James M. McCanney - Plasma Discharge Comet Theory

[Vulcan59]

Re: Lightning and fire: Japan on alert after volcano's biggest eruption in 50 years

Hi Shijing,

Seems like the picture above was taken from the Shinmoedake volcano in Japan. - Source. :)

 

[shijing]

Re: Lightning and fire: Japan on alert after volcano's biggest eruption in 50 years

Seems like the picture above was taken from the Shinmoedake volcano in Japan. - Source. :)

Ah, so it's the same one. Thanks for the catch, Vulcan -- this must have been something quite spectacular to see!

 

[Laura]

Re: Lightning and fire: Japan on alert after volcano's biggest eruption in 50 years

The McCanney broadcast in which he talks briefly about volcanoes and lightning is from April 22, 2010, at about 36 minutes.

He doesn't go into much detail, but says that it is essentially the same electrical process which he maintains causes tornadoes and hurricanes, which is a discharge of excess positive charge in the ionosphere flowing to ground through a pathway provided by the energy of the storm or volcanic plume. Which in turn can cause subsequent discharges when elements in the storm, earth or plume gain surplus charge.

So, since there are a lot of storms lately, and volcanic eruptions, etc, that must mean there is a great excess of positive charge in the ionosphere that is seeking ways to flow to ground.

What is causing the excess charge?

 

[thevenusian]

Re: Lightning and fire: Japan on alert after volcano's biggest eruption in 50 years

The McCanney broadcast in which he talks briefly about volcanoes and lightning is from April 22, 2010, at about 36 minutes.

He doesn't go into much detail, but says that it is essentially the same electrical process which he maintains causes tornadoes and hurricanes, which is a discharge of excess positive charge in the ionosphere flowing to ground through a pathway provided by the energy of the storm or volcanic plume. Which in turn can cause subsequent discharges when elements in the storm, earth or plume gain surplus charge.

So, since there are a lot of storms lately, and volcanic eruptions, etc, that must mean there is a great excess of positive charge in the ionosphere that is seeking ways to flow to ground.

What is causing the excess charge?

I am no expert in this, so hopefully others more knowledgeable will chime in. But according to McCanney's model, the solar wind is a major component which drives positive charge- in the form of positively charged ions which result from the processes of the sun- into Earth's upper atmosphere. Looking around a bit, it seems that cosmic dust also most often carries a positive charge:

from Cassini probe analysis (_www.gps.caltech.edu/~sue/TJA.../ListPublications/.../Srama_etc_2004.pdf)

2. 6. CHARGES ON I NTERPLANETARY AND SATURNI AN DUST PARTI CLES
There exist a variety of mechanisms by which cosmic dust particles can be electri-
cally charged: the capture of ambient electrons and ions, secondary electron emis-
sion by energetic electron and ion impacts, photoemission due to short-wavelength
electromagnetic radiation, field emission of electrons, triboelectric effects, and field
evaporation of ions. Interplanetary and interstellar dust particles acquire a positive
charge in the solar wind and can be strongly influenced by the Lorentz force as
they pass through planetary magnetospheres. There, the charge on the particles
changes rapidly when they pass through different plasma environments (Colwell
et al., 1998).
In the case of interplanetary dust particles outside the earth’s orbit the only
relevant charging processes are interactions with solar wind electrons and ions and
photoemission by solar UV radiation. Depending upon conditions in the solar wind
(low and high speed) the proton number density varies from 12 to 4 cm−3 at 1 AU,
the bulk speed of the wind varies from 330 to 700 km/s, and the mean thermal
energy increases from 3 to 20 eV for protons and decreases from 11 to 9 eV for
electrons (Morfill et al., 1986). The flux of photoelectrons from a metal surface
at 1 AU was estimated by Wyatt (1969) to be equal to 2.5 × 10 10 cm−2 s−1 . The
photoelectron flux from silicate and graphite surfaces can be up to one order of
magnitude lower; the same is expected for the flux from icy surfaces. From these
numbers it follows that charging of interplanetary dust particles is dominated by photoemission,
which leads generally to positively charged particles with surface
potentials of several volts. The value of the potential depends on the photoemission
yield of the particle material, e.g. silicate particles attain potentials of 2.5–5 V
which are practically constant in the size interval 0.1–10 μm (Lamy et al., 1985).
Potentials of particles from conducting materials will be a few volts higher. In case
of very small particles with dimensions small compared to the wavelength of light,
the photoemission yield can be enhanced by a factor of 2–3 which results in higher
surface potentials.

It would also seem logical that the cosmic dust (which reportedly is increasing) may also be affected by any celestial object(s) in close enough proximity to Earth (which could be a great distance- the sun is a long ways away), like an approaching comet or swarm. Perhaps this might be a factor resulting in a net increase in positively charged ions in the ionosphere. Perhaps this influence may also interact with Earth in such a way as to promote accumulation in the ionosphere. But again, I'm a layman in this field.

 

[thevenusian]

Re: Lightning and fire: Japan on alert after volcano's biggest eruption in 50 years

Here is a major chunk from a McCanney interview he did with Spectrum in May and Sept 2003 in which he goes over his ideas about weather, the solar wind and comets. The entirety of this interview is available on his website (_http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/)

McCanney: It turns out that the most important component of weather forecasting is in the SOLAR electric fields. The solar wind passes by Earth, that carries the electric field with it; and I’ve identified 17 of what I call local environmental batteries, or LEBs. These are, literally, batteries or capacitors that exist around the planet Earth and they are built-up by the solar conditions.

The Solar System is dominated by the Sun. I would estimate the Sun is putting out 100,000 times more electrical energy than it is putting out physical light energy.

We are very much buffered from this energy because we have a huge magnetic field, and there are many other conditions in space which buffer us from this electrical energy which is just pouring by us, continually.
Let’s look at a New Moon. The Moon moves in front of Earth, breaks that electrical flow, and then moves out of the way. It gives us tremendous bombardment after that Moon moves out of the way, the first and second day after the New Moon. That’s the condition that has been identified as being one of the leading causes of kicking-off major hurricanes and storms. What it does is: The Moon is interacting with the solar electric field. It’s that CHANGE which causes the storms, and causes the environment around Earth to change, and thus affects Earth weather.

Planetary electrical alignments are another factor. There has been a lot of misinformation about planetary alignments regarding, say, earthquakes and all kinds of devastation when the planets line-up. There was one alignment back in the 1990s where we had, I think, 5 or 6 planets lining-up, and everybody thought the world would come to an end. People were predicting gravitational effects. They were ridiculous predictions based on a very poor understanding.

Gravitationally, we are NOT affected by the other planets. What we are affected by are the electrical alignments that these planets hold with the Sun. When the planets line-up, there are electrical connections made which increase the energy flow around Earth. That can affect us and, in fact, does affect our weather.

I’ve made a lot of weather predictions based on the electrical alignments of celestial objects—especially when you throw a comet in, for example, which is very large, electrically. The electrical size of a comet is very much larger than its physical size. That’s something that standard astronomy and space scientists and astrophysicists simply don’t understand.

In fact, to date, astrophysicists, space scientists, and astronomers deny that there is anything electrical in outer space at all. They want to explain everything in terms of gravity and magnetic fields which, somehow, self-exist out there—which is another quagmire in modern space physics.

These scientists, many of whom have very poor physics backgrounds, talk about magnetic effects. I’ll just name off a few:

Io, the small moon of Jupiter, close to the big moon of Jupiter, carries with it a tremendous electrical current. The astronomers say: “This is due to the fact that Io is moving in Jupiter’s magnetic field and it causes the ‘dynamo effect’, and this causes the electrical current.” When, in fact, it’s the OPPOSITE.

The electrical current is part of the electrical current flow between the Sun and Jupiter, and the small moon is just getting in the way and carrying the current with it. That’s creating the magnetic field. What they don’t understand is that these magnetic fields do not just self-generate. In fact, it goes back to very fundamental electrical physics, called Maxwell’s equations. It’s a set of four equations that describe the interaction between magnetic fields and electric fields, and basic electric charges.

Fundamentally, magnetic fields do not self-exist. They only exist when charges move and create magnetic fields. To understand magnetic fields in outer space, you have to understand that charges have to move to create those magnetic fields. For charges to move, you need some sort of battery or capacitor that is sustaining the condition; in other words, it’s there all the time. These charged currents, then, create the magnetic field, not visa-versa.

There’s another thing that space scientists and astronomers talk about, called “magnetic reconnection”, where the magnetic field lines go around and then reconnect. It’s as if they float out into the middle of nowhere and then came back and reconnect into a particular region. What they don’t realize is that this is simply a SECONDARY effect. The more fundamental thing you have to look at is: what are the electric fields that are causing the electrical current, that are causing the magnetic field? It’s that progression. They are looking backwards, and they never get to the electric fields, or the electrical currents, because they don’t understand the fundamental concepts of Maxwell’s equations.

These modern concepts of “magnetic reconnection” include a thing called “solar pick-up ions”. Another fallacy is—it’s actually an impossibility—astronomers have been trying to explain why the solar wind particles accelerate once they’ve left the Sun. Throughout an interplanetary stage they’re moving along, and all of a sudden they see these tremendous accelerations in the solar wind particles. And so, they theorize that the magnetic field is sweeping out and it picks up these ions and sweeps them out by some kind of magnetic acceleration. There, again: in fundamental physics the only thing a magnetic field can do to a charged particle is change its direction; it cannot add energy. So, once again, the fundamental physics that these scientists have created, based on magnetic fields, is fundamentally flawed.

This leads all the way back to meteorology, where scientists talk about the magnetic storms on the Sun, and what causes solar flaring. They talk about “magnetic bubbles” in the Sun that burst, and the energy comes bursting out in these streamers of charged particles. Totally false! A magnetic field, of itself, cannot impart the energy to a charged particle. It can only change its direction of motion, once again, going right back to Maxwell’s equations.

The reason I’m going through all of this is because it would be impossible for these scientists to come to any kind of correct conclusion when they don’t understand the fundamental processes at work in the Solar System. The real fundamental processes come back to the Sun, which is putting out an excess current of protons, thusly causing a huge capacitor. That is the electrical driving-force of the entire Solar System.
What I’m saying is: I realized this in my early study of the Solar System back in 1979, when I was observing these phenomena and theorizing that comets were not dirty snowballs and that the solar environment has to have an electric field, a SUSTAINED electric field.

There is something about electric fields in outer space. They cannot exist for very long by themselves, because currents would quickly move and cancel them. So, there has to be an ongoing source of energy to continue to resupply this battery or capacitor. That turns out to be the fusion of the Sun.

Now, that leads back to the condition of the Sun. If the Sun had fusion in its core, as these astronomers theorize, then there’s no way to get a charge differential up to the surface, and therefore out into the Solar System. So, now we’re talking about the solar energy source—fusion.

Literally, every basic theory that modern astronomers use turns out to be incorrect. They are fundamentally flawed. There is no way that you can translate this into meteorology and come up with any kind of correct prediction or answers because they don’t understand the very fundamental, basic energy source in the Solar System, and that is: the Sun’s fusion is not in its core, it’s at the surface of the Sun, up at the upper atmosphere.

One of the fundamental properties of fusion is that it separates charge and the protons go out. It’s a rather complicated situation but, basically, the Sun is like a “super atom”. It has a corona of very high-energy electrons which are in orbit, literally at very high velocities, around the central, positively charged core of the Sun. So, you have the super-atom state. When the proton streamers come off of the Sun, they are accelerated through the corona, which is NEGATIVELY charged; then they come blasting out. This is the cause of solar flaring. In fact, you would not even have solar flaring with the solar core fusion model, where fusion is IN the core.

In fact, before SOHO and these solar satellites were up in orbit, the standard concept of the Sun was that it was just a very smooth, glowing, orange ball. That’s what would be predicted if you had the core model of fusion IN the Sun.

When they got up there, all of the data contradicted that model, yet they kept the model, which is one of the big problems in astronomy. They continue to use models that are outdated, even though all this new data tells you, directly, that the model could not possibly be true. So, decade after decade these scientists are flying around the world, going to conferences, spouting totally incorrect physics.

Their papers are being published because it’s the thing to do, the mode to follow, and there’s no progress being made. NASA now has 10-year programs in place; one is called “The Sun-Earth Connection”. They are just beginning to ask some of the very fundamental questions that I already had answered back in 1979 on how the solar wind translates into energy in the Solar System.

Back to the whole idea of weather. To understand Earth weather, you first have to understand that the Sun fusion is not in the core; it’s up at the surface of the Sun. That translates into tremendous electrical energy in the Solar System. The planets and the comets and the moons of the Solar System all are discharging this battery or capacitor that’s built-up around the Sun. In the process of discharging this capacitor, the electrical energy is blowing through the Solar System all the time and is, basically, the cause of our weather.

Now, a good example of a hurricane, that according to standard theory could not exist, is one that was observed on Mars. Mars has no oceans, no water. But, a huge hurricane, large enough to be visible from Earth, was seen on Mars and it lasted for days, moving around the Martian atmosphere. This was a major hurricane. So, obviously, the theory that warm water is the cause of hurricanes could not possibly be true, and also for all the other reasons that I’ve stated. That’s just one counter-example.

Scientists just totally ignore those contradictory examples because they’re stuck on their theoretical structure that, unfortunately, is totally wrong. But, they are the people who have the press. They have the journal publications, the grants, the whole system of funding.

And it’s all locked-up on these people, many of them who are quite old. The young guys have to buy into this or they don’t get their PhD, get funded, and so on. It’s a system that is terribly troubled and in big trouble, but it goes on because the funding is locked in place.

In fact, this year, interestingly enough, the National Science Foundation and most of the congressional budgets for science doubled. Somebody asked me if I thought that would help improve science. I said: “No. You’ll just get twice as much of the same.” And that’s really what will happen. In fact, it will help lock-in these theories even more, because now the fundamental driving force in science, which is money and funding, is even greater, and that’s the control mechanism that is keeping science in a big rut.

So, that is all related to how weather gets predicted and analyzed. The fundamental situation with weather, however, is that the main driving force of our major weather systems, including our winds, is the electrical component of the Sun. Without that, within a day or two, Earth would turn into a cold nothing. And literally, within a week, our atmosphere would freeze and fall down to the ground as crystals. It’s just incredible the amount of energy that comes from our Sun.

When people talk about climate or long-range trends, I don’t believe any of that. I never believed the “Greenhouse Effect”, for example, because very simply, our daily allotment of energy is coming directly from the Sun. A good way to understand this is: when we are in daytime, we are receiving from the Sun, directly. Then, as the Earth spins around and you go into nighttime, you’ll probably drop an average of 20-30 degrees between day and night temperatures. And, say that as you came around again, the Sun wasn’t there the next day; it just shut-off for some reason. Now you would continue to drop 10, 20, 30 degrees per day—actually, per half day, in fact. And within a very few short days, the entire Earth would just be frozen and we would continue to go into a deep freeze, very rapidly.

So, our Sun, our climate, literally everything on Earth is very intricately related to the solar output on a DAILY basis. This is not years, or centuries, or anything else. It’s on a daily basis.

The other thing that I’ve discovered about weather is that not only is the energy for these storms coming in from outside the planet, but in many cases water is building-up in these storms from outside the planet, also. This occurs when we, basically, electrically attach, just like a comet does, to the solar environment, and the hydrogen and oxygen that are in our local environment in outer space combine and they come pouring in.

Now, you can see a storm develop, coming across, say, the Rocky Mountains into the mid-Western states or from the Pacific Coast into, say, Oklahoma and that region, and you can see these storms building up. The satellites are looking down, and the satellites show how much moisture is in the air. You can look directly at the infrared and at the components of the satellites that look at just water, and you can see that, as those storms move in to the center part of the North American continent, water is being added to that system.

You have to ask yourself: “Where is that water coming from?” It wasn’t there when this storm came off the coast. In many cases there was no storm coming off the coast. The storm actually developed in the middle of the country.

I just saw last night an example—this was Hurricane Claudette—which was moving-in off the Gulf Coast into Texas. Just as it reached shore, I snapped a picture of the National Weather radar, and also the water content in this storm. At the same time, there was a weather system moving through the midwestern states—specifically, Illinois and Indiana and Michigan. And in the same time that Claudette, the hurricane, moved-in off the Gulf, the storm in the Midwest gained, probably, three times as much energy and three times as much water as the hurricane. And all the focus (and the news) was on the hurricane.
I’m just pointing out that this hurricane was going over the ocean, picking-up water, yet a storm in the Midwest in the United States, in the same amount of time, and with no source from any ocean or body of water, picked-up three times the amount of water in that storm as the hurricane, which had been passing over the ocean for days.

Another point here is that water is, literally, coming down from above to drive these storms because there is simply not enough water in the atmosphere to drive some of these storms.
Ask, then: Wouldn’t we be flooding? Wouldn’t this be a huge build-up in the ocean levels?

The answer is: Very quickly, much of this water moves in a hydrological cycle. There’s a three-cycle motion in Earth’s atmosphere that very quickly takes most of this water up to the North Pole and down to the South Pole, where it builds up very rapidly.

Here’s an example: After World War II there were five prop planes with five fighter pilots that had to make an emergency landing up at the North Pole. And they left them there. One of the people who was a pilot of one of those fighter planes said, I believe it was 10-15 years later, whatever it was, they got some money together and they were going to go up and salvage those airplanes. When they got to the site, the planes were nowhere to be found. They started digging. The planes were 200 feet under the ice pack. They had just been sitting there, and that’s just in a short, say, 10-year period, which shows that a couple of feet per year of water is building up—or, possibly as much as 20 feet per year of ice is building up.

So, that’s where the water is going on a continual basis from the influx of water into the atmosphere.

You have to understand, all of these components are not understood or recognized in modern meteorology. But, that’s kind-of an overview of where modern meteorology is, of current astronomical theories, and of my view of weather.

Now, let’s take the announcement this past March from the World Meteorological Organization. They made the statement that weather is going bonkers.

One thing that I’ve been almost preaching for years now is that the Sun’s energy is peaking, and it’s NOT going down. NASA keeps putting out news releases saying: “The Sun has peaked; it’s finally going down to solar minimum.” The fact is that, in the year 2000, the solar maximum year, the Sun peaked AND IT NEVER WENT DOWN IN ENERGY.

What I’m talking about is the electrical energy component of the Sun. We are at a state now where the Sun is putting out tremendous, tremendous amounts of energy, over and above a normal solar maximum.
The other thing that I noticed was that comets were coming in from the southern celestial hemisphere. In other words, our south, if you look out the south end of Earth, from that direction, you would see comets coming in, just raining into the Sun. There were big ones, almost one per day. I was seeing these courtesy of the SOHO satellite images. I’m convinced that’s why they had to take SOHO down, because it was just becoming too obvious.

In fact, the big comet NEAT-V1 that came in. We just saw some very big comets coming in from the south.

My interpretation of this is that there is a very large object which has broken into the outer reaches of the Solar System, into the solar capacitor, probably way out beyond, many Pluto distances out, but in the southerly direction, at the bottom of the Solar System, so to speak, and is moving in and bringing with it an entire entourage of smaller objects, and this object is moving in.

There are a number of reasons to believe this, besides just being the rain of comets coming in from the south. One is that the U.S. and the Vatican and many other groups have put a lot of money recently into large observatories at the South Pole, and none at the North Pole. There is something very interesting going on in the southern skies. It’s very difficult to see anything down there, unless you’re near the South Pole, just because the majority of Earth’s land mass above sea water is in the Northern Hemisphere. There is very little land in the Southern Hemisphere, especially as you get down toward the South Pole. There are no good astronomical viewing locations down there. The only good place is at the South Pole, and most of us don’t have the ability to staff and build astronomical observatories at the South Pole.

At any rate, there is something very interesting going on in the southern skies and nobody is talking about it. I believe that is one of the main things that is driving our weather. Something is influencing the solar capacitor, which then is interacting with the Sun and giving us this incredible weather we have been witnessing here. And it’s just beginning to show it’s ugly head. I think it’s going to get a lot worse before it gets a lot better.

I think everybody will agree, we’re having very unusual weather, all the way back into the 1990s. We had typhoons back in the ’90s, in the old Hale-Bopp days, that had 300+ mile-per-hour winds. It also was at the same time when China and Scandinavia, those two regions of the Earth, had 250 mile-an-hour straight-line winds that came down to the surface of the Earth. In other words, the jet stream came down and touched the planetary surface and did tremendous amounts of damage. This is all the result of very unusual electric field situations around the Earth.

That’s just kind of a summary where the weather is today. We’re just beginning to see the things that are making people kind of stand-up and really take notice.

 

[shijing]

Just a note that in McCanney's radio program from January 20, he talks about his book on the prime numbers (he is supposed to have solved the age-old prime number problem, but I mention it because prime numbers have been mentioned at various places in the transcripts); he also has a bit more discussion on the electrical basis for astrology, which includes research by Russian scientists in -- guess where -- Novosibirtsk. Other good stuff too; someone really needs to discuss diet with him, though -- he gets sick all the time!

 

[Azur]

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1339.msg36814#msg36814

;D

 

[shijing]

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1339.msg36814#msg36814

;D

Thanks Azur! I wonder if there is anything more to it than the Sieve of Eratosthenes, though -- it seems weird that he would write a whole book about something that was already common knowledge

 

[1984]

Let’s look at a New Moon. The Moon moves in front of Earth, breaks that electrical flow, and then moves out of the way. It gives us tremendous bombardment after that Moon moves out of the way, the first and second day after the New Moon. That’s the condition that has been identified as being one of the leading causes of kicking-off major hurricanes and storms. What it does is: The Moon is interacting with the solar electric field. It’s that CHANGE which causes the storms, and causes the environment around Earth to change, and thus affects Earth weather.

Added to everything else going on, this part about the New Moon is interesting since we are now at a total New Moon phase and Cyclone Yasi is striking today.

 

[Richs]

Let’s look at a New Moon. The Moon moves in front of Earth, breaks that electrical flow, and then moves out of the way. It gives us tremendous bombardment after that Moon moves out of the way, the first and second day after the New Moon. That’s the condition that has been identified as being one of the leading causes of kicking-off major hurricanes and storms. What it does is: The Moon is interacting with the solar electric field. It’s that CHANGE which causes the storms, and causes the environment around Earth to change, and thus affects Earth weather.

Added to everything else going on, this part about the New Moon is interesting since we are now at a total New Moon phase and Cyclone Yasi is striking today.

And along with that we have the giant coronal hole on the Sun spewing out enormous amount of solar wind which is due to hit the Earth between February 2nd. and 4th. Coincidentally within a few days of the Moon moving out of the way of the Sun. I wonder what the effect of this will be?

We currently have the massive and nearly unprecedented hurricane hitting Australia and at the same time a gigantic winter storm impacting most of the US.

Right now outside my house in New Jersey, US, there is about a quarter inch of ice covering everything and from reports there is even more in other areas nearby. Up to 2 feet of snow in more Northern regions with many places pretty much shut down from all of this.

Looks like the idea of 'superstorms' is not so far-fetched after all.

 

[LIMIT]

I was given this following data by a person interested in moon calender gardening and have no idea of the source or accuracy: but the stuff about supermoons may be of interest if its factual. In this instance it relates specifically to Queensland, Australia.

“The moon does an 18.6 year cycle. A supermoon is a new or full moon which occurs when the moon is at 90% or greater of its perigee approach to earth. An extreme supermoon is when the moon at new or full is at 100% or greater mean perigee (closest) distance to earth.

1955 floods: There was an extreme supermoon at Full Moon on 10 Nov 1954. Flooding occurred from Oct 1954 to 23 Feb 1955.

1974 floods: There was an extreme supermoon at Full Moon on 8 Jan 1974. 3 weeks of rain up to 29 January 1974.

1992 floods: There was an extreme supermoon at Full Moon on 19 Jan 1992.

2011 floods: There are supermoons at Full Moon on 18 Feb 2011, 19 Mar 2011, 18 April 2011. There is an extreme supermoon at Full Moon on 19 April 2011."

As a further note: McCanney in his 3 Feb 2011 radio show, briefly speculates on if the weather in Australia is being 'played' with – but that doesn't add up to me as Australia is a faithful slave to the power elite. I'll have to listen again. I wonder what he would have to say about “supermoons”.

 

[thevenusian]

In McCanney's most recent broadcast (Feb 17, available at his website), he talks quite a bit about comets. According to him, the announcements about the discovery of the 'new' planet Tyche are to put the idea in peoples' heads that there is this big planet way far away out there which could be disrupting the Oort Cloud and sending small dirty-snowball comets our way. He thinks it is laying the disinfo framework for explaining any comet appearances which may occur in the next couple of years, and also to round up all notions about 'Planet X' or Niburu and attach them to this new discovery.

He thinks the real 'Planet X' is probably a large comet possibly headed our way, which is bringing/sending other comets along with it. Comet cluster, anyone? Interestingly, as something the C's have also said, he expects new comets to first appear in the southern polar region of the sky, and for them to not be visible until they are very close. He is careful to say that this is not something he is predicting, but reads the recent announcement of the 'discovery' of planet Tyche as an indicator that NASA knows more than they are telling and is starting to lay out the cover story. He speculates that NASA will confirm the discovery about the time that comets begin coming in so that they can say they predicted it all along and have an explanation for it.

As anyone who has listened to McCanney's archived shows will know, there is quite a bit of material there and it isn't organized in any particular way. Some are more informative than others and he does have a tendency to ramble on off-topic sometimes. I found a couple radio interviews he did for the Feet to the Fire show which are pretty good in that he explains his ideas well and the interviewer asks decent questions. Each one is 2 hrs long. The links to download as mp3 files are:

_http://jancikradionetwork.com/2007f2f/f2f070909-p2.mp3

_http://jancikradionetwork.com/2008f2f/f2f.081214-p2.mp3

 

[WhiteBear]

I've been looking into McCanney's work, and I'm seeing a few discrepancies...actually, really huge discrepancies, between his theories and science. One of the primary cornerstones in his work is that the solar wind is charged, when the SWICS experiment on the Ulysses project craft which directly measures the solar wind indicates it is electrically neutral. McCanney believes in a "solar capacitor", which would only exist if the solar wind was positively charged, because the electrons stripped from the plasma get left behind, which they do not.

The solar capacitor theory states that the suns reactions occur on the surface, his reasoning for this is the "missing neutrino" theory, where it was found by directly measuring solar neutrino output, the amount measured was only 1/3 of what the computer model stated it should be. The "missing neutrino" theory was solved sometime around 2001 by the discovery that neutrinos have three flavors, and two of those flavors (muon and tau) were not being detected by the neutrino detectors. See Solving the Mystery of the Missing Neutrinos.

Given the number of cornerstones in his work that even I, as a non-physicist/astronomer/science-guy can find to be inaccurate, I have to put him in the catagory of "disinfo".

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I've been looking into McCanney's work, and I'm seeing a few discrepancies...actually, really huge discrepancies, between his theories and science. One of the primary cornerstones in his work is that the solar wind is charged, when the SWICS experiment on the Ulysses project craft which directly measures the solar wind indicates it is electrically neutral. McCanney believes in a "solar capacitor", which would only exist if the solar wind was positively charged, because the electrons stripped from the plasma get left behind, which they do not.

McCanney talked about this on a radio interview, saying that you can't measure charge in space with a single craft - you need at least two taking measurements apart from each other. Also, he doesn't say that the electrons get left behind, just that there is a slight difference in the amount of protons and electrons getting shot out through the solar system. He hypothesizes that the center of the Sun is positively charged, the surface negatively charged, so when the solar wind goes out, electrons are slightly impeded in their exit, making for a slight majority of protons. Also, the theory isn't just theoretical, it was designed to explain several electric anomalies that can't be explained by a neutral solar system, e.g., space craft quickly acquiring charge in space, electric flow between Jupiter and Io, the maintenance of Pluto's atmosphere, the large energy output of Saturn, etc.

 

[Laura]

Knowing what I do now about how science is totally corrupt and you literally cannot trust anything the mainstream puts out, I'd hesitate to put a lot of confidence in those official reports/experiments.