No predictions here, just a remarkable set of coincidences!
by gary d. goodwin & Raymond Ward
"Revelation Chapter 8:1 And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour.
2 And I saw the seven angels which stood before God; and to them were given seven trumpets.
5 And the angel took the censer, and filled it with fire of the altar, and cast it into the earth: and there were voices, and thunderings, and lightnings, and an earthquake.
7 The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up.
8 And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood; 10 And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters;
12 And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise
9:1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit."
I have included this wonderful excerpt from the Bible, not to get everybody excited or to make any predictions (before the guys down at JPL get twisted at us!), but rather to simply point out that like us in our day, others believe that there will be impacts some day. Some even believe that the beginning of the next millennium is relative to the opening of the 7th Seal mentioned above. So this particular scripture is especially intriguing!
In July 1994 we were all amazed at the hit of Shoemaker-Levy 9 on Jupiter. This was an incredible event in and of itself! But during that same time period (in August 1994) another comet was discovered that has a very interesting story for our day. This comet is of course Machholz 2. Machholz 2 is a short period comet of about five years and thus has a relatively very small orbit. The furthest reach of its orbit is out around Jupiter's orbit. In fact one very interesting thing about this comet is that it appears to have some of the same characteristics as SL9 and has come from the same general area of space. We are now going to go as far as to suggest that the two comets, SL9 and Machholz 2 are in fact from the same parent body. During the advent of SL9's rain down upon Jupiter, there were conflicting reports about the number of actual pieces. Specifically the numbers twenty-one and twenty-two were used almost interchangeably by certain observers. The sizes of the pieces of SL9 varied and were increased after the impact, but sixteen kilometers was the generally used size. Would it surprise you to find out that Dr. Sekanina stated that "...the effective diameter of the parent nucleus [is]~10-15 kilometers." This is more than just in the ballpark! NASA recently became very excited when they found a rock in the Antarctic that appeared to have a microbe in it. The reason that they got really excited was that the rock was said to have been from Mars. They theorize that the rock was dislodged from the surface of Mars by an impactor, eventually ending up here on the earth. Remember how high the plume of material rose from the surface of Jupiter after each impact?
Regardless, the uniformitarians, or whatever you choose to call the NASA boys, believe that this comet - Machholz 2, has been through the solar system long before 1994. Of course no one ever discovered it or actually saw it with their own eyes before this late date of 1994 and this is especially telling. Amateurs have been discovering comets for many centuries. And what is the actual possibility that two comets came from the same area, during the very same time period, about the same size and that both are fragmented? The odds are staggering. (But more on what this may actually mean and other implications a little later.)
Regardless of these suspicions, there are some other much more interesting facts about this little group of comets. Did I say "group"? Absolutely! On its 1994 passage, Machholz 2 was seen to breakup and become not one or two comets, but at least six separate comets (and more)! They titled these comets A through F. Fragments A and D have seemed to be the brightest or the largest, depending upon who you talk to. These are not especially large comets, as was (is) the case with Hale Bopp.
The very interesting idea concerning this issue, is the fact that it's called one comet and yet it's "many" comets! Whenever the subject of comets comes up, most people think of a comet as one big dirty snowball. Well... I guess that we've clearly shown through this research group that comets are not snowballs. So I guess we need to say that people think of comets as big mountains! But this is not always the case! Comets can and do break up into pieces. So the difference in believing that comets come in groups rather than in "ones"? Simply said, they may scatter or cover a greater area of the sky!
in the case of SL9, it was definitively documented that SL9 had no water in it. So either it was not a comet, or as we have shown, comets are not dirty snowballs! The folks that are in charge of such discoveries classify these "broken up" comets in two different categories. The first category are those comets that have been supposedly torn apart by the gravity of a planet. They call these tidal forces. The other category of broken up comets are said to break up due to "non-tidal" forces. Dr. Sekanina uses the terminology, "non-gravitational deceleration" in what I think is a landmark paper called, Multiple fragmentation of comet Machholz 2 (P/1994 P1) in the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics 342, 285-299 (1999). This is a very important concept to remember when trying to understand comets. You may recall that this term, "non-gravitational effects", came up once before during the advent of Hale Bopp from another important person in cometary theory, Brian Marsden.
Just a sidelight here: It would also be good to remember a few names when reading about comets and such. There are two fellows who seem to constantly "kick against the pricks" if you will; Dr. Marsden and Dr. Sekanina. There seems to have been an ongoing battle between Marsden and Sekanina on the one hand and others such as Don Yeomans of JPL and Hal Weaver of Hubble Telescope fame on the other. Marsden and Yeomans you will remember went at it recently over the possible impact of an asteroid some decades in the future when Marsden announced a possible impact apparently before those in control thought he should have. Yeomans quickly came to the rescue, stating that the asteroid would come no where near the earth and that Marsden had spoken too soon. Then an edict came down stating that no one, absolutely NO ONE would make a media announcement without confirmation from others such as the JPL crew (Yeomans). This bone of contention actually goes back several years between the two, over another similar situation. Then there is Dr. Sekanina who IMHO is really trying to get the truth, but may be bound by career threats and the like. He stated a couple years ago, that Hale Bopp did indeed have a satellite (not a new concept to those that read these pages!). But Hal Weaver, who appears to be the close watcher over who uses the HST and who does not and what info is released concerning the telescope's viewings, severely criticized Sekanina for saying such. The only thing that I can throw in here, is that it appears that these fine gentlemen, like Mr. Morris at JPL, are all watching our pages on a regular basis. This is very rewarding!
A more important reason to bring up this feud, that is actually going on on the inside, is that both of these fine gentlemen have, over the past few years, written some very interesting and excellent articles on subjects such as fragmentation of comets and non-gravitational effects. Machholz 2 has been closely scrutinized by Dr. Sekanina and his colleagues - especially since the hit of SL9 on Jupiter. Perhaps we are blinded by our belief in The Electric Universe, but I'll leave that up to the reader. But it seems that these studies are strongly suggestive that these two giants in cometary theory and orbital dynamics are already seeing and writing about the effects of EMF in our universe, without really writing about them.
Back to Machholz
2! It is our contention that "non-gravitational effects" are not really
such things as outgassing, but are actually the results of an immense electromagnetic
field that surrounds bodies throughout the solar system due to high charges
of plasma. Comets in particular are especially charged due to their high rate
of speed and their angle of attack relative to the ecliptic. So what keeps these
(at least) six or seven fragments of Machholz 2 flying though space together?
Sekanina points out in the previously mentioned article that when these comets
break up, the pieces that are not the primary or main body tend to lose their
tails and their coma's in a very short period of time. These pieces of Machholz
2 have not lost their spirit. At least two pieces of this comet that have fragmented
have been reacquired or seen in the last few months. And what keeps them together?
Sekanina also makes this interesting statement in this cited paper, concerning
a formula utilized to model separation and splitting: "The gravitational
attraction between the fragments is neglected. The influence of the planets
is also ignored because of the low sensitivity of the solutions to minor variations
in the comet's orbit." What keeps them together? Electric fields!
That's what! In the pictures of the comet you can clearly see a connection between
the main bodies; A string of debris cast along a narrow line, just like a group
of pearls on a string. A contradiction to this is that upon closer scrutiny
of fragmenting comets there occurs a variation in the space or separation of
the pieces. In another article about SL9, Sekanina states,
"Investigating the evolution of the products of secondary fragmentation of comet Shoemaker Levy 9, Sekanina et al, (1998) found that the separation-velocity vectors of the secondary fragments were distributed very nonuniformly."
He goes on to state that SL9 appears to be very much like Machholz in this respect. So what does this mean? What I believe he is saying is that it takes a certain velocity for fragments to escape the attraction of the parent body. But they expected to see a certain randomness in this attempt, by the fragments to break away, but they didn't see it. He calls it, "striking non-randomness"! So they are not orbiting the parent bodies, yet they are "relating" or moving to it in a very organized pattern.
The fragments have also seemed to disappear from time to time, not being seen for periods of time. This may imply variations in brightness. Could this be that they are variably influenced by the charges that they encounter on their path around the sun? Frag "D" has been seen to vary as much as three magnitudes. This would be an increase in field strength of as much as ten times. The fact that frags disappear from time to time, could also mean that the pieces are coalescing - breaking apart and coming back together. There are many theories running around these days of how the moon was once a part of the earth and was broken off by an impact. If this is true (and I don't really believe this), ever wonder how it formed into such a nice sphere? There are many examples of this. But that's another story, for another paper! There is an image posted on these pages of a comet that passed through the violent change of the ecliptic. It broke in two, the tail being separated from the head. Then after passing through the ecliptic the two sections miraculously rejoined. Could gravity do this? What about magnetics and electrical fields? You might also recall the mysterious image of THE TWO EYES OF HALE BOPP. Even Hale Bopp was not excused from the violent influence of the powerful fields of our solar system.
So what does all of this mean? Why all of the hoo ha? Machholz 2 is to pass .3 AU from the earth sometime around the third week or so of January 2000. Now if this was just a simple comet, I can't see where there would be a real concern. And indeed maybe there still shouldn't be a real concern. Here's another fact that needs to be taken into consideration: Only fragments A and D have been recovered this time around. The separation between A and D is said to be 147 arcminutes by Dr. Sekanina. He says,
"With an optimistic frame4 of mind, further bolstered by the apparent tendency for underestimating the true longevity of comet fragments and by the erratic behavior (including unexpected flare-ups) of past non-tidally split comets, I show in Table 7 that condensation D may project up to ~2degrees.5 and B up to ~ 0degrees.7 away from A."
He further states that these estimations are uncertain, but that they may assist an astronomer to relocate the comet fragments during this time around (1999-2000). But the fragments haven't behaved and the other pieces of the Machholz 2 puzzle have not to date been put into place. Where are they? Are there more now than in 1994? Is this why the many man hours focused on the study of fragmented comets since SL9?
Below is part of an answer. On January fifteenth of this year (2000), SOHO's C1 camera went "black" for a period of time. (Yes I know, I'm harping on SOHO again! But it's a very integral part of this story and many others!). The SOHO team suggested that the camera doors were closed and that the camera was not operational during this time slot. Please take a look at the exposure time and also the filter used. An orange filter is generally used for the observation of hydrogen. According to the traditional theory of comets, comets are supposed to be spewing out hydrogen all over the place. So if you are looking for a comet and you are a NASA scientist, it is logical to think that you would be using a hydrogen filter to find that particular comet that you are looking for.
The first image is the original image, "in the dark" reduced 25%.
Now I have taken the image, inverted it and embossed it. I have left it larger in size, so that the objects can be seen. The lighter objects appear to either be background stars or points of cosmic rays. The more reflective objects, or those with hydrogen content are exposed as brighter (or in the case of this inverted image darker). Compare the position of the objects to the positions of the objects in the image scanned from Sekanina's paper. The orientation is turned, but that's to be expected, depending upon the roll of SOHO and remember these fragments are dynamic, moving about for over four years since the previous depiction. The approximate separation appears to also be extremely close - enough to statistically discount the null hypothesis.
Now why would they use SOHO to try and see this "comet"? For one reason it's now in the direction of the sun, which according to Weaver rules out the Hubble Space telescope. The SOHO has the most modern state of the art imaging systems and platform, better than anything else we have out there. Are you beginning to see all of the coincidences?
The law of averages or a Bell Curve is too often used in calculating the possibilities of a hit on the earth. If the chances of a hit lie beyond the height of the curve, what about those fragments that might just slip through on the edges? Even the smallest of fragments of Machholz 2 could be as big as a mile wide. That's quite a bit of destructive power. If SL9 were alone or not, it passed a certain distance from Jupiter and was caught in Jupiter's gravitational (or electrical) field. This is a fact - we saw the results. In comparison to how close SL9 passed to Jupiter, how close must a comet pass in relationship to the earth for the comet to be captured by the earth? Makes one think, doesn't it? Starting to see why they are so interested in this comet? A Quicktime movie of the orbit of the comet from above can be found here.
With all of the attention that has been focused on Machholz, there is one more thing that concerns me. This may just be supposition, but again there sure are a lot of pure coincidences. If there is any truth to what we have purported above, then it makes sense that some might want to get this information to the public. I often think about one man who has done so much for this field - One man who started putting the number of newly discovered craters on the earth together with the power and fury of a possible strike. Many of these craters he discovered shortly after the discovery of SL9. This man was killed a few years ago in a head on automobile collision in the open desert of Australia. He was Gene Shoemaker. He probably knew more about SL9 than any other man on earth. Did he know too much? Was his death an accident, or was it because of what he knew?
Our internal alert has gone from Defcon 4 to Defcon 3 to Defcon 2.......
How about you?