Electric Universe Theory

Michael B-C

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Space News Anniversary: Comet Missions | Space News

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_ZX6LReaMw&feature=youtu.be


Slam dunk video summary from Thunderbolts reviewing the past five or so years research into the electrical nature of comets. One of the great cases of cognitive dissonance and deliberate avoidances of reality by the mainstream science community.

0:38-2:45

For many years previous members of the electric universe community have become increasingly aware of the remarkable predictive successes of electric universe theory versus those of the standard cosmology. But it's also apparent that a disturbing disconnect exists between science discovery and the direction of the theoretical sciences. Many of the most significant space discoveries, completely unexpected in standard reasoning, seem to rarely, if ever, force any meaningful reassessment of foundational theory. Other discoveries seem to have been forgotten entirely disappearing down a memory hole and never mentioned in science literature again.

Therefore, we shall now begin a comprehensive summary of the amazing content we have covered in the last 5 years and, as you will see, at every scale throughout the universe. The ability of the Electric Universe theory to both predict and explain discovery has never been more evident.

In recent years there have been unprecedented opportunities to learn about the nature and origins of one of the most mysterious objects in space, the comet.

The Electric Universe has always offered an interpretation of comets that radically differs from standard theory. Comets are not dirty snowballs, the primordial icy leftovers from the solar system's formation four-and-a-half billion years ago. Comets, as well as asteroids and meteoroids, were born far more recently formed by electrical discharges from the surfaces of planets and moons.

Because comets are not icy bodies they do not slowly sublimate due to solar heating. Comet activity, including the production of comet jets and the cometary coma, is electrical activity. The detection of signatures of water molecules in cometary coma is due to electrochemical reactions at the comet, as we'll explain further, later in this episode.

In fact the findings of increasingly ambitious comet missions have overwhelmingly confirmed the predictions of the electrical model. Combined, the list of surprises amount to the clear falsification of standard comet theory.

2:46-5:51

One of the many game-changing surprises came as far back as 1996 when the Ulysses spacecraft encountered the ion tail of Hyakutake. At the time the spacecraft was more than 360 million miles from the comet or roughly four times the distance of the Earth from the Sun. The belief in electrically neutral objects in space has prevented mainstream scientists from confronting the obvious conclusion of this discovery. In order to remain intact over such a stupendous distance rather than dispersing like a gas in a vacuum, the comet tail must carry an electrical current to confine the material and prevent its dispersal.

Electric currents in space, travelling through the conductive medium of plasma, take the form of twisted filaments, known as Birkeland currents, which look a bit like braided copper wire. In fact, in decades subsequent to Ulysses' counter with Hyakutake the Birkeland currents and comet tails have been imaged in ever finer detail clearly confirming their electrical nature.

The emission of x-rays from Hyakutake also shocked comet investigators. As dr. Michael J Mumma wrote about the discovery,

"Astronomers... decided to look at Hyakutake and they were shocked by what they saw. ROSAT images revealed a crescent-shaped region of x-ray emission around the comet 1,000 times more intense than anyone had predicted... We had no clear expectation that comets would shine in X-rays."

Comet scientists responded with the ad-hoc notion that the Sun was entirely responsible for the x-rays, suggesting that the solar wind scavenges electrons from a cometary atmosphere resulting in a recombination sufficient to generate the observed x-rays.

The surprises in comet science continued and intensified. In 2001, the NASA spacecraft Deep Space 1 captured the finest image to that time of any comet nucleus. What scientists saw bore no resemblance to the dirty snowball of Standard Theory. The leader of the mission's imaging team said at the time,

"It's mind-boggling and stupendous. These pictures have told us that comet nuclei are far more complex than we had ever imagined. They have rugged terrain, smooth rolling plains, deep fractures and very, very dark material."

Scientists were also stunned when they found that the flow of ions around the comet's nucleus was

"not centered on the comet's nucleus as scientists expected before the Borelli flyby."

But none of these findings forced any real reassessment about the nature of comets prior to NASA's Stardust mission in 2004. In fact a microchip, riding on the Stardust spacecraft, was inscribed with the following pronouncement from Fred Whipple, the father of the dirty snowball comets model,

"Today we know that comets are black and cold, consisting of ices and dust that coalesced from an interstellar cloud as it collapsed to form the solar system."

So it's no wonder that scientists who subscribe to this concept were completely baffled by the Stardust finding at comet Wild2.

5:52-8:38

The surprises began with the Comet's visual appearance which was desiccated, complex and rough, rather than icy and smooth. A major shock was the presence of so-called impact craters on the comet nucleus. As reported by New Scientist in 2004,

"That is completely unexpected because comets are believed to be loose aggregations of dust and ice that would shatter on impact... if the pits are craters, the surface of the comet nucleus must be much stronger than experts thought."

NASA's Ray Newburn said of the discovery,

"I don't think any of us ever really considered the possibility of impact craters... It may be a well-cemented rubble pile, but it's definitely not a loose powdery surface."

When scientists on Earth tested the Wild2 dust samples, what they found was so unexpected they initially thought that the early sample may have been contaminated by the spacecraft. Rather than the expected ancient interstellar grain, the Wild2 dust grains were much larger than expected and contained minerals such as anorthite and diopside which required temperatures of thousands of degrees. NASA curator Michael Zolensky said of the discovery,

"That's a big surprise. People thought comets would just be cold stuff that formed out... where things are very cold... It was kind of a shock to not just find one but several of these, which implies they are pretty common in the comet.”

Unfortunately, neither these nor the many previous astonishing comet discoveries seemed to force any re-evaluation of comet theory prior to the Deep Impact mission to comet Tempel 1 in 2005. Scientists still assumed that comets were dirty snowballs that accreted four and a half billion years ago. But the chief principals of the Thunderbolts project felt confident that the NASA mission would only provide support for the electric comet model.

Prior to the July 4 2005 impact date for the Tempel 1 probe, Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott issued a series of predictions for the event which were published on the Thunderbolts.info website. Because of the comet's low eccentricity orbit, they wrote that electrical interactions with the approaching probe,

"May be slight, but they should be measurable if NASA will look for them... The most obvious would be a flash shortly before impact."

And they predicted that temperatures associated with the event would be,

"much higher than expected from impact heating."

They also predicted,

"More energy will be released than expected because of the electrical contributions of the comet."

And they predicted that the impact crater, left by the NASA probe, would be smaller than expected because the comet is rock, more similar to an asteroid than a loose conglomeration of ice and dust.

8:39-12:37

These predictions, as well as several others on the comet's composition and surface terrain, received stunning confirmation. Moments before the 800-pound copper projectile struck the comet nucleus, NASA scientists were amazed by the bright electrical flash shortly followed by an explosion much larger than they anticipated when the impactor contacted the surface. As NASA investigator Peter Schultz said at the time,

"What you see is something really surprising. First, there is a small flash, then there's a delay, then there's a big flash and the whole thing breaks loose."

