The Electric Comet theory

[Reality Check]

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.

Sorry, Haig, but this is more a demonstration of you being fooled by the crackpottery of the electric comet/EU/PU cranks.

There are multiple sources of evidence for dark matter, not just galaxy rotation curves.
There are multiple sources of evidence for dark energy, which does not include galaxy rotation curves!
Galaxy rotation curves are flat outside the galaxy center which violates Newtonian gravitation. Astronomers know about electromagnetism and know that these curves cannot be explained by electromagnetism. That leaves non-visible mass.
Black holes are a standard part of GR and there is good evidence that they exist.
Black holes are not used to explain galaxy rotation curves!

The "black arts" are the electric comet/EU/PC ignorance of basic science and the delusion the electricity/plasma does everything.

 

[Reality Check]

Haig and Sol88 note: water ice detected on 67P

Let us return to the real world of comets and what is happening now:
Philae Lander Early Science Results: Ice, Organic Molecules and Half a Foot of Dust

...
Despite appearances, the comet’s hard as ice. The team responsible for the MUPUS (Multi-Purpose Sensors for Surface and Sub-Surface Science) instrument hammered a probe as hard as they could into 67P’s skin but only dug in a few millimeters:
“Although the power of the hammer was gradually increased, we were not able to go deep into the surface,” said Tilman Spohn from the DLR Institute of Planetary Research, who leads the research team. “If we compare the data with laboratory measurements, we think that the probe encountered a hard surface with strength comparable to that of solid ice,” he added. This shouldn’t be surprising, since ice is the main constituent of comets, but much of 67P/C-G appears blanketed in dust, leading some to believe the surface was softer and fluffier than what Philae found.
...Two other SESAME instruments measured low vaporization activity and a great deal of water ice under the lander.
...After looking at both the temperature and hammer probe data, the Philae team’s preliminary take is that the upper layers of the comet’s surface are covered in dust 4-8 inches (10-20 cm), overlaying firm ice or ice and dust mixtures.
...During Philae’s active time, Rosetta used the CONSERT (COmet Nucleus Sounding Experiment by Radio wave Transmission) instrument to beam a radio signal to the lander while they were on opposite sides of the comet’s nucleus. Philae then transmitted a second signal through the comet back to Rosetta. This was to be repeated 7,500 times for each orbit of Rosetta to build up a 3D image of 67P/C-G’s interior, an otherworldly “CAT scan” as it were. These measurements were being made even as Philae lapsed into hibernation. Deeper down the ice becomes more porous as revealed by measurements made by the orbiter.

(my emphasis added)

I do hope that Haig and Sol88 realize that astronomers are smart enough to tell the difference between radio waves sent through solid rock and radio waves sent through ice !

 

[Ziggurat]

I do hope that Haig and Sol88 realize that astronomers are smart enough to tell the difference between radio waves sent through solid rock and radio waves sent through ice !

Oh, but this isn't just any rock, it's double layer electric plasma rock. So radio waves go right through it.

 

[Haig]

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.

Try these

The Electric Comet

The Electric Comet: The Elephant in NASA's Living Room?

Comet

But really (if you have the time) the video explains it really well ...

The Electric Comet | Full Documentary

 

[Reality Check]

Try these ...

Haig , links to the web site of the cranks who created that ignorant and deluded video are a waste of everyone's time.

The video explains very well just how deluded and ignorant the authors are: 3 November 2014: 19 items of ignorance and delusion in 11 minutes of a Thunderbolt video (out of an hour and a half )

ETA: Comet is the plasma universe woo, not the electric comet delusion . Starts off well then goes off fantasies about double layers and Birkeland.

A comet is a body in the solar system that orbits the Sun. It consists of a nucleus that is perhaps made of rock, dust, and ice, and may exhibits a coma (atmosphere, with associated ionosphere, magnetosphere, sometimes called a plasmasphere), and/or one or more tails: an ion tail (or plasma tail) and dust tail.

In the plasma of the solar wind, and due to the photoelectric effect, the comet nucleus may charge electrostatically, and the ions and dust in the ionosphere and tails produce their own magnetic and electric fields, and electric currents.

 

[Haig]

Haig , links to the web site of the cranks who created that ignorant and deluded video are a waste of everyone's time.

Who's asking you to waste your time on this thread about Electric Comets RC ?

Shouldn't you be on the thread about Dirty Snowball comets


Electric Comets react to an electrical environment and there are more and more examples of this and other effects of this space condition being discovered now.

Galactic-Scale Electric Fields Could Solve Dark Matter Mystery, Says Physicist
Nobody has found convincing evidence of dark matter. Perhaps they should search for electric fields instead, suggests one researcher

Episode 2 Symbols of an Alien Sky: The Lightning Scarred Planet, Mars (Full Documentary) In Episode 2 Symbols of an Alien Sky: The Lightning Scarred Planet, Mars, David Talbott takes the viewer on an odyssey across the surface of Mars. Exploring feature after feature of the planet, he finds that only electric arcs could produce the observed patterns. The high resolution images reveal massive channels and gouges, great mounds, and crater chains, none finding an explanation in traditional geology but all matching the scars from electric discharge experiments in the laboratory.

 

[Sol88]

Despite appearances, the comet’s hard as ice. The team responsible for the MUPUS (Multi-Purpose Sensors for Surface and Sub-Surface Science) instrument hammered a probe as hard as they could into 67P’s skin but only dug in a few millimeters:
“Although the power of the hammer was gradually increased, we were not able to go deep into the surface,” said Tilman Spohn from the DLR Institute of Planetary Research, who leads the research team. “If we compare the data with laboratory measurements, we think that the probe encountered a hard surface with strength comparable to that of solid ice,” he added. This shouldn’t be surprising, since ice is the main constituent of comets, but much of 67P/C-G appears blanketed in dust, leading some to believe the surface was softer and fluffier than what Philae found.
...Two other SESAME instruments measured low vaporization activity and a great deal of water ice under the lander.
...After looking at both the temperature and hammer probe data, the Philae team’s preliminary take is that the upper layers of the comet’s surface are covered in dust 4-8 inches (10-20 cm), overlaying firm ice or ice and dust mixtures.
...During Philae’s active time, Rosetta used the CONSERT (COmet Nucleus Sounding Experiment by Radio wave Transmission) instrument to beam a radio signal to the lander while they were on opposite sides of the comet’s nucleus. Philae then transmitted a second signal through the comet back to Rosetta. This was to be repeated 7,500 times for each orbit of Rosetta to build up a 3D image of 67P/C-G’s interior, an otherworldly “CAT scan” as it were. These measurements were being made even as Philae lapsed into hibernation. Deeper down the ice becomes more porous as revealed by measurements made by the orbiter.

So I was wrong then? Comets are indeed, as Reality Check, says

We know that their surfaces are different from their interiors because they outgas. Thus anyone who knows about comets will suspect that they have a "crust" - just not the idiocy of a M&M analogy.
More like a ice-cream that has been in the freezer too long and has developed an icy exterior with s softer interior.

'spose it has to be a layer of hard ICE over the top of fluffy dust/ice mixture...you know 'cos the average density is only 0.4g/cc!

Seems this comets is special then, compared to all the others we've studied.

Very interested to hear more about the finding of abundant water ice!

 

[Sol88]

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

(my emphasis added)

http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/133/4/1836/fulltext/

just snipping

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.

Moreover, it is significant that the extent of this ice on Tempel 1's surface is not sufficient to produce the abundance of water flux observed in the comet's coma. The Deep Impact team concludes that "there are sources of water from beneath the comet's surface that supply the cometary coma as well."

Mmmm...

 

[Haig]

Interesting points made in this article not just the quote below ...

Will NASA Rewrite History?

With the world’s attention focused on the Rosetta mission to comet 67P, the failures of popular comet theory have never been more evident. On November 12, the ESA will attempt to use harpoons and ice screws to secure a lander on the comet’s blacker than charcoal, rocky and ice-free surface. Only the Electric Universe predicted that the comet nucleus would not be a dirty snowball or an icy fluff ball, but rather scorched material excavated electrically from a planetary surface. (An important note: contrary to some popular discussions, the Electric Universe theory does not state that all comets are “solid rocks.” We have noted the evidence for electrical scarring on all solid bodies in the solar system, and since these bodies are composed of various materials, including water and ice, we have never excluded water being found on cometary nuclei.

However, we have always predicted little or no water or water-ice on comet surfaces – a “radical” prediction visually confirmed in Rosetta’s high-resolution images of 67P. Also, it seems likely that many comets, asteroids and meteors were machined from the surface of Mars, given the millions of cubic tons of material removed from its surface in the catastrophic events recorded in pre-history. The acid test may come from the Philae Lander’s attempt to secure itself to the surface of comet 67P by means of harpoons. The harpoons have been tested to work in loose, grainy material with bulk density around 0.5 grams per cubic centimeter. Rock is not loose or grainy and has a bulk density on average about 5 times greater (2.5g/cc3). So unless there is a substantial loose soil cover at the touchdown point the harpoons could prove a hazard.)

Of course, it is encouraging to see NASA scientists beginning to entertain a new idea – the possibility that planets, moons, comets and asteroids are electrically charged bodies. However, in truth they continue to view these bodies through the lens of Newtonian physics and inappropriate electrostatic concepts. As space technologies provide ever greater confirmation of the Electric Universe paradigm, will the established space sciences have the courage to offer a historically accurate narrative, one that credits the groundbreaking contributions of the electrical and plasma pioneers?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2014/10/20/will-nasa-rewrite-history/

 

[Ziggurat]

Galactic-Scale Electric Fields Could Solve Dark Matter Mystery, Says Physicist
Nobody has found convincing evidence of dark matter. Perhaps they should search for electric fields instead, suggests one researcher

Yeah, no.

Let's do some calculations, shall we? I know you're allergic to math, but don't worry, I'll do the actual calculations.

We know that the force of attraction between two charges is
F = k q₁q₂/r²Let's figure out the charge on the sun, which we'll call q₂. We have
q₂ = F r²/(k q₁)
So from your source, we have a positive charge of 10³¹ Coulombs at the galactic core. We'll ignore the shielding of negative charge distributed between us and the galactic core for simplicity (this will overestimate the strength of attraction). So we have
q₁ = 10³¹ C

I've previously calculated that the sun experiences an acceleration of about 1.7x10^-10 m/s². This requires a force of
F=ma=1.7x10^-10 m/s²*2x10³⁰ kg = 3.4x10²⁰ N.

The distance to the galactic core gives us r = 2.6x10²⁰ m

And of course, k = 9x10¹⁹ N m²/C²
So now let's put it all together:

q₂ = 3.4x10²⁰ N * (2.6x10²⁰ m)²/(9x10¹⁹ N m²/C² * 10³¹ C)
= 2.6x10¹⁰ C

That's what the charge on the sun would need to be in order to provide the necessary acceleration towards the galactic center. That's a big charge. How big? Well, as I pointed out before, serious estimates place the limit of charge on the sun at around 100 Coulombs, which is off by a factor of 100,000,000. But it gets worse: it's off in the wrong direction! The sun should be positively charged, but we need it to be negatively charged.

OK, maybe those estimates are wrong. What would happen if you stuck that much charge on the sun?

Well, again, I've done the calculation already. A charge of a mere 10⁹ C would cause the sun to explode at relativistic speeds. And that's more than a factor of 10 smaller than what would be required to make electricity account for galactic rotation.

The idea is absurd. When you're off by a factor of 8, you're wrong. When you're off by a factor of 10⁸, you've achieved supreme wrongness.

 

[Dancing David]

Yeah, no.

Let's do some calculations, shall we? I know you're allergic to math, but don't worry, I'll do the actual calculations.

We know that the force of attraction between two charges is
F = k q₁q₂/r²Let's figure out the charge on the sun, which we'll call q₂. We have
q₂ = F r²/(k q₁)
So from your source, we have a positive charge of 10³¹ Coulombs at the galactic core. We'll ignore the shielding of negative charge distributed between us and the galactic core for simplicity (this will overestimate the strength of attraction). So we have
q₁ = 10³¹ C

I've previously calculated that the sun experiences an acceleration of about 1.7x10^-10 m/s². This requires a force of
F=ma=1.7x10^-10 m/s²*2x10³⁰ kg = 3.4x10²⁰ N.

The distance to the galactic core gives us r = 2.6x10²⁰ m

And of course, k = 9x10¹⁹ N m²/C²
So now let's put it all together:

q₂ = 3.4x10²⁰ N * (2.6x10²⁰ m)²/(9x10¹⁹ N m²/C² * 10³¹ C)
= 2.6x10¹⁰ C

That's what the charge on the sun would need to be in order to provide the necessary acceleration towards the galactic center. That's a big charge. How big? Well, as I pointed out before, serious estimates place the limit of charge on the sun at around 100 Coulombs, which is off by a factor of 100,000,000. But it gets worse: it's off in the wrong direction! The sun should be positively charged, but we need it to be negatively charged.

OK, maybe those estimates are wrong. What would happen if you stuck that much charge on the sun?

Well, again, I've done the calculation already. A charge of a mere 10⁹ C would cause the sun to explode at relativistic speeds. And that's more than a factor of 10 smaller than what would be required to make electricity account for galactic rotation.

The idea is absurd. When you're off by a factor of 8, you're wrong. When you're off by a factor of 10⁸, you've achieved supreme wrongness.

Oh noes 1111 1111

Not math, the bane of Electric Comets and Electric Stars!

10⁸ that is a lot

 

[Ziggurat]

10⁸ that is a lot

Quite so.

The stupidity of the idea comes from not recognizing that you can't just bunch like charge together like you can bunch mass together. If you spread that charge around throughout the galaxy, (which is an awfully big place), it's not that much. But that doesn't work, because then you just get these forces on the net charges floating around, and not on the mass. Concentrated mass would fly off, and the charge would get sucked back in. But that's not what happens. Our galaxy is rotating together. The gas clouds and the stars don't go in completely different directions. So they all need to be experiencing a force that's at least close to proportional to their mass. But since stars have masses which are INCREDIBLY concentrated compared to the galactic average, this theory demands that they have charges which are correspondingly concentrated. And that, well, that just blows up.

BTW, I know you know all this, and Haig probably won't accept it, but it's for the benefit of any lurkers.

 

[Reality Check]

Who's asking you to waste your time on this thread about Electric Comets RC ?

No, Haig, you did not understand what I wrote.

A bunch of cranks produce an ignorant and deluded video.
You are not able to tell that this video contains ignorance and delusions, Haig. So you have linked to it several times despite there being: 3 November 2014: 19 items of ignorance and delusion in 11 minutes of a Thunderbolt video (out of an hour and a half )

Now you link to a couple of web pages by the authors of that ignorant and deluded video !

That is you wasting the time of everyone reading this thread, Haig !

It is that ignorance and those delusions (and lies!) from those authors that drive me to spend productive time educating people about that ignorance, delusions and lies, Haig.
The benefit to me is that I get to use my brain to learn more about comets. Educating myself is not a waste of time.

The question though is why are you wasting your time on this thread about Electric Comets, Haig?
You have demonstrated that you will deny even basic science tin order to maintain your faith in the electric comet delusion, e.g. linking to fantasies about electricity magically resolving the different densities of comets and asteroids:

• Haig (30th June 2014): Why do EU supporters continue to claim that astronomers ignore E fields, etc.?
• Haig (3 November 2014) supplied another example of this ignorance by a EU supporter posting on the Thunderbolts forum.
• Haig (7th July 2014), is 3.0 different from 0.6?
• Haig (14th July 2014), 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)?
• Haig (3 November 2014): What is the density of comet 67P; What is the density of rock? Are they the same?
• Plus any scientific answers to the science stated in Electric comets still do not exist!
• Haig (3rd November 2014): Have you noted the 19 items of ignorance and delusion in the first 11 minutes (out of 90!) of a Thunderbolt video that you cited?
• Haig (4th November 2014): Have you understood that Hyperion is an icy moon, not a rock (so why is it not a comet )?

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88: Can you understand that the authors even lie about predictions

So I was wrong then? Comets are indeed, as Reality Check, says
...snipped rant....

Yes they are exactly not solid rock as I said, Sol88 !

Show us that electric comet is not unsupported fantasies, Sol88:

• 17 November 2014 Sol88: Please cite the announcement of the discovery of hard rock (not "rock stuff" but the solid rock your theory demands) on comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko.
• 17 November 2012 Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the density of comets
• 17 November 2012 Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the density of comets
• 18 November 2014 Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the amount of surface ice on 67P (no detected surface ice).
• 18 November 2014 Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the amount of surface ice on Tempel 1 where surface ice was found
• 18 November 2014 Sol88: Please present the electric comet calculation for the electric charge differential around comets and show that it matches the measurements.
• 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 (your claim)?
• 5th August 2009 Sol88, How does the electric comet idea explain main-belt comets?

Can you understand that the authors even lie about predictions, Sol88: The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.
(e.g. they predict a flash before impact and there were 2 flashes after impact which they claim as a successful prediction

Sol88's denial of science, basic arithmetic and lack of reading comprehension.

 

[Reality Check]

Interesting points made in this article not just the quote below ...

Haig once again cannot understand the ignorance and delusions in a Thunderbolts blog which are the only interesting points on that page !
Haig quotes them

• lying about surface ice on comets - but their "little or no water or water-ice" fantasy probably includes a comet 100% covered in water or water ice .
• being deluded about science - that observations change theories is basic science.
• logical fallacy of false dichotomy - imaginary evidence against the mainstream is not evidence for an electric comet idea that is easily seen to be delusional.

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: Ignorance and delusions in a Thunderbolts video about Mars

Electric Comets react to an electrical environment and there are more and more examples of this and other effects of this space condition being discovered now.

Electric Comets are delusions. It is idiotic to think that the known electromagnetic activity around comets means that they are solid rock.

