The Electric Comet theory

[JeanTate]

Good morning again, David Talbott.

The chart showing the increase in ionic velocities in the solar wind, with distance from the Sun (out to the orbit of the Earth), is in Professor Donald Scott's book, The Electric Sky, Fig. 12, page 95.

Thanks for that.

Do you have a reference, or references, to actual published papers? Perhaps more recent than 2006?

Also, you stated "charged particles of the solar wind can be continually accelerated out past the planets?" I took this to mean out past Neptune, but your reference is to only "out to the orbit of the Earth". As 67P is still well beyond the Earth's orbit, the observed behavior of the solar wind within the Earth's orbit is not directly relevant, is it? I mean, in an earlier post you wrote "... if the comet is moving through plasma regions of different charge (a fundamental assumption of the electric comet hypothesis)." You have yet to cite any evidence for the existence of an approximately radially symmetric electric field, out to at least 67P.

Repeating myself, wherever a correction is required based on known fact, I'll be the "dog with a bone" in tracking down the details.

<snip>

How about the fact that dozens of papers have been published, on the plasma environments of comets (based on in situ measurements)?

Or the fact that so many asteroids with orbits that would make them comets - per the electric comet hypothesis - are not comets?

Or the fact that the estimated densities of comets are far below that of 'rock'?

(there's a lot more, as you now know)

 

[JeanTate]

Just quickly here, David Talbott.

<snip>

Many lessons likely as well for the electric comet research, including the dust configurations on 67P.

(my bold)

From what has been posted in this thread to date, would I be correct in concluding that this "electric comet research" has resulted in zero published papers, to date?

 

[JeanTate]

Somewhat off-topic, I know, but still worth making the point, I think.

But then again no one reviewing the history of the idea would doubt that the imagined "thermonuclear furnace" of the Sun provided a huge inspiration and confidence to nuclear physicists as they strove to get the tokamaks and spheromaks to produce real power output. The thermonuclear Sun was the "proof" that thermonuclear fusion could be "controlled," before all of the failed attempts that followed, using every imaginable variation on the theme.

It has not gone well, right? Seems to me it would be a healthy thing to see the historical role of an idea that appears to have not panned out.

As others have already pointed out, you seem to have confused the actual science (i.e. what's in the primary sources, the published papers, etc) with what's in mass media (including pop-sci magazines).

If you were to read - and understand - the relevant primary sources, you certainly would not have written the above!

And this points to what seems to be similar failing in what you write about 'the electric comet hypothesis'; namely, that you have mistaken secondary sources for the actual science. Not only in seriously misunderstanding the state of play of research into comets, but also in thinking that by writing material is a similar style, you have done some actual science.

Alfven would surely turn in his grave, as would Birkeland.

 

[Ziggurat]

Alfven would surely turn in his grave, as would Birkeland.

It's funny how much the EU crowd relies upon the authority of Alfven, yet simply ignores what he actually said and believed (like the fact that the sun is powered by fusion). There's simply no effort to reconcile the direct and obvious conflicts, they simply ignore it.

 

[David Talbott]

Just quickly here, David Talbott.
(my bold)

From what has been posted in this thread to date, would I be correct in concluding that this "electric comet research" has resulted in zero published papers, to date?

So we're right back to the classic response of Inquisitors when a fundamental challenge is developing with the power to transform science: "Where's the math"? "Where's the peer-reviewed research."? For a few moments in the history of scientific progress, the ruse can be effective. Then suddenly people begin to realize that the first priorities are ALL ABOUT DIRECT EVIDENCE. Scientific revolutions begin when evidence, pointing directly to cause and effect, has become sufficiently clear to those who did not see it yesterday.

Seems to me this is exactly what is happening.

 

[rwguinn]

So we're right back to the classic response of Inquisitors when a fundamental challenge is developing with the power to transform science: "Where's the math"? "Where's the peer-reviewed research."? For a few moments in the history of scientific progress, the ruse can be effective. Then suddenly people begin to realize that the first priorities are ALL ABOUT DIRECT EVIDENCE. Scientific revolutions begin when evidence, pointing directly to cause and effect, has become sufficiently clear to those who did not see it yesterday.

Actually, I think a person would have to be a bit blind not to realize this is exactly what is happening. Maybe, just maybe, this will begin registering. Even with the little band of science apologists gathered here.

To be valid, a theory must not only explain observed phenomena, it must also be PRECICTIVE.
Without a description, or model, predictions are not possible. Mathematics ARE the model.
Electric Comet is reactive, not a theory. It tries to place events predicted by other theories, and observed as supporting those theories, into a new cubbyhole carved out in the Electric Comet "Theory"

 

[David Talbott]

Or putting things in different words: Scientific revolutions begin just as soon as rare individuals, convinced by an extraordinary idea, begin to persuade well trained people through their use of evidence. This typically occurs long before "peer reviewed" papers begin to show up explicitly supporting the idea. Right now, good people are pausing long enough to consider evidence, and the result is a growing movement outside the mainstream but able to attract working scientists inspired by what they see. We grant anonymity to anyone who needs it (for reasons that are pretty obvious).

 

[David Talbott]

To be valid, a theory must not only explain observed phenomena, it must also be PRECICTIVE.
Without a description, or model, predictions are not possible. Mathematics ARE the model.
Electric Comet is reactive, not a theory. It tries to place events predicted by other theories, and observed as supporting those theories, into a new cubbyhole carved out in the Electric Comet "Theory"

More tutoring, rwguinn? As for predictions, hang around for a bit today. And in the meantime perhaps you or someone else involved here will hazard a tiny, SOLITARY prediction? Will Rosetta find ice anywhere beneath the dry and scorched surface of 67P?

 

[rwguinn]

Or putting things in different words: Scientific revolutions begin just as soon as rare individuals, convinced by an extraordinary idea, begin to persuade well trained people through their use of evidence. This typically occurs long before "peer reviewed" papers begin to show up explicitly supporting the idea. Right now, good people are pausing long enough to consider evidence, and the result is a growing movement outside the mainstream but able to attract working scientists inspired by what they see. We grant anonymity to anyone who needs it (for reasons that are pretty obvious).

Let's put it this way:
If every observation shows me that F=G((m1*m2)/d^2)), it is going to take a ****-pot full of mathematics to convince me that something electrical is happening in there...

 

[rwguinn]

More tutoring, rwguinn? As for predictions, hang around for a bit today. And in the meantime perhaps you or someone else involved here will hazard a tiny, SOLITARY prediction? Will Rosetta find ice anywhere beneath the dry and scorched surface of 67P?

It already has. "la-la-la-la-I can't hear you" doesn't work

 

[David Talbott]

Will you please cite the Rosetta team's announcement of ice detection, rwguinn? I'm about ready to post a summary of predictions, including NO ICE. You could save me a lot of embarrassment.

I've seen no such announcement.

 

[rwguinn]

Will you please cite the Rosetta team's announcement of ice detection, rwguinn? I'm about ready to post a summary of predictions, including NO ICE. You could save me a lot of embarrassment.

I've seen no such announcement.

You haven't looked, then...
http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/11/18/philae-settles-in-dust-covered-ice/

Looking at the results of the thermal mapper and the probe together, the team have made the preliminary assessment that the upper layers of the comet’s surface consist of dust of 10–20 cm thickness, overlaying mechanically strong ice or ice and dust mixtures.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Or putting things in different words: Scientific revolutions begin just as soon as rare individuals, convinced by an extraordinary idea, begin to persuade well trained people through their use of evidence. This typically occurs long before "peer reviewed" papers begin to show up explicitly supporting the idea. Right now, good people are pausing long enough to consider evidence, and the result is a growing movement outside the mainstream but able to attract working scientists inspired by what they see. We grant anonymity to anyone who needs it (for reasons that are pretty obvious).

The old 'they ignored visionary X' thing? First of all, most of those stories are made up and secondly, people might have ignored visionaries, but they have also ignored a LOT of crackpots.

