The Electric Comet theory

[Reality Check]

Cosmology in the plasma universe: an introductory exposition.

Oh dear, Haig - some basic reading comprehension is lacking !
That is a paper that has no mention at all of EC (Electric Comets).
EC is a fantasy made up by EU proponents well after the death of Alfvén. As already noted Alfvén published at least one paper on the mainstream comet theory: On the theory of comet tails.(1957)
This mainstream paper has over 200 mainstream citations.

ETA: What you cite is what the EU proponents lie about being support for their idea. Do not make yourself seem as ignorant as they make themselves look, Haig!
This is Alfven's invalid Plasma Cosmology that has nothing to do with the magical electrical stuff in EU.

 

[Reality Check]

How can you believe in the competence of the EU proponents given the 2014 conference

Hi Earl, I have answered RC questions, many times,

Wrong Haig - you have not answered any of my questions that I can recall. If you have then just supply the links to them:
* Haig (7th July 2014), is 3.0 different from 0.6?
* Haig (30th June 2014): Why do EU supporters continue to claim that astronomers ignore E fields, etc.?
* Plus any scientific answers to the science stated in Electric comets still do not exist!
P.S. Haig, you may be wandering why I do not ask the questions on the Thunderbolts forum. Apparently if you ask for actual numbers on that forum, your IP address gets banned !

A new question for you:
Haig: How can you believe in the competence of the EU proponents when the speakers at their 2014 conference was a collection of cranks, actual deluded people and some electrical engineers?
(the deluded people were the Velikovsky belivers: David Talbott, Daniel Jencka, Dwardu Cardona)

 

[Reality Check]

In a few days we should have some interesting data/ pictures ... that's why I posted this

This was posted on 12th February 2011 - more than a few days ago !
This is about the "layering" of terrain on Comet Tempel 1: NASA Spacecraft Closes in on Comet Tempel 1
There is an arrow in an image to layered terrain which in 2011 was a surprise to at least one astronomer. But maybe should not have been:
Craters, smooth terrains, flows, and layering on the comet nuclei (04/2007)

 

[DeiRenDopa]

That is Alfven about the universe, now please cite an electic comet paper as I asked, that actually calculates the water production that is observed.

This is a thread about electric comets not about the futher nonsens of the electric universe. That has its own thread somewhere.

This IS relevent tusenfem and on topic imo.

Electric comets make themselves visible in the electrical envirment of our Electric Sun but that happens in an Electric Universe.

Let me see now ... there is a lot of plasma in the universe, therefore Wal Thornhill MUST be right, when he writes about Electric Comets.

Have I understood you correctly, Haig?

From one of the bazillion spam links Haig has posted: "The electric comet model does not stand alone but in partnership with another hypothesis - the electric Sun."

So, at least Haig is being consistent; IF Electric Sun, THEN Electric Comet. No doubt Haig is also a big fan of the, logically fallacious, IF Electric Comet, THEN Electric Sun.

And here's where Haig's narrow focus fails him: there is no Electric Sun. Therefore, by Haig's logic, there is no Electric Comet!

And this thread can be closed, and all Haig's spamming attention can be focused on the Electric Sun idea (anti-scientist Thornhill can say it as many times as he likes, but there's zero evidence that there is an ES hypothesis).

 

[Reality Check]

Quick Rosetta update: Churyumov-Gerasimenko is a contact binary!

The nice thing about having two objects orbiting each other is that you can estimate the mass and thus the density of the objects as in the comments:

Lindsay: 07/16/2014 12:20 CDT

Taking a very rough estimation of the dimensions of the twin nucleus as 4 x 3.5 x 2 km for the larger and a 2.6 km diameter for the smaller object and treating them as two co-orbiting point masses with the measured 12.76 hour rotation period I get a minimum bulk density of around 150kg per cubic meter needed to hold it all together as a contact binary… Very crude admittedly but at least it gives a ball park indication of the density of these objects which looks to be very low. As the spacecraft continues its approach and the image resolution continues to improve we will hopefully get to hear ever more precise estimates of some of the physical properties over the next few days and weeks.

This low value of density is not unexpected since Churyumov-Gerasimenko has 102 ± 9 kg/m³ based on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko mass determination based on a new method for modeling non-gravitiational forces and accelerations. (2012) (PDF)

Perhaps Haig can tell us what he thinks the density of solid rock is (but it is obvious that he has never even seen a rock let alone thought about its density )!

 

[tusenfem]

So, at least Haig is being consistent; IF Electric Sun, THEN Electric Comet. No doubt Haig is also a big fan of the, logically fallacious, IF Electric Comet, THEN Electric Sun.

Yes, I guess we have to give him credit for that.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Remember one of the marks of Woo is that a model or theory never changes.

If the Mainstream changes their model in the light of new evidence then they were obviously wrong before and must be wrong now. By changing the model in face of new evidence they admit they don't know what they are talking about.

Woo Models stay the same and new evidence is ignored or twisted to fit the model.

 

[Sol88]

Remember one of the marks of Woo is that a model or theory never changes.

If the Mainstream changes their model in the light of new evidence then they were obviously wrong before and must be wrong now. By changing the model in face of new evidence they admit they don't know what they are talking about.

Woo Models stay the same and new evidence is ignored or twisted to fit the model.

Ok, so we are all reading from the same page:

A comet’s ‘coma’ develops as it moves along its orbit progressively closer to the Sun, the increasing warmth causing surface ices to sublimate and gas to escape from its rock–ice nucleus.

As the gas flows away from the nucleus, it also carries a cloud of tiny dust particles out into space, which slowly expands to create the coma.

The warming continues and activity rises as the comet moves ever closer to the Sun. Eventually, pressure from the solar wind causes some of the material to stream out into a long tail.

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Rosetta/Rosetta_s_comet_expect_the_unexpected

That's "Mainstream" think, yeah?

Show of hands Captain_Swoop, Tusenfem, Reality Check. Is that how you believe it works.

 

[Sol88]

Yes, I guess we have to give him credit for that.

Bang on!


Thats why this Rosetta mission can PROVE it one way or the other

Dominate electrical effects on Comet Churyumov-Gerasimenko = Electric Comet = Electric Sun = Electric Universe


Bit of a stretch for you mob at the moment but once the connection is made
...look out universe here we come!

Happy to eat my hat if "i'm" wrong

and I'm wishing for C-G to "put on a show" for all to see, something like a nice CME to blow thru the 'hood.

 

[Dancing David]

Ok, so we are all reading from the same page: http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Rosetta/Rosetta_s_comet_expect_the_unexpected

That's "Mainstream" think, yeah?

Show of hands Captain_Swoop, Tusenfem, Reality Check. Is that how you believe it works.

Hi Sol88 are you saying something weird about mainstream theory and just pretending we understand?

It seems you assume there would be no peaks and valleys in how material would be ejected from teh coma.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Onother mark of Woo is presenting a simplified, Strawman model of the Mainstream.

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88, have you learned that 3.0 is different from 0.6 in the last 5 years

Ok, so we are all reading from the same page:

No Sol88, it looks like the fallacy of false dichotomy is raising its ugly head yet again !

That is a description of the valid science about comets.
This is a thread about the electric comet delusion. This is proposed by people so deluded that they deny the difference between the density of asteroids and comets !

Show of electric comet supporter hands, Sol88: Have you understood yet that 3.0 gm/cc different from 0.6 gm/cc?
First pointed out on 7th August 2009 !

The same page we need to start on is basic arithmetic or: Electric comets still do not exist!

 

[Reality Check]

Bang on!...snipped gibberish....

Wrong, Sol88: All we need to know that the electric comet theory is wrong is the basic arithmetic that you re in denial of!
If you want to relate the idiocy of electric sun to woo of electric universe to the bigger woo of electric comet then that is up to you. That is not the subject if this thread.

Sol88, have you learned that 3.0 gm/cc (asteroids) is different from 0.6 gm/cc (comets) in the last 5 years?

You have been wrong for 5 years - that is a lot of hats to eat !

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88: What is the EC prediction for the activity of comets

Ok, so we are all reading from the same page: http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Rosetta/Rosetta_s_comet_expect_the_unexpected

Sol88: What is the electric comet prediction from the electric comet theory with its comprehensive physics and mathematics rolleyes for the activity of comets?
Or have the EC proponents just have personal fantasies about how comet activity will vary?

My EC prediction: The activity will be roughly constant over short periods because the mythical source of the activity is electrical potential difference between the comet and the Sun (roughly constant over short periods).
Thus EC comets can never switch off once they switch on.
But then we have that 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko has got close to switching off as you cite, Sol88!

Your EC prediction, Sol88?

Compare this to the mainstream physics where large variations in activity are expected because sources of ice to be sublimated can be exhausted.

 

[tusenfem]

Ok, so we are all reading from the same page: http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Rosetta/Rosetta_s_comet_expect_the_unexpected

That's "Mainstream" think, yeah?

Show of hands Captain_Swoop, Tusenfem, Reality Check. Is that how you believe it works.

We know from Comet Halley that it changed (lowered) its outgassing rate by a factor of three within one day see Gehrz et al. (2005) between the passage of VEGA1 and Giotto, close to perihelion, so we know that comets are very variable.

 

[tusenfem]

Thats why this Rosetta mission can PROVE it one way or the other

Dominate electrical effects on Comet Churyumov-Gerasimenko = Electric Comet = Electric Sun = Electric Universe

Interestingly, in the place where the EC would expect most discharge activity, in the "neck" of the "rubberducky", it is found that the surface is brighter instead of darker. How does EC explain that? Discharges are supposed to "brand" the surface and make it darker.

Back to Sol88 ...

 

[tusenfem]

Actually, I am flattered (sort of) by the EC community, that they think we are so intelligent and all knowing that we are aware of all the details of cometary activity. I wish I could be so certain about how comets behave, but then if we knew, we would not have sent Rosetta to 67P.

Just now I am comparing the VEGA1, 2 and Giotto flybys of Comet 1P/Halley (all within 8 days), looking at what happens in the cometosheath (the region where the solar wind magnetic field is draped around the nuclues, downstream of the bow shock), and I expected some differences, but it seems it is very different when investigating some magnetic waves modes. If this is a teaser for what we can expect for the Rosetta flybys of 67P (which it should be), then we are in for a lot of work and lots of puzzles.

 

[Reality Check]

[UPDATED] New Rosetta images show comet's craggy shape
and now we are going to have EC proponents yelling about "look an asteroid!" !
But the better question is - where are the electric discharges from all of those high spots in the images, e.g. the edges of the scarps, peaks and craters?

 

[Haig]

Mainstream Ref:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(spacecraft)

Some Electric Comet predictions from Thunderbolts ...

Rosetta Mission Predictions

After a 10-year journey, the Rosetta spacecraft has now reached Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. It looks like the mission is going to be a goldmine for us.

Already one self evident prediction of the electric comet model has been confirmed: a spectacular, sharply 'spark machined' surface—just the opposite of what the “sublimating ices” model of comets would predict and a refutation of all published artistic visualizations of the comet prior to Rosetta’s arrival.

As most of our readers will know, the double-lobed form of the nucleus, similar to the observed forms of so many comets and asteroids, is no surprise to electrical theorists. Standard theory, on the other hand, must call upon repeated astronomical improbabilities (merging of two tiny and remote bodies in space) to explain these recurrent morphologies. If such improbabilities are common in a gravitational scenario, why no triple-lobed comets or asteroids?

While no electrical theorist would deny the possibility that a chunk of dirty ice could still be circling the Sun today, none expects substantial water-ice either on or below the surface of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. More likely would be a possible localized dusting of frost as trivial levels of ice crystals, created electrochemically in the coma, drift to the surface.

Significant things to look for as the Rosetta mission continues: 1) no evidence of subsurface ice at the sources of the jets; 2) virtually no interstellar dust, the second component of the “dirty snowball” theory; 3) discovery of minerals on the nucleus that are typical of planetary surfaces within the habitable zone of the Sun; 4) characteristic concentration of plasma jet activity eating away at the cliffs of elevated terrain and the margins of well-defined depressions; 5) measurable retreat of active cliff regions in the wake of this activity; and 6) the presence of unexpected electric fields within the coma and/or close to the comet nucleus, possibly even disrupting the anticipated landing on the surface. This could occur on or after touch down because the sharp metallic edges of the spacecraft make an ideal focus for a diffuse plasma discharge, which would disrupt communications and possibly interfere with spacecraft electronics. And…

If a strong coronal mass ejection from the Sun strikes the comet, we expect the comet to respond electrically with a surge of activity, confirming that the jets are not due to warming from the Sun but to charged particle distribution in the electric field of the Sun.

If you’re wondering about the electrical theory, facts, and reasoning behind these expectations, it's time to watch The Electric Comet documentary, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34wtt2EUToo along with the accompanying video on reported infrared readings of “water” from the Deep Impact event at Comet Tempel 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1f99ReNJVw

~ Dave Talbott

 

[thedopefishlives]

So where were these predictions before the probe arrived at the comet? Everything is always obvious in hindsight with you guys.