The Electric Comet theory

Status
Not open for further replies.
The science sources are given ....... you just have to look at them and make your own mind up.

I unfortunately can't remember who wrote this or where it was written, but I remember reading a physicist or astronomer writing something like this (paraphrased from memory):

When I read Worlds in Collision, I thought the physics were rubbish but that the archaeology/anthropology was interesting. That was, until I met a archaeologist/anthropologist who said "The archaeology/anthropology was rubbish, but the physics was interesting.

Even if I go and check every one of the references in Earth in Upheaval, I don't have the background necessary to evaluate if Velikovsky's interpretations are reasonable or not. I did have enough background in physics that when I read Worlds in Collision it caused me to mentally face-palm multiple times about the physics portions of his ideas.
 
I unfortunately can't remember who wrote this or where it was written, but I remember reading a physicist or astronomer writing something like this (paraphrased from memory):



Even if I go and check every one of the references in Earth in Upheaval, I don't have the background necessary to evaluate if Velikovsky's interpretations are reasonable or not. I did have enough background in physics that when I read Worlds in Collision it caused me to mentally face-palm multiple times about the physics portions of his ideas.

I understand.

Back to the Electric Comet and Electric Sun


Given the obvious electrical effects of charged bodies (some examples below of Mars and Earth but it applies to ALL such bodies in our solar system) inside their plasma sheaths moving inside the plasma sheath of our Electric Sun.

Are the "Jets" of a comet nucleus not a similar electrical effect ?

As Electric Comet 67P becomes more active in It's plasma sheath in the strengthening electric field of our star the closer 67P gets it should show the "Jets" as electric in nature and NOT emanating from orifices in subsurface chambers as ices sublimate per the mainstream belief.

Very interesting times indeed. :)

Evidence for solar wind modulation of lightning http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/5/055004/article

The dust devil and the details: Spinning up a storm on Mars http://www.uah.edu/news/research/dust-devil-and-the-details-spinning-up-a-storm-on-mars

Gamma-ray flashes from lightning are both more complex, common http://www.uah.edu/news/research/gamma-ray-flashes-from-lightning-are-both-more-complex-common

Gamma-ray bursts 'common in storms' on Earth http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30491840

NASA's Fermi Catches Thunderstorms Hurling Antimatter into Space www.nasa.gov

The Devils of Mars http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/14jul_dustdevils/

The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms http://charles-chandler.org/Geophysics/Tornadoes.php?text=full&images=onDemand&units=metric#id_7

Electric Field Intensity At The Ground Under Active Thunderstorms And Tornadoes http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469(1956)013<0269:EFIATG>2.0.CO;2

Electric Currents Accompanying Tornado Activity www.sciencemag.org


Expect more confirmations of the EU / PC view.
Electric Devils https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2014/03/26/electric-devils-3/

Electric Dust Devils http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric-dust-devils/
In the electrical model of the solar system, all planets must contrive to supply electrons to the positively charged Sun. Mercury probably does it in a similar way to our Moon, through photoelectric and cold-cathode emission. Occasionally the emission may be strong enough at certain ‘hot spots’ to cause the anomalous glows seen on the Moon. The next planet from the Sun, Venus, has an ionosphere entwined in current ‘ropes’ from the solar wind. It causes powerful ‘super bolts’ of lightning to fly between the planet’s ionosphere and the surface. It seems the electric field at Venus’ hot surface is so strong that above a certain altitude the atmosphere hugging the surface glows with a surface discharge known as St. Elmo’s fire. Being dense plasma it reflected the radar signal from the Magellan Orbiter as if the mountains of Venus were plated with metal, much to the puzzlement of planetary scientists.

On Earth we have water clouds to charge up between the ionosphere and the Earth and spare us the super bolts of Venus. Although there are rare reports of ‘bolts from the blue,’ the Earth contrives to discharge in two stages, by lightning from ground to cloud and by glowing jets from the cloud to the ionosphere. The latter stage has only recently been recognized and the flashes given whimsical names like ‘sprites,’ ‘elves’ and ‘gnomes,’ which probably reflects the scientists’ disbelief before they were finally acknowledged. On rare occasions, a powerful lightning bolt strikes directly from the cloud tops to Earth. Such super bolts rip electrons violently from the earth and may form small-scale furrows like those seen on all other solid bodies in the solar system.
 

It's busy! We build telescopes and space probes to collect data, we study laboratory plasmas, and we apply the known laws of physics with increasing levels of detail using supercomputers. All of this is used to test old theories, discard the bad ones, and come up with ideas for new ones.

Velikovsky's and Talbott's and late-Alfven's theories were rejected by the scientific method. They are incorrect theories which make huge numbers of wrong predictions. (You personally don't understand the falsifications? I don't see why that is anyone's fault but your own.)
 
It's busy! We build telescopes and space probes to collect data, we study laboratory plasmas, and we apply the known laws of physics with increasing levels of detail using supercomputers. All of this is used to test old theories, discard the bad ones, and come up with ideas for new ones.

Velikovsky's and Talbott's and late-Alfven's theories were rejected by the scientific method. They are incorrect theories which make huge numbers of wrong predictions. (You personally don't understand the falsifications? I don't see why that is anyone's fault but your own.)

That sounds very like a "gatekeepers" type of argument defending the dogma of the day ?
 
That sounds very like a "gatekeepers" type of argument defending the dogma of the day ?

Every wrong theory can make the same "complaint". Is flat-earth theory wrong, or did round-earthers become the gatekeepers? Is miasma-theory wrong, or did germ-theory-of-disease become gatekeepers?

Anyway, that's not what I said. You asked where scientific method is, and I answered your question. Working scientists, using scientific method, are looking at comets and trying to find the best description of them. I don't think you even know what their methods are, though, much less that you have a coherent critique of what they're doing other than "I wanted a different answer".
 
It looks like you really want to trash the electric comet idea by citing some ignorant and deluded web sites, Haig :p!

We have
* an idea needs a fantasy that needs a delusion :D!
* not even exists plasma cosmology.
* electric comets idea based on a delusion about comets being rocks : Electric comets still do not exist :eek:!
* insanely ignorant delusion that gravity is electrical!
* the dumb act of cherry picking ancient art and thinking that it is aurora.
* that is repeated in a YouTube video!
* etc.
 
Last edited:
That sounds very like a "gatekeepers" type of argument defending the dogma of the day ?

And this sounds very like the anti intellectual intuition-beats-evidence mindset that rejects all existing knowledge that contradicts a hairbrained notion and cherry picks the rest for "evidence." I encountered this extensively at Icke forum.
 
Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the density of comets

Now we can really start talking about the difference in models, mainstream and the ELECTRIC COMET.
Wrong, Sol88: For the last 5 years we have been talking about the ELECTRIC COMET and seeing how bad it is :jaw-dropp !
This is the difference in models, mainstream and the ELECTRIC COMET: The ELECTRIC COMET model does not exist :eek:!

The idiocy of thinking that any problems with the mainstream model is support for the already invalid electric connect idea should be obvious to you, Sol88 .

So let us go back to the beginning 5 years ago :p.
Electric comets still do not exist :eye-poppi!
  1. Comets have measured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).
  2. Comets may not have the composition of asteroids
  3. Deep Impact confirmed that comet nuclei are made of dust and ice not rock. There were a couple of surprises in that the dust was talcum powder rather than sand and the amount of ice was smaller than expected.
    "Analysis of data from the Swift X-ray telescope showed that the comet continued outgassing from the impact for 13 days, with a peak five days after impact. A total of 5 million kilograms (11 million pounds) of water[35] and between 10 and 25 million kilograms (22 and 55 million pounds) of dust were lost from the impact."WP
    Thus the water content of Comet Tempel 1 is 20% to 50%.
  4. Cometary dust as collected by the Stardust mission contain forms of carbon that are not in meteorites.
  5. Electric Comets I
  6. Electric Comets II: References
  7. Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (actually no EU X-ray bursts).
  8. The EC assumption of EDM machining does not produce jets.
  9. EDM in the EC idea needs a dielectric material which does not exist!
  10. No EDM sparks are seen in images of comet nuclei.
  11. No EDM hot spots are seen in thermal maps of Tempel 1.
  12. Voltage potentials are many orders of magnitude too small.
  13. EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets
  14. Water, water everywhere (except in the EC idea)
  15. EC proponents have the delusion that argument by YouTube video is somehow scientific :eek:!
  16. EC proponents may think that EC comets switch off at perihelion?
  17. EC proponents trust a web site that lies to its readers about "confirmed" predictions: The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions. [/URL
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6599318#post6599318


From [URL="http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10378330#post10378330"]Sol88: List of outstanding questions

17 November 2014 Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the density of comets
 
Given that ...
this wall of text ends with the delusions of Velikovsky, why do you think it belongs in a science thread, Haig :p?
That makes it sound like It's ALL about Delusions of cranks (then no electric comet maths at all)
 
Last edited:
Every wrong theory can make the same "complaint". Is flat-earth theory wrong, or did round-earthers become the gatekeepers? Is miasma-theory wrong, or did germ-theory-of-disease become gatekeepers?

Anyway, that's not what I said. You asked where scientific method is, and I answered your question. Working scientists, using scientific method, are looking at comets and trying to find the best description of them. I don't think you even know what their methods are, though, much less that you have a coherent critique of what they're doing other than "I wanted a different answer".

The irony is Electric Comets and Electric Sun should be the "in" thing.

From the microcosm to the macrocosm everything is electric, the more we look the more we see electricity.

Where would we be without electricity ? It's used everywhere in modern life and in modern science. Right ?

But electric comets reacting with an electric sun .... that's just crazy :D
 
Haig: List of outstanding questions

That line of mine you quote ...
The problem is that there is no valid science in Velikovsky's book "Earth in Upheaval" (1956) - just his fantasies about planets whizzing around to Solar System to fit cherry picked myths. Citing a crank book just makes Electric comets still do not exist :eek:! into a worse idea.

P.S.
  1. Haig (30th June 2014): Why do EU supporters continue to claim that astronomers ignore E fields, etc.?
  2. Haig (3 November 2014) supplied another example of this ignorance by a EU supporter posting on the Thunderbolts forum.
  3. Haig (7th July 2014), is 3.0 different from 0.6?
  4. Haig (7th July 2014), if you want to see many cases of delusional thinking and ignorance from an EU "expert" often citing other EU "experts" then have a look at the Thunderbolts picture of the day blog!
  5. Haig (14th July 2014), How can you believe in the competence of the EU proponents when the speakers at their 2014 conference was a collection of cranks, actual deluded people and some electrical engineers? (the deluded people were the Velikovsky belivers: David Talbott, Daniel Jencka, Dwardu Cardona)?
  6. Haig (3 November 2014): What is the density of comet 67P; What is the density of rock? Are they the same?
  7. Plus any scientific answers to the science stated in Electric comets still do not exist!
  8. Haig (3rd November 2014): Have you noted the 19 items of ignorance and delusion in the first 11 minutes (out of 90!) of a Thunderbolt video that you cited?
  9. Haig (4th November 2014): Have you understood that Hyperion is an icy moon, not a rock (so why is it not a comet :) )?
  10. Haig (20th November 2014): Can you understand the ignorance and delusions in that Thunderbolts video about Mars?
  11. 24 November 2014 Haig: Please cite the electric comet predictions for the albedo of comet nuclei (actual numbers not fantasies!)
  12. 24 November 2014 Haig: Can you understand that this ES "paper" is ignorant about and lies about astronomy?
  13. 25 November 2014 Haig: Please cite the electric comet calculations for density of comets, e.g. 67P.
    Start by showing that the electric field of the Sun does not make the real density of comets less than the gravitationally calculated values :eek:
  14. 25 November 2014 Haig: Please cite the electric comet calculations for the production of a coma and jets from 67P at some 250 million miles from the Sun and at a temp of 205-230K (surface) and 30-160k (subsurface).
  15. 25 November 2014 Haig: Please cite the electric comet calculations for the production of organic compounds from 67P at some 250 million miles from the Sun and at a temp of 205-230K (surface) and 30-160k (subsurface).
  16. 4 December 2014 Haig: Present the evidence that our variable Sun has changed 67P activity.
  17. 5 December 2014 Haig: Please quote the section in [URL="http://iopscience.iop.org/0741-3335/41/3A/004"]Magnetic-field-aligned electric fields associated with Debye-scale plasma structures that measures or describes the potential drop between the corona and heliosphere.[/URL]
  18. 5 December 2014 Haig: Please quote the section in [URL="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00793176"]Magnetosphere-ionosphere interactions —near-Earth manifestations of the plasma Universe that measures or describes the potential drop between the corona and heliosphere.[/URL]
  19. 5 December 2014 Haig: Please quote the section in [URL="http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/adminstuff/webpubs/2001_prl_045003.pdf"]Direct Observation of Localized Parallel Electric Fields in a Space Plasma that measures or describes the potential drop between the corona and heliosphere.[/URL]
  20. 5 December 2014 Haig: Can you see the delusions and ignorance in the linked Electric Comet web page?, e.g. "The possibly Velikovskian delusion of "violent electrical interactions of planets and moons""
  21. 8 December 2014 Haig: Do electromagnetic waves contain electric currents (they have magnetic fields!)?
  22. 8 December 2014 Haig: Do electrons have intrinsic angular momentum and thus a magnetic moment without any electric currents?
  23. 12 December 2014 Haig: What is the logical fallacy of false dichotomy?
  24. 16 December 2014 Haig: What is the argument from incredibility or ignorance
  25. 15 December 2014 Haig: Please cite the Electric Comet answer to this Electric Comet behavior by Comet Holmes 17P. I will give you a bit of time before adding it to the debunking of the electric comet idea (item 20?).
  26. 18 December 2014 Haig: Can you grasp the delusional nature of Newton’s Electric Clockwork Solar System by Wal Thornhill?
  27. 19 December 2014 Haig: Please cite the scientific evidence for "an encounter with Mars and Earth"

Or how about the electric comet origin questions:
9 December 2014 David Talbott, Sol88 or Haig: Why are the orbits of comets not traced back to planets or moons?
Note that "wishful thinking about electricity" is not an answer!

9 December 2014 David Talbott, Sol88 or Haig: Why is the total mass of comets greater to or comparable to that of the rocky planets and moons (which still exist!)?

9 December 2014 David Talbott, Sol88 or Haig: What is the physical evidence of appreciable parts of the surfaces of planets and moons being removed in recent (say Neolithic or Early Bronze Age) times?

10 December 2014 David Talbott, Sol88 or Haig: What happened in "early human times" that stopped the creation of comets?

18 December 2014 David Talbott, Sol88 or Haig: Please list the planets and moons that were interacting to create comets.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
Questions about the origin of electric comets

  1. 9 December 2014 David Talbott, Sol88 or Haig: Why are the orbits of comets not traced back to planets or moons?
    Note that "wishful thinking about electricity" is not an answer!
  2. 9 December 2014 David Talbott, Sol88 or Haig: Why is the total mass of comets greater to or comparable to that of the rocky planets and moons (which still exist!)?
  3. 9 December 2014 David Talbott, Sol88 or Haig: What is the physical evidence of appreciable parts of the surfaces of planets and moons being removed in recent (say Neolithic or Early Bronze Age) times?
  4. 10 December 2014 David Talbott, Sol88 or Haig: What happened in "early human times" that stopped the creation of comets?
  5. 18 December 2014 David Talbott, Sol88 or Haig: Please list the planets and moons that were interacting to create comets.

Looking at the list reminded me that part of this origin idea is that comets were not created along with the rest of the Solar System, i.e. that sometime in the past (> 4.6 billion years ago) they began to be created. Thus
22 December 2014 David Talbott, Sol88 or Haig: When did comets start to be created and what caused the creation to start?
IOW: Why could this mysterious "interaction" not happen in the early history of the Solar System?
 
Do you have to post that list several times a day? it's a complete pain!
If you look back, I try to only post it when there are new unanswered questions. That really could be several times a day so blame Sol88 or Haig for supporting an idea so bad it has no answers to anything real :D.
 
Do you have to post that list several times a day? it's a complete pain!

And it fits the "doing the same thing over and over expecting different results"
RC--they are NOT going to answer any of those questions, they are not going to respond.
They are turning your crank, and flooding/spamming is not going to help at all. So knock it off already.
 
You make me out to be a con artist :eek:
Sorry, Haig, but selectively quoting Hannes Alfvén in the context of the electric comet or EU/PC is being a con artist.
Hannes Alfvén was not ignorant about science. He did have legitimate concerns for the 1980's about cosmology and plasma physics. He was mostly wrong. He would have been appalled at the fantasies of the electric comet or EU/PC.

Using the fallacy of argument from authority is trying to fool readers. Luckily this is a skeptics forum so everyone will recognize this specific "con" :p.

What is true is that "Alfven did NOT write about Haig/Sol/Talbott-style crap" because Hannes Alfvén knew basic physics.
Paradigm transition in cosmic plasma physics is standard 1983 plasma physics.
Double layers and circuits in astrophysics is standard 1986 plasma physics.
Cosmology - Myth or science? is an opinion piece from 1984
For the Golden Jubilee of the Indian Academy of Sciences, representing a culture that has investigated cosmology for four millennia.
 
Last edited:
The irony is Electric Comets and Electric Sun should be the "in" thing.

They would have been the "in" thing if the evidence (all or most of it, not a cherry-picked subset, like "ignore high-precision close-up E&M data in favor of 5th-hand guesswork about petroglyphs") had told us so. Evidence points towards true theories and away from false ones. The reason there is no E&M data supporting EC theory is that EC theory is false.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom