The Electric Comet theory

[Belz...]

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.

Marvelous. Excellent summary of how things should be done.

Now, where's that evidence ?

 

[Sol88]

Marvelous. Excellent summary of how things should be done.

Now, where's that evidence ?

You are so sure in the science and evidence produced so far to 100% reject the Electric Comet theory? or at least that complex plasma interaction are the dominate force at work and not sublimation.

That's faith

 

[Haig]

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.

Ah! now we're getting somewhere

It's very interesting to note tusenfem your theory of comets has morphed into a mainstream version of the electric comet theory

Dirty Snowball comet >> Snowy Dirtball comet >> Draped Magnetic Field comet all the way to the latest >> Cometary Charge Exchange Aurorae comet

Cometary charge exchange aurorae

Comets are known to be cold dusty snowballs. How could such objects possibly be bright X-Ray and Far-Ultraviolet sources??

The answer lies in an atomic process known as charge exchange. When charged particles from the Sun (the solar wind) hit the molecules in the gas cloud around the comet's nucleus, they will capture one or more electrons. These electrons are captured into an excited state, resulting in the emission of high energy photons when the ion relaxes.

In the AGORA experiment, we look at the light emitted by typical solar wind ions when they collide on molecules that can be found in comets. These experiments allow us to relate cometary emission to solar wind properties such as its velocity, density and composition.

That last incarnation IS an Electric Comet when you consider AND apply Alfvéns 2nd Approach criteria ... to quote just some ... the rest HERE

> Space plasmas often have a complicated inhomogeneous structure

> E| | often not equal to 0

> Frozen-in picture is often completely misleading

> Electrostatic double layers are of decisive importance in low-density plasma

> It is equally important to draw the current lines and discuss the electric circuit

> Currents produce filaments or flow in thin sheets

> Non-Maxwellian effects are often decisive Cosmic plasmas have a tendency to produce high-energy particles

Do THAT then you have .....

The Electric Comet theory - requires - The Electric Sun theory - requires - Electric Universe / Plasma Cosmology theory

BTW can you JeanTate explain, in your own words, the above? Don't use videos or links just your own understanding, never mind about grammar or spelling errors just do your best please.

Maybe then your confusion could be cleared up?

Only joking It's just the electric comet theory bit you need to write up! If you need crib notes have a sneak look here Electric Comets but don't tell tusenfem

 

[tusenfem]

Ah! now we're getting somewhere

It's very interesting to note tusenfem your theory of comets has morphed into a mainstream version of the electric comet theory

yeah you got me there!
Unfortunately, Mr. Goodspeed spends a lot of words, but does not present any electric comet theory. A lot of "the electric comet can explain" >>fill in the blank<< but then no explanation is give, only mentioning what happens on the comet, and claiming that mainstream is surprised and does not have the answers (and indeed sometimes we do not have the answers) does not an electric comet theory make.
Please take that elephant out of your eye!

Dirty Snowball comet >> Snowy Dirtball comet >> Draped Magnetic Field comet all the way to the latest >> Cometary Charge Exchange Aurorae comet

Naturally, the electric comet "knew all along" that comets emitted Xrays, too bad that they did not publish the mechanism of charge exchange.

And by the way, there is no step from snowy dirtball to draped magnetic field, and if you don't understand why there is not step there, then you live up to my expectations.

That last incarnation IS an Electric Comet when you consider AND apply Alfvéns 2nd Approach criteria ... to quote just some ... the rest HERE

No, it is just plain old collisional plasma physics including charge exchange.

Thanks for the list of points:

> Space plasmas often have a complicated inhomogeneous structure

True, so what? Why is this "electric comet"?

> E| | often not equal to 0

No, E|| sometimes not equal to 0 in very specific cases


> Frozen-in picture is often completely misleading

No, sometimes misleading, if you do not know when the frozen-in condition is applicable or not. Haig, can you please tell us when frozen-in can be applied and when not?

> Electrostatic double layers are of decisive importance in low-density plasma

No, they are not, that all depends on what you are looking at. If you have a field aligned current through a low-density plasma problems first arise when the drift velocity of the current carriers starts to exceed the thermal velocity of the current carriers, in which case you might create a double layer. But I am sure you know that.


> It is equally important to draw the current lines and discuss the electric circuit

If you want to take the electric circuit approximation of plasma physics (do you know when this is applicable, Haig?) then you need to know how the currents flow. Here you can find a paper on circuit theory in astrophysics.


> Currents produce filaments or flow in thin sheets

Currents can produce filaments in thick sheets.


> Non-Maxwellian effects are often decisive Cosmic plasmas have a tendency to produce high-energy particles

Yes indeed, non-maxwellians are often observed, and don't even have to be high-energy, for example pick-up ions generating ion cyclotron waves.

Do THAT then you have .....

No, you dont get what you think you get. You just have regular plasma (astro) physcis. And it just shows that you can only copy-paste stuff and don't have the least idea of what you are talking about. There are a lot of very specific things the the E-whatever theory, that do not jive with actual observed facts (EDM, a large current driving the sun, etc. etc.)

BTW can you JeanTate explain, in your own words, the above? Don't use videos or links just your own understanding, never mind about grammar or spelling errors just do your best please.

well read the magenta stuff (oh sorry I put in a link to a paper of mine, I hope you will excuse me)
Interesting that we are not allowed to use links (which I hardly do anyway) whereas you usually spam your whole posts full of links, but nevermind ...

Maybe then your confusion could be cleared up?

I was never confused.

Only joking It's just the electric comet theory bit you need to write up! If you need crib notes have a sneak look here Electric Comets but don't tell tusenfem

I promise not to read

 

[tusenfem]

You are so sure in the science and evidence produced so far to 100% reject the Electric Comet theory? or at least that complex plasma interaction are the dominate force at work and not sublimation.

I have the feeling you don't even understand what you are writing.
complex plasma interaction - what exactly are you pointing at here, do you happen to have a model of this complex interacting which is supposed to work instead of sublimation?

No, I guessed not.

 

[David Talbott]

Marvelous. Excellent summary of how things should be done.

Now, where's that evidence ?

Well now Belz..., instead of just offering up dismissive quips, will you and the gang of Inquisitors promise to pay attention if I begin a dispassionate listing of evidence?

 

[tusenfem]

Well now Belz..., instead of just offering up dismissive quips, will you and the gang of Inquisitors promise to pay attention if I begin a dispassionate listing of evidence?

How can you have evidence for a model that does not exist ...

 

[David Talbott]

Response from Tusenfem to Sol88:

I have the feeling you don't even understand what you are writing.
complex plasma interaction - what exactly are you pointing at here, do you happen to have a model of this complex interacting which is supposed to work instead of sublimation?

No, I guessed not.

Okay... this is just one more example of the anti-science that too often runs rampant here. When someone says, "Hey, this comet activity looks electric," your response is to ridicule the individual for not having a model of the complex plasma interactions.

Is this cavalier answer forwarding public interest in the question, or discouraging it? I've looked around a bit, and I don't believe that you yourself have a reliable model of the complex plasma activity provoked by comets, despite years of work in the field of space plasma.

The first thing that is needed is more thorough investigation of the electric comet idea, since it seems abundantly clear that charged particle bombardment, not solar warming, is the primary driver of comet activity. Such investigation is indeed underway in discrete corners of the world. But the overwhelming devotion of funds to the dirty snowball illusion is impossible to deny. And how long has it been since an authority on comets wondered publicly whether these bodies are actually remnants of solar system evolution billions of years ago, as relentlessly advertised on virtually every "official" site on comets.

Expanded, explicit attention to the electric comet could add a new world of inspiration to the space sciences. We should be celebrating the potential of the Rosetta Mission to deliver greater knowledge of the electric comet than the previous 10 to 20 years of space exploration. Perhaps even a definitive conclusion: 67P is just a rock!

 

[JeanTate]

If I may ask, what does the electric comet hypothesis depend on?

There are several, per the material which Haig has helpfully provided links to. Note that at least one of these documents has "David Talbott" as an author.

As I understand it, the central assumption (but see below) is that there is an approximately radially-symmetric electric field, centered (approximately) on the Sun. This field goes from ~the Sun's corona to at least ~30 au (the distance at which cometary behavior has been observed).

A second - but also pretty important! - assumption is that comets are composed primarily of 'rock'.

I would very much welcome comments and so on from Sol88, Haig, and David Talbott on this. Especially where such feedback includes links to primary sources (i.e. published material by electrical theorists). Note to David Talbott: although you cannot, yet, post links, you can post a link with the 'head' removed (i.e. kill the http, www, etc).

Is it in any way falsifiable?

Yes, to both. At least in principle.

The radial electric field has already been falsified, thousands of times over. In a nutshell, every space probe which went well beyond the Earth's magnetosphere, and which carried in situ plasma science instruments (or whatever you want to call them) has returned data which can be used to test this particular hypothesis/assumption. To date, no one - not Haig, Sol88, or even any electrical theorist - has (apparently) downloaded the freely available data and done their own analyses (and published their results). On the other hand, the hundreds of space scientists (etc) who have done just that report no such electric field.

(There's a significant caveat here: although the closest anyone has come to quantifying this field is Scott's "billions of volts" between Sun and heliosphere, the field - per published electric comet ideas - must be sufficient to create craters on comets (via EDM) and to indirectly dissociate 'rock' molecules to release oxygen and carbon)

The 'comets are just rocky asteroids' assumption has been falsified many times over too. In many, independent, ways.

If not, how can it be called "science?"

It can't, IMHO.

However, if you say this - in the forum Haig has suggested anyone interested in getting answers to the kinds of questions you have asked - you will be banned. As Reality Check can attest.

It seems to rely on as-yet-undiscovered aspects of plasma physics, particularly involving very diffuse plasmas.

Not really.

If it were this, at least it could - in principle - be tested; hypotheses developed, models made, experiments conducted, etc. However, the entities in the electric comet idea (and the key parts of the associated electric Sun one) are no different from magic ... they are simply called names which look like they come from a plasma physics textbook.

But if it's relying on as-yet-undiscovered properties, why plasma instead of as-yet-undiscovered properties of gravity, or relativity, or quantum froth, or K-pop marketing?

Indeed.

 

[Haig]

And by the way, there is no step from snowy dirtball to draped magnetic field, and if you don't understand why there is not step there, then you live up to my expectations.

I know that I just made up draped magnetic field comet

well read the magenta stuff (oh sorry I put in a link to a paper of mine, I hope you will excuse me)
Interesting that we are not allowed to use links (which I hardly do anyway) whereas you usually spam your whole posts full of links, but nevermind ...

I'm not sorry.

Putting links an copy 'n paste stuff in my posts doesn't make me a bad person Saves time and gets ideas across quite well though!!!

I was never confused.

Never said you were but that JT

I promise not to read

I believe you

Color Variegation on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
if it's "black as coal" then why is the first "true color" image looking like a piece of rusty brownish red Mars?
https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm14/meetingapp.cgi#Paper/22395

 

[JeanTate]

Thanks Reality Check.

From personal experience, you will be banned from the Thunderbolts forum if you simply ask if the electric comet idea has quantitative predictions !

Is there an easy way for someone - e.g. an ISF member - to find your posts there, and so to independently check the veracity of what you wrote (i.e. what I'm quoting)?

I, for one, would be interested to see what questions you asked, and what answers you received.

 

[JeanTate]

Hello Matthew Cline,

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.

And these calculations can be done with 'spherical cow' assumptions, making them BOTE (back of the envelope). Member Ziggurat has presented several here, and Tom Bridgman many more.

To be fair, David Talbott did say that, at the June conference, there will be a presentation of something like this. However, as someone else already noted, in the comments/discussion on a topic (which Haig had provided a link to) just such a calculation was already presented. What's odd is that it has apparently taken over five decades for electrical theorists to get around to doing this.

Oh, and there's already a natural control for this; namely, the Moon. And indeed water and CO₂ etc are produced by solar wind protons impacting lunar rocks. Just waaaay too little to produce spectacular comet tails.

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?

<snip>

Something I've wondered about, almost since I started reading this thread.

Something which I searched for, in the various materials Haig supplied links to (etc), and came up empty handed.

It's almost as if no one - not Haig, Sol88, or even any electrical theorist - understands what the many different plasma science instruments on space probes actually do. So no surprise that this - excellent! - question of yours has gone unanswered (so far).

 

[tusenfem]

Response from Tusenfem to Sol88:

Okay... this is just one more example of the anti-science that too often runs rampant here. When someone says, "Hey, this comet activity looks electric," your response is to ridicule the individual for not having a model of the complex plasma interactions.

yes, because "this comet looks electric" does not mean anything in plasma physics. What is "electric"? How does it look "electric"? And I am sure I am not going to get an answer.

I am "ridiculing" people throwing around scientific terms without knowing what they mean. It is like Leo DiCaprio saying "I concur" when his character is enacting a doctor in a hospital in "catch me if you can."

Is this cavalier answer forwarding public interest in the question, or discouraging it? I've looked around a bit, and I don't believe that you yourself have a reliable model of the complex plasma activity provoked by comets, despite years of work in the field of space plasma.

I think I have a reasonable understanding of what the plasma interaction around the comet is doing. But again, the fact that I might not know some things about the interaction, and I am sure there are some, does not validate your electric comet model.

The first thing that is needed is more thorough investigation of the electric comet idea, since it seems abundantly clear that charged particle bombardment, not solar warming, is the primary driver of comet activity.

Well then, there are hundreds of followers on your thunderdolts forum, all parotting the electric universe mantra, and not one of them can actually do something substantial as doing a calculation to see whether there is something behind this idea or "charged particle bombardment?"

Such investigation is indeed underway in discrete corners of the world. But the overwhelming devotion of funds to the dirty snowball illusion is impossible to deny. And how long has it been since an authority on comets wondered publicly whether these bodies are actually remnants of solar system evolution billions of years ago, as relentlessly advertised on virtually every "official" site on comets.

That is bull, David, you don't need big funds, some of the stuff is so easy to do that anyone with a little knowledge of e.g. plasma physics can go to one of the data depositories (PDS or PSA) get some of the comet Halley data and work on them in excell. But naturally it is easier to throw a fit about "overwhelming devotion of funds" and "people don't look at the "electric" part of the interaction" or whatever, than actually doing some work on it.

Expanded, explicit attention to the electric comet could add a new world of inspiration to the space sciences. We should be celebrating the potential of the Rosetta Mission to deliver greater knowledge of the electric comet than the previous 10 to 20 years of space exploration. Perhaps even a definitive conclusion: 67P is just a rock!

Well first of all, the density of 67P would argue against "just a rock", secondly you may want to say a wee bit more what "expanded, explicit attention to the electric comet" is supposed to be? Finding charges, finding plasma, finding discharges, what exactly? And why have you not tried to find that in the Halley data which have been openly available for tens of years?

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning, David Talbott,

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.

Several other members have already commented on this, and asked you some good questions about it.

Of course, this is something I am indeed interested in; however, I'll postpone my inputs, in order to first address some specifics to do with the electric comet ideas.

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?

Well, as I have learned from tusenfem, a lot of very good data - from systematic observations of comet behavior - has been available for many years (decades?) now. And - as I noted in an earlier post - Haig, Sol88, and even electrical theorists (including you?) seem to have done nothing at all with that data.

But I'm curious about this: "open the door of scientific imagination to a possibility too long ignored". Presumably you, and other electrical theorists, have not ignored this. Indeed, it's something you guys have been working on for what, over fifty years? And at least two electrical theorists - Scott and Thornhill - presumably have more than sufficient academic training to conduct their own, independent scientific research. Using downloaded data, available for free. Yet apparently they did nothing. Why not?

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.

To me, you have an odd way of writing. As I noted earlier, you seem to be strongly implying that electrical theorists are not scientists. Is that what you intend?

And I'll add my query: who are these scientists? What papers have they published on 'the electric comet'? At what conferences did they have posters on 'the electric comet'?

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.

So, no answers to my question on SAFIRE?

Here it is again: David Talbott, can you point to where - explicitly - in the published SAFIRE material the project team says it has adopted Alfven's "second approach"? And if you can't, why do you believe SAFIRE is a valid experiment (per published material by electrical theorists)?

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?

Except that, in the case of the electric comet hypothesis, you have already published the key assumptions (shorthand: radially symmetric electric field centered on the Sun, sufficient to power the Sun externally; comet are rocky asteroids).

And the evidence to date has already falsified those key assumptions.

So it seems to me that the key challenge for electrical theorists (in regard to the electric comet ideas) is to develop models - quantified, consistent with plasma physics, etc - which produce results that can be shown - objectively, in an independently verifiable way - to be consistent with the vast amount of very good evidence already published.

Yes, I'm very puzzled about why none of this has (apparently) been done yet.

 

[JeanTate]

Hello again, Sol88

You are so sure in the science and evidence produced so far to 100% reject the Electric Comet theory?

You might want to re-read what David Talbott has posted; there is no "Electric Comet theory", no model, just some ideas and an (unspecified) "hypothesis".

However, there is already an abundance of very good - quantified, objective, independently verifiable (but it involves numbers, equations, etc, so you may not understand it) - evidence that is (wildly) inconsistent with the two key assumptions in the electric comet hypothesis (per a document Haig provided a link to; David Talbott is an author of that document).

or at least that complex plasma interaction are the dominate force at work and not sublimation.

If you relax the EITHER/OR part of this, and talk about 'major factors' (or similar), then yes, there's plenty of evidence.

But that - as you well know - has nothing whatsoever to do with 'the Electric Comet theory'.

That's faith science

FTFY

 

[JeanTate]

Hi Haig,

I see you mentioned my name in your post (I bolded it) ...

Ah! now we're getting somewhere

It's very interesting to note tusenfem your theory of comets has morphed into a mainstream version of the electric comet theory

Dirty Snowball comet >> Snowy Dirtball comet >> Draped Magnetic Field comet all the way to the latest >> Cometary Charge Exchange Aurorae comet


That last incarnation IS an Electric Comet when you consider AND apply Alfvéns 2nd Approach criteria ... to quote just some ... the rest HERE

> Space plasmas often have a complicated inhomogeneous structure

> E| | often not equal to 0

> Frozen-in picture is often completely misleading

> Electrostatic double layers are of decisive importance in low-density plasma

> It is equally important to draw the current lines and discuss the electric circuit

> Currents produce filaments or flow in thin sheets

> Non-Maxwellian effects are often decisive Cosmic plasmas have a tendency to produce high-energy particles

Do THAT then you have .....

The Electric Comet theory - requires - The Electric Sun theory - requires - Electric Universe / Plasma Cosmology theory

BTW can you JeanTate explain, in your own words, the above? Don't use videos or links just your own understanding, never mind about grammar or spelling errors just do your best please.

Maybe then your confusion could be cleared up?

Only joking It's just the electric comet theory bit you need to write up! If you need crib notes have a sneak look here Electric Comets but don't tell tusenfem

Sorry Haig, I really do not know what you're asking; would you mind spelling it out a bit please?

For example, you say "That last incarnation"; what - specifically - are you referring to?

You also say that the "incarnation" is "an Electric Comet"; are you referring to a particular comet (e.g. 67P)? If not, what?

You then go on to say that if various things are considered, one would end up with "The Electric Comet theory". And you seem to be asking me to do that 'considering'.

Quite aside from not understanding what you're asking of me, you seem to have provided an overview of how to develop something you call "The Electric Comet theory", albeit a rather incoherent one. If so, that is something which any one of the electrical theorists could do, something which would take them less than a year, possibly only a week. Yet it seems that none has actually done so (otherwise you'd have posted a link to a publication containing just that, long ago).

Why not?

 

[phunk]

You are so sure in the science and evidence produced so far to 100% reject the Electric Comet theory? or at least that complex plasma interaction are the dominate force at work and not sublimation.

That's faith

There is no electric comet theory. Please, do some reading on what the word "theory" means in a scientific context, then admit that you haven't even gotten as far as a consistent hypothesis yet.

 

[phunk]

Response from Tusenfem to Sol88:

Okay... this is just one more example of the anti-science that too often runs rampant here. When someone says, "Hey, this comet activity looks electric," your response is to ridicule the individual for not having a model of the complex plasma interactions.

No, the ridicule is for the people pretending the "electric comet theory" explains everything then not being able to actually explain anything when pressed.

 

[JeanTate]

Well now Belz..., instead of just offering up dismissive quips, will you and the gang of Inquisitors promise to pay attention if I begin a dispassionate listing of evidence?

How can you have evidence for a model that does not exist ...

But it does exist! Haig has provided - yet again - a link to a document entitled "The Electric Comet", whose authors are given as "Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott".

In that document is a section called "ELECTRIC COMET MODEL":

• Comets are debris produced during violent electrical interactions of planets and moons in an earlier phase of solar system history. Comets are similar to asteroids, and their composition varies. Most comets should be homogeneous - their interiors will have the same composition as their surfaces. They are simply “asteroids on eccentric orbits.”
• Comets follow their elongated paths within a weak electrical field centered on the Sun. In approaching the Sun, a charge imbalance develops between the nucleus and the higher voltage and charge density near the Sun. Growing electrical stresses initiate discharges and the formation of a glowing plasma sheath, appearing as the coma and tail.
• The observed jets of comets are electric arc discharges to the nucleus, producing “electrical discharge machining” (EDM) of the surface. The excavated material is accelerated into space along the jets’ observed filamentary arcs.
• Intermittent and wandering arcs erode the surface and burn it black, leaving the distinctive scarring patterns of electric discharges.
• The jets’ explode from cometary nuclei at supersonic speeds and retain their coherent structure for hundreds of thousands of miles. The collimation of such jets is a well-documented attribute of plasma discharge.
• The tails of comets reveal well-defined filaments extending up to tens of millions of miles without dissipating in the vacuum of space. This “violation” of neutral gas behavior in a vacuum is to be expected of a plasma discharge within the ambient electric field of the Sun.
• It is the electric force that holds the spherical cometary coma in place as the comet races around the Sun. The diameter of the visible coma will often reach millions of miles. And the visible coma is surrounded by an even larger and more “improbable” spherical envelope of fluorescing hydrogen visible in ultraviolet light.
• The primary distinction between comet and asteroid surfaces is that electrical arcing and “electrostatic cleaning” of the comet nucleus will leave little or no dust or debris on the surface during the active phase, even if a shallow layer of dust may be attracted back to the nucleus electrostatically as the comet becomes dormant in its retreat to more remote regions.

And the following section - "Electric Comet, Electric Sun" - explicitly links this "ELECTRIC COMET MODEL" to "another hypothesis - the electric Sun".

 

[David Talbott]

How can you have evidence for a model that does not exist ...

Seems to me that the point should be pretty clear by now. There is no electric comet model, just a hypothesis that deserves more than you've granted it so far. After countless billions of dollars in space exploration, no standard model exists either. That's the effect of decades of surprises and failed predictions. But then again, better no model than one that calls for huge expenditures asking the wrong questions. Perhaps a hopeful perspective is actually possible in this year of Rosetta?