Welcome to Space News from the Electric Universe,
brought to you by The Thunderbolts Project™
at Thunderbolts.info
Human beings around the world may be witnessing
one of the most significant dramas in the modern history of the Space Sciences.
The European Space Agency's Rosetta mission to the comet 67P
has shattered the theoretical predictions of standard comet theory.
For many decades we were told that comets are dirty snowballs
which formed billions of years ago, tracing back to the solar system's origins.
If comets are indeed primordial aggregates of ices and dust,
then they should have very smooth nuclei covered with abundant water ice.
Several previously imaged comets had already falsified this expectation.
Nevertheless, Rosetta scientists fully expected the nucleus of 67P
to be cold, smooth and covered with ice.
In November, the team will attempt to use harpoons and ice screws
to secure a lander on the Comet's dry, extremely rocky surface.
As millions of observers around the world can see with their own eyes,
67P provides a stunning refutation of the standard comet theory.
Not a single trace of water ice has been observed on the Comet's surface.
Instead, it's burnt black, as cold terrain
is tortured with numerous cliffs, pits, craters, rocks and boulders.
It is as far from a dirty snowball as one can imagine.
For decades, the prediction of the Electric Universe has been that
comets, asteroids and meteors were excavated electrically from planetary surfaces.
Consider this side-by-side comparison of Comet 67P
and the Sawtooth Mountains in New Mexico.
Let us ask ourselves, which of the competing comet theories
most closely predicted the features of 67P.
We asked Wal Thornhill for his summary of the Rosetta mission to date,
beginning with the most fundamental flaw in standard comet theory,
the notion that comets are primordial.
The European Space Agency, ESA, named the Rosetta mission after the Rosetta Stone,
a key discovery in human history
that allowed us to unlock critical components of our own history.
ESA chose that name because they wanted the mission to provide a bridge
to the past of our solar system.
The same way that the original Rosetta Stone provided a bridge to an ancient culture
that had previously not been understood.
Now, there's some irony in this because the ancient Egyptians remain misunderstood
because we project onto them our unquestioned belief
that their environment looked the same as our environment does today.
As a result, many mysteries about their astronomy still beg explanation
but are ignored.
The same is happening with comets where we have an unquestioned belief about their origin,
which renders researchers blind to anomalies
that should consign comet theory to the trash bin of history.
A NASA news report in August titled: 'To Catch a Comet by the Tail'
'Rosetta's historic meet and greet with Churyumov - Gerasimenko'
highlights the problem in its introduction,
and I quote:
"Scientifically speaking, comets are complex remnants
from the very earliest times in our solar system.
They accreted, or grew, out of the same spinning gas cloud that gave rise to the Sun."
End of quote.
This statement is not scientific!
It's merely a, once upon a time long, long ago and far, far away bedtime story.
No one has observed the stars or planets forming in such a way.
In fact, the most recent evidence shows stars forming non-gravitationally
along glowing filaments in molecular clouds.
And thousands of exoplanetary systems make our solar system look the odd one out.
We're also told, in this report, and I quote,
"Because of their stealth and seeming unpredictability,
comets have traditionally invoked terror, suspicion and awe in human kind."
End of quote.
What research shows this?
All forensic investigations into the earliest references to comets
identify the archetypal doomsday comet with a highly visible planet,
Venus.
Space scientists know nothing about history and so fail to learn from it.
Stealth and unpredictability are no answer to our fear of comets.
The possibility that within human memory the planetary system has been unstable
and nonetheless achieved clockwork stability within that brief period,
challenges Newtonian dynamics and is dismissed without a moment's thought.
But the singular defining feature of a comet is its elliptical orbit.
Its motion toward and away from the Sun.
It requires an electrical model of the solar system
to explain a comet's appearance and non-gravitational orbital changes.
Clearly, a comet nucleus the size of Venus
would invoke terror, suspicion and awe in human kind.
But NASA's misinformation doesn't end there, and I quote,
"Previous comet-centered missions have revealed just enough to allow us
to unseat prevailing theories, but not enough to firm up new ones."
End of quote
This is pure spin doctoring.
There has been no change in the prevailing theory of comets,
just ad-hoc adjustments to a centuries-old story.
Tradition dies hard!
And as for new theories about comets, what are they?
But for me, this statement takes the cake, and I quote,
"In 2005, NASA threw a coffee-table-sized spacecraft at comet Tempel.
The resulting Deep Impact explosion was shallower than anticipated,
but nonetheless implied that comets may be more porous than previously thought
and not armored with an icy exterior or shell."
End of quote.
So the flash before the main outburst didn't happen?!?
The ad-hoc explanation at the time was that the impactor
must have hit a hard shell before burying itself in softer material,
and causing an unexpectedly dazzling outburst to follow.
