http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ mirrored file
   For complete access to all the files of this collection
        see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php
  ==========================================================


thunderbolts.info

Credit: NASA/JPL/Malin Space Science Systems

Comet Wild 2 is shown in close-up above. Beside it is a microscopic view
of an EDM (electrical discharge machined) surface. Note the flat-floored
depressions with steep scalloped walls and terracing. The small white
spots on the comet can then be reasonably identified as the active cathode
arcs that produce the cometary jets.


Sep 23, 2005
Comets: The Loose Thread

* Spacecraft have now visited four comets. What they found contradicts
what was expected and falsifies accepted comet theory. But that theory
is woven with every other astronomical theory into a cosmology that
defines the universe as we know it. The fall of comet theory will
inevitably bring us a new and different universe.*

Comets are giving accepted comet theory a hard time. Close-up images of
comet nuclei from spacecraft have contradicted about every expectation
of theory. (“Expectation” is a euphemism for “prediction”; a
disappointed expectation is practically the same thing as a failed
prediction, except with the former you don’t expect you’ll have to
discard the theory.) “If astronomy were a science,” as one astronomer
put it, theoreticians would admit that the theory had been falsified,
and they would start over with an eye to the evidence. Instead, they
hang on to the theory with ever more stubbornness and hope a little
tinkering and adjusting will bring the facts into line.

The facts are apt to be more stubborn than the theoreticians: Deep
Impact kicked up ten times more dust than expected and stimulated the
comet's activity a magnitude less than expected. The dust was not a
conglomeration of sizes as expected but was consistently powder-fine.
The nucleus of the comet was covered with sharply delineated features,
two of which were circular enough to be called impact craters. This was
not expected for a dirty snowball or a snowy dirtball or even a powdery
fluffball.

The craters, of course, weren’t actually called impact craters. They
must have been caused by subsurface explosions, because they had flat
floors and terraced walls, despite the myriad of other craters on rocky
planets and moons with flat floors and terraced walls that /are/ called
impact craters. All the other circular depressions with flat floors and
terraced walls weren’t craters because they had “unusual shapes”.

The hard times began with Comet Halley. Theory expected more or less
uniform sublimation of the surface as the nucleus rotated in the sun,
much as you would expect of a scoop of ice cream on a rotisserie. But
Halley had jets. Less than 15% of the surface was sublimating, and the
ejecta was shooting away in thin beams.

The theory was adjusted to introduce hot spots, chambers below the
surface in which pressure could build up and erupt through small holes
to produce the jets. It went unmentioned that the holes must have been
finely machined, like the nozzle of a rocket engine, in order to produce
the collimation of the jets: Just any rough hole would result in a wide
spray of gases.

Borrelly made the hard times harder. It was dry. And black.
Theoreticians tinkered with the dirty snowball theory until they got the
dirt to cover the outside and to hide the snow inside. Somehow they got
the dirt, which ordinarily is an insulator, to conduct heat
preferentially into the rocket chambers to keep the jets going.

Wild 2 defied them. Its jets were not just around the sub-solar point,
where the Sun’s heat would be greatest. This comet sported jets on the
night side. The rocket chambers now had to store heat for half a “comet
day”. And something was needed to keep the jets coherent over great
distances and to gather their emissions into a stream of clumps:
Clusters of particles repeatedly struck the spacecraft.

Comet theorists announced that comets were mysteries and that the
theorists knew nothing, that they had to “think differently”. Then they
proposed adjustments to the accepted theory that would be acceptable to
the accepted way of thinking.

Different theories abound—but outside the walls of astronomical
acceptability. For an astronomer to recognize their existence would be
to jeopardize his position and salary. But the characteristics of comets
that are so difficult to explain with snowballs are fairly easy to
explain with electricity.

Electrical theories
<http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=uf4ty065> date back to the
1800s, before “electricity” became taboo in astronomy. They were
well-founded on observations and on the proven laws of electromagnetism.
In the last few decades, they have been refined to the point where they
expected <http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=gkt34rnp> the
findings that were so hard on the fashionable theory:

Comets are electrical discharges in the thin plasma that permeates the
solar system. Because they spend most of their time far from the Sun,
their rocky nuclei are in equilibrium with the voltage at that distance.
But as they accelerate in toward the Sun, their voltage is increasingly
out of equilibrium with the voltage and increasing density of the solar
plasma. A plasma sheath forms around them—the coma and tail. And
filamentary currents—jets—between the sheath and the nucleus erode,
particle by powdery particle, the circular depressions with terraced
walls that are typical of electrical discharge machining. As the
discharge channels move across the surface of the comet, they burn it black.

If it were only a matter of explaining with plasma discharges the jets
and the blackened rocky surfaces and the powder-fine dust and the
terraced depressions, there might not be so much blinkered stubbornness.
But modern astronomical theories have been worked into an interlocking
web of explanation. Each theory supports, and is in turn supported by,
nearly every other theory. If one theory frays, if one loose thread is
pulled, the entire fabric will unravel.

An electrified comet requires an electrified Sun
<http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm>. The Sun is the focus of the
electric field that causes the comet to discharge. For the Sun to
maintain its electric field, it (and all stars) must be the focus of
another electric discharge within an electrified galaxy
<050415milkyway.htm>. And electrified galaxies, with their magnetic
fields and x-ray emissions and ejections of quasars, must be connected
in larger circuits <050824seeing-circuits.htm> that render meaningless
such fancies of cosmology as the Big Bang theory.

If you pull one electrified comet out of the well-knit structure of
accepted theories, the entire garment will become unacceptable. Either
the universe is an agglomeration of isolated, gravitating,
non-electrical bodies, or else it is a network of bodies connected by
and interacting through electrical circuits. Either the universe is a
gravity universe or it is an Electric Universe.

And comets are the loose thread.

	 

*
  EXECUTIVE EDITORS:* David Talbott, Wallace Thornhill*
MANAGING EDITOR:* Mel Acheson
*  CONTRIBUTING EDITORS:* Michael Armstrong, Dwardu Cardona, Ev Cochrane,
C.J. Ransom, Don Scott, Rens van der Sluijs, Ian Tresman
*  WEBMASTER:* Michael Armstrong

Copyright 2005: thunderbolts.info