Actually, Jaycubed, the fact that our probes are metal and conductive, as well as tiny compared to a comet, means that they will equalise their structural charge with their environment very easily, and not be subject to the arcing you are proposing.  I am not sure if they are set up to detect the plasma types proposed under the Electric Universe theory, mainly because since it has not been a mainstream idea it would likely not been given such consideration when the designers of said probes built them.   I would like to see some probes built to explore just that theory since it could certainly change the way we look at our universe and how it all really works.  It is too bad that so many scientists have "Staked their Reputations" and their grant monies on the "Mainstream" theories and have in fact disallowed rational discussion of the Electrical Universe theory since it would mean that they would have been wrong about so many different things stemming from 'Standard' theory, going back several decades.  But then again, science has always grown in such steps; closely held theory against a radical idea, which in turn ends up to more closely describe what is really happening, and the older theory being discarded or modified according to the new....is how it has always happened.

On the subject of dinosaurs and lighter gravity, this idea makes much sense and has been one of my own pet theories, one I had never voiced in the past since I had no way of proving it nor had I devised a mechanism that would make that scenario plausible. However, it comes to mind that this planet has been outgassing billions of tons from it's interior, replenishing the atmosphere and offsetting the losses to space. that and the fact that our planet still attracts mass from space in the form of meteors and meteorites. Those two facts suggest a couple of things, that the Earth at one point was actually larger in size, thus increasing the radial vector and was also lower in mass, possibly also having a smaller mass to volume ratio.  The crust would likely also have been thinner, not sure what effect this in itself would have on gravity but it is a possibility that it may have some effect.  But taken together these facets may well have had some effect on gravity at the surface of the planet and that it may well of had the effect that would have allowed the huge size and structures of the dinosaurs in our fossil record that would seem to be impossible today.  This also suggests that gravity is going to slowly continue to get stronger in the future, although mayhaps at a slower rate since there is less gas to be transferred to the surface and the fact that the Earth has swept near space cleaner of debris than it was a couple hundred millions of years ago.  Just some points to ponder.

Jaycubed --

I appreciate the skepticism.  If we had more of that these days in general, it's my belief that we wouldn't be where we're at today with astronomy and astrophysics.

But, you don't appear to have tried very hard to doubt your own logic.  A superficial google search revealed to me in just a few seconds that comets on highly elliptical orbits can travel far faster than space probes near the Sun (500,000 mph vs 70,000 mph) and perhaps more importantly, spend more time in deep space (up to millions of years).  One would expect that either of these two factors could play a role in the difference.  Both speed of approach and time for remote charge equalization would presumably affect the degree to which a space body's plasmasphere would illuminate as it approaches the Sun.

Personally, I find the Electric Universe Theorists' statements about the *morphology* of craters observed on comets and asteroids to be very convincing.  The craters are just far too flat to be the result of impacts and the crater walls are oftentimes stepped (when they actually have a circular form to begin with, although they oftentimes don't).  Scientists can recreate those same forms in the lab using focused plasma beams.  Some of these craters represent more than half of the surface area of the rocky body itself; it makes little sense that an impact this large wouldn't break the object into pieces.

Contemporary cometary theory is the ideal example of what's wrong with astrophysics today.  When problems like this are encountered, the theory is patched back together even though it is no longer the simplest explanation for our observations.  The idea that we should take a second look at our assumptions based upon our more modern observations never occurs to anybody.  It's as if we've lost the ability to self-doubt our own science even when our probes are telling us that it's wrong.  Our assumptions now supercede our observations in importance.

Furthermore, our encounter with Comet Tempel 1 indicated strong electrical activity as the probe approached the comet.  The operators noted bursts that reminded them of lightning and some of the closeup images clearly show whiteouts which exceeded the camera's capabilities to film.  The fact that the impactor experienced an initial charge equalization which apepared to occur prior to impact strongly suggests that comets are electrical plasma phenomenon.  In fact, the only thing keeping us from concluding that are our legacy theories about comets and cosmology that were developed many years before the importance of plasma in the universe was discovered.  Now that we're aware of the pervasiveness of plasma in space, it would be wise to update all of our theories to include this new finding.

It is oddly very common for people to resist believing in the existence of electricity in space.  This has been going on for many decades.  However, I recommend that before you make up your mind about a theory that you try harder to convince yourself of it first.  Otherwise, you're allowing your prejudices and preferences to take over your ability to objectively evaluate the theory.  The www.thunderbolts.info site is a good starting point, but Don Scott's new book is actually a more comprehensive listing of all of the problems with contemporary astronomy today.  If in the end you still decide to defer to the mainstream authorities on the subject, then you should always remind yourself that we don't actually fully understand the mechanics of the universe yet.  If that were true, we'd know everything about dark matter and dark energy there is to know.  So, don't let yourself forget that nobody can claim to fully understand these things.  To some extent, we must all use our own common sense and best judgment to decide what we believe for ourselves.

I might point out a passing similarity to the region around sunspots. This image really seemed quite similar to those for some reason. Especially the high resolution ones where you can see the twisting filamentary structures that make up the outer edge of a sunspot. This just reminds me a lot, rightly or wrongly, of that...

And, as Chris Reeve says, a goodly portion of the universe is made up of matter in the plasma state. Plasma can be quite electrically conductive, as well as being prone to electromagnetic effects/influence.

Recall also that the electrical force is considerably stronger than the gravitational force. For example, take a penny and place it in the air over a table. By "place" I really mean "drop." As we all know from common experience, the penny will be accelerated downward by the pull of gravity being exerted by the entirety of the planet earth.

That last sentence is important. Basically, the ENTIRE planet is pulling down on the penny toward the Earth's center of gravity. Now, take an ordinary iron bar magnet about the size of a couple sticks of chewing gum and place it in proximity over the penny.

What happens? The penny will whip up off the table and stick to the bar magnet.

This has been a simple illustration of how much more powerful magnetism (and electricity; electric fields and magnetic fields were 'integrated' or show to be mutually interconnected by Maxwell, I believe) is versus the force of gravity. The magnetism of a little bar magnet is sufficient to overcome the puny force of gravity exerted by the entirety of the mass & matter of the entire planet Earth. In the fact of this information, how can we possibly ignore the effects of electricity and magnetism in the universe and posit that the puny force of gravity rules the cosmos?

An interesting question/quandary. Does electricity and its attendant magnetic fields (fields that we've found ubiquitously in space with ever more powerful telescopes) actually TRUMP gravity in the overall structure and processes of the universe?

Consider. Talk amongst yourselves.

Cheers all,
~Michael

Did a little more research on the Electric Universe Model:

The first listing is a specific Electric Universe site.

http://www.fixedearth.com/electric.html

The second is the main page for the people who Believe in this idea.

http://www.fixedearth.com/

They also believe that the Earth is fixed in space (hanging from a version of the "Levitating Magnetic Globe" found in novelty shops) , that the Sun & stars orbit the Earth, that gravity doesn't exist ("Gravity is an exhausted & bankrupt concept"), that the universe is tiny and six thousand years old, that geosynchronous satellites don't orbit around the Earth at the same speed as the revolving ground passing below (they just happen to hang there at the altitude that is predicted by the "Kabbalistic" Newtonian physics of a rotating Earth & Gravity driven solar system), indeed that all modern science is a "Bible-destroying and Christ-destroying" Kabbalistic Jewish plot.

I'm afraid my B.S. detector is screaming right now about the "Electric Universe" and those who believe in it.

And I thought the Flat Earthers were as nutty as they came.

I remain neutral about the concept that electrical fields propagate through space. I am open to evidence.

I cannot remain neutral about the other nonsense that Believers in this idea claim.

"Recall also that the electrical force is considerably stronger than the gravitational force. For example, take a penny and place it in the air over a table. By 'place' I really mean 'drop.' As we all know from common experience, the penny will be accelerated downward by the pull of gravity being exerted by the entirety of the planet earth."

That last sentence is important. Basically, the ENTIRE planet is pulling down on the penny toward the Earth's center of gravity. Now, take an ordinary iron bar magnet about the size of a couple sticks of chewing gum and place it in proximity over the penny.

What happens? The penny will whip up off the table and stick to the bar magnet.
This has been a simple illustration of how much more powerful magnetism (and electricity; electric fields and magnetic fields were 'integrated' or show to be mutually interconnected by Maxwell, I believe) is versus the force of gravity. The magnetism of a little bar magnet is sufficient to overcome the puny force of gravity exerted by the entirety of the mass & matter of the entire planet Earth. In the fact of this information, how can we possibly ignore the effects of electricity and magnetism in the universe and posit that the puny force of gravity rules the cosmos?"
Michael Gmirkin

I would love to see you try this experiment. As a penny, whether copper or zinc, is not magnetic; no magnet would make the "penny -whip up off the table and stick to the bar magnet".

While this is just a foolish error on your part, let's consider what happens when you use an object which is magnetic, say a nickel.

If we release the nickel an inch above the table, it will drop to the table with an acceleration of 32ftperSec perSec. If we release the nickel a foot above the table, it will fall to the table with an acceleration of 32ftperSec perSec. If we release the nickel a hundred feel above the table, it will fall to the table with an acceleration of 32ftperSec perSec. If we release the nickel one mile above the table, it will fall to the table with an acceleration of 32ftperSec perSec.

If we take a powerful bar magnet and place it an inch above the nickel, it might counteract the force of gravity and pick up the nickel. Most likely you would have to place the magnet in closer proximity to the nickel to overcome the force of gravity with magnetic force.

If we take a powerful electromagnet and place it a foot above the nickel, it would most likely be powerful enough to overcome the force of gravity with magnetic force.

If we take the most powerful electromagnet ever made and placed it a hundred feet above the nickel, it would never be powerful enough to overcome the force of gravity with magnetic force.

Yet gravity puts the same force on a nickel miles away, farther than any magnetic force would be powerful enough to counteract the force of gravity on even a tiny object like a nickel.

Your understanding of the nature of the fundamental forces of nature, in particular electro-magnetism and gravity, is fundamentally in error.

How do we "posit that the puny force of gravity rules the cosmos?" Simple; the theories of gravity, newtonian mechanics, and relativity explain & predict the behavior of everything from a falling nickel to the Earth orbiting the Sun to gravitational lensing to the precession of Mercury. And it allows predictions to be made and experimentally confirmed to an incredible degree of accuracy.

Jaycubed,

Chris Reeve recommended starting at www.thunderbolts.info. This site contains many links to other Electric Universe (EU) sites, including www.holoscience.com which is also an excellent place to start. I also recommend the book previously mentioned, The Electric Sky.  Noone mentioned anything about www.fixedearth.com. There is a good reason why these sites have no links to www.fixedearth.com. This site has distorted the science of the EU into a pseudo-science. This site should not be viewed as representative of the views of reputable proponents for the EU.

Your criticism is appreciated but should be directed at the fixedearth site not at the EU. I also looked at the fixedearth site a year or so back. I found it amusing and dismissed it and it alone as quackery. I remained convinced that the EU theory was as sound as ever. Any theory can be distorted into quackery. This does NOT invalidate the original theory.

The beauty of the EU theory is that is generates verifiable predictions that are repeatedly proven to be correct. I have yet to see a prediction from a reputable EU practitioner that failed.

There are two possible reasons for the use of the EU by the fixedearth site:
- acceptance of their proposed theory by inclusion of a provable theory
- destruction of the EU theory by association with quackery.

Jaycubed said:
"If we take the most powerful electromagnet ever made and placed it a hundred feet above the nickel, it would never be powerful enough to overcome the force of gravity with magnetic force."

However, if you take an electromagnet the size of the earth the equation changes and the electromagnet would be the dominant attractor. A better demonstration would be to compare the gravitational and electrical interaction between two small objects. The gravitational attraction between two pith balls is minuscule. If you give the pith balls a similar charge, the pith balls ignore the gravitational attraction of each other and the earth and dramatically move away from each other. With opposite charges they are attracted until the charges equalize.

Jaycubed also said:
"The theories of gravity, newtonian mechanics, and relativity explain & predict the behavior of everything from a falling nickel to the Earth orbiting the Sun to gravitational lensing to the precession of Mercury. And it allows predictions to be made and experimentally confirmed to an incredible degree of accuracy."

If that is so, then why are scientists thinking of modifying Newtonian Dynamics to explain the 'galaxy rotation problem" with MOND (see Wikipedia)? Why did they invent "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy"? They claim that 96 percent of the universe is invisible. Why are they having so much trouble predicting the path of the Pioneer spacecraft? see:

http://www.planetary.org/programs/projects/
innovative_technologies/pioneer_anomaly/

The Electric Universe provides logical and consistent answers to all of these questions and more. Newtonian dynamics has its place but has limitations in areas where electric forces dominate.

"However, if you take an electromagnet the size of the earth the equation changes and the electromagnet would be the dominant attractor."
Scott Wall

Afraid not:

If you take an electromagnet the size of the Earth, it would be nearly half again as heavy as the Earth and would still lack a power supply to generate magnetism.

If you take an electromagnet the size of the Earth, it still won't "pick up" even a single penny.

If you were to replace the Earth with an functioning electromagnet the size of the Earth, it would have no appreciable attractive effect on a nickel on the Moon. It would however have a huge effect on the orbit of the Moon; but only because of the increase in mass and the effect of gravity.

----

"A better demonstration would be to compare the gravitational and electrical interaction between two small objects. The gravitational attraction between two pith balls is minuscule. If you give the pith balls a similar charge, the pith balls ignore the gravitational attraction of each other and the earth and dramatically move away from each other. With opposite charges they are attracted until the charges equalize."
Scott Wall

As my previous comment explained, the attraction between two objects due to gravity barely changes with increased distance. The attraction/repulsion between two objects due to electromagnetism rapidly changes even with small increases in distance. Gravity trumps electromagnetism over distance. You are also incorrect in saying "the pith balls ignore the gravitational attraction of each other and the earth". Gravity is not ignored, it is overpowered at the miniscule distances used in this type of experiment.

A similiar effect occurs in the nucleus of atoms, where the electromagnetic force, which should tear the nucleus apart due to the common positive electrical charge of its protons, is trumped by the strong nuclear force, which at extremely close distances is more powerful than electromagnetism.

-----

"The theories of gravity, newtonian mechanics, and relativity explain & predict the behavior of everything from a falling nickel to the Earth orbiting the Sun to gravitational lensing to the precession of Mercury. And it allows predictions to be made and experimentally confirmed to an incredible degree of accuracy."
Jaycubed

"If that is so, then why are scientists thinking of modifying Newtonian Dynamics to explain the 'galaxy rotation problem' with MOND"
Scott Wall

Some scientists don't like the idea of Dark Matter/Dark Energy and attempt to write them out of Newtonian Mechanics. MOND is not a physical theory, it does not explain itself. It starts from what "should be" the right answer & works it's way backwards to a theory. In 25 years, no confirmation of MOND theory predictions have been found. Evidence so far shows it unlikely to be correct, but still within the realm of probability. From your MOND wiki article, "... in interstellar space, gravity is the main acting force, and since no experiment could be performed on Earth to determine whether MOND is a new theory of inertia or a new theory of gravity, physicists have concentrated their effort on the latter. Presently, they have achieved only partial success, devising a more complicated version of Einstein's theory of gravitation". As you can see, MOND is at best merely a tweaking of Newton/Einstein, not a replacement or excuse for an "Electric Universe".

"Why are they having so much trouble predicting the path of the Pioneer spacecraft?"
Scott Wall

Perhaps because we still no little about what physically exists at the novel distances/part of the Solar system these probes are traversing, such as the density of the medium.

--------

" Noone mentioned anything about www.fixedearth.com. There is a good reason why these sites have no links to www.fixedearth.com. This site has distorted the science of the EU into a pseudo-science. This site should not be viewed as representative of the views of reputable proponents for the EU."
Scott Wall

The Fixed Earth site is representative of Electrical Universe sites because they all display the elements of "True Believers". This is uniform among various flavors of Electrical Universe Believers. Just because you don't want to be seen in public with one of your relatives doesn't mean they're not still your family. Your comments strike me as being similiar to "intelligent design" believers who twist themselves into pretzels to avoid saying that god is their "designer".

"The beauty of the EU theory is that is generates verifiable predictions that are repeatedly proven to be correct. I have yet to see a prediction from a reputable EU practitioner that failed."

I have yet to see a prediction,

I have yet to see a prediction proven to be correct.

I have yet to see a "reputable EU practitioner".

I have seen plenty of "True Believers".

--------

"Newtonian dynamics has its place but has limitations in areas where electric forces dominate."
Scott Wall

I agree, but the only place electric forces dominate are at the surfaces of atoms. We call this branch of science Chemistry. At macroscopic distances, gravity trumps electromagnetism.

Checked out the site you suggested:

http://www.holoscience.com/

I always trust a science site that begins with a quote from horror H.P.Lovecraft (whose work I love, but not for any of his "science") then moves on to a crackpot like I.Velikovsky. Although he deserves acknowledgement for promoting catastrophism during a time when mainstream science was decidedly gradualist, most of his theories are utter nonsense and based upon biblical & mythological "evidence".

The best scientist noted on the site is Halton Arp, who photographed & published his beautiful Atlas of galaxy shapes. However his theories about QSOs & redshift anomalies, which underline EU theory, have been continually disproven since the sixties.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization

"In particular, many opponents of the Big Bang including Halton Arp, a number of creationists, and even geocentrists have referred to such observations as reason to reject the standard account of the origin and evolution of the universe. Recent redshift surveys of quasars (QSOs) have found no evidence of quantization, and consequently most cosmologists dispute the existence of redshift quantization beyond a minimal trace due to galaxy clustering."

In fact, the EU model is pseudoscientific as demonstrated by this passage from http://www.holoscience.com/ :

"The Electric Universe works backward in time using observations rather than forward from some idealised theoretical beginning. It provides simple answers to problems that are now clothed in fashionable metaphysics and mysticism. It is more interdisciplinary and inclusive of information than any prior cosmology."

In other words, it is not based on a coherent theory, which would make predictions & be testable, but is a way of fitting the "True" idea to fit the selected evidence. EU theory shows more metaphysics & mysticism than most of those crackpot "Quantum Reality" popular pseudoscience writers' products. Rather than being inclusive, it is selective of ideas that Believers think support their ideas.

--------

This has been an interesting process in which I have learned much I didn't know about a variety of cosmological processes, including plasma and EM field propogation through space.

Due to the learning involved I stand by my criticism of the Electrical Universe Theory as being a crackpot theory regularly promoted by creationists, geocentrists and anti-science idealogues.

what a beautiful picture this is..I believe this is only one of Gods ways of showing us that he is real and he will return soon..I know that God works in mysterious way..!!!

Jaycubed said: "...True Believers ...  crackpot theory..."

Name-calling is not appropriate for a scientific discussion. Please stick to factual statements.

Jaycubed said: "I always trust a science site that begins with a quote from horror H.P.Lovecraft (whose work I love, but not for any of his "science") then moves on to a crackpot like I.Velikovsky..."

The quote from H.P.Lovecraft is:
"The most merciful thing in the world ... is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents... The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but someday the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality... That we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."
This does not refer to any scientific theory but to the state of science today.

A search of the holoscience site for Velikovsky finds only three articles. The site acknowledges his accomplishments but also states "Velikovsky may have overstated his case (and mistakenly created a false historical context)...". This seems to be in agreement with your statement. Velikovsky had some successes but not all of his theories are valid.

Jaycubed said: "The best scientist noted on the site is Halton Arp, who photographed & published his beautiful Atlas of galaxy shapes. However his theories about QSOs & redshift anomalies, which underline EU theory, have been continually disproven since the sixties."

There are two aspects of redshift that Arp discusses, quantization and plasma clouds bridging QSOs to low redshift galaxies. Wikipedia only mentions quantization and claims that this has been disproven. This claim is disputable, see http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=stb9s0ye">http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=stb9s0ye. Why do you say "since the sixties", I see no reference to this on the site referenced, please provide accurate references to support your claims. There is also no mention of anomalies on the site referenced.

The bigger problem for proponents of the Big Bang are the plasma connections between low and high redshift objects. If the objects are connected, then they MUST be roughly the same distance from the earth. Hence, high redshift does not imply great distance.

The redshift anomalies are more of a death knell for the Big Bang theory than an underlining of the EU theory.

Jaycube said:
In fact, the EU model is pseudoscientific as demonstrated by this passage from http://www.holoscience.com/ :
"The Electric Universe works backward in time using observations rather than forward from some idealised theoretical beginning. It provides simple answers to problems that are now clothed in fashionable metaphysics and mysticism. It is more interdisciplinary and inclusive of information than any prior cosmology."
In other words, it is not based on a coherent theory, which would make predictions & be testable, but is a way of fitting the "True" idea to fit the selected evidence."

I'm afraid you have things backwards. The Empirical Method of science involves the following steps:
- observations
- theory
- experiment

This is precisely the way that the EU has been formulated. Observations made in plasma laboratories have been successfully extrapolated to larger scales. The metaphysics and mysticism that are referenced in the quote refer to the invented entities invoked to rescue the Big Bang theory, including Black Holes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, String Theory, ... None of these objects have ever been directly observed. Black holes and String Theory are based on mathematical constructs which have been mistaken for reality.

Jaycubed said: "Due to the learning involved I stand by my criticism of the Electrical Universe Theory as being a crackpot theory regularly promoted by creationists, geocentrists and anti-science idealogues."

This is a logical fallacy. You are saying that some X believe Y, therefore all that believe Y are X. Perhaps, it is this logic that allows you to believe in the Big Bang theory.

Jaycubed said: "Afraid not... <snip> The attraction/repulsion between two objects due to electromagnetism rapidly changes even with small increases in distance. Gravity trumps electromagnetism over distance. ... <snip> ... Gravity is not ignored, it is overpowered at the minuscule distances"

Basically, what you're saying is that the force of gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance, while electromagnetism is inversely proportional to the cube of the distance. This is a valid point, so the question comes down to the specifics of each quantity, i.e., voltage, mass, distance, ...

Jaycubed said: "Some scientists don't like the idea of Dark Matter/Dark Energy and attempt to write them out of Newtonian Mechanics. MOND is not a physical theory, it does not explain itself. It starts from what "should be" the right answer & works it's way backwards to a theory.... As you can see, MOND is at best merely a tweaking of Newton/Einstein, not a replacement or excuse for an "Electric Universe"."

Excellent, we finally agree on something. The point I was making was that MOND was created in order to explain the discrepancies in observations of outer low-density regions of galaxies. The fact that scientists are even considering this implies that there are problems with the current mainstream theory.  This also raises the question of how gravity alone can account for the structure of galaxies, solar systems and the universe. The EU is based on observations from the laboratory and does not need an excuse.

Jaycubed said: "I have yet to see a prediction"

That sounds like an invitation, here are a few:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/rainbow11/tbolts/
tpod/2005/arch05/050719deepinterim.htm

http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/p27.htm

There are many more predictions, but these should get the point across. Now, I would like to see a prediction that your theory has successfully predicted BEFORE the observation. I've seen plenty of explanations of what has already been observed, but I have never seen mainstream predictions that are actually successful.Generally, each new discovery comes as a complete surprise to the mainstream scientists.

Jaycubed said: "... the only place electric forces dominate are at the surfaces of atoms. We call this branch of science Chemistry. At macroscopic distances, gravity trumps electromagnetism."

Surely, you must have seen a lightning storm. Are you saying that lightning is an atmospheric chemical reaction? And what about Sprites, Elves and Gnomes which have been confirmed to appear in the upper atmosphere? These were predicted in the 1920s by C.T.R. Wilson and confirmed in 1990. They are electrical in nature. Doesn't electricity also light up your house? Are you saying that this is also a chemical reaction?

In summary, I have provided predictions that the EU has successfully made. I challenge Jaycubed to provide predictions that his favourite theory has made (where the prediction actually precedes the observation).

I would also like to challenge him to explain the following phenomena:
- sunspots appear to be holes in the photosphere into the "fiery nuclear furnace" and yet they are the coldest parts of the visible sun.
- how could huge filamentary galactic structures have sufficient time to form since the alleged big bang?
- why does the sun have a corona?
- why did the solar wind stop completely for two days a few years ago?

See http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8u6jdqr1 for some of the electrical answers.

ohh! what abeautiful star
its really a god's eye..
this helix nebula is fantastic beautiful extraordinary
dust star..
i love to see this star always ..i too really believe it is a gods eye.....
this dust may lead a long tunnel inside and this dust shows wonderful colour red and blue and white...
love u nebula

According to a recent paper I just read regarding the Helix Nebula, it appears that the Nebula is actually cylindrically shaped, and what we're seeing is the end of cylinder, which is pointed towards the Earth.

So, it's no more an eye than the barrel of a shotgun pointed at you would be.

Maybe it's a galactic scale telescope as percived by the Forerunners (grin)!

Certainly is another proof of the overwelming power of God, that can be seen not only in outer space, but here on earth: in the smile of the child, a pregnant lady, or the georgeous landscape in every corner of the globe. Creation itself reveals there's an architect, so perfect being, able to whole all things together. The list goes on and on. Guys the proofs are everywhere (smile)

Hey! How many lab coat geeks do we have out there, making up all sorts of theories of what they think it is? I mean, it's trillions of light years away! All of you probably think that we evolved from monkeys too. No wait, I guess if you believe that we evolved from monkeys, we must have also evolved from butterflies, or crocodiles, or worms. Which one came first? You people rely to much on your own theories when you have no hard evidence, and you call it "Science". Ill give you some hard evidence. Something that people documented as they WITNESSED IT!!! In other words, they saw it!! It's not based on theory like all evolution is. Give up? Its called the BIBLE!!! Read it!!! It makes more sense than any science book or mathmatical genius or philosopher ever has. Just Read it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are some who see things as they are, and some who see things as they'd like them to be. Nuff said.

I would like to know where I can buy a copy of this photo? I have a copy from several years ago and it looks different know.
Thanks.

is that really dust in gods eye?

Its nice that we give these phenomenon a name and a description and then feel sort of satisfied that we have it under control. There's plenty in the Universe we dont know yet and never will...as there are no limits to knowledge. What we do know, is so hopelessly little that unless you're scientist you'll never know! Pun intended.

Sorry,I don't good know Eng.But this photo Incredible,  magnificient...

What if we are in someone's mind and we are looking through their eye or something.Maybe it's like another dimension.

this pic is so amazing of our father he is alwaz looking @ his people  watching us 24 7 365 days of the year   look @ its Beautful just like Jesus  all i have to say is just wow and just look @ his love through his eys that tells you allot  BEAUTIFUL  i love it and is sooo real

its gods eye

It is such a beautiful site.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):