Slashdot Mirror

Since every time I clobber this issue, some idiot calls me a troll and mods me through the floor I probably shouldn't answer but in the hope that there are some true scientific types out there.... I will post away.

The answer is really very simple and detailed explanations can be found in the discussion of the Plasma Universe. Thunderbolts has a good explanation.

Essentially the real issue is that 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. A busted theory is one that doesn't match reality. They don't match reality.

The issue of the heating of atmospheres and much more is a very serious issue. I wish we could get some seriously good science going here. There is a lot going on that needs good science. The IEEE thinks so as well and has opened a full discussion site for the discussion of the plasma universe. I hope it happens soon and the guys who disagree get back into science and quit trying the shout down routine.

In the mean time if you are moderating quit thinking that to bring this up is troll. It is actually quite informative.

What I havent seen in the book is an explanation for is why some asteriods leave plasma trails and show themselves as a comet and others dont? Or do they all behave like that?

To answer your previous question ...

Ever since the Thunderbolts guys recently reorganized their website, the Electric Comet document has become harder to find. You can view it at http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf . This document covers just about all of the questions you might have about electric comets. What you won't get from this document are the opinions of those people who disagree with electrical explanations for comets. You can find lots of those views on the Slashdot forums, NASA press releases and on mainstream websites. By process of elimination, you will notice that the electrical explanations for comets are the only ones that explain *all* of the various observational anomalies that occur with non-electrical attempts to explain comets.

If you've read "The Electric Sky", then you will notice that Wallace Thornhill predicted the results of the Deep Impact mission. As you learn more about the history of electricity in space debates, you will notice that there is a history of accurate predictions by people who believed that electricity flowed through space, and that in just about each case, the predictions are downplayed by traditional astrophysicists. For instance, Immanuel Velikovsky was able to predict that the surface of Venus would be extremely hot at a time when everybody unanimously believed that the surface of Venus would be fairly similar in temperature to the Earth's. When he then accurately predicted that Jupiter would be emitting radio waves, it was claimed that his accurate predictions were pure luck. Hannes Alfven similarly made a slew of successful predictions related to space plasmas and his success with predictions was overwhelmingly ignored. It appears that contrary to popular belief, a theory's predictive capabilities actually have little to do with its acceptance amongst astrophysicists today because our most popular theories in astrophysics today tend to have after-the-fact, retrospective origins.

Astronomers expected the encounter to be a trivial event. "You won't see anything. The comet crash will probably amount to nothing more than a bunch of pebbles falling into an ocean 500 million miles from Earth." Then came the encounter and an about face. As reported by Sky & Telescope, "When Fragment 'A' hit the giant planet, it threw up a fireball so unexpectedly bright that it seemed to knock the world's astronomical community off its feet."

[...]

The Hubble Space Telescope (HST) detected a flare-up of fragment "G" of Shoemaker-Levy long before impact at a distance of 2.3 million miles from Jupiter. For the electrical theorists this flash would occur as the fragment crossed Jupiter's plasma sheath, or magnetosphere boundary. Thornhill comments: "A plasma sheath, or 'double layer', is a region of strong electric field, so the outburst there of an electrified comet nucleus is expected.

[...]

Just after the impact of SL-9 fragment "K", HST detected unusual auroral activity that was brighter than Jupiter's normal aurora and outside their normal area. Radiation belts were disrupted. There were unexpectedly bright X-ray emissions at the time of impact. But one mystery was never explained satisfactorily: Early impact events were hidden from the Earth behind Jupiter's limb. However, the Galileo spacecraft was positioned 150 million miles away from Jupiter at an angle that gave it a ringside seat for these events. But Earth-based observatories saw some of the impacts start at the same time Galileo did. "In effect, we are seeing something we didn't think we had any right to see," said Dr. Andrew Ingersoll of Caltech. "...it seems clear that something was happening high enough to be seen beyond the curve of the planet," said Galileo Project scientist Dr. Torrence Johnson of JPL.

I just hope the probes can reach the surface of the comet at all.
It may unexpectedly detonate before it even reaches the surface.

IMarv

A light echo was produced when X-ray light generated by gas falling into the Milky Way's supermassive black hole, known as Sagittarius A* (pronounced "A-star"), was reflected off gas clouds near the black hole. While the primary X-rays from the outburst would have reached Earth about 50 years ago, the reflected X-rays took a longer path and arrived in time to be recorded by Chandra.

And from the image caption ...

Clear changes in the shapes and brightness of the gas clouds are seen between the 3 different observations in 2002, 2004 and 2005. This behavior agrees with theoretical predictions for a light echo produced by Sagittarius A and helps rule out other interpretations.

You can clearly see in the images that the filaments of *plasma* have changed shape over time as you would expect plasma to do as electricity flows over it. Remember, its kinetic motions are affected by the current and the current affects its kinetic motions -- just like a plasma globe.

Where mainstream astronomers see light traveling 50 light-years and illuminating a cloud of "gas" in space, plasma cosmologist and Electric Universe Theorists see plasma doing the same stuff we've seen it do within laboratories:

From http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0604 05plasmoid.htm:

The plasmoid is the "generator" that powers the intermittent ejections from a galactic core. In a galactic circuit, electrical power flows inward along the spiral arms, lighting the stars as it goes, and is concentrated and stored in the central plasmoid. When the plasmoid reaches a threshold density, it discharges, usually along the galaxy's spin axis. This process can be replicated in a laboratory with the plasma focus device.

You can see a very detailed picture of the center of the Milky Way Galaxy at http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0504 15milkyway.htm. Far from being some invisible black hole like object, we can see it and it's the same plasma torus that we can generate within laboratories.

The problem for astrophysicists today is that they need to come up with a mechanism that can explain how the gas itself is illuminating in x-rays because x-rays indicate an unusually high amount of energy is being released. And their idealized non-resistive gas laws that they use to understand how gas behaves in space do not allow for x-rays to be produced by the gas except in some very specific situations (like violent collisions). For the center of the Milky Way, the Chandra X-Ray Telescope has imaged temperatures for this gas of both 10-million degrees C and 100-million degrees C. This is anomalous to current theories. From http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040715 space.htm:

This result was unexpected and difficult to explain. The press release describes the problem in greater detail: "Shock waves from supernova explosions are the most likely explanation for heating the 10-million-degree gas, but how the 100-million-degree gas is heated is not known. Ordinary supernova shock waves won't work, and heating by very high-energy particles produces the wrong spectrum of X-rays. Also, the observed Galacti

A light echo was produced when X-ray light generated by gas falling into the Milky Way's supermassive black hole, known as Sagittarius A* (pronounced "A-star"), was reflected off gas clouds near the black hole. While the primary X-rays from the outburst would have reached Earth about 50 years ago, the reflected X-rays took a longer path and arrived in time to be recorded by Chandra.

And from the image caption ...

Clear changes in the shapes and brightness of the gas clouds are seen between the 3 different observations in 2002, 2004 and 2005. This behavior agrees with theoretical predictions for a light echo produced by Sagittarius A and helps rule out other interpretations.

You can clearly see in the images that the filaments of *plasma* have changed shape over time as you would expect plasma to do as electricity flows over it. Remember, its kinetic motions are affected by the current and the current affects its kinetic motions -- just like a plasma globe.

Where mainstream astronomers see light traveling 50 light-years and illuminating a cloud of "gas" in space, plasma cosmologist and Electric Universe Theorists see plasma doing the same stuff we've seen it do within laboratories:

From http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0604 05plasmoid.htm:

The plasmoid is the "generator" that powers the intermittent ejections from a galactic core. In a galactic circuit, electrical power flows inward along the spiral arms, lighting the stars as it goes, and is concentrated and stored in the central plasmoid. When the plasmoid reaches a threshold density, it discharges, usually along the galaxy's spin axis. This process can be replicated in a laboratory with the plasma focus device.

You can see a very detailed picture of the center of the Milky Way Galaxy at http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0504 15milkyway.htm. Far from being some invisible black hole like object, we can see it and it's the same plasma torus that we can generate within laboratories.

The problem for astrophysicists today is that they need to come up with a mechanism that can explain how the gas itself is illuminating in x-rays because x-rays indicate an unusually high amount of energy is being released. And their idealized non-resistive gas laws that they use to understand how gas behaves in space do not allow for x-rays to be produced by the gas except in some very specific situations (like violent collisions). For the center of the Milky Way, the Chandra X-Ray Telescope has imaged temperatures for this gas of both 10-million degrees C and 100-million degrees C. This is anomalous to current theories. From http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040715 space.htm:

This result was unexpected and difficult to explain. The press release describes the problem in greater detail: "Shock waves from supernova explosions are the most likely explanation for heating the 10-million-degree gas, but how the 100-million-degree gas is heated is not known. Ordinary supernova shock waves won't work, and heating by very high-energy particles produces the wrong spectrum of X-rays. Also, the observed Galacti

A light echo was produced when X-ray light generated by gas falling into the Milky Way's supermassive black hole, known as Sagittarius A* (pronounced "A-star"), was reflected off gas clouds near the black hole. While the primary X-rays from the outburst would have reached Earth about 50 years ago, the reflected X-rays took a longer path and arrived in time to be recorded by Chandra.

And from the image caption ...

Clear changes in the shapes and brightness of the gas clouds are seen between the 3 different observations in 2002, 2004 and 2005. This behavior agrees with theoretical predictions for a light echo produced by Sagittarius A and helps rule out other interpretations.

You can clearly see in the images that the filaments of *plasma* have changed shape over time as you would expect plasma to do as electricity flows over it. Remember, its kinetic motions are affected by the current and the current affects its kinetic motions -- just like a plasma globe.

Where mainstream astronomers see light traveling 50 light-years and illuminating a cloud of "gas" in space, plasma cosmologist and Electric Universe Theorists see plasma doing the same stuff we've seen it do within laboratories:

From http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0604 05plasmoid.htm:

The plasmoid is the "generator" that powers the intermittent ejections from a galactic core. In a galactic circuit, electrical power flows inward along the spiral arms, lighting the stars as it goes, and is concentrated and stored in the central plasmoid. When the plasmoid reaches a threshold density, it discharges, usually along the galaxy's spin axis. This process can be replicated in a laboratory with the plasma focus device.

You can see a very detailed picture of the center of the Milky Way Galaxy at http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0504 15milkyway.htm. Far from being some invisible black hole like object, we can see it and it's the same plasma torus that we can generate within laboratories.

The problem for astrophysicists today is that they need to come up with a mechanism that can explain how the gas itself is illuminating in x-rays because x-rays indicate an unusually high amount of energy is being released. And their idealized non-resistive gas laws that they use to understand how gas behaves in space do not allow for x-rays to be produced by the gas except in some very specific situations (like violent collisions). For the center of the Milky Way, the Chandra X-Ray Telescope has imaged temperatures for this gas of both 10-million degrees C and 100-million degrees C. This is anomalous to current theories. From http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040715 space.htm:

This result was unexpected and difficult to explain. The press release describes the problem in greater detail: "Shock waves from supernova explosions are the most likely explanation for heating the 10-million-degree gas, but how the 100-million-degree gas is heated is not known. Ordinary supernova shock waves won't work, and heating by very high-energy particles produces the wrong spectrum of X-rays. Also, the observed Galacti

Quasars are only really far away so long as you ignore the research of Halton Arp, like the rest of astronomy does these days. Arp has imaged quasars that are either connected to or in front of spiral galaxies with much lower redshifts. Their redshifts appear to have non-cosmological components that change in discrete quantized amounts as the quasars move away from their parent galaxies. It was previously argued that his statistics were flawed, but a study has come out recently that supports the correlation between quasars and spiral galaxies. Then, astronomers released a study declaring that the redshifts were not in fact quantized. But in fact, Arp was arguing that there is an inherent component of redshift that is quantized -- not the raw measured value. The desire to discredit Arp has always superseded the desire to maintain objectivity in doing so ...

NGC7603:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0502 11thirtyyears.htm

NGC7319:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0506 10arptest.htm

Quasar as Proto-Galaxies:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0501 06universe-arp.htm

The Fingers of God:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041018 fingers-god.htm

And of course, Seeing Red by Halton Arp.

Quasars are only really far away so long as you ignore the research of Halton Arp, like the rest of astronomy does these days. Arp has imaged quasars that are either connected to or in front of spiral galaxies with much lower redshifts. Their redshifts appear to have non-cosmological components that change in discrete quantized amounts as the quasars move away from their parent galaxies. It was previously argued that his statistics were flawed, but a study has come out recently that supports the correlation between quasars and spiral galaxies. Then, astronomers released a study declaring that the redshifts were not in fact quantized. But in fact, Arp was arguing that there is an inherent component of redshift that is quantized -- not the raw measured value. The desire to discredit Arp has always superseded the desire to maintain objectivity in doing so ...

NGC7603:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0502 11thirtyyears.htm

NGC7319:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0506 10arptest.htm

Quasar as Proto-Galaxies:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0501 06universe-arp.htm

The Fingers of God:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041018 fingers-god.htm

And of course, Seeing Red by Halton Arp.

Quasars are only really far away so long as you ignore the research of Halton Arp, like the rest of astronomy does these days. Arp has imaged quasars that are either connected to or in front of spiral galaxies with much lower redshifts. Their redshifts appear to have non-cosmological components that change in discrete quantized amounts as the quasars move away from their parent galaxies. It was previously argued that his statistics were flawed, but a study has come out recently that supports the correlation between quasars and spiral galaxies. Then, astronomers released a study declaring that the redshifts were not in fact quantized. But in fact, Arp was arguing that there is an inherent component of redshift that is quantized -- not the raw measured value. The desire to discredit Arp has always superseded the desire to maintain objectivity in doing so ...

NGC7603:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0502 11thirtyyears.htm

NGC7319:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0506 10arptest.htm

Quasar as Proto-Galaxies:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0501 06universe-arp.htm

The Fingers of God:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041018 fingers-god.htm

And of course, Seeing Red by Halton Arp.

Quasars are only really far away so long as you ignore the research of Halton Arp, like the rest of astronomy does these days. Arp has imaged quasars that are either connected to or in front of spiral galaxies with much lower redshifts. Their redshifts appear to have non-cosmological components that change in discrete quantized amounts as the quasars move away from their parent galaxies. It was previously argued that his statistics were flawed, but a study has come out recently that supports the correlation between quasars and spiral galaxies. Then, astronomers released a study declaring that the redshifts were not in fact quantized. But in fact, Arp was arguing that there is an inherent component of redshift that is quantized -- not the raw measured value. The desire to discredit Arp has always superseded the desire to maintain objectivity in doing so ...

NGC7603:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0502 11thirtyyears.htm

NGC7319:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0506 10arptest.htm

Quasar as Proto-Galaxies:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0501 06universe-arp.htm

The Fingers of God:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041018 fingers-god.htm

And of course, Seeing Red by Halton Arp.

My personal thoughts are that people who have been trained in Big Bang Theory are "contaminated" insofar as they are oftentimes unable to conceive of electricity in space. But our observations are increasingly telling us otherwise. For instance, there was a big supernova some time ago called 1987A. When we finally had instruments that could image the remnants of that supernova, this is what we found:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0601 24solar3.htm

Our conventional theory regarding supernovae do not describe that *thing* at all. The problem is that the structure is bipolar symmetric when in fact traditional theory was expecting a shock wave emitted symmetrically in all directions. And those beads ... How do those beads have *anything* to do with nuclear fusion? They appear to float out in the middle of nowhere! I highly recommend reading through the story of that link. It's a good example of the problems popping up for conventional astrophysics today. The plasma universe theories continue to be observationally driven, whereas the traditional paradigms are more or less being dragged along by the observations.

Although it is important to understand the basics of astrophysical theories, it is far easier to understand Electric Universe theory. Astrophysics owes a lot of its complexity to the fact that it treats phenomenon as if they are disjointed, isolated bodies. Gravity is too weak to account for many of these observations, so instead of energy transfer, astrophysicists must work with energy accumulated. This isolation forces them to postulate a separate exotic mechanism for just about every phenomenon they observe in space. But space is connected by plasma and that plasma in fact conducts electricity. And many of those exotic phenomenon, like magnetic reconnections for the Sun, can be replicated with just characteristics of plasma in space. So, if you learn about plasma and electricity+magnetism, you basically understand the universe. It's a really simple concept that's just taking a *really* long time to permeate through science and culture right now. In fact, we're approaching 60 years now since Immanuel Velikovsky first proposed it. Hannes Alfven, Ralph Juergens and a handful of other plasma/electricity geniuses have come and gone with little fanfare. When Albert Einstein died, Immanuel Velikovsky's book "Worlds in Collision" was ominously left open on his desk. It's emblematic in a way because we still haven't closed that book.

The www.thunderbolts.info site has a "resources" link that will point you to a collection of books that generally support EU Theory. If you were going to start out with any particular book, I recommend "The Electric Sky". I've found the web useful for checking out the arguments on the astrophysics side. Tim Thompson, for instance, has a webpage that offers the arguments *against* the concept of an Electric Sun. I've read both arguments by now and I'm personally more convinced by Wallace Thornhill's Electric Sun model than Tim Thompson's solar fusion arguments. Tim Thompson is a very intelligent man, but it is clear to me that he's proposing that astrophysicists have more confidence in their models than they actually do. He oftentimes cites the *existence* of peer-reviewed papers as reason to not consider alternative theories. And you will find on his webpage plenty of materials related to magnetic reconnections, which is, as mentioned, completely bunk. Oftentimes, when we evaluate whether or not to believe people on very complicated issues, we consider an issue that they talk about that we already understand. Similarly, when I see somebody even talking about magnetic reconnections, it's a clue to the education that they've had.

However given what you just said there sould be several galaxies aligned by axis and I haven't heard of that (not that I should or would :) ), also I think tha

The history of science is filled with examples of new particles that were predicted -- and discovered -- on the basis of experimental discrepancies. You're going to have to do better than that.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Theories that don't work are replaced by theories that do.

So? Nobody has claimed that we know everything about the universe. Dark matter and dark energy are features of our universe, but they don't explain everything about it.

The history of science is filled with examples of new particles that were predicted -- and discovered -- on the basis of experimental discrepancies. You're going to have to do better than that.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Theories that don't work are replaced by theories that do.

So? Nobody has claimed that we know everything about the universe. Dark matter and dark energy are features of our universe, but they don't explain everything about it.

Dark matter is a crutch of a theory with so many problems they had to invent an imaginary substance to explain them.

The term "dark matter" originally referred to normal matter that we couldn't see because it wasn't lit up. Once this idea was proven inadequate, dark matter became something new and its definition was shaped solely by what the theorists needed it to be. Later on, they found even more problems with their theories and had to invent dark energy, which was once again defined solely by what the theorists needed it to be. But even with these inventions, they are routinely surprised by what they find in the universe. The only explanations they can come up with range from "it's a mystery" to claiming that previously accepted "universal" laws work differently out there in the universe.

Since you seem to be open minded, let me introduce you to a different (though never claiming to be definite) explanation. A growing number of people are starting to realize that these surprises are no longer surprising once you start to imagine that electric currents can flow throughout space (contrary to popular opinion). It is the Electric/Plasma Universe theory.I have only known about it for a relatively short time, but the bulk of what I have read is from this site:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/home.htm

I have spent a lot of time just going through the Picture of the Day archive section and reading the explanations below the pictures (which is actually the point of that section - not showing pretty pictures or something like that). (Be warned - some entries are repeated several times.) Many anomalies can be explained simply as electric discharges (or the results thereof). And all of their theories are directly relatable and scalable to physical tests carried out in labs on Earth.

I'll point out a couple of my favorite examples so far: Io and the "Greatest Surprise" and V838 Mon (which also happens to be one of my favorite pictures as well).

It never did sit right with me how things like the Cat's Eye Nebula were supposed to have formed through explosions and gravitational forces. Now I know why: it's electric!


P.S.
I keep having the thought of how funny (and sad) it would be if the conventional model just keeps making up more rules and invisible entities until those evolve into the Electric/Plasma model.

Dark matter is a crutch of a theory with so many problems they had to invent an imaginary substance to explain them.

The term "dark matter" originally referred to normal matter that we couldn't see because it wasn't lit up. Once this idea was proven inadequate, dark matter became something new and its definition was shaped solely by what the theorists needed it to be. Later on, they found even more problems with their theories and had to invent dark energy, which was once again defined solely by what the theorists needed it to be. But even with these inventions, they are routinely surprised by what they find in the universe. The only explanations they can come up with range from "it's a mystery" to claiming that previously accepted "universal" laws work differently out there in the universe.

Since you seem to be open minded, let me introduce you to a different (though never claiming to be definite) explanation. A growing number of people are starting to realize that these surprises are no longer surprising once you start to imagine that electric currents can flow throughout space (contrary to popular opinion). It is the Electric/Plasma Universe theory.I have only known about it for a relatively short time, but the bulk of what I have read is from this site:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/home.htm

I have spent a lot of time just going through the Picture of the Day archive section and reading the explanations below the pictures (which is actually the point of that section - not showing pretty pictures or something like that). (Be warned - some entries are repeated several times.) Many anomalies can be explained simply as electric discharges (or the results thereof). And all of their theories are directly relatable and scalable to physical tests carried out in labs on Earth.

I'll point out a couple of my favorite examples so far: Io and the "Greatest Surprise" and V838 Mon (which also happens to be one of my favorite pictures as well).

It never did sit right with me how things like the Cat's Eye Nebula were supposed to have formed through explosions and gravitational forces. Now I know why: it's electric!


P.S.
I keep having the thought of how funny (and sad) it would be if the conventional model just keeps making up more rules and invisible entities until those evolve into the Electric/Plasma model.

Dark matter is a crutch of a theory with so many problems they had to invent an imaginary substance to explain them.

The term "dark matter" originally referred to normal matter that we couldn't see because it wasn't lit up. Once this idea was proven inadequate, dark matter became something new and its definition was shaped solely by what the theorists needed it to be. Later on, they found even more problems with their theories and had to invent dark energy, which was once again defined solely by what the theorists needed it to be. But even with these inventions, they are routinely surprised by what they find in the universe. The only explanations they can come up with range from "it's a mystery" to claiming that previously accepted "universal" laws work differently out there in the universe.

Since you seem to be open minded, let me introduce you to a different (though never claiming to be definite) explanation. A growing number of people are starting to realize that these surprises are no longer surprising once you start to imagine that electric currents can flow throughout space (contrary to popular opinion). It is the Electric/Plasma Universe theory.I have only known about it for a relatively short time, but the bulk of what I have read is from this site:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/home.htm

I have spent a lot of time just going through the Picture of the Day archive section and reading the explanations below the pictures (which is actually the point of that section - not showing pretty pictures or something like that). (Be warned - some entries are repeated several times.) Many anomalies can be explained simply as electric discharges (or the results thereof). And all of their theories are directly relatable and scalable to physical tests carried out in labs on Earth.

I'll point out a couple of my favorite examples so far: Io and the "Greatest Surprise" and V838 Mon (which also happens to be one of my favorite pictures as well).

It never did sit right with me how things like the Cat's Eye Nebula were supposed to have formed through explosions and gravitational forces. Now I know why: it's electric!


P.S.
I keep having the thought of how funny (and sad) it would be if the conventional model just keeps making up more rules and invisible entities until those evolve into the Electric/Plasma model.

Many people make the mistake of assuming that EU Theory is advocating an electrostatic model for cometary and planetary interactions. In fact, the solar wind would not necessarily "drain away" charge from any other plasma or body in space any more than the plasma of space would drain away the solar wind's charge.

If the comet were neutrally charged, then being immersed in a neutral solar wind isn't going to affect it's overall charge. But if it does acquire a collective charge, then part of the solar wind (the opposite charged component) will be attracted and the other part repelled. This creates a net charge leakage. And that will in turn stabalize the overall charge in time. In a similar fashion, if there was a net charge on the Heliopause boundary between the solar wind and the interstellar medium, then there would be leakage of charge to the interstellar medium.

Actually, Wallace Thornhill, an EU Theorist, was the only person to accurately predict the results of the Deep Impact mission (which are extensively covered at http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf ). NASA scientists are still struggling to explain the findings of that mission, especially the lack of enough water to create the coma and tail (although that's not the first time that this has been observed for comets). Of particular note is that the impact included a bright flash of light *prior* to physical impact, which caused a second brighter flash of light. This would indicate a charge equalization with the comet prior to impact, and is likely the same reason why nearly all impact craters on Earth and Mars are round (as opposed to the kinetic energy explosion explanation commonly offered). Furthermore, you may not be aware of this, but comets have been noted to flare up as they approach the gas giant planets. And in that Electric Comet document, they explain that at least one comet has been imaged to be emitting x-rays. Chances are that probably all of them do, but we just haven't been expecting it (so people rarely actually look). Also, you should note that the craters on comets and asteroids have flat bottoms and terraced edges. This morphology would be explained by the action of a twisting Birkeland Current, which is the primary form that plasma filaments take when they pinch together. So, in fact, the evidence is quite overwhelming that comets are electrical phenomenon. That does not, however, mean that astrophysicists will give up their early assumptions.

First, what bright flash prior to physical impact? That's a misinterpretation of the experiment results. They just stated that there were two flashes (and interpreted both to happen after the impact). I doubt the timing can be that certain. Plus, the flashes were consistent with the type of collision. Second, what would induces pre-collision flashing yet have no impact on the probe traveling through this weird electromagnetic environment?

Furthermore, you may not be aware of this, but comets have been noted to flare up as they approach the gas giant planets. And in that Electric Comet document, they explain that at least one comet has been imaged to be emitting x-rays. Chances are that probably all of them do, but we just haven't been expecting it (so people rarely actually look). Also, you should note that the craters on comets and asteroids have flat bottoms and terraced edges. This morphology would be explained by the action of a twisting Birkeland Current, which is the primary form that plasma filaments take when they pinch together. So, in fact, the evidence is quite overwhelming that comets are electrical phenomenon. That does not, however, mean that astrophysicists will give up their early assumptions.

How are the observations inconsistent with the claim that comets have a crust of high melting point material thermally insulating volatiles under the surface? The flare ups near gas giants would just be due to tidal forces cracking

Plasmas form double layers between regions of different densities, temperatures or magnetic field strengths. A double layer:
(a) consists of two layers of opposite charge
(b) tends to form cellular structures with the double layer as the "cell wall." (eg. magnetosphere, photosphere, heliosphere)
(c) can form in filamentary current channels known as "Birkeland currents" (see below);
(d) can explode, as discovered in mercury rectifiers used in high-power direct-current transmission lines;
(e) can accelerate charged particles, in opposite directions up to velocities approaching the speed of light.

This is not actually exotic theory. These are fundamentals of electrodynamics and plasma physics.

(the Earth and Moon vary enough in their orbits that we should experience some of this phenomena, but we don't).

Well, if you mean that we should see the Earth's coma and tail like in a comet, that would require that the plasma surrounding the Earth be in the glow discharge mode. In reality, plasmas can and do exist in non-glow states much like a transistor has multiple operating regions. The Earth's magnetosphere exists in this state except when the aurora occurs.

If you go to the page at http://www.thunderbolts.info/t

Plasmas form double layers between regions of different densities, temperatures or magnetic field strengths. A double layer:
(a) consists of two layers of opposite charge
(b) tends to form cellular structures with the double layer as the "cell wall." (eg. magnetosphere, photosphere, heliosphere)
(c) can form in filamentary current channels known as "Birkeland currents" (see below);
(d) can explode, as discovered in mercury rectifiers used in high-power direct-current transmission lines;
(e) can accelerate charged particles, in opposite directions up to velocities approaching the speed of light.

This is not actually exotic theory. These are fundamentals of electrodynamics and plasma physics.

(the Earth and Moon vary enough in their orbits that we should experience some of this phenomena, but we don't).

Well, if you mean that we should see the Earth's coma and tail like in a comet, that would require that the plasma surrounding the Earth be in the glow discharge mode. In reality, plasmas can and do exist in non-glow states much like a transistor has multiple operating regions. The Earth's magnetosphere exists in this state except when the aurora occurs.

If you go to the page at http://www.thunderbolts.info/t

This story is very typical of space stories these days. You get some speculation from some scientists about what they expect that they should be seeing, tenuously based upon some weak observational data. A public release is put together and the news story gains steam because it invokes some concept that tickles the imagination of the public (gigantic black holes and stars, for instance). Then, when better observations come in and suggest that maybe we shouldn't be so sure of our prior speculation, there is little effort to correct the record.

It was interesting to observe that this (probable) garbage made it onto Slashdot, whereas the Stardust mission results (with actual data) did not. It seems that the space news cycle is caught in a competition to make the most outlandish claim possible in order to get the attention of the public these days. Investigating anomalies within the current paradigms has taken a backseat to wild speculation. There's little interest anymore in questioning the early assumptions that got us to this point in the first place:

Our conviction in stellar birth by way of gravitational collapse survives observations of R Corona Australis, which is generating enigmatic x-rays and 100 million degree F temperatures at a very early stage of the supposed collapse (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050 304starbirth.htm).

Our conviction in our theories about supernovae survived observations of Supernova 1987A (see pictures at http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0601 24solar3.htm), which defied traditional theories about supernovae in nearly every single respect. Even though plasma physics tells us that we can understand the structure we see in those images down to the number of beads in the smaller ring, we continue to ignore those explanations because they involve electricity in space.

Our conviction in the theory of black holes was not dampened at all by the associated problems with generating the observed quasar jet 3C273 (http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=9kpgc 4td), which extends 100,000 light years -- even though the lifetime of the X-ray producing particles is only about 100 years.

And then there's the Stardust mission -- which when combined with the results of the Deep Impact mission indicate quite clearly that our early assumptions about comets were quite wrong. Scientists are now apparently trying to invent scenarios for how it could be that comets would contain exotic meteorite particles as well as particles that have clearly been formed under intense heat. Perhaps they should consider that these initial speculations were wrong in the first place. I doubt we'll see any such sanity though. More likely, we'll see additional new speculations to support the earlier unsupported speculations.

There increasingly seems to be far less glory these days in doing the homework that we'll be graded on and far more interest in fantasizing about multi-dimensional space and gigantic black holes.

This story is very typical of space stories these days. You get some speculation from some scientists about what they expect that they should be seeing, tenuously based upon some weak observational data. A public release is put together and the news story gains steam because it invokes some concept that tickles the imagination of the public (gigantic black holes and stars, for instance). Then, when better observations come in and suggest that maybe we shouldn't be so sure of our prior speculation, there is little effort to correct the record.

It was interesting to observe that this (probable) garbage made it onto Slashdot, whereas the Stardust mission results (with actual data) did not. It seems that the space news cycle is caught in a competition to make the most outlandish claim possible in order to get the attention of the public these days. Investigating anomalies within the current paradigms has taken a backseat to wild speculation. There's little interest anymore in questioning the early assumptions that got us to this point in the first place:

Our conviction in stellar birth by way of gravitational collapse survives observations of R Corona Australis, which is generating enigmatic x-rays and 100 million degree F temperatures at a very early stage of the supposed collapse (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050 304starbirth.htm).

Our conviction in our theories about supernovae survived observations of Supernova 1987A (see pictures at http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0601 24solar3.htm), which defied traditional theories about supernovae in nearly every single respect. Even though plasma physics tells us that we can understand the structure we see in those images down to the number of beads in the smaller ring, we continue to ignore those explanations because they involve electricity in space.

Our conviction in the theory of black holes was not dampened at all by the associated problems with generating the observed quasar jet 3C273 (http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=9kpgc 4td), which extends 100,000 light years -- even though the lifetime of the X-ray producing particles is only about 100 years.

And then there's the Stardust mission -- which when combined with the results of the Deep Impact mission indicate quite clearly that our early assumptions about comets were quite wrong. Scientists are now apparently trying to invent scenarios for how it could be that comets would contain exotic meteorite particles as well as particles that have clearly been formed under intense heat. Perhaps they should consider that these initial speculations were wrong in the first place. I doubt we'll see any such sanity though. More likely, we'll see additional new speculations to support the earlier unsupported speculations.

There increasingly seems to be far less glory these days in doing the homework that we'll be graded on and far more interest in fantasizing about multi-dimensional space and gigantic black holes.

At the core of the Crab Nebula pictured above is a remarkable churning "wheel-and-axle" structure (inset) whose discovery shocked astronomers. No conventional model of supernova remnants ever anticipated exotic structures comparable to what is seen here.
Some things are known about the Crab Nebula, however. It is close to certain that it is the result of a supernova observed from Earth in 1054 A.D. The inner ring of the central "motor" has a diameter of about one light year. Intensely energetic jets stream outward from the central light source in two directions along the axis of an intense magnetic field. Additionally, observations over time have shown that rings and strands of material are moving outward on the equatorial plane at great speeds, some up to half the speed of light.

The point of light at the center of the image is a pulsar, so called because it generates pulses at radio frequencies roughly 60 times a second. (Pulses can also be observed optically and in X-rays.)

But what cause these rapid pulses? Most astronomers today attempt to interpret pulsars using a strange idea based entirely on mathematical conjectures. They say that the pulsar is a tiny spinning "neutron star"--the collapsed remains of the historic supernova.

Neutron stars were predicted theoretically in the 1930's to be the end result of a supernova explosion. For many years astronomers doubted their existence. But then, with the discovery of the first pulsar in 1967, astronomers imagined that the pulses were due to a rapidly rotating beam of radiation sweeping past the Earth. Having ignored all of the things that electricity can do quite routinely, the theorists were required to conceive a star so dense that it could rotate at the rate of a dentists drill without flying apart. So the neutron star received a second life. The energy of the star's radiation, it was supposed, came from in-falling matter from a companion star.

The imaginative construct received no support from later observations. In the Crab Nebula, what we now see is not gravitational accretion, but material accelerated away from the central star. In fact, all of the weird and wonderful things said about neutron stars, such as the super-condensed "neutronium" or "quark" soup from which they are claimed to have formed, lie outside the realm of verifiable science. They are abstractions disconnected from nature, but required to save a paradigm that has no other force than gravity to provide compact sources of radiation.

[...]

Such speculations, resting upon the earlier flights of cosmological fancy, beg the question as to the origin of all other stars. Supernovae are exceedingly rare events, and there is no sound reason to believe that neutron stars are even physically possible.

However appealing the original logic may have been to some, the neutron star model should have been discarded when pulsars were found with supposed "spin" and cooling rates that required the mathematicians to conjure ever more dense and exotic particles-like quarks-that have never been observed.

Critics of the "neutron star" hypothesis say that it is a violation of common sense to speak of matter being gravitationally compressed to the point that the orbiting electrons in an atom are forced to join with the protons in the nucleus to form neutrons. The nearly 2000-fold difference in weight between the electron and the proton will ensure charge separa

So there were attempts to simulate synchrotron radiation using only gravity and magnetic fields. But Alfvén had already come to realize that magnetism alone is not sufficient. Causative electric fields and currents are essential. The simulations failed.

In other words, it's not clear to me that the observations are being objectively interpreted.

This is just the creationist "God of the Gaps" argument all over again. Face it: the same physics which describes our Sun also describes other stars; they aren't radically different objects that just happen to look the same as ordinary stars.

Well, this is the exact point. It's the persuasive arguments *for* faraway electric stars that convinces me that there is likely an electrical explanation for our Sun too. This is not anything like creationism because I'm willing to be proven wrong. I just am not impressed with the evidence that has been offered by the astrophysicists for BB Theory or stellar evolution. Stellar evolution has been observed to be violated for various stars and even for the same star on multiple occasions.

One of the most convincing observations that I've read about is the European Space Agency's XMM-Newton X-ray observatory's imaging of a star-forming region called R Corona Australis (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050 304starbirth.htm):

Based on their model, astronomers had assumed that the cloud was "between 10,000 to 100,000 years into the process of gathering itself together". Its temperature was estimated at 400 degrees below zero Fahrenheit (minus 240 Celsius). Traditional theory says that millions of years will pass before the cloud has collapsed sufficiently to "ignite the nuclear fusion" of a new star.

Investigators had not anticipated anything comparable to the events they observed. Extreme

So there were attempts to simulate synchrotron radiation using only gravity and magnetic fields. But Alfvén had already come to realize that magnetism alone is not sufficient. Causative electric fields and currents are essential. The simulations failed.

In other words, it's not clear to me that the observations are being objectively interpreted.

This is just the creationist "God of the Gaps" argument all over again. Face it: the same physics which describes our Sun also describes other stars; they aren't radically different objects that just happen to look the same as ordinary stars.

Well, this is the exact point. It's the persuasive arguments *for* faraway electric stars that convinces me that there is likely an electrical explanation for our Sun too. This is not anything like creationism because I'm willing to be proven wrong. I just am not impressed with the evidence that has been offered by the astrophysicists for BB Theory or stellar evolution. Stellar evolution has been observed to be violated for various stars and even for the same star on multiple occasions.

One of the most convincing observations that I've read about is the European Space Agency's XMM-Newton X-ray observatory's imaging of a star-forming region called R Corona Australis (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050 304starbirth.htm):

Based on their model, astronomers had assumed that the cloud was "between 10,000 to 100,000 years into the process of gathering itself together". Its temperature was estimated at 400 degrees below zero Fahrenheit (minus 240 Celsius). Traditional theory says that millions of years will pass before the cloud has collapsed sufficiently to "ignite the nuclear fusion" of a new star.

Investigators had not anticipated anything comparable to the events they observed. Extreme

At risk of being called a troll ---> I am going to do a decent kind open discussion of what is known. This usually gets called troll on this forum. ---> It isn't troll rest assured!

There has been developing a serious discussion in the IEEE and in other groups of scientists who work with really hard science that cosmology as we have been generally told is just wrong. In particularly the electrical engineering technology provides accurate scalable and reliable methods and models to predict what is going on in the universe. These methodologies and quite well proved models run directly cross of a favorite theory of many scientists. The Einstein Theory of Special Relativity is the primary theory that runs cross of these results. Every time the SR theory is tested it fails. As the IEEE types theories are tested they not only predict what will be seen before hand, they do it every time.

There is a set of mathematically determined equations known as the Maxwell Equations which are standard engineering tools. These have never been found wrong. They are as close to "Facts" as we have in science. They are the basis of this new work in cosmology. Special Relativity is conversely a theory that reliably and always fails. If a decent respect to science is given, Special Relativity is a busted theory. This isn't disrespect of General Relativity. General Relativity is pretty good. It isn't 100% but it is pretty good. No disrespect of those who like Special Relativity is intended here. They just need to take a look in the context of good scientific methodology and trash the bad thinking. In all fairness these guys have a lot to contribute if they will let go of the mistakes of the past.

The Nebular Hypothesis for stellar formation etc, is also a completely busted theory. It simply has no data to stand on. We now have a strong mechanism for the formation and development of the universe. It is the EM Force. We even have good reason to believe that the G force is actually related and produced by the EM Force and is not a unique force.

The relationship to the weather in space and on the earth is as connected as the electrical circuits in your house are to the lights in your house. To assume some disconnect or that the systems are in fact different systems is mistaken. The parent of this post is a pretty good posting, but it makes the mistaken assumption that these systems are disconnected. A considerable appreciation for the fact that the parent poster has at least begun the disconnect from the old broken theories of the past is in order though. It is very hard to imagine the scale and complexity involved. I would hope that maybe some good scientific thinking will begin to start and with respect for the fact that the reality is at best poorly understood and we have many past mistakes blinding us to what is going on.

I took the so-called "red pill", and discovered the following: "Suffice to say for now that if science is what you are looking for, you will find none where the electric sun is concerned, save that which shows it to be an untenable hypothesis."

If you continue to read down towards the end of the article, you will see some evidence in support of EU Theory. What you have to realize is that there is evidence for and against both Big Bang and EU Theories.

Once the Deep Impact results become official, in fact, astrophysics will most likely have to grapple once again with the concept of non-gravitational acceleration for comets. Whipple's theories about outgassing jets does not appear to simply follow from the observations. Of course, they may do their best to avoid actually having to think about this again.

The lack of an obvious energy input to the Sun is generally treated as the most serious flaw of the Electric Sun Theory. Astrophysicists will argue that it has never been measured and the solar wind would tend to push against and negate any possible input. I personally believe that it's still open for debate in that you can observe that diffuse electrical flows are happening in Peratt's spiral galaxy simulations using plasma (see http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040913 plasma-galaxy.htm). They are also presumably what is causing those parts of the simulation to light up. Maybe this simulation is just too simple to be compared to spiral galaxies. These are the kinds of things that people should be talking about and working on, but there's really no interest in pursuing it in the Big Bang crowd because they're pretty sure that they're already right.

Please don't push your misguided psuedo-science off as something grounded in reality.

Actually, I could say the same thing for concepts like black holes, neutron stars and gravitational collapse. These things have never actually been proven to the extent that we expect in other sciences.

Remember, scientists look for facts and work them into theory, quacks make up a "theory" and then try to find facts to fit it. The electric sun is as much science as "creation science" or "intelligent design," and should be met with the same contempt by anyone logical enough to read a science book.

You're basically saying that the pinch effect cannot happen on a universal scale even though we can generate it in the lab, even though plasma scales in both time and space, and even though we see a lot of things through our telescopes that look very much like Birkeland Currents. I personally believe that the arguments for faraway electric stars is currently much more convincing than for our own Sun, so I wouldn't dismiss the entire theory on the basis of the Electric Sun model by itself. You're attacking the weakest part of the theory and completely ignoring its better parts.

I'm guessing you're not interested based upon your tone, but if you do decide to look at the arguments in *favor* of EU Theory, then wiki is probably not the best site for that. That would be www.thunderbolts.info. But I would suggest that if you decide *not* to understand EU Theory's merits then it makes little sense to be so hostile towards it. It's really not a big deal to have disagreements in cosmology. In fact, you can make very good arguments that it is actually a *bad* thing that everybody might believe in a single cosmology. It is after all possible that we could be wrong.

Parallel plasma filaments attract one another with a force inversely proportional to their distance apart. Compare this with gravity, which attracts matter with a force inversely proportional to the SQUARE of the distance. That makes pinched Birkeland currents by far the most effective way of condensing rarefied dust and gas to form molecular clouds and stars.

I've been playing devil's advocate for a while now on Slashdot mostly because it appears that people tend to repeatedly misunderstand or misstate the Electric Universe arguments. But it's also, for my many "fans" out there, an attempt to elicit effective arguments *against* Electric Universe Theory. I'm willing to admit that I can in fact be wrong, but this science isn't actually like other sciences. We don't have the level of proof for concepts like black holes, neutron stars and gravitational collapse that we have for things like chemical reactions or mechanics of the cell, or whatever. My postings appear to inevitably elicit condescending conversations with people who are familiar with the math and proofs for the Big Bang. I find some of these arguments somewhat convincing, but I also find that the EU people also have some good points that are being completely ignored by the mainstream.

I've actually had a hell of a time just trying to get people to read documents which contradict their world view of physics, which has affected my own impression of the Slashdot crowd as being generally close-minded on the subject. Many times, people will suggest that the EU people should actually stick their necks out and make some predictions. Perhaps it's not being done to the *extent* that would be required of a real competing cosmology, but it has been attempted and they did succeed with the Deep Impact mission to comet Tempel 1. I will point you to this document as I have every person before:

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

If you can explain why this document is in error, you will be the first. In fact, you'd be the first of many to even comment on it.

The problem is that you never seen stable naked charge. It's always paired with opposite charge. That means that the sources of static fields are no better than dipoles. That's why the electric force isn't considered at the cosmological level despite being a lot of orders of magnitude stronger on paper than the gravitational force. The strong and weak forces are even stronger, but they don't manifest on the cosmological scale at all.

This is surely a common argument. But I'm not so sure that it's true. The EU theorists point out that you can find observations that would contradict it:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040803 charge-space.htm

Now, I'm quite sure that there is a non-EU explanation for NGC4458. My general point is that the assumptions within astrophysics today are constraining our interpretation of our observations. Since astrophysicists assume that charge separation does not commonly occur in space, they concoct alternative explanations to describe our observations that treat electricity as a secondary phenomenon. But sometimes, these alternative explanations by themselves seem ridiculous compared to the electrical explanations. Things like black holes and neutron stars can possibly have very simple electrical explanations if you're willing to accept that we may have made some mistakes with our understanding of electricity's role in space.

The fact that we can create spiral galaxies without the need for dark matter or dark energy is another example (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/04091 3plasma-galaxy.htm). Astrophysicists would rather believe in these phenomenon that aren't fully understood rather than believing that plasma could be doing this on its own without any dark matter or dark energy. In the process of seeing the effect happen for a simulation of a spiral galaxy, I'm forced to wonder why this wouldn't apply to actual spiral galaxies. As you can see, the computer towards the end of the simulation actually includes significant breaks in the spiral arms. This says to me that electricity can act to shape structures of the universe even when t

I've been playing devil's advocate for a while now on Slashdot mostly because it appears that people tend to repeatedly misunderstand or misstate the Electric Universe arguments. But it's also, for my many "fans" out there, an attempt to elicit effective arguments *against* Electric Universe Theory. I'm willing to admit that I can in fact be wrong, but this science isn't actually like other sciences. We don't have the level of proof for concepts like black holes, neutron stars and gravitational collapse that we have for things like chemical reactions or mechanics of the cell, or whatever. My postings appear to inevitably elicit condescending conversations with people who are familiar with the math and proofs for the Big Bang. I find some of these arguments somewhat convincing, but I also find that the EU people also have some good points that are being completely ignored by the mainstream.

I've actually had a hell of a time just trying to get people to read documents which contradict their world view of physics, which has affected my own impression of the Slashdot crowd as being generally close-minded on the subject. Many times, people will suggest that the EU people should actually stick their necks out and make some predictions. Perhaps it's not being done to the *extent* that would be required of a real competing cosmology, but it has been attempted and they did succeed with the Deep Impact mission to comet Tempel 1. I will point you to this document as I have every person before:

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

If you can explain why this document is in error, you will be the first. In fact, you'd be the first of many to even comment on it.

The problem is that you never seen stable naked charge. It's always paired with opposite charge. That means that the sources of static fields are no better than dipoles. That's why the electric force isn't considered at the cosmological level despite being a lot of orders of magnitude stronger on paper than the gravitational force. The strong and weak forces are even stronger, but they don't manifest on the cosmological scale at all.

This is surely a common argument. But I'm not so sure that it's true. The EU theorists point out that you can find observations that would contradict it:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040803 charge-space.htm

Now, I'm quite sure that there is a non-EU explanation for NGC4458. My general point is that the assumptions within astrophysics today are constraining our interpretation of our observations. Since astrophysicists assume that charge separation does not commonly occur in space, they concoct alternative explanations to describe our observations that treat electricity as a secondary phenomenon. But sometimes, these alternative explanations by themselves seem ridiculous compared to the electrical explanations. Things like black holes and neutron stars can possibly have very simple electrical explanations if you're willing to accept that we may have made some mistakes with our understanding of electricity's role in space.

The fact that we can create spiral galaxies without the need for dark matter or dark energy is another example (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/04091 3plasma-galaxy.htm). Astrophysicists would rather believe in these phenomenon that aren't fully understood rather than believing that plasma could be doing this on its own without any dark matter or dark energy. In the process of seeing the effect happen for a simulation of a spiral galaxy, I'm forced to wonder why this wouldn't apply to actual spiral galaxies. As you can see, the computer towards the end of the simulation actually includes significant breaks in the spiral arms. This says to me that electricity can act to shape structures of the universe even when t

There is also another aspect to the interplanetary circuitry affecting Mars. The greatest storm on Mars (2001) occurred when the planet was nearing perihelion and was the closest it had been to Earth in about 12 years. At that time it was also being "tickled" by the Earth's plasma sheath, or magnetosphere, establishing a temporary electrical connection between Earth and Mars for the transfer of charge. It seems that Mars responded with an outburst of atmospheric discharges, these taking the form of monstrous dust devils--or more accurately, electrical tornadoes.

At the same time the electric currents flowing in the Martian ionosphere will drive the high-speed winds in the upper atmosphere.

In the two Martian dust storm images above, it appears that the dust is being jetted upwards rather than being blown along the surface. This is explicable in the electric tornado model and explains how dust is raised efficiently many kilometers into the thin air and suspended for a time electrostatically. The role of violent vortices on the leading edge of dust storms is particularly clear in the image we've placed here. Closer examination should show that these tornadoes form preferentially on high points and the sharp edges of craters or escarpments.

New theories which model already known phenomena -- even if they do so precisely -- are of no value if they cannot predict in advance not yet known phenomena that are amenable to study in such a way that multiple observers can readily distinguish between the predictions made by the new theory and those made by the old theory.

This appears to have been accomplished with the Deep Impact mission. Nobody on Slashdot appears to be willing to read about it though. I'll post the link again, but it seems kind of useless unless people actually read it:

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

Your complaint that the standard theories are fine-tuned is exactly backwards. The proposed fine-tunings are new theories which make very different predictions about what observational cosmologists will see with particular instruments that are already under construction. It just so happens that the initial starting conditions of the inflationary epoch are extremely critical because so much of standard physics falls out of those conditions; moreover, these conditions drove the development of all the large scale structure of the visible universe, and there is so much of that there is ample evidence for and against extremely subtle differences among the various inflationary theories.

The problem is that many of these changes cannot be said to be "fine-tuning". The fact that we now have a universe that is only 4 or 5% normal matter is not fine-tuning. That's a system overhaul.

That is to say, the competing theories that seek to extend the standard model make very specific predictions which are readily amenable to testing by existing and being-built observational platforms. Other theories are simply uninteresting because they do not make useful predictions at this time, as those predictions are not going to be widely testable for some time.

I've thought about this. Meteor impact sites are supposedly all round because the kinetic energy of the physical impact generates an explosion that is similar for all trajectories. The EU Theory proposes that these craters are nearly all round because the charge transfer as something approaches the Earth would typically occur before impact and always occur at right angles. The difference between the two is that the rock layers would be left undisturbed in the latter case. This has been observed with Meteor Crater in Arizona. A comprehensive study of all craters would tell us if it is common, but that would require a geologist who is not hostile to EU Theory (which is perhaps rare).

We could also shoot projectiles of various typical compositions at Mars and watch what happens with x-rays. EU Theory would predict that the objects would experience charge transfer as they approach the planet and many of them would be broken up. Thing is, we already did this for Comet Tempel 1 and the results supported the *EU Model*.

Fine-tuning is not retrofitting new observations into an old model. That is the hallmark of pseudoscience. Fine-tuning is an exercise of forming hypotheses in advance of observations that make discrete predictions that different tunings do not. Those that do not match the observations are discarded.

Let's get to the meat of it then. I'm curious: if it is shown that the CMBR fails more shadow tests, will you agree that the Big Bang never happened? Or will you continue to fine-tune?

The problem with EU is that it does not make readily testable predictions in advance which are readily and widely measurable by third parties. Indeed, one of the hallmarks of EU is that a great deal of work has been done in ex post facto fitting of EU theory to extant observational data. That is part of what makes EU pseudoscience.

This isn't really the case and I can only assume that you believe so because you haven't fully investigated it. There are some falsifiable claims about the poles of Venus and Satur

Furthermore, Big Bang cosmology made a number of predictions that were subsequently confirmed.

I'm interested in hearing more about this, but unless you are more specific, it's not very convincing.

(Incidentally, note that quasars in front of galaxies only falsifies models of quasars, not the Big Bang; AFAIK, not even Arp is disputing that galaxies at high redshift are distant and receding.)

If it can be shown that there are redshift components *other* than just recessional velocity for any observed star, then we must re-evaluate the use of redshift for determining the distance to all stars that cannot be distanced using parallax or whatever other distancing techniques exist. To assume that whatever is altering the redshifts of quasars is *only* happening for quasars and not any other types of stars is very typical of the compartmentalization that occurs in astrophysics today.

The universe is not homogeneous and isotropic on that scale. It is, however, homogeneous and isotropic on cosmological scales. The formation of filamentary structures is not a "problem" for the Big Bang; in fact, computer models predict such structures.

But these filamentary structures both coincidentally point to *us*. I'm sure you would agree that this can only happen so many times before it becomes a problem.

The fact of the matter is that dark matter explains a number of independent astrophysical phenomena in a consistent manner. There is no reason to expect an ad-hoc fudge to do so.

Just because something *can* explain something doesn't mean that it does. You admit that there are gaps in our knowledge about things like dark matter, but you do not allow these gaps to affect your confidence in the theories.

There are certainly no electric effects observed to be strong enough to cause the weather.

This statement is not supported by observational evidence of planets in our solar system. And this is a common problem that astrophysicists make when trying to understand phenomenon throughout the solar system: they ignore that similar phenomenon on multiple planets might have common causes. Instead, they assume that all bodies in space are isolated even though we know that planets can, for instance, "touch" each other with their plasma tails.

Atmospheric density on Mars is only 1% of that on Earth and yet Mars has dust devils that reach 5 miles into its atmosphere and dwarf Earthly tornadoes. How is wind happening within this virtual vacuum on Mars to the extent that it can cause these dust devils? Mars occasionally is engulfed by global dust storms that elevate particles up to 40 miles above the surface of the planet. Since this is a virtual vacuum, how are they possible? What is lifting the dust particles into the atmosphere? Without any "fluid" to push around other than the dust itself, thermal and mechanical explanations are less convincing than they are here on Earth.

An image or two can say a lot:

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

These observations inspired scientists to study dust devils here on Earth, and sure enough they exhibit strong electric fields of 4,000 volts per meter. Now, if you see a weather phenomenon with electrical characteristics on both Mars *and* the Earth, then you'd be smart to ask if the electricity is driving the dust devils on both planets.

Most scientists believe that the Mars dust storms are thermal in nature because they appear to coincide with the planet's closest approach to the Sun. In fact, this is the case for the biggest dust storm ever observed on Mars in 2001. However, it is also true that that dust storm coincided with a point in Mars' orbit when it was in the path of Earth's plasma tail (the magnetosphere). The thermal explanation for dust storms fails to explain why they ever stop and NASA scientists have admitted as much.

On V

Bodies immersed in plasma aren't isolated; they are connected by circuits. They often aren't at equilibrium; most astronomical bodies are radiating energy because they are in unstable conditions and are moving toward equilibrium. Currents in plasma contract into linear filaments; and the force between filaments decreases linearly with distance, which makes it the most powerful long-range force in the universe. Plasma divides into cells that are separated by capacitor-like double layers; and this ensures that plasma phenomena are characterized by conditions of non-isotropy, discontinuity and inhomogeneity.

Furthermore, the electrical charge required to blow a 200 metre wide crater in the surface of a planet is going to completely ionize the meteor.

That is not necessarily what we observe when we see comets break apart. They fragment and pieces oftentimes make it to the ground.

Assuming it didn't snuff itself out of existence, the descent through the Earth's atmosphere would drain off any major charge imbalance long before the rock hit the surface.

That would actually depend in part on how much charge is present to begin with. We're really just speculating here though. We can do better than that.

You may have heard about the the Great Chicago Fire. That fire actually ignited simultaneously all over North America and it appears to have coincided with Earth passing through the debris trail of Comet Biela, which observations suggest broke apart just prior. It's a completely fascinating story that you can access at:

P1: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 06chicagofire.htm
P2: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 07biela.htm
P3: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 09chicagofire.htm

This is a completely unique situation because if it is true that this was cometary debris, then this would be the only time that modern man has ever actually up-close witnessed an "impact" (comets are really no different from asteroids, except that their electrical charge would be more intense if their plasma tail is illuminated in space). What is most striking about the firsthand accounts is the *electrical* nature of these impacts. Not only did the debris rain down in the form of "ball lightning", which you may be aware of, but many houses became electrified to the extent that discharges between metallic objects within the houses appeared to cause house fires. One man was electrocuted by the change he had in both pockets!

So, you have theory in terms of plasma physics, electrodynamics and Electric Universe Theory. You have geological evidence in the ground here on Earth and in a more limited sense on other planets like Mars. You have numerous potential firsthand accounts from a single incident. You can argue the case for *more* evidence, but we're running out of potential evidentiary sour

Bodies immersed in plasma aren't isolated; they are connected by circuits. They often aren't at equilibrium; most astronomical bodies are radiating energy because they are in unstable conditions and are moving toward equilibrium. Currents in plasma contract into linear filaments; and the force between filaments decreases linearly with distance, which makes it the most powerful long-range force in the universe. Plasma divides into cells that are separated by capacitor-like double layers; and this ensures that plasma phenomena are characterized by conditions of non-isotropy, discontinuity and inhomogeneity.

Furthermore, the electrical charge required to blow a 200 metre wide crater in the surface of a planet is going to completely ionize the meteor.

That is not necessarily what we observe when we see comets break apart. They fragment and pieces oftentimes make it to the ground.

Assuming it didn't snuff itself out of existence, the descent through the Earth's atmosphere would drain off any major charge imbalance long before the rock hit the surface.

That would actually depend in part on how much charge is present to begin with. We're really just speculating here though. We can do better than that.

You may have heard about the the Great Chicago Fire. That fire actually ignited simultaneously all over North America and it appears to have coincided with Earth passing through the debris trail of Comet Biela, which observations suggest broke apart just prior. It's a completely fascinating story that you can access at:

P1: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 06chicagofire.htm
P2: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 07biela.htm
P3: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 09chicagofire.htm

This is a completely unique situation because if it is true that this was cometary debris, then this would be the only time that modern man has ever actually up-close witnessed an "impact" (comets are really no different from asteroids, except that their electrical charge would be more intense if their plasma tail is illuminated in space). What is most striking about the firsthand accounts is the *electrical* nature of these impacts. Not only did the debris rain down in the form of "ball lightning", which you may be aware of, but many houses became electrified to the extent that discharges between metallic objects within the houses appeared to cause house fires. One man was electrocuted by the change he had in both pockets!

So, you have theory in terms of plasma physics, electrodynamics and Electric Universe Theory. You have geological evidence in the ground here on Earth and in a more limited sense on other planets like Mars. You have numerous potential firsthand accounts from a single incident. You can argue the case for *more* evidence, but we're running out of potential evidentiary sour

Bodies immersed in plasma aren't isolated; they are connected by circuits. They often aren't at equilibrium; most astronomical bodies are radiating energy because they are in unstable conditions and are moving toward equilibrium. Currents in plasma contract into linear filaments; and the force between filaments decreases linearly with distance, which makes it the most powerful long-range force in the universe. Plasma divides into cells that are separated by capacitor-like double layers; and this ensures that plasma phenomena are characterized by conditions of non-isotropy, discontinuity and inhomogeneity.

Furthermore, the electrical charge required to blow a 200 metre wide crater in the surface of a planet is going to completely ionize the meteor.

That is not necessarily what we observe when we see comets break apart. They fragment and pieces oftentimes make it to the ground.

Assuming it didn't snuff itself out of existence, the descent through the Earth's atmosphere would drain off any major charge imbalance long before the rock hit the surface.

That would actually depend in part on how much charge is present to begin with. We're really just speculating here though. We can do better than that.

You may have heard about the the Great Chicago Fire. That fire actually ignited simultaneously all over North America and it appears to have coincided with Earth passing through the debris trail of Comet Biela, which observations suggest broke apart just prior. It's a completely fascinating story that you can access at:

P1: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 06chicagofire.htm
P2: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 07biela.htm
P3: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 09chicagofire.htm

This is a completely unique situation because if it is true that this was cometary debris, then this would be the only time that modern man has ever actually up-close witnessed an "impact" (comets are really no different from asteroids, except that their electrical charge would be more intense if their plasma tail is illuminated in space). What is most striking about the firsthand accounts is the *electrical* nature of these impacts. Not only did the debris rain down in the form of "ball lightning", which you may be aware of, but many houses became electrified to the extent that discharges between metallic objects within the houses appeared to cause house fires. One man was electrocuted by the change he had in both pockets!

So, you have theory in terms of plasma physics, electrodynamics and Electric Universe Theory. You have geological evidence in the ground here on Earth and in a more limited sense on other planets like Mars. You have numerous potential firsthand accounts from a single incident. You can argue the case for *more* evidence, but we're running out of potential evidentiary sour

Bodies immersed in plasma aren't isolated; they are connected by circuits. They often aren't at equilibrium; most astronomical bodies are radiating energy because they are in unstable conditions and are moving toward equilibrium. Currents in plasma contract into linear filaments; and the force between filaments decreases linearly with distance, which makes it the most powerful long-range force in the universe. Plasma divides into cells that are separated by capacitor-like double layers; and this ensures that plasma phenomena are characterized by conditions of non-isotropy, discontinuity and inhomogeneity.

Furthermore, the electrical charge required to blow a 200 metre wide crater in the surface of a planet is going to completely ionize the meteor.

That is not necessarily what we observe when we see comets break apart. They fragment and pieces oftentimes make it to the ground.

Assuming it didn't snuff itself out of existence, the descent through the Earth's atmosphere would drain off any major charge imbalance long before the rock hit the surface.

That would actually depend in part on how much charge is present to begin with. We're really just speculating here though. We can do better than that.

You may have heard about the the Great Chicago Fire. That fire actually ignited simultaneously all over North America and it appears to have coincided with Earth passing through the debris trail of Comet Biela, which observations suggest broke apart just prior. It's a completely fascinating story that you can access at:

P1: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 06chicagofire.htm
P2: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 07biela.htm
P3: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 09chicagofire.htm

This is a completely unique situation because if it is true that this was cometary debris, then this would be the only time that modern man has ever actually up-close witnessed an "impact" (comets are really no different from asteroids, except that their electrical charge would be more intense if their plasma tail is illuminated in space). What is most striking about the firsthand accounts is the *electrical* nature of these impacts. Not only did the debris rain down in the form of "ball lightning", which you may be aware of, but many houses became electrified to the extent that discharges between metallic objects within the houses appeared to cause house fires. One man was electrocuted by the change he had in both pockets!

So, you have theory in terms of plasma physics, electrodynamics and Electric Universe Theory. You have geological evidence in the ground here on Earth and in a more limited sense on other planets like Mars. You have numerous potential firsthand accounts from a single incident. You can argue the case for *more* evidence, but we're running out of potential evidentiary sour

Of course, there are some pics that I wouldn't mind a little more investigation on. I happen to be interested in something I call Gulliver's Golf Ball, something that looks like a perfect sphere, roughly 200 meters across.

heres an explanation http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0503 29domedcraters.htm

and http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0511 16domes.htm

Of course, there are some pics that I wouldn't mind a little more investigation on. I happen to be interested in something I call Gulliver's Golf Ball, something that looks like a perfect sphere, roughly 200 meters across.

heres an explanation http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0503 29domedcraters.htm

and http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0511 16domes.htm

Actually, many talented geologists have generated data that support the notion that meteors exchange charge with planets prior to any subsequent impacts. Meteor Crater in Arizona is an excellent example and I direct you to a summary of the evidence at http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0601 31crater.htm. The discoveries include:

- George P Merrill concluded that quartz glass found in the crater could only be produced by intense heat, "similar to the heat generated by a lightning strike on sand".

- Merrill also pointed to the *undisturbed rock beds* below the crater. We are told that most craters are round because the kinetic energy of their impact creates a ginormous explosion which isn't affected by the angle at which bodies strike the Earth, but the rock beds at least in this case are undisturbed. So, which is it? The theory appears to contradict itself.

- Daniel Moreau Barringer, a mining engineer who first declared the crater to be from a meteor, noticed that the debris field was laid down roughly in layers that reversed the strata of the surrounding terrain. This is actually what happens when a rotating, crater-producing electric arc works its way down through the surface layers of soil.

- Furthermore, the presence of nearby rilles (or sinuous channels) and fulgarites both suggest electrical origins. Fulgurites are only known to result from lightning strikes.

- A more recent analysis from 2005 by Jay Melosh of the University of Arizona indicates the likelihood of substantial fragmentation of the body prior to striking the ground.

So, it's not that this concept is ignoring the work of talented geologists. It's that many geologists are ignoring this theory because although all of this evidence exists, very few people are suggesting that meteors tend to trade charge with the bodies they strike prior to collision. The reason that they do not suggest this is because we've all been taught that bodies in space do not acquire, possess or trade charge under any circumstances -- an assumption that has no basis whatsoever and that is causing a great number of problems for archaeology, geology and astronomy at the moment. It can similarly be shown that NASA is ignoring the electrical nature of Mars' features in the same way. This is not a small issue either because so long as all of these scientists continue to be allowed to insist that electricity plays no part in our solar system, then they will continue to insist that it plays no part in the larger universe too -- and so long as this is the case, we will continue to not fully understand our surroundings. And since we can only defend ourselves from those things which we understand, we continue on a potentially self-destructive path.

So, yes, it is *very* important that geologists get this right. It sounds silly, but the long-term survival of our planet to some extent depends on a small handful of astrophysicists and geologists at NASA swallowing their pride and admitting that perhaps there is a chance that they have been wrong. I don't know how many astrophysicists you've met, but the chances aren't so good of that. I have yet to meet one so far that is actually humble.

Actually, craters have been created in the lab that precisely match the morphology of craters on planets, comets and asteroids ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040702 craters.htm

Plasma scientists have found that if these discharges last long enough, in fact, the walls of the craters will scallop as the Birkeland Currents twist around one another. This morphology is observed especially on comets and asteroids, but does not make so much sense in terms of physical impacts on the asteroids and comets. The thought that so many asteroids and comets would have so many craters -- large, *flat* craters -- tends to violate believability to an open-minded person that these are actually impacts.

The *only* reason that we don't blame electrical machining is because astrophysics tends to assume that bodies in space do not acquire and trade charge with surrounding space and other bodies. This is a pretty absurd assumption considering that interstellar space is filled with charged particles. But it is most likely why we end up with silly concepts like dark matter and dark energy ... If you weren't looking for large-scale electrical transfers in the universe, you'd see an existence of a strong force (10^39 stronger than gravity, actually) and the absence of matter to impart it.

What's that white stuff around the crater's rim? Is that just a trick of the light? If it's not could whatever it is be the same material as the 'flow?' It has a similar intensity to the light-colored 'flow.'

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0604 27luminousrims.htm

There's been also strong evidence of seasonal darkening as if the ground was damp during summer months.

There are electrical explanations for this too ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0604 27luminousrims.htm

In fact, we've seen it in action more or less ...

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

There's been also strong evidence of seasonal darkening as if the ground was damp during summer months.

There are electrical explanations for this too ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0604 27luminousrims.htm

In fact, we've seen it in action more or less ...

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

Of course, there are some pics that I wouldn't mind a little more investigation on. I happen to be interested in something I call Gulliver's Golf Ball, something that looks like a perfect sphere, roughly 200 meters across.

Like many other "mysteries" of Mars, domed craters are only mysteries because we assume that electricity is having a limited effect upon the terraforming of Mars. And yet, we can create domed craters with electricity in the laboratory ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0503 29domedcraters.htm

If you don't mind, I'm going to redirect you to my other recent post on the electrical terraforming of Mars. There is much evidence to support the notion that NASA is ignoring the role that electricity plays on Mars ...

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=210316&cid=171 39302

I'm going to throw a bunch of links at you here, but this should answer your question.

First, look at the electric dust devils of Mars etching the ground black as it moves across:

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

Now look at the scalloped curled trenches that would result from a pair of Birkeland Currents twisting around one another (as happens in plasma globes). The scalloping and flat bottoms are exactly the same thing you notice on asteroid and cometary craters too ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0508 29curly.htm

More Martian electric rilles. You've seen the electric dust devils now, so this should not be any great mystery ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0503 18europamars.htm

Domed craters on Mars look precisely like things that have been generated in the lab with electricity ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0511 16domes.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0503 25blueberries.htm

And next, the "collapsed lava tubes" ... "Lava tubes on Earth are only a few meters wide. The width of channels on Ascraeus Mons are measured in thousands of meters. Even with Mars' lesser gravity, solidified lava is not strong enough to span such distances: None of the channels should be covered.":

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0511 11ascraeus.htm

Rilles exist on the Moon, Earth, Mars and Venus (among other planets), and yet we ascribe different geological mechanisms for nearly all of these. Shouldn't we also consider that one single phenomenon is possibly causing many of them? We know, for instance, that the Grand Canyon was not carved out by the Colorado River because it would have had to plough straight through a gigantic plateau called the Kaibab Upwarp. Interestingly, scientists to this day cannot agree on what caused the Grand Canyon and the fact that entire geological records are missing for that canyon doesn't help either ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0504 08marineris.htm

Remember this? When the rover was mysteriously cleaned? What's so mysterious about electrostatic cleaning?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0505 31roverclean.htm

But my favorite of all time is the mysterious Martian geysers popularized in the news media like here:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/21/mars_geyse rs/

The fact that somebody can look at these images (pictured below) and conclude that they are geysers rather than the remnants of electrical strikes ... well, let's just say that I rest my case with this article ...

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

Water on Mars? I'll believe it when astronauts are drinking it.

I'm going to throw a bunch of links at you here, but this should answer your question.

First, look at the electric dust devils of Mars etching the ground black as it moves across:

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

Now look at the scalloped curled trenches that would result from a pair of Birkeland Currents twisting around one another (as happens in plasma globes). The scalloping and flat bottoms are exactly the same thing you notice on asteroid and cometary craters too ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0508 29curly.htm

More Martian electric rilles. You've seen the electric dust devils now, so this should not be any great mystery ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0503 18europamars.htm

Domed craters on Mars look precisely like things that have been generated in the lab with electricity ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0511 16domes.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0503 25blueberries.htm

And next, the "collapsed lava tubes" ... "Lava tubes on Earth are only a few meters wide. The width of channels on Ascraeus Mons are measured in thousands of meters. Even with Mars' lesser gravity, solidified lava is not strong enough to span such distances: None of the channels should be covered.":

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0511 11ascraeus.htm

Rilles exist on the Moon, Earth, Mars and Venus (among other planets), and yet we ascribe different geological mechanisms for nearly all of these. Shouldn't we also consider that one single phenomenon is possibly causing many of them? We know, for instance, that the Grand Canyon was not carved out by the Colorado River because it would have had to plough straight through a gigantic plateau called the Kaibab Upwarp. Interestingly, scientists to this day cannot agree on what caused the Grand Canyon and the fact that entire geological records are missing for that canyon doesn't help either ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0504 08marineris.htm

Remember this? When the rover was mysteriously cleaned? What's so mysterious about electrostatic cleaning?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0505 31roverclean.htm

But my favorite of all time is the mysterious Martian geysers popularized in the news media like here:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/21/mars_geyse rs/

The fact that somebody can look at these images (pictured below) and conclude that they are geysers rather than the remnants of electrical strikes ... well, let's just say that I rest my case with this article ...

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

Water on Mars? I'll believe it when astronauts are drinking it.

I'm going to throw a bunch of links at you here, but this should answer your question.

First, look at the electric dust devils of Mars etching the ground black as it moves across:

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

Now look at the scalloped curled trenches that would result from a pair of Birkeland Currents twisting around one another (as happens in plasma globes). The scalloping and flat bottoms are exactly the same thing you notice on asteroid and cometary craters too ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0508 29curly.htm

More Martian electric rilles. You've seen the electric dust devils now, so this should not be any great mystery ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0503 18europamars.htm

Domed craters on Mars look precisely like things that have been generated in the lab with electricity ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0511 16domes.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0503 25blueberries.htm

And next, the "collapsed lava tubes" ... "Lava tubes on Earth are only a few meters wide. The width of channels on Ascraeus Mons are measured in thousands of meters. Even with Mars' lesser gravity, solidified lava is not strong enough to span such distances: None of the channels should be covered.":

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0511 11ascraeus.htm

Rilles exist on the Moon, Earth, Mars and Venus (among other planets), and yet we ascribe different geological mechanisms for nearly all of these. Shouldn't we also consider that one single phenomenon is possibly causing many of them? We know, for instance, that the Grand Canyon was not carved out by the Colorado River because it would have had to plough straight through a gigantic plateau called the Kaibab Upwarp. Interestingly, scientists to this day cannot agree on what caused the Grand Canyon and the fact that entire geological records are missing for that canyon doesn't help either ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0504 08marineris.htm

Remember this? When the rover was mysteriously cleaned? What's so mysterious about electrostatic cleaning?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0505 31roverclean.htm

But my favorite of all time is the mysterious Martian geysers popularized in the news media like here:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/21/mars_geyse rs/

The fact that somebody can look at these images (pictured below) and conclude that they are geysers rather than the remnants of electrical strikes ... well, let's just say that I rest my case with this article ...

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

Water on Mars? I'll believe it when astronauts are drinking it.

I'm going to throw a bunch of links at you here, but this should answer your question.

First, look at the electric dust devils of Mars etching the ground black as it moves across:

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

Now look at the scalloped curled trenches that would result from a pair of Birkeland Currents twisting around one another (as happens in plasma globes). The scalloping and flat bottoms are exactly the same thing you notice on asteroid and cometary craters too ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0508 29curly.htm

More Martian electric rilles. You've seen the electric dust devils now, so this should not be any great mystery ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0503 18europamars.htm

Domed craters on Mars look precisely like things that have been generated in the lab with electricity ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0511 16domes.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0503 25blueberries.htm

And next, the "collapsed lava tubes" ... "Lava tubes on Earth are only a few meters wide. The width of channels on Ascraeus Mons are measured in thousands of meters. Even with Mars' lesser gravity, solidified lava is not strong enough to span such distances: None of the channels should be covered.":

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0511 11ascraeus.htm

Rilles exist on the Moon, Earth, Mars and Venus (among other planets), and yet we ascribe different geological mechanisms for nearly all of these. Shouldn't we also consider that one single phenomenon is possibly causing many of them? We know, for instance, that the Grand Canyon was not carved out by the Colorado River because it would have had to plough straight through a gigantic plateau called the Kaibab Upwarp. Interestingly, scientists to this day cannot agree on what caused the Grand Canyon and the fact that entire geological records are missing for that canyon doesn't help either ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0504 08marineris.htm

Remember this? When the rover was mysteriously cleaned? What's so mysterious about electrostatic cleaning?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0505 31roverclean.htm

But my favorite of all time is the mysterious Martian geysers popularized in the news media like here:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/21/mars_geyse rs/

The fact that somebody can look at these images (pictured below) and conclude that they are geysers rather than the remnants of electrical strikes ... well, let's just say that I rest my case with this article ...

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

Water on Mars? I'll believe it when astronauts are drinking it.

I'm going to throw a bunch of links at you here, but this should answer your question.

First, look at the electric dust devils of Mars etching the ground black as it moves across:

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

Now look at the scalloped curled trenches that would result from a pair of Birkeland Currents twisting around one another (as happens in plasma globes). The scalloping and flat bottoms are exactly the same thing you notice on asteroid and cometary craters too ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0508 29curly.htm

More Martian electric rilles. You've seen the electric dust devils now, so this should not be any great mystery ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0503 18europamars.htm

Domed craters on Mars look precisely like things that have been generated in the lab with electricity ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0511 16domes.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0503 25blueberries.htm

And next, the "collapsed lava tubes" ... "Lava tubes on Earth are only a few meters wide. The width of channels on Ascraeus Mons are measured in thousands of meters. Even with Mars' lesser gravity, solidified lava is not strong enough to span such distances: None of the channels should be covered.":

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0511 11ascraeus.htm

Rilles exist on the Moon, Earth, Mars and Venus (among other planets), and yet we ascribe different geological mechanisms for nearly all of these. Shouldn't we also consider that one single phenomenon is possibly causing many of them? We know, for instance, that the Grand Canyon was not carved out by the Colorado River because it would have had to plough straight through a gigantic plateau called the Kaibab Upwarp. Interestingly, scientists to this day cannot agree on what caused the Grand Canyon and the fact that entire geological records are missing for that canyon doesn't help either ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0504 08marineris.htm

Remember this? When the rover was mysteriously cleaned? What's so mysterious about electrostatic cleaning?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0505 31roverclean.htm

But my favorite of all time is the mysterious Martian geysers popularized in the news media like here:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/21/mars_geyse rs/

The fact that somebody can look at these images (pictured below) and conclude that they are geysers rather than the remnants of electrical strikes ... well, let's just say that I rest my case with this article ...

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

Water on Mars? I'll believe it when astronauts are drinking it.