Tuesday, 20 August 2013
Saturday, 6 July 2013
Article Ver 1.1
A Fresh Insight Into The Great Comets of the Ancient World.
The widespread repeating occurrence of highly abstract rock art archetypes around the world - points to a series of events that are clearly outside the ordinary. While our prehistoric ancestors did paint realistic images of natural flora and fauna that was local to the respective region - they all seemed to have included highly abstract and strange patterns in their work.
Patterns that repeat themselves all over the world.
What drove ancient people from far flung continents to share the same artistic visions?
Was it some form of mass chemically-induced experience? An encounter with extra-terrestial life? Or maybe something naturally astronomical?
An examination of Chinese silk manuscripts dated from the Western Han Dynastic period (202 BC ・9 AD) may give significant light as to the origin and meaning of many petroglyph depictions. The “Divination by Astrological and Meteorological Phenomena” otherwise known as the Book Of Silk includes drawings and descriptions of 29 different comets (termed as “broom stars”) over the course of 300 years. Each cometary morphology is also associated with a particular list of negative effects or disasters such as plagues or climate change. The most compelling image from the Book Of Silk is as follows:-
Source for above image:-
We may now examine each of the morphologies depicted in the Book Of Silk and compare them with a selection of petroglyph images.
This petroglyph depicts a figure with a circular head with concentric circles embedded as well as an elongated torso with lines running through it.
Where in the Book Of Silk image can we find a similar enough depiction of a “broom star”?
If we turn the image from the Book Of Silk upside down, and then zoom in on comet morphology No.23 we may see a resemblance:-
Despite the lack of concentric circles in the “head” of this comet, the rest of the morphology is highly similar. It will become evident that some of the “heads” of the comets depicted in the Chinese manuscripts also contain embedded circles.
There are several petroglyphs that not only depict the “squatter man” morphology, but also depict triangular torsos.
Again, the Chinese manuscripts yield similar (albeit un-embellished or anthropomorphized) morphologies when the images are inverted:-
As can be seen in this petroglyph (and the one below), the human stick-figure appears to have a multitude of arms.
What cometary morphology could produce this?
The inverted Chinese manuscript shows stick-figure morphologies with varying numbers of multiple limbs.
One can also see petroglyphs where the "head" of the man is a downward pointing triangle, as is depicted in the centre of the above Chinese manuscript image:-
One can also see petroglyphs where the "head" of the man is a downward pointing triangle, as is depicted in the centre of the above Chinese manuscript image:-
These petroglyphs all convey different morphologies that can be found in the Chinese manuscripts. For example, on the bottom right we see the round-headed figure with a roughly oval-shaped body. Above that and slightly to the left we see a figure with two tree-like branches for a head. Some of the images are simply depicting many branched tree or plants. One can observe the triangular torso stick-figures too. Among these images are several depictions of snakes and one of these snakes has a circular head. Could the snake be another manifestation of a comet?
Here we also find depictions of tree or plant-like structures (similar to the morphology of multiple-limbed stick-men). But we also see a depiction to the left of a roundish or oval structure with hair-like lines protruding or emanating from it. Is this a depiction of a comet?
Notice how this Chinese cometary depiction has lines that not only resemble a swastika, but that the end of each line, if thickened or embellished a little could resemble that of a weapon. Perhaps these type of comets varied in their morphology so that they on some occasions looked more weapon-like in their appearance.
The inner concentric circles are missing in the above image, but as can be seen from the inverted image below – they are present in other cometary morphologies that the Chinese managed to record:-
More cometary depictions may well appear as spiral forms sometimes emanating snake-like protrusions:-
Other spiral forms (note also the circle inside the circle and the odd inflated stick-figures with jagged limbs:-
Do cometary coma's manifest such spiral forms? Apparently so:-
Comet Biela image taken in 1846 with spiral arms in its coma.
(Source: public domain)
The inner coma of Comet Hale-Bopp (taken April 2, 1997).
And what of the twisting snake-like morphologies seen among the petroglyphs? Do cometary tails also exhibit such a morphology at times?
Comet Ikeya-ZhangCredit & Copyright: Gilbert Jones
The Electric Comet - A Fresh Perspective
The mainstream explanation of comets cannot fully account for their behaviour and their morphology. Indeed, the depictions of comets seen both in the Chinese "Book Of Silk" and the various petroglyphs raise more fundamental questions.
Are these beautiful and sometimes ominous sights in our skies simply dusty snowballs melting in the solar wind?
Or are they something else....?
In an October week in 2007, Comet 17P Holmes suddenly brightened by a factor of one million in less than 24 hours. The comet, located in the constellation Perseus - became visible to the naked eye.
The comet produced a coma larger than the diameter of the sun.
How could a comet, moving away from the sun - behave this way? The brightening occurred after a large and sudden increase in the solar wind density. This offers a clue. Yet scientists failed to explore the implications. What effect could these solar particles really have on the entire comet?
In March 1991, Halley's comet brightened by up to 300 times. This occurred while it was between the orbits of Saturn and Uranus and heading away from the sun.
The European Southern Observatory reported that "At the time of the observation, Halley was about midway between the planets Saturn and Uranus. At this large distance, the sunlight is very faint and the temperature on the surface of the nucleus is only around -200°C, so cold that the snow, ice and dust must be frozen solid."
Could Halley's flare-up have been caused by a collision?
ESO reported that "the chance of hitting the relatively small nucleus of Halley seems extremely remote. Moreover, it is not clear how such a catastrophic event could lead to the apparently steady outflow, observed at this moment."
They also stated that "even though the Sun is presently in a phase of maximal activity and emits large amounts of energetic particles at frequent intervals, it is very doubtful whether they would carry enough energy to heat the surface of Halley's nucleus to produce the observed, spectacular effect at this large distance from the Sun."
Was this gravitational or caused by some internal gas, or was another force responsible?
On the 12th January 2005, NASA launched a space probe -"Deep Impact", sent on a mission to study comet Temple 1. The aim of the mission was to closely examine some of the internal composition of the comet by releasing an impactor that would crash into the surface and excavate material.
On October 18th 2001, physicist Wallace Thornhill predicted the energetic outcome of the "impactor" that would be fired into the comet. On the 3rd of July 2005, he predicted that a lightning-like discharge (in the form of a flash) would be visible before the impact.
The impactor collided with the comet surface on the 4th of July.
They observed a small flash, then a delay, followed by a big flash which was so bright that it overwhelmed their sensors for a time. Though the object was travelling at 23,000 miles an hour into the surface of the comet - the sheer energy of the blast cannot simply be explained by kinetics alone.
Comet Schwassmann-Wachmann 3 is named after two German astronomers who discovered the comet in 1930. For many years, its orbit and brightness was not regarded as particularly significant. However, in 1995 the comet became so bright that some astronomers thought that it was a new comet. 150 million miles from Earth, its bright display was far greater than anybody had expected.
Then…in 1996, another unexpected event occurred.
The comet appeared to have exploded into three pieces. Perhaps this disintegration was related to the continuing large brightening of the comet.
In 2000, the comet continued to not only defy expectations with its bright display; but also cause surprise at its continuing disintegration. In 2006, its disintegration was accelerating. The comet, when first observed to disintegrate, was over a mile wide. Thermal stress or the "cracking" of ice could not possibly account for the disintegration. Neither is the possibility of a collision with a meteor, given that the disintegration occurred over a period of years. The chance of one collision was calculated as one in a trillion.
Scientists state that comets are dominated by dirt and not ice. The nucleus of comets are generally elongated rather than being spherical snowballs, and it is not proven that ice dominates the interior. In fact, the sublimation of ice in the heat of the sun may be an incorrect explanation for cometary tails.
Comet Hartley 2 is an example where a comet has ejected jets on its dark side away from the heat of the sun. How could a side sheltered from solar heating create highly-collimated jets that extend and retain their morphology for so far? In fact, it is questionable if solar heating could do the same thing.
There are many more unanswered questions about the behaviour of comets.
Could electrical forces really explain the behaviour of comets? The Thunderbolts Project put together a compelling presentation on the "electric comet" at the IEEE back in June of 2006. Since then, they have developed their work and presented it in a recent documentary that asks searching questions of the mainstream cometary theory as well as presents new electrical interpretations.
One question that can be directed towards mainstream proponents of cometary theory - is the question of how such small rocks with incredibly weak gravity could end up with so many apparent craters on their surfaces. How could such gravity attract so many meteors that cover objects such as Comet Wild 2 almost end-to-end with craters? Are the craters really the result of impacts?
On the right is an image of a surface that has been subject to electric discharge machining via a powerful arc discharge. On the left is the surface of Comet Wild 2.
The white spots observed on the comet could be regarded as cathode arcs that create the powerful filamentary jets emanating from comets.
Comets spend most of their time orbiting at a considerable distance from the sun. Their electric charge and voltage may not be too different from the local solar electric field. However, their highly eccentric orbits mean that they occasionally accelerate towards a much closer distance to the sun. The comet's voltage has to adjust to the electric field region that it is moving rapidly into. The voltage difference between the positively charged sun and negatively charged comet is manifested in plasma sheaths and filaments around the comet - in the form of its "coma" and tail.
In the double-layer regions within these sheaths - very powerful electric fields may accelerate particles and cause significant amounts of radiation. The forces can sometimes become so great that the comets explode and disintegrate like an overloaded capacitor in an electric circuit.
As an example, what could explain the huge one million-fold brightening of Comet Holmes and the growth of its coma to a diameter greater than the sun? Scientists speculate a sudden release of internal gas was one of the possible explanations. But, why would it suddenly release gas as it was heading away from the sun? How could this release create such a large,almost symmetrical and bright coma?
Would an explosion really only produce such fine, uniform dust? And could the sun's light really cause such diffuse dust release to shine in such a way?
On the 29th of March 2008 - The Thunderbolts Project published an article titled "Comet Holmes - A medianon-event". In it, guest contributor Scott Wal did some basic calculations and reached the conclusion that the amount of material in the coma of Comet Holmes is far too diffuse to be lit up by the sun's light. He found that the density of less than 2 grams per cubic kilometer cannot be responsible for the light observed. Yet, the comet's coma increased by a tremendous amount in terms of brightness and there is no valid mainstream explanation for this.
How could Comet Hale-Bopp have maintained a bright outburst in such cold regions and for so long?
Electric and magnetic fields typically have a limited speed of propagation through most mediums. Electric currents can take 8 minutes to reach the Earth - as suggested in the occurrence of intermittent electric field-aligned currents connecting the Earth and the Sun.
Yet, the discharge behaviour of comets suggests that they are moving through a radial electric field that is effectively constant - with occasional variation with solar flares and with diminishing strength with distance.
Across large distances, very high voltages may develop between the sun's field and comets and manifest the electric potential within certain boundary layers known to electrical theorists as Langmuir Sheaths.
Planetary magnetotails bare some similarities to the cometary profile.
The presence of particle acceleration at distinctplasma boundary zones in magnetospheres suggests that these are also various types of "double layers".
Similar "double layers" could exist around comets.
In 1957, Hannes Alfven proposed that electric currents of up to a billion amps could be present inside the plasma tails of comets. The NASA International Cometary Explorer space-craft crossed the plasma tail of Comet Giacobini–Zinner on September 11 1985. “Magnetic turbulence” was detected, but the electric currents responsible for them – were not acknowledged.
The coma of Comet Holmes developed a diameter even larger than the sun. This coma also acted as a bow-shock against the solar wind. In essence, the coma is the induced cometary equivalent of a planetary magnetosphere. The glow of the coma (which could not be explained simply by reflection of sunlight from dust) may well be that the atmosphere of the comet has sufficient current-density to be in the "glow mode" plasma discharge.
Comets clearly can have much larger magnetospheres than planets. This might suggest that all magnetospheres may not neccessarily arise solely from internal magnetic dynamos in the cores of planets. Instead, the bodies' electric potential with respect to the solar plasma electric field - could play a role.
How do the cometary forms depicted in the petroglyphs and the Chinese "Book Of Silk" connect with the hypothesis of an Electric Comet? Are the morphologies of comets simply the result of gas jets responding to different solar wind pressures? Or could electrodynamic forces explain them?
This drawing featured by Sky & Telescope magazine depicting what people would see from a comet nucleus at a very close-up view. The streamers and jets below the nucleus have a morphology that is not too dissimilar to that of the stick-man images among the petroglyphs. We do however, have some more direct potential evidence to compare with the artistic depictions:-
Examples for the visual appearance of striations in glow discharges (after de la Rue and Müller, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond., 169, 155, 1878; reproduced from Brown, A short history of gaseous electronic, in Gaseous Electronics Vol.I, Acadamic Press, 1978; image not subject to Copyright regulations)http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/striatn.htm
The above image is of several glow discharge tubes filled with ionized noble gases at different voltages and the resulting plasma morphologies are quite revealing. Firstly, the plasma striations resemble different cross-sectional shapes that could account for the tree-structures seen in depictions of ancient comets. More interestingly however; is the fact that in the bottom five tubes one can observe the formation of what seems to look like a stick-man figure emerging. Albeit the figure seems to lack any discernible arms. Perhaps if the current density is increased - there may be different results?
A paper titled "Sprites, Elves and Glow Discharge Tubes" by Earle R. Williams summarises the similarities between the current-density of upper atmospheric lightning phenomena known as "elves" and that of glow-discharges. The actual technical details of such phenomena is beyond the scope of this article. However, what is of interest is the morphological features of these "sprite" phenomena:-
Red Sprite Lightning with Aurora
Image Credit & Copyright: Walter Lyons (FMA Research), WeatherVideoHD.TV
A slow-motion capture of a sprite forming high in the atmosphere.
When long-period Comet Hyakutake came close to the inner Solar System it produced X-ray energies far greater than any mainstream scientist had predicted.
Impressively, it also produced Extreme Ultraviolet Emissions. Energies one would normally only expect from very hot plasma.
This important discovery shows that there must be previously unsuspected 'high-energy' processes taking place in the comet, probably due to the influence of the Sun's radiation and/or the solar wind.http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/pn96-19.html
Given what we are discovering about the type of electrodynamics and radiative energies both in cometary atmospheres and close to the nuclei - there is most likely the possibility that these rocky bodies could generate electrical interactions with planets and Moons of considerable power if they came close enough. Indeed, what if the Earth was enveloped in the glowing inner-coma of a huge and highly active comet?
Before we entertain such a hypothesis, we can briefly look at existing processes of electrical exchange between planets and moons to discern the potential implications.
The above image is one example of an electrical connection between two-bodies that results in considerable energetic interactions on the surfaces and atmospheres of both bodies. They are Jupiter and it's moon, Io. The circular arcs connecting them are invisible field-aligned currents carrying electricity of a few million amperes. This electrical exchange creates an auroral footprint in Jupiter's poles and, contrary to mainstream explanations - the current produces arc discharges impinging directly on the surface of Io which results in the electrical machining of that body. In 1987, plasma physicists Anthony Peratt and A.J. Dessler produced a paper that theorized that dense magnetospheric plasma within the orbital zone of Io was responsible for producing a "dense plasma focus" arc discharge on its surface, which can account for the alleged (and anomalously hot) "volcanoes".
Ice-volcanoes have been found on Saturn's moon Enceladus and Neptune's moon Triton. These bodies also exhibit jets from their surfaces, which seem reminiscent of the jets emitted from cometary bodies (albeit they are less energetic). Their surfaces also, according to electrical theorists - exhibit the morphologies of electric discharge machined surfaces.
The work of Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky caused a storm in the scientific community throughout the latter part of the mid 20th century. Whilst several of his predictions indirectly connected with the electrical nature of planets and their catastrophic past influences have come true, the main thesis of interplanetary catastrophes within recent human memory have yet to be decisively proven. While it is well beyond the scope of this article to actually address the vast content of Velikovsky's work or challenge it - this article does aim to offer alternative speculations as to the instigators of past disasters on this planet.
One of the main theories present in Velikovsky's work is that the planet Venus was once regarded as a bright comet which came into several close encounters with the Earth as well as other planets in the Solar System. The planet apparently came close enough to cause huge tides in the Earth, earthquakes, a change in planetary rotation, and a host of other negative cataclysmic influences. Notably, Venus was also alleged by Velikovsky to strike the Earth with powerful electrical discharges that impinged on the surface of the planet. Now, since we do not have a reliable means of discerning the real history of our Solar System and since the mainstream accretion-model is untenable within an Electric Universe paradigm; then we must consider Velikovsky's ideas as a distinct possibility. However, it would be unfair to simply stick to the idea that interplanetary "thunderbolts" were the sole agent that were involved in causing disasters on our planet or electrically influencing it in some way. In 1982, British authors Clube and Napier published a book titled "The Cosmic Serpent" which argued that within the last several thousand years human beings have witnessed disastrous effects from very large short-period comets coming close to the Earth and disintegrating. They state that the Taurid meteor complex (for example) is the remnants of a very large short-period comet that disintegrated near the Earth. They develop this theory further in their book "The Cosmic Winter" published in 1990; where (like Velikovsky) they tool their argument via delving into inter-disciplinary areas covering ancient history, religion, astrology, galactic astronomy, palaeontology and psychology. Without agreeing fully with the ideas of Clube and Napier; it does seem possible that the Earth was influenced by cometary bodies entering the Solar System from different galactic regions in the not-too-distant past. Indeed, these different cometary incursions may well have been seen as the wrath of the Gods who reshaped the world and disposed of evil.
Did human beings even worship the comet at some point? Historian Graham Phillips seems to think so, as he writes on his website:-
http://www.grahamphillips.net/eden/eden_5.htm"The one that appeared in 1486 BC, however, had ten tails and stretched far across the sky: an astonishing spectacle that was almost certainly far more extraordinary than anything ever seen in the heavens before. At a time when heavenly bodies were thought to be the physical manifestations of divine beings, such a comet might indeed have been interpreted as the appearance of a new god, and a particularly important one at that. However, the comet of 1486 would not only explain the new gods that were suddenly embrace around the world at this time and the astonishingly similar celestial disks that represented them, but it might also explain the simultaneous epidemic of global hostility."
A depiction of the great comet appearing in 1486 BC.
What now follows is a series of speculative ideas regarding the current Electrical Universe perspective of cometary and planetary bodies and ways of developing or critiquing the Velikovskian perspective. Again, the aim is not offer a refutation but perhaps open up the discourse. Sufficient references are still pending in this version of the article.
-- WARNING, THIS SECTION REQUIRES EXISTING FAMILIARITY WITH ELECTRIC-UNIVERSE SCIENCE --
・ Firstly, let us consider the importance of the planet Venus as an apparent comet within human memory. We can examine the origin of its heat as was predicted by Velikovsky to be from a formerly incandescent body. What do we know about the surface pressure and temp of planet Venus? We know that Russian probes were soon crushed by the large pressures. There is a good argument that most of the heat is derived from adiabatic compression with a marginal amount from CO2 forcing. You can find that argument summarised here (http://www.whiteworld.com/technoland/stories-nonfic/2008-stories/Venus-temp.htm ).
・ Electric Birkeland currents affect the poles of Venus creating differential rotation and very notable vortices in the polar regions which are similar to such features in the polar areas of Saturn. The fast cloud in the atmosphere of Venus could thus be the result of an electrical current influx from outer space. It is interesting that the wind speed profile of Venus is around 15 m/s at 100 km height increasing to 95 m/s at between 60 and 70 km height. Thereon from 50 km height the speed decreases to 60 m/s and then around 38 m/s at 30 km height. The speed continues to decline significantly with altitude (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576504004072 ) with negligible wind speeds at the surface. The profile of atmospheric height and velocity suggests an electrically influenced field-aligned current-flow. For example, in Birkeland Currents the strength of the current is generally greater towards the axis and declines further away.
・ The heat profile of Venus strengthening towards the surface (almost 500C) cannot really be explained by electrical forces. If the current declines with height both above and below the zone of maximum wind-speed, then one would expect a reduction in heat-generating electrical resistance due to lower current or charge density. There are interesting glowing features on the top of mountainous features on Venus which may be a form of electro-luminescence or “St.Elmo’s Fire” glow discharge. These also cannot account for the even hot surface temperature. However, the glow on the mountain-tops may be the result of a distinct voltage gradient between a certain atmospheric height and the electric currents several km up in the atmosphere. Whether the current is causing extra plasma glows in the upper atmosphere to account for some of the interesting surface light intensities seen in Venera probe photos, is also possible. Regarding surface heat - the best to go for thus far is the primary influence of adiabatic compression, followed by solar radiation, and then CO2.
・ The long-tail of Venus is the result of a very weak magnetosphere resulting in ions in its upper atmosphere being eroded by the solar wind.
・ The very slow rotation of Venus could be the result of external currents impinging on the partially ionized atmospheric layers and resulting in the fast rotation there. The slow rotation of the actual planet could be the result of only a weak left-over electric current actually impinging on the rocky body of the planet. And what of the very small magnetosphere? This could be the result of a core where the remnant magnetism has died down over a very long period of time, albeit this is far from conclusive.
・ Mars also has a weak magnetosphere like Venus does (perhaps as a result of a weak internal electric field), but has a much thinner atmosphere than Venus. Interestingly it’s speed of rotation is only 40 minutes slower than that of Earth. Perhaps this is the case because most of the incoming electrical current is entering the planet and not conducted by the thin atmosphere. Thus, the current induces more electro-motive force on the rocky body of the planet via the Faraday effect. Planet Earth has a stronger magnetosphere possibly due to greater internal electric field or perhaps remnant magnetism from when the planet was young. The story may be more complex, however – for the magnetic origin of the bodies in the solar system.
・ Earth’s fastest winds are only 10–20% rotation speed and this is a big contrast to that of Venus which has a super-rotating atmosphere in comparison to the rotation of the actual rocky body. There could be several factors here – convective solar influence on air movement as well as a much lower degree of ionization in Earth’s atmospheric layers.
・ The gas giant planets have much more storm activity and faster winds than the inner rocky planets closer to the Sun. They also radiate more energy than they receive. How does this happen if they have a stronger electrical field internally compared to that of the inner planets? Is there more electrical current actually entering these gas giants as a result of their electrical potential with respect to their environment? Why would this be if their voltage is higher than the inner planets? There must be an alternate solution to this.
・ Mars may also have a long ion tail similar to that of Venus due to its weak magnetosphere. Was Mars once a comet in a similar era as to Venus? Evidence is speculative if judging or comparing it with features of Venus. In such respect – it lacks retrograde motion, rotates much faster, has low temperature and a thin atmosphere. It does bare electrical scarring however just as Venus does and other planetary moons. Did cometary fragments or a large body come nearby at some point?
Where did comets, planets, moons and asteroids come from? The conventional EU view states that these rocky bodies were ejected from brown-dwarf stars and that gas giants also came from these stars. A small part of the aim of this paper is to challenge this view and come up with an alternative hypothesis.
First off, there is the issue of planetary magnetospheres to consider. The planet Mars, as an example – rotates only 40 minutes slower than the Earth but has a much weaker magnetosphere. Conventional views of magnetospheres is that they are internal dynamo’s of hot conductive liquid metal which may stop functioning as dynamo’s after a certain period of time or after certain events. The Electric Universe hypothesis of planetary magnetospheres is not fully defined. For example, Dr Donald E. Scott writes in his book “The Electric Sky” about the need to distinguish a planetary “plasmasphere” from its magnetosphere. The “plasmasphere” is regarded as being connected to the solar electrical environment and is equalizing the electrical potential over time. Thus the plasmasphere is a system of Langmuir sheaths formed by the electrical potential of the planet and the surrounding environment. In the case of Venus’ lack of magnetosphere and large tail – the tail would be regarded as its “plasmasphere”. So, what does indeed cause magnetospheres of planets? And can we say that some form of electric Farraday motor phenomena is driving planetary rotation via interaction with the magnetic field and some external current?
If we look again at the interesting case of the planet Venus; we have a distinctly thick and dense atmosphere, a very weak to non-existent magnetic field and extremely slow rotation. The actual atmosphere rotates much faster than the planet. What causes the interesting rotation profile? One tentative hypothesis is to suppose that the influx of electric current is directly impinging on the atmosphere of the planet and inducing rapid movement there. However, the current that impinges on the surface is much weaker and the combination of this with the highly weak magnetic field results in a very slow rotational speed. For Mars, we have a very weak magnetic field similar to that of Venus but interestingly a much faster rotation. So what is going on? This could be explained via an influx of incoming current that impinges almost directly on the actual body of the planet itself after passing through a very tenuous atmosphere. In the case of Venus, the dense atmosphere may contain a sufficient charge density of ions to conduct the incoming current and generate vorticity. Despite the highly weak magnetic field of Mars, the current contributes significant torque to generate a substantial rotational speed only 40 minutes slower than that of the Earth. In the case of the Earth, the magnetic field is much stronger than that of Mars and the rotational speed is almost the same. One explanation could be due to the powerful internal field of the Earth causing the incoming current to become stored in a plasma doughnut or radiation-belt around the planet. The rest of the current leaks into the actual planet and thanks to help from the strong magnetic field – the 24 hour rotation results from the Faraday torque.
On large gas giants such as Jupiter and Saturn – that have very powerful magnetic fields, you get more rapid rotation speeds. The rotation speeds observed are the atmospheres of the planet, but we may not know how rapidly the inner portions of the planet actually rotate – particularly if there are solid cores in the center. Radio waves are discerned to give a measurement of the internal rotation speeds of the liquid metal interiors but these are simply inferred from certain assumptions. The gas giants have strong magnetic fields primarily because they could be younger planets than the rocky members of the inner solar system. In fact, there is a hypothesis that has been developed that proposes that all planets are in fact stars at varying stages of metamorphosis via plasma recombination into neutral gas, and gas deposition into solid interiors (http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0157vC.pdf ).
Without fully agreeing with all of Wolynski’s theory of stellar metamorphosis, it can be suggested that all rocky planets and gas giants are former stars. Can this account for the possible existence of lonely wandering planets floating in space without parent stars? (http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/11/if-it-forms-like-a-star-but-looks-like-a-planet/ ) Were these objects former stars that eventually dissipated and recombined their plasma into neutral gas and solid materials after the current sustaining the plasma discharge started to wane? And could such planets have eventually been captured by the pull of young stars (a.k.a. young planets)? Are binary stars (or triple-systems) the result of electrically-borne stars fissioning as a result of high electrical stress? Do electrically stressed stars also eject smaller plasmoids? And do these fissioned or ejected stars gradually dissipate and recombine their elements into hot gas giant planets that can be found near their parent stars? Could it be the case that the smaller the star the quicker it takes to recombine into a gas giant? Or perhaps the influence of incoming galactic or interstellar currents can affect whether recombination happens or not, or maybe how fast it occurs? And do these gas giants eventually form rocky planets and how does this happen? Sergei Nayakshin has proposed a theory of “tidal downsizing” as a possible solution (http://www.space.com/12978-alien-planets-rocky-gas-giants.html ).
The Electric Universe theory hypothesizes that an L-Type Brown Dwarf or perhaps even a gas-giant could’ve ejected a rocky planet via a large-scale electrical discharge. The problem is that such bodies have been proven to have immense pressures within their atmospheres (in the case of Jupiter, probes were crushed with decreasing altitude). How could part of the interior core of such bodies be somehow electrically-machined outwards at supersonic speed without vaporizing from the rapid drop in pressure? The highly viscous nature of the atmosphere (as evident from the remains of Comet Shoe-maker Levy 9) and powerful pressures under layers of gas and possibly liquid underneath would render planetary ejection unlikely. But alternatively, planets could be born from L-Type Brown Dwarves or other “flare stars” – as very hot plasmoids (small young stars) that eventually turn (via plasma recombination) into gas giant planets and then rocky bodies via Wolynski’s “recombination” hypothesis. Many different types of stars, not necessarily just brown dwarfs or red dwarfs could be candidates for birthing plasmoids (young stars) via fissions and powerful flaring. These plasmoids may then have a variety of elemental compositions either at the time of their birth or over time as they move through space.
The wind speeds in the atmospheres of Solar System gas giants seem to be greater in planets more distant from the sun. Why does
Gas giants all have notable ring features around them, and these features seem to be highly electrical in nature (see Holoscience articles referring to Saturn and Jupiter, etc). The Earth has rings of EM radiation. A strong enough magnetic field will result in a planet having such ring systems and it could be that highly visible ring material could result from incidental electrical or gravitational capture of other bodies. Our Sun has a plasma-torus which eventually connects with the equatorial current-sheet that produces the ballerina-skirt profile of the Heliosphere. Is not our Earth an aged star that has dissipated to the point where it’s current-sheet is much weaker and less spectacular than before?
What then of asteroids and cometary bodies and moons? The Electric Universe theory has a very compelling and well documented argument for electrical discharge machining on the surfaces of rocky planets and moons in the solar system. How did this come to be? Did some rogue planets (former stars?) enter the solar system on highly elliptical orbits and thus discharge electrically as cometary bodies? Are the belts of asteroids resulting from various periods where planets started discharging and then breaking into pieces from the electrical stress? Do planets such as Mars, our Earth, Venus and Mercury bear the scars of electrical interactions with erratic bodies or comets in the past? These are all possible scenarios. Indeed, it seems that if the exposed rocky interior of a former gas giant (which in turn, was a former bright star) could perhaps shine again like a young star, as it once did in its early youth – would it do so as a brand new Electric comet? And what would happen when fragments of such a comet break-off and head towards the atmosphere of a planet? The example of Comet Shoemaker Levy-9 fragmenting into several pieces in Jupiter’s magnetosphere suggests that a high enough voltage environment may over-load a comet in a way that capacitors can be overloaded. Fragments then collided with the planet’s atmosphere that produced bright explosions a few km across. Thus the particles likely continued to discharge as they fragmented. Electrically charged fragments pulled downwards at tremendous speed may well have distributed blackened ionized cometary dust in the viscous depths of Jupiter’s atmosphere. The bulk of the discharge happened in the ionosphere of the planet.
As stated before, a powerful “nova” event would likely eject large portions of super-hot hydrogen and helium plasma from the electrically-charged outer atmosphere of an L-type Brown Dwarf or “giant Jupiter” via electromagnetic forces. Stars would only have very tiny amounts of heavy elements in their outer plasma atmospheres in comparison to that of their cores. Even so, Marklund Convection taking place as part of a Bennett Pinch in a powerful flare event would sort the tiny amount of atmospheric heavy elements into the axial region of the pinched current with the lighter elements towards the periphery. Thus the new plasmoid formed via the hot and violent plasma discharge would concentrate heavier elements deep within and these elements would increase in quantity over time as the hot plasma star occasionally experiences violent discharge events that cause fusion of elements into heavier ones. These “hot” heavier elements in turn, gradually lose their ionization and rain down towards the interior. The more heavy elements towards the interior, the older the star.
The surface of Venus and the other inner planets have features which resemble electrical discharge machining. If large cometary fragments broke up within Venus’ electrically charged upper atmosphere they may well have not been completely neutralised and thus the discharge may well have continued as the fragments rushed downwards. Rains of electrically “hot” particles may well have produced patterns of fractal arcing at the highest points of Venus’ surface. This could well have also happened on the surface of our own planet in the past and this might account for all the tails of fire, lightning and hot clay as part of the world-shaking catastrophe associated with comets.
One could hypothesize what would happen if a 50km wide comet broke up in Earth’s plasmasphere and then collided with the atmosphere. A significant catastrophe would most likely occur, but there is a considerable reservation as to whether there would be enough sustained discharge to account for EDM machined surfaces at a large enough scale. If the comet encountered the Earth during a considerable solar maxima – according to Electric Comet theory, the electrical field of the comet would be even greater as it would be entering an area of even greater potential difference to its nucleus. The coma of the comet would thus transform into a higher current density glow-mode plasma and could reflect a very large induced magnetosphere as was most likely seen when Comet Holmes experienced a massive outburst and also seen in Comet Hyakutake. Indeed, if an electrical exchange between a small body such as the moon Io and it’s parent Jupiter could result in electrical discharge machining of it’s surface and powerful aurora in Jupiter’s ionosphere - then a vastly more powerful electrical exchange could take place between very large comets and various planets and Moons that come too close.
What process could have been responsible for the many electrically machined surfaces apparent on several planets and moons, including our own? Perhaps at certain stages in the past these bodies were on more elliptical orbits with respect to the Sun, and discharged as they rapidly entered an area of much larger electrical potential. Perhaps other bodies approached them and induced high-density currents in their surfaces. Or perhaps an unusual outburst from the galactic environment caused a massive surge in current in all the bodies at different times. All of this, of course – is speculation and no definite answer may be arrived at.
However, we can look at some existing theories and hypotheses and see how well they hold up to scrutiny. Some theorists think that because comets are genuinely too small and puny to cause significant damage (via impact or electrical discharge) to planet Earth – there must be another explanation. They claim that in the not-too-distant past, humans witnessed planets in our own Solar System behaving as cometary bodies and exchanging electrical discharges with each other. The idea that the planet Venus may have been a cometary body within human memory, cannot really be excluded as a possibility. The approach of the comet Venus within the plasmasphere of the Earth may well have generated inter-planetary “thunder-bolts” (high voltage field-aligned currents) that ancient people depicted in the skies. However, in this paper – alternative evidence has been presented showing that such depictions could be derived from the close passage of non-planet sized comets which resembled the same morphologies of “smoking stars” documented by the Chinese. Large bits of these comets may well have broken off and caused global disasters such as tremendous tsunamis’, hypercanes, worldwide dust obscuring the sun, earthquakes, etc. However, it may be harder to explain accounts of large-scale landscape transformation being caused by cometary break-up. In the case of Comet Shoemaker Levy 9’s discharge in the upper atmosphere of Jupiter, the area of the discharge of a 2km wide fragment was only a few km even though the charred dust was scattered to a radial area the size of the Earth. If one follows the Venus theory, there would – at first glance - perhaps be a sufficient content of large enough-sized rocky fragments to cause a global-scale electrical sculpting of the surface. Such content would probably not be suffice from that of non-planet sized comets. However, there are questions as to the sort of morphologies one would be restricted to if relying on electrical machining from instantaneous discharge-events resulting from high-velocity pieces of rock. There are questions as to how large a piece of charged rock would need to be in order for a significant enough portion to survive the “electrical defense” mechanism of the Earth’s upper atmosphere. However, there are other mechanisms which could produce EDM phenomena that are much more prolonged and that exhibit patterns fitting the features on our planets’ surface.
An electric current of approximately 2-3 million amperes is being exchanged between the planet Jupiter and it’s moon, Io – at any given time. The current is responsible for the interesting “volcanoes” on the surface of Io that exhibit morphologies and spatially-variable behaviour that classes them as more likely electric discharge phenomena than “volcanoes”. The fact that a current of around 2-3 million amperes carried by a dark-mode Birkeland Current could power Io’s EDM features, is a significant point to note. Similar strength currents are carried into planet Earth during solar maxima via similar field-aligned vortices and they power the aurora’s at high latitudes. The atmosphere of the Earth is thick enough to provide enough ions to form a plasma and conduct the incoming high amperage current. Whereas Jupiter’s moon Io has a very tenuous atmosphere and thus most of the current impinges directly on the surface and forms a powerful arc discharge. The same can be seen on the moon Enceladus in the case of its interaction with Saturn. Moons from Saturn and Jupiter are seen to strongly influence the intensity and morphology of aurora on the gas giant planets.
The question is – how much amperage or how great should the current density be for it to impact the surface of a planet with a thick enough atmosphere or strong magnetosphere? A possible answer, in the light of the findings of this paper – lies in the hypothesis that the planet Earth was once inside the glowing coma of a highly charged comet. Perhaps the diameter of the comet was as large as that of Comet Halley or Comet Hale-Bopp or even the size of a Centaur-object, but this may never be known. Enormous electrical potentials between the plasmaspheres of the comet and Earth may well have resulted in powerful electrical exchanges between the two bodies. Energetic electrons, intense ion bursts and other high-energy radiative sources heading towards the Earth at a sufficient density may have induced planet-wide high-intensity auroras at a low enough altitude to influence the surface. These low-level auroras could produce local instabilities and “pinches” where the current becomes dense enough to produce arc discharges that result in tremendous heat and pressure that influences the composition of rocks. This, electrical-influx could be combined with the occasional break-up of a large enough piece of a comet to cause worldwide catastrophe. The case of Comet Shoe-Maker Levy 9 shows us that a relatively small comet still managed to discharge in Jupiter’s atmosphere – even though it was broken into several pieces by Jupiter’s magnetosphere. It is important to note that planet Earth’s magnetosphere is 18,000 times weaker than that of Jupiter, thus it is possible that it’s electrical defense system may be less formidable than that of Jupiter’s. If Venus or another planet was the object involved in electrical exchange with the Earth - then there is no guarantee that it would impinge stronger currents or “cosmic thunderbolts” than a highly charged comet the size of a Centaur-object or less. The strength of the electrical exchange would depend on the potential difference between the two bodies, not the size. Albeit, while greater size gives greater capacitance if one considers comets as a form of polarized “electret” - it doesn’t mean that larger objects produce more current.
In summary - it is the opinion of this author that an Electrical view of the Solar System (alongside gravitation) may open the possibility towards a fairly recent human history of interplanetary catastrophe. However, the author is skeptical about some of the claims of planetary catastrophism and has suggested an alternate possibility where large comets immerse planets and moons in intense radiation when they come too close. Indeed, Comet Holmes, Hyakutake and others most likely produced radiation levels of an intensity that scientists usually attribute to intense or “cataclysmic forces”:-
"Comet 73P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 3 is the brightest comet ever detected in the X-ray band."
Only by resorting to an electrical mechanism called "charge exchange" do NASA scientists attempt to explain X-ray and other powerful emissions from comets. Even so, such strong emissions from some of the comets can not be sustainable if the solar wind is simply impinging on low-density neutral cometary gases. Indeed, scientists state that aside from the sun - comets are the strongest emitters of X-rays in the solar system. But why? The planet Venus has a thick atmosphere and a very weak magnetosphere with an almost cometary plasmasphere profile. So why does "charge exchange" from solar wind ions produce much weaker X-rays there compared to comets in general? The answer may lie down to the fact that cometary atmospheres are vastly larger than those of planets and thus offer a very large area for hypothesized "charge exchange". But this does not really explain the placement or the uneven intensity profiles of the radiation observed. Even if large coma's (atmospheres) could explain it; the mainstream cannot explain why cometary coma can get so large and hold themselves together. A better hypothesis for cometary x-ray production lies in electrical double-layers that separate the negatively charged nucleus from the positively charged electric field of the solar plasma. Powerful particle acceleration and energies could occur across these plasma layers.
Another final mystery is the emission of Extreme Ultraviolet from some comets. These are sometimes attempted to be explained via comets coming extremely close to the solar atmosphere:-
"During the period when Comet ISON is closest to the sun, it will actually pass in front of the sun as seen from behind [one of the satellites]," the agency added. "This opens up the exciting possibility that we might see extreme-ultraviolet emission from the comet, as was seen recently with the bright sungrazing Comet Lovejoy."http://www.space.com/19973-comet-ison.html
Yet, this does not explain the emissions from Comet Hyakutake given that it was much further out from the Sun. It is the proposition of electrical theorists that the comets themselves are the sources of the powerful radiation as they interact with the differential voltage of the solar plasma.
"It appears we live in an Electric Universe" - Michael Steinbacher.