Electric Universe An Invitation to Progress in Science Space News

Welcome to Space News from the Electric Universe, brought to you by The Thunderbolts Project™ at Thunderbolts.info This year, human beings around the world commemorated the 50th anniversary of one of the most iconic images in our history -- the first footsteps on the Moon. In 2019, astounding technological leaps propels space exploration, making possible unprecedented feats such as landing a probe on a comet or sending a spacecraft closer to the Sun than any man-made technology to date. The evolution of technology determines the reach of space discovery and these technological wonders might persuade the casual observer that space science is nearing the apex of a complete and true understanding of the cosmos. However, the means by which scientific data is obtained and interpreted is a subjective human process. Scientific theory determines the parameters of any space mission including the design of spacecrafts, satellites and probes and therefore to some extent limits what can and will be discovered. The real test of scientific progress is whether discovery informs and advances science toward a truer understanding of nature. Moreover, the test of any scientific theory's credibility is its predictive success vs. failure. On this series, for over seven years we've Illustrated an extraordinary disconnect between consensus scientific theory and space discovery. The evidence of what we call a disconnect can be found by asking the following question: do the failed predictions of a popular theory actually prompt the development or exploration of any different theories; or, do the failures simply result in ad hoc theories which are invented and tacked on in order to preserve or redeem the foundational theory? Nowhere are these questions answered more emphatically than in the study of comets and asteroids in our solar system. In fact, it's appropriate to address comets and asteroids together, because in the Electric Universe theory the origins and behaviors of both types of bodies are vastly closer than mainstream astronomers ever imagined. Neither comets nor asteroids originated billions of years ago as leftovers from the solar system's formation. We've proposed, they were torn from planetary surfaces by interplanetary electrical discharges in a period of instability in the inner solar system. Differences in comet and asteroid behaviors are not due to differences in their composition but rather, it's due to differences in their respective orbits. The displays of comets are not the result of sublimation of water ice and other volatiles on the comet nucleus, which have never been seen in the abundance that Standard Theory requires. Rather, the long elliptical orbits of comets bring them from the far reaches of the outer solar system where the comet is "negatively charged" with respect to its environment. As the comet approaches the Sun, it moves more and more rapidly into an increasingly positively charged domain. The resulting "voltage spike" in the comet's dynamic plasma environment is the cause of the comet's activity which is electrical discharge activity. Comets can also discharge like overstressed capacitors when moving away from the Sun being hit by a proton storm from a CME or passing through a planet's magnetotail. In the Electric Universe theory, occasional comet-like activity on asteroids is predicted. Although the orbit of a typical asteroid is much shorter than a comet's, some asteroids' orbits are sufficiently elliptical to produce comet-like activity. And as with comets, activity can result when an asteroid moves through any region of changing potential. As we reported early this month, the asteroid Bennu is one of a growing list of asteroids to stun space scientists with its comet-like behavior. Among the surprises that NASA's Osiris-Rex mission have uncovered was the asteroid repeatedly emitting dust and rocks like an active comet, as well as an unexpected rapid increase in the asteroid's rotation. As reported by New Scientist in March of this year, "Bennu isn't a cold dead rock after all. NASA's Osiris-Rex spacecraft has spotted the asteroid spewing out dust and rocks on 11 separate occasions over a period of just a few weeks, which was completely unexpected." Of course, as already stated, the comet-like activity is not unexpected in the Electric Universe theory. So is this an example of electrical discharge activity on an asteroid? Unfortunately, it appears that NASA scientists will not be able to tell us. The reason for this was noted by physicist Eugene Bagashov in his analysis of the respective space missions to the asteroids Bennu and Ryugu. As Eugene stated, "It might sound ridiculous, but none of these spacecraft have Langmuir probes, plasma wave suites of instruments or any detectors of charged particles whatsoever." Indeed, the ridiculousness of these facts is emphasized by yet another recent cometary outburst by an asteroid. In December of 2018, astronomers on Earth observed an asteroid between Mars and Jupiter producing not one but two dust trails. Dubbed Gault 6478, the "active asteroid" also astonished observers when it was found to be shifting colors from red to blue, apparently the first time the phenomenon has been seen in an asteroid. MIT scientist Michael Marsset said of the discovery, "That was a very big surprise. We think we have witnessed the asteroid losing its reddish dust to space, and we are seeing the asteroid's underlying, fresh blue layers." The following statement from a Phys.org report perfectly underscores why we continue to emphasize the disconnect between discovery and theory in space science. It states, "Marsset and his colleagues have also confirmed that the asteroid is rocky -- proof that the asteroid's tail, though seemingly comet-like, is caused by an entirely different mechanism, as comets are not rocky but more like loose snowballs of ice and dust." Michael Marsset states, "It's the first time to my knowledge that we see a rocky body emitting dust, a little bit like a comet. It means that probably some mechanism responsible for dust emission is different from comets, and different for most other active main-belt asteroids." Those who have followed comet discovery and have the added benefit of the awareness of the extraordinary predictive successes of the electric comet theory, can only shake their heads at such statements. The first fact that must be acknowledged is that an electrically charged comet dust tail, long predicted by the electric comet theory, has now been recognized in the official comet literature. Although the effects of the solar wind on a comet's ion tail have long been recognized by comet scientists, last year scientists studying images of the comet Mcnaught, found surprising effects on the "weird striations in the comet's dust tail as it crossed the heliospheric current sheet." This electrical interaction was summarized by planetary scientist Geraint Jones who said, "For us, this is strong evidence that the dust is electrically charged, and that the solar wind is affecting the motion of that dust." The obvious implication is, the electric comet theory is correct that the emission of dust from a comet is itself an electrical discharge phenomenon. One must seriously question the value of the billions of taxpayer Dollars and Euros that have been invested in sending spacecrafts to comets since the discoveries appear to have had no meaningful impact on comet theory. As we've done previously, it seems necessary to present an historical outline of the discoveries by comet space missions, because in a very real sense the discoveries might as well have never happened. A most incredible enigma is the continued endurance of the description of comets as "snowballs of ice and dust." Consider that as early as 2001, the NASA spacecraft Deep Space 1 imaged the nucleus of comet Borrelly, by far the finest image of a comet nucleus to that time. Of course, what they saw bore no resemblence at all the dirty snowball of standard theory. As Dr. Laurence Soderblom stated at the time, "It's mind boggling and stupendous. These pictures have told us that comet nuclei are far more complex than we ever imagined. They have rugged terrain, smooth rolling plains, deep fractures and very, very dark material." And of course, the "mind-boggling and stupendous discoveries" have only continued. In 2004, NASA's Stardust spacecraft imaged the nucleus of Comet Wild 2 - which was desiccated, complex and rough; rather than icy and smooth. A major shock was the presence of so-called impact craters on the comet nucleus. As reported by New Scientist in 2004, "That is completely unexpected because comets are believed to be loose aggregations of dust and ice that would shatter on impact.... If the pits are craters, the surface of the comet nucleus must be much stronger than experts thought. NASA's Ray Newburn said of the discovery, "I don't think any of us really considered the possibility of impact craters....It may be a well- cemented rubble pile, but it's definitely not a loose powdery surface." NASA scientists assumed that comet Wild 2 would be "pristine" having changed very little since its suposed formation in a primordial nebular cloud four and a half billion years ago. A 1999 NASA press release expressed the reasoning as follows, "...why visit an obscure, hard-to-see object like Wild-2, when there are so many more notorious comets to choose from? ...#1 It's fresh. Before its near miss with Jupiter in 1974 comet Wild-2 was well-preserved in the frigid outer solar system. With its new orbit, Wild-2 now comes much closer to the Sun...Since Wild 2 has passed the Sun only a few times, it still has most of its dust and gases - it is pristine." But dust samples from the comet, returned to Earth, revealed complex crystalline structures which formed under astonishingly high temperatures. Mineral inclusions ranged from anorthite, which is made up of calcium, sodium, aluminum, and silicon; to diopside made of calcium, magnesium and silicate. Formations of such minerals require temperatures in the range of thousands of degrees. NASA Curator Michael Zolensky said, "That's a big surprise. People thought comets would just be cold stuff that formed out...where things are very cold...It was kind of a shock to not just find one but several of these, which implies they are pretty common in the comet." The comet also produced numerous powerful jets, whose behavior also completely confounded Stardust investigators. A NASA report on the Wild 2 jets stated, "The team predicted the jets would