The Electric Comet theory

[Sol88]

Sure you are

This short video explains the errors you and mainstream are making and how important understanding comets actually is! Enjoy

Rosetta Mission Update | The Rocky Comet

When you compare the video above with this one, you can see the vast difference in understanding what comets are.

 

[tusenfem]

WOW! this IS a highly embarrassing image of 67P for the mainstream "Dirty Snowball / Magnetic Comet" model ...
http://mattias.malmer.nu/2014/11/civa-depth-cues/comet_depth_cues/

And why exactly is that embarrasing? Just because you hold on to the "Dirty Snowball" idea of the 1950, does not mean that mainstream science has to do so too.

Can you please explain to us how this image was processed and how you determine what the rocky-like surface is made of?

 

[Belz...]

I was away for a few days and did not see that Haig was just spamming the thread.

So you decided to do the same ?

 

[tusenfem]

Reality Check, the data that's coming in is directly falsifying the standard model my 1950s view of mainstream cometary physics.

Corrected that for you.

 

[tusenfem]

What I'm interested in is, are they going to be real scientist or are they going to declare there was not enough data to turn the Dirtysnowball model over!!!

As said before, but hey, maybe you cannot read so fast, the dirty snowball by Whipple from the 1950s has been discarded since the first flyby of comet 1P/Halley in 1986.

But don't let that hinder you in putting up straw man (hey it's advent time straw figures are called for).

 

[Haig]

And why exactly is that embarrasing? Just because you hold on to the "Dirty Snowball" idea of the 1950, does not mean that mainstream science has to do so too.

Don't you include NASA in mainstream science then?

They believe in the "Dirty Snowball comet"

What's in the heart of a comet?
A comet's nucleus is like a dirty snowball made of ice. As the comet gets closer to the Sun, some of the ice starts to melt and boil off, along with particles of dust.

Can you please explain to us how this image was processed and how you determine what the rocky-like surface is made of?

It was made clear in my post tusenfem HERE

see my bold to make it easy for you!

The best indication yet of what 67P is made of is the famous CIVA image take by Philae of its final resting place, and in particular this extraordinary reprocessed version by Mattias Malmer which clearly shows the jumble of rocks and boulders which Plilae finally tumbled down into: http://mattias.malmer.nu/2014/11/civa-d ... epth_cues/. It is almost a 3D image, so good is the resolution of the in-depth perspective. Truly amazing, and no doubt highly embarrassing for the "dirty snowballers"! This is brilliant citizen science.]

Are you having a bad day?

 

[Haig]

Originally Posted by tusenfem
And why exactly is that embarrasing? Just because you hold on to the "Dirty Snowball" idea of the 1950, does not mean that mainstream science has to do so too.

It's NOT just NASA that believe in the "Dirty Snowball Comet" tusenfem

Maybe you prefer "Snowy Dirtball Comets" ?

Comets: Facts About The ‘Dirty Snowballs’ of Space
by Charles Q. Choi, Space.com Contributor | November 15, 2014
A comet is an icy body that releases gas or dust. They are often compared to dirty snowballs, though recent research has led some scientists to call them snowy dirtballs.

 

[Sol88]

As said before, but hey, maybe you cannot read so fast, the dirty snowball by Whipple from the 1950s has been discarded since the first flyby of comet 1P/Halley in 1986.

But don't let that hinder you in putting up straw man (hey it's advent time straw figures are called for).

Tusenfem, the link to the video posted above is cutting edge, upto date, standard mainstream, garden variety, Fred Whipple Dirtysnowball leftover bits n bobs from the formation of the solar system 4.6 billion years ago model.

Yes?

No?

Do you know something the we don't, Tusenfem?

 

[Sol88]

Tell me Tusenfem, what would be your description of a comet be, if not a Dirtysnowball?

 

[tusenfem]

It's NOT just NASA that believe in the "Dirty Snowball Comet" tusenfem

Maybe you prefer "Snowy Dirtball Comets" ?

Apart from the fact that discussing this is just a way of not-discussing the idiotic ideas of the electric comets, I will give you an answer here

Snowy dirtballs is already a step in the more correct description of comets, but still not perfect either. Unfortunately, people keep on using "dirty snowball" in public lectures, even from NASA, ESA etc. Bad habits cannot be broken easily.

Just to translate what we here in Graz tell the people what comets are during the so-called comet cooking.

The ingredients that we use are give by what we know by now about the composition of comets, but limited by what is available on Earth and in our laboratory.

