The Electric Comet theory

Status
Not open for further replies.
tusenfem said:
ad that is the whole problem with the the eu community, they are totally unable to do anything quantitatively
Click to expand...

I remember in several other threads EU proponents saying "we'd be able to get a lot a done if we had just a tiny fraction of the funding that mainstream astronomers have", with other responding "well what would they do with the money"? I've half-seriously thought that the answer might be "hire physics grad-students to do the math for us".
 
Haig said:
Hey tusenfem, welcome back.

You just leave for a few days and the thread goes haywire. RC and DD have gone AWOL and Zig can't do his sums.

How about you? Can you give and explanation for this that ISN'T a confirmation of EU / PC theory by showing electromagnetism's right hand rule on a galactic scale "mysterious alignment of quasars with the Universe’s large-scale structure" Eh tusenfem?

How about the Electric Comet singing? How do you explain that?
67P is Better than Bieber, Rosetta’s Comet Sings Strange, Seductive Song

Sounds not so much as singing more of an Electric Hum to me :D
Click to expand...

Haig said:
Sounds much more like an Electric Comet explanation than a Dirty Snowball Comet sublimating ices ;)

So your dodging the big picture too :eek: It's becoming more and more obvious the EU / PC view is the best fit to ALL the new space discoveries and data.

How about the other Electric Comet that just passed Mars ... care to give your take on that?

SIDING SPRING an Electric Comet in action disturbing the electromagnetic balance of a planet (surrounded by it's plasma sheath) as it ploughs through the electric field of the Sun HERE
Click to expand...

i note that you do not answer the reaction rate for solar wind water creation nor the uestion what creates the CO that is emitted by the comet (can't be that there is dry ice in the comet!!!).

as for siding spring i have not kept up, only seen the cherrie picked quotes here indicating an increase in ions in mars's ionosphere and in another quote an increase in electrons, not really surprising if the tail of the comet nears the planet. and with "plasma sheath" i guess they mean the (induced) magnetosphere?

so haig, how about actually answering some questions? if you don't know the answer just ask your cronies at thunder. it cannot be so frakking difficult to explain quantitatively the water productio, even back-of-the-envelope calculation will suffice.
 
Matthew Cline said:
I remember in several other threads EU proponents saying "we'd be able to get a lot a done if we had just a tiny fraction of the funding that mainstream astronomers have", with other responding "well what would they do with the money"? I've half-seriously thought that the answer might be "hire physics grad-students to do the math for us".
Click to expand...

indeed, i have been going through this for years now and always new trolls pop up. you do not need a lot of funding only a bit of knowledge of rlectrodynamics and plasma physics and access to the internet. then you go to the pds or psa (us ans eu data repositories) get the data and work on it. heck, every pc has excell (or a freeware version) which can read the ascii data and manipulate them. do it on a rainy sunday afternoon.

but if you go to the thunder forum and see the comments there, you understand why nothing happens, it is mainly a bunch of nitwits with comments even more stupid than we get from haig and sol " well i guess they never heard about electricity, these so called astronomers"

also what haig again posted, the juergens' model. using appropriate estimations for the currents and the sheet it should flow in and the known energy emitted by the sun gave me a local magnetic field strength about 2 orders of magnitude too large atcarth's orbit. i guess i could search for it, but who cares (it was in another eu or electric sun thread)

that is why handwaving is so important for ec, es, eu
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
Prediction #3: Electric Comets and the "Domino Effect"
Quote:
The evidence suggests that comets are highly negatively charged with respect to the Sun.

What evidence? A large metal object full of delicate electronics just landed on the comet and it found nothing of the sort
Click to expand...
Well LS you are aware (aren't you) that the lander Philae (and Rosetta) have Faraday Cages built into protect their instrumentation?

An also, Rosetta and Philae approached 67P so slowly thus minimising the charge difference between them.

If a spacecraft and lander approach a comet fast then you can get a huge reaction like this Deep Impact: Confirming the Electric Comet

As they rush toward the Sun, the voltage increases until at some point the comet nucleus begins to discharge. Electrons are stripped from a few points on the comet surface where the electric field is strongest. These “spark discharges” finely machine rocky material from the surface to form a “cathode jet” of negatively charged dust together with surface matter that has been torn apart to release ionized atoms and molecules, including oxygen.

Which is nice and all, but this would only explain a local ionization, what is ionized in the remaining AU's of distance?

Under the conventional model there is no reason for the high density of negative ions discovered near the comet nucleus. Negative ions are difficult to produce by solar heating and are quickly destroyed by solar radiation. Nevertheless, in March 1986 when the Giotto spacecraft flew within 600km of Comet Halley, an abundance of negatively charged atoms was discovered in the inner coma—direct evidence that a comet is the cathode in an electric exchange with the Sun. A few years later, scientists discovered an unexpected “forbidden oxygen” line at 1128Å in the spectrum of Comet Austin. That line is consistent with the presence of an intense electric field and/or densities in the coma many orders of magnitude higher than those predicted from standard cometary theory.

There is reason to believe that the positively charged ions from the solar wind react preferentially with the negatively charged oxygen from the nucleus to generate the water observed surrounding comets.

Such interaction at the comet would NOT generate a visible comet tail as anyone with basic chemistry could attest to.

The probe Vega 2 found the H2O (water) production by comet Halley was one fifth of the OH production. But scientists had supposed that OH was formed by photo-dissociation of H2O at some distance from the nucleus. The report in Nature in May 1986 reads: "only indirect and sometimes ambiguous evidence in favor of water has been found; indeed, some facts appear to contradict this hypothesis." Thus, the authors suggest, "This problem requires further analysis and may indicate the existence of parents of OH other than H2O."
Click to expand...
You seem to be missing the point LS try reading it again.

'Electric Comet' Could Burn The House Of Science

"The standard theory, it seems, has been kept alive by the discovery of water in comet comas and tails, not on the nucleus itself. But what is the source of the water in comet tails? Ironically, electrical activity within cometary comas may have deceived investigators into thinking that their model is intact"

Lukraak_Sisser said:
This whole 'theory' however adresses exactly none of the questions I've asked.
Click to expand...
Well it seems you can take LS to water but you can't ... Maybe a re-read might make things clearer for you?
Lukraak_Sisser said:
Why are no other bodies in the solar system charged in this way?
Click to expand...
There are LS!

All the planets are charged bodies with plasma sheaths surrounding them (Earth's is called the Magnetosphere) and the Sun is a charged body has it's plasma sheath too (mainstream call it the Heliosphere}.
Lukraak_Sisser said:
How much voltage is required and how is it generated continously, while your prediction would suggest buildup - discharge- buildup.
Click to expand...
Can you imagine the size of the Universe LS? Well 99.9% of that is Plasma and plasma can carry electric currents that generate magnetic fields, called Birkland Currents. The current is generated continually by the potential difference across the Universe. That's what lights up the Universe and why we can see huge chains of galaxies. There are local variations such as we find in our Sun with it's various cycles. (btw now heading into a Grand Solar Minimum) This is my understanding from all this you and the rest are free to make up your own mind or simply follow.
Lukraak_Sisser said:
And of course, the main problem. According to this theory the discharges would be observed BETWEEN a comet and the sun.
Click to expand...
If they are close enough there are reactions! Never heard of Sun diving comets? There are lots of examples of this ...
One of the most interesting aspects to the latest auroral episode is not its display, but its origin. Just before the CME, a comet was seen entering the Sun’s corona and then failing to reappear. In previous Picture of the Day articles, several other examples were discussed of comets “crashing” into the Sun just before large CMEs. One comet in particular, 96P/Machholz, did not strike the Sun it skimmed around it, apparently causing a CME in the process.
Click to expand...
Lukraak_Sisser said:
Every single cometary observation ever shows the tail to point AWAY from the sun. So this prediction claims that observable nature is wrong. Which is a clear indictation that the theory is wrong. And if that simple part of the theory is observably wrong, then why would we use any of the rest of theory?
Click to expand...
How is the tail of a comet pointing away from the Sun make Electric Comets theory wrong? It's actually the opposite it makes it right! Ask yourself if comet tails are just sublimating ices and dust WHY do they stay ATTACHED to a very low gravity body like a comet? and sweep around the sun like a blade at perihelion? That's an electromagnetic effect LS
 
tusenfem said:
i note that you do not answer the reaction rate for solar wind water creation nor the uestion what creates the CO that is emitted by the comet (can't be that there is dry ice in the comet!!!).

as for siding spring i have not kept up, only seen the cherrie picked quotes here indicating an increase in ions in mars's ionosphere and in another quote an increase in electrons, not really surprising if the tail of the comet nears the planet. and with "plasma sheath" i guess they mean the (induced) magnetosphere?

so haig, how about actually answering some questions? if you don't know the answer just ask your cronies at thunder. it cannot be so frakking difficult to explain quantitatively the water productio, even back-of-the-envelope calculation will suffice.
Click to expand...
Your the one claiming to be the expert tusenfem :D

I've answered lots of questions on this thread by pointing to where they are answers and giving my own opinion too occasionally, for what that's worth ;)

I know the questions I've asked you are difficult but you need to stop dodging them! They are important questions for mainstream to answer or they should simply drop the dirty snowball model of comets and adopt the Electric Comet one
 
Hi Haig, thank you for taking the trouble to respond to some of my posts.

Haig said:
.

If your interested in understanding the theory behind Electric Comets, Electric Sun and Electric Universe / Plasma Cosmology

You can get answers from the links I've already posted and from those below ...
Click to expand...

Before I get to the material you posted, thanks again for trying to answer my questions, even though most of them were not directed at you; I only hope that Sol88 will put as much effort into trying to answer as you did.

Also, I know you know, but just so that we're crystal clear here: I am not interested, in this thread, in "Electric Universe" or "Plasma Cosmology"; and I'm only interested in "Electric Sun" because the document you posted earlier makes it clear that one cannot consider "Electric Comet" without also considering "Electric Sun".

Because I can't post links yet, even within a quote, I've had to edit your post to remove them.

Prediction #3: Electric Comets and the "Domino Effect"
Click to expand...

As others have already noted, there's nothing here which answers my questions, no papers, no calculations, no links to quantified descriptions of electricity, etc (with respect to electric comets). Can you not cite anything which actually answers my questions?

For example, from that source:
The electrical model of cometary discharge does explain the observations: an electric field accelerates matter in the jet; an electromagnetic “pinch effect” provides densities in the thin jets many orders of magnitude higher than those predicted from simple radial sublimation; and instabilities and fluctuations suddenly relocate jets in exceedingly short periods of time.
Click to expand...

Where is this "electrical model of cometary discharge" written up? published? I assume it's a scientific - i.e. quantitative - model, so it will include a quantitative description of the "electric field [which] accelerates matter in the jet", of the "densities in the thin jets many orders of magnitude higher than those predicted from simple radial sublimation", and of the "exceedingly short periods of time."

There's also this in that document: "A few years later, scientists discovered an unexpected “forbidden oxygen” line at 1128Å in the spectrum of Comet Austin. That line is consistent with the presence of an intense electric field and/or densities in the coma many orders of magnitude higher than those predicted from standard cometary theory." Do you know if this is just a typo? Or a mistake? Or are the authors of that document so ignorant as to not know what forbidden lines are?

.

On Gravity-centric Cosmology and the Implications of a Universe Awash with Plasma Paper's PDF Here
Click to expand...

As others have already noted, there's nothing here which answers my questions, no papers, no calculations, no links to quantified descriptions of electricity, etc (with respect to electric comets). Can you not cite anything which actually answers my questions?

.
Alfvén Triumphs Again (and Again)
Click to expand...

As others have already noted, there's nothing here which answers my questions, no papers, no calculations, no links to quantified descriptions of electricity, etc (with respect to electric comets). Can you not cite anything which actually answers my questions?

I found this, at the bottom of the page, particularly informative: "POSTSCRIPT: Alfvén didn't go so far as to consider a star as an electrical discharge phenomenon."

If no "electrical theorist" has built on Alfven's work, and shown that the electric Sun idea is consistent with all the relevant data, quantitatively, why post this? I find it particularly informative to realize that no such work has (apparently) been done ... in ~half a century.

.Discovering The Electric Sun
Fig. 12.
Energy, electric field strength, and charge density as a function of radial distance from the Sun's surface.
Illustration from Don Scott’s book The Electric Sky.
Click to expand...

As others have already noted, there's nothing here which answers my questions, no papers, no calculations, no links to quantified descriptions of electricity, etc (with respect to electric comets). Can you not cite anything which actually answers my questions?

In particular, none of the plots have scales; there's no indication of where the origin is, no 'tick marks', no units, not even any indication of whether the scales are linear, logarithmic, ... If Scott has already gone to the trouble of producing such detailed material, why did he not post plots labeled appropriately for a scientific audience? I'm quite struck by the contrast with the previous link; if any student of Alfven had submitted incomplete plots like Scott published, I've no doubt Alfven would have 'ripped him a new one' (as I think the current vernacular has it).

(to be continued; this post is already too long)
 
(continued)
Haig said:
<skip>

.
The Electric Sun Hypothesis
Figure 4.
The electrical potential energy of a +ion as a function of distance above the Sun's anode surface.

(Caution: This is NOT a side view of a granule. It is simply a graph of the plasma's voltage as a function of distance up along a straight-line vertical path coming from the Sun's surface up toward the lower corona. If the path goes through a granule, the black curve applies. If the path goes up through the umbra of a sunspot, the dashed red curve is correct.)
Click to expand...
As others have already noted, there's nothing here which answers my questions, no papers, no calculations, no links to quantified descriptions of electricity, etc (with respect to electric comets). Can you not cite anything which actually answers my questions?

One piece, from this source, is interesting: "The Sun is at a more positive electrical potential (voltage) than is the space plasma surrounding it - probably in the order of several billion volts." When combined with "As of 9/9/2012 the radius of this plasma cell has been measured to be greater than 18 billion km or 122 times the distance from the Sun to Earth", it would seem that there's the basis for making quantitative estimates of the electric charge an (electric) comet would have, and also of the electric field which causes the 'electric discharge jets' (per the electric comet idea). Yet in none of the materials you've quoted can I find any such calculation. Which is strange, because it would seem to be pretty simple and straight-forward (at least as a first pass, order-of-magnitude).

Have you tried to do such a calculation yourself, Haig? Have you read anything where such a calculation has been presented?

.
The Electric Sun/Earth ... Connection Confirmed
Click to expand...
As others have already noted, there's nothing here which answers my questions, no papers, no calculations, no links to quantified descriptions of electricity, etc (with respect to electric comets). Can you not cite anything which actually answers my questions?


.
The Safire Project - Testing The Electric Sun
Click to expand...
As others have already noted, there's nothing here which answers my questions, no papers, no calculations, no links to quantified descriptions of electricity, etc (with respect to electric comets). Can you not cite anything which actually answers my questions?

Perhaps once this project has finished taking data, the analyses done, results written up, and published, maybe then there might be something to discuss, right?

Do you have any idea when we might expect to see such a publication?

.
Electric Sun Verified

This diagram shows a conceptual cross-section along the central axis of the stellar Z-pinch at the Sun’s position. Whether the double layers exist within or outside the heliosphere is unknown. The diameter of the encircling cylinder is unknown. That of supernova 1987A is of the order of a light-year, which would make the diameter of the heliosphere more than 600 times smaller! Note that as a rotating charged body the Sun’s magnetic field is not aligned with the interstellar magnetic field and Z-pinch axis. The Sun’s magnetic field only has influence within the tiny heliosphere but it is modulated by galactic currents. Alfvén’s axial “double layers” (DLs) have been included although their distance from the Sun is unknown. DLs are produced in current carrying plasma and are the one region where charge separation takes place in plasma and a high voltage is generated across them (see discussion below).
Click to expand...
As others have already noted, there's nothing here which answers my questions, no papers, no calculations, no links to quantified descriptions of electricity, etc (with respect to electric comets). Can you not cite anything which actually answers my questions?
 
Hi dasmiller,
dasmiller said:
I took the liberty of skimming those links and found not a single calculation. Not one.
Click to expand...
I did read the material in those links, quite carefully (well, those which were directly relevant to 'electric comet' and the parts to 'electric Sun' as they pertained to 'electric comet'). And I can independently verify what you found from just skimming; there's not a single calculation in any of them.

I know your long post makes it look like you've addressed the questions, but you did not. Their questions centered on the math, and there is no math in any of the links you posted. They've accused you of handwaving, and in response, you've simply waved harder.
Click to expand...
And this seems to be a consistent pattern, throughout this very long thread; none of the members posting material in support of the 'electric comet' idea have been able to find anything quantitative, anything which ties the 'electric comet' ideas to the equations and so on found in textbooks on electricity. And the only time something looks like it does - e.g. the references to Alfven - it turns out they're not.

When we've done the math for you, it hasn't worked. Typically by several orders of magnitude. But you haven't offered corrections, or alternate calculations.
Click to expand...
I've noticed that too.

And it's not just here; Tom Bridgman has a website on which he posts clear, specific, quantitative challenges to those who are in favor of the electric Sun, yet no one has responded. He also posts some detailed calculations of several different electric Sun models, and shows that they fail - dramatically - in terms of consistency with things like the observed energy output of the Sun (in the form of electromagnetic radiation), and its constancy.

(sorry, I can't post a link yet; his site is called "Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy")

Is EU incompatible with quantitative modeling? Or do the EU proponents simply lack the necessary skills?

If it's the latter, shouldn't it shake your confidence in EU a bit?
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Haig, would you like to have a go at answering these questions?
 
Haig said:
Your the one claiming to be the expert tusenfem :D

I've answered lots of questions on this thread by pointing to where they are answers and giving my own opinion too occasionally, for what that's worth ;)

I know the questions I've asked you are difficult but you need to stop dodging them! They are important questions for mainstream to answer or they should simply drop the dirty snowball model of comets and adopt the Electric Comet one
Click to expand...

Haig, can you actually READ???

I have told you (and sol) several times already that the dirty snowball was introduced by Whipple in the late 50s or early 60s, before any close observations were available.

Only after the flyby of Halley by Giotto in 1986 did we get a first look at the nucleus of a comet and here is the picture:
maxresdefault.jpg


After that it was clear that it was NOT a dirty snowball, so stop claiming that mainstream still thinks of a comet as a dirty snowball.

Up until now you have not asked any questions, you have made claims and refused to believe any answers to the (mostly ridiculous thunderdolts originated) claims. You have no will to learn anything, and can only copy stuff that you find on the internet.

The links that you just posted with "serious questions" are so much rediculous that I will not even spend time to try and set them straight. I'd have to start with freshmen physics, if not high-school level physics.

So, as long as you do not bring anything of substance (which I am sure you will not) there is absolutely nothing to discuss. You will not "defend" EC, but you are a proponent. You will not answer any quantitative questions, but you are sure you can disbelieve any mainstream calculation.

So, why not got to thunderdolts forum, and discuss there amongst your friends.
 
Hi again Haig.

I know you were responding to Lukraak_Sisser ("LS"), but as I pretty much agreed with everything LS wrote, I hope you don't mind if I also respond to your post.

Haig said:
Well LS you are aware (aren't you) that the lander Philae (and Rosetta) have Faraday Cages built into protect their instrumentation?
Click to expand...
Well, from the material you posted earlier, on the electric comet, there should have been a quite dramatic electric discharge, between the comet's surface and the metal tips and sharp edges of several parts of both spacecraft.

Of course, none of the electric comet material you posted contains any quantitative calculation, so all we have to discuss is bald words, which are quite inadequate to get to the bottom of this, right?

An also, Rosetta and Philae approached 67P so slowly thus minimising the charge difference between them.
Click to expand...

I'm really puzzled by this, Haig; I hope you can sort my puzzlement out for me.

According to 'electric comet', a comet's jets are electrical discharges, caused by the huge difference(s) in electric potential between the comet's surface and the solar wind/field. And these jets stretch across quite enormous distances.

Yet Rosetta started out at a quite different 'solar potential' than where it is now, but has no jets streaming from it. If the slow approach of Rosetta minimized the charge difference between it and the comet, and the comet is still at such a huge difference to the solar wind (etc), how come Rosetta doesn't have jets too?

If a spacecraft and lander approach a comet fast then you can get a huge reaction like this Deep Impact: Confirming the Electric Comet
Click to expand...
I may be wrong, but I think member Reality Check has pretty thoroughly debunked that. While he may have gone a bit too far in calling what's posted "lies", I can't see any way round the conclusion that the authors of that material have badly misrepresented the facts.

You seem to be missing the point LS try reading it again.
Click to expand...
While I'm not LS, I did read it again, and still cannot see where/how LS misunderstood anything.

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to go through it, in detail, showing exactly where both of us have (so badly, apparently) misunderstood?

'Electric Comet' Could Burn The House Of Science

"The standard theory, it seems, has been kept alive by the discovery of water in comet comas and tails, not on the nucleus itself. But what is the source of the water in comet tails? Ironically, electrical activity within cometary comas may have deceived investigators into thinking that their model is intact"
Click to expand...
I know tusenfem has asked - many times - for details about this, but so far (as far as I can tell) you have not provided any answers.

So let me try asking too: where are the calculations of the expected amount of water, from comets, using the electric comet idea? Where have analyses been published, showing that these expected rates are consistent with the published observations?

Well it seems you can take LS to water but you can't ... Maybe a re-read might make things clearer for you?
Click to expand...
Again, I'm not LS, but when I re-read the material (and re-re-read it), I was left with the same, unanswered, questions as LS.

Perhaps if you could post links to published material containing actual models, with calculations, numbers, etc? That would certainly go a long way to addressing the apparent misunderstanding.

There are LS!

All the planets are charged bodies with plasma sheaths surrounding them (Earth's is called the Magnetosphere) and the Sun is a charged body has it's plasma sheath too (mainstream call it the Heliosphere}.
Click to expand...
Actually, you didn't answer LS' question, sorry.

However, your response opens up the chance to ask this question: what are the charges on the planets in the solar system? on the Sun? On the comet Rosetta is currently orbiting?

I would assume that, since you know all about plasma sheaths etc, you could simply apply the well-known laws of electricity and work out at least the relative charges on all these bodies? Or at least provide good order-of-magnitude estimates of them?

And if you personally can't do such calculations, surely 'the electrical theorists' have done so, right? Please post links to where such calculations are published.

Can you imagine the size of the Universe LS? Well 99.9% of that is Plasma and plasma can carry electric currents that generate magnetic fields, called Birkland Currents. The current is generated continually by the potential difference across the Universe. That's what lights up the Universe and why we can see huge chains of galaxies. There are local variations such as we find in our Sun with it's various cycles. (btw now heading into a Grand Solar Minimum) This is my understanding from all this you and the rest are free to make up your own mind or simply follow.
Click to expand...
I'm really quite lost here Haig, so I hope you can help.

If the Sun is enclosed in a plasma sheath - as you said earlier - then as long as comets, planets, spacecraft, etc do not go outside it, what happens in the rest of the universe is irrelevant to the point LS is making, right? All that matters is the relative charges on all the various bodies within that plasma sheath, right?

If they are close enough there are reactions! Never heard of Sun diving comets? There are lots of examples of this ...
Click to expand...
Really?

This would seem - at first glance - to be something 'electrical theorists' would have researched extensively!

Do you know where their research results have been published? Quantitative ones, I mean, which consider all CMEs and all sun-diving comets, address selection effects, do quantitative analyses of the observed 'reactions', etc, etc, etc.

How is the tail of a comet pointing away from the Sun make Electric Comets theory wrong? It's actually the opposite it makes it right! Ask yourself if comet tails are just sublimating ices and dust WHY do they stay ATTACHED to a very low gravity body like a comet? and sweep around the sun like a blade at perihelion? That's an electromagnetic effect LS
Click to expand...
I'm with LS on this too, Haig.

If comet tails are some sort of discharge, why do they all face away from the Sun? And why are there two tails? At the very least I'd expect comet tails to point one way when they're 'incoming' and the opposite way when they're 'outgoing' (but they don't).

Can you explain this for me please, slowly, carefully, and in detail. In your own words, not by posting yet another link.
 
JeanTate said:
(continued)
As others have already noted, there's nothing here which answers my questions, no papers, no calculations, no links to quantified descriptions of electricity, etc (with respect to electric comets). Can you not cite anything which actually answers my questions?

One piece, from this source, is interesting: "The Sun is at a more positive electrical potential (voltage) than is the space plasma surrounding it - probably in the order of several billion volts." When combined with "As of 9/9/2012 the radius of this plasma cell has been measured to be greater than 18 billion km or 122 times the distance from the Sun to Earth", it would seem that there's the basis for making quantitative estimates of the electric charge an (electric) comet would have, and also of the electric field which causes the 'electric discharge jets' (per the electric comet idea). Yet in none of the materials you've quoted can I find any such calculation. Which is strange, because it would seem to be pretty simple and straight-forward (at least as a first pass, order-of-magnitude).

Have you tried to do such a calculation yourself, Haig? Have you read anything where such a calculation has been presented?


As others have already noted, there's nothing here which answers my questions, no papers, no calculations, no links to quantified descriptions of electricity, etc (with respect to electric comets). Can you not cite anything which actually answers my questions?



As others have already noted, there's nothing here which answers my questions, no papers, no calculations, no links to quantified descriptions of electricity, etc (with respect to electric comets). Can you not cite anything which actually answers my questions?

Perhaps once this project has finished taking data, the analyses done, results written up, and published, maybe then there might be something to discuss, right?

Do you have any idea when we might expect to see such a publication?


As others have already noted, there's nothing here which answers my questions, no papers, no calculations, no links to quantified descriptions of electricity, etc (with respect to electric comets). Can you not cite anything which actually answers my questions?
Click to expand...

JeanTate said:
Hi dasmiller,

I did read the material in those links, quite carefully (well, those which were directly relevant to 'electric comet' and the parts to 'electric Sun' as they pertained to 'electric comet'). And I can independently verify what you found from just skimming; there's not a single calculation in any of them.


And this seems to be a consistent pattern, throughout this very long thread; none of the members posting material in support of the 'electric comet' idea have been able to find anything quantitative, anything which ties the 'electric comet' ideas to the equations and so on found in textbooks on electricity. And the only time something looks like it does - e.g. the references to Alfven - it turns out they're not.


I've noticed that too.

And it's not just here; Tom Bridgman has a website on which he posts clear, specific, quantitative challenges to those who are in favor of the electric Sun, yet no one has responded. He also posts some detailed calculations of several different electric Sun models, and shows that they fail - dramatically - in terms of consistency with things like the observed energy output of the Sun (in the form of electromagnetic radiation), and its constancy.

(sorry, I can't post a link yet; his site is called "Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy")


Indeed.

Haig, would you like to have a go at answering these questions?
Click to expand...

Hi JeanTate,

Sorry my posts couldn't satisfy you.

The latest I've read is this paper JMP and SAFIRE: What makes the sun shine? Click on the link and you'll see some recent information and a Video of the presentation. Also, at the bottom, below the video, you can download a PDF that may have what your looking for.

One of the best places to find further information is the Thunderbolts site.

If you join and ask your questions on the forum you will get straight answers without the ad-homs so common here. If you are genuine you won't have any problems there. Thunderbolts Forum Registration Application

Good luck in your quest :)
 
Matthew Cline said:
I remember in several other threads EU proponents saying "we'd be able to get a lot a done if we had just a tiny fraction of the funding that mainstream astronomers have", with other responding "well what would they do with the money"? I've half-seriously thought that the answer might be "hire physics grad-students to do the math for us".
Click to expand...
If I am not mistaken, at least several of 'the electrical theorists' have university degrees in fields which are directly pertinent: Thornhill has a physics degree, and Scott is some sort of electrical engineer. Also, wasn't Jurgens a science graduate too?

From reading the material Haig has posted, I'm left with the impression that the likes of Thornhill and Scott have had more than enough time to do at least the 'back of the envelope' calculations which would show the basic soundness of their ideas (they certainly have more than enough income to do this!).

In an earlier post, dasmiller asked "Is EU incompatible with quantitative modeling? Or do the EU proponents simply lack the necessary skills?" While that's a bit too broad (this thread is about electric comet), the questions are very pertinent; after many decades of working on the electric comet (and electric Sun) idea, how come neither Thornhill nor Scott have - apparently - been able to publish even the simplest of calculations?

And why are plots which are published non-scientific (no units, no scale, etc)? It's not like Thornhill's and Scott's teachers didn't ever mention the importance of such things.
 
Haig said:
Some serious questions here for mainstream to answer about comets.

<links removed; I still can't post links, even when I'm just quoting>
Click to expand...

That's nice, but what does it have to do with the validity (or otherwise) of the electric comet idea?
 
Haig said:
Ask yourself if comet tails are just sublimating ices and dust WHY do they stay ATTACHED to a very low gravity body like a comet? and sweep around the sun like a blade at perihelion?
Click to expand...

Seriously? An analogy for you: Why does the stream of water coming out of a hose stay attached to the hose? Silly question, right?
 
Jean Tate said:
Hi again Haig.

I know you were responding to Lukraak_Sisser ("LS"), but as I pretty much agreed with everything LS wrote, I hope you don't mind if I also respond to your post.


Well, from the material you posted earlier, on the electric comet, there should have been a quite dramatic electric discharge, between the comet's surface and the metal tips and sharp edges of several parts of both spacecraft.

Of course, none of the electric comet material you posted contains any quantitative calculation, so all we have to discuss is bald words, which are quite inadequate to get to the bottom of this, right?



I'm really puzzled by this, Haig; I hope you can sort my puzzlement out for me.

According to 'electric comet', a comet's jets are electrical discharges, caused by the huge difference(s) in electric potential between the comet's surface and the solar wind/field. And these jets stretch across quite enormous distances.

Yet Rosetta started out at a quite different 'solar potential' than where it is now, but has no jets streaming from it. If the slow approach of Rosetta minimized the charge difference between it and the comet, and the comet is still at such a huge difference to the solar wind (etc), how come Rosetta doesn't have jets too?


I may be wrong, but I think member Reality Check has pretty thoroughly debunked that. While he may have gone a bit too far in calling what's posted "lies", I can't see any way round the conclusion that the authors of that material have badly misrepresented the facts.


While I'm not LS, I did read it again, and still cannot see where/how LS misunderstood anything.

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to go through it, in detail, showing exactly where both of us have (so badly, apparently) misunderstood?


I know tusenfem has asked - many times - for details about this, but so far (as far as I can tell) you have not provided any answers.

So let me try asking too: where are the calculations of the expected amount of water, from comets, using the electric comet idea? Where have analyses been published, showing that these expected rates are consistent with the published observations?


Again, I'm not LS, but when I re-read the material (and re-re-read it), I was left with the same, unanswered, questions as LS.

Perhaps if you could post links to published material containing actual models, with calculations, numbers, etc? That would certainly go a long way to addressing the apparent misunderstanding.


Actually, you didn't answer LS' question, sorry.

However, your response opens up the chance to ask this question: what are the charges on the planets in the solar system? on the Sun? On the comet Rosetta is currently orbiting?

I would assume that, since you know all about plasma sheaths etc, you could simply apply the well-known laws of electricity and work out at least the relative charges on all these bodies? Or at least provide good order-of-magnitude estimates of them?

And if you personally can't do such calculations, surely 'the electrical theorists' have done so, right? Please post links to where such calculations are published.


I'm really quite lost here Haig, so I hope you can help.

If the Sun is enclosed in a plasma sheath - as you said earlier - then as long as comets, planets, spacecraft, etc do not go outside it, what happens in the rest of the universe is irrelevant to the point LS is making, right? All that matters is the relative charges on all the various bodies within that plasma sheath, right?


Really?

This would seem - at first glance - to be something 'electrical theorists' would have researched extensively!

Do you know where their research results have been published? Quantitative ones, I mean, which consider all CMEs and all sun-diving comets, address selection effects, do quantitative analyses of the observed 'reactions', etc, etc, etc.


I'm with LS on this too, Haig.

If comet tails are some sort of discharge, why do they all face away from the Sun? And why are there two tails? At the very least I'd expect comet tails to point one way when they're 'incoming' and the opposite way when they're 'outgoing' (but they don't).

Can you explain this for me please, slowly, carefully, and in detail. In your own words, not by posting yet another link.
Click to expand...
.
Same reply as in my last post to you Jean Tate :)
 
Hi again tusenfem,
tusenfem said:
indeed, i have been going through this for years now and always new trolls pop up. you do not need a lot of funding only a bit of knowledge of rlectrodynamics and plasma physics and access to the internet. then you go to the pds or psa (us ans eu data repositories) get the data and work on it. heck, every pc has excell (or a freeware version) which can read the ascii data and manipulate them. do it on a rainy sunday afternoon.
Click to expand...
I did not know about those "data repositories"; can you give links to them please?

From my own work, as a citizen scientist (check out my posts in the Radio Galaxy Zoo discussion forum - sorry, you'll have to use google to find it, "Radio Galaxy Zoo Talk" should get your there), I know how easy and straight-forward it is to download data, analyze it using free software (TOPCAT is darn good!), etc.

I find it astonishing that no proponent of 'electric comet' - in this thread anyway - seems to have even tried this. But then, as none of 'the electrical theorists' seem to have done anything like this either, they don't exactly have any good role models to follow, do they?

but if you go to the thunder forum and see the comments there, you understand why nothing happens, it is mainly a bunch of nitwits with comments even more stupid than we get from haig and sol " well i guess they never heard about electricity, these so called astronomers"

also what haig again posted, the juergens' model. using appropriate estimations for the currents and the sheet it should flow in and the known energy emitted by the sun gave me a local magnetic field strength about 2 orders of magnitude too large atcarth's orbit. i guess i could search for it, but who cares (it was in another eu or electric sun thread)
Click to expand...
And as I said earlier, Tom Bridgman's website has challenges for EC/ES enthusiasts, as well as a pretty thorough debunking of all published versions of ES. Yet no one - it seems - has ever accepted his challenges.

It's very puzzling.
 
Thanks tusenfem. (link removed; I still can't post them)
tusenfem said:
Hi Jean-Tate

Just to let you know, there is a 186 pages thread on the electric sun that you might (not) want to look through.
Click to expand...
Wow!

I'll pass, thank you.

The last post in that thread is over two years' old now, so I guess no proponent of the electric Sun idea wants to discuss it here. Unlike the electric comet idea, which at least Sol88 and Haig seem keen on.
 
Haig said:
Go on Zig have a read ;)
VLT telescope reveals mysterious alignment of quasars with the Universe’s large-scale structure

Confirmation of the right hand rule in electromagnetism

What else BUT ...... EU/PC could give this result?
Click to expand...
Confirmation of the stupidity of EU/PC ideas - this has nothing to do with the basic fact that the right hand rule exists, Haig :jaw-dropp!

What else BUT ...... actual physics that works and has already predicted correlations, Haig!
Spooky Alignment of Quasars Across Billions of Light-years
“A correlation between the orientation of quasars and the structure they belong to is an important prediction of numerical models of evolution of our Universe. Our data provide the first observational confirmation of this effect, on scales much larger that what had been observed to date for normal galaxies,” adds Dominique Sluse of the Argelander-Institut für Astronomie in Bonn, Germany and University of Liège.
Click to expand...
 
Haig said:
...sniped EU fantasies....Your straw man calculation...more ranting...
Click to expand...
Sorry, Haig, but that "straw man" comment reveals that you still do not understand that Ziggurat's calculation is basic electromagnetism and orbital mechanics.
It is simple enough - in order for EM forces to have a significant effect on the Sun, the Sun has to have a charge that would make it explode :jaw-dropp!

It should be obvious to you by now, Haig, that it is ignorant to cite Occam’s Razor to support the EU/PC delusions. Occam’s Razor is a way to select a more likely correct theory from a set of equally valid theories.

Stating your ignorance about EU/PC is also no a good idea, Haig.
Electric Comets is a total delusion.
Electric Sun is just a delusion.
Electric Universe is a lot of delusions.
Plasma Cosmology does not even exist :jaw-dropp!

It is lying to state that any of these "is the best fit to the data and facts we have". There is no much that they do not fit that it would take days to list them all :eek:.
Just about everything about comets - density, activity, EM activity, composition.
Just about everything about the Sun - energy output, neutrino production.
Just about everything about the universe - galaxy rotation curves, galaxy cluster collisions, cosmological redshift, CMB temperature, black body spectrum, power spectrum, large scale structure, galaxy formation.
 
Last edited:
Hello again Haig. (links removed; I still can't post them)
Haig said:
Hi JeanTate,

Sorry my posts couldn't satisfy you.
Click to expand...
Me too.

From the sheer quantity of material you posted, I was certainly expecting at least some answers to my (very simple) questions.

And you seem to be extremely knowledgeable on the electric comet (and electric Sun) idea, so I was rather disappointed to find essentially no answers to any of my questions, anywhere in any of the many documents you posted.

Perhaps part of the reason is that you yourself don't really think about things quantitatively? That you do not seek 'electric' or 'electrical' explanations which are firmly tied to the relevant equations and calculations with electricity? (this is a genuine question; I am having difficulty reconciling your apparent zeal for these ideas with the apparent dearth of anything quantitative, or even scientific, to support them).

The latest I've read is this paper JMP and SAFIRE: What makes the sun shine?[/URL] Click on the link and you'll see some recent information and a Video of the presentation. Also, at the bottom, below the video, you can download a PDF that may have what your looking for.
Click to expand...
Thanks.

I've downloaded the PDF, and will go through it - and the video - later.

From what you've written, may I take it that you could not answer any questions I may have, about what I find in those documents.

One of the best places to find further information is the Thunderbolts site.

If you join and ask your questions on the forum you will get straight answers without the ad-homs so common here. If you are genuine you won't have any problems there. Thunderbolts Forum Registration Application

Good luck in your quest :)
Click to expand...
Thanks.

I had a quick skim of the site, before I even signed up as a member here (there are a great many links to it, in this thread). I found nothing at all resembling answers to any of the questions I asked you in this thread (which you seem to be unable or unwilling to even try to answer). Before I do anything like signing up on that site, I will certainly do a lot of reading; if I find that there are essentially no materials posted there, of the kind I'm looking for, I doubt I'll sign up. After all, if there's essentially nothing scientific in any of the threads there, what's the point?

In any case, I'll certainly come back here and let you know what I find!
 
Thanks Haig.
Haig said:
.
Same reply as in my last post to you Jean Tate :)
Click to expand...
But why? None of my questions is particularly difficult, are they?

And I'm not even asking you to provide the calculations etc; rather, I'm simply asking you - who has obviously spent vastly many more hours than I have on this electric comet idea - to point me to material which contain such calculations (etc).

In any case, I'm looking forward to your answers to dasmiller's questions (sorry I can't link to the post).
 
Haig said:
Try understanding this ....
Click to expand...
Try understanding that linking to a crank pre-print is bad for you, Haig.
Some crank working at "ThinkIncubate, Inc., Wellesley, Mass., USA" writes an obviously wrong pre-print about galaxy rotation curves being explained by an imaginary electrostatic charge between. He just reveals his ignorance, e.g. that there are multiple lines of evidence of dark matter.
 
Haig: Please cite the electric comet predictions for the albedo of comet nuclei

Haig said:
...snipped Thunderbolts lies...
Mars Spacecraft Reveal Comet Flyby Effects on Martian Atmosphere
Click to expand...
The non delusional science, Haig, is
Comet C/2013 A1 Siding Spring traveled from the most distant region of our solar system, called the Oort Cloud, and made a close approach around 2:27 p.m. EDT within about 87,000 miles (139,500 kilometers) of the Red Planet. This is less than half the distance between Earth and our moon and less than one-tenth the distance of any known comet flyby of Earth.

Dust from the comet impacted Mars and was vaporized high in the atmosphere, producing what was likely an impressive meteor shower. This debris resulted in significant temporary changes to the planet’s upper atmosphere and possible longer-term perturbations. Earth-based and a host of space telescopes also observed the unique celestial object.
Click to expand...

Astrophotographers Capture Dramatic Photos of Comet Siding Spring Approaching Mars
While we’re waiting, amateur astronomers have been busy shooting additional photos and creating videos from their images. Fritz Helmut Hemmerich made this video from 1200-meters at Tenerife in the Canary Islands showing Comet Siding Spring immediately after its Mars encounter. One thing we know for certain is that the comet is intact after its close brush.
Click to expand...
The video shows the impact of the dust clearly:
Comet C/2013 A1 post-encounter with Mars
Comet C / 2013 A1. Shortly after his encounter with Mars Short video between 21 h and 22 h UT UT. 75 shots of 40 sec duration. Recordings from tonight in Tenerife (1200 meters altitide). Hyper Star 14 "with 460 mono Atik. SWAN_band filter.
Click to expand...

P.S.



ETA: You have claimed that the electric comet delusion can predict things about comets so:
24 November 2014 Haig: Please cite the electric comet predictions for the albedo of comet nuclei (actual numbers not fantasies!)
 
Last edited:
Sol88: Please cite the electric comet predictions for the albedo of comet nuclei

Sol88 said:
which was also a BIG surprise for the mainstream...again :boggled:
Click to expand...
Which is a greet deal of ignorance from you, Sol88, ... again :jaw-dropp!
Astronomers have known since 1986 when the Giotto spacecraft visited Halley’s Comet that comets are very dark. They have a good explanation for this - dust + organic molecules. What Comets, Parking Lots and Charcoal Have in Common


ETA: 24 November 2014 Sol88: Please cite the electric comet predictions for the albedo of comet nuclei (actual numbers not fantasies!)
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
The latest I've read is this paper JMP and SAFIRE: What makes the sun shine?
Click to expand...
No, Haig - that is not a scientific paper that we would expect a reasonable person to link to in a section of the forum about science :p! It is not even a paper :jaw-dropp!
That is a web page written by physics cranks about a proposed plasma experiment with which they will do "I see bunnies in the clouds" logic.

SAFIRE is according to Michael Clarige, a speaker at the 2014 crank conference:
The basic approach is to create an environment as similar as possible to the conditions of the Sun and to assumed conditions of the ES model. Known anomalous characteristics of the Sun and Corona can then be correlated with measurements from SAFIRE. It is also possible that the project could dispel some long-held assumptions of mainstream Solar Physics, such as “Electric fields do not exist in Coronal plasmas,” or “Magnetic fields can exist in the vacuum of space without corresponding electric fields.
Click to expand...
which is a quite idiotic approach. If they simulate an electric sun fantasy then of course they will see an electric sun :eek:!
The ignorance is obvious to anyone who knows basic electromagnetism or about plasma.
* Astronomers know that electrical fields exist in Coronal plasmas because plasmas are partially ionized gases, i.e. ions and electrons = electrical fields!
* Changing magnetic fields generate electric fields so in practice you do not see magnetic fields alone. Magnetic fields can exist in the vacuum of space without corresponding electric fields - just put a bar magnet in a vacuum! Magnets only generate magnetic fields (so long as you do not wave them around).
 
Last edited:
Getting back to you, as I promised, Haig.
Haig said:
<...>

The latest I've read is this paper JMP and SAFIRE: What makes the sun shine? Click on the link and you'll see some recent information and a Video of the presentation. Also, at the bottom, below the video, you can download a PDF that may have what your looking for.
<...>
Click to expand...
Before I comment, may I ask, did you read the PDF? Did you watch the video?

Assuming that you did (I am just being cautious, I don't doubt that you did), what key questions occurred to you? How accurate did you find the intro/background to be?
 
Hi again Haig.

I noticed this earlier, but forgot to respond.

Haig said:
Your the one claiming to be the expert tusenfem :D

I've answered lots of questions on this thread by pointing to where they are answers and giving my own opinion too occasionally, for what that's worth ;)
Click to expand...

Indeed you have. And that's a good thing.

However, for whatever reason, you have - it seems - singularly failed to point to anything resembling the kind of information which many of us have asked about (not just me).

May I suggest one small extra thing you could do? With regard to being (apparently) completely unable to provide any sources/links/papers/documents/etc of the kind which have been requested, why not simply - and clearly - say that you do not know if any such documents (etc) exist?

I know the questions I've asked you are difficult but you need to stop dodging them! They are important questions for mainstream to answer or they should simply drop the dirty snowball model of comets and adopt the Electric Comet one
Click to expand...
Aside from the mismatch between your perceptions of what the current consensus understanding of comet is, among the relevant researchers, I think you're missing something really big here.

This thread is called "The Electric Comet theory".

It is NOT called "The Dirty Snowball Model (of comets)".

If you are interested in "the dirty snowball model", or how comets are currently understood by researchers such as tusenfem, why not start a separate thread on that topic?

IMHO, the more you (and Sol88) ask about "the dirty snowball model" - in this thread - the more it seems you are trying to divert attention away from a detailed examination of the electric comet ideas.

And if you genuinely believe - as Sol88 seems to - that every piece of evidence 'against' "the dirty snowball model" is evidence FOR the electric comet ideas, then at least be honest enough to say so openly. Then we would all have the opportunity to discuss what "false dichotomy" (etc) means, and why such an approach is, fundamentally, anti-scientific (IMHO, of course).
 
Haig: You cite an ES "paper" demonstrating the authors ignorance of astronomy

Reality Check said:
SAFIRE is according to Michael Clarige, a speaker at the 2014 crank conference.
Click to expand...
When a rational person with some scientific knowledge looks at the PDF , the woo shines through, Haig.
The woo starts with the usual crank idiocy of "if the mainstream cannot explain it then our fantasy can". So they ignorantly cite
  • IBIX's detection of a bright ribbon with the lie that it is "energetic and neutral particles streaming into our solar system, as well as electrons".
    Energetic neutral atoms (ENAs) are actually the solar wind which flows outward (:eek:). An explanation for the ribbon is that is the region where the ENAs most strongly interact with the galaxy's magnetic field.
  • The Photon Underproduction Crisis as "Another recent perplexing observation in the near earth environment". This is a comparison of is an observation of simulations to observations of light from the early universe - billions of light years away from the Earth :jaw-dropp!
  • There is no "Core Temperature Paradox". The 2001 Scientific American article is about the corneal heating problem which had solutions then and has solutions today.
  • Not cited "simultaneous flares on opposite sides" of the Sun needing faster than light travel!
  • "sunspots, plasma filaments, coronal mass ejections (CMEs), moving granules in the photosphere, and rotation of the plasma atmosphere" are unified under a single theory - it is called solar physics :jaw-dropp!
  • Kristian Birkeland identified an externally driven Earth (not Sun!). He speculated that the Sun was powered by radioactive decay.
  • Ralph Juregens was a crank who published in a crank journal Kronos founded by Immanuel Velikovsky.
  • They lie about "Birkeland currents are now accepted to travel over many kiloparsecs of space": Measurement of the Electric Current in a kpc-scale Jet does not mention Birkeland currents. There is an electric current and a "counter-current".
    This is a common EC lie - any current in space becomes a Birkeland current as if they were the only currents that exist!
  • The ignorance of confusing auroral phenomenon with the corona. The aurora are neutral gas particles being excited by being bombarded by electrons and ions. The corona is gas being ionized by being heated up to millions of degrees.

Haig: You cite an ES "paper" demonstrating the authors ignorance of astronomy!
 
Last edited:
JeanTate said:
Hi again Haig.

I noticed this earlier, but forgot to respond.



Indeed you have. And that's a good thing.

However, for whatever reason, you have - it seems - singularly failed to point to anything resembling the kind of information which many of us have asked about (not just me).

May I suggest one small extra thing you could do? With regard to being (apparently) completely unable to provide any sources/links/papers/documents/etc of the kind which have been requested, why not simply - and clearly - say that you do not know if any such documents (etc) exist?


Aside from the mismatch between your perceptions of what the current consensus understanding of comet is, among the relevant researchers, I think you're missing something really big here.

This thread is called "The Electric Comet theory".

It is NOT called "The Dirty Snowball Model (of comets)".

If you are interested in "the dirty snowball model", or how comets are currently understood by researchers such as tusenfem, why not start a separate thread on that topic?

IMHO, the more you (and Sol88) ask about "the dirty snowball model" - in this thread - the more it seems you are trying to divert attention away from a detailed examination of the electric comet ideas.

And if you genuinely believe - as Sol88 seems to - that every piece of evidence 'against' "the dirty snowball model" is evidence FOR the electric comet ideas, then at least be honest enough to say so openly. Then we would all have the opportunity to discuss what "false dichotomy" (etc) means, and why such an approach is, fundamentally, anti-scientific (IMHO, of course).
Click to expand...
I thought you said you were only interested in the Electric Sun model?

Why bring up the Dirty Snowball V Electric Comet points again? It's obvious the mainstream won't give up the myth of the sublimating ices on comets as it drives the science from ad hoc to ad hoc ad nauseum turning a blind eye to every dry ice free rocky comet empirical science finds. It's quite sad really.

Something to look at again ... Electric Comets Need an Electric Sun

Dr. Michael Clarage: Understanding the Electric Sun Model | EU2014
The SAFIRE Project will first consider the model of the Electric Sun (ES), as put forward by Wal Thornhill, Don Scott, and Ralph Jeurgens. The ES model suggests: 1) That all stars, the Sun included, are electrical in nature and exist in a galactic electrical environment; 2) Some of the physical attributes of the Sun and its Corona are not explicable through the standard fusion model originated by Hans Bethe in 1938; and 3) Many of these anomalous Solar attributes can be explained by assuming the Sun is at different electrical potential than its surroundings.

The basic approach is to create an environment as similar as possible to the conditions of the Sun and to assumed conditions of the ES model. Known anomalous characteristics of the Sun and Corona can then be correlated with measurements from SAFIRE. It is also possible that the project could dispel some long-held assumptions of mainstream Solar Physics, such as "Electric fields do not exist in Coronal plasmas," or "Magnetic fields can exist in the vacuum of space without corresponding electric fields."
Click to expand...

Welcome back RC and your usual stuff :p
 
Space News | The SAFIRE Project:Testing the Electric Sun
Outside of the earth, the Sun is the most heavily studied body in the solar system. Yet almost all of the Sun's features present major quandaries for solar physicists. But now, an expert on "Design of Experiment" methodologies, Monty Childs, is heading up a project to demonstrate how an electrified plasma environment can produce the enigmatic features of the Sun in the laboratory. Monty and his research group are confident that the technology is now available to rigorously test the electric Sun hypothesis.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Hi Haig,
Haig said:
I thought you said you were only interested in the Electric Sun model?
Click to expand...
I'm not, and I don't think I ever said I was.

To be clear, since you may still be confused: in this thread, I am interested in the electric comet ideas. However, per several of the materials you've posted, to understand this, one also needs to get a handle on some aspects of the electric Sun idea (e.g. Sun-centered radial electric field, solar wind).

Why bring up the Dirty Snowball V Electric Comet points again? It's obvious the mainstream won't give up the myth of the sublimating ices on comets as it drives the science from ad hoc to ad hoc ad nauseum turning a blind eye to every dry ice free rocky comet empirical science finds. It's quite sad really.
Click to expand...
As I said, if you're interested in this, why not start a separate thread on it?

The electric comet ideas will stand (or fall) on their own two feet (so to speak).

Something to look at again ... Electric Comets Need an Electric Sun

Dr. Michael Clarage: Understanding the Electric Sun Model | EU2014
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. While I've not looked at it yet, your headline summary is nothing new ... it's central to the first document I looked at, a link you posted quite some time ago now.

May I ask, does it contain calculations? links to textbook material on electricity? Quantitative analyses? If not, I'm afraid I'm going to have to stop checking out the material you post, unless you can state that such material does, in fact, contain this sort of thing. I hope you'll understand; my life is short - as is yours - and I really don't like wasting it on unproductive things.

But here's a question: if "the Electric Sun Model" fails - i.e. is incompatible with robust, relevant observational and experimental results - does that mean that the "Electric Comets" ideas also fail (as science)?
 
Hi again Haig,
Haig said:
Space News | The SAFIRE Project:Testing the Electric Sun
Click to expand...
That's a bit dated, isn't it?

I mean, the later material you posted not only covers what's in this particular video, but also gives at least a 'status report' of SAFIRE, much after the date of this video. If so, why did you post this?
 
Hi again Haig,

Getting back to you, as promised.
Haig said:
<snip>

Something to look at again ... Electric Comets Need an Electric Sun

]Dr. Michael Clarage: Understanding the Electric Sun Model | EU2014

<snip>
Click to expand...

Before I comment, may I ask you (again), did you yourself watch this video? If so (and I don't doubt that you did, just wanting to be sure), what did you think of his presentation of the basic (underlying) physics?

I really do hope you'll answer this, and the other questions I've recently asked you.
 
Maths, maths, maths :rolleyes:

You've got the cart before the horse my friend.

for instance www.researchgate.net/...Water_Production...Comet.../00b4952413c0f20...

I have no doubt your maths is correct
One way to characterize water production rates in comets is to calculate an equivalent
surface area of water ice, which when exposed to sunlight at the comet's heliocentric distance, is
required to produce the observed water vapor. Because of the reality of variable surface and
surface fractional coverage by water this is called the "minimum active area," It was calculated
for all SWAN water production rates of 103P/Hartley 2 from 1997 and 2010 and compared with
8
the measured minimum, maximum and mean cross sections of the nucleus from EPOXI imaging
(A'Hearn et al. 2011), and all are plotted in Figure 3. The minimum active area is similar but
not equal to the active area. It is defined as A = LQr2/[NAFS(1-AV)], where L=50 kJ mol-1 is the
latent heat of water for sublimation, r is the heliocentric distance in AU, NA=6.022 x 1023 mol-1
(the Avogadro constant), FS=1365 W m-2 (the solar constant), and AV=0.03 (the assumed bond
albedo of the nucleus). See (Keller 1990) for a discussion of this definition.
Click to expand...
but
Water production rates were calculated for each usable SWAN image from September 14
to December 12, 2010. The dissociation chain of water to OH radicals and the H atoms
produced, plus their transit times to fill the observable coma, introduces a time delay from any
change in water activity near the nucleus to an observable coma response of 1 to 2 days.
Click to expand...
your assumptions are wrong!!!


My bolding

you have found NO ICE water or any other kind.

Your beloved MATHS has lead you up the garden path, all you need is just good 'ol common sense :o
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
Why bring up the Dirty Snowball V Electric Comet points again? It's obvious the mainstream won't give up the myth of the sublimating ices on comets
Click to expand...

So, you seem to be claiming: either the dirty-snowball model or the electric comet model is true, so if the dirty-snowball model is shown to be false, the electric comet model is shown to be true. Is that what you're trying to say?
 
Hi Sol88,

I don't know to whom you're addressing your post, but this part caught my eye:
Sol88 said:
<snip>

you have found NO ICE water or any other kind.

<snip>
Click to expand...
I can't post links yet, but on 17th November 2014, 01:19 AM, in post #1644 in this thread, you wrote "whoa...wait a minute, i think i found the surface ice on comet Temple 1 [...] Look at all the bright ice on the surface, so bright it saturated the camera!!"

I'm quite confused ... if you yourself are convinced there's surface ice on at least one comet, why did you write "you have found NO ICE water or any other kind"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom