some odd stuff...lemme forward Les Schaffer's response from PEN-L
Doug
----
>Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 13:22:27 -0400
>From: Les Schaffer <schaffer at OPTONLINE.NET>
>
>Shane Mage wrote:
>
>>
>>Consider this. Even in the face of one of the great shocks in space
>>exploration-the stupendous blast produced by the "impact"-it appears
>>that not one NASA scientist paused to ask if something might be
>>missing in their theoretical model. All of the talk about the hugely
>>energetic blast implies that it was just an astonishing effect from
>>the sheer force of the impact. Every word was framed in the context of
>>an electrically inert universe. That's what astronomers and
>>astrophysicists were trained in.
>
>
>
>what a truly bizarre post.
>
>i am an astrophysicist, one of my research areas is the interaction
>between plasma physics and gravitational phenomena. electrical charging
>of spacecraft is a well known process (well known in the sense of its
>existence, still work to be done to correctly calculate such charging in
>different space environments). i've done some work with colleagues on
>plasma charging of comet dust tails (there are two tails that split: one
>is presumed to be charged material and so align themselves differently
>than uncharged material) there has been a steady increase over the last
>dozen or so years in understanding galaxy and stellar formation in light
>of electrical processes. it is a much harder topic to study compared to
>theories depending purely on gravitational interactions. hell, even
>magnetic fields of planets is a head scratcher.
>
>your comments seem to mirror Alfven's critique of the astrophysical
>community. is this where you are derive your lightning from? you know,
>even lightning here on planet Earth is resisting complete theoretical
>understanding.
>
>>
>>> But NASA has little interest in electricity.
>>
>
>false. NASA has in fact worried about spacecraft charging in space for
>several decades. NASA funded my and colleagues work for over a decade.
>
>>It is under financial strain.
>
>
>sort of true.
>
>>And it is under pressure to validate its approach to space exploration.
>
>
>extremely true.
>
>>Those who advocate an electrical view of the heavens insist that NASA
>>is wasting a horde of money, looking in the wrong places, asking the
>>wrong questions, and even when results shout to them from the surfaces
>>of planets, moons, asteroids, and comets, the minds of the
>>investigators are somewhere else.
>
>
>bizarre misreading of the dynamics. many space scientists (even of the
>inert/non-electriucal kind) hate the Space Station and the Bush plan for
>Mars and Moon. They would rather see unmanned space exploration to
>planets, more funding of Hubble et al.
>
>>We are certainly not happy to report that this is the state of things
>>within the official halls of science, but the media events surrounding
>>Deep Impact have already confirmed this picture....
>
>
>i agree that the two energy releases looks interesting. but you seem to
>be lost in the NASA boiler-plate news releases. go talk to a few space
>scientists first (i can give you a list of several dozen that are
>interested in plasma processes) and then raise some hell. lawd knows
>NASA needs a whuppin.
>
>i met your brother at Monthly Review in December to help with their
>launch of new web activity. he seemed like a smart reasonable guy and i
>figured you had to be too. but frankly, you *sound* here like a
>crackpot. i sense so much more "potential" (electrical pun) in you.
>
>yours for a progressive and electrically-charged economics
>
>les schaffer