• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Thunderbolts of the Gods

Prior to the July 4 impact, the Electric Universe group published a detailed chain of events they expected to see when Deep Impact struck comet Tempel 1 with an 820-pound copper projectile.

The prediction said there would be two impact flashes: a small flash as the projectile penetrated the comet's electrified atmosphere, followed by a huge impact flash that would be "unexpectedly energetic."

And that's exactly what appeared to happen on July 4, in an impact that astonished NASA investigators.

"What you see is something really surprising," said mission co-investigator Peter Schultz. "First, there is a small flash, then there's a delay, then there's a big flash and the whole thing breaks loose."

The renegades at Thunderbolts made more predictions, including an expected massive surge in X-ray production, a lack of subsurface water and very high explosion temperatures. However, confirmation or debunking of their predictions awaits detailed data from NASA, which has yet to release the results.
Click to expand...
http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2005/08/68258

After almost three years, you might think NASA would release the data.
 
 
Last edited:
Yeah, the predictions that EU proponents made about the deep impact event is quite extensive, it was not just that initial flash. That flash was quite a definate prediction that turned out exactly as they had said it would. And it appears that most of the data is available, however, there are gaps in the data. For example no images were returned from the impactor seconds before the impact took place.

Some of the other predictions are here http://www.mikamar.biz/predictions.htm .. its quite an extensive list...

And i find it funny that the moderators at bautforum felt fine about keeping open a thread about EU predictions before the deep impact mission; http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/28314-acid-test-electric-comet-theory-deep-impact.html
Infact, Nereid (the internets #1 electric universe pseudoskeptic) seemed overjoyed with the idea of EU making some predictions; "This will be very interesting! Let's hope they present at least OOM quantitative predictions (and that those are clearly different from what 'mainstream' scientists are expecting)." And yes, they did exactly that, and nearly all of their predictions were a tremendous sucess. But as soon as the moderators realized that the predictions were sucessful they locked the thread! It really makes them look bad there, nearly every single plasma cosmology or EU thread there is now locked, and adequate reasons as to why they are locked is hardly ever given. It really makes me wonder why they lock them and dont just answer the questions asked.
 
Last edited:
As I have stated on another thread and drawing that discussion here.

The Man said:
Electrons in the solar wind can not account for the charge leaving the Sun since it is comprised of equal numbers of electrons and protons.
Click to expand...

The reasoning for this is quite simple and based on elementary principles of electricity. Current is measured in charge per second passing a given point. If we have one coulomb of positive charge +1Q passing a point in direction X in one second (or + one ampere) and one coulomb of negative charge –1Q passing the same point in the same direction in the same amount of time (or – one ampere) there is no net current flow. Or if we add +1Q and –1Q in that direction we have no net flow of charge in that direction.
 
The Man said:
The reasoning for this is quite simple and based on elementary principles of electricity. Current is measured in charge per second passing a given point. If we have one coulomb of positive charge +1Q passing a point in direction X in one second (or + one ampere) and one coulomb of negative charge –1Q passing the same point in the same direction in the same amount of time (or – one ampere) there is no net current flow. Or if we add +1Q and –1Q in that direction we have no net flow of charge in that direction.
Click to expand...

You sure?

Electric current occurs whenever positive charges flow through negative charges, or when negative charges flow through positive charges. If they are flowing in opposite directions, if anything that is increasing the rate of differential flow, and so should increase the current. Electrical engineers call it 'backstreaming current' sometimes when it occurs. Due to the low plasma frequency of electrons (sometimes it is just called the electron frequency) they are often observed backstreaming against positive charge, travelling in the opposite direction. Usually referred to as backstreaming electrons.

When Ion thrusters were first made these 'backstreaming electrons' were a big problem, they would amplify the current at the point where the positive ions were being blatsed out of the thruster, and often caused it to overheat.

Electron backstreaming refers to the backflow of electrons into the ion thruster. Backstreaming electrons are accelerated by the large potential difference that exists between the ion-thruster acceleration electrodes, which otherwise accelerates positive ions out of the engine to develop thrust. The energetic beam formed by the backstreaming electrons can damage the discharge cathode, as well as other discharge surfaces upstream of the acceleration electrodes. The electron-backstreaming condition occurs when the center potential of the ion accelerator grid is no longer sufficiently negative to prevent electron diffusion back into the ion thruster.
Click to expand...

This is essentially a similar process occuring with our sun due to its positive charge, the positive ions will generally be repelled and the electrons will be attracted, in a way 'backstreaming' against the positive ion thruster (the sun) to maintain a roughly constant voltage.
 
Last edited:
The stuff you can learn reading this thread. Do you have a source for that quote? That is fascinating.
 
The Man said:
The reasoning for this is quite simple and based on elementary principles of electricity. Current is measured in charge per second passing a given point. If we have one coulomb of positive charge +1Q passing a point in direction X in one second (or + one ampere) and one coulomb of negative charge –1Q passing the same point in the same direction in the same amount of time (or – one ampere) there is no net current flow. Or if we add +1Q and –1Q in that direction we have no net flow of charge in that direction.
Click to expand...

Zeuzzz said:
Electric current occurs whenever positive charges flow through negative charges, or when negative charges flow through positive charges. If they are flowing in opposite directions, if anything that is increasing the rate of differential flow, and so should increase the current.
Click to expand...

Get it now?

This is essentially a similar process occuring with our sun due to its positive charge, the positive ions will generally be repelled and the electrons will be attracted, in a way 'backstreaming' against the positive ion thruster (the sun) to maintain a roughly constant voltage.
Click to expand...

The constant voltage part is nonsense, but such a process would very rapidly cancel any charge there might have been on the sun.
 
sol invictus said:
The constant voltage part is nonsense, but such a process would very rapidly cancel any charge there might have been on the sun.
Click to expand...

Isn't the Earth charged? In which case, what maintains it, and why does it not get neutralised by the hundreds of thunderbolts striking the ground every minute? Or does lightning maintain Earth's charge, in which case, what stops it increasing indefinitely?
 
The constant voltage part is nonsense, but such a process would very rapidly cancel any charge there might have been on the sun.
Click to expand...

Yes it would if it was a standard circuit, but in the EU model of the sun gravity itself ionizes the star and maintains this voltage.
 
The situation with the Earth is very interesting. Considering the topic, thunderbolts are a very interesting issue.
 
robinson said:
The situation with the Earth is very interesting. Considering the topic, thunderbolts are a very interesting issue.
Click to expand...


I second that. Not much is known about the electrical currents that run thorugh the Earth and what role they may play on the internal formation of the planet or other factors. Also any effect that the Earths magnetic field may have on the internal formation of our planet seems lacking from planetary formation models, they still use exclusively gravity and largely ignore electromagnetic effects. The deepest anyone has drilled is twenty miles, they've still got another two thousand to go before they can be really sure whats going on beneath our feet.

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf036/sf036p11.htm
We have little appreciation of the immense electrical currents that flow through the rock formations beneath our feet. These "telluric" currents are primarily those induced by the earth's changing magnetic field, as it is affected by the solar wind. Telluric cur-rents do not flow uniformly through the earth's crust. Rather, they seek out low resistance rocks, in accordance with Ohm's Law. Such current concentrations can be detected at the surface with magnetometers.

The present paper announces the discovery of a regional telluric current flowing in the vicinity of the San Francisco Peaks volcanic field in Arizona. The shallow part of the current flows in an unidentifiable "geoelectrical" structure not more than 10 kilometers below the surface. There are no surface hints as to what this geoelectrical structure could be.

(Towle, James N.; "The Anomalous Geomagnetic Variation Field and Geoelectric Structure Associated with the Mesa Butte Fault System, Arizona," Geological Society of America, Bulletin, 95:221, 1984.)

Comment. Similar anomalous magnetic fields exist in many areas, indicating a vast subterranean system of poorly understood geoelectrical structures. Some of the channeled earth currents are man-made, being the return paths in electrical power transmission systems. The return paths may be far-removed from the actual power lines because they tend to follow the geoelectrical structures.
Click to expand...
 
My first JREF post (hope I don't mess up).

Assuming that we - collectively - are studying the Sun, I would like to ask those who've actively contributed to this thread the following simple questions:

How would you describe the scope of the science (only physics?) you (we) could, or should or would, use?

What would you say are the objectives of such science (physics), for the purposes of our study?

What are the criteria for deciding what sorts of things are legitimate evidence (or data) for our study?

What methods of analysis - including what logic - do you consider legitimate for our study?
 
iantresman said:
Isn't the Earth charged?
Click to expand...

If you mean the planet as a whole, no, not significantly.

In which case, what maintains it, and why does it not get neutralised by the hundreds of thunderbolts striking the ground every minute? Or does lightning maintain Earth's charge, in which case, what stops it increasing indefinitely?
Click to expand...

The surface and lower atmosphere has a charge, especially during thunderstorms, and the upper atmosphere has the opposite charge. Lightning discharges (part of) that difference. It's not much different from rubbing a balloon on a carpet and getting a little spark.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Yes it would if it was a standard circuit, but in the EU model of the sun gravity itself ionizes the star and maintains this voltage.
Click to expand...

More gibberish. Gravity doesn't ionize things (it's blind to the sign of electric charge, so it obviously cannot). Even if it did that wouldn't induce a net charge. Even if there were a net charge it would discharge in the manner just mentioned. If there were even a tiny fraction of enough charge to come anywhere close to explaining anything about the power source of the sun, the discharging process would occur in a fraction of a second and explode the sun.
 
Last edited:
sol invictus said:
The surface and lower atmosphere has a charge, especially during thunderstorms, and the upper atmosphere has the opposite charge. Lightning discharges (part of) that difference. It's not much different from rubbing a balloon on a carpet and getting a little spark.
Click to expand...

Do you have a source for that? What causes lightning is far from decided, according to my sources. It certainly isn't the same as rubbing a balloon.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
How would you describe the scope of the science (only physics?) you (we) could, or should or would, use?
Click to expand...

Physics, possibly some physical chemistry.

What would you say are the objectives of such science (physics), for the purposes of our study?
Click to expand...

To understand the behavior of the sun - which was accomplished years ago, in large part. There are still a few aspects not completely understood (transport within the sun, the behavior of solar flares and sunspots), but for similar reasons we can't predict the weather here on earth very well either.

What are the criteria for deciding what sorts of things are legitimate evidence (or data) for our study?
Click to expand...

Standard scientific method - repeatable measurements, controlled experimental technique, etc.

What methods of analysis - including what logic - do you consider legitimate for our study?
Click to expand...

Again, standard science - you formulate a model (which must be a specific mathematical model capable of making numerical predictions) and test it against data.

In the case of the sun that's been going on for a long time, and the resulting model is quite accurate. It's also produced some amazing ancillary results - neutrino masses were predicted by John Bahcall long before they were measured, based on the solar model (which, if neutrinos were massless, predicts a flux of electron neutrinos higher than what is observed).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Solar_Model
 
robinson said:
Do you have a source for that? What causes lightning is far from decided, according to my sources.
Click to expand...

My source is my education - probably it's in my intro physics text, which I don't have handy. I don't think there is any debate that lightning is the result of charge separation in the atmosphere.

It certainly isn't the same as rubbing a balloon.
Click to expand...

Obviously there is no giant balloon rubbing on the earth and making lightning, if that's what you mean. The analogy is to try to make clear that there is not - and cannot be - a net charge. All that can happen is that some process (a storm, rubbing the balloon) can create a charge separation. If the resulting voltage is high enough, a lightning bolt or spark will leap through the air and neutralize part of it.
 
Last edited:
Your explanation does not match any sources.

Again, do you have a source for your claim?
 
Last edited:
robinson said:
Your explanation does not match any sources.

Again, do you have a source for your claim?
Click to expand...

For god's sake, Robinson. I just told you I don't have my books here. If you want to look for yourself, just do a google search - it takes 30 seconds:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning#Charge_separation

http://science.howstuffworks.com/lightning1.htm

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-10/972662284.Es.r.html

http://thunder.msfc.nasa.gov/primer/primer2.html

I don't see anything in any of those that disagrees with what I said. Why? Because what I said is obviously true. Lightning is an electrical discharge, and that can only occur if there is a charge separation. It's almost tautological.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom