Comets Support Evidence of the Electrical Universe
By Staff News & Analysis - July 01, 2011

The Electric Comet: The Elephant in NASA's Living Room? … This interpretation of comet and asteroid formation is supported by the experimental work of plasma physicist C J Ransom at Vemasat Laboratories. Ransom subjected a bed of hematite to an electric arc, creating a number of fused spheres alongside occasional double-lobed configurations. The latter were remarkably similar to the incongruous shapes of numerous comets and asteroids … In light of this extraordinary comparison … activists's relentless demands for mathematical quantification grow more absurd. Institutionalized astronomy, with its massive advantages in the forms of billions of dollars of funding, biased educational and peer review systems and the uncritical support of science media, has failed to resolve the "mysteries" of comets. In contrast, a few plasma experimentalists working with virtual pocket change have delivered findings that can and should revolutionize comet science. – Thunderbolts

Dominant Social Theme: Gravity makes the universe run. Einstein said so.

Free-Market Analysis: This article excerpted above, "Electric Comet: The Elephant in NASA's Living Room?" by Michael Goodspeed of, provides us with a seemingly excellent example of a concise argument for an electrical universe. The article appears to be the most recent, though its commentary refers to Comet Holmes that made its problematic appearance several years ago.

The larger issue of course is mainstream astronomy's insistence that gravitational theories can explain the operation of the universe when increasingly they obviously cannot. Thus, we have the spectacle of eminent astronomers postulating all sorts of mechanical events to justify what is not really explicable.

There are black holes, dark matter and string theories. There are white dwarfs, multiple universes and now even time travel. All of these elements are part of a raucous "anything goes" mentality among astronomers. But we would suggest that one reason for this free-for-all is because the science itself is not providing any guideposts. The initial inputs are increasingly suspect in our view. So inevitably are the outputs.

This is a most important issue in our view. Once more, the truth-telling of the Internet Reformation is leading the way, convincingly in fact. "Big Science" continues to plunge down the worm hole of the gravitational universe while amateur blogs brilliantly cut through various Gordian knots of gravitational astronomy with concise and inspired observations.

We don't know how long it will take before the current gravitational theories are finally overwhelmed by the simplicity and elegance of electrical universe postulates but we are confident the day will come when these theories will be taken seriously. Ironically, that day will arrive only when an eminent mainstream scientist presents the case.

This is analogous to what happened during the economic crisis of 2008. Literally hundreds of free-market economists, amateur or not, predicted the economic meltdown that took place that year. But even today there are only occasional articles pointing out this anomaly. Meanwhile those mainstream economists who realized only belatedly what was going on are celebrated. They are celebrated because at least they explained what was happening in contrast to the tens of thousands of other mainstream economists who said not a word until a good deal after the fact.

Anyway, the article focuses on one problem, which makes it compelling: The current gravity-based astronomy cannot explain why comets act as they do. It then explains why the theory of an electrical universe solves the problem. In doing so, it castigates what we have come to call "Big Science" with its massive government support and paucity of significant results.

On the Internet, the theory of the electrical universe is gaining momentum in our view; Thunderbolts is one that seems focused entirely on the issue. "Thunderblog brings you a wide variety of articles from both professionals and laypersons alike. We have assembled a large team of contributors to broaden the outlook of Thunderbolts and to help our general readership to understand some of the day to day issues as the Electric Universe seeks its place within the broader context of modern science."

What is the problem that comets are causing those who believe in the gravitational approach to cosmic analysis? Goodspeed explains that it has to do with inexplicable behavior of comets that have been observed within earth's solar system. Here's how he puts it:

The unpredictable behavior of comets continually contradicts the tenets of traditional comet theory – to the point that some experts now wonder if a theory even exists. "It's a mystery to me how comets work at all," said Donald Brownlee, principle investigator of NASA's Stardust Mission.

One need only review the extraordinary spectacle provided by Comet Holmes 17P to see how deep the crisis in cometology reaches. In October of 2007, Holmes suddenly and unexpectedly brightened by a factor of a million. In less then 24 hours, it grew from a small 17th magnitude comet to a magnitude of 2.5, so large it was easily visible to the naked eye on Earth. Holmes' coma continued expanding until by mid-November of '07 it had become the largest object in the solar system, vastly larger than the Sun. The coma's diameter had grown from 28 thousand kilometers to 7 million km.

At the time of Holmes' extraordinary display, the comet was actually moving away from the Sun, and therefore cooling. Among the common sense questions posed by the enigma: how does such a gravitationally minuscule body hold in place a uniform spherical coma 7 million kilometers in diameter?

One would think that such an astronomical event would have been fodder for mainstream newspapers, magazines and science blogs, like SEED, that churn out thousands of "science" articles every day. But such was not the case. For some reason this startling event, as described above, made hardly a stir. This calls into questions their purpose for existing – is it to explore real possibilities or defend nostrums that protect and exnshrine certain memes with a cloak of "scientific credulity," such as global warming, peak oil, et al?

"Unfortunately, the science media and the astronomical community had barely anything to say about Comet Holmes," writes Goodspeed, a situation he terms "unbelievable." The lack of interest itself even garnered articles from the alternative science press on the Internet. Thunderbolts contributor Scott Wall wrote an article commenting on the baffling silence: "Comet Holmes – a Media Non-event."

So, what is the solution to the behavior of Comet Holmes? Goodspeed explains that comets are leftovers from "recent catastrophic events in the solar system" and have highly elliptical orbits. That means they fly far away from the sun before returning to it. While far away from the sun in the icy depths of the solar system, comets acquire a negative charge. "When it returns and approaches the inner limits of its orbit, accelerating through the electric field of the Sun, it will begin to discharge to the plasma surrounding it, producing the familiar bright coma and tail." See? … Simple. More from Godspeed:

The electric view of comets can explain most if not all of the so-called mysteries that have long plagued cometologists, including: unexpectedly high temperatures and X-ray emissions from cometary comas (something never anticipated by mainstream theorists); the sharply carved relief of comets — the exact opposite of what astronomers expected under the dirty snowball model; comets breaking apart or exploding considerable distances from the sun; explosive cometary jets that occur too far from the sun to be plausibly explained as eruptions of subsurface gas and water from solar heating; ejection of larger particles and even "gravel," something never imagined under the standard comet model (which supposes that nuclei accrete from primordial clouds of ice, gas, and dust); a short supply or complete absence of water and other volatiles on comets' nuclei; and the unexplained ability of a relatively minuscule comet nucleus to hold in place a highly spherical coma, up to millions of miles in diameter, against the force of the solar wind (a phenomenon graphically displayed by Comet Holmes).

What are the ramifications of realigning explanations of how comets work? According to Goodspeed, such explanations have larger reverberations. "Any honest consideration of the electric comet must open the door to a vast reassessment of astronomical theory."

That's just the trouble, of course. It's the reason that gravitational astronomers keep coming up with more and more complicated explanations. To grant the simplicity of the electrical universe means throwing out the entire gravitational theory. That would undermine literally billions in grants and research stipends.

It always comes down to money. Another reason why government should NOT be involved in science. Large bequests tend to freeze science. Scientists on the government dole work to reinforce what will provide a continuance of the income stream rather than a cessation of it. In other words, they tell government bureaucrats what they expect to hear.

"A reconsideration of comets would lead to a sweeping revolution in the space sciences, changing our picture of space altogether," Goodspeed writes. "Sadly, NASA did not capitalize on a golden opportunity to definitively test the electric comet hypothesis in 2005, when scientists fired an 800-pound copper projectile into comet Tempel 1 as part of the Deep Impact mission. However, the electrical view of comets was clearly not on the table for NASA's consideration."

Goodspeed, who must know better, takes a tone of sadness in describing NASA's approach to comets in particular and the theory of the electrical universe in general. In fact, the combination of US Big Science and NASA's political-centric orientation virtually guarantee that big breakthroughs will continue to be retarded in the US and generally throughout the West.

This is why we have predicted the next big breakthroughs in physics and astronomy will come from young people working in basements and garages without the "benefit" of government money. People think logically that more money supports better scientific results. In fact, government money for science is corrosive in the extreme. It virtually guarantees that scientists will merely elaborate on what has gone before. Goodspeed closes the article with a heartfelt plea:

In many scientific controversies today – from global warming to Genetically Modified Organisms to the safety of nuclear power – the public's trust in officialdom grows evermore tenuous. A failure by NASA to honestly and thoroughly reassess comet theory may have unforeseen, longterm consequences for the agency's credibility and the public trust. Such a reassessment must not ignore the contributions of plasma physicists and electrical engineers, no matter how far-reaching or uncomfortable the ramifications may be for conventional theorists. In this regard, perhaps the world's leading astronomers would be wise to heed the words of the Professor Randy Pausch who once quipped, "When there's an elephant in the room introduce him."

Goodspeed's plea appears sincere but there is almost no chance in our view that NASA will ever be responsible for a single significant breakthrough of magnitude that Goodspeed desires. It is not even clear to us that NASA actually put men on the moon, so the best we can see for this faux-scientific organization is that if politicians demand an astronomical epiphany they may very well receive a fantastic one instead of a real one.

After Thoughts

Like others involved with the Money Power of Big Science, those working at NASA have a single priority that supersedes all others: Keep the money flowing while supporting the propaganda for fear-based dominant social themes that will cause human beings to accept promotions such as global warming … or climate change … or whatever terminology the hockey stick graphs inspire. It is a recipe for short-term prosperity, but not innovation.