Welcome to Space News from the Electric Universe, brought to you by
The Thunderbolts Project™ at Thunderbolts.info
NASA's New Horizons mission has recently shared pictures of the most
distant object in our solar system ever imaged by a spacecraft. It's nicknamed
Ultima Thule, a relatively tiny body, just 19 miles long, located more than 4
billion miles from Earth in the so called Kuiper Belt. As we can see, like
countless asteroids, some moons, as well as the majority of comet nuclei imaged to
date, Ultima Thule is made of two distinct lobes which are joined by a
thin neck region. Unsurprisingly, the only process by which planetary scientists
can imagine the object forming is a collision between two bodies, both of
which had accreted in the solar system's conjectured infancy, supposedly more than
four billion years ago. However, for over seven years on this
series we have outlined the amazing failures, both experimental and
observational, of the gravitational accretion hypothesis to explain objects
in our solar system and the universe beyond it. This crisis is outlined in a
2018 news report which states, "According to the traditional story of the origin
of the solar system, the planets formed slowly from accretion, as particles in
the circumstellar disk clumped together to great pebbles, then slightly larger
spheres, on and on until they reached their current size. But when scientists
tried to re-create this story with computer models,
it breaks down. Rather than growing, these incipient planets tend to splinter after
reaching pebble size." Based on the abundance of small double-lobed objects
in our solar system, it would seem according to astronomers, that collisions
between these bodies have not been particularly rare but have been
relatively commonplace in our solar system's history. These objects have
routinely floated together and then fused, incredibly sometimes
forming a neck region in the process. In the case of the comet 67P, Rosetta
mission scientists had favored the speculation that such a low-speed
collision between two comets had created the double lobed nucleus. But more
recently, a team of scientists acknowledged that 67P does not appear to
be billions of years old. They performed simulations to try to prove that, a mere
millions of years ago, two comets were destroyed in a high-velocity collision
and then re-coalesced rather than dispersing in the vacuum of space, as
depicted in the computer animation on your screen. In contrast, the Electric
Universe has always proposed that comets, asteroids, and meteoroids, did not form
from accretion billions of years ago. Rather, they were recently torn from
planetary surfaces by interplanetary electrical discharge. In fact, as we have
shown dozens of times, the double-lobed form is easily reproduced in experiments
with electrical discharge creating a stunning analog for countless celestial
objects. Today, physicist Wal Thornhill explains why Ultima Thule appears to be
yet another resounding victory for the Electric Universe theory. NASA and the
Space Age is the gift that keeps on giving. This last week we've had the New
Horizons spacecraft arriving at a tiny body in the so-called Kuiper Belt in the
outer reaches of the solar system. The nickname given by NASA scientists to the
object is Ultima Thule; in classical and medieval literature a name given to a
distant unknown region, the extreme limit of travel and discovery. Ultima Thule is
a Kuiper Belt object or 'KBO' also known more specifically as a trans-Neptunian
object or 'TNO' since the Kuiper belt occupies an enormous doughnut shaped
volume in the cold outer reaches of our solar system beyond the orbit of Neptune.
The New Horizons spacecraft is sampling this region from the orbit of Neptune at
30 AU out to a distance of 50 AU. According to
the Nebular Hypothesis of formation of the solar system, astronomers believe
there are millions of small icy leftover objects out there including hundreds of
thousands that are larger than 60 miles or 100 kilometers wide. Some, including
Pluto, are over 600 miles or 1,000 kilometers wide. When the first pixelated
image of Ultima Thule arrived - showing an elongated object, I wrote, "This
discovery, based on the double-lobed appearance, fits perfectly with the
Electric Universe scenario. See for example my recent YouTube space news on
'Seeing Double.' Close-up images should probably show a non-icy rocky appearance
like Comet 67P." A NASA web site tells us, "A fairly large number of Kuiper Belt
Objects, or KBOs, either have moons -- that is, significantly smaller bodies that
orbit them -- or are binary objects. Binaries are pairs of objects that are
relatively similar in size or mass that orbit around a shared center of mass
that lies between them. Some binaries actually touch, creating a sort of peanut
shape, creating what's known as a contact binary. Pluto, and other minor planets;
Eris, Haumea and Quaoar, are all Kuiper Belt objects that have moons." Formation by
gravitational accretion didn't predict a double lobed shape for planetesimals,
asteroids, or comets. In fact, it has difficulty in keeping small colliding
particles together without some form of stickiness or electrostatic clinginess.
