Electric Universe Strikes again! Comets destroy the standard model!

reply to post by Astyanax


Thanks I will take a look for sure. Can you just mention one or two things electric universe folks talk about? Im just looking for the basic and general idea or theory, on what "electric universe" means. Do they think space is a big wire, or magnetic hard drive and matter is electronic bits of information or something?

Just skimmed through that link, it was informative but I dont think anything I havent come across before. I was more looking to hear the theory regarding fields, and what charge means. There are charged quarks that make up proton right, so im wondering what the difference between the negatively charged quark and positive is? I have come across some explanations like the field begins at positive and emanates outwards while it ends at negative, how do you picture the existence of negative and positive particles, why they exist (why in the universes creation they were forced to come into existence), and how they relate to the existence of a field, and what the existence of a field might mean, does this mean there is one field positive and negetive and it is all twisted and turned, and positive and negative particles are threads of that field? Or there are two different fields positive and negative?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
The standard theorists completely ignore the patches of whiteout in the sensor images taken of Tempel1.

Ok what is this a conspiracy theory???

Since we've observed X-rays emanating from comets due to interaction with the solar wind, my first guess would be that if you fly a probe through the region that's generating those X-rays, the X-rays might interfere with the electronics on the spacecraft. That could explain why the Tempel 1 probe image got a little unstable just before impact.

This:



Isn't from the solar wind.

I'm not talking about the camera short-circuiting prior to impact, although that is yet another proof of the electric model. I'm talking about the camera whiteout along the ridge lines of the comet. It looks like ice in the black and white pictures, but that is not ice. Those are electrical plasma discharges causing sensor whiteout.

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
I'm not talking about the camera short-circuiting prior to impact, although that is yet another proof of the electric model. I'm talking about the camera whiteout along the ridge lines of the comet.

Are you talking about the white spots?

They don't appear to be on ridge lines to me. There's a big crater with a prominent ridge line near some of the white spots, and I see no white spots on the crater ridge.

reply to post by ImaFungi

Can you just mention one or two things electric universe folks talk about? Im just looking for the basic and general idea or theory, on what "electric universe" means. Do they think space is a big wire, or magnetic hard drive and matter is electronic bits of information or something?

You might be better off asking our friend AnarchoCapitalist, who is the electric-universe champion around here. As far as I know, EU enthusiasts believe charge interactions between objects in space are responsible for all astronomical phenomena. The whole universe is like a great big battery with lots of terminals; some are positive, some negative, and electrons flow between them, causing everything from the combustion of stars (which are just big glow plugs to EU enthusiasts) to the Grand Canyon (which they think was created by a burst of plasma from somewhere or the other). Comets are like flying spark plugs. Relativity, especially General Relativity, is a lie. Einstein was a fool.

That's EU, as I understand it, in a nutshell. A crackpot theory based on a few fragments of genuine science.

Just skimmed through that link, it was informative but I dont think anything I havent come across before. I was more looking to hear the theory regarding fields, and what charge means. There are charged quarks that make up proton right, so im wondering what the difference between the negatively charged quark and positive is? I have come across some explanations like the field begins at positive and emanates outwards while it ends at negative, how do you picture the existence of negative and positive particles, why they exist (why in the universes creation they were forced to come into existence), and how they relate to the existence of a field, and what the existence of a field might mean, does this mean there is one field positive and negetive and it is all twisted and turned, and positive and negative particles are threads of that field?

In electricity and magnetism, as in most fields of science, there are different levels of explanation. Your paragraph above contains questions that address three different levels. It's important to understand this.

The site I linked you to starts at the simplest level and uses the old Bohr model of the atom. It's what you learn in high school physics and chemistry. In this model, a body's charge depends on the relative number of protons and electrons it contains. It treats these particles as indivisible. It works well for most purposes, including those of EU 'theory'. EU fans don't hold with quarks.

If, unlike an EU enthusiast, you are willing to accept that physicists haven't just been scratching their bottoms for the last hundred years or so, then we can talk about quarks. These are the building blocks from which protons and neutrons are made. One of their intrinsic properties is something called 'charge'.

'Charge' is the property of attraction or repulsion. Bodies with like charges repel each other, bodies with opposite charges attract. On a macroscopic level, this means electrically charged objects. On the high-school subatomic level, it means protons and electrons.

Quarks are a bit different. They have fractional charges! The rules for attraction and repulsion among quarks are complicated, but when they combine to form protons and neutrons the numbers always add up correctly. I am oversimplifying hugely here; in particular, leaving out an entire field of modern physics called quantum chromodynamics. This is extremely advanced, extremely complex physics about which I know little. EU fans say it's fantasy.

You also spoke of fields. That's the classical (pre-quantum) way of looking at things. Don't mix it up with quantum mechanics (quarks and so on); you'll end up hopelessly confused.

The concept of fields comes from that of waves. A wave is a disturbance in a medium – think ocean waves and you've got the concept. Light (that is, electromagnetic radiation) acts like waves sometimes, so you'd expect it to need a medium to disturb. Before Einstein, physicists used to postulate the existence of a 'field' called the ether. EU people still believe in it. The rest of the world has moved on to see light as the movement of particles, called photons, through space. They have the properties of waves under some conditions, and it is still convenient to treat them as such for many purposes. Thus we speak of electric fields, magnetic fields, etc. If you want to reconcile this to quantum mechanics with classical field theory, you'll need at least a master's degree in physics. I don't have one, so I certainly don't propose to try.

All the same, I hope the above was of some use; it took me quite a while to write it.

reply to post by ImaFungi

On the question of how fields relate to particle-physics theory, this explanation is helpful, though you may find it rather heavy going.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
I'm not talking about the camera short-circuiting prior to impact, although that is yet another proof of the electric model. I'm talking about the camera whiteout along the ridge lines of the comet.

Are you talking about the white spots?

They don't appear to be on ridge lines to me. There's a big crater with a prominent ridge line near some of the white spots, and I see no white spots on the crater ridge.

edit on 30-6-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

See that big flat area in the lower right?

See the white ring around the edge of it?

What do you suppose is causing that whiteout? - Is the camera malfunctioning?

You ignore it or talk around it just like the rest of the NASA team did. Your response is simply misdirection. You know exactly what I'm talking about.

reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist


What causes you to assume those are plasma discharges? What is causing plasma to discharge?

What are the general tenets and theory of EU?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist

 

What causes you to assume those are plasma discharges? What is causing plasma to discharge?

What are the general tenets and theory of EU?

They are plasma discharges because they are lit up, creating whiteout on the low light camera sensors. That rock you are looking at is blacker than asphalt, so the cameras have to be extremely sensitive to reflected light in order to obtain an image of it. Any light source will create whiteout on the cameras.

Further, those white areas correspond to surface excavation that was observed on a previous flyby by the Stardust mission. The EU theory says those plasma discharges are responsible for machining the surface, which is why that flat area is so smooth. It was machined into a smooth surface by electrical discharges eroding the surface of the comet.

reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist


Whats causing the plasma discharges?

And can you tell me the basic and general theory of EU?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist

 

Whats causing the plasma discharges?

And can you tell me the basic and general theory of EU?

The OP video explains it all.

The comet is a charged body traveling through the electric field of the Sun. The changing electrical environment causes the comet to electrically discharge in order to bring itself into balance with the surrounding electrical environment.

reply to post by ImaFungi


I have posted many links in this thread to answer your question.

As it has been said before, if you are looking for an official present theory with math proofs etc, you will not find it, it has been laid out by many before them. As far as I can tell EU theory would not modify alot of the practical things we do using "gravity" based equations. Seeing as those equations were based on math derived to fit observable interactions.

The main tenants of the EU is that the structure of the universe is primarily, an electrical phenomenon. It is that simple. Until we have some real proof of concept(project safire), I don't think we will see a full written theory, at least not from the thunderbolts team. There are others who have attempted to math up a theory but they are generally referred to a plasma cosmology.

Here are some links:

The Essential Guide to the Electric Universe - EG2EU

Steven is a very well respected physicist and takes an active role replying to people on the you tube channel.

Steven J Crothers On Black holes - Ric = 0

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.

Ron Hatch - Relativity in the light of GPS - GPS Does not prove relativity(maybe)

Constants are apparently not so constant - Inconsistant radio Active Decay

I especially enjoyed this one coming from a geophysics back ground.

Dark matter, more like, dim minds - Electricity in Dakr Matter
(this one talks about charge separation)

"They've got experiments to back it up, not mathematical theory"

ehhh... Who gives a damn about repeatable laboratory experiments anyhow? We've got billions & billions of dollars to waste looking for 100% theoretical 'Dark Matter', gravitational waves & 'Dark Energy'

So you tell me where the pseudo science really is?

These are all videos based on serious researchers holding respected positions. These are some of the videos that, for me personally, allowed me to take the EU ideas seriously. There are many more, some, certainly NOT worth watching.

All of this info can be found at thunderbolts.info and on the project thunderbolts youtube page.

EU is not so much a standalone theory, it is a result of many different discoveries from different disciplines that all have problems for standard model theory and all have a seemingly similar cause.

reply to post by vind21


The Thunderbolts team is working on a lab experiment to demonstrate the electric Sun hypothesis.

Seeing as we have a relatively active post here, with worth while respondents, i thought I might post some of this info as well.


I am claiming nothing here, I simply post these next 2 videos for your consideration of electrical properties and plasma science. They do relate to the topic directly, as I think most of the people here whether you agree with the electrical perspective or not will be able to understand.

The first is a bit boring, non-scientific, and it is a garage experiment showing the effects of different copper coils when in contact with a rotating magnetic field. What's important to take from this is the shape of the coil and how he purportedly arrived at it and the effect it produces.

Zero Lenz Dynamo


The second is a series of 6 excessively long videos( I have not watched them all), what it does show of merit is the results of many of the plasma experiments done that many EU proponents base their information on. These experiments and findings were a direct result of many of the plank experiments that generated those dramatic results of the effects the vacuum of space on plasma and caused so many issues recently for the standard model. (The Russian video I linked awhile back) The cern video showed how matter in a vaccum, self organized using no apparent outside force. The creator of this video is a CERN scientist.

The Primer Fields Pt 1 of 6

Published on Dec 31, 2012 Video of magnetic models of the Globe of Science and Innovation at CERN in my vacuum chamber. High voltage plasma reveals the magnetic patterns that the CERN models emit and thereby explain many phenomena found in physics and astrophysics. Bizarre Discovery at CERN David LaPoint

I am posting these as this seems to be what is being asked for, not because Im trying to convenience you that this is correct information. This is also not from the Thunderbolts group and I have no idea of their feelings toward it. I realize this does muddy up the thread, but seeing as we are pretty far off topic and I think the conversation has been rather worth while regardless I figured some might find it interesting.

I do not believe that the people in the videos in my last few posts take these claims lightly, these are recent, serious investigations into the electrical nature of the universe and are why I say that the EU is certainly not dead, nor dieing, but alive and well.

This is main stream science finding its way to the electrical. Enjoy!

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
See that big flat area in the lower right?

Earlier you said the spots were on ridge lines, but now you're talking about a flat area, not a ridge?

What do you suppose is causing that whiteout? - Is the camera malfunctioning?

Didn't you say something about it being water ice or snow? Seeing where it's positioned I can't rule that out, though I can't say for certain what it is. You on the other hand, seem willing to jump to any speculation which supports your ideas, which it really doesn't since it's not really on ridge lines as you claimed; that was apparently wishful thinking on your part. Now you're even telling me to look in a flat area which is not what I think of when I think of ridge lines, which makes me think of high areas instead of flat areas.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I believe he is referring to the large mesa like structure as the flat area. If I was at my home PC i'd mark it up on the drawing but in the lower right you will see the flat surface being referenced, the white out areas along the edge or ridge line.

When you see the white out areas scattered about, look close, you will see they are on elevated areas of the comet.

However, electrical machining does not leave a flat surface. The erosion as shown in the original video is actually traveling from left to right, eating away at the elevated smooth surface and leaving the machined irregular features behind. Then the arcing will form again on the edges of the most elevated points.

The only direct inference that can be made is that whatever it is, is unlikely to be a camera malfunction. This is also taken on the "dark side" (trying to double check that this is in fact the case) away from the direction of the sun, meaning it should, and I say should, rule out the possibility of it simply being a highly reflective surface washing out the ccd.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Didn't you say something about it being water ice or snow? Seeing where it's positioned I can't rule that out, though I can't say for certain what it is. You on the other hand, seem willing to jump to any speculation which supports your ideas, which it really doesn't since it's not really on ridge lines as you claimed; that was apparently wishful thinking on your part. Now you're even telling me to look in a flat area which is not what I think of when I think of ridge lines, which makes me think of high areas instead of flat areas.

I'm sorry if I confused you.

Now, what's with the camera whiteout?

Are you going to tell me that's ice? How about a reflection? I'm eager to hear the excuses fly.

Here's a better image. The top is taken from Deep Impact, the bottom from Stardust.

I guess all the ice decided to melt, while taking a good chunk of the surface features with it - no?

The white areas are clearly areas of electrical discharge machining taking place. That is not ice. That is not a reflection. That is not snow. That is not a camera malfunction. That is a plasma discharge blasting away surface material right in front of your face.

reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist


Could it be shiny metal/rocks of some kind, which caused a reflection from the sun at that given angle?

The only direct inference that can be made is that whatever it is, is unlikely to be a camera malfunction. This is also taken on the "dark side" (trying to double check that this is in fact the case) away from the direction of the sun, meaning it should, and I say should, rule out the possibility of it simply being a highly reflective surface washing out the ccd.

reply to post by ImaFungi


That reading thing?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist

 

Could it be shiny metal/rocks of some kind, which caused a reflection from the sun at that given angle?

There's just no way. They don't show up in the Stardust images as being exceptionally reflective at all.

When Stardust took its images, the comet was much less active, which corresponds to the reduced whiteout on the Stardust images. We can see a huge amount of surface erosion in the Stardust images precisely where the whiteout was the most intense on the Deep Impact images. You can clearly see where the surface of the comet was basted away between the two images. Reflections don't remove surface material.

Further, the standard theory has no explanation for why the surface should have eroded like it did. Remember, the standard model says comets blast water out of nozzles, and those nozzles can't move around the surface to remove material. The standard model is at a loss to explain the surface excavation.

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist

 

Could it be shiny metal/rocks of some kind, which caused a reflection from the sun at that given angle?

There's just no way. They don't show up in the Stardust images as being exceptionally reflective at all.

When Stardust took its images, the comet was much less active, which corresponds to the reduced whiteout on the Stardust images. We can see a huge amount of surface erosion in the Stardust images precisely where the whiteout was the most intense on the Deep Impact images. You can clearly see where the surface of the comet was basted away between the two images. Reflections don't remove surface material.

Further, the standard theory has no explanation for why the surface should have eroded like it did. Remember, the standard model says comets blast water out of nozzles, and those nozzles can't move around the surface to remove material. The standard model is at a loss to explain the surface excavation.

edit on 7/3/2013 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)

The answer to both those questions is exactly the same its called sublimation. As the gasses escape they cause escarpments ridges and explain topography perfectly. Also explains those whit outs as you call them go look at deep impacts website they have a moving animation as they go over the horizon you see its escaping gas. For some reason your either unaware of a decade of science or choose to be not sure which.