Dimorphos and Didymos revisited

Three years have passed since NASA’s DART probe hit the asteroid Dimorphos. An impact that shortened its orbit around its parent asteroid Didymos by ten minutes.

Successful mission

The result was well within what NASA had predicted, and was therefore considered proof of concept for the kinetic impactor method. However, a study of debris ejected by the impactor shows that large fragments are moving faster than expected.

Something is a little off relative to their theory.

Erroneous predictions

On the other hand, I made two predictions that have not come true. One about the composition of the asteroid, and another one about its change of orbit.

I was also under the misapprehension that the goal of the impact was to widen the orbit. But my prediction had to do with changes to the orbit, independent of whether they are made wider or shorter. So, this is not a big deal.

My main point was that the orbit would be less impacted than predicted by NASA, and that the orbit might even be partially or fully restored to its original after a few years.

This didn't happen. But the reason for this may be found in the unaccounted for energy observed by NASA.

Stability of orbits

My position when it comes to the stability of orbits is that the role of static electricity is underappreciated by astronomers.

Gravitational attraction and electrostatic repulsion

The two bodies involved in an orbit are both negatively charged. My thinking is therefore that the impact on the smaller body should've been partially countered by the force of electrostatic repulsion. The combination of gravity and the electrostatic force should've mitigated the impact of NASA's probe in much the same way that a shock absorber overcomes mechanical shocks to cars.

Ejected fragments

But if a large number of fragments are ejected from the impacted object, much of that object's initial charge is lost. This is because charge resides mostly at the surface. The shock absorber is damaged, as it were. Much of the repelling force that existed in Dimorphos before the impact was taken over by fragments.

The fragments, highly charged as they were, got in this way an extra boost. Once released from the surface of Dimorphos, they accelerated away from Dimorphos and Didymos with more energy than predicted by NASA.

The net result of this was that NASA got the smaller orbit that it predicted, but also the more energetic fragments than it predicted.

My prediction, on the other hand, failed because the fragments took away the shock absorber effect that I had expected to see.

Had Dimorphos remained intact, with little to no debris ejected, my prediction may well have come true.

Jupiter's Children

An interesting aspect of this is that the ejection of debris from Dimorphos is similar in form to the theory that Jupiter ejects moons whenever it is sufficiently stressed to do so.

Jupiter ejecting a moon

The idea is that Jupiter will eject a moon every now and again, and that this happens with the assistance of electrostatic repulsion.

Once a blob of matter is pushed sufficiently high up, electrostatic repulsion kicks in, and the blob is thrown into space.

This explains the large number of moons orbiting large planets like Jupiter and Saturn. It may even explain Venus' odd behavior and apparent recent arrival in our solar system.

Objects thrown into space by parent objects gain extra energy from electrostatic repulsion.

However, this doesn't explain Dimorphos composition, which is different from what I had expected.

Bundle of rubble

As it turned out, Dimorphos was not the solid rock that I thought it would be. It was a bundle of rubble instead, which begs the questions. How was this assembled? Which force pulled it all together?

My position is that gravity is too weak to pull dust and rubble into lumpy asteroids. I'm not a big fan of the accretion disc theory. But the composition of Dimorphos seems to confirm this model. It can be argued that Dimorphos is the result of millions of years of steady growth due to gravity.

However, we can equally argue that the process of assembly is driven by static charge. Neutral bodies are attracted by charged bodies. Dust sticks to charged balloons. The phenomenon is well known. It's also a lot stronger than gravity.

Conclusion

The experiment performed on Dimorphos by NASA has taught us a lot about asteroids and orbits. But it has not provided conclusive evidence one way or another when it comes to the various theories related to this. All we can say is that the gravity only model is at a loss when it comes to explaining the extra energy evident in debris ejected by Dimorphos. Our competing mode, on the other hand, is only kept standing precisely because there was excess energy transferred to the debris.

Polarized Light from Stars and Galaxies

Magnetic fields have polarizing effects on light, and it is through this effect that we know that all stars, including our Sun, have strong magnetic fields.

These fields are generally explained as a feature of electric currents flowing in and out of stars. The overall flow passes through the rotational poles of these objects, and thus we end up with a simplified model of stars having magnetic north and a south poles that align with their rotation, and that we know to periodically flip through pole reversals.

All of this can be explained in terms of current flows. However, there's a secondary polarization that doesn't align with rotation, and this is harder to explain because it doesn't seem to be directly related to any current flow. This is pointed out in this YouTube lecture by Jean de Clemont.

The secondary polarization aligns with the axis of the galaxies that the stars are in, but the magnetic field of galaxies are too weak to explain the relatively strong spike in observed polarization of their stars. Something else appears to be at play, and Jean de Clemont suggests that the secondary polarization is not due to an electric current flow, but rather the flow of a dense and highly fluid aether.

The aether flows with the galaxy, and produces in this way its own polarizing effect, separate from the flow of electrons.

This idea aligns well with the aether proposed in my book, where space itself is an aether that latches onto all sorts of reference frames, ranging from entire galaxies down to stars, planets and even trees and buildings.

The Faraday effect, light getting polarized by a magnetic field

Plasmoids and Z-pinches

Once we accept the fact that we live in a plasma universe, we soon come to realize that self-organizing structures such as plasmoids and z-pinches can explain a great number of astronomic observations. For one, we can explain galaxies without any need to invoke dark matter, dark energies or black holes.

Plasmoids

A plasmoid is a coherent self contained structure of plasma that typically takes on the form of a torus. An internally generated magnetic field holds it together, and keeps it from collapsing into a ball.

The magnetic field is generated by plasma currents inside the torus which in turn contain the plasma and perpetuate the current. Hence, we end up with a self contained structure that will persist for some time even after its energy input is shut off.

Galaxies as plasmoids

Laboratory experiments involving plasmoids reveal structures that look a lot like galaxies, and it has therefore been speculated that galaxies are in fact plasmoids.

Initial thoughts in this direction proposed gravity as the driving force behind the galactic current required to keep the plasmoid from collapsing.

A black hole is often imagined at the center of galaxies. However, the existence of intergalactic currents makes the need for a gravity driven input redundant because intergalactic currents will naturally produce z-pinches that are just as strong as black holes.

Z-pinches

A z-pinch is a plasma phenomenon that serves to compress a plasma. This can be achieved in a laboratory by running currents in parallel, or through magnetic manipulation.

From the look of it, galaxies appear wherever there's a z-pinch in the intergalactic current. Hence, we have good reasons to believe that what is presumed to be black holes are in fact z-pinches.

