Tric of El (saturn) done it again: Cassini Sees Saturn Electric Link With Enceladus

Hello ATS,

See below NASA press release on the latest discovery around Saturn.

CLICK

At this point the ultraviolet light emissions are not detectable by the human eye only by Cassini sensors.
If you have read my posts you will see I am a firm believer of the Electric Universe theory and that Earth once orbitted Saturn Just like Enceladus does now. I know this is hard to even grasp but there is overwhelming evidence that it once did.
Nasa is moving closer to accepting the EU theory IMHO.

Let me know your thoughts.

Fernando

Originally posted by PPLwakeUP
Hello ATS,

See below NASA press release on the latest discovery around Saturn.

CLICK

At this point the ultraviolet light emissions are not detectable by the human eye only by Cassini sensors.
If you have read my posts you will see I am a firm believer of the Electric Universe theory and that Earth once orbitted Saturn Just like Enceladus does now. I know this is hard to even grasp but there is overwhelming evidence that it once did.
Nasa is moving closer to accepting the EU theory IMHO.

Let me know your thoughts.

Fernando

If you're referring to the theories put forth by Thornhill/Talbot, I've read a few of their essays and one of their books. Conceptually, it seems to make much more sense than the current gravitational paradigm. I won't even pretend to have the slightest understanding of the mathematics, physics, et al. behind it.

I don't remember reading anything about the earth orbiting Saturn in the past or anything though, I'll get to googling.

If I am not mistaken this theory states that craters are caused by electrical discharge, that the sun has an iron surface and not nuclear. Care to clear that up?

Hello,

Just read some post from me I have posted in the past.(2 years ago I posted many images)
Talbot/Thorhill are OK but they are just extending research that was already there.
Google Dwardu Cardona or Jno Cook and you'll be entertained for hours reading their material.

In fact Earth would only have been 90,000 miles from Saturn first at the equator an later after the initial break up
below Saturn south pole with neptune and uranus on pole.
These 3 plasmoids are the start of all religions on earth.
Fernando

Hello Dfrank,

Not all craters are caused by plasma discharges but many are! Especialy if there are ""skid marks craters as I call them"

For example the grand canyon is 100% made by electrical discharges aswell as Uluru in Australia among many other places.

See below for a few examples:


The Grand Canyon is approximately 400 kilometers long, 28 kilometers wide, and almost two kilometers deep. Could erosion by the Colorado River be the only factor in its formation?



More on Uluru

This small craters below are not caused by the water running throught it


Alba tera (Mars)


Wilpena Australia


wilpena pound group mountains:

Wilpena pound

Wilpena pound in Australia's Flinders ranges is an incredible geological structure of sandstone and quartzite. Traditional geology poses it as an eroded uplift of oceanic sediment that has taken millions of years to form it's present shape. Viewed from above Wilpena Pound resembles some sort of crater with a high plateau surrounded by a ring of rugged hills. The entire area covered is some 83 square kilometers . Some observers see the structure as a meteor impact site but the stratigraphic nature of the site seems to preclude this.

Malta
CLICK

See that URL for many mini Wilpena craters.

Fernando

FYI

Initially it is proposed that the Saturn system was meandering OUTSIDE our solar system, and was drawn in by a combination of it's trajectory and Sol's gravity. The severing from our initial host would have occurred as the plasmasphere of Saturn contacted the plasmasphere of Sol. Two Double Layers coming in contact... talk about all hell braking loose!

This is what the movie Star Wars is all about.

The sol being the guy who walks the sky and darth vader being saturn

Exactly where in that NASA link do you read any indication of a hint that NASA is accepting an Electric Universe theory. I'm not even going to suggest I've ever heard of any endorsements by even theoretical physicists entertain any of the other stuff mentioned, it certainly wasn't implied in the NASA link.

It's definitely a creative story line.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/99736f32cbe9.png[/atsimg]

To use some of the most powerful language
one will ever hear in the field of science
"this is a significant discovery."


David Grouchy

Originally posted by supuradam

If you're referring to the theories put forth by Thornhill/Talbot, I've read a few of their essays and one of their books. Conceptually, it seems to make much more sense than the current gravitational paradigm. I won't even pretend to have the slightest understanding of the mathematics, physics, et al. behind it.

I find their work to be lacking, inspirational, but lacking in detail and rigor.
It's best to go back to the source and look at Hannes Alfvén.

Alfvén believed the problem with the Big Bang was that astrophysicists tried to extrapolate the origin of the universe from mathematical theories developed on the blackboard, rather than starting from known observable phenomena. He also considered the Big Bang to be a scientific myth devised to explain creation.[8]

Alfvén and colleagues proposed the Alfvén-Klein model as an alternative cosmological theory to both the Big Bang and steady state theory cosmologies.

The story I heard (second hand hearsay) is that he was boo'd out of the astrophisics community.
What does an electrician know about stars. Stuff like that. Unable to publish anywhere
except in his native Sweden he carried on anyway. Decades later, it was
decided that he wasn't such a bad guy after all and a Nobel prize
was thrown his way. But not for his cosmology.
For Magnetohydrodynamics instead.
Although, either one of these
discoveries is amazing.

For my dollar, both magnetohydrodynamics, and the Alfvén-Klein cosmology are,
and have been,
better predictors of what we will find in space, as mankind grows out of
the mechanistic gravity model of the universe.


David Grouchy

Originally posted by dfrank39
If I am not mistaken this theory states that craters are caused by electrical discharge, that the sun has an iron surface and not nuclear. Care to clear that up?

There are some simple rules for determining the difference between
a crater caused by impact, and one caused by electric discharge.

An impact crater has a single rim, and in the very center it
dips down where the impacting body struck deepest.

Electrical pitting, on the other hand, tends to have
fuzzy, or double rimmed edges, and the center
actually tufts upwards a little bit.


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/23e1da9dece7.png[/atsimg]

Take this magnification of a peice of steel that has been subject to electrical pitting.
In the few round craterings found, notice there is a single dot in the middle
one that is raised and brighter. Not deeper and darker.
Using this simple guide to examine the moons
one actually finds very few impact craters.
Most show signature more like an
electrical discarge.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e3bd97ef2bac.png[/atsimg]

Here is Mimas, for example.
By no standard that I'm aware of,
is that an impact crater. The middle obviously tufts upward.


David Grouchy

Originally posted by PPLwakeUP

Initially it is proposed that the Saturn system was meandering OUTSIDE our solar system, and was drawn in by a combination of it's trajectory and Sol's gravity. The severing from our initial host would have occurred as the plasmasphere of Saturn contacted the plasmasphere of Sol. Two Double Layers coming in contact... talk about all hell braking loose!

I disagree.
It seems far more likely, to me,
that we are growing one or two more solar systems
within our solar system centered around our gas giants.
For instance both Jupiter and Saturn have more moons than
our own Sun has planets. This isn't discussed as it refutes Big Bang,
but It is concievable that they may split off one day into their own full systems.


David Grouchy

All of the planet's moons orbit the sun, and so does the asteroid belt–billions of planetoids, and so do the comets, and so on till another star's gravitational attraction overcomes the sun's.

reply to post by Illustronic


Sorry missed your initial post.
To me the title of the news article is enough.
The trend nowadys is plasma and electrical current between celestial bodies.

The basic assumptions of the electric universe theory are:

*Space is not empty but filled with plasma.
*Celestial bodies are not electrically neutral but charged, including our Sun, planets, etc.
*Interactions between bodies are mainly electro-magnetic (the electro-magnetic force is much, much stronger than gravity: 1039 – a 10 with 39 zeroes!).

reply to post by Illustronic


Your are wrong about your statement.
The Moon follows the Earth around the Sun in its orbit, and if you didn’t have the Earth, the Moon would really be orbiting the Sun.

google “Hill sphere”

Electromagnetic fields of planets are not news and doesn't describe the Electric Universe Theories, and I'm sorry, the Earth's gravity is a stronger force than its magnetosphere. Magnetic force is a product of gravity. The Earth's magnetosphere will not alter the path of a passing body but it's gravity can, unless your consider subatomic particles and radiation substantial mass.

The basic premise of the electric universe theory is that planets, moons and stars are not isolated but interact by currents of electrically charged plasma on field aligned currents known as birkeland currents.

So yes this does support that perspective. Very well I must say.

Saturn theory is something else, it's interesting, but speculative.

Here's an article on it from the thunderbolts group on the recent findings.
www.thunderbolts.info...

reply to post by Illustronic


Hello,

Magnetic force is a product of gravity.
That statement is so wrong..

EM force is 1000x times stronger than gravity.

Hi ATS,

To quote Peratt (Not With A Bang - A. L. Peratt, The Sciences, New York Academy of Sciences, January/February, 1990):

“Our model presupposes an indefinitely large space of magnetic fields, where plasma is distributed uniformly in all directions. (A uniform distribution of plasma is not required in the simulations, but it does simplify the setup for the study of plasma filamentation.) If any other kind of nonuniformity is present, such as variations in electron temperature, vast and swirling electromagnetic fields develop that pinch the plasma into filaments. The filaments grow to the size of Tully’s superclusters, billions of light years long. The plasma within these clusters is further pinched into smaller, galaxy size filaments, which interact for billions of years; eventually they collect and neutralize so much mass that gravity becomes a factor in the continued evolution. Thus is formed the full range of galaxy species. Like predawn mist beading on a spider web, the observable cosmos condenses out of the plasma background in progressively smaller steps, eventually forming stars, planets and moons. There is no expansion, and there need not be any final crunch. Unlike the universe envisioned in the big bang model, the plasma universe evolves without beginning and without end: it is indefinitely ancient and has an indefinite lifetime in store.”

Anthony Peratt is the guy that went and looked at over 30000 petroglyphs found in the USA.
And came to the conclusion that what ancient man saw in the sky were plasma discharges.