Electric Universe Strikes again! Comets destroy the standard model!

page: 2
33
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


Yeah, I don't know how anyone could watch that video and still believe in the dirty snowball model by the end of it.

I haven't even touched on all the deep impact data and predictions that they brought up in the video yet.

Let's look at the predictions made by EU theory about the Deep Impact mission before the impact took place.

Double flash? Predicted

Massive explosion? Predicted

No visible impact crater? Predicted (how could the ejecta be sub-surface water if there is no crater?)

Discharging at ridges rather than vents? Predicted

Rocky surface with craters and mesas? Predicted

Change in "vent" locations after impact? Predicted

Black surface? Predicted

Ultra fine impact ejecta? Predicted

Increase in water production days after impact? Predicted

Surface excavation visible on the second flyby? Predicted

I probably missed a few too.


One of the real problems the standard theorists have is trying to explain how all that water in the impact is the product of sub-surface water ice if there is absolutely no visible impact crater, even though the explosion was absolutely massive. The theory says the ice needs to be several meters below the surface in order for the spectra to line up with the theory, yet no impact crater is visible. If there is no impact crater, then there is no way that the observed water came from beneath the comet's surface.

edit on 6/19/2013 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   
I've posted vidoes on their findings. No dirty iceball. Clean electrical capacitor, that emits Xrays. NASA baffled, but everything they found was already predicted.

But not only do comets prove, but as above so below and micro macro. Star in Jar, and the pistol shrimp, cavitation bubbles.....



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 05:12 AM
link   
On a side note, it's amazing how many scientists continue to ignore the new style designation system used for comets. This has been the standard for at least a decade, and yet this comet is still being referred to as Tempel 1. The new designation of the comet is 9P/Tempel (note the number "1" has been dropped from the end, since the number at the front makes this irrelevant). All short period comets now have a specific (and unique) number designation.
edit on 20-6-2013 by Mogget because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 05:33 AM
link   
The Electric Universe "theory" is a fringe woo-woo science that appeals to the anti-establishment crowd. It's not much more than a book-selling cult. Quite apart from the topic of comets, the EU aims to sweep most of modern science under the rug, and replace it with its own "cosmology" which is full of vague statements and hand-waving. The Sun is a glow discharge of galactic currents. Craters on the Moon, and the Valles Marineris on Mars were formed by gigantic discharges and electric machining. Planets orbit the Sun due to electromagnetism, not gravity. Drawings by ancient people show gigantic plasma discharges in the sky. Venus was a comet.

The list goes on...

rationalwiki.org...
edit on 20-6-2013 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


Exceedingly ignorant post, most of those assumptions are well grounded in verifiable experimentation. Something that the majority of cosmological claims in the standard model could only dream of.

The EU has serious heavy hitters in its membership. Well respected individuals that produce results for industry, and are capable of applying the theories developed. I would certainly not refer to the EU as fringe. I suggest you do some research into the people making these claims, they have far more impressive records than many of thier loudest critics that have never actually "applied" anything they have theorized about.


Venus has a comet tail, discovered earlier this year.

Im not even going to bother gathering more potent sources for this as it is easily available with any google search.

edit on 20-6-2013 by vind21 because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-6-2013 by vind21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 08:32 AM
link   
I am by no means qualified to defend this theory other than what has already been posted.

The EU theory is one I would be willing to wager money on being correct.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by vind21
 


Venus doesn't have a comet tail. Please actually read the article you linked. Venus' ionosphere (which is invisible) stretches out away from the Sun like a comet's tail.

I have been looking into the EU some, but the more time I spend doing that, the more ridiculous it seems. A large part of "evidence" towards it seems to come from comparative mythology and interpreting cave paintings and clay tablets. Another off-putting factor is the allegation that we've all been lied to, that there's a global conspiracy to keep the truth from us, etc. apparently for some kind of gain or power hold. Typical conspiracy opera.

Still, my curiosity is tickled, and I'd love to see something more solid come out of the EU bonanza than big articles, long videos, and convention meetings. Science is what it is - show that a theory works, that it is supported with evidence, and that it answers the questions, and you're on a roll.

I'm not that familiar with the science bigwigs you mention, can you name some? Are there any astronomers, astrophysicists, or simply physicists among them?



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 


After viewing the video, the dirty snowball is a dead theory. There too many problems with it now. So that's the headline. I don't know anything about EU theories. Will get to reading up on them at a later date.

I didn't hear any detailed explanation of the comet formation model. Specifically, why are some space rocks like those in the asteroid belt relatively neutral and some have a strong negative charge which interact strongly with the positive ions in the solar wind? If there is an explanation and I missed it, bad on me.

I seem to recall reading a few years ago that at least one asteroid in the asteroid belt was observed to have a small comet-like tail. It was unexplained or loosely linked with sublimating gas. Maybe we should be watching the asteroid belt when a good CME goes through? The electrical interaction theory predicts we should see the same "tail effects" in most or all of the bodies in the asteroid belt when a decent CME goes through. Yes?



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildespace
Still, my curiosity is tickled, and I'd love to see something more solid come out of the EU bonanza than big articles, long videos, and convention meetings. Science is what it is - show that a theory works, that it is supported with evidence, and that it answers the questions, and you're on a roll.
There is one claim in the video that I think is probably partly true, about the cause of X-rays seen from comets having an electrical origin. So it's a shame they have to bury some interesting information like this in a sea of twisting the facts about no water ice on comets (it's in them, not on them), formation of things that look like impact craters from electric arcs rather than impacts, etc.

Here is the Japan space agency's website explanation of the X-rays which doesn't agree exactly with the video but it does mention an electrical source:

www.isas.jaxa.jp...:

A clue to pinpointing the origin of the mysterious X-ray enhancement was provided by quite an unexpected finding: the discovery of X-rays from comets. In 1996, comet Hyakutake approached only 0.1 AU (astronomic unit) away from the earth and observations were conducted in various wavelengths. Since X-rays are generally emitted from hot gases of 1 million Kelvin or more, it is unthinkable that comets, ice and dust-clustered objects, alone would emit X-rays. Contrary to our expectations, strong soft X-ray emission was observed from comet Hyakutake. Intrigued by this discovery, X-ray emission from comets has been confirmed in succession, which convinced us that soft X-ray emission is a common phenomenon with many comets. With this new finding, theoretical and experimental research on soft X-ray emission mechanism advanced. As a result, it was posited that “soft X-rays from comets are emitted by the charge exchange interaction between ions in the solar wind and neutral materials in the comet.”
The biggest discrepancy is the electric comet video claims the comet has a negative electrical charge, and that has something to do with it, where as the Japan space agency description says this charge exchange might occur even with neutral materials in the comet.

So the one claim in the video that is partly right about the origin of the X-rays from comets being electrical in nature, doesn't require that the comet be negatively charged as the video suggests if the description on that website of the process is correct, though more research is probably needed to confirm the exact process. This also shows that mainstream science doesn't deny electrical effects exist in our solar system, contrary to the popular mythological view by electric universe proponents that mainstream thinks nothing is electrical.


Originally posted by wildespace
I'm not that familiar with the science bigwigs you mention, can you name some? Are there any astronomers, astrophysicists, or simply physicists among them?
Slightly off the topic of the electric comet video but not too far off and possibly somewhat related, EU proponents do cite work done by Nobel-prize winning scientist Hannes Alfven. Alfven did some good work on MHD but his denial of big bang theory in spite of all the evidence supporting it didn't get him a lot of mainstream support. His theory didn't really explain the evidence:

Plasma Cosmology

In 1993, theoretical cosmologist Jim Peebles criticized the cosmology of Klein (1971) and Alfvén's 1966 book, Worlds-Antiworlds, writing that "there is no way that the results can be consistent with the isotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation and X-ray backgrounds".[21] In his book he also claimed that Alfvén's models do not predict Hubble's law, the abundance of light elements, or the existence of the cosmic microwave background.

edit on 20-6-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildespace
reply to post by vind21
 


Venus doesn't have a comet tail. Please actually read the article you linked. Venus' ionosphere (which is invisible) stretches out away from the Sun like a comet's tail.

I have been looking into the EU some, but the more time I spend doing that, the more ridiculous it seems. A large part of "evidence" towards it seems to come from comparative mythology and interpreting cave paintings and clay tablets. Another off-putting factor is the allegation that we've all been lied to, that there's a global conspiracy to keep the truth from us, etc. apparently for some kind of gain or power hold. Typical conspiracy opera.

Still, my curiosity is tickled, and I'd love to see something more solid come out of the EU bonanza than big articles, long videos, and convention meetings. Science is what it is - show that a theory works, that it is supported with evidence, and that it answers the questions, and you're on a roll.

I'm not that familiar with the science bigwigs you mention, can you name some? Are there any astronomers, astrophysicists, or simply physicists among them?


The venus claim is only a claim of the appearance, in many situations, effects in the ionosphere could become visible and produce a tail that we could view with the eye.

From your posts it seems to me you took your first look at the EU around 3-4 years ago, saw some crazy stuff, and said to hell with this crap. Anyone who's first exposure to the EU was "alien sky" would, justifiably, have this reaction.

Perhaps you've already heard that GPS, by the very fact that it WORKS, confirms Einstein's relativity; also that Black Holes must be real. But these are little more than popular fictions, according to the distinguished GPS expert Ron Hatch. The same experimental data, he notes, suggests an absolute frame with only an appearance of relativity.

Ron has worked with satellite navigation and positioning for 50 years, having demonstrated the Navy's TRANSIT System at the 1962 Seattle World's Fair. He is well known for innovations in high-accuracy applications of the GPS system including the development of the "Hatch Filter" which is used in most GPS receivers. He has obtained over two dozen patents related to GPS positioning and is currently a member of the U.S National PNT (Positioning Navigation and Timing) Advisory Board. He is employed in advanced engineering at John Deere's Intelligent Systems Group.



I would give you more but currently the space news section of thunderbolts is being rebuilt due to the new youtube format. There was previously 108 videos with many experts from varying fields all accredited and qualified researchers. I can not link you to those vidoes currently so Ron hatch will have to do for now as far as world changing engineer types go.


As for the plasma drawings in the sky, you can find support for this from Robert Schnoch who at first was against the EU, he is responsible for many discoveries including the redating of the sphinx and locating the chambers under it.




Still, my curiosity is tickled, and I'd love to see something more solid come out of the EU bonanza than big articles, long videos, and convention meetings. Science is what it is - show that a theory works, that it is supported with evidence, and that it answers the questions, and you're on a roll.


This is what many in the EU have been doing, time and time again. Which is why is is fast gaining ground and support in even the main stream communities. Planck has recently shown many cases where EU predictions are far more accurate than standard predictions with thier "dusty plasma" experiments.

You have to realize that many of the experiments that EU proponents site are not conducted by people who would specifically associate themselves with the EU, but they arrive there after reading predictions and outcomes for their experiments from EU supporters in an attempt to understand why they got unexpected results.

A key factor of the electric model is that it is testable, has precedent, and can be defined, just as real science should.

edit on 20-6-2013 by vind21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 10:24 AM
link   
I dont really have the knowledge to form an informed conclusion on the matter, so as far as I am concerned the stuff in the video may be true or a load of BS. But I think it is important to consider claims of electric universe separately from each other.

Even if some features of comets may be better explained by EU approach does not mean it is all true. I have a very hard time to swallow the claims about relativity being false, Sun being powered by galactic current instead of fusion etc. That just reeks of pseudoscience and an internet fad. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
edit on 20/6/13 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 10:28 AM
link   
The people defending the dirty snowball model make me laugh with their excuses.

The video presents so much evidence it is overwhelming. It takes an hour and a half to present it all because there is so much. If I tried to put all of it into a forum post it would look like a novel.

The excuses are a form of confirmation bias, in direct conflict with Occam's Razor. All of the counter evidence that they can't explain, they ignore. They pretend it simply doesn't exist.

Where's the impact crater from the deep impact probe?

Where's the water when comets are observed to break up?

Why have comets exploded in the depths of space, too far away to be caused by solar heating?

Why have dust jets been observed on the dark side of comets if solar heating is the cause of jets?


And on and on and so forth.


The standard theorists are a bunch of lying thieves, intent on misleading the public so they can keep collecting their paychecks and wasting our money on their ridiculously expensive experiments.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
I dont really have the knowledge to form an informed conclusion on the matter, so as far as I am concerned the stuff in the video may be true or a load of BS. But I think it is important to consider claims of electric universe separately.


This is exactly what you should not do. Electric Universe claims are meant as a supplements to the gravity model. They DO NOT claim, as it has been said previously, that gravity does not hold planets and objects in place, it certainly has a role to play. The theory is a corrective measure to current thought that does not include a proven and verified effect of electromagnetism in space.

NASA has confirmed magnetic portals and magnetic foot prints and connections of all planets to the sun directly, this is one of the major points of the EU. There are VERY FEW places where EU theory displaces Newtonian physics entirely, instead, it aims to provide explanations to the unpredictable results of scientific information.

There are no emerald tablets or magical wuju.


Arbitrageur: I have submitted your rebuttal including the articles you sourced thanks for your input
edit on 20-6-2013 by vind21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Actually, the Moon is a strong source of X-rays, and those originate from the solar wind particles striking heavy elements in the lunar soil. Perhaps cometary X-rays could have the same origin, i.e. interaction of solar wind particles with heavy elements in the comet?



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 






Actually, the Moon is a strong source of X-rays, and those originate from the solar wind particles striking heavy elements in the lunar soil. Perhaps cometary X-rays could have the same origin, i.e. interaction of solar wind particles with heavy elements in the comet?



I would also like to bring up this point as well, if you would like as that is a solid comment IMO
edit on 20-6-2013 by vind21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
The standard theorists are a bunch of lying thieves, intent on misleading the public so they can keep collecting their paychecks and wasting our money on their ridiculously expensive experiments.


That kind of attitude (seemingly prevalent in the EU circles) is exactly why I'm steering clear of EU and this school of thinking. It's not an attitude of a genuine scientist, it's an attitude of an aggravator and trouble-maker. Why not produce genuine science and win approval that way, instead of appealing to the haters of the mainsteram? Grow up, stop preaching and spouting hate, and people will start taking you more seriously.
edit on 20-6-2013 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildespace
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Actually, the Moon is a strong source of X-rays, and those originate from the solar wind particles striking heavy elements in the lunar soil. Perhaps cometary X-rays could have the same origin, i.e. interaction of solar wind particles with heavy elements in the comet?
Not just the comets, and not just the moon, but possibly most if not all objects in the solar system bombarded by solar wind, according to the Japan space agency's write up about research from their X-ray probe Suzaku:

www.isas.jaxa.jp...

On Jupiter, an X-ray emission phenomenon called the X-ray aurora is observed. Observational results from Suzaku suggest that a similar event occurs on earth. Of course, this result is a world first. ...

Soft X-rays are emitted around comets because of the charge exchange interaction of solar wind. In addition, it is suggested that the whole solar system also emits soft X-rays by the same mechanism. The emission provides us with an important clue for observational research on outer layers of atmosphere around the earth and planets, low-density neutral matter around comets, the ion composition of solar wind, etc.
The difference between comets and the moon would be that comets have a coma and the solar wind can interact with that. It doesn't have to wait until it reaches the surface of the comet to start interacting as happens on the moon.
edit on 20-6-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Would I be correct in saying that the primary difference there is the claim of a low density nuetral gas around the comet versus a charged corona of OH?

If comets produce OH due to solar win then would not all rocky bodies in the solar system lacking atmospheres display this same effect?


Also for those interested here: Space News

here is a list to alot fo the EU videos, you can go down to the bottom and load more. I'd suggest anything by Stephen corothers or anything fo the videos on saturn or jupiter moons especially. Also the one on electrically structured water is good.
edit on 20-6-2013 by vind21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by vind21
If comets produce OH due to solar win then would not all rocky bodies in the solar system lacking atmospheres display this same effect?
That's a good question and I think it identifies one of the problems with the electric comet theory.

I am not going to try to defend electric comet theory, however I suspect they answer they might suggest is that the rocky composition of comets differs enough from other rocky bodies such that comets produce a coma whereas other rocky bodies don't. Evidence would be needed to support such a claim and as far as I know, it's lacking.
edit on 20-6-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Did you know that Tesla explained the E.U....not many know of it, chime in if ya do!!!....goes like this...
the galaxy has an equator, really.the null zone of an electrical emmitting center of the galaxy...stay with me now on this...hehe....emits AC at some high frequency in all directions....then at the location of the sun we live by....it gets hit by the energy and flashes into sparks...so to speak. The interesting part is next, the sun then emits ,in turn, DC power and shoots it at our sun.
I think it could be the opposite or, the frequency that impacts the earth is different from the main source....but is still AC.


from there we set up the tower and grounding anchors.....to get a single wire up the higher the better to get the potential to ground
edit on 20-6-2013 by GBP/JPY because: Yahuweh...the coolest of names, I swear





new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join