The Electric Comet theory

Status
Not open for further replies.
Belz... said:
Yes it does. You haven't put any effort or time into answering my question, clearly because you don't understand any of the ideas you claim to espouse.
Click to expand...

That's harsh.

I put in what time I have spare.

This thread about Electric Comets not about me.

Just look at the facts and evidence and make your own mind up. It's your choice but it is fun to watch the mainstream coming around to the Electromagnetic way ☺
 
Belz... said:
Reality is harsh.
Click to expand...
So it is.
Are you any relation to R C ?😊


What facts ? You have avoided answering my question with them.
Click to expand...

Belz if you don't notice the facts and evidence in the links and videos I've posted ... then we're done here. My putting them in my own words won't change your blindness to that.

Even if I could be bothered to waste more time on you.

Bye Bye
 
Haig said:
Belz if you don't notice the facts and evidence in the links and videos I've posted ... then we're done here.
Click to expand...

At the very least POINT OUT what your links say about EC. You just dump texts, none of which even discuss EC except to say that's going to be proven right at some point, and expect me to accept that as some sort of proof at rocky comets are in any related to the idea ?

And you have the gall to pretend that the fault is mine ?

You are a hack.
 
Haig said:
In my own words ??? ...
Click to expand...
In your own words what do we have, Haig?
A repeated obsession with the phrase "rock comet" used for asteroids that have dust tails close to the Sun and are not comets!

The repeated inability to tell the fantasies of the Thunderbolts forum commenters from reality. Remember these are people so ignorant that they cannot tell the difference between 0.6 g/cc and 3.0 g/cc :eek:!

The fantasy that rock comets are actual comets.

Ignorance about the electric comet idea - it is not dust being blown off rocks because of heating - that word electric should be a clue, Haig :eek:!

Four years and counting of ignorance about Electric comets still do not exist :jaw-dropp!

The inability to understand that citing a crank who thinks that electric discharges created the Grand Canyon and lied to the Thunderbolts readers reflects badly on your ability to tell the difference between delusions and reality.
 
Reality Check said:
Ignorance about the electric comet idea - it is not dust being blown off rocks because of heating - that word electric should be a clue, Haig :eek:!
Click to expand...

That's why I asked him to explain what the hell those comets have to do with the electric universe nonsense. He replies with links about how heat blows off part of the comets, as if that's electric, somehow.
 
Haig: List of outstanding questions

Haig said:
Rosetta Mission Update | Comets May Not Be What We Thought
Click to expand...
Another video of fantasies, delusions and lies from the Thunderbolts authors, Haig?
  1. Haig (30th June 2014): Why do EU supporters continue to claim that astronomers ignore E fields, etc.?
  2. Haig (3 November 2014) supplied another example of this ignorance by a EU supporter posting on the Thunderbolts forum.
  3. Haig (7th July 2014), is 3.0 different from 0.6?
  4. Haig (7th July 2014), if you want to see many cases of delusional thinking and ignorance from an EU "expert" often citing other EU "experts" then have a look at the Thunderbolts picture of the day blog!
  5. Haig (14th July 2014), How can you believe in the competence of the EU proponents when the speakers at their 2014 conference was a collection of cranks, actual deluded people and some electrical engineers? (the deluded people were the Velikovsky belivers: David Talbott, Daniel Jencka, Dwardu Cardona)?
  6. Haig (3 November 2014): What is the density of comet 67P; What is the density of rock? Are they the same?
  7. Plus any scientific answers to the science stated in Electric comets still do not exist!
  8. Haig (3rd November 2014): Have you noted the 19 items of ignorance and delusion in the first 11 minutes (out of 90!) of a Thunderbolt video that you cited?
  9. Haig (4th November 2014): Have you understood that Hyperion is an icy moon, not a rock (so why is it not a comet :) )?
  10. Haig (20th November 2014): Can you understand the ignorance and delusions in that Thunderbolts video about Mars?
  11. 24 November 2014 Haig: Please cite the electric comet predictions for the albedo of comet nuclei (actual numbers not fantasies!)
  12. 24 November 2014 Haig: Can you understand that this ES "paper" is ignorant about and lies about astronomy?
  13. 25 November 2014 Haig: Please cite the electric comet calculations for density of comets, e.g. 67P.
    Start by showing that the electric field of the Sun does not make the real density of comets less than the gravitationally calculated values :eek:
  14. 25 November 2014 Haig: Please cite the electric comet calculations for the production of a coma and jets from 67P at some 250 million miles from the Sun and at a temp of 205-230K (surface) and 30-160k (subsurface).
  15. 25 November 2014 Haig: Please cite the electric comet calculations for the production of organic compounds from 67P at some 250 million miles from the Sun and at a temp of 205-230K (surface) and 30-160k (subsurface).
  16. 4 December 2014 Haig: Present the evidence that our variable Sun has changed 67P activity.
  17. 5 December 2014 Haig: Please quote the section in [URL="http://iopscience.iop.org/0741-3335/41/3A/004"]Magnetic-field-aligned electric fields associated with Debye-scale plasma structures that measures or describes the potential drop between the corona and heliosphere.[/URL]
  18. 5 December 2014 Haig: Please quote the section in [URL="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00793176"]Magnetosphere-ionosphere interactions —near-Earth manifestations of the plasma Universe that measures or describes the potential drop between the corona and heliosphere.[/URL]
  19. 5 December 2014 Haig: Please quote the section in [URL="http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/adminstuff/webpubs/2001_prl_045003.pdf"]Direct Observation of Localized Parallel Electric Fields in a Space Plasma that measures or describes the potential drop between the corona and heliosphere.[/URL]
  20. 5 December 2014 Haig: Can you see the delusions and ignorance in the linked Electric Comet web page?, e.g. "The possibly Velikovskian delusion of "violent electrical interactions of planets and moons""
  21. 8 December 2014 Haig: Do electromagnetic waves contain electric currents (they have magnetic fields!)?
  22. 8 December 2014 Haig: Do electrons have intrinsic angular momentum and thus a magnetic moment without any electric currents?
  23. 12 December 2014 Haig: What is the logical fallacy of false dichotomy?
  24. 16 December 2014 Haig: What is the argument from incredibility or ignorance
  25. 15 December 2014 Haig: Please cite the Electric Comet answer to this Electric Comet behavior by Comet Holmes 17P. I will give you a bit of time before adding it to the debunking of the electric comet idea (item 20?).
 
Belz... said:
That's why I asked him to explain what the hell those comets have to do with the electric universe nonsense. He replies with links about how heat blows off part of the comets, as if that's electric, somehow.
Click to expand...
There is a reason why someone could be fooled into thinking that heat is electricity in "rocky comets":
Haig said:
Rosetta Mission Update | The Rocky Comet
Click to expand...
This is probably the usual Thunderbolts video full of fantasies, delusions and even lies. But a lack of reading comprehension could make someone think that this video is not about Rosetta - it is about "rocky comets".
 
Haig said:
Just look at the facts and evidence and make your own mind up. It's your choice but it is fun to watch the mainstream coming around to the Electromagnetic way ☺
Click to expand...
The facts and evidence is that: Electric comets still do not exist :eek:!
However it is a lie that "the mainstream coming around to the Electromagnetic way" (as in electric comet) because no knowledgeable scientists would be so ignorant that they would believe in the electric comet, Haig :jaw-dropp.

The mainstream has always used the Electromagnetic way - just not the ignorant, invalid way that the Thunderbolts authors have used that way.
This sounds like an extreme form of Haig (30th June 2014): Why do EU supporters continue to claim that astronomers ignore E fields, etc.?
 
Last edited:
paladin17 said:
Of course. Here they are: http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ASC/DATA/browse-plots/4day_plot_archive/..
Click to expand...
Sorry, paladin17, but if you looked at those images you would see that you are wrong. These are electron fluxes, not currents. A big clue is that the units are not Amperes!
About EPAM Data

To get a current you have a lot of work to do, paladin17. Of course this is all moot - Electric comets still do not exist so there is no point wasting anyone's time doing any calculations about them.
 
Reality Check said:
Sorry, paladin17, but if you looked at those images you would see that you are wrong. These are electron fluxes, not currents. A big clue is that the units are not Amperes!
About EPAM Data
Click to expand...
Doesn't make much difference, since the current is obviously proportional to the flux. You can use those as well to evaluate how "neutral" solar wind actually is.
 
Haig said:
It's ALL about evidence ... and here ...
Rosetta Mission Update | The Rocky Comet
Click to expand...


I've viewed several of these videos you keep spamming, Haig, and all I've seen is statements like "...if it looks like rock, it's safest to assume it's rock...", false dichotomies and conspiracy theory whining. I start to suspect that the posts supporting EC and kindred "theories" are primarily about playing to the EU grandstand, not trying to present a coherent theory. "Hey you guys, you should see us over at the skeptics forum, takin' into the man!"

ferd
 
paladin17 said:
Doesn't make much difference, since the current is obviously proportional to the flux.
Click to expand...
That is right, paladin17 - the current is proportional to the combination of the proton and electron fluxes. If you want to waste your time calculating it then go ahead. But as I noted and you ignored:
Reality Check said:
To get a current you have a lot of work to do, paladin17. Of course this is all moot - Electric comets still do not exist so there is no point wasting anyone's time doing any calculations about them.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
On Earth they are caused by wind, but on a comet???????
Click to expand...
As LSSBB stated: Wrong (ice dune), Sol88 :p!

But on a comet, there could be wind that creates dunes. Comets have an atmosphere - all of the gas that is outgassed. We see the jets doing just that on 67P. This atmosphere is being heated on one side of the comet and cooled on the other. That is a high pressure area on one side and a low pressure area on the other. Gases flow from high pressure to low pressure. This flow is called wind, Sol88!
The shape of 67P is complex so it is not as simple as winds from the hot side of a sphere to the cold side.
P.S. Personally I have doubts about this as a viable mechanism for the 67P dunes.

ETA: A feast of comet features from Rosetta at Churyumov-Gerasimenko
I called them "rhythmic ridges" because to call them dunes -- even if we all know that they couldn't have formed from wind or water saltating sand grains across a plain -- is to imply a cause. When you encounter unfamiliar worlds, it's all too easy to name things with terms that imply a cause and then fall into the linguistic trap that that sets up for you. It's how we got to seeing water in the "canali" on Mars. Of course, trying to avoid these pitfalls can give us really horrible names for geomorphic features, like the "recurring slope lineae" on Mars. "Canali" sounds so much more poetic.
Click to expand...
confirms my doubts.

There are other possibilities. People who do science are familiar with fluidized beds. So gas bubbling up into dust can transport the dust.
Fluidization and multiphase transport of particulate cometary material as an explanation of the smooth terrains and repetitive outbursts on 9P/Tempel 1

The dunes are on a smooth slope "downhill" into the neck and they look just like slippages.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
As LSSBB stated: Wrong (ice dune), Sol88 :p!

But on a comet, there could be wind that creates dunes. Comets have an atmosphere - all of the gas that is outgassed. We see the jets doing just that on 67P. This atmosphere is being heated on one side of the comet and cooled on the other. That is a high pressure area on one side and a low pressure area on the other. Gases flow from high pressure to low pressure. This flow is called wind, Sol88!
The shape of 67P is complex so it is not as simple as winds from the hot side of a sphere to the cold side.

There are other possibilities. People who do science are familiar with fluidized beds. So gas bubbling up into dust can transport the dust.
Fluidization and multiphase transport of particulate cometary material as an explanation of the smooth terrains and repetitive outbursts on 9P/Tempel 1
Click to expand...

Note the gas being outgassed has a high water content.

Quite analogous to the water spray that builds up Earth's ice dunes, don't year think?
 
Responding to some claims in Haig's post #2868, my responses repeatedly thwarted by quotes with imbedded URLs.

As I noted in my post #2820, as well as my articles on the REAL electric universe, mainstream astronomy knows of many examples of electric fields forming in space and in particular near comets. Many of these traceable back decades.

EU just tries to hijack these, claiming it as 'their' idea when they did no work whatsoever to demonstrate the mechanism could work. Notice not one of EU 'predictions' contains information sufficient for planning a mission such as Rosetta, where you would need to know, say, the maximum electric field produced in the comet environment in order for the spacecraft to survive. Others have done these, and get numbers like what I noted in post #2820. Not the millions of volts invoked by EU.

EU is like the old joke "When your only tool is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.", they can't imagine any other mechanism at work, when mechanics of solids, fluids, and gases made things work years, centuries, before we could harness electricity.

If EU wants to claim the solar wind is driven by an EXTERNAL electric field, have they bothered to compute what the magnitude and distribution of the field must be to explain the solar wind velocity profile? What charge distribution can produce it? I've seen no such analysis from EU.

If I pop a balloon, the air that was contained within expands outward. It goes from zero to some expansion velocity, i.e. it accelerates. Why? Was an electric field responsible?

Mainstream astronomy recognizes that electric fields can form in plasmas under various non-equilibrium conditions where charge separation can occur. There are hydrodynamic solar wind models which just treat the flow as a free expansion, like the balloon example above. It actually gives a good match for the acceleration of the slow solar wind (Parker model). Where is EU's model of the solar wind acceleration with their claimed electric field values?

For higher speeds, other mechanisms are at play and kinetic models reveal a good match where feedback mechanism can setup a wind acceleration with voltages of 300-1000 volts between the exobase in the solar corona and Earth orbit. Nowhere near the millions of volts invoked by EU. Plus, these kinetic models generate these voltages due to the different velocities of electrons and ions. The electrons get a little extra kick from the photons from the photosphere.

I've done analyses of the solar wind claims of Scott, Thornhill's 'solar resistor' and their implications for spaceflight. EU supporters always whine and cry that I've done it wrong, but they never present the proper analysis.

Like a bunch of inept middle managers, EU supporters insist that others do the work and they'll hang around to take credit for it.

Meanwhile EU is invoking gigantic electric fields driven by mysterious, invisible generators or batteries (they usually hide behind the term 'double layer') that magically appear wherever they choose to invoke them.
 
Welcome back Dr. Tom Bridgman.

Yes, the use of embedded URLs can be a pain at times also very useful for showing ideas and information but have you seen RC's posts :eek:

Glad to see you recognise Electric Comets requires an Electric Sun requires an Electric Universe / Plasma Cosmology

However your criticisms of the above have been soundly rebutted HERE

Cygnus_X1 said:
Responding to some claims in Haig's post #2868, my responses repeatedly thwarted by quotes with imbedded URLs.

As I noted in my post #2820,
Click to expand...
I've added (under my bold) the links to the posts you reference.

as well as my articles on the REAL electric universe, mainstream astronomy knows of many examples of electric fields forming in space and in particular near comets. Many of these traceable back decades.
Click to expand...
The Electric Comet hypothesis goes back much much further than mere decades Tom. In fact, to the second half of the 19th century. see HERE

- "1872, Scientific American (July 27th, p. 57), informed its readers that "Professor Zollner of Leipsic" ascribes the "self-luminosity" of comets to "electrical excitement." According to the article, Zollner suggests that "the nuclei of comets, as masses, are subject to gravitation, while the vapors developed from them, which consist of very small particles, yield to the action of the free electricity of the sun...."

and

- "August 11, 1882 English Mechanic and World of Science, pp. 516-7, wrote of cometary tails: "...There seems to be a rapidly growing feeling amongst physicists that both the self-light of comets and the phenomena of their tails belong to the order of electrical phenomena."

EU just tries to hijack these, claiming it as 'their' idea when they did no work whatsoever to demonstrate the mechanism could work. Notice not one of EU 'predictions' contains information sufficient for planning a mission such as Rosetta, where you would need to know, say, the maximum electric field produced in the comet environment in order for the spacecraft to survive. Others have done these, and get numbers like what I noted in post #2820. Not the millions of volts invoked by EU.
Click to expand...
Gee Tom, sounds like your trying to re-write Electromagnetism Space Science history.

A major catalyst for independent re-consideration of electricity and magnetism in space came in 1950, with the publication of Immanuel Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision.

Mainstream at that time denied Electromagnetism in Space or ANY need for it.

He wrote this "the celestial mechanics that claims that only inertia and gravitation participate in the spheres above will need re-examination and so also the Darwinian evolution based on the principle of uniformitarianism or gradualism"

EU is like the old joke "When your only tool is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.", they can't imagine any other mechanism at work, when mechanics of solids, fluids, and gases made things work years, centuries, before we could harness electricity.
Click to expand...
Velikovsky's work inspired many including Ralph Juergens and those who started the Thunderbolts Project

"In the fall of 1972, Juergens published the first in a series of articles offering a revolutionary hypothesis on the "electric sun.""

If EU wants to claim the solar wind is driven by an EXTERNAL electric field, have they bothered to compute what the magnitude and distribution of the field must be to explain the solar wind velocity profile? What charge distribution can produce it? I've seen no such analysis from EU.
Click to expand...
What do you think drives the solar wind to accelerate to over a million miles an hour way past the planets. Also, why does it vary so much in velocity?

The EU / PC view is galactic birkeland currents control the Sun's electric field.

As for the maths Tom don't get the cart before the horse otherwise you could end up believing in magic entities that don't exist such as black holes, dark matter, dark energy ....

If I pop a balloon, the air that was contained within expands outward. It goes from zero to some expansion velocity, i.e. it accelerates. Why? Was an electric field responsible?
Click to expand...
That reminds me of Science’s Looming ‘Tipping Point’

“We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.” —T. S. Eliot

Mainstream astronomy recognizes that electric fields can form in plasmas under various non-equilibrium conditions where charge separation can occur. There are hydrodynamic solar wind models which just treat the flow as a free expansion, like the balloon example above. It actually gives a good match for the acceleration of the slow solar wind (Parker model). Where is EU's model of the solar wind acceleration with their claimed electric field values?
Click to expand...
The Electric Glow Of The Sun

"The discovery that blasts of particles escape the Sun at an estimated 400- to 700-kilometers per second came as an uncomfortable surprise for advocates of the nuclear powered model. Certainly, the "pressure" of sunlight cannot explain the acceleration of the solar "wind". In an electrically neutral, gravity-driven universe, particles were not hot enough to escape such massive bodies, which (in the theory) are attractors only. And yet, the particles of the solar wind continue to accelerate past Venus, Earth, and Mars. Since these particles are not miniature "rocket ships," this acceleration is the last thing one should expect!

According to the electric theorists, a weak electric field, focused on the Sun, better explains the acceleration of the charged particles of the solar wind. Electric fields accelerate charged particles. And just as magnetic fields are undeniable witnesses to the presence of electric currents, particle acceleration is a good measure of the strength of an electric field.

A common mistake made by critics of the electric model is to assume that the radial electric field of the Sun should be not only measurable but also strong enough to accelerate electrons toward the Sun at "relativistic" speeds (up to 300,000 kilometers per second). By this argument, we should find electrons not only zipping past our instruments but also creating dramatic displays in Earth's night sky.

But as noted above, in the plasma glow-discharge model the interplanetary electric field will be extremely weak. No instrument placed in space could measure the radial voltage differential across a few tens of meters, any more than it could measure the solar wind acceleration over a few tens of meters. But we can observe the solar wind acceleration over tens of millions of kilometers, confirming that the electric field of the Sun, though imperceptible in terms of volts per meter, is sufficient to sustain a powerful drift current across interplanetary space. Given the massive volume of this space, the implied current is quite sufficient to power the Sun."

For higher speeds, other mechanisms are at play and kinetic models reveal a good match where feedback mechanism can setup a wind acceleration with voltages of 300-1000 volts between the exobase in the solar corona and Earth orbit. Nowhere near the millions of volts invoked by EU. Plus, these kinetic models generate these voltages due to the different velocities of electrons and ions. The electrons get a little extra kick from the photons from the photosphere.
Click to expand...
Seems a lot like your playing catch-up ?

I've done analyses of the solar wind claims of Scott, Thornhill's 'solar resistor' and their implications for spaceflight. EU supporters always whine and cry that I've done it wrong, but they never present the proper analysis.
Click to expand...
Come on Tom all you do is set up straw men and then knock them over

See HERE and HERE and this PDF D. E. Scott Rebuts T. Bridgman

Like a bunch of inept middle managers, EU supporters insist that others do the work and they'll hang around to take credit for it.
Click to expand...
Resorting to ad homs Tom ?

Meanwhile EU is invoking gigantic electric fields driven by mysterious, invisible generators or batteries (they usually hide behind the term 'double layer') that magically appear wherever they choose to invoke them.
Click to expand...
That sounds like pure projection Tom.

It's mainstream believing in magic entities that don't exist such as black holes, dark matter, dark energy ....

Then they use these magic entities that don't exist as fudge factors to sprinkle where they need them when their sums don't add up !
 
Last edited:
Just as an afterthought Tom.

What do you think of this ... ??? (but ignoring the black hole nonsense)

Extragalactic circuits, transmission lines, and CR particle acceleration
A non-negligible fraction of a Supermassive Black Hole's (SMBH) rest mass energy gets transported into extragalactic space by a remarkable process in jets which are incompletely understood. What are the physical processes which transport this energy? It is likely that the energy flows electromagnetically, rather than via a particle beam flux. The deduced electromagnetic fields may produce particles of energy as high as ∼1020 eV. The energetics of SMBH accretion disk models and the electromagnetic energy transfer imply that a SMBH should generate a 1018−1019 Amp\`eres current close to the black hole and its accretion disk. We describe the so far best observation-based estimate of the magnitude of the current flow along the axis of the jet extending from the nucleus of the active galaxy in 3C303. The current is measured to be I∼1018 Amp\`eres at ∼40 kpc away from the AGN. This indicates that organized current flow remains intact over multi-kpc distances. The electric current I transports electromagnetic power into free space, P=I2Z, where Z∼30 Ohms is related to the impedance of free space, and this points to the existence of cosmic electric circuit. The associated electric potential drop, V=IZ, is of the order of that required to generate Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays (UHECR). We describe the analogy of electromagnetically dominated jets with transmission lines. High powered jets {\it in vacuo} can be understood by approximate analogy with a waveguide. The importance of inductance, impedance, and other laboratory electrical concepts are discussed in this context. To appear in Proc. 18th International Symposium on Very High Energy Cosmic Ray Interactions (ISVHECR2014), CERN, Switzerland
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Good morning Tom.

As you still can't post links, I thought I'd add them on this post of yours (source is ADS).
Cygnus_X1 said:
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
Click to expand...
 
Good morning, Haig.
Haig said:
Just as an afterthought Tom.

What do you think of this ... ??? (but ignoring the black hole nonsense)

Extragalactic circuits, transmission lines, and CR particle acceleration
Click to expand...
Do you know how to find the references in a paper (or a preprint, in this case)?

Having the references in hand, do you know how to find those references (mostly papers)?

Given that papers are primary sources in this branch of science, don't you think such simple skills as being able to find references is important?

Based on your posting history, I would guess that you have close to zero idea of how many papers like that arXiv preprint have been published, stretching back to before your heroes were even born. Would you say it is fair to characterize your apparent extreme lack of knowledge of primary sources as ignorance?
 
Then Tom there is this to consider ...

Electric Comets need an Electric Sun

But our Sun is entering a Grand Solar Minimum (how does that square with the fusion model ??)

NASA say HERE
Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion.
Click to expand...

Could our failing Sun be causing the failing / shifting magnetic field of the Earth ?

The World Magnetic Model

Magnetic Field Updates video clip

Whacha recon Tom ... just a coincidence ???

Then there is this from our ELECTRIC SUN...

Voyager 1 Experiences Three "Tsunami Waves" in Interstellar Space
Published on 15 Dec 2014
The Voyager 1 spacecraft has experienced three "tsunami waves" in interstellar space. This kind of wave occurs as a result of a coronal mass ejection erupting from the sun. The most recent tsunami wave that Voyager experienced began in February 2014, and may still be going. Listen to how these waves cause surrounding ionized matter to ring like a bell.
Click to expand...

NASA Voyager: 'Tsunami Wave' Still Flies Through Interstellar Space
A "tsunami wave" occurs when the sun emits a coronal mass ejection, throwing out a magnetic cloud of plasma from its surface. This generates a wave of pressure. When the wave runs into the interstellar plasma -- the charged particles found in the space between the stars -- a shock wave results that perturbs the plasma.
"The tsunami causes the ionized gas that is out there to resonate -- "sing" or vibrate like a bell," said Ed Stone, project scientist for the Voyager mission based at California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.
This is the third shock wave that Voyager 1 has experienced. The first event was in October to November of 2012, and the second wave in April to May of 2013 revealed an even higher plasma density. Voyager 1 detected the most recent event in February, and it is still going on as of November data. The spacecraft has moved outward 250 million miles (400 million kilometers) during the third event.
"This remarkable event raises questions that will stimulate new studies of the nature of shocks in the interstellar medium," said Leonard Burlaga, astrophysicist emeritus at NASA Goddard Spaceflight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, who analyzed the magnetic field data that were key to these results.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I almost felt sorry for haig when we were so "harsh" to him.

Well, that evaporated quickly enough, now he comes with a bizillion quotes again, telling Tom he does not know the history of "electromagnetic space science" and then comes with quotes from the late 1800s when the term "electrical" meant basically everything, from electricity to light.

That from a self-proclaimed physics an-alphabetical.

But hey, real science is not done by youtube, so I guess haig will never learn anything except for thunderdolts stuff, coz dey got boobtube, ahsoohm!
 
Good morning, paladin17.

Combining several of your posts from yesterday:
paladin17 said:
<snip>

Reality Check said:
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.
Click to expand...
My sources (like the mentioned data from ACE) tell that there is an electric current.
The solar wind is electrically neutral and so is not an electric current.
Click to expand...

Actual measurements suggest otherwise.

<snip>
Click to expand...
paladin17 said:
tusenfem said:
Then I am sure you can show us the data of this current and your sources.
Click to expand...
Of course. Here they are: http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ASC/DATA/browse-plots/4day_plot_archive/.
phunk said:
Which ones?
Click to expand...
See above. If you have some additional source of data, it would be most welcome.
Click to expand...
paladin17 said:
Reality Check said:
Sorry, paladin17, but if you looked at those images you would see that you are wrong. These are electron fluxes, not currents. A big clue is that the units are not Amperes!
About EPAM Data
Click to expand...
Doesn't make much difference, since the current is obviously proportional to the flux. You can use those as well to evaluate how "neutral" solar wind actually is.
Click to expand...
paladin17 said:
tusenfem said:
can you now?
please enlighten us how you do that
Click to expand...
Multiply the given values by the proton charge, solid angle and the area of interest.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if you realize just how strange and potentially awesome your claims are, paladin17.

On the one hand, if you could make a robust case that there is a substantial, sustained electric current associated with the solar wind, over a region of the solar system many au in its characteristic dimension, dreaming of a free return first class ticket to Stockholm would not be entirely unreasonable.

On the other hand, so far you seem to presented nothing more than some ill-formed ideas, based on an apparent misunderstanding of the basics.

While scientific fame and fortune may not be much of a motivator to you, perhaps the intellectual challenge might?

Do you think you could at least sketch an outline of a research program that might result in making a robust case for the existence of a substantial, sustained 'solar wind' electric current? A case that is based on a combination of accepted theories of electricity and relevant observational data?
 
tusenfem said:
But hey, real science is not done by , so I guess haig will never learn anything except for thunderdolts stuff, coz dey got boobtube, ahsoohm!
Click to expand...
Sure it is tusenfem

Your European Space Agency is right into youtube Ambition the film
A bit too much on the creationist side for me :eek:

but hey! that's where mainstream science is NOW with the magical black stuff and big bang creation :D
 
Good morning, Sol88. This is the second part of my two-part response to your post; the first part is here.
Sol88 said:
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
Click to expand...
In this post I'd like to present you some suggestions. Suggestions on what sorts of things I think would be "discussion of the ech", things "relevent [sic] to the EC idea". I will not attempt to be comprehensive, and my suggestions will not attempt to cover the full range. Also, I will not cover paladin17's peci.

I think a very good place to start having a deep discussion of the ech might be Tom Bridgman's Challenges for Electric Universe 'Theorists'..., in particular his Electric Comets: Failures of the Electric Comet Model. In his blog posts, Tom asks many questions about the ech (or as he calls it, "the Electric Comet Model", which was the name David Talbott used too, until quite recently), yet there has been little discussion of them here in this thread. Why don't you kick off such a discussion?

Another would be to try to work out how David Talbott arrived at the predictions he published in this thread (here), in an objective and independently verifiable manner (I asked him how to do this in this post, but he has yet to respond). Some are easy - a prediction that 67P will be "dry" follows from one of the two core assumptions in the ech (namely, that comets are homogeneous rock) - but most are not (e.g. "visible electrical erosion of the surface in the fashion of electrical etching of surface materials and electric discharge machining (edm)"). As none of this necessarily involves numbers, math(s), equations, etc, it might be easier for you to work on.

Quite recently Haig posted material about Comet Holmes 17P, including a couple of rather vague quotes from Thornhill with what might be the basis of an account of observed phenomena using the ech. I asked Haig about this, here, but he has yet to respond. I think someone with as good an understanding of the ech as you should have no difficulty discussing this; why not give it a go?

Here's a post by you, Sol88, from just a few days ago:
Sol88 said:
@ Tusenfem, could you please tell this maths poor crackpot how exactly this happens?

The Singing Comet

I mean it came as a SURPRISE -

Do you understand the physics Tusenfem?

Something to do magnetic oscillation?
Click to expand...
Instead of asking tusenfem about this, why not post your own analysis, from the perspective of the ech? And then invite other ISF members to discuss it?

And then there are the long lists of unanswered questions, based on your own posts, which Reality Check has compiled. Of course, not every one of his questions are directly relevant to the ech, but an awful lot are, so why not pick a good one and have a go at answering it?

In summary, I think there is a huge range of things we could discuss, on the ech. As you seem so taken with it, why don't you take the lead on such a discussion?
 
Haig said:
Sure it is tusenfem

Your European Space Agency is right into youtube Ambition the film
A bit too much on the creationist side for me :eek:

but hey! that's where mainstream science is NOW with the magical black stuff and big bang creation :D
Click to expand...

Lol. Your answer to "science is not done by YouTube" is to present a piece of promotional artfilm? I begin to understand your difficulty - you don't know what science actually looks like.
 
ApolloGnomon said:
Lol. Your answer to "science is not done by YouTube" is to present a piece of promotional artfilm? I begin to understand your difficulty - you don't know what science actually looks like.
Click to expand...

Really! 😂

And the magical black stuff and big bang creation ?

Are those artistic too ? 😂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom