Slashdot Mirror

What is this Magnetic Reconnection thing you speak of?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060711magnetic.htm

IMarv

Ok, I think I understand where you are coming from let me summarize:

Some craters are obviously created by impacts with meteors, comments or any other solid body.

There are some unusual features to some craters that can not be explained by our current theory of solid body impacts

Electrical phenomenon could explain these features

Is this what we are talking about? Do you agree with these points?

Yeah, that's pretty close. Within certain filters, the rays that emanate from Aristarchus look like a Lichtenberg pattern -- which is the pattern that currents make when traveling through solids. The human eye can intuitively recognize this pattern as electrical. Compare these images of electrical Lichtenberg patterns ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Plasma-filament s.jpg
http://205.243.100.155/frames/lichtenbergs.html
http://205.243.100.155/photos/For_Sale/June04/3Inc hDisk/CenterLED1b.jpg
http://picasaweb.google.com/mgmirkin/LightningScar s/photo#5075225945259278338
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/image06/060 309lightning.jpg

With Aristarchus ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/image06/060 309aristarchus.jpg

With the supposedly enigmatic Martian spiders ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0607 26spiders2.htm

Titan ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0506 29titan-rilles.htm

With these (on Earth) ...

http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=-24.395158&lon=114. 997495&z=13.1&r=0&src=yh
http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=-25.659683&lon=140. 387453&z=15.4&r=0&src=ggl
http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=-25.655156&lon=140. 386295&z=18.2&r=0&src=ggl
http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=-23.742312&lon=140. 982472&z=16.2&r=0&src=ggl
http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=-27.863467&lon=141. 872015&z=15.2&r=0&src=ggl

These images are not proof of anything, but we can certainly be excused for using them as motivation for further investigation.

But Electric Universe Theory is not just about using the senses. There is very good reason to believe that electricity can flow through space. It is now accepted within astrophysics that space is not a vacuum, but rather filled with charged particles called plasma. In fact, matter within the plasma state represents 99.999% of all visible matter in the universe, and a gas can become electrified within the laboratory such that it becomes a plasma with only 1% ionization. That's not a whole l

Ok, I think I understand where you are coming from let me summarize:

Some craters are obviously created by impacts with meteors, comments or any other solid body.

There are some unusual features to some craters that can not be explained by our current theory of solid body impacts

Electrical phenomenon could explain these features

Is this what we are talking about? Do you agree with these points?

Yeah, that's pretty close. Within certain filters, the rays that emanate from Aristarchus look like a Lichtenberg pattern -- which is the pattern that currents make when traveling through solids. The human eye can intuitively recognize this pattern as electrical. Compare these images of electrical Lichtenberg patterns ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Plasma-filament s.jpg
http://205.243.100.155/frames/lichtenbergs.html
http://205.243.100.155/photos/For_Sale/June04/3Inc hDisk/CenterLED1b.jpg
http://picasaweb.google.com/mgmirkin/LightningScar s/photo#5075225945259278338
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/image06/060 309lightning.jpg

With Aristarchus ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/image06/060 309aristarchus.jpg

With the supposedly enigmatic Martian spiders ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0607 26spiders2.htm

Titan ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0506 29titan-rilles.htm

With these (on Earth) ...

http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=-24.395158&lon=114. 997495&z=13.1&r=0&src=yh
http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=-25.659683&lon=140. 387453&z=15.4&r=0&src=ggl
http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=-25.655156&lon=140. 386295&z=18.2&r=0&src=ggl
http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=-23.742312&lon=140. 982472&z=16.2&r=0&src=ggl
http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=-27.863467&lon=141. 872015&z=15.2&r=0&src=ggl

These images are not proof of anything, but we can certainly be excused for using them as motivation for further investigation.

But Electric Universe Theory is not just about using the senses. There is very good reason to believe that electricity can flow through space. It is now accepted within astrophysics that space is not a vacuum, but rather filled with charged particles called plasma. In fact, matter within the plasma state represents 99.999% of all visible matter in the universe, and a gas can become electrified within the laboratory such that it becomes a plasma with only 1% ionization. That's not a whole l

Ok, I think I understand where you are coming from let me summarize:

Some craters are obviously created by impacts with meteors, comments or any other solid body.

There are some unusual features to some craters that can not be explained by our current theory of solid body impacts

Electrical phenomenon could explain these features

Is this what we are talking about? Do you agree with these points?

Yeah, that's pretty close. Within certain filters, the rays that emanate from Aristarchus look like a Lichtenberg pattern -- which is the pattern that currents make when traveling through solids. The human eye can intuitively recognize this pattern as electrical. Compare these images of electrical Lichtenberg patterns ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Plasma-filament s.jpg
http://205.243.100.155/frames/lichtenbergs.html
http://205.243.100.155/photos/For_Sale/June04/3Inc hDisk/CenterLED1b.jpg
http://picasaweb.google.com/mgmirkin/LightningScar s/photo#5075225945259278338
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/image06/060 309lightning.jpg

With Aristarchus ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/image06/060 309aristarchus.jpg

With the supposedly enigmatic Martian spiders ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0607 26spiders2.htm

Titan ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0506 29titan-rilles.htm

With these (on Earth) ...

http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=-24.395158&lon=114. 997495&z=13.1&r=0&src=yh
http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=-25.659683&lon=140. 387453&z=15.4&r=0&src=ggl
http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=-25.655156&lon=140. 386295&z=18.2&r=0&src=ggl
http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=-23.742312&lon=140. 982472&z=16.2&r=0&src=ggl
http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=-27.863467&lon=141. 872015&z=15.2&r=0&src=ggl

These images are not proof of anything, but we can certainly be excused for using them as motivation for further investigation.

But Electric Universe Theory is not just about using the senses. There is very good reason to believe that electricity can flow through space. It is now accepted within astrophysics that space is not a vacuum, but rather filled with charged particles called plasma. In fact, matter within the plasma state represents 99.999% of all visible matter in the universe, and a gas can become electrified within the laboratory such that it becomes a plasma with only 1% ionization. That's not a whole l

Ok, I think I understand where you are coming from let me summarize:

Some craters are obviously created by impacts with meteors, comments or any other solid body.

There are some unusual features to some craters that can not be explained by our current theory of solid body impacts

Electrical phenomenon could explain these features

Is this what we are talking about? Do you agree with these points?

Yeah, that's pretty close. Within certain filters, the rays that emanate from Aristarchus look like a Lichtenberg pattern -- which is the pattern that currents make when traveling through solids. The human eye can intuitively recognize this pattern as electrical. Compare these images of electrical Lichtenberg patterns ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Plasma-filament s.jpg
http://205.243.100.155/frames/lichtenbergs.html
http://205.243.100.155/photos/For_Sale/June04/3Inc hDisk/CenterLED1b.jpg
http://picasaweb.google.com/mgmirkin/LightningScar s/photo#5075225945259278338
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/image06/060 309lightning.jpg

With Aristarchus ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/image06/060 309aristarchus.jpg

With the supposedly enigmatic Martian spiders ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0607 26spiders2.htm

Titan ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0506 29titan-rilles.htm

With these (on Earth) ...

http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=-24.395158&lon=114. 997495&z=13.1&r=0&src=yh
http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=-25.659683&lon=140. 387453&z=15.4&r=0&src=ggl
http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=-25.655156&lon=140. 386295&z=18.2&r=0&src=ggl
http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=-23.742312&lon=140. 982472&z=16.2&r=0&src=ggl
http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=-27.863467&lon=141. 872015&z=15.2&r=0&src=ggl

These images are not proof of anything, but we can certainly be excused for using them as motivation for further investigation.

But Electric Universe Theory is not just about using the senses. There is very good reason to believe that electricity can flow through space. It is now accepted within astrophysics that space is not a vacuum, but rather filled with charged particles called plasma. In fact, matter within the plasma state represents 99.999% of all visible matter in the universe, and a gas can become electrified within the laboratory such that it becomes a plasma with only 1% ionization. That's not a whole l

The "white-out" in the lower part of the image is casting a shadow on the surface beneath it (one part in fact looks like a cave) but also the white area itself is darkened in one area, suggesting that it is shadowed.

EU Theorists can hold their ground quite well in a debate with professional astrophysicists when the rules are fair. The fair rules requirement pretty much rules out most discussions on the Bad Astronomy Forum. You can view a loose attempt at a debate here:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB/phpBB2/vi ewtopic.php?t=410

ScienceApologist is the person who has been censoring EU Theory from wikipedia. The discussion gets quite thick at times, but I recommend paying close attention to the way that ScienceApologist presents himself if you manage to skim through that. A more formal debate is supposedly in the works on that same forum area, although I have yet to see any action on it yet.

I've been looking into this stuff for about a year now, and it's quite apparent to me at least that there is value in this theory. The Slashdot crew likes to act as if we've already discovered everything there is to know about space, but they just don't see the bigger picture that every time you see an article on Space.com where a scientist is complaining that they don't understand what they are seeing (which happens on an almost weekly basis), that that means that the prior theory was wrong.

"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".

How, then, will NASA respond? Will they wonder if anyone predicted such a thing? Or will they stay in their comfort zone--within the walls of prior ideology--and reach for the nearest fantasy? The "explanation" they initially offered is mathematically inconceivable. They proposed that the impactor moved through a deep layer of soft material before hitting hard material. But the delay would require the impactor to have penetrated something like a mile beneath the surface before causing the "serious" impact event. From such an answer you would think someone dreamt up a mile of fluff for a surface, never actually looking at the sharply-defined features of the nucleus. All of the features suggest a hard surface, and observations to this effect have already come in from the SWIFT satellite.

"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".

How, then, will NASA respond? Will they wonder if anyone predicted such a thing? Or will they stay in their comfort zone--within the walls of prior ideology--and reach for the nearest fantasy? The "explanation" they initially offered is mathematically inconceivable. They proposed that the impactor moved through a deep layer of soft material before hitting hard material. But the delay would require the impactor to have penetrated something like a mile beneath the surface before causing the "serious" impact event. From such an answer you would think someone dreamt up a mile of fluff for a surface, never actually looking at the sharply-defined features of the nucleus. All of the features suggest a hard surface, and observations to this effect have already come in from the SWIFT satellite.

"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".

How, then, will NASA respond? Will they wonder if anyone predicted such a thing? Or will they stay in their comfort zone--within the walls of prior ideology--and reach for the nearest fantasy? The "explanation" they initially offered is mathematically inconceivable. They proposed that the impactor moved through a deep layer of soft material before hitting hard material. But the delay would require the impactor to have penetrated something like a mile beneath the surface before causing the "serious" impact event. From such an answer you would think someone dreamt up a mile of fluff for a surface, never actually looking at the sharply-defined features of the nucleus. All of the features suggest a hard surface, and observations to this effect have already come in from the SWIFT satellite.

[...]

The astronomers' consensus today is that the streamers are the trails of material ejected from the crater into narrow paths over extraordinary distances. But the "rays", Juergens noted, have no discernible depth, while material exploding from a Tycho-sized crater "would at least occasionally fall more heavily in one place than in another and build up substantial formations. But no one has ever been able to point out such a ray 'deposit'".

The presence of the narrow rays over such long distances, according to Juergens, is "all-but-impossible to reconcile with ejection origins. Enormous velocities of ejection must be postulated to explain the lengths of the rays, yet the energetic processes responsible for such velocities must be imagined to be focused very precisely to account for the ribbon-thin appearance of the rays". In fact, this challenge has found no answer in more recent scientific exploration. No experimental explosion at any scale has ever produced anything comparable to the well-defined 1500-kilometer "rays" of Tycho.

Even more telling is the fact that the rays are punctuated with numerous small craters. An early explanation was that "some solid material was shot out with the jets and produced 'on-the-way' craters". But such narrow trajectories for secondary impactors are an absurdity under the mechanics of an explosion. And the total volume of ejected material needed to form the secondary craters along Tycho's rays, would amount to some 10,000 cubic kilometers - an amount of material entirely inconsistent with careful measurements indicating that practically all material excavated from Tycho's crater has been deposited in its rim. However, the ray elements, terminating on small craters, are the very markers that today's electrical theorists have cited repeatedly as definitive evidence of an electrical discharge path. As Wallace Thornhill has so often observed, such discharge streamers frequently terminate at a crater. In fact, this is exactly what Gene Shoemaker found when investigating the puzzles of Tycho--"...many small secondary craters, too small to be resolved by telescopes on earth, occur at the near end of each ray element."

When compared to an imagined sphere of the Moon's average radius, the surrounding highland region occupied by Tycho is more than 1200 meters above the "surface" of that sphere. The crater site appears to be at the summit, or very close to the summit, of terrain that trends downward in every direction away from the site for hundreds of kilometers. For the impact theory, this location can only be an accident. But for the electrical theorists, the elevation on which Tycho sits is not accidental. Lightning is attracted to the highest point on a surface. (That is, of course, the principle behind lightning arrestors placed on the pinnacles of tall buildings).

Though astronomers see Tycho's rays as material ejected from the focal point of an impact, a mere glance at this picture is sufficient to make clear that not all of the streamers radiate from a central point. Is this surprising? A mechanical impact has a single focal point and cannot explain these offset rays. Juergens noted that they "diverge from a common point, or common focus, located on or buried beneath the western rim of the crater." The electrical interpretation of Tycho sees the streamers as paths of electrons rushing across the lunar highlands to the highest point, where it launches into space to form the lightning "l

What most people on Slashdot do not realize is that the evidence for EU Theory spans multiple disciplines while simultaneously maintaining internal consistency across completely unrelated fields. It's going to take decades for people to realize and accept this. We are at the very beginning of a transition point.

That said, the impending close-up's of Enceladus could really turn some heads. Enceladus has a cometary tail of sorts, which is enigmatic to NASA because the only mechanism they know of lifting that material up into the atmosphere is ice geysers resulting from tidal heating. The problem is that the tidal heating appears to only be restricted to the southern hemisphere. So, I believe that Cassini is capturing images right about now of this mysterious uplift of material. NASA will quite certainly find that the material is being uplifted along the Tiger Stripe rilles that criss-cross that planet, as a result of electrical machining. The explanation is here:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0603 13moonjets.htm

What's pretty silly, actually, is that if you watch NASA's video of Enceladus' jet, and focus on the shadow line during the animation, you will very clearly observe the jets remain stationary as the planetary features rotate ...

http://www.nasa.gov/mov/139185main_PIA07762_full_m ovie.mov

It should be very obvious if we're seeing more electrical plasma activity in our solar system because the arc points should be very hot point sources -- unlike any of NASA's preferred theories. My guess is that they will have to advocate the existence of wandering hot ice geysers! People are paying so little attention these days that, to be honest, I suspect they could get away with it.

But what's also really silly about this whole thing is their response to the observation that Enceladus' poles are warmer than its equator. This is not all that unusual within EU Theory, and they've seen it before on other planets and moons where the plasmas are electrically active. There's a lot of strong evidence that something similar used to even be true for Earth -- explaining why we see things like croc bones and ancient coral reefs at nearly all latituides of the Earth for past ages of the Earth. After a while, one would think they would stop being surprised by these sorts of things.

Scientist have yet to prove their theory there is abundance of water in comet body. None of comet missions/probes could find it so far. Read e.g http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 14comet.htm

Why not make a prediction based on EU and then attempt to disprove that prediction? If the prediction is valid, EU would gain some credibility.

Let's pretend, for instance, that NASA decides to send people to Mars' South Pole in order to investigate the apparent geyser activity there, and possibly to extract water from the ice. I've seen some pretty startling Mars Orbital Camera images from the South Pole that could be interpreted to be showing proton beams that are so powerful that they are excavating material from beneath the ice, throwing it up into the air, and then that material falls back onto the ice. NASA has decided to believe that these geysers have tectonic and/or chemical causes, but you can make a pretty logical argument based upon the images that these geysers are the result of proton beams from the Sun. Any beam of charged particles that's strong enough to gouge out material would surely be a hazard to humans.

Look very closely at the right-hand image on the following page, and it is quite clear that NASA has unknowingly captured these geysers in action, whatever the cause:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/0705 25southpolar.htm

Nobody really knows what these things are. But to think that they might send people there, that there could be a possibility that these people might be exposed to intense beams of charged particles, and that your argument for *not* considering it as a possibility has something to do with not being able to prove that God doesn't exist, is pretty reckless. It's not as if this data point exists by itself. There is evidence all over Mars that indicates electrical activity that is being ignored in favor of evidence for water.

Remember now, you still have no idea what EU Theory really states. You are operating with confidence on a complete lack of information and you've drawn all of your conclusions on the basis of observing other people's reactions to EU Theory. Let's be extremely clear: EU Theory is not anywhere in the same ballpark as creationism or any religion whatsoever. It's based upon laboratory plasma physics, where we find that plasmas are electrical in nature. They have electrical resistance and we use Maxwell's Equations to model them. The only thing keeping space plasmas from being electrical as well are the astrophysicists themselves.

