Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Haig · Jun 4, 2015

jonesdave116 said:
Here's some copy/pasta that I calculated back in January in response to the first results regarding the detection of water on 67P. I think the results dated back to some months previously. Can't remember where I posted it, but kept it to save doing the calcs again.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right, to start with some easily found facts:
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 (edit: this would be about August) 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.
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. Every square centimeter is getting hit by one proton.
So, (4.0 x 10^7) x (1.2 x 10^11) = 4.8 x 10^18 proton impacts every second. Now, 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. On its last trip around, the peak measured production was 1.7 x 10^28 molecules per second. So we are looking at 9-10 orders of magnitude less protons than are necessary to account for the observed water production. I'm not sure who is doing the maths over at Thunderbolts, but they sure aren't very good at it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So EU has so far predicted absolutely nothing correctly, cannot explain the density of the comet, cannot explain the water and CO2 production, and we have seen nothing electrical happening on the comet. Let me do some more mental calculations................
....yep, that equals a big fat zero.

Not so

predictions confirmed

A few quotes may also help you

So we're right back to the classic response of Inquisitors when a fundamental challenge is developing with the power to transform science: "Where's the math"? "Where's the peer-reviewed research."? For a few moments in the history of scientific progress, the ruse can be effective. Then suddenly people begin to realize that the first priorities are ALL ABOUT DIRECT EVIDENCE. Scientific revolutions begin when evidence, pointing directly to cause and effect, has become sufficiently clear to those who did not see it yesterday.

Seems to me this is exactly what is happening.

Or putting things in different words: Scientific revolutions begin just as soon as rare individuals, convinced by an extraordinary idea, begin to persuade well trained people through their use of evidence. This typically occurs long before "peer reviewed" papers begin to show up explicitly supporting the idea. Right now, good people are pausing long enough to consider evidence, and the result is a growing movement outside the mainstream but able to attract working scientists inspired by what they see. We grant anonymity to anyone who needs it (for reasons that are pretty obvious).

More tutoring, rwguinn? As for predictions, hang around for a bit today. And in the meantime perhaps you or someone else involved here will hazard a tiny, SOLITARY prediction? Will Rosetta find ice anywhere beneath the dry and scorched surface of 67P?

Can you guess who ? I'm certain JT will know as he's already quoted him

Here

Something else that may help you understand Electric Comets and the Sun - Earth connection ...

Earth Fields, Electric Comet, Sunspots | S0 News June 3, 2015

Reality Check · Jun 4, 2015

Haig said:
predictions confirmed

Oh dear, Haig: An ignorant post showing that you are still incapable of recognizing obvious ignorance, delusions and lies: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos etc. :jaw-dropp

!
Or even comprehending basic English: Stating that a prediction of possibly a flash before impact with a flash on impact is confirmed by two flashes after impact is a lie :eye-poppi

!

Followed by not sourced quotes which seem to include the idiocy of demanding mainstream explanations as if the person being questioned not knowing them means that the electric comet is anything but a delusion.

And a derail to the delusions of Ben Davidson that have fooled you so much which are addressed in another thread:
4 May 2015 Haig: The scientific evidence is that there is no connection between solar activity and earthquakes.
13 May 2015 Haig: The fantasies of Suspicious0bservers are not scientific evidence!

Matthew Cline · Jun 4, 2015

Is it even possible for plasma/gas to have surface tension?

rwguinn · Jun 4, 2015

With the quantities of BS spread out here by the EU folks, we have no need for GMO crops, we can grow anything- on Comets!(If we could only find water)

jonesdave116 · Jun 4, 2015

Hahahaha, predictions confirmed my a**e. Prediction: it's rock. Err, no, it has a density of half that of water. Explain that, or the rest of the "debate" is pointless. You've lost right there.
Cannot explain where all the water is coming from either. And that is what maths is for. It shows that the idiotic explanations of Thornhill and other scientific pygmies within the EU canon cannot possibly be correct in reality. Or are we looking at invisible protons, similar to the invisible electrons that power the electric Sun in a couple of their laughable models. The reason EU don't do maths is because they know they can't make a model that works, and it'd be glaringly obvious to even their dimmest acolytes were they to put numbers on it. Book and DVD sales would plummet.
You might be surprised to hear Haig, but EU ideas are actually making not the slightest dent on the thinking of serious science; indeed, I suspect many scientists in related fields have never even heard of it. Oh, they'll have heard of Alfven and maybe Perratt (both of whom believed the Sun was powered by nuclear fusion btw), but nobodies like Scott, Thornhill, Talbott et al? They really are scientific pygmies without the standing or publications to make anyone sit up and take notice. I sometimes get seriously fed up with all these EU cranks infesting places where serious scientific debate and discussion should be taking place, but soothe myself with the knowledge that it'll still be a pseudo-science that nobody takes remotely seriously long after I'm gone; just as Velikovsky was a crank over 50 years ago, and is still a crank today.

P.S. No point posting youtube links in answer to anything I post; wouldn't waste the bandwidth. Peer reviewed material, or I'm not interested.

Haig · Jun 4, 2015

jonesdave116 said:
Prediction: it's rock. Err, no, it has a density of half that of water. Explain that, or the rest of the "debate" is pointless. You've lost right there. Cannot explain where all the water is coming from either.

WHAT IF? Asking the Dangerous Questions with Tom Wilson

Rosetta Mission Update | Oops! No Water on Comet 67P?

Measurements of the near-nucleus coma of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko with the Alice far-ultraviolet spectrograph on Rosetta
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/forth/aa25925-15.pdf

ABSTRACT
Aims. The Alice far-ultraviolet spectrograph onboard Rosetta is designed to observe emissions from various atomic and molecular species from within the coma of comet 67P/ Churyumov-Gerasimenko and to determine their spatial distribution and evolution with time and heliocentric distance.
Methods. Following orbit insertion in August 2014, Alice made observations of the inner coma above the limbs of the nucleus of the comet from cometocentric distances varying between 10 and 80 km. Depending on the position and orientation of the slit relative to the nucleus, emissions of atomic hydrogen and oxygen were initially detected. These emissions are spatially localized close to the nucleus and spatially variable with a strong enhancement above the comet’s neck at northern latitudes. Weaker emission from atomic carbon and CO were subsequently detected.
Results. Analysis of the relative line intensities suggests photoelectron impact dissociation of H2O vapor as the source of the observed H i and O i emissions. The electrons are produced by photoionization of H2O. The observed Ci emissions are also attributed to electron impact dissociation, of CO2, and their relative brightness to H i reflects the variation of CO2 to H2O column abundance in the coma.

5. Conclusion
In this initial report we have presented a few examples of the far-ultraviolet spectra obtained by Alice through the end of November 2014. Limb emission is found to be highly variable with position and time, and during late 2014 appears strongest at northern sub-spacecraft latitudes, and in the vicinity of the comet’s “neck”. Relative intensities of the strongest H i and O i emissions have not varied significantly during this time period and support the interpretation of electron dissociative excitation of H2O as the primary source of the emission. Ci emissions, similarly attributed to electron dissociative excitation of CO2, do vary relative to H i and O i, consistent with heterogeneous coma composition reported by other Rosetta instruments. Although the spectrograph slit is not perfectly aligned with the visible jets in our observations, the spatial variation of the emissions along the slit indicates that the excitation occurs within a few hundred meters of the surface and the gas and dust production are correlated. More detailed future analyses, combining the Alice spectra with data obtained by the other remote sensing instruments and in situ particle measurements, are forthcoming.

67P jets from the darkside my bold

Activity is seen all around the nucleus, but in this view is most notable around the head, with many distinct, bright jets streaming from the surface. Intricate patterns of activity are also cast around the neck and against the shadow of the small lobe.

The rather flat face on the comet’s large lobe, comprising parts of Aker and Khepry, dominates the view of the nucleus. The elongate Aten region lies adjacent, with diffuse wisps of activity hanging in front of this shadowed depression.

A fainter cloud of activity is also visible below the shadowed underside of the comet’s large lobe.

Ziggurat · Jun 4, 2015

Haig said:
WHAT IF? Asking the Dangerous Questions with Tom Wilson

Bwahahahahaha!

Paraphrase: "Every piece of evidence says I'm wrong, but what if I'm not?"

Well, Haig, what if Santa Claus actually exists? What if his reindeer can actually fly? What if Bigfoot is being covered up by the CIA, because they're training him to become an assassin?

These are not "dangerous and provocative" questions, Haig. They're pathetic attempts to salvage the wreckage of an utterly failed theory. You don't like cosmology because it uses dark matter and dark energy, which haven't been demonstrated to your satisfaction, but you're all for using a new form of gravity that is not only not demonstrated at all, but which should be directly testable under conditions we can access, if Tom is correct. How's that for self-serving hypocrisy?

You keep getting proven wrong, and you keep changing the subject in response, but it never works, because you have no clue what you're talking about, and you're following knaves and fools.

Reality Check · Jun 4, 2015

Haig said:
...

And still unable to understand English, Haig:
What jonesdave116 wrote was:

jonesdave116 said:
P.S. No point posting youtube links in answer to anything I post; wouldn't waste the bandwidth. Peer reviewed material, or I'm not interested.

and you reply with irrelevant crank videos!

Or what ignorance, delusions and lies look like: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos etc. :jaw-dropp

!

Or even more inability to understand English: No rocks in
Measurements of the near-nucleus coma of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko with the Alice far-ultraviolet spectrograph on Rosetta
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/forth/aa25925-15.pdf
or
67P jets from the darkside
even with highlights that suggest the delusion that comet jets cannot happen on the dark side of a comet, Haig!

ETA: And the delusions from Thunderbolts just continue: Is Dr. Tom Wilson a working scientist or astronomer? Does he study the philosophy of science? Why would any credible person associate themselves with the deluded Talbott, Thornhill, etc.?
The answer is no, no and because Dr. Tom Wilson is ignorant or deluded

!
Discovering the Electric Universe – Tom Wilson Interview

In this interview, Thunderbolts contributor Tom Wilson, a technology executive with a PhD in cell biology, explains in eloquent and easily understandable terms his transformative journey into the Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology.

Tom Wilson wrote the idiocy of Lightning, Sticky Tape, and Black Hole Observations - Part 1 in 2009

Tom Wilson has a PhD in cell biology but for the last 16 years has been posing as an Electrical Engineer in the semiconductor industry.

So yet another electrical engineer falls into the delusional pit of the electric universe!

Haig · Jun 4, 2015

Ziggurat said:
Bwahahahahaha!

Paraphrase: "Every piece of evidence says I'm wrong, but what if I'm not?"

Well, Haig, what if Santa Claus actually exists? What if his reindeer can actually fly? What if Bigfoot is being covered up by the CIA, because they're training him to become an assassin?

These are not "dangerous and provocative" questions, Haig. They're pathetic attempts to salvage the wreckage of an utterly failed theory. You don't like cosmology because it uses dark matter and dark energy, which haven't been demonstrated to your satisfaction, but you're all for using a new form of gravity that is not only not demonstrated at all, but which should be directly testable under conditions we can access, if Tom is correct. How's that for self-serving hypocrisy?

You keep getting proven wrong, and you keep changing the subject in response, but it never works, because you have no clue what you're talking about, and you're following knaves and fools.

Get with the programme Ziggurat

This has been confirmed !
The Electrochemistry of Comets with Dr. Franklin Anariba | Space News

By this ...
NASA Instrument on Rosetta Makes Comet Atmosphere Discovery

Data collected by NASA's Alice instrument aboard the European Space Agency's Rosetta spacecraft reveal that electrons close to the surface of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko -- not photons from the sun, as had been believed -- cause the rapid breakup of water and carbon dioxide molecules spewing from the comet's surface.

"The discovery we're reporting is quite unexpected," said Alan Stern, principal investigator for the Alice instrument at the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) in Boulder, Colorado. "It shows us the value of going to comets to observe them up close, since this discovery simply could not have been made from Earth or Earth orbit with any existing or planned observatory. And, it is fundamentally transforming our knowledge of comets."

A report of the findings has been accepted for publication by the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics.

Reality Check · Jun 4, 2015

An aside: The article that Tom Wilson lies about is actually quite interesting.
Violently Variable Black Holes Probed (October 15, 2008)

Unique observations of the flickering light from the surroundings of two black holes provide new insights into the colossal energy that flows at their hearts. By mapping out how well the variations in visible light match those in X-rays on very short timescales, astronomers have shown that magnetic fields must play a crucial role in the way black holes swallow matter.

The gist is that given the chaotic nature of the neighbourhoods of black holes, scientists expected there to be little correlation between variations of X-ray and visible light other than light should follow X-rays because generation of light should be a secondary process. But observations of Swift J1753.5-0127 and GX 339-4 showed that:

To their surprise, astronomers discovered that the brightness fluctuations in the visible light were even more rapid than those seen in X-rays. In addition, the visible-light and X-ray variations were found not to be simultaneous, but to follow a repeated and remarkable pattern: just before an X-ray flare the visible light dims, and then surges to a bright flash for a tiny fraction of a second before rapidly decreasing again.

That suggests a structure such as strong magnetic fields.

Reality Check · Jun 4, 2015

Haig said:
Get with the programme Ziggurat

Get with the real world, Haig, where Thunderbolts are a group of ignorant, deluded and lying cranks: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos etc. :jaw-dropp

!
So their delusions in a video cannot confirm anything!

Your delusion that a scientific discovery such as NASA Instrument on Rosetta Makes Comet Atmosphere Discovery

Analysis of the relative intensities of observed atomic emissions allowed the Alice science team to determine the instrument was directly observing the "parent" molecules of water and carbon dioxide that were being broken up by electrons in the immediate vicinity, about six-tenths of a mile (one kilometer) from the comet's nucleus. The carbon dioxide and water are being released from the comet's nucleus and affected by electrons near the nucleus.

supports the electric comet delusion is nothing new either.
This is the scientific discovery that electrons a kilometer from the surface of the nucleus are breaking up water and CO molecules that have sublimated from the nucleus ices! The electrons are "produced by solar radiation", possibly UV knocking them off other molecules.

Ziggurat · Jun 4, 2015

Haig said:
Get with the programme Ziggurat

This has been confirmed !

Again with the change of topics. Your link was about the measured density of comets. The EU notion of comets being made out of rock is not confirmed, and your new links have nothing to say about that. You keep jumping from topic to topic because you can't actually defend any of your claims.

And you never answered my earlier question: do you understand why surface tension is irrelevant at large scales?

ferd burfle · Jun 4, 2015

So we're right back to the classic response of Inquisitors when a fundamental challenge is developing with the power to transform science: "Where's the math"? "Where's the peer-reviewed research."? For a few moments in the history of scientific progress, the ruse can be effective. Then suddenly people begin to realize that the first priorities are ALL ABOUT DIRECT EVIDENCE. Scientific revolutions begin when evidence, pointing directly to cause and effect, has become sufficiently clear to those who did not see it yesterday.

Oh the drama, the pathos!!!

But who is it directred toward? Not scientists, whose work is routinely challenged, who expect to be asked for evidence and consistency with previous measurements. No. this is pitched at the antiscience crowd, those with whom the Galileo gambit will resonate, the true believers who will go buy the books and DVDs and shell out for the EU conferences. Follow the money

Reality Check · Jun 4, 2015

ferd burfle said:
Oh the drama, the pathos!!!

Yes, David Talbott seemingly pulling out the Galileo gambit is a bit pathetic. Haig not recognizing that his hero did this is not unexpected.
Then we have David Talbott seemingly touting himself (or maybe Thornhill) as a "rare individual" without realizing that ignorant people and even deluded ones are quite common! Along with the delusion that any well trained person believes in the electric comet idea - people in general know that a density of ~0.6 g/cc is less that of water and less than the ~3.0 g/cc of rock.

ETA: Later Talbott comes up with a bunch of "predictions" from this mythologist which shows his lack of experience in science. He missed the basics of scientific predictions

The existence of an instrument to test them !
How to distinguish the measurements from these instruments from what the mainstream predicts.
General vagueness.

Which is why I asked and got a deafening silence about:
8 December 2014 David Talbott: Which instrument is designed to detect ... a long list!....

That these are not predictions is further explained here: Sorry, Sol88, but you and David Talbott seem not to know what a scientific prediction is.

ETA: tusenfem answers the "predictions" from the Rosetta mission data as at 9th December 2014

Matthew Cline · Jun 4, 2015

Then suddenly people begin to realize that the first priorities are ALL ABOUT DIRECT EVIDENCE.

How is one to analyze/evaluate this direct evidence without the use of math? Seems the only way to leave out the math would be to go the route of "67P looks like a rock, therefore it is a rock".

paladin17 · Jun 4, 2015

jonesdave116 said:
Here's some copy/pasta that I calculated back in January in response to the first results regarding the detection of water on 67P. I think the results dated back to some months previously. Can't remember where I posted it, but kept it to save doing the calcs again.

...

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.

Somehow you've ignored the negative charge of the comet.
The kinetic energy of solar wind protons is around 1 keV. So the absolute value of electrostatic potential of >1 kV at some given point in space would mean that the solar wind from this point would likely eventually end up on the surface.
Just as an example: if we suppose that the comet is a conducting sphere, then the charge of roughly 1 C would be enough (if I am not mistaken) to create the needed potential at the distance of 10000 km from the core. So you would have a surface of 3*10⁸ km² gathering protons, not some 12 km². Here's your 7 orders of magnitude.

tusenfem · Jun 4, 2015

jonesdave116 said:
Wrong. Read the paper again. The water is being produced by sublimation from the comet, and then being dissociated by electrons. The electrons come from the water and CO2 being hit by a photon from the Sun. Those electrons then hit further H2O and CO2 molecules breaking them into their constituent parts. Talbott hasn't got a clue what he's talking about, and nor is he qualified in this field, so anything he says is of little or no relevance to anybody that is.
I'll say it again, where is the water coming from? This is a rock, according to you lot, right? So how are you getting water from this rock (with a density half that of water)? As Tusenfem mentioned in an earlier post, there ain't nothing electrical going on down there. They'd have noticed. And it sure as hell isn't coming from the protons in the solar wind combining with O somehow magicked from this non-existent rock.

Oh come-on jonesdave, aren't electrons electric??

tusenfem · Jun 4, 2015

paladin17 said:
Somehow you've ignored the negative charge of the comet.
The kinetic energy of solar wind protons is around 1 keV. So the absolute value of electrostatic potential of >1 kV at some given point in space would mean that the solar wind from this point would likely eventually end up on the surface.
Just as an example: if we suppose that the comet is a conducting sphere, then the charge of roughly 1 C would be enough (if I am not mistaken) to create the needed potential at the distance of 10000 km from the core. So you would have a surface of 3*10⁸ km² gathering protons, not some 12 km². Here's your 7 orders of magnitude.

No in a plasma that would not happen, not even with the solar wind blowing in. The solar wind is slowed down because of mass loading through ion pickup. Because the magnetic field is relatively weak, the gyro radius of the newly formed water ions is very large, and close to the comet this represents a water-beam going "to the right", because of momentum conservation this leads to a deflection of the solar wind "to the left" (note that left and right are just general direction indicators). This can be seen in the simulations by Christoph Koenders et al. and has been observed in the plasma data from RPC IES (not in print yet).
Also in a calculation like that above, you need to take into account the Debye length of the plasma, over which the electric field can extent. The solar wind Debye length is tens of meters, and with the increased plasma density it will even be smaller.
So in all, there is no such attraction of the solar wind protons to the electric comet, and an estimate of a bundle of the size of the surface of 67P is closer to reality than your conducting sphere with a 1 coulomb charge (for which the potential would be not so difficult to calculate, if you would google electric potential).

ETA (Got interrupted)
The electric potential around a sphere with charge of 1 coulomb at 10000 km

http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex? V = (4 \pi \epsilon_0)^{-1} (Q / r^2)

Put in paladin17's numbers and we find that the potential is: V ~ 10^-4 Volts at 10000 km distance.
Now I am not sure what paladin17 wants to do with this potential.

paladin17 · Jun 4, 2015

tusenfem said:
No in a plasma that would not happen, not even with the solar wind blowing in. The solar wind is slowed down because of mass loading through ion pickup. Because the magnetic field is relatively weak, the gyro radius of the newly formed water ions is very large, and close to the comet this represents a water-beam going "to the right", because of momentum conservation this leads to a deflection of the solar wind "to the left" (note that left and right are just general direction indicators). This can be seen in the simulations by Christoph Koenders et al. and has been observed in the plasma data from RPC IES (not in print yet).
Also in a calculation like that above, you need to take into account the Debye length of the plasma, over which the electric field can extent. The solar wind Debye length is tens of meters, and with the increased plasma density it will even be smaller.
So in all, there is no such attraction of the solar wind protons to the electric comet, and an estimate of a bundle of the size of the surface of 67P is closer to reality than your conducting sphere with a 1 coulomb charge (for which the potential would be not so difficult to calculate, if you would google electric potential).

ETA (Got interrupted)
The electric potential around a sphere with charge of 1 coulomb at 10000 km

http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex? V = (4 \pi \epsilon_0)^{-1} (Q / r^2)

Put in paladin17's numbers and we find that the potential is: V ~ 10^-4 Volts at 10000 km distance.
Now I am not sure what paladin17 wants to do with this potential.

And what's the physical reason for that wouldn't happen? Because plasma is a conductor?
And if the simlations were correct, shouldn't the jets also deform in the described way, leaning to one of the sides? Or the velocity of particles is too high to notice that?

Also, why do you square the distance in the denominator? This would obviously give you the field strength, not the potential.

Haig · Jun 4, 2015

tusenfem said:
Oh come-on jonesdave, aren't electrons electric??

Thought you would have known that one tusenfem

ELECTRON:
FORMAL DEFINITION: my bold

a stable subatomic particle with a charge of negative electricity, found in all atoms and acting as the primary carrier of electricity in solids.

Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Graduate Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Muse

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Graduate Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Graduate Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Graduate Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Muse

Student

Illuminator

Illuminator

Student

Graduate Poster

Share this page

ISF - Join now!