Star Water and Life in the Universe - An Electric Universe theory confirmed?

reply to post by DJW001

It is clear that the hydroxyls are formed due to mechanical collisions between electrically charged particles and molecules, not mysterious electromagnetic fields...

Obviously an electrical bonding occurs, but it is due to the physical collision of charged particles with ionized matter that happens to be in the way...

particles with the same charge as ionized matter in a meteoroid or cometoid will be repelled, particles with the opposite charge can form a bond if they come into contact.

I find it odd that you describe electrical interactions, using electrical terms, yet attempt to deny that anything electrical is taking place while claiming it to be purely mechanical. Your statement, "Obviously an electrical bonding occurs, but it is due to the physical collision" seems to be in contradiction. How fast do you think a hydrogen atom would need to go to smash its way into an oxygen atom or a hydroxyl molecule to physically bond with it?

Electrical bonding occurs because these electrically charged particles are interacting with each other electrically. There is a physical interaction but this is due to the electrical bonding.

I also don't understand why you think magnetic fields are mysterious or how they are somehow unrelated to these observed phenomena.

Devino
reply to post by DJW001

 

It is clear that the hydroxyls are formed due to mechanical collisions between electrically charged particles and molecules, not mysterious electromagnetic fields...

Obviously an electrical bonding occurs, but it is due to the physical collision of charged particles with ionized matter that happens to be in the way...

particles with the same charge as ionized matter in a meteoroid or cometoid will be repelled, particles with the opposite charge can form a bond if they come into contact.

I find it odd that you describe electrical interactions, using electrical terms, yet attempt to deny that anything electrical is taking place while claiming it to be purely mechanical. Your statement, "Obviously an electrical bonding occurs, but it is due to the physical collision" seems to be in contradiction. How fast do you think a hydrogen atom would need to go to smash its way into an oxygen atom or a hydroxyl molecule to physically bond with it?

Electrical bonding occurs because these electrically charged particles are interacting with each other electrically. There is a physical interaction but this is due to the electrical bonding.

I also don't understand why you think magnetic fields are mysterious or how they are somehow unrelated to these observed phenomena.

According to EU, these particles, indeed, even the solid matter in the comets and asteroid are guided not by gravity, but by electromagnetic fields. The asteroid draws the solar wind to it electromagnetically. This results in an alchemy that takes helium nuclei and electrons and knits them together into atoms of higher atomic weight. That is not what is happening here, is it?

reply to post by vind21


Given they have imaged the 'filaments' linking galaxies....'filaments' also being a term used in electrical apparatuses....I wouldn't be surprised if this eventually was the case.

For now though, I wait, read, listen and learn.

LightAssassin
reply to post by vind21

 

Given they have imaged the 'filaments' linking galaxies....'filaments' also being a term used in electrical apparatuses....I wouldn't be surprised if this eventually was the case.

For now though, I wait, read, listen and learn.

Not exactly. They have an image of a galaxy with a bit of a wisp nearby. It is not clear whether this is an example of a universal phenomenon or simply an exceptional example of a particular galaxy ejecting matter for an unknown reason.

LightAssassin
reply to post by vind21

 

Given they have imaged the 'filaments' linking galaxies....'filaments' also being a term used in electrical apparatuses.

"Filament" is also used for thread-like or fibre-like structures in plants, animals, or even textiles. www.thefreedictionary.com...
So let's not get hung up on a single interpretation of this word and draw conclusions.

I think the mystery of cosmic filaments is in how they formed. Gravity is too slow for being responsible for that, so it looks like the cosmic structure stems for the quantum "foam" of virtual patricles and energy fluctuations that the beginning (or even before the beginning) of the universe.

reply to post by vind21


those star water are beautiful,

i wish we can fly to the space and see them.

peace

Heavy day at work today I will not be able to spend much time replying to anything until later this afternoon, my apologies.

reply to post by DJW001

According to EU, these particles, indeed, even the solid matter in the comets and asteroid are guided not by gravity, but by electromagnetic fields. The asteroid draws the solar wind to it electromagnetically. This results in an alchemy that takes helium nuclei and electrons and knits them together into atoms of higher atomic weight. That is not what is happening here, is it?

No, I don’t think that is what’s happening. I didn’t know that was what EU theorists were claiming was taking place. Perhaps it would be better to read what the plasma physicists and plasma cosmologists are saying.

On the other hand I do not think that comets’ comas and tails are gravity only interactions, i.e. mechanical/physical. Gravity most certainly plays a role yet so does electricity. Mainstream astronomy dismisses any electrical interaction and attempts to explain these observations using heat and gravity alone, I think that is a mistake.

Apparently the videos in the OP are leaked, after talking with the content owners they have requested we remove them while the youtube channel in question is delt with. I alerted the mods to the issue, hopefully they will edit the OP soon.


While I regret the loss of the videos, I respect content owners, which is why I made every attempt to verify the copyright status of the content.

reply to post by Devino

Mainstream astronomy dismisses any electrical interaction and attempts to explain these observations using heat and gravity alone, I think that is a mistake.

No, it does not! The difference between the standard model and EU is that EU asserts that comets exert some sort of electromagnetic force on the Sun. They are inherently magnetic, and therefore attract the Solar Wind and use its radiation to synthesize the elements that are detected in cometary spectra. In the standard model, volatile elements are already present in the comet. When they sublimate, they begin to interact with the solar wind, in part because ultra-violet radiation ionizes them. These interactions cause the plasma, or "ion," tail. The solar wind also causes the essentially electromagnetically inert body to develop an induced magnetic field due to the electrical gradient of the solar wind. It is quite sophisticated and takes all the "forces" into account: not merely gravity at the largest of scales, but electrical and chemical over the shorter scales.

reply to post by DJW001

Ditto. Solar wind is also responsible for the X-ray emission from the comets.

When ions from the Sun blow past a comet, their strong positive charge attracts negatively-charged electrons from cometary atoms and molecules. In effect, the ions try to neutralize their own unbalanced charge by stealing electrons from the comet. Electrons that leap from neutral atoms to the passing solar wind ions emit x-rays as they cascade from high-energy to low-energy ionic orbits. This process, called a "charge exchange reaction," was first proposed in 1997 as a possible reason for cometary x-rays.

A telltale sign of charge exchange is x-rays emitted at wavelengths that are specific to the internal energy levels of the ions. That's exactly what Chandra's ACIS instrument detected in the x-rays from Comet LINEAR -- spectral lines from oxygen and nitrogen ions present in the solar wind.

science1.nasa.gov...

The EU really turns facts on their head, claiming that the mainstream model completely ignores electromagnetic interactions and only uses gravity or heat. That is simply not true.

reply to post by DJW001

EU asserts.

I am not sure why you continue to attept to argue against the EU theory with me when I am not claiming any such theory. Maybe this is a love/hate thing.

Like I have already stated we could read up on plasma physics and not worry about the electric universe theory.

These interactions cause the plasma, or "ion," tail. The solar wind also causes the essentially electromagnetically inert body to develop an induced magnetic field due to the electrical gradient of the solar wind.

So we are in agreement then, the Sun has an electrical influence on bodies in the solar system.

"Mainstream astronomy dismisses any electrical interaction"
No, it does not!

Well it’s about time then. An electrical interaction is taking place and should be studied and discussed.

reply to post by wildespace

The EU really turns facts on their head

So now I'm an EU theorist? Way to ‘not’ pay attention. Perhaps we should remain on topic and not digress this into a comet thread.

Devino
reply to post by DJW001

 

EU asserts.

I am not sure why you continue to attept to argue against the EU theory with me when I am not claiming any such theory. Maybe this is a love/hate thing.

Like I have already stated we could read up on plasma physics and not worry about the electric universe theory.

These interactions cause the plasma, or "ion," tail. The solar wind also causes the essentially electromagnetically inert body to develop an induced magnetic field due to the electrical gradient of the solar wind.

So we are in agreement then, the Sun has an electrical influence on bodies in the solar system.

"Mainstream astronomy dismisses any electrical interaction"
No, it does not!

Well it’s about time then. An electrical interaction is taking place and should be studied and discussed.

edit on 1/24/2014 by Devino because: fixing quotes

Pay attention, please. As I have pointed out, the electrical interaction is being studied and discussed. Your implicit insistence that it is not is what is conveying the impression that you are an EU theorist!

DevinoWell it’s about time then. An electrical interaction is taking place and should be studied and discussed.

edit on 1/24/2014 by Devino because: fixing quotes

Can you show me proof it was denied by mainstream models? The only people I ever see saying that were those wanting to lie to propagate false ideas (such as EU theorists).

reply to post by DJW001

Pay attention, please. As I have pointed out, the electrical interaction is being studied and discussed.

I have been paying attention and you have been somewhat ambiguous in this thread when it comes to electrical interactions.

It is clear that the hydroxyls are formed due to mechanical collisions between electrically charged particles and molecules, not mysterious electromagnetic fields.

This quote here seems to show an ignorance towards electrical interaction giving credit to physical collisions only. What was your point in claiming “mysterious magnetic fields”? What is so mysterious about them and why comment on them in such a way?

According to EU, these particles, indeed, even the solid matter in the comets and asteroid are guided not by gravity, but by electromagnetic fields.

I have never read this comment from any EU site. Can you provide a source to confirm this or are you just making it up?

The asteroid draws the solar wind to it electromagnetically. This results in an alchemy that takes helium nuclei and electrons and knits them together into atoms of higher atomic weight.

Again I have never read this claim. Perhaps you could provide a source so I don’t think you are simply making this garbage up as a Straw man argument.

Your implicit insistence that it is not is what is conveying the impression that you are an EU theorist!

This is your opinion and it happens to be wrong. I have Clearly stated that I am attempting to convey a plasma universe theory. It may appear to you to be an EU theory because they are similar in many ways.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

Can you show me proof it was denied by mainstream models?

Just read the history of Kristian Birkeland. Is there charge separation in space? How was Birkeland’s theory on the Aurora Borealis taken after he proposed it?

What is the “Dirty Snowball Theory” about?
There have been many discussions on ATS and elsewhere of the potential for electrical interactions on comets and these discussions don’t usually go well. I believe that the whole idea that comets are snowballs came about from observed HHO and hydroxyls in their tails. What has recently been verified is that almost no water ice has been observed on comet nuclei. Perhaps the topic of this thread is proof that no water is necessary to create these observed conditions.

The manner in which I am discussing these things here in this thread gets boring and frustrating real fast because I find that I must defend against claims which I did not make. For those who claim I am an EU theorist and therefore lying I say prove it!

The only people I ever see saying that were those wanting to lie to propagate false ideas (such as EU theorists).

If you think I am lying then prove it. It is ridiculous to think that because someone lied to perpetuate a false claim then all similar claims are therefore false perpetuated by liars.

I come here to learn and discuss ideas. I do not enjoy being labeled as a liar and ridiculed. There is a huge difference between being skeptical and being a debunker.

DevinoMainstream astronomy dismisses any electrical interaction and attempts to explain these observations using heat and gravity alone, I think that is a mistake.

Because Velikovsky was debunked ages ago.

You Electric Universe types forget you need something called a conductor to have electrical interactions. Mostly empty space doesn't really make a good conductor.

A kid knows this as it is just basic 5th grade science, requiring NO advanced physics knowledge.

reply to post by Devino


Apologies for assuming you're an EU proponent, but the Electric Universe is in the title of this thread, so it's natural that we discuss it here. I haven't read much about plasma cosmology, but from what I've read it simply doesn't match the observations or predictions. "Plasma cosmology is rejected by astrophysicists and cosmologists because, as described by its proponents, it does not provide as well-matched an account of the observations of astrophysical and cosmological phenomena as the accepted astrophysical and cosmological theories do." en.wikipedia.org...

For me at least, the dirty snowball model of comets makes perfect sense: the outer Solar System is icy. Bodies out there are more than 50% ice, some are even almost pure ice. It follows clearly, then, that comets, which originate from the outer Solar System, are icy. Even Ceres has recently been seen expelling water at the perihelion. Water is very common in the Solar System, and comets contain other frozen volatiles besides H2O. When you think of the outer Solar System, think frozen gasses. If Pluto approached near the Sun, it would develop a coma and tail just like a comet. So to claim that comets are completely rocky or metallic and contain no frozen volatiles, goes against of what we know about the Solar System.

reply to post by JadeStar

You Electric Universe types forget you need something called a conductor to have electrical interactions. Mostly empty space doesn't really make a good conductor.

Plasma is an excellent conductor. The solar wind is plasma.

What’s frustrating is that I don’t consider myself an EU type because I don’t know much about their theories. I have read a bit on plasma physics though and I would suggest you do the same.