Space News Anniversary: Comet Missions | Space News


Welcome to Space News from
the Electric Universe, brought to you by The
Thunderbolts Project™ at Thunderbolts.info August 26, 2017 will mark
the 5-year anniversary of the inaugural episode of
the science video series Space News from the
Electric Universe. The Thunderbolts project created
this series as an opportunity for its chief principals and many contributors
to offer analysis and explanation of space science discoveries
in the world today. For many years previous members of
the electric universe community have become increasingly aware of
the remarkable predictive successes of electric universe theory versus
those of the standard cosmology. But it’s also apparent that a
disturbing disconnect exists between science discovery and the
direction of the theoretical sciences. Many of the most significant
space discoveries, completely unexpected
in standard reasoning, seem to rarely, if ever, force any meaningful
reassessment of foundational theory. Other discoveries seem to
have been forgotten entirely disappearing down a memory hole and never
mentioned in science literature again. Therefore, we shall now begin
a comprehensive summary of the amazing content we have
covered in the last 5 years and, as you will see, at every
scale throughout the universe. The ability of the
Electric Universe theory to both predict and explain discovery
has never been more evident. In recent years there have been
unprecedented opportunities to learn about the nature and origins of one
of the most mysterious objects in space, the comet. The Electric Universe has always offered
an interpretation of comets that radically differs
from standard theory. Comets are not dirty snowballs, the primordial icy leftovers from
the solar system’s formation four-and-a-half
billion years ago. Comets, as well as asteroids and
meteoroids, were born far more recently formed by electrical discharges from
the surfaces of planets and moons. Because comets are
not icy bodies they do not slowly sublimate
due to solar heating. Comet activity, including the production
of comet jets and the cometary coma, is electrical activity. The detection of signatures of
water molecules in cometary coma is due to electrochemical
reactions at the comet, as we’ll explain further,
later in this episode. In fact the findings of increasingly
ambitious comet missions have overwhelmingly confirmed the
predictions of the electrical model. Combined, the list of surprises amount to the
clear falsification of standard comet theory. One of the many game-changing
surprises came as far back as 1996 when the Ulysses spacecraft
encountered the ion tail of Hyakutake. At the time the spacecraft was more
than 360 million miles from the comet or roughly four times the distance
of the Earth from the Sun. The belief in electrically
neutral objects in space has prevented mainstream scientists from confronting
the obvious conclusion of this discovery. In order to remain intact over
such a stupendous distance rather than dispersing
like a gas in a vacuum, the comet tail must carry
an electrical current to confine the material
and prevent its dispersal. Electric currents in space, traveling
through the conductive medium of plasma, take the form of twisted filaments,
known as Birkeland currents, which look a bit like
braided copper wire. In fact, in decades subsequent to
Ulysses’ counter with Hyakutake the Birkeland currents and comet tails
have been imaged in ever finer detail clearly confirming their
electrical nature. The emission of x-rays from Hyakutake
also shocked comet investigators. As dr. Michael J Mumma
wrote about the discovery, “Astronomers…decided to look at Hyakutake
and they were shocked by what they saw. ROSAT images revealed a crescent-shaped
region of x-ray emission around the comet 1,000 times more
intense than anyone had predicted… We had no clear expectation that
comets would shine in X-rays.” Comet scientists responded
with the ad-hoc notion that the Sun was entirely
responsible for the x-rays, suggesting that the solar wind scavenges
electrons from a cometary atmosphere resulting in a recombination sufficient
to generate the observed x-rays. The surprises in comet science
continued and intensified. In 2001, the NASA
spacecraft Deep Space 1 captured the finest image to
that time of any comet nucleus. What scientists saw bore no resemblance
to the dirty snowball of Standard Theory. The leader of the mission’s
imaging team said at the time, “It’s mind-boggling
and stupendous. These pictures have told
us that comet nuclei are far more complex than
we had ever imagined. They have rugged terrain,
smooth rolling plains, deep fractures and very,
very dark material.” Scientists were also
stunned when they found that the flow of ions around
the comet’s nucleus was “not centered on the comet’s nucleus as
scientists expected before the Borelli flyby.” But none of these findings
forced any real reassessment about the nature of comets prior
to NASA’s Stardust mission in 2004. In fact a microchip, riding
on the Stardust spacecraft, was inscribed with the following
pronouncement from Fred Whipple, the father of the dirty
snowball comets model, “Today we know that comets
are black and cold, consisting of ices and dust that
coalesced from an interstellar cloud as it collapsed to
form the solar system.” So it’s no wonder that scientists
who subscribe to this concept were completely baffled by the
Stardust finding at comet Wild2. The surprises began with the
Comet’s visual appearance which was desiccated,
complex and rough, rather than icy and smooth. A major shock was the presence of so-called
impact craters on the comet nucleus. As reported by New
Scientist in 2004, “That is completely unexpected
because comets are believed to be loose aggregations of dust and
ice that would shatter on impact… if the pits are craters, the surface of the comet nucleus must
be much stronger than experts thought.” NASA’s Ray Newburn
said of the discovery, “I don’t think any of us ever really
considered the possibility of impact craters… It may be a well-
cemented rubble pile, but it’s definitely not
a loose powdery surface.” When scientists on Earth tested
the Wild2 dust samples, what they found was so unexpected
they initially thought that the early sample may have been
contaminated by the spacecraft. Rather than the expected
ancient interstellar grain, the Wild2 dust grains were
much larger than expected and contained minerals such
as anorthite and diopside which required temperatures
of thousands of degrees. NASA curator Michael
Zolensky said of the discovery, “That’s a big surprise. People thought comets would just be cold stuff
that formed out…where things are very cold… It was kind of a shock to not
just find one but several of these, which implies they are
pretty common in the comet. Unfortunately, neither these nor the many
previous astonishing comet discoveries seemed to force any
reevaluation of comet theory prior to the Deep Impact mission
to comet Tempel 1 in 2005. Scientists still assumed that
comets were dirty snowballs that accreted four and
a half billion years ago. But the chief principals of the
Thunderbolts project felt confident that the NASA mission would only provide
support for the electric comet model. Prior to the July 4 2005 impact
date for the Tempel 1 probe, Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott issued
a series of predictions for the event which were published on the
Thunderbolts.info website. Because of the comet’s
low eccentricity orbit, they wrote that electrical interactions
with the approaching probe, “May be slight, but they should be
measurable if NASA will look for them… The most obvious would be a
flash shortly before impact.” And they predicted that temperatures
associated with the event would be, “much higher than expected
from impact heating.” They also predicted, “More energy
will be released than expected because of the electrical
contributions of the comet.” And they predicted that the impact
crater, left by the NASA probe, would be smaller than expected
because the comet is rock, more similar to an asteroid than a
loose conglomeration of ice and dust. These predictions, as
well as several others on the comet’s composition and surface
terrain, received stunning confirmation. Moments before the 800-pound copper
projectile struck the comet nucleus, NASA scientists were amazed by
the bright electrical flash shortly followed by an explosion
much larger than they anticipated when the impactor
contacted the surface. As NASA investigator Peter
Schultz said at the time, “What you see is something
really surprising. First, there is a small
flash, then there’s a delay, then there’s a big flash and
the whole thing breaks loose.” Nor did the projectile leave nearly the
dramatic impact crater scientists had predicted. Just one piece of evidence
that the comet nucleus was much harder than
NASA had expected. As reported by Universe Today, “Swift scientists have seen a quick and
dramatic rise in ultra violet light, evidence that the Deep Impact
probe struck a hard surface, as opposed to a softer,
snowy surface.” In 2011, when the Tempel
1 nucleus was reimaged, scientists had to explain why the
crater left by the projectile was much smaller than predicted. The Deep Impact team then
made the extraordinary claim that ejecta exploding
off of the comet somehow fell back down
and refilled the crater in the near zero-gravity
environment of the comet. As reported by space.com
at the time, “Tempel 1’s man-made crater
partially healed itself as the ejecta settled and
refilled part of the depression.” Like every other comet
nucleus image to date Tempel 1 appeared
desiccated and rocky nor did the projectile
produce the expected release of theoretical subsurface
water on the comet. As noted by astronomer
Charles Qi in 2005, “The material that came out
was a surprise to scientists: a cloud of fine powdery
material emerged, not the water, ice and
dirt that were expected.” Nor did close-up images of the
nucleus reveal the theoretical vents from which comet jets
are supposed to emanate. As reported in the journal Icarus
in 2007 by P C Thomas et all, “It has proven difficult to identify
specific landforms that can be identified as the ‘vents’ discussed for many
decades in classical comet literature, as it is difficult to locate
them on Borrelly and Wild2.” Nevertheless, when we
fast-forward to 2014, scientists with the European Space
Agency’s Rosetta mission to comet 67P appeared to offer no meaningful
revisions of comet theory, even in the face of all
previous surprises. The mission to land a
probe on a comet nucleus was based on the notion of
comets as icy snowy accretions, left over from the solar
system’s formation. But the major surprises
for investigators began long before the Rosetta
spacecraft reached the comet. One early puzzling detail was
the comet’s double-lobed shape, a mystery also found on
several other imaged nuclei. Eventually, Rosetta scientists
settled on the hypothesis that the comet’s strange form
resulted from two comets improbably colliding in
a vast region of space and somehow sticking together
rather than disintegrating. But as we noted in many
Space News episodes, the double lobe form is important
from an electrical perspective. As electrical engineers
have always known, peanut-shaped spherules are common
products of electrical discharges as seen in this example
by physicist CJ Ransom, compared side-by-side
with comet 67p. As the probe drew closer, the comet’s
complex desiccated rubble-strewn terrain which was, in the words of
one Rosetta investigator, “dry like hell”, drew increasing
expressions of amazement from scientists around the world. The amazement was understandable,
given the complete refutation of the standard predictions
for the comet’s form. Consider this side-by-side
comparison of images revealing the failure of
comet theory over the years. On the left is an artist’s rendition of
the expected appearance of comet Halley before the mission
to Halley in 1986. We see a smooth snowy surface, exactly what one expects
if comets are icy accretions whose dramatic displays result
from sublimation of ices. In the middle we see
a slightly modified artistic rendition, forged leading up
to the Rosetta mission, a surface that is still
covered with snow and ice but modified to reflect the
completely unexpected images of dry, rocky and complex comet nuclei. On the right we see the
actual nucleus of Comet 67p as imaged by the Rosetta mission. It wasn’t just the drynesss of 67P’s terrain
that startled mission scientists. Closer and closer images
revealed greater mysteries as the topography of the nucleus
revealed numerous planetary features, an explicit prediction
of the Electric Universe; including mesas, rubble and large boulders, cliffs, sharp edges, wind streaked rocks
and incredibly, even sand dunes. There was also
stratification of material and evidence for complex
geological layering. If comets were electrically
excavated from planets and moons, as proposed by the chief principals
of the Thunderbolts project, all of the observed
features are to be expected. Consider again this side-by-side
comparison of a region of the 67p nucleus and the Sawtooth
Mountains on earth. The electric comet model also
predicts that comet activity is generally driven by the comet
experiencing voltage spikes when it moves from the relatively negatively
charged outer regions of the solar system towards the Sun’s more
positively charged domain. This perspective predicts and
explains many of the Rosetta findings including the “surprising discovery
of fast-moving electrons and electric fields very close
to the comet nucleus” as well as the discovery of
negatively charged fluffy dust grains lofted from the nucleus. Electrical discharge activity on the comet
also explains the formation of sand dunes and other unexpectedly dynamic
changes on the comet’s surface. As we explained in
several Space News episodes, the initial observation of sand dunes was met with
complete disbelief by scientists around the world. As blogger Emily
Lakdawalla wrote, Other features are odd
because they look familiar and yet have no right
being on a comet. I’ve called them ‘rhythmic ridges’ …but to pretty much
everyone who looks at them, they look like sand dunes. Which are just plain impossible on
a body that has neither atmosphere nor much of any gravity.” In multiple Space News episodes, we presented experimental footage, as shown
here by researcher Billy Yelverton, showing that sand dunes are
easily created by electric fields which produce ionic winds
and organize dust material. In fact, the scientific mainstream has finally
begun recognizing the electrical cause of dust raising events on comets
and other solar system bodies. In a 2016 NASA funded study the researchers suggest an electrostatic
mechanism for dust transport on many bodies including the Moon,
asteroids, and comets. A Phys.org report on the
study stated that, “Electrostatic processes may be
responsible for the Rosetta detection of fluffy dust particles released
from the surface of comet 67P.” But when considering the
nature and origins of comets, one pathway that comet investigators
must be willing to explore is the explanation of comet water
production by electrochemical means. In recent years, Dr.
Franklin Anariba, a specialist in electrochemistry at Singapore
University of Technology and Design, has been presenting his thesis at
annual Thunderbolts conferences. In a five-part Space News
presentation in 2015, Dr. Anariba proposed that a process
of electron stripping releases O₂, OH and other chemical species
into the cometary coma. The discovery of an electron density in the
vicinity of the 67P nucleus is important. It can mean that the chemical O₂ can absorb
a negative charge through charge exchange which is then followed by a process called
protonation via solar wind at the comet. Water formation can then be
explained via a series of pathways as Dr. Anariba has outlined. This explanation, never pursued by comet
investigators in the scientific mainstream, could eliminate the need for any imaginary
reservoir of subsurface comet water ice and it explains many
comet mysteries, including the amazing
desiccation of comet nuclei and the overabundance of so-called water
production found in many cometary comas. It was a puzzle to
67P investigators why the comet was already
producing an abundance of water and surprisingly rich molecules, even while hundreds of millions
of kilometers from the Sun. But recent scientific papers may be moving
the investigations in the right direction. A major shock for scientists on Earth was
the detection of abundant molecular oxygen and so-called outgassing
from the 67P nucleus. If comets are really leftovers
from the solar system’s formation, scientists had long excluded any
possibility of molecular oxygen being trapped in the so
called primordial bodies. As reported in India’s
national magazine Frontline, “The detection of
O₂ was unexpected… all the primordial
oxygen molecules, which would have been there in a comet’s
evolution around 4.6 billion years ago, should have disappeared by now… the Rosetta’s discovery of O₂ in
67P/C-G is an astrophysical enigma.” In a paper published in the
journal Nature Communications, scientists Yao and Giapis
essentially proposed that water molecules coming off the
comet become electrically charged. Then the solar wind accelerates the charged
molecules back to the comet’s surface. There they pick up an oxygen atom from
the surface from materials such as sand, forming the detected O₂. As investigator Giapis stated, “We had no idea when we built
our laboratory setups that they would end up applying
to the astrophysics of comets. This original chemistry mechanism is based on the
seldom-considered class of Eley-Rideal reactions, which occur when fast-moving
molecules, water in this case, collide with surfaces and extract atoms
residing there, forming new molecules. All necessary conditions for such
reactions exist on comet 67P.” However, even with the
dirty snowball theory now, in the words of Nicholas
Thomas “blown out of the water”, scientists continue to assume that
comets are primordial icy bodies that formed over four-and-a-half
billion years ago. Following this brief
summary of comet missions, in our next episode we will explore
many landmark comet discoveries all of which seem to affirm the
electrical nature and origins of comets. For continuous updates on Space
News from the Electric Universe, stay tuned to Thunderbolts.info

About the author

Comments

  1. I have been watching these excellent videos for a few months now, however, as a layman, I have trouble articulating the core concepts that the Thunderbolts Project puts forth. If you would be so kind, may I ask what IS Electric Universe Theory? Is it that Electricity is in fact a much stronger force in the Universe than Gravity and likewise is responsible for much more of the phenomena we observe? Is the Universe itself a sort of electrical grid where celestial bodies such as stars, comets, planets and moons are then electrified nodes by which these currents are connected? Please let me know if I am on the right track to understanding.
    I thank all of you who contribute to this channel for your time and effort.

  2. I love the work you do but this video doesn't match the audio. I can't share or use something that becomes confusing the longer it goes.

  3. Impressive – seeing this entire body of work in one episode is quite effective IMO of demonstrating how successful EU model has been in the wake of evidence accumulated from recent missions.

  4. Thank you. Very well done presentation. Great explanation of the differences between what is predicted and what is actually observed.

  5. Ok if comets come from planets and moons then where do planets and moons come from? Cant both be correct? At least standard theory correct to a degree as we have observed excretion around stars. Large gas clouds made from many elements collapsing into planets and stars.

  6. I love the electric universe theorie it explains so much yust starting read Velikovsky finally some answers to the great puzzle of life

  7. Electric comet theory has proven to be one of the strongest confirmations in the entire realm of TBP-EU hypotheses, I think. Wal's accurate predictions compared to an endless succession of strike outs by "dirty snowball" believers is remarkable. I look forward to every new video. Keep it up.

  8. I still keep seeing articles about comets describing them as "dirty snowballs" or "ice and rock," even when the pictures accompanying the article clearly show that it's just another kind of asteroid! We never see a correction of the old notion that comets are just chunks of dirty ice flying around in space.

  9. I see, then: Brown-dwarfs (close to their Primary and rogue in motion) are important for the developmental stages that may result in their complexity with some outcomes of terra-forming.

  10. 'Established Science' has literally become a religion with fanatical, worldwide followers. They hold tight to what they believe and refuse to think of anything else, even when there is ample evidence to tell them what they think is wrong. Kind of funny when you have 'high profile scientists' like Neil Degrasse Tyson taking pot shots at religion when he himself has a fundamentally flawed religion of his own.

  11. Anyone ever considered the reason that Philae bounced on 67P because the spikes ejected on it's feet at landing, hit hard rock, instead of snow or ice, causing it to rebound, rather than any sort of malfunction of them?

  12. Great update and summary on further discoveries about 67P's "enigmas", thanks TBP.  Just curious, at 20:57, whose family? and what virtue are they signalling?

  13. Being recognized, or allowing science to uncover new facts that are right in front of them takes forever.
    Socrates Alegory of the Cave is clearly the trouble with science.
    For example the Dr. that suggested and showed that working with cadavers then delivering babies without washing your hands is dangerous. He was put in and died in a Mental Institute. Is was like 20 years later that Pastuer proved the theory of micro organisms thay folks realized that they had made a grave mistake. Be thankful it will take time for the indoctrinated to come around.

  14. Interesting how the color of a comet’s coma and tail are strikingly similar to Earth’s own electrically charged Aurora Borealis. If charged particles from the Sun light up, or excite gases in the Aurora Borealis, my conjecture is the Sun also lights up, or excite gases being released from comets too. Again, they both share the same bluish to greenish hues with occasional red hues too.

  15. Established science will never give up. For those so called scientists it is a matter of being employed as PhD's or changing views and driving uber for living. Rather pursue delusional science and prosper than seek the truth and commit academic and social and worst of all financial suicide. In this life everything starts from the stomache.

  16. "Science" has devolved into a rolling confidence game… As has just about everything else. This bunch is the future of science.

  17. I would love to see EU on the JRE/Joe Rogan channel…. this would be the perfect format to help bring open/public exposure to this fascinating & probably more correct way of understanding science & the universe….

  18. The Electric Universe – Wal Thornhill & David Talbott
    http://stickmanonstone.com/product/the-electric-universe/

    The Electric Sky – Don Scott
    http://stickmanonstone.com/product/the-electric-sky/

  19. "…the disconnect between new data and theoretical cosmology…", well put Thunderbolts Project. Modern Cosmologists have become like a high priesthood jealously guarding their 'holy scripture' of mechanistic 'gravity-and-heat-only'. (Too bad they can't even EXPLAIN gravity.)

  20. It seems amazing to me that even though mainstream science is surprised quite often with info that goes against the accepted model/d they refuse to accept the electric universe model and or even consider it. The sad thing is that the world of science is being stymied and we're being held in check by egos rather then facts.

  21. How exciting! It all makes so much sense!

    I think I can see that, if somebody's career is based on standard comet theory, they would have a hard time wanting to believe this. Sad to say, often the evidence has to become ridiculously overwhelming before mainstream science will even consider beginning to accept it.

    It just supports the idea of sending more missions to study more comets. We obviously have much more to learn.

  22. Dr. Ransom's work is as unbiased as it gets. His experiments are meant to show the possibilities and not to disprove anything one way or the other but to just examine the possibilities and he has certainly done that.

  23. Great news from the TBP. As above so below, it is impressive that all electric creations in lab are duplicates here on Earth from the bolides in space, and mainstream just discards it. They are in complete denial from the universe and at the same time they are scorning and mocking of all of us. It would be interesting if someone like Elon Musk would be interested in funding a new science project involving the EU teams around the globe in this field of the EU…….just a thought because what real science needs is some people with the financial power and the sheer will to invest in this field, and obviously, mainstream only funds their own dogmatic interests as we more and more see. I think Elon Musk would have everything to gain from a joint venture in this EU field as it is the new frontier. Our Universe is electrical and so are all things in it. Eyes open.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *