markcreekwater

I WRITE ESSAYs

FORE-WORDs #2: COMETs: DIRTY SNOW-BALLs OR STRONGLY CHARGED ELECTRICAL OBJECTs ??

FORE-WORDs #2:  Comets:  Dirty Snowballs or Strongly Charged Electrical Objects ??

“Let’s look at it like a martian would look at it … it has to do with curiosity” —–Richard Feynman

I love the so-called “electric universe” model.  Obviously there are some big lots of electric and magnetic stuff happening in some parts of our universe, especially where interstellar plasmas are present, and/or where new stars are in the process of forming.

Dr. Ernest Sternglass [Ref.#1] identifies the electron and the positron as the only truely fundamental “particles” in our universe, from which all other “particles” are made.  And Dr. Menahem Simhony [Ref.#2] identifies “space” as nothing but a lattice of electrons + positrons.  If one regards both electrons and positrons as pure electric energy, then the two models, together, describe the ultimate “electric universe” model.

One can learn about the “electric universe” model by viewing some of the many youtube videos which its proponents have posted on the world famous world-wide-web,  i.e., the internet, and I reckon that some of the ideas presented in these videos are actually true.  But there are two problems:  (1) some of the folks who believe in the “electric universe” model, and have posted videos re this on http://www.YOUTUBE.com, are a little bit too dogmatic in their presentations of these ideas:  details below.  (2) some of the videos re this model present nonsense, such as those which say that interstellar electric-currents power our sun:  though such currents DO exist in other parts of our universe (google “BIRKLAND CURRENT”), usually where very young stars are in the process of forming, they definitely do NOT power older stars like our sun:  videos like these are quite bad, and subtract from the credibility of the entire “electric universe” concept.

By contrast, Dr. Wallace Thornhill’s “Deep Impact” video is quite good:  no crack-pottery there !!

During 2005, NASA engineers crashed an 800-pound copper projectile into a comet, and the results were almost exactly as “electric universe” folks had predicted, while the same results perplexed and mystified many of the NASA folks:

“It is now well documented that every scientist associated with the project was stunned by the energetic outburst … These scientists understood the kinetics of impact, and they all agreed that the explosion would be equivalent to 4.8 tons of TNT … That’s a good-sized bomb, but not even close to what occurred” —–WALTER THORNHILL, electric universe model proponent.

Here is a video re this event:

https://www.ask.com/youtube?q=wallace+thornhill++deep+impact&v=wn_HqbMmn-4

“Deep Impact: Confirming the Electric Comet” (approx. 25.5 minutes) is the title of this Youtube video (above):  please enjoy.

Below:  some text, re the same “Deep Impact” experiment, from the internet-site at:   http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/electric_universe/esp_electricuniverse17.htm

Advanced Predictions on “DeepImpact”   On July 4, 2005, the Deep Impact spacecraft fired an 820 pound copper projectile at Comet Tempel 1.

Just prior to this occasion, we registered a series of predictions at Thunderbolts.info, including but not limited to the following*:

• Considerably greater energies will be released than expected because of the electrical contributions of the comet.
• An electric discharge in advance of impact is likely. We also expect an interruption of impactor transmission before it reaches the surface.

• Scientists will find considerably less water ice and other volatiles than expected, both on the surface and beneath the surface of Tempel 1. A completely “dry” nucleus should not be surprising.
• The discharge and/or impact may initiate a new jet on the nucleus (which will be collimated – filamentary – not sprayed out) and could even abruptly change the positions and intensities of other jets due to the sudden change in charge distribution on the comet nucleus.
• The cameras will reveal sharply defined craters, valleys, mesas, and ridges – the opposite of the softened relief expected of a sublimating “dirty snowball”. (A chunk of ice melting in the Sun loses its sharp relief, just like a scoop of melting ice cream.)
• Electrostatic cleaning will have cleared the surface of dust and debris.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050704predictions.htm

“Deep Impact” – The Smoking Guns
These close-up images of Comet Tempel 1, taken by the camera on the impactor that struck the comet nucleus, reveal white patches that have continued to puzzle NASA scientists.

Electrical theorists suggest that these are the predicted whiteouts from electric arcs at the surface.

