Yes, we know all about TB, who like you see the currents and measure them, but just don't think they do anything. So you put geysers on Saturns moon Enceladus (about 3 miles in diameter), yet it doesn't affect its orbit one little bit, whats stopping that? Why do the rings flatten out without observing gravitational effects? Gravity requires them to go up, then down, then back up and down, until the wave settles down, yet they settle almost instantly. We aren't complaining you mention them, but you just ignore any cause and effect after you mention them. Your entire comet theory has been destroyed, yet you still talk of dirty snowballs as if nothing is wrong. Have dust ejected off a comet from an impact at 1000's of mph, yet then it settles back to the exact same spot it came from, because the crater was so much smaller than you ever dreamed, even though the initial event was so much larger than you ever dreamed.
The suns convection currents are 1% of what your theory requires, yet you blithly forge on as if nothing has occurred, not once considering your intial premise might be in error. A premise based upon theory originally put forward by Sydney Chapman, who's theory about the earth environment was proved incorrect over 40 years ago and Birkeland proved correct. That same theory by Chapman that TB uses to calculate his forces. It's no wonder he can't come up with the correct answers, he uses theory proved wrong 40+ years ago. Your theory about the outer solar system was just dashed to pieces by Voyager, but you again blithly forge on as if nothing has happened, still using theories devised before spacecraft even existed. http://www.thunderbolts.info/...ves/descott08/090321_des.htm http://electric-cosmos.org/RebutTB.pdf Although we have yet to figure out what EU theory has to do with creationsim. And TT as well. http://electric-cosmos.org/Rejoinder.pdf
And yet despite all your claims all spacecraft and spacesuits are heavily shielded against radiation so those astronaughts don't get fried, funny how that works huh? And apparently TB isn't aware of tests done. When in space and storms errupt, astronauts head to specially shielded rooms. The Earth's magnetosphere blocks out about 99% of space radiation, and yet sit in the sun for a few hours, get's rather warm doesn't it, and you only get 1%.
I let your own experiments answer it, if you had bothered to read them.
TB's reliance on magnetic field lines drawn off paper shows the ignorance of anything electrical and magnetic. Magnetic fields in plasma have been studied in the lab for over 100 years. There exists no such thing as a magnetic monopole, despite your attempts to theorize magnetic fields behave that way. You can't block them or disconnect them, they are FIELDS, not lines drawn on paper to aid in describing the strength and direction of that FIELD. http://www.kjmagnetics.com/blog.asp?p=shielding-materials http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae512.cfm Said magnetic field being frozen in plasma at the temperature of the sun without an electric current causing it is absurd. http://www.mceproducts.com/...e-base/article/article-dtl.asp Especially when we know of no other way magnetic fields are formed, except with electric currents. http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/...ng/302l/lectures/node77.html Although you would be better of starting from page one. Unless you won the Nobel Prize for figuring out another way????? Your entire theories on how magnetic fields behave is against 100 years of laboratory experiments. Only when an instability occurs and the Double Layer collapses which interrupts the electric current which causes the magnetic FIELD to collapse, is the energy of the entire circuit ejected, along with the plasma that made up the electrical transmission line. A CME. Just as in current laboratory experiments with plasma and electric currents. You should really read some science based on laboratory experiments for 100 years in plasma, instead of what astrophysicists theorize what happens when none of them have taken a single course in plasma physics and electrical field physics. They sure wnt to use Alfvens first theory about plasmas might be perfect conductors, then after further experiments he realized they weren't, but he then went ignored, even though it is his megnetohydrodynamic theory you use to explain everything. He tried to tell you plasma was much more complex than simple liquids and gasses, but you ignored him again. But that's standard, just as you ignored Einstein when he told you Black Holes were not a physical reality. I believe SR of which GR is a generalization of, was founded "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies." The geometric interpretation thereof a violation of cause and effect, why up until the day he died he was never satisfied with the GR theory. But that you can ignore 100 years of experimental evidence of magnetic fields and electric currents defies any comprehension. Read something where lab work has been done sometime, instead of stuff based entirely upon imagination of lesser men. E was brilliant, it's too bad you have twisted the entire meaning of his first paper.
I'm sorry I misstated facts, I said 99% of the radiation was blocked by the magnetosphere, Your scientists say 99.9% so I figured I better correct my wrong statement. So you get blisters from setting in the sun too long and only receive .1% on Earth. Nah, it wouldn't fry you without shielding, what was I thinking???...So much for TB's theory. EU predicts more than enough power flowing out to fry you, as a matter of fact we got a number for that, want it?
quote:"One solar luminosity is equal to the current accepted luminosity of the Sun, which is 3.839×1026 W, or 3.839×1033 erg/s. The value is slightly higher, 3.939×1026 W (equivalent to 4.382×109 kg/s or 1.9×10−16 M☉/d) if the solar neutrino radiation is included as well as electromagnetic radiation.
So if we add your nuclear theory we get a slightly larger number, which just should tell you how much your theory is adding to the equation. Which comes to .1x1026 W. Man that nuclear energy sure is pumping out the power isn't it, LoL. What powers the sun again? How's that theory go?
Here's some of that labwork you like to ignore. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...te-precursor-solar-flares.html Which again, goes against magnetic facts and Lorentz theory you use in Relativity. Magnetic fields can do NO WORK on a particle, they can't force inject nothing, but electric fields can, they accelerate particles. Getting closer though, you'll catch up someday. The sad part is we have just started, while you claim to to be close to a theory of everything. http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/...ng/302l/lectures/node72.html http://www.newscientist.com/...eates-astrophysical-jets.html Spinning objects and gravity, all you got to work with when you use the electric force to cause the effect, didn't see you spinning that test sample to test your theory, just use large electric energy to do it, and we know what electric fields do and charged particles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Po35g23fYI
let me help you with a quote from one of the above papers.
quote:The exact mechanism is unclear,........The formation soon straightened into a jet because of a simple law of physics - currents flowing in the same direction attract each other, while currents flowing in opposite directions repel each other.
I think the mechanism is quite clear. Regardless of the statement that magnetic fields accelerate the particles. Do I need to post again the only known way to accelerate charged particles? You should of jumped on the wagon from the start instead of fighting it, zt least you then could of used your controlled bomb to explain the electric field and just maybe kept a dying theory alive another 100 years. Doubtfull though, I give it 8 max, 12 for the few diehards.
Oh, we have just started on quasars. Don't be impatient, it's how astronomers make mistakes by jumping to conclusions to explain what they see. http://www.thunderbolts.info/...009/arch09/090720quintet.htm What goes "Unremarked is the fact that the differences in redshift of the background galaxies place them (under consensus belief) farther from each other than the foreground galaxy is from the Milky Way." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephan%27s_Quintet
quote:These galaxies are of interest because of their violent collisions.... Also of interest, NGC 7320 (to the lower left in both photos) indicates a small redshift (790 km/s) while the other four exhibit large redshifts (near 6600 km/s). Since galactic redshift is proportional to distance, NGC 7320 is only a foreground projection and is ~39 million ly from Earth versus the 210-340 million ly of the other five
So the foreground galaxy is closer to us than the other 4 are to each other, yet they are interacting, colliding? If I were to claim two galaxies 39 million light years apart were colliding, you would call me a well, idiot, but claim yourself galaxies separated by even vaster distances are, because obviously they are. Even though their individual redshifts tell you that is impossible, but that fact is almost never mentioned. Yet you have those 4 galaxies interacting, despite your belief redshift = recessional velocity and distance. So when too obvious to claim distance separation, you just gloss over that little fact, that your redshift theory does not allow them to be close enough to interact.
Apparently one of the things you can't do is read.
I posted it, read it many times, it proves my point, did you read it???? The 4 that you say are colliding are further apart from each other (over 39 million ly apart from one another) because of redshift. Yet the one 39 million ly from us that is apparently interacting with the others as the shock wave is clearly visible in all spectrum's not just visible. So 4 galaxies further apart from each other than 39 million ly are interacting while no one would ever dare to suggest that the one you say is closer to us then they are from each other could ever possibly interact with us. Contradictions and misrepresentations. Wave of the hand.
From those who can dismiss their own scientific results I expect nothing less than obfuscation. Direct laboratory evidence that electric currents cause solar flares and solar and galactic jets - we'll just ignore them. Blame it on the magnetic fields, even though the only way you could even get the results was to use an electric current running through plasma. We have to use electric currents to cause the effect, but we'll just theorize that another force causes it. Lol, this is science???? To you maybe, but not to people that can actually think. Sheeple.
Mainstream has already ignored everything about comets they learned from Deep Impact. What was observed was just as the EU predicted, in opposition to everything mainstream predicted.
Still think it's a dirty snowball? We have already seen the predictive power of mainstream theory. Zilch.
Outer solar system? We have already seen the predictive power of mainstream theory. Zilch.
Sun? We have already seen the predictive power of mainstream theory. Zilch.
3 strikes you're out.
But you are right, I am probably wrong, it must be that pesky Dark Matter they can't seem to find anywhere, that's it right??? Dark matter must be throwing everything off so we can safely ignore the facts.
I believe the whole purpose of Deep Impact was to study comets, so have you rewrote your theory yet? Or still claiming they are dirty snowballs left over from the formation of the solar system?
You see, the errors set in for the simple fact that astrophysicists only see magnetic fields. Until one actually goes there "in situ" to measure it, voltage cannot be detected. And even thern it's only relative to another voltage nearby in which to measure it in relation to. http://electronics.stackexchange.com/...-circuit-be-grounded
Just as your theory was off by 99 orders of magnitude on the sun's convection flow. 1% of that required detected, but I don't expect that to affect your beliefs at all, as your science is based upon belief and not facts. Why let facts get in the way of a good story right?
They are attempting to twist what magnetic fields are in their attempt to salvage their theory, hoping the general public is ignorant of what magnetic fields are. And apparently they are. I expect you believe magnetic fields don't need electric currents to form, even though the heat of the sun would destroy any magnetic alignment of atoms unless electric current was being constantly supplied. The rub of it is, they wanted to use the convection to explain their magnetic field reconnection so they could explain the electric currents. Now it's back to square one. Well not quite, they still won't go back and look at the original theory again, just change some numbers. Basically your theory is silly putty they can change at will to fit any observation made (absolutely useless). I am waiting with anticipation to see what they come up with this time. Hmmmm, wonder how much Dark Matter we need to explain these facts away.
But everywhere we go we measure those currents. As a matter of fact we now have an estimate of 15GW leaving the southern pole of Saturn's moon Enceladus thanks to Cassini (an order of magnitude higher than your theorist predicted), although it's sensors weren't designed for it as it wasn't expected as the south pole was believed to be the coldest spot on that little ball of ice. (predictive power again).
They haven't measured the Northern Poles Birkeland Current yet, but have detected its footprint near Saturn's North Pole. Magnetic fields can be detected from afar, and since only charged particles moving in relation to other charged particles (electric current) causes magnetic fields, and magnetic dipole moments when you get to micro, it's only natural that from the micro to the macro:
quote:Initial results were surprising as the material excavated by the impact contained more dust and less ice than had been expected. The only models of cometary structure astronomers could positively rule out were the very porous models which had comets as loose aggregates of material. In addition, the material was finer than expected; scientists compared it to talcum powder rather than sand. Other materials found while studying the impact included clays, carbonates, sodium, and crystalline silicates which were found by studying the spectroscopy of the impact.
quote:Spectroscopic study of sunlight reflected from Tempel 1’s nucleus provided the first direct evidence for the presence of water ice on a comet. Regions whose spectra showed absorptions characteristic of ice correlated with small bright regions on the nucleus. These regions of ice are so small—only about .5% of the surface—that they cannot account for the large amounts of water observed in the coma, so presumably subsurface ice contributes to coma formation.
Yet the material ejected in Deep Impact contained virtully no water but a fine powdered silica.
Your 80% water only accounts for the coma, Not observed on the nucleus except as rare frost. All the material released from deep impact was silica. Not ice and water. The water occured 5 days later and was produced from electrical processes in the coma. The same process that made the water in Haley's coma. http://witcombe.sbc.edu/water/chemistryelectrolysis.html
Your own scientific data disagrees with your statement. Your statement is from pre-impact theories, which Deep Impact disproved without doubt. The ejecta was almost pure silicate, not water ice.
quote:particularly Fred Whipple's "dirty snowball" model, which correctly predicted that Halley would be composed of a mixture of volatile ices – such as water, carbon dioxide and ammonia – and dust.
But your theory about that was disproved.
quote:The only models of cometary structure astronomers could positively rule out were the very porous models which had comets as loose aggregates of material
quote:particularly Fred Whipple's "dirty snowball" model, which correctly predicted that Halley would be composed of a mixture of volatile ices – such as water, carbon dioxide and ammonia – and dust.
You see the part I highlighted?
Halley's Comet is a "dirty snowball": fact. It is mainly comprised of "snow" and "dirt". As tests have been done, the proportion of ice to dirt has fluctuated - but calling it a dirty snowball is still a reasonable metaphor. (You do know what a metaphor is, yes?)
quote:...these observations suggested that Halley was in fact predominantly composed of non-volatile materials, and thus more closely resembled a "snowy dirtball" than a "dirty snowball"
JATS writes:
Still think it's a dirty snowball?
Yes - it is still an accurate metaphor.
JATS writes:
We have already seen the predictive power of mainstream theory. Zilch.
It was predicted it would be "composed of a mixture of volatile ices – such as water, carbon dioxide and ammonia – and dust." - and low and behold! It was!!
I realise that you hate facts with a passion - but you really need to learn to accept reality. "From those who can dismiss their own scientific results I expect nothing less than obfuscation."
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
quote:The only models of cometary structure astronomers could positively rule out were the very porous models which had comets as loose aggregates of material
This is what your scientists say. Then you are going to tell me that the theory by Fred Whipple is correct when it is of a dirty snowball: a loose aggregates of material? You just disproved that model, and any data that pointed to it being a correct interpretation. This is your very own comet scientists telling you this, not me, not the EU, not Plasma Cosmology, but your very own scientists.
You need to update the books, they are old, you rely on data from pre Deep impact, the experiment that was going to tell you what the stuff of comets was made of. It did: rock.
I included it to show your theory about Halley is INCORRECT, it CAN NOT be an aggregates of material, it is ROCK. Just like every single asteroid in the asteroid belt, the only difference is charge imbalance due to time spent at the edges of the solar system.
Now be true scientists and accept that data for what it is and reconsider your initial assumptions of how comets are formed and what they are made of.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
(1)