The Electric Comet theory

[Sol88]

Missed you ignoring this, Sol88 so:
17 December 2014 Sol88: Do you understand how bad it is to change someone's quote to something that they would never say?

Yeah it's nearly as bad as wasting billions of dollars chasing ICE on comets

 

[tusenfem]

And this mechanism can not work on a comet because.....

LINK

Nobody says that it cannot work, everybody is saying that the production rate is 1.000.000 (i.e. one million) times too low for even in the early stages of 67P/CG when it was emitting half a liter of water per second.

So, if you do not agree, please show us the electric estimates for the water production (which you will not do).

 

[tusenfem]

To help a bit, here are the links:

H. Benioff. The Present Status of the Electrical Theory of Comet Forms. Proceedings of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 36:200–203, August 1924.
Benioff gets a value for solar charge over 100x larger than that estimated by other methods, which reveals a consistency problem.

Benioff - pdf document thanks to ADS

N. T. Bobrovnikoff. The Present State of the Theory of Comets. Proceedings of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 40:164–190, June 1928. doi: 10.1086/123823.
"As for the rival explanations of the physical properties of comets only the electrostatical theory will .be mentioned here. It was developed largely by Zöllner in his book Uber die Natur der Cometen, 1872, and persisted until quite recent time. It is dearly unsatisfactory as it leads to an impossible electrostatic charge of the Sun and also in view of the presence of the non-polar molecules, like CN, in abundance in the cometary heads."

Bobrovnikoff - pdf document thanks to ADS

 

[tusenfem]

They wont release them????????? There just pictures right?

Why not release them to the public???

are they scared?

No, they are not "just pictures" they are actually scientific data for which a large team worked for over 20 years (planning and flying there) to obtain these data.

Although it cannot be expected of you to understand that one can do actual science with these images (taken in different wavelenghts, with different resolution, etc.), this is a big thing for the OSIRIS team. It is their instrument, they have the right to work on the data first, albeit only 6 months. It has happened before, that images were released early and some other team grabbed them and made a first publication. That is not fair towards the Priciple Investigator (PI) team.

So just hold your horses and wait a bit, there will probably another press release and the most papers for the special Science issue have already been accepted for publication.

Talking about publications, though, I still have not seen anything quantitative from the EC bunch presented. Are the scared or something?

 

[tusenfem]

Yeah it's nearly as bad as wasting billions of dollars chasing ICE on comets

Yeah, that would be bad, fortunately its 1.4 billion euro (much prettier than dollahs), and if you think that the Rosetta mission is about chasing ice on comets, than you are even more delusional than I thought you were.

 

[Haig]

To help a bit, here are the links:



Benioff - pdf document thanks to ADS



Bobrovnikoff - pdf document thanks to ADS

Thanks but isn't there anything a little more current on-line

Mainstream really have gone off the tracks since those days ... anyone for a Dirty Snowball or Snowy Dirtball comet

 

[Haig]

So as we wait for the latest drip feed of information on Electric Comet 67P from ESA Rosetta Team

David Talbott made these predictions ...

... But hold on. Now we see a claimed "announcement" of water on the surface. Therefore, before I have a chance to change my own prediction of NO WATER ICE ON THE SURFACE (beyond a trivial frost as on Tempel 1), 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.

• likelihood of a hot and dry surface ("hot," as in the familiar lexicon of comet science)
• no layers's of ice exposed beneath the surface, despite the requirements of standard theory
• no ice at the source of jets, not even where the most energetic jets are active
• electric discharge as the essential contributor to the comet's increasing activity
• abundance of unexplained rocky debris on the surface, as seen on asteroids, including sharp edged boulders exhibiting no ices.
• 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
• focused glow discharge enigmatically moving across the surface during the course of the Rosetta observations
• useful comparisons of this activity to the moving electrified plumes of Jupiter's moon Io and Saturn's moon Enceladus
• electric fields configuring and reconfiguring layers of dust on the surface, despite the absence of an atmosphere
• removal of “astonishing,” complex crystalline molecules from the surface, with comparisons to materials on planets and moons, likely including Mars or Earth, or both.
• no appreciable “stardust,” the long-presumed primeval matter of comets
• no support for the long-presumed "compositional zoning" in textbook solar system history and comet theory
• useful comparison of dust configurations on the surface to formations seen in laboratory experiments with electric fields acting on layers of dust
• x-ray and ultraviolet emissions exceeding any scientific predictions just 20 years ago
• evidence for electrochemical production of hydroxyl and/or water by electrical action on surface silicates and clays
• evidence for production of water and/or hydroxyl by electrical activity in the coma
• unexpected negative ions close to the nucleus
• improbable hydrogen cloud gathered and held in place at the outer regions of the coma
• additional electrochemical transactions in the coma adding to diverse chemistry, ranging from CO2 to methane, alcohol, cyanide, and more
• relationship of comet flaring to arrival of charged particles from solar outbursts

Add the POSSIBILITY of a break-up of the nucleus in response to a solar outburst, though that’s not something I'd hang a hat on.

David Talbott

 

[Haig]

The Thunderbolts Team have made a lot of successful predictions, always a good sign for a correct hypothesis, starting here with Electric Comets.

predictions confirmed

In science one of the best markers for the accuracy of a model or theory is how well it predicts outcomes. This applies not only to future events but can also be applied to existing data. Below is a collection of predictions based on Electric Universe principles, which have been confirmed by observations and data. The link above provides a list of pending predictions.

At present this list concentrates on those things predicted before the event, but will be expanded in the future to cover many facets of modern astrophysics and cosmology.

 

[Ziggurat]

predictions confirmed

Many of those confirmations are laughable. And rather tellingly, not a single prediction was quantitative.

My favorite bit was about how ice melting in the sun will have smooth edges. Clue for the clueless: ice won't melt under conditions on a comet.

 

[Haig]

Many of those confirmations are laughable. And rather tellingly, not a single prediction was quantitative.

My favorite bit was about how ice melting in the sun will have smooth edges. Clue for the clueless: ice won't melt under conditions on a comet.

So where is the list of successful predictions for mainstreams comet model hypothesis ????

edit:
I was going to also ask for the mainstream list of unsuccessful predictions for their comet model hypothesis ...

... but that list would take up way way way too much space here

edit 2
I see the EU / PC hypothesis is getting closer to home ALL the time

Gamma-ray bursts 'common in storms'

They have discovered that gamma-ray bursts - the most powerful explosions of energy in the Universe - are far more common on Earth than was thought.

"The X-rays coming from the lightning could act as the seed for the terrestrial gamma ray flashes," added Prof Dwyer.

 

[Ziggurat]

So where is the list of successful predictions for mainstreams comet model hypothesis ????

OK, I'll start with two obvious ones. First, their orbits have been correctly predicted. Second, the fact that the coma points away from the sun is also a successful prediction of the mainstream model. The electric model should have the coma pointing towards the sun.

ETA: and still no word on anything quantitative from you folks.

 

[Haig]

OK, I'll start with two obvious ones. First, their orbits have been correctly predicted.

It's a stable solar system ( just now ) but when the plasma sheath of a Electric Comet comes in contact with the plasma sheath of another solar system charged body then we have an electromagnectc event similar to the tiny EC Siding Spring and Mars.

btw have you done the calculation for the energy involve in that yet ? it's been a while since I asked you

Second, the fact that the coma points away from the sun is also a successful prediction of the mainstream model. The electric model should have the coma pointing towards the sun.

Nope, never read that straw man in Electric Comet hypothesis.

You got a source for that claim ?

ETA: and still no word on anything quantitative from you folks.

Cart before the horse

It's ALL about Evidence

Misconception: If you’re not doing math, you’re not doing real science.

 

[Belz...]

It's a stable solar system ( just now ) but when the plasma sheath of a Electric Comet comes in contact with the plasma sheath of another solar system charged body then we have an electromagnectc event similar to the tiny EC Siding Spring and Mars.

Are we ever going to get some hard evidence that any of those spatial bodies are charged ?

Also, could you explain HOW they become charged ?

 

[Haig]

Are we ever going to get some hard evidence that any of those spatial bodies are charged ?

Also, could you explain HOW they become charged ?

I'm still in a huff with you ... but just this once

Charged Planets

and

Newton’s Electric Clockwork Solar System

 

[Ziggurat]

It's a stable solar system ( just now )

Actually, no, the comet orbits are not all stable.

but when the plasma sheath of a Electric Comet comes in contact with the plasma sheath of another solar system charged body then we have an electromagnectc event similar to the tiny EC Siding Spring and Mars.

Yeah, um... it's not electrical interactions which are going to determine the orbital effects of that encounter.

btw have you done the calculation for the energy involve in that yet ? it's been a while since I asked you

I did that pages ago. Really, do keep up.

Nope, never read that straw man in Electric Comet hypothesis.

Of course not. They would never point out the obvious flaw in their delusions.

You got a source for that claim ?

Yes: basic electromagnetism. When you've got two oppositely charged bodies, any electric discharge between them will try to take the shortest path. Which, in this case, would be between the comet and the sun, not on the back side of the comet.

It's ALL about Evidence

Not for you.

Misconception: If you’re not doing math, you’re not doing real science.

More lame excuses for their perpetual failure to quantify anything.

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning, Sol88.

@ Jean Tate

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?

Ok, will you, Jean Tate, engage with me on the location of the "jets"?

Sure, that sounds like an interesting topic.

Anywhoo lets have a crack at it ay!

OK. I'll start by collecting everything in your post that is related to "jets" and the ech (that included, obviously, their location).

Hmm, not quite what I was expecting.

So, what was I expecting?

At least something like this:

In the ech, comets are composed of rock, and have a homogeneous structure. Ices - the solid forms of water, carbon dioxide, etc - form as a result of electrical discharges (including arcs) in which oxygen, carbon, sulfur, etc is liberated from rock minerals and combines with protons from the solar wind. Thus there will be "no ice at the source of jets, not even where the most energetic jets are active" (source)

Instead of something like this, what did you post?

Let's see ...

Firstly mainstreams explanation:

Formation of jets in Comet 19P/Borrelly by subsurface geysers

Abstract
Observations of the inner coma of Comet 19P/Borrelly with the camera on the Deep Space 1 spacecraft revealed several highly collimated
dust jets emanating from the nucleus. The observed jets can be produced by acceleration of evolved gas from a subsurface cavity through
a narrow orifice to the surface. As long as the cavity is larger than the orifice, the pressure in the cavity will be greater than the ambient
pressure in the coma and the flow from the geyser will be supersonic. The gas flow becomes collimated as the sound speed is approached and
dust entrainment in the gas flow creates the observed jets. Outside the cavity, the expanding gas loses its collimated character, but the density
drops rapidly decoupling the dust and gas, allowing the dust to continue in a collimated beam. The hypothesis proposed here can explain the
jets seen in the inner coma of Comet 1P/Halley as well, and may be a primary mechanism for cometary activity.

2003 Published by Elsevier Inc

So YOU need subsurface cavities and a narrow orifice. This is the ONLY mechanism available to standard mainstream understanding of jet production on a comet.

Now when we have a look with the OSIRIS camera aboard Rosetta we only see a smooth dust covered plain with a few boulders strewn across. We have not yet seen any kind of orifice. in fact the jets only seem visible when 67P rotates and they become visible on the limb.

BUT when traced to their source we see ONLY A DUST COVERED PLAIN.

JEAN TATE, where are the orifices for YOUR jet production?


Because 67P is becoming more active, jets are also starting to emanate from ALL over the comet

Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko is beginning to show a clearly visible increase in activity. While in the past months most of the dust emitted from the body’s surface seemed to originate from the neck region, which connects the two lobes, images obtained by Rosetta’s scientific imaging system OSIRIS now show jets of dust along almost the whole extent of the comet

further

Since under normal circumstances the comet’s nucleus would outshine the jets, the necessary images must be drastically overexposed. “In addition, one image alone cannot tell us the whole story,” said Sierks. “From one image, we cannot discern exactly where on the surface a jet arises.” Instead, the researchers compare images of the same region taken from different angles in order to reconstruct the 3-D structure of the jets.

and just to make the point non negotiable LINK

What does that have to do with the ech?

On the one hand, you explicitly stated it was (your summary of) "mainstreams [sic] explanation"; on the other, you presented nothing on the ech.

Sounds rather like this, eh? "you [...] seem to spend most of your words on asking/demanding/insisting on/etc "mainstream" explanations for comet phenomena apparently picked at random [...], or claiming/screaming/etc that some (cherry picked?) phenomenon/event/data is inconsistent with "mainstream" theory/models/explanations/etc." (source)

Have a go at that for starters Jean Tate, just to keep the discussion focused on the Electric Comet Theory.

<snip>

Well, yes, that's what I'm trying to do.

So, can we have a discussion of the ech, please?

You started this thread, explicitly on "The Electric Comet theory". Yet in this post of yours (the one I'm quoting) you said nothing about the ech at all.

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

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning again, Sol88.

Question Sol88: Where are the images of electrical discharges on 67P

In the OSIRIS images, Reality Check.

<snip>

Can you provide some references for this please?

 

[Ziggurat]

Newton’s Electric Clockwork Solar System

Their proposed "mass reduction" mechanism is delusional. They appeal to the Juergens model, which is absurdly wrong (as I have already proven). They claim that they "solved" the pioneer anomaly, but provide not one single number to back up that assertion. We only know about the anomaly in the first place because of high accuracy calculations and measurements. If your "solution" doesn't match the quantitative measured anomaly, it's no solution at all. It's simply delusional to think that a vague notion constitutes a solution.

In other words, you're still flailing around with your usual ignorant nonsense.

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning Haig.

So as we wait for the latest drip feed of information on Electric Comet 67P from ESA Rosetta Team

David Talbott made these predictions ...

... But hold on. Now we see a claimed "announcement" of water on the surface. Therefore, before I have a chance to change my own prediction of NO WATER ICE ON THE SURFACE (beyond a trivial frost as on Tempel 1), 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.

• likelihood of a hot and dry surface ("hot," as in the familiar lexicon of comet science)
• no layers's of ice exposed beneath the surface, despite the requirements of standard theory
• no ice at the source of jets, not even where the most energetic jets are active
• electric discharge as the essential contributor to the comet's increasing activity
• abundance of unexplained rocky debris on the surface, as seen on asteroids, including sharp edged boulders exhibiting no ices.
• 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
• focused glow discharge enigmatically moving across the surface during the course of the Rosetta observations
• useful comparisons of this activity to the moving electrified plumes of Jupiter's moon Io and Saturn's moon Enceladus
• electric fields configuring and reconfiguring layers of dust on the surface, despite the absence of an atmosphere
• removal of “astonishing,” complex crystalline molecules from the surface, with comparisons to materials on planets and moons, likely including Mars or Earth, or both.
• no appreciable “stardust,” the long-presumed primeval matter of comets
• no support for the long-presumed "compositional zoning" in textbook solar system history and comet theory
• useful comparison of dust configurations on the surface to formations seen in laboratory experiments with electric fields acting on layers of dust
• x-ray and ultraviolet emissions exceeding any scientific predictions just 20 years ago
• evidence for electrochemical production of hydroxyl and/or water by electrical action on surface silicates and clays
• evidence for production of water and/or hydroxyl by electrical activity in the coma
• unexpected negative ions close to the nucleus
• improbable hydrogen cloud gathered and held in place at the outer regions of the coma
• additional electrochemical transactions in the coma adding to diverse chemistry, ranging from CO2 to methane, alcohol, cyanide, and more
• relationship of comet flaring to arrival of charged particles from solar outbursts

Add the POSSIBILITY of a break-up of the nucleus in response to a solar outburst, though that’s not something I'd hang a hat on.

David Talbott

Yes, he did.

Unfortunately, you omitted the reference. He made those predictions in a post in this thread, #2441

You also omitted to mention that he has failed - so far - to respond to questions about many of these; specifically, he has failed to show how he derived them from the ech (I asked him here; others also asked him about the predictions and he has failed - so far - to respond to them either).

But since you have posted them, perhaps you can answer some questions about them, right?

Here are just three to get you started:

* how can you derive "likelihood of a hot surface" from the ech, Haig?

* how does "visible electrical erosion of the surface in the fashion of electrical etching of surface materials and electric discharge machining (edm)" follow from the ech, Haig?

* Haig, using the ech, can you please derive this: "improbable hydrogen cloud gathered and held in place at the outer regions of the coma"?

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning again, Haig.

The Thunderbolts Team have made a lot of successful predictions, always a good sign for a correct hypothesis, starting here with Electric Comets.

predictions confirmed

In science one of the best markers for the accuracy of a model or theory is how well it predicts outcomes. This applies not only to future events but can also be applied to existing data. Below is a collection of predictions based on Electric Universe principles, which have been confirmed by observations and data. The link above provides a list of pending predictions.

At present this list concentrates on those things predicted before the event, but will be expanded in the future to cover many facets of modern astrophysics and cosmology.

Thanks for this.

As you posted it, I guess you are quite familiar with it, right?

And so you'd welcome questions about it, right?

OK, so my main question is one that applies to all these 'predictions': how did Thornhill et al. derive them from the ech?

By that I mean, starting with the ech's core assumptions (symmetric electric field centered on the Sun, comets composed of homogeneous rock) how can you proceed - logically, step-by-step, objectively - to the conclusions (e.g. "The [ech] predicts a sculpted surface, distinguished by sharply defined craters, valleys, mesas, and ridges")?

For sure, some predictions are obvious, given the ech assumptions (e.g. "An abundance of water on or below the surface of the nucleus [...] is unlikely." - actually it should be "is impossible"; in the ech, comets are 'rock').