The Electric Comet theory

[Sol88]

Good morning, Sol88.

Um, Sol88, you do realize that I wrote what you would surely consider to be a much worse post, don't you? (I've added some bold)



And I see that tusenfem has given you some good advice:



I guess it's a bit like someone thinking that porky pies has something to do with pigs ...

Willful ignorance might be funny, but it's not pretty.

So why call it "gas"???

You think the public are drongos, 'Ol mate?

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning again, David Talbott.

Revisiting an important question I posed just a day or two ago. Is it appropriate to describe an active comet as "hot and dry"? Yes, in the words of comet investigators responding to the Borrelly findings in 2001 (Deep Space 1 probe)
"The spectrum suggests that the surface is hot and dry. It is surprising that we saw no traces of water ice." Dr. Laurence Soderblom, U.S. Geological Survey.

I then added that, "No traces of water ice" is of course the reason why standard theorists were so surprised. And no sublimating ice is the background FACT leading to the 'hot and dry' finding."

And here's the response from JeanTate:

Your use of un-sourced selective quotes may satisfy you, but certainly does not come anywhere near close to being science, right?

Unless Dr. Laurence Soderblom of the U.S. Geological Survey didn't actually make the statement, the quote will remain as it is. AND it's meaningful, particularly in the context of complementary facts in a general summary of comet surprises.

David, you stated that is was "Dr. Laurence Soderblom of the U.S. Geological Survey" who wrote, or said, the words "The spectrum suggests that the surface is hot and dry. It is surprising that we saw no traces of water ice."

However, you did not state when and where. In particular, there is no context.

By definition, that is a selective, un-sourced quote.

So, when did "Dr. Laurence Soderblom of the U.S. Geological Survey" say or write those words, and what is the (full) context from which they were taken?

From the vantage point of an interdisciplinary critique of theory, it's typically the PATTERNS of surprises—often across decades—that most emphatically urge us to reconsider theoretical assumptions.

As I have said, repeatedly, in science one must always refer to the primary sources. And I think I'm not alone in having made this point.

As far as I know, you have not responded to it in any meaningful way; certainly, the key ech materials contain almost no such references.

If "an interdisciplinary critique of theory" is entirely lacking in references to primary sources, it can't be much of a critique, can it?

Is the broader field of view, so essential to assessing the integrity of a specialized science, verboten here?

Quite the contrary.

A "broader field of view" may, or may not, be "essential to assessing the integrity of a specialized science". Why do you think it is?

In any case, if any "broader field of view" is not based on primary sources, it applicability, objectivity, etc is certainly questionable, isn't it?

Last question. Is anybody else curious about the pervasive, or should I say perverse, double standard that continually shows its face in postings to this thread? It's not as if the Inquisitors posing their strategic ripostes are "quantifying" their answers or meeting any standard of scientific discourse at all.

Now going back to my real job, since it's 7:05 here.

I'll respond to this separately, later.

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning Dancing David,

Originally inspired by the controversial theorist Immanuel Velikovsky, Talbott envisioned a congregation of planets physically close to the earth in ancient times in which "the five planets Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, Mars and the Earth orbited the Sun as a single linear unit, which rotated about a point close to Saturn, before its break-up at the end of the Golden Age".[1] He claims that the violent evolution of this "Polar Configuration" provoked the myth-making epoch of human history.[13] Professor of Social Theory, Alfred de Grazia, noted that Talbott was one of several scholars who had "entered the full stream" of Velikovsky's work.[14]




I will stay quite unless I get a pertinent answer to the multiple direct questions.

That's very interesting. But what is your source, may I ask?

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning Matthew Cline,

We don't know, yet, if this has been incorporated into the official ech;

How many different Electric Comet hypotheses are there? I know there's a least three different Electric Sun hypotheses: the Sun as a capacitor, the Sun as a resistor with the current going in through one pole and out the other, and as a resistor with the current coming in through the poles and out the equator (or visa-versa).

In following some of the more recent links posted here, it seems that Wal Thornhill and David Talbott are the people (electrical theorists) most closely related to the ech (though I am far from certain of this; the material I've read is pretty confusing).

If so, then it would seem that the ech is, effectively, whatever either Wal Thornhill or David Talbott (or both) says it is. As there are no papers - even on arXiv, much less published in peer-reviewed journals - deciding what's in the current ech (and what's not in) seems to me to be pretty subjective.

The recent posts about comets being ripped from Mars by giant lightning bolts, mere centuries ago (my paraphrase) seem to illustrate just how fluid the ech is ...

 

[ben m]

How many different Electric Comet hypotheses are there? I know there's a least three different Electric Sun hypotheses: the Sun as a capacitor, the Sun as a resistor with the current going in through one pole and out the other, and as a resistor with the current coming in through the poles and out the equator (or visa-versa).

One answer may be "they don't care". Has not knowing the difference between the "sun as capacitor" vs "sun as resistor" prevented Talbott and Thornhill from doing what they do? Nope. If you're an electric universe theorist, capacitor = resistor = double-layer = arc = voltage = current because they all mean approximately "electricity is out there and does things" which is a nice colorful background in which to post rock-art photographs and scan New Scientist articles for "anomalies" to complain about.

Mainstream physicists are prone to asking "where is the charge/current supposed to be" because that's something you want to know prior to doing a calculation or apply a law of physics. If you never intend to calculate anything, it's all the same.

 

[tusenfem]

So why call it "gas"???

Maybe despite all, a plasma still adheres the the usual gas laws? P = n k T, etc.
Just a guess (not a gas).

 

[Ziggurat]

Maybe despite all, a plasma still adheres the the usual gas laws? P = n k T, etc.
Just a guess (not a gas).

Where'd the V go?

 

[phunk]

These things take time...

Nah, just yell "electric comet!" then forget the science, and you're done!

 

[rwguinn]

So why call it "gas"???

You think the public are drongos, 'Ol mate?

I think you need to spend some of the time you waste on fake condescension getting familiar with definitions. Scientific definitions.

 

[Haig]

The gas coming out of the comet gets ionized and picked up by the solar wind magnetic field. Now, the gyro radius of these new ions is very very large, so it is not usual pickup in that region. This means that the pick-up current can be described as a Hall current.

Can't find your post (lack of time) where you talked about water production between the solar wind and comet 67p ... only found the one above taking about the singing comet ... sung at 40-50 millihertz?

Anyway ...

Interesting to read the water vapour emanating from Comet 67P is not the type of water they were expecting.

Rosetta Comet Water Different Than Earth Water

The European Space Agency's Rosetta spacecraft has found the water vapor from comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko to be significantly different from that found on Earth. The discovery fuels the debate on the origin of our planet’s oceans.

The measurements, by the Rosetta Orbiter Spectrometer for Ion and Neutral Analysis (ROSINA) instrument, were made in the month following the arrival of the spacecraft on Aug. 6. It is one of the most anticipated early results of the mission, because the origin of Earth's water is still an open question.
http://www.nasa.gov/jpl/rosetta-comet-water-different-than-earth-water/#.VInPOzGsV8F

It is against this backdrop that Rosetta’s investigations are important. Interestingly, the D/H ratio measured by the Rosetta Orbiter Spectrometer for Ion and Neutral Analysis, or ROSINA, is more than three times greater than for Earth’s oceans and for its Jupiter-family companion, Comet Hartley 2. Indeed, it is even higher than measured for any Oort cloud comet as well.

“This surprising finding could indicate a diverse origin for the Jupiter-family comets – perhaps they formed over a wider range of distances in the young Solar System than we previously thought,” says Kathrin Altwegg, principal investigator for ROSINA and lead author of the paper reporting the results in the journal Science this week.

“Our finding also rules out the idea that Jupiter-family comets contain solely Earth ocean-like water, and adds weight to models that place more emphasis on asteroids as the main delivery mechanism for Earth’s oceans.”

“We knew that Rosetta’s in situ analysis of this comet was always going to throw up surprises for the bigger picture of Solar System science, and this outstanding observation certainly adds fuel to the debate about the origin of Earth’s water,” says Matt Taylor, ESA’s Rosetta project scientist.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/S...etta_fuels_debate_on_origin_of_Earth_s_oceans

http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/...gen_in_the_Solar_System_node_full_image_2.jpg

Edited by LashL: 

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

The horizontal blue line shows the value of the ratio in Earth's oceans, which has been determined to be 1.56 ×10–4. Rosetta’s ROSINA instrument measured the water vapour emanating from Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko and found it to be 5.3 x 10–4, more than three times greater than for Earth’s oceans.

The discovery fuels the debate on the origin of Earth’s oceans and whether asteroids or comets played the bigger role in delivering water.
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2014/12/Deuterium-to-hydrogen_in_the_Solar_System

 

[Ziggurat]

Interesting to read the water vapour emanating from Comet 67P is not the type of water they were expecting.

But you seem not to understand the other implications of that finding: the hydrogen didn't come from the sun either. Which means that, contrary to the electric comet hypothesis, the water vapor isn't being generated by the solar wind, it's water sublimating from the comet itself.

 

[tusenfem]

Where'd the V go?

n is density
of course if you do it alfvenic a plasma can also be a fluid!!!

 

[Haig]

Got pics of it actually occurring on a canyon inducing scale, as it happens?

I got pics (video) of tiny Electric Comet Siding Spring plasma sheath interacting with the plasma sheath of Mars. You just need to consider what would happen if it was Earth and Mars interacting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx3WdyOihH8&feature=youtu.be&t=1m

"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

I found that impressive how about you?

Then there is this Electrical Scarring of Planets and Moons

You do know that Plasma effects are scalable ALL the way from what we see in the Lab experiments to what we see in Space. I don't think Tusenfem would disagree with that statement?

How about that ? ... Did that impress you ? What do you mean NO!

Gezz you are a hard guy to please.

You DO know that there weren't ANY cameras around in Ancient times to take pics?

However,

There was eye witnesses ... and they wrote it into their myths, traditions, religion, art ... e.g.

Celestial Events in the Iliad

 

[tusenfem]

Nah, just yell "electric comet!" then forget the science, and you're done!

tried it, my boss almost broke my jaw,

 

[Haig]

But you seem not to understand the other implications of that finding: the hydrogen didn't come from the sun either. Which means that, contrary to the electric comet hypothesis, the water vapor isn't being generated by the solar wind, it's water sublimating from the comet itself.

Care to explain that comment further "the hydrogen didn't come from the sun either"

Just show where it says that exactly? or even implied that!

 

[Haig]

tried it, my boss almost broke my jaw,

Ah! so you admit it !!! Your EC tenancies are being suppressed.

Typical mainstream bullying

 

[tusenfem]

Can't find your post (lack of time) where you talked about water production between the solar wind and comet 67p ... only found the one above taking about the singing comet ... sung at 40-50 millihertz?

i did not talk about water production, i have only talked about outgassing comets and interaction with the solar wind. my "ec" estimate was in post 2250 if that is what you mean.

Anyway ...

Interesting to read the water vapour emanating from Comet 67P is not the type of water they were expecting.

guess you claim this as another confirmation for ec, because ec probably knew this all along or predicted it or whatever.

 

[Ziggurat]

Care to explain that comment further "the hydrogen didn't come from the sun either"

Just show where it says that exactly? or even implied that!

Well, they don't state it explicitly, because only EU proponents would be stupid enough to even consider it a possibility, so there's really no reason they would bother. But the data is right there: there's far too much deuterium relative to ordinary hydrogen. It doesn't match the solar wind, which will be lower than Jupiter or Saturn (since it was formed from the same starting stuff, but hydrogen fusion in the sun burns up deuterium fast). So the hydrogen (and therefore the water) must be coming from the comet, and not the solar wind.

 

[JeanTate]

Good afternoon, David Talbott.

I've been puzzled about some of your ech predictions since I first read them. In this post I'd like to explore them a bit. There are no requests for quantification, nor numbers (etc) in this post. Bold is mine.

<snip>

here are my predictions as they stood just a couple of hours ago. Expect some modest changes, but no wholesale retractions based on new info.

<snip>
• electric discharge as the essential contributor to the comet's increasing activity
<snip>
• visible electrical erosion of the surface in the fashion of electrical etching of surface materials and electric discharge machining (edm)
• surface electrochemically transformed and burned black by this discharge activity, as in laboratory experiments
<snip>

Some extracts from a recent post by Reality Check; again, my bold:

In contrast

Evidence for Electric Comets from 67P

To illustrate yet again how abysmal argument by YouTube video can be, Haig[/B]:
Introduction
<snip>
* the idiocy of comparing the double-lobed shape of 67P to blobs in an electric arc in hematite.
* the usual idiotic image of "electrical discharges" between two planets that look like Earth and Mars!

Wal Thornhill starts talking
<snip>
* Fantasy about "neat overlapping circular craters" in EDM with an image that looks nothing like the surface of 67P!
<snip>
* More EDM fantasies.
* compares a 67P crater to Victoria crater on Mars. Followed by a fantasy about arcing.
* More arcing fantasies.
<snip>
Some else starts talking
<snip>
* fantasy about electrical arcs at these places.
Back to Wal Thronhill
* fantasy about machined surface material
<snip>

Almost a week ago now, Lukraak_Sisser pointed out what seems to be a key weakness in a key aspect of the ech (again, my bold):

This discussion would get a lot more meaningful if someone would come on to this list and challenge any statement of fact in the Electric Comet documentary. There, factual findings combine with quotes from respected authorities in the comet sciences to make clear that a coherent comet theory no longer exists.

<snip>

To the best of my knowledge there are no misquotes in the documentary, and the facts presented stand. <snip>

I have made several, but they are consitently ignored.

<snip>
3. Electricity needs to arc between two objects. What is the object a comet interacts with when it shows it tail and <snip>. (It cannot logically be the sun itself as then the effects would become less as the comet approaches the sun)

Each of these questions can be answered using what we know about electricity at the moment and lab equipment costing at most a few thousand dollars. So why hasn't that been done?

<snip>

In the case of Temple-1, the arc/discharge claimed to have been observed (in at least some of the 'electric comet' material) is between the copper impactor and the comet itself.

However, as far as I can tell, this is the only event or observation in which an electrical theorist has explicitly stated what the two objects are, between which an arc/discharge is claimed to have happened.

In EDM, and in laboratory experiments on arcs (and discharges), there are always (at least) two objects (electrodes) between which the arcs (and discharges) occur.

So, after a long intro, my (non-quantitative) questions: in the ech, what is/are the other object(s)? One end of the discharges and arcs is the comet body itself; what is/are the other end(s)? How can one objectively derive the arcing/discharging behavior (associated with comets) from the ech itself?

 

[JeanTate]

Good afternoon, Sol88.

Please Tusenfem and Jean Tate, tell me more about the “forbidden oxygen” line at 1128Å in the spectrum of Comet Austin.

<snip>

Do you have a source for this?

Specifically, a primary source (i.e. a paper published in a relevant peer-reviewed journal, or perhaps a conference presentation).

If you do not have such a source, please be honest enough to say so.