NASA Baffled by Unexplained Force Acting on Space Probes

The electric sun model offers an answer within the realms of conventional physics, no magical forces required. It also offers a solution to every solar mystery and ultimately a huge leap in our understanding of the universe.
In my opinion of course.

After launch, a spacecraft accepts electrons from the surrounding space plasma until the craft’s voltage is sufficient to repel further electrons. Near Earth it is known that a spacecraft may attain a negative potential of several tens of thousands of volts relative to its surroundings. So, in interplanetary space, the spacecraft becomes a charged object moving in the Sun’s weak electric field. Being negatively charged, it will experience an infinitesimal “tug” toward the positively charged Sun. Of most significance is the fact that the voltage gradient, that is the electric field, throughout interplanetary space remains constant. In other words, the retarding force on the spacecraft will not diminish with distance from the Sun. This effect distinguishes the electrical model from all others because all known force laws diminish with distance. The effect is real and it will have a fundamental impact on cosmology and spacecraft navigation because…

A mystery solved - welcome to the electric universe

From the OP article linked....

A decade ago, after rigorous analysis, anomalies were seen with the identical Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft as they hurtled out of the solar system. Both seemed to experience a tiny but unexplained constant acceleration toward the sun.

Another confirmation for the electric sun hypothesis, the list is getting longer, likewise the list of mysteries for conventional solar theory grows as well.

A paradigm shift is coming, ready or not.

[edit on 1-3-2008 by squiz]

reply to post by Aaron_Justin


You are on par with the genius that was Kristian Birkeland


There are "gulf streams", and where they pinch off you find stars and planets.

reply to post by resistor


Yes, i am familiar with Velikovsky.

My problem with the 'expanding earth' principle is it doesn't account for the increased gravitational effect created by the influx of mass.

I would think it is far more likely that water could be suspended near the ionosphere via EM/gravity effects. This is like the "atrium theory", and while it is far fetched it is a fun thought exercise. It explains how life was expanded in the past, and why lifetimes shortened after "the flood". Water IS a wonderful protection from radiation, afterall.

The idea on how a planet could form from a gas giant doesn't seem to hard to me. Extreme levels of energy create matter. E=mc2.

Consider this thought i have had: the current "sun" is only the center of the solar system because it is the most electrically active (therefore, having the greatest level of gravity).

in the past perhaps Jupiter or Saturn was our sun, or we had a binary system.

Wallace Thornhill believes that Saturn was the ancient "true" sun.

reply to post by billybob


I've seen that video. Personally I think it's silly. I've got a far simpler explanation for mass growth -- accretion of cosmic dust and other falling matter.

At the Earth, generally, an average of 40 tons per day of extraterrestrial material falls to the Earth[1].

That's a lot of dust over the course of millions of years.

reply to post by Beachcoma


That is an interesting point. It does not account for any possibility in a change in the accretion rate over these milliions of years, and it might create several more questions (such as what 'fell" to Earth first, and what is left?).

Might this attraction be a driving force in what we see as "evolution"?

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


in a book i read years ago titled the flood of noah written by david fasold he claims that pre-flood cuttings in stone in south american tiahuanaco record the sighting of a second "moon" that arrived from space and took orbit around the earth at a distance of 5.9 terrestial radii and caused great concern because the "normal length" of the year became altered from 1 of 290 days to 291.2 days.

whether the force of gravity would be less due to a shorter year i have no idea let alone what 5.9 tr means to the normal layman.if less gravity allowed for huge dinosaurs to survive till 65 million years ago maybe it also allowed for other giant pre-flood animals (giant-tree slouths, bears etc.)to move around also?

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


just saw your 10 pictogrphs from different loctions of the earth with the same male figure and 2 spheres ?------"the 2 pre-flood moons " perhaps ?

This topic seams to be straying, still interesting though, since the Saturn theory and ancient petroglyph's thing came up, I thought you may be interested in this, sorry off topic really but interesting none the less.

reply to post by squiz


The first half of that video is very interesting. But I'm left with the feeling that the narrator failed to get to the point of the second half. What's the connection with the wheel?

reply to post by Beachcoma


Well it's a preview for a three hour film, I'm only vaguely familiar with Saturn theory but I believe he's suggesting that the wheel is Saturn and the planets were all once part of a Saturnian configuration.
I may be wrong.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by billybob

 

But where does the water come from? Are we employing Heisenberg here and just having it materialize?

It is an interesting theory, but i don't understand where all this water comes from. and how there are deep marine fossils predating land fossils.

Precisely, and even if we can get to the bottom of the water, isn't there even more land there, comprising the ocean floor? . . that's even more land to have materialized into this realm from some other.

I found that YouTube animation surprisingly well-done, and it certainly is a believable concept, visually speaking. Scientifically, though, BFFT and I want to know from whence these planet-expansion resources have come?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
The sheer size of some dino's would make it impossible for them to walk or stand in today's gravity. So there was a different gravitational effect then, it would seem.

I have heard people claim that but I have never seen proof submitted to back up that claim of the dino's. Could you share some links?

reply to post by pavil


I could likely dig it out after work tonight. However, i got my information from a conversation with Dr. Bob Bakker, when i lived in Laramie. Given Dr. Bakker's reputation in the realm of archaeology and paleoanthropology, i saw no need to question him to dig much further.

[edit on 1-3-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]

Originally posted by mattguy404
I'm counting down until someone comes in and mentions Planet X

Maybe it's some sort of funky thing to do with relativity.

Congrats!
You were the first one to mention it!

.....

I'm just murmuring in the wings,


the Planet isn't 'increasing' -- the theory is the planet is De-Compressing,
there's a big difference


#2, the scientists of today could have all the factors- But they are electing to estrange the most significant factor as metaphysics and pseudo-science...

The position of the planets affects space probes just as much as the the position of planets has influence over one's journey through life...
Astrology is the missing ingredient the pragmatic scientists are overlooking

that is... the balance/density of the solar system is in constant flux because the tides of 'Ether' are ebbing & flowing as a result of planetary positions & the kinetic energies influencing every molecule of solid matter in this solar system (which is much like a individual cell)


pooh=pooh all you want, but the astological overview, which also encompases hyperdimensional physics is the key-way
-if- anyone wants to go through all the nuts-&-bolts of explaining itto the masses..
i'm too busy to expend all that energy & time on the obvious...

Uhhh duh,

ALIENS!

I thought it was obvious

Originally posted by St Udio


I'm just murmuring in the wings,


the Planet isn't 'increasing' -- the theory is the planet is De-Compressing,
there's a big difference


#2, the scientists of today could have all the factors- But they are electing to estrange the most significant factor as metaphysics and pseudo-science...

The position of the planets affects space probes just as much as the the position of planets has influence over one's journey through life...
Astrology is the missing ingredient the pragmatic scientists are overlooking

that is... the balance/density of the solar system is in constant flux because the tides of 'Ether' are ebbing & flowing as a result of planetary positions & the kinetic energies influencing every molecule of solid matter in this solar system (which is much like a individual cell)


pooh=pooh all you want, but the astological overview, which also encompases hyperdimensional physics is the key-way
-if- anyone wants to go through all the nuts-&-bolts of explaining itto the masses..
i'm too busy to expend all that energy & time on the obvious...

I like the bohemian approach to the math behind physics. I think the ancients had some of it figure out, for better or worse.

I bet it has to do with the earths core....

our sun, the other planets and the way all of these object behave have so much to do with where we are an where we stay an how we move not to mention relationships of other objects near the earth,


What if something is either altering the earths rotation, causing a Flux in our Electromagnetic field surrounding the planet,

Could also be something being created.....

I like the sun ideas, an or the earths field. Maybe this is what the mayans were talking about..... as well as the hopi.

Cycles.



[edit on 1-3-2008 by Trance Optic]

Just another glitch in the Matrix...

We live in a time where people are so arrogant they think they know it all, without realizing that everyone before us have felt exactly the same way...

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan



I am semi familar with his work, but haven't heard the claim that they couldn't grow that big period, just that they could not have grown that big being totally cold blooded.

Please find me supporting evidence for your contention.