One of the inevitable problems that will eventually come up regarding life on Mars is the electrical activity there. NASA has been down-playing it because their purpose appears to be to demonstrate that there was once water covering the planet, but many of the images of Martian geology do not support that theory as much as they support the notion that electricity is terraforming the planet. People on Slashdot have made a hobby of ridiculing the Electric Universe theorists, but it is not even debated that dust devils on Mars can have lightning bolts at their cores. Pictures don't lie ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0509 16dustdevil.htm

Martian dust storms appear to be armies of these dust devils. You can make out unmistakeable filamentation in these dust storms. Why is it there?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/0705 09dustdevils.htm

Would you call these craters or rilles? Is there a difference?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0504 11marspits.htm

The infamous Martian blueberries can be created in the lab with a cheap (electrical) plasma gun apparatus ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040827 mars.htm

Same goes for the Martian spiders. You can generate Martian spiders by covering an old VGA CRT monitor with fiberglass dust, charging it up, and then discharging to the same location repeatedly with your finger. Anybody can do it. We all have the materials in our own houses. So much for one of the greatest enigmas in the universe! ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0607 24spiders.htm

These rilles on Mars defy many of the characteristics of fluid flow that we've used to understand fluid processes here on Earth ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/0705 14russellcrater.htm

There are lots of things happening on Mars that do not fit into NASA's attempt to prove that water flows or flowed over all of Mars, and we'd be very wise to take a closer look if we plan on sending people up there. I've only included a very small handful here. Rather than ridiculing the EU Theorists, people should put serious effort into debunking them if they feel that they are wrong because what they are saying is very important. If you send somebody up there into an environment that has not been properly characterized -- if the environment is far more electrical than we are imagining it to be -- we could subject them to massive equipment failures and they could die. Within that context, it is not at all a waste of time to investigate the alarming things that the EU Theorists are pointing out.

One of the inevitable problems that will eventually come up regarding life on Mars is the electrical activity there. NASA has been down-playing it because their purpose appears to be to demonstrate that there was once water covering the planet, but many of the images of Martian geology do not support that theory as much as they support the notion that electricity is terraforming the planet. People on Slashdot have made a hobby of ridiculing the Electric Universe theorists, but it is not even debated that dust devils on Mars can have lightning bolts at their cores. Pictures don't lie ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0509 16dustdevil.htm

Martian dust storms appear to be armies of these dust devils. You can make out unmistakeable filamentation in these dust storms. Why is it there?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/0705 09dustdevils.htm

Would you call these craters or rilles? Is there a difference?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0504 11marspits.htm

The infamous Martian blueberries can be created in the lab with a cheap (electrical) plasma gun apparatus ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040827 mars.htm

Same goes for the Martian spiders. You can generate Martian spiders by covering an old VGA CRT monitor with fiberglass dust, charging it up, and then discharging to the same location repeatedly with your finger. Anybody can do it. We all have the materials in our own houses. So much for one of the greatest enigmas in the universe! ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0607 24spiders.htm

These rilles on Mars defy many of the characteristics of fluid flow that we've used to understand fluid processes here on Earth ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/0705 14russellcrater.htm

There are lots of things happening on Mars that do not fit into NASA's attempt to prove that water flows or flowed over all of Mars, and we'd be very wise to take a closer look if we plan on sending people up there. I've only included a very small handful here. Rather than ridiculing the EU Theorists, people should put serious effort into debunking them if they feel that they are wrong because what they are saying is very important. If you send somebody up there into an environment that has not been properly characterized -- if the environment is far more electrical than we are imagining it to be -- we could subject them to massive equipment failures and they could die. Within that context, it is not at all a waste of time to investigate the alarming things that the EU Theorists are pointing out.

One of the inevitable problems that will eventually come up regarding life on Mars is the electrical activity there. NASA has been down-playing it because their purpose appears to be to demonstrate that there was once water covering the planet, but many of the images of Martian geology do not support that theory as much as they support the notion that electricity is terraforming the planet. People on Slashdot have made a hobby of ridiculing the Electric Universe theorists, but it is not even debated that dust devils on Mars can have lightning bolts at their cores. Pictures don't lie ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0509 16dustdevil.htm

Martian dust storms appear to be armies of these dust devils. You can make out unmistakeable filamentation in these dust storms. Why is it there?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/0705 09dustdevils.htm

Would you call these craters or rilles? Is there a difference?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0504 11marspits.htm

The infamous Martian blueberries can be created in the lab with a cheap (electrical) plasma gun apparatus ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040827 mars.htm

Same goes for the Martian spiders. You can generate Martian spiders by covering an old VGA CRT monitor with fiberglass dust, charging it up, and then discharging to the same location repeatedly with your finger. Anybody can do it. We all have the materials in our own houses. So much for one of the greatest enigmas in the universe! ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0607 24spiders.htm

These rilles on Mars defy many of the characteristics of fluid flow that we've used to understand fluid processes here on Earth ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/0705 14russellcrater.htm

There are lots of things happening on Mars that do not fit into NASA's attempt to prove that water flows or flowed over all of Mars, and we'd be very wise to take a closer look if we plan on sending people up there. I've only included a very small handful here. Rather than ridiculing the EU Theorists, people should put serious effort into debunking them if they feel that they are wrong because what they are saying is very important. If you send somebody up there into an environment that has not been properly characterized -- if the environment is far more electrical than we are imagining it to be -- we could subject them to massive equipment failures and they could die. Within that context, it is not at all a waste of time to investigate the alarming things that the EU Theorists are pointing out.

One of the inevitable problems that will eventually come up regarding life on Mars is the electrical activity there. NASA has been down-playing it because their purpose appears to be to demonstrate that there was once water covering the planet, but many of the images of Martian geology do not support that theory as much as they support the notion that electricity is terraforming the planet. People on Slashdot have made a hobby of ridiculing the Electric Universe theorists, but it is not even debated that dust devils on Mars can have lightning bolts at their cores. Pictures don't lie ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0509 16dustdevil.htm

Martian dust storms appear to be armies of these dust devils. You can make out unmistakeable filamentation in these dust storms. Why is it there?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/0705 09dustdevils.htm

Would you call these craters or rilles? Is there a difference?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0504 11marspits.htm

The infamous Martian blueberries can be created in the lab with a cheap (electrical) plasma gun apparatus ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040827 mars.htm

Same goes for the Martian spiders. You can generate Martian spiders by covering an old VGA CRT monitor with fiberglass dust, charging it up, and then discharging to the same location repeatedly with your finger. Anybody can do it. We all have the materials in our own houses. So much for one of the greatest enigmas in the universe! ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0607 24spiders.htm

These rilles on Mars defy many of the characteristics of fluid flow that we've used to understand fluid processes here on Earth ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/0705 14russellcrater.htm

There are lots of things happening on Mars that do not fit into NASA's attempt to prove that water flows or flowed over all of Mars, and we'd be very wise to take a closer look if we plan on sending people up there. I've only included a very small handful here. Rather than ridiculing the EU Theorists, people should put serious effort into debunking them if they feel that they are wrong because what they are saying is very important. If you send somebody up there into an environment that has not been properly characterized -- if the environment is far more electrical than we are imagining it to be -- we could subject them to massive equipment failures and they could die. Within that context, it is not at all a waste of time to investigate the alarming things that the EU Theorists are pointing out.

One of the inevitable problems that will eventually come up regarding life on Mars is the electrical activity there. NASA has been down-playing it because their purpose appears to be to demonstrate that there was once water covering the planet, but many of the images of Martian geology do not support that theory as much as they support the notion that electricity is terraforming the planet. People on Slashdot have made a hobby of ridiculing the Electric Universe theorists, but it is not even debated that dust devils on Mars can have lightning bolts at their cores. Pictures don't lie ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0509 16dustdevil.htm

Martian dust storms appear to be armies of these dust devils. You can make out unmistakeable filamentation in these dust storms. Why is it there?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/0705 09dustdevils.htm

Would you call these craters or rilles? Is there a difference?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0504 11marspits.htm

The infamous Martian blueberries can be created in the lab with a cheap (electrical) plasma gun apparatus ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040827 mars.htm

Same goes for the Martian spiders. You can generate Martian spiders by covering an old VGA CRT monitor with fiberglass dust, charging it up, and then discharging to the same location repeatedly with your finger. Anybody can do it. We all have the materials in our own houses. So much for one of the greatest enigmas in the universe! ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0607 24spiders.htm

These rilles on Mars defy many of the characteristics of fluid flow that we've used to understand fluid processes here on Earth ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/0705 14russellcrater.htm

There are lots of things happening on Mars that do not fit into NASA's attempt to prove that water flows or flowed over all of Mars, and we'd be very wise to take a closer look if we plan on sending people up there. I've only included a very small handful here. Rather than ridiculing the EU Theorists, people should put serious effort into debunking them if they feel that they are wrong because what they are saying is very important. If you send somebody up there into an environment that has not been properly characterized -- if the environment is far more electrical than we are imagining it to be -- we could subject them to massive equipment failures and they could die. Within that context, it is not at all a waste of time to investigate the alarming things that the EU Theorists are pointing out.

One of the inevitable problems that will eventually come up regarding life on Mars is the electrical activity there. NASA has been down-playing it because their purpose appears to be to demonstrate that there was once water covering the planet, but many of the images of Martian geology do not support that theory as much as they support the notion that electricity is terraforming the planet. People on Slashdot have made a hobby of ridiculing the Electric Universe theorists, but it is not even debated that dust devils on Mars can have lightning bolts at their cores. Pictures don't lie ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0509 16dustdevil.htm

Martian dust storms appear to be armies of these dust devils. You can make out unmistakeable filamentation in these dust storms. Why is it there?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/0705 09dustdevils.htm

Would you call these craters or rilles? Is there a difference?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0504 11marspits.htm

The infamous Martian blueberries can be created in the lab with a cheap (electrical) plasma gun apparatus ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040827 mars.htm

Same goes for the Martian spiders. You can generate Martian spiders by covering an old VGA CRT monitor with fiberglass dust, charging it up, and then discharging to the same location repeatedly with your finger. Anybody can do it. We all have the materials in our own houses. So much for one of the greatest enigmas in the universe! ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0607 24spiders.htm

These rilles on Mars defy many of the characteristics of fluid flow that we've used to understand fluid processes here on Earth ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/0705 14russellcrater.htm

There are lots of things happening on Mars that do not fit into NASA's attempt to prove that water flows or flowed over all of Mars, and we'd be very wise to take a closer look if we plan on sending people up there. I've only included a very small handful here. Rather than ridiculing the EU Theorists, people should put serious effort into debunking them if they feel that they are wrong because what they are saying is very important. If you send somebody up there into an environment that has not been properly characterized -- if the environment is far more electrical than we are imagining it to be -- we could subject them to massive equipment failures and they could die. Within that context, it is not at all a waste of time to investigate the alarming things that the EU Theorists are pointing out.

The Tunguska event is enigmatic for the sole reason that no popular theory currently in existence can comprehensively explain all of the information that we know about it. Fitting Tunguska to a mainstream impact theory will always invariably involve ignoring some of the details that we know about the event. People here on Slashdot oftentimes mirror the attitudes of traditional scientific culture, which frequently demonstrates preferences and prejudices for particular solutions to problems within the interpretive sciences. It's the very existence of enigmas like Tunguska, the Grand Canyon and the impossible dimensions of the flying and long-necked dinosaurs, to name a few others, that should occasionally inspire objective people to look for answers outside of the mainstream. The fact that this does not happen means that explanations are being ignored for the sole reason that they violate a mainstream substrate for our understanding of the universe (it's the incredible claims require incredible proof argument). But when we do this, the mainstream scientific opinion then becomes a self-perpetuating myth -- an artificial reality that we impose upon ourselves because it suits our preferences. Our scientific institutions must in fact fully investigate all possible explanations of anomalous data if we ever hope to create a popular scientific view that is impervious to challenges. By ignoring the Electric Universe view in particular, people unknowingly ignore what is by far and without question the most satisfying explanation for all of the details of the Tunguska event ...

The uncontested details of the event:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 02tunguska.htm

The EU explanation:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 03tunguska2.htm

If EU Theory is to be a satisfying explanation for this event, then we must expect that we have information from other sources about other similar events that corroborates this concept. And we do. A popular misconception is that the Great Chicago Fire was an isolated incident. In fact, numerous fires instantiated themselves across the country simultaneously, all with very specific and unusual characteristics ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 06chicagofire.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 07biela.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 09chicagofire.htm

If Comets are in fact electrical in nature, then we should be able to test this theory scientifically. We have. And the EU Theorists were demonstrated to be right with nearly every single one of their predictions of the Deep Impact mission:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 09chicagofire.htm

It's not that it is impossible to understand events like Tunguska. It's that people have not *liked* all solutions equally. It's that there are great social barriers to paradigm-shifting changes within the interpretive sciences. There is this sense that in order to accept that some specific thing has a non-traditional explanation, then we would have to immediately and comprehensively present all of the equations and details necessary to explain the entire universe within this new paradigm. But that ignores the fact that it took us decades, if not centuries, to develop the mainstream theories. That's hardly fair at all, and no single person could ever explain the entire univ

The Tunguska event is enigmatic for the sole reason that no popular theory currently in existence can comprehensively explain all of the information that we know about it. Fitting Tunguska to a mainstream impact theory will always invariably involve ignoring some of the details that we know about the event. People here on Slashdot oftentimes mirror the attitudes of traditional scientific culture, which frequently demonstrates preferences and prejudices for particular solutions to problems within the interpretive sciences. It's the very existence of enigmas like Tunguska, the Grand Canyon and the impossible dimensions of the flying and long-necked dinosaurs, to name a few others, that should occasionally inspire objective people to look for answers outside of the mainstream. The fact that this does not happen means that explanations are being ignored for the sole reason that they violate a mainstream substrate for our understanding of the universe (it's the incredible claims require incredible proof argument). But when we do this, the mainstream scientific opinion then becomes a self-perpetuating myth -- an artificial reality that we impose upon ourselves because it suits our preferences. Our scientific institutions must in fact fully investigate all possible explanations of anomalous data if we ever hope to create a popular scientific view that is impervious to challenges. By ignoring the Electric Universe view in particular, people unknowingly ignore what is by far and without question the most satisfying explanation for all of the details of the Tunguska event ...

The uncontested details of the event:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 02tunguska.htm

The EU explanation:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 03tunguska2.htm

If EU Theory is to be a satisfying explanation for this event, then we must expect that we have information from other sources about other similar events that corroborates this concept. And we do. A popular misconception is that the Great Chicago Fire was an isolated incident. In fact, numerous fires instantiated themselves across the country simultaneously, all with very specific and unusual characteristics ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 06chicagofire.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 07biela.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 09chicagofire.htm

If Comets are in fact electrical in nature, then we should be able to test this theory scientifically. We have. And the EU Theorists were demonstrated to be right with nearly every single one of their predictions of the Deep Impact mission:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 09chicagofire.htm

It's not that it is impossible to understand events like Tunguska. It's that people have not *liked* all solutions equally. It's that there are great social barriers to paradigm-shifting changes within the interpretive sciences. There is this sense that in order to accept that some specific thing has a non-traditional explanation, then we would have to immediately and comprehensively present all of the equations and details necessary to explain the entire universe within this new paradigm. But that ignores the fact that it took us decades, if not centuries, to develop the mainstream theories. That's hardly fair at all, and no single person could ever explain the entire univ

The Tunguska event is enigmatic for the sole reason that no popular theory currently in existence can comprehensively explain all of the information that we know about it. Fitting Tunguska to a mainstream impact theory will always invariably involve ignoring some of the details that we know about the event. People here on Slashdot oftentimes mirror the attitudes of traditional scientific culture, which frequently demonstrates preferences and prejudices for particular solutions to problems within the interpretive sciences. It's the very existence of enigmas like Tunguska, the Grand Canyon and the impossible dimensions of the flying and long-necked dinosaurs, to name a few others, that should occasionally inspire objective people to look for answers outside of the mainstream. The fact that this does not happen means that explanations are being ignored for the sole reason that they violate a mainstream substrate for our understanding of the universe (it's the incredible claims require incredible proof argument). But when we do this, the mainstream scientific opinion then becomes a self-perpetuating myth -- an artificial reality that we impose upon ourselves because it suits our preferences. Our scientific institutions must in fact fully investigate all possible explanations of anomalous data if we ever hope to create a popular scientific view that is impervious to challenges. By ignoring the Electric Universe view in particular, people unknowingly ignore what is by far and without question the most satisfying explanation for all of the details of the Tunguska event ...

The uncontested details of the event:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 02tunguska.htm

The EU explanation:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 03tunguska2.htm

If EU Theory is to be a satisfying explanation for this event, then we must expect that we have information from other sources about other similar events that corroborates this concept. And we do. A popular misconception is that the Great Chicago Fire was an isolated incident. In fact, numerous fires instantiated themselves across the country simultaneously, all with very specific and unusual characteristics ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 06chicagofire.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 07biela.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 09chicagofire.htm

If Comets are in fact electrical in nature, then we should be able to test this theory scientifically. We have. And the EU Theorists were demonstrated to be right with nearly every single one of their predictions of the Deep Impact mission:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 09chicagofire.htm

It's not that it is impossible to understand events like Tunguska. It's that people have not *liked* all solutions equally. It's that there are great social barriers to paradigm-shifting changes within the interpretive sciences. There is this sense that in order to accept that some specific thing has a non-traditional explanation, then we would have to immediately and comprehensively present all of the equations and details necessary to explain the entire universe within this new paradigm. But that ignores the fact that it took us decades, if not centuries, to develop the mainstream theories. That's hardly fair at all, and no single person could ever explain the entire univ

The Tunguska event is enigmatic for the sole reason that no popular theory currently in existence can comprehensively explain all of the information that we know about it. Fitting Tunguska to a mainstream impact theory will always invariably involve ignoring some of the details that we know about the event. People here on Slashdot oftentimes mirror the attitudes of traditional scientific culture, which frequently demonstrates preferences and prejudices for particular solutions to problems within the interpretive sciences. It's the very existence of enigmas like Tunguska, the Grand Canyon and the impossible dimensions of the flying and long-necked dinosaurs, to name a few others, that should occasionally inspire objective people to look for answers outside of the mainstream. The fact that this does not happen means that explanations are being ignored for the sole reason that they violate a mainstream substrate for our understanding of the universe (it's the incredible claims require incredible proof argument). But when we do this, the mainstream scientific opinion then becomes a self-perpetuating myth -- an artificial reality that we impose upon ourselves because it suits our preferences. Our scientific institutions must in fact fully investigate all possible explanations of anomalous data if we ever hope to create a popular scientific view that is impervious to challenges. By ignoring the Electric Universe view in particular, people unknowingly ignore what is by far and without question the most satisfying explanation for all of the details of the Tunguska event ...