The following is a partial summary of correct predictions for “Deep Impact” based on the electric comet model:

  • ENERGY OF EXPLOSION
    It is now well documented that every scientist associated with the project was stunned by the scale of the energetic outburst. These scientists understood the kinetics of impact, and they all agreed that the explosion would be equivalent to 4.8 tons of TNT. That’s a good-sized bomb, but not even close to what occurred.

  • ADVANCED FLASH
    Electrical theorist Wallace Thornhill predicted at least one flash from electric discharge prior to impact. From the standard viewpoint, that is an absurd prediction when considering an impactor being hit by a body at 23,000 miles per hour in “empty” space. But here is NASA investigator Peter Schultz’s description of the event:

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

  • MISSING WATER

    • “It’s pretty clear that this event did not produce a gusher,” said SWAS principal investigator Gary Melnick of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA). “The more optimistic predictions for water output from the impact haven’t materialized…”

    • “The model predicts a sculpted surface, distinguished by sharply defined craters, valleys, mesas, and ridges.”

       SHARP SURFACE RELIEF

      We not only predicted the sharply defined relief, but the specific features.  All of the expected features are present, and astronomers cannot agree on the cause, though all agree that Tempel 1 does not look like a melting “snowball.”

  • SURFACE ARCING
    The highest resolution photographs of Tempel 1, taken by the impactor, show numerous featureless patches of whiteout, most located where the electrical hypothesis would put them – on the rims of craters and on the wall of cliffs rising above flat valley floors. Electrical etching continually expands valley floors by eating away at the sharp edges of surrounding cliffs.

  • NEW JETS
    Electrical theorist Wallace Thornhill was the only one to have anticipated a shift in the arrangement, number, and the intensities of the jets away from the impact site. The 2.5 meter NOT telescope of the El Roque de los Muchachos observatory at La Palma, Spain, released images just before impact and 15 hours after impact. The observatory report states, “New jets appeared after the impact.” No explanation has ever been given.

  • ELECTRICAL DISRUPTION
    In the final seconds before impact, the video transmissions from the impactor showed considerable interference, then stopped moments before it struck the nucleus of Tempel 1. The interference pattern appeared to be electrical.

  • ELECTROSTATIC CLEANING
    The surface of Tempel 1 contrasts with the surface of the asteroid Itokawa (right). The asteroid appears to have attracted considerable surface debris electrostatically. We suggested an active comet will do the reverse.

Deep Impact – Where’s the Water?
By the time of “Deep Impact” (July 4, 2005), comet theory had fragmented into contradictory hypotheses, due in part to the absence of detectible water on cometary surfaces – a prerequisite of standard theory.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Re other aspects of the “Electric Universe” model, Dr. David Lapointe has posted a series of Youtube videos, titled “The Primer Fields” which are quite good:

 

Like Sternglass + Simhony, the work of these younger men (Thornhill + Lapoint) support and affirm each other;  and both support and affirm the work of Sternglass + Simhony —– which, as already mentioned, represents the ultimate “electric universe” model.

REGARDING “REDSHIFTS”  {please google the term “redshift” if you need to}

As I see it, one of the major problems with “electric universe” ideas and concepts, (as their proponents present them), is the fact that many of them deny that there ever was a “big bang” — and say that our universe is not expanding.  As “proof”, they usually say that the observed redshifts of objects in space are due to relativistic effects of large gravity forces associated with these objects, not the expansion of our universe.  But this explanation is only partly correct:  this relativistic phenomenon, known as “intrinsic” or “gravitational” redshift, really is responsible for some of the large redshifts which astronomers observe.

SOME,  BUT  NOT  ALL  …

The problem is this:  some of the guys + gals who are aware of the phenomenon of “intrinsic” or “gravitational” redshifts think that it’s the only reason for the observed redshifts of objects in space, and that it therefore “proves” that our universe is not expanding.  This is just simply wrong:  there are at least two, and possibly more, reasons why redshifts are associated with the light which we observe from objects in space:  some of the folks who are trying to offer a better model to replace errors of the flawed “standard model” are now trying to “throw out the baby with the bath-water”.  The “bath-water” here is the errors in the currently accepted standard model, which one should throw away.  But one should keep the “baby”, because there is a lot of evidence that our universe really is expanding.

Dr. Halton Arp [Ref.#11] worked many years studying the phenomenon of “intrinsic” redshift, and collected lots of photographic and other kinds of evidence for it.  He calls it “intrinsic redshift”, because it’s due to the large surface gravity which is intrinsic to some of the objects in space, not to their speeding away from us.  Einstein knew about it, during a time when most of his colleagues were clueless.  But Dr. Einstein was truly a genius, in the true sense of the word “genius.”

I first learned of Dr. Arp’s important work by reading about it in Sternglass’s book [Ref.#1].  Sternglass provides some powerfully excellent evidence that our universe is, in fact, expanding, and gives a correct explanation for the “intrinsic” redshift phenomenon.  “The abnormally high redshifts measured for the symmetrically-located quasars compared with the nearby galaxy are … not understandable within the framework of the standard Big Bang model.  However, they can be explained by the high local values of the gravitational constant of the massive electron[-positron] pairs in the center of a quasar, as required by the LeMaitre model and Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.  Such gravitational redshifts of quasars near active galaxies always add to the normal redshifts, [which are] due to the … expansion [of our universe]” [p.258, Ref.#1].

Plus:  in the second edition of Ref.#1, published in 2001, on p.294 Sternglass says that:  “the high redshifts of quasistellar objects [quasars] located near some galaxies with much lower redshifts are not indicative of a much larger distance … but have some other origin.  As discussed above, in the electron[-positron]-pair theory, there are very high values of the local gravitational constant associated with the residual massive seed-pairs at the centers of newly evolving cosmological objects such as recently ejected quasistellar objects [quasars] … The high local curvature of space produces a gravitational redshift, well known from both astronomical observations and laboratory experiments, so that recently ejected quasars or dwarf galaxies from the centers of active galaxies can have higher redshifts than the galaxies from which they were ejected, as observed by [Halton] Arp and others.”

Instead of dogmatically arguing that all of the observed redshift of an object in space is due to its “intrinsic” [i.e., “gravitational”] redshift, one can look at the possibility that some of the observed redshift might be due to the fact that our universe really is expanding.  Note: this kind of redshift is known as a “cosmological” redshift, because it affects ALL the objects in the “cosmos” — i.e., all the objects in space.

In other words, it’s possible, and very probable, that at least two factors are responsible for the observed redshifts of some objects:  (1) a “cosmological” factor, because our universe very probably is expanding;  and  (2) an “intrinsic” [“gravitational”] factor, because it’s very probable that some objects exhibit, in addition to a “cosmological” redshift, an “intrinsic” redshift, due to the previously mentioned “relativistic” effects of their large surface gravity forces.

{ Note: an object which is dense and compact will have a strong gravity at its surface, because its surface is nearer to its center, which is the focus of its gravitational strength.  This strong surface gravity will actually redshift the frequency of any radiation which comes from the object }

Can one please accept that both of these redshift explanations [“cosmological” and “intrinsic”] might be, in fact, correct ??

Because many of the current arguments re this phenomenon are like little children in a sand-box, throwing sand at each other, each insisting that he or she is correct.  One reckons that grown men and women might be able to do better than this !!

If one is able to understand Dr. Sternglass’s cosmology, which he presents in his book [Before the Big Bang, Ref.#1], then one should have no problem accepting that there might be more than one explanation for the redshift phenomenon.  And there might be a third valid explanation for observed redshifts:  the “tired light hypothesis” of Fritz Zwicky [google it], who was many years “ahead of his time” as they say.  I think that Dr. Simhony [Ref.#2] believes in Zwicky’s explanation for the redshift phenomenon.

$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF FORE-WORDs #2 >> $$$$$$$$$$$

Advertisements

4 comments on “FORE-WORDs #2: COMETs: DIRTY SNOW-BALLs OR STRONGLY CHARGED ELECTRICAL OBJECTs ??

  1. marktruthlover
    May 2, 2014

    EXCELLENT !!

  2. Pingback: BOOK-TITLE: ?? WHAT ARE “QUARKs” ?? | markcreekwater

  3. Pingback: INTRODUCTIONs | markcreekwater

  4. Pingback: BOOK-TITLE: HOW PROTONs WORK: ESSAYS RE THE WORK OF DR. ERNEST STERNGLASS + DR. MENAHEM SIMHONY | markcreekwater

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Information

This entry was posted on May 2, 2014 by .
%d bloggers like this: