I wrote not a single word (except the header)--this was quoted from the cited website, Thunderbolts.info. For those who find this "odd" I offer just two questions: can you cite *any* predictions of a double flash from another source? can you cite anyone who, unlike NASA, was predicting such an extremely energetic display?
Shane Mage
"Thunderbolt steers all things...It consents and does not consent to be called Zeus."
Herakleitos of Ephesos
>----
>
>>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
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk