Electric Universe Strikes again! Comets destroy the standard model!

Yeah, alot of this stuff is circumstantial evidence from other data. I think that's probably why the approach is, come shoot holes in my theory etc rather than, here's the math.

They are indeed working on a way to test the electric sun theory, or rather, test if some of the unexplained features of the sun could be contributed to electrical processes.

ZueZZ it did not escape my attention that your thread was linked here, and you had seemingly changed your mind. You are correct as I have been looking at the EU only recently compared to most of you I would imagine(the last 2 years). I am less aware of what was being said a few years ago between 2007-2009. Is there a specfiic piece of information that caused this?

Originally posted by vind21ZueZZ it did not escape my attention that your thread was linked here, and you had seemingly changed your mind. Is there a specfici piece of information that caused this?

The science of plasmas and electromagnetism, maths, and maxwells equations of physics.

If you word that more specifically I can be far more specific.

And I'm not sure I have changed my mind about much. EU is interesting to consider yet very speculative, plasma cosmology is good science with ample peer reviewed evidence in respected journals yet not as well proven as the big bang, that's pretty much still my position.

Well, I am mostly aware of that information. I have a BS in geology and geophysics but sadly no longer work in the field.

The thing that peaked my interest in the EU was the talks by Steven Corothers on gr and the information by Ron Hatch. Those lectures are what gave me that "aha" moment and got me to look into this topic seriously.

I also enjoy any alternative explinations of phenomom which is what led me to this site, I was basicly asking if you discovered a single significant piece of information that sparked a dismissal of the whole idea being bunk potentialy.

Originally posted by vind21
Well, I am mostly aware of that information. I have a BS in geology and geophysics but sadly no longer work in the field.

The thing that peaked my interest in the EU was the talks by Steven Corothers on gr and the information by Ron Hatch. Those lectures are what gave me that "aha" moment and got me to look into this topic seriously.

I also enjoy any alternative explinations of phenomom which is what led me to this site, I was basicly asking if you discovered a single significant piece of information that sparked a dismissal of the whole idea being bunk potentialy.

edit on 27-6-2013 by vind21 because: (no reason given)

Crothers work is brilliant as he is extremely talented as a mathematician. He can run circles round most relativists in his papers. Though I should point out the problem he has with it is a minor one, and even though correct does not not falsify relativity, just modifies it.

The main issue I have with EU theories is they are very good at jumping on anything in astronomy that is not expected and claiming "the entire model of astronomy is wrong and we were right all along, look at this" yet to date I've not seen many actualy scientific models proposed before the fact that predict the phenomenon.

To clarify that I should point out that Thornhill saying "we expect and electrical discharge to happen when x impacts x" is not a scientific theory. It's a sentence. He has not given a voltage, a capacity, a chemical composition, or even a model to explain why this flash has occurred. He will just use the catch all phrase 'comets are electric, so this proves the electric universe" It all sounds well and good, and he seems to have made a good prediction, sure, but it proves nothing in the context of an EU theory if he has not given a scientific model first.

These definitive models are always vague and not forthcoming.

The other major fallacy they play is 'it looks like a bunny, therefore it is a bunny'. Sure. Well electrons around atoms look like planets orbiting a sun. But they are not, different laws of physics apply. Sure, galaxies look like two colliding plasmas, but they are not. Different laws of physics apply. Sure, a mushroom looks like a nuclear explosion; but it is not!

You are best off ignoring Thornhill and Talbott to an extent and paying attention to Crothers and Don Scott. Those two seem far more scientifically literate. Even if they are wrong at least their case's to date have been scientifically compelling.

Originally posted by vind21
Well, I am mostly aware of that information. I have a BS in geology and geophysics but sadly no longer work in the field.

The thing that peaked my interest in the EU was the talks by Steven Corothers on gr and the information by Ron Hatch. Those lectures are what gave me that "aha" moment and got me to look into this topic seriously.

I also enjoy any alternative explinations of phenomom which is what led me to this site, I was basicly asking if you discovered a single significant piece of information that sparked a dismissal of the whole idea being bunk potentialy.

edit on 27-6-2013 by vind21 because: (no reason given)

So if you want to limit the critique to just the video i dont have an hour and half right now,However this weekend maybe i can take the time. I did look at the first part of the video again started by attacking the standard model this is not an effective approach. I will say what i did see seemed to focus on crystalline structures being found is just somehow impossible. And this just throws the whole standard model into chaos which it does not.So not a good start so far and i assume if i go further theyll explain how they got there i hope.

Here is a good paper to explain how crystalline silicates can form in inner solar system then can move in to outer solar system. I believe i read somewhere up to 10 AU but don't quote me on that since i don't have the time to reread this. Now i suspect i know why your doing this but just in case you are trying to learn instead of prove a theory i can take the time this weekend if you would like.

Abstract–Using X-ray microprobe analysis of samples from comet Wild 2 returned by the Stardust mission, we determine that the crystalline Fe-bearing silicate fraction in this Jupiter-family comet is greater than 0.5. Assuming this mixture is a composite of crystalline inner solar system material and amorphous cold molecular cloud material, we deduce that more than half of Wild 2 has been processed in the inner solar system. Several models exist that explain the presence of crystalline materials in comets. We explore some of these models in light of our results.

www.osti.gov...

Sorry im not too familiar with EU theory. Can someone tell me the main premise of this theory?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Sorry im not too familiar with EU theory. Can someone tell me the main premise of this theory?

I can't tell you to read the wiki for once, because it's been removed for not meeting Wikipedia standards as a topic, which should tell you something.

One problem is, it's NOT really a single theory. There are different proponents contributing to non-mainstream ideas and they differ from each other to some extent, but one idea is that the sun is powered by electricity instead of nuclear fusion, yet this electric current has never been measured. A critic of the idea, Bridgeman, calculated the electron density would need to be greater than the density of lead to supply enough current for the sun's measured output, so such an electric current shouldn't be hard to measure if it existed.

There are other claims about electricity's role in galaxy formation and a suggestion that these eliminate the need for "dark matter", etc. If you go through this thread there are plenty of links to read.

The topic of the OP documentary is that comets are powered by electricity too, more than just the solar wind interaction which mainstream has measured via gamma ray emissions, etc.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Well isnt the energy from the sun in the form of EM radiation 'semi' electric in nature?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Well isnt the energy from the sun in the form of EM radiation 'semi' electric in nature?

If you mean it has an EM field then yeah I guess. However even that is ustable twists turns unlike an electric current which tends to create stable EM fields.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Well isnt the energy from the sun in the form of EM radiation 'semi' electric in nature?

Of course. There is a real electric universe as I posted about here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The proponents of the popularized electric universe theory are usually not talking about the real electric universe, but instead refer to things with no evidence, like an electric powered sun, or false claims that comets have no water-ice as the OP video states.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The electrical properties suggested in the video go far above interaction with solar wind, and you're right that those claims have no evidence that I've seen to support them.

That's funny, because I haven't seen any evidence to support the standard model.

The standard model did not predict x-rays.

The standard model did not predict filamented braided tails.

The standard model does not predict outburst at distances too far from the Sun to be explained by heating.

The standard model relies on entirely hypothetical rates of photodissociation.

The standard model cannot account for outbursts of cyanide from comets.

The standard model cannot account for CMEs in relation to comets that pass close to the Sun.

The standard model did not predict comet surfaces to be devoid of ice.

The standard model did not predict the intensity of the Tempel1 impact, or the lack of any impact crater.

The standard theorists completely ignore the patches of whiteout in the sensor images taken of Tempel1.

The standard model did not predict "jets" on the dark side of comets.

The standard model did not predict comets would be entirely covered in carbon black (all comets have super-low albedo, not just one or two here and there).

The standard model did not predict that the dust returned from the stardust mission would have such varied composition, that should be impossible if the standard theory is correct.

In fact, I haven't seen the standard model predict anything correctly about the behavior of comets.

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The electrical properties suggested in the video go far above interaction with solar wind, and you're right that those claims have no evidence that I've seen to support them.

That's funny, because I haven't seen any evidence to support the standard model.

The standard model did not predict x-rays.

Of course it did they just weren't looking for it its well established photoionization produces x rays we see it in or own magnetosphere.

The standard model did not predict filamented braided tails.

What this makes little sense im assuming your trying to reference birkeland current no evidence of this occurring. please link thx

The standard model does not predict outburst at distances too far from the Sun to be explained by heating.

Again what comet and when we can discuss.

The standard model relies on entirely hypothetical rates of photodissociation.

Proof please everything ive seen appears in line.

The standard model cannot account for outbursts of cyanide from comets.

What sure it does assuming your talking about if you mean hydrogen cyanide comets are full of the stuff in fact this is the reason they suspect life on earth actually being seeded by comets.In fact most of the outer solar system is covered in it.

Hydrogen cyanide polymers--heterogeneous solids ranging in colour from yellow to orange to brown to black--could be major components of the dark matter observed on many bodies of the outer solar system including asteroids, moons, planets and, especially, comets.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The standard model cannot account for CMEs in relation to comets that pass close to the Sun.

No evidence this occurs except some internet videos but since CMEs happen all the time its no wonder people could make this conclusion when its shearly coincidence.My favorite is the one you see on the net in 2011 they only show view from 1 satellite there were 3 and its obvious it just looks like the comet caused it but was no where near impact site.

The standard model did not predict comet surfaces to be devoid of ice.

It wasnt there was ice so obviously false information, secondly ice wasnt expected to be there that was more of a surprise actually.

The standard model did not predict the intensity of the Tempel1 impact, or the lack of any impact crater.

ok please explain the reason they did it was to study the impact so i dont believe there was a preconceived notion.And it did leave an impact which caused outgassing from the collision so please explain what was expected?

The standard theorists completely ignore the patches of whiteout in the sensor images taken of Tempel1.

Ok what is this a conspiracy theory???

The standard model did not predict "jets" on the dark side of comets.

I suggest you look into Greenstein effect as described by Davis & Greenstein in 1951(yes i included the date on purpose), in which paramagnetic dissipation aligns the grain angular momentum with the interstellar magnetic field.

The standard model did not predict comets would be entirely covered in carbon black (all comets have super-low albedo, not just one or two here and there).

Ok if you think so asteroids where known to be covered with the stuff do you think there is a difference between the two? An asteroid is either a dormant comet or a dead one. My favorite is lazarus comets they come back from the dead just cool.

The standard model did not predict that the dust returned from the stardust mission would have such varied composition, that should be impossible if the standard theory is correct.

Im assuming your talking about crystalline silicates? I posted a paper in an earlier post suggest you read.I suggest try some scientific websites instead of the ones you seem to be getting your information from. these questions are not the mystery they used to be in the 90s.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Cool. Are there any theories as to why some material has an electric charge, and what an electrically charged material means, what fundamental differences are between them and non electrically charged fundamental quanta?

reply to post by ZeuZZ


You gave a good description of the problem with Thornhill and friends' theories claims. I'll have to check the other sources you reference; thanks for those.

The video is fairly compelling -- or at least sounds that way -- but your point about how they take anything supporting their theories as incontrovertible proof, and any apparent inconsistencies in the commonly held theories as proof that they're wrong becomes quite telling. What really made me start to question the EU claims is their explanation of how stars are powered. However, their explanation of the H2O in comet comas (sp?) seems reasonable given the lack of ice found upon close observation of comets.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Cool. Are there any theories as to why some material has an electric charge, and what an electrically charged material means, what fundamental differences are between them and non electrically charged fundamental quanta?

Try an advanced high-school physics text or a first year college one. There will be multiple chapters on such matters. You can find online text of this sort too.

Did not see anyone post this interview ..

Host C2C: George Noory

Guests: David Talbott, Wallace Thornhill

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.

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.

Oh reference to loss of video during impact i dont believe x rays were the problem though possible. I remember reading about they kept having to make course corrections they were actually pushed away from the comet due to outgassing slowing them down. My guess would be hi gain antenna was having problems being jostled around. Be like putting a camera in a tornado dont expect the best video.

reply to post by MrInquisitive


I just tried to look around a bit on line and have before, and am familiar with the very basic descriptions but im looking for a more physically expressive description of these aspects of reality. Do you think you can post a good link, or if you happen to know the answers to my questions, could you simply answer them ( I know its a complex topic, but im sure if you are knowledgeable about such a topic you could answer generally in a few sentences).

reply to post by ImaFungi

This looks promising: www.physicsclassroom.com...

One of the primary questions to be asked in this unit of The Physics Classroom is: How can an object be charged and what affect does that charge have upon other objects in its vicinity? The answer to this question begins with an understanding of the structure of matter...

From that to the kind of thing electric-universe theorists talk about is quite a long journey, though.