The Electric Comet theory

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hello again Haig,
me said:
As yer mate Sol88 would say, g'day Haig!

What, may I ask, has this got to do with the topic of this thread; namely, "The Electric Comet theory"?
The bottom line is the key
tusenfem said:
the fact that the tail is, amongst others, an electromagnetic/plasma effect goes not an electric comet make, dear haig.l
This is a joke, right?

Per material you provided (in links), the central aspect of the electric comet idea is the fact that a comet's orbit, around the Sun, traverses a greatly varying electric potential (relative to the Sun).

As far as I know, none of the published material on the tails of comets even hints at the kind of electric potential which is fundamental to the electric comet ideas (i.e. one sufficient to also power the Sun, externally).

Now I know - per your own admissions (and by questions you seem unwilling to answer) - that you do not, really, understand this stuff; however, that does not excuse you here ... conflating comet tails as "an electromagnetic/plasma effect" with electric comet ideas is intellectually dishonest, in my book (well, to be fair, only if you have also failed to address the many questions you've been asked on this claimed link; but as I'm sure you'd be the first to admit, you have, in fact, failed to do that).
 
As I said you need data to do calculations. So show us your data!

as i said, but as you did notvread, go to pds or psa and download the freely available data from for example the halley flyby. the links are a few pages back in an answer from me to jean tate. work in those until some of the rosetta data become publicly available, sheesh!
 
Jean Tate, it appears you've got the entire sequence of good science backwards. Your apparent formula, asking math to race ahead of evidence, could only perpetuate a huge theoretical mistakes. If I give you Don Scott's estimate of the potential of the Sun—"probably in the order of several billion volts" (his words)—you will not have anything to work with to quantify a comet's electrical behavior. Are you aware of why that is so? Meaningful quantification does not arise out of thin air.

In the case of the electric comet, the way to avoid a cart running pell mell ahead of the horse is do what is presently being done: gather systematic observations of comet behavior and open the door of scientific imagination to a possibility too long ignored. Where is the problem in that approach? Is the comet discharging electrically? At some point a possibility deserving more complete investigation will become obvious—for the very reason that the electric comet IS becoming obvious to many scientists today. That's just a fact.

Direct observation, directly-measured values, design of experiments (in the case at hand scaleable models of the Sun and of a comet)—all will be certain to follow. The fact that this is beginning to occur now is simply because discerning scientists have begun to recognize evidence for what it is. Direct evidence is king, and particularly so when a major challenge to a popular "consensus" is at stake. Where is the error in working with evidence first?
 
Last edited:
Jean Tate, it appears you've got the entire sequence of good science backwards. Your apparent formula, asking math to race ahead of evidence, could only perpetuate a huge theoretical mistakes. If I give you Don Scott's estimate of the potential of the Sun—"probably in the order of several billion volts" (his words)—you will not have anything to work with to quantify a comet's electrical behavior. Are you aware of why that is so? Meaningful quantification does not arise out of thin air.

In the case of the electric comet, the way to avoid a cart running pell mell ahead of the horse is do what is presently being done: gather systematic observations of comet behavior and open the door of scientific imagination to a possibility too long ignored. Where is the problem in that approach? Is the comet discharging electrically? At some point a possibility deserving more complete investigation will become obvious—for the very reason that the electric comet IS becoming obvious to many scientists today. That's just a fact.

Direct observation, directly-measured values, design of experiments (in the case at hand scaleable models of the Sun and of a comet)—all will be certain to follow. The fact that this is beginning to occur now is simply because discerning scientists have begun to recognize evidence for what it is. Direct evidence is king, and particularly so when a major challenge to a popular "consensus" is at stake. Where is the error in working with evidence first?

What you're saying is that there is no electric comet theory, you're looking for evidence still to support a hypothesis that is not yet developed enough to make any quantifiable predictions?
 
Jean Tate, it appears you've got the entire sequence of good science backwards. Your apparent formula, asking math to race ahead of evidence, could only perpetuate a huge theoretical mistakes. If I give you Don Scott's estimate of the potential of the Sun—"probably in the order of several billion volts" (his words)—you will not have anything to work with to quantify a comet's electrical behavior. Are you aware of why that is so? Meaningful quantification does not arise out of thin air.

No, it arises from observation and -- surprise -- observation does not lead us to believe in the electric universe/sun/comet nonsense.

At some point a possibility deserving more complete investigation will become obvious—for the very reason that the electric comet IS becoming obvious to many scientists today. That's just a fact.

Which scientists ?
 
Jean Tate, it appears you've got the entire sequence of good science backwards. Your apparent formula, asking math to race ahead of evidence, could only perpetuate a huge theoretical mistakes.

You can use the math to put upper and lower bounds on things, so see if a hypothesis as any chance of working. For instance, you can compute around how much water per second a comet could produce if it were formed by oxygen from the comet combining with hydrogen from the solar wind, then check if it's with an order of magnitude of how much water is already known to come off it.

At some point a possibility deserving more complete investigation will become obvious

What sorts of measuring devices or other instrumentation have been missing from previous cometary probes (and the current one) that would have been included if scientists were taking seriously the electric comet hypothesis?

... design of experiments (in the case at hand scaleable models of the Sun and of a comet)

What sort of scalable models are you thinking of? The sort of experiment that immediately springs to mind would be to do electrostatic discharge machining on rock of similar composition to an asteroid, and do so in the presence of a thin hydrogen plasma. Do you have any other ideas?
 
...for the very reason that the electric comet IS becoming obvious to many scientists today. That's just a fact.
As Belz... asked - you should back up this fact with a list of these "many scientists", David Talbott.

Also: How could any scientist even know about electric comets, David Talbott?
There are no published papers on your version of the electric comet, i.e. starting with comets being blasted from the surface of planets by electrical discharges in human prehistory.
There are Jürgen's obscure and outdated papers.
There is the relatively obscure Thunderbolts books and web site.
There is the even more obscure Thunderbolts YouTube videos.
There is an annual conference attended by existing proponents and with a very unimpressive lineup (mythologists and some obvious cranks).

As far as I can see, the opposite is a fact. Some scientists are interested in crank ideas and debunking them. They research and come across the Thunderbolts electric comet idea (and others). They then post and blog about just how wrong the electric comet idea is.
tusenfem (a working plasma physicist)
Tim Thompson (a retired NASA guy)
Reality Check (but my field was solid state physics)
W.T. "Tom" Bridgman is an astronomer who has also written on the electric comet idea:
Electric Comets: Failures of the Electric Comet Model on November 24, 2013.
Electric Comets II. Of Water & Ice in November 23, 2014.
Oddly enough, it looks like people who know about science and astronomy take a good look at the electric comet and see how bad it is!
 
Last edited:
Phunk, I think I stated a position reasonably well. It's all about evidence. When the evidence becomes compelling, it will direct the completion of a hypothesis, which means the transition from a hypothesis to a model. That's exactly what's happening. To dismiss evidence when the hypothesis in question is well-supported and well on its way toward critical testing would be pure anti-science, right? If it will help I'll begin summarizing the evidence, since that's what has attracted 300,000 people, including numerous scientists, to our Electric Comet documentary. And it's the evidence that gives us confidence that the practical steps ahead of us will be well worth the effort.

Okay, I'm still trying to figure out what all the white noise here is about. :) Surely the principle expressed is clear enough.
 
Last edited:
What sort of scalable models are you thinking of? The sort of experiment that immediately springs to mind would be to do electrostatic discharge machining on rock of similar composition to an asteroid, and do so in the presence of a thin hydrogen plasma. Do you have any other ideas?
Yes, we have a good team in place for mapping out a Design of Experiments. The team has reason to suspect that comet surfaces, asteroid surfaces, and surfaces of planets and moons were all subjected to intense electric discharge in an earlier, more unstable phase of planetary history. We've undertaken this mission (presently at a much more rudimentary stage than the SAFIRE project) because it appears that certain features of planets can ONLY be produced by electric discharge. It's a worthy project, inspired by preliminary tests done by plasma scientist Cj Ransom, PhD, EU proponent Wal Thornill, and several others.
 
The team has reason to suspect that comet surfaces, asteroid surfaces, and surfaces of planets and moons were all subjected to intense electric discharge in an earlier, more unstable phase of planetary history.

What does that have to do with the water coming off of comets?

... because it appears that certain features of planets can ONLY be produced by electric discharge.

I don't think you can post links yet, but could you give some search keywords that would lead to web pages about this?
 
And since the electric comet theory is supposed to be inextricably linked to the electric Sun theory: I assume it's the electric Sun theory where the sun is a giant capacitor which is slowly discharging into interstellar space, rather than the one where the Sun is a resistor in an interstellar circuit?
 
how come that neither you nor sol nor even david t can answer my three questions?
i would be happy with just a back of the envelope calculation of question 1, but apparently that is outside the realm of possibilities.

david come here with lots of words saying nothing apart from "interdisciplinary" and "no long discussions" and he is supposed to be thunderdolt big shot. i hesitate to say, but it is pathetic.

Tusenfem, I have not the maths skills to be able to do any of the maths.

I mean this is were that funky plasma magic comes into play...
Complex plasma phenomena

Although the underlying equations governing plasmas are relatively simple, plasma behavior is extraordinarily varied and subtle: the emergence of unexpected behavior from a simple model is a typical feature of a complex system. Such systems lie in some sense on the boundary between ordered and disordered behavior and cannot typically be described either by simple, smooth, mathematical functions, or by pure randomness. The spontaneous formation of interesting spatial features on a wide range of length scales is one manifestation of plasma complexity. The features are interesting, for example, because they are very sharp, spatially intermittent (the distance between features is much larger than the features themselves), or have a fractal form. Many of these features were first studied in the laboratory, and have subsequently been recognized throughout the universe. Examples of complexity and complex structures in plasmas include:
Filamentation

Striations or string-like structures,[27] also known as birkeland currents, are seen in many plasmas, like the plasma ball, the aurora,[28] lightning,[29] electric arcs, solar flares,[30] and supernova remnants.[31] They are sometimes associated with larger current densities, and the interaction with the magnetic field can form a magnetic rope structure.[32] High power microwave breakdown at atmospheric pressure also leads to the formation of filamentary structures.[33] (See also Plasma pinch)

Filamentation also refers to the self-focusing of a high power laser pulse. At high powers, the nonlinear part of the index of refraction becomes important and causes a higher index of refraction in the center of the laser beam, where the laser is brighter than at the edges, causing a feedback that focuses the laser even more. The tighter focused laser has a higher peak brightness (irradiance) that forms a plasma. The plasma has an index of refraction lower than one, and causes a defocusing of the laser beam. The interplay of the focusing index of refraction, and the defocusing plasma makes the formation of a long filament of plasma that can be micrometers to kilometers in length.[34] One interesting aspect of the filamentation generated plasma is the relatively low ion density due to defocusing effects of the ionized electrons.[35] (See also Filament propagation)
Shocks or double layers

Plasma properties change rapidly (within a few Debye lengths) across a two-dimensional sheet in the presence of a (moving) shock or (stationary) double layer. Double layers involve localized charge separation, which causes a large potential difference across the layer, but does not generate an electric field outside the layer. Double layers separate adjacent plasma regions with different physical characteristics, and are often found in current carrying plasmas. They accelerate both ions and electrons.
Electric fields and circuits

Quasineutrality of a plasma requires that plasma currents close on themselves in electric circuits. Such circuits follow Kirchhoff's circuit laws and possess a resistance and inductance. These circuits must generally be treated as a strongly coupled system, with the behavior in each plasma region dependent on the entire circuit. It is this strong coupling between system elements, together with nonlinearity, which may lead to complex behavior. Electrical circuits in plasmas store inductive (magnetic) energy, and should the circuit be disrupted, for example, by a plasma instability, the inductive energy will be released as plasma heating and acceleration. This is a common explanation for the heating that takes place in the solar corona. Electric currents, and in particular, magnetic-field-aligned electric currents (which are sometimes generically referred to as "Birkeland currents"), are also observed in the Earth's aurora, and in plasma filaments.
Cellular structure

Narrow sheets with sharp gradients may separate regions with different properties such as magnetization, density and temperature, resulting in cell-like regions. Examples include the magnetosphere, heliosphere, and heliospheric current sheet. Hannes Alfvén wrote: "From the cosmological point of view, the most important new space research discovery is probably the cellular structure of space. As has been seen in every region of space accessible to in situ measurements, there are a number of 'cell walls', sheets of electric currents, which divide space into compartments with different magnetization, temperature, density, etc."[36]
LINK

So, sorry Tusenfem but I've got two chances, Buckley's and phuk all of doing the maths on complex plasmas. Still doesn't mean I cant understand them as being complex, even kinda lifelike. :cool:

There are just so many variables that all have an influence on one-other that doing the math is kinda pointless.

eg the STS-75 Tethered Satellite Experiment the maths didn't take into account the satellite's high-voltage sheath structure and the tether "blew" to stop a run away arc forming.

EARLY FINDINGS FROM TETHERED SATELLITE MISSION
POINT TO REVAMPING OF SPACE PHYSICS THEORIES


Numerous space physics and plasma theories are being
revised or overturned by data gathered during the Tethered
Satellite System Reflight (TSS-1R) experiments on Space
Shuttle Columbia's STS-75 mission last March.

Models, accepted by scientists for more than 30 years,
are incorrect and must be rewritten. This assessment follows
analysis by a joint U.S.-Italian Tethered Satellite
investigating team of the information gathered during the mission.
:boxedin:

The tethered satellite researchers noted that, at that
point, "a sudden jump" took place in the level of current
flow, while the satellite's potential (voltage) dropped
several hundred volts. They traced this effect to the small
amount of gas, released from the thrusters, becoming ionized
in the vicinity of the satellite. A greater, more efficient
current flow was observed. "The effect of neutral-gas ionization
is not taken into consideration by existing theoretical models
of current collection in the ionosphere," Stone said.

Also, for the first time ever, the high voltage plasma
sheath and wake of a high-voltage satellite moving rapidly in
the ionosphere was measured. "This is virtually impossible to
study in a laboratory and is difficult to model
mathematically," Stone said.

Tethered Satellite System investigators have just begun
to scrutinize the data from STS-75. They expect that it will
reveal more answers to questions about the workings of the
Earth's upper atmosphere, its physics and the electrodynamic
applications of tethered systems in space.
:yikes:

I've got a copy of the whole paper printed out and stuck to my sticky board. I sit there sometimes reading it again and go :wwt

So do we use mainstream maths by scientists that is incorrect and needs to be rewritten or something else?
 
Last edited:
What I find interesting is that all three electric comet adherents keep claiming is that good science would follow observations, hypothesis, maths.
Yet, according to their comments they have done their observations, made their hypothesis and now want it to be accepted.
Without actually doing the maths.
Or creating a working model showing their hypothesis is true.

What is the power source? What is it that keeps generating the potential to power the proposed electric discharges and how does it selectively target comets and not metal objects in space?
The electric comet theory suggests massive EM fields present in local space. Yet we can direct probes to a comet with absurd accuracy without having to correct for these. So why do these fields not interact with anything with instruments in space?
 
Jean Tate, it appears you've got the entire sequence of good science backwards. Your apparent formula, asking math to race ahead of evidence, could only perpetuate a huge theoretical mistakes. If I give you Don Scott's estimate of the potential of the Sun—"probably in the order of several billion volts" (his words)—you will not have anything to work with to quantify a comet's electrical behavior. Are you aware of why that is so? Meaningful quantification does not arise out of thin air.

In the case of the electric comet, the way to avoid a cart running pell mell ahead of the horse is do what is presently being done: gather systematic observations of comet behavior and open the door of scientific imagination to a possibility too long ignored. Where is the problem in that approach? Is the comet discharging electrically? At some point a possibility deserving more complete investigation will become obvious—for the very reason that the electric comet IS becoming obvious to many scientists today. That's just a fact.

Direct observation, directly-measured values, design of experiments (in the case at hand scaleable models of the Sun and of a comet)—all will be certain to follow. The fact that this is beginning to occur now is simply because discerning scientists have begun to recognize evidence for what it is. Direct evidence is king, and particularly so when a major challenge to a popular "consensus" is at stake. Where is the error in working with evidence first?

Unfortunatly, David, there have been lots of missions already, and apparently you are not interested in looking through the data to find actual evidence for your claims. So there is lots of direct evidence but you and yours are unwilling to look at it.

I wonder how you come to the conclusion that to many scientists "the electric comet is becoming obvious". First of all there is no "electric comet model/hypothesis" otherwise your puppets haig and sol would have presented it here. There are some ideas that there is constant "electric discharge machining" of the surface, possibly creating water in the process (but that may also be the interaction of the surface with the solar wind, who knows). If there is EDM taking place there would be evidence in the magnetic and electric field data, because you might know that discharges produce also radiation. In case you mean that space physicists are using plasma physics to describe the interaction of the solar wind with the outgassing cometary nucleus, then you are correct, but we have been doing that at least since 1986 and the Giotto/Vega1/Vega2 flybys of comet Halley.

But your post is basically the "the math for our ideas has not been invented yet so we cannot give you a full description", which of course is bollocks.

Next to that, the charge of stars has been determined, but that does not belong in this thread, therefore we have the electric sun thread. I think the link to the paper (which I cannot find at the moment) is in that thread.

But the best thing in this informationless post of yours is "Where is the error in working with evidence first?" That is exactly what the Rosetta/Giotto/VEGA scientists are doing, looking at the data, finding out what is in there, and then modeling it, taking known processes that occur elsewhere and see if they happen at e.g. the comet, and finding new things, which you can only do if you look at the data first.
 
There are some ideas that there is constant "electric discharge machining" of the surface, possibly creating water in the process (but that may also be the interaction of the surface with the solar wind, who knows).

Wait, I thought there was just one idea: EDM releases oxygen with from the rock, which combines with the hydrogen from the solar wind to form water. Are you saying there's multiple "electricity + comet = water" ideas?
 
Tusenfem, I have not the maths skills to be able to do any of the maths.

We very well know that you (or haig or david) do not have the skills. Unfortunately, plasma physics is a very mathematical science.

I mean this is were that funky plasma magic comes into play... LINK

Welcome to my world, Sol88, that is my daily job.

So, sorry Tusenfem but I've got two chances, Buckley's and phuk all of doing the maths on complex plasmas. Still doesn't mean I cant understand them as being complex, even kinda lifelike.

"understanding" that they are complex does not mean anything.

There are just so many variables that all have an influence on one-other that doing the math is kinda pointless.

Oh, yeah, that is why we can do all that plasma (astro) physics and space physics and explain phenomena.

eg the STS-75 Tethered Satellite Experiment the maths didn't take into account the satellite's high-voltage sheath structure and the tether "blew" to stop a run away arc forming.

No, there was a weak spot in the tether, which made it break.
Yes, there was probably more current closure through the surrounding plasma than originally taken into account. That is why we do experiments, if you wait till you have all the answers before you make an experiment you will never do an experiment.

I've got a copy of the whole paper printed out and stuck to my sticky board. I sit there sometimes reading it again and go

I am sure you have the press release and not the paper and I am sure you understand it completely

So do we use mainstream maths by scientists that is incorrect and needs to be rewritten or something else?

There is no need to rewrite anything, Sol, but you may try.
 
...
The electric comet theory suggests massive EM fields present in local space. Yet we can direct probes to a comet with absurd accuracy without having to correct for these. So why do these fields not interact with anything with instruments in space?

This is probably because NASA and ESA are lying to us, they take it into account, but don't tell us, it's all hush-hush secret, we cannot trust the general public with the electric nature of space.
 
Wait, I thought there was just one idea: EDM releases oxygen with from the rock, which combines with the hydrogen from the solar wind to form water. Are you saying there's multiple "electricity + comet = water" ideas?

There is also the direct implantation of protons into the surface of the comet (like is observed at the moon) in which they react chemically with the minerals and create water. I guess it depends on whom you ask.

But there is still the deficiency of total number of protons in the solar wind ... eh okay, we will not talk about that
 
There is also the direct implantation of protons into the surface of the comet (like is observed at the moon) in which they react chemically with the minerals and create water. I guess it depends on whom you ask.

But there is still the deficiency of total number of protons in the solar wind ... eh okay, we will not talk about that

So all the
Hydrogen gas halo

OAO-2 ('Stargazer') discovered large halos of hydrogen gas around comets.[10] Space probe Giotto detected hydrogen ions at distance of 7.8 million km away from Halley when it did close flyby of the comet in 1986.[11]
comes from the H20??
The gas coma consists of molecules liberated from the nucleus by solar heating. The majority of these molecules will either be broken apart (dissociated) releasing neutral hydrogen into the cometary hydrogen cloud, or ionised and dragged out into the gas tail by the solar wind.
The gas coma consists of molecules liberated from the nucleus by solar heating. The majority of these molecules will either be broken apart (dissociated) releasing neutral hydrogen into the cometary hydrogen cloud, or ionised and dragged out into the gas tail by the solar wind.

I see we have a problem then :eek:

AGORA Experiment

Highly charged ions are the most reactive species in the universe. When an ion collides with a neutral particle (atom or molecule), there's a certain chance that the ion captures one or more electrons from the particle it collided on. Electron capture often leads to the emission of a photon which can be used as a 'fingerprint' of the electron capture process that has just occurred.

AGORA is especially well suited for measuring emission cross sections for line emission in solar wind inter actions:
LINK

Seems like biggest mobs to me??
 

Glad you think so, care to enlighten us where the problem is?

Also, I have no idea what a mobs is, probably some aussie slang?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom