The Electric Comet theory

Status
Not open for further replies.
paladin17 said:
I'm not sure that the reaction should take place in the coma itself. This would mean that some alternative mechanism is at work, I guess.
I'm saying that the coma rather can act like a "lens that focuses protons in the nucleus". How exactly is it possible, and if it is at all, remains an open question. Maybe there is some sort of scattering present.
Click to expand...
1)Then the coma should, as it develops, hardly contain any water but only whatever is necessary for that "lensing". What do observations say?
2)If there is no known way in which the coma can do that, why suppose that it does?

I'm thinking about how Earth's magnetosphere works. The energetic particles flow around it and yet are being sucked in the polar areas, like, halfway through (I just hope you understand what I mean).
What about something like that? Maybe the comet also has some dipole magnetic moment?
Click to expand...
Magnetic fields are a much better candidate for isotopic fractionation than electrolysis. Charged hydrogen and deuterium will be deflected differently because of their different mass.
There are a few problems, though.

By the way, where can one find some info on that? It seems counterintuitive, since the coma usually is pretty bright.
Click to expand...
I think this may help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_section_(physics)
 
Seems like spallation reactions could also enhance the deuterium content.
See Merlivat et al. Proc. Lunar Sci. Conf. 7th (1976), p. 649-658.
Or if you want "more up to date" prints - look into 10.1073/pnas.1408118111 for example.
 
GnaGnaMan said:
1)Then the coma should, as it develops, hardly contain any water but only whatever is necessary for that "lensing". What do observations say?
2)If there is no known way in which the coma can do that, why suppose that it does?
Click to expand...
1) It is possible that there is some positive feedback to the process, so the more water is already there, the stronger and more dense the coma becomes, and the more likely the scattering occur. Well, until now these are just speculations anyway.
2) I said earlier that only thing I want to do is to explore the possibilities of this ("electric") approach. It won't do any harm to make a couple of hypotheses, exchange ideas, and see what may emerge. Besides, it is me here who's doing the assumptions, and I'm surely not the smartest man. Maybe someone else will have something to add, or some new idea will appear on this substrate.
GnaGnaMan said:
Magnetic fields are a much better candidate for isotopic fractionation than electrolysis. Charged hydrogen and deuterium will be deflected differently because of their different mass.
There are a few problems, though.
Click to expand...
Maybe you're right. That's another possibility to consider.
 
paladin17 said:
1) It is possible that there is some positive feedback to the process, so the more water is already there, the stronger and more dense the coma becomes, and the more likely the scattering occur. Well, until now these are just speculations anyway.
Click to expand...
How do you know it is possible?
What is implied by positive feedback? Do we observe these implications?

2) I said earlier that only thing I want to do is to explore the possibilities of this ("electric") approach. It won't do any harm to make a couple of hypotheses, exchange ideas, and see what may emerge. Besides, it is me here who's doing the assumptions, and I'm surely not the smartest man. Maybe someone else will have something to add, or some new idea will appear on this substrate.
Click to expand...
Indeed, there are some very smart people who know a lot about physics and who are, on top, intimately familiar with the observations made of and in the solar system. They could probably think this through in a heart-beat. That, too, has implications.
 
Haig said:
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
Nominated for apposite pith.
Click to expand...
Gezz :eek:

Well guys ... I think what we have here is Failure to communicate

So what exactly do you all mean ??? ... when you say things like these:- "that doesn't mean that electric comet or electric universe nonsense is correct." " woo is all over the place" "apposite pith" and lastly to quote tusenfem who frequently says "this electric comet hypothesis fantasy"
...
Click to expand...
Which word is tripping you up?
 
paladin17 said:
Maybe some measurements were done?
Or is it just an assumption?
Click to expand...

There is a host of spacecraft that measure the composition of the solar wind, look it up. Probably the SWEPAM data from ACE can give you the measurements.


paladin17 said:
I suppose there should be a place (heliopause?) where solar particles bunch up, meeting the cosmic rays, and forming something like an electrode.
Click to expand...

And you would be wrong, why would solar particles "bunch up"??

paladin17 said:
I'm not an experimenter, I don't think that I would do such a thing.
Click to expand...

Meh

paladin17 said:
That surely sounds nice, but I want actual measurements.
Click to expand...

Well, look them up.

paladin17 said:
I don't understand: why would there be any current, if you're saying that the wind is neutral? Or the spiraling fast solar wind isn't neutral already? If you have a neutral medium, I guess you can rotate it however you want, and there will be no current. Or is that the centrifugal force that is separating the charges?
Click to expand...

so you don't have the foggiest of how things work in space, apparently, know nothing about Maxwell's equations and plasma physics?
On the boundary between two oppositely directed magnetic field, according to Maxwell's equations, there MUST be a current. And that would be the heliospheric current sheet.
That current is NOT the solar wind, which flows out radially, the current is AROUND THE SUN, perpendicular to the magnetic field (as it should be) and because there is the Parker spiral, that current will have a slight radial component. Of course in this case the electrons and ions move in opposite directions.

paladin17 said:
As we saw earlier, 10-5 deuterons per each proton emerged during the flares still suggest that there is deuterium in the solar wind. And therefore the enrichment process (whatever it would end up to be) may be applied to acquire even the higher ratio.
Click to expand...

No, you don't get it, paladin17, THERE IS NO WATER IN THE ELECTIC COMET FANTASY that you can electrolyse. Apparently you don't even know the basics of the fantasy that you want to defend!

paladin17 said:
I know how the current is calculated, thank you. But I want real proof of the charge neutrality of the interplanetary medium. Or the solar wind.
If there is no such proof, then this hypothesis remains plausible. Actually I'm not sure that even in the quasi-neutral case it would not be plausible, but that's another story.
Click to expand...

Apparently you do not know how current is calculated, otherwise you would not have made that wrong claim about calculating the current.

And you want proof proof proof. Most of the data is freely available, so look for it, the appropriate spacecraft would be ACE, Wind, STEREO, I gave one of the links above. And don't forget that helium is also a main player in the solar wind, so don't forget that charge, otherwise you will find too many electrons.
 
paladin17 said:
I'm thinking about how Earth's magnetosphere works. The energetic particles flow around it and yet are being sucked in the polar areas, like, halfway through (I just hope you understand what I mean).
What about something like that? Maybe the comet also has some dipole magnetic moment?
Click to expand...

Well, no, that is not how it works.
 
tusenfem said:
Well let's see:
1. The radial electric field of the Sun
2. The EDM of the surface of the comet
3. The production of water or hydroxyl
4. The complete lack of anything substantial
5. The complete lack of quantification

Just to start with 5 problems
Click to expand...

Thanks for that clear response to mainstream perceived problems with the Electric Comet hypothesis :)

Just taking your first point ...

It's proven to be foolish to ignore Alfvéns warnings and use the First approach (pseudo-plasma) instead of the Second approach (real plasma)

In your next post you say this ...
tusenfem said:
No, this is a common misunderstanding of the EU/thunder bunch. The solar wind is a quasi-neutral (which means that there is neutralitiy on scales larger than the DeBye-scale) and moves outward. Electrons and ions move in the same direction which means that that is ZERO current. Even the electrical engineers at thunderdolts should be able to understand that.

Now, because the sun has a magnetic field, which from afar basically is dipolar, and because the field is frozen into the solar wind plasma (and no Alfven's objection against frozen in does not hold) there needs to be a current sheet, the so called heliospheric current sheet. If the Sun were not rotating, this current would be circular around the Sun, however, because of the rotation and the Parker spiral there is also a slight radial component to the current. THAT is the current that you might use, but note that it is flowing acrosss (i.e. perpendicular) to the magnetic field, because is "created by" or it "is facilitating" the different directions of the SW magnetic field in the northern and the southern hemisphere.
Click to expand...



If you consider Alfven's Second approach (real plasma) ...
- Space plasmas often have a complicated inhomogeneous structure
- σE depends on current and often suddenly vanishes
- E|| often <> ∞
- Frozen-in picture is often completely misleading
- Electrostatic double layers are of decisive importance in low-density plasma
- Many plasma configurations are unrealistic because they are unstable
- It is equally important to draw the current lines and discuss the electric circuit
- Currents produce filaments or flow in thin sheets
- Non-Maxwellian effects are often decisive Cosmic plasmas have a tendency to produce high-energy particles
- Theories are not very well developed and are partly phenomenological


The solar wind IS an active real plasma and has an electric current and field with lots of electrostatic double layers.

HANNES ALFVÉN PDF
another concept introduced by Alfvén, namely passive and active plasmas. According to him, passive plasmas carry little or no electric current and behave nearly classically. In contrast, active plasmas are those that carry electric current and are characterized by inhomogeneity in space, variability in time, “anomalous” behavior, and often strong electric fields, including magnetic-field-aligned components. As emphasized by Alfvén, the magnetic-field-aligned components are particularly important, because they can lead to local violation of ideal magnetohydrodynamics and a “thawing” of the frozen-in-field conditions.
Click to expand...

It's ALL about Evidence :)

"They knew about DC solar current, but just discovered AC. Now the picture looks more complete. Now on to capacitors and inductors."

Solar wind surprise: “This discovery is like finding it got hotter when the sun went down,”
However, Lyons, Kim and their colleagues analyzed radar data that measure the strength of the interaction by measuring flows in the ionosphere, the part of Earth’s upper atmosphere ionized by solar radiation. The results surprised them.

“Any space physicist, including me, would have said a year ago there could not be substorms when the interplanetary magnetic field was staying northward, but that’s wrong,” Lyons said. “Generally, it’s correct, but when you have a fluctuating interplanetary magnetic field, you can have substorms going off once per hour.
Click to expand...


Electric currents in space plasmas
Just as electric currents generate magnetic fields described by Ampere's law, changing magnetic fields in a plasma (consisting of charged particles) generate electric currents that are described by Faraday's law. The characteristics of the electric current and magnetic field depend on the characteristics and nature of the plasma.

In other words, electric currents produce magnetic fields which in turn produce electric currents. They are sometimes described as a self-generated electric and magnetic fields, and Birkeland currents, and field aligned currents.
Click to expand...
http://www.plasma-universe.com/File:Heliospheric-current-circuit.png


Electric currents in the solar wind
Abstract
The electric currents in the solar wind are described for the particular case of Parker's model, in which the sun's magnetic field is a dipole located at the center of the sun and inclined at an arbitrary angle to the sun's axis of rotation. The current consists of two components. The density of one depends only upon the sun's dipole moment, and that of the other depends upon the solar wind velocity and the sun's angular velocity as well as its dipole moment. The latter component flows in heliographic meridional planes. The electromagnetic forces of this component tend to accelerate the plasma in the leading half of a magnetic sector and to decelerate it in the following half.
Click to expand...


The Electric Sun
The measurements of Ulysses and TRACE are very important that the Sun can emit positive and negative filaments in the same time! The 1057 free solar electrons in the solar plasma cannot make an electric short circuit between the emitting positive active areas and the negative coronal holes - this will be shown below in detail. This was not understood in the last century and made astrophysics to a non-physical collection of ideas.

The other observation is much easier to understand that the already emitted positive and negative filaments do not neutralize each other in space because they are antiparallel electric currents which repulse each other stronger than they attract each other via electrostatic attraction. Electrons of a negative filament do not fly to ions to recombine it in a positive filament in a distance of only 1000km, they fly parallel to each other millions of kilometres and later diverge.

NEGATIVE EMISSION: THE SOLAR WIND

The solar wind is a "grey mouse" among the solar mass emissions.

Its main particles are the light electrons and light particles,
it is emitted from the UV-dark solar areas (from the coronal holes),
it is not dangerous for satellites or humans in space,
it is invisible,
it alone cannot cause aurora,
its velocity is constant i.e. typically 750km/s which is only 0.25% of the light velocity and
its mass is almost constant.
But it is the motor of all solar electric functions e.g. of all ejections and of the magnetic field of the sunspots. The negative solar wind charges the solar core positively.

The solar wind is the result of the asymmetric thermal motion of the electrons in the Sun. An electron would fly in all direction with the same velocity in an isothermal Sun. However, the Sun is colder outwards. A random flight outwards brings an electron in a colder proximity (i.e. its velocity becomes lower). Therefore, the return into the original position is improbable i.e. all electrons drift slowly outwards. Naturally this drift is very small, but it has enormous cross section in the whole Sun. These electrons appear at the photosphere and their mutual electrostatic repulsion emits them. A huge and continual negative current as solar wind flows into the space.

Does the Sun have enough electrons to continually emit them without getting new electrons? The Sun does not lose all of its 1057 electrons via solar wind. It loses only about 10 electrons daily. This is not too much even in a long solar life of 1010 years. The Sun will lose at the end 4 x 1051 : 1057 part of its electrons i.e. only 0.0004% of its electrons. The Sun is in fact an irreversible current-source but even for gigayears.

The protons are 43-times slower due to their 1836 times higher mass and mostly remain in the core. Always the quickest electrons are lost for the solar core, this process cools the core but all solar activities mainly have their electric energy from this separation of the electric charges via this so called thermoelement-effect. Other effects amplify this charge separation, for example the neutrinos from the solar core push the electrons outwards, never inwards. Moreover, solar photons push the electrons stronger outwards than inwards.

The result is that the solar surface will be basically negative, the solar core positive. (Eddington 1925).
Click to expand...
 
tusenfem said:
There is a host of spacecraft that measure the composition of the solar wind, look it up. Probably the SWEPAM data from ACE can give you the measurements.
Click to expand...
No, it cannot. There is only proton density.
tusenfem said:
And you would be wrong, why would solar particles "bunch up"??
Click to expand...
I assume that the words "bow shock" mean nothing to you.

Well, it seems that you don't even have the data, only blind faith and a lot of arrogance and aggression that understandably accompany it. Which is quite sad, again.
 
Good morning paladin17.
paladin17 said:
<snip>
JeanTate said:
But what is the "EC model (or hypothesis)"?

From your posts it would seem that you have some such model/hypothesis in mind; may I ask what? And as I cannot read your mind, what primary source can I refer to, so that I may check that my understanding of the ech is the same as yours (for example)?

Fellow ISF member Haig has posted links to a huge amount of material, much of it containing descriptions of what seem to something like an ech (or EC model); unfortunately, many are contradictory, many old, many with unknown authors, some documents, some videos, ...

David Talbott has said that there are no papers describing the ech, published in peer-reviewed journals or not. In light of this, what can one use as the most recent, accurate, complete, (etc) source (describing the ech)?

What do/did you use?


Thanks for that.
Click to expand...
Maybe my answer will disappoint you, but I'm almost as new to this as you are (or ever "newer").
My opinion on all of these topics here is just this: my own opinion. I'm not a member of any conspiracy or even scientific group (not in this area, at least).
It is true that I'm highly influenced by mr. Talbott and I'm familiar with a certain quantity of the Thunderbolts project documents, but I haven't got a clear picture of my own yet, and I certainly would not want to speak on their behalf: I do not feel that I have enough knowledge of their ideas, nor do I have a moral right to do so.
I feel that only the view that is independent and free of such party-choosing like "mainstream" vs. "EU" can be productive here. As I said: there are no "thunder people" (as well as "mainstream people"), nor there should be, in my opinion. These labels are simply inappropriate and probably have never done anyone any good.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that.

To avoid any possible confusion, it would seem sensible to refer to your ideas as 'the paladin17 electric comet idea', or "peci", for short.

I'm only interested in exploration, not label-sticking or personal insults. And as long as the electric universe ideas provide some fresh view on comets, for example, I say: why won't we use that? Try starting from here. If we'll encounter a dead end, then return to another viewpoint etc.
Well, that's sort of a big offtopic, so excuse me for it.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

As you will have seen, I'm pretty good at trying to get the discussion in this thread focused (though I have given up responding to Haig).

I'll try to answer, though.
The key thing about this model/hypothesis for me is some sort of electromagnetic interaction that takes place between the Sun (through its particles or maybe even fields) and the comet.
Click to expand...
OK, got it.

And just to be clear, at this time you have nothing concrete or specific re what "sort of electromagnetic interaction" it is, right?

From my POV, until you do, it would be highly premature to rename the peci something like pech or pecm.

One of the "byproducts" of this interaction is the electrochemical reaction that creates water. The precise electrodynamics of this whole process (e.g. how exactly the charge distribution looks like, where the currents are going etc.) is quite unclear to me now, but I find that there are a couple of moments that suggest this approach being plausible (I'm quite sure mr. Talbott have already pointed out them somewhere here).
Click to expand...
Actually, I don't think so.

The idea of a lightning-induced formation of comets is also interesting, but I understand that it is not discussed here?
Click to expand...
As I understand it, it has been mentioned, by several people on several different occasions, but it is not - yet - a formal part of the 'official' ech.

I think that most of the info on electric comet may be found in the video of the Thunderbolts project ("Episode 3 Symbols of an Alien Sky: The Electric Comet"). At least all of the key points are there.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that.

And the rest is here and now. How would this approach develop in the light of recent findings etc. - that's what is being decided now.
Click to expand...
By you, I guess; others can speak for themselves.

So, if I may, some questions about the peci:

* why is it that only comets have comas, tails, etc? In particular, why do the many asteroids with similar orbits to comets not have them?

* what is the expected range of densities of comets?

* what is the explanation for the two different kinds of comet tail (dust, ion)?

* what is the expected structure and composition of comets?

* what are jets?

(that'll do for now)
 
Good morning again, paladin17.
paladin17 said:
<snip>

Well, it seems that you don't even have the data, only blind faith and a lot of arrogance and aggression that understandably accompany it. Which is quite sad, again.
Click to expand...
This seems inconsistent with what you wrote in an earlier post.

May I suggest that you stick to numbers, facts, and logic; that sort of thing?

It might also be a good idea to keep in mind that tusenfem has a very good grasp of plasma physics (including the work of Alfven), and has published many papers on comets, in relevant peer-reviewed journals.

I did not ask you in my earlier post today, but perhaps I should have: to what extent do you assume that Maxwell's equations are a good foundation for understanding electromagnetism? Ditto that contemporary plasma physics is a good basis for understanding space plasmas?

I had assumed this - perhaps wrongly - because a) you explicitly state that the key part of peci is "some sort of electromagnetic interaction that takes place between the Sun (through its particles or maybe even fields) and the comet", and b) none of the electric universe material Haig has posted seems to question either of these foundations.
 
paladin17 said:
No, it cannot. There is only proton density.

I assume that the words "bow shock" mean nothing to you.

Well, it seems that you don't even have the data, only blind faith and a lot of arrogance and aggression that understandably accompany it. Which is quite sad, again.
Click to expand...


From the ACE link given...

http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ASC/DATA/browse-plots/4day_plot_archive/4day_plot.cgi?LATEST=1

third plot from the bottom is electron flux from EPAM

A little more diligence and a bit less arrogance may reduce the sadness on your part.


ETA: here are the hour averages for 38-53 keV electrons


http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ASC/DATA/browse-plots/e_lo_EPAM.gif

and the link to browse EPAM plots.

http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ASC/browse/epam_brws_plts.html
 
Last edited:
JeanTate said:
So, if I may, some questions about the peci:

* why is it that only comets have comas, tails, etc? In particular, why do the many asteroids with similar orbits to comets not have them?

* what is the expected range of densities of comets?

* what is the explanation for the two different kinds of comet tail (dust, ion)?

* what is the expected structure and composition of comets?

* what are jets?

(that'll do for now)
Click to expand...
1) The key point is the regime of the interaction with the solar wind. I think under certain conditions it may switch from "asteroid-like" to the "comet-like".
There are several factors here. First of all, the eccentricity of the orbit. Then, I guess, mineral composition. Maybe an individual history of the object plays a certain role (where it was formed, how it was magnetized, what kind of discharges already took place etc.). Also the solar factor plays a role, since it is obvious that heliosphere is quite anisotropic, and certain parameters (magnetic field components, proton flux speed/density/temperature etc.) may vary substantially.
I know that there are at least 13 known ateroids that have become comets (see "Active main-belt asteroid 62412 (2000 SY178) develops a tail" on Astronomy Now). And I suppose the backward transition is also possible. In my interpretation ("peci") in is just the switching of the regime of interaction with the Sun due to one of the aforementioned factors, or some others.
So actually I don't think it is a problem. Maybe those asteroids with cometary-like orbits will soon also turn into comets.

2) I have completely no idea.
As far as I know, the only type of celestial bodies with completely known inner structure are meteorites (since we can directly slice them, or X-ray scan them), and I have doubts about the current model of the inner structure of the Sun and the planets. I think the current theories are only assumptions at best.
And as you understand the density of the body is very dependent on what the inner structure is. For example, if we assume that there are hollow voids inside of the body, then its density will not only depend on the density of the "solid" part of the material, but also on the volume of those voids.

I'm voting for a very careful treatment of the questions of mass, inertia, density etc. Today we have some outrageous (in my opinion) assumptions at hand that the matter that we see is only 1/6 of all the matter. Because otherwise the equations won't work (I mean the galactic rotation curves, of course). I think it is ill logic and it directly violates Ockham's razor. If our equations don't work, that simply means that they are bad (or the physical assumptions standing behind them are bad), not that there is some invisible matter somewhere.

3) I don't know. I can only speculate.

4) If they are ripped off the rocky planets, obviously there should be structure and composition similar to those that are found on these planets.
However, there may be differences, since the dynamics of the process is rather unclear. For example those asteroid-meteoritic chondrules may form under the conditions of a discharge pretty much like those martian blueberries. And there could also be voids inside, due to the sublimation or even boiling of the rock.
These again are only assumptions.

5) The jets are channels with a relatively elevated plasma density, I guess. Maybe the nearby streams of solar wind particles are being gathered together due to the Ampere's force, and thus the jets are formed, or something like that.

GnaGnaMan said:
I mean what kind of patterns would you expect, based on your previous speculations?
Click to expand...
The rise should be nonlinear (the second derivative being positive), and after the peak there should probably be a sort of delay, when the brightness remains elevated, but the comet have already departed from perihelion.

JeanTate said:
Good morning again, paladin17.

This seems inconsistent with what you wrote in an earlier post.
Click to expand...
I'll explain: I'm tired of being attacked with the sentence that looks like "A=B!!!", and the corresponding behaviour as if it should put an end to all of my assumptions once and for all. And at the same time the guy can't even back his words up with a single reference.
If there's no data, but there is such an imprinted statement, what should I suspect? Blind faith seems quite logical.
JeanTate said:
to what extent do you assume that Maxwell's equations are a good foundation for understanding electromagnetism? Ditto that contemporary plasma physics is a good basis for understanding space plasmas?
Click to expand...
I think they are a good place to start.
Do I think that they are complete and could not be somehow enhanced one day? No, that would seemingly contradict all of our human history.
 
Last edited:
paladin17 said:
Alright. Thank you very much.

From this graph: the electron flux is, what, like 1.5 or 2 times lower than the proton flux?
Click to expand...

How do you get that from that set of graphs? From my quick look 47-65 keV protons seem to be running about the same as 38-53 keV electrons?
 
paladin17 said:
The protons are almost at 104, and the electrons are around the middle of 103.
Click to expand...

Yes the protons "are almost at 104" at the very start of the graph, but if you look at the entire graph you will see that they are running "around the middle of 103" just like the electrons.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't it be simpler to sublimated/evaporate the water and other ices from the comet and let the solar wind push the resulting "steam"ish stuff away, than to assume some exotic combining of solar H ions being combined with electrolized H and O ions from a water that isn't there in the first place?
Seems to me that if your hypothesis eats it's own tail to survive, it doesn't survive any scrutiny at all.
 
Hello again, paladin17, and thank you for your extensive reply to my posts.
paladin17 said:
JeanTate said:
So, if I may, some questions about the peci:

* why is it that only comets have comas, tails, etc? In particular, why do the many asteroids with similar orbits to comets not have them?

* what is the expected range of densities of comets?

* what is the explanation for the two different kinds of comet tail (dust, ion)?

* what is the expected structure and composition of comets?

* what are jets?

(that'll do for now)
Click to expand...
1) The key point is the regime of the interaction with the solar wind. I think under certain conditions it may switch from "asteroid-like" to the "comet-like".
There are several factors here. First of all, the eccentricity of the orbit. Then, I guess, mineral composition. Maybe an individual history of the object plays a certain role (where it was formed, how it was magnetized, what kind of discharges already took place etc.). Also the solar factor plays a role, since it is obvious that heliosphere is quite anisotropic, and certain parameters (magnetic field components, proton flux speed/density/temperature etc.) may vary substantially.
I know that there are at least 13 known ateroids that have become comets (see "Active main-belt asteroid 62412 (2000 SY178) develops a tail" on Astronomy Now). And I suppose the backward transition is also possible. In my interpretation ("peci") in is just the switching of the regime of interaction with the Sun due to one of the aforementioned factors, or some others.
So actually I don't think it is a problem. Maybe those asteroids with cometary-like orbits will soon also turn into comets.
Click to expand...
As peci is, so far, just an idea (or series of ideas, not necessarily connected or consistent with each other), no worries.

Some more things for you to consider:
* why did the spaceprobes which have visited comets (there are quite a few of them now) not develop comas and tails?
* why do/did the New Horizons, Voyagers 1 and 2, Cassini, Dawn, etc have no comas or tails?
* many meteor showers have been associated with comets, and their constituent objects (proto-meteors?) follow very similar orbits to those comets; why do none apparently have comas or tails?

And a question: what - specifically - are the parts of your research program that will address this comets vs asteroids aspect?

2) I have completely no idea.
As far as I know, the only type of celestial bodies with completely known inner structure are meteorites (since we can directly slice them, or X-ray scan them), and I have doubts about the current model of the inner structure of the Sun and the planets. I think the current theories are only assumptions at best.
And as you understand the density of the body is very dependent on what the inner structure is. For example, if we assume that there are hollow voids inside of the body, then its density will not only depend on the density of the "solid" part of the material, but also on the volume of those voids.

I'm voting for a very careful treatment of the questions of mass, inertia, density etc. Today we have some outrageous (in my opinion) assumptions at hand that the matter that we see is only 1/6 of all the matter. Because otherwise the equations won't work (I mean the galactic rotation curves, of course). I think it is ill logic and it directly violates Ockham's razor. If our equations don't work, that simply means that they are bad (or the physical assumptions standing behind them are bad), not that there is some invisible matter somewhere.
Click to expand...
(my bold)

A suggestion: you may wish to carefully consider how you use the words "assumption", "model", and "theory". In this regard, I think David Talbott was wise to have decided to stop using "model" and "theory", and use "hypothesis". In the case of much of what's in the part of your post I just quoted (much of it off-topic, by the way), you seem to display a very confused (or, worse, ignorant) understanding of what you write about.

Perhaps just a simple "I have completely no idea" might have been sufficient.

And a question: what - specifically - are the parts of your research program that will address this density aspect?

3) I don't know. I can only speculate.

4) If they are ripped off the rocky planets, obviously there should be structure and composition similar to those that are found on these planets.
However, there may be differences, since the dynamics of the process is rather unclear. For example those asteroid-meteoritic chondrules may form under the conditions of a discharge pretty much like those martian blueberries. And there could also be voids inside, due to the sublimation or even boiling of the rock.
These again are only assumptions.
Click to expand...
Again, thanks.

However, I think what you write may be better characterized as "speculation" than "assumptions" (if you'd like, I'd be happy to spell out the key difference).

And a question: what - specifically - are the parts of your research program that will address this structure and composition aspect?

5) The jets are channels with a relatively elevated plasma density, I guess. Maybe the nearby streams of solar wind particles are being gathered together due to the Ampere's force, and thus the jets are formed, or something like that.
Click to expand...
Again, thanks for this.

And a question: what - specifically - are the parts of your research program that will address this jets aspect?

<snip>

Good morning again, paladin17.

This seems inconsistent with what you wrote in an earlier post.
Click to expand...
I'll explain: I'm tired of being attacked with the sentence that looks like "A=B!!!", and the corresponding behaviour as if it should put an end to all of my assumptions once and for all. And at the same time the guy can't even back his words up with a single reference.
If there's no data, but there is such an imprinted statement, what should I suspect? Blind faith seems quite logical.
to what extent do you assume that Maxwell's equations are a good foundation for understanding electromagnetism? Ditto that contemporary plasma physics is a good basis for understanding space plasmas?
Click to expand...
I think they are a good place to start.
Do I think that they are complete and could not be somehow enhanced one day? No, that would seemingly contradict all of our human history.
Click to expand...
I will write something in response to these parts of your post later, hopefully today.
 
I'll be brief, paladin17.
JeanTate said:
<snip>
paladin17 said:
<snip>
JeanTate said:
Good morning again, paladin17.

This seems inconsistent with what you wrote in an earlier post.
Click to expand...

I'll explain: I'm tired of being attacked with the sentence that looks like "A=B!!!", and the corresponding behaviour as if it should put an end to all of my assumptions once and for all. And at the same time the guy can't even back his words up with a single reference.
If there's no data, but there is such an imprinted statement, what should I suspect? Blind faith seems quite logical.

to what extent do you assume that Maxwell's equations are a good foundation for understanding electromagnetism? Ditto that contemporary plasma physics is a good basis for understanding space plasmas?
Click to expand...
I think they are a good place to start.
Do I think that they are complete and could not be somehow enhanced one day? No, that would seemingly contradict all of our human history.
Click to expand...
I will write something in response to these parts of your post later, hopefully today.
Click to expand...
Starting with the last one first: as far as I know, all the instruments on all the spaceprobes which have investigated comets have been designed, built, operated, etc under the assumption that 'the mainstream' understanding of electromagnetism* is sufficiently good that the data which comes back can be used. And since that data is obtained via radio links, the same assumption applies to the communications too.

Here's a corollary you might like to consider: if any part of peci involves (directly or indirectly) an assumption that 'the mainstream' understanding of electromagnetism is an inadequate basis, then you - as sole author of peci (and the only one who really understands it) - will have the burden of going through all the relevant data from all the spaceprobes and showing how it must be re-interpreted, re-evaluated, etc. (as an aside, I'll note that David Talbott has been asked about this - many times - but has yet to answer; and on this aspect, Haig's responses can be politely characterized as incoherent, IMHO).

If you don't mind, in responding to your posts I will explicitly ask you about this, to make sure we are not talking past each other.

Re "I'll explain: I'm tired of being attacked with ...": before I signed up to become an ISF member, I spent quite some time reading through this thread. It was an ... interesting experience. I do not know if you have done this or not, but I can certainly recommend it. If nothing else, you will likely have a better understanding of the context which members such as tusenfem inevitably bring to new posts (and posters); try as they might, it must surely be very difficult to not get annoyed to read the same electric comet ideas posted again and again, by new members and old, and the overwhelming majority of such new posts strongly suggesting that the posters have not done any homework at all (not least in at least reading the 50+ earlier posts in this thread).

There's another aspect, as I see it: this part of the ISF is "Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology". Many members - myself included - likely assume that discussions here will be science-based.

Hope this helps.

* this goes beyond Maxwell's equations of course, as I'm sure you are well aware (if not, I'd be happy to explain)
 
Belz... said:
Yes, what about them ? Go on, tie that up to the electric nonsense.
Click to expand...
From my post HERE

Sure, it's been said already :D my bold
A "rock comet" is a new kind of object being discussed by astronomers. It is, essentially, an asteroid that comes very close to the sun--so close that solar heating scorches dusty debris right off its rocky surface. Rock comets could thus grow comet-like tails that produce meteor showers on Earth.
Click to expand...
"This is an example of paradigm creep. Moving toward the EC model without any acknowledgement. When the EC model is finally accepted, of course no credit will be given and they will say "we knew that for quite some time."
Click to expand...
 
thunderbolts said:
"Yes that is a great point. That is exactly what it is. They're doing it bit by bit to hide their ignorance and save face. The establishment cannot suddenly appear naked."
Click to expand...

So we have the Dirty Snowball comet morphing into the Snowy Dirtball comet morphing into the Rock Comet morphing into the MS version Electric Comet

That's paradigm creep towards the original Electric Comet hypothesis, they just can't give credit where it's due :eye-poppi

Mainstream had NO answer to this Electric Comet behaviour by Comet Holmes 17P, any of you care to explain it ? ;) I won't hold my breath :D

The Electric Comet: The Elephant in NASA's Living Room?
One need only review the extraordinary spectacle provided by Comet Holmes 17P to see how deep the crisis in cometology reaches. In October of 2007, Holmes suddenly and unexpectedly brightened by a factor of a million. In less then 24 hours, it grew from a small 17th magnitude comet to a magnitude of 2.5, so large it was easily visible to the naked eye on Earth. Holmes' coma continued expanding until by mid-November of '07 it had become the largest object in the solar system, vastly larger than the Sun. The coma's diameter had grown from 28 thousand kilometers to 7 million km.

At the time of Holmes' extraordinary display, the comet was actually moving away from the Sun, and therefore cooling. Among the common sense questions posed by the enigma: how does such a gravitationally minuscule body hold in place a uniform, spherical coma 7 million kilometers in diameter? If Holmes' flare-up was the result of a collapse or explosion (as some scientists speculated) why was the ejected material not asymmetrical (as one would anticipate from an explosion)? Why did the claimed explosion not produce a variety of fragmentary sizes instead of the extremely fine dust that was actually observed? What explosive event could have caused the comet to luminate for MONTHS, rather than the SECONDS typical of an explosion's luminescence? Why did the comet's gaseous, dusty, spherical cloud persist for months, rather than dispersing quickly away from the comet?

Unfortunately, the science media and the astronomical community had barely anything to say about Comet Holmes. This seems nearly unbelievable, considering the enormous interest the comet generated on the Internet. As Thunderbolts contributor Scott Wall explained in his 2008 article, " Comet Holmes - a Media Non-event":
You might think that this remarkable behaviour would be big news, particularly among astronomers. A prominent Astronomy magazine recently published their top ten news stories of 2007. Surprisingly, this spectacular comet was not named as the top story. It didn't even finish in the top ten. In fact, the entire magazine completely ignored the comet. There was not even an editorial comment. Additionally, there was little if any newspaper or TV coverage....
One might think that the bizarre and unpredictable behavior of comets would inspire a fundamental reconsideration of comet theory. But comet science as a whole continues in a state of drift, never asking the questions that could change the picture entirely. For years, however, the questions have been asked by proponents of the Electric Universe, who contend that comets are charged objects moving through the electric field of the Sun. In recent years only the electric comet model has anticipated the major surprises in comet science, a fact anyone can confirm for himself. It is only reasonable, therefore, to ask if an electrical explanation might help us to understand the explosive behavior of Comet Holmes.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
From my post HERE

Sure, it's been said already :D my bold
Click to expand...

Uh, no. The EC is what is creeping, by wandering around current astronomy and cosmology drawing Texas Sharpshooter targets around any bullet hole on the barn that seems to relate even vaguely to the EC-described symptoms while continuing to ignore the utter failure of EC to adequately explain the root causes of the phenomena.

And then your fellow chimp come in and flings poo at the cage bars.
 
JeanTate said:
Some more things for you to consider:
* why did the spaceprobes which have visited comets (there are quite a few of them now) not develop comas and tails?
* why do/did the New Horizons, Voyagers 1 and 2, Cassini, Dawn, etc have no comas or tails?
* many meteor showers have been associated with comets, and their constituent objects (proto-meteors?) follow very similar orbits to those comets; why do none apparently have comas or tails?
Click to expand...
Probably this is because those probes' exterior does not contain the quantity of oxygen-rich minerals enough to produce such a quantity of water, that can be interpreted as a "coma" (or "tail"), unlike the comets. And the meteoroids are simply too small, I think.
JeanTate said:
And a question: what - specifically - are the parts of your research program that will address this comets vs asteroids aspect?
Click to expand...
I'm afraid we need direct observational data here. Both on the asteroids and the comets. That should prove or disprove that they haven't got much structural differences.
JeanTate said:
A suggestion: you may wish to carefully consider how you use the words "assumption", "model", and "theory".
Click to expand...
I tend not to put too much weight in words, sorry. But that's again another topic (which is connected to the gnoseology and philosophy itself, so the discussion could last for ages). Just keep in mind that whenever you don't like how I designate things and you have a better word for them, I would gladly agree with you, since it's not a big deal for me.

JeanTate said:
And a question: what - specifically - are the parts of your research program that will address this density aspect?
Click to expand...
I don't see many scenarios here. I don't see how an electric discharge (I mean the one that is supposedly happening at the comet) can alter the body's density. So I guess this question is not from this field.
JeanTate said:
And a question: what - specifically - are the parts of your research program that will address this structure and composition aspect?
Click to expand...
The basic idea is that there isn't much structural difference between rocky bodies (Moon, Mars, Earth etc.) and the comets (well, and asteroids). And of course I do mean only upper crust of those large bodies, - the one that we are more or less capable to observe.
JeanTate said:
And a question: what - specifically - are the parts of your research program that will address this jets aspect?
Click to expand...
Well, here is where some modeling could be made, I guess. The one would have to show that the jets indeed tend to form from a more diffuse stream of particles. Probably in the spots where the mineral composition (or a local field geometry) is such that the ionization potential (or surface capacity) is a bit decreased.

Thank you for your comments and questions.
 
ApolloGnomon said:
Uh, no. The EC is what is creeping, by wandering around current astronomy and cosmology drawing Texas Sharpshooter targets around any bullet hole on the barn that seems to relate even vaguely to the EC-described symptoms while continuing to ignore the utter failure of EC to adequately explain the root causes of the phenomena.

And then your fellow chimp come in and flings poo at the cage bars.
Click to expand...

My bold

If only that were true :p
 
Not waiting for your fellow chimp, then?

Perhaps you could try addressing the content of my post first and snark after making some kind of rebuttal.
 
ApolloGnomon said:
Not waiting for your fellow chimp, then?

Perhaps you could try addressing the content of my post first and snark after making some kind of rebuttal.
Click to expand...

I did try addressing the content of your post first ... :D
ApolloGnomon said:
And then your fellow chimp come in and flings poo at the cage bars.
Click to expand...


If you ask a question in a polite civil manner I will respond likewise with an answer.

Or I may not notice or respond. (I may do that anyway, not enough time too much to do) :cool:
 
Specifically, I would like to reiterate my assertion that your rocky comet --> validation of EC is a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. I would like to ask you to specifically address that point.
 
paladin17 said:
No, it cannot. There is only proton density.

I assume that the words "bow shock" mean nothing to you.

Well, it seems that you don't even have the data, only blind faith and a lot of arrogance and aggression that understandably accompany it. Which is quite sad, again.
Click to expand...

Sorry sweety, I don't jump because you ask for it.
Search the web, you're sure to find it.
For example, use Cluster in the solar wind, CIS/CODIF and PEACE.

And what exactly is a "bow shock" in your mind?
What is upstream, what is downstream of a bow shock?
 
ApolloGnomon said:
Specifically, I would like to reiterate my assertion that your rocky comet --> validation of EC is a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. I would like to ask you to specifically address that point.
Click to expand...

I would simply rebut that assertion by pointing out ROCK comets have been denied throughout this thread.

Feel free to go back and check, but RC and DD (for example) have constantly gone on and on and on that comets can NOT be made of ROCK because their density is too low.

Now I know what your thinking. They (NASA) were talking about rock comets from asteroids and not regular Electric Comets but the point IS the EU / PC hypothesis says they ARE the same, electric change and orbit eccentricity mainly making the difference as I understand it.

Then coming to mainstream comet theory paradigm creep.

Ask tusenfem ... he says (if I understood him correctly) the Dirty Snowball model is outdated (although ALL the mainstream sites still talk about it) and the New comet model is one where the nucleus may have a charge, a magnetic field that interacts with the solar wind draping it's magnetic frozen in field around it to form the coma and tail. Also the comet can sing at 40-50 millihertz to the tune of the Sun and it's electric conductive media - the solar wind, now found to be A/C :eek:

So the creep towards the Electric Comet hypothesis is real. :)
 
Last edited:
dasmiller said:
So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that observation of an asteroid shedding mass due to radiative heating from the sun supports the notion that comets shed mass due to EDM?
Click to expand...
Nope, did not say that. See my post(s) above
 
Haig said:
I would simply rebut that assertion by pointing out ROCK comets have been denied throughout this thread.

Feel free to go back and check, but RC and DD (for example) have constantly gone on and on and on that comets can NOT be made of ROCK because their density is too low.

Now I know what your thinking. They (NASA) were talking about rock comets from asteroids and not regular Electric Comets but the point IS the EU / PC hypothesis says they ARE the same, electric change and orbit eccentricity mainly making the difference as I understand it.
Click to expand...

But they aren't the same. They are very, very different. So this doesn't support the EU delusion. Ordinary comets show lots of water sublimating from them (far more than you can account for). Rocky "comets" do not: they give off dust, without appreciable water. And a rocky "comet" requires not only an eccentric orbit, but one which approaches much closer to the sun than an ordinary comet requires. Without that second part, they're just asteroids with eccentric orbits, not comets, rocky or otherwise.
 
Belz... said:
I'm sorry: what do rock comets have to do with the electric universe model ? Your quote does not answer that question.
Click to expand...
If you read these posts HERE HERE & HERE you should follow it ... and I say I have answered that question. You may not like the answer ... but there it is !
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom