The Electric Comet theory

[Matthew Cline]

ad that is the whole problem with the the eu community, they are totally unable to do anything quantitatively

I remember in several other threads EU proponents saying "we'd be able to get a lot a done if we had just a tiny fraction of the funding that mainstream astronomers have", with other responding "well what would they do with the money"? I've half-seriously thought that the answer might be "hire physics grad-students to do the math for us".

 

[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

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

i note that you do not answer the reaction rate for solar wind water creation nor the uestion what creates the CO that is emitted by the comet (can't be that there is dry ice in the comet!!!).

as for siding spring i have not kept up, only seen the cherrie picked quotes here indicating an increase in ions in mars's ionosphere and in another quote an increase in electrons, not really surprising if the tail of the comet nears the planet. and with "plasma sheath" i guess they mean the (induced) magnetosphere?

so haig, how about actually answering some questions? if you don't know the answer just ask your cronies at thunder. it cannot be so frakking difficult to explain quantitatively the water productio, even back-of-the-envelope calculation will suffice.

 

[tusenfem]

I remember in several other threads EU proponents saying "we'd be able to get a lot a done if we had just a tiny fraction of the funding that mainstream astronomers have", with other responding "well what would they do with the money"? I've half-seriously thought that the answer might be "hire physics grad-students to do the math for us".

indeed, i have been going through this for years now and always new trolls pop up. you do not need a lot of funding only a bit of knowledge of rlectrodynamics and plasma physics and access to the internet. then you go to the pds or psa (us ans eu data repositories) get the data and work on it. heck, every pc has excell (or a freeware version) which can read the ascii data and manipulate them. do it on a rainy sunday afternoon.

but if you go to the thunder forum and see the comments there, you understand why nothing happens, it is mainly a bunch of nitwits with comments even more stupid than we get from haig and sol " well i guess they never heard about electricity, these so called astronomers"

also what haig again posted, the juergens' model. using appropriate estimations for the currents and the sheet it should flow in and the known energy emitted by the sun gave me a local magnetic field strength about 2 orders of magnitude too large atcarth's orbit. i guess i could search for it, but who cares (it was in another eu or electric sun thread)

that is why handwaving is so important for ec, es, eu

 

[Haig]

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

Well LS you are aware (aren't you) that the lander Philae (and Rosetta) have Faraday Cages built into protect their instrumentation?

An also, Rosetta and Philae approached 67P so slowly thus minimising the charge difference between them.

If a spacecraft and lander approach a comet fast then you can get a huge reaction like this Deep Impact: Confirming the Electric Comet

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."

You seem to be missing the point LS try reading it again.

'Electric Comet' Could Burn The House Of Science

"The standard theory, it seems, has been kept alive by the discovery of water in comet comas and tails, not on the nucleus itself. But what is the source of the water in comet tails? Ironically, electrical activity within cometary comas may have deceived investigators into thinking that their model is intact"

This whole 'theory' however adresses exactly none of the questions I've asked.

Well it seems you can take LS to water but you can't ... Maybe a re-read might make things clearer for you?

Why are no other bodies in the solar system charged in this way?

There are LS!

All the planets are charged bodies with plasma sheaths surrounding them (Earth's is called the Magnetosphere) and the Sun is a charged body has it's plasma sheath too (mainstream call it the Heliosphere}.

How much voltage is required and how is it generated continously, while your prediction would suggest buildup - discharge- buildup.

Can you imagine the size of the Universe LS? Well 99.9% of that is Plasma and plasma can carry electric currents that generate magnetic fields, called Birkland Currents. The current is generated continually by the potential difference across the Universe. That's what lights up the Universe and why we can see huge chains of galaxies. There are local variations such as we find in our Sun with it's various cycles. (btw now heading into a Grand Solar Minimum) This is my understanding from all this you and the rest are free to make up your own mind or simply follow.

And of course, the main problem. According to this theory the discharges would be observed BETWEEN a comet and the sun.

If they are close enough there are reactions! Never heard of Sun diving comets? There are lots of examples of this ...

One of the most interesting aspects to the latest auroral episode is not its display, but its origin. Just before the CME, a comet was seen entering the Sun’s corona and then failing to reappear. In previous Picture of the Day articles, several other examples were discussed of comets “crashing” into the Sun just before large CMEs. One comet in particular, 96P/Machholz, did not strike the Sun it skimmed around it, apparently causing a CME in the process.

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?

How is the tail of a comet pointing away from the Sun make Electric Comets theory wrong? It's actually the opposite it makes it right! Ask yourself if comet tails are just sublimating ices and dust WHY do they stay ATTACHED to a very low gravity body like a comet? and sweep around the sun like a blade at perihelion? That's an electromagnetic effect LS

 

[Haig]

i note that you do not answer the reaction rate for solar wind water creation nor the uestion what creates the CO that is emitted by the comet (can't be that there is dry ice in the comet!!!).

as for siding spring i have not kept up, only seen the cherrie picked quotes here indicating an increase in ions in mars's ionosphere and in another quote an increase in electrons, not really surprising if the tail of the comet nears the planet. and with "plasma sheath" i guess they mean the (induced) magnetosphere?

so haig, how about actually answering some questions? if you don't know the answer just ask your cronies at thunder. it cannot be so frakking difficult to explain quantitatively the water productio, even back-of-the-envelope calculation will suffice.

Your the one claiming to be the expert tusenfem

I've answered lots of questions on this thread by pointing to where they are answers and giving my own opinion too occasionally, for what that's worth

I know the questions I've asked you are difficult but you need to stop dodging them! They are important questions for mainstream to answer or they should simply drop the dirty snowball model of comets and adopt the Electric Comet one

 

[Haig]

Some serious questions here for mainstream to answer about comets.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15172&p=99617&hilit=comet+tails#p99617

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15172&start=465

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15401&start=30

 

[JeanTate]

Hi Haig, thank you for taking the trouble to respond to some of my posts.

.

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 ...

Before I get to the material you posted, thanks again for trying to answer my questions, even though most of them were not directed at you; I only hope that Sol88 will put as much effort into trying to answer as you did.

Also, I know you know, but just so that we're crystal clear here: I am not interested, in this thread, in "Electric Universe" or "Plasma Cosmology"; and I'm only interested in "Electric Sun" because the document you posted earlier makes it clear that one cannot consider "Electric Comet" without also considering "Electric Sun".

Because I can't post links yet, even within a quote, I've had to edit your post to remove them.

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

As others have already noted, there's nothing here which answers my questions, no papers, no calculations, no links to quantified descriptions of electricity, etc (with respect to electric comets). Can you not cite anything which actually answers my questions?

For example, from that source:

The electrical model of cometary discharge does explain the observations: an electric field accelerates matter in the jet; an electromagnetic “pinch effect” provides densities in the thin jets many orders of magnitude higher than those predicted from simple radial sublimation; and instabilities and fluctuations suddenly relocate jets in exceedingly short periods of time.

Where is this "electrical model of cometary discharge" written up? published? I assume it's a scientific - i.e. quantitative - model, so it will include a quantitative description of the "electric field [which] accelerates matter in the jet", of the "densities in the thin jets many orders of magnitude higher than those predicted from simple radial sublimation", and of the "exceedingly short periods of time."

There's also this in that document: "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." Do you know if this is just a typo? Or a mistake? Or are the authors of that document so ignorant as to not know what forbidden lines are?

.

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

As others have already noted, there's nothing here which answers my questions, no papers, no calculations, no links to quantified descriptions of electricity, etc (with respect to electric comets). Can you not cite anything which actually answers my questions?

.
Alfvén Triumphs Again (and Again)

As others have already noted, there's nothing here which answers my questions, no papers, no calculations, no links to quantified descriptions of electricity, etc (with respect to electric comets). Can you not cite anything which actually answers my questions?

I found this, at the bottom of the page, particularly informative: "POSTSCRIPT: Alfvén didn't go so far as to consider a star as an electrical discharge phenomenon."

If no "electrical theorist" has built on Alfven's work, and shown that the electric Sun idea is consistent with all the relevant data, quantitatively, why post this? I find it particularly informative to realize that no such work has (apparently) been done ... in ~half a century.

.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.

As others have already noted, there's nothing here which answers my questions, no papers, no calculations, no links to quantified descriptions of electricity, etc (with respect to electric comets). Can you not cite anything which actually answers my questions?

In particular, none of the plots have scales; there's no indication of where the origin is, no 'tick marks', no units, not even any indication of whether the scales are linear, logarithmic, ... If Scott has already gone to the trouble of producing such detailed material, why did he not post plots labeled appropriately for a scientific audience? I'm quite struck by the contrast with the previous link; if any student of Alfven had submitted incomplete plots like Scott published, I've no doubt Alfven would have 'ripped him a new one' (as I think the current vernacular has it).

(to be continued; this post is already too long)

 

[JeanTate]

(continued)

<skip>

.
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.)

As others have already noted, there's nothing here which answers my questions, no papers, no calculations, no links to quantified descriptions of electricity, etc (with respect to electric comets). Can you not cite anything which actually answers my questions?

One piece, from this source, is interesting: "The Sun is at a more positive electrical potential (voltage) than is the space plasma surrounding it - probably in the order of several billion volts." When combined with "As of 9/9/2012 the radius of this plasma cell has been measured to be greater than 18 billion km or 122 times the distance from the Sun to Earth", it would seem that there's the basis for making quantitative estimates of the electric charge an (electric) comet would have, and also of the electric field which causes the 'electric discharge jets' (per the electric comet idea). Yet in none of the materials you've quoted can I find any such calculation. Which is strange, because it would seem to be pretty simple and straight-forward (at least as a first pass, order-of-magnitude).

Have you tried to do such a calculation yourself, Haig? Have you read anything where such a calculation has been presented?

.
The Electric Sun/Earth ... Connection Confirmed

As others have already noted, there's nothing here which answers my questions, no papers, no calculations, no links to quantified descriptions of electricity, etc (with respect to electric comets). Can you not cite anything which actually answers my questions?

.
The Safire Project - Testing The Electric Sun

As others have already noted, there's nothing here which answers my questions, no papers, no calculations, no links to quantified descriptions of electricity, etc (with respect to electric comets). Can you not cite anything which actually answers my questions?

Perhaps once this project has finished taking data, the analyses done, results written up, and published, maybe then there might be something to discuss, right?

Do you have any idea when we might expect to see such a publication?

.
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).

As others have already noted, there's nothing here which answers my questions, no papers, no calculations, no links to quantified descriptions of electricity, etc (with respect to electric comets). Can you not cite anything which actually answers my questions?

 

[JeanTate]

Hi dasmiller,

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

I did read the material in those links, quite carefully (well, those which were directly relevant to 'electric comet' and the parts to 'electric Sun' as they pertained to 'electric comet'). And I can independently verify what you found from just skimming; there's not a single calculation in any of them.

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.

And this seems to be a consistent pattern, throughout this very long thread; none of the members posting material in support of the 'electric comet' idea have been able to find anything quantitative, anything which ties the 'electric comet' ideas to the equations and so on found in textbooks on electricity. And the only time something looks like it does - e.g. the references to Alfven - it turns out they're not.

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.

I've noticed that too.

And it's not just here; Tom Bridgman has a website on which he posts clear, specific, quantitative challenges to those who are in favor of the electric Sun, yet no one has responded. He also posts some detailed calculations of several different electric Sun models, and shows that they fail - dramatically - in terms of consistency with things like the observed energy output of the Sun (in the form of electromagnetic radiation), and its constancy.

(sorry, I can't post a link yet; his site is called "Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy")

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?

Indeed.

Haig, would you like to have a go at answering these questions?

 

[tusenfem]

Your the one claiming to be the expert tusenfem

I've answered lots of questions on this thread by pointing to where they are answers and giving my own opinion too occasionally, for what that's worth

I know the questions I've asked you are difficult but you need to stop dodging them! They are important questions for mainstream to answer or they should simply drop the dirty snowball model of comets and adopt the Electric Comet one

Haig, can you actually READ???

I have told you (and sol) several times already that the dirty snowball was introduced by Whipple in the late 50s or early 60s, before any close observations were available.

Only after the flyby of Halley by Giotto in 1986 did we get a first look at the nucleus of a comet and here is the picture:

After that it was clear that it was NOT a dirty snowball, so stop claiming that mainstream still thinks of a comet as a dirty snowball.

Up until now you have not asked any questions, you have made claims and refused to believe any answers to the (mostly ridiculous thunderdolts originated) claims. You have no will to learn anything, and can only copy stuff that you find on the internet.

The links that you just posted with "serious questions" are so much rediculous that I will not even spend time to try and set them straight. I'd have to start with freshmen physics, if not high-school level physics.

So, as long as you do not bring anything of substance (which I am sure you will not) there is absolutely nothing to discuss. You will not "defend" EC, but you are a proponent. You will not answer any quantitative questions, but you are sure you can disbelieve any mainstream calculation.

So, why not got to thunderdolts forum, and discuss there amongst your friends.

 

[tusenfem]

Hi Jean-Tate

Just to let you know, there is a 186 pages thread on the electric sun that you might (not) want to look through.

 

[JeanTate]

Hi again Haig.

I know you were responding to Lukraak_Sisser ("LS"), but as I pretty much agreed with everything LS wrote, I hope you don't mind if I also respond to your post.

Well LS you are aware (aren't you) that the lander Philae (and Rosetta) have Faraday Cages built into protect their instrumentation?

Well, from the material you posted earlier, on the electric comet, there should have been a quite dramatic electric discharge, between the comet's surface and the metal tips and sharp edges of several parts of both spacecraft.

Of course, none of the electric comet material you posted contains any quantitative calculation, so all we have to discuss is bald words, which are quite inadequate to get to the bottom of this, right?

An also, Rosetta and Philae approached 67P so slowly thus minimising the charge difference between them.

I'm really puzzled by this, Haig; I hope you can sort my puzzlement out for me.

According to 'electric comet', a comet's jets are electrical discharges, caused by the huge difference(s) in electric potential between the comet's surface and the solar wind/field. And these jets stretch across quite enormous distances.

Yet Rosetta started out at a quite different 'solar potential' than where it is now, but has no jets streaming from it. If the slow approach of Rosetta minimized the charge difference between it and the comet, and the comet is still at such a huge difference to the solar wind (etc), how come Rosetta doesn't have jets too?

If a spacecraft and lander approach a comet fast then you can get a huge reaction like this Deep Impact: Confirming the Electric Comet

I may be wrong, but I think member Reality Check has pretty thoroughly debunked that. While he may have gone a bit too far in calling what's posted "lies", I can't see any way round the conclusion that the authors of that material have badly misrepresented the facts.

You seem to be missing the point LS try reading it again.

While I'm not LS, I did read it again, and still cannot see where/how LS misunderstood anything.

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to go through it, in detail, showing exactly where both of us have (so badly, apparently) misunderstood?

'Electric Comet' Could Burn The House Of Science

"The standard theory, it seems, has been kept alive by the discovery of water in comet comas and tails, not on the nucleus itself. But what is the source of the water in comet tails? Ironically, electrical activity within cometary comas may have deceived investigators into thinking that their model is intact"

I know tusenfem has asked - many times - for details about this, but so far (as far as I can tell) you have not provided any answers.

So let me try asking too: where are the calculations of the expected amount of water, from comets, using the electric comet idea? Where have analyses been published, showing that these expected rates are consistent with the published observations?

Well it seems you can take LS to water but you can't ... Maybe a re-read might make things clearer for you?

Again, I'm not LS, but when I re-read the material (and re-re-read it), I was left with the same, unanswered, questions as LS.

Perhaps if you could post links to published material containing actual models, with calculations, numbers, etc? That would certainly go a long way to addressing the apparent misunderstanding.

There are LS!

All the planets are charged bodies with plasma sheaths surrounding them (Earth's is called the Magnetosphere) and the Sun is a charged body has it's plasma sheath too (mainstream call it the Heliosphere}.

Actually, you didn't answer LS' question, sorry.

However, your response opens up the chance to ask this question: what are the charges on the planets in the solar system? on the Sun? On the comet Rosetta is currently orbiting?

I would assume that, since you know all about plasma sheaths etc, you could simply apply the well-known laws of electricity and work out at least the relative charges on all these bodies? Or at least provide good order-of-magnitude estimates of them?

And if you personally can't do such calculations, surely 'the electrical theorists' have done so, right? Please post links to where such calculations are published.

Can you imagine the size of the Universe LS? Well 99.9% of that is Plasma and plasma can carry electric currents that generate magnetic fields, called Birkland Currents. The current is generated continually by the potential difference across the Universe. That's what lights up the Universe and why we can see huge chains of galaxies. There are local variations such as we find in our Sun with it's various cycles. (btw now heading into a Grand Solar Minimum) This is my understanding from all this you and the rest are free to make up your own mind or simply follow.

I'm really quite lost here Haig, so I hope you can help.

If the Sun is enclosed in a plasma sheath - as you said earlier - then as long as comets, planets, spacecraft, etc do not go outside it, what happens in the rest of the universe is irrelevant to the point LS is making, right? All that matters is the relative charges on all the various bodies within that plasma sheath, right?

If they are close enough there are reactions! Never heard of Sun diving comets? There are lots of examples of this ...

Really?

This would seem - at first glance - to be something 'electrical theorists' would have researched extensively!

Do you know where their research results have been published? Quantitative ones, I mean, which consider all CMEs and all sun-diving comets, address selection effects, do quantitative analyses of the observed 'reactions', etc, etc, etc.

How is the tail of a comet pointing away from the Sun make Electric Comets theory wrong? It's actually the opposite it makes it right! Ask yourself if comet tails are just sublimating ices and dust WHY do they stay ATTACHED to a very low gravity body like a comet? and sweep around the sun like a blade at perihelion? That's an electromagnetic effect LS

I'm with LS on this too, Haig.

If comet tails are some sort of discharge, why do they all face away from the Sun? And why are there two tails? At the very least I'd expect comet tails to point one way when they're 'incoming' and the opposite way when they're 'outgoing' (but they don't).

Can you explain this for me please, slowly, carefully, and in detail. In your own words, not by posting yet another link.

 

[Haig]

(continued)
As others have already noted, there's nothing here which answers my questions, no papers, no calculations, no links to quantified descriptions of electricity, etc (with respect to electric comets). Can you not cite anything which actually answers my questions?

One piece, from this source, is interesting: "The Sun is at a more positive electrical potential (voltage) than is the space plasma surrounding it - probably in the order of several billion volts." When combined with "As of 9/9/2012 the radius of this plasma cell has been measured to be greater than 18 billion km or 122 times the distance from the Sun to Earth", it would seem that there's the basis for making quantitative estimates of the electric charge an (electric) comet would have, and also of the electric field which causes the 'electric discharge jets' (per the electric comet idea). Yet in none of the materials you've quoted can I find any such calculation. Which is strange, because it would seem to be pretty simple and straight-forward (at least as a first pass, order-of-magnitude).

Have you tried to do such a calculation yourself, Haig? Have you read anything where such a calculation has been presented?


As others have already noted, there's nothing here which answers my questions, no papers, no calculations, no links to quantified descriptions of electricity, etc (with respect to electric comets). Can you not cite anything which actually answers my questions?



As others have already noted, there's nothing here which answers my questions, no papers, no calculations, no links to quantified descriptions of electricity, etc (with respect to electric comets). Can you not cite anything which actually answers my questions?

Perhaps once this project has finished taking data, the analyses done, results written up, and published, maybe then there might be something to discuss, right?

Do you have any idea when we might expect to see such a publication?


As others have already noted, there's nothing here which answers my questions, no papers, no calculations, no links to quantified descriptions of electricity, etc (with respect to electric comets). Can you not cite anything which actually answers my questions?

Hi dasmiller,

I did read the material in those links, quite carefully (well, those which were directly relevant to 'electric comet' and the parts to 'electric Sun' as they pertained to 'electric comet'). And I can independently verify what you found from just skimming; there's not a single calculation in any of them.


And this seems to be a consistent pattern, throughout this very long thread; none of the members posting material in support of the 'electric comet' idea have been able to find anything quantitative, anything which ties the 'electric comet' ideas to the equations and so on found in textbooks on electricity. And the only time something looks like it does - e.g. the references to Alfven - it turns out they're not.


I've noticed that too.

And it's not just here; Tom Bridgman has a website on which he posts clear, specific, quantitative challenges to those who are in favor of the electric Sun, yet no one has responded. He also posts some detailed calculations of several different electric Sun models, and shows that they fail - dramatically - in terms of consistency with things like the observed energy output of the Sun (in the form of electromagnetic radiation), and its constancy.

(sorry, I can't post a link yet; his site is called "Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy")


Indeed.

Haig, would you like to have a go at answering these questions?

Hi JeanTate,

Sorry my posts couldn't satisfy you.

The latest I've read is this paper JMP and SAFIRE: What makes the sun shine? Click on the link and you'll see some recent information and a Video of the presentation. Also, at the bottom, below the video, you can download a PDF that may have what your looking for.

One of the best places to find further information is the Thunderbolts site.

If you join and ask your questions on the forum you will get straight answers without the ad-homs so common here. If you are genuine you won't have any problems there. Thunderbolts Forum Registration Application

Good luck in your quest

 

[JeanTate]

I remember in several other threads EU proponents saying "we'd be able to get a lot a done if we had just a tiny fraction of the funding that mainstream astronomers have", with other responding "well what would they do with the money"? I've half-seriously thought that the answer might be "hire physics grad-students to do the math for us".

If I am not mistaken, at least several of 'the electrical theorists' have university degrees in fields which are directly pertinent: Thornhill has a physics degree, and Scott is some sort of electrical engineer. Also, wasn't Jurgens a science graduate too?

From reading the material Haig has posted, I'm left with the impression that the likes of Thornhill and Scott have had more than enough time to do at least the 'back of the envelope' calculations which would show the basic soundness of their ideas (they certainly have more than enough income to do this!).

In an earlier post, dasmiller asked "Is EU incompatible with quantitative modeling? Or do the EU proponents simply lack the necessary skills?" While that's a bit too broad (this thread is about electric comet), the questions are very pertinent; after many decades of working on the electric comet (and electric Sun) idea, how come neither Thornhill nor Scott have - apparently - been able to publish even the simplest of calculations?

And why are plots which are published non-scientific (no units, no scale, etc)? It's not like Thornhill's and Scott's teachers didn't ever mention the importance of such things.

 

[JeanTate]

Some serious questions here for mainstream to answer about comets.

<links removed; I still can't post links, even when I'm just quoting>

That's nice, but what does it have to do with the validity (or otherwise) of the electric comet idea?

 

[phunk]

Ask yourself if comet tails are just sublimating ices and dust WHY do they stay ATTACHED to a very low gravity body like a comet? and sweep around the sun like a blade at perihelion?

Seriously? An analogy for you: Why does the stream of water coming out of a hose stay attached to the hose? Silly question, right?

 

[Haig]

Hi again Haig.

I know you were responding to Lukraak_Sisser ("LS"), but as I pretty much agreed with everything LS wrote, I hope you don't mind if I also respond to your post.


Well, from the material you posted earlier, on the electric comet, there should have been a quite dramatic electric discharge, between the comet's surface and the metal tips and sharp edges of several parts of both spacecraft.

Of course, none of the electric comet material you posted contains any quantitative calculation, so all we have to discuss is bald words, which are quite inadequate to get to the bottom of this, right?



I'm really puzzled by this, Haig; I hope you can sort my puzzlement out for me.

According to 'electric comet', a comet's jets are electrical discharges, caused by the huge difference(s) in electric potential between the comet's surface and the solar wind/field. And these jets stretch across quite enormous distances.

Yet Rosetta started out at a quite different 'solar potential' than where it is now, but has no jets streaming from it. If the slow approach of Rosetta minimized the charge difference between it and the comet, and the comet is still at such a huge difference to the solar wind (etc), how come Rosetta doesn't have jets too?


I may be wrong, but I think member Reality Check has pretty thoroughly debunked that. While he may have gone a bit too far in calling what's posted "lies", I can't see any way round the conclusion that the authors of that material have badly misrepresented the facts.


While I'm not LS, I did read it again, and still cannot see where/how LS misunderstood anything.

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to go through it, in detail, showing exactly where both of us have (so badly, apparently) misunderstood?


I know tusenfem has asked - many times - for details about this, but so far (as far as I can tell) you have not provided any answers.

So let me try asking too: where are the calculations of the expected amount of water, from comets, using the electric comet idea? Where have analyses been published, showing that these expected rates are consistent with the published observations?


Again, I'm not LS, but when I re-read the material (and re-re-read it), I was left with the same, unanswered, questions as LS.

Perhaps if you could post links to published material containing actual models, with calculations, numbers, etc? That would certainly go a long way to addressing the apparent misunderstanding.


Actually, you didn't answer LS' question, sorry.

However, your response opens up the chance to ask this question: what are the charges on the planets in the solar system? on the Sun? On the comet Rosetta is currently orbiting?

I would assume that, since you know all about plasma sheaths etc, you could simply apply the well-known laws of electricity and work out at least the relative charges on all these bodies? Or at least provide good order-of-magnitude estimates of them?

And if you personally can't do such calculations, surely 'the electrical theorists' have done so, right? Please post links to where such calculations are published.


I'm really quite lost here Haig, so I hope you can help.

If the Sun is enclosed in a plasma sheath - as you said earlier - then as long as comets, planets, spacecraft, etc do not go outside it, what happens in the rest of the universe is irrelevant to the point LS is making, right? All that matters is the relative charges on all the various bodies within that plasma sheath, right?


Really?

This would seem - at first glance - to be something 'electrical theorists' would have researched extensively!

Do you know where their research results have been published? Quantitative ones, I mean, which consider all CMEs and all sun-diving comets, address selection effects, do quantitative analyses of the observed 'reactions', etc, etc, etc.


I'm with LS on this too, Haig.

If comet tails are some sort of discharge, why do they all face away from the Sun? And why are there two tails? At the very least I'd expect comet tails to point one way when they're 'incoming' and the opposite way when they're 'outgoing' (but they don't).

Can you explain this for me please, slowly, carefully, and in detail. In your own words, not by posting yet another link.

.
Same reply as in my last post to you Jean Tate

 

[rwguinn]

Seriously? An analogy for you: Why does the stream of water coming out of a hose stay attached to the hose? Silly question, right?

Ouch.

 

[JeanTate]

Hi again tusenfem,

indeed, i have been going through this for years now and always new trolls pop up. you do not need a lot of funding only a bit of knowledge of rlectrodynamics and plasma physics and access to the internet. then you go to the pds or psa (us ans eu data repositories) get the data and work on it. heck, every pc has excell (or a freeware version) which can read the ascii data and manipulate them. do it on a rainy sunday afternoon.

I did not know about those "data repositories"; can you give links to them please?

From my own work, as a citizen scientist (check out my posts in the Radio Galaxy Zoo discussion forum - sorry, you'll have to use google to find it, "Radio Galaxy Zoo Talk" should get your there), I know how easy and straight-forward it is to download data, analyze it using free software (TOPCAT is darn good!), etc.

I find it astonishing that no proponent of 'electric comet' - in this thread anyway - seems to have even tried this. But then, as none of 'the electrical theorists' seem to have done anything like this either, they don't exactly have any good role models to follow, do they?

but if you go to the thunder forum and see the comments there, you understand why nothing happens, it is mainly a bunch of nitwits with comments even more stupid than we get from haig and sol " well i guess they never heard about electricity, these so called astronomers"

also what haig again posted, the juergens' model. using appropriate estimations for the currents and the sheet it should flow in and the known energy emitted by the sun gave me a local magnetic field strength about 2 orders of magnitude too large atcarth's orbit. i guess i could search for it, but who cares (it was in another eu or electric sun thread)

And as I said earlier, Tom Bridgman's website has challenges for EC/ES enthusiasts, as well as a pretty thorough debunking of all published versions of ES. Yet no one - it seems - has ever accepted his challenges.

It's very puzzling.

 

[JeanTate]

Thanks tusenfem. (link removed; I still can't post them)

Hi Jean-Tate

Just to let you know, there is a 186 pages thread on the electric sun that you might (not) want to look through.

Wow!

I'll pass, thank you.

The last post in that thread is over two years' old now, so I guess no proponent of the electric Sun idea wants to discuss it here. Unlike the electric comet idea, which at least Sol88 and Haig seem keen on.