The Electric Comet Theory /SAFIRE Part VI

[lauwenmark]

Originally Posted by Sol88

We could keep going but my point is made.
Maths is subservient to observation.

So what? ECT obviously made a lot of observation through the years. That mathematical formalism should try matching observation is taken for granted.

How does that explain that ECT obviously (else you'd have already quoted it) doesn't go past the observational step? That's exactly the point of my questions, and that's exactly what you never answered.

Are you afraid to answer: "I don't know, it seems weird not even trying"?

[lauwenmark]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Religion?

Yes. One can formulate an hypothesis, even a very wild one. That's one of the ways science advanced - find a strange, unexplained fact, and try to find an explanation to it.

But the marker of any scientific hypothesis is that there exists at least a way to prove it wrong. Always. Zero exception. For any given scientific hypothesis, you can figure out a test that, if performed, would demonstrate the hypothesis to be wrong. This is always the case for what you are calling "mainstream" model in astrophysics - if, at any point, results given by the equations diverge from experimental results from more than the error margin, then the hypothesis is wrong (partly or totally), and thus must either be revised or rejected completely.

So now, tell me, what test would demonstrate the ECT to be false? Since it appears from your answers that ECT doesn't have a way to predict results, what kind of test could you devise?

If ECT cannot be formalized using mathematics, then it cannot predict any result that could be compared to reality. It is then not matching the definition of science, and belongs to the category of faith-based beliefs. That is, religion.

And if ECT - as you claimed - could be mathematically formalized but never was, then you have no way to know if it is science or religion. Thus, there is no way to falsify your hypothesis "ECT is a scientific theory"; and, as a result, such an hypothesis itself belongs to faith-based beliefs. That is, again, religion.

Quote:

Pure science, ol mate...comets are charged rocky bodies discharging in the solar plasma flow.

That's an unquantified hypothesis. According to your own answers, no ECT scientist ever offered any way to compare their hypothesis with observed reality. You can keep saying it again and again, and tell other theories are not satisfying (or even totally wrong); it doesn't demonstrate that yours is the right one.

I could demonstrate you that my car isn't blue, pink, green, black or white. Does that mean it is necessarily yellow? Of course not - it could be another million colors. That's exactly what you're doing here. You can say all day long that the "mainstream model" is totally wrong - and maybe you're right - but that won't ever demonstrate ECT to be correct.

Quote:

Don’t let The “math” stop you from learning the non religious ELECTRIC UNIVERSE.

That's just another way to ask me to blindly believe in your theory, without any way for you to show me how well it matches observed facts. How can I take the proposal seriously if your theory doesn't even care about checking if it agrees with observation? "Maths are subservient to observation", right? Thus why are you promoting the exact opposite, that is, total denial of observational match with theory?

So, once again: is there any way to compare observed data with predictions made by ECT? Can ECT predict any physical value or range of values?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by lauwenmark

So, ECT research is so poor that you are forced to find mathematical descriptions supporting it on *other* theories???

ECT is much worse than poor research - there is no research at all. Sol8l8 endlessly repeating physically impossible nonsense and making stuff up is the ECT!
The electric comet theory is a series of physically impossible fairy stories with no math or physics from a couple of Immanuel Velikovsky followers. These are David Talbott (amateur mythologist) and Wallace Thornhill (unused and abused physics degree). There is also their sidekick Donald Scott, a retired electrical engineer, who writes on the electric sun delusion and does attempt math and physics.

For example, Velikovsky wrote pseudoscience about Venus popping over to Earth, stopping it spinning and restarting the spin at exactly the same rate (because there is poetic license in the Bible about the Sun and Moon stopping for a day during a battle). The electric comet theory is deluded because it extends this to imagining that our rocky planets whizz around the Solar System in violation of the laws of physics. A second of thought shows this is deluded - Earth cannot travel far from its current orbit without measurable effects. Too far and life is wiped out. Lesser travels and climate changes.

Consider this They Sing the Comet Electric Wired article from 2005. David Talbott showed ignorance about comets or lied.

Comets are not "coal-black as if they have been burnt". Comets have a very low albedo that has a variety of colors.
The Sizes, Shapes, Albedos, and Colors of Cometary Nuclei (PDF)

Quote:

Cometary nuclei are very dark objects with globally averaged albedos falling within a very restricted range: 0.02–0.06, and possibly even narrower. (B-V), (V-R), and (R-I) color indices indicate that, on average, the color of cometary nuclei is redder than the color of the Sun. There is, however, a large diversity of colors, ranging from slightly blue to very red

Comets have a "superabundance of extremely fine dust" because that is what they formed from!
Comets are not be "smooth like a melting scoop of ice cream" because they have craters from impacts and sublimation and "rocky" features from sublimation.

Wal Thornlill lied that "icy snowballs sublimating into space" did not explain cometary features.
15 years later and they are still lying abut comets.

[JeanTate]

To recent, somewhat new, participants (RC and tusenfem are very familiar): after a loooooong time, Sol88 finally put two actual published ECT papers on the table here: one from 1924 which is so obviously toast I’m surprised he ever bothered, and Thornhill (2007), T07 for short (the bibref is easy enough to find, an IEEE paper IRC).

I have made several attempts, as has RC, to get Sol88 to show us, explicitly, in detail, how his many, many claims are derived from/related to T07. No success so far.

Personally, I think it’s an impossible task; in so many ways, from so many POVs, T07 is inconsistent with Sol88’s claims. And Sol’s apparent failure is due in large part to not understanding the “mathemagic” in T07, let alone seeing just how, um, flawed that actually is.

Care to try again, Sol88?

[lauwenmark]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

ECT is much worse than poor research - there is no research at all. Sol8l8 endlessly repeating physically impossible nonsense and making stuff up is the ECT!

I'm pretty well aware of that. It belongs to a long string of theories related to 'ancient astronauts' and similar crazy beliefs. And I'm also convinced Sol perfectly knows that as well.

What I'm trying to demonstrate here is that the issue is not that the Electric Universe is a flawed scientific hypothesis - I think everybody here except Sol agrees with that. The real issue here is that EU is fundamentalism masquerading as science. That's what I'm trying to demonstrate, because I think fundamentalism is way, way more dangerous than a poor astrophysical hypothesis.

What I see here is that on one side, Sol draws random conclusions about papers he thinks he understood; and on the other side, skilled scientists telling him his conclusions don't match facts. Though an interesting debate, it is ultimately useless, precisely because Sol's hypothesis is faith-based and, as such, cannot be disproven.

His hypothesis is pretty simple, actually:
"The Mainstream Model is too complex to explain in simple terms, hence it must be wrong, and EU, which is easier to explain, is thus true".

This is exactly what he's telling about "mathemagicians": people doing arcane things he cannot grasp, and thus they cannot be trusted. All the litterature around EU goes the same way: scientists are trying to steal research from common people's hands by obfuscating truth behind arcane explanations.

Will Sol answer to this? Of course - he'll brush it aside, saying I'm just another "mainstream propagandist" of sorts. But I'll entertain that refreshing moment where he won't be able to debunk any of this, exposing EU and its supporters for what they really are: a cult.

[lauwenmark]

Originally Posted by JeanTate

I have made several attempts, as has RC, to get Sol88 to show us, explicitly, in detail, how his many, many claims are derived from/related to T07. No success so far.

Personally, I think it’s an impossible task; in so many ways, from so many POVs, T07 is inconsistent with Sol88’s claims. And Sol’s apparent failure is due in large part to not understanding the “mathemagic” in T07, let alone seeing just how, um, flawed that actually is.

Yeah, I've followed your attempts with great care and I concur: that's impossible. Likely pointless, too, as Sol is not trying to show that T07 is correct; he's trying to show that every other proposal is wrong. Hence his constant strategy of quoting "mainstream" papers.

[JeanTate]

Originally Posted by JeanTate

To recent, somewhat new, participants (RC and tusenfem are very familiar): after a loooooong time, Sol88 finally put two actual published ECT papers on the table here: one from 1924 which is so obviously toast I’m surprised he ever bothered, and Thornhill (2007), T07 for short (the bibref is easy enough to find, an IEEE paper IRC).

I have made several attempts, as has RC, to get Sol88 to show us, explicitly, in detail, how his many, many claims are derived from/related to T07. No success so far.

Personally, I think it’s an impossible task; in so many ways, from so many POVs, T07 is inconsistent with Sol88’s claims. And Sol’s apparent failure is due in large part to not understanding the “mathemagic” in T07, let alone seeing just how, um, flawed that actually is.

Care to try again, Sol88?

It’s likely, even almost certain, that RC, jd16 (who’s not been active in a while), and/or tusenfem have utterly demolished T07. Likely more than once. Independently. But I don’t, right now, recall any particular such demolition (many are likely, even screamingly obvious).

I’m sure every regular here - other than Sol88 - regards the whole EU as akin to a religious cult, with overt and covert fraudsters hanging on (see what jd16 found out about SAFIRE, for example).

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by lauwenmark

Yes. One can formulate an hypothesis, even a very wild one. That's one of the ways science advanced - find a strange, unexplained fact, and try to find an explanation to it.

But the marker of any scientific hypothesis is that there exists at least a way to prove it wrong. Always. Zero exception. For any given scientific hypothesis, you can figure out a test that, if performed, would demonstrate the hypothesis to be wrong. This is always the case for what you are calling "mainstream" model in astrophysics - if, at any point, results given by the equations diverge from experimental results from more than the error margin, then the hypothesis is wrong (partly or totally), and thus must either be revised or rejected completely.

So now, tell me, what test would demonstrate the ECT to be false? Since it appears from your answers that ECT doesn't have a way to predict results, what kind of test could you devise?

If ECT cannot be formalized using mathematics, then it cannot predict any result that could be compared to reality. It is then not matching the definition of science, and belongs to the category of faith-based beliefs. That is, religion.

And if ECT - as you claimed - could be mathematically formalized but never was, then you have no way to know if it is science or religion. Thus, there is no way to falsify your hypothesis "ECT is a scientific theory"; and, as a result, such an hypothesis itself belongs to faith-based beliefs. That is, again, religion.


That's an unquantified hypothesis. According to your own answers, no ECT scientist ever offered any way to compare their hypothesis with observed reality. You can keep saying it again and again, and tell other theories are not satisfying (or even totally wrong); it doesn't demonstrate that yours is the right one.

I could demonstrate you that my car isn't blue, pink, green, black or white. Does that mean it is necessarily yellow? Of course not - it could be another million colors. That's exactly what you're doing here. You can say all day long that the "mainstream model" is totally wrong - and maybe you're right - but that won't ever demonstrate ECT to be correct.


That's just another way to ask me to blindly believe in your theory, without any way for you to show me how well it matches observed facts. How can I take the proposal seriously if your theory doesn't even care about checking if it agrees with observation? "Maths are subservient to observation", right? Thus why are you promoting the exact opposite, that is, total denial of observational match with theory?

So, once again: is there any way to compare observed data with predictions made by ECT? Can ECT predict any physical value or range of values?

So now, tell me, what test would demonstrate the ECT to be false? Since it appears from your answers that ECT doesn't have a way to predict results, what kind of test could you devise?



Predict? Like in comets are rocky? Check

Predict? the dust is being removed electrically? Check

Predict? That the removal of mass that has a charge? Check

As for, If ECT cannot be formalized using mathematics, then it cannot predict any result that could be compared to reality. It is then not matching the definition of science, and belongs to the category of faith-based beliefs. That is, religion.

Why does the Dirtysnowball theory have the same stipulations?

It’s just ad hoc faith based pre space era, religion. By your above definition.

Comets, it would seem, are not Dirtysnowballs.

No maths required to, except by tusenfem’s admission, that the calculations involved become prohibitively computationally expensive.

So, well just use approximations, such as MHD and electrons as a massless neutralising fluid and end bang right were we started.

According to the math, electric comets are physically impossible!

Don’t believe me? Let’s have a quick look at RC’s first point...

[Sol88]

Quote:

1. Sol88 lies with "discharging in the solar plasma" (physically impossible).

Why is it physically impossible?

Anyone?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by lauwenmark

Yeah, I've followed your attempts with great care and I concur: that's impossible. Likely pointless, too, as Sol is not trying to show that T07 is correct; he's trying to show that every other proposal is wrong. Hence his constant strategy of quoting "mainstream" papers.

Got some ripper quotes too!

Proposal is wrong? Like the proposal comets are mostly ice?

Got a quote here for you from quite a famous comet investigator...

Quote:

(c) Whatarecometsmadeof?

At the simplest level, a very basic question is whether comets are mostly ice or mostly rock/dirt/refractory material.

Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the first quantitative model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high as 6 have been cited [3,4].

Nevertheless, there is still considerable uncertainty about even this basic parameter, not least of which is that most measurements are subject to selection effects in removing refractories from the nucleus to the coma, where they are observed as dust.

A’Hearn

So the proposal that comets are mostly ice is incorrect. A’Hearn proposal is that comets are mostly rock. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, now is there lauwenmark?

[Reality Check]

1. Sol88 lies abut his cult's dogma yet again which is comets are actual as in blasted from Earth rock, thunderbolts create and eject dust, etc. Then another spate of lies about real comets.
2. Sol88 lies with "comets are rocky".
3. Sol88 lies with "the dust is being removed electrically" when no such dust removal has been observed.
4. Sol88 lies with "That the removal of mass that has a charge" when the observed removal of mass is when ice is sublimating.
5. Sol88 lies with "Why does the Dirtysnowball theory have the same stipulations?" when he has cited papers matching mainstream predictions to observations making it science.
   Unlike his cult's dogma which has no confirmed predictions, just delusions that fail to match reality. A comets are delusion when comets are measured to be less dense than water and have a good proportion of ice. A jets are discharges delusion when jets reflect sunlight and vanish in shadows. An electric discharge machining delusion when EDM is an industrial process. A thunderbolts blasting comets from Earth delusion when that would cause at least thousands of mass extinction events. etc. etc.
6. Sol88 lies with "Its just ad hoc faith based pre space era, religion. By your above definition". Mainstream cometary science is science based on centuries of physics and empirical evidence.
7. Sol88 lies with "Comets, it would seem, are not Dirtysnowballs." when comets are still dirty snowballs (ice and dust). We may be evolving toward (future tense) comets having more dust then ice.
8. Sol88 lies with "tusenfem’s admission, that the calculations involved become prohibitively computationally expensive" when tusenfem did not write that.
9. Sol88 lies that approximations invalidate mainstream physics.
10. Sol88 lies with "According to the math, electric comets are physically impossible!". It is basic physics that makes the electric comet physically impossible.
11. Sol88 lies with "Why is it physically impossible?" when that has been answered for years (discharges require an insulating medium, plasma is a very conductive medium).
12. Sol88 lies to lauwenmark with his many years of insulting the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn: The abysmal insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn and all astronomers by Sol88 linking them with Sol88's dogma, etc. (no astronomer believes comets are actual rock)
13. Sol88 lies with "So the proposal that comets are mostly ice is incorrect."
14. Sol88 lies with "A’Hearn proposal is that comets are mostly rock"
15. Soll88 lies with "Absolutely nothing wrong with that" when it is obviously wrong to insult astronomers as believing a delusion that comets are rock when astronomers know the physical properties of comets. This is especially true of A’Hearn who wrote hundreds of mainstream ice and dust comet papers before the review that Sol88 is constantly lying about.
16. Sol88 lies about Lukraak_Sisser's post which is comet tails make the EC theory impossible and wrong because the tails point away from the comet and Sun (the tails being discharges are already physically impossible but that is not the point of the post).
17. Sol88 lies with "Talking tails..." when his post is about mainstream ice and dust comet tails.
18. Sol88 lies that tusenfem wrote that there were discharges at comets.

[Reality Check]

The thousands of lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma.
The abysmal insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn and all astronomers by Sol88 linking them with Sol88's dogma, etc. (no astronomer believes comets are actual rock)
611 items of lies, insults, etc. from Sol88 since ~10 March 2020

11 years of lying, etc. about posts, posters, science, and his dead dogma continues with 18 more lies, insults of astronomers being deluded by writing comets are his cult's rock, etc.

Sol88 and the Thunderbolts cult refusal to "Look thru the telescope"
More about Sol88's cult, Sol88's lies, Sol88 emphasizing his cult's idiocy and Thornhill's delusions about physics.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by Sol88

We could keep going but my point is made.


Maths is subservient to observation.

True. SO very true.

Now lets talk observations.

We observe the tails of comets always point AWAY from the sun.

We also observe that discharge events between two objects point TOWARD each other.

Therefore the tail of a comet cannot possibly be an electrical discharge in the solar plasma.
Therefore the EC theory is impossible and wrong.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

True. SO very true.

Now lets talk observations.

We observe the tails of comets always point AWAY from the sun.

We also observe that discharge events between two objects point TOWARD each other.

Therefore the tail of a comet cannot possibly be an electrical discharge in the solar plasma.
Therefore the EC theory is impossible and wrong.

Talking tails, you do know we flew thru one at some 3.5au, don’t you?

Some interesting data if you’d care to look. You may like to follow that up with one of Volwerk’s tail excursion. Interesting in light of your question but don’t let me tell you. All very mainstream with some math too.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

True. SO very true.

Now lets talk observations.

We also observe that discharge events between two objects point TOWARD each other.

Therefore the tail of a comet cannot possibly be an electrical discharge in the solar plasma.
Therefore the EC theory is impossible and wrong.

Tusenfem already went over the definition of a discharge awhile back.

The comet by that definition is at this time, discharging.

[Reality Check]

One of Thornhill's delusions that Sol88 has fallen for is the cult's EDM delusion machining the surface of comets. This is electrical discharge machining.

Thornhill and Talbott have the delusion that a low albedo means that an object is black. This is especially deluded of Thornhill who has a physics degree and knows what albedo means. It is a measure of the amount of reflected light from an object, not the color of an object. A dark green body has a low albedo and a green color. Comets tend to be red (The Sizes, Shapes, Albedos, and Colors of Cometary Nuclei (PDF)).

Thornhill and Talbott join the delusion that comets are black with the EDM delusion so that their imaginary comets are burnt black by EDM. This is also delusional because EDM is used to give machined work pieces smooth, shiny surfaces!

Another part of the Thunderbolts EDM delusion is that Thornhill and Talbott have no idea what EDM would do to rock with its varied minerals, hydration and granular structure. Maybe nothing. Maybe make it explode due to water content (no comets !). Whatever it did would not be like EDM of metals.

[Reality Check]

Sol88 and his cult have physically impossible electric discharges between the Sun and comets through the very conductive solar plasma because of an imaginary solar electric field. It is the missing insulating medium that makes these Thunderbolts cult thunderbolts impossible. As soon as there is a potential difference, current will flow and remove the difference.

But let us ignore that this is a physically impossible delusion for this paragraph. Electric discharges go from a source to a sink. Lightning goes from a source (clouds) to a sink (the ground). EDM sparks go from one electrode to another electrode. These imaginary discharges will go from a comet to the Sun. Comet tails point out from the Sun !

What makes tails = discharges even more deluded is that comets can have 2 tails and the dust tail does not point away from the Sun!

It is possible that Sol88's cult do not have a "tails = discharges" delusion. I looked for a Thunderbolts cult source in this and only found the usual's delusions and lying from Wal Thornhill in a "Comet Tails of the Expected" blog on September 13th, 2005. This has nothing about comet tails!

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by lauwenmark

So what? ECT obviously made a lot of observation through the years. That mathematical formalism should try matching observation is taken for granted.

Well, that needs to be relativated, the EC proponents look at pictures, and deduce from that that their ideas are correct. They dare not touch the data from the obviously important instruments from e.g. Rosetta RPC.

Sol goes one step further, even, creating his own EC ideas, where the "discharges" that T&T are talking about (the same kind of discharges the supposedly created the Grand Canyon in the Electric Universe) are now reduced to the normal processes of the (dis)charging currents of a body immerged in a plasma. A dust particle loosing only one electron already counts as a discharge in Sol's view.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Talking tails, you do know we flew thru one at some 3.5au, don’t you?

Some interesting data if you’d care to look. You may like to follow that up with one of Volwerk’s tail excursion. Interesting in light of your question but don’t let me tell you. All very mainstream with some math too.

So once again you dance around the problems in your 'theory'

I just do not understand how a negatively charged object can charge away from a positively charged object.
Clearly you do.

So can you explain that to the rest of the world?

Of course, that also means that in your version of electricity capacitors do not work, can you explain that too?

[JeanTate]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

<snip>

11 years of lying, etc. about posts, posters, science, and his dead dogma continues with 18 more lies, insults of astronomers being deluded by writing comets are his cult's rock, etc.

<snip>

It is somewhat sad/ironic/amusing that for someone as obviously curious and dedicated as Sol88, 11 years is long enough to get a BSc, MSc, and maybe even a PhD, in plasma astrophysics or space physics!

[JeanTate]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Got some ripper quotes too!

Proposal is wrong? Like the proposal comets are mostly ice?

Got a quote here for you from quite a famous comet investigator...

A’Hearn

So the proposal that comets are mostly ice is incorrect. A’Hearn proposal is that comets are mostly rock. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, now is there lauwenmark?

It’s time, I think, to talk about science (again!).

You put an Electric Comet Theory on the table, T07.

If you’re doing science, one of the things you now need to do it work on how, in what ways, all your various “rock”, “discharges”, etc connect to T07. So far, you seem have avoided doing that, strenuously avoided. Why?

Instead, you seem to me to be posting religious propaganda, and fundamentalist religion to boot.

Huh?

You quote mine, you cherry-pick, you distort, you make up your own meanings, ... All to what end? To perform some sort of textual analysis to show matches with words in your sacred bible (a Velikovsky book? You’ve never really said)

Perhaps saddest, you don’t seem to be even trying to write your own Electric Comet Theory, let alone modify T07 ...

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

So once again you dance around the problems in your 'theory'

I just do not understand how a negatively charged object can charge away from a positively charged object.
Clearly you do.

So can you explain that to the rest of the world?

Of course, that also means that in your version of electricity capacitors do not work, can you explain that too?

Apparently, it's those pesky electrons, they never do what you expect, uness they do.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by lauwenmark

I'm pretty well aware of that. It belongs to a long string of theories related to 'ancient astronauts' and similar crazy beliefs. And I'm also convinced Sol perfectly knows that as well.

What I'm trying to demonstrate here is that the issue is not that the Electric Universe is a flawed scientific hypothesis - I think everybody here except Sol agrees with that. The real issue here is that EU is fundamentalism masquerading as science. That's what I'm trying to demonstrate, because I think fundamentalism is way, way more dangerous than a poor astrophysical hypothesis.

What I see here is that on one side, Sol draws random conclusions about papers he thinks he understood; and on the other side, skilled scientists telling him his conclusions don't match facts. Though an interesting debate, it is ultimately useless, precisely because Sol's hypothesis is faith-based and, as such, cannot be disproven.

His hypothesis is pretty simple, actually:
"The Mainstream Model is too complex to explain in simple terms, hence it must be wrong, and EU, which is easier to explain, is thus true".

This is exactly what he's telling about "mathemagicians": people doing arcane things he cannot grasp, and thus they cannot be trusted. All the litterature around EU goes the same way: scientists are trying to steal research from common people's hands by obfuscating truth behind arcane explanations.

Will Sol answer to this? Of course - he'll brush it aside, saying I'm just another "mainstream propagandist" of sorts. But I'll entertain that refreshing moment where he won't be able to debunk any of this, exposing EU and its supporters for what they really are: a cult.

Seems to be the main beef with you mob.

A cult? Righto...

Comets are charged rocky objects discharging (losing mass) electrically in the solar plasma.

Feel free to quote the above and use it in your joyous moment when the EU has been slayed.

Look forward to it too.

[Sol88]

Talking about pointless math proving a non reality.

Quote:

solar wind is significantly enhanced, it is not enough to compress the bow shock to reach Rosetta. To ascertain this, we applied a simple mass-loading model to calculate the bow shock position (Biermann et al. 1967), again using the Earth observations as input. The model is a 1D gas dynamic approximation, thus it does not include magnetic fields and kinetic ions. It is therefore limited, and it was shown in Koenders et al. (2013) that it overestimates the bow shock distance compared to more sophisticated hybrid models at lower gas production rates and lower solar wind dynamic pressures. The result is shown on the right-hand side of Fig. 4. Most of the time, the bow shock is located well above 10000 km, but for very high magnetic fields and thereby high solar wind dynamic pressures, the bow shock is pushed inward. The lowest bow-shock position estimate is still 1000km, which is still well above the position of Rosetta. This estimate presents a lower boundary as the model does neither include asymmetric outgassing, that is, stronger outgassing on the sunward side of the comet, nor the fact that Rosetta is far from the subsolar point. Both these circumstances will push the bow shock position even farther from the nucleus than predicted (Huang et al. 2016).

Unusually high magnetic fields in the coma of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko during its high-activity phase

What was the point?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Well, that needs to be relativated, the EC proponents look at pictures, and deduce from that that their ideas are correct. They dare not touch the data from the obviously important instruments from e.g. Rosetta RPC.

Sol goes one step further, even, creating his own EC ideas, where the "discharges" that T&T are talking about (the same kind of discharges the supposedly created the Grand Canyon in the Electric Universe) are now reduced to the normal processes of the (dis)charging currents of a body immerged in a plasma. A dust particle loosing only one electron already counts as a discharge in Sol's view.

Shall we tusenfem? Unusually high magnetic fields in the coma of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko during its high-activity phase

Particularly;

Quote:

4.2.3. Changes in cometary plasma It is also interesting to note that there is a pronounced increase in the flux of electrons in the energy range of about 60eV in the highest density region. Previously, this population was studied by Broiles et al. (2015) and Nemeth et al. (2016), the latter of whom found that this particular population vanishes when the spacecraft is inside, or very close to, the diamagnetic cavity. According to the former, this population is suprathermal and of solar wind origin. All of these observations point to the fact that the 60eV population is most closely associated with the magnetic field. As the magnetic field increases, so does the electron density, and when the field vanishes inside the cavity, so do the electrons. A detailed statistical study of this phenomenon is underway. These results are consistent with what was observed by Edberg et al. (2016a,b), who also suggested that electrons are heated by the interaction with the solar wind and then move along the field lines.

Seems we have found the mechanism now...

Quote:

The cometary mission Rosetta has shown the presence of higher-than-expected suprathermal electron fluxes. In this study, using 3D fully kinetic electromagnetic simulations of the interaction of the solar wind with a comet, we constrain the kinetic mechanism that is responsible for the bulk electron energization that creates the suprathermal distribution from the warm background of solar wind electrons.

We identify and characterize the magnetic fieldaligned ambipolar electric field that ensures quasi-neutrality and traps warm electrons. Solar wind electrons are accelerated to energies as high as 50–70 eV close to the comet nucleus without the need for wave–particle or turbulent heating mechanisms. We find that the accelerating potential controls the parallel electron temperature, total density, and (to a lesser degree) the perpendicular electron temperature and the magnetic field magnitude. Our self-consistent approach enables us to better understand the underlying plasma processes that govern the nearcomet plasma environment.

AFully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet


It’s comming together, slowly but still comming together.

Seems important too.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Apparently, it's those pesky electrons, they never do what you expect, uness they do.

Says Lukrakk

Quote:

So once again you dance around the problems in your 'theory'

I just do not understand how a negatively charged object can charge away from a positively charged object.
Clearly you do.

So can you explain that to the rest of the world?

Of course, that also means that in your version of electricity capacitors do not work, can you explain that too?

Not too sure how you are understanding the same thing.

As far a I know the electrons and ions don’t just float off of the nucleus.

A good place to understand the basics, with math, would be here...google spacecraft charging.

https://www.nasa.gov/offices/nesc/articles/understanding-the-potential-dangers-of-spacecraft-charging


A spacecraft is an object immersed in a plasma flow.

You need to understand the basics first champ!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by JeanTate

It’s time, I think, to talk about science (again!).

You put an Electric Comet Theory on the table, T07.

If you’re doing science, one of the things you now need to do it work on how, in what ways, all your various “rock”, “discharges”, etc connect to T07. So far, you seem have avoided doing that, strenuously avoided. Why?

Instead, you seem to me to be posting religious propaganda, and fundamentalist religion to boot.

Huh?

You quote mine, you cherry-pick, you distort, you make up your own meanings, ... All to what end? To perform some sort of textual analysis to show matches with words in your sacred bible (a Velikovsky book? You’ve never really said)

Perhaps saddest, you don’t seem to be even trying to write your own Electric Comet Theory, let alone modify T07 ...

No, T07 and I are on the same page. The page you are reading from is a faerie tale?

Comets are not even close to a Dirtysnowball the ONLY model mainstream have.

Apart from the fact discharging can not happen if MHD is used. In COMETS BEING CHARGED ROCKY BODIES DISCHARGING IN THE SOLAR PLASMA this is not a problem as MHD is pointless.

[JeanTate]

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Sol88

No, T07 and I are on the same page. The page you are reading from is a faerie tale?

Comets are not even close to a Dirtysnowball the ONLY model mainstream have.

Apart from the fact discharging can not happen if MHD is used. In COMETS BEING CHARGED ROCKY BODIES DISCHARGING IN THE SOLAR PLASMA this is not a problem as MHD is pointless.

Earlier, I asked several, specific questions about some of your claims and T07.

You did not answer them.

I will, later, repeat those questions.

If, indeed, “T07 and [you] are on the same page”, it should be a piece of cake to show that. Directly. Explicitly. I hope you will do so.

And if you don’t, or can’t? Well, then your breezing assurances mean precisely nothing ... well, other than religious propaganda

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by JeanTate

Thanks.


Earlier, I asked several, specific questions about some of your claims and T07.

You did not answer them.

I will, later, repeat those questions.

If, indeed, “T07 and [you] are on the same page”, it should be a piece of cake to show that. Directly. Explicitly. I hope you will do so.

And if you don’t, or can’t? Well, then your breezing assurances mean precisely nothing ... well, other than religious propaganda

You’d have to highlight the discrepancies between T07 and Sol88’s ELECTRIC COMET.

I can not see any glaring cockups anywhere. Are you able to point them out?

[JeanTate]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Seems to be the main beef with you mob.

A cult? Righto...

Comets are charged rocky objects discharging (losing mass) electrically in the solar plasma.

Feel free to quote the above and use it in your joyous moment when the EU has been slayed.

Look forward to it too.

This is an excellent example of religious propaganda.

The “comets are charged rocky bodies discharging in the solar plasma”, with variants, has been a central claim for many years.

Attempts to get you to quantify, discuss edge cases, etc have always failed, IIRC.

For example: why is Mercury not a comet? The Moon? Most asteroids? Metallic objects, such as Psyche, spent rocket boosters in the IPM (not Earth’s magnetosphere), dead interplanetary space probes? What is the rate of discharge? How does mass loss relate to current? Current density? What is the solar plasma electric field (in T07 it’s very simple, radial centred on the Sun)? And so on, and on, and on ....

Would you care to move beyond endless repetition of religious slogans?

[JeanTate]

Sigh.

Originally Posted by Sol88

You’d have to highlight the discrepancies between T07 and Sol88’s ELECTRIC COMET.

I can not see any glaring cockups anywhere. Are you able to point them out?

As I said, when I’m good and ready, I’ll repeat at least some of my earlier questions.

Your answers MAY point to “glaring cockups”, they may not; they will very likely lead to more questions. They WILL add clarity (one hopes).

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by JeanTate

This is an excellent example of religious propaganda.

The “comets are charged rocky bodies discharging in the solar plasma”, with variants, has been a central claim for many years.

Attempts to get you to quantify, discuss edge cases, etc have always failed, IIRC.

For example: why is Mercury not a comet? The Moon? Most asteroids? Metallic objects, such as Psyche, spent rocket boosters in the IPM (not Earth’s magnetosphere), dead interplanetary space probes? What is the rate of discharge? How does mass loss relate to current? Current density? What is the solar plasma electric field (in T07 it’s very simple, radial centred on the Sun)? And so on, and on, and on ....

Would you care to move beyond endless repetition of religious slogans?

There is the maths there, if it helps...

But, yeah, welcome to the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE! It’s all connected. Ahhhhh, electromagnetism the dominant force and plasma the fundamental state of matter... open your eyes.

At least you are starting to ask the correct questions.

Shall we focus on the moon? It’s water production and dust lofting, for a for instance?

PLEASE...

[JeanTate]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Says Lukrakk

Not too sure how you are understanding the same thing.

As far a I know the electrons and ions don’t just float off of the nucleus.

A good place to understand the basics, with math, would be here...google spacecraft charging.

https://www.nasa.gov/offices/nesc/articles/understanding-the-potential-dangers-of-spacecraft-charging


A spacecraft is an object immersed in a plasma flow.

You need to understand the basics first champ!

Like all who have already commented on your responses to LS’s questions in their various forms, responses that are all non-answers, I’m more and more convinced they’re just deflection, and you merely repeat religious propaganda.

But let me try from a similar yet slightly different perspective: in T07, the “solar plasma” has a very distinct feature, or structure, a radial electric field, centered on the Sun. Yet many comet tails are not radial, falling along a line from Sun through comet and on/away. Why? Many comet tails, radial or not, display kinks, even breaks; why?

And “why?” with respect to the actual content of T07.

If the answer involves “math” in T07, please post it here, give values to the key variables, and do at least some simple calculations.

IOW, please move beyond religious slogans.

[JeanTate]

Originally Posted by Sol88

There is the maths there, if it helps...

But, yeah, welcome to the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE! It’s all connected. Ahhhhh, electromagnetism the dominant force and plasma the fundamental state of matter... open your eyes.

At least you are starting to ask the correct questions.

Shall we focus on the moon? It’s water production and dust lofting, for a for instance?

PLEASE...

Sure.

Now that we have an Electric Comet Theory, T07, please do so by explicitly relating the water production and dust lofting to contents of T07. If not at first, at least point to how these relationships may be quantified and so tested.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

It's also interesting how Sol88 keeps claiming people need to understand the basics, while at the same time showing total ignorance of the basis of electricity.

So, once again, Sol88, can you explain how in your theory a negatively charged object will discharge AWAY from a positively charged object, when all observations of electricity show the opposite?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

It's also interesting how Sol88 keeps claiming people need to understand the basics, while at the same time showing total ignorance of the basis of electricity.

So, once again, Sol88, can you explain how in your theory a negatively charged object will discharge AWAY from a positively charged object, when all observations of electricity show the opposite?

Too simplistic champ.... we have been here before and when challenged you resort to pith ball electromagnetism.

In your “electricity” how do Birkeland currents fit in? As described, with math, by Don Scott.

Birkeland Currents: A Force-Free Field-Aligned Model

Or any field aligned electric current in a plasma, for that matter.

See how ya go...

P.S

Take note of the concentric counter rotations.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by JeanTate

Sure.

Now that we have an Electric Comet Theory, T07, please do so by explicitly relating the water production and dust lofting to contents of T07. If not at first, at least point to how these relationships may be quantified and so tested.

Cutting edge stuff my friend, cutting edge. As referenced by

Quote:

Understanding the suprathermal electron population is important, since increased fluxes of the latter have been shown to strongly affect also the cometary ionosphere via electronimpact ionization (Galand et al. 2016), charge exchange (Wedlund et al. 2017; Heritier et al. 2018), and is thought to affect dust grain charging processes (Gombosi et al. 2015).

Divin


Thought to?

My money, the electric comet, is it’s the main process.

least point to how these relationships may be quantified and so tested How would you suggest Divin et al proceed to see if thought too is indeed confirmed?

Scientific method?

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Too simplistic champ.... we have been here before and when challenged you resort to pith ball electromagnetism.

In your “electricity” how do Birkeland currents fit in? As described, with math, by Don Scott.

Birkeland Currents: A Force-Free Field-Aligned Model

Or any field aligned electric current in a plasma, for that matter.

See how ya go...

P.S

Take note of the concentric counter rotations.

Ah, so we're back to the magic Birkeland currents.
The ones never seen, which cannot be accessed on earth at all and which again go counter to any electrical current ever seen by having opposite charges move in the same direction.
Oh, and which allow only very specific objects to build up a charge difference to discharge, where every other object cannot.

Because again you show your appalling lack of knowledge of electricity.
An object in a current cannot build up a charge difference. That needs isolation. And given that you claim those currents are omnipresent again electrical knowledge says that there would be no comet discharges at all.

When are you just going to give up trying to explain and just go 'it's magic!'?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

Ah, so we're back to the magic Birkeland currents.
The ones never seen, which cannot be accessed on earth at all and which again go counter to any electrical current ever seen by having opposite charges move in the same direction.
Oh, and which allow only very specific objects to build up a charge difference to discharge, where every other object cannot.

Because again you show your appalling lack of knowledge of electricity.
An object in a current cannot build up a charge difference. That needs isolation. And given that you claim those currents are omnipresent again electrical knowledge says that there would be no comet discharges at all.

When are you just going to give up trying to explain and just go 'it's magic!'?

Magic? Why?

We see them and would expect them. Not too sure why you deny them?

Birkeland proved it some 100 yrs ago, did you not hear?

Any who if you’d like to brush up on “electricity” in space, then introduction to spacecraft charging

Quote:

1.3 how does spacecraft charging occur?
The cause of surface charging is due to the difference between ambient electron and ion fluxes. Electrons are faster than (all kinds of) ions because of their mass difference. As a result, we have the following theorem:
theorem: The ambient electron flux is much greater than that of the ambient ions.

Further

Quote:

It takes a finite time to charge a surface because its capacitance is finite. For typical surfaces at geosynchronous altitudes, it takes a few milliseconds to come to a charging equilibrium. At equilibrium, Kirchhoff’s circuital law applies because the surface is a node in a circuit in space.
Kirchhoff’s law states that at every node in equilibrium, the sum of all currents coming in equals the sum of all currents going out. Therefore, the surface potential, z, must be such that the sum of all currents must add up to zero. These currents, I1, I2, f , Ik, account for incoming electrons, incoming ions, outgoing secondary electrons, outgoing backscattered electrons, and other currents if present. The current balance equation, equation (1.6), determines the surface potential z at equilibrium:

Replace space craft with an object that presents a field aligned ambipolar electric field as an object (along with the nucleus, a rocky object) to the solar wind...

How’s your “electricity” now, Lukraak_Sisser?

[Sol88]

Further

Quote:

The spacecraft potential is floating relative to the ambient plasma potential (figure 1.1). When a spacecraft potential, zs, is nonzero relative to that of the ambient plasma, the spacecraft is charged:

Rewritten The nucleus’s potential is floating relative to the ambient plasma potential (figure 1.1). When the nucleus’s potential, zs, is nonzero relative to that of the ambient plasma, the nucleus is charged:

There is a paper a know of Unusually high magnetic fields in the coma of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko during its high-activity phase where the

Quote:

Additionally, we find flux-rope-type structures in large numbers in the undisturbed plasma before and after the impact.

You would surmise would influence charging, as per

Quote:

The cause of surface charging is due to the difference between ambient electron and ion fluxes. Electrons are faster than (all kinds of) ions because of their mass difference. As a result, we have the following theorem:

How would this affect the field aligned ambipolar electric field, the suprathermal electrons and the charging of the nucleus, including the “dust”?

Too hard a question yet?

Or we still struggling with grasping “electricity”? It would seem a touch more complicated than Because again you show your appalling lack of knowledge of electricity.

An object in a current cannot build up a charge difference. That needs isolation.

And given that you claim those currents are omnipresent again electrical knowledge says that there would be no comet discharges at all.