The Electric Comet theory

[phunk]

Mainstream mantra, when in doubt add more mass! you dont even have to be able to see it! it can remain dark.

I'm sorry, can you please show us a single example of a mainstream scientist saying that a star needs a black hole in the middle to stop it from exploding? That is the exact claim that haig made.

 

[Sol88]

Basically mainstream add whatever they want in order to save the maths! Dark matter, dark energy, magnetic reconnection, flavour changing neutrinos etc etc

I believe Haig was, as we say here in Australia, takn the piss!

And you the sucker he caught, hook, line and sinker!!

 

[Sol88]

Meanwhile, back on 67P/C-G the jets are still there, I think that would be the where we should be focussing on. Oh wait... We have ��

 

[Vermonter]

Basically mainstream add whatever they want in order to save the maths! Dark matter, dark energy, magnetic reconnection, flavour changing neutrinos etc etc

I believe Haig was, as we say here in Australia, takn the piss!

And you the sucker he caught, hook, line and sinker!!

I cannot parse a single utterance here. Are you even interested in learning, or are you simply here to troll?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Meanwhile, back on 67P/C-G the jets are still there, I think that would be the where we should be focussing on. Oh wait... We have ��

Yes, the predicted jets are still there.
And they look and behave like gaseous emissons and in no way resemble electrical discharges.

Again, I ask, IF they are discharges, what do they arc to?
how much energy would be required to arc to there in a vacuum?
What is ionized to such an extent that is provides a visible glow?
What mechanism provides the energy and how does the same mechanism avoid charging the METAL probes?
Why does the discharge not fry the electronics of the probes since they weren't shielded against lightning strikes?

Given all the science known about electricity, just saying it happens is not good enough, mathematical proof is needed.
If the electric comet propenents cannot supply the calculations to answer these simple questions, then how can we ever use such a theory to try to understand the universe at large?

 

[tusenfem]

That's ironic. You think conventional physics should be discarded because you think it can't explain a few things, and you want to replace it with handwaving and ignore the fact that it can explain almost nothing.



No, Haig, it's not better. It fails spectacularly at every test.



Your entire justification for EU theories is to avoid such unknowns. Now you admit that you cannot in fact avoid them.



But you haven't applied Occam's Razor. You have dropped a theory that produces accurate predictions for almost everything because you don't like some of its hypotheses in favor of a theory which predicts nothing accurately. Occam's Razor doesn't tell you to pick the simpler theory in cases where the simpler theory is wrong.



You haven't fit the data at all! You (and everyone else backing EU nonsense) never actually do anything quantitative. You actually have no idea what the consequences of your theory are. And when I confront you with those consequences, you simply deny and claim that it's more accurate, when I just proved that it's not.

Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

oh but ziggy, that is just because the math to describe these phenomena is not there yet.
you might think hannes alfven introduced that, but the complex electromagnetic interaction is way too complicated to describe it with mainstream "plasma" physics.

 

[tusenfem]

IIRC, some EU proponents have proposed something similar to "the galaxy's electromagnetic forces accelerate the interstellar matter surrounding the Sun, and that matter then drags the Sun along with it". I don't know enough physics to be able to evaluate such a claim.

seach my name and somewhere you will find a calculation for electric currents pushing/pulling a planet around the sun in some eu thread
as usual with eu claims it fails spectacularly

 

[tusenfem]

IIRC, some EU proponents have proposed something similar to "the galaxy's electromagnetic forces accelerate the interstellar matter surrounding the Sun, and that matter then drags the Sun along with it". I don't know enough physics to be able to evaluate such a claim.

Haig actually posted something which contains the Cliff notes, and every one of the eight items specific to the "Electric Comet Model" is inconsistent with astronomical observations. As several other members have been at pains to point out. For a long time now.

Perhaps more interesting is this (from Haig's source) "The electric comet model does not stand alone but in partnership with another hypothesis - the electric Sun." This "electric Sun" is curious ... in it the Sun is an anode, or a cathode, or a capacitor, or ... Oddly, you cannot find any 'electric Sun' calculations, certainly none which claim to show that the Sun's energy output (in electromagnetic radiation) is close to what we observe (including its constancy), much less its SED (spectral energy distribution).

But maybe Haig has more material which he has not posted; perhaps he can point us all to a source in which the following is at least bounded, quantitatively? "Comets follow their elongated paths within a weak electrical field centered on the Sun. In approaching the Sun, a charge imbalance develops between the nucleus and the higher voltage and charge density near the Sun. Growing electrical stresses initiate discharges and the formation of a glowing plasma sheath, appearing as the coma and tail."

the only real "document" i ever saw of the electric comet is a "poster" by scott (if i am not mistaken) which he showed at a (astrophysicalnor ieee ??) conference. it is about 12 pages of handwaving and nothing quantitative at all. i might still have it somewhere at work.

ad that is the whole problem with the the eu community, they are totally unable to do anything quantitatively like e.g. calculate how much water will be generated by solar wind impact on the comet. naturally they also forget that CO is emitted at similar rates as H2O, how does that get created electrically? i asked but got no answer.

 

[tusenfem]

Playing devils advocate here but lets just say for ***** n giggles that the ELECTRIC COMET thoery is a non starter as stated many a time by the posters in this thread.

but at the same time the data coming back is confirming the dirtysnowball has some large holes in it, hard and dry is not a dirtysnowball make!

What then would comets be?

I am interested on how mainstream are going to spin the data from Rosetta and Philae

as stated again and again and again, thecdirty snowball proposed by whippli in the late 50s or early 60s has long been set aside. yes you will still find it in lots of popular book etc, but ever since the flyby of halley by giotto, it was for the first time observed that the nucleus is not the dirty snowball, but showed evidence of "rocky" formations on the surface.

here is the landing event at my institute, on youtube, in the middle there is "cooking a comet" (in german) where the latest knowledge about the build-up of a cometary nucleus is used. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p4ScjZawnac

 

[tusenfem]

Yes, the predicted jets are still there.
And they look and behave like gaseous emissons and in no way resemble electrical discharges.

Again, I ask, IF they are discharges, what do they arc to?
how much energy would be required to arc to there in a vacuum?
What is ionized to such an extent that is provides a visible glow?
What mechanism provides the energy and how does the same mechanism avoid charging the METAL probes?
Why does the discharge not fry the electronics of the probes since they weren't shielded against lightning strikes?

Given all the science known about electricity, just saying it happens is not good enough, mathematical proof is needed.
If the electric comet propenents cannot supply the calculations to answer these simple questions, then how can we ever use such a theory to try to understand the universe at large?

oh but this is not just electricity, this is funky magic plasma electricity

 

[JeanTate]

Hi Sol88,

Hi JeanTate, they already know where the jets eminate from but will not release the images because the team that announce this "discovery" will over turn science as we have known it!!

Who is "they"?

How do you know "they" already know from where the jets "eminate"?

How do you know whether they have images to release or not?

How do you know what the images show?

How do you know that the announcement which accompanies the release of images "will over turn science as we have known it"?

You seem to be extraordinarily knowledgeable; are you a member of "the team"? If not, how can you possibly know all these things?

A lot riding on their shoulders

As Haig as stated it's more than just an electric comets at stake

I do not understand this.

Nothing that Haig has posted - including in the links - contains any calculations, measurements, equations, etc concerning electric comets or even the electric Sun (or if there is, I must have missed it; can you point to it please?). I find this really strange, because electricity is pretty well understood, and textbooks about electricity are full of equations and calculations.

Without something which explicitly ties the electric comet (and electric Sun) to the equations of electricity, "electric comets" cannot be "at stake", can they?

and thats why the mainstream are in a flap...

I do not understand this either.

Who is "the mainstream"?

How do you know they "are in a flap"?

 

[JeanTate]

Hi again Sol88,

but at the same time the data coming back is confirming the dirtysnowball has some large holes in it, hard and dry is not a dirtysnowball make!

I do not understand this.

What is "the dirtysnowball"?

