Electric Universe: An Invitation to Progress in Science | Space News


Welcome to Space News from
the Electric Universe, brought to you by The
Thunderbolts Project™ at Thunderbolts.info This year, human beings around the
world commemorated the 50th anniversary of one of the most iconic images in our
history — the first footsteps on the Moon. In 2019, astounding technological leaps
propels space exploration, making possible unprecedented feats such as
landing a probe on a comet or sending a spacecraft closer to the Sun than any
man-made technology to date. The evolution of technology determines the
reach of space discovery and these technological wonders might persuade the
casual observer that space science is nearing the apex of a complete and true
understanding of the cosmos. However, the means by which scientific
data is obtained and interpreted is a subjective human process. Scientific theory determines the parameters
of any space mission including the design of spacecrafts, satellites and probes and
therefore to some extent limits what can and will be discovered. The real test of scientific
progress is whether discovery informs and advances science toward
a truer understanding of nature. Moreover, the test of any scientific theory’s
credibility is its predictive success vs. failure. On this series, for over
seven years we’ve Illustrated an extraordinary disconnect between consensus
scientific theory and space discovery. The evidence of what we call a
disconnect can be found by asking the following question: do the failed
predictions of a popular theory actually prompt the development or exploration of
any different theories; or, do the failures simply result in ad hoc
theories which are invented and tacked on in order to preserve or
redeem the foundational theory? Nowhere are these questions
answered more emphatically than in the study of comets and
asteroids in our solar system. In fact, it’s appropriate to address
comets and asteroids together, because in the Electric Universe theory the origins
and behaviors of both types of bodies are vastly closer than mainstream
astronomers ever imagined. Neither comets nor asteroids originated
billions of years ago as leftovers from the solar system’s formation. We’ve proposed, they were torn from planetary
surfaces by interplanetary electrical discharges in a period of instability
in the inner solar system. Differences in comet and
asteroid behaviors are not due to differences in their composition but rather,
it’s due to differences in their respective orbits. The displays of comets are not
the result of sublimation of water ice and other volatiles on the
comet nucleus, which have never been seen in the abundance that
Standard Theory requires. Rather, the long elliptical orbits
of comets bring them from the far reaches of the outer solar system where
the comet is “negatively charged” with respect to its environment. As the comet approaches the Sun, it moves more
and more rapidly into an increasingly positively charged domain. The resulting “voltage spike” in the comet’s
dynamic plasma environment is the cause of the comet’s activity which is
electrical discharge activity. Comets can also discharge like overstressed
capacitors when moving away from the Sun being hit by a proton storm from a CME
or passing through a planet’s magnetotail. In the Electric Universe theory,
occasional comet-like activity on asteroids is predicted. Although the orbit of a typical asteroid is
much shorter than a comet’s, some asteroids’ orbits are sufficiently elliptical to
produce comet-like activity. And as with comets, activity
can result when an asteroid moves through any
region of changing potential. As we reported early this month,
the asteroid Bennu is one of a growing list of asteroids to stun space
scientists with its comet-like behavior. Among the surprises that NASA’s
Osiris-Rex mission have uncovered was the asteroid repeatedly emitting
dust and rocks like an active comet, as well as an unexpected rapid increase
in the asteroid’s rotation. As reported by New Scientist in
March of this year, “Bennu isn’t a cold dead rock after all. NASA’s Osiris-Rex spacecraft has spotted
the asteroid spewing out dust and rocks on 11 separate occasions over a period of just
a few weeks, which was completely unexpected.” Of course, as already stated,
the comet-like activity is not unexpected in the Electric
Universe theory. So is this an example of electrical
discharge activity on an asteroid? Unfortunately, it appears that NASA
scientists will not be able to tell us. The reason for this was noted by
physicist Eugene Bagashov in his analysis of the respective space missions
to the asteroids Bennu and Ryugu. As Eugene stated, “It might
sound ridiculous, but none of these spacecraft have Langmuir probes,
plasma wave suites of instruments or any detectors of charged
particles whatsoever.” Indeed, the ridiculousness of these facts
is emphasized by yet another recent cometary outburst by an asteroid. In December of 2018, astronomers on Earth
observed an asteroid between Mars and Jupiter producing not
one but two dust trails. Dubbed Gault 6478, the “active asteroid” also
astonished observers when it was found to be shifting colors from red to blue,
apparently the first time the phenomenon has been seen in an asteroid. MIT scientist Michael Marsset said of the
discovery, “That was a very big surprise. We think we have witnessed the asteroid
losing its reddish dust to space, and we are seeing the asteroid’s
underlying, fresh blue layers.” The following statement
from a Phys.org report perfectly underscores why we continue to
emphasize the disconnect between discovery and theory in space science. It states, “Marsset and his colleagues
have also confirmed that the asteroid is rocky — proof that the asteroid’s tail,
though seemingly comet-like, is caused by an entirely different
mechanism, as comets are not rocky but more like loose snowballs
of ice and dust.” Michael Marsset states, “It’s the first
time to my knowledge that we see a rocky body emitting dust, a little bit like a
comet. It means that probably some mechanism responsible for dust emission
is different from comets, and different for most other active
main-belt asteroids.” Those who have followed comet
discovery and have the added benefit of the awareness of the extraordinary
predictive successes of the electric comet theory, can only shake
their heads at such statements. The first fact that
must be acknowledged is that an electrically charged comet dust tail,
long predicted by the electric comet theory, has now been recognized in
the official comet literature. Although the effects of the
solar wind on a comet’s ion tail have long been recognized by
comet scientists, last year scientists studying images of the comet Mcnaught,
found surprising effects on the “weird striations in the comet’s dust tail
as it crossed the heliospheric current sheet.” This electrical interaction
was summarized by planetary scientist Geraint Jones
who said, “For us, this is strong evidence that the dust
is electrically charged, and that the solar wind is affecting
the motion of that dust.” The obvious implication is, the
electric comet theory is correct that the emission of dust from a comet is
itself an electrical discharge phenomenon. One must seriously question the
value of the billions of taxpayer Dollars and Euros that have been invested
in sending spacecrafts to comets since the discoveries appear to have had
no meaningful impact on comet theory. As we’ve done previously,
it seems necessary to present an historical outline of the discoveries by
comet space missions, because in a very real sense the discoveries might
as well have never happened. A most incredible enigma is the
continued endurance of the description of comets as
“snowballs of ice and dust.” Consider that as early as 2001,
the NASA spacecraft Deep Space 1 imaged the nucleus of comet Borrelly, by far the finest image of a
comet nucleus to that time. Of course, what they saw bore no resemblence
at all the dirty snowball of standard theory. As Dr. Laurence Soderblom stated
at the time, “It’s mind boggling and stupendous. These pictures have told us
that comet nuclei are far more complex than we ever imagined. They have rugged terrain, smooth rolling plains,
deep fractures and very, very dark material.” And of course, the “mind-boggling
and stupendous discoveries” have only continued. In 2004, NASA’s Stardust
spacecraft imaged the nucleus of Comet Wild 2 – 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 really considered the possibility of impact craters….It may be a well-
cemented rubble pile, but it’s definitely not a loose powdery surface.” NASA scientists assumed that comet Wild 2
would be “pristine” having changed very little since its suposed formation
in a primordial nebular cloud four and a half billion years ago. A 1999 NASA press release
expressed the reasoning as follows, “…why visit an obscure, hard-to-see
object like Wild-2, when there are so many more notorious
comets to choose from? …#1 It’s fresh. Before its near
miss with Jupiter in 1974 comet Wild-2 was well-preserved in the frigid outer
solar system. With its new orbit, Wild-2 now comes much closer to the Sun…Since
Wild 2 has passed the Sun only a few times, it still has most of its
dust and gases – it is pristine.” But dust samples from the comet,
returned to Earth, revealed complex crystalline structures which formed
under astonishingly high temperatures. Mineral inclusions ranged
from anorthite, which is made up of calcium, sodium, aluminum,
and silicon; to diopside made of calcium, magnesium and silicate. Formations of such minerals
require temperatures in the range of thousands of degrees. NASA Curator Michael Zolensky
said, “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.” The comet also produced numerous
powerful jets, whose behavior also completely confounded
Stardust investigators. A NASA report on the Wild 2
jets stated, “The team predicted the jets would shoot up for a short distance,
and then be dispersed into a halo around Wild 2. Instead, some super-speedy jets
remained intact, like blasts of water from a powerful garden hose.” Mission scientist dr. Benton Clark stated,
“A big surprise was the abundance and behavior of jets of particles shooting up from
the comet’s surface. We expected a couple of jets, but saw more than
two dozen in the brief flyby.” Unfortunately, none of
these discoveries had forced any reevaluation of comet theory prior to
the Deep Impact mission to comet Tempel 1 in 2005, 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 Temple 1 probe, Wal Thornhill and David Talbott issued a series of
predictions for the event which were published on the
Thunderbolts.info website. Because of the comets’ 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 (a lightning like
discharge) 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 is 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 ultraviolet light, evidence that the Deep Impact probe struck a hard
surface, as opposed to a softer, snowy surface.” In 2011, after the NASA’s
Stardust next spacecraft imaged the impact site of the copper projectile, it
revealed a far less dramatic crater than comet scientists had expected. NASA scientists then made the genuinely
unbelievable claim that the crater “partially healed itself” when material
that had exploded off of the comet at tremendous velocities
somehow “fell back down to refill the crater” in the nearly zero
gravity environment of the comet. Stay with me here, OK, we saw this
crater, it’s subdued, it’s about a hundred fifty meters across and has a small
central mound in the center, it looks as if from the impact the stuff
went up and came back down. 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 ice 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 al, “It is 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 Wild 2.” Nevertheless, when we fast
forward to 2013, scientists with the European Space Agency’s Rosetta mission
to comet 67P, offered no meaningful revisions of comet theory, even in the
face of all previous surprises. But as noted in Rosetta’s 2016 grand finale press kit, “…in orbit, data from the
instruments on Rosetta show the comet to be one surprise after another. We’ve reported exhaustively on these surprises
such as the obvious stratified rock, an extreme planetary geology seen
everywhere on the comet nucleus, including sand dunes and other
impossible cometary features. The stunning absence of visible water ice, the tremendous fields of rocky debris
and large boulders, the discovery of molecular oxygen in defiance of the comet’s
origins in a primordial nebular cloud. The continued non-detection of
so-called apertures which are thought to collimate comet jets, and the puzzling
double-lobed shape of the comet which is also seen routinely among asteroids. The comet’s activity was also
puzzling to Rosetta investigators. The behavior of the comet’s
coma presents a major puzzle that defied the team’s
theoretical predictions. As noted in the aforementioned
press kit, “The outflowing coma interacts with the solar wind — a
stream of charged particles continuously flowing from the Sun.
As activity grows, these interactions become more intense and
create a cavity, ‘shielding’ the nucleus from the solar wind. Such a
cavity was expected to stand in front of the comet by only a few tens of
kilometers, but observations by the Rosetta Plasma Consortium have found
that it is much more dynamic, its boundary reaching more than 170
kilometers from the comet. A new breed of plasma wave interaction has been
discovered by Rosetta early on in the mission, when the activity was still low,
and has been coined the ‘comet sound.’ How this interaction changes over
time is still being investigated.” And, as we’ve discussed
many times, the explosive collimated jets of comets
remain a puzzle to scientists. 67P’s jets remain as
problematic as mentioned in the aforementioned press release,
“Computer models suggest that escaping water vapor must come from a nearly
uniform distribution of dirty water ice spread across the comet’s nucleus.
However, the Hapi region has shown itself to be more active
than other areas.” The continued reference to
“escaping water vapor” and hence the belief in sublimating volatiles and
so-called outgassing, may be one of the greatest obstacles to
progress in comet science. No number of desiccated and
rocky comet nuclei have dissuaded comet scientists from this belief. They assume that icy layers
are hidden out of sight and any trivial ice deposits that are actually
visible, are then characterized as “exposed ice.” Such is the case in the 2016
Nature article ‘Exposed water ice on the nucleus of Comet 67P/
Churyumov-Gerasimenko.’ Ironically, the paper’s
abstract acknowledges, “… limited evidence for exposed water-ice
regions on the surface of the nucleus has been found so far. The absence of
large regions of exposed water ice seems a common finding on the surfaces of many
of the comets observed so far. The nucleus of 67P Churyumov-Gerasimenko
appears to be fairly uniformly coated with dark, dehydrated, refractory and
organic-rich material.” But for several years,
Thunderbolts colleague Dr. Franklin Anariba, a specialist in electrochemistry,
has been presenting his thesis on comet water production
by electrochemical processes. As Anariba has shown, the complex plasma
environments of comets, which interact dramatically with the solar wind, are
the perfect conditions for “water factories in space.” In fact, similar processes
are now a part of standard astronomical literature, including
attempts to explain the surprising abundance of water
in the Lunar soil. As noted in a Phys.org
report from last year, “…every exposed body of silica in space —
from the Moon down to a small dust grain — has the potential to create hydroxyl and
thus become a chemical factory for water. If explored, this hypothesis could
ultimately resolve anomalies that will never be reconciled with the
sublimating dirty snowball hypothesis. This includes the detection
of prodigious amounts of water from an obviously
desiccated rocky comet nucleus. The water is being created and
is not the product of sublimation. This could also explain how a comet can
become active at the unbelievable distance of 1.5 billion miles from the
Sun, as was discovered in 2017. Another obstacle for comet scientists is their
faith in their measurements of a comet’s density. Even after the cautionary examples
already provided by Wild 2 and Tempel 1, Rosetta scientists were forced to confront
unexpectedly strong material on 67P’s nucleus. The Philae lander’s MUPUS
penetrator could not insert itself into the rocky soil nor could the SD2
instrument succeed in drilling a hole in it. The “radical perspective” argued
by physicist Wal Thornhill, is that measurements of an object’s density
cannot be accurate if one fails to account for the electromagnetic
stresses on the body. In 2004, Thornhill wrote,
“Density calculations based on gravitational perturbation
theory are worthless. Gravity is a weak dipole electric force
between subatomic particles. So the charge distribution in a body
affects gravity strongly. Comets are highly charged bodies
and will exhibit anomalous gravity. Newton’s gravitational ‘constant’ G is a
dependent variable. It is dependent on the electrical state of a body.” The challenge that comet and asteroid
discoveries pose to institutionalized science reach far beyond the question
what is a comet or asteroid. The origins and behaviors of these bodies hold
remarkable insights into the history and nature of our solar system,
our planet, and indeed of us. When President John F. Kennedy
proclaimed his determination to see human beings walk on the Moon, he
declared his reasoning as follows, “We choose to go to the moon in this decade,
and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.” Deciphering the mysteries of the
universe is certainly not easy, either for proponents of gravity-centered
cosmology or the Electric Universe. We only propose that the concepts of the
Electric Universe, based on sound scientific principles and demonstrated
through centuries of experimentation, are worthy of sober investigation which has
yet to occur at the level of institutionalized science. Perhaps all who genuinely wish for scientific
advancement should consider the words of the French philosopher Gaston Bachelard,
“The characteristic of scientific progress is our knowing
that we did not know.”

100 Comments

  1. ThunderboltsProject said:

    Please note: Wal Thornhill offered his first predictions for the 2005 Deep Impact mission on his website in 2001, here: http://www.holoscience.com/wp/comet-borrelly-rocks-core-scientific-beliefs/ ALSO please note, Wal Thornhill's and Don Scott's analyses of the recent SAFIRE public presentation in Bath will be coming soon.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  2. RkicF8 said:

    NASA- "People thought comets would be cold stuff" 11:15. How irritating. No NASA, you self appointed authority figures thought that. Dont blame others for those ridiculous theories.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  3. Brian Wills said:

    The kelvin water dropper experiment i think shows what happens to the comets tail, interesting..

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  4. Cymoon RBACpro said:

    No, they know more, but they are not telling us . These objects are technological in other words, these are engineered outpost. And the jets that emanates from these objects are actually controlled engine burst which keep object in stable orbits.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  5. Matthew Gerwing said:

    We know nothing.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  6. Gzpo said:

    Why are you guys sending this so late at night. I got this at 10:30pm ET. 🤔

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  7. Ian Reis said:

    Thuderbolts drops make my day!

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  8. marspluto5 said:

    Excellent piece,thanks!

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  9. Kronos - said:

    Awesome content!!! Check out my latest on this deep subject ⚡️

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  10. John Otter said:

    It wou
    lt'd really be a great step when the coincidences of basalt pillars on Earth, non-Newtonian fluids, and the posterior attributes of bi-polarly charged bolloides were enjoined.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  11. T P said:

    Who cares if mainstream science adopts EU

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  12. Larry Feather said:

    thanks for the truth-hard to come by these days

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  13. Calan Darklighter said:

    My question is this: What kind of experiment would need to be performed to undeniably prove the EU proposition? Is there a way through electrical discharge to weaken or even counteract the Earth's gravitational hold on an object? I have zero idea, but then again there has got to be people waaay smarter than I who could figure this out.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  14. Reicher Reinhardt Von kesselring said:

    NEW THUNDERBOLTS!!!!!! (puts on speedo)

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  15. Roland Deschain said:

    Man never went to the Moon. Remember your Veilkofsky. "Man is unsuitable for life in 'outer space'."

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  16. Puke Witchwalker said:

    It’s easier to just keep digging than start a new hole.

    Edit: The future is going to be awesome if any “normies” pay attention to this shit!

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  17. R W Art said:

    ThunderboltsProject is one of my favorite channels and there theory makes way more sense

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  18. philyb3040 said:

    Space is all fake guys! Everything is all CGI wake up!!!!!

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  19. Christopher Calder said:

    What this video says about standard comet theory is similar to what is going on with climate science. Hysterical doomsday global warming climate theories are promoted and even mandated while evidence that shows there is no greenhouse gas effect and that Nature controls weather and climate, not man, is stonewalled and censored. Trying to control the climate with windmills and solar panels is as effective as trying to control climate with bowling balls and statues of dead presidents. It’s simply insanity to think that politicians have the power to control our weather as if it were a government controlled program like Social Security.

    SEE “Balloons in the Air: Understanding Weather and Climate” video on YouTube with historically dramatic moments starting at the 50-minute point.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfRBr7PEawY This video details a massive and historic weather balloon data study which revealed there is no greenhouse gas effect on planet Earth. Free flowing gases cannot trap heat!

    SEE “New Solar System Climate Discovery” on YouTube (26 minutes), which reveals that space probe data has shown that there is no greenhouse gas effect on any rocky surfaced planet or moon in our solar system, including on Earth.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63QBeDdk4ww

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  20. Pedro Araújo said:

    This channel is become a dis-info channel, why you may ask?
    Well in our electric universe there is no space, there cannot be vacuum without a physical barrier of some sort.
    Unfortunately the planets are not solid bodies at all, its all electric .
    Whatever, you guys think for yourselves.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  21. Shell Beach said:

    You can't reconcile with mainstream opinion on any subject, and it's foolish to expect to. We have to continually remember, that the mainstream of anything be it science, politics, religion or ANYTHING, is only EVER! first and foremost concerned with keeping it's crown. You can't "convince" the emperor that he has no clothes. You can only point and laugh.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  22. James Bonde said:

    Footsteps on the Moon. Hahahahahahahaha.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  23. Stefanie Daniella said:

    actually, NASA is wrong in a doubled-way: cold vs not-cold just because its "unexpectedly active"

    A) they erroneously thought comets to be cold stuff (presumed erroneously consolidated by gravity in imagined faraway cold places over imagined vast timespans) thus remain cold if its overall mass remains low (not massive enough to crush into itself to generate heat)
    B) they erroneously draw the wrong conclusion that the collimated jets of whatever colored stuff seen coming out is hot due to some unknown imagined internal gravity driven processes (that don't exist at all)

    in other words, they have every conclusion (guesstimates) wrong, because ALL their assumptions are wrong.

    the REALITY we learn from an Electric Universe cosmology, is that:

    1) yup, both: comets and asteroids are Rocky-Metallic hunks of solid DRY stuff, cold as deep space.
    2) yup, both: comets and asteroids that have sufficient rocky minerals mixed with heavier metals, can be COLD, yet behave violently as explosively discharging massive capacitors, that cause bright intense HOT electrical arcing and plasma effects (ionization of elements) when the currents are high enough, and ongoing scouring, pitting, sputtering, and cratering, much like an "electrocution" between "bits-of-rubble".
    3) any close pass-by between objects of different charged-bodies is an opportunity for EDM-events (electric discharge machining) blasts, cometary flaring, and outright full disintegration
    = (WARNING: wear eye-protection + body armour!) flying debris can kill !
    4) yup, KNOWN electrochemical processes DO produce molecular water in the presence of SILICATES (good old fashion ROCKS) without resorting to "gravity" or "fusion", so water in space could easily be ABUNDANT as both PLASMIC ION OXYGEN and HYDROGEN from STARS and other PLASMA GLOW-FRIENDLY ROCKY-METALLIC objects in space EVERYWHERE!
    5) yup. electric universe cosmologists are very element-transmutation friendly, with no need to appeal to "stellar fusion" (gravitational-needy-based) Cosmologies (like big-bang, and other dark-fudge-factors)!

    thus, if an asteroid goes into cometary "glow mode", electric plasma cosmologists know WHY its getting HOT even when its starts off COLD ! (from a faraway orbit in the outer solar system)
    (NOT because of mysterious "gravity", nor fusion, nor solar heating, nor solar wind merely causing electrostatic imbalance, nor black-holes, nor crush of gravity of invisible unseen dark matter!)

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  24. jpg1748 said:

    They are controlling the narrative. Sorry 😐

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  25. Duplicat said:

    [In the future] If one of the alternative objectives of the evolving "space defense force" is to also be able to protect earth from inbound objects, such as these. Seems that scientist will be grossly underestimating the material and density of such targets. Big difference between trying to deflect a "marshmallow",, or "rock".

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  26. blades392 said:

    12:12 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  27. John Wilson said:

    Why is there no lunar rover like the mars rover?

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  28. Jose Silveira said:

    Good compelling video! But I believe it's no point trying to point science in the right way – science goes where the funds go, and the people that hold the funds don't want science to go that way! If they wanted, most of these "unexpected surprises" would have been subject to a concise effort to measure and evaluate them, as Eugene Bagashov quite rightfully pointed out – the missions are (I would say intentionally) unequipped to measure parameters that are known to exist, but were never assessed.
    The people with the funds don't want to know (and more deeply don't want the public to know), anything that poses a risk to the well encysted theories, as it would create a dangerous paradigm shift, that would shatter their interests completely. Funded by those who don't want to see, scientists become blinder than the blind!

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  29. Elton Robb said:

    Awesome video. I wish that the mainstream will take heart of the plasma cosmology. Perhaps when all the NASA scientists are dead?

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  30. Donald Kasper said:

    So the difference between asteroids and comets is that the latter has adsorbed surface bound OH water from having a different chemistry. The comets are silicates and the asteroids are metal oxides. The silicates would have surface hydroxyl that can be released readily, not mineralogically bound hydroxyl. There is no chemical reaction making the water, surface charge changes, releasing the water. For strong surface hydroxyl, only a few mineral silicates do this. I have studied water types in silicates and include minerals like those in the serpentine group. I could not hear the first mineral name. Anorthite? The second, I recall he said diopside. I don't see surface hydroxyl in either.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  31. James Small said:

    Lightning Strike 1R
    Instant
    Lightning Strike deals 2 damage to any target

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  32. RenaissanceRecorders Water of Life said:

    All weather is plasma driven.
    At some level of compartmentalization The System KNOWS this but is not letting on…

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  33. Norbert1975 said:

    4:54 – "no detectors of charged particles whatsoever"? So NASA wastes American tax payers’ money, then whatever useful discoveries they make they share with the rest of the world free of charge, including with their enemies. It just doesn’t make sense to me. Anyway, great channel guys, thanks for your work.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  34. Norbert1975 said:

    When mainstream "astronomers" say "that is completely unexpected" or "that is a complete surprise" what they're actually saying is, "that's impossible!"

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  35. Fred farquar said:

    Another home run, TBP! A thousand thanks!
    A great review of cometary "Scientists astounded by…" , "Scientists cannot explain…", and "Scientists befuddled by…" !!!👍👍❤️

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  36. sullyz girl89 said:

    The more we learn the more question we need yo ask

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  37. Mostly Present said:

    The kid gloves need to come off. Mainstream quack physics has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked. It's time to mercilessly ridicule these charlatans, since polite reminders are clearly not getting the job done.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  38. Tameem Moaleji said:

    I get the feeling that the reason there's not a rigorous model of EU, is that there's not a full understanding. I'm new to EU and have been trying to find materials to study, but all I find are some predictions, and some standard model bashing. I'm at a loss.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  39. kingdom come said:

    The findings of the Rosetta mission was the catalyst for me to question NASA and eventually all scientific theory. Leading me to the Thunderbolts Project. Thank you all for the time and effort put in to finding and sharing this information. The Truth is all we want.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  40. Pockets MacCartney said:

    Wish these guys would give serious consideration of Carl Frederick Krafft's ether atom model. The computer modelling of this hasn't even been explored directly.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  41. Randy Gilmore said:

    Thank you

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  42. Mostly Present said:

    Imagine the amount of brainwashing required to cause an otherwise intelligent person to look at a solid rock and see a snowball. The more expensive the degree, the more thorough the indoctrination.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  43. Daniel Downs said:

    I wonder if we could charge an asteroids charge to repelle from our planet avoiding possible impact. Use a laser?

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  44. Jordan Bourgeois said:

    I'm absolutely and without hesitation going to take 10 more steps and shamelessly assert that NASA and the entirely unknown amounts of secret special access unacknowledged programs that have access to international budgets immediately face dissection and sprawling panels of non-corporate public oversight active immediately if not as soon as possible..

    You guys are really smart..

    But if you are going to sit here and pretend as if this massive and entirely previously observable process of cosmic electrolysis has not by this time been secretly implemented in almost every fundamental aspect of space exploration and notable observation of the celestial kingdom while keeping the public entirely in the dark to further the incentives of current critical industries..

    Well then you're the most naive geniuses to ever stand upon this blue Earth..

    No one expects you to lead the March towards accountability yourselves but if you do nothing to incentivize very serious investigative processes on the basis of law & Justice you will regret it..

    Mark my words..

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  45. Pockets MacCartney said:

    "This wouldnt have been a surprise if we'd known about it before hand."

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  46. Willem Bont said:

    Unfortunately, only after a whole generation of scientist pass away, paradigm shifting may be possible. Atomism or materialism is an intellectual cull-de-sac. We live in an electrical universe, yet electricity is not understood. We know nothing.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  47. poppabear001 said:

    Greeting's The wheels of change turn slowly but,turn they do. Thank you for this important update. be safe.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  48. Bea Electric said:

    Sooner rather than later, Electric Universe Theory will be recognized. Mind boggling than scientists can't explain these images by now with all the new data available. Love, thank you

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  49. Garibaldi9 said:

    As if anyone ever walked on the moon…lol…

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  50. Robert B. Seddon said:

    Re-evaluation of a theoretical hypothesis based on observed data collection is the basis of scientific research…yes? 🤙😎

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  51. Miguel Teixeira said:

    Electric Flat Hollow Earth when?

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  52. Selenelion said:

    so much technology but only CGI images pfff!

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  53. Navigating El said:

    What is the EU take on the Michelson Morley experiment? And the geocentric ramifications of the experiment sense there is indeed an ether?

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  54. Richard Moore said:

    Inclusion of Wal's gravity model weakens the presentation, as no evidence is presented. The res of the presentation is heavily evidence-based.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  55. Accidental Scientist said:

    "Scientific theory determines the parameters of any space mission. Including the design of spacecrafts, satellites, and probes. And therefore to some extent limits what can and will be discovered. The real test of scientific progress is whether discovery informs and advances science toward a truer understanding of nature. Moreover the test of any scientific theory's credibility is it's predictive success vs failure. On this series, for over 7 years we've illustrated an extraordinary disconnect between consensus scientific theory and space discovery. The evidence of what we call a disconnect can be found by asking the following question: Do the failed predictions of a popular theory actually prompt the development or exploration of any different theories? Or, do the failures simply result in ad-hoc theories which are invented and tacked on in order to preserve or redeem the foundational theory?" 'Invitation to Progress in Science' from the Thunderbolts Project.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  56. Accidental Scientist said:

    "Density calculations based on gravitational perturbation theory are worthless. Gravity is a weak dipole electric force between subatomic particles. So the charge distribution in a body affects gravity strongly. Comets are highly charged bodies and will exhibit anomalous gravity. Newton's gravitational 'constant',G, is a dependent variable. It is dependent on the electrical state of a body." Wal Thornhill, Thunderbolts Project.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  57. Accidental Scientist said:

    "We only propose that the concepts of the Electric Universe, based on sound scientific principles, and demonstrated through centuries of experimentation, are worthy of sober investigation, which has yet to occur, at the level of institutionalised science."

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  58. Kevin Louwrens said:

    It's unbelievable how ignorant gravity believers are.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  59. Dan J. Boyd said:

    If you're going to dislike this presentation, at least explain your opinion. It's a little cowardly.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  60. Hivolt Arc said:

    The plural of spacecraft is not spacecrafts, it's spacecraft.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  61. Robert Quick said:

    “With increasing
    distance, our knowledge fades, and fades rapidly. Eventually, we reach the dim
    boundary—the utmost limits of our telescopes. There, we measure shadows, and we
    search among ghostly errors of measurement for landmarks that are scarcely more
    substantial. The search will continue. Not until the empirical resources are
    exhausted, need we pass on to the dreamy realms of speculation.”

    ― Edwin Powell
    Hubble, The Realm of the Nebulae

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  62. Bohab Destructo said:

    Top notch as usual. Stick it to them.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  63. Alexander Kirk said:

    50 years on and a vast amount of scientific evidence refuting the established narrative, and still otherwise smart people continue to believe 1960s technology could take humans safely through the van Allen belts and return them and 1000s of fantastic radiation-sensitive Polaroid images of the moon back to earth safely…

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  64. Ryan Ranocchini said:

    So predictively, would setting off a small nuclear device near a rocky body like a comet or asteroid light up the electrical belts of the object? Like the protons from nuclear high atmosphere tests in the 50s and 60s did lit up the Van Allen belts on earth?

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  65. Jay DiNitto said:

    The impact crater was healed by broken pieces falling back into it?

    LOL. I'm far from a scientist but that sounds like a fairy tale.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  66. aha_oui said:

    @0:19 how can a footprint be raised off the surface in that way. Looks like it was tipped out like a child makes a sandcastle

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  67. malikail57 said:

    I've always wondered how they made that boot print on the moon. Ever since I was a little kid went to the Smithsonian looked at their space suits and realized that's not the pattern on the bottom of their boots

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  68. Sharon Rose said:

    I wonder if the lack of “progress” in cosmic science has anything to do with seeking knowledge at all? I wonder if the whole industry is centred on military and commercial exploitation? What if the only reason those probes are out there is to assay for water, minerals or weapons potential? What if all their public announcements are just infotainment to make it look like they’re conducting research? What if they would report that comets were composed of cat hair and lost socks if they thought it would fool anyone? What if the electric universe is blatantly obvious to top decision makers, but the public miasma will continue until they can figure out how to control, exploit or weaponize it? If so, explains a lot to me. If not, they’re just questions.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  69. THE HERB said:

    “and do the other things” what did Kennedy mean? That has been a curiosity to me.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  70. ToIsleOfView said:

    The Nasa and ESA leaders should be marched out and flogged with their own papers. These empty suits would be funny if they weren't wasting $ billions in taxes to prop up their egos. And from a human progress view-point, they are holding back the science to preserve & improve our everyday lives. We often overlook the productive improvements fulfilled with electricity. A reduction in the cost of electricity would liberate poor farmers to use irrigation pumps and grow much-needed food in marginal areas. The https://safireproject.com/ is prooving how this can be done but the mainstream science professors teach the same old crap from atomic bomb theories. These theories along with gravity & mass assumptions, misinterpret the entire cosmos. Humanity is wasting away by following the leaders of mainstream science.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  71. Skylight Utah said:

    This video is bullshit and misinformation like DUH!!!

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  72. Skylight Utah said:

    So I guess whenever we see advanced craft zip across the sky or space and switch color signals from red to blue and to white, make strange moves and dissapear we can now say
    " Oh that's that weird asteroid I read about hon … it's not ET "

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  73. Lauren Burger said:

    GREAT video ! This presentation has a thesis and proof of the thesis.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  74. steve tobin said:

    Does space really exist? Ive a feeling nasa is full of bullshit and truth has been inverted through every aspect of life including space, and space exploration- thus this video Is further repetition of source disinformation.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  75. Matthew Smith said:

    After watching Sean Carroll try to explain infinite quantum multiverses to Joe Rogan for three hours, a 20 minute dose of Thunderbolts helps me feel whole again.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  76. Charles B said:

    photo of thumbnail artist???

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  77. Dark Star said:

    ….IN CONCLUSION: Despite all of the millions of Taxpayers $ spent on probes that study Comets and that the observational evidence categorically concludes Comets are not 'Dirty Snowballs' and that they emit charged particles Astrophysicists have still not changed their Cometary theories….so therefore in conclusion I propose that these Astrophysicists are not only idiots but are also committing public fraud.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  78. Electric Spellbreaker said:

    The idea that the universe has been dying since the moment it was it was born, the Big Bang, is as conveniently disempowering as everything else psychopathic billionaires and politicians tell us – World view warfare.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  79. lmwrt said:

    Again Wall Thornhill predicted what the status quo would be against and yet, this has not passed to the common teaching in school. I suppose they will take at least 30 to 50 years to integrate this knowledge in schools. Mainstream must be pressed hardly to speed up the introduction of new scientific discoveries into scholar medium. How come the blackboard views still impose itself to the observational proof???? Is mainstream academia and science blind or just plain egocentric and dogma driven??? That is unthinkable. Awesome video.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  80. Charles Bates said:

    Well, a few of these scientists probably should be institutionalized.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  81. Electric Universe Eyes said:

    ENCORE!

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  82. TK 421 said:

    You are the Galileos of our day!
    Keep up the heroic work breaking down these modern dogmas with scientific reasoning and empirical evidence.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  83. scott mills said:

    This is getting ridiculous, I see a hard surface with sedimentary rock not a dirty ice ball, the deep conditioning of these scientists is profound and disturbing.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  84. Smokeygoggles said:

    It all makes sense. TheThunderbolts project "rocks", I do believe the Thunderbolts will prove this in lab. Awesome channel 👍

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  85. Known Unknown said:

    Stunning work, thank you. I am left with a strange combination of reactions – excitement at the vision developing of the real nature of ‘out there’ and depression at the inability of the mainstream scientific community to absorb and respond to evidence that contradicts the standard theory, even when they themselves have discovered it. Friends of mine speak of current cosmology as a wonderful thing that restores their faith in humanity, and it should be. But it ain’t.

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  86. vcxvx vxcvxv said:

    nasa are all lieers !! they try to hide the infinity free energy out of the universe tesla tech is fakt!!

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  87. vcxvx vxcvxv said:

    the micro cosmus is the same as the macro cosmus !! the body the planet and the universe func. with the same principle electro magnetic with +positiv & -negative polarity(charges)

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  88. Thomas Geist said:

    Does anyone know when the first image of an astroid was taken to show the dog bone shape? Reason I ask is I found a Sci-Fi movie with a rocky dog bone shaped astroid that occasionally outgassed that looks exactly like those shown here. Movie was made in 1961 and I'm wondering if that would have been known then. Sci-Fi stuff often contains strange predictive features.

    Would the shape and outgassing of astroids have been seen by ground based telescopes prior to 1961?

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  89. vcxvx vxcvxv said:

    the sun is cold when the electro magnetic +&- sun rays cross the electromagnetic +&- field from the earth ..then became the rays his heat..so + & – energetic particles become his temperature …understand the micro cosmus than u understand the macro cosmus in fullness + the func of human bodys or planets…every planet had a magnetic spehere + sun rays = every planet had a temperature where life can exist and grow !! so the universe is full of life, the universe is life …nasa lied they tryed to hide that every planet in our sun system is a prison planet for humans in slavery

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  90. THE GREEN MACHINE said:

    Hope you don't mind I be like #thunderboltsproject I love your work ❤️👍

    September 18, 2019
    Reply
  91. DStray Cat said:

    Awesome presentation 🙂

    September 19, 2019
    Reply
  92. dale loura said:

    Every month I get “Astronomy “ magazine and I read it cover to cover, sometimes it feels like I’m reading “Mad” magazine. “What me worry”!

    September 19, 2019
    Reply
  93. Taunter Atwill said:

    Every time humans could not explain something they came up with 'god'. After those days it became 'aliens'. And now we call it 'dark matter'. Whahahahaaaaa! As long we have a name for it we're happy. . . . . . right? :-))

    September 19, 2019
    Reply
  94. Daniel Smith said:

    Comets were never the "source" of water on Earth. The Earth makes it deep down in the mantle under extreme heat and pressure and powerful magnetic fields. The Russians proved that there is an abundance of fresh water during the "Kola Big-Bore" project, finding water all the way down to as far as they could drill at that time, (12.265 km). Water is made far below that depth but as it condenses and rises toward the surface, even all the way to the top of mountains, depending where the "cracks" are in the ever-changing crust. In fact, this is what Muammar Ghadhaffi "tapped into" under the Sahara when his "Great River from the Sahara" project bringing millions of acre-ft. fresh, "virgin" water to the people and for the agriculture of Libya. …which NATO destroyed! Scientists believe there is as much, and probably more water IN the Earth, than there is ON the Earth. For more info on the "primary and secondary" water cycles and the abundance of fresh, "virgin" water IN the Earth, visit: primarywaterinstitute.org. or stopthecrime.net Oil, also is made deep within the Earth, that's why they are NOT Fossil Fuels, they are "Hydo-Carbon Fuels." For more info on how gas, oil and coal are made by the Earth, and the "Peak Oil" and "Fossil Fuel" HOAXES, visit: Principia-Scientific.org or members.iimetro.com.au or stopthecrime.net

    September 19, 2019
    Reply
  95. James Bonde said:

    That observatory at the 0:53 minute mark is partially owned by the Vatican and they call it LUCIFER. WTF?

    September 19, 2019
    Reply
  96. armando sauceda said:

    This is pure science fiction, at 3:05 you show the comets orbit on a stationary solar system but you say the solar system is spiraling thru space at a whopping 667 thousand miles an hour, how in hell does that comet keep up??? Psuedo science.

    September 19, 2019
    Reply
  97. james kenyon said:

    Were seeing science in action by those who are not afraid to tell it like it is. For those who are just finding out about thunderbolts congrats. For those who already know these folks have a bead on our solar systems history congrats as well as you have been and are getting a real education.

    September 19, 2019
    Reply
  98. Rosolino Lo Sciuto said:

    Elettromagnetismo alle basi del tutto funziona in modo perfetto

    September 19, 2019
    Reply
  99. Glenn Reid said:

    The EU was built by a strawman.

    September 19, 2019
    Reply
  100. Taylor Bridges said:

    The EBE is VERY knowledgeable in the Electric Universe……🛸

    September 19, 2019
    Reply

Leave a Reply

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