It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Electric Universe Strikes again! Comets destroy the standard model!

page: 3
33
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur


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


They could not make this claim, one of the major assertions of the EU is that comments are "generally" a direct product of terrestrial bodies in the solar system. Structurally they do not vary significantly from any of the rocky bodies in the solar system to the point where we find nearly identical isotopic structures between earth rocks and some comet dust. The onl appreciable difference is the transfer from a negatively charged zone outside the solar wind to a positively charged zone inside the heliosphere.




posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Excellent, brilliant and I'm not done with the video yet! Electric potential and arcing, X-Ray emissions... This definitely smells of a wonderful future if we can tap into the free electricity! You know, send a probe with Yotta Capacitors and collect the negative charge from comets and plug and play back home! Heck they will last longer and or we can make out own comets that collect negative electrical charge and slow down and discharge nicely for us here on earth!

edit on 20-6-2013 by Emeraldous because: eta from comets



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by vind21
They could not make this claim, one of the major assertions of the EU is that comments are "generally" a direct product of terrestrial bodies in the solar system. Structurally they do not vary significantly from any of the rocky bodies in the solar system to the point where we find nearly identical isotopic structures between earth rocks and some comet dust. The onl appreciable difference is the transfer from a negatively charged zone outside the solar wind to a positively charged zone inside the heliosphere.
Yes the video mentioned the negative electric charge as I described earlier. However this doesn't make much sense if the composition is the same, and the video discussed comet composition but I don't recall it saying "Structurally they do not vary significantly from any of the rocky bodies in the solar system" though you may have found that elsewhere.

If the comet and another rocky body like the moon has similar composition, and the comet had a negative charge, you would either see degradation of the comet's negative charge over time, or you would see the moon also develop a negative charge for similar reasons. The only way a comet made of stuff similar to say the moon could maintain a negative charge while the moon didn't would be if there was something different about its composition that caused it to retain a different percentage of ions from the solar wind, or something like that.
edit on 20-6-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by vind21
 


When are people going to let go of this electric universe garbage? It shows a true lack of understanding of physics and flys in the face of observations. An electric universe can't explain black holes or spiral galaxies or plasma arcs or neutrinos which have no charge. Or for that matter solar wind in order for this whole theory to work the sun would have to have a positive charge meaning all those electrons would stick to it like glue.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   
That is an excellent video OP. I watched the whole thing. The only problem with it is that the voice nearly lulled me to sleep.
I think the Hypothesis with it's evidence portrayed here is much better than the theories being taught about comets presently. S&F.

This makes me wonder, the fact that the electrical activity forms the tail, if the pieces of comets interact with earths atmosphere the same way. Maybe this hypothesis can be applied to meteor showers. Maybe most meteors do the same thing when they react with our atmosphere. Maybe it is not always heat and friction that cause the show.

Excellent find.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I wanna ask you. What happens in your opinion when one planet collides with another planet? We know the atmosphere has a charge the the ground has a charge and these can react together to produce electricity which can be measured by a meter. If this can happen.. whats to say one body with a negative charge when it collides with another body with a positive charge wont have a strong electrical reaction either? Wouldn't this in itself already give credence to some aspects of EU theory being sound?



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   
This thread is reminding me of all the predictions the EU crowd made about Elenin. This thread is also reminding me of how none of those predictions came true and instead Elenin broke apart.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by vind21
 


When are people going to let go of this electric universe garbage? It shows a true lack of understanding of physics and flys in the face of observations. An electric universe can't explain black holes or spiral galaxies or plasma arcs or neutrinos which have no charge. Or for that matter solar wind in order for this whole theory to work the sun would have to have a positive charge meaning all those electrons would stick to it like glue.


Oh my..... I think you have some serious misconceptions about what they are reporting. I don't really know where to begin with this, i'll simply say, an electric universe has no need of black holes, says spiral galaxies are a direct result of the electromagnetic force (this has been eluded to as fact by many recent Planck Experiments) and the physics are a direct result of observations made by scientist from many different disciplines, you need to check your facts or update your information.

here's some a good explination of the sun and solar wind from the EU perspective



This makes me wonder, the fact that the electrical activity forms the tail, if the pieces of comets interact with earths atmosphere the same way.


You may find this interesting, it's a break down of the events in the recent Russian meteor.




This thread is reminding me of all the predictions the EU crowd made about Elenin. This thread is also reminding me of how none of those predictions came true and instead Elenin broke apart.


What predictions were those? Here is the only past information on elinin I was aware of, alot of this is featured in the original video.
edit on 20-6-2013 by vind21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I wanna ask you. What happens in your opinion when one planet collides with another planet? We know the atmosphere has a charge the the ground has a charge and these can react together to produce electricity which can be measured by a meter. If this can happen.. whats to say one body with a negative charge when it collides with another body with a positive charge wont have a strong electrical reaction either? Wouldn't this in itself already give credence to some aspects of EU theory being sound?
As I said earlier it's a myth that the standard model doesn't consider electrical aspects of the solar system..of course it does and you just mentioned one aspect that has been studied.

When one planet collides with another, I have only seen models of what happens so I can't say for sure. But what I can say is that after the collision, both planets and their debris would be exposed to the solar wind and if there was a huge deficit of positive or negative charges after the collision, there is an ample supply of both in the solar wind to even out the deficits. But if the Earth or a comet had a net negative charge for example, there would be a tendency to attract positively charged particles from the solar wind, and repel negatively charged particles, so the solar wind would eventually reduce the net charge for this reason. Of course the solar wind doesn't make it to the Earth's surface due to the Earth's magnetosphere so that's one reason it doesn't cancel out charge imbalances in the atmosphere.


Originally posted by Xcalibur254
This thread is reminding me of all the predictions the EU crowd made about Elenin. This thread is also reminding me of how none of those predictions came true and instead Elenin broke apart.
The video mentioned Elenin and claimed it somehow supports the electric comet theory but it seems like it does more to disprove the idea than to prove it. It seems like no matter what happens, EU proponents try to claim that what happened was consistent with their theory, even in the case of Elenin.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   


The video mentioned Elenin and claimed it somehow supports the electric comet theory but it seems like it does more to disprove the idea than to prove it.
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



I admit I am having problems seeing your perspective on that. I don't seem to grasp why you would say this is so...you previously stated




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.



Even if a body has an overall nuetral charge is can be composed of charged materials.

I apparently forgot about my own post: Clearly hydroxyl radical production at Mercury & the Moon has been attributed to sputtering in exactly the same manner as suggested herein, and considerably AFTER this suggested mechanism for hydroxyl production from comets. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Apply the same standard to all such rocky bodies. If it 'works' @ Mercury & the Moon, why not with comets? Yeah?

This effect has indeed been observed on nearly all rocky bodies in the solar system.



But if the Earth or a comet had a net negative charge for example, there would be a tendency to attract positively charged particles from the solar wind, and repel negatively charged particles, so the solar wind would eventually reduce the net charge for this reason.


Is this not exactly what they are saying in the video? A negative body moves into the more positively charged area around the sun and begins undergoing the process of becoming a neutral object, this causes electrical deterioration of the surface as the object tries to neutralize, sometimes the process happens to fast and the comet goes boom.....

The act of 2 oppositely charged objects attracting/repelling each other is that of an electrostatic field, not a dynamic electrical plasma. Plasma by its very nature is double layered and has both positive and negatively charged components flowing in a structure.



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.


They do indeed deny the role of electricity in the structure and evolution of the solar system, galaxy, and universe. I don't think anyone is saying that mainstream science denys the existence of electricity or electrical process. They deny it ad-hoc by theories that were created before the knowledge of pervasive electrical fields in space existed, and the exclusion of those physics from thier models of extraterrestrial structures.




However this doesn't make much sense if the composition is the same, and the video discussed comet composition but I don't recall it saying "Structurally they do not vary significantly from any of the rocky bodies in the solar system" though you may have found that elsewhere.


In many of their other videos this point is made. EU will bash your head over and over with the idea that the vast majority of comets and asteroids have terrestrial origins and are on the order of 20-15k years old generated during a time of solar unrest.
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 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by vind21
 


Trying to use electrical charges instead of gravity is just stupid let me ask you a question.

In gravity there is the equivalence principle for dealing with space time. If you're going to use electricity to explain gravity, you need to explain why the rate at which something falls is independent of that object's charge (minus electric self-force), and also independent of that object's mass. Why do all objects near the Earth fall with the same acceleration?

I can go on when you answer this one



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by vind21
 


STAR & FLAG!!!
i usually do not do so with such enthusiasm, but in browsing the posts and beggining to view the links i am excited.
Mostly just marking the thread to join once i am caught up but am glad that this theory is being given new life!!!
Never gave in to the nay sayers because it really just made sense to me...some of my posts from years past reflect that and needless to say so shall some of my posts in years to come!



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


You apparently didn't read the paper I cited. It's based on measurements not assumptions

Just a heads-up that AnarchoCapitalist is just a sock puppet of that old, hopeless electric-universe apostle, mnemeth1. He won't read any of the papers you cited. He's here to preach, not to discuss.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


I believe he stated that EU doesn't deny gravity, but is a supplemental part of the whole system.



There is nothing wrong with not agreeing with the theory, being skeptical, or having a strong opinion that it does not fit into your theories of everything. There is something wrong with being blatantly dismissive and snarky about how you challenge others who are being genuine and polite.



All of our science is based on limited knowledge. What we know today, might be found to be completely wrong tomorrow. The ones who were so sure the world was flat, thought they had sound reasoning to stand on. Those who thought the earth we stand on was the center of all things, certainly had proof when they looked upward; perspective and trusting their eyes was plenty of proof.

So, how can one be so cocky that any theory we have today, is as solid as one might believe, or they may claim?

How can you be so sure the light barrier cannot be broken? How can we be sure gravity is what they claim? How can we verify the age of anything, without absolute proof?


Science today has grand claims. Dating things to millions and billions of years ... but those dating methods rely on assumptions. They claim to have an idea to how the universe started, but there is no proof, and surely there never could be ... it is all fanciful delusions of brilliant minds. It cannot be observed.


So, with some attitude adjustment, and proper discussion with respectful debate tactics; we might actually be able to have a conversation. It doesn't mean either side wins, but healthy interaction with intelligent stimulation is exactly what forums like these are meant to be ... not a place to flash you troll face and smugly play mind games. Those things are for the simple minded and people who don't seek truth, but to only stir the pot.


With an open mind, and the ability to discuss things like adults, maybe, just maybe, our species might have a shot at improving itself in greater leaps of knowledge. The power of respect, even while in disagreement is wielded by the wisest.
edit on 6/21/13 by FreeThinkerIdealist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by vind21
 



Dude, this is all the summary you provide for a 90 minute video that you expect people to watch???

Please summarize next time you post something like this.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by FreeThinkerIdealist
 


Bravo! And I really hope the EU proponents apply those principles to themselves, instead of being agressive and obnoxious, as I witnessed on many forums. As I mentioned before in this thread, I really hope they start coming across as scientists who contribute to the modern science, rather than loud-mouthed cultists who denounce everything science has achieved and saying they're right and everybody else is wrong.

Only one correction to your post: we know how gravity works well enough to predict where the planets will be in years to come, or even to send a tiny space probe to a comet or asteroid millions of miles away, travelling at huge speed. So it's not fair to dismiss our accumulated knowledge as "nothing". Science constantly updates and refines itself. We do know something, and we will know more as time progresses.

P.S. We also know that gravity works differently from electromagnetism. Electromagnetism involves interaction of different charges; gravity affects all mass regardless. But I don't think you're here to read about science, scientists know nothing

edit on 21-6-2013 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
reply to post by dragonridr
 



I believe he stated that EU doesn't deny gravity, but is a supplemental part of the whole system.


Well if it doesn't remove gravity then there really is no point to it is there then we have a bunch of charged objects controlled by gravity thats physics then.So then i guess we are right back to relativity.


There is nothing wrong with not agreeing with the theory, being skeptical, or having a strong opinion that it does not fit into your theories of everything. There is something wrong with being blatantly dismissive and snarky about how you challenge others who are being genuine and polite.


People get suckered into believing bad science because someone thinks hey i see how that can work and really doesn't have the knowledge to dispute facts, its not being rude just blatantly honest. I didn't attack anyone but the electric universe theory is nothing more then a garbage theory from the 60s that ignore everything we know about science.




All of our science is based on limited knowledge. What we know today, might be found to be completely wrong tomorrow. The ones who were so sure the world was flat, thought they had sound reasoning to stand on. Those who thought the earth we stand on was the center of all things, certainly had proof when they looked upward; perspective and trusting their eyes was plenty of proof.

So, how can one be so cocky that any theory we have today, is as solid as one might believe, or they may claim?

How can you be so sure the light barrier cannot be broken? How can we be sure gravity is what they claim? How can we verify the age of anything, without absolute proof?


Science is only based on limited knowledge if you ignore 40 years of science like this theory does. Science is based off testing and observation. Not exactly sure what the speed of light has to do with this theory however through observation and testing we have showed light does have a limit.Will Einstein eventually be proved wrong maybe however his math still holds up after all these years with every test we throw at it. So in other words wouldn't hold my breath.



Science today has grand claims. Dating things to millions and billions of years ... but those dating methods rely on assumptions. They claim to have an idea to how the universe started, but there is no proof, and surely there never could be ... it is all fanciful delusions of brilliant minds. It cannot be observed.


It is in no way based on assumptions you believe that to be so doesn't make it true.Science never claimed to know how the universe started there is a theory based off of evidence we gathered such as planck satellite data for example.



So, with some attitude adjustment, and proper discussion with respectful debate tactics; we might actually be able to have a conversation. It doesn't mean either side wins, but healthy interaction with intelligent stimulation is exactly what forums like these are meant to be ... not a place to flash you troll face and smugly play mind games. Those things are for the simple minded and people who don't seek truth, but to only stir the pot.


No attitude at all just telling you this theory is incredibly stupid makes no sense and the people who push this theory twist facts to confuse the gullible.



With an open mind, and the ability to discuss things like adults, maybe, just maybe, our species might have a shot at improving itself in greater leaps of knowledge. The power of respect, even while in disagreement is wielded by the wisest.
edit on 6/21/13 by FreeThinkerIdealist because: (no reason given)


Gaining knowledge requires learning about advancements in science not ignoring them because they are inconvenient to your beliefs.Look this theory was rejected by every scientist because it cant explain what we see in the universe period.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by vind21
 


This thread and this blog give a good overview of what the EU supporters were claiming about Elenin. There was as almost as much doomsaying coming from them as there was from the Nibiru crowd.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by vind21
 


This thread and this blog give a good overview of what the EU supporters were claiming about Elenin. There was as almost as much doomsaying coming from them as there was from the Nibiru crowd.


Didn't realize this was like a cult thing so I guess trying to explain science is useless thanks for the heads up.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   
If comets are electric than the Panspermia model is highly likely. They would serve as a catalyst.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join