LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Wrong
The Electric Comet theory
- Thread starter Sol88
- Start date
- Status
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
As LSSBB stated: Wrong (ice dune), Sol88
!But on a comet, there could be wind that creates dunes. Comets have an atmosphere - all of the gas that is outgassed. We see the jets doing just that on 67P. This atmosphere is being heated on one side of the comet and cooled on the other. That is a high pressure area on one side and a low pressure area on the other. Gases flow from high pressure to low pressure. This flow is called wind, Sol88!
The shape of 67P is complex so it is not as simple as winds from the hot side of a sphere to the cold side.
P.S. Personally I have doubts about this as a viable mechanism for the 67P dunes.
ETA: A feast of comet features from Rosetta at Churyumov-Gerasimenko
confirms my doubts.
There are other possibilities. People who do science are familiar with fluidized beds. So gas bubbling up into dust can transport the dust.
Fluidization and multiphase transport of particulate cometary material as an explanation of the smooth terrains and repetitive outbursts on 9P/Tempel 1
The dunes are on a smooth slope "downhill" into the neck and they look just like slippages.
Last edited:
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
As LSSBB stated: Wrong (ice dune), Sol88
But on a comet, there could be wind that creates dunes. Comets have an atmosphere - all of the gas that is outgassed. We see the jets doing just that on 67P. This atmosphere is being heated on one side of the comet and cooled on the other. That is a high pressure area on one side and a low pressure area on the other. Gases flow from high pressure to low pressure. This flow is called wind, Sol88!
The shape of 67P is complex so it is not as simple as winds from the hot side of a sphere to the cold side.
There are other possibilities. People who do science are familiar with fluidized beds. So gas bubbling up into dust can transport the dust.
Fluidization and multiphase transport of particulate cometary material as an explanation of the smooth terrains and repetitive outbursts on 9P/Tempel 1
Note the gas being outgassed has a high water content.
Quite analogous to the water spray that builds up Earth's ice dunes, don't year think?
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Duplicate post
Cygnus_X1
Student
Responding to some claims in Haig's post #2868, my responses repeatedly thwarted by quotes with imbedded URLs.
As I noted in my post #2820, as well as my articles on the REAL electric universe, mainstream astronomy knows of many examples of electric fields forming in space and in particular near comets. Many of these traceable back decades.
EU just tries to hijack these, claiming it as 'their' idea when they did no work whatsoever to demonstrate the mechanism could work. Notice not one of EU 'predictions' contains information sufficient for planning a mission such as Rosetta, where you would need to know, say, the maximum electric field produced in the comet environment in order for the spacecraft to survive. Others have done these, and get numbers like what I noted in post #2820. Not the millions of volts invoked by EU.
EU is like the old joke "When your only tool is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.", they can't imagine any other mechanism at work, when mechanics of solids, fluids, and gases made things work years, centuries, before we could harness electricity.
If EU wants to claim the solar wind is driven by an EXTERNAL electric field, have they bothered to compute what the magnitude and distribution of the field must be to explain the solar wind velocity profile? What charge distribution can produce it? I've seen no such analysis from EU.
If I pop a balloon, the air that was contained within expands outward. It goes from zero to some expansion velocity, i.e. it accelerates. Why? Was an electric field responsible?
Mainstream astronomy recognizes that electric fields can form in plasmas under various non-equilibrium conditions where charge separation can occur. There are hydrodynamic solar wind models which just treat the flow as a free expansion, like the balloon example above. It actually gives a good match for the acceleration of the slow solar wind (Parker model). Where is EU's model of the solar wind acceleration with their claimed electric field values?
For higher speeds, other mechanisms are at play and kinetic models reveal a good match where feedback mechanism can setup a wind acceleration with voltages of 300-1000 volts between the exobase in the solar corona and Earth orbit. Nowhere near the millions of volts invoked by EU. Plus, these kinetic models generate these voltages due to the different velocities of electrons and ions. The electrons get a little extra kick from the photons from the photosphere.
I've done analyses of the solar wind claims of Scott, Thornhill's 'solar resistor' and their implications for spaceflight. EU supporters always whine and cry that I've done it wrong, but they never present the proper analysis.
Like a bunch of inept middle managers, EU supporters insist that others do the work and they'll hang around to take credit for it.
Meanwhile EU is invoking gigantic electric fields driven by mysterious, invisible generators or batteries (they usually hide behind the term 'double layer') that magically appear wherever they choose to invoke them.
As I noted in my post #2820, as well as my articles on the REAL electric universe, mainstream astronomy knows of many examples of electric fields forming in space and in particular near comets. Many of these traceable back decades.
EU just tries to hijack these, claiming it as 'their' idea when they did no work whatsoever to demonstrate the mechanism could work. Notice not one of EU 'predictions' contains information sufficient for planning a mission such as Rosetta, where you would need to know, say, the maximum electric field produced in the comet environment in order for the spacecraft to survive. Others have done these, and get numbers like what I noted in post #2820. Not the millions of volts invoked by EU.
EU is like the old joke "When your only tool is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.", they can't imagine any other mechanism at work, when mechanics of solids, fluids, and gases made things work years, centuries, before we could harness electricity.
If EU wants to claim the solar wind is driven by an EXTERNAL electric field, have they bothered to compute what the magnitude and distribution of the field must be to explain the solar wind velocity profile? What charge distribution can produce it? I've seen no such analysis from EU.
If I pop a balloon, the air that was contained within expands outward. It goes from zero to some expansion velocity, i.e. it accelerates. Why? Was an electric field responsible?
Mainstream astronomy recognizes that electric fields can form in plasmas under various non-equilibrium conditions where charge separation can occur. There are hydrodynamic solar wind models which just treat the flow as a free expansion, like the balloon example above. It actually gives a good match for the acceleration of the slow solar wind (Parker model). Where is EU's model of the solar wind acceleration with their claimed electric field values?
For higher speeds, other mechanisms are at play and kinetic models reveal a good match where feedback mechanism can setup a wind acceleration with voltages of 300-1000 volts between the exobase in the solar corona and Earth orbit. Nowhere near the millions of volts invoked by EU. Plus, these kinetic models generate these voltages due to the different velocities of electrons and ions. The electrons get a little extra kick from the photons from the photosphere.
I've done analyses of the solar wind claims of Scott, Thornhill's 'solar resistor' and their implications for spaceflight. EU supporters always whine and cry that I've done it wrong, but they never present the proper analysis.
Like a bunch of inept middle managers, EU supporters insist that others do the work and they'll hang around to take credit for it.
Meanwhile EU is invoking gigantic electric fields driven by mysterious, invisible generators or batteries (they usually hide behind the term 'double layer') that magically appear wherever they choose to invoke them.
tusenfem
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 3,306
wow, if life were just that easy.
Welcome back Dr. Tom Bridgman.
Yes, the use of embedded URLs can be a pain at times also very useful for showing ideas and information but have you seen RC's posts
Glad to see you recognise Electric Comets requires an Electric Sun requires an Electric Universe / Plasma Cosmology
However your criticisms of the above have been soundly rebutted HERE
- "1872, Scientific American (July 27th, p. 57), informed its readers that "Professor Zollner of Leipsic" ascribes the "self-luminosity" of comets to "electrical excitement." According to the article, Zollner suggests that "the nuclei of comets, as masses, are subject to gravitation, while the vapors developed from them, which consist of very small particles, yield to the action of the free electricity of the sun...."
and
- "August 11, 1882 English Mechanic and World of Science, pp. 516-7, wrote of cometary tails: "...There seems to be a rapidly growing feeling amongst physicists that both the self-light of comets and the phenomena of their tails belong to the order of electrical phenomena."
A major catalyst for independent re-consideration of electricity and magnetism in space came in 1950, with the publication of Immanuel Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision.
Mainstream at that time denied Electromagnetism in Space or ANY need for it.
He wrote this "the celestial mechanics that claims that only inertia and gravitation participate in the spheres above will need re-examination and so also the Darwinian evolution based on the principle of uniformitarianism or gradualism"
"In the fall of 1972, Juergens published the first in a series of articles offering a revolutionary hypothesis on the "electric sun.""
The EU / PC view is galactic birkeland currents control the Sun's electric field.
As for the maths Tom don't get the cart before the horse otherwise you could end up believing in magic entities that don't exist such as black holes, dark matter, dark energy ....
“We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.” —T. S. Eliot
"The discovery that blasts of particles escape the Sun at an estimated 400- to 700-kilometers per second came as an uncomfortable surprise for advocates of the nuclear powered model. Certainly, the "pressure" of sunlight cannot explain the acceleration of the solar "wind". In an electrically neutral, gravity-driven universe, particles were not hot enough to escape such massive bodies, which (in the theory) are attractors only. And yet, the particles of the solar wind continue to accelerate past Venus, Earth, and Mars. Since these particles are not miniature "rocket ships," this acceleration is the last thing one should expect!
According to the electric theorists, a weak electric field, focused on the Sun, better explains the acceleration of the charged particles of the solar wind. Electric fields accelerate charged particles. And just as magnetic fields are undeniable witnesses to the presence of electric currents, particle acceleration is a good measure of the strength of an electric field.
A common mistake made by critics of the electric model is to assume that the radial electric field of the Sun should be not only measurable but also strong enough to accelerate electrons toward the Sun at "relativistic" speeds (up to 300,000 kilometers per second). By this argument, we should find electrons not only zipping past our instruments but also creating dramatic displays in Earth's night sky.
But as noted above, in the plasma glow-discharge model the interplanetary electric field will be extremely weak. No instrument placed in space could measure the radial voltage differential across a few tens of meters, any more than it could measure the solar wind acceleration over a few tens of meters. But we can observe the solar wind acceleration over tens of millions of kilometers, confirming that the electric field of the Sun, though imperceptible in terms of volts per meter, is sufficient to sustain a powerful drift current across interplanetary space. Given the massive volume of this space, the implied current is quite sufficient to power the Sun."
See HERE and HERE and this PDF D. E. Scott Rebuts T. Bridgman
It's mainstream believing in magic entities that don't exist such as black holes, dark matter, dark energy ....
Then they use these magic entities that don't exist as fudge factors to sprinkle where they need them when their sums don't add up !
Yes, the use of embedded URLs can be a pain at times also very useful for showing ideas and information but have you seen RC's posts
Glad to see you recognise Electric Comets requires an Electric Sun requires an Electric Universe / Plasma Cosmology
However your criticisms of the above have been soundly rebutted HERE
I've added (under my bold) the links to the posts you reference.
The Electric Comet hypothesis goes back much much further than mere decades Tom. In fact, to the second half of the 19th century. see HERE
- "1872, Scientific American (July 27th, p. 57), informed its readers that "Professor Zollner of Leipsic" ascribes the "self-luminosity" of comets to "electrical excitement." According to the article, Zollner suggests that "the nuclei of comets, as masses, are subject to gravitation, while the vapors developed from them, which consist of very small particles, yield to the action of the free electricity of the sun...."
and
- "August 11, 1882 English Mechanic and World of Science, pp. 516-7, wrote of cometary tails: "...There seems to be a rapidly growing feeling amongst physicists that both the self-light of comets and the phenomena of their tails belong to the order of electrical phenomena."
Gee Tom, sounds like your trying to re-write Electromagnetism Space Science history.
A major catalyst for independent re-consideration of electricity and magnetism in space came in 1950, with the publication of Immanuel Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision.
Mainstream at that time denied Electromagnetism in Space or ANY need for it.
He wrote this "the celestial mechanics that claims that only inertia and gravitation participate in the spheres above will need re-examination and so also the Darwinian evolution based on the principle of uniformitarianism or gradualism"
Velikovsky's work inspired many including Ralph Juergens and those who started the Thunderbolts Project
"In the fall of 1972, Juergens published the first in a series of articles offering a revolutionary hypothesis on the "electric sun.""
What do you think drives the solar wind to accelerate to over a million miles an hour way past the planets. Also, why does it vary so much in velocity?
The EU / PC view is galactic birkeland currents control the Sun's electric field.
As for the maths Tom don't get the cart before the horse otherwise you could end up believing in magic entities that don't exist such as black holes, dark matter, dark energy ....
That reminds me of Science’s Looming ‘Tipping Point’
“We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.” —T. S. Eliot
The Electric Glow Of The Sun
"The discovery that blasts of particles escape the Sun at an estimated 400- to 700-kilometers per second came as an uncomfortable surprise for advocates of the nuclear powered model. Certainly, the "pressure" of sunlight cannot explain the acceleration of the solar "wind". In an electrically neutral, gravity-driven universe, particles were not hot enough to escape such massive bodies, which (in the theory) are attractors only. And yet, the particles of the solar wind continue to accelerate past Venus, Earth, and Mars. Since these particles are not miniature "rocket ships," this acceleration is the last thing one should expect!
According to the electric theorists, a weak electric field, focused on the Sun, better explains the acceleration of the charged particles of the solar wind. Electric fields accelerate charged particles. And just as magnetic fields are undeniable witnesses to the presence of electric currents, particle acceleration is a good measure of the strength of an electric field.
A common mistake made by critics of the electric model is to assume that the radial electric field of the Sun should be not only measurable but also strong enough to accelerate electrons toward the Sun at "relativistic" speeds (up to 300,000 kilometers per second). By this argument, we should find electrons not only zipping past our instruments but also creating dramatic displays in Earth's night sky.
But as noted above, in the plasma glow-discharge model the interplanetary electric field will be extremely weak. No instrument placed in space could measure the radial voltage differential across a few tens of meters, any more than it could measure the solar wind acceleration over a few tens of meters. But we can observe the solar wind acceleration over tens of millions of kilometers, confirming that the electric field of the Sun, though imperceptible in terms of volts per meter, is sufficient to sustain a powerful drift current across interplanetary space. Given the massive volume of this space, the implied current is quite sufficient to power the Sun."
Seems a lot like your playing catch-up ?
Come on Tom all you do is set up straw men and then knock them over
See HERE and HERE and this PDF D. E. Scott Rebuts T. Bridgman
Resorting to ad homs Tom ?
That sounds like pure projection Tom.
It's mainstream believing in magic entities that don't exist such as black holes, dark matter, dark energy ....
Then they use these magic entities that don't exist as fudge factors to sprinkle where they need them when their sums don't add up !
Last edited:
Just as an afterthought Tom.
What do you think of this ... ??? (but ignoring the black hole nonsense)
Extragalactic circuits, transmission lines, and CR particle acceleration
What do you think of this ... ??? (but ignoring the black hole nonsense)
Extragalactic circuits, transmission lines, and CR particle acceleration
Last edited:
Good morning Tom.
As you still can't post links, I thought I'd add them on this post of yours (source is ADS).
As you still can't post links, I thought I'd add them on this post of yours (source is ADS).
Good morning, Haig.
Having the references in hand, do you know how to find those references (mostly papers)?
Given that papers are primary sources in this branch of science, don't you think such simple skills as being able to find references is important?
Based on your posting history, I would guess that you have close to zero idea of how many papers like that arXiv preprint have been published, stretching back to before your heroes were even born. Would you say it is fair to characterize your apparent extreme lack of knowledge of primary sources as ignorance?
Do you know how to find the references in a paper (or a preprint, in this case)?
Having the references in hand, do you know how to find those references (mostly papers)?
Given that papers are primary sources in this branch of science, don't you think such simple skills as being able to find references is important?
Based on your posting history, I would guess that you have close to zero idea of how many papers like that arXiv preprint have been published, stretching back to before your heroes were even born. Would you say it is fair to characterize your apparent extreme lack of knowledge of primary sources as ignorance?
Then Tom there is this to consider ...
Electric Comets need an Electric Sun
But our Sun is entering a Grand Solar Minimum (how does that square with the fusion model ??)
NASA say HERE
Could our failing Sun be causing the failing / shifting magnetic field of the Earth ?
The World Magnetic Model
Magnetic Field Updates video clip
Whacha recon Tom ... just a coincidence ???
Then there is this from our ELECTRIC SUN...
Voyager 1 Experiences Three "Tsunami Waves" in Interstellar Space
NASA Voyager: 'Tsunami Wave' Still Flies Through Interstellar Space
Electric Comets need an Electric Sun
But our Sun is entering a Grand Solar Minimum (how does that square with the fusion model ??)
NASA say HERE
Could our failing Sun be causing the failing / shifting magnetic field of the Earth ?
The World Magnetic Model
Magnetic Field Updates video clip
Whacha recon Tom ... just a coincidence ???
Then there is this from our ELECTRIC SUN...
Voyager 1 Experiences Three "Tsunami Waves" in Interstellar Space
NASA Voyager: 'Tsunami Wave' Still Flies Through Interstellar Space
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
It's amazing how all this has still nothing to do with an electric universe.
tusenfem
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 3,306
I almost felt sorry for haig when we were so "harsh" to him.
Well, that evaporated quickly enough, now he comes with a bizillion quotes again, telling Tom he does not know the history of "electromagnetic space science" and then comes with quotes from the late 1800s when the term "electrical" meant basically everything, from electricity to light.
That from a self-proclaimed physics an-alphabetical.
But hey, real science is not done by youtube, so I guess haig will never learn anything except for thunderdolts stuff, coz dey got boobtube, ahsoohm!
Well, that evaporated quickly enough, now he comes with a bizillion quotes again, telling Tom he does not know the history of "electromagnetic space science" and then comes with quotes from the late 1800s when the term "electrical" meant basically everything, from electricity to light.
That from a self-proclaimed physics an-alphabetical.
But hey, real science is not done by youtube, so I guess haig will never learn anything except for thunderdolts stuff, coz dey got boobtube, ahsoohm!
Good morning, paladin17.
Combining several of your posts from yesterday:
On the one hand, if you could make a robust case that there is a substantial, sustained electric current associated with the solar wind, over a region of the solar system many au in its characteristic dimension, dreaming of a free return first class ticket to Stockholm would not be entirely unreasonable.
On the other hand, so far you seem to presented nothing more than some ill-formed ideas, based on an apparent misunderstanding of the basics.
While scientific fame and fortune may not be much of a motivator to you, perhaps the intellectual challenge might?
Do you think you could at least sketch an outline of a research program that might result in making a robust case for the existence of a substantial, sustained 'solar wind' electric current? A case that is based on a combination of accepted theories of electricity and relevant observational data?
Combining several of your posts from yesterday:
I'm not sure if you realize just how strange and potentially awesome your claims are, paladin17.
On the one hand, if you could make a robust case that there is a substantial, sustained electric current associated with the solar wind, over a region of the solar system many au in its characteristic dimension, dreaming of a free return first class ticket to Stockholm would not be entirely unreasonable.
On the other hand, so far you seem to presented nothing more than some ill-formed ideas, based on an apparent misunderstanding of the basics.
While scientific fame and fortune may not be much of a motivator to you, perhaps the intellectual challenge might?
Do you think you could at least sketch an outline of a research program that might result in making a robust case for the existence of a substantial, sustained 'solar wind' electric current? A case that is based on a combination of accepted theories of electricity and relevant observational data?
Sure it is tusenfem
Your European Space Agency is right into youtube Ambition the film
A bit too much on the creationist side for me
but hey! that's where mainstream science is NOW with the magical black stuff and big bang creation
Good morning, Sol88. This is the second part of my two-part response to your post; the first part is here.
I think a very good place to start having a deep discussion of the ech might be Tom Bridgman's Challenges for Electric Universe 'Theorists'..., in particular his Electric Comets: Failures of the Electric Comet Model. In his blog posts, Tom asks many questions about the ech (or as he calls it, "the Electric Comet Model", which was the name David Talbott used too, until quite recently), yet there has been little discussion of them here in this thread. Why don't you kick off such a discussion?
Another would be to try to work out how David Talbott arrived at the predictions he published in this thread (here), in an objective and independently verifiable manner (I asked him how to do this in this post, but he has yet to respond). Some are easy - a prediction that 67P will be "dry" follows from one of the two core assumptions in the ech (namely, that comets are homogeneous rock) - but most are not (e.g. "visible electrical erosion of the surface in the fashion of electrical etching of surface materials and electric discharge machining (edm)"). As none of this necessarily involves numbers, math(s), equations, etc, it might be easier for you to work on.
Quite recently Haig posted material about Comet Holmes 17P, including a couple of rather vague quotes from Thornhill with what might be the basis of an account of observed phenomena using the ech. I asked Haig about this, here, but he has yet to respond. I think someone with as good an understanding of the ech as you should have no difficulty discussing this; why not give it a go?
Here's a post by you, Sol88, from just a few days ago:
And then there are the long lists of unanswered questions, based on your own posts, which Reality Check has compiled. Of course, not every one of his questions are directly relevant to the ech, but an awful lot are, so why not pick a good one and have a go at answering it?
In summary, I think there is a huge range of things we could discuss, on the ech. As you seem so taken with it, why don't you take the lead on such a discussion?
In this post I'd like to present you some suggestions. Suggestions on what sorts of things I think would be "discussion of the ech", things "relevent [sic] to the EC idea". I will not attempt to be comprehensive, and my suggestions will not attempt to cover the full range. Also, I will not cover paladin17's peci.So no bearing on the Electric Comet then Jean Tate??? Mmmm.....you come across as though most EC proponents have got two heads.JeanTate said:
and while the mainstream acknowledge Dusty Plasmas why would they not take the next logical step??
and
Everytime someone from the EC side brings up something relevent to the EC idea, we are accused of not staying focused...
My prediction....this weeks AGU meeting is gunna cause a stir and we'll have so much more "New" material to play some forum tennis with, it's goning to be fun.
I also predict, the standard mainstream model for comets and solar system formation are going to called into question.
I think a very good place to start having a deep discussion of the ech might be Tom Bridgman's Challenges for Electric Universe 'Theorists'..., in particular his Electric Comets: Failures of the Electric Comet Model. In his blog posts, Tom asks many questions about the ech (or as he calls it, "the Electric Comet Model", which was the name David Talbott used too, until quite recently), yet there has been little discussion of them here in this thread. Why don't you kick off such a discussion?
Another would be to try to work out how David Talbott arrived at the predictions he published in this thread (here), in an objective and independently verifiable manner (I asked him how to do this in this post, but he has yet to respond). Some are easy - a prediction that 67P will be "dry" follows from one of the two core assumptions in the ech (namely, that comets are homogeneous rock) - but most are not (e.g. "visible electrical erosion of the surface in the fashion of electrical etching of surface materials and electric discharge machining (edm)"). As none of this necessarily involves numbers, math(s), equations, etc, it might be easier for you to work on.
Quite recently Haig posted material about Comet Holmes 17P, including a couple of rather vague quotes from Thornhill with what might be the basis of an account of observed phenomena using the ech. I asked Haig about this, here, but he has yet to respond. I think someone with as good an understanding of the ech as you should have no difficulty discussing this; why not give it a go?
Here's a post by you, Sol88, from just a few days ago:
Instead of asking tusenfem about this, why not post your own analysis, from the perspective of the ech? And then invite other ISF members to discuss it?
And then there are the long lists of unanswered questions, based on your own posts, which Reality Check has compiled. Of course, not every one of his questions are directly relevant to the ech, but an awful lot are, so why not pick a good one and have a go at answering it?
In summary, I think there is a huge range of things we could discuss, on the ech. As you seem so taken with it, why don't you take the lead on such a discussion?
Jrrarglblarg
Unregistered
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12,673
Sure it is tusenfem
Your European Space Agency is right into youtube Ambition the film
A bit too much on the creationist side for me
but hey! that's where mainstream science is NOW with the magical black stuff and big bang creation
Lol. Your answer to "science is not done by YouTube" is to present a piece of promotional artfilm? I begin to understand your difficulty - you don't know what science actually looks like.
Really!
And the magical black stuff and big bang creation ?
Are those artistic too ?
Jrrarglblarg
Unregistered
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12,673
Really!
And the magical black stuff and big bang creation ?
Are those artistic too ?
You really are incapable of responding intelligently, aren't you?
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
- Status