The Electric Comet theory

[JeanTate]

Good noon, David Talbott.

No time left, but yes dasmiller, the mass issue is critical—for both the standard and the electric comet ideas—unless you assume that under the influence of gravity a rock-solid crust formed around a marshmallow. Personally, I tend to prefer the electric answer. Bye to all.

(my bold)

I know others have asked you, but may I ask too?

What is "the electric answer"?

 

[JeanTate]

Good noon, Reality Check.

Not quite complete, JeanTate: per the ech, comets are homogeneous, and composed of 'rock' that has been blasted from the surface of planets "recently".
The highlighted bit is important because those predictions should include that comets will have compositions matching the current surface of rocky planets. The ones that were blasted from the surface of Earth will have granite, basalt, sandstone, limestone, etc.

Thanks for that.

I didn't realize the highlighted bit was a key part of the ech; can you please point me to a recent publication - by at least one electrical theorist - where this is unambiguously stated?

Would I be correct in guessing that the "blasting" is assumed to be some sort of giant electrical discharge?

In fact a ech prediction would be that we will find fossils on comets .
Scientists go looking for fossils in meteorites that have their origins on Mars. So fossils in rock blasted from the surface of Earth are likely.

Yes, that would seem to be a valid conclusion/prediction, derivable from the ech objectively, and in an independently verifiable way.

Further, it can be quantified, at least to some extent: what proportion of the surface rocks of the Earth contain macro-fossils? That gives a start to making estimates of how prevalent fossils will appear within the 'rocks' of which comets are composed.

 

[JeanTate]

Hello, Sol88.

It's because thats the bedtime story the mainstream keeps telling the mums and dads to tell the kiddies!!

leftovers from the solar system formation, hangn out in the Oort cloud waiting for some random event......

Sure, but it's not what scientists themselves say, is it?

You know, astronomers are quite crazy when it comes to bedtime stories ... did you know that astronomers call carbon a 'metal'?

And physicists are even more crazy; did you know that they call the very bright, green 'nebular' [OIII]500.7nm emission line 'forbidden'? I mean, if things like the Orion Nebula shine so brightly in this light, it can't exactly be forbidden, can it?

Then there's "flux" ... no, it's not the stuff you use when you weld roo-bars onto your ute, but some crazy thing to do with 'intensity' and is 'per Hertz' (which has nothing to do with car rentals).

Bloody scientists; why can't they speak proper?

 

[Ziggurat]

What is "the electric answer"?

 

[Reality Check]

The point I've made repeatedly is that, when direct evidence challenges a longstanding assumption, you have to start with new observations and a reconsideration of old observations, ranging from space exploration to experimental data and more. ...funding rant snipped...

The points we have made repeatedly, David Talbott are:
You have presented no direct evidence challenging

• any part of the observations (not assumptions) that comets have densities less than that of water.
• any part of the observations that comets are made of ices and dust.

P.S. 8 December 2014 David Talbott: What instruments will detect what you state can be detected in your predictions?
For example you say that layers of dust will be moved around by electric fields so you must have determined that Rosetta has instruments able to detect those electric fields moving layers of dust.

8 December 2014 David Talbott: If instruments detect the above activity, how will astronomers tell the difference between standard comet physics and the electric comet physics?
8 December 2014 David Talbott: What are the electric comet predictions for x-ray and ultraviolet emissions?
8 December 2014 David Talbott: What "unexpected negative ions close to the nucleus"?
8 December 2014 David Talbott: How hot is hot? How dry is dry? (a 2002 press release is not the answer!)

8 December 2014 David Talbott: How about you quote the first statement of fact (with the scientific literature to back it up) in that video and we will start from there.

Questions about a post full of unsupported assertions: 8 December 2014 David Talbott: Citations supporting that solar warming can't account for comet outbursts, etc.

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: List of outstanding questions

Two questions about basic science that you have missed Haig:
8 December 2014 Haig: Do electromagnetic waves contain electric currents (they have magnetic fields!)?
8 December 2014 Haig: Do electrons have intrinsic angular momentum and thus a magnetic moment without any electric currents?

ETA: 5 December 2014 Haig: Can you see the delusions and ignorance in the linked Electric Comet web page?, e.g. "The possibly Velikovskian delusion of "violent electrical interactions of planets and moons""

 

[Reality Check]

What happened in "early human times" that stopped the creation of comets

A central tenet of the electric comet idea is that comets were formed by being blasted off the surface of rocky planets or moons by electrical discharges recently (enough so that humans recorded it?).
As Wal Thornhill stated in that ridiculous video: "Not billions of years ago but a much more recent episode of planetary instability and violence. One that reached even into early human times"

David Talbott, Sol88 or Haig: What happened in "early human times" that stopped the creation of comets?
IOW:
Why do we not currently see comets being blasted from surfaces by electrical discharges?
Why are there no records of comets being blasted from surfaces by electrical discharges since the telescope was invented?
Why are there no recorded observations of comets being blasted from surfaces by electrical discharges since writing was invented?

And a extra bonus question: David Talbott, Sol88 or Haig: When did the creation of comets start and what caused this process to start?

 

[Matthew Cline]

The point I've made repeatedly is that, when direct evidence challenges a longstanding assumption, you have to start with new observations and a reconsideration of old observations, ranging from space exploration to experimental data and more. Give to those managing billions of dollars in space exploration and plasma lab research the REASONS to think in broader terms. The institutionalized field of view, though well-funded, has been too narrow. On this, Rosetta will likely be a spectacular prompt in its own right.

So you see no point in addressing what some see as flaws in the EC hypothesis until after mainstream astrophysicists and astronomers start thinking in "broader terms"?

 

[Dancing David]

There were predictions of X-rays from comets in the 1970s, AND attempts to measure them.

H. W. Hudson, W.-H. Ip, and D. A. Mendis. An Einstein search for X-ray emission from Comet Bradfield. Planetary & Space Science, 29:1373–1376, 1979.

Einstein observatory gave an upper limit of 1e19 ergs/s which was near the upper limit suggested by some theoretical models.

There are also a number of papers from the 1960s and 1970s covering mechanisms such as electrostatic charging enhanced by the dusty plasmas of comets.

Models providing the mathematical details of comet dust tail motion:

M. J. Finson and R. F. Probstein. A theory of dust comets. I. Model and equations. Astrophysical Journal, 154:327–352, October 1968. doi: 10.1086/149761.

and a comparison to observations:

M. L. Finson and R. F. Probstein. A theory of dust comets. II. Results for Comet Arend-Roland. Astrophysical Journal, 154:353–380, October 1968. doi: 10.1086/149762.

I've also written an analysis on my blog of the claim that the low density of 67P could be due to electrostatic repulsion between the comet nucleus and Rosetta. This places pretty interesting constraints on the charge buildup for any specified 'real' density (as opposed to the 'measured' density of 0.4 gm/cc). For a 'real' density of 3.0 gm/cc, the product of charges on the comet and spacecraft is constrained to about 6e-4 coulomb^2.

The big issue is that the charge on any of the individual bodies would be low enough that accumulation of free charges in the solar wind itself could probably flip the sign of the charge, turning that low density into a much higher density.

We continue to await real predictions from Electric Universe supporters.

This is my first post since the forum move and it appears to have reset my URL posting capability, so I can provide no URLs.

Tom

While you wait to get enough posts, you can post them like this www_yourwebsite_com and one of us will fix it.

 

[David Talbott]

Martian Rubble Field

Interesting image of a rubble field on Mars to compare with the rubble field on 67P:
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/images...ntary-deposit-lakebed-rocks-pia19074-full.jpg

Planetary scientists offer "explanations" for the Martian rubble, but the rubble on 67P remains a profound mystery, further complicated by the enigmatic stratification of jumbled cliffs and sharply projecting peaks.

A paradox: decades of independent research by a half dozen investigators has substantiated the story of comets electrically torn from planetary surfaces. Allow for that explanation of 67P and there would be no remaining mystery about its rubble field.

In fact, a comet ripped from Mars by planet-wide electric discharge and immersed in a cloud of rocky debris would surely look very much like the surface of 67P. An accreting dirty snowball would not. Nevertheless, to see that the connection to a rocky planet is fully supported, scientists WILL have to investigate the evidence. Many won't take that daring step, but some will, and they won't be disappointed. Not sure it's within the rules here to post a link to a full-length documentary on the subject, so I'll await clarification on that.

 

[rwguinn]

Who are these "Investigators" and which asylum is missing inmates?

 

[ben m]

In fact, a comet ripped from Mars by planet-wide electric discharge and immersed in a cloud of rocky debris would surely look very much like the surface of 67P.

How can you apply the words "fact" and "would" and "surely" here?

It's like saying "In fact, a Star Trek teleporter would surely have side effects resembling ebola."

You have precisely zero knowledge of the physics involved in "a comet ripped from Mars by a planet-wide electric discharge". Zero. What did you do, draw a picture of it? Did you look at a Donald Scott photograph of weld spatter and just close your eyes and imagine a planet-sized version?

 

[The Man]

tusenfem;

You did a calculation before about the rate of water production based on solar wind particle density. Which, if I recall correctly was 6 orders of magnitude lower than detected values (for the comet parameters you used). The response was that your interaction region considered was just too small. Sorry but not wanting to go back and look for it myself and figuring you would still have the numbers handy. What does that work out to for the required size of an interaction region (basically just six orders of magnitude greater than the region you used)?

Hey, just because the electrical comet proponents don't want to quantify things doesn't mean that we can't.

 

[The Man]

Interesting image of a rubble field on Mars to compare with the rubble field on 67P:
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/images...ntary-deposit-lakebed-rocks-pia19074-full.jpg

"rubble field"? Looks like sedimentary deposits to me. Heck, even the HTML link says "curiosity-rover-mastcam-sedimentary-deposit-lakebed-rocks". Let's see, how do sedimentary layers form? Wait, I got it, one layer on top of another.

Planetary scientists offer "explanations" for the Martian rubble, but the rubble on 67P remains a profound mystery, further complicated by the enigmatic stratification of jumbled cliffs and sharply projecting peaks.

"enigmatic stratification" you say? What happens when varying intervals of fine material conglomerates over time. Come on, you can say it... one layer on top of another. An enigma outside if a riddle.

A paradox: decades of independent research by a half dozen investigators has substantiated the story of comets electrically torn from planetary surfaces. Allow for that explanation of 67P and there would be no remaining mystery about its rubble field.

"Allow for that explanation" you say? Is that what gets you from stratification and even "enigmatic stratification" to a "rubble field"? Not much of a mystery there.

In fact, a comet ripped from Mars by planet-wide electric discharge and immersed in a cloud of rocky debris would surely look very much like the surface of 67P. An accreting dirty snowball would not. Nevertheless, to see that the connection to a rocky planet is fully supported, scientists WILL have to investigate the evidence. Many won't take that daring step, but some will, and they won't be disappointed. Not sure it's within the rules here to post a link to a full-length documentary on the subject, so I'll await clarification on that.

No, a body passing through and accreting different types and concentrations of materials over different times could quite easily have a stratified cross section. No paradox, no mystery just how some things can and do build up over time.

 

[Haig]

Interesting image of a rubble field on Mars to compare with the rubble field on 67P:
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/images...ntary-deposit-lakebed-rocks-pia19074-full.jpg

Planetary scientists offer "explanations" for the Martian rubble, but the rubble on 67P remains a profound mystery, further complicated by the enigmatic stratification of jumbled cliffs and sharply projecting peaks.

A paradox: decades of independent research by a half dozen investigators has substantiated the story of comets electrically torn from planetary surfaces. Allow for that explanation of 67P and there would be no remaining mystery about its rubble field.

In fact, a comet ripped from Mars by planet-wide electric discharge and immersed in a cloud of rocky debris would surely look very much like the surface of 67P. An accreting dirty snowball would not. Nevertheless, to see that the connection to a rocky planet is fully supported, scientists WILL have to investigate the evidence. Many won't take that daring step, but some will, and they won't be disappointed. Not sure it's within the rules here to post a link to a full-length documentary on the subject, so I'll await clarification on that.

An example of what a very large Electric Comet can do ...

Episode 2 Symbols of an Alien Sky: The Lightning Scarred Planet, Mars (Full Documentary)

In Episode 2 Symbols of an Alien Sky: The Lightning Scarred Planet, Mars, David Talbott takes the viewer on an odyssey across the surface of Mars. Exploring feature after feature of the planet, he finds that only electric arcs could produce the observed patterns. The high resolution images reveal massive channels and gouges, great mounds, and crater chains, none finding an explanation in traditional geology but all matching the scars from electric discharge experiments in the laboratory.

As a scientific follow-up to Symbols of an Alien Sky, this documentary provides a definitive answer to the question: was Mars carved from pole to pole by intense interplanetary discharge?

.
RC originally before Ra the Egyptians worshipped the planet Saturn known to them as Osiris my bold
The Worship of Saturn

Peoples that remembered early tragedies enacted in the sky by the heavenly bodies asserted that Jupiter drove Saturn away from its place in the sky. Before Jupiter (Zeus) became the chief god, Saturn (Kronos) occupied the celestial throne. In all ancient religions the dominion passes from Saturn to Jupiter.(2) In Greek mythology, Kronos is presented as the father and Zeus as his son who dethrones him. Kronos devours some of his children. After this act Zeus overpowers his father, puts him in chains, and drives him from his royal station in the sky. In Egyptian folklore or religion the participants of the drama are said to be Osiris-Saturn, brother and husband of Isis-Jupiter.

 

[Haig]

Yet another question for the electric comet proponents :
A central tenet of the electric comet idea is that comets were formed by being blasted off the surface of rocky planets or moons by electrical discharges recently (enough so that humans recorded it?).
We have the Kuiper belt mass estimated at 25th and 10th the mass of the Earth. To which we add the Oort cloud mass estimated at about 5 Earth masses.

David Talbott, Sol88 or Haig: Why is the total mass of comets greater to or comparable to that of the rocky planets and moons (which still exist!)?

Let me guess: "wishful thinking about electricity"

You do know Reality Check that the Oort Cloud ànd Kuiper Belt pool of comets is ONLY a supposition there is NO evidence for them being the source of Electric Comets or even being anything more than imagination, unlike Electric Comets like Siding Spring

 

[Haig]

Maybe Tom could do the calculation for the energy involved in the COMET SIDING SPRING electromagnetic event with Mars and the proposed Electric Comet scenario ?

We have a recent example of a comet causing instability with a planet and the resulting contact displayed a tremendous electromagnetic effect. Many measurements were taken and there is also a video of the event.

An Electric Comet in action disturbing the electromagnetic balance of a planet (surrounded by it's plasma sheath) as it ploughs through the electric field of the Sun.

Mars Spacecraft Reveal Comet Flyby Effects on Martian Atmosphere

Data from observations carried out by MAVEN, NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO), and a radar instrument on the European Space Agency’s (ESA’s) Mars Express spacecraft have revealed that debris from the comet added a temporary and very strong layer of ions to the ionosphere, the electrically charged layer high above Mars.

MAVEN also was able to directly sample and determine the composition of some of the comet dust in Mars’ atmosphere. Analysis of these samples by the spacecraft’s Neutral Gas and Ion Mass Spectrometer detected eight different types of metal ions, including sodium, magnesium and iron. These are the first direct measurements of the composition of dust from an Oort Cloud comet.

Elsewhere above Mars, a joint U.S. and Italian instrument on Mars Express observed a huge increase in the density of electrons following the comet’s close approach. This instrument, the Mars Advanced Radar for Subsurface and Ionospheric Sounding (MARSIS), saw a huge jump in the electron density in the ionosphere a few hours after the comet rendezvous.

MRO’s Shallow Subsurface Radar (SHARAD) also detected the enhanced ionosphere. Images from the instrument were smeared by the passage of the radar signals through the temporary ion layer created by the comet’s dust. SHARAD scientists used this smearing to determine that the electron density of the ionosphere on the planet’s night side, where the observations were made, was five to 10 times higher than usual.

.

"It lit up really bright in the UV band, Huge increase in electron density... yes, this was a noteworthy event"

INCREDIBLE EXPLOSION ON MARS!!

COMET SIDING SPRING UPDATE. Dr.Fritz Helmut Hemmerich made this video from 1200-meters at Tenerife in the Canary Islands showing Comet Siding Spring immediately after its Mars encounter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=Sx3WdyOihH8

Now can you realise that this immense electromagnetic effect was caused by the plasma sheath of a tiny Electric Comet interacting with the plasma sheath of Mars !!!!

What would be the scale of the electromagnetic effect if a much bigger Electric Comet , say the size of Mars, with a huge plasma sheath came into contact with the plasma sheath around the Earth ???

Can you imagine that? How about a maths calculation on the electromagnetic effect and energy involved ?

Maybe it's happened before?

EARTH IN UPHEAVAL Emmanuel Velikovsky
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/earth-upheaval.pdf]

 

[Haig]

Of course he is. But at this point, what else could we possibly expect? I mean, he's spent how many years now claiming to be this iconoclast, speaking truth to power, fighting the conspiracy to conceal the truth with his received wisdom from the prophets? Imagine the mental anguish that would be involved with actually realizing how much nonsense it all is. Imagine how heartbreaking it would be to accept that your efforts weren't merely unsuccessful, but completely pointless, even counter-productive. And then what? He'd basically be out of a job, with no real prospects, and nobody even giving him any respect. The EU crowd would consider him a traitor to the cause, and the mainstream crowd has no use for someone who couldn't figure out the basics to begin with.

It's really too much to ask of a person, to simply throw away their life's work. The fact that he's wrong simply doesn't enter into the psychological equation here. Which is why arguing with him can never convince him that he's wrong. The admission is simply too terrible a psychic burden to bear. The only people who might benefit are lurkers.

Projection !

 

[tusenfem]

A paradox: decades of independent research by a half dozen investigators has substantiated the story of comets electrically torn from planetary surfaces. Allow for that explanation of 67P and there would be no remaining mystery about its rubble field.

I guess you can then show us the peer-reviewed published papers of these investigators.

 

[Haig]

Electric Comet 67P image

• surface electrochemically transformed and burned black by this discharge activity, as in laboratory experiments

Burned black ... I guess that haig's image of a red surface comet is then totally wrong. Also, again, no sign of discharges in the data whatsoever.

As I said before tusenfem it wasn't my image it came from HERE

Mmm it still looks like a chunk of Mars