The uncontested details of the event:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 02tunguska.htm

The EU explanation:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 03tunguska2.htm

If EU Theory is to be a satisfying explanation for this event, then we must expect that we have information from other sources about other similar events that corroborates this concept. And we do. A popular misconception is that the Great Chicago Fire was an isolated incident. In fact, numerous fires instantiated themselves across the country simultaneously, all with very specific and unusual characteristics ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 06chicagofire.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 07biela.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 09chicagofire.htm

If Comets are in fact electrical in nature, then we should be able to test this theory scientifically. We have. And the EU Theorists were demonstrated to be right with nearly every single one of their predictions of the Deep Impact mission:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 09chicagofire.htm

It's not that it is impossible to understand events like Tunguska. It's that people have not *liked* all solutions equally. It's that there are great social barriers to paradigm-shifting changes within the interpretive sciences. There is this sense that in order to accept that some specific thing has a non-traditional explanation, then we would have to immediately and comprehensively present all of the equations and details necessary to explain the entire universe within this new paradigm. But that ignores the fact that it took us decades, if not centuries, to develop the mainstream theories. That's hardly fair at all, and no single person could ever explain the entire univ

The Tunguska event is enigmatic for the sole reason that no popular theory currently in existence can comprehensively explain all of the information that we know about it. Fitting Tunguska to a mainstream impact theory will always invariably involve ignoring some of the details that we know about the event. People here on Slashdot oftentimes mirror the attitudes of traditional scientific culture, which frequently demonstrates preferences and prejudices for particular solutions to problems within the interpretive sciences. It's the very existence of enigmas like Tunguska, the Grand Canyon and the impossible dimensions of the flying and long-necked dinosaurs, to name a few others, that should occasionally inspire objective people to look for answers outside of the mainstream. The fact that this does not happen means that explanations are being ignored for the sole reason that they violate a mainstream substrate for our understanding of the universe (it's the incredible claims require incredible proof argument). But when we do this, the mainstream scientific opinion then becomes a self-perpetuating myth -- an artificial reality that we impose upon ourselves because it suits our preferences. Our scientific institutions must in fact fully investigate all possible explanations of anomalous data if we ever hope to create a popular scientific view that is impervious to challenges. By ignoring the Electric Universe view in particular, people unknowingly ignore what is by far and without question the most satisfying explanation for all of the details of the Tunguska event ...

The uncontested details of the event:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 02tunguska.htm

The EU explanation:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 03tunguska2.htm

If EU Theory is to be a satisfying explanation for this event, then we must expect that we have information from other sources about other similar events that corroborates this concept. And we do. A popular misconception is that the Great Chicago Fire was an isolated incident. In fact, numerous fires instantiated themselves across the country simultaneously, all with very specific and unusual characteristics ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 06chicagofire.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 07biela.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 09chicagofire.htm

If Comets are in fact electrical in nature, then we should be able to test this theory scientifically. We have. And the EU Theorists were demonstrated to be right with nearly every single one of their predictions of the Deep Impact mission:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 09chicagofire.htm

It's not that it is impossible to understand events like Tunguska. It's that people have not *liked* all solutions equally. It's that there are great social barriers to paradigm-shifting changes within the interpretive sciences. There is this sense that in order to accept that some specific thing has a non-traditional explanation, then we would have to immediately and comprehensively present all of the equations and details necessary to explain the entire universe within this new paradigm. But that ignores the fact that it took us decades, if not centuries, to develop the mainstream theories. That's hardly fair at all, and no single person could ever explain the entire univ

The Tunguska event is enigmatic for the sole reason that no popular theory currently in existence can comprehensively explain all of the information that we know about it. Fitting Tunguska to a mainstream impact theory will always invariably involve ignoring some of the details that we know about the event. People here on Slashdot oftentimes mirror the attitudes of traditional scientific culture, which frequently demonstrates preferences and prejudices for particular solutions to problems within the interpretive sciences. It's the very existence of enigmas like Tunguska, the Grand Canyon and the impossible dimensions of the flying and long-necked dinosaurs, to name a few others, that should occasionally inspire objective people to look for answers outside of the mainstream. The fact that this does not happen means that explanations are being ignored for the sole reason that they violate a mainstream substrate for our understanding of the universe (it's the incredible claims require incredible proof argument). But when we do this, the mainstream scientific opinion then becomes a self-perpetuating myth -- an artificial reality that we impose upon ourselves because it suits our preferences. Our scientific institutions must in fact fully investigate all possible explanations of anomalous data if we ever hope to create a popular scientific view that is impervious to challenges. By ignoring the Electric Universe view in particular, people unknowingly ignore what is by far and without question the most satisfying explanation for all of the details of the Tunguska event ...

The uncontested details of the event:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 02tunguska.htm

The EU explanation:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 03tunguska2.htm

If EU Theory is to be a satisfying explanation for this event, then we must expect that we have information from other sources about other similar events that corroborates this concept. And we do. A popular misconception is that the Great Chicago Fire was an isolated incident. In fact, numerous fires instantiated themselves across the country simultaneously, all with very specific and unusual characteristics ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 06chicagofire.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 07biela.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 09chicagofire.htm

If Comets are in fact electrical in nature, then we should be able to test this theory scientifically. We have. And the EU Theorists were demonstrated to be right with nearly every single one of their predictions of the Deep Impact mission:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 09chicagofire.htm

It's not that it is impossible to understand events like Tunguska. It's that people have not *liked* all solutions equally. It's that there are great social barriers to paradigm-shifting changes within the interpretive sciences. There is this sense that in order to accept that some specific thing has a non-traditional explanation, then we would have to immediately and comprehensively present all of the equations and details necessary to explain the entire universe within this new paradigm. But that ignores the fact that it took us decades, if not centuries, to develop the mainstream theories. That's hardly fair at all, and no single person could ever explain the entire univ

this is no new news...

electric universe
http://www.holoscience.com/
or
Exploring the Electric Universe
http://thunderbolts.info/home.htm

I'm interested in what sort of disconfirming evidence you used to "debunk" Electric Universe Theory. I've seen only name-calling and insistences that it must not be true. It seems to me that you're basing your decision on the *consensus* of the posters on Slashdot without actually reading the theory itself. The fact that people are a little too vigorous in their defense of the mainstream theories should raise some alarm bells in your head. If people are so confident that Electric Universe Theory is wrong, then why don't these people present evidence instead of just insulting the advocates? If you ask them, they will tell you that it's not their responsibility to disprove somebody else's "pet theory", or they don't have the time to waste on it. If you asked every single person that's slandering EU Theory on this forum if they have actually read it, you're going to find that virtually none of them have read any major summary of the theory. Nearly all of the mainstreamers are formulating their opinions on the basis of observing everybody else. It's a bit like a pack of monkeys.

What you need to realize is that mainstream astrophysicists are taught in college in a class called magnetohydrodynamics that they can model plasmas in space with fluid equations. But we know for a fact that plasmas in the laboratory are electrical phenomenon. In fact, we can convert a gas to electrical plasma with less than 1% ionization. We also now know that plasma constitutes nearly all of space. Any errors in modeling it would have serious ramifications. If we're teaching the astrophysicists the wrong thing in school, then you should *expect* that they will vigorously challenge anything that contradicts their teachings -- and this over-confidence will inevitably bleed into the Slashdot forums. You also need to realize that our observations of electrical plasmas in the laboratory can explain pretty much all of our observations of plasma in space, including mysteries like dark matter, unusual supernova remnants, and many unusual features of our own Sun. Mainstream astrophysicists have taken the unfortunate position that laboratory electrical plasmas just do not scale to galactic scales. But we can observe things in space that look just like electrical plasmas from the laboratory (z-pinches).

I recommend that you read at least a few pages of what these guys are saying before you formulate an opinion on the matter. A good (free) starting point would be http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf . If you find that worthwhile, then check out Don Scotts's "The Electric Sky".

I love it when people fall for the Sudbury neutrino nonsense. Mainstreamers are always so quick to jump to the conclusion that Sudbury resolved the solar neutrino problem. From what I understand, Sudbury demonstrated neutrino fluctuations in only one direction. They don't take into consideration the obvious fact that fluctuations can occur in the opposite direction too, which once confirmed, will un-resolves the neutrino problem exactly back to where we were before -- a deficit.

Cluckshot, I hope you will accept my invitation to join and regularly participate in the new Thunderbolts Forum at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB/phpBB2/in dex.php. I'm very impresed with your awareness. We need more knowledgeable, open-minded people like you there. It is a moderated forum where you can be free to discuss electricity in space without the high noise levels here on Slashdot.

The evidence you site of astronomer's supposed bafflement is rediculous, pedestrian, and unworthy of any consideration what so ever. Try again when you have some hard experimental data that both disproves current cosmological theory and supports your own.

The reason scientists are not paying attention to the Electric Universe is the same reason why they're not reading what /dev/urandom has to say about the universe : time is precious and they can't afford to spend it equally on all theories.

The low brightness of supernovae in highly redshifted galaxies is easy to explain, based upon Halton Arp's linking of high redshift and faintness of a galaxy to the youthfulness of a nearby galaxy. In an electric universe, a galactic circuit powers supernovae. In a new galaxy the driving potential is low, causing both the observed faintness and high intrinsic redshift. A supernova in such a galaxy will therefore have reduced power and brightness.

I'm not sure how much they pay for hosting and web design or whatever, I'd guess more than $2, unless you're buying it by the minute or something. Here's a link to their "picture of the day" archive, as you can see they've been producing articles five days a week for three years: http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/00archive.htm And a look at their pedigree: http://thunderbolts.info/team.htm

I'm not sure how much they pay for hosting and web design or whatever, I'd guess more than $2, unless you're buying it by the minute or something. Here's a link to their "picture of the day" archive, as you can see they've been producing articles five days a week for three years: http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/00archive.htm And a look at their pedigree: http://thunderbolts.info/team.htm

Actually a group of electrical theorists operating the Thunderbolts web site made several successful predictions regarding the "Deep Impact" mission. http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0507 04predictions.htm It's interesting to note that many of the successful predictions regarding this mission to a comet were "baffling" to professional astronogers who actually planned and carried out the mission. I give the "Deep Impact" team ten out of ten points for technical expertise, zero out of ten for their cartoonish expectations that flew in the face of the actual experimental results. Here is an assessment of the predictions made by the Thunderbolts team: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0507 19deepinterim.htm Here is a link to a Google search showing a pretty comprehensive pre- and post-event coverage of the mission, including many successful predictions that "surprised" astronogers and lots of analysis of the actual data from the experiment: http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&newwind ow=1&safe=off&q=site%3Athunderbolts.info+deep+impa ct+prediction&btnG=Search

Actually a group of electrical theorists operating the Thunderbolts web site made several successful predictions regarding the "Deep Impact" mission. http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0507 04predictions.htm It's interesting to note that many of the successful predictions regarding this mission to a comet were "baffling" to professional astronogers who actually planned and carried out the mission. I give the "Deep Impact" team ten out of ten points for technical expertise, zero out of ten for their cartoonish expectations that flew in the face of the actual experimental results. Here is an assessment of the predictions made by the Thunderbolts team: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0507 19deepinterim.htm Here is a link to a Google search showing a pretty comprehensive pre- and post-event coverage of the mission, including many successful predictions that "surprised" astronogers and lots of analysis of the actual data from the experiment: http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&newwind ow=1&safe=off&q=site%3Athunderbolts.info+deep+impa ct+prediction&btnG=Search

This is actually a great article because, if you read and think about what it's saying closely, it's hard not to wonder if it's possible that neutron stars could be pulsing for electrical reasons rather than spinning. We've observed pulsars to be pulsing at such phenomenal rates that it was necessary to postulate the existence of a new form of matter, neutronium, in order to explain the fast rotational velocity. But the idea that the flickering could be the result of electrical sparking between a binary star pair, as plasma does within the laboratory, was passed over in favor of a theory that depended upon matter that had never been observed to exist within the laboratory.

Why? Because the notion that electricity flows through space to such an extent that it can create visible lightning bolts between two stars is not an acceptable notion for mainstream astrophysicists. And yet, we know that matter within the plasma state is an electrical phenomenon within the laboratory. We know that the luminosity graphs we see coming from pulsars, unlike a rotating body, very closely match the behavior of lightning in that it possesses a fast rise and a slow decay (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050 527variablexray.htm). We know that we identify many of the pulsars to actually be members of binary star pairs. We've observed that this flickering can glitch, as it has with the Vela Pulsar. We've even observed lightning-like filaments being emitted from this same pulsar (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/04092 0pulsar.htm). One wonders why we continue to so strongly hold onto the belief that the flickering for pulsars is due to rotation instead of electrical activity even as it is supposed that the flickering of brown dwarfs is now observed to be the result of electrical activity at its poles. The very fact that pulsars are emitting radio emissions, which is presented within this article to be a mystery, suggests that the flickering is due to electrical activity. Our data regarding pulsars, which is at least enough to prevent us from forming any consensus opinion on the cause of pulsar flickering, appears to be taking a back seat to the theory that their flickering must be the result of spinning.

It will be very interesting to see what happens over time to TVLM 513-46546. In the Electric Universe view, these objects are not stars in their death throes, but rather gas giant planets that can potentially turn into objects as bright as our Sun, given more charge density. It is very possible that we could see this gas giant turn into a star right before our eyes. Given enough charge density, the plasma can change modes from the normal glow mode into the arc mode. Or, if the distance between it and its binary companion is decreasing, we may see the rate of flickering decrease. In the electrical view, we've observed this type of thing before for another nearby star, Betelgeuse. Look at the "hot spot" on that star at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betelgeuse. This is what one would expect to see with EU Theory if the star is transitioning between the normal glow and arc modes. What's important to note is that we may see dramatic changes for the star take shape over the course of just years, and that these changes can violate the mainstream stellar evolution theories. It's easy when a star is far away to suppose all sorts of hypothetical explanations for our observations. But when we can see detail, as for this brown dwarf, it places additional constraints on our speculations.

This is actually a great article because, if you read and think about what it's saying closely, it's hard not to wonder if it's possible that neutron stars could be pulsing for electrical reasons rather than spinning. We've observed pulsars to be pulsing at such phenomenal rates that it was necessary to postulate the existence of a new form of matter, neutronium, in order to explain the fast rotational velocity. But the idea that the flickering could be the result of electrical sparking between a binary star pair, as plasma does within the laboratory, was passed over in favor of a theory that depended upon matter that had never been observed to exist within the laboratory.

Why? Because the notion that electricity flows through space to such an extent that it can create visible lightning bolts between two stars is not an acceptable notion for mainstream astrophysicists. And yet, we know that matter within the plasma state is an electrical phenomenon within the laboratory. We know that the luminosity graphs we see coming from pulsars, unlike a rotating body, very closely match the behavior of lightning in that it possesses a fast rise and a slow decay (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050 527variablexray.htm). We know that we identify many of the pulsars to actually be members of binary star pairs. We've observed that this flickering can glitch, as it has with the Vela Pulsar. We've even observed lightning-like filaments being emitted from this same pulsar (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/04092 0pulsar.htm). One wonders why we continue to so strongly hold onto the belief that the flickering for pulsars is due to rotation instead of electrical activity even as it is supposed that the flickering of brown dwarfs is now observed to be the result of electrical activity at its poles. The very fact that pulsars are emitting radio emissions, which is presented within this article to be a mystery, suggests that the flickering is due to electrical activity. Our data regarding pulsars, which is at least enough to prevent us from forming any consensus opinion on the cause of pulsar flickering, appears to be taking a back seat to the theory that their flickering must be the result of spinning.

It will be very interesting to see what happens over time to TVLM 513-46546. In the Electric Universe view, these objects are not stars in their death throes, but rather gas giant planets that can potentially turn into objects as bright as our Sun, given more charge density. It is very possible that we could see this gas giant turn into a star right before our eyes. Given enough charge density, the plasma can change modes from the normal glow mode into the arc mode. Or, if the distance between it and its binary companion is decreasing, we may see the rate of flickering decrease. In the electrical view, we've observed this type of thing before for another nearby star, Betelgeuse. Look at the "hot spot" on that star at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betelgeuse. This is what one would expect to see with EU Theory if the star is transitioning between the normal glow and arc modes. What's important to note is that we may see dramatic changes for the star take shape over the course of just years, and that these changes can violate the mainstream stellar evolution theories. It's easy when a star is far away to suppose all sorts of hypothetical explanations for our observations. But when we can see detail, as for this brown dwarf, it places additional constraints on our speculations.

regolith's patchy distribution is the result of shaking, which causes the finest and lightest materials to accumulate in dips on the asteroid's surface, where the local gravity is lowest.

"It's sort of like if you poured water over Itokawa, all the water would tend to pool in these [low] regions," said study team member Daniel Scheeres of the University of Michigan. "The water would flow downhill until it couldn't go downhill anymore."

A shaky asteroid

The new findings suggest seismic activity of some kind is occurring on Itokawa, a small asteroid only 1,600 feet (500 meters) in diameter.

"Even though it's this tiny little guy, it is in some sense geologically active," Scheeres told SPACE.com. "Things are happening on the surface. Stuff moves from one point to the other."

The regolith distribution suggests Itokawa has been shaken up in the past, but what might have rattled it is still an open question.

One hypothesis is that smaller asteroids occasionally strike Itokawa and shake the space rock up. Because of its diminutive size, even tiny impacts could send Itokawa into a tremor. Another idea is that Itokawa might occasionally fly close enough to the Earth, where our planet's gravity could jostle it.

Jostled by sunlight

Perhaps the most intriguing hypothesis, however, is one recently put forth by Scheeres. In a study to be published in the scientific journal Icarus, Scheeres ties Itokawa's periodic shaking to the YORP effect, in which sunlight provides a small nudge that can speed up or slow down an asteroid's rotation.

Every single one of these propositions are defied by common sense. However, the electrical view follows from the laboratory (and even the manufacturing industry that was used to create the computer you're using right now). From http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 17deepimpact3.htm:

Cathode sputtering has an effect that is simply "beyond the reach" of evaporating volatiles. It can create an exceedingly fine dust down to 1 micrometer or even finer. (One micrometer is just 40 millionths of an inch). This unique capability of cathode sputtering is why the process is used in the manufacture of highly reflective mirrors for modern telescopes. So again, a comparison of practical electrical technology with the discoveries of Deep Impact is only reasonable.

This line of investigation introduces another surprise: Astronomers could not understand what occurred when the 800-pound projectile hit the comet nucleus. An enormous volume of an extraordinarily fine dust was thrown into space at high speed, creating an extremely bright cloud due to the dust's remarkable reflectivity. NASA scientists estimated that the dust particles were only .5 to 1 micrometer in diameter.

But was the surprise justified? Almost twenty years earlier the visit to Halley had investigators wondering how "sublimating ices" could produce such fine comet dust. But that surprise, like so many others, seems to have been quickly

Invoking a global conspiracy to explain the lack of acceptance for your theory

Although I haven't sufficient information to clearly debunk you at the moment, I do recall some allusions as to how electromanetic forces simply do not have enough power over stellar distances to actually cause any of the stuff you imply. That is the primary reason astrophysisits have not examined the theory. Most people who point to the establishment and say to the effect of "they say I'm wrong because they're poo heads" tend to be wrong.

Observant space enthusiasts will notice the excessively large number of hourglass morphologies that continue to appear in NASA's press releases. These hourglass morphologies can only be awkwardly called the result of gravitation. A cursory familiarity with laboratory plasma physics will help people to recognize that the most likely explanation is that these are in fact z-pinches wich result from Birkeland Currents. In a zoomed image, you can see the filamentary Birkeland Currents on two opposing sides of the red "square" being pinched down to a central point. These same filaments are also observable, but in cross-section, in the 1987A supernova remnant. Which components are visible varies from image to image, but the general morphology of the hourglass remains discernible.

Here are some additional hourglass morphologies with pictures that have been observed:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4953165/
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0510 05eta-carinae.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0504 26bug-nebula.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0504 15milkyway.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Supernova-1987a .jpg

Since hourglass morphologies are somewhat disconfirming to traditional mainstream cosmologies (ie, the Big Bang), the fact that they continue to be observed all over the universe escapes the notice of professional astrophysicists, whose primary concern is to prove the Big Bang Theory and Stellar Evolution Theories. Objectively interpreting these shapes for what they most likely represent means dropping complicated, mainstream astrophysical explanations, and accepting the notion that electricity flows through space over plasma as we know it does within the laboratory. In these particular instances, at least, it is clear that the electrical force is dominant to gravity. We can opt to devise all sorts of gravitation-centric explanations for hourglass morphologies, but in doing so, we consciously opt to violate Occam's Razor.

The implications of such strong evidence of electricity in space are overwhelming -- which provides all of the explanation necessary for avoiding abandonment of the traditional, more popular gravity-centric theories. When astrophysicists eventually accept that plasma in space has electrical resistance just like the plasma we observe in the laboratory, then they will begin to re-interpret all of our observations in terms of Maxwell's Equations rather than fluid and gas laws. And the enigmas of dark matter and dark energy will forever disappear, as this substitution can provide the exact forces necessary to explain things like how spiral galaxies can spin as if they are solid plates and how matter might repel other matter. The fact that we as a culture currently prefer to consider imaginary forces and particles to explain these "anomalies" rather than forces that we already understand will forever paint us to future generations as people who decided to favor the mathematicians and theories over our observational data and decades of experimental laboratory physics work.

The evidence for electricity in space is not a sparse patchwork here and there. It is a flood of data that is only allowed to escape the notice of the public with the help of overconfident astrophysicists and a mob mentality within the space enthusiast community. Anybody who is intellectually curious about the universe and less concerned with what the people around them believe than what in fact appears to be true should consider learning more about plasma physics and the electric universe we live in. Don Scott

Observant space enthusiasts will notice the excessively large number of hourglass morphologies that continue to appear in NASA's press releases. These hourglass morphologies can only be awkwardly called the result of gravitation. A cursory familiarity with laboratory plasma physics will help people to recognize that the most likely explanation is that these are in fact z-pinches wich result from Birkeland Currents. In a zoomed image, you can see the filamentary Birkeland Currents on two opposing sides of the red "square" being pinched down to a central point. These same filaments are also observable, but in cross-section, in the 1987A supernova remnant. Which components are visible varies from image to image, but the general morphology of the hourglass remains discernible.

Here are some additional hourglass morphologies with pictures that have been observed:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4953165/
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0510 05eta-carinae.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0504 26bug-nebula.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0504 15milkyway.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Supernova-1987a .jpg

Since hourglass morphologies are somewhat disconfirming to traditional mainstream cosmologies (ie, the Big Bang), the fact that they continue to be observed all over the universe escapes the notice of professional astrophysicists, whose primary concern is to prove the Big Bang Theory and Stellar Evolution Theories. Objectively interpreting these shapes for what they most likely represent means dropping complicated, mainstream astrophysical explanations, and accepting the notion that electricity flows through space over plasma as we know it does within the laboratory. In these particular instances, at least, it is clear that the electrical force is dominant to gravity. We can opt to devise all sorts of gravitation-centric explanations for hourglass morphologies, but in doing so, we consciously opt to violate Occam's Razor.

The implications of such strong evidence of electricity in space are overwhelming -- which provides all of the explanation necessary for avoiding abandonment of the traditional, more popular gravity-centric theories. When astrophysicists eventually accept that plasma in space has electrical resistance just like the plasma we observe in the laboratory, then they will begin to re-interpret all of our observations in terms of Maxwell's Equations rather than fluid and gas laws. And the enigmas of dark matter and dark energy will forever disappear, as this substitution can provide the exact forces necessary to explain things like how spiral galaxies can spin as if they are solid plates and how matter might repel other matter. The fact that we as a culture currently prefer to consider imaginary forces and particles to explain these "anomalies" rather than forces that we already understand will forever paint us to future generations as people who decided to favor the mathematicians and theories over our observational data and decades of experimental laboratory physics work.

The evidence for electricity in space is not a sparse patchwork here and there. It is a flood of data that is only allowed to escape the notice of the public with the help of overconfident astrophysicists and a mob mentality within the space enthusiast community. Anybody who is intellectually curious about the universe and less concerned with what the people around them believe than what in fact appears to be true should consider learning more about plasma physics and the electric universe we live in. Don Scott

Observant space enthusiasts will notice the excessively large number of hourglass morphologies that continue to appear in NASA's press releases. These hourglass morphologies can only be awkwardly called the result of gravitation. A cursory familiarity with laboratory plasma physics will help people to recognize that the most likely explanation is that these are in fact z-pinches wich result from Birkeland Currents. In a zoomed image, you can see the filamentary Birkeland Currents on two opposing sides of the red "square" being pinched down to a central point. These same filaments are also observable, but in cross-section, in the 1987A supernova remnant. Which components are visible varies from image to image, but the general morphology of the hourglass remains discernible.

Here are some additional hourglass morphologies with pictures that have been observed:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4953165/
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0510 05eta-carinae.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0504 26bug-nebula.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0504 15milkyway.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Supernova-1987a .jpg

Since hourglass morphologies are somewhat disconfirming to traditional mainstream cosmologies (ie, the Big Bang), the fact that they continue to be observed all over the universe escapes the notice of professional astrophysicists, whose primary concern is to prove the Big Bang Theory and Stellar Evolution Theories. Objectively interpreting these shapes for what they most likely represent means dropping complicated, mainstream astrophysical explanations, and accepting the notion that electricity flows through space over plasma as we know it does within the laboratory. In these particular instances, at least, it is clear that the electrical force is dominant to gravity. We can opt to devise all sorts of gravitation-centric explanations for hourglass morphologies, but in doing so, we consciously opt to violate Occam's Razor.

The implications of such strong evidence of electricity in space are overwhelming -- which provides all of the explanation necessary for avoiding abandonment of the traditional, more popular gravity-centric theories. When astrophysicists eventually accept that plasma in space has electrical resistance just like the plasma we observe in the laboratory, then they will begin to re-interpret all of our observations in terms of Maxwell's Equations rather than fluid and gas laws. And the enigmas of dark matter and dark energy will forever disappear, as this substitution can provide the exact forces necessary to explain things like how spiral galaxies can spin as if they are solid plates and how matter might repel other matter. The fact that we as a culture currently prefer to consider imaginary forces and particles to explain these "anomalies" rather than forces that we already understand will forever paint us to future generations as people who decided to favor the mathematicians and theories over our observational data and decades of experimental laboratory physics work.

The evidence for electricity in space is not a sparse patchwork here and there. It is a flood of data that is only allowed to escape the notice of the public with the help of overconfident astrophysicists and a mob mentality within the space enthusiast community. Anybody who is intellectually curious about the universe and less concerned with what the people around them believe than what in fact appears to be true should consider learning more about plasma physics and the electric universe we live in. Don Scott

Despite numerous observations of comets that are anomalous to the mainstream traditional theory that comets have something to do with the early formation of the planets, NASA continues to prioritize the theory over the data. We already possess all of the data we need to understand what it is that makes comets tick. The real problem is that neither NASA nor the space enthusiasts (on this forum at least) like the answer because it is a square peg in a round theory of the universe:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf

Comets are covered in great depth in Don Scott's "The Electric Sky" and Wallace Thornhill's upcoming book "The Electric Universe", as well as on their thunderbolts site at:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00subjectx.htm#C omets

Some people will be surprised to learn that Wallace Thornhill accurately predicted the results of the Deep Impact Mission -- results which continue to confound NASA and the astrophysical community to this day. But predictions mean little these days so long as they are disconfirming to the theories we developed decades ago. And NASA continues to treat the anomalous data regarding comets as an issue that has no significant bearing upon the bigger cosmological picture.

It's clear by now that NASA's purpose is not to objectively interpret our observations of the universe, but rather to specifically find data that confirms the Big Bang and stellar evolution. They've stated as much. One thing is clear: comets will keep them very busy in this regard.

With regards to comets, the burden is no longer on the EU Theorists. They've made a prediction that came to pass. The burden is now upon the astrophysical community to read their theory of how comets work and to consider the details of the prediction and outcome of that prior mission. How is it that Thornhill could have known what would happen with Deep Impact? How could he have known about the pre-impact flash? Nobody was predicting anything like that. Can anybody really argue that this was by pure chance? Or is it possible that he's right?

Despite numerous observations of comets that are anomalous to the mainstream traditional theory that comets have something to do with the early formation of the planets, NASA continues to prioritize the theory over the data. We already possess all of the data we need to understand what it is that makes comets tick. The real problem is that neither NASA nor the space enthusiasts (on this forum at least) like the answer because it is a square peg in a round theory of the universe:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf

Comets are covered in great depth in Don Scott's "The Electric Sky" and Wallace Thornhill's upcoming book "The Electric Universe", as well as on their thunderbolts site at:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00subjectx.htm#C omets

Some people will be surprised to learn that Wallace Thornhill accurately predicted the results of the Deep Impact Mission -- results which continue to confound NASA and the astrophysical community to this day. But predictions mean little these days so long as they are disconfirming to the theories we developed decades ago. And NASA continues to treat the anomalous data regarding comets as an issue that has no significant bearing upon the bigger cosmological picture.

It's clear by now that NASA's purpose is not to objectively interpret our observations of the universe, but rather to specifically find data that confirms the Big Bang and stellar evolution. They've stated as much. One thing is clear: comets will keep them very busy in this regard.

With regards to comets, the burden is no longer on the EU Theorists. They've made a prediction that came to pass. The burden is now upon the astrophysical community to read their theory of how comets work and to consider the details of the prediction and outcome of that prior mission. How is it that Thornhill could have known what would happen with Deep Impact? How could he have known about the pre-impact flash? Nobody was predicting anything like that. Can anybody really argue that this was by pure chance? Or is it possible that he's right?

No one has concluded it "must" be spinning. The evidence, however, is greatly in its favor.

This is untrue. I'm very interested in a summary of the evidence. Please share.

Let's quickly review the indicators that suggest that you are wrong: Neutron stars typically belong to binary star pairs, which would explain why electrical charge transfer is occurring. Pulsar emissions tend to have a duty cycle of 5% and graphs of their luminosity correspond to bursts of electricity. Neutronium has never been demonstrated to exist and violates established physical laws. It's proposed through speculation that the overwhelming force of gravity due to the spin overrides our established science. This proposal is solidified with little more than speculative math.

Detailed observations of the Vela Pulsar indicate additional problems. From http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040920 pulsar.htm:

Astronomers expected that the "rotation" (pulsing) of the neutron star--conceived as an isolated mass in space -- would slow at a consistent rate. But then they observed a significant "glitch" in the pulse rate, an event that "released a burst of energy that was carried outward at near the speed of light by the pulsar wind." Of course, unpredictable variations in both the pulse rate and intensity of an electrically discharging Pulsar would be expected with any changes in the electrical environment through which it moved.

Proponents of the electric model are particularly impressed by the two embedded "bows" seen along the polar jet (upper left). Astronomers initially called these "windbow shocks", a theorized mechanical effect of high-velocity material encountering the interstellar medium. But electrical theorists recognized a configuration common to intense plasma discharge in laboratory experiments: toruses or rings stacked along the polar axis of the discharge. And subsequent enhanced pictures (cf., upper right) made clear that the "bows" were in fact stacked toruses, not easily explained in gravitational terms.

Also noteworthy is the manner in which the axial jet or column, as it extends beyond the "upper" torus, takes on an undulating, serpentine quality, as revealed by a series of Chandra snapshots (lower array). This too is of great significance to the electrical theorists since some in their group--years before these recent observations in space-- claimed that ancient witnesses observed such undulating phenomena stretching along the polar axis of the earth, when our planet moved through a more dense, more electrically active environment.

This is no slam-dunk case.

From what I can tell, it's pure speculation that we're looking at rotating bodies -- and given that the speed of supposed rotation continues to increase on an almost monthly basis with new observations, one would expect that the belief in a rotating body would diminish with each announcement that the speed of rotation has been observed to increase. But rather than modify our speculative theories regarding neutron stars, astrophysicists would first have the entire scientific community modify its theories based upon laboratory physics to accomodate these increases in spin rate. That's poor methodology. We can perform input-output experiments within the laboratory. In order to justify overriding our lab science, the burden is upon astrophysicists to first exhaust *all* possible cosmological explanations. You cannot claim on one hand that it is not the duty of cosmologists to investigate all cosmologies and then on the other hand that physicists modify textbooks to accommodate an anomalous cosmologically-constrained observation. That's a clear demonstration of what is called hubris -- thinking that everybody else is wrong and you are right.

That's because evidence has not mounted in support of those theories, which have long been falsified.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/ for info on galaxy formation, solar physics, and a bunch of other cool astrophysical stuff

"the EM force rules the universe and all of the data coming back backs up the assertions of the Thunderbolts crew. The Einstein Special Relativity crowd who thinks gravity rules are just wrong. Sorry but they are. Special Relativity is a busted theory and it doesn't answer issues like the atmosphere temperature on Saturn."

Special Relativity also doesn't explain the price of tea in China either, but I've never heard that cited as a disadvantage.

I've also never heard any "relativity crowd" claiming that "gravity RULES" or that "EM drools" or any other similar nonsense that you just made up. I'm not a physicist and even I know that gravity is extremely weak relatively, no pun intended, and would never explain-- and isn't supposed to explain-- the vast majority of phenomena in the universe. You know, like sub-atomic ones, or the thermal mechanics of every atmosphere (let alone a single one), or good web design.

You're looking for "true scientific types" and "some seriously good science" to swoop in and justify or expand on what you've claimed, but you don't seem to be a practitioner yourself.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/synopsis2.htm

Practically every passage of that page is problematic at best and absurd at worst. It's the kind of thing that's so foolish it makes you do a confused a tap-dance just to address the tangled web of stupidity. Here I go anyway: evidently no one pointed out that a force-like phenomenon keeps us attached to the earth-- we don't float away-- with no electricity or magnetism involved. And that when we formalize the relationship between people/cannonballs, the same principles (OF GRAVITY) easily and uncontroversially explain many cosmic phenomenon whose parts are billions of times more massive than people and even than our planet.

"Close approaches of planets led to powerful electric arcing between planets and moons. All rocky bodies in the solar system show the massive scars of these kinds of electrical events."

Interplanetary electric arcs? Come on.