The Electric Comet theory

Status
Not open for further replies.
Belz... said:
I've already read your posts, Haig. If you can't expand on your idea or answer my question, that's fine. I know what to conclude from that.
Click to expand...
Ah! so now you want me to expand on my answer ? but your question "I'm sorry: what do rock comets have to do with the electric universe model ? Your quote does not answer that question." WAS answered in my previous posts, quit playing games.

Unless you can be straight with me, were done :) but wait! maybe YOU could answer this question ?


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

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:
Ah! so now you want me to expand on my answer ? but your question "I'm sorry: what do rock comets have to do with the electric universe model ? Your quote does not answer that question." WAS answered in my previous posts, quit playing games.

Unless you can be straight with me, were done :) but wait! maybe YOU could answer this question ?


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

The Electric Comet: The Elephant in NASA's Living Room?
Click to expand...

So?
 
LSSBB said:
So?
Click to expand...

That sound convincing to you then ? Does it really ?

Notice these from the title to the language ALL through the abstract ... ? ; we suggest ; 'spectacle' ; additional sublimation ; can be explained ; the subliming surface within the nucleus ; possibly an ; Another surprise ; this apparition ; lost about 3% of its mass, corresponding to a 'dirty ice' layer of 20m

Why did Comet 17P/Holmes burst out?
Based on millimeter-wavelength continuum observations we suggest that the recent 'spectacle' of comet 17P/Holmes can be explained by a thick, air-tight dust cover and the effects of H2O sublimation, which started when the comet arrived at the heliocentric distance <= 2.5 AU. The porous structure inside the nucleus provided enough surface for additional sublimation, which eventually led to the break up of the dust cover and to the observed outburst. The magnitude of the particle burst can be explained by the energy provided by insolation, stored in the dust cover and the nucleus within the months before the outburst: the subliming surface within the nucleus is more than one order of magnitude larger than the geometric surface of the nucleus -- possibly an indication of the latter's porous structure. Another surprise is that the abundance ratios of several molecular species with respect to H2O are variable. During this apparition, comet Holmes lost about 3% of its mass, corresponding to a 'dirty ice' layer of 20m.
Click to expand...

So you all think the Electric Comet hypothises is a fantasy / nonsense and this "dirty snowball excuse" makes sense ??? :jaw-dropp

Remember the facts ... my bold

Electric Comet Holmes 17P
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?
Click to expand...
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....
Click to expand...
The standard model used to explain comets as dirty snowballs was concocted by Fred Whipple over fifty years ago. This theory has a very difficult time explaining Comet Holmes. After more than two months following the flare-up, the only explanations available on the internet are:

- Scientists speculate that the comet has an unconventional nucleus which periodically exposes certain amounts of its icey core to the sun, causing the explosion.

- The cause of the outburst is not definitely known. The huge cloud of gas and dust may have resulted from a collision with a meteoroid, or, more probably, from a build-up of gas inside the comet's nucleus which eventually broke through the surface.

- There is growing evidence that some comets and asteroids may have a porous internal structure akin to, say, swiss cheese or a honeycomb. Suppose one of the chambers of the honeycomb suddenly collapsed, exposing many square kilometers of fresh cometary ice to sunlight for the first time. A flurry of sublimation would ensue with mega-jets of dusty gas emerging from the sinkhole to create a cloud around the comet much as we see now.

The common thread of each of these explanations is that they don't really say anything constructive. The explanations are merely scientists' way of shrugging their shoulders whilst maintaining their snowball theory and justifying their exorbitant salaries. None of them hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.
Click to expand...

Anybody else got an answer ?

Mainstream had NO answer to this Electric Comet behaviour by Comet Holmes 17P, any of you care to explain it ?
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
Mainstream had NO answer to this Electric Comet behaviour by Comet Holmes 17P, any of you care to explain it ?
Click to expand...

Seems clear that Scott Wall does not give an answer either, apart from "mainstream has it wrong".

Please feel free to show an actual analyses (not boobtube, just in print) and explanation of what exactly happend according to the EC fantasy.

ETA:
And by the way, here is a list of 82 papers all with "comet Holmes" in the title, for those who are interested. (okay some are before 1907, heck even before 1900!!) but 35 papers since 2008.
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
Ah! so now you want me to expand on my answer ? but your question "I'm sorry: what do rock comets have to do with the electric universe model ? Your quote does not answer that question." WAS answered in my previous posts, quit playing games.
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't anwered, and it's the same question. You say that what you posted answers my original question but it doesn't, so I'm asking you to expand on that (explain how it relates to the EU). You have not done that.

Unless you can be straight with me, were done :)
Click to expand...

You are being hypocritical, since you are the one evading my question.

Very well, I shall henceforth assume that your post about rocky comets has nothing to do with the electric universe model.
 
Hi Tusenfem, Jean Tate, Belz

Please explain to me why a ROCKY comet would be any different,

  1. The variability of Mercury's exosphere by particle and radiation induced surface release processes
  2. Variability of the lunar photoelectron sheath and dust mobility due to solar activity
  3. Dust charging and electrical conductivity in the day and nighttime atmosphere of Mars
  4. Dust Dynamics Near Planetary Surfaces
  5. Surface Charging on Airless Bodies
  6. Dependence of Lunar Surface Charging on Ambient Plasma Conditions and Solar Irradiation
  7. Lunar Electric Fields: Observations and Implications
  8. Lunar Surface Charging during Solar Energetic Particle Events
  9. Dusty Plasma Effects on Surfaces in Space

Just to get you going :D

and you are still comfortable with the "mainstream" model? Even in the face of this
As you can see from the plot, these first results show that among the grain’s components are magnesium and sodium. Since 95 percent of the known observed minerals in comets resemble olivine and pyroxenes – containing a lot of magnesium – the detection of this element is not a big surprise. But, finding sodium in the dust grain, in a refractory mineral phase, has sparked our interest considerably
Click to expand...
cosima-detects-sodium-and-magnesium-in-a-dust-grain-called-boris/
 
Last edited:
Hubble Witnesses Asteroid's Mysterious Disintegration
Click to expand...

Comet/Asteroid - Asteroid/Comet??? which is which, "mainstream"

Water Detected on Dwarf Planet Ceres

Is Ceres classed as a comet?
Ceres appears to be differentiated into a rocky core and icy mantle, and may harbor an internal ocean of liquid water under its surface. The surface is probably a mixture of water ice and various hydrated minerals such as carbonates and clay. In January 2014, emissions of water vapor were detected from several regions of Ceres. This was somewhat unexpected, as large bodies in the asteroid belt do not typically emit vapor, a hallmark of comets.
Click to expand...
LINK

Ouch!
 
Last edited:
Rosetta science to be presented at AGU

Will they say the mainstream model is DEAD or make up more male bovine excrement. Geomorphology of Active Regions on Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko from Osiris Observations


The WORLD IS WATCHING, no pressure.

Have you got a hand in any presentations, Tusenfem?

Sorry mate should just searched.

First Results from the RPC Magnetometer Experiment during the Approach Phase to 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Ingo Richter1, Karl-Heinz Glassmeier1, Christoph Koenders1, Chris Carr2, Emanuele Cupido2, Claire Vallat3, Uwe M Motschmann1, Bruce T. Tsurutani4 and Martin Volwerk5, (1)Technical University of Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany, (2)Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom, (3)ESAC, Villanueva, Spain, (4)NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, United States, (5)Austrian Academy of Sciences, Graz, Austria
Abstract:
The European Space Agency's spacecraft ROSETTA has reached its final destination, the comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. The ROSETTA orbiter is equipped with a complete plasma package named RPC (ROSETTA Plasma Consortium). Included is the magnetometer system RPC-MAG which consists of 2 triaxial Fluxgate magnetometers located on a 1.5 m long boom outside the spacecraft. During the approach phase to the comet magnetic field measurements have been performed since May 2014. We will report on these measurements showing the evolution of the magnetic field from the solar wind dominated to a cometary influenced plasma. A detailed discussion of the observed signatures will be presented in order to separate spacecraft generated disturbances from real cometary signals. The very first results of the magnetic field measurements will be compared with theoretically expected structures.
Click to expand...

Looking forward to it?
 
Last edited:
Taking your post in reverse order :)

tusenfem said:
ETA:
And by the way, here is a list of 82 papers all with "comet Holmes" in the title, for those who are interested. (okay some are before 1907, heck even before 1900!!) but 35 papers since 2008.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply and the papers on Comet Holmes 17P

Not much time to look at all 82 papers and a numpty like me only has access to read the abstract.

Reading the abstract of the 10 most recent papers ...

Most are descriptive / measurements of what an amazing event it was. A few give subsurface sublimating ice grains created an ice grain halo around the nucleus or similar wording as ... the "cause"

Seems the Dirty Snowball sublimating ices comet model from the 50's is still believed in by some mainstream! But tusenfem you said that idea was outdated, right?

tusenfem said:
Seems clear that Scott Wall does not give an answer either, apart from "mainstream has it wrong".

Please feel free to show an actual analyses (not boobtube, just in print) and explanation of what exactly happend according to the EC fantasy.
Click to expand...

He did and they did :)

Thornhill suggested that:
"Outbursts from comets at great distances from the Sun seem to be correlated with a sudden change in the solar 'wind' plasma environment due to a solar storm. The point about sudden comet outbursts is that we are dealing with a sudden, discontinuous process of plasma discharge - a switch from dark current mode to normal glow mode. It is a complex surface phenomenon that cannot be predicted. The best we can do is to say that the passage of a sudden change in the solar wind is the most likely time to see a flareup."
Click to expand...

thunderbolts said:
The sun had been electrically active in the days before the "explosion". Upon investigation of data from the ACE satellite, see this movie or this graph, Michael Mozina noticed that there was a large spike in the density of the solar wind on October 22 at 19:45, two days before the infamous flareup. This spike likely switched the comet into normal glow mode and allowed it to grow. Once in normal glow mode, the plasma coma does not require a sustained voltage to maintain that mode.
Click to expand...
 
Good morning, paladin17.
paladin17 said:
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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.
Click to expand...
It would seem that there remains a great deal of work for you to do, on peci, before we could have much of a meaningful discussion, wouldn't you say?

Thank you for your comments and questions.
Click to expand...
You're welcome.
 
Good morning, Sol88.
Sol88 said:
Hi Tusenfem, Jean Tate, Belz

Please explain to me why a ROCKY comet would be any different,

  1. The variability of Mercury's exosphere by particle and radiation induced surface release processes
  2. Variability of the lunar photoelectron sheath and dust mobility due to solar activity
  3. Dust charging and electrical conductivity in the day and nighttime atmosphere of Mars
  4. Dust Dynamics Near Planetary Surfaces
  5. Surface Charging on Airless Bodies
  6. Dependence of Lunar Surface Charging on Ambient Plasma Conditions and Solar Irradiation
  7. Lunar Electric Fields: Observations and Implications
  8. Lunar Surface Charging during Solar Energetic Particle Events
  9. Dusty Plasma Effects on Surfaces in Space

Just to get you going :D

and you are still comfortable with the "mainstream" model? Even in the face of this cosima-detects-sodium-and-magnesium-in-a-dust-grain-called-boris/
Click to expand...
Quite recently, I wrote:

JeanTate said:
Good morning again, Sol88.

Can we return to discussion of the ech, please?

You started this thread, explicitly on "The Electric Comet theory". Yet you seem to spend much - perhaps most - of your time (as measured in words in your posts) on topics other than the ech.

Why is it apparently so hard for you to stay focused?
Click to expand...
Seems appropriate; perhaps I should repeat it?

Can we return to discussion of the ech, please?

You started this thread, explicitly on "The Electric Comet theory". Yet you seem to spend much - perhaps most - of your time (as measured in words in your posts) on topics other than the ech.

Why is it apparently so hard for you to stay focused?
 
Good morning again, Sol88.
Sol88 said:
Comet/Asteroid - Asteroid/Comet??? which is which, "mainstream"

Water Detected on Dwarf Planet Ceres

Is Ceres classed as a comet? LINK

Ouch!
Click to expand...
Can we return to discussion of the ech, please?

You started this thread, explicitly on "The Electric Comet theory". Yet you seem to spend much - perhaps most - of your time (as measured in words in your posts) on topics other than the ech.

Why is it apparently so hard for you to stay focused?
 
Good morning again, Sol88.
Sol88 said:
Rosetta science to be presented at AGU

Will they say the mainstream model is DEAD or make up more male bovine excrement. Geomorphology of Active Regions on Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko from Osiris Observations


The WORLD IS WATCHING, no pressure.

Have you got a hand in any presentations, Tusenfem?

Sorry mate should just searched.



Looking forward to it?
Click to expand...
Can we return to discussion of the ech, please?

You started this thread, explicitly on "The Electric Comet theory". Yet you seem to spend much - perhaps most - of your time (as measured in words in your posts) on topics other than the ech.

Why is it apparently so hard for you to stay focused?
 
Sol88 said:
Have you got a hand in any presentations, Tusenfem?
Click to expand...

Well as you can see that my name is on the abstract I probablz have a hand in this.

Unfortunately, due to lack of funds I am unable to go to the AGU fall meeting.
 
Good morning Haig.
Haig said:
<snip>

tusenfem said:
Seems clear that Scott Wall does not give an answer either, apart from "mainstream has it wrong".

Please feel free to show an actual analyses (not boobtube, just in print) and explanation of what exactly happend according to the EC fantasy.
Click to expand...
He did and they did :)

Thornhill suggested that:
"Outbursts from comets at great distances from the Sun seem to be correlated with a sudden change in the solar 'wind' plasma environment due to a solar storm. The point about sudden comet outbursts is that we are dealing with a sudden, discontinuous process of plasma discharge - a switch from dark current mode to normal glow mode. It is a complex surface phenomenon that cannot be predicted. The best we can do is to say that the passage of a sudden change in the solar wind is the most likely time to see a flareup."
Click to expand...
The sun had been electrically active in the days before the "explosion". Upon investigation of data from the ACE satellite, see this movie or this graph, Michael Mozina noticed that there was a large spike in the density of the solar wind on October 22 at 19:45, two days before the infamous flareup. This spike likely switched the comet into normal glow mode and allowed it to grow. Once in normal glow mode, the plasma coma does not require a sustained voltage to maintain that mode.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Since you posted it, and since you seem to consider this to be an actual answer to tusenfem's question, I'm sure that you'll have no difficulty answering questions about it, right?

Outbursts from comets at great distances from the Sun seem to be correlated with a sudden change in the solar 'wind' plasma environment due to a solar storm: Where is this correlation published? What 'outbursts' in what 'comets at great distances'? what 'sudden changes'? What is the correlation coefficient?

"a switch from dark current mode to normal glow mode": for a plasma of the estimated density, temperature, and composition of the solar wind (at the appropriate distances, at the appropriate times), what range of values for the current is consistent with such a "switch"?

"there was a large spike in the density of the solar wind on October 22 at 19:45": how large a "spike"? how often do such "spikes" occur? What is the estimated time at which this "spike" would have impacted the comet?
 
Haig said:
Not much time to look at all 82 papers and a numpty like me only has access to read the abstract.
Click to expand...

Many papers are actually open access through ADS, but I guess you missed that.

Haig said:
Reading the abstract of the 10 most recent papers ...

Most are descriptive / measurements of what an amazing event it was. A few give subsurface sublimating ice grains created an ice grain halo around the nucleus or similar wording as ... the "cause"
Click to expand...

Well yeah, that is what abstracts are, a description of what is presented in the paper.

Haig said:
Seems the Dirty Snowball sublimating ices comet model from the 50's is still believed in by some mainstream! But tusenfem you said that idea was outdated, right?
Click to expand...

Sublimation has never been out of date, dear haig, the idea of a dirty snowball is out of date. Guess you don't bother reading my posts accurately.

Haig said:
He did and they did :)
Click to expand...

No, not really, that is a bunch of assumptions that somehow the electric engineers of IEEE plasma physics at thunderdolts seem to be unable to qualify, let alone quantify, with any real well developed model.

Please show me this well developed model that:

The point about sudden comet outbursts is that we are dealing with a sudden, discontinuous process of plasma discharge - a switch from dark current mode to normal glow mode. It is a complex surface phenomenon that cannot be predicted.

Well, it cannot be predicted, but it can probably be described by that pesky plasma physics that Hannes Alfven so loved.
 
Haig said:
That sound convincing to you then ? Does it really ?

Notice these from the title to the language ALL through the abstract ... ? ; we suggest ; 'spectacle' ; additional sublimation ; can be explained ; the subliming surface within the nucleus ; possibly an ; Another surprise ; this apparition ; lost about 3% of its mass, corresponding to a 'dirty ice' layer of 20m

Why did Comet 17P/Holmes burst out?

So you all think the Electric Comet hypothises is a fantasy / nonsense and this "dirty snowball excuse" makes sense ??? :jaw-dropp

Remember the facts ... my bold

Electric Comet Holmes 17P

As Thunderbolts contributor Scott Wall explained in his 2008 article, " Comet Holmes - a Media Non-event":



Anybody else got an answer ?

Mainstream had NO answer to this Electric Comet behaviour by Comet Holmes 17P, any of you care to explain it ?
Click to expand...
You are dismissing a theory because it doesn't sound convincing to you? When has your inability to comprehend something been proof of it's validity? They came up with a model, were able to match observations, plus then even mentioned a competing model that doesn't require EC. Why bother explaining or giving alternate examples when they flat out refuse to be accepted, no detailed reason why even presented? And this is what leads to bravado and taunting be EC proponents? Look, we have playgrounds for that kind of behavior.
 
Last edited:
Whew! The holidays have me way too busy to follow all this thread.

But here's a few relevant tidbits.

It appears Thornhill is coming across some older little-known papers, and quietly integrated them into his claims. Many people think that Velikovsky did a similar trick 'predicting' a hot Venus since there were loads of mainstream publications suggesting this prior to Velikovsky's 'prediction'.

The comet 'eruptions' do have an 'electric' explanation in the context of the standard comet model. A lot of this work on dusty plasmas in space, and application to comets, has been done by D.A. Mendis going back to the 1970s.

Consider:
K. R. Flammer, B. Jackson, and D. A. Mendis. On the brightness variations of Comet Halley at large heliocentric distances. Earth Moon and Planets, 35:203–212, July 1986. doi: 10.1007/BF00058065.

The brightness eruption by Halley occurred as the comet passed through a stream of high-speed solar wind (standard solar model, corresponding to 'open' magnetic field lines from the Sun). The difference in charging due to the different velocities of electrons and protons can set up a fairly large voltage difference (sometimes called ambipolar diffusion), calculated to be as high as -2500 Volts between the day and night sides of a dusty body like a comet. This voltage difference can launch a large amount of dust off the surface of the comet.

Other relevant publications:
M. Horanyi and D. A. Mendis. Trajectories of charged dust grains in the cometary environment. Astrophysical Journal, 294:357–368, July 1985. doi: 10.1086/163303.

M. Horanyi and D. A. Mendis. The effects of electrostatic charging on the dust distribution at Halley’s Comet. Astrophysical Journal, 307:800–807, August 1986. doi: 10.1086/164466.

W.-H. Ip and D. A. Mendis. The cometary magnetic field and its associated electric currents. Icarus, 26: 457–461, December 1975. doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(75)90115-3.

W.-H. Ip and D. A. Mendis. The generation of magnetic fields and electric currents in cometary plasma tails. Icarus, 29:147–151, September 1976. doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(76)90110-X.

D. A. Mendis, J. R. Hill, H. L. F. Houpis, and E. C. Whipple. On the electrostatic charging of the cometary nucleus. Astrophysical Journal, 249:787–797, October 1981. doi: 10.1086/159337.

Some of these reference work on these ideas going back into the 1960s.

Why are there so many publications in ApJ dealing with electric fields in comets when Electric Universe supporters claim astronomers ignore electric fields in space?

Note a number of additional aspects Electric Comet supporters ignore.

1) these computations are only valid in the context of the standard solar model and the standard comet model. You can't just hack them onto the 'Electric Comet' model as the claimed compositions and initial electrical configurations are very different.

2) Researchers are actually able to compute this quantities using our mainstream understanding of electromagnetism, plasma physics and atomic physics. The comets are not electrodes held at a voltage relative to the Sun.

We still have no computationally testable model from the Electric Comet/Sun/Planet/whatever supporters.

If mainstream science has such a 'wrong' understanding of the space environment, why are these missions, designed under the constraints of the standard models of the environment, so successful?

Tom
 
paladin17 said:
As far as I know, the measured D/H ratio looks pretty much like chondritic meteorites. ....
Click to expand...
Hi paladin17 - welcome to the forum.
That may be correct. If so we can expect the E proponents to follow their usual pseudoscience logic and claim it as evidence that comets are chondritic meteorites - forgetting that the D.H ratio has been now measured fro 11 comets and covers a wide range of values. That is evidence against comets being chondritic meteorites - even if we were dumb enough to ignore their measured densities :eek:!

The scientific argument is that the D/H ratio should vary in the Kuiper belt and Oort cloud and that would be reflected in comet D/H ratios. I can guess why - maybe radiation pressure would push lighter H atoms further away than heavier D atoms.
 
Haig: List of outstanding questions

Haig said:
Well guys ... I think what we have here is Failure to communicate
Click to expand...
Well, Haig, it is well documented over the last 4 years that you have been posting in this thread that what we have is a denial of basic science in order to believe blindly in a web site fantasy :p!
Electric comets still do not exist :eek:!

This denial includes what electromagnetic waves and permanent magnets are!
Haig: List of outstanding questions. Plus
 
Last edited:
I would like to address this subpoint from upthread:

Quote
At the time of Holmes' extraordinary display, the comet was actually moving away from the Sun, and therefore cooling.
/quote

What time of day on earth is the hottest? Before noon, noon or after noon? Usually, about 3 hours after local noon is the hottest part of the day, on average, despite the intuitive notion that the day shoud be "cooling off" after local noon.

Thermal loading on systems due to insolation has significant hysteresis. The comet in question was "moving away" but insolation and thermal saturation was continuing.
 
paladin17 said:
The Sun, of course. Please calculate how much current goes from it every second in all directions (due to the solar wind).
Click to expand...
Two things wrong with this question, paladin17
Firstly it is the electric comet idea that there is charge separation magically these electrical discharges that create water, etc. from rock. It is up to the electric comet proponents to do the calculations in order to support their idea. Thus you should ask them, not us. This is going to be a problem since they acknowledge that the idea cannot do this. Also it is possible that they are incapable even doing back-of-the-envelope calculations since those have been lacking in the decade that the idea has existed.

Secondly the current due to the solar wind alone is zero. The solar wind is neutral. There are plenty of sources for this if you want to look them up.
 
Haig: What is the argument from incredibility or ignorance

Haig said:
Embers from a Rock Comet
Click to expand...
Well, I don't know about you, Haig, but that is science :eek:.
But that is just ... amazing that you do not know about argument from ignorance, Haig: 15 December 2014 Haig: What is the argument from incredibility or ignorance?
A "rock comet" is not a comet - it is dust being blown off an asteroid close to the Sun.
 
paladin17 said:
I Solar wind is a stream of charged particles, i.e. it is an electric current.
Click to expand...
No, paladin17. A electric current is a net flow of charge. A moving rock is not a current even though it contains both positive and negative charges :jaw-dropp!
The solar wind is electrically neutral and so is not an electric current.
 
paladin17 said:
...
There are several factors here. First of all, the eccentricity of the orbit. Then, I guess, mineral composition. ...
Click to expand...
paladin17, it looks like you should learn a basic fact about comets - their measured densities are ~5 times less than that of rock :eye-poppi.
This means that the basic premise of comets being rock is wrong. Anything based on comets being rock is not science - it is fantasy.
Reality Check said:
Updated the densities post with 67P observations.
  1. Comets have measured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).
  2. Comets may not have the composition of asteroids
  3. Deep Impact confirmed that comet nuclei are made of dust and ice not rock. There were a couple of surprises in that the dust was talcum powder rather than sand and the amount of ice was smaller than expected.
    "Analysis of data from the Swift X-ray telescope showed that the comet continued outgassing from the impact for 13 days, with a peak five days after impact. A total of 5 million kilograms (11 million pounds) of water[35] and between 10 and 25 million kilograms (22 and 55 million pounds) of dust were lost from the impact."WP
    Thus the water content of Comet Tempel 1 is 20% to 50%.
  4. Cometary dust as collected by the Stardust mission contain forms of carbon that are not in meteorites.
  5. Electric Comets I
  6. Electric Comets II: References
  7. Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (actually no EU X-ray bursts).
  8. The EC assumption of EDM machining does not produce jets.
  9. EDM in the EC idea needs a dielectric material which does not exist!
  10. No EDM sparks are seen in images of comet nuclei.
  11. No EDM hot spots are seen in thermal maps of Tempel 1.
  12. Voltage potentials are many orders of magnitude too small.
  13. EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets
  14. Water, water everywhere (except in the EC idea)
  15. EC proponents have the delusion that argument by YouTube video is somehow scientific :eek:!
  16. EC proponents may think that EC comets switch off at perihelion?
  17. EC proponents trust a web site that lies to its readers about "confirmed" predictions: The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions. [/URL
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6599318#post6599318
Click to expand...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6599318#post6599318
 
Haig said:
So we have...
Click to expand...
So we actually have yet another ignorant, almost paranoid quote from the Thunderbolts cranks, Haig - what a surprise :p!
So we have the "Dirty Snowball comet" morphing into the"Snowy Dirtball comet" morphing into a delusion about "Rock Comet" morphing into a lie about a "MS version Electric Comet" :eek:
When the truth is that we have a ice + dust comet hat has electrical activity (but not the delusions of electrical discharges in the electric comet idea).
Electric comets still do not exist
 
Last edited:
Haig: Please cite the Electric Comet answer to the Holmes 17P outburst

Haig said:
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
Click to expand...
Highlighting a lie does not prevent it from being a lie, Haig :p.

Comet Holmes 17P
The cause of the outburst is not definitely known. The huge cloud of gas and dust may have resulted from a collision with a meteoroid, or, more probably, from a build-up of gas inside the comet's nucleus that eventually broke through the surface.[15] However, researchers at the Max Planck Institute suggest in a paper published in Astronomy and Astrophysics that the brightening can be explained by a thick, air-tight dust cover and the effects of H2O sublimation, with the comet's porous structure providing more surface area for sublimation, up to one order of magnitude greater. Energy from the Sun – insolation – was stored in the dust cover and the nucleus within the months before the outburst.[16]
Click to expand...

15 December 2014 Haig: Please cite the Electric Comet answer to this Electric Comet behavior by Comet Holmes 17P. I won't hold my breath!
 
JeanTate said:
Good morning, Sol88.

Quite recently, I wrote:


Seems appropriate; perhaps I should repeat it?

Can we return to discussion of the ech, please?

You started this thread, explicitly on "The Electric Comet theory". Yet you seem to spend much - perhaps most - of your time (as measured in words in your posts) on topics other than the ech.

Why is it apparently so hard for you to stay focused?
Click to expand...

So no bearing on the Electric Comet then Jean Tate??? Mmmm.....you come across as though most EC proponents have got two heads.

and while the mainstream acknowledge Dusty Plasmas why would they not take the next logical step??

and

Everytime someone from the EC side brings up something relevent to the EC idea, we are accused of not staying focused...:confused:

My prediction....this weeks AGU meeting is gunna cause a stir and we'll have so much more "New" material to play some forum tennis with, it's goning to be fun.

I also predict, the standard mainstream model for comets and solar system formation are going to called into question. :D
 
Sol88 said:
MUPUS on the Rosetta Lander Philae: First Results

That'll be a short talk! Ummm....we broke it, the surface was surprisingly hard!
Click to expand...
Not if you read and understood what you cited or what actually happened, Sol88.
Philae settles in dust-covered ice
Firstly the probe was not broken. It worked.
The probe then started to hammer itself into the subsurface, but was unable to make more than a few millimetres of progress even at the highest power level of the hammer motor.
Click to expand...
Secondly the MUPUS package is not just a 'hammer' - MUPUS
MUPUS (Multi-Purpose Sensors for Surface and Subsurface Science) uses sensors on the Lander's anchor, probe and exterior to measure the density, thermal and mechanical properties of the surface.
Click to expand...
 
Sol88 said:
So no bearing on the Electric Comet then Jean Tate??? ...
Click to expand...
Yes, Sol88, because the idiocy of thinking that trying to debunk the scientific model of comets through rather hysterical and ignorant posts rather than science is support for an already invalid electric comet idea should be obvious.
Except apparently to you and Haig who are still in love with the fantasy the electricity can magically make comet density measured in multiple ways into that of rock :p.

Electric comets still do not exist :eek:!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom