Electric Comet ISON - Revealed

Obscured By Clouds

EC theory is not a hoax. The research has been published in peer review journals. Comet ISON is proving the validity of the EC model. To verify this for yourself you only need to have your eyes and mind open, a basic requirement of any decent scientist or researcher. The EC model remains though the target of consistent obfuscation and disingenuous attempts to render it impotent. It is the very aphrodisiac science needs (and inevitably desires) just like any good theory professing to oppose the status quo no matter whether or not scientists, vast groups of scientists, or entire government agencies agree with it. Comet labels in the image below conform to the EC model.



The EC model is based not only on a theoretical concept but it is also based on empirical evidence (i.e. observed and testable facts). Much of the evidence can be found in the most recent images and data from experiments employing space craft in close proximity to comets proves it to be the best model simply by the process of Occam’s razor. EC best fits the facts without manipulating them.

Increasingly as the facts uncovered by the most recent technological tools of space exploration do demonstrate, the EC model is found to explain much more about comets than does the dirty snowball theory (DS from here on). It is time to let the snowball melt away. Reason and rationality alone call for comets to be re-appraised. Comet ISON and its anomalies damn well scream out for that re-appraisal to come right now.

The reality of ISON cannot be contained by the DS model. That much is clear from the data being released on the Internet. Even while I cannot see ISON for the clouds in the sky, I see evidence available from observations of that comet already demonstrate the validity of the EC theory.

So why all the hysteria whenever EC is in a forum devoted to space stuff. It comes down to defending your profession or obsession or both. Wasn’t it Einstein that said if the facts don’t change the theory, change the facts? Well I guess it is only human to want the fortress of knowledge you defend to be founded on stone for the sake of your career.

Astronomer Gary Bruce puts it this way.

During the 1960's I was a professional astronomer (in radio astronomy). At that time, and before, sharing among professionals was common; trust and good will existed. After moving on to the atmospheric sciences I kept track of my old field of astronomy, and I watched as competition replaced cooperation. There were a finite number of university teaching positions, so a greater proportion of PhD astronomers were competing for research grants. Too many PhDs were competing for limited funds starting in the 1970's. The forces that operate when supply exceeds demand were unmerciful to the person with an IQ of less than 145 who just wanted to do astronomy for the love of it; that person was simply born a few decades too late. Such people can't compete today, so they leave the field - even if they've acquired a PhD. Those who remain employed in astronomy are super-smart, and also super-competitive. No one holds your hand, these days, encouraging you as a student to join the ranks of professionals. If you don't already have a competitive nature, and a genius IQ, you won't make it as a professional astronomer. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!

SOURCE
To summarize most of that, scientific fortresses like those in academia are built to be defended because your career will often depend on your defense from attacks coming from opposing positions and opposing theories.

It would seem that many astronomers have been discovering for some time now their theoretical models are based on facts that shift like sand in the wind when new evidence comes in. EC fits the data gathered from continuing discoveries far better than does the DS model. But is this openly admitted in the face of the new evidence? Hell no. Any fool can see why.


When You’re In

When you’re in you are ALL in. At least that is the conclusion to be reached when we witness the reactions of many in the community of astronomers over time to EU. It is not difficult to see why. Professionals defend their careers, and amateurs defend their credibility in the eyes of the layperson. In both cases they do this by conforming to the status quo. Behind that though the stake are far higher than personal career paths. The global economy and the way international commerce is done is threatened by EC. The system we have enables the elites themselves to continue to profit and to maintain their privileged positions. Looking at the state of the global economy since GFC it is clear that us the masses, the 99%, could sure do with a complete change.

At the base of the world economy is oil and gas, and lets not forget nuclear power production. Accepting the Electric Universe model as the better fit for what is observed around us means virtually free electricity right from the space that surrounds us. Now I am sure electricity in space won’t come to us entirely free, but it will be far cheaper than what we have now, and without the environmental damage. It will also be shorn of the corruption of big business! Why do I say that? Simply because the resource electricity is actually all around us.

That is the theory of EU. That electricity is all around us is nothing new. The human body is electrical and that in itself is amazing because you would not think an electrical machine like the body would be able to work at all since it is around 60% (possibly slightly more if you are man and slightly less if you are woman) – but I digress. A comet is charged, that is whether it is of low voltage such as Tempel 1, or of high voltage – that looks to be the case with ISON.

Most of the voltage difference between the comet and the solar plasma is taken up in a double layer of charge, called a plasma sheath, that surrounds the comet. When the electrical stress is great enough, the sheath glows and appears as the typical cometary coma and tail. Diffuse electrical discharges occur in the sheath and at the nucleus, radiating a variety of frequencies, including x-rays.

See page 16 in this PDF
Continued in next post

A few weeks ago you said

Still, as already noted we have the comet’s Mercury fly pass to observe – that’s going to be November 15th folks!. This time the evidence will be clear.

and also

Any poster can go back to this thread in the days ahead after seeing for themselves whether or not events have proven the statements I have made in this thread ...
The reality we will see in the sky above our heads is way way out of your control at this point.

So hows that big Mercury-ISON plasma interaction vortex thing coming along, then?

reply to post by Tallone


Not bad, thanks for sharing the info with us! S&F

Tallone
Comet ISON is proving the validity of the EC model.

From November 13th

We are due for a pass by Mercury in just two days, then perihelion around the sun, then it passes by us here on planet Earth. Fireworks in the sky - and a lot of questions will be asked by an awful lot of people.

Do I understand then that these predictions are to be ignored, and you're just moving on with more EU stuff as if everything you've said in the past doesn't count anymore?

Set The Controls For The Heart Of The Sun




So there are unavoidably two arrows simultaneously positioned in the string of the bow that is the EU. One of these arrows is aimed at the conventional scientific model, and the (most likely unintentionally included) second arrow is aimed at the heart of the capitalist system. And you wondered what all the hysterical reactions over the EC model of ISON were all about? There you have it in a nutshell. But that is all very sketchy.

As we have seen with ISON the coma flared much earlier than the DST driven astronomers expected, when it was much furtherer out than the DST model would allow it. And this is NOT the first time this phenomena has been observed



The EC model is able to explain amateur observations and findings by professionals that have them scratching their heads attempting to find explanations in DST.



Let’s look at a few of these now. You will be surprised!
Continued in next post.

imbed this...

Im on my mobile and that side of the site doesn't let me imbed that myself. The video is an hr and a half an I've now watched it twice it was so good. As you mentioned in the OP the observations being made in the last few years fit with the EC theory even when scientist are at a loss on why the common model gave such drastically different predictions.

Remember this?

When Comet ISON comes closest to Mercury - in just two more days we may well get to see something like this in our night sky - plasma connecting planets ...

alfa1
Do I understand then that these predictions are to be ignored, and you're just moving on with more EU stuff as if everything you've said in the past doesn't count anymore?

He has to ignore his predictions, as they destroy his claim of a EU - he just makes a new prediction that will also be ignored when it does not come true as well!

reply to post by RickyD

My mind is open and I'm finding the subject both interesting and well-presented. Carry on, OP.

RickyD
imbed this...

Im on my mobile and that side of the site doesn't let me imbed that myself. The video is an hr and a half an I've now watched it twice it was so good. As you mentioned in the OP the observations being made in the last few years fit with the EC theory even when scientist are at a loss on why the common model gave such drastically different predictions.

Maybe ISOn is the Blue Kachina it has now turned blue!

Experienced observers put the comet's rising magnitude near +4.0, well above the threshold of naked-eye visibility. The problem is, ISON is approaching the sun and becoming increasingly difficult to observe. Shahrin Ahmad of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, photographed the comet's green core framed by twilight blue on the morning of Nov. 19th:

thecelestialconvergence.blogspot.com... p_recent

reply to post by alfa1


He's right, the current theory keeps getting bent and bent more to contain as much of the old "snowball" theory as possible. Whipple was not to be challenged in his day and, buddy, your future depended upon following the conventional spiel if you were in that field. Whipple was lord and master.

You see, the problem is they have to keep on that route because they have no recourse. As detection devices got more varied and of better quality, they keep finding crazy things that comets were doing, such as the ion tails, but they had to continue the charade. The inner sanctum of astronomy and government knows what comets really are, controlled devices, but they can't tell us that. That would be tantamount to admitting the reality of UFOs here and now. Just as they have to keep the truth about Mars and Phobos and heavens know what else under wraps. We mere citizens can't handle the truth.

See Rethinking Comets in the Skunk Forum for an alternative view to both the conventional view of comets and the electric Universe theory. Other comet threads reside their also.

Careful With That Axe, Eugene

Viewing the two theories side by side you can see more clearly the major differences. The dirty snowball theory (let’s continue calling using the shorter DST) considers comets as primordial chunks of frozen water molecules and bits left over from the formation of our solar system. According to this theory comets come from the Ort Cloud, a very cold scrap yard or periphery area of tailings on the outer reaches of our solar system surrounding the planets and our Sun and about 50,000 times farther from the Sun than Earth. DST tells us comets heat up as they come closer to the sun with volatile substances (such as CO2) streaming off of the comet body or nucleus to become the tail we see. But ask yourself, if this were so why then are not the icy moons of Saturn and Jupiter burnt dry by the sun? Let’s look at some of these facts explainable using the EC model but unexplainable using DST.



#1 Observed fact problem for DST:
ISON became extremely bright far beyond Jupiter’s orbit December 2012. It should NOT have done that according to DST! Scientists have largely accepted the fact ISON may be far more solid than DST allows. (NB DST explains that ISON has never ventured near our Sun before and therefore has an abundance of volatile gases still present, but that explanation relies on the awful big assumption that ISON has never ventured out of the Ort cloud before now, a circular argument fitting a little too well with the whole Ort Cloud model determining it to be the source of comets)
SOURCE

#2 Observed fact problem for DST:
DST cannot explain why some asteroids appear to ‘vent gases’ just like comets do. EC explains this because it determines comets and asteroids are basically the same thing. In fact, just some days earlier a “never-before-seen” asteroid was photographed “with six comet-like tails”!!

"I'm trying not to use the word 'freak,'" said David Jewitt of UCLA and lead author of a paper about the six-tailed asteroid, "but that's what it is. It is definitely freakish."

SOURCE

The EC model explained this phenomenon back in 2006, and noted that DST attempted to explain these as “dirty snowballs in disguise”. There you go, when the theory doesn’t fit the facts it seems facts can be made to fit the theory as Einstein commented with intended irony in his now famous quote.
SOURCE

#3 Observed fact problem for DST:
DST cannot explain the rapidity and magnitude of the brightening of ISON.

On November 28 of this year, ISON will lie closest to the Sun — a scant 680,000 miles (1.1 million kilometers) from its surface. Latest predictions indicate that it will peak at magnitude –4.5, equivalent to the brightness of Venus.

SOURCE

But ISON’s brightening came far earlier and brighter than expected. See the graph of ISON's V-Magnitude vs Photometer Diameter HERE

“For a 60,000 km diameter V-mag = 6.34.” www.brucegary.net...

- I have highlighted the magnitude in the quoted data. This chart is a couple of days old already. Look on the site for the updated one, and note the brightness of this comet is not jiving with DTS at all.

It is so bright now that astronomers believe it should surely fragment like so many others subjected to the heat of the Sun at close proximity (hot tea into cold cup, that kind of analogy). And yet despite many reports of ISON reaching some pre-fragmentation state indicated in part by its rapid increase in brightness it is NOT fragmenting. BTW DST cannot account for why comets split like this, particularly the velocity of the fragmentation when it happens which is some 20% of the forward momentum of the comet itself. Sagan had something to say about that.



Back to the sudden outburst let's return to the latest report by Bruce Gary HERE.

Nov 20, 20.8 UT: Added Nov 20 Whitmer G filter images & analysis. V-mag total ~ 4.1, so comet continues to brighten without breaking-up. Side jets still present.

(emphasis has been added to the quote)

The EC model explains what to DST followers is simply unexplainable. Silverlok has already noted the following on the other thread and I will acknowledge such here. reply to post by Silverlok

Ison changed two orders of magnitude in visibility in less than 24hours, there is NO WAY THAT COULD HAPPEN in a gradient thermal environment...the cause HAS TO be magnetic and electromagnetic. The most probable scenario is that Ison ( glowing green and already identified as carbon emitting )is acting , as Tesla said , a perfect conductor in the near perfect vacuum of space and is a massive chunk of carbon in either the form of diamond or graphene.

#4 Observed fact problem for DST:
November 18 ISON again stumped DST by suddenly fading suggesting the outburst would not continue but was instead over.

Nov 18, 14.8 UT: Cloudy in our area, so no new images or mag's. Note yesterday's puzzling finding that the comet faded! The outburst may be over, which is puzzling.

www.brucegary.net...

Now, I can’t make anything of this one but I included it for the sake of some completeness. I am sure someone will bring it up and hopefully they will offer an explanation. Either from the EC or DST model, or even something different would be okay. What we need here is a rational and logical explanation for this anomaly.

And not only but also -

Recent detailed images of comet surfaces by space vehicles show comets look little different to asteroids. They are extensively cratered, and that is not at all what is expected of something a snowball. They exhibit NO vents, again not expected by a model describing gas vented from the nucleus.

Tempel 1


There are many other facts that have been discovered in these close encounters with comets by NASA’s stardust and Deep impact that undermine the DST model while supporting the EC model. The short PDF linked to above and the video I embedded above this post provide many such examples and more satisfying explanations than what I could possibly briefly set out in this OP.

The EC model is a component of the concept of EU, and so our Sun is also electric. There is no end to it really. Once the Electric Universe model is accepted then everything changes, from the way we look at comets to our understanding of the Sun, the way galaxies relate to each other, and even lightening on our very own planet Earth. There is no long-term advantage to be had in attempting to silence those busily pointing out the emperor is wearing no clothes. ISON is doing that for the EC theory right now. Those who resist the facts that images of ISON and the comets and other data from them reveal are simply swimming against the tide.

Continued in final post below.

alfa1

Remember this?

When Comet ISON comes closest to Mercury - in just two more days we may well get to see something like this in our night sky - plasma connecting planets ...

Damn, I missed that - can you point out a good video of it? Unless....

Echoes


Didn't you just say that before? Once it was an established theory, but if you keep repeating it and denying the facts we can observe for ourselves then doesn't it become a big lie? I still don't believe it, not while I can see and think for myself.

Despite attempts to conceal and obfuscate the truth will out its self. That is one thing we can be certain of, and with ISON the big reveal is taking place right before our eyes.



Yeah, and with apologies to Floyd

- for including several references to the unofficial album, but I just had to do it.
en.wikipedia.org...(Pink_Floyd_album)
trades.nullium.net...


Publications in peer reviewed journals I include these for all of the geeks amongst us.

Thornhill, W. 2007 The Z-Pinch Morphology of Supernova 1987A and Electric Stars
ieeexplore.ieee.org...

Ransom, C.J. and Thornhill, W. 2007 Plasma-Generated Craters and Spherules
ieeexplore.ieee.org...


If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.
Albert Einstein
(It's called sarcasm, Sheldon).

reply to post by hellobruce


To balance the debate can you answer this question:-

But ask yourself, if this were so why then are not the icy moons of Saturn and Jupiter burnt dry by the sun? Let’s look at some of these facts explainable using the EC model but unexplainable using DST.

A very good point , I would like it explained under your model.

hellobruce
Damn, I missed that - can you point out a good video of it? Unless....

That picture is from this post that he made on the 13th, predicting plasma chaos for the 15th.

The image is a screencap from a video that he keeps pushing, this one at about 9:35.

Rather ironically, in this post in this very thread, he posts another screencap from that SAME VIDEO where his other failed prediction comes from.

Tallone
The dirty snowball theory... DST... unexplainable using DST.
...problem for DST...according to DST... problem for DST...
DST cannot explain.... problem for DST...
DST cannot explain...... DTS ...... DST ...... DST... DST ...
... DST ... the DST model .

Ah, the old "if they are wrong, then I must be right" fallacy.

Its also seen a lot in creationism, where they spend a disproportionate amount of time trying to prove evolution wrong, which would apparently prove creationism to be right (as if there are no other competing ideas).

Science doesnt work that way.

You prove your theory right by proving your theory right.
Not by proving others wrong.

reply to post by alfa1


Go back to the original post and you will see I state those images are intended to give a visual impression only. They are exaggerated.

The previous thread you refer to has been terminated by ATS. I am no longer able to reply, and have been directed by aforesaid not to carry on with the discussion. Since I am continuing to post on this site of course I abide by their decision.

reply to post by Tallone


Great info, I love reading stories like this. F&S for you.