shoot up for a short distance, and then be dispersed into a halo around Wild 2. Instead, some super-speedy jets remained intact, like blasts of water from a powerful garden hose." Mission scientist dr. Benton Clark stated, "A big surprise was the abundance and behavior of jets of particles shooting up from the comet's surface. We expected a couple of jets, but saw more than two dozen in the brief flyby." Unfortunately, none of these discoveries had forced any reevaluation of comet theory prior to the Deep Impact mission to comet Tempel 1 in 2005, but the chief principals of The Thunderbolts Project felt confident that the NASA mission would only provide support for the electric comet model. Prior to the July-4-2005 impact date for the Temple 1 probe, Wal Thornhill and David Talbott issued a series of predictions for the event which were published on the Thunderbolts.info website. Because of the comets' low eccentricity orbit, they wrote that electrical interactions with the approaching probe "...may be slight, but they should be measurable if NASA will look for them.... The most obvious would be a flash (a lightning like discharge) shortly before impact." And they predicted that temperatures associated with the event would be "much higher than expected from impact heating." They also predicted, "More energy will be released than expected because of the electrical contributions of the comet." And they predicted that the impact crater left by the NASA probe would be smaller than expected because the comet is rock, more similar to an asteroid than a loose conglomeration of ice and dust. These predictions, as well as several others on the comet's composition and surface terrain, received stunning confirmation. Moments before the 800-pound copper projectile struck the comet nucleus, NASA scientists were amazed by the bright electrical flash shortly followed by an explosion much larger than they anticipated when the impactor contacted the surface. As NASA investigator Peter Schultz said at the time, "What you see is something really surprising. First, there is a small flash, then there is a delay, then there's a big flash and the whole thing breaks loose." Nor did the projectile leave nearly the dramatic impact crater scientists had predicted -- just one piece of evidence that the comet nucleus was much harder than NASA had expected. As reported by Universe Today, "Swift scientists have seen a quick and dramatic rise in ultraviolet light, evidence that the Deep Impact probe struck a hard surface, as opposed to a softer, snowy surface." In 2011, after the NASA's Stardust next spacecraft imaged the impact site of the copper projectile, it revealed a far less dramatic crater than comet scientists had expected. NASA scientists then made the genuinely unbelievable claim that the crater "partially healed itself" when material that had exploded off of the comet at tremendous velocities somehow "fell back down to refill the crater" in the nearly zero gravity environment of the comet. Stay with me here, OK, we saw this crater, it's subdued, it's about a hundred fifty meters across and has a small central mound in the center, it looks as if from the impact the stuff went up and came back down. Like every other comet nucleus image to date, Tempel 1 appeared desiccated and rocky, nor did the projectile produce the expected release of theoretical subsurface water ice on the comet. As noted by astronomer Charles Qi in 2005, "The material that came out was a surprise to scientists: a cloud of fine powdery material emerged, not the water, ice and dirt that were expected." Nor did close-up images of the nucleus reveal the theoretical vents from which comet jets are supposed to emanate. As reported in the journal Icarus in 2007 by P.C. Thomas et al, "It is proven difficult to identify specific landforms that can be identified as the 'vents' discussed for many decades in classical comet literature, as it is difficult to locate them on Borrelly and Wild 2." Nevertheless, when we fast forward to 2013, scientists with the European Space Agency's Rosetta mission to comet 67P, offered no meaningful revisions of comet theory, even in the face of all previous surprises. But as noted in Rosetta's 2016 grand finale press kit, "...in orbit, data from the instruments on Rosetta show the comet to be one surprise after another. We've reported exhaustively on these surprises such as the obvious stratified rock, an extreme planetary geology seen everywhere on the comet nucleus, including sand dunes and other impossible cometary features. The stunning absence of visible water ice, the tremendous fields of rocky debris and large boulders, the discovery of molecular oxygen in defiance of the comet's origins in a primordial nebular cloud. The continued non-detection of so-called apertures which are thought to collimate comet jets, and the puzzling double-lobed shape of the comet which is also seen routinely among asteroids. The comet's activity was also puzzling to Rosetta investigators. The behavior of the comet's coma presents a major puzzle that defied the team's theoretical predictions. As noted in the aforementioned press kit, "The outflowing coma interacts with the solar wind -- a stream of charged particles continuously flowing from the Sun. As activity grows, these interactions become more intense and create a cavity, 'shielding' the nucleus from the solar wind. Such a cavity was expected to stand in front of the comet by only a few tens of kilometers, but observations by the Rosetta Plasma Consortium have found that it is much more dynamic, its boundary reaching more than 170 kilometers from the comet. A new breed of plasma wave interaction has been discovered by Rosetta early on in the mission, when the activity was still low, and has been coined the 'comet sound.' How this interaction changes over time is still being investigated." And, as we've discussed many times, the explosive collimated jets of comets remain a puzzle to scientists. 67P's jets remain as problematic as mentioned in the aforementioned press release, "Computer models suggest that escaping water vapor must come from a nearly uniform distribution of dirty water ice spread across the comet's nucleus. However, the Hapi region has shown itself to be more active than other areas." The continued reference to "escaping water vapor" and hence the belief in sublimating volatiles and so-called outgassing, may be one of the greatest obstacles to progress in comet science. No number of desiccated and rocky comet nuclei have dissuaded comet scientists from this belief. They assume that icy layers are hidden out of sight and any trivial ice deposits that are actually visible, are then characterized as "exposed ice." Such is the case in the 2016 Nature article 'Exposed water ice on the nucleus of Comet 67P/ Churyumov-Gerasimenko.' Ironically, the paper's abstract acknowledges, "... limited evidence for exposed water-ice regions on the surface of the nucleus has been found so far. The absence of large regions of exposed water ice seems a common finding on the surfaces of many of the comets observed so far. The nucleus of 67P Churyumov-Gerasimenko appears to be fairly uniformly coated with dark, dehydrated, refractory and organic-rich material." But for several years, Thunderbolts colleague Dr. Franklin Anariba, a specialist in electrochemistry, has been presenting his thesis on comet water production by electrochemical processes. As Anariba has shown, the complex plasma environments of comets, which interact dramatically with the solar wind, are the perfect conditions for "water factories in space." In fact, similar processes are now a part of standard astronomical literature, including attempts to explain the surprising abundance of water in the Lunar soil. As noted in a Phys.org report from last year, "...every exposed body of silica in space -- from the Moon down to a small dust grain -- has the potential to create hydroxyl and thus become a chemical factory for water. If explored, this hypothesis could ultimately resolve anomalies that will never be reconciled with the sublimating dirty snowball hypothesis. This includes the detection of prodigious amounts of water from an obviously desiccated rocky comet nucleus. The water is being created and is not the product of sublimation. This could also explain how a comet can become active at the unbelievable distance of 1.5 billion miles from the Sun, as was discovered in 2017. Another obstacle for comet scientists is their faith in their measurements of a comet's density. Even after the cautionary examples already provided by Wild 2 and Tempel 1, Rosetta scientists were forced to confront unexpectedly strong material on 67P's nucleus. The Philae lander's MUPUS penetrator could not insert itself into the rocky soil nor could the SD2 instrument succeed in drilling a hole in it. The "radical perspective" argued by physicist Wal Thornhill, is that measurements of an object's density cannot be accurate if one fails to account for the electromagnetic stresses on the body. In 2004, Thornhill wrote, "Density calculations based on gravitational perturbation theory are worthless. Gravity is a weak dipole electric force between subatomic particles. So the charge distribution in a body affects gravity strongly. Comets are highly charged bodies and will exhibit anomalous gravity. Newton's gravitational 'constant' G is a dependent variable. It is dependent on the electrical state of a body." The challenge that comet and asteroid discoveries pose to institutionalized science reach far beyond the question what is a comet or asteroid. The origins and behaviors of these bodies hold remarkable insights into the history and nature of our solar system, our planet, and indeed of us. When President John F. Kennedy proclaimed his determination to see human beings walk on the Moon, he declared his reasoning as follows, "We choose to go to the moon in this decade, and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard." Deciphering the mysteries of the universe is certainly not easy, either for proponents of gravity-centered cosmology or the Electric Universe. We only propose that the concepts of the Electric Universe, based on sound scientific principles and demonstrated through centuries of experimentation, are worthy of sober investigation which has yet to occur at the level of institutionalized science. Perhaps all who genuinely wish for scientific advancement should consider the words of the French philosopher Gaston Bachelard, "The characteristic of scientific progress is our knowing that we did not know."