THUNDERBOLTS PICTURE OF THE DAY
www.Thunderbolts.info
Jul 07, 2005
The Meaning of Deep Impact
....And what about the perceptions of the space scientists commenting
on the great surprises of Deep Impact? We have spoken often of the
momentum of belief and the way ideology constrains and distorts
perception. All of the media commentary surrounding Deep Impact, by
virtue of its dependence on NASA for context, has underscored this
syndrome.
Every journalist and commentator assured us that comets harbor the
pristine material from which the Sun and planets were born. They even
gave a date for the primordial birth of comets-4.5 billion years ago.
Was it really 4.5 billion years ago? No, some said it was 4.6 billion
years ago. Well, how did they arrive at such extraordinary knowledge?
They delivered their descriptions and dating of comets because NASA
scientists gave these "facts" to them. So how did NASA scientists
know these things? The answer is that they have never known these
things. These "facts" are mere guesses, and they are no longer
intelligent guesses because they are rooted in archaic science from
before the space age. The picture has changed completely with the
discovery of plasma and electricity in space. But somehow, due to the
nature of education and research funding today, the original guesses
were permitted to harden into ideology.
Consider this. Even in the face of one of the great shocks in space
exploration-the stupendous blast produced by the "impact"-it appears
that not one NASA scientist paused to ask if something might be
missing in their theoretical model. All of the talk about the hugely
energetic blast implies that it was just an astonishing effect from
the sheer force of the impact. Every word was framed in the context
of an electrically inert universe. That's what astronomers and
astrophysicists were trained in. Yet for several decades scientists
and engineers at the NASA Ames research facility in California have
been firing projectiles into objects of every sort-from sand and ice
to a host of other inert materials.
The Ames vertical gun hurls projectiles up to almost four miles per
second (seven kilometers per second). These scientists know the
kinetics of impact. That is why they all agreed that the explosion
would be equivalent to 4.8 tons of TNT. That's a good-sized bomb, but
it's not even close to what occurred.
It is now well documented that every scientist associated with the
project was stunned by the energetic outburst.
Science progresses by the quality of its predictions. When every new
discovery comes as a surprise, this is the best indicator that
something is wrong at the level of theoretical underpinnings.
Correspondingly, when independent investigators offer a new vantage
point, one that challenges the expectations of prior theory and
successfully anticipates the "surprises" to come, it is neither
rational nor "scientific" to ignore them.
In these pages we predicted a much more energetic blast that NASA
anticipated because NASA had no interest in the contribution from the
charged comet.
Electrical theorist Wallace Thornhill predicted two blasts. From the
standard viewpoint that is an absurd prediction when considering an
impactor being hit by a body at 23,000 miles per hour in "empty"
space. But this is what makes such predictions so valuable. And here
is what happened in the words of NASA investigator Peter Schultz,
describing the event recorded from the spacecraft:
"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".
How, then, will NASA respond? Will they wonder if anyone predicted
such a thing? Or will they stay in their comfort zone-within the
walls of prior ideology-and reach for the nearest fantasy? The
"explanation" they initially offered is mathematically inconceivable.
They proposed that the impactor moved through a deep layer of soft
material before hitting hard material. But the delay would require
the impactor to have penetrated something like a mile beneath the
surface before causing the "serious" impact event. From such an
answer you would think someone dreamt up a mile of fluff for a
surface, never actually looking at the sharply-defined features of
the nucleus. All of the features suggest a hard surface, and
observations to this effect have already come in from the SWIFT
satellite.
The logical answer to the conundrum is that the first flash occurred
before impact. It was a discharge between the impactor and the
surface-a precursor to the much greater exchange occurring
microseconds later with the first physical contact.
But NASA has little interest in electricity. It is under financial
strain. And it is under pressure to validate its approach to space
exploration. Those who advocate an electrical view of the heavens
insist that NASA is wasting a horde of money, looking in the wrong
places, asking the wrong questions, and even when results shout to
them from the surfaces of planets, moons, asteroids, and comets, the
minds of the investigators are somewhere else. We are certainly not
happy to report that this is the state of things within the official
halls of science, but the media events surrounding Deep Impact have
already confirmed this picture....
Shane Mage
"Thunderbolt steers all things...It consents and does not
consent to be called
Zeus."
Herakleitos of Ephesos
_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis