Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
ferd burfle said:
Haig, I understand that astroelectrochemistry and electrochemistry are 2 different things.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Not that different ferd ;) it's just electrochemistry in space :D

On pages 94/95 of The Electric Universe by Thornhill and Talbott (2003/2007), we read, " The mystery of 'missing water' is solved electrically in the transaction between a negatively charged comet and the sun. In this model, electrical discharges strip negative oxygen ions from rocky materials on the nucleus and accelerate the particles away from the comet in energetic jets. The negative ions then combine with protons from the solar wind to form the observed OH radical, neutral H2O and H2O+."

Recent research has confirmed this sort of process is happening on the Moon.
http://www.space.com/27377-moon-water-origin-solar-wind.html

the rate of production in the coma of 67P, can also be explained by this process.
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/42/15007.abstract my bold
Significance

The hydrogen isotopic ratio of water is commonly used to identify water sources. However, because the Moon is an airless body, the external fluxes of particles and solids that reach its surface should represent an important contribution to its hydrogen budget and thus alter its pristine D/H ratio. To estimate the relative proportions of the solar wind and of the cosmogenic deuterium in the hydrogen budget, the lithium and the hydrogen isotope ratios were measured simultaneously with the Cameca NanoSIMS 50. Analyses demonstrate that all D comes from spallation reactions. On the surface of the soil grains, their D/H ratios indicate that this source of “water” can be ascribed to solar wind implantation and that the chondritic contribution is negligible.
Click to expand...


Get it now ferd :) and jonesdave116 :p
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
You ferd and RC can rant against the findings all you want but the evidence is there
Click to expand...

haig, please learn to read, and the the ridiculous quotes from dranariba, he knows absolutely nothing about the surroundings of comets.
 
tusenfem said:
haig, please learn to read, and the the ridiculous quotes from dranariba, he knows absolutely nothing about the surroundings of comets.
Click to expand...


Oh dear tusenfem :rolleyes: we seem to have upset you with ""Dr. Anariba analyzes the latest papers from the Rosetta mission, which provide stunning, direct evidence for electrical comet activity, evidence which may prove to be a game-changer in comet science."

Get used to it! there will be much more to come ;) electrochemistry is key to electric comets and there is lots of water produced in the voltage driven chemical reaction :D

Care to comment on the excellent video post above ? :cool: The Electric Comet II -- Mysteries Deepen
 
A couple of reminders from 2014 that the science evidence is favouring the electric comet hypothesis :thumbsup:

Rosetta Mission Update | Comet 67P -- Electrical Sculpting of Surface Dust
For several months now, the Rosetta Mission has followed the comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko around the sun. And as we’ve expected, direct observation continues to add one mystery to another. How are we to understand the weird configurations of dust on the comet’s surface?
Click to expand...


Rosetta Mission Update | Jets of Comet 67P -- Failed "Explanations" Continue
It seems that the puzzle of cometary jets continues to haunt comet science. The mystery has been stated and re-stated for decades. But it’s possible that a resolution is now within reach, through the Rosetta Mission to comet 67P?Churyumov Gerasimenko?
Click to expand...
 
And a couple more :cool:

Rosetta Mission Update | Rubble on 67P Defies Current Comet Theory
On the surface of today’s most well-studied comet, we see fields of rubble everywhere. From great boulders down to gravel, sand and dust, a surface littered with debris. Why would an evaporating clump of ice and dust look more like the debris-strewn surface of Mars than any comet that scientist ever dared to dream of?
Click to expand...


Rosetta Mission Update | Oops! No Water on Comet 67P?
The comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko will be in the news for several months. And it has the potential to spark extensive controversy. Issues could range from electric fields in space, to solar system history and the history of earth itself.
Click to expand...
 
Haig said:
Oh dear tusenfem :rolleyes: we seem to have upset you with ""Dr. Anariba analyzes the latest papers from the Rosetta mission, which provide stunning, direct evidence for electrical comet activity, evidence which may prove to be a game-changer in comet science."

Get used to it! there will be much more to come ;) electrochemistry is key to electric comets and there is lots of water produced in the voltage driven chemical reaction :D

Care to comment on the excellent video post above ?
Click to expand...

no sweetypie, I am not upset, I am just stating the obvious by quoting dranariba's words. which you obviously have not read.

I doubt that dranariba will ever submit an actual paper on this rubbish.

And no, I don't have time for boobtoop nonsense.
 
tusenfem said:
no sweetypie, I am not upset, I am just stating the obvious by quoting dranariba's words. which you obviously have not read.

I doubt that dranariba will ever submit an actual paper on this rubbish.

And no, I don't have time for boobtoop nonsense.
Click to expand...


Just show, in context, which of Franklin Anariba, PhD statements you object too and why? Can you do that and forget the ad homs?

Evidence of Electrical Activity on Comet 67P: Towards an Electrochemical Framework for Cometary Phenomena
By Franklin Anariba, PhD
 
tusenfem said:
why don't you scroll up and you can read what I object to.
dranariba has zero knowledge about the sun, the solar wind and comets (as states Tusenfem, PhD, and mine is in plasma astrophysics)
Click to expand...


I thought you would have more substantive points than that but I guess I was expecting too much from you.

I think if look at the bottom of that piece his pedigree in judging electochemical processes is just about perfect :cool:
 
Haig said:
Just show, in context, which of Franklin Anariba, PhD statements you object too and why? Can you do that and forget the ad homs?
Click to expand...



I suspect tusenfem has far better things to do, so I'll take a crack at it. As I recall, the fundamental flaw in his analysis was that the proton flux is orders of magnitudes too low to account for the flux of water coming out; real physicists please correct me as needed. He spends lots of time talking about energetics but nowhere did I see any mention of proton flux. You might think a PhD chemist would balance his equations.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
tusenfem said:
why don't you scroll up and you can read what I object to.
dranariba has zero knowledge about the sun, the solar wind and comets (as states Tusenfem, PhD, and mine is in plasma astrophysics)
Click to expand...
You do realize, tusenfem, that Haig has the PhD which trumps anything you, or dranariba, has ... one from the University of Thunderdolts! :D

And his deep scholarship can be clearly seen in his dozens of, um, papers published on relevant topics; a small sample: Haig&Sol88 (2014), Davidson&Haig (2015), Haig&Davidson (2015), Sol88&Haig (2013).

Electrochemistry calculations? Plasma physics equations? Haig can do those/solve those in his head, six times, and before breakfast too ... we're all waiting with eager anticipation for the publication of his landmark, paradigm-shifting paper, in Nature (or Science?), on electric comets ...
 
Haig said:
A couple of reminders from 2014 that the science evidence is favouring the electric comet hypothesis :thumbsup:

Rosetta Mission Update | Comet 67P -- Electrical Sculpting of Surface Dust


Rosetta Mission Update | Jets of Comet 67P -- Failed "Explanations" Continue
Click to expand...

Important:

1) Is there anybody in the 'electric comet community' (ECC) that knows ANY electromagnetic theory?

I mean in the 'theory' in the quantitative sense. I mean 'quantitative' in the physics/mathematics sense. They should be able to calculate hypothetical quantities including both number and unit.


Someone making definitive statements about 'evidence' should at least know the range of a dipole field as opposed to a monopole field. This person should at least be able to calculate the acceleration of an electron given the potential gradient.

They should be able to calculate the radiation pressure from solar radiation on a dust particle. The formulas are easy. One can not say that radiation pressure has no influence on a comets tail unless one does a calculation.

3) Does anyone in the 'electric comet community' know any quantitative fact about gravity?

Like, they should know Kepler's laws. at least. They should have some idea of why orbits are elliptical.

4) Do you or any of the authors of these articles know the difference between a monopole, dipole or quadrupole?


5) Does anyone at the Electric Universe conference know what a dielectric constant is?

I have not been able to find any quantitative analysis other than the quotation of some supposed measurements. There have been no simulations. I have not even seen 'back of the envelope' calculations that support any of the conclusions. There has been no determinations of energy, momentum or electric charge here.

I check back occasionally for amusement. I would be interested in seeing ANY quantitative determination of any relevant parameters regarding an electrified comet. Back of the envelope calculations would be sufficient. In fact, they would be better than computer simulations with no explanation about them. If anyone does a computer simulation, then let him also explain the approximations that he made in programing it.

Then, please compare the calculation with 'the evidence'. Show a calculated value, however rough, and compare it to a quantitative observation, however 'unexplained'. Then tell us how the calculated value doesn't match the observation.
 
ferd burfle said:
I suspect tusenfem has far better things to do, so I'll take a crack at it. As I recall, the fundamental flaw in his analysis was that the proton flux is orders of magnitudes too low to account for the flux of water coming out; real physicists please correct me as needed. He spends lots of time talking about energetics but nowhere did I see any mention of proton flux. You might think a PhD chemist would balance his equations.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes, the flux it too low, the reaction rates are too low etc.
That has been discussed several times already in this thread.
Also the solar wind has not been seen by the Rosetta plasma instruments for months around perihelion, just now signatures of the solar wind are showing themselves again in the plasma instruments.

dranariba thinks the solar wind is mainly protons, and just discards the fact that there is an equal amount of electrons. Actually even more electrons than protons (because there are metals in the solar wind) so, actually, we should change dranariba's claim and say the solar wind is basically electrons, yes there are also some protons, so I will regard the sun as the negative region because of the electrons. This would make the nucleus a positive region (which would make more sense as the sunlit part of the cometary nucleus would be positively charged).

Of course the only part that is sensible in the paragraph above is the part in orange.
 
ferd burfle said:
I suspect tusenfem has far better things to do, so I'll take a crack at it. As I recall, the fundamental flaw in his analysis was that the proton flux is orders of magnitudes too low to account for the flux of water coming out; [...] He spends lots of time talking about energetics but nowhere did I see any mention of proton flux. You might think a PhD chemist would balance his equations.
Click to expand...
Darwin123 said:
Important:

1) Is there anybody in the 'electric comet community' (ECC) that knows ANY electromagnetic theory?

I mean in the 'theory' in the quantitative sense. I mean 'quantitative' in the physics/mathematics sense. They should be able to calculate hypothetical quantities including both number and unit.


Someone making definitive statements about 'evidence' should at least know the range of a dipole field as opposed to a monopole field. This person should at least be able to calculate the acceleration of an electron given the potential gradient.

They should be able to calculate the radiation pressure from solar radiation on a dust particle. The formulas are easy. One can not say that radiation pressure has no influence on a comets tail unless one does a calculation.

3) Does anyone in the 'electric comet community' know any quantitative fact about gravity?

Like, they should know Kepler's laws. at least. They should have some idea of why orbits are elliptical.

4) Do you or any of the authors of these articles know the difference between a monopole, dipole or quadrupole?


5) Does anyone at the Electric Universe conference know what a dielectric constant is?

I have not been able to find any quantitative analysis other than the quotation of some supposed measurements. There have been no simulations. I have not even seen 'back of the envelope' calculations that support any of the conclusions. There has been no determinations of energy, momentum or electric charge here.

I check back occasionally for amusement. I would be interested in seeing ANY quantitative determination of any relevant parameters regarding an electrified comet. Back of the envelope calculations would be sufficient. In fact, they would be better than computer simulations with no explanation about them. If anyone does a computer simulation, then let him also explain the approximations that he made in programing it.

Then, please compare the calculation with 'the evidence'. Show a calculated value, however rough, and compare it to a quantitative observation, however 'unexplained'. Then tell us how the calculated value doesn't match the observation.
Click to expand...
fred, Darwin: you seem grossly ignorant of what 'electrical theorists' have written re the 'electric comet hypothesis'! :jaw-dropp

In this very thread, in numerous posts dated ~Nov/Dec 2014, the leading 'electrical theorist' David Talbott has written very clearly about the role of "quantification".

For example, in this post, he writes:

"Or perhaps I could actually persuade you to drop this silliness, JeanTate, and help us persuade comet scientists to ask the most essential questions. [...] Sorry to say, all I can see in your recent responses is a deliberate ruse. Please dissuade me from this impression before I wander off. I do not have a high tolerance for wasting time."

What "silliness" is he referring to?

Here's the question I asked, in response to David's "What does not appear ambiguous is the fact that large bodies falling toward the Sun from the outermost reaches never fail to become comets. So both the ambiguous and unambiguous distinctions between comets and asteroids must be taken into account": "Within the electric comet hypothesis how - quantitatively - should such distinctions be taken into account?"

And by the way, this "quantification is a deliberate ruse" is not limited to the ECH. If you read Thunderdolts, you'll see that there's no "quantification" at all, of anything within the EU. And very little discussion of the topic; for example, almost no questions along the lines of "don't you think we should develop our ideas to the point where they're testable, quantitatively?"

So we shouldn't be too hard on Haig, or Sol88; they are merely sticking to the party line (though I must say there's essentially zero evidence that either could do any quantitative analyses anyway).
 
JeanTate said:
And by the way, this "quantification is a deliberate ruse" is not limited to the ECH. If you read Thunderdolts, you'll see that there's no "quantification" at all, of anything within the EU. And very little discussion of the topic; for example, almost no questions along the lines of "don't you think we should develop our ideas to the point where they're testable, quantitatively?".
Click to expand...



I won't link to it, but the Thunderbolts site has a long dreary apologia filled with lame excuses why math isn't necessary to their theories. Such as "it's all too young and dynamic to put math to it" and "math gets in the way of conceptual understanding", I'm paraphrasing. Sad and/or amusing or maybe both.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Haig said:
Not that different ferd ;) it's just electrochemistry in space :D

On pages 94/95 of The Electric Universe by Thornhill and Talbott (2003/2007), we read, " The mystery of 'missing water' is solved electrically in the transaction between a negatively charged comet and the sun. In this model, electrical discharges strip negative oxygen ions from rocky materials on the nucleus and accelerate the particles away from the comet in energetic jets. The negative ions then combine with protons from the solar wind to form the observed OH radical, neutral H2O and H2O+."

Recent research has confirmed this sort of process is happening on the Moon.
http://www.space.com/27377-moon-water-origin-solar-wind.html

the rate of production in the coma of 67P, can also be explained by this process.
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/42/15007.abstract my bold



Get it now ferd :) and jonesdave116 :p
Click to expand...

Nope. Where are these negative O ions? How many of the non-existent little critters do you need, and how many solar wind protons are needed to produce them? What is the amount of H2O being produced on a comet per second? What is the density of the solar wind hitting (although not once the diamagnetic cavity forms) the cometary surface per second?
Been there. Done that. Fail.
Still haven't explained why this doesn't happen to asteroids. Still haven't explained why there is little to no sputtering by the solar wind where H2O production is highest.
Just fairy tales.
Thankfully, the EU fantasists have no input into how science is presented for the next generation of scientists. They won't be writing the papers, or the textbooks.
The whole argument is irrelevant because they are irrelevant. As well as being scientifically illiterate.
 
tusenfem said:
Yes, the flux it too low, the reaction rates are too low etc.
That has been discussed several times already in this thread.
Click to expand...

Indeed; so here we go again! This was for 1 l/s of H2O back in late 2014;

1 litre of water is 3.3 x 10^25 molecules of H2O.
Solar wind speed varies, but a good average for this purpose is 400 km/s.
Density of the solar wind at about 2.7 AU; well, at 1 AU it has been measured at about 7 protons cm^3. This also varies, but is a good average. This decreases as the inverse square of the distance from the Sun. 2.7^2 = 7.29. So, a good approximation for the solar wind density at 67P at the moment is 1 proton cm^3. Area of 67P impacted by the solar wind; latest measurements put it about 4km x 3km at its widest and longest points.
Of course it is very irregular in shape, but let's be generous and say it
presents 12km^2 to the solar wind at any one point in time.
Water production from 67P as of July-August 2014 equals an average 1 litre per second.

So, how many protons are hitting 67P per second? 12km^2 = 1.2 x 10^11 cm^2. Every second 400km worth of the solar wind is blowing by. 400km = 4 x 10^7 cm.
So, (4.0 x 10^7) x (1.2 x 10^11) = 4.8 x 10^18 proton impacts every second. It takes two of those protons to make a water molecule, but we'll just be generous again and see how many OH molecules would be formed, which will be the number I just calculated; 4.8 x 10^18.
As previously shown, 1 litre of water contains 3.3 x 10^25 molecules of water! So even being very generous in my application of quantities regarding size, and only using the formation of OH rather than H2O, you are short by a mere 7 (SEVEN!) orders of magnitude in the required number of protons needed to produce just 1 litre of water per second. And this is in July-August. Around perihelion 67P was outgassing (from memory) well over 100 l/s. We also need to take into account the reaction rate of the protons. I can't be bothered looking this up, as it has clearly been shown already that these proposed processes by Thornhill & Anariba are junk. However, you would need to increase the solar wind density by roughly 10 orders of magnitude. For the mathematically challenged, that is 10 billion times!

Hale-Bopp, at 200 000 l/s doesn't bear thinking about.
 
jonesdave116 said:
Area of 67P impacted by the solar wind; latest measurements put it about 4km x 3km at its widest and longest points.
Of course it is very irregular in shape, but let's be generous and say it
presents 12km^2 to the solar wind at any one point in time.
Click to expand...

Isn't the ECH argument that the high negative charge of the cometary nucleus draws in protons from far away? How large a charge would it need in order to pull that off?
 
Matthew Cline said:
Isn't the ECH argument that the high negative charge of the cometary nucleus draws in protons from far away? How large a charge would it need in order to pull that off?
Click to expand...

If it's like everything else EU, about an order of magnitude of orders of magnitude more than exists.
 
As posted by Haig, above;
On pages 94/95 of The Electric Universe by Thornhill and Talbott (2003/2007), we read, " The mystery of 'missing water' is solved electrically in the transaction between a negatively charged comet and the sun. In this model, electrical discharges strip negative oxygen ions from rocky materials on the nucleus and accelerate the particles away from the comet in energetic jets. The negative ions then combine with protons from the solar wind to form the observed OH radical, neutral H2O and H2O+."
Click to expand...

First of all, there is no 'missing water'!
For many years, with good evidence to believe so, it was deemed almost certain to be subsurface, as ice. In 2005 this was confirmed by the impact into Tempel 1. Solid ice grains were detected by the spacecraft; http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103507001972, as well as the XMM-Newton space observatory; http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2006/12/aahi281/aahi281.html. Water ice grains were also seen at Hartley 2 in 2010, entrained within the CO2 jets on the small lobe, and also near the waist; http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6036/1396.short. They were also seen after a large outburst at 17P Holmes in 2007; http://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.1317.pdf. Subsurface ice has been detected by MIRO at 67P; https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm15/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/85998
So, I repeat, there is no 'missing water'. No need to invoke undetected electric woo, or impossible solar wind densities to explain it.
Secondly, the H2O observed is not formed by O- (which isn't seen close to the nucleus; O+ is seen, but this itself is a breakdown product of water) being accelerated away from the comet, to later combine (somehow) with H+ from the SW! The H2O is seen very close to the nucleus (0 - 500m) by MIRO; http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2015/11/aa26094-15/aa26094-15.html. It was also detected by Philae, presumably at no more than a metre or so in altitude; http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6247/aab0673.short.
Thirdly, the process of sublimation has already been detected by VIRTIS at the surface, as shadowed areas move into sunlight; http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v525/n7570/abs/nature14869.html.

In short, none of T & T's ruminations are worth the paper they are written on. Not only are they scientifically poorly thought out, and extremely unlikely/impossible; there is no need for them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom