The Electric Comet Theory /SAFIRE Part V

[Sol88]

Why would it do that, now reality check?

Lukraak_Sisser, feel free to jump in, as you and RC are reading from the same hymn sheet.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by Sol88

In fact, in the alternate EU universe Earth would never support life as it would be scoured by the electric currents needed for the fantasy??


How? We see it on Io. Detected? I believe we have but remember mainstream consensus does not agree with the Electric Universe (EU) so its gas, uncharged dust, gravity and magnetic connection and some very complicated abstract theoretical math that can only be understood by those in the club making the story up.

And as long as there is a consensus...

We do see what happens at Io, and in your EU fantasy that would happening to earth on a continuous basis only much larger. There would be massive discharges hitting the earth daily.
But again, we do not see this.

In the same way that the cometary tail is a slow moving stream of mostly neutral gas which behaves exactly like a gas expanding trough a vacuum and nothing like an electrical discharge.

And yet, for some reason, in your fantasy every observation that shows that the universe does not behave like the EU predicts (what little it does predict) is confirmation that the EU is there.

You're like a bad stage magician that tries a trick with cards, predicts someone will take the ten of hearts and when no one ever does claims that his trick works.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

We do see what happens at Io, and in your EU fantasy that would happening to earth on a continuous basis only much larger. There would be massive discharges hitting the earth daily.
But again, we do not see this.

In the same way that the cometary tail is a slow moving stream of mostly neutral gas which behaves exactly like a gas expanding trough a vacuum and nothing like an electrical discharge.

And yet, for some reason, in your fantasy every observation that shows that the universe does not behave like the EU predicts (what little it does predict) is confirmation that the EU is there.

You're like a bad stage magician that tries a trick with cards, predicts someone will take the ten of hearts and when no one ever does claims that his trick works.

Ummmm...it does

Quote:

How many times per day does lightning strike the Earth? About 100 lightning bolts strike the Earth's surface every second That's about 8 million per day and 3 billion each year.

perhaps then you can move onto something new the mainstream Upper-atmospheric lightning. Get back to me when you can.

Too easy champ, too easy, can electric fields form in space plasma's?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

So, what's up now with the "magnetic field aligned electric field" that Sol88 is all hyped about? Well, let's go to the paper by Andrey Divin and his co-workers A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet.

Indeed, in the abstract of the paper they say that "We identify and characterize the magnetic fieldaligned ambipolar electric field that ensures quasi-neutrality and traps warm electrons." So note the reason why this ambipolar electric field is there, to trap the warm electrons.

What is the magnetic field structure around this weakly outgassing comet? From the introduction we find out that:



So, the magnetic field is draped around the outgassing cometary nucleus, as it should, and what was already described by Alfvén in 1957. That means that there is no radially directed magnetic field around the cometary nucleus.

Then there is a lot of stuff that I will skip, which the interested reader can read for themselves, as the paper is open access. And I will move to the discussion section.

So, in the first two sentences of the discussion we find out the following:



Now this already goes directly against all Sol88's believes. Yes, because of the different charge of the electrons and ions they move into different directions, those are the laws of electrodynamics, but the laws of plasma physics say, in a variation onto "Natura horror vacui", "plasma abhors charge separation" (sorry I am not a Latinist, so I cannot turn it into a Latin quote).

And thus it is found in a "3D fully kinetic electromagnetic simulations of the interaction of the solar wind with a comet" that in order to avoid this build-up of net charge an (ambipolar) electric field traps the electrons.

Now, the potential along the field line is calculated and they come up with a Φ_P and then they say what happens to the electrons:



This means that the electric field structure is a "potential well" which is every but a double layer. (One could say it is a double double layer, which we will not do.)

I will leave reading the conclusions of the paper to the interested reader. This reader will then also find out that only partially reading abstracts and looking for buzz words in the paper does not suffice to understand what is going on.

Quote:

Cometary electrons eventually end up neutralizing the solar wind protons, and solar wind electrons eventually neutralize the cometary ions.

Quote:

under the influence of an ambipolar electric field that is generated by the large electron pressure gradient in the inhomogeneous cometary plasma
[50],which further enhances the separation of the solar wind electron and ion flows.

Quote:

Electrons born inside, i.e., the cometary electrons, are trapped unless they carry enough energy to escape.

Electron and Ion Dynamics of the Solar Wind Interaction with a Weakly Outgassing Comet

Quote:

Cometary electrons are picked up and follow the magnetic field lines (i.e., the electron channels seen in Figure 1, left panel).

Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet

buzz words in the paper does not suffice to understand what is going on.

Charge separation arguments anyone? Again.

Work is being done. Mass is being electrical removed.

The ELECTRIC COMET!

Possible to reword? This means that the electric field structure is a "potential well" which is every but a double layer. (One could say it is a double double layer, which we will not do.)

[Sol88]

Quote:

Indeed, in the abstract of the paper they say that "We identify and characterize the magnetic fieldaligned ambipolar electric field that ensures quasi-neutrality and traps warm electrons." So note the reason why this ambipolar electric field is there, to trap the warm electrons.

and the suprathermal electrons?

Double layers..majick for the mainstream!

[Sol88]

A very good question for you, tusenfem.

At what radial distance from the nucleus does the neutral dust (entrained by sublimating ice) become charged?

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Ummmm...it does

perhaps then you can move onto something new the mainstream Upper-atmospheric lightning. Get back to me when you can.

Too easy champ, too easy, can electric fields form in space plasma's?

Sure Sol88, a phenomenon linked to the earths atmosphere is proof for space lightning.
That's why we also see that lightning on every other object in space following a non circular pattern.

oh wait... we don't

Once again your 'proof' shows the opposite of what your so-called model would predict, but then again, that should not surprise anybody.

By the way, it's been a few months, have you come up with a testable model yet where positive and negative charges accelerate in the same direction trough an electrical field?
You know, the bit where we observe the ions and electrons of the solar wind accelerating away from the sun trough the massive electrical field you propose to make any of your fantasy work?

[tusenfem]

Dear interested reader, it is sad and annoying when one tries to explain rather compiicated things in understandable language, and one needs to again put more effort in, because some person(s) do not actually read the papers that they claim "proof" something. And even sometimes looking at the figures in a paper already gives so much information.

The simulations by Andrey Divin and co-workers were done with one direction of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF). There are various reasons for this, which are not important at this point, but it has to do with understanding the basic physics and computational time.

Now, I just explained above that the magnetic field gets draped around the outgassing cometary nucleus, just like Alfvén described in 1957. Actually, this has been observed by spacecraft that flew by comets such as VEGA 1 and 2, Giotto, ICE.

What was not in Alfvén's model was the turning of the IMF, which was not necessary, because his pioneering paper was concerned with explaining how the cometary tail was formed. The solar wind, however, has sectors (between 3 and 6) where the IMF changes direction. And this gives rise to different layers of magnetic field direction in the piled-up region in front of the comet. This is called "nested draping" and was clearly visible at comet Halley (Raeder et al., 1897).

Originally Posted by Sol88

Tell us about YOUR dynamic and nested draping magnetic fields in relation to the above magnetic field aligned ambipolar electric field?

So, it is not "my" nested draping magnetic fields, it is something general. In the case of Halley, a very active comet, and a very fast flyby, the "onion-like" layering (note that I say here onion-like, I am NOT claiming that the magnetic field around a comet is an onion!) was clearly visible. However, because the flyby was so fast (less than an hour) it was not possible to see what the dynamics were of this layering.

With Rosetta, at 67P, things were different, a less active comet (at least by a factor 10) and a very slowly moving spacecraft. The magnetic field showed changes in direction, like at Halley (Volwerk et al., 2019), but now, because of the slowly moving spacecraft nothing could be said about the "stationarity" of this onion-like stucture. A clear example is after Rosetta turns around and moves back to the nucleus: a boundary passes over the spacecraft, showing that the magnetic field moves faster to the comet than the Rosetta. This was called "dynamic draping." And one of the conclusions for new missions was: "determining both dynamic and nested draping will require a combination of fast flybys and slow excursions for future missions."

Now, in all, this does not change anything with respect to the paper by Divin et al. The same effects still have to take place, to maintain charge neutrality. Maybe a little more dynamics will be added to the model depending on how fast the diffusion time of the magnetic field is through the inner coma. Something that cannot be estimated right away here in this post, but days might be a good back-of-the-envelope number, which would mean that there is time enough to reach stationarity.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Its not a passive electric field :just trapping electrons then now is it champ, it a current carrying double layer!
is a measure for the work performed by the electric field.
What's sustaining the "electric field"?

When we then go back to the Divin et al. paper, it is explained that they find in their numerical simulation that "magnetic field aligned electric fields" are created to trap electrons in order to maintain charge neutrality, one of the MAIN THINGS of a plasma, it does NOT like charge build-up, it will remove that quickly because all the charge carriers are so incredibly moblie.

Now, I guess we have to go over this once more, sometimes it takes a bit more time for some people to understand basic stuff. But the (ambipolar) electric field discussed by Divin et al. is not and cannot be a double layer. The reason for that is quite clear, to be read from the actual paper: "in order to avoid this build-up of net charge an (ambipolar) electric field traps the electrons. Now, a double layer can do some interesting things, but what is absolutely cannot do is "trap particles."

That it is not an double layer becomes even clearer from another quote of the paper:

Originally Posted by Divin et al.

Electrons that have a parallel kinetic energy greater than Φ_P that pass through the region gain energy while traversing into the potential well, and lose it again on their way out.

Those that enter the potential well with a parallel kinetic energy below the local Φ_P remain trapped and bounce along the magnetic field line while their motion is simultaneously altered by the local E×B drift component.

This means that there is a potential well here, in which electrons with energies less than this Φ_P cannot escape and bounce back and forth in this "bottle", whereas electrons with more energie can enter this region - will be acclerated and then decelerated and exit the region without any change in energy.

It is clearly written in the paper why this ambipolar electric field is formed (once more):

Originally Posted by Divin et al.

In the case of a weakly outgassing comet the solar wind electrons move to balance the positively charged cometary ions (Deca et al. 2017). In order to maintain quasi-neutrality, i.e., to increase the solar wind electron density in regions where the cometary ion density is substantially higher, a strong parallel electric field needs to be generated to locally and temporarily trap electrons.

And where does it come from, well if one actually reads the paper, the answer is in there. But to save the interested reader the effort I will quote here what the paper says:

Originally Posted by Divin et al.

A large ambipolar electric field is established that is associated with the local electron density gradient. It temporarily traps the solar wind electron population (Madanian et al. 2016; Deca et al. 2017, 2019; Sishtla et al. 2019) that is visualized by blue “!” markers in Figure 1. Since cometary
ions are much more inert (visualized by the magenta “⊕” markers in Figure 1), they need a considerably longer time to leave the region where they were ionized. The high solar wind electron density near the comet compensates for the charge imbalance (Figures 2(b), (e)), briefly trapping fast-moving electrons and confirming the coupled four-fluid scenario (Decaet al. 2017) also for a lower outgassing rate.

Just a little note: Scientific papers do tend to actually give all the information to reach the conclusions that are written in the abstracts.

Originally Posted by Sol88

And obviously none of this electric magnetic field nonsense has any affect (SIC) of EUV and solar photons. The only input mainstream have.

And then sometimes you just have to shrug like Atlas, because some people come up with such creative but basically inunderstandable claims, that it is hard to actually come up with a reply. Now, there is suddenly an "electric magnetic field nonsense" which should or should not affect (or have any effect) EUV and solar photons.

First of all, dear interested reader, if you are still here, EUV also consists of photons from the Sun, but let that be an aside. Then again, no solar photons have no influence on electric and magnetic fields. But that might not be what the confused person is talking about. Which might be the production of the plasma from the neutrals that are coming from the cometary nuceus.

Of course if one is going to model all interactions in the coma then there are a lot of things one needs to take into account. There is photo ionization, electron impact ionization, charge exchange, etc. etc.

Did Divin et al. take all that into account? I will leave that as homework for the next class.

[Sol88]

Thank you, tusenfem, thank you.

If we may for awhile from the start?

I'll reference to modern mainstream papers, so its not just handwaving with no math. Some will no doubt be some of the papers you have had a hand, if not the PI.

What I am going to question is the model you use to come up with the dirtysnow/icydietball (condensation,sublimation) model.

We might be able to save ourselves a little angst and time by asking a simple question.

You are still MOSTLY following the above general accepted model of comets or some new secret model that's upcoming for publication?

No tid bits?

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

What I am going to question is the model you use to come up with the dirtysnow/icydietball (condensation,sublimation) model.

That is not a model. It is observation. Next.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

Work is being done. Mass is being electrical removed.

No it isn't. How the hell is mass 'electrical removed'?????? Electrical woo is not removing dust, and it is not removing the gas. As (not) observed.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Not after the currency, not after the "fame", I'd much rather the truth.

We live in an ELECTRIC UNIVERSE!

You wouldn't recognise the truth, due to not understanding any relevant science. And there is no electric universe. It is a fairy tale made up by a bunch of clueless Velikovskians.

[Sol88]

Quote:

First of all, dear interested reader, if you are still here, EUV also consists of photons from the Sun, but let that be an aside. Then again, no solar photons have no influence on electric and magnetic fields. But that might not be what the confused person is talking about. Which might be the production of the plasma from the neutrals that are coming from the cometary nuceus.

Is generally accepted that, before the solar wind is stopped by the diamagnetic cavity, these process's are in play.

Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity

and

Solar wind sputtering of dust on the surface of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

Is this a fair call, tusenfem?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Ion velocity and electron temperature inside andaround the diamagnetic cavity of comet 67P

jonesdave116, wrong again!

Oh, an electric field!



Still the Haser model???

Why? Its overestimating the amount of ice from which the water come from that leads to OH seen in the coma!

LIAR.

The outgassing at 67P is not measured from OH, you clown. Read the papers. It is measured from direct detection of H₂O. Various models are used, as I have pointed out repeatedly. The Haser model is fine for distant observations. For other observations closer to the craft, more sophisticated models, based on the accurate shape model, are used. So you can quit with that lie, as well.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Is generally accepted that, before the solar wind is stopped by the diamagnetic cavity, these process's are in play.

Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity

and

Solar wind sputtering of dust on the surface of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

Is this a fair call, tusenfem?

Just as they are at asteroids and the Moon. And.....?

[Sol88]

Watch and learn jd116, watch and learn!

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Watch and learn jd116, watch and learn!

I do not need to learn anything from wooists. I cannot think of a science subject in which I wouldn't run rings around you. So, answer the question - what difference is there between asteroids and comets re sputtering and possible electrostatic dust effects? Other than that they happen permanently at asteroids?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Tell us about YOUR dynamic and nested draping magnetic fields in relation to the above magnetic field aligned ambipolar electric field?

Its not a passive electric field :just trapping electrons then now is it champ, it a current carrying double layer!

is a measure for the work performed by the electric field.

What's sustaining the "electric field"?

And obviously none of this electric magnetic field nonsense has any affect of EUV and solar photons. The only input mainstream have.

Oh dear! Sometimes the stupid just hurts! This is what happens when Velikovskians try to tackle science! Astonishing ignorance, combined with lies and obfuscation are never far away.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

Water does not falsifie the EC, rock falsifies the dirtysnowball!

Yes it does. Read Thornhill's woo. And thousands of tonnes of ice blasted out of a comet, and floating around other comets, most certainly falsifies it. Decades ago.
And, given that there is no rock, you are on a loser there as well, aren't you?
So, there we have it - electric comet woo debunked. In 1986.

[Sol88]

Well, I believe I'm talking to an expert, on the matter and it's most defiantly not you.

tusenfem may partake, if you have the patience.

Especially, when he has more or less described the ELECTRIC COMET.


If you would do tusenfem the courtesy of clamping it with your bluster and hoohar. He has taken the time to reply with a half decent post. We don't need the post buried and reality check style postspamming with I'm a liar.

Though, I've saved the post to be more precise and succinct with my quote mining of mainstream papers.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

.

Especially, when he has more or less described the ELECTRIC COMET.

LIAR.

And I happen to have a degree in planetary science, woo boy, so carry on and tell me what you think is different about comets and asteroids when it comes to sputtering and electrostatic effects? Get on with it, and you'll find that I am more than capable of showing you up for the uneducated poser that you are.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

post buried and reality check style postspamming with I'm a liar.

You are a LIAR.
It is all you've got. Tusenfem just gave you an idiots guide to why you are talking out of your arse re double layers. Why are you still here? The science is beyond you, and all the evidence shows your woo to be totally unscientific, impossible nonsense.

[Sol88]

degree in planetary science

From a weeties pack?

Ohh, I see.

Are comets left overs from the formation of the solar system, jonesdave116?

[Sol88]

PINNED

In your own time tusenfem.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

degree in planetary science

From a weeties pack?

Ohh, I see.

Are comets left overs from the formation of the solar system, jonesdave116?

No, from a university, thicko. And yes, all the evidence shows them to be formed very early on in the solar system. Just as most asteroids were.

[Sol88]

Lukraak_Sisser, what do you know about the upper end of one of these bad boys? How far up is "space"...

Quote:

Sure Sol88, a phenomenon linked to the earths atmosphere is proof for space lightning.
That's why we also see that lightning on every other object in space following a non circular pattern.

oh wait... we don't

Once again your 'proof' shows the opposite of what your so-called model would predict, but then again, that should not surprise anybody.

By the way, it's been a few months, have you come up with a testable model yet where positive and negative charges accelerate in the same direction trough an electrical field?
You know, the bit where we observe the ions and electrons of the solar wind accelerating away from the sun trough the massive electrical field you propose to make any of your fantasy work?

Such a beutiful photo.

Gemini Observatory / AURA - Gemini Observatory / Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA).

Blue Jet as seen from summit of Maunakea, Hawaii.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

If we may for awhile from the start?

I don't know why I should, because I have already written pages and pages of how things work in this thread and other threads, and all I usually get is first a confirmation but then a few posts on I get the same EU nonsense thrown at me. And here is a good example

Quote:

What I am going to question is the model you use to come up with the dirtysnow/icydietball (condensation,sublimation) model.

I/we DO NOT use a model to "come up with the dirty snowball".
As JD says, I/we use the in-situ measurements by the instruments on Rosetta, Giotto, VEGA 1/2, etc and explain the phenomena that are seen, like when the comet comes closer to the Sun there are more neutrals and more ionized particles. Or when the production of new ions increases, that the solar wind ions are deflected. Or when the activity becomes even higher then the magnetic field transported by the solar wind is blocked and comes to a stand still and a diamagnetic cavity is created.

The fact that the model of a nucleus with sublimating ices fits this model well should not be surprising as decades of observations are at the basis of this model, i.e. ground based observations of comets over a huge range of wavelengths.

But let's see, I get the obvious questions now:

Originally Posted by Sol88

Is generally accepted that, before the solar wind is stopped by the diamagnetic cavity, these process's are in play.

Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity
(Link to paper)

and

Solar wind sputtering of dust on the surface of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
(Link to paper)

Even before the creation of the diamagnetic cavity, the solar wind ions are deflected because of the pick-up of the newly created ions (Broiles et al., 2015).

Things all highly depend on the activity of the cometary nucleus. But if the activity is low enough then the things that Tom and Peter have published can obviously happen, as they happen e.g. on the Moon.

[jonesdave116]

So, still no rock, still no discharges, still no EDM (lol). Still cannot explain all the ice, nor the gas. Still batting zero. After a decade and a half!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

No, from a university, thicko. And yes, all the evidence shows them to be formed very early on in the solar system. Just as most asteroids were.

Sweet, so a nebula collapse believer.

buckle up buttercup, here we go...

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Sweet, so a nebula collapse believer.

buckle up buttercup, here we go...

Lol. Do not try to argue science. You will lose, just as you always do. You do not understand enough of it. Stick to Velikovskian woo. That is your limit.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

RANT SNIPPED

RANT SNIPPED

RANT SNIPPED

Even before the creation of the diamagnetic cavity, the solar wind ions are deflected because of the pick-up of the newly created ions (Broiles et al., 2015).

Things all highly depend on the activity of the cometary nucleus. But if the activity is low enough then the things that Tom and Peter have published can obviously happen, as they happen e.g. on the Moon.

So a simple YES would have sufficed.

You do not need to go into to much detail yet.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

So a simple YES would have sufficed.

You do not need to go into to much detail yet.

Yeah, too much detail = science stuff that you can't understand.

[Sol88]

Do you agree with tusenfem's answer, jd116?

Quote:

Things all highly depend on the activity of the cometary nucleus. But if the activity is low enough then the things that Tom and Peter have published can obviously happen, as they happen e.g. on the Moon.

tusenfem

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Do you agree with tusenfem's answer, jd116?
tusenfem

Why do I need to agree with it? It is observed science re the sputtering. As for the electrostatic stuff, who knows? It is undetectable, and seems to have done nothing of any note. And is also going to happen on the Moon and asteroids, among other places.

[Sol88]

Progress we are all on the same page!

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Progress we are all on the same page!

What are you on about? The paper that I have reporting the sputtering is 5 years old! I'm sure I've linked to it before. So, what is your unscientific point about it?

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Especially, when he has more or less described the ELECTRIC COMET.

Yeah, fat chance on that!

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

What are you on about? The paper that I have reporting the sputtering is 5 years old! I'm sure I've linked to it before. So, what is your unscientific point about it?

Yep;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=945

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4297

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

So a simple YES would have sufficed.

You do not need to go into to much detail yet.

On the contrary, because it is the details that you don't understand, and which lead to you making erroneous claims about the papers that you "read", like the double layer claim a few posts above.

Of course you are going to try to curb me in my explanations, as your goal is already clear: make me "confirm" the electric comet idea for you. But as long as there is no electric comet idea, there is very little to confirm, except for mainstream cometary physics.

[JeanTate]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Not after the currency, not after the "fame", I'd much rather the truth.

Glad to hear it.

Quote:

We live in an ELECTRIC UNIVERSE!

Dunno about the CAPS, but yeah, atomic nuclei have a positive charge, and electrons a negative one. Hence plasma physics, atomic physics, condensed matter physics, chemistry, ...

Your point is ... ?