The Electric Comet theory

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh dear - looking back at the beginning of this thread many years ago reveals more science that Sol88 may be in denial of. From 4th August 2009, this is what real science can do:
De Sanctis et al., Thermal Evolution Models of Tempel 1
Thermal evolution models of comet 9P/Tempel 1 have been developed to understand how thermal evolution models of comet nuclei can help to interpret the results of Deep Impact and vice versa, how the Deep Impact results can constrain the comet nuclei models. We found a general agreement between the models' outcomes and the mission results, without need of an ad hoc choice of initial parameters. We found that a "standard" model of a porous, low-density nucleus made of initially amorphous water ice, volatile ices, and dust can reproduce the general activity pattern of 9P/Tempel 1, if the dynamical characteristics of this comet are taken into account. The general aspect of the nucleus is well reproduced by the presence of a dust mantle on the nucleus that, even if very thin, quenches water production. The models foresee the natural formation of a dust mantle on the comet's surface, and the water flux source is mainly a subsurface diffuse source, in agreement with the observations. However, no simple correlation is found between production rates of different volatile gases and their relative abundances in the nucleus. From our models' results we can affirm that the coma abundances of volatile species do not match their abundances in the nucleus.
Click to expand...
(my emphasis added)
 
Cited on 5th August 2009: Is the nucleus of Comet Halley a low density body?
What is known about the mass production, gas velocity, asymmetry factor, and angle of the nucleus of Comet Halley is examined in order to arrive at an estimate of the average density of the nucleus. An estimate of 0.6 g/cu cm + 0.9 or - 0,.4 g/cu cm is obtained. This result is compatible with 'snowball' models of the nucleus, although a more compact ice structure could correspond to such a density value.
Click to expand...
 
Sol88: Please cite where e.c. predicts electrical discharges of duration 10-15 ms

From 5th August 2009
Plasma clouds associated with Comet P/Borrelly dust impacts : DS1/Comet Borrelly notes the observation of "Small electric pulses of duration 10-15 ms of cometary origin were detected but are presently unexplained." which Sol88 then clamed was "rock electrical discharging"

Which lead to the question which remains unanswered:
5th August 2009 Sol88: Now where in the many published papers on the electric comet idea is the prediction that the electrical discharges are of duration 10-15 ms?
 
Sol88: How does the electric comet idea explain main-belt comets

5th August 2009 Sol88, How does the electric comet idea explain main-belt comets?
The total inability of the electric comet idea to state what turns an asteroid into a comet of course shows just how useless that idea is. The basic premise of the idea is that it is just an asteroid moving through the EM field of the Sun - but here are comets with similar orbits as asteroids that are not comets :p!

Then there is the reverse - there are hundreds of thousands of asteroids with similar orbits as comets that are not comets :eek:.

Electric comets still do not exist! (26th August 2013)
Item 13 is EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets - which needs updating after a year.
 
Last edited:
EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets

18 November 2014 - updated the numbers.
EC universe: Rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value will be comets.
There may be other factors involved but since there is no actual EC model there is no list available.

There are observed main-belt comets with a minimum eccentricity of 0.1644 (133P/Elst-Pizarro). So the EC minimim must be this (or lower!).

Real universe: There are rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value that are not comets.
In fact there are asteroids in orbits that are get close to cometary orbits, e.g. 2005 VX3 with an eccentricity of 0.9955142)

The JPL Small-Body Database Browser has a search engine. This shows that there are 252,905 cataloged asteroids with an eccentricity > 0.17.

The EC excuse (according to Sol88) is that low solar activity is the reason that these 252,905 cataloged asteroids are not comets. What Sol88 has not realized is that each asteroid is observed a number of times over a period of days to years. These 252,905 cataloged asteroids were not close to the the Sun at the same instant of time. These asteroids were observed during a range of solar activity. That range included times that comets were visible.

So how many of these should be comets?

EC has no actual physical model and so never gives numbers so we do not expect help there.

Conclusion: EC currently predicts that 100% of the 252,905 asteroids should be comets.
Good examples of the asteriods that should be comets according to the EC idea are many of the named asteroids:
  • Juno (e=0.2553, observed over a span of 67,610 days).
  • Pallas (e=0.2309, observed over a span of 64,291 days)
  • Astraea (e=0.1917, observed over a span of 59,759 days)
  • ...More than 46 other named asteroids observed 1000's of times over decades.
  • Vera (e=0.1939, observed over a span of 45,191 days)
This analysis is in fact being generous to the EC idea. A stricter analysis would be to look at the orbital parameters of all comets (not just main-belt comets). This shows that the comet 158P/Kowal-LINEAR has an eccentricity of 0.0279 and a perihelion distance of 4.594 AU.

There are 648,059 asteroids with eccentricities greater than the minimum observed eccentricity of comets (0.0279). These should be EC comets.

Another EC excuse (according to solrey), is that composition plays a part determning whether "discharges" happen. He completely forgets about calculating the energy of these discharges as usual with EC proponents. Or stating just what the effect of the composition is.
 
Reality Check said:
18 November 2014 - updated the numbers.
EC universe: Rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value will be comets.
There may be other factors involved but since there is no actual EC model there is no list available.

There are observed main-belt comets with a minimum eccentricity of 0.1644 (133P/Elst-Pizarro). So the EC minimim must be this (or lower!).

Real universe: There are rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value that are not comets.
In fact there are asteroids in orbits that are get close to cometary orbits, e.g. 2005 VX3 with an eccentricity of 0.9955142)

The JPL Small-Body Database Browser has a search engine. This shows that there are 252,905 cataloged asteroids with an eccentricity > 0.17.

The EC excuse (according to Sol88) is that low solar activity is the reason that these 252,905 cataloged asteroids are not comets. What Sol88 has not realized is that each asteroid is observed a number of times over a period of days to years. These 252,905 cataloged asteroids were not close to the the Sun at the same instant of time. These asteroids were observed during a range of solar activity. That range included times that comets were visible.

So how many of these should be comets?

EC has no actual physical model and so never gives numbers so we do not expect help there.

Conclusion: EC currently predicts that 100% of the 252,905 asteroids should be comets.
Good examples of the asteriods that should be comets according to the EC idea are many of the named asteroids:
  • Juno (e=0.2553, observed over a span of 67,610 days).
  • Pallas (e=0.2309, observed over a span of 64,291 days)
  • Astraea (e=0.1917, observed over a span of 59,759 days)
  • ...More than 46 other named asteroids observed 1000's of times over decades.
  • Vera (e=0.1939, observed over a span of 45,191 days)
This analysis is in fact being generous to the EC idea. A stricter analysis would be to look at the orbital parameters of all comets (not just main-belt comets). This shows that the comet 158P/Kowal-LINEAR has an eccentricity of 0.0279 and a perihelion distance of 4.594 AU.

There are 648,059 asteroids with eccentricities greater than the minimum observed eccentricity of comets (0.0279). These should be EC comets.

Another EC excuse (according to solrey), is that composition plays a part determning whether "discharges" happen. He completely forgets about calculating the energy of these discharges as usual with EC proponents. Or stating just what the effect of the composition is.
Click to expand...

Pretty simple really!

I don't know :rolleyes:

Seems Comet and Asteroids are pretty much the same thing , ay :) http://astrobob.areavoices.com/2010/12/12/asteroid-switches-gears-becomes-comet/

ROCK :eek:
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Oh dear - ... snip usual RC stuff ... added)
Click to expand...

Reality Check said:
... snip usual RC stuff ... is the nucleus of Comet Halley a low density body?
Click to expand...

Reality Check said:
... snip usual RC stuff ... notes the observation of "Small electric pulses of duration 10-15 ms of cometary origin were detected but are presently unexplained." which Sol88 then clamed was "rock electrical discharging"

Which lead to the question which remains unanswered:
5th August 2009 Sol88: Now where in the many published papers on the electric comet idea is the prediction that the electrical discharges are of duration 10-15 ms?
Click to expand...

Reality Check said:
... snip ...
The total inability of the electric comet idea to state what turns an asteroid into a comet of course shows just how useless that idea is. The basic premise of the idea is that it is just an asteroid moving through the EM field of the Sun - but here are comets with similar orbits as asteroids that are not comets :p!

Then there is the reverse - there are hundreds of thousands of asteroids with similar orbits as comets that are not comets ... snip usual RC stuff ...
Click to expand...


Reality Check said:
18 November 2014 - updated the numbers.
EC universe: Rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value will be comets.
There may be other factors involved but since there is no actual EC model there is no list available.

There are observed main-belt comets with a minimum eccentricity of 0.1644 (133P/Elst-Pizarro). So the EC minimim must be this (or lower!).

Real universe: There are rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value that are not comets.
In fact there are asteroids in orbits that are get close to cometary orbits, e.g. 2005 VX3 with an eccentricity of 0.9955142)

The JPL Small-Body Database Browser has a search engine. This shows that there are 252,905 cataloged asteroids with an eccentricity > 0.17.

The EC excuse (according to Sol88) is that low solar activity is the reason that these 252,905 cataloged asteroids are not comets. What Sol88 has not realized is that each asteroid is observed a number of times over a period of days to years. These 252,905 cataloged asteroids were not close to the the Sun at the same instant of time. These asteroids were observed during a range of solar activity. That range included times that comets were visible.

So how many of these should be comets?

EC has no actual physical model and so never gives numbers so we do not expect help there.

Conclusion: EC currently predicts that 100% of the 252,905 asteroids should be comets.
Good examples of the asteriods that should be comets according to the EC idea are many of the named asteroids:
  • Juno (e=0.2553, observed over a span of 67,610 days).
  • Pallas (e=0.2309, observed over a span of 64,291 days)
  • Astraea (e=0.1917, observed over a span of 59,759 days)
  • ...More than 46 other named asteroids observed 1000's of times over decades.
  • Vera (e=0.1939, observed over a span of 45,191 days)
This analysis is in fact being generous to the EC idea. A stricter analysis would be to look at the orbital parameters of all comets (not just main-belt comets). This shows that the comet 158P/Kowal-LINEAR has an eccentricity of 0.0279 and a perihelion distance of 4.594 AU.

There are 648,059 asteroids with eccentricities greater than the minimum observed eccentricity of comets (0.0279). These should be EC comets.

Another EC excuse (according to solrey), is that composition plays a part determning whether "discharges" happen. He completely forgets about calculating the energy of these discharges as usual with EC proponents. Or stating just what the effect of the composition is.
Click to expand...

Gezz RC you still haven't grasped the Electric Comet theory after all these years OR you like to deliberately misrepresent the concept in order to knock down the straw men you set up! ;)

Just from your last post above, you say ...
Reality Check said:
18 November 2014 - updated the numbers.
EC universe: Rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value will be comets.
There may be other factors involved but since there is no actual EC model there is no list available.
Click to expand...
Give a source for this claim? you can't and YES, there are other factors such as CHARGE! and the condition of the Suns electrical field (weak/strong).

Comets are notoriously unpredictable bodies because of these three main factors (there are others) Orbit eccentricity, Comet (or Asteroid) charge and Electrical conditions around the Sun.

Electric comets are charged bodies interacting with the electric environment around the Sun, it's just that simple.

Your other point about density also has a simple answer that you (and DD) have been told many times.

The density calculation (based on gravity alone) for a charged body moving in an electric field will result in inaccurate answers. You need to apply the laws of electromagnetism.

It's just like the gravity only calculations made on the force needed to stop spinning galaxies from flying apart. Gravity alone isn't strong enough so mainstream scientists needed to invent the mythical black holes, dark matter and dark energy to solve this puzzle. Electromagnetic forces are the main factor holding and driving the galaxies and universe and no other black arts are necessary.

This is just my understanding from looking into Electric Comets and Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology theory. It makes the most sense of the data and facts that have come to light since the current space age era.

Try reading solrey's post again with the above in mind ... http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5061169&postcount=393

Adventures of European comet lander may not be over http://news.yahoo.com/adventures-european-comet-lander-may-not-over-231609857.html
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10373261@N03/15628726569/

Predictions for Comet Science After Rosetta
The startling truth is that no coherent and reliable story of our Solar System’s birth and evolution remains. And comet theory is entirely in flux. As theorists begin to consider possibilities beyond the primordial “snowball-comet,” it’s not unreasonable to expect innovative scientists to arrive at the Electric Universe through the back door. The idea of lightning-generated comet material is just one example, and many similar openings are now likely. Electrical phenomena will continue to provoke new frontiers in comet exploration, and we now have many reasons to believe that Rosetta will be remembered as a critical turn on the path of discovery.
Click to expand...
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2014/10/27/predictions-for-comet-science-after-rosetta/
 
Is there something other than an hour and a half of YouTube video that explains the "electric comet" theory? Or can post the Cliff notes version for me? I thought I understood the idea but the blithering and snipping around here reduces readability for others.
 
Haig said:
The density calculation (based on gravity alone) for a charged body moving in an electric field will result in inaccurate answers. You need to apply the laws of electromagnetism.
Click to expand...

Funny thing, though: you never actually do.

It's just like the gravity only calculations made on the force needed to stop spinning galaxies from flying apart. Gravity alone isn't strong enough so mainstream scientists needed to invent the mythical black holes, dark matter and dark energy to solve this puzzle. Electromagnetic forces are the main factor holding and driving the galaxies and universe and no other black arts are necessary.
Click to expand...

Nope. I've done the calculations. It won't work. Electromagnetic forces are off by many orders of magnitude more than gravity without dark matter. Electromagnetism at galactic scales is so pathetically weak as to be irrelevant.
 
Sol88 said:
Tusenfem has some of that data from ROMAP and being the top scientist he is as soon as hes vaction is over and he's published is findings I'm sure he may drop in again and let us know.

Spose we could use our Moon as a stand in http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/electric-moon.html

Both rocky airless bodies exposed to the plasma stream eminating from the electric SUN :eye-poppi
Click to expand...

Uh huh. lacking any data are you that there is a charge to make a comet glow, which is what the EC theory is about.

So if I check that link you provided, what will the charge be, exactly

(Besides the fact that it doesn't give that charge.) :D
 
Last edited:
The Church of the Electric Comet is really simple Soll88

Sol88 said:
Pretty simple really! ...snipped usual non-science....
Click to expand...
Yes it is pretty simple that there are ignorant and deluded people at Thunderbolts who have made up a fairy story about comets and turned that story into the semi-religious dogma of the Church of the Electric Comet :p!
 
Sol88 said:
Yeah, except you smashed an impactor into solid rock, you hammered into solid rock, you brought back solid rock and it looks like solid rock :confused:
Click to expand...
Except those are lies, Sol88, as you have known for the last 5 years about Tempel 1, Stardust and Deep impact.
You know that we never smashed an impactor into solid rock - Deep Impact smashed into Tempel 1 which is a comet and not solid rock.
You know that we never brought back solid rock - Stardust brought back dust particles.
You know that we have found water ice in Tempel 1 :eek:.

So how many more years of denial of the real world of comets are you going to indulge in, Sol88?
 
Sol88 cites a prime example of Thunderbolts ignorance and fantasies

Sol88 said:
https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060217deepimpact3.htm
just for those new to the thread.
Click to expand...
For those new to the thread - Thunderbolts are a bunch of science cranks who are so deluded that they know that the average density of comets is 0.6 g/cc and the average density of asteroids is 3.0 g/cc and still insist that comets are rocks.
Haig and Sol88 have been totally fooled by this group - see Sol88's many posts about ROCK despite knowing about the 0.6 versus 3.0 fact for over 5 years!

Deep Impact—Where’s the Water? (3 (Picture of the Day, Feb 17, 2006 :p )) is a prime example of Thunderbolts ignorance and fantasies that lead to the electric comet delusion:
  • Basically lying about an "electric comet" theory existing in science by listing some historical speculations and theories about comets - some of which were actually correct. These scientific theories are not the Thunderbolts electric comet idea, e.g. none of them have electrical discharges from solid rock.
  • The good old "it is plasma so it is electric" myth.
  • Incredibility based on ignorance that comets have coma!
    The ignorance here is the gravity magically stops and so the coma cannot form.
  • The good old "EM is 1039 times stringer than gravity " myth.
    This is ignorance of both gravity and EM! Gravity is weaker but there is only one "charge" - it cannot be shielded. EM has two charges - it can and is shielded. In plasma there are basically no EM forces on scales larger than a few Debye lengths. This is 10 meters in the solar wind :jaw-dropp
  • A "Plasma events are scalable" statement.
    Not really - events are not scalable, parameters mostly are Plasma scaling.
    You cannot take a centimeter scale double layer in a plasma lab and arbitrarily scale it up to thousands of kilometers anywhere.
  • Their "science" is based on a Picture of the Day :eek:!
  • Ignorance about astronomy - astronomers know that comet nuclei interact electromagnetically with the solar wind, that the coma is a plasma, etc.!
  • That "a comet is merely an inert body plowing through the solar wind" is a Thunderbolts delusion - not what astronomers think.
  • OH production is accounted by the mainstream models.
  • Too much atomic hydrogen is a massive statement of incredibility that the coma is really, really big :eye-poppi!
  • Plasma sheaths and “double layers” is a fantasy about plasma sheaths and double layers!
  • X-rays is actually the death knell of the electric comet idea - none of the x-rays expected from electrical discharges have been detected.
    This section contains some of the usual idiocies we see from cranks:
    1) that an observation that science could not explain (in 1996) is magically explained by their delusion that predicts nothing!
    2) that science stopped in the year X - 1996 in this case.
    3)that science is comments by scientists reported in old news articles.
  • Flare-ups in deep freeze with no electric comet explanation of why imaginary electrical discharges should suddenly start and then stop.
  • Surface erosion starts with a fantasy about spluttering eroding the nuclei surface which the double up with a fantasy about an "electrically etched surface of Jupiter’s moon Io".
  • More fantasies about the "white spots" in Tempel 1 images (they are pixels saturated by light).
  • Fine cometary dust - spluttering produces dust :eek:
    Followed by a lie about astronomers not understanding the effects of Deep Impact (they had experiments to show what happens when a high velocity object hits a soft object!)

This Picture of the Day post has references to "predictions by Thornhill" which is a problem because Thornhill has lies about his predictions being confirmed:
The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.
 
Electric comets still do not exist

No answer to the simple facts:
  1. Comets have measured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).
  2. Comets may not have the composition of asteroids
  3. Deep Impact confirmed that comet nuclei are made of dust and ice not rock. There were a couple of surprises in that the dust was talcum powder rather than sand and the amount of ice was smaller than expected.
    "Analysis of data from the Swift X-ray telescope showed that the comet continued outgassing from the impact for 13 days, with a peak five days after impact. A total of 5 million kilograms (11 million pounds) of water[35] and between 10 and 25 million kilograms (22 and 55 million pounds) of dust were lost from the impact."WP
    Thus the water content of Comet Tempel 1 is 20% to 50%.
  4. Cometary dust as collected by the Stardust mission contain forms of carbon that are not in meteorites.
  5. Electric Comets I
  6. Electric Comets II: References
  7. Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (actually no EU X-ray bursts).
  8. The EC assumption of EDM machining does not produce jets.
  9. EDM in the EC idea needs a dielectric material which does not exist!
  10. No EDM sparks are seen in images of comet nuclei.
  11. No EDM hot spots are seen in thermal maps of Tempel 1.
  12. Voltage potentials are many orders of magnitude too small.
  13. EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets[/COLOR][/B]
  14. Water, water everywhere (except in the EC idea)
  15. EC proponents have the delusion that argument by YouTube video is somehow scientific :eek:!
  16. EC proponents may think that EC comets switch off at perihelion?
  17. The electric comet idea creators have lied about its predictions: The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.
 
Haig: Calculation of the average density of comets from the electric comet idea

Haig said:
Gezz RC ...
Click to expand...
Gezz , Haig, you have not grasped the idea that repeatedly linking to a deluded and ignorant YouTube video instead of science reflects badly on you :p.
3rd November 2014: 19 items of ignorance and delusion in 11 minutes of a Thunderbolt video!

Electric comets still do not exist!, item 15 is EC proponents have the delusion that argument by YouTube video is somehow scientific!

A bunch of fantasies is not science, Haig.
Ignorance about the electric comet delusion is not science, Haig.
The source for the claim starts with the electric comet idea as presented so coherently and rationally by the Thunderbolts team :rolleyes:, Haig.
I then do what they are incapable of doing - apply some common sense and knowledge of science to that idea.

The electric comet delusion is that comets charge up and discharge as they move closer to the Sun. That is governed by the orbit's eccentricity (the deviation from a circle). The higher the eccentricity, the bigger the supposed voltage difference in the electric comet delusion.

The ignorant assertion that electromagnetism magically explains the difference in density pops up from you Haig!
Haig: Please present the gravity + electromagnetism calculation of the average density of comets from the electric comet idea.
And since we need to compare this to asteroids:
Haig: Please present the gravity + electromagnetism calculation of the average density of comets from the electric comet idea.

Citing more delusions from Thunderbolts does not help either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom