Welcome to Space News from the Electric Universe, brought to you by the
Thunderbolts Project™ at Thunderbolts.info. How and when did the asteroids and
comets in our solar system form? For many decades, astronomers have embraced the
story that these small rocky bodies are the primordial leftovers of our solar
system's formation; supposedly from a nebular cloud, four and a half billion years ago.
Of course, as viewers of this series have long known, science discovery has
done little to nothing to support this view. In fact, one of the great surprises
of the Space Age is that asteroids and comet nuclei appear remarkably similar. They
have complex rocky and rubble-strewn surfaces. The Electric Universe has always proposed the “radical
hypothesis” that comets, asteroids and meteoroids were torn from planetary
surfaces by interplanetary lightning in an epoch of planetary instability. A
major piece of this puzzle is the evidence for electrical scarring on
planets and moons and one of the most dramatic examples of such scarring may
be the enormous trench, Valles Marineris on Mars. In this episode, retired nuclear
engineer Ray Gallucci offers an independent analysis of the specific
role that Mars may have played in creating the asteroid belt. Today I'd
like to talk on the plausibility of the electrical birth of the asteroid belt
from the Electric Universe perspective. Some background on the asteroid belt.
Traditionally the asteroid belt formed from the primordial solar nebula as a
group of planetesimals form proto planets, and this is taken from the
asteroid belt discussion in Wikipedia. Between Mars and Jupiter however,
gravitational perturbations from Jupiter imbued the proto planets with too much
orbital energy for them to accrete into a planet. The collisions became too
violent and most of the proto planets shattered.
As a result, 99.9 percent of the asteroid belt’s original mass was lost in the
first 100 million years. Now, on the Electric Universe Theory, the EU Theory
of asteroid formation does not require that one object smash into another one
for there to be craters; and there's a discussion video on Thunderbolts.info,
Dawn Approaches the Asteroid Belt and I'll be taking some quotes from there.
Electric arcs can gouge surfaces and scoop out material, accelerating it into
space, leaving clean, deep pits. Comets also exhibit surface features that are
the same as those observed on asteroids, so the conclusion is that the two are
really one thing and not “dirty snowballs” versus “rocky bodies.” Let's talk
about Vesta which is the second largest asteroid. Vesta with a diameter
of approximately 530 kilometers, compares to Saturn's moon Enceladus or Mimas in
size, again taken from that Thunderbolts presentation. There are indications that
Vesta has experienced some powerful collisions in the past, since one of the
craters near Vesta’s South Pole is 460 kilometers in diameter, which is more
than 80% of the asteroid size. The crater is close to 13 kilometers below the mean
elevation of the terrain with a rim about six kilometers above. There was an
18 km-high central peak as well. The question that's asked in the Electric
Universe presentation is, why did an impact that removed more than 1% of the
asteroids mass not blast it into pieces? Especially given that the size of the
crater is almost the size of the diameter of the asteroid itself.
Continuing with Vesta, other asteroids as well as small moons exhibit craters that
should have exploded them into fragments when they were hit. According to gravity-
based models, they are loosely compacted and act like big sand piles and absorb
the impacts without shattering. They have no hard crust to
begin with, so they haven't fractured despite repeated pounding. Plasma arcs do
not disturb the surrounding surfaces when they are used in industrial
applications. Based on laboratory analysis, that is what has occurred on
Vesta and in all the asteroids, moons and planets of the solar system: plasma
discharge erosion.... So again, that's the Electric Universe Theory. Now let's look
at the Valles Marineris on Mars and this is taken from the Wikipedia entry on
Valles Marineris. This is a system of canyons that runs more than 4,000
kilometers long (that's 2,500 miles) it's 200 kilometers wide
(that's 120 miles) and it's up to 7 kilometers, deep or 23,000 feet. It's one
of the larger canyons of the solar system. Valles Marineris is located along
the equator of Mars and stretches for nearly a quarter of the planet’s
circumference. It has recently been suggested that Valles Marineris is a
large tectonic crack, formed as the crust thickened and was subsequently widened
by erosion. Some channels may have been formed by water or carbon dioxide and
this is the Wikipedia explanation of Valles Marineris and this is what the
mainstream physics holds: that it's all due to tectonic activities. The picture
shows there - you can see how long Valles Marineris is. I mean it is a huge surface
feature on Mars itself and we note that in the 1970’s the engineer Ralph
Juergens first proposed that Valles Marineris is the scar left by a giant
interplanetary lightning bolt, not necessarily a tectonic activity. Let's
talk about an analogy with laboratory plasma. Recently, geologic researcher
Michael Steinbacher and experimentalist Billy Yelverton, exploring the theory of
planetary electrical scarring, have collaborated to replicate the complex
conditions that might have been present in an epoch of planetary instability; and
this is taken from the Thunderbolts video: Valles Marineris in the laboratory,
a Space News from 2015 and there's a picture there of the scarring that was
done in the laboratory. And my observation is, even the most jaded
skeptic should admit some resemblance to Valles Marineris. If you just go back to
the previous slide and you look at the picture of Valles Marineris there, and
then you look at the laboratory version of the plasma scarring, I think it's
pretty obvious that there's certainly a similarity. So, now I would like to
consider if Mars was the sole source of the asteroid belt.
So rather than delve into the electrical plasma arc discharge as the potential
creator of Valles Marineris, I'm going to focus on the mass of Mars surface
potentially ejected during such an encounter with a closely placed passing
planetesimal, comparable in size to the largest of the known asteroids which
happens to be also known as dwarf planets, now that Pluto has been demoted, and
this asteroid is Ceres. I'm going to take an independent look and see is the
amount of mass in the asteroid belt consistent with what might have been
ejected from Mars? The maximum amount of Mars’ surface ejected during such an
encounter would have been - there's a calculation there based on the volume
of the depth and expanse of Valles Marineris. It calculates out to 2.2 times
10 to the 19th kilograms. From the estimated total mass of the asteroid belt,
which is about three times 10 to the 21st kilograms, more than a hundred times
greater than the maximum estimated mass that could have been ejected from
Valles Marineris. Ejection solely of Mars surface material could not have
generated the entire asteroid belt. It’s about a factor of 100 to small; not that
it could not have contributed to it, but we need to find some other mass in order
to account for the asteroid belt. Let's consider a contribution from a
planetesimal. The total mass of the asteroid belt, 3 times 10 to the 21st
kilogram, with less than 1% arising for Mars itself, that 3 times 10 to the 21st
kilogram, that would be the minimal mass needed for the planetesimal,
if it were completely disintegrated and its debris contained within the belt.
Again, I'm going to just talk about a collision, or about, it's not a collision
but an interaction, electrical interaction between Mars and one
planetesimal. I mean there could have been multiple, but let's look at if it
had one and what would the size of that one planetesimals have had to be.
Let's assume the same density as the largest asteroid or dwarf planet, which
is Ceres, the corresponding radius would have been the cube root of this formula
here, which is based on the size of the mass of the asteroid belt, the mean density
of Ceres etc. This planetesimal would have had to have a radius of 690 kilometers.
Ceres itself has a mass just under 10 to the 21st kilograms at a radius of 473
kilometers. So, the postulated planetesimal would
have been roughly three times as massive and 50% wider than the currently known
largest asteroid, which is Ceres. Let's put this in some perspective. Mars
itself has a mass of 6.4 times 10 to the 23rd kilogram and a
radius of 3,390 kilometers. So, the planetesimal would have been only about
0.5% as massive and 2% as wide as Mars. Quite a small entity, but certainly not
far out of line with Ceres. If this was all going to come from one planetesimal,
the asteroid belt, in an interaction with Mars, it would not have had to been
that much larger than Ceres which is the largest one currently known.
Despite the moon being roughly 25% the width of the earth, in other words 1,737
km versus 6,371 km, we note that its mass is only slightly above 1% that of Earth, which is
around seven point three times 10 to the 22nd kilograms versus Earth's mass of
just under 6 times 10 to the 24th kilograms. The ratio of the moon's mass
to that of Earth is only about twice the ratio of the proposed planetesimal to
that of Mars, despite a much greater difference in size. I mean the moon is
quite large compared to the earth itself, as moons go relative to their planets.
And so, what Mars would have needed for this interaction would have been
something a lot smaller than our own moon. Therefore the planetesimal need only have been
comparibly as dense as other lone asteroids to have generated the asteroid
belt via an electrical discharge interaction with Mars.
So, in conclusion, is the Electric Universe Theory’s explanation for the
formation of the asteroid belt plausible? At least from the perspective of
the amount of mass involved, I did a crude analysis and I have a positive
answer to that. However, I leave it to the Electric Universe theorists to continue
their explanation of the phenomenology and its plausibility, towards which they
appear to be off to a good start.
[Music]