I alone predicted both the initial flash, the energetic outburst
and a shallow crater due to hitting solid rock.
"The impact/discharge wil be into rock, not loosely consolidated ice and dust."
Now NASA scientists tell us that the crater is shallow
because stuff fell back and partly filled the crater.
This assumes a half-witted audience
that thinks of the Earth's gravity operating on the comet.
But even on earth, how much debris from a massive ground explosion
falls back into the crater?
If NASA's researchers were asked to give evidence in court as expert witnesses,
they would be a laughingstock.
Their stories make no sense whatsoever.
So what of the Rosetta mission so far?
The Rosetta mission to comet 67P
is providing us with unprecedented close-up images of a comet's surface,
but the most remarkable thing to see is the selective blindness of researchers
caused by prior beliefs about what a comet is supposed to be.
A primordial ball of dust and ice. And I quote,
"It was so surprising to see that this is not a smooth,
hummel-shaped body as we've thought it would be,"
said Holger Sierks, the lead scientists behind OSIRIS, Rosetta's 4 megapixel camera.
The scientists are still putting together why the comet might have such an odd shape.
"One possibility is that 67P is actually two comets
that have been fused together," he says.
"Although it's also possible the comet was somehow carved,
through impacts or some other unknown force, into this strange figure."
End of quote.
It seems we're about to have another concocted explanation
that leaves the scientists comfortable with the old story
and business as usual...
That there is no surface ice is a big surprise to the scientists,
many of whom expected to find a glassy clean surface of crystal ice
to screw the lander harpoons into.
But they say, the comet still is icy below the surface.
- We see water coming out. So there must be a way for the water to escape.
These are statements of faith in the old dirty snowball model,
not facts as we shall see.
The rubber-duck-shaped comet is clearly rocky and complex.
It shows stratification,
craters with fluted walls,
areas that seem to have been formed by a flow of some sort
and peaks aligned like part of a broken-off mountain range.
In other words, the comet looks more like a scarred fragment of a planet surface
than a dirty snowball.
And despite the absence of ice, there are faint jets just over the horizon,
that show the comet seems to be suffering a form of surface erosion
at the neck of its odd rubber-duck-shape.
But there are no signs on the comet neck of neat holes
forming venturis needed to produce narrow vertical jets
from sublimating subsurface ices.
This complex scenario follows the tradition of astrophysicists invoking hidden activity
within stars and planets, to explain awkward observations.
Many features on the nucleus appear to be the result of electric spark erosion
which forms scalloped or fluted cliffs about an edge depression or crater.
This process can be seen clearly in action on Jupiter's moon Io
but then there's the question of why the jets seem to be issuing
preferentially from the neck region.
Spark erosion takes place in the form of vertical cathode jets
which are initiated where the electric field is strongest, on sharp points or edges,
and where the surface composition is most readily ionized.
This suggests that the mineral composition in the neck of the comet
may be different to that in the attached lobes.
And such preferential erosion may be responsible in part
for forming the neck and rubber-duck shape.
Talking about composition of the comet.
The Comet's density measured by its gravitational influence on the Rosetta spacecraft
will give an entirely misleading idea of the Comet's composition.
The reason is simple,
although inexcusable in the 21st century.
It's the confusion by physicists of mass with quantity of matter.
For more than a century scientists should have known, according to E = mc²,
that the mass of subatomic particles is an energetic variable
dependent on the local electrical environment.
That is why the so-called universal constant of gravitation
is so maddeningly inconstant.
The comet's environment is quite unearthly.
As a result, I confidently predict that the chemical and physical makeup
of the comet will confound researchers.
The nucleus looks like solid rock because it is solid rock!
The failure to observe a single trace of water ice on the surface of Comet 67P
has not deterred investigators from the assumption
that substantial water ice must still be present,
but is hidden from view under the comet's surface.
Proponents of the standard theory point to evidence of water detected in cometary comas
as proof that comets are indeed icy bodies,
slowly sublimating from solar heating.
However, what is spectroscopic analysis really telling us about comets?
A clue to this question may be provided by recent scientific papers.
In a 1998 paper on the formation of Mercury's ice deposits, the authors write:
"Oxygen-containing surface rocks could release water
through sputtering by protons from the solar wind."
On October 7th of this year, phys.org featured the headline,
'Study shows most water in lunar soil generated by solar wind'.
The article states,
"A pair of researchers... has determined that most of the water in the soil
on the surface of the moon was formed due to protons
in the solar wind colliding with oxygen in lunar dust...".
Institutional science has never explored electrochemical processes
creating the signal of water in cometary comas.
Indeed as Wal Thornhill tells us, the science of electro-chemistry may reveal
that spectroscopic instruments are not detecting water at all.
So what about the measurements that are interpreted
as several liters of water issuing from the comet per second?
The cathode jets strip and ionize atoms of oxygen from minerals on the comet
and accelerate the negative ions away in a fine jet.
The oxygen ions then combine with the protons in the solar wind
to form the hydroxyl radical OH, which is mistakenly assumed to be evidence
of an ultraviolet breakdown product of water molecules from the comet.
Oxygen and hydrogen have both been found in the comet's coma
by the Rosetta ultraviolet spectrometer.
It should be noted that the earlier Stardust mission supported this
by finding surprising high temperature minerals in comet dust.
This fits the picture of comets as highly modified planetary debris
rather than being primordial.
There is no need to invent ever more special conditions and add-ons
to the age-old solar nebula story of solar system formation.
That story has been discredited both theoretically and with each new discovery
about comets, asteroids and weird extrasolar planetary systems.
One planetary scientist admitted that he needs
a separate theory for each planet in our own solar system.
The double-lobed form of Comet 67P
is considered one of its most extraordinary and baffling features.
Indeed, this basic form has been seen on several comets,
including comets Halley, Borelli and Hartley and additionally numerous asteroids.
As described in several previous videos,
this form is no surprise to proponents of the Electric Universe.
Several years ago, plasma scientist C. J. Ransom replicated this form in the laboratory
with a high-energy electrical discharge to a mineral surface.
Scientists have proposed that a low-velocity collision
between two comets occurred in the past,
then mysteriously melded together to create 67P's double-lobed body.
But as Wal Thornhill explains, this ad-hoc theory
stretches credulity beyond any reasonable breaking point.
According to the old solar nebula theory,
comets are far-flung leftovers from the birth of the solar system.
They are supposed to have formed by accretion in a hypothetical Oort Cloud
but this imaginary Oort Cloud is unlike any cloud we are familiar with.
The cloud is about 1,000 times further out than the orbit of Pluto
and the mean distance between comets is about 1 billion kilometers,
so collision and accretion have negligible probability.
Yet we look at Comet 67P and its surface cratering
would appear to require countless impacts.
What's more, its shape is entirely unaccountable by accretion.
The impact of two largest chunks would rather disintegrate them
instead of somehow welding them together to form a rubber duck.
The problem for planetary scientists is that their expert advice from astrophysicist
is based on another old and flawed story about star formation
that has also been discredited by recent observations.
Stars form deep inside molecular clouds,
like beads strung along glowing cosmic strings.
The cosmic strings are the galactic equivalent of earthly cloud-to-cloud lightning.
The powerful electromagnetic pinch
acts to compress and heat matter along the lightning channel.
The result on Earth is merely a thunderclap
but you can't hear a thunderclap in space. Instead, we see a string of stars.
Of course, smaller bodies will form planets
which, when the lightning has subsided, form gravitational partnerships.
This simply explains the weird exoplanetary systems
with hot Jupiters swinging around their star in hours or days,
and planets with backward orbits and orbits over the stars' poles.
As Hannes Alfvén, the father of modern plasma physics, remarked,
"Gravitational systems are the ashes of prior electrical systems."
The old nebula accretion theory of planet formation is long dead and must be buried.
As for Comet 67P,
arc welders know that an electric arc can transfer matter
against the ultra-weak force of gravity.
So if the Philae landing is successful,
it will be important to examine the mineral composition of the comet
and compare it with Martian meteorites,
since Mars bears colossal recent electrical scars.
Even with Rosetta information, we will not understand
the Egyptians and their pantheon of weird celestial gods,
much less what comets are,
until we leave our comforting bedtime stories behind.
Newton's law of gravity does not guarantee
a peaceful clockwork solar system lasting for eons.
Astronomers know, but can't accept the unsettling idea,
that Newton's solar system is chaotic on a very short timescale.
The reason is simply that gravity alone provides no restoring force
when one planet disturbs another.
Astronomers also know little about history.
Clearly, they are missing something very important.
And ironically, the answer has been hidden in plain view
of those who study the oldest human histories
which tell of planetary wars involving Thunderbolts of the Gods.
That these ancient stories did not relate to everyday lightning,
is shown by the many images of those Thunderbolts.
The implications for the recent history of the planets are paradigm shattering.
It seems that charge exchange plays a significant role in stabilizing orbits.
And in close encounters, the effect is to electrically gouge surface material
from one planet and transfer it to the other.
In the process, a great deal of debris is lost to space
where it becomes asteroids, comets and meteoroids.
Our special thanks to Ignacio Cisneros for his analysis and pointers on several Rosetta images.
For continuous updates on Space News from the Electric Universe,
stay tuned to
Thunderbolts.info