SOTT
SIGNS
OF THE
TIMES
OF THE
TIMES
Welcome to Sott.net
The World for People who Think
Science & Technology
The astronomers studying the atmosphere of Venus are facing a new mystery. The Venusian winds have been steadily accelerating for the last 6 years. Scientists monitoring the Venus Express orbiter since 2006 noted the stunning increase in the already super fast winds, from 186 mph to 249 mph. The astronomers acknowledge they do not understand why this enormous variation in wind speed occurred. What is it about the Venusian atmosphere that mainstream astronomers find so puzzling?
.
Reader Comments
charge field
Venus Proves my Charge Model Again
by Miles Mathis
First published July 1, 2013
A reader just sent me to a new video at youtube by Wal Thornhill, as part of the Thunderbolts or Electrical Universe (EU) model. Although I agree with Thornhill and the Thunderbolts on larger issues, especially the deficiencies of the standard model and the need to bring a second field into celestial mechanics, I find Thornhill's analysis deficient at many points. Thornhill says that only the Electrical Universe model can explain newer data, and that just isn't true. My charge models explain all data much more thoroughly and rigorously than EU models. The EU physicists still haven't penetrated the difference between the charge field and the E/M field, so although they are near to the correct analysis, they are still missing the bullseye, forcing them cram new data into their models when it doesn't really fit. So although it is true that EU explanations are much much better than mainstream explanations, they still aren't correct.
The main problem with the EU model is that it explains everything in terms of the E/M field, ignoring or taking for granted the underlying charge field. Theirs is an electrical universe, while mine is a charge universe. Some will see the difference as one of semantics, but it isn't. As I have made crystal clear in a series of recent papers where I unify Maxwell's equations, the charge field must be separated from the E/M field in order to understand and explain unification, dark matter, and all these problems the Thunderbolts are working on. Without that understanding, the EU analysis of the celestial field must remain flawed and incomplete. Electrical and magnetic interactions are taking place between celestial bodies, as they claim, and even the mainstream recognizes that. But none of these interactions and none of the E/M or plasma fields can be explained without the underlying charge field. And when it comes to explaining winds, hot and cold poles, and other phenomena, my fields explain the data much more cleanly and clearly than EU models.
[Link]
Venus Proves my Charge Model Again
by Miles Mathis
First published July 1, 2013
A reader just sent me to a new video at youtube by Wal Thornhill, as part of the Thunderbolts or Electrical Universe (EU) model. Although I agree with Thornhill and the Thunderbolts on larger issues, especially the deficiencies of the standard model and the need to bring a second field into celestial mechanics, I find Thornhill's analysis deficient at many points. Thornhill says that only the Electrical Universe model can explain newer data, and that just isn't true. My charge models explain all data much more thoroughly and rigorously than EU models. The EU physicists still haven't penetrated the difference between the charge field and the E/M field, so although they are near to the correct analysis, they are still missing the bullseye, forcing them cram new data into their models when it doesn't really fit. So although it is true that EU explanations are much much better than mainstream explanations, they still aren't correct.
The main problem with the EU model is that it explains everything in terms of the E/M field, ignoring or taking for granted the underlying charge field. Theirs is an electrical universe, while mine is a charge universe. Some will see the difference as one of semantics, but it isn't. As I have made crystal clear in a series of recent papers where I unify Maxwell's equations, the charge field must be separated from the E/M field in order to understand and explain unification, dark matter, and all these problems the Thunderbolts are working on. Without that understanding, the EU analysis of the celestial field must remain flawed and incomplete. Electrical and magnetic interactions are taking place between celestial bodies, as they claim, and even the mainstream recognizes that. But none of these interactions and none of the E/M or plasma fields can be explained without the underlying charge field. And when it comes to explaining winds, hot and cold poles, and other phenomena, my fields explain the data much more cleanly and clearly than EU models.
[Link]
The orbiter has been up there only 6 years. Thus, there is no way to tell the difference between the upside of a cycle, or a black swan event. The satellite data either can or cannot be linked to other data sets on Venusian wind speeds.
So, if Venus cannot be understood in singularity, it may be possible to understand what is happening to the planets as a system.