This is a one-mixing-bowl sized comet recipe:
1. 4 deciliter sand, which is the mineral content of the comet
2. an equal amount of water in the form of snow
3. a few spoon-fulls of carbon (representative of the carbon compounds)
4. a spritzer of complex hydrocarbons (in the cooking soja saus and sugar)
5. some not so fine stuff as ammonia (other more toxic stuff as H2S etc are omitted)
6. Alcohol! on small glass of schnapps
7. Carbondioxide or dry ice about 3-4 deciliter
8. to bind it all, 200 milliliter liquid water.

Mix it all well, and add sufficient liquid nitrogen to bake.

I can guarantee this gives a great comet.

 

[tusenfem]

So now answer me these questions three

1. How does the electric comet generate the observed water (or OH for all I care) through the interaction of the solar wind with the cometary nucleus? A qualitative and quantitative answer is needed here
2. How does the electric comet generate the observed CO2 emission from the comet? Are these generated by the same interaction as the H2O/OH?
3. Why do we not observe any "sparking" events at the comet in the instruments which should be sensitive to these kind of processes?

I know, this is much to ask, but since (the?) David Talbott is now on the floor, I hope we can get some better answers.

Please, understand that trying to dig holes into a hypothesis that you do not like does not mean that you thereby validate your own hypothesis. So dirty snowballs or snowy dirtballs or pink elephants for all I care, whatever comets are called (I call them comets, strangely enough) there is a mainstream model about how the interaction of the nucleus with the solar radiation, the solar wind plasma and magnetic field takes place and from which we can make numerical models with can, lo-and-behold also show the singing comet! Guess mainstream is doing something right, now I am waiting for an actual EC paper.

 

[jsfisher]

as I've said to Reality Check, the "Mainstream" is in a flap over the data coming back.

A flap, you say? Really? I haven't seen that. I've seen enthusiasm and excitement, but that's to be expected, no? You seem to be inventing controversy where there is none, just as if it were you who was in a flap over the data coming back.

 

[Dancing David]

Hello Haig,

At one level, I admire your tenacity, and the obvious fervor with which you seem to hold to your beliefs. However, at another level, I cringed when I read this post of yours.

Until I started to really read the materials you provided links to (thank you, once again, for those), on the electric comet (and key parts of the electric Sun) idea, I really didn't know much about them. However, having studied them, and asked you questions about them (thank you, again, for trying to answer my questions), I have learned that the electric Sun idea (the key parts of relevance to the electric comet one) do not even attempt to show consistency with Alfvén's work.

Yeah, rather shocking, but there it is.

I'm still quite puzzled that you, who has apparently studied this for quite a long time, do not seem to understand very much of what you write. Like the above.

But of course, I could be wrong (I often am).

So, please, in detail show - with cites and quotes from published electric Sun material - how "ziggurat's Electric Sun calculation are wrong and an oversimplification strawman". In particular, please show where - and in detail - the published electric Sun ideas (the ones of direct relevance to the electric comet ideas) are consistent with the "second approach".

Thank you in advance.

TADA, and welcome to the Electric Universe theories.

 

[Dancing David]

I remember at least one EU proponent saying something like: maybe Maxwell's equations that physicists use are just a limiting case of the actual laws of electromagnetism, like Newtonian gravity is a limiting case of relativity. So they could hire grad and post-grad physics students to try to come up with a new theory of electromagnetism which has Maxwell's equations as its limiting case.

 

[David Talbott]

Three good questions from Tusenfem:

1. How does the electric comet generate the observed water (or OH for all I care) through the interaction of the solar wind with the cometary nucleus? A qualitative and quantitative answer is needed here
2. How does the electric comet generate the observed CO2 emission from the comet? Are these generated by the same interaction as the H2O/OH?
3. Why do we not observe any "sparking" events at the comet in the instruments which should be sensitive to these kind of processes?

Of course obtaining quantitative answers will be essential, but if these answers are to come from specialists themselves, I believe this will require deeper shifts in thinking about comets than the shifts noted so far in this thread. The necessary data gathering could be dramatically advanced by the Rosetta Mission. But what theoretical assumptions will be guiding the Rosetta assessments and analyses? As you say, Tusenfem, changes in scientific imagination do not always come quickly.

Viewing the public statements placed on various NASA and ESA discussions of comets can be dismaying. Despite a few equivocations on the “dirty snowball” or "icy dirtball idea," I’ve never seen an official page acknowledge the more radical possibility—that we might visit a comet and find a rock plain and simple.

But now, here we are, looking at 67P and wondering if it will reveal ANY water, either on the surface or beneath the surface at the presumed sources of jets. My own expectation is that no water ice whatsoever will be found apart from, at best, a minor drift of icy frost from the coma to the surface during a more active phase. Though the electric comet hypothesis does not DEPEND on this prediction, we’ve seen enough to bet on it.

If 67P turns out to be a rock—and JUST a rock—it’s only reasonable to expect a major shift toward thinking electrochemically about water production by comets. I’ve been in discussions with qualified scientists on this issue, and at least one specialist will be speaking on the electrochemistry of comets at our June conference. That talk will no doubt go well beyond mere H2O and CO2 production.

My own job is simply to show why new facts do not allow us to ignore electrical implications. That’s just an interdisciplinary observation, based on a ground floor of critical findings. Well designed experiments will provide the parameters for qualified mathematical analysis. The experimental work must, of course, include the plasma domain of the Sun, and that work is already underway and appropriately funded.

Much has occurred in the past couple of years to inspire the Electric Universe community and to drive its outreach to the specialized space sciences in 2015. We now have considerable data to show that scientists globally are paying attention, and changes in fundamental thinking about comets will surely help to lead the way.

 

[JeanTate]

Am gonna bump this post, now that I see that Sol88 has returned.

What about just OH?

"we" dont see water, H2O...we see OH, right?

Lateral thinking, Sol88? Good!

This is a very good question; what do Wal 'n his mates say about this? I think the answer's the same, right? The OH we see comes from H in the solar wind and O in the rocks. Now you're far more knowledgeable about the electric comet than I am, so perhaps you can flesh this out a bit?

What about the CO2 & CO production?

I mean the moons, our moon, has got a bit as well The elements sodium (Na) and potassium (K) have been detected in the moon's atmosphere using Earth-based spectroscopic methods, whereas the isotopes radon-222 and polonium-210 have been inferred from data obtained by the Lunar Prospector alpha particle spectrometer.[4] Argon-40, helium-4, oxygen and/or methane (CH4), nitrogen gas (N2) and/or carbon monoxide (CO), and carbon dioxide (CO2) were detected by in-situ detectors placed by the Apollo astronauts.[5] Mmmmm....

Right.

But I'm sure you'd be the first to agree that the Sydney Opera House was not built in a day. And since they say H is by far the most common element in the universe, why not start with that? If this BOTE calculation of yours, Sol88, works out, you can always modify it to look at other elements and compounds, right? But if you never start doing any math(s), you'll never get anywhere, will you?

So, you'll do two BOTE calculations, in parallel; one for OH, and one for H₂O. OK?

Sol88, you didn't reply to my earlier post, and I'd really like to see you do - or at least try to do - a BOTE calculation of this kind.

There are many ways you could approach this, none of them any 'righter' than any other; why not jot down some initial thoughts, on how you might start?

As I said before, there are plenty of members who can help ... but the first step really should come from you.

 

[JeanTate]

Good afternoon, Haig.

As you too have returned, I thought I'd bump this post of mine, to see if you would consider responding to it.

Hi Haig,

As you really did try, I think it's only fair that I expand a bit on part of my last post ...

<snip>

Sorry Haig, I know you really, truly feel you answered my question/request.

But my take on what you posted is this: "JeanTate, I really did try, but honestly I could find nothing, nothing at all which comes even close to what you're looking for (and after our many interactions, I have come to understand what that involves). Even though I have really zero understanding of the relevant physics - Newtonian, plasma physics, etc - I too was pretty surprised to find that no one - no electric theorist, no one - has actually made any progress at all on estimating electric potential which a comet experiences in its orbit about the Sun, despite nearly all electrical theorists having worked on it, pretty much full-time, for several decades."

To be fair, it's not like your non-answer is new; no proponent of electric comet ideas - in this long thread - has provided any of these kinds of answers. And that's because there really does seem to be nothing on this published, by any electrical theorist (other than, perhaps Juergens), stretching back over a half century now.

This wouldn't be so much of a concern if something new had been proposed, in the electric comet idea; however, right from the very beginning it seems the core is electromagnetism, and plasma physics. Both subjects have been extensively researched, for far longer than a half century. And the number of people like tusenfem working on the application of these to space science and astrophysics vastly exceeds the number of electrical theorists. And those people publish papers, in peer-reviewed journals. And thousands of those papers cite Alfven's work.

You see the disconnect?

If it's just electromagnetism and plasma physics, why is it that electrical theorists have been so spectacularly unsuccessful in producing anything testable, verifiable, falsifiable? When hundreds (thousands?) of scientists like tusenfem have been able to do research resulting in hundreds of papers with material that is testable, verifiable, falsifiable?

It certainly cannot be the difficulties of the subject material (though plasma physics is certainly no walk in the park), so what is it?

<snip>

You remember we had a brief dialog about SAFIRE (I'll post links to the posts if it would help jog your memory)?

Here's one disconnect: you quote Alfven (and others?) on why space plasmas are really, really tough to model, understand, tame with math(s), etc, etc, etc.

Yet these, um, caveats which you insist so strongly on with respect to not only Ziggurat's BOTE calculations, but also everything any and all space scientists (like tusenfem) has ever published (so it seems). And you insist on this without - I'm 99% sure - you ever having read any of the published papers, much less put the effort in, yourself, to understand the relevant physics.

However, SAFIRE gets your explicit blessing. Fair enough ... except for the fact that you do not seem to have considered that it may not use this "second approach". When I asked you about this, you simply did not bother to reply. I have zero expectation that you'll reply now either, but at least it's worth asking: Haig, can you point to where - explicitly - in the published SAFIRE material (starting with that which you cited earlier in this thread) the project team says it has adopted this "second approach"? And if you can't, why does SAFIRE have your blessing?

So, to repeat:

Haig, can you point to where - explicitly - in the published SAFIRE material (starting with that which you cited earlier in this thread) the project team says it has adopted this "second approach"?

And if you can't, why does SAFIRE have your blessing?

 

[JeanTate]

Thanks Reality Check.

I can only guess, JeanTate - maybe from their book sales and revenue from web site and YouTube advertisements? There are the three main electric universe/electric sun books. Talbot has another book called The Saturn Myth.
And of course if you have a bit of a cult like Thunderbolts there is the possibility of member donations.

I'm still puzzled about why Haig (for example) seems to so love posting links to sites like that, yet so reluctant to actually discuss what's there. However, if the three guys make $$ out of hits (etc), then it's less of a mystery, perhaps (e.g. do they have a commission scheme tied to linking?)

On another topic, I'd earlier promised Haig that I'd check out the forum he recommended as the place to get answers to the (scientific, quantitative) questions I kept asking him (and which he freely admits he cannot answer). Well, I've been doing quite a bit of reading, and ... well, it's a bit of an eye-opening experience. I mean, I think I read there that you will be banned if you call the electric comet ideas pseudoscience, yet there seems to be zero actual science posted on it!

I was kinda expecting little in the way of quantitative models etc, but what really amazed me is that, almost without exception, the primary sources quoted there are the related blog's posts and various mass media articles, such as Press Releases (PRs) from NASA. It seems that the vast majority of that forum's members seem to think that astronomy/space science/etc is what NASA says in a PR (that sort of thing)!!

No wonder Haig (and Sol88?) have such difficulty answering questions posed to them; they really do seem to have no clue about primary sources.

Not that it's entirely their fault ... the associated blog also - universally? - omits any references to papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, or even conference proceedings. Given Scott's and Thornhill's degrees, it is very odd that they at least seem so reluctant to even mention peer-reviewed papers.

 

[JeanTate]

Hello Ziggurat,

"In 2000, he turned his attention to thermodynamics and astrophysics, demonstrating that the universality advanced in Kirchhoff's Law of Thermal Emission is invalid."

I suspect you have no idea what this really means, Haig, but I'll clue you in on the punchline: a violation of Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation is equivalent to a violation of the 2nd rule of thermodynamics. In other words, Robitaille believes in perpetual motion machines.

(my emphases)

Wow, just ... wow!

I'm not sure I quite understand this; would you mind explaining it in a bit more detail please?

Also, if you accept Robitaille's claim, doesn't that invalidate a very large part of plasma physics? And if so, how can the likes of Scott, Thornhill, and Talbott seem so, um, accepting of Robitaille's claim? I mean, it wouldn't be like there's any middle ground; IF Robitaille THEN throw Alfven's work in the trashcan, right?

(I must be missing something really major; a fundamental inconsistency like this would surely cause Scott, Thornhill, and Talbott nightmares, wouldn't it?)

 

[JeanTate]

Hello again, Ziggurat,

First off, this has zero relevance to what I just posted. The distinctions that Alfven makes between two different approaches has nothing, nothing, to do with Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation. Second, you've posted this before, and I've addressed it before. Alfven's 2nd approach cannot and does not rescue EU nonsense. Third, you're still in denial that Alfven explicitly contradicts the electric sun model in the very speech you appeal to.

(my emphasis)

I noticed that too; yet more concrete evidence that those who seem keen on the electric comet ideas (and so the necessary parts of the electric Sun ones too) do not regard consistency as having any particular importance. Thus whatever those ideas are, they cannot be science.

Why, then, is Haig (and Sol88, to some extent) so apparently reluctant to openly admit it?