The Noachian Flood, Part Two: Electrically manufacturing OH


Continued from part one.

There didn’t seem to be a whole lot of interest in The Noachian Flood, Part One: The role of plasma, so I held off on writing and releasing Part Two. In fact, so much did I hold off, that I totally forgot about Part One and the promised Part Two, until I started recently to go through all the old posts, re-assigning tags, linking articles, etc. It was then that I saw, and re-read, Part One and realized that I had yet to publish Part Two. As Anthony E. Larson has now joined this blog and recently published a slew of articles on plasma theology, it may be the ideal time to return to this topic. So, without further adieu, here is Part Two. (Hey! That rhymes!)

Death of a Comet (not of a Salesman)…

A few years back, a comet called Schwassman-Wachmann 3 disintegrated as it made its routine appearance. This particular comet, also known as Comet 73P, comes by every 5.4 years and normally does not put on spectacular displays. It was discovered in 1930 and has been tracked ever since, so astronomers are fairly familiar with its normal behavior. However, when it appeared in 1995, it was so bright that astronomers thought it was a new comet. They soon realized their mistake and kept an eye on the newly brightened object, discovering in 1996 that it had broken into at least 3 pieces, the beginning of the disintegration process. In its next pass, in the year 2000, it had brightened even more and now there were more cometary fragments. Finally, in the latest pass, in the year 2006, dozens of fragments were discovered, due to Hubble’s imaging capabilities.

… and of a Theory

Current cometary theory posits that comets are gigantic chunks of dirty ice or icy dirt and that the brilliant displays they put on are nothing more than ice sublimating from the Sun’s rays.

Unbeknown to most of the population, with the advent of modern, observational, astronomic and analytic technology and its focused use on comets, as new comets have entered our solar system and have been observed and analyzed, current cometary theory has also disintegrated, much like Comet Schwassman-Wachmann 3 has. A whole lot of contradictory information has come out which invalidates these mainstream cometary theories. However, the mainstream astronomers continue with their dogma, despite the evidence to the contrary, looking for a comet, any comet, that will prove their theories correct. As usual, none of our high school or college texts are ever updated with the new contradictory information and another generation of children and young adults are taught the already invalidated theories.

What comets really are

One particular non-mainstream theory is that comets are charged (rocky) bodies moving in the weak electric field of space which can and does results in plasma discharges and plasma structures, making the coma, tail, hydrogen bubble, jets, etc. This theory is both highly accurate in its predictions and also validated more and more with each new comet that enters our system and is analyzed by our technology.

The following PDF document explains the electric comet model and how it measures up compared to all the new cometary information that is coming in, as well as compared to the standard, mainstream model.

The Electric Comet

Comet Schwassman-Wachmann 3’s “water” production was really OH production

Comet 73P’s disintegration allowed astronomers to finally get a peek at the inside of a comet and of course they expected to see lots of ice and water, which, of course, they didn’t.

At the heart of comet theory is the astronomers’ unsubstantiated claim that cometary displays are largely a result of water evaporation. In contrast, electrical theorist Wal Thornhill and his colleagues have repeatedly predicted that the required water levels in the nucleus will not be found. (See summaries here and here; facts already in hand virtually preclude abundant ices on the nuclei of most comets.)

But when astronomers view the comas of comets spectroscopically, their own preconceptions deceive them. They are not seeing water. (If it were there, it would not be visible.) What they actually see is the hydroxyl radical (OH), which they assume to be a residue of water (H2O) as it is broken down by the ultraviolet light of the Sun. This assumption is not only unwarranted, it requires a speed of “processing” by solar radiation beyond anything that can be demonstrated experimentally.

The explanation for the OH in cometary comas will be found in the energetic exchange between the electrically charged comet and the oppositely charged solar wind. The point was stated in an earlier Picture of the Day: “In the electric model, negative oxygen ions will be accelerated away from the comet in energetic jets, then combine preferentially with protons from the solar wind to form the observed OH radical and the neutral hydrogen gathered around the coma in vast concentric bubbles. The reactions simply confirm the energetic charge exchange between the nucleus and Sun.”

The fragmentation of comet nuclei provides a telling opportunity to see if the ices that standard theory expects are actually there. But the time to look is in the early stages of an explosive outburst, before charge exchange with the Sun deceives astronomers. The electric model would anticipate that, with each outburst, observatories may record a decline in the relative abundance of water, before they report an increase in water (their interpretation, due to the presence of OH). As recent missions to comets have shown, water is consistently missing from the nuclei of comets but supposedly present in the comas. If the OH is, in fact, being manufactured through reactions with the solar wind, the contradictions are resolved.

(Taken from Comet Schwassman-Wachmann 3 Disintegrates (2).)

Another quote along the same line of reasoning:

When astronomers view the comas of comets spectroscopically, what they actually see is the hydroxyl radical (OH), which they assume to be a residue of water (H2O) broken down by the ultraviolet light of the Sun (photolysis). This assumption is not only unwarranted, it requires a speed of “processing” by solar radiation beyond anything that can be demonstrated experimentally.

The mysteries find direct answers electrically—in the transaction between a negatively charged comet nucleus and the Sun. In the electric model, negative oxygen ions are accelerated away from the comet in energetic jets, then combine preferentially with protons from the solar wind to form the observed OH radical and the neutral hydrogen gathered around the coma in vast concentric bubbles. These abundances simply confirm the energetic charge exchange between the nucleus and the Sun.

The electric model thus resolves two problems for the standard theory:

  1. Cometologists have never verified that the assumed photolysis is feasible on the super-efficient scale their “explanation” requires.
  2. Neutral hydrogen is far too plentiful in the coma to be the “leftover” of the hypothesized conversion of water into OH. But if the negatively charged nucleus provides the electrons in a charge exchange with the solar wind, the dilemma is resolved and the vast hydrogen envelope is a predictable effect.

(Taken from The Electric Comet as quoted in Evidence Confirms Electric Comet Model.)

Some facts about OH (the hydroxyl radical)

Here on Earth (or rather above us, in the troposphere) OH production is largely a result of photolysis of ozone, which is the mechanism that astronomers assumed was taking place on comets. However, if comets can electrically generate OH, Earth can do the same.

Currently, tropospheric hydroxyl radical concentration is pretty low. The electric state of the planet (and all the planets we observe in the solar system) is also pretty low, making Earth production of OH chiefly by photolysis. But if the electrical state of the Earth were amplified, OH production through electrical means could vastly and quickly increase the hydroxyl radical concentration, just as it happens on comets.

OH is highly reactive, forming water and some other radical, such as an alkyl radical, a peroxy radical, etc. As a result of these reactions, hydroxyl radicals are short-lived.

The Stacked Planets Scenario

Assuming that the planets were once stacked (and will be again) and that there was a pillar or plasma tube connecting the planets at their poles, the removal of the planets to their current positions would have caused electrical disruptions up and down the “totem pole” of planets. This augmented electrical state could have electrically manufactured, like comets, a vast quantity of highly reactive OH in the atmosphere, which, upon reaction with other compounds, would have produced a torrent of water and caustic substances that would have rained down hot, “burning” water upon the inhabitants of the Earth.

In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. (Genesis 7: 11)

The plasma columns connecting the various planets could be thought of as the world axis, a great mountain, trees of life, or as fountains of living water. As there would be more than one “fountain of living water” (plasma column) because there were more than two planets connected, the break up of these fountains of the great deep means that the planets were scattered from their stacked positions, and, as explained above, massive OH production possibly would ensue, causing the “windows of heaven” to open.

There’s more coming in part three

Next Plasma Theology article: The Noachian Flood, Part Three: Oceans above, below and within

Previous Plasma Theology article: The Noachian Flood, Part One: The Role of Plasma

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Advertisements

3 Comments

  1. Your link to the totem pole got me thinking about stacks. In my study of Scripture, I have repeatedly been struck by how much of its language seems to pontificate upon predicate logic and computational theory.

    For example, consider the stack. CPUs make use of something called a “stack” (as opposed to the “heap”) to store “words” (a sequence of bits the size of the CPU’s registers). The stack is implemented as a first-in-last-out queue, and the operations to be performed on the stack are “push” (enqueue) and “pop” (dequeue). A stack is central to the operation of any CPU design and the theory of Turing machines.

    The FILO queue can be summarized as: the last shall be the first, and the first shall be the last.

    Just a thought, I know it’s quite a tangent from the subject of this article. But I also see stuff in Scripture that seems to describe truth table mechanics and many other logical/mathematical concepts.

    I just did a quick Google search and found this very interesting quote in a data structures and computational theory lecture:

    Jacob and Esau

    In the biblical story, Jacob and Esau were twin brothers where Esau was born first and thus inherited Issac’s birthright. However, Jacob got Esau to give it away for a bowl of soup, and so Jacob went to become a patriarch of Israel.

    But why was Jacob justified in so tricking his brother???

    Rashi, a famous 11th century Jewish commentator, explained the problem by saying Jacob was conceived first, then Esau second, and Jacob could not get around the narrow tube to assume his rightful place first in line!

    Therefore Rebecca was modeled by a stack.
    Push “Jacob”, Push “Esau”, Pop “Esau”, Pop “Jacob”

  2. Anarchy,
    I can’t tell you how gratifying it is to see exposition such as yours on the role of plasma in Earth’s ancient history and it’s appearance in the heavens. Did my work put you onto this? Or, did you come by it independently? Just curious.
    It’s abundantly apparent that you’ve done ample research and study on your own, and I applaud you for your insight and subsequent exposition. I wish there were dozens of us out there telling church members about this. Then, perhaps, these ideas would get more traction with them and sink in more readily.
    I would like a post from you explaining or outlining for readers of your blog exactly how this information helps you better understand the restored gospel. How does it affect your scriptural study? How does it affect your testimony? How does it apply to your temple experience? I want readers to hear another voice other than my own, testifying of the remarkable insights that this information brings to one’s gospel comprehension and understanding of the prophets – most especially Joseph Smith.
    So “good on ya, Anarchy! Keep on posting the good stuff! I’ll read every word … over and over.
    Anthony

  3. Anthony, thanks for the compliments. I made the connection between plasma science and Mormon theology prior to discovering your work. I found your web site while doing an Internet search and was pleased to find that there was another LDS who also believed in the plasma science/mythology research. Prior to that discovery, I had been thinking that what4anarchy and myself were the only ones.

    To answer your questions, it’s kind of like what Alma and Jesus both said.

    But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and call things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator. (Alma 30: 44)

    And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me. (Moses 6: 63)

    When a person has a correct view of the Universe, everything does testify that there is a Creator, whereas an incorrect view allows atheism and doubt to flourish. A correct view make things plain, whereas an incorrect view makes things mysterious and confusing. So, plasma science/mythology/theology, etc., makes it easier to come to an understanding of what God is really doing (and has really done/will really do), thereby increasing one’s testimony and faith, as all things then plainly testify of God and his hand in all things, as Alma and Jesus both said.


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Comments RSS