The Electric Comet theory

[LSSBB]

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

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

OK, so you don't have any evidence of canyon carving lightning currently occurring anywhere, got it.

How's that water coming off the comet working for your rock theory?

 

[Matthew Cline]

Still got it wrong though PLASMA is the fundamental state of matter!! [emphasis added]

Wait, do you mean that plasma is a fundamental state of matter (that is, entirely distinct from gas), and the emphasised "the" is a mistake? Or did you really mean for it to be "the"?

Second, as I've said many, many times now: even if we were to falsify mainstream theory in its entirety, that doesn't mean that electric comet or electric universe nonsense is correct.

This is just a guess, but I think that: 1) Haig thinks that the mainstream theory of comets needs to be disproven so that people will pay attention to the Electric Comet hypothesis and provided funds to research it, but 2) for some reason he won't spell this out, or even confirm or deny it when explicitly asked about it.

 

[Sol88]

Wait, do you mean that plasma is a fundamental state of matter (that is, entirely distinct from gas), and the emphasised "the" is a mistake? Or did you really mean for it to be "the"?
.

Yes PLASMA could be called the fundamental state of matter and solid, liquid and gas are special states. It is the most pervasive form of matter, in fact 99.99999% of the observable universe is in the plasma state.

But, Mathew Cline, mainstream are safer to just stick with the least understood, weakest force in the universe, G the biggest variable CONSTANT we know, well not that weak as it can bend spacetime

Can you make spacetime and gravity in a lab and study it like PLASMA???? rather embarrassing I'd say.

Like here on dear old Gaia. We have a special place here, as without our magnetosphere and atmosphere we are toast.

Hey but a chemical comet can fly thru this plasma stuff and mainstream wouldn't even model it!! Even Tusenfem is little perplexed by 67P singing its song

 

[Sol88]

First off, you fail to notice (even though it's made explicit in your quote) that this only falsified one of two competing mainstream ideas. Second, as I've said many, many times now: even if we were to falsify mainstream theory in its entirety, that doesn't mean that electric comet or electric universe nonsense is correct. We know it's not. We know it's wrong. Even the very evidence you're trying to use to support it does the opposite. If the mainstream is wrong, then the truth is something else, not this electric nonsense.

Ok, I'll play the devils advocate.

The mainstream chemical comet and the electric comet are wrong, question is now what would mainstream consider comets to be, mind full of all the evidence so far. i.e. Deep Impact, Stardust, Rosetta, Deep Space etc etc

 

[Haig]

OK, so you don't have any evidence of canyon carving lightning currently occurring anywhere, got it.

Never said there was currently (nice pun) canyon carving lightning going on. Are you suggesting because it isn't happening presently it never happen in the past OR could happen in the future ???

The solar system is stable right now. does that mean it has always been so? or it can never become unstable ?

What your saying is patently wrong! Take this analogy ... because we are currently NOT in an ICE AGE means they never happened or can EVER happen in the future. Which is nonsense. Right?

btw the EU / PC crowd have a great hypothesis as to how the Ice Ages start and end

How's that water coming off the comet working for your rock theory?

It's doing great, thanks

Electric Comets are the way to go

This is first in a series of Rosetta Mission Updates with Wal Thornhill. In this brief video, Wal offers a preliminary assessment of the Rosetta Mission to Comet 67P
Rosetta Mission Update | The Rocky Comet

 

[Matthew Cline]

Yes PLASMA could be called the fundamental state of matter and solid, liquid and gas are special states. It is the most pervasive form of matter, in fact 99.99999% of the observable universe is in the plasma state.

Seems strange to me to use "fundamental" and "pervasive" to mean the same thing.

But, Mathew Cline, mainstream are safer to just stick with the least understood

"Least understood" in what manner"? In that physicists haven't been able to unify it with the other forces? In that physicists haven't been able to demonstrate the existence of the graviton?

And, even supposing that gravity is the least understood of the forces, I don't see why that should preclude physicists/astronomers/etc from using it in various theories.

G the biggest variable CONSTANT we know,

Are you referring to the difficulty of getting accurate measurements of G from Cavendish experiments?

well not that weak as it can bend spacetime

So you disagree with the theory of relativity? [this is getting rather far afield of the Electric Comet hypothesis]

Can you make spacetime and gravity in a lab and study it like PLASMA???? rather embarrassing I'd say.

Embarrassing how? I don't see why nature should be structured in such a way that every aspect of it could be created in the lab.

Like here on dear old Gaia. We have a special place here, as without our magnetosphere and atmosphere we are toast.

I completely fail to see how the relative importance of the four fundamental forces to the existence of human life has anything to do with Electric Comet hypothesis. I also fail to see how you'd impose a such a ranking on them, since the existence of life as we know it would be impossible in the absence of any one of the fundamental forces; it would be like deciding which link in a chain is most important.

 

[paladin17]

Hydrogen isotope ratios

As far as I know, the measured D/H ratio looks pretty much like chondritic meteorites. And it looks nothing like the proto-solar nebula levels of deuterium (if we assume that the comets are some ancient remnants from the times of our system's accretion), which are a couple of orders of magnitude lower. So the comet isn't a remnant of an "accretion nebula", or whatever.

Also, as far as I know, no one have ever really measured the solar wind deuterium content with sufficient precision (would be glad to see the links though, if any). The only case when the measurement is possible is during the solar flares, and at those times the content is about that of the Earth's (Ramaty, Kozlovsky. ApJ, 193: 729-740, 1974).

Also, could the D/H ratio actually be somewhat increased due to the electrolysis (in the EC model)? This is perhaps the most simple and straightforward method of acquiring heavy water, as you may know. And the voltage needed is only 1.5 Volts, or so.

 

[tusenfem]

First off, you fail to notice (even though it's made explicit in your quote) that this only falsified one of two competing mainstream ideas. Second, as I've said many, many times now: even if we were to falsify mainstream theory in its entirety, that doesn't mean that electric comet or electric universe nonsense is correct. We know it's not. We know it's wrong. Even the very evidence you're trying to use to support it does the opposite. If the mainstream is wrong, then the truth is something else, not this electric nonsense.

Do not forget that this is the first comet for which we get such detailed information. As up to now, every visited comet has been "nothing like any comet we have visited so far" it could well be that this is a peculiarity of 67P/Chruryumov-Gerasimenko. Although I would be hard pressed to think that we accidentally hit on the exception to the rule.

 

[tusenfem]

Hey but a chemical comet can fly thru this plasma stuff and mainstream wouldn't even model it!!

Please stop telling lies, there is loads of modeling papers for comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.

Here is a list of mainstream peer-reviewed publications dealing with modeling comet, the first 38 specifically for 67P

 

[tusenfem]

Also, as far as I know, no one have ever really measured the solar wind deuterium content with sufficient precision (would be glad to see the links though, if any). The only case when the measurement is possible is during the solar flares, and at those times the content is about that of the Earth's (Ramaty, Kozlovsky. ApJ, 193: 729-740, 1974).

Why is it that the EU bunch always only know the real old papers and never up to date ones?

Light Isotope Abundances in Solar Energetic Particles Measured by the Space Instrument NINA Balkadin et al., Astrophysical Journal, 577, 513-523, 2002.

Also, could the D/H ratio actually be somewhat increased due to the electrolysis (in the EC model)? This is perhaps the most simple and straightforward method of acquiring heavy water, as you may know. And the voltage needed is only 1.5 Volts, or so.

Electrolysis of what exactly? And what is your cathode, what is your anode, how do you get your liquid water? etc. etc.

 

[paladin17]

Why is it that the EU bunch always only know the real old papers and never up to date ones?

Is such a right-off personal label-sticking the way you always interact with people? This would be kind of sad.

Light Isotope Abundances in Solar Energetic Particles Measured by the Space Instrument NINA. Balkadin et al., Astrophysical Journal, 577, 513-523, 2002.

Thanks for the link, though SEP's and the solar wind are different stories, and I've been asking about the latter. In the conclusion it says that the average D/H ratio is only one order of magnitude lower than the 67P's, though.

Electrolysis of what exactly? And what is your cathode, what is your anode, how do you get your liquid water? etc. etc.

Electrolysis of water that is being produced via electrochemical combination of protons from the solar wind and the oxygen atoms in the minerals sitting on the surface of the cometary core.
The core itself could be the cathode, and anode would correspond to the plasma sheath around the core. Just as an example.

 

[Andy_Ross]

And round we go again.

 

[tusenfem]

Is such a right-off personal label-sticking the way you always interact with people? This would be kind of sad.

Well we have grown accustomed to the thunder people by now.

Thanks for the link, though SEP's and the solar wind are different stories, and I've been asking about the latter. In the conclusion it says that the average D/H ratio is only one order of magnitude lower than the 67P's, though.

Okay, then I just search for "solar wind" in the title and "deuterium" in the abstract, and then I get this list of papers, have fun.

"only" one order of magnitude, is quite a bit though.

Electrolysis of water that is being produced via electrochemical combination of protons from the solar wind and the oxygen atoms in the minerals sitting on the surface of the cometary core.
The core itself could be the cathode, and anode would correspond to the plasma sheath around the core. Just as an example.

That will still not give you the deuterium you need, because you use the solar wind protons/deuterons to create your water.

So, are you paladin going to finally present us with a real EC model, which gives some numbers? I don't care if the H/D component does not jivvy with the observations.

 

[paladin17]

Well we have grown accustomed to the thunder people by now.

Putting aside the fact that it is simply a mean behaviour and is not in any case qualifying anyone as a respectful person, it is also quite unscientific. There are no "thunder people". This is an artificial construct, which, as I see, is sometimes being used only to raise some culturally retrograde people under one banner, against some fabricated "common enemy".
Well, my critique is also nonconstructive, so I guess such comments are just to be ignored.

Okay, then I just search for "solar wind" in the title and "deuterium" in the abstract, and then I get this list of papers, have fun.

I've checked a couple of dozens of these and haven't found a single paper on the measurements of solar wind H-ratios. Would be pleased to actually look at one.

"only" one order of magnitude, is quite a bit though.

But it's nothing like the near-zero deuterium abundance that is supposed to be present (if I am not mistaken) in the solar wind.

That will still not give you the deuterium you need, because you use the solar wind protons/deuterons to create your water.

Unless there is some difference between the behaviour of H and D, you're probably right. Yet I don't see how such a big amount of deuterium might have emerged, unless there is some active enrichment process at work.
And of course there is always a possibility of a wrong measurement result.

So, are you paladin going to finally present us with a real EC model, which gives some numbers? I don't care if the H/D component does not jivvy with the observations.

Not sure if there could be a single model that would describe the comet as a whole. And I guess any scientist would doubt that it is even possible.
But exactly what numbers are you asking for?

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning, Ziggurat, tusenfem. And Sol88.

Good afternoon, Sol88.

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.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/251/4992/408.short

It's a silly argument, really. "Forbidden" transitions are not really forbidden, they're just very slow. Apparently some of the EU crowd believes that the observation of this line indicates the presence of a strong electric field, but that's actually discounted by the lack of any observed Stark splitting in any other lines.

to safe time and to getvreal papers:

there is a paper in icarus, however about comet hartley, not austin
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103512002497

ah also comet austin
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17775104

i do not have the pdfs of these papers

Thanks to both of you.

Strange, though, that Sol88 did not thank you (I had addressed my question to him).

As the OP of this thread, I'm a little surprised that you, Sol88, seem unaware of previous posts in this thread on this comet, and observation(s). You seem to do no investigations of your own, and instead seem to be using other ISF members as your research assistants.

So, getting back to your question:

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

<snip>

Sol88, please explain how you (me, tusenfem, Ziggurat, ...) can conclude, from the electric comet hypothesis, that Comet Austin would be expected to show "“forbidden oxygen” line at 1128Å" emission? Please do so in an objective fashion, and in sufficient detail that anyone can verify the validity of your conclusion.

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning again, Sol88.

<snip>

Hey but a chemical comet can fly thru this plasma stuff and mainstream wouldn't even model it!! Even Tusenfem is little perplexed by 67P singing its song

Can we return to discussion of the ech, please?

You started this thread, explicitly on "The Electric Comet theory". Yet you seem to spend much - perhaps most - of your time (as measured in words in your posts) on topics other than the ech.

Why is it apparently so hard for you to stay focused?

 

[tusenfem]

I've checked a couple of dozens of these and haven't found a single paper on the measurements of solar wind H-ratios. Would be pleased to actually look at one.

But it's nothing like the near-zero deuterium abundance that is supposed to be present (if I am not mistaken) in the solar wind.

As far as I can see there would be a factor 10^-5 or so less D than H, at least in the energetic events.

Unless there is some difference between the behaviour of H and D, you're probably right. Yet I don't see how such a big amount of deuterium might have emerged, unless there is some active enrichment process at work.
And of course there is always a possibility of a wrong measurement result.

Well, the "near-zero" deuterium abundance (as you say) is a MAJOR problem for the electrochemical (EDM) production of water in the EC fantasy.

Yes, wrong measurements can also happen.

Seems like here is a paper which mentions determination of D in the solar wind in some of its references

Not sure if there could be a single model that would describe the comet as a whole. And I guess any scientist would doubt that it is even possible.
But exactly what numbers are you asking for?

I am asking (for years, ask your thunder buddies) and not only I, to actually quantify this electrochemical production of water (or OH, whatever you fancy) in the EC fantasy model.

Just tell us how it works, how the flux of solar wind protons interacts with the comet, and how you create your H2O or OH at a rate that is actually observed.

In case you want to take it a step further, please show us in the fields data that actual EDM is taking place. Look back in the thread, the data for e.g. comet 1P/Halley are freely available through PDS (NASA) and PSA (ESA). Discharges are quite particular in the signatures that they produce.

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning paladin17, and welcome to ISF!

As far as I know, the measured D/H ratio looks pretty much like chondritic meteorites. And it looks nothing like the proto-solar nebula levels of deuterium (if we assume that the comets are some ancient remnants from the times of our system's accretion), which are a couple of orders of magnitude lower. So the comet isn't a remnant of an "accretion nebula", or whatever.

Also, as far as I know, no one have ever really measured the solar wind deuterium content with sufficient precision (would be glad to see the links though, if any). The only case when the measurement is possible is during the solar flares, and at those times the content is about that of the Earth's (Ramaty, Kozlovsky. ApJ, 193: 729-740, 1974).

Also, could the D/H ratio actually be somewhat increased due to the electrolysis (in the EC model)? This is perhaps the most simple and straightforward method of acquiring heavy water, as you may know. And the voltage needed is only 1.5 Volts, or so.

As David Talbott - a leading electrical theorist - has declared that there is no electric comet model (see this post earlier in this thread, for example), we are now focusing on the electric comet hypothesis ("ech" for short).

To date, there are just two core assumptions in the ech, a) that there is an approximately radial electric field, centered on the Sun, from ~the outer edge of the corona to ~the inner edge of the heliosheath; and b) comets are homogeneous 'rock' (there's also a possible third one, c) that comets are ripped from planets by giant lightning bolts (my paraphrase), but that's not yet confirmed by any electrical theorist*).

What is "the electrolysis (in the EC model)"? In particular, what is your primary source for this?

How can one derive/conclude "electrolysis" from the ech, objectively?

* to my satisfaction anyway.

 

[paladin17]

As far as I can see there would be a factor 10^-5 or so less D than H, at least in the energetic events.

Yes, that is precisely the measure that I've encountered a couple of times (it was also in this 1974-year paper).

Well, the "near-zero" deuterium abundance (as you say) is a MAJOR problem for the electrochemical (EDM) production of water in the EC fantasy.

1) I'm still not sure that it is near-zero, and I'm still looking for "peer-reviewed" measurements.
2) Even one order of magnitude less than what is needed (as we observe during the flares) could be enough if some sort of enrichment process is present.
Just stumbled upon one paper (I cannot yet provide URL's due to the forum regulations, so I'll give a DOI number: 10.1029/2000JE001277). The modeling presented there for the Moon shows an increase of solar wind-blown D/H ratio of magnitude of 4 over time (due to the particle migration). This almost gives us our missing order of magnitude.

Seems like here is a paper which mentions determination of D in the solar wind in some of its references

I've seen this paper before, but unfortunately cannot see any relevant links there. Only some protosolar calculations. And also a point that in the interstellar medium the ratio is also 10^-5, which is kind of interesting, but also irrelevant to the topic.

to actually quantify this electrochemical production of water (or OH, whatever you fancy) in the EC fantasy model.

It's quite easy, I think.
Take a solar wind speed (say, 500 km/s), the area affected by it (for example, the core being a circle perpendicular to the solar wind stream and having a radius of 1 km -> 3.14*10⁶ m²), calculate the according volume/s (1.5*10¹² m³ s^-1), then multiply it by the solar wind density (say, 10⁷ m^-3 -> 1.5*10¹⁹ s^-1). So we've got roughly 10¹⁹ hydrogen atoms per second, i.e. 10^-4 moles, i.e. 10^-6 litres of water per second.

Just tell us how it works, how the flux of solar wind protons interacts with the comet, and how you create your H2O or OH at a rate that is actually observed.

If I knew that in detail, I wouldn't have come here: instead of that my articles probably would have already swarm arXiv and other such resources.
The general scheme is that the highly electronegative oxygen is being removed from the surface of the core towards the positive solar wind current. I'm afraid that we know too little at present to draw a precise mechanism of this process.

In case you want to take it a step further, please show us in the fields data that actual EDM is taking place. Look back in the thread, the data for e.g. comet 1P/Halley are freely available through PDS (NASA) and PSA (ESA). Discharges are quite particular in the signatures that they produce.

Thanks, I'll probably do that, but not right now.

 

[rwguinn]

Wait. I thought the reason the ecu/ech was so wonderful is that scientists had to add something unseen/unknown to current theories ( i.e. dark matter) in order to make it work.
So here we are adding an unknown "enrichment process"?

Consistency is not a wooish trademark, for sure
..