Les Schaffer wrote:
Shane Mage wrote:
I wrote absolutely none of the post--it is the commentary at the
posted website, Thunderbolts.info. Can you cite *any* predictions
of a double flash from another source? Were you, unlike NASA,
expecting such an extremely energetic display? And why did
you refer only to Alfven but not to Halton Arp?
Shane Mage
"Thunderbolt steers all things...It consents and does not
consent to be called
Zeus."
Herakleitos of Ephesos
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.
what a truly bizarre post.
i am an astrophysicist, one of my research areas is the interaction
between plasma physics and gravitational phenomena. electrical charging
of spacecraft is a well known process (well known in the sense of its
existence, still work to be done to correctly calculate such charging in
different space environments). i've done some work with colleagues on
plasma charging of comet dust tails (there are two tails that split: one
is presumed to be charged material and so align themselves differently
than uncharged material) there has been a steady increase over the last
dozen or so years in understanding galaxy and stellar formation in light
of electrical processes. it is a much harder topic to study compared to
theories depending purely on gravitational interactions. hell, even
magnetic fields of planets is a head scratcher.
your comments seem to mirror Alfven's critique of the astrophysical
community. is this where you are derive your lightning from? you know,
even lightning here on planet Earth is resisting complete theoretical
understanding.
But NASA has little interest in electricity.
false. NASA has in fact worried about spacecraft charging in space for
several decades. NASA funded my and colleagues work for over a decade.
It is under financial strain.
sort of true.
And it is under pressure to validate its approach to space exploration.
extremely true.
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.
bizarre misreading of the dynamics. many space scientists (even of the
inert/non-electriucal kind) hate the Space Station and the Bush plan for
Mars and Moon. They would rather see unmanned space exploration to
planets, more funding of Hubble et al.
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....
i agree that the two energy releases looks interesting. but you seem to
be lost in the NASA boiler-plate news releases. go talk to a few space
scientists first (i can give you a list of several dozen that are
interested in plasma processes) and then raise some hell. lawd knows
NASA needs a whuppin.
i met your brother at Monthly Review in December to help with their
launch of new web activity. he seemed like a smart reasonable guy and i
figured you had to be too. but frankly, you *sound* here like a
crackpot. i sense so much more "potential" (electrical pun) in you.
yours for a progressive and electrically-charged economics
les schaffer
