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

Proof of Universe Electric. Comets emit radio waves.


Comet Elenin Radio Astronomy

Though have to admit, this one almost has a language thing going on. And I just read a sumeritan translation another forum. And that was odd.

The translation was needed for: Khoru-Behii-Nehihey ey .... Ghobi bi ey


Strange RF Signal From Elenin-voice analysis-Read Info

Originally posted by DJW001
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.

Whoahhhh.

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water there old chum.

There are many factors that cause earthquakes, not just celestial bodies in our solar system. Just because we had an earthquake during that time frame does not mean that his hypothesis for his theory is incorrect.

If that is what you are implying?

Originally posted by DJW001
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.

No they wouldn't. Weeks don't start on the same day each month. "Mid two weeks" can be +-7 days offset from the middle of any given month. Depends on what date the first Monday is.

Good Dr. was on the money, as usual.

Originally posted by XplanetX

Originally posted by DJW001
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.

Whoahhhh.

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water there old chum.

There are many factors that cause earthquakes, not just celestial bodies in our solar system. Just because we had an earthquake during that time frame does not mean that his hypothesis for his theory is incorrect.

If that is what you are implying?

Nah, he doesn't know what he's talking about. Besides, Dr. Omerbashich's theory is now confirmed, but DJW001 is ignoring it.

Originally posted by ttimez

Originally posted by XplanetX

Originally posted by DJW001
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.

Whoahhhh.

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water there old chum.

There are many factors that cause earthquakes, not just celestial bodies in our solar system. Just because we had an earthquake during that time frame does not mean that his hypothesis for his theory is incorrect.

If that is what you are implying?

Nah, he doesn't know what he's talking about. Besides, Dr. Omerbashich's theory is now confirmed, but DJW001 is ignoring it.

DJW001 tackled me on it earlier too.

Vindication is a wonderful thing.

One more to keep track of them.


Comet Elenin sound you can hear on shortwaves

Is shortwaves HAM? They were waiting for independent grass roots HAM radio operators to verify this.

Apparently with the above the signal can be cleaned up and raised a couple notches for the words.

Without any words, they're good proof of the Electric Universe. With words, well not too sure I'd like any comets near me shouting Sumerian over a loudspeaker, not my cup of tea.

reply to post by XplanetX

There are many factors that cause earthquakes, not just celestial bodies in our solar system. Just because we had an earthquake during that time frame does not mean that his hypothesis for his theory is incorrect.

If that is what you are implying?

I'm not implying anything; I am simply pointing out that HRH was wrong. Funny, if he had predicted that there would be no earthquakes and there weren't any, you would claim that his theory were proven. If he predicted that there would be one, and there were, you would also claim that his theory were proven. As it is, he was wrong, so you are making excuses. Since you are now acknowledging that things other than planetary alignments cause earthquakes, perhaps you are ready to admit to yourself that maybe its these other things that cause the earthquakes and the "planetary alignments" are just a coincidence.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by XplanetX

 

There are many factors that cause earthquakes, not just celestial bodies in our solar system. Just because we had an earthquake during that time frame does not mean that his hypothesis for his theory is incorrect.

If that is what you are implying?

I'm not implying anything; I am simply pointing out that HRH was wrong. Funny, if he had predicted that there would be no earthquakes and there weren't any, you would claim that his theory were proven. If he predicted that there would be one, and there were, you would also claim that his theory were proven. As it is, he was wrong, so you are making excuses. Since you are now acknowledging that things other than planetary alignments cause earthquakes, perhaps you are ready to admit to yourself that maybe its these other things that cause the earthquakes and the "planetary alignments" are just a coincidence.

Fail.

You are making an accusation against my reasoning that can be just as equally thrown straight back at you.

Originally posted by DJW001
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?

edit on 13-9-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

Up close photos of comet nucleus' and cross sectional diagrams by Nasa show a charred black crust, not a rubble pile. Did you read the link I provided for you in the last post?

There is oxygen in the solar wind.
www.spaceref.com...

There are hydrogen protons and there are electrons and energy. All the ingredients are there. It’s not a miracle just like it is not a miracle that clouds form.

Does this make the sun oxidizing? What makes something oxidize? It’s just the lost of electrons. When hydrogen ionizes into a proton and electron, doesn’t the hydrogen molecule lose an electron and become an ionized hydrogen proton? It’s not a normal oxidation-reduction reaction because the solar wind is the electron acceptor. The solar wind appears as electrically neutral overall, but there are streams of protons and electrons that are separated into twisting streams of each (the EM ropes). So the sun is a giant ball of anaerobically oxidized hydrogen (plasma) with some ionized oxygen mixed in. When these particles encounter the comet’s EM field, the O protons and the H protons combine to form OH and H2O.

The charred surface is similar to a filament in a light bulb. It's in a vacuum, but when you turn on the bulb a bunch, the filament turns black, leave it on and it corrodes and finally breaks just like a comet can do, and its not made of dirty ice.

The EU theory says comets can dump their charge and thereby reduce their magnetic field. This causes the flash of brightening and the following dimming.

RESISTANCE IS STILL FUTILE.

reply to post by Unity_99

Proof of Universe Electric. Comets emit radio waves.

When the ionized gases surrounding a comet drop to a lower energy state they emit photons. Because this gas is mostly hydrogen, these photons are most numerous at the 21cm band. Actual radio-astronomers using actual radio-telescopes have attempted to observe comet Elenin. They have proclaimed it "dead."

American radio astronomers report that did not detect any water coming from any remains of comet Elenin. Amy Lovell observed it for 7 hours on Sept 7 using the Green Bank Telescope (it is not yet in the Arecibo declination window) and did not detect any OH line above the noise level of 2.4 mJy. This puts a limit of a few times 107 molecules/second on the gas production rate, which is about 100 times less than earlier predictions. This data may confirm disintegration proccess in comet’s nucleus which stareted on mid August. The next radio observations may be carry out on October by Arecibo radio observatory, of course if we will see comet Elenin on images from SOHO spacecraft.

spaceobs.org...

Don't even get me started on "StarViewer Team" and ancient Sumerian!

reply to post by ttimez

No they wouldn't. Weeks don't start on the same day each month. "Mid two weeks" can be +-7 days offset from the middle of any given month. Depends on what date the first Monday is.

Good Dr. was on the money, as usual.

Yep, give the good Doctor two weeks leeway and his predictions are always exact and precise.

reply to post by ttimez

Nah, he doesn't know what he's talking about. Besides, Dr. Omerbashich's theory is now confirmed, but DJW001 is ignoring it.

It is shown that, according to the criteria used by M. Omerbashich (arXiv:1104.2036v4 [physics.gen-ph]), during 2010 the Earth was aligned with at least one pair of planets some 98.6% of the time. This firmly supports Omerbashich's claim that 2010 strongest earthquakes occurred during such astronomical alignments. On this basis, we argue that seismicity is, generally, a phenomenon of astrological origin.

lanl.arxiv.org...

So if the Earth were aligned with at least one pair of planets 98.6% of the time, then alignments pretty much happen constantly. If they happen constantly, there is nothing unusual and it is silly to look for causality. At least this "senior physicist" admits that it's astrology.

reply to post by consciousgod

RESISTANCE IS STILL FUTILE.

Obviously. You win. You're wrong, but you will never make the effort to understand. Take a victory lap and accept the adulation of your supporters, who think that hoax YouTube videos of comets broadcasting messages in ancient Sumerian prove your point.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by ttimez

 

No they wouldn't. Weeks don't start on the same day each month. "Mid two weeks" can be +-7 days offset from the middle of any given month. Depends on what date the first Monday is.

Good Dr. was on the money, as usual.

Yep, give the good Doctor two weeks leeway and his predictions are always exact and precise.

Clearly, Dr. Omerbashich talks about a pattern he detected during long alignments. The pattern is absent when no long alignment. He never once mentions the word 'correlation'. Since you are a helpless troll who is playing dumb, let's quote the good Dr.'s exact words on people like you:

"They really believe there exists a physical entity, which acts as an intermediary between largest emissions of energy on Earth on one side, and (any) events in the Solar system, on the other!"

In other words, no statistics example from everyday life applies.

And so the good Dr. scores another one.

reply to post by DJW001


Have you read the paper? It's actually pretty hilarious and clear that it's making fun of Omerbashich. I especially like the last line of the paper.

This conclusion seems to qualitatively agree with the traditional Homeric view that earthquakes were caused by the god of the seas, Poseidon (=Neptune, one of the planets considered in the above studies), shaking the Earth when he was angry.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by ttimez

 

Nah, he doesn't know what he's talking about. Besides, Dr. Omerbashich's theory is now confirmed, but DJW001 is ignoring it.

It is shown that, according to the criteria used by M. Omerbashich (arXiv:1104.2036v4 [physics.gen-ph]), during 2010 the Earth was aligned with at least one pair of planets some 98.6% of the time. This firmly supports Omerbashich's claim that 2010 strongest earthquakes occurred during such astronomical alignments. On this basis, we argue that seismicity is, generally, a phenomenon of astrological origin.

lanl.arxiv.org...

So if the Earth were aligned with at least one pair of planets 98.6% of the time, then alignments pretty much happen constantly. If they happen constantly, there is nothing unusual and it is silly to look for causality. At least this "senior physicist" admits that it's astrology.

For some reason you are playing dumb, constantly. See my previous post with good Dr.'s direct quotation. Why are you trolls trying so hard to make it look like Dr. Omerbashich work is about correlations?

And the word 'astrology' is bad... how, exactly? Astronomy - Astrology = Astro+Logos= STAR+SCIENCE = SCIENCE ABOUT HEAVENS. Isn't THAT what astronomy should actually be called? Because NOMOS means just regulating... wow that does sound a lot like government

You misquote Dr.'s all the time, this time you do it to Dr. Zanette whose paper is about narrowing down the good Dr.'s definition of alignments. Dr. Zanette took exact coordinates of heavenly bodies and found out that there is a very narrow angle of less than 5 degrees for the 2010 alignments. Something Dr. Omerbashich called "a minimum 3 days". Dr. Zanette also says:

"To our understanding, these results incontestably demonstrate that strong 2010 earthquakes were bound to occur during astronomical alignments. This, in turn, reinforces Omerbashich’s hypothesis of a connection between such configurations and the seismic response of the Earth as a georesonator [1]. While the present results only apply to year 2010, it can be argued that qualitatively similar conclusions could be drawn for other periods, since 2010 had nothing special regarding the configuration of the Solar System. The inclusion of the Moon and other minor bodies such as the comet Elanin could only enhance the results’ implications, as this would increase the number of alignments occurring in any given period –especially, because of the fast movement of these specific bodies across the sky.
As a final note, we would like to recall that, in 1687, Sir Isaac Newton proposed a rather convincing theory to explain the mutual influence of heavenly (and other) bodies under the action of the force of gravity [2] –the same force that, according to Omerbashich, underlies the effects of aligned objects on the Earth seismicity [1]. Newton’s theory emphasizes the role of the mass and the distance between bodies in their interaction.
Now, the only phenomena involving real-life objects that allegedly escape the effects of such factors are those of astrological nature. In these, geometrical configurations are far more relevant than mutual distances or masses. In the light of Omerbashich’s results, complemented by our present contribution, it immediately follows that strong seismicity in our planet is –at least, to a large measure– a phenomenon of astrological origin. This
conclusion seems to qualitatively agree with the traditional Homeric view that earthquakes were caused by the god of the seas, Poseidon (=Neptune, one of the planets considered in the above studies), shaking the Earth when he was angry."

You also "forgot" to mention this detail: Dr. Zanette cites only two references: Newton and Omerbashich. Oops, sorry, that was FIRST Omerbashich and THEN Newton.

Yep, vindication sure is a wonderful thing.

reply to post by ttimez


If I remember correctly, Omerbashich describes a "long alignment" as occurring over the period of at least three days. Now if we look at the average number number of 6.0+ earthquakes in a year we see that about 150 occur. This means that on average a 6.0+ earthquake occurs once every 2.5 days. So, if Omerbashich is only looking at alignments that last three days probability alone states that a 6.0+ earthquake will occur during that time period. It has nothing to do with alignments.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by DJW001

 

Have you read the paper? It's actually pretty hilarious and clear that it's making fun of Omerbashich. I especially like the last line of the paper.

This conclusion seems to qualitatively agree with the traditional Homeric view that earthquakes were caused by the god of the seas, Poseidon (=Neptune, one of the planets considered in the above studies), shaking the Earth when he was angry.

Trying to ridicule the work of a scientist in order to try and discredit his hypothesis is the typical behaviour of someone that does not have a sound argument themselves.

Originally posted by XplanetX

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by DJW001

 

Have you read the paper? It's actually pretty hilarious and clear that it's making fun of Omerbashich. I especially like the last line of the paper.

This conclusion seems to qualitatively agree with the traditional Homeric view that earthquakes were caused by the god of the seas, Poseidon (=Neptune, one of the planets considered in the above studies), shaking the Earth when he was angry.

Trying to ridicule the work of a scientist in order to try and discredit his hypothesis is the typical behaviour of someone that does not have a sound argument themselves.

...nor education.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by ttimez

 

If I remember correctly, Omerbashich describes a "long alignment" as occurring over the period of at least three days. Now if we look at the average number number of 6.0+ earthquakes in a year we see that about 150 occur. This means that on average a 6.0+ earthquake occurs once every 2.5 days. So, if Omerbashich is only looking at alignments that last three days probability alone states that a 6.0+ earthquake will occur during that time period. It has nothing to do with alignments.

There are other factors that cause earthquakes besides celestial bodies in our solar system.

But you already knew that and that is why you are arguing against his hypothesis. You are shooting yourself in the foot with your own methodology. Trying to argue that planetary alignments don't cause 6.0+ magnitude earthquakes because we have them without planetary alignments is flawed logic.

Planetary alignments PLUS other factors are responsible.