As for evidence. The entire space program to date has not taken the EU into account. Spacecraft are shielded against the minor electromagnetic phenomena predicted by mainstream physics, but not against the far larger effects proposed by the EU adherents. Nor do any of their orbits/targets take these effects into account. Yet they get where they are proposed to go.
Now there are three ideas that come to mind here.
1. The EU theory is correct, but by some total fluke of luck even though we've never taken it into account, everything worked out fine, as if the EU effects are not there.
2. The EU theory is correct and IS taken into account by all space agencies, but it is hidden from the public by a massive conspiracy because....
3. The EU theory is incorrect

#1 is statistically so improbable that it seems unlikely to be true
#2 the conspiracy theory forum is that way --> so lets ignore that
which to me leaves #3

Combine this with the fact that no spacecraft have detected anything even remotely resembling the massive EM fields needed for the EU theory AND that a large numbers of EU predictions are impossible according to everything we know about electricity AND that noone in the EU field has been able to show any experimental evidence any of the core concepts (such as recreating/tapping the powersource that feeds the EU universe) I find it very reasonable to be extremely sceptical about the idea.

 

[LSSBB]

Will you please cite the Rosetta team's announcement of ice detection, rwguinn? I'm about ready to post a summary of predictions, including NO ICE. You could save me a lot of embarrassment.

I've seen no such announcement.

If you're looking for ice, well...


http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/12/02/the-quest-for-organic-molecules-on-the-surface-of-67pc-g/

The experiments conducted by Ptolemy on the surface of Comet 67P/C-G. Table courtesy of the Ptolemy team

http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/files/2014/12/Ptolemy_table.png

Edited by LashL: 

Changed hotlinked image to regular link. Please see Rule 5.

 

[David Talbott]

You haven't looked, then...
http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/11/18/philae-settles-in-dust-covered-ice/

Suspicion confirmed. You've translated a theoretical supposition into fact. No ice has been observed. But it MUST be there because the theory requires it.

What you originally asked for was predictions, something we believe is essential to the assessment of alternative hypotheses in theoretical debates. We've seen virtually no predictions from anyone defending the standard idea of a comet as a accretion of primordial dust and ice. If you doubt that this idea guided the evolution of the Rosetta Mission from inception to its present surveillance of the 67P nucleus, please read the summaries, which are available in great abundance.

 

[Haig]

It's funny how much the EU crowd relies upon the authority of Alfven, yet simply ignores what he actually said and believed (like the fact that the sun is powered by fusion). There's simply no effort to reconcile the direct and obvious conflicts, they simply ignore it.

Well not so fast ... my bold

It's funny how much the Mainstream crowd relies upon the authority of Alfven, yet simply ignores what he actually said and believed (like the fact that the Big Bang didn't happen) also ( The Mythological Approach: If venerable prophets have told us that by divine inspiration they know that the universe was created, and how it was created, how can we doubt what they tell us? This approach is closely related to the mathematical myths: It is possible to explore the structure and evolutionary history of the universe by pure theoretical thinking without very much contact with observations. Typical examples are the Pythagoras-Plato-Ptolemaic cosmology or, in our day, the Eddington cosmology, but also the Big Bang. )There's simply no effort to reconcile the direct and obvious conflicts, they simply ignore it.

Cosmology: Myth or Science? Hannes Alfven Life Fellow IEEE 1984

D. Big Bang and Observations

There is not a single one of these early agreements with observations which have not proved to be wrong. In fact, the Big Bang believers of today claim only two observational supports of their hypothesis.

One is the "3 K blackbody radiation," which obviously has a very high isotropy. Compared with the early prediction of a 50 K isotropic radiation, this represents a discrepancy of 10^4 in energy (because the energy is proportional to T^4), but with "generally accepted" modifications of the scenario the claim that it supports the hypothesis must be taken seriously.

The other support is that the observed abundance of some light elements is too large to be explained by the nucleosynthesis in stars, which is accepted to explain the abundance of the other ~90 elements. (The Big Bang believers claimed initially that they could account for the production of all elements, but now they admit that this is untenable.) Because both the observational values of the cosmical abundances and the theory of nucleosynthesis in stars may very well be uncertain by a considerably larger factor, this is not a very strong support.

On the other hand, there are an increasing number of observational facts which are difficult to reconcile in the Big Bang hypothesis. The Big Bang establishment very seldom mentions these, and when nonbelievers try to draw attention to them, the powerful establishment refuses to discuss them in a fair way. A collection of objections has recently been published by Oldershaw [7]. Other critical arguments are summarized by Alfven [8].

The present situation is characterized by rather desperate attempts to reconcile observations with the hypothesis to "save the phenomena." One cannot avoid thinking of the state under the Ptolemaic epoch. An increasing number of ad hoc assumptions are made, which in a way correspond to the Ptolemaic introduction of more and more epicycles and eccentrics. Without caring very much for logical stringency, the agreement between these ad hoc assumptions and the Big Bang hypothesis is often claimed to support the theory.

Hannes Alfven, 86, Founder Of Field in Physics, Is Dead

He argued against the big-bang theory of cosmology, which holds that the universe began with a gigantic explosion.

.
Hannes Alfvén my bold Déjà vu eh?

Alfvén's work was disputed for many years by the senior scientist in space physics, the British mathematician and geophysicist Sydney Chapman.[6] Alfvén's disagreements with Chapman stemmed in large part from trouble with the peer review system. Alfvén rarely benefited from the acceptance generally afforded senior scientists in scientific journals. He once submitted a paper on the theory of magnetic storms and auroras to the American journal Terrestrial Magnetism and Atmospheric Electricity only to have his paper rejected on the ground that it did not agree with the theoretical calculations of conventional physics of the time.[7] He was regarded as a person with unorthodox opinions in the field by many physicists,[8] R. H. Stuewer noting that "... he remained an embittered outsider, winning little respect from other scientists even after he received the Nobel Prize..."[9] and was often forced to publish his papers in obscure journals. Alfvén recalled:

When I describe the [plasma phenomena] according to this formulism most referees do not understand what I say and turn down my papers. With the referee system which rules US science today, this means that my papers are rarely accepted by the leading US journals.[10]

.
Hannes Alfven believing in a fusion Sun was in good company. Immanuel Velikovsky also believed in a fusion Sun. Just goes to show nobodies perfect

 

[LSSBB]

Suspicion confirmed. You've translated a theoretical supposition into fact. No ice has been observed. But it MUST be there because the theory requires it.

What you originally asked for was predictions, something we believe is essential to the assessment of alternative hypotheses in theoretical debates. We've seen virtually no predictions from anyone defending the standard idea of a comet as a accretion of primordial dust and ice. If you doubt that this idea guided the evolution of the Rosetta Mission from inception to its present surveillance of the 67P nucleus, please read the summaries, which are available in great abundance.

So you're saying the spectrometer was detecting LIQUID water on the surface?

 

[rwguinn]

When circular reasoning becomes a Mobius strip...

 

[David Talbott]

If you're looking for ice, well...


http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/12/02/the-quest-for-organic-molecules-on-the-surface-of-67pc-g/

The experiments conducted by Ptolemy on the surface of Comet 67P/C-G. Table courtesy of the Ptolemy team

[qimg]http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/files/2014/12/Ptolemy_table.png[/qimg]

Okay, hold the presses again. Are the reports reading surface chemistry or the chemistry of the coma?

If there's water ice on the surface, I'll be the first to say that my prediction, along with those of several others, was DEAD WRONG. Our critics would have good cause to celebrate such a miscalculation on our part.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well not so fast ... my bold

It's funny how much the Mainstream crowd relies upon the authority of Alfven

The mainstream doesn't. It doesn't rely on anyone's authority.

This approach is closely related to the mathematical myths

Because you cannot do or even understand math, it becomes a myth. Convenient.

It is possible to explore the structure and evolutionary history of the universe by pure theoretical thinking without very much contact with observations.

Given that mainstream cosmology is guided by observations and EU nonsense isn't (I mean seriously: Velikovsky?), that's an ironic accusation to make.

There's simply no effort to reconcile the direct and obvious conflicts, they simply ignore it.

You claim a conflict where none exists, and ignore it where it does.

Hannes Alfven believing in a fusion Sun was in good company. Immanuel Velikovsky also believed in a fusion Sun. Just goes to show nobodies perfect

You're dismissing mathematical models as equivalent to mythology, yet you believe in a guy who bases his ideas on actual mythology.

How does your head not explode from the cognitive dissonance?