Then there's a problem removing angular momentum from closely orbiting bodies. It
requires a number of smaller objects to be slung out of the system to remove the
excess momentum. But we run into a problem that was identified by the
astronomer Tom Van Flandern. He said, "The most difficult objection for the
gravitational condensation theory is to overcome how such objects could form in
the first place." The mean distance between small bodies in the vast volume
of the Kuiper Belt is so great that collision and accretion has negligible
probability. So, the leftmost image from NASA JPL is fanciful, to say the least.
Then there's the problem of attaching and forming a neck between two bodies.
The impact was proposed in the NASA TV presentation as equivalent to a bump in
a car parking lot. But that doesn't explain the neck. Ice can be treated as
rock at the very low temperatures at that distance from the Sun and rocks
don't fuse together when they collide at low speed. More significantly, why do
we only ever see two objects fused together? In later more detailed images,
it seems Ultima Thule has significant cratering which implies many high-speed
collisions between objects in the Kuiper Belt despite the fact that they should
be orbiting the Sun with low relative velocities and an infinitesimal
probability of collision. Given their vanishingly small cross section in the
unimaginable immensity of Kuiper Belt space, NASA’s story only survives because
diagrams, like that shown, give a false impression. But that's not all.
Gravitational accretion is a hypothesis, not a fact. Calling rings of material
around distant stars 'accretion discs' is merely an assumption. We routinely see
stars ejecting matter, yet it is never considered that such discs may be
equatorial ejection discs like a mega coronal mass ejection. Such is the
mesmerizing power of a paradigm, a story told over and over so the brain goes
into neutral. And it is remarkable how the disciplined mind shuts out, to
quickly forget discordant data. For example, here is one discovery that shows
there is not enough material in nebular disks to make planets, let alone minor
planets at vast distances from the star. Only last October, Quanta magazine
published an article 'Planets Found to Be Larger Than the Disks They Come From.' It
reads, "...a new research paper suggests that planets may be forming in ways beyond
our understanding. In system after system planets are much larger than the
universe's biggest star-skirts. This seems to defy maths, or at least reason;
planets shouldn't be larger than the stuff they're made from." Of course, this
defies understanding because the model is wrong. Powerful long-range
electromagnetic forces could form all condensed objects in the universe.
Gravity has nothing to do with it. Only after the electromagnetic forces
have subsided, does gravity, the weakest force in the universe, take over to
produce orbital systems. Galaxies are star birth engines and they show the
electromagnetic forces in action. That's why Gravitational Theory doesn't work
for them. Modified gravity, black holes, and dark matter, are unnecessary fictions
once this simple fact is understood. We can stop spending billions chasing
imaginary particles and objects in deep space. Plasma cosmologists have known the
answer for half a century. But the crabbed spirit of specialism has denied
astronomers this understanding. Science as it is practiced today, is
dysfunctional. The alignment of spiral galaxies, like Catherine wheels strung
along a wire, and their common rate of rotation regardless of size, is all
simply explained if the wire happens to be in the form of galactic-scale
rotating Birkeland current filament pairs. Birkeland currents are formed by
two parallel current filaments which attract each other according to Ampere's
law. As they draw closer, the magnetic attraction between them is overcome by
electrostatic repulsion caused by charge separation within those filaments. As a
result, those filaments circle about each other to form a twisted pair, a
configuration well known to electrical engineers. And it is this pairing
that tends to concentrate matter in toroids and closely orbiting bodies. The
galactic toroid gives rise to the observed peanut cross-section of the
central galactic bulge in spiral galaxies. Plasma behavior is scalable
over an enormous range; from the galactic down to the laboratory on Earth where
this has been tested. So the process that forms stars and galaxies also forms
planets and smaller satellites in the same process. That process has been seen
by infrared telescopes to produce stars in pairs, like beads on a necklace, along
interstellar Birkeland currents inside molecular clouds. At present, smaller
bodies like planets can't be detected in molecular clouds by our infrared
telescopes. So, what evidence do we have for the formation of planets in pairs?
There was a report from the Keck Observatory in January last year titled
'Planets around other stars are like Peas in a Pod.' It reads, "...the team found that
exoplanets tend to be the same sizes as their neighbors. If one planet is small,
the next planet around that same star is very likely to be small as well, and if
one planet is big, the next is likely to be big. They also found the planets
orbiting the same star tend to have a regular orbital spacing." So, it is very
interesting that the astronomer Tom Van Flandern drew attention to the
possibility that Jupiter and Saturn can be considered as twins. Even more so if
Saturn ejected a lot of matter recently leaving the evidence behind in that
planet's ephemeral rings. Also, Uranus and Neptune make appear with similar masses,
compositions and solar distances. "Each pair is notably dissimilar to its
adjoining pair or pairs. Now there is no particular reason under the 'primeval
solar nebula' hypothesis of planetary formation why this should be so. The
nebula from which the planets allegedly condensed should have been rather
homogeneous in most respects, and planet masses should have had a
smooth radial gradient with solar distance." Sometimes in moments of
lucidity, science writers state the obvious.
Richard Kerr in the Science journal in 1999, addressed this issue. "The four
terrestrial planets nestled closely to the life-giving Sun make an unlikely
family. Little, moonlike Mercury is mostly iron, covered with a bit of rock,
and has no atmosphere. Venus, Earth's twin in size and composition, is smothered by
a most un-Earth-like inferno of an atmosphere and is drier than any desert.
On Earth, which is nearly drowning in water, continents drift across a surface
infected in every crack and crevice by life. And Mars - 1/10 the mass of Earth -- has
an ancient, immobile face, now dry and lifeless but with hints of an earlier,
more hospitable era. A single family? More like a bunch of unrelated adoptees from
alien planetary systems." The centuries-old nebular accretion model is
long overdue for retirement yet every space mission is launched with the
benediction that it will show us how the solar system was formed. It can do that
but not while reciting the nebular hypothesis as a fact. It has been
discredited again and again during the Space Age but all that happens is that
computer models are adjusted to provide the virtual reality which passes for
science in this unenlightened age. So far, observers have catalogued over 2,000
trans-Neptunian objects. Importantly, those objects are not evenly distributed
through space. Once astronomers started discovering them in the early 1990's, one
of the early surprises was that they could be grouped according to the shapes
and sizes of their orbits. This led scientists to understand that there are
several distinct groupings or populations of these objects whose
orbits provide clues about their history. The expectation was that if there were
objects beyond Neptune, they would be in relatively circular orbits that aren't
tilted too much from the plane of the planets. Instead, many KBO’s are
found to belong to families, some with significantly elliptical and tilted
orbits and associations with the planet Neptune. Pluto's orbit is in a stable
repeating pattern with Neptune's. For every three orbits completed by Neptune,
Pluto makes two orbits. These features suggest capture episodes rather than
leftovers of a primordial nebula. Dr. John Hewitt wrote in his report to the
Royal Society 'A habit of lies', "To be of any real value, a new idea must compete
with existing suppositions used to explain the same data set. It is
diametrically wrong to demand of a new hypothesis that it be consistent with
the ideas it sets out to replace." The Electric Universe is a distinctly new
hypothesis. It uses forensic evidence from the entire span of man's experience
of the sky to replace the old theoretical belief in the orderly nebular
hypothesis -- that the planets orbit now roughly where they were formed
primordially. This idea is centuries old and formed the basis of the uniformity
principle, beloved by mathematicians because they believe they can feed in
the movements of the planets today and announce where the planets were
thousands or even millions of years ago. This has allowed scientists to propose
gradual evolution and climate cycles based on slight wobbles of the Earth. It
is merely wishful thinking. The geological record shows otherwise with
clear evidence of paroxysms of extreme violence. The solar system has a recent
dramatic history which we will only begin to understand when we give up the
nebular hypothesis and look for family resemblances instead, because the Sun has
a blended family. As Tobias Owen of the University of Hawaii recommended in
considering random events in shaping the solar system, "...it behooves planetary
scientists to decipher the patterns.., looking for the ties that unite even the
most dissimilar siblings into a single family." Only then may we understand
Ultima Thule and that knowledge will change everything.