Haig demonstrates the inability to recognize ignorance and delusions in a Thunderbolts YouTube video yet again !
In this case it is the comparative mythologist David Talbott sharing his delusion that features on Mars were created by electrical discharges:

David N. Talbott (born 1942) is an American author and long-time promoter of neo-Velikovskian ideas. Inspired by Immanuel Velikovsky, he proposes a "Polar Configuration"[1] involving the five planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, Mars, Earth, in order, which formerly orbited the Sun as a linear assembly while it rotated about its barycenter and influenced human mythology.[2]

What Haig quotes contains an obvious lie: geology and astronomy does have explanations for "massive channels and gouges, great mounds, and crater chains".

 

[Sol88]

Haig once again cannot understand the ignorance and delusions in a Thunderbolts blog which are the only interesting points on that page !
Haig quotes them

• lying about surface ice on comets - but their "little or no water or water-ice" fantasy probably includes a comet 100% covered in water or water ice .
• being deluded about science - that observations change theories is basic science.
• logical fallacy of false dichotomy - imaginary evidence against the mainstream is not evidence for an electric comet idea that is easily seen to be delusional.

Peekaboo

Mobs of ice on 67P/C-G and right were the jets are emanating from!!!

The mosaic has been contrast enhanced to bring out details of the coma, especially of jets of dust emanating from the neck region.

Credits: ESA/Rosetta/NAVCAM/Marco Di Lorenzo/Ken Kremer – kenkremer.com

Ohh..hang on jets of dust??? Where's the water..um I mean Ice, Umm... or was that dust??

They showed the first color images of the comet. They showed dust grains being ejected from the surface, arcs that could be traced back, presumably, to geysers of sublimating ice. And they showed brightness variations less than 10 centimeters apart—which could indicate that they have found sparkling bits of ice peeking through a black crust of dust.

http://news.sciencemag.org/europe/2014/11/tensions-surround-release-new-rosetta-comet-data

Seems they don't wont to release the high res version

and yes Reality Check mainstream science is in a flap

Project scientist Matt Taylor was reduced to learning about the new results at the Arizona conference by thumbing through Twitter feeds on his phone.

Your only saving grace is if that sample they broke the hammer on is indeed ICE or standard comet theory has been FALSIFIED categorically!

Jets of dust emanating from from arcs on the surface

Comet nucleus harder than expected

More very finely dived dust than expected

and the findings from Deep Impact/Temple 1 do not bode well for any of the mainstream exceptions!

and on the conspiracy side of things, none of the science packages on Philae that could prove definitively that comets are an electric discharge phenomenon actually worked???

Maybe the data Tusenfem is sitting on might, but after over ten years of waiting on the most ground breaking data and actually getting the data, goes on vacation suss

 

[Sol88]

Jets of dust particles and sublimating ice are visibly exploding out from the comet’s “neck” region, centered between the two mysterious lobes of comet 67P, dubbed the “head” and the “body.”

The jets originate from several discrete areas of ice and gas escaping from inside the comet, hurtling out as a steam of dust particles. The coma now extends over 19,000 kilometers out from the nucleus into space, according to recent ground-based images taken to support Rosetta’s mission planning and observations.

Earlier measurements from the probes science instruments revealed that the ice is located mostly beneath the comet’s exterior, rather than from surface deposits.

http://www.americaspace.com/?p=68321


Ohh so it's not ICE on the surface after all??? So what the bright stuff?


Actually is quite funny watching each scientist come up with their own interpretation of what those arcs are

 

[Sol88]

Quite so.

The stupidity of the idea comes from not recognizing that you can't just bunch like charge together like you can bunch mass together. If you spread that charge around throughout the galaxy, (which is an awfully big place), it's not that much. But that doesn't work, because then you just get these forces on the net charges floating around, and not on the mass. Concentrated mass would fly off, and the charge would get sucked back in. But that's not what happens. Our galaxy is rotating together. The gas clouds and the stars don't go in completely different directions. So they all need to be experiencing a force that's at least close to proportional to their mass. But since stars have masses which are INCREDIBLY concentrated compared to the galactic average, this theory demands that they have charges which are correspondingly concentrated. And that, well, that just blows up.

BTW, I know you know all this, and Haig probably won't accept it, but it's for the benefit of any lurkers.

Ziggurat, "Double Layers" go look it up!

 

[Sol88]

Oh noes 1111 1111

Not math, the bane of Electric Comets and Electric Stars!

10⁸ that is a lot

DD, the maths is spot on, your assumptions are WRONG

something about garbage in garbage out, but your maths was good, nice try though