Since the effect of a z-pinch is to pull plasma together, there's no need for a strong gravitational force at the center of galaxies in order to explain their shape. Z-pinches will do just fine.

Black holes vs z-pinches

Unlike z-pinches, no-one has ever produced a black hole in a lab. The concept of a black hole is wholly theoretical.

Black holes were conceptualized from a feature in Einstein's equations where densities and temperatures go towards infinity at certain threshold values. They are in other words the result of bad math, where values are allowed to be divided by zero. But this hasn't stopped astronomers from believing in their existence. Rather, the opposite is the case. Astronomers now claim to see black holes just about everywhere in the universe.

But what's really observed is plasma. There's no controversy related to that, because black holes can only be inferred from the radiation emitted from their surrounding plasma. The black holes themselves are not directly observed. What's observed is plasma in a torus shape.

This is of course exactly what a plasmoid would look like in space. Yet, astronomers refuse to give up on the idea of black holes even though z-pinches will suffice to produce the observed inward pressure.

Observation and theory

Plasma physics is based on observation and replication in laboratories. In plasma physics, theory springs from observation. This is in contrast to astrophysics where theory is primary, and observations only serve to confirm what has been deduced.

When observations conflict with theory, astrophysics will add whatever is needed in order to keep their theory alive. This is how dark matter and dark energies have come into mainstream astrophysics.

In contrast, plasma physicists are quick to give up on ideas that conflict with observations. If something hasn't been confirmed in a laboratory, theories are but speculations with little weight to them. There's no point in hammering through an idea that cannot be reproduced in a lab.

Of the two approaches, plasma physicists got things right. There's no point in going into details regarding theory that hasn't been readily confirmed. Ideas should be sketched out quickly and freely and quickly put to rest if not reproduceable in a lab. No-one should get too attached to a theory, and that includes the theory's author.

Developing theory

The theory of everything presented on this website was conceived and developed in a series of rapid iterations, and this is in my opinion the best way to produce good results.

I had the idea that everything in the universe might be explained with particles bouncing into each other to produce force and hooking up with each other to produce structures.

I tested this idea against a wide range of phenomena to see if it had any merit, and I was of course delighted to find that it held up to this initial scrutiny.

This first iteration took no more than a few weeks to complete, so I wouldn't have found it intolerably painful to abandon the idea had I come across unsolvable problems.

The second iteration served to shore up a number of loose ends. Then, there was a third iteration and a fourth iteration that resulted in the two books available on this website.

This has been followed by several refinements and a great number of blog posts.

Every iteration has taught me something new. I've found new insights, which is the whole purpose of writing theory. So, even if I should come across some insurmountable problem related to my theory, I would not have worked in vain. In fact, my experience would have value for others in their own search for a theory.

I would be more than happy to point out the pitfalls I fell into so that others can make progress without stumbling into them themselves.

Specialization

This is in contrast to how science is approached in academia these days. Instead of going for an overall view, academics tend to specialize early. Years of studies are invested in narrow fields, and this results in a reluctance to consider alternative views. Hence, we get the situation where black holes are preferred over plasmoids and z-pinches despite serious problems with black holes, both in theory and observation.

Conclusion

Science is in its essence nothing other than structured curiosity. It's not a place for closed minds. Hence, theory should never be taken too seriously. Alternatives should always be considered. At the very least, there should be a curiosity related to any alternative view of the particular field of expertise that a scientist is involved in.

However, career science isn't very open to alternative views. Rather, it's heavy on career and light on science.

Future breakthroughs in theoretical physics will therefore come from the fringes, and from the amateurs that think freely and unhindered by dogma.

Plasma jet ejected by a galaxy

By NASA and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA) HubbleSite: gallery, release., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=102873

The Plasma Universe

The most abundant form of matter in the universe isn't solid, liquid or inert gas, but plasma. Yet few people have heard of it, and even fewer know what it is.

Defining plasma

The reason for this is that plasma isn't a state of matter, but a condition. All plasmas are gases with the additional quality that their electrons have been separated to some degree from their molecules. The overall charge of a plasma is zero, or close to zero. However, a large number of the molecules in the gas are missing an electron. They are ionized, with their electrons floating freely between molecules, or attached to other, negatively charged molecules.

The gas isn't charged, because that would imply an overall excess or deficiency in electrons. It's therefore wrong to say that a plasma is a charged gas. The correct description is that it is a charge-separated gas with an overall neutral charge balance.

The most common charge separation is one where electrons are separated from molecules, making molecules positive and electrons free floating. But a mix of positively and negatively charged molecules would also qualify as a plasma. The key is that charge is separated within the gas, making individual molecules positively or negatively charged, while the overall body of gas remains neutral.

Properties of plasma

Charge separation in gases can be achieved in multiple ways. Photon radiation, heat and electric fields all have the ability to tear electrons from molecules, so it's no wonder that the universe is full of this stuff.

The resulting plasma is an electric conductor with a remarkable ability to self-organize. All sorts of interesting patterns can be created with relative ease in a laboratory. Kristian Birkeland made several experiments at the University in Oslo, more than a hundred years ago, where he replicated Earth's Auroras, Saturn's rings, and features of the Sun, thus proving that all of these phenomena could be related to plasma currents.

Recently, we've seen the SAFIRE project make several experiments with their own terrella. As it turned out, one of their experiments proved to be rather prophetic, as can be seen in this video.

Wolf–Rayet star

A so called Wolf–Rayet star has been observed with ripple-like rings surrounding it, very similar to what was observed in the SAFIRE project.

This should come as no surprise because Wolf–Rayet stars exist in environments of highly ionized gases, i.e. plasma. The conditions surrounding such stars are identical in nature to those created in the plasma chamber used by the SAFIRE project.

Conclusion

It's well known that our universe is dominated by gases in their plasma state. It should therefore come as no surprise that stars and planets exhibit the self organizing properties that are known to take place in plasma currents. Yet, mainstream astronomers persist in their insistence that it is gravity, rather than plasma currents, that dominate the inner workings of the universe.

It's high time for a change.

Plasma lamp

By I, Luc Viatour, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

The Electric Sun-Earth Connection

Earth has an electric connection to the Sun. We know this because Auroras at the poles of our planet are electric phenomena, and they flare up whenever there's a solar storm. The more intense the flaring, the more intense are the Auroras.

Electric winds and storms

The most spectacular case of this ever recorded was the so called Carrington Event of 1859. It resulted in fantastic Auroras, and a great deal of damage to telegraph lines as well as powerlines. The solar flare was clearly electrical in nature.

We have since learned that there's a steady stream of charged particles emitted by the Sun, mostly electrons and protons. Solar flares are in other words like storms in an otherwise stable environment.

Magnetic field reversals

The electric connection between our Sun and our planet is never broken. But it's not hardwired either. We know this because our Sun's magnetic field flips 180° every 11 years, and this type of reversal almost never happens on Earth. So, our planet's electric characteristics must be at least somewhat independent of our Sun.

Furthermore, the Sun's magnetic reversals indicate that it's under the influence of a alternating rather than direct current.

Birkeland currents

This leads us to the assumption that our Sun is externally powered by a Birkeland current. If our Sun's magnetic field reverts every 11 years, so must the Birkeland current. However, this is not a problem, because Birkeland currents do in fact encompass counterrotations and reversals.

Birkeland currents are made up of concentric tubes of electric plasma that oscillate at relatively steady frequencies. If our Sun is moving along such a current, periodic field reversals is exactly what we'd expect.

But how is it that our Sun's energy output remains pretty much unaffected by all of this? If our Sun is externally powered, it must mean that the current feeding it is steady as well. Yet, we have magnetic field reversals happening every 11 years with hardly any change to its output.

Z-pinch

The answer to this is that Birkeland currents are multilayered. The overall energy supply is therefore the sum of multiple layers of various current flows, and these layers are distributed in such a way that the energy transmitted by any cross section adds up to pretty much the same number no matter how you slice it.

The Sun forms a node in the Birkeland current, known as a z-pinch. So, multiple layers of the Birkeland current are pulled in towards our Sun. Each layer provides its own energy input, sometimes strong and sometimes weak. But taken together, the input is steady.

Turbulence and flaring

This means that there are times when our Sun is moving through its Birkeland current in regions where all the various layers of plasma sheets move in the same direction, and other times when the sheets are out of synch with each other. In the case of our Sun, the cycle is 11 years.

When the Birkeland current is in synch, our Sun is calm with little flaring and few sunspots. When the current is out of synch, there is more flaring and more sunspots.

The period of calm is also when our Sun's magnetic field is at its most distinct. It has a clear north-south axis. This is contrary to periods of flaring and turbulence, when our Sun has a chaotic magnetic field with no clear direction.

Solar cycles

All of this corresponds precisely to the so called solar cycles. In fact, it explains them perfectly.

Sunspots and flaring are at their most intense shortly after our Sun moves through a region of maximum turbulence in the Birkeland current. They are at a minimum shortly after our Sun passes through a region of minimum of turbulence.

Atmospheric inertia

The delay is due to atmospheric inertia. Just like summers here on Earth are at their hottest shortly after we have peak solar exposure, solar cycles are at their most intense shortly after the Sun passes through maximum turbulence in its Birkeland current.

Atmospheric inertia can also explain why there's no overall change in the Sun's rotation due to magnetic reversal.

Plasma sheets swapping sides

The Birkeland current doesn't have much inertia to it, so when there is a reversal in its overall motion, it deals with this through the way of least resistance. It doesn't oppose the inertially heavy rotation of our Sun. Rather, it reconnects in such a way that its contribution to the rotation remains the same.

The direction of the current reverts, but not its rotation. The positive and negative plasma sheets that come in through the north and south poles of our Sun swap sides, but with no other impact than a lot of turbulence during the swap. 

Climate impacts

Additionally, we have an explanation for why Earth's climate cools down during periods of little overall solar activity.

If our Sun is externally powered by a Birkeland current, it follows that the strength of this current will determine the strength of the Sun's output. So, when the Birkeland current is weaker than normal, our Sun should be less intense in both its radiation, and its turbulence and flaring.

By observing a drop in flaring and sunspot activity, we can infer a drop in energy input, and hence expect a drop in Earth's temperature.

Atmospheric inertia

There is a delay between the magnetic reversal and the maximum turbulence in the Sun's atmosphere. But this can be explained in terms of inertia. Just like there's a delay between the height of summer in terms of heat relative to the peak position of the Sun in the skies here on Earth, there's a delay between 

AC to DC conversion

But none of this explains why Earth's magnetic field remains unaffected by magnetic reversals of our Sun. However, this detail isn't difficult to explain in the light of what was stated earlier about the solar wind.

Our Sun is the central node of the Birkeland current that passes through our Solar system. It's the Sun that soaks up its energy. The planets that orbit our Sun is not directly affected. Rather, we are basking in the glow of our central star. There's a steady wind of electrons and ions sprayed out at us together with photon radiation.

Instead of being affected by an alternating current, we're receiving a direct current that doesn't revert every 11 years.

The Sun acts as a AC to DC converter for the planets.

Magnetic reversals for planets

But if our Sun provides its planets with a DC current, why then do we sometimes get magnetic reversals also on Earth? Here, we can only speculate, but one possible explanation could be a change in the overall makeup of the solar wind.

If the solar wind is predominantly made up of electrons during normal times, but sometimes changes to predominantly protons, or visa versa, we may experience a magnetic reversal for planets as a consequence.

Planetary Birkeland currents

The effect of an overall change in the makeup of the solar wind would be similar to the effect of a reversal for the Sun.

This is because the auroral current entering planets are of the same kind as the current driving our Sun. They too are Birkeland currents with multiple layers and counter rotations.

The inertia inherent in planetary rotation will similarly dictate that the overall rotation remains the same. So, the only significant change to the planets becomes a reversal of the poles, preceded by significant atmospheric and magnetic turbulence.

However, there may be internal mechanisms driving some of this as well, as suggested in this paper.

Conclusion

Observed facts are consistent with an electric model of our galaxy, our Sun and its planets. However, the precise makeup of the electric circuit is far from straight forward. There are multiple factors playing a part, and I'm not pretending to have all the answers.

By David Hathaway, NASA, Marshall Space Flight Center - http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml, Public Domain, Link

Hannes Alfvén's Galactic Circuit

Hannes Alfvén, who won the Nobel Price in physics in 1970, proposed in his time an electric model of galaxies. According to this model, there should be an electric current drawn in at the plane of galaxies, and pushed out through the poles at their central axis.

Much of the current pushed out at the poles goes back down to the plane, where it reenters the galaxy, thereby forming what he termed a galactic circuit. Positive ions are drawn in through the plane, and pushed out at the poles. Electrons and negative ions go the other way.

Recent confirmation

While this was viewed as rather speculative back in his days, recent mappings of magnetic fields in and around our galaxy proves him right. The magnetic structures observed are indicative of a large current moving precisely as predicted by Alfvén.

This means that every galaxy in the universe forms an electric node with Alfvén's characteristics.

Pearls on a string

From other observations, we know that galaxies tend to line up like pearls on a string. This indicates that they are connected, presumably by a plasma current that drives the entire system.

But every node must necessarily leak some energy into space, so we are again faced with the need to conjure up an energy supply. My theory is that every star is a contributor to the galactic current, so it is the stars in the galaxies that supply the energy to compensate for leakage. Every galaxy is a giant electric accelerator. They are the amplifiers of galactic currents.

By Credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center - http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/new-structure.html, Public Domain, Link

Magnetic Field Strengths of Planets

The conventional view of planetary magnetic fields is that they are the result of liquid metallic currents that move like dynamos deep inside the cores of planets.

The liquid metallic currents are driven by internal mechanisms that can only be inferred from their resulting magnetic fields.

Predictive vs non-predictive theories

This is an example of a non-predictive theory where only invisible and hypothetical inferences are possible. Nothing visible or directly measurable can be inferred. The truth of the theory cannot be determined. It rests fully on trust in the original hypothesis.

In contrast we have the theory supported in my book where we can infer planetary magnetic fields by observing the atmospheres, wind speeds and rotation speeds of planets.

The thickness and the overall rotational speed of a planet's atmosphere tells us roughly how strong the planet's magnetic field is. Our theory is therefore predictive and testable. All we need to do in order to give an estimate of a planet's magnetic field is to observe its visible characteristics.

Hollow or liquid core

We know from measurements on Earth that planetary magnetic fields appear to come from deep down. However, this doesn't mean that this must be the source of it. It merely means that our planet needs to have a fluid core capable of generating a magnetic field in harmony with external forces applied to it from the above atmosphere.

The core can be a metallic liquid, or it can be a plasma filled hollow. As long as it is something that responds harmonically to external magnetic inputs, we're fine.

Plasma currents

The central idea in our theory is that the magnetic fields of planets are created by charged gases in motion, aka plasma currents. Since it's well established that all atmospheres are charged, especially at high altitudes, we can say that all planets with an atmosphere have plasma currents moving around them.

The jet stream and Earth's magnetic field

High altitude winds are visible example of plasma currents. We cannot see the charges moving about, but we know that they are there, and we know that they generate magnetic fields when they move.

The plasma currents are in turn driven externally by the Birkeland currents that also produce the auroras at the poles. Everything is in the end connected to the Sun and the plasma current that drives the entire solar system.

Testing our theory

With this in mind, we can go on to match observations with facts to see if we can indeed predict a planet's magnetic field strength by simple observations:

• Mercury has no atmosphere, and presumably a small and inactive hollow. This explains why Mercury has a very weak magnetic field.
• Venus has a thick atmosphere that moves at high speeds. But the planet is rotating very slowly, so there's little contribution to the overall speed form the planet itself. The slow rotational speed of Venus is also an indication of little to no contribution from any internal atmosphere or liquid metallic core. This explains why Venus has a weak magnetic field despite its thick atmosphere and strong winds.
• Earth rotates a good deal faster than Venus, and it has a jet stream and an active internal current. This explains why Earth has the strongest magnetic field in the inner solar system.
• Mars is similar to Mercury, but less extreme. It has a thin atmosphere and probably a slightly larger hollow. This explains why Mars has a magnetic field that's stronger than Mercury's but weaker than Earth's.
• Jupiter is spinning very fast on its axis, and it has a thick atmosphere. Its large and diffuse core is likely to be very active. It's therefore no surprise to learn that Jupiter has the strongest magnetic field of all planets in the solar system.
• Saturn is similar to Jupiter, but with a thinner atmosphere and slower spin. Its magnetic field comes in as the second strongest in the solar system.
• Uranus has more than two poles, indicating that there's a mismatch between the internal plasma current and the external current. The strength of its magnetic fields are less than Saturn.
• Neptune is similar to Uranus, and has for this reason magnetic fields similar to it.

Conclusion

The plasma model for planetary magnetic fields can be used to make predictions related to the strength of magnetic fields. This is unlike the dynamo hypothesis which can only be used retrospectively. The dynamo can only be inferred from measurements of the magnetic field. It cannot be used to predict anything, and is therefore useless as a predictive model.

The fact that the plasma model gives us correct predictions based on observations of atmospheres, wind speeds and rotation speeds of planets, makes it the better model in terms of usefulness.

Vulcan and the Mercury Anomaly

Mercury makes its rounds around the Sun a little faster than predicted by Newton, and this has been a subject for debate in astronomy ever since this was discovered. However, the debate is currently considered settled by Einstein, who demonstrated that a curved space-time could account for the observed fact. But this doesn't mean that there are no alternative explanations.

Alternative explanations

I've presented two possible alternatives in my book, and Dr. Robitaille, who's an expert on astrophysics, has come up with an elegant take on the phenomenon that doesn't invoke anything outside of standard Newtonian mechanics.

Dr. Robitaille starts off by mentioning the hypothetical planet Vulcan that was proposed as a first attempt at explaining the anomaly back in the nineteenth century. The idea was that if there was a planet orbiting between Mercury and the Sun, this planet would pull Mercury with it, thereby speeding it up ever so slightly. However, the planet was never found, and the idea was abandoned.

But if the Sun has a blob inside of it so that the center of gravity is a little skewed we'll get the same effect. The blob rotates with the Sun, and whenever it passes Mercury, it gives Mercury a little tug. Vulcan may in other words exist, but as a blob inside our Sun rather than a planet orbiting it.

Jupiter's Red Spot

An interesting aspect of Dr. Robitaille's proposed blob is its similarity to Jupiter's Red Spot, because the Red Spot is in fact a blob. It has been measured to be gravitationally stronger than its surroundings. It stands taller than the surrounding atmosphere, and it's becoming more circular and compact.

However, the Vulcan blob is not visible at the surface of the Sun. If it exists, it's located somewhere below the Sun's surface. But apart from that, the blob and the Red Spot have a lot in common, so if the Red Spot is an embryonic moon of Jupiter, could it be that the Vulcan blob is an embryonic planet that might one day be ejected by the Sun?

Jupiter ejecting a moon

The Cosmic Microwave Background

The Cosmic Microwave Background is an ubiquitous background radiation of the universe, viewed by astronomers as strong evidence in support of the Big Bang. However, the evidence is not as conclusive as many make it out to be, and Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille explains why this is so in his series of lectures on the subject.

Redshift

First off, we need to consider the phenomenon of redshift, and how it is interpreted, because it is the redshift in the microwave background that gives us reasons to believe that the observed signal is the afterglow of the Big Bang.

The way redshift is detected is that molecules that occupy a space between a light source and an observer show up as lines in the observer's light specter. Every molecule has its own signature of lines, and these lines belong to specific frequency ranges. When such lines appear out of place relative to where they should have been, we have either blueshift or redshift, depending on whether the signal is bluer or redder than expected.

In the case of the microwave background, the redshift constitutes a shift from visible light to microwave. That's an enormous shift. Furthermore, the redshift is identical wherever we look.

One event or multiple events

From the way the data is presented, it looks like the microwave background is the result of a single event, because multiple events would give different redshift signals depending on where they happened. It also looks like the event was extreme, like a big explosion.

However, Dr. Robitaille is far from convinced that we have in fact observed a nice sharp redshift footprint in the microwave background. He points out weaknesses in the methods used. Instead of a single event, it appears that we're dealing with a lot of different events who's signals average out to something sharp and greatly redshifted.

What these events have in common is that they appear to be distant. But this can be explained by the fact that the farther out we look, the more of the universe we see. At the very limit of the observable universe, we see a huge number of stars for every arch second of sky, and it speaks for itself that this region must generate an almost uniform background signal.

The microwave background is in other words likely to be the glow of distant stars.

Relative to this, all other explanations come across as contrived. Why invoke a Big Bang, when everybody knows that stars generate heat?

Proton decay

My proposed alternative explanation to the Big Bang is also contrived when viewed in this perspective. But I will give it a mention nevertheless, because a balanced universe requires a mechanism known as proton decay for things to balance out, and this will generate heat.

If matter becomes heavier over time, as proposed by Halton Arp, it must eventually evaporate back into radiation for our universe to be both balanced and eternal. There must be a limit to how heavy protons can become before they decay, and once decay sets in, it must be irreversible.

If we assume that matter is created in the hot centers of galaxies, we can equally assume that protons decay at the dark edges of these same galaxies. Every galaxy would therefore be surrounded by a faint glow at low energy levels. With galaxies everywhere around us in the universe, we'd get a uniform background radiation.

Assuming further that protons decay into photons and light weight hydrogen, possibly with some helium as well, we get an explanation for the observed redshift in the hydrogen and helium specters as well.

EM Spectrum Properties

By Inductiveload, NASA - self-made, information by NASABased off of File:EM Spectrum3-new.jpg by NASAThe butterfly icon is from the P icon set, File:P biology.svg The humans are from the Pioneer plaque, File:Human.svg The buildings are the Petronas towers and the Empire State Buildings, both from File:Skyscrapercompare.svg, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

The Balanced Universe

The universe is by definition a closed system with no outside mechanism to drive it. This means that every mechanism in the universe will have to have some reverse mechanism for it to persist. Otherwise, it will burn itself out and die.

An eternal universe must additionally have a fixed size, or one that pulsates, sometimes expanding and sometimes contracting. If it shrinks to nothing, it's dead, and if it expands for ever, it can also be considered dead.

However, we cannot simply declare our universe to be eternal. We have to present plausible mechanisms that will prevent it from dying.

A fixed size universe

In a model where gravity is the only force of any significance, we cannot very easily argue for a fixed size universe. It's pretty much impossible for a gravity only universe to balance out. It must either expand into oblivion or it will collapse. Even if it expands ever more slowly so that it never exceeds a size limit, bits of it will collapse from time to time until it's all dead.

However, we don't live in a gravity only universe. There are electric currents flowing through space in the form of plasma. Space is full of electric and magnetic forces that can counteract gravity. These forces make orbits stable, and prevent planets, stars and galaxies from colliding catastrophically. Once this is taken into account, the argument for a fixed size and eternal universe becomes stronger.

Heating and cooling

When we look at our Sun in isolation, we're amazed by the amount of heat it generates. It's tempting to conclude that it must possess a powerful internal furnace, and with billions of stars in our galaxy alone, the cosmos must heat up rapidly.

However, when we consider our Sun in a wider context, we see that it may for the most part be externally driven by plasma flows between stars. If so, little extra energy is required in order to account for the Sun's impressive amount of heat.

If stars are hot primarily due to external factors, there's no reason to think that a fixed size cosmos will heat up quickly. But there will be heating over time, so there is a need for a reverse process from the one going on at the surface of stars. We need a mechanism that can suck energy out of the cosmos, and our prime candidate for this are supernovas because they are known to produce a lot of heavy elements. Despite their brightness, they do in fact consume more energy than they produce.

With a model in which stars produce energy through fission and supernovas consume energy through fusion, we have a balance in which a fixed size universe will remain at a steady overall temperature.

Lifecycle of matter

Halton Arp noted in his time that matter itself age over time. Matter starts off with small protons that grow bigger and heavier over time. This too needs to be balanced with a reverse process. Otherwise, we get an aging universe with matter never returning to its initial youthful lightness.

To solve this problem, I've proposed that there's a limit to how heavy protons can become, and that they will evaporate into positrons, electrons and photons once this limit is reached. This radiation can in turn be used to produce new lightweight matter.

The universe can thus be sustained indefinitely in a balanced fashion, with some regions young, and other regions old and dying.

Life

It should be noted that the death of matter doesn't mean the death of life, because life uses whatever materials there are in its vicinity to reproduce. If life finds ways to move out of old, dying regions of space and into newer regions, life can persist for eternity, and it seems likely that this is in fact how things work. Microorganisms can traverse space randomly, and highly intelligent lifeforms find ways to cross the voids of space from dying regions to younger regions.

It's therefore reasonable to believe that our universe is a huge thriving ecosystem teeming with life.

By NASA, ESA, and the Hubble SM4 ERO Team - http://www.hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2009/25/image/e/, Public Domain, Link

Transmutations on the Electric Sun

Having demonstrated that transmutations can explain both fossilization and processes going on inside our bodies we can go on to consider our Sun and what sort of transmutations it may be engaging in.

The electric Sun

First off, we need to understand the mechanisms driving the Sun itself. The standard model of the Sun is that it is a ball of gas, fueled by an internal fusion reactor that turns Hydrogen into Helium. However, this does not fit well with observations, and this has led some to suggest that the Sun is not a nuclear reactor but an externally driven electric furnace. Additionally, I've proposed that this furnace generates more energy than it consumes. Nuclear processes taking place on the surfaces of stars function as electric accelerators.

A suitable model of our Sun is not the ball of Hydrogen gas that current theory suggests, but an object made out of pretty much the same materials as everything else in our solar system, namely rocks and gases of various kinds. The abundance of Hydrogen seen in the light spectra of our Sun is not indicative of its makeup. Rather, it's due to Hydrogen being split off of heavier elements at its surface through nuclear fission.

This process is not unique to our Sun. It takes place on all stars, and this is why we see so much Hydrogen, Helium and other light elements in space and the corona of our Sun and other stars. The abundance of light elements in space is not a reflection of the overall makeup of our universe, but simply a consequence of the nuclear processes taking place on stars.

Interstellar currents

Note that the energy generated by transmutations of elements on the surface of stars don't have to account for more than a fraction of their energy outputs because stars are primarily electric furnaces. The nuclear reactions taking place are merely maintaining and adding to the interstellar engine of electric currents that drive all stars.

The energy supposedly lost to space through radiation is in the form of charged gases known as plasma, and plasma will always merge and converge onto nearby stars and planets. The energy blasted out into space by our Sun and stars is focused onto other stars and reused.

Little extra energy is required for this to persist, which means that stars can exist for a very long time without running out of fuel.

Transmutations

As for the transmutations taking place on the surface of stars, we have a few general rules we can apply. For one, the overall process must be exothermic. Heat is generated, not consumed. Furthermore, the transmutations are mostly due to fission of Hydrogen and Helium. All sorts of other transmutations may also take place, but the abundance of Hydrogen and Helium in the coronas of stars tell us that fission is the main driver.

When we combine these observations with the periodic table, and the fact that planets like Earth are especially rich in Silicon and Iron, we find four candidates for what may be the dominant transmutations that take place on stars. They are:

• Silicon (Si) - Hydrogen (H) = Aluminum (Al) + Energy
• Silicon (Si) - Helium (He) = Magnesium (Mg) + Energy
• Iron (Fe) - Hydrogen (H) = Manganese (Mn) + Energy
• Iron (Fe) - Helium (He) = Chromium (Cr) + Energy

Calculations

Using atomic weights found in the periodic table to calculate the energy produced by each of these processes we get the following.

For Si - H = Al + Energy we get:

• Energy = Si - Al - H
• Energy = 28.085 - 26.982 - 1.008
• Energy = 0.095

For Si - He = Mg + Energy we get:

• Energy = Si - Mg - He
• Energy = 28.085 - 24.305 - 4.003
• Energy = -0.223

For Fe - H = Mn + Energy we get:

• Energy = Fe - Mn - H
• Energy = 55.845 - 54.938 - 1.008
• Energy = -0.101

For Fe - He = Cr + Energy we get:

• Energy = Fe - Cr - He
• Energy = 55.845 - 51.996 - 4.003
• Energy = -0.154

Conclusion

From the above calculations we get that only the Silicon to Aluminum transmutation is exothermic. It's the only one that produces energy, and therefore the only one in this list that is happening at any significant rate.

However, this is not to say that Silicon to Aluminum transmutation is the only transmutation taking place on our Sun. Iron may still play an important role because it will release a lot of energy if split into Silicon and Magnesium. Silicon can then in turn split off a hydrogen atom to produce Aluminum, and Magnesium can also shed Hydrogen, as can Aluminum. Long chains of reactions are possible.

When more complex transmutation sequences are considered, we get a long list of possibilities. But if we restrict ourselves to abundant elements found on Earth, and focus on splitting off Hydrogen and Helium from these elements, the list becomes short, and we can conclude that the dominant transmutation taking place on the Sun is that of Silicon to Aluminum, with Hydrogen released into the chromosphere and corona.

Sun's corona and chromosphere during a solar eclipse

By Luc Viatour, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

The Sumerian Black Sun

The Sumerians had a seven day week with the first day dedicated to the Sun and last day dedicated to what they referred to as the Black Sun, which is generally believed to have been the planet Saturn.

The Black Sun was only visible during the night, and was described as a ring of light. This fits well with Saturn, as does the fact that our current calendar has Saturn's day, known to us as Saturday, six days after Sunday. However, the Black Sun was said to be larger than the Sun. It was also associated with evil. There was presumably something foreboding about it. That doesn't fit so well with a distant planet associated with wealth and agriculture.

It appears then that the Sumerians observed something in the skies that we rarely or never see nowadays, and this phenomenon may have had some connection to Saturn. When the original phenomenon faded, the secondary effect was brought forward, and we ended up replacing the Black Sun with Saturn in our calendars and myths.

I am of course speculating wildly at this point but there is a phenomenon that fits the bill, and that is the northern lights. This phenomenon is only visible close to our planet's poles these days, but it may have been visible farther to the south in Sumerian times if the Sun was more active back then.

The Sumerians may have noticed a connection between intense northern lights and bad weather, and hence deemed it evil. They may also have noticed some connection between northern lights and the luminosity of Saturn and its rings, and hence made a connection between the Black Sun and Saturn.

While I'm far from certain when it comes to any connection between solar flaring and the luminosity of Saturn, there is a proven connection between cosmic radiation and cloud formation. If we get a prolonged period with above normal radiation of our planet, we'll get more clouds, colder weather and harsher weather. The intensity of the Black Sun would therefore function as a climate forecasting tool for the Sumerians. Should the Black Sun shine bright for many days in a row, bad weather could be expected.

Saturn

By NASA / JPL / Space Science Institute - http://www.ciclops.org/view/5155/Saturn-Four-Years-On http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/365640main_PIA11141_full.jpg http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA11141, Public Domain, Link

Gravity on Mercury

Fossil remains indicate that Earth's surface gravity was about one third of what it is today back in the days of the dinosaurs, and geological analysis of our planet indicate that Earth' diameter has doubled in size since these same dinosaurs were alive.

It appears then that surface gravity on rocky planets like Earth triple in strength when their diameters double due to expansion.

Any rocky planet, half the diameter of Earth, that has undergone little to no expansion, should therefore have a surface gravity roughly one third of what we have here on our planet.

As it turns out, we have a nearby planet that shows few signs of expansion, with half the diameter of Earth, and a geological makeup also similar to our planet, and its surface gravity is in fact roughly one third of what we have here on Earth.

That planet is Mars.

The numbers are as follows.

Relative diameter:

6,779km / 12,742km = 53%

Relative surface gravity:

3.7 / 9.8 = 38%

So far, so good. However, when we do the same calculations for Mercury, we get the following.

Relative diameter:

4,880km / 12,742km = 38%

Relative surface gravity:

3.7 / 9.8 = 38%

In this case, the difference in surface gravity is what we'd expect from Newtonian theory, namely a linear increase with diameter.

Seen from a Newtonian perspective, Mars is the odd one out. It has for some reason a less dense interior than Mercury and Earth. But mainstream science also holds that Earth's core has "puzzling structural complexities". Earth's interior is becoming incredibly complex, especially compared to Jan Lamprecht's model which he developed from the same seismic data.

It may therefore be that it is Mercury that is the odd one out, and not Mars. Mercury may have a smaller hollow at its center than is the case for Mars, and Earth back in the days of the dinosaurs. It may also be that Mercury's proximity to the Sun is making it supercharged due to the photoelectric effect, with this in turn affecting its gravity.

We can only speculate at this point. But there's no need to blindly accept that Earth's interior is mindbogglingly complex, and not relatively uniform throughout, with diminishing density as we get closer to the center, as suggested by Mr. Lamprecht.

Mercury

By NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Arizona State University/Carnegie Institution of Washington - https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA11364, Public Domain, Link

Black Holes and Unicorns

Dividing a number by zero yields what's known as a mathematical singularity. The result of such a division is not infinite, but undefined. In the context of the real world, the result doesn't exist.

Any theoretical formula about the real world will therefore have to omit any singularities that may arise. One would have to put limits on the proposed formula. Consequently, honest scientists should always look out for singularities in their formulas and point out that their formulas break down at certain values.

Singularities are like red flags. They inform us of boundary conditions. In the context of physics, singularities indicate that there are limits to how dense, hot or otherwise extreme something can become before some fundamental mechanism kicks in to rectify things. That fundamental property is in my opinion the aether which makes space quantized rather than linear.

This means that things do not change in a linear manner when things get extreme. For instance, the electric force becomes suddenly weaker when things get extremely close together. The same goes for gravity. Extremely dense objects stop behaving as expected from linear formulas.

However, all of this is conveniently ignored when it comes to astrophysics.

Black holes, also known as gravitational singularities, have properties that are infinite. They are infinitely dense and infinitely hot. They are in other words physical impossibilities, yet they are presented to us as real.

A reason for this may be that it's fun to talk about impossible things. Just like unicorns, we can all form opinions about them. Some even claim to have seen them, even taken pictures of them. Yet, everyone knows deep down that they don't exist.

A picture of an astronomical unicorn, or something else entirely

By Event Horizon Telescope - https://www.eso.org/public/images/eso1907a/ (image link) The highest-quality image (7416x4320 pixels, TIF, 16-bit, 180 Mb), ESO Article, ESO TIF, CC BY 4.0, Link

Redshift Quantization

Back in year 2000, Halton Arp held this lecture on his career as an astronomer, and his findings related to the redshift of Quasars. Of the many things he discovered and recorded back in the 1970s, two things stand out. One was the fact that some Quasars are visibly in front of objects that should be closer to us based on redshift calculations. The other thing he noted was that redshifts aren't uniformly distributed. Some redshifts are more common than others. I.e. redshifts are quantized phenomena.

These findings flew in the face of accepted theory at the time, which held that redshift is uniformly distributed and directly linked to speeds. These assumptions formed in turn the basis for the Big Bang theory, as well as many assumptions related to Black Holes. If Halton Arp's observations were to be accepted as facts, all of this would have to be reconsidered.

This was too much for many theorists to accept, so they made Halton Arp a persona non grata. Instead of considering the evidence collected by Mr. Arp, they ignored it. But the cat was out of the bag and evidence in support of Halton Arp's findings are piling up.

I was reminded of this by one of my readers (cilo) who made a comment about this on my previous post. According to him, the James Webb Space Telescope has collected more data in support of Halton Arp's findings. It appears that the phenomenon of redshift quantization is becoming increasingly difficult to deny.

This means that there's something profound about the universe that current theory isn't able to explain. If we stick to the idea that redshift is purely speed related, we get that some speeds are more common than other speeds. In the context of an expanding universe, we get some distances less likely to contain objects than other distances. The universe around us becomes layered, and this is not what current theory stipulates.

Alternatively, we'll have to accept that not all redshifts are speed related, in which case we have to consider alternative hypothesises of which there are two: One is the tired light hypothesis that suggests that light becomes redder over time due to loss of energy. The other hypothesis, suggested by Halton Arp, is that matter grows more massive over time. Halton Arp called this intrinsic redshift because it says something about the age of the objects observed rather than their distance. I.e. redshifts are intrinsic to objects without regards to distances or speeds.

It should be noted that we don't have to choose one redshift or another. They may all exist together in which case we get a complex mix of factors rather than the clean sterility of conventional astrophysics where only a few variables play a role.

Having established that speed related redshifts can only be quantized if speed itself is quantized, or if matter in an expanding universe is distributed in layers around us, we can go on to consider the tired light hypothesis.

For light to tire without scatter, we require some highly fluid low energy substance to fill the universe, and since no such substance is currently considered to exist in conventional theory, tired light has been dismissed as an impossibility. But if we allow for an aether of zero-point particles we get that light may fade in energy without being scattered. We also get that the light will fade in discrete steps due to the particle nature of the aether. However, these steps are likely to be too small to be the cause of redshift quantization.

The tired light hypothesis is also unable to explain Halton Arp's observation that redshift seems to be independent of distance. Only Halton Arp's intrinsic redshift can explain this part of the puzzle. Objects become redder over time due to mass condensing onto them. But why would mass condensation happen in discrete steps sufficiently large to be noticed by astronomers?

I've proposed in my physics that mass condensation is due to a hypothesized ability of protons to absorb photons. If this is a straight forward process, a proton will grow in mass by a photon every now and again. However, this would show up as a fairly uniform process with many tiny steps. It wouldn't be the relatively large steps that have been observed, so it appears that mass condensation must be something more complex. It may be that photons build up on the surface of protons without making them noticeable larger before some threshold is reached where the photons rearrange themselves into the fabric of the protons. But here, I'm only speculating.

There's plenty of room for speculation at this point, and I'm not going to pretend I have an answer to what may be going on. However, one thing is becoming increasingly clear. Redshift isn't as straight forward a subject as many have made it out to be. Observations don't fit theory, and this gap between observations and theory has been around for some fifty years.

Halton Arp

By The original uploader was Reuben at English Wikipedia. - Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons by Sreejithk2000 using CommonsHelper., CC BY 2.5, Link

The Significance of Dimorphos' Tail

The short answer to why Dimorphos now has a 10,000 km long tail, some two weeks after NASA intentionally slammed a space probe into it, is that the solar wind dragged the debris with it into space.

If this is all there is to the story, we should expect the tail soon to disconnect from the asteroid and become an elongated cloud, separate from it. However, if this doesn't happen, we're looking at something more complex, namely a comet of sorts.

Comets have tails that persist over time, not because they're dirty snowballs, but because the environment comets travel through is constantly changing in charge density. Going towards the Sun, comets have to adjust for higher charge density. Going away from the sun, they have to adjust to lower charge density. This adjustment is achieved through the shedding of material through electrochemical processes and possibly nuclear fission. Hence, the tail of comets.

Planets don't have tails like comets do because planets have near circular orbits. There's no need for readjustments when it comes to charge density. The difference between a comet and a planet is therefore due entirely to the shape of their orbits. When orbits are circular, there're no tails. When orbits are oblong, there're tails.

If Dimorphos' tail proves persistent, we can use the above to explain the reason for this: Before the impact, Dimorphos had no tail because it was orbiting in a circle around Didymos. After the impact, Dimorphos acquired a persistent tail due to its new and oblong orbit.

Didymos is no sun, but it has around it a charge density of its own, and Dimorphos is a heap of rubble from which dust can easily be dislodged. As such, the two asteroids represent a miniature system comparable to the solar system.

My thesis when it comes to orbits is that they are more stable than generally believed. I've based this on the fact that orbits are governed by gravitational attraction and electrical repulsion, with gravity acting from the centre of bodies and electric repulsion acting from the surface of bodies. When these forces combine, we get a shock absorber effect that steadies orbits of bodies hit by an external force.

In the case of Dimorphos, we can add an extra source of stability, namely the solar wind which acts like an external power supply. This power supply may have importance to where the ideal orbit of Dimorphos should be relative to Didymos. If so, we have a chance of seeing the disturbed orbit not only steady into a circle quicker than most would expect but restore itself completely back to its original.

What we're about to witness might turn out to be a miniature version of what some believe to have happened some 10,000 years ago, when legend has it that Venus settled into its current orbit after a turbulent journey from Jupiter to where it's currently located.

Venus is everywhere in the world depicted as either a goddess with long flowing hair or a god with a long beard, indicating that it had a tail relatively recently. However, this tail disappeared once Venus settled into her current orbit. Venus went from being a comet to a planet in less than 10,000 years.

If Dimorphos steadies into a circular orbit quicker than expected, we'll have supporting evidence for the Venus as a comet theory. If Dimorphos retains its tail until its orbit is near circular, we have additional evidence for this theory, and if the orbit gets completely restored, the evidence becomes even stronger.

NASA's experiment may turn out to be more revealing than anyone had thought.

Dimorphos 285 hours after impact

By NASA

Dimorphos now has a 10,000 km Long Tail

Here's an article by National Geographic that sheds more light on the DART probe and its impact on Dimorphos' orbit around Didymos.

The article contains an image taken by a European space craft right after impact. It shows debris tossed up in the sort of cloud-like pattern we would expect. However, later pictures taken by NASA show a star-like pattern. Later still, the pattern is that of a comet with a long tail estimated to be about 10,000 km long, or about 6,000 miles.

An article by NOIR Lab contains a detailed picture of the comet-like pattern. The tail is explained as caused by the Sun's radiation pressure. That would be the solar wind, aka plasma current radiating away from the Sun. The tail is in other words pointing away from the Sun. However, the image in the picture shows a second tail, and there's no explanation for it.

The amount of debris ejected by the impact of the DART probe is taken as proof that Dimorphos is a so-called rubble-pile asteroid. It has no solid core. It's therefore a relatively low-density object that shed a lot of its mass as ejecta on impact. This explains the greater than expected change in Dimorphos' orbit.

The new orbit is being monitored closely. The shape and stability of it is going to be studied, including the possibility that it may wobble. This means that there are other people than me expecting the orbit to partially restore, and it will be interesting to learn to what extent this happens, if it happens at all.

Dimorphos 285 hours after impact

By NASA

DART Probe has Changed Dimorphos' Orbit

The NASA DART probe that hit the asteroid Dimorphos on September 27 has shortened Dimorphos’ orbit around its larger parent asteroid Didymos by 32 minutes. Its 11 hour and 55-minute orbit has been reduced to 11 hours and 23 minutes. That's a reduction of about 3%, three times more than NASA predicted.

My guess was that NASA would find it harder to change the orbit than they predicted, but that didn't happen.

I've also made a more speculative suggestion, that the orbit may partially or fully restore to its original due to the dual workings of gravitational attraction and electric repulsion, which should work as a shock absorber. However, it's too early to say if this will happen. It's also something that no-one else is expecting, and therefore something that may not be widely reported on.

Gravitational attraction and electrostatic repulsion

Telescope images taken in the hours immediately after the impact showed a relatively stable, star-like pattern of ejected dust and debris, not the nebulous cloud we might have expected. This pattern has since become more pronounced.

The image shown in NASA's latest article is of an elongated jet extending from the asteroid. NASA's article gives no explanation for the shape of the jet but gives it credit for having made the impact more effective than expected. My thinking is that the jet is shaped by the solar wind, aka plasma current emanating from the sun.

Dimorphos 285 hours after impact

By NASA - https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/3.2_dart_compass_draft2.png

DART Probe's Impact Crater on Dimorphos

NASA's article on the successful crashing of a space probe into the asteroid Dimorphos mentions a follow up mission that will inspect the impact crater in four years from now. My prediction for this is that the crater will be smaller than expected.

The reason for this is that asteroids aren't what astronomers believe them to be. They aren't proto planets, but remnants of planets that have been blown to bits or carved up by rogue planets. Hence, the rocky and dusty surface observed doesn't extend to the core of the asteroid, as generally believed.

Dimorphos isn't a low mass body, easily disturbed both in its orbit and its shape. It's a solid, high mass body with a thin cover of dust and rocks, and its cover was accumulated in the aftermath of the event that created it in the first place.

There will be little left to see of the impact crater in four years from now. It may even be completely gone due to the constant workings of solar winds.

Dimorphos seconds before DART probe impact

By Doug Ellison & NASA (Original) - https://twitter.com/doug_ellison/status/1574646223591481345, Public Domain, Link

NASA’s DART Probe Hits Asteroid

The NASA DART probe that I wrote about a year ago has reached its destination. It has crashed into an asteroid in order to alter its orbit around another, larger asteroid.

The impact happened on September 27. Pictures taken by the probe immediately before impact show a surface littered with rocks and dust. Telescope images show a relatively stable, star-like pattern of ejected dust and debris. Not the nebulous cloud we might have expected.

Accurate data related to the collision and its impact on the orbit of the system will be collected in the weeks to come.

NASA predicts about 1% shorter orbit, or roughly 10 minutes. I was under the impression that the aim was to widen the orbit, but I was evidently wrong in this. However, this doesn't take anything away from my overall prediction, which is based on my belief that asteroids are more massive than NASA thinks they are.

I expect the impact to be less effective than NASA predicts. The orbit may also partially or fully restore to its pre-impact trajectory due to the dual effect of gravitational attraction and electrostatic repulsion.

Gravitational attraction and electrostatic repulsion