The Electric Comet theory

[tusenfem]

Significant things to look for as the Rosetta mission continues:


Okay let's take a look at these predictions:

No evidence of subsurface ice at the sources of the jets;

it is pretty hard to see subsurface ice, as it would be, like, under the surface!

Virtually no interstellar dust, the second component of the “dirty snowball” theory;

Using the MUPUS instrument, they found they had to push the probe through a at least 15 cm thick layer of dust

Discovery of minerals on the nucleus that are typical of planetary surfaces within theHabitable zone of the Sun;

minerals have been found and organics, investigations are underway

characteristic concentration of plasma jet activity eating away at the cliffs of elevated terrain and the margins of well-defined depressions;

Well the plasma jets are at the bottom of the neck of the duck

Measurable retreat of active cliff regions in the wake of this activity;

Guess we will have to wait and see

The presence of unexpected electric fields within the coma and/or close to the comet nucleus, possibly even disrupting the anticipated landing on the surface. This could occur on or after touch down because the sharp metallic edges of the spacecraft make an ideal focus for a diffuse plasma discharge, which would disrupt communications and possibly interfere with spacecraft electronics.

Nope, nothing unexpected in the electric fields, apart from the "singing comet" but that is not electric. Also, nothing impeded the landing, there were no sparks, which would have been seen in the magnetometer data as clear signals. Communication was lost now and then, but for the rest, nothing of the above happened. (yeah I know you now say it was because Philae descended too slowly, whatever ...)

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

What does that mean that the "comet responds electrically" don't these electrical engineers of thunderdolts know that "electrically" is not a description? What electric field of the Sun? It still has not been measured, this enormous electric field (or can anyone give me any observations of these fields?) What kind of activity do they mean? It possibly already has happened, there was a big active region on the sun which emitted a lot of CMEs.

So in all, it is all just handwaving predictions of "something will happen" and yes things are happening and we are investigating it all, but still no discharges, no strange unexpected electric fields, etc. etc. Seems like the EC is a pretty big failure, specifically because they keep on ignoring to come up with a quantitative presentation of anything.

The EC is dead, it just has not realised it yet.

ETA
Oh I need to add the other part too I guess

So far, 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko’s water ice remains hidden.

Apart from all the water coming from the comet ....

According to a recent press release, one of Rosetta’s onboard instruments is detecting oxygen and hydrogen surrounding comet 67P/C-G. “ALICE” is an ultraviolet imaging spectrometer built to examine the comet’s coma, as well as study the surface. There is, however, a frustrating result from ALICE. Dr. Alan Stern, principal investigator and an associate vice president of the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) Space Science and Engineering Division, said, “We’re a bit surprised at both just how very unreflective the comet’s surface is, and what little evidence of exposed water-ice it shows.”

It is well known that cometary nuclei are the darkest objects in the solar system, so he did not need to be surprised, but it always sounds nice for the newspapers to be surprised, because if he would not be then they would ask "well why did you waste our money?"

Also I keep on being surprised as people expecting to find ice on the surface of the comet, when this thing passes by the sun every six years! Any surface ice that would have been there from the beginning, i.e. from the Oort cloud, would long have been "burned off".

The observations are no surprise to Electric Universe advocates. In fact, it is surprising that astrophysicists are still in the dark when it comes to comet morphology. After visiting five comet nuclei in the past few years, finding them to be hot, dry, and rocky, it is strange to find them continuing to promote the “dirty snowball” theory of comets.

"hot dry and rocky", well if you call -160 degrees hot, so be it. Dry, yes the surface is dust and rocky, but there is still lots of water coming off the comet. "Dirty snowball" that model stems from the early 60s from before the Halley flyby (well I am repeating myself ain't I?) and has been understood to be not a correct representation of reality. (see the pic of Halley's nucleus on the previous page). It is so nice that the EC community can just take all the new stuff, but mainstream is supposed to hold on to the dirty snowball, even though it does not, but it is a nice strawman for the EC community.

And by the way, water H2O has been measured by Rosina, directly, with different kinds of isotopes!!!


Questions for the EC-tians:

• Where are the measured signatures of these discharges that are machining the surface in the data (e.g. magnetometer or plasma or fields data)?
• Where is the reaction rate for the production of water from the cometary interaction with the solar wind protons?
• How does the EC create the CO, which escapes at a similar rate as H2O from the cometary nucleus?

 

[JeanTate]

Hi Haig,

This post of yours has some good stuff in it, so I thought I'd reply (even though it's not in direct response to anything I posted).

Oh dear. Back to Juergens' model again. The one that would make the sun explode.

Really, Haig, you need to do better than just rehashing more links to the same nonsense. Ever notice how there's never any numbers attached to these figures and graphs? There's a reason: if you actually plug in the numbers (like I did), you quickly find that the entire idea is nonsense.

The fact that the Sun hasn't exploded should prove your assumptions are wrong

I really don't follow this at all; can you clarify please?

The logic here seems pretty straight-forward; if you take the published Juergens model and 'crunch the numbers', you'll see that the Sun has to explode (I'm assuming that you've checked Ziggurat's calculations and did not find any errors; did you?). The fact that the Sun has not exploded is evidence that Juergens' model is inconsistent with at least some relevant observations.

Logically, of course, it's entirely possible that the assumptions which Juergens made, in constructing his model, are wrong ... but these would be Juergens' assumptions, not Ziggurat's.

And that's pretty much it.

Would you clarify what you meant please?

<snip>

Interesting times ahead for the Electric Comet theory with Rosetta showing what's happening.

Wal Thornhill and David Talbott on Rosetta | Space News


Rosetta Mission Predictions

Significant things to look for as the Rosetta mission continues:

No evidence of subsurface ice at the sources of the jets;
<one line skipped>
Discovery of minerals on the nucleus that are typical of planetary surfaces within the
Habitable zone of the Sun; characteristic concentration of plasma jet activity eating away at the cliffs of elevated terrain and the margins of well-defined depressions;
Measurable retreat of active cliff regions in the wake of this activity; and
The presence of unexpected electric fields within the coma and/or close to the comet nucleus, possibly even disrupting the anticipated landing on the surface. This could occur on or after touch down because the sharp metallic edges of the spacecraft make an ideal focus for a diffuse plasma discharge, which would disrupt communications and possibly interfere with spacecraft electronics.
And, if a strong coronal mass ejection from the Sun strikes the comet, we expect the comet to respond electrically with a surge of activity, confirming that the jets are not due to warming from the Sun but to charged particle distribution in the electric field of the Sun.

A bit of a preamble here, that you can skip if you like (it's not on the electric comet idea).

In my research as a citizen scientist, on Radio Galaxy Zoo, I sometimes find 'hosts' of doublelobe radio structures which are classed as 'STAR' in SDSS. Sometimes checking with NED shows them to have been identified as QSOs already, sometimes not. In the latter cases, I can be pretty confident in predicting that, although they appear as point sources in SDSS (i.e. 'stars'), they are in fact QSOs. Now anyone can check my prediction, by examining the FIRST radio data, SDSS data, and so on. Further, my prediction is, in principle, independently verifiable (i.e. someone with access to a telescope with a spectrograph can take a spectrum and confirm - or not! - that the candidate host I identified is a QSO).

Now here's the thing about the 'predictions' you just posted: as far as I can tell, they can't be independently validated! As far as I can tell, no one - you, Sol88, me, tusenfem, Reality Check, ... - on their own, can take the published electric comet model and work through the details to produce those 'predictions' (except, perhaps, for the one line I skipped; it's not clear that it's an 'electric comet' prediction at all).

And that got me thinking; in all the electric comet idea material you've posted, and much of the electric Sun stuff too, there's no way anyone can check any of it (referring to the electric comet idea), on their own (well, most of it anyway); it seems that only 'electrical theorists' can do original work on the electric comet model, only electrical theorists can make predictions based on it, and so on.

What do you think? Is my tentative observation correct?

If I'm right, then it would seem that Tom Bridgman has been right all along, that at least the electric comet ideas are more like creationism than science.

This next one is rather troubling; I've quoted just a small part from your source:

Water, Water Nonexistent

After visiting five comet nuclei in the past few years, finding them to be hot, dry, and rocky, ...

Is this true? That the five comet nuclei which spacecraft have visited in recent years have all been, at the time, "hot, dry, and rocky"?

I think it's important to get to the bottom of this. If it turns out that the authors of that document have - knowingly - misrepresented the facts, it would cast them is a very bad light.

 

[Reality Check]

...snipped questions...

What make you think that you are capable of understanding answers about comets when you fell for the Thunderbolts delusion that they are solid rock 5 years ago and have not been unable to show any understanding about the basic fact that they are not solid rock since, Sol88 ?

The distribution of water ice in the interior of Comet Tempel 1

The Deep Impact flyby spacecraft includes a 1.05 to 4.8 μm infrared (IR) spectrometer. Although ice was not observed on the surface in the impact region, strong absorptions near 3 μm due to water ice are detected in IR measurements of the ejecta from the impact event. Absorptions from water ice occur throughout the IR dataset beginning three seconds after impact through the end of observations, ∼45 min after impact. Spatially and temporally resolved IR spectra of the ejecta are analyzed in conjunction with laboratory impact experiments. The results imply an internal stratigraphy for Tempel 1 consisting of devolatilized materials transitioning to unaltered components at a depth of approximately one meter. At greater depths, which are thermally isolated from the surface, water ice is present. Up to depths of 10 to 20 m, the maximum depths excavated by the impact, these pristine materials consist of very fine grained (∼1 ± 1 μm) water ice particles, which are free from refractory
impurities.
...
The distribution of water ice on the surface of Tempel 1 observed by DI is restricted to three discrete and relatively small areas, none of which were near the location of the impact. Sunshine et al. (2006a) note that the amount of surface water ice is insufficient to support the ambient outgassing observed for Tempel 1, and call for sub-surface (but presumably near surface) sources of water. This result is consistent with the derived surface temperatures, which were much higher than the sublimation point for water ice and the low thermal inertia, which implies a shallow thermal penetration depth (Groussin et al., 2007). Taken together, these observations of the pre-impact surface strongly indicate that the water ice necessary to support the observed ambient outgassing of Tempel 1 must have shallow, sub-surface, sources.

Maybe you can understand some facts though, Sol88:
1. This is a paper looking at the impact ejecta from ... the impact!
2. The impact was not near the ice cliffs.
Thus any expectation that the paper would analyze the ice cliffs or contain images of the ice cliffs is ridiculous.

 

[Reality Check]

So measuring the hydrogen and Hydroxyl in the coma tells you how much water is on/in a comet nucleus??

Well Duh, Sol88 !
This is something that anyone smart enough not to fall for the Thunderbolts delusion about comets being made of solid rock can understand:

• Measured density of comets is less than that of water.
• We detect O, OH, CO, CH4, etc. emitted.
• We detect water ice on the surface.
• We detect water ice in the Deep Impact ejecta.
• We detect dust emitted.

Thus comets are made up of ices and dust!

Whoo boy! I can see whySol88 is confused. He still cannot understand what the measured density of comets means after 5 years I wonder if Sol88 even knows who just cited: The distribution of water ice in the interior of Comet Tempel 1 !

• 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?
• 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
• 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.
• 20 November 2014 Sol88: Can you understand that the Thunderbolts authors even lie about predictions
• 20 November 2014 Sol88: Can you understand the significant delusions on that Thunderbolts web page on 67P "predictions"?
• 24 November 2014 Sol88: Please cite the electric comet predictions for the albedo of comet nuclei (actual numbers not fantasies!)

 

[Reality Check]

The fact that the Sun hasn't exploded should prove your assumptions are wrong

Wrong Haig - the fact the Sun hasn't exploded should tell you that the model is wrong !

More delusions from the Thunderbolts cranks does not help anyone think that your case is any better.

And an bit of a lie by citing an outdated crank web page: Water, Water Nonexistent (on September 5 2014) -> Water, Water Now Detected !

• 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 (7th July 2014), if you want to see many cases of delusional thinking and ignorance from an EU "expert" often citing other EU "experts" then have a look at the Thunderbolts picture of the day blog!
• 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 )?
• Haig (20th November 2014): Can you understand the ignorance and delusions in that Thunderbolts video about Mars?
• 24 November 2014 Haig: Please cite the electric comet predictions for the albedo of comet nuclei (actual numbers not fantasies!)
• 24 November 2014 Haig: Can you understand that this ES "paper" is ignorant about and lies about astronomy?

 

[Dancing David]

I think you dont quite understand, let me try and explain.

Overall comets don’t glow they do however "arc" at discrete spots on the surface most usually where we see "jets" emanating from...as observed

So again the comet as a whole do not GLOW, how can they?? Their as black as!!

which was also a BIG surprise for the mainstream...again

I notice you avoided showing the charge differential that causes whatever glowing comets do, especially under the EC.

I don't think you even understand the EC theory.

 

[Reality Check]

Virtually no interstellar dust, the second component of the “dirty snowball” theory;

Using the MUPUS instrument, they found they had to push the probe through a at least 15 cm thick layer of dust

My problems with that "prediction" is firstly the word interstellar. As far as I know no instrument on the spacecraft is capable of telling the difference between interstellar and inner solar system dust.
Secondly it is an ignorant prediction - we expect the dust to be a mixture of inner system and interstellar dust because that is what the Stardust mission told us!

Ditto for the vague "minerals on the nucleus that are typical of planetary surfaces". And what is "typical" - basalt , granite, limestone .

 

[Haig]

Yeah, no. It proves Juergens wrong.

Because you never address them. But I've addressed Juergens. Until you can deal with my proof of why Juergens is a nutjob, then there's no point in reposting his theory.

The Electric Sun theory has moved on from Juergens and in fact there are various ideas that are being tested in the Safire Project. As I said before your calculation is based on the wrong model with wrong assumptions as that links shows.

And until you can deal with the points RC keeps making, there's no reason for him to stop.

I have dealt with his points many times, he doesn't like my answers. e.g. the mainstream method for calculating the density of a comet is error prone if it's a charged body moving in the electric field of the sun, which being The Electric Comet is the whole point of this thread. I can't stop him doing what's he's doing.

You and tusenfem are particularly keen on math and think it proves your point.

Electric comet 67P has a coma and jets now when it's some 250 million miles from the Sun and at a temp of 205-230K (surface) and 30-160k (subsurface) Comet Emits Cosmic Stench, Rosetta Spacecraft Reveals So what's the calculation that the Sun can actually supply the energy to sublimate the ices at that distance as the mainstream believe? Looks like utter nonsense.

Why would the jets start at the neck of 67P? Surely Dirty Snowball theory expects more sublimation from subsurface ices in the much bigger lobs getting more sunlight?

Of course these two points are not an issue for the Electric Comet Model. Wal Thornhill and David Talbott, take a closer look at the latest information from the Rosetta mission to Comet 67P

Care to calculate the energy needed in the Electric Comet Siding Spring reaction with Mars?

 

[JeanTate]

Hi Haig,

Yeah, no. It proves Juergens wrong.

Because you never address them. But I've addressed Juergens. Until you can deal with my proof of why Juergens is a nutjob, then there's no point in reposting his theory.

The Electric Sun theory has moved on from Juergens and in fact there are various ideas that are being tested in the Safire Project. As I said before your calculation is based on the wrong model with wrong assumptions as that links shows.

I don't know if you yourself are confused or conflicted, but I say with certainty that I am very, very confused by what you posted.

Why?

Because it was you, Haig, who posted the link to the "Discovering the Electric Sun" webpage. Here's what you wrote (extract):

"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 ... "

That particular webpage - which Ziggurat quoted you as citing - does not mention SAFIRE, nor any modifications to the central assumptions of Juergens' model (if you think otherwise, please explain - in detail - how and where it does suggest otherwise).

So, I am left with several rather unpalatable choices here; among them:
* you did not actually read the material on that webpage
* or if you did, you did not notice that it does not contain any modifications to Juergens' model (of direct relevance to Ziggurat's calculations)
* you posted that link by mistake (in which case, which up-to-date electric Sun material should one use, in order to make calculations concerning how the Sun is powered?)
* neither I nor Ziggurat noticed the disclaimers on the webpage, concerning the no-longer-applicable nature of Juergens' model

Haig, I do hope you can clear this up. And quickly.

And until you can deal with the points RC keeps making, there's no reason for him to stop.

I have dealt with his points many times, he doesn't like my answers. e.g. the mainstream method for calculating the density of a comet is error prone if it's a charged body moving in the electric field of the sun, which being The Electric Comet is the whole point of this thread. I can't stop him doing what's he's doing.

I must have missed that particular post of yours, Haig; would you mind pointing me to it? (I did go looking for it, but came up empty-handed; not saying you didn't post it, mind, just that I couldn't find it).

In any case, can you please point to material - quantitative, with calculations, etc - which show that "the mainstream method for calculating the density of a comet is error prone if it's a charged body moving in the electric field of the sun"? Or, more generally, that the (many) methods used to estimate densities of solar system bodies will give inaccurate results if any of those bodies are moving in an electric field? I'm quite keen to learn just how large these electric fields must be to produce errors as large as the difference between the density of regular rocks and something considerably less dense than water.

You and tusenfem are particularly keen on math and think it proves your point.
<snipped stuff>

I've asked you this before, and you have not (yet) answered, so here goes again: what relevance does that have to the topic of this thread ("The Electric Comet Theory")?

 

[Ziggurat]

The Electric Sun theory has moved on from Juergens

Only in the sense that they have prettier pictures now. They've actually gone backwards in terms of making their ideas quantitative.

and in fact there are various ideas that are being tested in the Safire Project. As I said before your calculation is based on the wrong model with wrong assumptions as that links shows.

Nope. Your link again refers to Juergens, but never actually provides an updated model. In fact, you may note (but will probably ignore) that your link contains no model at all. There are no numbers, no equations, just hand-waving.

You and tusenfem are particularly keen on math and think it proves your point.

I'm keen on math because that's how you actually do physics. That's how you test your ideas to see if they're crap or not.

Electric comet 67P has a coma and jets now when it's some 250 million miles from the Sun and at a temp of 205-230K (surface) and 30-160k (subsurface) Comet Emits Cosmic Stench, Rosetta Spacecraft Reveals So what's the calculation that the Sun can actually supply the energy to sublimate the ices at that distance as the mainstream believe? Looks like utter nonsense.

Really, Haig? This is the best you can do?

OK, I'll play your game. Total solar irradiance at the Earth is about 1.36 kW/m². At 250 million miles from the sun, 67P is about 2.7 times farther away than earth, which would make the total solar irradiance about 7.3 times less, or about 186 Watts/m². The cross-sectional surface area of the comet depends upon its orientation, but it probably doesn't get less than 3 km², or 3x10⁶ m², no matter which direction it's facing. So that gives us a total solar irradiance of over 550 megawatts. Some of that will get reflected, but not much: its albedo is only about 5%. But let's be generous, and assume that reflection plus re-radiation gives us a 10% loss. So we've got about 495 megawatts to work with. The latent heat of fusion plus vaporization for water is about 2.6 megajoules/kg, which means that we have enough energy to vaporize about 190 kg of water every second.

Utter nonsense indeed.

You know, none of this was particularly difficult. You can't actually contradict it. You claim I make unspecified assumptions, but you can't provide any alternative. You merely wish it away. But it won't work. Every time anyone actually does a calculation, they prove you wrong.

Why would the jets start at the neck of 67P? Surely Dirty Snowball theory expects more sublimation from subsurface ices in the much bigger lobs getting more sunlight?

I expect that the location of the jets is probably complex, due to variations in composition, the topology of cracks within the comet, etc. But here's the kicker: if it was due to electrical activity, the jets should certainly be from the lobes, because electrical discharges focus at the outward extremities of objects, where electric fields concentrate. Lightning strikes the tall tree on top of the hill, not the bottom of a hole in a valley.

 

[JeanTate]

Me again, Haig.

Yeah, no. It proves Juergens wrong.

Because you never address them. But I've addressed Juergens. Until you can deal with my proof of why Juergens is a nutjob, then there's no point in reposting his theory.

The Electric Sun theory has moved on from Juergens and in fact there are various ideas that are being tested in the Safire Project. As I said before your calculation is based on the wrong model with wrong assumptions as that links shows.
<snippity snip>

I wasn't 100% sure of this, so I didn't post it in my previous post, preferring to go check, starting with the links you have posted on the SAFIRE project.

Haig, I cannot find anything, in any SAFIRE project material, which says that the core assumption in the Juergens model (the one Ziggurat started with, in his calculations) has been changed! In fact, the material seems pretty clear that that core assumption is central to the whole SAFIRE project!!

So I'm at even more of a loss to understand what you wrote.

Please, can you provide references to credible electric Sun material in which it is clearly stated that the core assumption of the Juergens model is no longer used (has been replaced, etc)?

For what it's worth, from reading all the material in the links you provided, I'd be astonished if that core assumption had, indeed, been replaced; as I understand it, it is absolutely critical to the whole electric Sun (and so electric comet) idea.

For more general calculations, using a variety of published electric Sun models, I recommend this Tom Bridgman webpage. In particular, the section on "Solar Capacitor model (Don Scott, The Electric Sky)":

"Applying basic conservation principles to this configuration, just some of the deficiencies found are
* predicts a solar proton wind speed 200 times faster than observed.
* predicts energetic particle fluxes far in excess of what we observe. (proton fluxes a billion times larger). These fluxes are also far higher than the most deadly regions of the Earth radiation belts, meaning that interplanetary travel would be sure death for astronauts.
* in situ measurements do not show a high-energy stream of electrons heading towards the Sun.
* Without an external EMF maintaining the potential between the photosphere and heliopause, the Electric Sun will shut down due to charge neutralization in a very tiny fraction of a second."

 

[Belz...]

"EU advocates run the risk of being tried for not being able to explain everything, when sometimes everything is not explainable.

Isn't that what EU proponents decry about the standard model ?

 

[Reality Check]

Haiglease cite the electric comet calculations for a coma and jet from 67P

I have dealt with his points many times, ...

Wrong, Haig - blindly repeating the fantasies of the Thunderbolts cranks is not dealing with the scientific points that I and other posters have made.

One of the electric comet delusions is that the electric field of the Sun magically makes all of the calculations of the densities of comets wrong.
25 November 2014 Haig: Please cite the electric comet calculations for density of comets, e.g. 67P.
Start by showing that the electric field of the Sun does not make the real density of comets less than the gravitationally calculated values .

The logical fallacy of false dichotomy raises its ugly head yet again , so:
25 November 2014 Haig: Please cite the electric comet calculations for the production of a coma and jets from 67P at some 250 million miles from the Sun and at a temp of 205-230K (surface) and 30-160k (subsurface).

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: Please cite the electric comet calculations for organic compounds from 67P

25 November 2014 Haig: Please cite the electric comet calculations for the production of organic compounds from 67P at some 250 million miles from the Sun and at a temp of 205-230K (surface) and 30-160k (subsurface).

 

[Belz...]

Try understanding this ....

Galactic Charge
in PDF http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1409/1409.3096.pdf

VLT telescope reveals mysterious alignment of quasars with the Universe’s large-scale structure

When you think you understand these, then read about the EU / PC theories in the numerous links I've posted before Some HERE. You don't need it in my words theirs are fine. You should get it then, if not ....

The Essential Guide to the Electric Universe

Failing ALL that phunk ... you're on your own

Edited by zooterkin: 

Edited for rule 10/altering another member's name.

I think you are confused between "claim" and "proof".

EU makes no sense and contradicts all of known science, and the best that its proponents can muster is platitudes and baseless claims. How do you expect this "theory" to ever gain acceptance ?

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.

I don't understand why EU proponents latch on to that theory. What's so appealing about it ? We know that gravity exists, so why the need for everything to be electric ?

 

[Belz...]

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

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of science, the purpose of which is not to find the "truth" or to stroke one's ego or to find a clean, simple and satisfying answer, but to improve our understanding and allow the improvement of mankind's situation by creating an every-improving, approximate model of the universe's working. This means you have to adjust your model when problems arise, but you don't throw out the stuff that works, and you certainly don't switch to a worse model.

For instance, try this: in what way does the electric model account for the sun's energy output ? Calculations would be appreciated.

It seems to me like EU is like conspiracy theories in that it spends all of its time talking about how awesome it is, but never at actually providing any useful results.

 

[Belz...]

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

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.

I like you.

 

[Reality Check]

Why would the jets start at the neck of 67P? Surely Dirty Snowball theory expects more sublimation from subsurface ices in the much bigger lobs getting more sunlight?

You seem to think that
* sunlight has to actually shine on ice to make it sublime
* the comet keeps a set orientation
Haig - this is wrong !
67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko rotates. So the "spherical cow" approximation is that every part of it gets an equal amount of sunlight. In reality not exactly true - Tempel 1 seemed to have a hot spot on a leading surface. But in reality it is the entire comet nucleus that heats up so that you get jets all over the place - including some "behind" the comet (in its shadow).

The formation of jets needs the gas from the sublimating ice to get through the material above the ice. For 67P we know that there are centimeters of dust on top on the ice at least at the lander site. The looser the dust is, the easier it is for the gas to get through it.
Where would the dust be loosest on 67P, Haig? (hint: there is something called gravity that compacts loose material)

It is interesting that jets started in the neck which is the lowest place on 67P. The electric comet idea would have its imaginary electrical discharges at the high points.
From back in October: Comet activity is on the increase

Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko is showing a gradual, but clear, increase in activity, as can be seen in the latest images provided by the OSIRIS team.

While images obtained a few months ago showed distinct jets of dust leaving the comet, these were limited to the ‘neck’ region. More recently, images obtained by Rosetta’s scientific imaging system, OSIRIS, show that dust is being emitted along almost the whole body of the comet. Jets have also been detected on the smaller lobe of the comet

The image on that page shows that the neck was well lit at the time the image was taken.

 

[Belz...]

Good luck in your quest

It's interesting to see how fervant a follower of EU you are, but cannot be bothered to do any sort of work to support it. Kinda like all EU proponents, in fact.

 

[Belz...]

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

Well I think we may have identified the root of your misunderstanding right here: you don't know anything about comets.