Comets very likely have large holes in them, which is pretty much expected, isn't it?

What then would comets be?

Comets?

I am interested on how mainstream are going to spin the data from Rosetta and Philae

How would you know?

I mean, unless you get your hands on the data itself, from Rosetta and Philae, and do your own, independent, analyses, you won't be able to tell how it has been processed, would you?

I'm quite curious about this, because, from what I've read in this long thread, you do not seem to be much interested in quantitative analyses.

 

[JeanTate]

Hello again Sol88,

Basically mainstream add whatever they want in order to save the maths! Dark matter, dark energy, magnetic reconnection, flavour changing neutrinos etc etc

I believe Haig was, as we say here in Australia, takn the piss!

And you the sucker he caught, hook, line and sinker!!

What does this have to do with electric comets?

 

[JeanTate]

Hi tusenfem,

the only real "document" i ever saw of the electric comet is a "poster" by scott (if i am not mistaken) which he showed at a (astrophysicalnor ieee ??) conference. it is about 12 pages of handwaving and nothing quantitative at all. i might still have it somewhere at work.

ad that is the whole problem with the the eu community, they are totally unable to do anything quantitatively like e.g. calculate how much water will be generated by solar wind impact on the comet. naturally they also forget that CO is emitted at similar rates as H2O, how does that get created electrically? i asked but got no answer.

The link which contains the text I quoted is this one (you'll have to put http etc in front; I can't post links yet):

bibliotecapleyades.net/electric_universe/esp_electricuniverse17.htm

It has the title "The Electric Comet", and it is by Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott (2006).

As I said in reply to Sol88 earlier, I find it really strange that the materials he and Haig post - about electric comets and the electric Sun - are full of "electricity this" and "electric that" but there seem to be no ties to anything from an electricity textbook. Yet it seems these materials are written by "the electrical theorists". How can they call themselves theorists if they do not do any calculations (using electricity)?

In reading through this thread, I see that Sol88 and Haig have been asked, repeatedly, for at least links or references to documents in which these calculations can be found (about electric comets or the electric Sun), yet neither of them has posted even a single link or reference.

What am I missing?

(Sol88, Haig: if you have posted such links or references, I missed them; apologies, can you post them again please?)

 

[Haig]

Yes, the predicted jets are still there.
And they look and behave like gaseous emissons and in no way resemble electrical discharges.

Again, I ask, IF they are discharges, what do they arc to?
how much energy would be required to arc to there in a vacuum?
What is ionized to such an extent that is provides a visible glow?
What mechanism provides the energy and how does the same mechanism avoid charging the METAL probes?
Why does the discharge not fry the electronics of the probes since they weren't shielded against lightning strikes?

Given all the science known about electricity, just saying it happens is not good enough, mathematical proof is needed.
If the electric comet propenents cannot supply the calculations to answer these simple questions, then how can we ever use such a theory to try to understand the universe at large?

Hi Sol88,



Who is "they"?

How do you know "they" already know from where the jets "eminate"?

How do you know whether they have images to release or not?

How do you know what the images show?

How do you know that the announcement which accompanies the release of images "will over turn science as we have known it"?

You seem to be extraordinarily knowledgeable; are you a member of "the team"? If not, how can you possibly know all these things?



I do not understand this.

Nothing that Haig has posted - including in the links - contains any calculations, measurements, equations, etc concerning electric comets or even the electric Sun (or if there is, I must have missed it; can you point to it please?). I find this really strange, because electricity is pretty well understood, and textbooks about electricity are full of equations and calculations.

Without something which explicitly ties the electric comet (and electric Sun) to the equations of electricity, "electric comets" cannot be "at stake", can they?



I do not understand this either.

Who is "the mainstream"?

How do you know they "are in a flap"?

Hello again Sol88,


What does this have to do with electric comets?

Hi tusenfem,


The link which contains the text I quoted is this one (you'll have to put http etc in front; I can't post links yet):

bibliotecapleyades.net/electric_universe/esp_electricuniverse17.htm

It has the title "The Electric Comet", and it is by Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott (2006).

As I said in reply to Sol88 earlier, I find it really strange that the materials he and Haig post - about electric comets and the electric Sun - are full of "electricity this" and "electric that" but there seem to be no ties to anything from an electricity textbook. Yet it seems these materials are written by "the electrical theorists". How can they call themselves theorists if they do not do any calculations (using electricity)?

In reading through this thread, I see that Sol88 and Haig have been asked, repeatedly, for at least links or references to documents in which these calculations can be found (about electric comets or the electric Sun), yet neither of them has posted even a single link or reference.

What am I missing?

(Sol88, Haig: if you have posted such links or references, I missed them; apologies, can you post them again please?)

.

If your interested in understanding the theory behind Electric Comets, Electric Sun and Electric Universe / Plasma Cosmology

You can get answers from the links I've already posted and from those below ...

Prediction #3: Electric Comets and the "Domino Effect"

The evidence suggests that comets are highly negatively charged with respect to the Sun. As they rush toward the Sun, the voltage increases until at some point the comet nucleus begins to discharge. Electrons are stripped from a few points on the comet surface where the electric field is strongest. These “spark discharges” finely machine rocky material from the surface to form a “cathode jet” of negatively charged dust together with surface matter that has been torn apart to release ionized atoms and molecules, including oxygen.

Under the conventional model there is no reason for the high density of negative ions discovered near the comet nucleus. Negative ions are difficult to produce by solar heating and are quickly destroyed by solar radiation. Nevertheless, in March 1986 when the Giotto spacecraft flew within 600km of Comet Halley, an abundance of negatively charged atoms was discovered in the inner coma—direct evidence that a comet is the cathode in an electric exchange with the Sun. A few years later, scientists discovered an unexpected “forbidden oxygen” line at 1128Å in the spectrum of Comet Austin. That line is consistent with the presence of an intense electric field and/or densities in the coma many orders of magnitude higher than those predicted from standard cometary theory.

There is reason to believe that the positively charged ions from the solar wind react preferentially with the negatively charged oxygen from the nucleus to generate the water observed surrounding comets. The probe Vega 2 found the H2O (water) production by comet Halley was one fifth of the OH production. But scientists had supposed that OH was formed by photo-dissociation of H2O at some distance from the nucleus. The report in Nature in May 1986 reads: "only indirect and sometimes ambiguous evidence in favor of water has been found; indeed, some facts appear to contradict this hypothesis." Thus, the authors suggest, "This problem requires further analysis and may indicate the existence of parents of OH other than H2O."

.

On Gravity-centric Cosmology and the Implications of a Universe Awash with Plasma Paper's PDF Here

It was more than 60 years ago that Dr. Charles E. R. Bruce offered a radically different perspective on the Sun:

"[The Sun's] photosphere has the appearance, the temperature and the spectrum of an electric arc; its characteristics are that of an arc, because it is an electric arc, or a large number of parallel arcs" [33].

Years later, engineer Ralph Juergens suggested that the Sun is not an electrically isolated body in space, but the most positively charged object in the solar system; in fact, the center of a radial electric field. This field, he said, lies within a larger galactic field. With this hypothesis, Juergens became the first to make the theoretical leap to an external power
source supplying the Sun.

"The phenomena of the photosphere, the phenomena of the chromosphere, the phenomena of the corona, and the known characteristics of the interplanetary medium all fit so nicely into a unifying hypothesis based on energy supplied to the sun from the outside that I cannot resist mentioning it
here: I believe that the sun behaves as an anode collecting electric current from its environment, and that the energy it radiates is delivered entirely by way of this postulated electrical discharge" [34].

Almost every direct observation of comets has produced "surprising" results. Comets don’t act at all like dirty snowballs. They frequently display collimated jets originating from all sides including those not facing the Sun, and which do not behave as neutral gases in a vacuum. Their surfaces display sharp relief, not what one would expect from melting ice, and they often display high temperatures and emit x-rays [40].

Despite frequent claims of water being discovered on comets, it is feasible that in some cases the combination of one oxygen atom and one hydrogen atom to form OH has been misinterpreted as H2O simply because water is expected by the Standard Model. OH is predicted by electrical action [40]. Minerals that can only be formed as the result of extremely high temperature processes have also been found [41], and comets have been known to flare up and disintegrate far away from the Sun.

The currently accepted idea is that their tiny nuclei, often only a few kilometers across can generate a glowing coma of dust that can be hundreds of thousands of kilometers in diameter, and that this is held in place by gravity. A spectacular challenge to this was provided by comet 17P/Holmes in 2007. In just a matter of days, Holmes grew from a faint magnitude 16.5 to that of 2.8 [42] (over a million times brighter) and was clearly visible from Earth. It soon became the largest object in the solar system, larger in diameter than the Sun. when its coma grew from 28,000 km to a diameter of 1.4 million km [43]. The explanations offered for the cause of this event were many and varied, but none gave a satisfactory resolution to the matter.

.
Alfvén Triumphs Again (and Again)

This diagram shows the true nature of the filaments inside the molecular cloud. The electric field vector (E) and helical magnetic field configuration (B) are shown. Inward Marklund convection of ions at velocity, V, across a temperature gradient, ∇T, is a mechanism for rapid filament formation and chemical separation in cosmic plasma so the heavy elements ("metals" in astrophysics-speak) are found on-axis and must therefore constitute the core matter of stars, not hydrogen!

.

Discovering The Electric Sun

Fig. 12.
Energy, electric field strength, and charge density as a function of radial distance from the Sun's surface.
Illustration from Don Scott’s book The Electric Sky.

.
The Electric Sun Hypothesis

Figure 4.
The electrical potential energy of a +ion as a function of distance above the Sun's anode surface.

(Caution: This is NOT a side view of a granule. It is simply a graph of the plasma's voltage as a function of distance up along a straight-line vertical path coming from the Sun's surface up toward the lower corona. If the path goes through a granule, the black curve applies. If the path goes up through the umbra of a sunspot, the dashed red curve is correct.)

.
The Electric Sun/Earth ... Connection Confirmed

.
The Safire Project - Testing The Electric Sun

.
Electric Sun Verified

This diagram shows a conceptual cross-section along the central axis of the stellar Z-pinch at the Sun’s position. Whether the double layers exist within or outside the heliosphere is unknown. The diameter of the encircling cylinder is unknown. That of supernova 1987A is of the order of a light-year, which would make the diameter of the heliosphere more than 600 times smaller! Note that as a rotating charged body the Sun’s magnetic field is not aligned with the interstellar magnetic field and Z-pinch axis. The Sun’s magnetic field only has influence within the tiny heliosphere but it is modulated by galactic currents. Alfvén’s axial “double layers” (DLs) have been included although their distance from the Sun is unknown. DLs are produced in current carrying plasma and are the one region where charge separation takes place in plasma and a high voltage is generated across them (see discussion below).

The Z-pinch model offers a simple explanation for the “giant ribbon” found wrapped around the heliosphere. The Z-pinch is naturally aligned with the interstellar magnetic field. Solar “wind” ions are scattered and neutralized by electrons from the Birkeland current filaments to form ENA’s coming from the Z-pinch ring, a giant ring about the solar system and orthogonal to the interstellar magnetic field.

The Sun’s heliospheric circuit is connected to the galaxy via the central column and the disk of charged particles. The current path is traced by magnetic fields. The “open” helical magnetic fields discovered high above the Sun’s poles by the Ulysses spacecraft are supportive of Alfvén’s stellar circuit model. And the solar “wind” would seem to connect to the broader disk of charged particles about the heliosphere.

Given the detail in this model we should expect, as more data comes in, that researchers may find in the ENA “ribbon,” bright spots, filamentary structures, and movement of the bright spots consistent with rotation of Birkeland current filament pairs and their possible coalescence.

The Science journal reports the opinion of one of the researchers that:

“sorting out the heliosphere’s true shape will take more time …the geometry’s tough. The shape is no doubt somewhere between the two extremes of ideal comet and pure bubble, but all agree that researchers will have to understand how the ribbon forms to know the heliosphere’s true shape.”

That is true, but scientists will continue to suffer surprises while they have “no doubt” that the galactic wind and the interstellar magnetic field are the dominant forces that shape the heliosphere.

 

[Haig]

oh but this is not just electricity, this is funky magic plasma electricity

Hey tusenfem, welcome back.

You just leave for a few days and the thread goes haywire. RC and DD have gone AWOL and Zig can't do his sums.

How about you? Can you give and explanation for this that ISN'T a confirmation of EU / PC theory by showing electromagnetism's right hand rule on a galactic scale "mysterious alignment of quasars with the Universe’s large-scale structure" Eh tusenfem?

How about the Electric Comet singing? How do you explain that?
67P is Better than Bieber, Rosetta’s Comet Sings Strange, Seductive Song

Sounds not so much as singing more of an Electric Hum to me

 

[tusenfem]

Hey tusenfem, welcome back.

You just leave for a few days and the thread goes haywire. RC and DD have gone AWOL and Zig can't do his sums.

How about you? Can you give and explanation for this that ISN'T a confirmation of EU / PC theory by showing electromagnetism's right hand rule on a galactic scale "mysterious alignment of quasars with the Universe’s large-scale structure" Eh tusenfem?

How about the Electric Comet singing? How do you explain that?
67P is Better than Bieber, Rosetta’s Comet Sings Strange, Seductive Song

Sounds not so much as singing more of an Electric Hum to me

anyone woulg awol with allbthe nonsense you and sol are ejecting

i am not going into the quasar alignment, this is an ec thread.

ziggy is doing just fine, the fact that you don't do math (lika a good ec acolyte) is not our problem. how about answering some of my comments on the non-quantitativity of ec?

tomorrow we have a telecon again on the singing comet, where we will probably have the full explanation for this remarkable phenomnon. i already wrote about that. would be nice if you could also come up with something real to explain this our paper will be submitted to science in the next two weeks or so. interestingly it can be explained with actual plasma physics, interaction of solar wind magnetoplasma with the weakly outgassing comet and the ionization of the gas in a relatively weak magnetic field.

just keep your eyes out for a paper by glassmeier et al.

 

[Haig]

anyone woulg awol with allbthe nonsense you and sol are ejecting

i am not going into the quasar alignment, this is an ec thread.

ziggy is doing just fine, the fact that you don't do math (lika a good ec acolyte) is not our problem. how about answering some of my comments on the non-quantitativity of ec?

tomorrow we have a telecon again on the singing comet, where we will probably have the full explanation for this remarkable phenomnon. i already wrote about that. would be nice if you could also come up with something real to explain this our paper will be submitted to science in the next two weeks or so. interestingly it can be explained with actual plasma physics, interaction of solar wind magnetoplasma with the weakly outgassing comet and the ionization of the gas in a relatively weak magnetic field.

just keep your eyes out for a paper by glassmeier et al.

Sounds much more like an Electric Comet explanation than a Dirty Snowball Comet sublimating ices

So your dodging the big picture too It's becoming more and more obvious the EU / PC view is the best fit to ALL the new space discoveries and data.

How about the other Electric Comet that just passed Mars ... care to give your take on that?

SIDING SPRING an Electric Comet in action disturbing the electromagnetic balance of a planet (surrounded by it's plasma sheath) as it ploughs through the electric field of the Sun HERE

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Prediction #3: Electric Comets and the "Domino Effect"
Quote:
The evidence suggests that comets are highly negatively charged with respect to the Sun.

What evidence? A large metal object full of delicate electronics just landed on the comet and it found nothing of the sort

As they rush toward the Sun, the voltage increases until at some point the comet nucleus begins to discharge. Electrons are stripped from a few points on the comet surface where the electric field is strongest. These “spark discharges” finely machine rocky material from the surface to form a “cathode jet” of negatively charged dust together with surface matter that has been torn apart to release ionized atoms and molecules, including oxygen.

Which is nice and all, but this would only explain a local ionization, what is ionized in the remaining AU's of distance?

Under the conventional model there is no reason for the high density of negative ions discovered near the comet nucleus. Negative ions are difficult to produce by solar heating and are quickly destroyed by solar radiation. Nevertheless, in March 1986 when the Giotto spacecraft flew within 600km of Comet Halley, an abundance of negatively charged atoms was discovered in the inner coma—direct evidence that a comet is the cathode in an electric exchange with the Sun. A few years later, scientists discovered an unexpected “forbidden oxygen” line at 1128Å in the spectrum of Comet Austin. That line is consistent with the presence of an intense electric field and/or densities in the coma many orders of magnitude higher than those predicted from standard cometary theory.

There is reason to believe that the positively charged ions from the solar wind react preferentially with the negatively charged oxygen from the nucleus to generate the water observed surrounding comets.

Such interaction at the comet would NOT generate a visible comet tail as anyone with basic chemistry could attest to.

The probe Vega 2 found the H2O (water) production by comet Halley was one fifth of the OH production. But scientists had supposed that OH was formed by photo-dissociation of H2O at some distance from the nucleus. The report in Nature in May 1986 reads: "only indirect and sometimes ambiguous evidence in favor of water has been found; indeed, some facts appear to contradict this hypothesis." Thus, the authors suggest, "This problem requires further analysis and may indicate the existence of parents of OH other than H2O."
.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This whole 'theory' however adresses exactly none of the questions I've asked.
Why are no other bodies in the solar system charged in this way?
How much voltage is required and how is it generated continously, while your prediction would suggest buildup - discharge- buildup.
And of course, the main problem. According to this theory the discharges would be observed BETWEEN a comet and the sun. Every single cometary observation ever shows the tail to point AWAY from the sun. So this prediction claims that observable nature is wrong. Which is a clear indictation that the theory is wrong. And if that simple part of the theory is observably wrong, then why would we use any of the rest of theory?

 

[dasmiller]

<snip>
Given all the science known about electricity, just saying it happens is not good enough, mathematical proof is needed.
If the electric comet propenents cannot supply the calculations to answer these simple questions, then how can we ever use such a theory to try to understand the universe at large?

<snip>Nothing that Haig has posted - including in the links - contains any calculations, measurements, equations, etc concerning electric comets or even the electric Sun (or if there is, I must have missed it; can you point to it please?). I find this really strange, because electricity is pretty well understood, and textbooks about electricity are full of equations and calculations.

Without something which explicitly ties the electric comet (and electric Sun) to the equations of electricity, "electric comets" cannot be "at stake", can they?

<some snipping>As I said in reply to Sol88 earlier, I find it really strange that the materials he and Haig post - about electric comets and the electric Sun - are full of "electricity this" and "electric that" but there seem to be no ties to anything from an electricity textbook. Yet it seems these materials are written by "the electrical theorists". How can they call themselves theorists if they do not do any calculations (using electricity)?

In reading through this thread, I see that Sol88 and Haig have been asked, repeatedly, for at least links or references to documents in which these calculations can be found (about electric comets or the electric Sun), yet neither of them has posted even a single link or reference.

What am I missing?

(Sol88, Haig: if you have posted such links or references, I missed them; apologies, can you post them again please?)

If your interested in understanding the theory behind Electric Comets, Electric Sun and Electric Universe / Plasma Cosmology

You can get answers from the links I've already posted and from those below ...
<remainder snipped>

I took the liberty of skimming those links and found not a single calculation. Not one.

I know your long post makes it look like you've addressed the questions, but you did not. Their questions centered on the math, and there is no math in any of the links you posted. They've accused you of handwaving, and in response, you've simply waved harder.

When we've done the math for you, it hasn't worked. Typically by several orders of magnitude. But you haven't offered corrections, or alternate calculations.

Is EU incompatible with quantitative modeling? Or do the EU proponents simply lack the necessary skills?

If it's the latter, shouldn't it shake your confidence in EU a bit?