posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 01:07 PM
reply to post by wildespace
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
Thank you for the apology, I can’t tell you how difficult it is to reply here when all I feel is ridicule. Discussing the electric
universe is fine, I enjoy learning new things.
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.
If you are interested then
do spend more time learning plasma physics. It is a real science and is not rejected by other scientists. The question is how it might explain
observations. The universe is made up of 99% plasma. Plasma and electricity have similarities but are not the same. The Sun is plasma and therefore
follows the rules of plasma physics. The solar wind is plasma, so is lightning and the Aurora Borealis. Plasma is electrically conductive and is
affected by magnetic fields. Many astronomical observations show these affects.
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%
This seemed to make sense to me too until I spent time researching this topic. We do not know what is out in the Oort cloud so any claim
is a theory at best.
some are even almost pure ice. It follows clearly, then, that comets, which originate from the outer Solar System, are icy.
Of all the
comets that have been observed close up, by space craft like Deep Impact or Stardust, little to no water ice has been found on the surface. The
thought is that the ice is beneath the surface yet Deep Impact doesn’t seem to confirm this hypothesis. Remember Deep Impact crashed into Temple 1
expelling dry dust, no water. It is quite possible that no water is present on or in any of these comets. The question then is where is the HHO coming
from that is observed in their tails through spectral analysis? That is what I thought this thread was about.
The Stardust mission brought samples back from comet Wild 2 and found that this comet originated in the inner solar system and under high temperatures
(@1000°C). So if little to no water has been observed under close inspection and evidence is found for an inner solar system origination then what
does that do to the dirty snowball theory?
So to claim that comets are completely rocky or metallic and contain no frozen volatiles, goes against of what we know about the Solar
To be clear it is the data that is showing that comets are dry, rocky and/or metallic. It is not simply a “claim”. And what we
“know”, as you put it, about comets is a theory that has been proven wrong in at least some capacity by way of data/ evidence. This is what
science is supposed to do, prove theories wrong with evidence. The reason we still call comets “dirty snowballs” is further proof for denial of
electrical interactions in space.
edit on 1/28/2014 by Devino because: to impove clarity