Nor did the projectile leave nearly the dramatic impact crater scientists had predicted. Just one piece of evidence that the comet nucleus was much harder than NASA had expected. As reported by Universe Today,

“Swift scientists have seen a quick and dramatic rise in ultra violet light, evidence that the Deep Impact probe struck a hard surface, as opposed to a softer, snowy surface."

In 2011, when the Tempel 1 nucleus was reimaged, scientists had to explain why the crater left by the projectile was much smaller than predicted.

The Deep Impact team then made the extraordinary claim that ejecta exploding off of the comet somehow fell back down and refilled the crater in the near zero-gravity environment of the comet. As reported by space.com at the time,

"Tempel 1's man-made crater partially healed itself as the ejecta settled and refilled part of the depression."

Like every other comet nucleus image to date Tempel 1 appeared desiccated and rocky nor did the projectile produce the expected release of theoretical subsurface water on the comet. As noted by astronomer Charles Qi in 2005,

"The material that came out was a surprise to scientists: a cloud of fine powdery material emerged, not the water, ice and dirt that were expected."

Nor did close-up images of the nucleus reveal the theoretical vents from which comet jets are supposed to emanate. As reported in the journal Icarus in 2007 by P C Thomas et all,

"It has proven difficult to identify specific landforms that can be identified as the 'vents' discussed for many decades in classical comet literature, as it is difficult to locate them on Borrelly and Wild2."

Nevertheless, when we fast-forward to 2014, scientists with the European Space Agency's Rosetta mission to comet 67P appeared to offer no meaningful revisions of comet theory, even in the face of all previous surprises.

The mission to land a probe on a comet nucleus was based on the notion of comets as icy snowy accretions, left over from the solar system's formation. But the major surprises for investigators began long before the Rosetta spacecraft reached the comet.

One early puzzling detail was the comet's double-lobed shape, a mystery also found on several other imaged nuclei. Eventually, Rosetta scientists settled on the hypothesis that the comet's strange form resulted from two comets improbably colliding in a vast region of space and somehow sticking together rather than disintegrating. But as we noted in many Space News episodes, the double lobe form is important from an electrical perspective. As electrical engineers have always known, peanut-shaped spherules are common products of electrical discharges as seen in this example by physicist CJ Ransom, compared side-by-side with comet 67p.

As the probe drew closer, the comet's complex desiccated rubble-strewn terrain which was, in the words of one Rosetta investigator, "dry like hell", drew increasing expressions of amazement from scientists around the world. The amazement was understandable, given the complete refutation of the standard predictions for the comet's form.

12:38-15:30

Consider this side-by-side comparison of images revealing the failure of comet theory over the years.

On the left is an artist's rendition of the expected appearance of comet Halley before the mission to Halley in 1986. We see a smooth snowy surface, exactly what one expects if comets are icy accretions whose dramatic displays result from sublimation of ices. In the middle we see a slightly modified artistic rendition, forged leading up to the Rosetta mission, a surface that is still covered with snow and ice but modified to reflect the completely unexpected images of dry, rocky and complex comet nuclei. On the right we see the actual nucleus of Comet 67p as imaged by the Rosetta mission.

It wasn't just the drynesss of 67P's terrain that startled mission scientists. Closer and closer images revealed greater mysteries as the topography of the nucleus revealed numerous planetary features, an explicit prediction of the Electric Universe; including mesas, rubble and large boulders, cliffs, sharp edges, wind streaked rocks and incredibly, even sand dunes. There was also stratification of material and evidence for complex geological layering.

If comets were electrically excavated from planets and moons, as proposed by the chief principals of the Thunderbolts project, all of the observed features are to be expected. Consider again this side-by-side comparison of a region of the 67p nucleus and the Sawtooth Mountains on earth.

The electric comet model also predicts that comet activity is generally driven by the comet experiencing voltage spikes when it moves from the relatively negatively charged outer regions of the solar system towards the Sun's more positively charged domain. This perspective predicts and explains many of the Rosetta findings including the "surprising discovery of fast-moving electrons and electric fields very close to the comet nucleus" as well as the discovery of negatively charged fluffy dust grains lofted from the nucleus.
Electrical discharge activity on the comet also explains the formation of sand dunes and other unexpectedly dynamic changes on the comet's surface.

As we explained in several Space News episodes, the initial observation of sand dunes was met with complete disbelief by scientists around the world. As blogger Emily Lakdawalla wrote,

“Other features are odd because they look familiar and yet have no right being on a comet. I've called them 'rhythmic ridges'... but to pretty much everyone who looks at them, they look like sand dunes. Which are just plain impossible on a body that has neither atmosphere nor much of any gravity."

15:30-18:35

In multiple Space News episodes, we presented experimental footage, as shown here by researcher Billy Yelverton, showing that sand dunes are easily created by electric fields which produce ionic winds and organize dust material. In fact, the scientific mainstream has finally begun recognizing the electrical cause of dust raising events on comets and other solar system bodies.

In a 2016 NASA funded study the researchers suggest an electrostatic mechanism for dust transport on many bodies including the moon asteroids and comets. A Phys.org report on the study stated that,

"Electrostatic processes may be responsible for the Rosetta detection of fluffy dust particles released from the surface of comet 67P."

But when considering the nature and origins of comets, one pathway that comet investigators must be willing to explore is the explanation of comet water production by electrochemical means.

In recent years, Dr. Franklin Anariba, a specialist in electrochemistry at Singapore University of Technology and Design, has been presenting his thesis at annual Thunderbolts conferences. In a five-part Space News presentation in 2015, Dr. Anariba proposed that a process of electron stripping releases O₂, OH and other chemical species into the cometary coma. The discovery of an electron density in the vicinity of the 67P nucleus is important. It can mean that the chemical O₂ can absorb a negative charge through charge exchange which is then followed by a process called protonation via solar wind at the comet. Water formation can then be explained via a series of pathways as Dr. Anariba has outlined.

This explanation, never pursued by comet investigators in the scientific mainstream, could eliminate the need for any imaginary reservoir of subsurface comet water ice and it explains many comet mysteries, including the amazing desiccation of comet nuclei and the overabundance of so-called water production found in many cometary comas. It was a puzzle to 67P investigators why the comet was already producing an abundance of water and surprisingly rich molecules, even while hundreds of millions of kilometers from the Sun. But recent scientific papers may be moving the investigations in the right direction.

A major shock for scientists on Earth was the detection of abundant molecular oxygen and so-called outgassing from the 67P nucleus. If comets are really leftovers from the solar system's formation, scientists had long excluded any possibility of molecular oxygen being trapped in the so called primordial bodies. As reported in India's national magazine Frontline,

"The detection of O₂ was unexpected... all the primordial oxygen molecules, which would have been there in a comet's evolution around 4.6 billion years ago, should have disappeared by now... the Rosetta's discovery of O₂ in 67P/C-G is an astrophysical enigma."

18:35-19:59

In a paper published in the journal Nature Communications, scientists Yao and Giapis essentially proposed that water molecules coming off the comet become electrically charged. Then the solar wind accelerates the charged molecules back to the comet's surface. There they pick up an oxygen atom from the surface from materials such as sand, forming the detected O₂. As investigator Giapis stated,

"We had no idea when we built our laboratory setups that they would end up applying to the astrophysics of comets. This original chemistry mechanism is based on the seldom-considered class of Eley-Rideal reactions, which occur when fast-moving molecules, water in this case, collide with surfaces and extract atoms residing there, forming new molecules. All necessary conditions for such reactions exist on comet 67P."

However, even with the dirty snowball theory now, in the words of Nicholas Thomas "blown out of the water", scientists continue to assume that comets are primordial icy bodies that formed over four-and-a-half billion years ago.

Following this brief summary of comet missions, in our next episode we will explore many landmark comet discoveries all of which seem to affirm the electrical nature and origins of comets. For continuous updates on Space News from the Electric Universe, stay tuned to Thunderbolts.info
 

Michael B-C

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Here's the transcript of the second vidoe in the 5 part series.

Space News Anniversary: Comet Missions | Space News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDa0Ax4TZlU


0:16-3:27

In our previous episode we celebrated the 5 year anniversary of the debut of Space News from the Electric Universe with a comprehensive overview of the historic space missions to comets. This overview provides a compelling demonstration of the respective successes and failures of the theoretical predictions of Standard Comet Theory versus those of the Electric Universe. None of the mission findings support the standard view of comets as electrically inert dirty snowballs that slowly sublimate as they move toward the Sun. All of the findings support the electrical view of comets as dry rocky bodies that become electrically active in response to their changing plasma environments.

The startling truth today is that institutional science no longer has a coherent theory of comets in the face of insurmountable falsifying evidence. Nevertheless, we are still told that comets are conglomerates of ice and dust that formed four and a half billion years ago, the leftovers of a solar system formed into swirling disk of gas and dust. However, many decades before the technically remarkable missions to comets, the basis already existed for a radically different view of comets.

In fact, perhaps unbeknownst to many scientists and laypersons, electrical theories of comets have been proposed by dozens of researchers dating back centuries. As author and historian, Hannes Taeger, has demonstrated in his remarkable historical research, for at least the last two-and-a-half centuries various astronomers, physicists and natural philosophers have hypothesized that cometary phenomena are basically electrical.

An electric comet means that the assumption of charge neutrality, applied to space objects at all scales, cannot be correct. But the case for electrical comet activity has only grown stronger with ever finer technological data.

Comets have been a source of mystery for centuries and there's no debate that mankind viewed comets with awe and terror for millennia. In modern times, the list of observed cometary phenomena that defy all standard explanation is tremendously daunting. Let us begin our systematic analysis of the mysteries comparing the standard predictions and explanations versus those of the Electric Universe.

Comets Breaking Apart In the 20th century

With the dawn of the Space Age came unprecedented opportunities to observe increasingly remote comets as they move toward our region of the solar system. An imposing enigma quickly emerged. Astronomers began observing comets that broke apart or disintegrated at amazingly vast distances from the Sun for no readily apparent reason.

As far back as 1957 comet Wirtanen split while inside the orbit of Saturn, well over 800 million miles from the Sun, and a similar thing happened to comet Biela Lambert. In 1976 comet West never approached closer than 30 million kilometers from the Sun so when the disruption occurred and the comet split into four fragments, astronomers were shocked.

3:28-6:30

More recently, the explosive breakup of comet Linear in the summer of 2000 provoked even greater amazement. The event occurred well over 100 million kilometres from the Sun. In fact, Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, authors of the book Comet, reported that 80% of comets that split do so when they are far from the Sun.

In stark contrast, scientists must explain the question of why some comets pass extremely close to the Sun and yet do not disintegrate - obviously unexpected of comets are sublimating ice balls. An extreme example of this puzzle came in 2011 when the perihelion of the Lovejoy comet c 2011 w3 brought it to within 140,000 kilometers of the sun's surface. As seen in this video, the comet survived intact after more than one hour in the Sun's corona.

In a paper in the 1960s, astronomer Dr. Brian G Marsden highlighted the unsolved mystery of comet fragmentation. He noted not only the problem of the fragmenting comet's distance from the Sun but also the relative velocity of their separation, far greater than could be due to solar heating. He wrote,

"Although most of the comets observed to split have done so for no obvious reason, one really does require an explanation when the velocity of separation is some 20% of the velocity of the comet itself! A collision with some asteroidal object at 200 A.U. from the Sun, and 100 A.U. above the ecliptic plane, even though it would only have to happen once, is scarcely worthy of serious consideration."

But more than half a century after the publication of Marsden's paper, astronomers certainly do still entertain extraordinarily improbable cometary collisions. Such is the case with the comet 67P whose double-lobed form astronomers have attributed to two comets colliding, than sticking together for some reason. The aforementioned Sagan and Druyan may have found a clue to the unresolved problem of comet splitting, though without recognizing its significance. They wrote,

"Splitting and jetting may be connected... At the moment comet West split, the individual fragments brightened noticeably, and propelled large quantities of dust into space in the first of some dozen bursts."

The same was also true for the breakup of comet Linear in 2000. But why would high velocity jets and explosions of dust, travelling at supersonic speeds, precede the fragmentation of a comet nucleus? In the electrical model of comets, the answer is obvious: comets have never been successfully explained in simple mechanical terms because they are electrified bodies orbiting within the plasma environment of the Sun. Like any good conductor, the electric field within the plasma is very low. But unlike good metal conductors, the solar plasma is of extremely low density and therefore its current- carrying ability is limited.

6:30-9:33

Comets must adjust to the changing plasma potential as they move radially toward or away from the Sun. On the long slow journey through the outer reaches of the solar system the adjustment is not so difficult but it does often involve visible electrical discharge effects as a comet races through the inner solar system. The comet nucleus behaves like a capacitor and if a discharge occurs within the capacitor it can explode violently. This does explain why outbursts that precede comet fragmentation are far more energetic than could possibly be explained by sublimating ices.

The Electric Universe interpretation can also explain the sudden and unexpected brightening of comets at extraordinary distances from the Sun. In October of 2007, the comet Holmes 17P stunned astronomers around the world when it suddenly brightened by a factor of a million, in less than 24 hours, and grew from a small 17th magnitude comet to a magnitude of 2.5, so large (it) was easily visible to the naked eye on Earth. Holmes's coma continued expanding until by mid November of 2007. It had become the largest object in the solar system visibly larger than the Sun. The coma's diameter had grown from 28,000 kilometers to 7 million kilometers. At the time of Holmes's extraordinary display, the comet was actually moving away from the Sun and therefore cooling.

Among the common sense questions posed by the enigma how does such a gravitationally minuscule body hold in place a uniform spherical coma 7 million kilometers in diameter? If Holmes's flarup was a result of a collapse or explosion, as some scientists speculated, why was the ejected material not asymmetrical as one would anticipate from an explosion? Why did the claimed explosion not produce a variety of fragmentary sizes instead of the extremely fine dust that was actually observed? What explosive event could have caused the comet to luminate for months rather than the seconds, typical of an explosion's luminescence? Why did the comet's gaseous dusty spherical cloud persist for months rather than dispersing quickly away from the comet?

Unfortunately, the science media and the astronomical community had barely anything to say about Comet Holmes. This seems nearly unbelievable considering the enormous interest the comet generated around the world. As Thunderbolts contributor Scott Wall explained at his 2008 article 'Comet Holmes - a Media Non-event'

"You might think that this remarkable behaviour would be big news, particularly among astronomers. A prominent Astronomy magazine recently published their top 10 news stories of 2007. Surprisingly, this spectacular comet was not named as the top story. It didn't even finish in the top ten."

In fact, the entire magazine completely ignored the comet. There was not even an editorial comment. Additionally, there was little of any newspaper or TV coverage...

9:34-12:52

Holmes's spectacular brightening was reminiscent of a "surprising display several years earlier from the comet Hale-Bopp". As seen in the photo on your screen, Hale Bopp was too far from the Sun for a "dirty snowball" to melt but it already displayed seven jets. Four years after Hale Bopp left the inner solar system, it was still active. It displayed a coma, a fan-shaped dust tail and an ion tail. Even though it was farther from the Sun than Jupiter, Saturn or even Uranus, the comet's tail was shrinking but it was still about five times longer than the distance between the Earth and the Moon. At such a distance, if solar heating could melt ice then one would expect that the icy moons of Saturn and Jupiter would be as dry as our own moon. Again, the electric comet theory states that dramatic cometary displays arise from the electrical interaction between the comet and the solar discharge plasma.

In fact, considerable evidence exists that the electrical relationship between comets and the Sun is not one cited. Dating back decades, astronomers have noted numerous so-called coincidental incidents of CMEs corresponding with an approaching comet. The consensus theory remains that no connection between the two events can exist because of comets' insignificant size compared to the Sun. However, many recent findings lend credence to the electric interpretation. Consider scientists' baffling discovery in 2007 that the Comet McNaught was somehow able to modulate the solar wind. NASA's Ulysses spacecraft encountered the comet when it was passing close to the planet Mars. Scientists detected that the comet's tail had slowed the solar wind to half its normal speed. Space science professor dr. Michael Combi said to the discovery,

"This was very surprising to me. Way past the orbit of Mars, the solar wind felt the disturbance of this little comet. It will be a serious challenge for us theoreticians and computer modelers to figure out the physics."

But perhaps the greatest confirmation that comets are electrically charged bodies is the spectacular displays completely unexpected by astronomers of comets that have closely approached planets in modern times. The most dramatic such display came in 1994 as the comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 approached the gas giant Jupiter. Prior to the encounter, astronomers predicted that the comet's influence on Jupiter would likely be as trivial as pebbles falling into an ocean. But as we have repeatedly outlined in this series, the effects were both more dramatic and generally inexplicable in standard reasoning. The anomalies included unusual and energetic auroral activity, immediately after the "impact" of the largest Shoemaker-Levy 9 fragment as well as the disruption and amazing brightening of radiation belts and unexpected x-ray emissions. As Michael Combi of JPL said in an analysis of the events,

"Never in 23 years of Jupiter observations have we seen such a rapid and intense increase in radio emission. Extra electrons were supplied by a source which is a mystery".

Visit the link in the description box of this video for Wal Thornhill's in-depth analysis of the Shoemaker-Levy 9 puzzle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8E0tVpI7mE


12:53-14:09

More recently, comet Siding Spring presented a similar shock to astronomers in its close encounter with the planet Mars. NASA's MAVEN spacecraft measured the effects of the encounter on the Martian atmosphere. According to a NASA report,

"Debris from the comet added a contemporary and very strong layer of ions to the ionosphere, the electrically charged layer high above Mars."

MAVEN team member Jared Espley said of the comet's astonishing influence,

"We think the encounter blew away part of Mars's upper atmosphere, much like a strong solar storm would... The main action took place during the comet's closest approach, but the planet's magnetosphere began to feel some effects as soon as it entered the outer edge of the comet's coma".

This brief summary offers only a glimpse of the still growing list of "surprising comet discoveries" but is it a coincidence that the electric comet theory predicts and explains all of the so-called mysteries? As we will see in our next episode, commemorating the 5 year anniversary of this series, comets are just one of countless phenomena that only affirm the electrical nature of the universe.
 

Breton

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Thanks for the transcripts Michael BC!
I found them useful. It has been a few years since I examined the theory and had forgotten some things and these were a handy update. Thunderbolts project has done some interesting work.
 

Michael B-C

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Glad you found them of use Breton. As these are collections of many years of data on key principles of the theory I think the transcripts have a use beyond merely watching the video.

They've also started a review of the top ten reasons why the Universe is electric. Below is the transcript of the first video; again I think its a very useful and informative overview source. I'll try and keep pace with the releases and add them as they come in.


https://youtu.be/0ZnfNuXiExQ (Apologies as I still cant work out how to embed Youtube videos on forum pages... even using the normal embed tools! :huh:


Top 10 Reasons the Universe is Electric: #1 Cosmic Magnetic Fields | Space News


0:13-3:48

For the last five years on this series we have presented a vast library of evidence for the role of electromagnetism throughout the cosmos though institutional science still insists that gravity is king. Gravity centric cosmology has faced an ever-growing crisis in light of countless baffling discoveries with no explanation for the origins of cosmic magnetic fields. Cosmologists have little left but the resort to random collisions, explosions and gravitational collapse; but if gravity is not king what is the best evidence for the dominant role of electromagnetism in the Astrophysical phenomena?

In commemoration of the five-year anniversary of this series we begin our summation of arguably the top 10 points of evidence which most clearly point to an electric universe.

Cosmic magnetic fields

It's a fact known to every high school physics student that electric currents produce magnetic fields but this law of physics is almost nowhere evident in the standard Astrophysical literature. In fact with ever finer technological data, the influence of pervasive powerful magnetic fields at all scales throughout the cosmos has been one of the great surprises of the Space Age. Although astronomers have had no choice but to acknowledge the existence of magnetic fields in space, it's important to keep an historical context and remember the predictions of the standard gravity centric cosmology.

Consider the following excerpt from the early online NASA feature ‘Dr. Magneto's questions and answers’ archived in the official NASA website. On the question ‘do magnetic fields exist throughout space’ the answer reads as follows:

‘On the cosmological scale there is no data to suggest that magnetic fields are present. They certainly are not important in the dynamics of the universe for any reasonable range of field strengths consistent with observational constraints.’

But fast-forward to 2011 and the undeniable conundrum is acknowledged in the Universe Today article it states

‘The mention of cosmic scale magnetic fields is still likely to be met with an uncomfortable silence in some astronomical circles and after a bit of foot shuffling and throat clearing the discussion will be moved on to safer topics. But look they're out there; they probably do play a role in galaxy evolution if not galaxy formation and are certainly a feature of the interstellar medium and the intergalactic medium.’

But what causes these magnetic fields which astronomers and astrophysicists had long believed to be quote ‘not important’?

To answer this question let us consider some of the scientific discoveries which clearly affirm the electrical interpretation of cosmic scale magnetic fields. A great shock for scientists came in 2008 with the detection of an astonishingly powerful magnetic field in a so-called young galaxy. A fizz dot-org report on the discovery reads:

“Astronomers have made the first direct measurement of the magnetic field in a young distant galaxy and the result is a big surprise. Looking at a faraway proto galaxy seen as it was 6.5 billion years ago, the scientists measured a magnetic field at least 10 times stronger than that of our own Milky Way. They had expected just the opposite.”

And of course ever find her data across the entire electromagnetic spectrum only deepens the so-called mysteries.

3:49-7:27

In 2014 a comprehensive study was published on the so called supermassive black holes that are believed to exist at the Centers of galaxies. Scientists made the unexpected discovery that powerful magnetic fields play a significant role in the dynamics of the systems. A phys.org report on the study states:

“The magnetic field strength was confirmed by evidence from jets of gas that shoot away from supermassive black holes. Formed by magnetic fields, these Jets produce a radio emission. The new results mean theorists must re-evaluate their understanding of black hole behaviour”.

A contributor to the research stated:

“The magnetic fields are strong enough to dramatically alter how gas falls into black holes and how gas produces outflows that we do observe, much stronger than what has usually been assumed… we need to go back and look at our models once again”.

However as we will explain as we continue with this list, the standard assumptions about the sources of cosmic Jets are also severely challenged by science discovery. The real problem astronomers and astrophysicists face is succinctly summarized in a scholarpedia page on the origins of galactic magnetic fields. It states:

“The origin of the first magnetic fields of the universe is still a mystery. It calls for a mechanism to sustain and organize the magnetic field at a smaller scale in our own celestial neighbourhood”.

Scientists call on mysterious internal dynamos to explain the magnetic fields of planets and in the Sun. Dynamos are also now proposed inside of galaxies to explain the Galactic magnetic fields. But plasma cosmologists have shown - theoretically and experimentally - that the magnetic fields in galaxies are due to electric currents flowing into the centres along the spiral arms of the galaxies. It's proposed that when the current reaches the centre of the galaxy, it's twisted into an object called a plasmoid where all of the electromagnetic energy is stored until the plasmoid becomes unstable and ejects matter and jets along the galaxy axis as observed in deep space. Many of these concepts were published in understandable terms in the book The Big Bang Never Happened.

In plasma physics the plasmoid is the most concentrated form of electromagnetic energy known. As proven experimentally, a plasmoid can store the energy of a roomful of capacitors in its tiny doughnut shaped form only a few millimeters across. To contain that energy the plasmoid has an intense magnetic field self generated by electric currents twisting themselves together.

In our own solar system the electric universe predicts and explains many of the ongoing surprises for scientists investigating planetary magnetic fields. In the last year, scientists reporting the findings of two major NASA mission to the gas giants Jupiter and Saturn respectively have shattered all assumptions about the powerful magnetic fields and those planets highly electrified environments. The predictions of the theory that an internal dynamo deep inside of Jupiter produces the planet's magnetic field have been falsified by NASA's Juno mission. Instead the magnetic field is both much more powerful and quote ‘irregular’ than scientists had ever imagined. If such an invisible dynamo does exist then as juno scientist admit it would have to be much closer to the planet's surface then theory can explain. As judo principal investigator Scott Bolton stated:

“I didn't expect all the theories to be wrong but there's motion going on in the planet we did not anticipate.”

7:28-10:02

Saturn's magnetic field has proved equally perplexing to scientists on the Cassini mission. A major shock was the discovery that the planet's magnetic field appears to have no discernible tilt. As reported by Imperial College London:

“Based on data collected by Cassini's magnetometer instrument, Saturn's magnetic field appears to be surprisingly well aligned with a planet's rotation axis. Previously mission scientists thought that 0.06 degrees would be the lower limit of tilt that could generate the observed magnetic field. However the results show the tilt may be much less than this”.

Scientists currently think that planetary magnetic fields require some degree of tilt in order to sustain currents flowing through the liquid metal deep inside the planets. With no tilt the currents would eventually subside in the field would disappear. The leader of Cassini's magnetometer Professor Michelle Dougherty said:

“With the discovery the tilt seems to be much smaller than we had previously estimated and quite challenging to explain”.

So, if like Jupiter, Saturn's magnetic field is not generated by an internal dynamo what causes and maintains the magnetic fields? In the electric universe both gas giants are electrically charged bodies that are part of the larger electrical circuits connecting them to the Sun. In fact in 2016 scientists reported their first observation of so-called magnetic ropes traversing the vast distance between the Sun and Saturn and connecting the two bodies. The lead author of a paper in the Geophysical Research Letters says of the finding:

“Contrary to previous ideas about Saturn's magnetosphere being unlike its terrestrial counterpart, these findings reveal that Saturn at times behaves and interacts with the Sun in much the same way as Earth”.

But how can the fluid dynamics the NASA envisions explained quote ‘rope-like structures the twist and change dynamically’ and extend the nearly 900 million miles from the Sun to Saturn. The phrase ‘magnetic ropes’ is used to describe twisted filamentary pathways traversed by charged particles. But to electrical engineers such terminology reveals the inappropriateness of concepts that came to dominate astronomy and astrophysics in the 20th century. As Professor Donald Scott, author of The Electric Sky, states:

“Ropes of course have beginnings and ends magnetic fields do not… (T)his use of language from NASA fails to explain anything and is conceptually wrong as well as misleading”.

10:03-12:08

The quote ropes to which the investigators refer are commonly described in plasma science as electrical Berkland currents. The Rope like structure is not merely a curiosity, it's the structure taken by current flow due to the long-range attraction and short-range repulsion between current filaments. The quote ‘twisted magnetic fields’ are simply the signature of the electric current flow. In plasma cosmology, these entwined plasma filaments act as transmission lines carrying quote ‘field aligned currents’ across interplanetary in interstellar space. In recent years professor Donald Scott has published his own mathematical modelling of the structure of a Berkland current which can be visually identified as counter rotating cylinders. Critically this counter rotation is clearly seen at the north poles of both Saturn and Jupiter.

In our next episode the question of the true source of cosmic magnetic fields will be further explored as we investigate the pervasiveness of filamentary structures throughout the universe, the second of our ten reasons why the universe is electric.
 

Voyageur

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Was looking at this, particularly as referenced to the Younger Dryas, and looked at here by Stephen Smith (Thunderbolts site). Here he looks at Sudbury (Big Nickel) and some of the Canadian Lake systems (features) along with zones in the US in terms of electrical theory. Sudbury brings to mind a large impact; the metelurgy may have other reasons, and yet Nickle is a known of comets. So, on the surface one might think that impact events could also be augmented by electrical forces, or the latter was a stand alone (Smiths position it seems).

He also has put up a blog article here called The Eye of the Storm, Part 1.

So the pull is to naturally always consider comet impacts, and yet impacts can come in different forms as people know (like the air explosion Tunguska, or the Carolina Bay impacts). Causes can be also be though about for things based on what can be seen and considered in the landscape, along with what is a consensus view of the data.

One thing might be that the impact methods are variegated and appear at different times, possibly obscuring what came before upon the landscape: ground based impacts followed by sculpting impacts of the electrical kind, for instance (or reversed). Heavy direct impacts produce shock waves, what appears as craters and ripple landscape rather than excavate (possibly craters), shape and distort rock (melt and fuse it). The latter might be responsible for some rippled landscapes as well.

Just putting it here for comment:

 

Michael B-C

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Was looking at this, particularly as referenced to the Younger Dryas, and looked at here by Stephen Smith (Thunderbolts site). Here he looks at Sudbury (Big Nickel) and some of the Canadian Lake systems (features) along with zones in the US in terms of electrical theory. Sudbury brings to mind a large impact; the metelurgy may have other reasons, and yet Nickle is a known of comets. So, on the surface one might think that impact events could also be augmented by electrical forces, or the latter was a stand alone (Smiths position it seems).

He also has put up a blog article here called The Eye of the Storm, Part 1.

So the pull is to naturally always consider comet impacts, and yet impacts can come in different forms as people know (like the air explosion Tunguska, or the Carolina Bay impacts). Causes can be also be though about for things based on what can be seen and considered in the landscape, along with what is a consensus view of the data.

One thing might be that the impact methods are variegated and appear at different times, possibly obscuring what came before upon the landscape: ground based impacts followed by sculpting impacts of the electrical kind, for instance (or reversed). Heavy direct impacts produce shock waves, what appears as craters and ripple landscape rather than excavate (possibly craters), shape and distort rock (melt and fuse it). The latter might be responsible for some rippled landscapes as well.

Just putting it here for comment:


Thanks for the above Voyageur. I watched the same video this morning and had many of the same thoughts. I continue to value and digest Thunderbolts videos but you always get the feeling that whilst on the one hand they rightly attack the rigid dogmas of conventional science, they fall deep into the same trap themselves with the other - seeing electricity as the one and only cause wherever they go. I also noted the total absence of mention of the Carolina Bays in Stephen Smiths evidence trail as if you could ignore them!

It's strange that having over the years provided so much valuable data in the area of electrical comets that there seems to be such a blinkered and distinctive disavowal of the potential for comet clusters to elicit many of the electrical features observed in the landscape and you never hear them mention air bursts - they always seem to go on the basis that when anyone suggests an interaction between earth and a comet there has to be an impact for effects to be registered on the surface, and they seem to dismiss this idea out of hand.

I suspect all these problems stem from the core tenant of their theory (or faith perhaps!) that Smith brings up again at the start – namely that the root belief is in cosmic scale electrical arching caused by close proximity interplanetary exchange in the recent human past. This is commandment number one and there’s no brooking it. I once got into online conversation on this matter with founder David Talbot and he simply would not contemplate the idea that he was mistaken in the belief that when the ancients spoke of ‘planets’ they were really referring to ‘comets’ (‘wandering stars’, to ‘wandering planets’ to ‘planets’) a product of a Chinese whispers down the ages. For EU believers, comets are just the remains of solar system based planetary punch ups, and the thought of large scale marauding hoards entering our domain at regular intervals from deep out there is something they seem to need to strongly refute. Once you take up this position I suspect you start to see localised electricity everywhere and blank any data that suggests there’s more to the story. Usual human problem in other words – too specialised in knowledge and too blinkered to the likely out come of the same.
 

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
In Pierre's latest article: Volcanoes, Earthquakes And The 3,600 Year Comet Cycle -- Sott.net there was

When a comet triggers a discharge of the solar 'capacitor', the Sun releases Coronal Mass Ejecta (CME) which are massive quantities of protons (positively charged particles). These discharges, if properly oriented, can reach Earth. The diagram below depicts the effect of such discharges on our planet:

Earth's electric fields and potentials according to solar activity
© sott.net
Earth's electric fields and potentials according to solar activity
On the right of the image, solar activity is weak; therefore the Earth receives little (positively charged) solar winds (small yellow arrow). As a consequence, the electric potential of earth's ionosphere is less positive and it tends to attract fewer free electrons from the Earth to its surface, making it less negatively charged. As a result, the Electrical field between the ionosphere and the Earth's surface (atmospheric E-field) is reduced (small orange arrow on the right picture).

With fewer free electrons attracted from the inside of the Earth to its surface, the electric field between the Earth's surface and its core is also lowered (small red double arrow on the right picture).

This electric field is the binding force of the planet, it 'holds the planet together'. A brutal solar discharge can induce a sudden spike in the positive charge of the ionosphere, which translates into a sudden surge in the binding force. A crude but accurate enough analogy is if you were to hold an orange in your hand and then suddenly squeeze it.
Coming to think of the huge CME in 1859, Solar storm of 1859 - Wikipedia I wondered if there had been any comet around at this time. Not exactly, but not long before there was Donati's comet and a couple of more, which might offer a possibility to test a hypothesis of any possible role played by this passage: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.3859.pdf which has:

3. The great comet of 1858 Donati’s (officially C/1858 L1, formerly 1858 VI) was the fifth comet to be discovered in 1858, and the fourth discovered by Donati (he would discover two more in 1864). In August, as it approached the Sun, the comet grew rapidly in brightness and developed a tail that at the end of September had reached a length of 30 degrees. After passing perihelion on September 30th, the comet became a truly impressive sight by the first days of October, when its head transited near the bright star Arcturus. The length of its elegantly curved tail reached about 40 degrees, with a maximum width of about 10 degrees. It was the first comet to be photographed: on September 27th by the English artist Usherwood with a portrait camera, and the next day by astronomer G. P. Bond of Harvard College Observatory with a telescope (Pasachoff, Olson & Hazen 1996). The comet then begun to steadily fade and became visible in the southern hemisphere, where it was observed by T. Maclear and W. Mann at the Royal Observatory of the Cape of Good Hope, South Africa, and was last seen by C. W. Moesta at the National Observatory of Santiago, Chile, in March 1859. The orbit computed by G. W. Hill in 1865 resulted in a period of about 1950 yr. Scientific accounts of observations of Donati’s comet are too numerous to be listed here: see Kronk (2003). We only mention the famous monographic study of G. P. Bond (1862), beautifully illustrated with 51 engravings of the telescopic and naked-eye appearance of the head and tail of the Comet; this work made Bond the first American to be awarded the gold medal of the Royal Astronomical Society.
 

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
As I was reading in Pierre's book about the Birkeland currents, I wanted to know more about the details, but it soon gets very complicated. For instance I found a paper Birkeland Currents: A Force-Free Field-Aligned Model by Donald E. Scott, a now retired professor of electrical engineering. Fortunately the same author appears as a guest speaker to an electric universe gathering in which he explains some of the theoretical results he gathered and relates them to observations of high altitude wind patterns. Donald Scott: Tracking Birkeland Currents in Earth's Atmosphere | Space News
In this video he mentions a very interesting website called earth :: a global map of wind, weather, and ocean conditions His analysis is especially concerned with wind patterns at
10 hPa or 10 millibar which is close to 26 km above the surface according to Pressure Altitude Calculator

In the video lecture, Scott also mentions the concept of Curl Curl (mathematics) - Wikipedia
In vector calculus, the curl is a vector operator that describes the infinitesimal rotation of a vector field in three-dimensional Euclidean space. At every point in the field, the curl of that point is represented by a vector. The attributes of this vector (length and direction) characterize the rotation at that point.

The direction of the curl is the axis of rotation, as determined by the right-hand rule, and the magnitude of the curl is the magnitude of rotation. If the vector field represents the flow velocity of a moving fluid, then the curl is the circulation density of the fluid. A vector field whose curl is zero is called irrotational. The curl is a form of differentiation for vector fields. The corresponding form of the fundamental theorem of calculus is Stokes' theorem, which relates the surface integral of the curl of a vector field to the line integral of the vector field around the boundary curve.

The alternative terminology rotation or rotational and alternative notations rot F and ∇ × F are often used (the former especially in many European countries, the latter, using the del (or nabla) operator and the cross product, is more used in other countries) for curl F. [...]

He says that a anticlockwise curl means energy going out of the Earth while a clockwise curl means energy going in.

At the end of his lecture. Donald Scott suggest the Sun influences the Earth weather via the Birkeland current.

I checked the website Scott referred to to check if I could find the same patters as he showed in his lecture. It was different in the Southern Hemisphere, but the patterns in the Northern Hemisphere appear surprisingly stable. If we visit the page from time to time, maybe we can discover some patterns, so here is a series of screen shots showing the wind circulation at 10 hPa on the Earth from different perspectives, of which the Northern Hemisphere is the first:

1576871466451.png
Notice the curl north east of Venezuela which one can just barely glimpse on the above screen shot. Seen from the side, it is more clear:
1576872368295.png
And the other side of the Earth, notice the vortex south east of China, which is invisible at the next lower pressure altitude of 70 hPa So where does it come from? And being counterclockwise it should mean energy going into the Earth.
1576872623911.png
And finally the Southern Hemisphere which compared to the Northern Hemisphere appears much more regular, but overall the flow is in
1576871546893.png
Overall the counterclockwise motion seems to dominate both the Northern and Southern Hemisphere, but what will it look like in a few months?
 

Aeneas

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
He says that a anticlockwise curl means energy going out of the Earth while a clockwise curl means energy going in.
And being counterclockwise it should mean energy going into the Earth.
Counter clockwise is the same as anticlockwise, so the energy must go out according to the first quote and not into the Earth. Or am I missing something?

I checked the website Scott referred to to check if I could find the same patters as he showed in his lecture. It was different in the Southern Hemisphere, but the patterns in the Northern Hemisphere appear surprisingly stable.
And finally the Southern Hemisphere which compared to the Northern Hemisphere appears much more regular, but overall the flow is in
When you say that it is regular do you then mean stable? It sounds in the first quote as if the NH is very stable, but compared to the the last screenshot that you took, then the SH looks very regular, which I would take to mean stable.

Anyway an interesting subject where I suspect there still are a lot of unknowns, not least given the fact that these modern equipment has made it easier to measure, but also that there is little data to compare it with.

I have a book by Donald Scott called "The electric sky", that you might find interesting.
 

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Counter clockwise is the same as anticlockwise, so the energy must go out according to the first quote and not into the Earth. Or am I missing something?
Thank you for picking up the inconsistency, but too late to edit. I looked at the map again, and it is actually going clockwise, just like the flow in the North Pacific near the Bering sea. With this correction the wording should be:

And the other side of the Earth, notice the vortex south east of China, which is invisible at the next lower pressure altitude of 70 hPa So where does it come from? And being counterclockwise it should mean energy going into the Earth.
1576878715239.png
 

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
When you say that it is regular do you then mean stable? It sounds in the first quote as if the NH is very stable, but compared to the the last screenshot that you took, then the SH looks very regular, which I would take to mean stable.

Anyway an interesting subject where I suspect there still are a lot of unknowns, not least given the fact that these modern equipment has made it easier to measure, but also that there is little data to compare it with.

I have a book by Donald Scott called "The electric sky", that you might find interesting.
Regular because it appears that the winds on the Southern Hemisphere move around in circles within circles within circles with one center being the Antarctica, while the Northern Hemisphere is anything but regular having different centers and non circular movements of the wind which rather appear to be having elliptic shapes. Regarding stability I relate it to time or duration in time and about this I'm not sure, I have not watched the trends long enough. In fact the Southern Hemisphere is different today than it was when Scott commented on it. Regarding the book I can see it has good reviews, however when I compare what his paper predicts and what he claims to find in his lecture, with what is observed now, then rather than the confirmation he would like to see, I tend to think there, even if his theory is partially correct, must be a number of other factors that are not yet included. At the end of the video I posted he asks: "How does the Sun affect the weather on the Earth?" and says "The answer is via the Birkeland current." Well, I remain unconvinced.

When I first listened to the video of Donald Scott, and he mentions energy going into or out of the Earth, I thought that had to be in a literal sense and came across an image that could explain this possibility. File:Schematic of combined Field-Aligned Currents and ionospheric current system.svg - Wikimedia Commons
1576921451416.png
Looking closer, if the atmosphere contains layers that are full of ions which can conduct a current, then all the energy did not really need to go into or out of the Earth. It could enter the higher atmosphere and make a turnaround before reaching the lower atmosphere.

In the above picture there are Hall Currents and Pedersen Currents, (Not "Pederson" apparently although that is what is written).

The Wiki on Ionospheric dynamo region - Wikipedia mentions about Hall conductivity and Petersen conductivity
Atmospheric Electric Conductivity[edit]
Radioactive material from the ground and galactic cosmic rays ionize a small fraction of the atmospheric gas within the lower and middle atmosphere and make the gas electrically conducting.
[...] The conductivity parallel to an electric field E is called Pedersen conductivity. The conductivity orthogonal to E and the geomagnetic field Bo is the Hall conductivity.

Orthogonal is perpendicular to. If one takes the picture above and imagines that the magnetic South Pole is below the Geographic North Pole and that the field lines coming from the magnetic North Pole would enter at an angle with a vertical component going through a conductive layer of the atmosphere, then the conditions to create the Hall effect should be present.

About the Hall Current created by the Hall effect there was from The Hall Effect – College Physics
Hall effect: the creation of voltage across a current-carrying conductor by a magnetic field
Or for another explanation.

From the Russian Wiki about the Hall Effect there is a picture, which might give a clearer idea of what happens to the charged particles as they move through the conductive medium in a magnetic field that is at a right angel. The charged particles move through the medium, but on the way they also move in another direction, depending of the direction of the magnetic field and the direction of the current, as can be seen in the illustration below:1576941653431.png
In the above picture the movement of the electron is to the side, while in the first picture the Hall Current moves all around like in a circuit. No doubt there is an explanation for that, but for now understanding the overall possibility of a secondary current will do.

If one compares the first illustration with the direction of the Hall Currents with the movements of the wind circulation at 10hPa then there is a similarity, only I don't know if the first illustration truly reflects reality. Besides while the altitude of 10 hPa is 26 km, the altitudes the Wiki mentions is 85-200 km, so I don't know if the similarity is more than a coincidence.
1576927741624.png
Compare also the above picture with this one below from the recent article Earth enters unknown as magnetic north pole continues push toward Russia, crosses Greenwich meridian showing the movement of the North Pole in the last 120 years. I turned the picture in the article 180 degrees to match the previous orientation. The path of movement appears to be right in the middle of the most intense winds at the altitude of 26 km. This is probably just another coincidence.
1576929726993.png
 

itellsya

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Just wanted to draw peeps attention to an interesting story released from NASA two days ago. The discovery explains what causes Saturn's auroras and how its atmosphere is so hot yet it's too far from the Sun to be explained by their models. It seems to me that this moves closer to supporting the EU theory of electrical connections between planets.

One also wonders when they'll apply this same insight to Earth's environment and how that's affected.

Well, i'm no expert on EU but that's how the article came across to me:

Snippet from the article:

The upper layers in the atmospheres of gas giants - Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune - are hot, just like Earth's. But unlike Earth, the Sun is too far from these outer planets to account for the high temperatures. Their heat source has been one of the great mysteries of planetary science.

New analysis of data from NASA's Cassini spacecraft finds a viable explanation for what's keeping the upper layers of Saturn, and possibly the other gas giants, so hot: auroras at the planet's north and south poles. Electric currents, triggered by interactions between solar winds and charged particles from Saturn's moons, spark the auroras and heat the upper atmosphere. (As with Earth's northern lights, studying auroras tells scientists what's going on in the planet's atmosphere.)


The aurora at Saturn's southern pole is visible in this false-color image. Blue represents the aurora; red-orange is reflected sunlight. The image was gathered by Cassini's ultraviolet imaging spectrograph (UVIS) on June 21, 2005.
The work, published April 6 in Nature Astronomy, is the most complete mapping yet of both temperature and density of a gas giant's upper atmosphere - a region that has, in general, been poorly understood.

By building a complete picture of how heat circulates in the atmosphere, scientists are better able to understand how auroral electric currents heat the upper layers of Saturn's atmosphere and drive winds. The global wind system can distribute this energy, which is initially deposited near the poles toward the equatorial regions, heating them to twice the temperatures expected from the Sun's heating alone.

Full article:

Electric currents driven by solar wind create Saturn's auroras, heat planet's atmosphere - NASA



NASA
Mon, 06 Apr 2020 12:00 UTC

Saturn
© NASA/JPL/ASI/University of Arizona/University of Leicester
This false-color composite image shows auroras (depicted in green) above the cloud tops of Saturn's south pole. The 65 observations used here were captured by Cassini's visual and infrared mapping spectrometer on Nov. 1, 2008.


New mapping of the giant planet's upper atmosphere reveals likely reason why it's so hot.

The upper layers in the atmospheres of gas giants - Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune - are hot, just like Earth's. But unlike Earth, the Sun is too far from these outer planets to account for the high temperatures. Their heat source has been one of the great mysteries of planetary science.

New analysis of data from NASA's Cassini spacecraft finds a viable explanation for what's keeping the upper layers of Saturn, and possibly the other gas giants, so hot: auroras at the planet's north and south poles. Electric currents, triggered by interactions between solar winds and charged particles from Saturn's moons, spark the auroras and heat the upper atmosphere. (As with Earth's northern lights, studying auroras tells scientists what's going on in the planet's atmosphere.)

Saturn
© NASA/JPL/University of Colorado
The aurora at Saturn's southern pole is visible in this false-color image. Blue represents the aurora; red-orange is reflected sunlight. The image was gathered by Cassini's ultraviolet imaging spectrograph (UVIS) on June 21, 2005.
The work, published April 6 in Nature Astronomy, is the most complete mapping yet of both temperature and density of a gas giant's upper atmosphere - a region that has, in general, been poorly understood.

By building a complete picture of how heat circulates in the atmosphere, scientists are better able to understand how auroral electric currents heat the upper layers of Saturn's atmosphere and drive winds. The global wind system can distribute this energy, which is initially deposited near the poles toward the equatorial regions, heating them to twice the temperatures expected from the Sun's heating alone.

"The results are vital to our general understanding of planetary upper atmospheres and are an important part of Cassini's legacy," said author Tommi Koskinen, a member of Cassini's Ultraviolet Imaging Spectograph (UVIS) team. "They help address the question of why the uppermost part of the atmosphere is so hot while the rest of the atmosphere - due to the large distance from the Sun - is cold."

Managed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California, Cassini was an orbiter that observed Saturn for more than 13 years before exhausting its fuel supply. The mission plunged it into the planet's atmosphere in September 2017, in part to protect its moon Enceladus, which Cassini discovered might hold conditions suitable for life. But before its plunge, Cassini performed 22 ultra-close orbits of Saturn, a final tour called the Grand Finale.

It was during the Grand Finale that the key data was collected for the new temperature map of Saturn's atmosphere. For six weeks, Cassini targeted several bright stars in the constellations of Orion and Canis Major as they passed behind Saturn. As the spacecraft observed the stars rise and set behind the giant planet, scientists analyzed how the starlight changed as it passed through the atmosphere.

Measuring the density of the atmosphere gave scientists the information they needed to find the temperatures. (Density decreases with altitude, and the rate of decrease depends on temperature.) They found that temperatures peak near the auroras, indicating that auroral electric currents heat the upper atmosphere.

And both density and temperature measurements together helped scientists figure out wind speeds. Understanding Saturn's upper atmosphere, where planet meets space, is key to understanding space weather, and its impact on other planets in our solar system and exoplanets around other stars.

The Cassini-Huygens mission is a cooperative project of NASA, ESA (the European Space Agency) and the Italian Space Agency. JPL, a division of Caltech in Pasadena, manages the mission for NASA's Science Mission Directorate in Washington. JPL designed, developed and assembled the Cassini orbiter.
 

Woodsman

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Notice the curl north east of Venezuela which one can just barely glimpse on the above screen shot. Seen from the side, it is more clear:
View attachment 32824
And the other side of the Earth, notice the vortex south east of China, which is invisible at the next lower pressure altitude of 70 hPa So

Overall the counterclockwise motion seems to dominate both the Northern and Southern Hemisphere, but what will it look like in a few months?
1576872368295-png.32824

I couldn't help but notice that our 3D planet Earth observed from an energetic level bears a striking similarity to a certain 4D planet in our system...
 

sid

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
Hello all

I didn't know where best to post this hence putting it out here. I have finished re-reading Pierre's book recently with a greater focus and had a few light bulb moments. I have been searching and trying to educate myself on the nature of electricity, physics and how this whole EU thing actually works. I stumbled onto a Youtube channel where the channel owner has created some very educational videos with animations depicting most of the EU theories/explanations covered in Pierre's book and by thunderbolts project. Link to the channel is below -

See below a video showing how Galaxies are formed as twisted plasma filaments in a spiral arrangement due to birkeland currents. Also shows the movement of stars along the twisted plasma branches which takes 26 million years to complete for one cycle and potentially explains why the Sun and its twin are also locked in a 26.9 million years of revolution cycle. Fascinating stuff.

 
Top Bottom