The Electric Comet theory

Status
Not open for further replies.
You were right.

No he wasn't

Just to clarify the electric comet / electric sun relationship ... SOURCE

ELECTRIC COMET MODEL hypothesis:

• Comets are debris produced during violent electrical interactions of planets and moons in an earlier phase of solar system history. Comets are similar to asteroids, and their composition varies. Most comets should be homogeneous - their interiors will have the same composition as their surfaces. They are simply “asteroids on eccentric orbits.”

• Comets follow their elongated paths within a weak electrical field centered on the Sun. In approaching the Sun, a charge imbalance develops between the nucleus and the higher voltage and charge density near the Sun. Growing electrical stresses initiate discharges and the formation of a glowing plasma sheath, appearing as the coma and tail.

• The observed jets of comets are electric arc discharges to the nucleus, producing “electrical discharge machining” (EDM) of the surface. The excavated material is accelerated into space along the jets’ observed filamentary arcs.

• Intermittent and wandering arcs erode the surface and burn it black, leaving the distinctive scarring patterns of electric discharges.

• The jets’ explode from cometary nuclei at supersonic speeds and retain their coherent structure for hundreds of thousands of miles. The collimation of such jets is a well-documented attribute of plasma discharge.

• The tails of comets reveal well-defined filaments extending up to tens of millions of miles without dissipating in the vacuum of space. This “violation” of neutral gas behavior in a vacuum is to be expected of a plasma discharge within the ambient electric field of the Sun.

• It is the electric force that holds the spherical cometary coma in place as the comet races around the Sun. The diameter of the visible coma will often reach millions of miles. And the visible coma is surrounded by an even larger and more “improbable” spherical envelope of fluorescing hydrogen visible in ultraviolet light.

• The primary distinction between comet and asteroid surfaces is that electrical arcing and “electrostatic cleaning” of the comet nucleus will leave little or no dust or debris on the surface during the active phase, even if a shallow layer of dust may be attracted back to the nucleus electrostatically as the comet becomes dormant in its retreat to more remote regions.


Electric Comet, Electric Sun

The electric comet model does not stand alone but in partnership with another hypothesis - the electric Sun.

In the 1960s, engineer Ralph Juergens, an admirer of Hannes Alfvén, proposed that the Sun is a glow discharge, the center of an electric field extending to the heliopause.

This field is the cause of solar wind acceleration. In the 1970s Juergens elaborated the theoretical concept and suggested that a comet’s display is provoked by its electrical exchange with the Sun.

The comet spends most of its time far from the Sun, where the plasma voltage is low relative to the Sun.

In remote regions, the comet moves slowly and its charge easily comes into balance with its surroundings. But as the comet falls toward the Sun, it begins to move at a furious speed through regions of increasing voltage. The comet’s charge, developed in deep space, responds to the new environment by increasing internal electric polarization and by forming cathode jets and a visible plasma sheath, or coma.

The jets flare up and move over the nucleus irregularly, leaving scars typical of electric discharge machining. The comet may shed and grow anew several tails. Or it may explode like an over-stressed capacitor, breaking into separate fragments or simply giving up the ghost and disappearing.

If the electric theorists are correct, there is no mystery in the gravity-defying behavior of comets.

A gravitationally insignificant rock on a highly elliptical orbit can be an electrically powerful object.



Solar Dynamics Observatory Welcomes the New Year SOURCE
There were no fireworks on the sun to welcome in the New Year and only a few C-class flares during the last day of 2014. Instead, the sun starts 2015 with an enormous coronal hole near the south pole. This image, captured on Jan. 1, 2015 by the Atmospheric Imaging Assembly (AIA) instrument on NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory, shows the coronal hole as a dark region in the south.

Coronal holes are regions of the corona where the magnetic field reaches out into space rather than looping back down onto the surface. Particles moving along those magnetic fields can leave the sun rather than being trapped near the surface. Those trapped particles can heat up and glow, giving us the lovely AIA images. In the parts of the corona where the particles leave the sun, the glow is much dimmer and the coronal hole looks dark.

Coronal holes were first seen in images taken by astronauts on board NASA’s Skylab space station in 1973 and 1974. They can be seen for a long time, although the exact shape changes all the time. The polar coronal hole can remain visible for five years or longer. Each time a coronal hole rotates by the Earth we can measure the particles flowing out of the hole as a high-speed stream, another source of space weather.

Charged particles in the Earth’s radiation belts are accelerated when the high-speed stream runs into the Earth’s magnetosphere. The acceleration of particles in the magnetosphere is studied by NASA’s Van Allen Probes mission.

As Solar Cycle 24 fades, the number of flares each day will get smaller, but the coronal holes provide another source of space weather that needs to be understood and predicted.

Come on tusenfem !

When are the ESA going to give us more pictures and data from 67P ?


Are these huge increases in the solar wind ...
... going to produce a reaction from 67P ? and will they bother to tell us ?

It is clear that mainstream comet hypothesis expect such a reaction but are STILL surprised by the coma reaction (eg no deformation and massive increase in size) to the sudden increase of solar wind speed. It's interesting to read this paper and to wonder when the mainstream will realise that comet sublimating ices in the sunshine are inadequate to explain this. And so, the morph towards the magnetic - electric comet hypothesis is obvious.

ON THE DEVELOPMENT AND GLOBAL OSCILLATIONS OF COMETARY IONOSPHERES PDF

Of course mainstream will continue to be surprised by comet behaviour until they accept comets as CHARGED BODIES moving in the electric field of the Sun and that fact causes a PLASMA SHEATH to form around the comet nucleus.
 
Last edited:
Good morning again, Sol88.

What are "X" and "Y", may I ask?

More accurately, what do you consider "X" and "Y" to be?

If you could, please limit your scope to the ech.


G'day JeanTate

Mainstream X =
While ices sublimate on the nucleus surface, the dust em- bedded in them is freed and dragged out by the expanding gas.

ECH Y =
The observed jets of comets are electric arc discharges to the nucleus, producing “electrical discharge machining” (EDM) of the surface. The excavated material is accelerated into space along the jets’ observed filamentary arcs.

I hope that clears it up for you JeanTate :cool:
 
Last edited:
Hello again, Sol88.

You're welcome.


That's it?

That's your complete answer to my 1)?

1) How do you get from:
* there is an electric field centered approximately on the Sun AND
* comets are homogeneous 'rock'
to:
* the observed comet jets are an electrical discharge phenomena?

Would you please walk me through the logical steps from premises to conclusion?


Yes, let's.

How about some answers to my two other questions, 2) and 3)?

2) What primary source, or sources, can you cite, re "in the ECH jets are an electrical discharge phenomena"?

3) Per the ECH, what are the two (or more) 'ends' of the electrical discharge(s) that are comet jets? Or, what acts as electrodes?

Despite your obvious ability to understand English, you seem to have failed - rather spectacularly - to understand my 1). So how about I try to rephrase it?

How does there is an electric field centered approximately on the Sun and Comets are chunks of rock covered in dust (I've incorporated your non-ech variation) lead to the observed comet jets are an electrical discharge phenomena?

Ummm....it is more than well explained HERE and some of the source material HERE and a bit later

I'm sorry Jeanette if you have trouble understanding the ech and I hope this helps you grasp the obviously very complex ech
 
Last edited:
Please, open up a college textbook in astronomy and read it. It's not a bedtime story meant to be accepted as gospel. I'm serious, find a good textbook about astronomy and read it. If you think that all astronomers and astrophysicists all indoctrinated into The Official Story and unable to come up with any original ideas, then I am sad to say that you are mistaken.

Textbooks actually explain how the models came to be and how they are used. You can use them to check the work of others. I've yet to see EC/U produce anything close to that. What's the voltage differential between the sun and a given object at radius R? What happens when two objects orbit near one another? Do they discharge due to a voltage differential? How? Do objects gain charge through orbital dynamics? How is this charge stored, and what is the mechanism that drives it? The "looks like a bunny" routine fails at every level.

Give us a way to test the idea. Please.

I used to read as many books (mainstream) as I could but now the first thing I do when I pick up a new book, is flip to the index and look for PLASMA. The vast majority including the ones by your mainstream demigod, Stephan Hawkins do not even mention PLASMA, so they kept out near the thunderbox in case the paper runs out.

I mean, i'm more than surprised that these books make no mention at all about what 99.99% of the universe is.

So unfortunalty to me nearly all mainstream books parrot whatever will get them some $$$ and into print.

Oh...and a way to TEST the idea, without maths as well, is for the OSIRIS team to release and extremely hi-res image of the location of a jet.

We should see a nozzle/hole/fissure/orifice according to mainstream or otherwise we should see "stuff thing thru"
We also see this stuff shining through where the dust layer is wiped away or fallen off following the gravitational field and exposing a higher-strength material
Holger Sierks at this point in time, he's the man!!

and as uncle Wal states
If it isn’t merely reflected light from a surface cleaned and etched by electric discharge then the “shining stuff” I expect to be active coronal discharges from the comet. If so, they will be featureless coronal discharge glows perhaps with unresolved bright points at active cathode spots.

Much like Kristian Birkland found experimentally in the early 1900's
Cometary jets
"For the purpose of seeing and studying how a substance containing carbon is discharged as a cathode in a vacuum tube, I have made, as already mentioned, numerous experiments with cathodes of ordinary coal, coke, graphite, and picein over a metallic cathode. I have further employed an extremely line jet of CO2, which was introduced through a very narrow capillary tube, and flowed out from the end of a narrow silver tube which served as cathode.
"I succeeded several times in making this jet luminous, so that it had the appearance of a fine needle of light shooting out from the cathode, sometimes as much as 5 cm in length. A cathode of coal also sent out similar long needles of light from various points on its surface, round which the coal even became glowing.


"Piceïin emitted long, thin pencils of light, often more than 10cm in length, one after another, as if by violent eruptions. These light-phenomena gave the impression that the electric discharge from both the coal cathode and the cathode with piceïn, was accompanied by eruptive outbreaks of gaseous rays, that were made luminous in the same way as the above-mentioned carbonic acid jet 231 1 and 2 show discharges of this kind.
"From a cathode of graphite there came long, steady pencils of light, which greatly resembled the so-called eruptions or jets in comets."

So the jets should be a good test.
 
Last edited:
Wait... do you think jets are like little miniature volcanoes? I figure they'd just be a patch of dirt that ice was sublimating out of. If anything, it would look like a small slump with cracks.
 
My holiday staycation is coming to an end so I'll be going back to work and back to my blog, so I'll have less time to spend here. The amount of research I do to prepare responses isn't practical in quick-turnaround. However, the visit to ISF and this thread was certainly profitable. I've added a few items to my To Do list and I'll be revisiting some old projects (and other suggestions welcome):

So clearly I need to continue the 'Scott Rebuttal' series. Some years ago, someone (not an EU supporter) had suggested that EU had 'moved beyond' Scott's claims, but this thread has demonstrated that lots of items from The Electric Sky continue to be regurgitated and I should revive that list of EU gaffs.


The issues are discussed very well in this video BOB JOHNSON: The Electric Sun Revisited | EU 2013

This looks like the Bob Johnson 'Ball lightning' video . It is a trip, because he's basically pointing out many of the issues I used to demonstrate that the Thornhill and Scott models are bunk. Some of the problems with his model:
  • Ball-lightning also doesn't match the solar spectrum.
  • The energy problem. Each lightning strike to form a star must deposit many years worth of energy into the sphere at one time. What kind of energy density does that imply? Stars would almost certainly be structurally different than stars we see. It was recognized in the 1920s that stars shining from stored energy would structurally change in the time-scales we've been doing observations.
  • We still haven't seen one of these lightning strikes.
Tom complains the SAFIRE Project is behind schedule (and that is true) but if you watch the Bob Johnston video and follow the debate on the thunderbolts forum you should realise why it's late.

The SAFIRE Project and JMP®: What Makes Our Sun Shine? my bold

The SAFIRE paper is rather strange. It's so seeded with buzzwords that parts of it read almost like it was generated by one of those fake science paper generators.
  • The H3 cation has been seen in discharges since the early 1900s. But it only survives at lower temperatures and higher densities (compared to those in the solar atmosphere). I've found no evidence that it has been found in the Sun. The key hydrogen ion in the solar atmosphere is the negative hydrogen ion. The detection of the H3 cation is more evidence against the Electric Sun hypothesis than for it. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1961ApJ...134.1012M, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989Natur.340..539D
  • in visible light, the Sun is an absorption spectrum, yet discharges (and SAFIRE) present an emission spectrum.
  • Why do EU supporters keep comparing visible light (wavelength = 3900-7500 Angstroms) images of discharges to extreme ultraviolet SOHO & SDO images (wavelength = 100-350 Angstroms) of the Sun? Atomic spectral lines do not scale like that.
  • "From a first principles estimate and assessment, the project now anticipates significant safety resources and risk management, as well as materials design of the anode." Buzzword compliance? Or is it just claiming a reasonable demonstration would be expensive and dangerous?
  • Say again? What's the flux of solar energy at the photosphere? The temperature of the solar photosphere?
I've added a full writeup of this to my 'To Do' list as well...

Getting back to the Electric Comet 67P
And again Haig repeats the same "Electric Comet" bunk that says everything we know about the space environment is wrong, yet spacecraft not designed for the environment EU supporters describe keep succeeding.
 
ELECTRIC COMET MODEL hypothesis:
• Comets follow their elongated paths within a weak electrical field centered on the Sun. In approaching the Sun, a charge imbalance develops between the nucleus and the higher voltage and charge density near the Sun. Growing electrical stresses initiate discharges and the formation of a glowing plasma sheath, appearing as the coma and tail.
This automatically makes predictions about the charge of the comet and the Sun. While comets are subjected to 'non-gravitational forces', the problem with the electric interpretation has been known for a long time. Jets of expanding gases work much better.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1924PASP...36..200B
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1928PASP...40..164B
Present your calculations on the values of the charges of the Sun and comet. For multiple comets, you should probably get a single charge for the Sun and possibly different charges for each comet.

• The tails of comets reveal well-defined filaments extending up to tens of millions of miles without dissipating in the vacuum of space. This “violation” of neutral gas behavior in a vacuum is to be expected of a plasma discharge within the ambient electric field of the Sun.
Well modeled by charged dust trapped in the magnetic field draped around the comet.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...226..350M
Uncharged component modeled as well
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968ApJ...154..327F
If you want to claim it's not, then present the similar result for the Electric Comet model.

• It is the electric force that holds the spherical cometary coma in place as the comet races around the Sun. The diameter of the visible coma will often reach millions of miles. And the visible coma is surrounded by an even larger and more “improbable” spherical envelope of fluorescing hydrogen visible in ultraviolet light.
The hydrogen envelope was predicted in the late-1960s, early-1970s from the standard comet model and the OH radical in the comet tail which suggested that H2O photodissociated would leave a cloud around the comet. A similar H cloud is around Earth due to photo-dissociation of water in the upper atmosphere.

The mainstream model presents details that can be modeled sufficiently to design and plan and FLY missions to comets.

The Electric Comet model/hypothesis/whatever continues to bat zero.
 
Wait... do you think jets are like little miniature volcanoes? I figure they'd just be a patch of dirt that ice was sublimating out of. If anything, it would look like a small slump with cracks.

Oh really, so what's colminating the jets?
 
Oh really, so what's colminating the jets?

How do you mean 'colimated'?

Is a geyser 'colimated'?

Is water coming out of a hose 'colimated'?

Pressure behind a constriction with an opening. Mean-free-path significantly longer in one direction will let particles preferentially travel in that direction.

With the very low density around the nucleus, only the outward direction has a long mean-free-path.
 
Oh really, so what's colminating the jets?

I would imagine the jets are coming from granular ice sublimating out of patches of dust/dirt. In a vacuum you've suddenly got small amounts of gas being trapped by dust only held on by very weak gravity. Gas kicks off the dust. Dust has high albedo. Dust gets caught in the solar wind, and streaks backwards, and then that forms the tail.
 
I would imagine the jets are coming from granular ice sublimating out of patches of dust/dirt. In a vacuum you've suddenly got small amounts of gas being trapped by dust only held on by very weak gravity. Gas kicks off the dust. Dust has high albedo. Dust gets caught in the solar wind, and streaks backwards, and then that forms the tail.

Nice story, mister earl :confused:

Wait, you do know the speed at which these OBSERVED collimated filamentary jets leave 67P, don't you?
 
How do you mean 'colimated'?

Is a geyser 'colimated'?

Is water coming out of a hose 'colimated'?

Pressure behind a constriction with an opening. Mean-free-path significantly longer in one direction will let particles preferentially travel in that direction.

With the very low density around the nucleus, only the outward direction has a long mean-free-path.

The ones on comets are acording to the mainstream dogma
The observed jets can be produced by acceleration of evolved gas from a subsurface cavity through a narrow orifice to the surface. As long as the cavity is larger than the orifice, the pressure in the cavity will be greater than the ambient pressure in the coma and the flow from the geyser will be supersonic. The gas flow becomes collimated as the sound speed is approached and dust entrainment in the gas flow creates the observed jets. Outside the cavity, the expanding gas loses its collimated character, but the density drops rapidly decoupling the dust and gas, allowing the dust to continue in a collimated beam.
LINK

But this would be expected behaviour for a dust plasma!
 
Last edited:
Good morning Haig.

You remember this post of mine?

In it I wrote "I suspect you've been conned, Haig. You see, I think Miles Mathis is not doing science, nor intending to do any science; rather, I get the impression that he's an artist (you did check out his whole website, didn't you?). A rather clever one too, in that he's able to write stuff that looks - to people who have no real understanding of science - like it could be science."

Let me show you how good an artist he is, and how easily he has fooled you.

<snip>
Sounds very e/m like to me :p
This link takes you to a Wikipedia page, entitled "Electromagnetism".

There is no mention of Miles Mathis.

Here's part of another post of yours (I've added some bold):

<snip>

So tackling Miles Mathis is beyond you and it was only these three papers, related to the Electric Sun, I was asking for a critique of !

Well JeanTate you did disappoint me yet AGAIN but it's no surprise. I had a slim hope that a "citizen scientist" as you claim to be would like to comment on these papers
haig post 3367 said:
Hey JeanTate, you don't get it do you ?

Miles Mathis was for the MATH MATH MATH guys on here

Feel free to knock yourself out on his Electric Sun stuff below (charge is electrical right?)

From my post HERE ...

<snip>

Miles Mathis isn't in the EU / PC crowd and he certainly isn't in the mainstream, he's kinda unique but in discussions of an Electric Sun and with his focus on "charge" as one of the overlooked factors of an electrical nature should / must be included IMHO

<snip>

Magnetic Reconnection and Coronal Temperatures PDF
Originally Posted by Miles Mathis
At any rate, I have long had a simple mechanical theory for charge effects: it has been part of my unified field for years. But until now I have not connected it to the corona. Even when I wrote a paper on the Sun a couple of years ago, I had nothing much to say about the creation of the coronal energy. But now that I have used the charge field to explain the brightness of planets, moons, and comets—via magnetic interaction—I now have a mechanism for the corona. <snip>

In those previous papers on comets and moons, I showed how the spins on the photons could cause the unexplained brightness. We only require photons meeting anti-photons, and charge recycling—along with an ambient field—was able to explain both. In short, all spherical bodies from electrons to
galaxies recycle charge. The spin of the sphere in an ambient field naturally creates field potentials which draw photons in at the poles and emit them most heavily at the equator. This emitted charge then rejoins the ambient field at a boundary, and this rejoining can cause spin cancellations. In the right circumstances, these spin cancellations can cause big effects, and that is what we are seeing with increased brightness.
<snip>

The Heliospheric Current Sheet PDF
Originally Posted by Miles Mathis
<snip>

You know what, they are right, except for one thing. That isn't dark matter they are calculating, it is charge. There is always going to be more charge in the vicinity of baryonic matter, as we have known for 200 years. Benjamin Franklin put the charge signs on matter, and we still do. We have always defined charge as a relationship of matter, so of course it is going to exist with more density around matter. I have shown why this is: matter recycles charge. Spinning protons, neutrons, and electrons recycle charge photons, and the spins and photons are real. Everything involved has mass, spin, and radius. Nothing is virtual. Nothing comes out of the vacuum or returns into it.

<snip>

They think they have proof of the gravity-only field (since their equations work pretty well),
and this allows them to keep the field they inherited from Laplace centuries ago. Besides, they just spent decades belittling all the “cranks” who wanted to add charge or E/M to the field.

The charge field is already inside Newton's gravity field, in the constant G. And since General Relativity was just the addition of transforms to Newton, Einstein's equations already contain charge as well. And charge is already inside the Lagrangian, too, as I have shown.

That's right. The unified field was hiding in plain sight, too. It has been hiding inside G for centuries. Because it was already in the Newtonian field equations, we don't have to rewrite anything. We just have to re-expand and re-interpret what we already had.

Oh dear, never mind :p
Whatever Mathis is writing about, it is not the "e/m" described in the Wikipedia article.

Yet he calls it "E/M"! :jaw-dropp

But the Sun does not become the Moon simply because Shakespeare makes Petruchio say so, and neither does electromagnetism become all about 'charge recycling' simply because Mathis (rather delightfully) says so.

So, just as the audience enjoys the word play of Katherine and Petruchio, so too the ISF audience can enjoy seeing how Mathis has fooled you, Haig.

I did not think this section of the ISF could be so entertaining.
 
I would imagine the jets are coming from granular ice sublimating out of patches of dust/dirt. In a vacuum you've suddenly got small amounts of gas being trapped by dust only held on by very weak gravity. Gas kicks off the dust. Dust has high albedo. Dust gets caught in the solar wind, and streaks backwards, and then that forms the tail.

The key (as Sol88 keeps saying) is the comet JETS.

Understanding them will go a long way in settling the argument.

Formation of jets in Comet 19P/Borrelly by subsurface geysers PDF
Fig. 3. Calculations of the temperature and gas pressure in a subsurface geyser as a function of the ratio of the area of the vent to the horizontal area of the cavity
Nevertheless, the lack of detailed knowledge of the physical makeup of the cometary nucleus does not obviate the need for a basic physical model of emission from comets that can produce highly collimated dust jets. Because it is impossible to specify the thermal conductivity, density, specific heat, crustal thickness, ice/dust ratio, strength, and geyser geometry with any precision, the calculations presented here are only illustrative. Therefore, the
most significant progress on this topic is likely to come from further observations that constrain the physical properties of cometary surfaces and more detailed imaging of cometary activity.


If the above mainstream view of supersonic collimated comet jets is falsified and the jets are shown to be E/M in nature then we need to look more into the ELECTRIC COMET hypothesis.

Very interesting times ahead for Electric Comet 67P :D
 
Last edited:
Good morning again, Haig.

I've had to do rather a lot of snipping, to reduce your long post to a reasonable length.
<snip>

So it's ok to discuss The SAFIRE Project on the Electric Sun a bit ;)

<snip>
Haig, do you remember who wrote this?

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

Taking this ISF member at his word, I'm sure you'll be the first to agree that "The SAFIRE Project on the Electric Sun" is flawed - possibly fatally so - because it uses "the First approach (pseudo-plasma) instead of the Second approach (real plasma)", right?

Of course, it *may* use "the Second approach (real plasma)", but there's nothing in what's been published so far to show that it does.

Rather an odd omission, wouldn't you say?

So, obviously, ... "testing revealed structurally similar discharges on the anode that were very similar to the sun’s plasma (Figure 9). Double layers, caused by charge (+/-) separation in plasmas, which produce granules and cellular layers in plasmas, were visually and/or qualitatively observed near the surface of the anode. The sun too exhibits extensive charge separation, temperature changes, and granulation as a function of distance from the core. The sun exhibits coronal ejections; the anode exhibited eruptions at regular intervals. The sun goes through emission solar cycles; the anode exhibited regular pulses despite a fully regulated DC input and clean power supply. The sun possesses a higher coronal temperature at a farther distance from the core as gauged by spectroscopy; our SBJ assembly possesses an increase temperature farther from the anode as gauged from emission spectroscopy. The trihydrogen cation (H3+) is the most abundant molecule in the universe; H3+ was detected at high percentage levels with the mass spectrometer in our experiment. Visually, the anode bears a striking resemblance to the sun, and visible layers of charge separation (Figure 9). These observations lend both quantitative and qualitative indications that the electric sun hypothesis warrants further critical study and evaluation."...
(I dropped the URL, and added some bold)

The fact that you've quoted this would suggest that you actually read the source document, and understood it at least somewhat.

Yet there's no "Figure 9"! :jaw-dropp

Of course, that's just really sloppy copy editing; however, the short passage you quoted is so riddled with such sloppiness as to make one wonder if the authors know what they're doing.

In addition to the nonsense about "The trihydrogen cation (H3+)" (which Tom has already discussed), here are a few more howlers:

* "Double layers [...] were visually and/or qualitatively observed near the surface of the anode" Really? They visually observed double layers!?! :eye-poppi

* "The sun too exhibits extensive charge separation [...] as a function of distance from the core" Remarkable, paradigm-changing discovery! Nobels for all!! Pity the authors provide no evidence.

* "Visually, the anode bears a striking resemblance to the sun" Based on what's in the document, I think the authors need new glasses.

just didn't impress you one little bit. Well this is only the first of three phases of research known as SAFIRE so maybe the team can gain your approval in the future ?

<snip>


Haig, before I comment further, may I ask, did you really read the PDF? Did you watch the video?

What key questions occurred to you?

How accurate did you find the intro/background to be?
 
Good morning, Sol88.
G'day JeanTate
JeanTate said:
Good morning again, Sol88.

What are "X" and "Y", may I ask?

More accurately, what do you consider "X" and "Y" to be?

If you could, please limit your scope to the ech.
Mainstream X =
While ices sublimate on the nucleus surface, the dust em- bedded in them is freed and dragged out by the expanding gas.
ECH Y =
The observed jets of comets are electric arc discharges to the nucleus, producing “electrical discharge machining” (EDM) of the surface. The excavated material is accelerated into space along the jets’ observed filamentary arcs.
I hope that clears it up for you JeanTate :cool:
Yes, it does, quite a bit thank you.

I now know, for example, that you use "assume" and "assumption" in rather odd ways (you wrote "That's the real kicker here, the mainstream assume X and the Electric Universe assumes Y.").

You see, from what you have posted - both in your own words and what you cited - "The observed jets of comets are electric arc discharges to the nucleus, producing “electrical discharge machining” (EDM) of the surface. The excavated material is accelerated into space along the jets’ observed filamentary arcs" is not an assumption. Rather, it's a conclusion, derivable from the core assumptions in your version of the ech (i.e. there is an electric field centered approximately on the Sun and Comets are chunks of rock covered in dust).
 
Last edited:
So are they rock or not ?

attachment.php


Electric or sublimating ?

attachment.php


The Jets can settle this ! More data from 67P required ! Why Explore Comets?

 
Last edited:
I used to read as many books (mainstream) as I could but now the first thing I do when I pick up a new book, is flip to the index and look for PLASMA. The vast majority including the ones by your mainstream demigod, Stephan Hawkins do not even mention PLASMA, so they kept out near the thunderbox in case the paper runs out.

I mean, i'm more than surprised that these books make no mention at all about what 99.99% of the universe is.

So unfortunalty to me nearly all mainstream books parrot whatever will get them some $$$ and into print.

Oh...and a way to TEST the idea, without maths as well, is for the OSIRIS team to release and extremely hi-res image of the location of a jet.

We should see a nozzle/hole/fissure/orifice according to mainstream or otherwise we should see "stuff thing thru" Holger Sierks at this point in time, he's the man!!

and as uncle Wal states

Much like Kristian Birkland found experimentally in the early 1900's

So the jets should be a good test.

You'd have better luck opening up a physics book to find information about plasma. It'd be like opening up an electrical engineering book and being outraged that oil isn't mentioned or some other nonsense because oil can be turned into electricity. As far as I know Stephen Hawking is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist, not an electrical engineer or astrophysicist. Why on Earth would he mention plasma beyond "space contains plasma"?

On a lark I looked on wiki for "Fundamental Interaction". This seems relevant:
Even though electromagnetism is far stronger than gravitation, electrostatic attraction is not relevant for large celestial bodies, such as planets, stars, and galaxies, simply because such bodies contain equal numbers of protons and electrons and so have a net electric charge of zero. Nothing "cancels" gravity, since it is only attractive, unlike electric forces which can be attractive or repulsive. On the other hand, all objects having mass are subject to the gravitational force, which only attracts. Therefore, only gravitation matters on the large scale structure of the universe.

Let me know when you discover a way to shield against gravitational waves, please.

I am troubled every time I see research from the late 19ths / early 20th century being heralded as cutting-edge. Many of these observations were made before we even knew what atoms were made of, much less how the fundamental forces operate and interact. We also know that electromagnetism has a strong tendency to cancel out, whereas gravity...doesn't.

One can go on about "Uncle Wal" or "Grandpappy Birkeland" had to say, but that doesn't mean they were right just because they wrote about it a long time ago. That's what creationists use as their primary tactic. It was written by Birkeland, therefore it's true! Why is it true? It was written by Birkeland, of course. It's this kind of circular reasoning that prevents any kind of meaningful discussion and discourse. The sooner that charade is dropped the sooner an actual discussion can be had.

Of course, to turn around and claim that we (if I may be so bold as to speak for my better-educated colleagues) adhere to the Mainstream Ideals because Hawking or Greene or Einstein wrote about it a Long Long Time Ago is simply disingenuous.

The facts stand on there own merits, regardless of who wrote them, said them, or pontificated them. Science does not operate in the way that religion operates. Ideas are ruthlessly attacked, searching for any signs of weakness. Science changes. This is an inherent feature and it helps science work properly. It cannot function by proclaiming something to be true and then locking it up in a box, never to be studied again.
 
Global Solar Wind Interaction and Ionospheric Dynamics
Wing-Huen Ip
National Central University, Taiwan


The high drama roaming across the horizon belongs to the scientific returns to be reaped from the Rosetta mission to Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. The long-term ob- servations afforded by the Rosetta Comet Orbiter will revo- lutionize our knowledge of solar wind interaction with weakly outgassing comets at different heliocentric distances. We are totally ignorant of the physical environment of the coma, which must be filled with charged dust particles, complex molecules, and all sorts of gas jets. This precious knowledge will be supplied within a decade by a new gen- eration of cometary researchers, who must be ready for exploration. We promise them that this field will be much more exciting and fruitful than we now know it.


Seems the real hang up is the comets are made of dust and ice and it's the ice's SUBLIMATING that is the source of the cometary plasma.

but if they are dust and rock....ELECTRIC COMET
 
So clearly I need to continue the 'Scott Rebuttal' series. Some years ago, someone (not an EU supporter) had suggested that EU had 'moved beyond' Scott's claims, but this thread has demonstrated that lots of items from The Electric Sky continue to be regurgitated and I should revive that list of EU gaffs.
If you do this, I hope you correct your claim that magnetic field lines "can never have an endpoint." Many physicists say that, but it's a false claim unless you qualify it by saying you're talking about endpoints that actually belong to the field line.

It's easy to produce concrete examples of magnetic field lines that arise or fade out at a neutral point. The neutral point is not part of those magnetic field lines, but it is a limit point of those lines. Mathematicians would be comfortable referring to the neutral point as an endpoint of the field lines that arise or fade out at the neutral point.

This is directly relevant to Scott's argument. Donald Scott is wrong, but so are the physicists who say ∇B=0 implies magnetic field lines cannot have endpoints.
 
Good morning, Sol88.
JeanTate said:
Hello again, Sol88.

You're welcome.


That's it?

That's your complete answer to my 1)?

1) How do you get from:
* there is an electric field centered approximately on the Sun AND
* comets are homogeneous 'rock'
to:
* the observed comet jets are an electrical discharge phenomena?

Would you please walk me through the logical steps from premises to conclusion?


Yes, let's.

How about some answers to my two other questions, 2) and 3)?

2) What primary source, or sources, can you cite, re "in the ECH jets are an electrical discharge phenomena"?

3) Per the ECH, what are the two (or more) 'ends' of the electrical discharge(s) that are comet jets? Or, what acts as electrodes?

Despite your obvious ability to understand English, you seem to have failed - rather spectacularly - to understand my 1). So how about I try to rephrase it?

How does there is an electric field centered approximately on the Sun and Comets are chunks of rock covered in dust (I've incorporated your non-ech variation) lead to the observed comet jets are an electrical discharge phenomena?
Ummm....it is more than well explained HERE and some of the source material HERE and a bit later
Thanks for this, much appreciated.

To see if I understand, I'll repeat this, using my own words. Please comment and make any corrections necessary.

- = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = -
1) How do you get from:
* there is an electric field centered approximately on the Sun AND
* comets are homogeneous 'rock'
to:
* the observed comet jets are an electrical discharge phenomena?

{unknown; see below for more details}

2) What primary source, or sources, can you cite, re "in the ECH jets are an electrical discharge phenomena"?

As a temporary shorthand, M. Gmirkin (2008), W. Thornhill (2007), and Birkeland (1913) {but see below}

3) Per the ECH, what are the two (or more) 'ends' of the electrical discharge(s) that are comet jets? Or, what acts as electrodes?

{unknown; see below for more details}

- = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = -

On 1): M. Gmirkin (2008) simply states "The observed jets of comets are electric arc discharges to the nucleus, producing “electrical discharge machining” (EDM) of the surface"; W. Thornhill (2007) is behind a paywall, and the abstract does not contain a derivation. And Birkeland (1913) is irrelevant because it's an experiment involving CO2, coal, graphite , or carbonic acid (not 'rock'); further, in his model "the comet is charged negatively by cathode-rays from the sun", which is inconsistent with the ech.

On 2): M. Gmirkin (2008) is clearly not a primary source (he is simply reporting what others wrote), nor is Birkeland (1913) (his model is inconsistent with the ech). W. Thornhill (2007) looks like it could be a primary source, but as it's behind a paywall, who can tell?

On 3): M. Gmirkin (2008) has nothing about this, Birkeland (1913) is irrelevant, and who knows what's in W. Thornhill (2007) (it's behind a paywall)?

I'm sorry Jeanette if you have trouble understanding the ech and I hope this helps you grasp the obviously very complex ech
Thanks.

But the ech is remarkably simple; why do you say "the obviously very complex ech"?

I do find it rather amazing that you have had such difficulty finding primary sources (and I'm also amazed that Haig - apparently - was unaware of W. Thornhill (2007)). Even more that the only primary source (on this question) you could find is behind a paywall! :jaw-dropp

Perhaps the most remarkable thing is that no one - not you, Haig, M. Gmirkin, D. Talbott, no one - seems to have described what the 'other electrode' is, the 'other end' of the arcs (which are the observed jets, in the ech; W. Thornhill may have done so, but this apparent primary source is behind a paywall).

I'm now quite curious; how many of the other "predictions" in David Talbott's list are also not derivable - objectively - from the ech assumptions?
 
Hello Sol88.
So again, Tusenfem the only issue seems to be how the dust is lifted from the surface of a comet.

Is it mainstream much cherished and beloved hidden subsurface pressureised chamber of volatiles being expelled with entrained dust.

or

Dusty Plasma interactions with the solar wind?

Just one OSIRIS image of the source of the jets and I'm a happy camper! :)

I WANT too look at the shiny stuff under the dust...
(my bold)

Don't you find it rather ironic to be asking for an OSIRIS image, while the sole primary source you've been able to come up with (so far) re "the observed comet jets are an electrical discharge phenomena" (or, more accurately, "The observed jets of comets are electric arc discharges to the nucleus, producing “electrical discharge machining” (EDM) of the surface" (source)) - Thornhill (2007) - is behind a paywall?

Perhaps you could ask Uncle Wal to provide you a free copy, which you could post here?
 
Good morning, Haig.
The key (as Sol88 keeps saying) is the comet JETS.

Understanding them will go a long way in settling the argument.

Formation of jets in Comet 19P/Borrelly by subsurface geysers PDF




If the above mainstream view of supersonic collimated comet jets is falsified and the jets are shown to be E/M in nature then we need to look more into the ELECTRIC COMET hypothesis.

Very interesting times ahead for Electric Comet 67P :D
Actually, I think "the ELECTRIC COMET hypothesis" is dead, at least in terms of science.

You see, I did a series of experiments, with rocks in weak electric fields, and did not observe any arcs, much less any EDM.

Further, as both the Moon and Mercury are 'rocks with some dust' and both "follow elongated paths" within what at least one proponent claims is "a weak electrical field centered on the Sun", jets should be observed, which "are electric arc discharges to the [object], producing “electrical discharge machining” (EDM) of the surface." (source)

Finally, neither you nor Sol88 (David Talbott is AWOL) has been able to derive the observed comet jets are an electrical discharge phenomena from the ech assumptions (there is an electric field centered approximately on the Sun AND comets are homogeneous 'rock'), so I can only conclude that this claim is made up, that the conclusion comes from the premises by magic (not logic, or science). In short, that the ech is indistinguishable from creationism.

Perhaps this thread could be moved to a more suitable sub-forum within the ISF?
 
Don't think it's only been tusenfem who's been on the sauce :p

The Electric Comet pdf Copyright © 2006 Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott
Today, most astronomers distance themselves from the “impact” explanation of Wild 2’s surface. And rather than suggest an answer, the Deep Impact mission to Tempel 1 only deepened the mystery, revealing the very “craters, valleys, mesas, and ridges” that the electric model—and only the electric model—had predicted

A free taste of Electric Comet hypothesis 12 months previous to 2007 :D
 
Good morning again, Sol88.
<snip>

Oh...and a way to TEST the idea, without maths as well, is for the OSIRIS team to release and extremely hi-res image of the location of a jet.

We should see a nozzle/hole/fissure/orifice according to mainstream or otherwise we should see "stuff thing thru" Holger Sierks at this point in time, he's the man!!

and as uncle Wal states

Much like Kristian Birkland found experimentally in the early 1900's

So the jets should be a good test.
Actually, Birkeland's work is irrelevant to the ech, because one (of two) key ech assumptions is that comets are homogeneous rocks (or, in the heretical Sol88 version, 'chunks of rock covered with dust'); rocks, furthermore, which are not coal.

On top of that, as no one - not "uncle Wal", not David Talbott, not Haig, not M. Gmirkin, not even you! - seems to be able to show how jets as "electric arc discharges to the nucleus, producing “electrical discharge machining” (EDM) of the surface" is an inevitable logical consequence of the ech assumptions, we can only conclude that the derivation is 'by magic', or 'by fiat'.

This makes the ech indistinguishable from creationism. And as creationism is pure faith, it cannot be tested by any direct observations.
 
Gezz someone doesn't understand it has to be a charged rock ! :p

The Electric Comet PDF
A comet on an elongated orbit spends most of its time far from the Sun and acquires a charge in balance with the voltage at that distance. But when a comet speeds inward for a quick spin around the Sun, the voltage of the comet becomes increasingly out of balance with that nearer the Sun—a situation leading to high-energy discharge.
 
Global Solar Wind Interaction and Ionospheric Dynamics
Wing-Huen Ip
National Central University, Taiwan





Seems the real hang up is the comets are made of dust and ice and it's the ice's SUBLIMATING that is the source of the cometary plasma.

but if they are dust and rock....ELECTRIC COMET

So Sol, no problem citing an article containing beaucoup math (derivatives, integrals and bears, oh my!) so long as you think or guess it supports the ech? The axes of the graphs are labeled with real numerical units, unlike the cartoon-graphs we see in the Thunderbolts videos. Are you sure this isn't some mainstream scientist trying to dazzle you with math bunnies?

The author discusses the ion emission spectra of the comet, in particular ions of carbon and hydrogen oxides. No mention at all of ions you'd associate with rock, like Si, Fe and Mg. In fact, while the article contains words like "plasma" and "ions", the words "rock" and "rocky" appear nowhere in the article. Why did you link to it?

ferd
 
for those interested, a new review by tamas gombosi on "physics of cometary magnetospheres" will be published soon in an AGU monograph. an interesting read.
 
The key (as Sol88 keeps saying) is the comet JETS.

Understanding them will go a long way in settling the argument.

Not really since none of the ECH supporters have yet presented a model that demonstrates the charges and fields between the Sun and the comet! The ECH model was falsified in the 1920s.

Unless ECH can solve that problem, it is still dead.

Without solving that problem, you're essentially trying to use problems with understanding tornado formation as evidence Earth isn't round.

Formation of jets in Comet 19P/Borrelly by subsurface geysers PDF

If the above mainstream view of supersonic collimated comet jets is falsified and the jets are shown to be E/M in nature then we need to look more into the ELECTRIC COMET hypothesis.

Except this isn't the only model for the jets.

In the case of no subsurface cavities, where ice and dust may be clumped together like an aggregate, and never strongly differentiated. The water may be spraying out over half the sky (2 pi steradians) but collisional effects alone will keep it slightly denser around the centerline of symmetry of the half-sphere. What you see as a 'jet' actually becomes an artifact of the scattering of sunlight when the material is actually being spread all around.

Not too different from the reason you can see the beam of a flashlight on an evening with thin fog. There's moisture all around in the air, but the reason you see the beam is due to the scattering along its line.

If you've ever observed a large pile of snow and asphalt and dirt plowed to the side of the road after a big snowfall, it just evaporates like crazy all over the exposed surface on the first really clear and warm sunny day. The only thing stopping the molecules from flowing straight up and out is collisions with surrounding air. Now I've got a reason to root for a big snowfall this winter! I can try to set this up under more controlled conditions and do some side experiments! :)

Actually, tusenfem, do you know if we have any good spectra of the jets closeup? The spectra of dust in the coma and tail are dominated by reflected sunlight with resonance flourescence and some photoionization. I don't recall finding anything on a broad-band optical spectrum of the jets themselves.

For ECH, it would have to be an emission spectrum dominated by lines corresponding to atomic & molecular states excited by electron collisions as opposed to photon collisions.
 
If you do this, I hope you correct your claim that magnetic field lines "can never have an endpoint." Many physicists say that, but it's a false claim unless you qualify it by saying you're talking about endpoints that actually belong to the field line.

It's easy to produce concrete examples of magnetic field lines that arise or fade out at a neutral point. The neutral point is not part of those magnetic field lines, but it is a limit point of those lines. Mathematicians would be comfortable referring to the neutral point as an endpoint of the field lines that arise or fade out at the neutral point.

This is directly relevant to Scott's argument. Donald Scott is wrong, but so are the physicists who say ∇B=0 implies magnetic field lines cannot have endpoints.

Thanks. I've added an update to that post linking to your reconnection examples.
 
Are you saying there is no electric field entered on the Sun, JeanTate?

oh well time to pack the bags and move on.

maybe you can come back when you've worked out the MAJOR problems for mainstreams explanation of the thermonuclear bomb sun.

Meantime I'll hang around for the announcement that comets are rock and the jets are cold cathode electrical discharges arising from a charged body moving in the radial electrical field centred on a Sun powered externally.

But I guess that will be some time whilst the various science teams fight each other, which in itself is quite amusing.
 
Last edited:
I'm looking forward to this summer when the comet should be close enough to the sun to be active. That'll be awesome, having a spacecraft flying along to study it. Somehow I doubt any published results will budge the ElectroWhaterism Faithful from their strategy of ignoring data, cherry picking facts, Texas-sharpshooter circling random electricish words in real science and flat out making stuff up.
 
I'm looking forward to this summer when the comet should be close enough to the sun to be active. That'll be awesome, having a spacecraft flying along to study it. Somehow I doubt any published results will budge the ElectroWhaterism Faithful from their strategy of ignoring data, cherry picking facts, Texas-sharpshooter circling random electricish words in real science and flat out making stuff up.


Time to wake up ApolloGnomon :D Electric Comet 67P has been active for months ! Just clock these jets dude ...

Rosetta Comet Scrambles its Jets
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom