Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
JeanTate said:
To close, why not take up Tom Bridgman's challenge? In Electric Comets III: Mass vs. Charge.
Click to expand...

Funny you should mention that!

So, from Tom Bridgman's blog (http://dealingwithcreationisminastr...14/12/electric-comets-iii-mass-vs-charge.html), we have Qq = 4*Pi*epsilon0*G*m*V*(density - density1), where density is the density of the comet assumed by EU, given a conservative value here of 2000 kg m^3, and density1 is the measured density, 470 kg m^3.

Q = charge on Rosetta, q = charge on 67P, epsilon0 = vacuum permittivity = 8.854 187 817... × 10^−12 F/m, G = gravitational constant = 6.67384 × 10-11 m3 kg^-1 s^-2, m = mass of Rosetta = ~1500 kg & V = volume of the comet = ~2.14 x 10^10 m^3.
Plugging in the figures gives Qq = 3.72 x 10^-4 Coulombs.

Now we have to make a couple of estimates for the capacitance of Rosetta and 67P. This is based on calculations done by Prof. Harvey Rutt, FREng, FInstP, FOSA, FIEE, SMIEEE, CEng, CPhys, and posted in the Rosetta blog. For 67p this comes out at 0.3 microfarads, based on a 2.5 km spherical capacitor. As Harvey said, this is an overestimate. In fact a 2.0 km radius would have been an overestimate, but we'll stick with this figure.
Rosetta is somewhat more difficult, but was based by Harvey on a 3m diameter sphere, and two 14m x 2m rectangles. This gives 750 picofarads, rounded up to 1 nanofarad. I've checked these figures myself, and they look reasonable.

Now, in a post on the Rosetta blog we were told that the voltage on Rosetta was between -5V & -10V. We'll work with -10V.

As Q (charge) = C (capacitance) x V (voltage), we can now work from there to see what charges and voltages are implied on the comet.

From Q = CV, the charge on Rosetta will be -10V x 1 nanofarad = -10^-8 Coulombs. We know that Qq = 3.72 x 10^-4 Coulombs, therefore q (the charge on 67P) = 3.72 x 10^-4 Coulombs/-10^-8C = -10^4 Coulombs.

This also enables us, from Q = CV, to work out the voltage that would be carried by 67P; rearranging gives V = Q/C, = -10^4C/3.0 X 10^-7F = ~33 gigavolts. As Harvey said, I think we might have noticed that! He also went on to state that a weak 1 amp discharge would discharge this insane voltage in about 3 hours, and the electrostatic force would disappear.

So, I would say that the EU 'theorists' may well have done these calculations themselves, realised their implications, and kept stum about it to their acolytes, on the basis that their main raison d'etre is to sell books and DVDs, and this most certainly wouldn't help. Best just to muddy the waters with talk of Langmuir sheaths and double layers and non-linearities to cover the fact
that they meant 'electrostatic repulsion', which is easily shown to be BS.
 
Haig said:
...but it's going that way. ...more delusions ignored...
Click to expand...
Which is a lie, Haig, because that paper has noting to so with the electric comet delusion:
4 June 2015 Haig: This paper 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 :eye-poppi!
For a start it is science, not the fantasies of Thunderbolts cranks.

The delusion that Thunderbolts are a reliable source of science, The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos etc., continues from you Haig :jaw-dropp!
 
Haig said:
The comet density question has been answered ad nauseam on this and the first thread in answer to Dancing David and RC. ...
Click to expand...
A few lies there, Haig :eek:
  1. No answer to the question of comets being measured to have densities less than that of water has been given.
    A few fantasies, a few links to Thunderbolts delusions, no recognition from you, Haig, of the basic fact that negative and positive charges exist and so the fantasy could be the other way around, etc.
  2. Actually the ignorance is strong in you, Haig :p.
    The Electric Comet hypothesis starts with comets being blasted from the surface of rocky planets such as the Earth in recent history. That requires them to be rock as the links and videos make that perfectly clear :eye-poppi.
  3. Deep Impact left a crater. Citing Wallace Thornhill's lies does not change this.
  4. It is a lie that Philae bounced off 67P because the surface is rock - we have measure that the surface of 67P is a layer of dust over ice.
    Philae bounced because of simple physics - kinetic energy + low gravity + surface = bounces!
  5. The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos etc..
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
...Scroll back or .... just click here...
Click to expand...
Oh dear, Haig, close to a lie :eek:!
Dancing David replies to: "The comet density question has been answered ad nauseam on this and the first thread in answer to Dancing David and RC.".
The truth would be to a post that cites the EU calculation of the density of comets. Even to a viable mechanism that does not rely on ignoring the fact that there are negative and positive charges.
But you link to an irrelevant post!
 
Haig said:
OK, I'll try to give my understanding of the EU / PC view of Comets that I remember reading. :)
Click to expand...
Sorry, Haig, but your inability to understand the ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts sources mans you are unlikely to have any understanding of the "EU / PC view of Comets!

And you confirm this by ignoring the basics
5 June 2015 Haig: The Electric Comet hypothesis starts with comets being blasted from the surface of rocky planets such as the Earth in recent history. That requires them to be rock as the links and videos make that perfectly clear

And then presenting Thunderbolts delusions as if they were valid science.
There is the idiocy of asserting "As such the electromagnetic forces come into play and easily dominate gravity" without evidence.

The delusion of "gravity only" in measuring the density of comets appears.
Followed by famatsies about comets being electromagnets.

Ending with the irrelevant idiocy of galaxies and nebula which are not comets :eek:!
The galaxy gibberish looks like the obviously invalid Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation that his late paper invalidates!
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
Gezz Ziggurat are we going to have to do ALL the gravity anomalies ...
Click to expand...
Geez, Haig, are we are going to do the idiotic argument from ignorance once again?
First you have to show that these anomalies will affect comets at all.
Then you have to show that these anomalies increase actual comet densities.

We have linking to an obviously crank web site rather than citing the valid science once again :eek:! This idiot does not even now how the GPS system works.
That is, the satellites' clocks gain 45,850 nanoseconds a day due to general relativity effects relative to clocks on the Earth's surface.
 
Thunderbolts: lies in Misconception: Science is self-correcting

Yet more lies and ignorance from Thunderbolts in Misconception: Science is self-correcting.
  • Quote mining of Eddington's book where he describes the 1919 expedition. On page 107 of his book 'Space, Time, and Gravitation: An Outline of the General Relativity Theory', he has a paragraph starting with the problem being solved (GR matches the observations in Príncipe). He goes onto the Brazil observations:
    “The measures pointed with all too good agreement to the ‘half-deflection,’ that is to say, the Newtonian value which is one-half the amount required by Einstein’s theory.”
    Click to expand...
    followed by comparing the meager but good quality Príncipe with the numerous but compromised Sobral images.
    There were doubts about the dismissal of the Sobral images until science self-corrected by an analysis of the data again in 1979. The collection of data from eclipses after 1919 is also an example of science being self-correcting.
  • Lying about the solar neutrino problem - it was solved by detecting all three types of neutrino from the Sun in 2001.
  • Ray Davis and Masatoshi Koshiba got the 2002 Nobel Prize in part for discovering the solar neutrino problem!
 
Last edited:
Thunderbolts: lies in Misconception: EU proponents reject the laws of physics

More Thunderbolts lies in Misconception: Electric Universe proponents reject the laws of physics.
The laws of physics state that gravitation dominates electromagnetism on large scales except in exceptional situations.
Assuming that electromagnetism dominates without evidence is rejecting the laws of physics.
Assuming that personal fantasies (e.g. comets are rocks) take precedence over the laws of physics (several methods of measuring density show that comets are less dense than water) is rejecting the laws of physics.

For example read this thread - we have Haig, an EU proponent, rejecting the laws of physics in most of his posts :D!
More seriously Talbott and Thornhill reject the laws of physics to support the Velikovsky delusion about colliding planets.
 
Last edited:
"The changing electrical stress on a comet is due to its highly elliptical orbit. The Sun has a weak radial electrical field. A comet spends most of its time far from the Sun and becomes adjusted to the voltage there. As it zips in for a quick fly-by of the sun, the voltage and charge density of the solar plasma changes rapidly, generating increasing electrical stress on the comet. When the electrical stress is high enough, the comet¹s plasma sheath lights up to form the classic cometary spectacle. The comet nucleus begins discharging and the resulting cathode jets sweep back to form a tail that is "blown" in a direction aligned with the Sun¹s electric field.

The same thing would happen to an object of any size on a cometary orbit through the Sun's electric field. If the Earth, which is a charged body, were on a cometary orbit, its magnetosphere would glow. Similarly, the objects forming the cometary knots of the Helix Nebula are responding to the strong electric field centered on the star outside the picture at bottom right."

A quote from Thunderbolts, in a previous post by Haig. My bold.
So,

67P C-G:
Aphelion: 5.68 AU
Perihelion: 1.24 AU
Eccentricity: 0.64
Period: 6.44 yr
Volume: 21.4 km^3
Mass: 10^13 kg
Density: 0.47 g cm^-3

4179 Toutatis
Aphelion: 4.12 AU
Perihelion: 0.94 AU
Eccentricity: 0.63
Period: 4.02 yr
Volume: 23.8 km^3
Mass: 5 x 10^13 kg
Density: 2.1 g cm^-3

Anybody see a problem here?

ETA:
Just for clarity, 4179 Toutatis is an S-type stony asteroid, consisting primarily of silicates.
 
Last edited:
jonesdave116 said:
A quote from Thunderbolts, in a previous post by Haig.
Click to expand...
That is Haig in denial of what he has known for years as usual :jaw-dropp!
Tooting my own horn:Electric comets still do not exist! includes
13. EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets. where I point out that there are
* 234,719 cataloged asteroids (as of 23 August 2013!) with an eccentricity > 0.17 (that of main belt comets)
* There are 605,650 asteroids with eccentricities greater than the minimum observed eccentricity of comets (0.0279). These should be EC comets.

Remember that the vagueness of the electric comet idea means that any movement within the Sun's electric field of any amplitude makes a rock into a comet. They should be happy with the Moon being a comet :D! After all the Moon orbits the Earth moving back and forth in the Sun's electric field.

If the electric comet idea had anything other than fantasies for a mechanism then that 100,000's of asteroids could be whittled down, e.g. by applying a minimum perihelion and aphelion.
 
Last edited:
Thunderbolts: ignorance in Misconception: If you’re not doing math, you’re not ..

Thunderbolts ignorance in Misconception: If you’re not doing math, you’re not doing real science.
This is not a misconception. The language of science is mathematics so no math means that you are not doing real science.
Also look at: Thunderbolts: lies in Misconception: EU proponents reject the laws of physics
The laws of physics are written in mathematics. Not using math is basically rejecting the laws of physics.

You can do science without mathematics, e.g. write a scientific theory that has qualitative rather than quantitative predictions and then test those predictions. That is a first step toward real science.
That is not writing a fantasy, not making or testing qualitative predictions (or worse lying about confirmed predictions) and basing more fantasies on that fantasy as done by Thunderbolts.

The web page itself is self-serving gibberish with cherry picked quotes, ignorance, etc.
* Dark matter was first proposed in 1933 to explain that galaxies in clusters violated the virial theorem - there was about 400 times more estimated mass than was visually observable. 40 years later a similar observation about stars in galaxies was made. Now there is overwhelming observational evidence for dark matter.
* Black holes were explored in theory starting in 1915 before any candidates were found.
* The first candidate for a black hole was found in 1972 - the Cygnus X-1 X-ray binary which is a stellar black hole. It was in 1974 that the first indication of a supermassive black hole in our galaxy was detected.
 
Thunderbolts: lie in Misconception: The absence of peer reviewed papers by EU ...

Thunderbolts lie in Misconception: The absence of peer reviewed papers by Electric Universe authors means the ideas cannot be taken seriously.
The absence of peer reviewed papers by Electric Universe authors does mean the ideas cannot be taken seriously :jaw-dropp!
  • The submission of papers to scientific journals is a fundamental test of the confidence of the authors in their ideas.
  • The submission of papers to scientific journals and acceptance for peer review is a fundamental test of the competence of the authors. They can convince an editor not to reject it out of hand. And they have at least sent it to the correct journal :D.
  • Peer review is a good test of whether there are flaws in a paper that experts in the field can detect.
  • Persistence in getting a paper published even though they were at first rejected is a test of the confidence of the authors in their ideas. so long as the do not end up in a low impact or even vanity journal.
  • Then the real peer review starts - thousands of scientists read the paper to double and triple check its validity.

A good quote from them:
Many heavily cited papers, including some describing work which won a Nobel Prize, were originally rejected by peer review.
~David Shatz, Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry (Issues in Academic Ethics)
The authors of those papers were so confident in the correctness of their papers that they got them published anyway :eye-poppi! However we expect a high proportion of papers submitted to a high impact journal to be rejected because the editorial and peer review standards are higher than usual.

A rather paranoid web page going on about "conflicts of interest", ""political correctness", etc. is not evidence that their papers would be rejected.
 
Last edited:
Thunderbolts: fantasy of Misconception: The EU concept seeks to replace gravity ...

Thunderbolts fantasy of Misconception: The EU concept seeks to replace gravity with electromagnetism
This is a fantasy. No one would who has read any EU stuff thinks that.
The actual conception: The EU concept seeks to invalidly replace the domination of gravity at large scales as shown by basic physics with the domination of electromagnetism, e.g. by denying the real properties of plasma.

The web page implies the usual EU delusion that astronomers ignore electromagnetism. And a couple of lies
* There is no "deviating flight path of the Voyager mission". There is the Pioneer anomaly (probably thermal effects)
* Gravitational theory explains "the unexplained rotation of galaxy disks". Either by dark matter (supported by other observational matter) or a modification to Newtonian dynamics (MOND).

The authors ignorance is shown by "standard textbooks on astronomy and astrophysics" around 2010 gave every credence to "“electricity,” “electric fields,” and “electric currents”". The easier detection of magnetic fields in astronomy means that textbooks concentrate on them.
 
Thunderbolt: lie of Misconception: Astronomers can reliably calculate cosmological...

Thunderbolts lie of Misconception: Astronomers can reliably calculate cosmological distances.
The cosmic distance ladder uses various techniques from parallax to standard candles which means that astronomers can reliably calculate cosmological distances.
The cosmic distance ladder (also known as the extragalactic distance scale) is the succession of methods by which astronomers determine the distances to celestial objects. A real direct distance measurement of an astronomical object is possible only for those objects that are "close enough" (within about a thousand parsecs) to Earth. The techniques for determining distances to more distant objects are all based on various measured correlations between methods that work at close distances and methods that work at larger distances. Several methods rely on a standard candle, which is an astronomical object that has a known luminosity.

The ladder analogy arises because no one technique can measure distances at all ranges encountered in astronomy. Instead, one method can be used to measure nearby distances, a second can be used to measure nearby to intermediate distances, and so on. Each rung of the ladder provides information that can be used to determine the distances at the next higher rung.
Click to expand...

The author of that Thunderbolts page stupidly thinks that there are only 2 reliable methods - radar and parallax- and any longer distances are via standard candles. And includes a diagram containing several non-standard candle methods :eek:!
 
Last edited:
Thunderbolt: an ignorant or deluded Misconceptions author

So who is the author of these Misconception pages, sschirott?
This is probably Susan Schirott. No information that is easily available about her.
Judging by the latest post she is either ignorant or deluded - it is a mindless parroting of a "Grand Canyon is electrical" video from a professional photographer :jaw-dropp!
Anyone who is not in denial of science could find the scientific explanation of the Grand Canyon - basically a river winds across a plain that gradually rises up abut 2 miles into a plateau while the river erodes into a canyon.
The video is likely to be an ignorant of geology photographer pointing at features and going "ohhh electricity"!
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
So who is the author of these Misconception pages, sschirott?
This is probably Susan Schirott. No information that is easily available about her.
Judging by the latest post she is either ignorant or deluded - it is a mindless parroting of a "Grand Canyon is electrical" video from a professional photographer :jaw-dropp!
Anyone who is not in denial of science could find the scientific explanation of the Grand Canyon - basically a river winds across a plain that gradually rises up abut 2 miles into a plateau while the river erodes into a canyon.
The video is likely to be an ignorant of geology photographer pointing at features and going "ohhh electricity"!
Click to expand...

I'm no expert, but I'd have thought something powerful enough to blast away as colossal an amount of rock as the Grand Canyon, not to mention Valles Marineris, would leave behind a geomagnetic signature. Unless this rock was just peacefully levitated away to somewhere else without any thermal shock and associated melting. Valles Marineris seems to be in a particularly non-magnetised area of Mars.
 
Also
* The volume of the Grand Canyon is 4170 cubic kilometers. Where did it all go to? There would be a layer of dust + craters all around the canyon.
* An estimate of the size of the Chicxulub crater that may have killed off the dinosaurs is 4660 cubic kilometers.
Where is the similar ecological effect?
* Why is the Earth not covered in Grand Canyons or their remains?
 
Haig said:
OK, I'll try to give my understanding of the EU / PC view of Comets that I remember reading. :)

Comets approaching our variable star are charged bodies moving in the electric field of another larger charged body. As such the electromagnetic forces come into play and easily dominate gravity.

The charged comet causes a Langmuir Sheath to form around it with associated double layers. So the Coma and various tails grow along with the electrical stress.

Measuring density of such a body in such a field will produce errors IF the calculations used are "gravity only" in the assumption.

Think of measuring the density of a small electromagnet circling a much larger electromagnet by using the movement of the smaller IF it is highly elliptical (comets) and NOT simply circular or nearly circular. !

Most of today's physics, although developed, rely on relatively old ideas and formulas. The same goes for knowledge of plasma and electric currents as applied to astrophysics, and it was in fact several principles worked out by Kristian Birkeland and later Hannes Alfven that made much of the foundation for this.

Plasma Cosmology (or the Electric Universe) isn't refuting gravity as the dominating force in solid systems like our solar system. However, the bulk motion of an initial galactic dusty plasma is dominated by electromagnetism, and matter is later condensed into stars, where the orbital motion is preserved, whilst gravity takes over (briefly explained – see Anthony Peratt's papers).

Cometary Knots



Hence the errors in mainstream calculating the density of comets !

I'm sure not expecting you to agree with this just hope you can understand the thinking ;)
Click to expand...

And assuming that is true the tail of the comet would point TOWARDS the object it is interacting with, as electromagnetic forces between two differently charged objects take the shortest path.
It points away.

Assuming that is true all of our space probes moving trough space to different planets would have had this effect, which would cause massive drag. Since this is not taken into account by the mainstream scientists no probe should ever have reached its destination.
They all arrive with what can only be described as pinpoint accuracy.

The whole EU theory is based upon staring at pixels and saying 'lightning caused this!!!' without ever looking at even basic electromagnetism.
You want the theory to be taken seriously? Then first prove that our understanding of electromagnetism needs a major revision. No spacecraft needed for that.

Once again, if EU was true, those that understand it would potentially be able to solve the earths energy crisis permanently, create a new way of (space)flight and get obscenely rich in the process by exploiting that knowledge. Why are they not doing that but putting up youtube video's?
 
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