Electric Comets I.
Mainstream explination is purely dominated by GRAVITY, ...
No it is not. Mainstream astrophysics & cosmology are not as simple minded as you & the EU are. Sometimes gravity dominates. Sometimes electromagnetism dominates. Sometimes gravity establishes the background and dominates globally, while electromagnetism dominates locally. And we must not forget the ability of nuclear forces to whip the tar out of both gravity and electromagnetism locally, such as in stellar nuclear reactions.
You have to be specific. You have describe a specific physical scenario before you can determine the relative roles of gravity & electromagnetism in any astrophysical system.
... this "new" finding confirms the EU understanding that they (stars) form in a Bennett pinch and are powered by Birkeland currents (FAC's), taking on a classic "hourgalss" shape along with broadband radiation and filamentry structure on the extremites!
That's a complete fairy tale.
At best it allows you to argue that an EU scenario is plausible, but only on a very general, heuristic level. But it certainly does not "confirm" the EU hypothesis for the very simple reason that
there is no EU hypothesis to confirm.
One thing you will notice that is common to all EU arguments ever presented anywhere, in books or on websites or anywhere else, is that they are
never specific about anything. There is a reason for this. As long as you don't say anything specific then nobody can pin you down.
So, for instance, exactly why would any kind of plasma pinch give an "hour glass" shape? And more importantly, how do you get a pinch to sit around and keep on pinching for zillions of years? What specific field strengths and current densities allow for this? and where does all that charge separation come from? After all, you need an electric field to separate charges, but you need to separate charges to get an electric field. So which one is the "chicken" and which one is the "egg"? We never get specific answers to specific questions. Hence, there is in reality no EU hypothesis to defend.
Not saying the PR makes it true, but makes you think!
The only thing it makes me think about is how anyone could believe such nonsense.
Lets talk comets shall we specificaly electric comets (under the banner of EU). Tim Thompson what is your and I presume mainstream majority view of a comet? Lets pick
Hale-Bopp for instance. Tim?
I refer the curious reader to the book
Introduction to Comets by John C. Brandt & Robert D. Chapman, Cambridge University Press 2004 (2nd edition). The bulk of the comet is dominated by ices (water and other kinds of ice), with dissolved gases mixed in. There is an outer "crust" and a porous dust mantle. The ices are both amorphous and crystalline. There are undoubtedly specific differences in structural & compositional details from one comet to another, but that's a fairly good general picture. Specificity of detail can be found in the Brandt & Chapman book.
The Jets of Comet Wild 2
In the electrical hypothesis, a rock moving rapidly through the electric field of the Sun will develop a plasma sheath that stretches into a coma thousands of kilometers across and a filamentary tail that remains coherent over millions of kilometers. Arcing to the surface will generate high temperatures in small areas. The electrical activity will produce X-rays and ultraviolet light. The predictions of the model are [size=+2]testable[/size], and the implications reach far beyond modern comet theory.
Well, to start with, the predictions of the model are not really testable because there is no model to test, just some vague and unsupported comments about rocks in space. However, there are some general tests one can apply to the general idea, such that the EU idea in fact fails immediately. No use wasting time on specific models I guess.
Arcing is episodic, it flashes like lightning. The X-ray emission from lightning comes in bursts, not as a steady background. The X-ray emission from comets does not come in bursts, so the actual observed X-ray emission from comets is not consistent with the idea given in the EU link.
The bursts of X-ray emission are broad band. The non-bursty X-ray emission from comets is a mix of broad band and narrow line. The narrow line emission is readily identified with known charge exchange mechanisms and other known narrow line production mechanisms supported by comparison with laboratory experiments. The broad band emission is readily identified as bow shock emission, and bremsstrahlung (neither of which, by the way, is consistent with arcing).
So what we have is that the known, observed X-ray emission from comets is well understood in terms of well known, standard physics, while simultaneously inconsistent with the vague claims from the EU crow. This state of affairs in fact tends to falsify the vague ideas put forth as a "model" by the EU crowd.
As for comet Hale-Bopp specifically, there is a great deal of literature on that specific comet. What, specifically, did you have in mind?
!
And they were limited to the length of the machine of course which astrophysical plasma are not!
