused by the solar wind, naturally follows the solar wind's curving, "sprinkler like" stream. You are correct that each comet will be different in some way from every other comet; they coagulated in different places and have followed different wanderings. The term "dirty snowball" is a metaphor,you know. Comets are not believed to be big ball of water ice with a thin dusting on top. They are accretions of volatile molecules, silicates and so forth with very little structure. They're essentially just random molecules that bumped together and stuck. The volatiles, which are substances that experience phase transitions over the temperature range of the comet's orbit, are called "ices," the same way that anything other than hydrogen and helium in a star is called a "metal."

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by consciousgod

 

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

You have made that emphatically clear. There is nothing I can say or do that will help you to understand that the electromagnetic aspects of comet behavior are caused by the Sun, not by the comet. A comet's ionization tail, which is caused by the solar wind, naturally follows the solar wind's curving, "sprinkler like" stream. You are correct that each comet will be different in some way from every other comet; they coagulated in different places and have followed different wanderings. The term "dirty snowball" is a metaphor,you know. Comets are not believed to be big ball of water ice with a thin dusting on top. They are accretions of volatile molecules, silicates and so forth with very little structure. They're essentially just random molecules that bumped together and stuck. The volatiles, which are substances that experience phase transitions over the temperature range of the comet's orbit, are called "ices," the same way that anything other than hydrogen and helium in a star is called a "metal."

Very nice response. I appreciate all the time you put in to these threads. I have a hard time accepting a theory that doesn't appear to be related to the data. The photos speak thousands of words.

What about the photographs that show its not loosely packed.

What about the electrical sketching marks?

What about the black burnt crust?

What about the lack of ice on the nucleus?

Why are you ignoring this data?

Oh yeah, it doesn't fit your theory.

Haven't you seen this data?

Does it fit a theory?

Why yes, the EU theory.

I want to believe you are right. I really do, but it just doesn't compute and I just can't take it on faith. Science is not supposed to be a religion.

If I learned your theory in a class nowadays, of course I would have to repeat it as fact, or I would fail the course, but I can't accept it until the data supports it, and it just doesn't do that.

When you figure out how to explain the above, I would really like to hear your explanation.

Since Nasa scientists state they don't really understand comets, why are you so sure that you do?

I don't. I'm following "the thousands of words."

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by consciousgod

 

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

You have made that emphatically clear. There is nothing I can say or do that will help you to understand that the electromagnetic aspects of comet behavior are caused by the Sun, not by the comet. A comet's ionization tail, which is caused by the solar wind, naturally follows the solar wind's curving, "sprinkler like" stream. You are correct that each comet will be different in some way from every other comet; they coagulated in different places and have followed different wanderings. The term "dirty snowball" is a metaphor,you know. Comets are not believed to be big ball of water ice with a thin dusting on top. They are accretions of volatile molecules, silicates and so forth with very little structure. They're essentially just random molecules that bumped together and stuck. The volatiles, which are substances that experience phase transitions over the temperature range of the comet's orbit, are called "ices," the same way that anything other than hydrogen and helium in a star is called a "metal."

Very nice response. I appreciate all the time you put in to these threads. I have a hard time accepting a theory that doesn't appear to be related to the data. The photos speak thousands of words.

What about the photographs that show its not loosely packed.

What about the electrical sketching marks?

What about the black burnt crust?

What about the lack of ice on the nucleus?

Why are you ignoring this data?

Oh yeah, it doesn't fit your theory.

Haven't you seen this data?

Does it fit a theory?

Why yes, the EU theory.

I want to believe you are right. I really do, but it just doesn't compute and I just can't take it on faith. Science is not supposed to be a religion.

If I learned your theory in a class nowadays, of course I would have to repeat it as fact, or I would fail the course, but I can't accept it until the data supports it, and it just doesn't do that.

When you figure out how to explain the above, I would really like to hear your explanation.

Since Nasa scientists state they don't really understand comets, why are you so sure that you do?

I don't. I'm following "the thousands of words."

reply to post by consciousgod

What about the photographs that show its not loosely packed.

What about the photos that show that it is loosely packed?

What about the electrical sketching marks?

What "electrical sketching marks?"

What about the black burnt crust?

Just because material is dark does not mean it is "burnt." In fact, how could something burn in space?

What about the lack of ice on the nucleus?

www.space.com...

reply to post by DJW001



Answers to your questions found here.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

I expect you to come back with a remark that the marks that are called electrical etching are caused by meteor impact, but that dog won't hunt either. A meteor traveling at 50,000 to 100,000 mph will have enough kinetic energy to blow an icy snowball into individual atoms. There is absolutely no way an icy snowball would survive to get its picture taken.

Laboratory experiments have reproduced similar electrical etching, but laboratory experiments have failed to reproduce the effects of comet off-gassing.

About the loosely packed. I don't see any photos showing that. Can you provide?

Funny... about your comment, how does something burn in space.

Yes, space is a vacuum. The filament inside a lightbulb is in a vacuum. It appears to burn in the vacuum, but that's not space, but all you need to do is look up in the day time.

I see a fireball in space right now. It's about 93 million miles away and its burning up Texas. You owe your life to it. Now show some respect and not insult your sun.

reply to post by consciousgod

A meteor traveling at 50,000 to 100,000 mph will have enough kinetic energy to blow an icy snowball into individual atoms. There is absolutely no way an icy snowball would survive to get its picture taken.

Unless of course the comet is traveling at 49,999 mph in the same direction. Then the collision is a leisurely 1 mph one. Most of the meteoroids any comet will encounter will be much, much smaller than it. We have no idea what the relative velocities of the objects that caused the cratering and the comet were. Again, I suggest you wrap your head around what the "icy snowball" metaphor actually means.

Laboratory experiments have reproduced similar electrical etching, but laboratory experiments have failed to reproduce the effects of comet off-gassing.

For the sake of expediency I'll take your word on this one, but it seems to me that molecules change their phase under laboratory conditions all the time.

About the loosely packed. I don't see any photos showing that. Can you provide?

And I don't see any photos showing the contrary.

Funny... about your comment, how does something burn in space.

Yes, silly me. Thinking that oxygen is necessary for combustion and all. Organic compounds leave a black residue when they burn because they contain carbon. What is your evidence that there is "burning" on electric comets? What are electric comets made of that they would turn black?

I see a fireball in space right now. It's about 93 million miles away and its burning up Texas. You owe your life to it. Now show some respect and not insult your sun.

Are you saying that the Sun is oxidizing? Do you understand that saying the Sun is "burning" is also a metaphor? It is releasing photons over a wide range of frequencies as a side product of thermonuclear reactions. "Burning" is a chemical reaction.

Look, let's try this. A good theory makes predictions. The "dirty snowball" model predicts that comets can eventually exhaust their volatiles and go inert, just as Elenin seems to be doing even now. What does EU predict? If I understand it correctly, EU maintains that the presence of hydroxyl and other emissions spectra detected surrounding the comet are due to the comet's magnetic field somehow miraculously reassembling the alpha and beta particles in the solar wind into molecules. If a comet loses its halo and tail, this must mean that something has happened to its magnetic field? Where did it go?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by sunev

 

Yep Bosnian scientist just had another astounding prediction right on the money. He said mid two weeks of August will so NO 6+ quakes and so it was: NONE! [

That's wrong, of course:

2011 08 19 035426.78 -16.52 -177.00 407 6.2

2011 08 19 053633.08 37.67 141.67 47 6.2

USGS

That's not true, of course. If you go to www.seismo.info you can see Dr. Omerbashich's data chart. There were no 6+ quakes between 4 and 17 August, which is exactly 2 weeks.

By the way, your second quake was not 6.2 but 6.3, as Dr. Omerbashich notes correctly in his chart. You seem to have problems reading a simple chart.

And as you can see if you follow the link to good Dr.'s homepage, his theory of hyperresonance has now been confirmed by another senior physicist.

Now that must hurt.

reply to post by ttimez

Yep Bosnian scientist just had another astounding prediction right on the money. He said mid two weeks of August will so NO 6+ quakes and so it was: NONE! Then on the 14th day of those 2 weeks we had 6.3 in Japan and 7.5 and 7.0 VANUATU.

The "mid two weeks of August" would be August 7th through August 21st. He was just plain wrong.