Electric Universe Strikes again! Comets destroy the standard model!

Thunderbolts has recently released a new documentary that has complied thier claims on the formation and nature of comets.

NASA and global missions have been to commets, smashed into them, collected dust from them, and taken real, up close measurments. Most of these missions, occuring in the early 2000's, have finaly had time to mature and the findings have been confirmed and catalouged.

The facts are in and the data has been processed expelling the final hot air out of the Dirty Snowball Theory, the standard and (academicaly taught) view of commets.

Scientist have known for some time that many of thier early observations of commets and thier behavior have contradicted the theory itsself but have chosen to ignore those facts or simply bandaide an explination (voulentarily or otherwise) to keep the standard theory intact.

Here is the new documentary released: The Electric Comet
(Use the link if the embed is not showing)





I belive this makes pretty short work of a few other theories as well, mainly the forgien water theory, that atempts to account for the seemingly odd amount of water on earth. It also does not bode well for extraterstrial seeding of life by outside sources, but it certinaly does not prohibit the possibilty, Emjoy!

As a closing I would like to say that anyone looking for well thought out scientific thought presenting an alternative viewpoint on many of the common events in our universe will likely enjoy exploring the electric theory. It departs significantly from the standard model in many areas and does so very elegantly. It does not out right contradict science as we know it today, it is a suplement, to our growing knowledge and understanding of forces previously unconsidered and a reaction to experimental data and will soon be incorparted into our teachings in the classroom as it continously out classes current non-electrical theories in predictivness and accuray of expeimental data

never hear such thing sir..electrick comet..wow..tq for introduce me to new information sir..keep go on..

reply to post by cheesy


You will not hear alot about this as there are members of this forum that vehimatly fight against EU.

If you search for posts by me in the science forum you will find several instances lol



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?






I would highly recommend a trip to the The Thunderbolts Project youtube site. I would advise against watching the "alien sky documentary until you have famalirzed yourself with more of the actual science backing up that hard to swallow explination of our early solar system.

You can also find thier main web page here: thunderbolts

A selfless bump on behst of the creators of this documentary. This is REAL news!

We ask for your help in inviting scientists and other centers of influence to consider the factual content in this film. For the next 60-90 days we will consider all critical suggestions prior to final editing, and we'll be especially diligent in addressing any statements of fact that a knowledgeable viewer may call into question. Our conviction is that essential facts, now confirmed by leading investigators, will not allow the institutions of science to hold onto theories that, for too long, have been proclaimed as established science.

Never heard of Electric Comets either! Thanks for sharing. I will watch the video later from home.

@ cheesy

Love your "avatar"

To be clear: "Electric Comets" are absolutely the exact same thing as a "comet" as you have been traditionally taught.

We are not discussing 2 different phenomenon but a more robust description and explanation of the existence and properties of comets.

reply to post by vind21




MOTF!

reply to post by MessOnTheFED!


Thank you. What am I doing wrong with my embeds? Sometimes they appear other times they do not.

I see simply pasting the link into the youtubevid button does not seem to work.

reply to post by vind21


the source link: www.youtube.com... /watch?v=34wtt2EUToo

Put everything after the '=' into the box after you click youtube vid icon.

MOTF!

It's about a theory you can read in the following link.

www.abovetopsecret.com... By fellow member ZeuZZ

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


I think its best to get the information from the source. I tend to limit my battles with the math mongers to ones I can at least compete in.

Not to mention the last time someone posted in that thread was 4 years ago....

Trying to argue EU as a whole to people who are math/science majors when they fail to acept the basic princaples and constraints of the thoeries they support as outlined by the creators of those theories, is just going to make you face palm.

The average person will be muich better off watching the scientists themselves explain things in thier short video excerpts on the youtube page than arguing with the people posting in that thread.

Many of them are fully capable amature physacists and when I have presented "my math proofs*" in the past I have gone either unchallenged or simply ignored by those same individuals.

Don't miscontrue that to mean I am calling them bad people, despite thier often course languge most of them are well intended and higly intelligent.

*other phd's papers I understand and have presented as argument

reply to post by vind21


I posted that one so you would people get interested. And to show that ATS is filled with threads full of information, people did use those original sources, to create them, or just an article.

If you want to no more, the next step is to go look it up personally. If you are a little skeptic, something you would do.

Understood.

I specficaly brought this to people ateention because it is irrefutable, or at least appears to be, and is being accepted by main stream science. This very well may be the first toe in for the EU to come full swing and science getting back on track.

I, as most, are getting really tired of the psudeo science of current cosmology and all this "dark" energy/matter shanangins .

Its about time the "dark energy" expanding these guys egos was let out.

Originally posted by vind21
Here is the new documentary released: The Electric Comet
(Use the link if the embed is not showing)

I watched the video and it was better than I expected, but it still twists facts to promote the theory. One of the repeating themes in the video is that the comet isn't a dirty snowball, because we don't see water ice on the surface of comets. We don't see water ice on the surface because it's not on the surface, as the impact on Tempel 1 revealed.

Then they even cite the Tempel 1 impact as evidence of the electric comet view that the comet doesn't have water ice, when in fact the tempel 1 impact shows the opposite. It confirms there's no water ice in the outer ~1m of the surface, but there is for the ~10-20m below that, as expected. In the video at 37:40, they even call the ejecta an "exploding cloud of silicate dust" apparently in denial of the water that was also determined to be present. So the impact they claim supports electric comets debunks the idea that comets don't have water:

"The distribution of water ice in the interior of Comet Tempel 1"

From this distribution, we infer that water ice is depleted in the uppermost layer (∼1 m), but present in lower layers. This stratigraphy coupled with the high porosity inferred from numerous other observations of the impact event (A’Hearn et al., 2005; Richardson and Melosh, 2007; Schultz et al., 2007a) should produce water in the vapor plume, as is observed. Finally, the detection of water ice in low-speed, high-angle ejecta visible near the nucleus during look-back argues for the presence of water ice in the deepest ejecta originating from tens of meters into the comet’s interior. Water ice is therefore present throughout the interior 10 to 20 m of Tempel 1, with the noted exception of the uppermost strata.

So this debunks the basic premise of electric comets, showing that water ice is present below the surface, contradicting the electric comet claim that there isn't water ice present.

Here's an article about the claim that comets are not "dirty snowballs" if you want to read more:
McCanney's Claim #1: Comets are not dirty iceballs, but hot, rocky bodies with no water.

Now I did say the video was better than expected. It does cite some genuinely interesting findings in comet research, and it speculates about some possible explanations. But there are certainly other explanations besides those they propose. For example, what if craters on comets are really formed by impacts and not by electrical arcing as the electric comet theory suggests? We've just had some near misses and some meteoroid impacts on Earth and if those had struck a comet I'd expect them to form a crater. I don't see the need to speculate about electrical arcing to form what appear to be impact craters. But at least they only cite it as a possibility.

I could drown the thread with detail but it's probably better to focus on the core premise of the idea regarding the absence of water. Yes water ice is not present on the surface, it's below the surface. Why electric comet followers don't get this is beyond my understanding. Read the paper I cited, or at least the quote I pulled from it.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Nice to see your posts once again, I always welcome your critiques and information presented.

I believe a few of your points were addressed in the video, I do not have time right now to set examples but I will try to tomorrow.

I am mainly replying to ask permission to present the information you posted to thornhill and others as they have requested. If you would like to prepare a small paper etc instead of just the post that would be fine. As I stated there is an open request for this kind of refute to thier claims.

The Deep Impact site notes:

"Since the visible images have a higher spatial resolution, we use those images to calculate the extent of ice on Tempel 1's surface. That turns out to be a small fraction of the surface, only 0.5%. "

"What is significant is that the extent of this ice on Tempel 1's surface is not sufficient to produce the observed abundance of water and its by-products in the comet's coma. "

So in light of those findings, "the team thus concludes that there are sources of water from beneath the comet's surface that supply the cometary coma as well."

The study LEAPS to the conclusion that the ice MUST be beneath the surface because they don't see it on the surface. There is ZERO proof of this claim. It is an ASSUMPTION.

* So virtually no surface ice? How can a dirty snowball have no surface ice? Scientists are telling me that there are thousands of hollow rocks out there that just happened to be filled with ice? Seriously? When was the last time you saw a hollow boulder?

* If we look at the claimed photodissociation rates required to produce the coma, sublimating ice as an explanation just doesn't hold up. There's no way photodissociation can occur at the rates assumed by comet models. Has any lab ever been able to produce these rates in a controlled test? (of course not)

* This study notes that, "OH is difficult to isolate in a laboratory setting (e.g., Nee and Lee, 1985), which requires a somewhat circular study of this species where the properties of the molecule must be derived or verified by using a comet as an astrophysical laboratory." - An example of theory being proven by theory?

The study that Arbitrageur cites uses this "theory proving theory" model with its analysis, which means the study's conclusion about water being beneath the surface is pure conjecture. They are looking at a gas plasma. The temperatures cited (1340 to 3140 Fahrenheit) make it clear that there is no "ice" present in the ejecta immediately following impact.

* And then comets have been observed to emit X-rays!??? How does sublimating ice produce x-rays? Multiple comets, such as Hyakutake and Lulin have been observed to emit huge amounts of xrays.

* But then it gets stranger still! Comets are so black that carbon black has been proposed to explain their surface albedo. You don't get carbon black from primordial dust. Where did it come from? Why does it cover the entire surface, with no ice present, if comets are continually losing mass from discharging?

* And what about those filamented tails that stretch across the solar system? How does neutral gas acting in the vacuum of space maintain a collimated tail across such vast distances without dispersing?

* And what about the Stardust mission, which came back with results that indicate the dust collected must have been formed under intense heat? "X-ray absorption spectroscopy in the current study showed that the grains are composed primarily of high-temperature metal....The X-ray and isotopic analyses point to gas acquisition in a hot, high-ion flux nebular environment" - That doesn't sound like an Oort cloud to me.

* How can a dirty ball of ice cause CMEs on the Sun? It's happened AT LEAST TWICE in just the past two years! What are the odds? Millions to one?

* And then there are the images. Every image of a comet nucleus that I've seen looks like a piece of cratered rock. Why don't they look like a melted snowball?

Great questions, no?


Scientists are telling you that comets are actually hollow boulders, filled with ice, covered with a coating of carbon black, that discharge gas through perfect nozzles that are capable of creating streams of gas that do not dissipate over millions of miles, which create xray emissions. The CME relationship is ignored.

When it is spelled out like that, I just have to laugh. They aren't claiming this list of absurdities about one particular unique comet. They are making these claims about ALL comets.

Originally posted by vind21
I am mainly replying to ask permission to present the information you posted to thornhill and others as they have requested. If you would like to prepare a small paper etc instead of just the post that would be fine. As I stated there is an open request for this kind of refute to thier claims.

A lot could happen in the next 60 days so I don't know if I'll have time to prepare a more detailed response in that time or not. In the meantime you certainly are entitled to follow this site's terms and conditions section 6 regarding anything I post here, which basically says you can cite the information elsewhere as long as you properly cite the source.

reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
The study LEAPS to the conclusion that the ice MUST be beneath the surface because they don't see it on the surface. There is ZERO proof of this claim. It is an ASSUMPTION.

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

Although not observed in the ambient coma or on the preimpact nuclear surface, water ice is detected in the ejecta from the DI impact experiment. Strong water ice absorptions at 3 μm are observed with the IR spectrometer within 3 s of the impact (after the passage of the shocked vapor plume) and remain throughout the DI flyby observations, ∼45 min after impact.

IR spectrometer measurements, and not assumptions, form the basis of the determination of water.

* So virtually no surface ice? How can a dirty snowball have no surface ice? Scientists are telling me that there are thousands of hollow rocks out there that just happened to be filled with ice?

This is not a hard concept. Haven't you ever noticed that a loaf of fresh bread has moisture distributed evenly throughout the loaf, but after being exposed to a low humidity environment the crust dries out? Then you can slice into the bread and find lots of moisture still in the interior, but the crust can be very dry. This is just an analogy, since I'm not saying the comet is completely similar to a loaf of bread, just that the concept of drying on the exterior before the interior should not be hard to understand.

* And then comets have been observed to emit X-rays!??? How does sublimating ice produce x-rays? Multiple comets, such as Hyakutake and Lulin have been observed to emit huge amounts of xrays.

Part of the mentality of EU proponents seems to be that the standard model denies there is any electricity in the universe. Obviously this is false. The standard model does admit that there are some electrical and electromagnetic effects. The fact that comets have water ice doesn't preclude them from interacting with the solar wind and I wouldn't rule out the possibility that interaction might have something to do with the X-rays.

But then it gets stranger still! Comets are so black that carbon black has been proposed to explain their surface albedo. You don't get carbon black from primordial dust. Where did it come from? Why does it cover the entire surface, with no ice present, if comets are continually losing mass from discharging?

This doesn't seem strange at all to me. Don't you understand the "dirty" in "dirty iceball"? There is a lot of cosmic dust for one thing. The Earth is bombarded with something like 40 tons of the stuff every day. But the water ice in the interior of Tempel 1 was relatively free of "dirt".

* And what about those filamented tails that stretch across the solar system? How does neutral gas acting in the vacuum of space maintain a collimated tail across such vast distances without dispersing?

OH is not neutral, is it?

And what about the Stardust mission, which came back with results that indicate the dust collected must have been formed under intense heat? "X-ray absorption spectroscopy in the current study showed that the grains are composed primarily of high-temperature metal....The X-ray and isotopic analyses point to gas acquisition in a hot, high-ion flux nebular environment" - That doesn't sound like an Oort cloud to me.

The Earth has elements heavier than iron like gold and uranium. Those materials didn't form in our solar system either. So I don't know how people get the delusion that the only way materials can exist in our solar system is if they formed in our solar system. That's an absurd idea. It's quite obvious that material in our solar system contains at least 2nd generation and possibly 3rd generation supernova debris where all kinds of previous conditions existed that formed many of the things we see in our solar system that were not formed where we now see them. Now if the video tried to make the point that the models of solar system formation still need work, I don't think anybody would disagree with that. But I don't find it any more surprising there's stuff in the Oort cloud that didn't form in the Oort cloud than I do that there's gold on Earth that didn't form on Earth. Why is this so hard to understand?

* How can a dirty ball of ice cause CMEs on the Sun? It's happened AT LEAST TWICE in just the past two years! What are the odds? Millions to one?

If I watch a high speed video of a drop of water falling into a pond, I see water ejected from the surface of the pond. Does this mean I need an electric pond theory to explain it? The odds of the water being ejected seem to be pretty close to 100%. I don't know how you get these strange odds like million to one.

* And then there are the images. Every image of a comet nucleus that I've seen looks like a piece of cratered rock. Why don't they look like a melted snowball?

Something like rock on the outside, and water ice on the inside, at least for Tempel 1. It wouldn't be a "dirty" snowball without some "dirt" or rocks.

Great questions, no?

Actually I hope you understand the bread analogy and how it can dry out on the exterior while retaining moisture ion the interior. I see no reason why a moist porous boulder in space couldn't also dry out on the surface while retaining moisture on the interior. It's not exactly "hollow", but Temple 1 is apparently composed of "porous" material.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I love your responses.

Just to make sure we are clear, I assume you agree with this statement:

"Scientists are telling you that comets are actually hollow boulders, filled with ice, covered with a coating of carbon black, that discharge gas through nozzles, that then turns into a plasma stream, which then emits xrays,

Comet induced CMEs are the result of the comet splashing into the surface of the Sun, causing an ejection of ~1.6×10^12 kg of material. (billions of nuclear bombs)"


That is a mighty fine theory you got going on there.

Mean while, plasma physicists - with PhDs and stuff who publish papers in engineering journals - say a comet is nothing more than a piece of rock undergoing electrical discharge phenomena.

Ever hear of Occam's Razor?

I just watched it and thought it was Brilliant.

For me the dirty snowball theory is dead. At least the explanations put forth of the electric model explaining all the things the scientists could not account for in the comet missions suggest that they traditional theory needs to be examined in new light with open minds.

Why do they try so hard to stick to a theory that Clearly does not hold water? The observations do not support the theory where the electric model could. Just watch the movie.. over and over again during the comet missions the scientists observed things they clearly did not expect and were actually contradictory to the standard dirty snowball model. Over and over again, with this new data, the scientists said they had no clue what was going on. That model is clearly BUNK.

I believe the answer is two fold. They want to control the spread of information to keep us dumb and somebody has to be making lots of money on that agenda.