Dark Matter

[Riberra]

Here a Wikipedia article about Birkeland Currents and Aurora
Birkeland current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The currents were predicted in 1908 by Norwegian explorer and physicist Kristian Birkeland, who undertook expeditions beyond the Arctic Circle to study the aurora. He rediscovered, using simple magnetic field measurement instruments, that when the aurora appeared the needles of magnetometers changed direction, confirming the findings of Anders Celsius and assistant Olof Hjorter more than a century before. This could only imply that currents were flowing in the atmosphere above. He theorized that somehow the Sun emitted a cathode ray,[2][3] and corpuscles from what is now known as a solar wind entered the Earth’s magnetic field and created currents, thereby creating the aurora. This view was scorned by other researchers,[4] but in 1967 a satellite, launched into the auroral region, showed that the currents posited by Birkeland existed. In honour of him and his theory these currents are named Birkeland currents.

Schematic of the Birkeland or Field-Aligned Currents and the ionospheric current systems they connect to.[1]

 

[Riberra]

Deleted ....double post!

 

[Subduction Zone]

And once again, we know the solar wind is electrically neutral:

Characteristics of the Solar Wind - Windows to the Universe

So the claim that the Earth is a "cathode" is rather nonsensical. Now the magnetic fields may guide the various solar winds that hit the Earth, but I doubt if you can find an article that says it is a positive or negative current.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And once again, we know the solar wind is electrically neutral:

Characteristics of the Solar Wind - Windows to the Universe

So the claim that the Earth is a "cathode" is rather nonsensical. Now the magnetic fields may guide the various solar winds that hit the Earth, but I doubt if you can find an article that says it is a positive or negative current.

Apparently you don't understand what ions are.

"The solar wind is made of Hydrogen (95%) and Helium (4%) and Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Neon, Magnesium, Silicon and Iron (~1%). These atoms are all in the form of positive ions which means they have lost electrons because the temperature is so hot. So really, solar wind is positive ions and the electrons these ions have lost. We call this plasma."



Why didn't you follow your own link?

The Plasma State - Windows to the Universe

"In summary, when electrons are no longer trapped in orbits around the nucleus, we have the plasma state. This is when a gas becomes a bunch of electrons which have escaped the pull of the nucleus and ions which are positively charged because they have lost one or more electrons. Most of the matter in the universe is found in the plasma state."


So we are left with positive ions and negative electrons.

Ion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"An ion (/ˈaɪən, -ɒn/)[1] is an atom or molecule in which the total number of electrons is not equal to the total number of protons, giving the atom a net positive or negative electrical charge."

But of course you know nothing about atomic science, or you would know an ion is a positive or negatively charged atom or molecule. Matter with equal numbers of positive protons and negative electrons is electrically balanced, that is they have neither an overall positive or negative electric charge.

Atomic Bonding

"Atoms like to have a balanced electrical charge. Therefore, they usually have negatively charged electrons surrounding the nucleus in numbers equal to the number of protons."

But in a plasma atoms have lost an electron, and are no longer balanced.

Quit spouting nonsense SZ.

Solar wind - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The solar wind is a stream of charged particles (a plasma) released from the upper atmosphere of the Sun. It mostly consists of electrons and protons with energies usually between 1.5 and 10 keV."

For an electrically neutral environment, it sure causes alot of problems.

Spacecraft Charging

"
The spacecraft surface potential is a function of the net current flow to/from the spacecraft surface. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the spacecraft charging process. These currents are from solar photon-induced photoelectrons leaving the surface, plasma electrons and ions impinging on the surface, and charged particles emitted from the vehicle (e.g., from active ion emission). A balance equation for current density can be written as:
Jelec + Jion + Jpe + Jsec + Jback + Jart = 0 (1) where the currents Jelec and Jion are from external plasma electrons and ions, respectively, Jpe is the net photoelectron current, Jsec is the net current due to secondary electrons (few eV) generated by energetic primaries (electrons and ions) at the satellite surface, Jback is the backscattered electron current from electrons reflected back from the surface with some energy loss, and Jart is a possible artificial current.
A spacecraft placed in the plasma will assume a floating potential different from the plasma itself.[4] Figure 3 illustrates surface charging in both sunlight and shadow. In darkness, a spacecraft surface will tend to charge negatively from the ambient plasma electrons. The plasma is basically neutral, having equal numbers of electrons and ions at equal energies; however, the electrons are much lighter particles, and therefore, move at higher velocities (i.e., EK=½mv²). Hence, the negative electron current to the spacecraft surface is greater than the positive ion current."

So an electrically neutral solar wind charges spacecraft and causes us to design them to be shielded from these affects. Wake up SZ.

And hows this for electrically neutral?

Electric Moon Zaps Solar Winds | David Reneke | Space and Astronomy News

'Unlike an Earthly-wind, solar winds are a flow of electrically charged gases called plasma."

But almost all astronomers have never taken a single course in plasma physics, and then expect to explain how the universe behaves when it is 99% plasma. Sort of like explaining what water is without never having taken a course in chemistry.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course I understand what ions are.

Do you understand what a cathode is and why the Earth is clearly not a cathode?

Watch the language. You are breaking the rules on "flaming".

And yes, we would want to shield spacecraft against the solar wind. Why do you think we wouldn't want to? In fact if the solar wind were only one charge it would be extremely easy to shield our ships. If the wind was positive a strong positive charge would shield our ships and vice versa if the wind was negative. The fact that it is electrically neutral means we have to protect against both positive and negative charges.

Lastly your own article states that the wind is neutral in total. Try reading it again. Their are both ion flows and electron flows striking the Moon. The ions would be positive and of course the electrons are negative.

Perhaps you should ask for some help on the articles?

 

[Riberra]

And once again, we know the solar wind is electrically neutral:

Characteristics of the Solar Wind - Windows to the Universe

So the claim that the Earth is a "cathode" is rather nonsensical. Now the magnetic fields may guide the various solar winds that hit the Earth, but I doubt if you can find an article that says it is a positive or negative current.

Cathode - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A cathode is an electrode through which electric current flows out of a polarized electrical device. The direction of electric current is, by convention, opposite to the direction of electron flow—thus, electrons are considered to flow toward the cathode electrode while current flows away from it.

NASA page about Aurora
Secrets of the Polar Aurora
See Section
Electrical Currents of the Aurora

The currents along magnetic field lines in space turn out to be carried almost entirely by electrons--descending towards Earth west of midnight, rising up again east of it (being negative, their flow opposes that of the current).

That seem to fit the description of the Earth acting like a cathode...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Cathode - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
NASA page about Aurora
Secrets of the Polar Aurora
See Section
Electrical Currents of the Aurora

The currents along magnetic field lines in space turn out to be carried almost entirely by electrons--descending towards Earth west of midnight, rising up again east of it (being negative, their flow opposes that of the current).

So now do you know why Earth is not a cathode?

 

[Riberra]

So now do you know why Earth is not a cathode?

It seem rather that the NASA description fitted the Earth acting like a cathode.

A cathode is an electrode through which electric current flows out of a polarized electrical device. The direction of electric current is, by convention, opposite to the direction of electron flow—thus, electrons are considered to flow toward the cathode electrode while current flows away from it.

NASA educational page.
Secrets of the Polar Aurora
Electrical Currents of the Aurora

The currents along magnetic field lines in space turn out to be carried almost entirely by electrons--descending towards Earth west of midnight, rising up again east of it (being negative, their flow opposes ie(is opposite to the direction of)that of the current).

Where electrons move upwards, the mirror force is no problem--on the contrary, it helps push the electrons away from Earth, towards weaker magnetic fields. However, it is a different story where electrons come down. With radiation belt particles, the mirror force keeps them safely away from the atmosphere--but here, those electrons better reach the upper layers of the atmosphere (where the current can continue horizontally to the other branch). If not, the electric circuit remains unclosed! So what happens? In our homes no electric currents will not flow unless a sort of electric pressure pushes them on--a pressure we call "voltage." In the home it measures 110 volt, average value (actually it fluctuates, being AC). Space currents also have a voltage pushing them, something like 40,000 volts.
In the home, if an obstacle is placed in the circuit--an electric resistance, such as a lightbulb--the voltage concentrates there to helps push the current through the bottleneck. Same thing in space! There the bottleneck is the mirror force at the ends of the field line, and to overcome it, something like 5000-15,000 volts are concentrated there, pushing those electrons through. The voltage speeds them up to about 1/10 the velocity of light, and when they hit the top of the atmosphere, they produce a bright glow. That is the polar aurora!
Substorms and slingshots

Aurora observed by
an imaging camera
aboard DE-1 Well--at least, one kind of aurora. Other kinds exist, too. The magnificent "ring of fire" around the magnetic pole, displayed on images from satellites (like the one here, on the left), is actually a different kind. It is too faint for the eye to see, but easily seen by spacecraft. But the bright arcs we see from the ground are usually associated with electrical currents flowing from Earth into space--to somewhere in space. (It may be confusing, but age-old convention has it that currents flow from (+) to (-). Therefore, when negative electrons come down, the currents they carry flow upwards.) To recapitulate, the electrons must overcome the "mirror force" of the strong magnetic field near Earth, which tries to keep them out, and they do so with a concentration of voltage.

-And a proof exists. The mirror force is strongest near Earth, where the intensity of the magnetic field is greatest, so one expects the voltage to be greatest there, too. And since that voltage is the source of energy of auroral electrons, they should only acquire it pretty close to Earth. Indeed, satellites show that those electrons are only speeded up near Earth, in the last 2-5000 miles before they hit.
Not all such currents are directly connected to the solar wind. A very bright and violent type of auroral arcs--associated with the "auroral substorms" mentioned before--seem to be produced (in part or totally) inside the magnetotail. In such cases the tail behaves a bit like a slingshot. The solar wind pulls its field lines and stretches them to the limit. Then, when they get released and bounce back, they create (for a while--say half an hour to an hour) strong electric currents, and many, many auroral electrons.

 

[Michael]

And once again, we know the solar wind is electrically neutral:

Characteristics of the Solar Wind - Windows to the Universe

Actually, no it's not entirely neutral. The fact that it contains mostly equal numbers of positrons and electrons does not make it 'electrically neutral'. You have charged particle moving at over a million miles per hour. That's a form of 'current', and each of those charged particles creates a magnetic field in it's wake. It will form right back into observable current channels the moment it hits a relatively stable magnetic field, such as the Earth's electromagnetic field. When that happens, the relative charges on the different particles acts to separate them into various "circuits" which Alfven also describes in his magnetosphere papers. That is in fact the 'cause' of the aurora.

So the claim that the Earth is a "cathode" is rather nonsensical.

It's a good thing then that Birkeland said the *sun* was a cathode with respect to "space" (what we'd today call the heliosphere), not the Earth.

PICTURES UNIVERSE ELECTRIFIED SPACE - Prof. Birkeland of Norway Holds That Suns and Stars Are Charged Negatively. - Article - NYTimes.com

Now the magnetic fields may guide the various solar winds that hit the Earth, but I doubt if you can find an article that says it is a positive or negative current.

You'll find all sorts of such commentary in Alfven's work related to the Earth's magnetosphere.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/A%20Three%20Ring%20Circuit%20Model%20OfThe%20Magnetosphere.pdf

Alfven used circuit theory and his double layer paper to explain pretty much *every* event that the mainstream then (and currently) attributed to "magnetic reconnection" theory. He called the whole concept of magnetic reconnection "pseudoscience" in fact.

 

[Michael]

NASA Spacecraft Make New Discoveries about Northern Lights - NASA Science

Even more impressive was the substorm's power. Angelopoulos estimates the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion (5 x 1014) Joules. That's approximately equivalent to the energy of a magnitude 5.5 earthquake.
Where does all that energy come from? THEMIS may have found an answer:
"The satellites have found evidence for magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the Sun," says Dave Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at the Goddard Space Flight Center. "We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras."

To understand the significance of this announcement from Themis team, we need to begin with an explanation/definition of a "magnetic rope" from Hannes Alfven, the father of MHD theory, from his book Cosmic Plasma:

"However, in cosmic plasmas the perhaps most important constriction mechanism is the electromagnetic attraction between parallel currents . A manifestation of this mechanism is the pinch effect, which was studied by Bennett long ago (1934), and has received much attention in connection with thermonuclear research . As we shall see, phenomena of this general type also exist on a cosmic scale, and lead to a bunching of currents and magnetic fields to filaments or `magnetic ropes' . This bunching is usually accompanied by an accumulation of matter, and it may explain the observational fact that cosmic matter exhibits an abundance of filamentary structures (II .4 .1) . This same mechanism may also evacuate the regions near the rope and produce regions of exceptionally low densities."

​

In other words, a magnetic rope is a current carrying device, akin to the plasma filaments that form inside of an ordinary plasma ball. In this case however, the flux rope was carrying over 5 x10^14 joules of energy! That's not just a "little" current, that's a *whole lot* of electrical current flowing between the sun and the Earth.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Of course I understand what ions are.

Do you understand what a cathode is and why the Earth is clearly not a cathode?

Who said the earth is a cathode? The cathode is out at the heliopause. If you are going to attempt to argue against EU theory at least learn what EU theory teaches, instead of what idiots on blog sites tell you it says. They don't know what it teaches anymore than you do apparently.

http://electric-cosmos.org/SunsEfield2013.pdf
"The cathode (ground) in this discharge is a virtual cathode – a surface located at a large distance from the Sun, several times the distance of the outermost planets. The entire volume from the Sun out to the cathode contains plasma. Thus the name solar plasmasphere is used to describe it. The outer surface of this plasmasphere is called the heliopause and is probably a plasma sheath – either a single or double layer (DL) of electrical charge."

http://electric-cosmos.org/SolarElecFlux2013.pdf

Electric Sunbeams | thunderbolts.info

Magnetic Froth | thunderbolts.info

Watch the language. You are breaking the rules on "flaming".

What language, calling the nonsense you are spouting nonsense? Evident from the fact that you think the EU teaches the earth is a cathode. The earth is also positively charged, just less than the Sun. All bodies in the solar system in stable orbits are positively charged, with decreasing positive charge the further from the Sun one gets. This is why comets electrically discharge as they near the Sun, because they are mostly negatively charged from the time spent in the outer solar system.

The Electric Comet | Full Documentary - YouTube

And yes, we would want to shield spacecraft against the solar wind. Why do you think we wouldn't want to? In fact if the solar wind were only one charge it would be extremely easy to shield our ships. If the wind was positive a strong positive charge would shield our ships and vice versa if the wind was negative. The fact that it is electrically neutral means we have to protect against both positive and negative charges.

No, if it was truly electrically neutral, neither positive nor negative charge would build up. This is why all atoms on earth are considered electrically neutral.

Electric charge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The motion of electrons in conductive metals in a specific direction is known as electric current."

Also the motion of electrons or protons in a specific direction is known as electric current.

Electric current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"An electric current is a flow of electric charge. In electric circuits this charge is often carried by moving electrons in a wire. It can also be carried by ions in an electrolyte, or by both ions and electrons such as in a plasma."

Lastly your own article states that the wind is neutral in total. Try reading it again. Their are both ion flows and electron flows striking the Moon. The ions would be positive and of course the electrons are negative.

Perhaps you should ask for some help on the articles?

No, it says it is overall neutral, not totally neutral, and also the article on spacecraft charging told you the electrons are moving faster than the protons, causing a voltage differential. You try reading them again, and maybe you should ask for help understanding basic science. This is why the solar wind causes ion beams on the moons surface, something an electrically neutral gas would not do, just as air flow from even hurricanes do not cause them on the earth, because the air "IS" electrically neutral overall.

It is neutral when one measures one area of plasma against it's neighboring area. But it is not neutral when one measures the solar wind against any other object within that space, or areas separated by distance. I think you are confused about voltage.

A 9V batter is not 9V absolute. It is 9V compared to a specific point chosen as ground. It can be 9V to that and at the same time -25V compared to you and -250V compared to the moon, etc.

Electrical curriculum: What is Voltage?

"How High is my Voltage?

Can an object have a certain voltage? No. Why not?

Well, please tell what my distance is. What is my distance? That's a ridiculous question, because I didn't tell you my distance FROM WHAT. Voltage is a bit like length; it is a measurement made BETWEEN two things. My distance is 300ft above sea level, but simultaneously my distance is also 1cm from the floor (since I'm not barefoot,) and it's also 93 million miles from the sun. My voltage might be -250 Volts in relation to the earth, but it also might be billions of volts when compared to the moon. Volts are always measured along the flux lines of electric field, therefore voltage is always measured between two charged objects. If I start at the negative end of my flashlight battery, I can call that end "zero volts", and so the other end must be positive 1.5 volts. However, if I start at the POSITIVE end instead, then the positive battery terminal is zero volts, and the other terminal is negative 1.5 volts. Or, if I start half way between the battery terminals, then one terminal is -.75 volts, and the other terminal is +.75 volts. OK, what is the REAL voltage of the positive battery terminal? Is it actually zero, or actually +1.5, or is it +.75 volts? Nobody can say. The terminal can have several voltages at the same time. But this is no big deal, because neither can anyone tell you the battery's distance! We can easily imagine the distance between two points, and we can also imagine the voltage between two points. But single objects don't "have distance", and single objects also don't "have voltage."


Even NASA understands this, why don't you?

NASA - The Electric Atmosphere: Plasma Is Next NASA Science Target

" But life on Earth is substantially different from, well, almost everywhere else. Beyond Earth's protective atmosphere and extending all the way through interplanetary space, electrified particles dominate the scene. Indeed, 99% of the universe is made of this electrified gas, known as plasma."

Only you and uniformed astronomers think it is an electrically neutral gas. Electrically neutral simply means it does not posses an abundance of positive or negative charge, not that it does not carry current. Current can be negative, positive or both. We will post it again as i doubt you read it the first time.

"An electric current is a flow of electric charge. In electric circuits this charge is often carried by moving electrons in a wire. It can also be carried by ions in an electrolyte, or by both ions and electrons such as in a plasma."

"A flow of positive charges gives the same electric current, and has the same effect in a circuit, as an equal flow of negative charges in the opposite direction. Since current can be the flow of either positive or negative charges, or both, a convention for the direction of current which is independent of the type of charge carriers is needed. The direction of conventional current is arbitrarily defined to be the same as the direction of the flow of positive charges."

You make such ab big deal over the term electrically neutral when you do not even understand what it really means.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I think it time we cleared up some misconceptions, judging by the comments. First and foremost is this.

Electric current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"An electric current is a flow of electric charge. In electric circuits this charge is often carried by moving electrons in a wire."

This is a totally misleading statement, furthering the common misconception.

In electric circuits the electrons flow at mere centimeters per minute and in AC circuits they don't flow hardly at all, but wiggle back and forth. Yet the electric force travels outside the wires at nearly the speed of light.

If you want to understand electricity, this is a MUST read. But you have to be prepared to give up all your misconceptions and be untaught all the incorrect teachings you have learned. This is the hardest part of all in understanding exactly what electricity is. It is NOT a single thing, but many things all lumped together under one term.

Electricty Misconceptions Spread By Textbooks

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL, you guys can't even keep your stories straight. It was Riberra who said the Earth is a cathode. And no, you would be wrong too. You don't know what something being a cathode implies. It seems that Michael is the only one who understands that the solar wind is neutral. Though it still would be a mistake to call ions and electrons both flowing outwards a "current". A current implies flow in one direction. The net flow of electricity is zero. A better term should be used. than "current".

 

[Riberra]

LOL, you guys can't even keep your stories straight. It was Riberra who said the Earth is a cathode.

LOL!
Actually, it is you that have brought the "cathode" argument in post #200 ...

Michael, if you want Birkeland thought that the Earth was a "cathode" that is clearly wrong. The solar wind is electrically neutral. The Earth does not just attract negative charges. Or positive charges for that matter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL!
Actually, it is you that have brought the "cathode" argument in post #200 ...

Fine, I did. So now we should all agree that Birkeland was wrong. You defended his claim.

It seems that Justa does not know what the claim is wrong. You did not, I don't know if you still do not. Michael was the only one who did though he still tried to describe, and incorrectly. Moving ions and electrons a "current".

 

[Riberra]

Fine, I did. So now we should all agree that Birkeland was wrong. You defended his claim.

Birkeland never claimed that the Earth is a cathode.Where did you find that claim?I have even provided in post#201 a Wikipedia article where he said that the Sun acted like a cathode ray not the Earth.
Post #201
In the quoted text you can read :
**He theorized that somehow the Sun emitted a cathode ray..."**

Birkeland current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The currents were predicted in 1908 by Norwegian explorer and physicist Kristian Birkeland, who undertook expeditions beyond the Arctic Circle to study the aurora. He rediscovered, using simple magnetic field measurement instruments, that when the aurora appeared the needles of magnetometers changed direction, confirming the findings of Anders Celsius and assistant Olof Hjorter more than a century before. This could only imply that currents were flowing in the atmosphere above.** He theorized that somehow the Sun emitted a cathode ray,[2][3] and corpuscles from what is now known as a solar wind entered the Earth’s magnetic field and created currents, thereby creating the aurora.** This view was scorned by other researchers,[4] but in 1967 a satellite, launched into the auroral region, showed that the currents posited by Birkeland existed. In honour of him and his theory these currents are named Birkeland currents.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Birkeland never claimed that the Earth is a cathode.Where did you find that claim?I have even provided in post#201 a Wikipedia article where he said that the Sun acted like a cathode ray not the Earth.
Post #201
In the quoted text you can read :
**He theorized that somehow the Sun emitted a cathode ray..."**

Birkeland current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[/B]

I got that from one of your sources. Are you claiming that you did not even read your own sources now?

 

[Riberra]

I got that from one of your sources. Are you claiming that you did not even read your own sources now?

Which sources are you talking about ?I have only provided the Wikipedia article about Birkeland Currents where he said that the Sun acted like a cathode ray, not the Earth..

Read it again...
Birkeland current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He ie [Birkeland] theorized that somehow the Sun emitted a cathode ray,[2][3] and corpuscles from what is now known as a solar wind entered the Earth’s magnetic field and created currents, thereby creating the aurora. This view was scorned by other researchers,[4] but in 1967 a satellite, launched into the auroral region, showed that the currents posited by Birkeland existed.

 

[Michael]

Fine, I did. So now we should all agree that Birkeland was wrong.

You defended his claim.

And for good reason as both his article and the Themis observations demonstrated.

Birkeland's cathode solar model has accurately predicted that the sun emits cathode rays (verified), the emission of both types of charged particles in high speed solar wind, electrical discharges in solar flares, polar jets, coronal loops, and pretty much every important observation in solar satellite imagery in the 21st century. Not bad for a guy experimenting in his lab in 1908.

Meanwhile your mainstream solar model lost its primary atmospheric power source in 2012, and ordinary IRIS images *still* befuddle LMSAL to this day. They haven't even figured out how to turn on the power yet!

 

[Michael]

The interesting part of the 'dark matter' debate is that nothing much is likely to change until LHC starts back up in 2015'sh. Even then, there's no guarantee that they will find anything beyond the standard model, let alone anything that "fits the bill' in terms of astronomy. Will any new, exotic, and 'long lived' particles be found in such experiments for instance? It seems like anyone putting their "money" on exotic matter theory is doing so without any real direct evidence, and in spite of the evidence gathered to date.

We know for a fact those 2006 models didn't even predict the right number of *stars* in distant galaxies, nor did they properly account for the brightness of the galaxies, not to mention the size of the central black holes in each galaxy.

We also know that SUSY theory failed it own "golden test", as well as failing those electron roundness tests. Their own maths blew their claims out of the water in the lab.

It's certainly no mystery as to how and why they botched the galaxy mass estimates in 2006 with our 2014 20/20 hindsight. That kind of (now falsified) information certainly *cannot* be used to support the exotic matter claims.

Exotic matter theory is directly and forever linked to the nucleosynthesis *requirements* of the creation mythos called "Lambda-CDM". The worst part is that NASA's claims about what they are sure dark matter is 'not', have actually been falsified in several ways, on each point. Not only is it *wrong*, it's also entirely misleading. Unfortunately it's a perfect, even textbook example of *false advertizing* by NASA.