The Electric Comet theory

[Jrrarglblarg]

The baseball example was not a metaphor. It was a demonstration that eV is a unit of measure completely different than you think it is. The various measurements of energy that can be converted from one to another are different ways of describing enery for different purpose. The energy of a thrown ball is not "like" eV, it can actually be described in eV, or watts, or foot pounds or grams of TNT.

Voltage potential is not the same. It describes something totally different; related, but not convertable. I keep seeing this kind of superficial understanding in this thread where the ElectricWheverists glom onto a term that is similar to a term for something they think they understand.

Contemplate for a moment the implications of that continued pattern.

 

[Haig]

BTW, there is some genuine interesting plasma physics being done in regards to comets. Here's an example article:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~tamas/TIGpapers/2007/Hansen2007.pdf
Note that, in contrast to the EU folks, this work involves actual quantification, not just handwaving. It's also based on real physics, not EU delusions.

BTW, there is some genuine interesting plasma physics being done in regards to comets. Here's an example article:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~tamas/TIGpapers/2007/Hansen2007.pdf
Note that, in contrast to the EU folks, this work involves actual quantification, not just handwaving. It's also based on real physics, not EU delusions.

So good you said it twice

THE PLASMA ENVIRONMENT OF COMET 67P/CHURYUMOV-GERASIMENKO THROUGHOUT THE ROSETTA MAIN MISSION PDF

Although the two models produce very similar results for the perihelion case, the Hybrid model does capture asymmetries due to particle gyration that cannot be modeled in the MHD framework. The Hybrid model predicts a ion tail that is offset in the +z direction while the MHD model predicts an anti-sunward tail. From these results, it is clear that, for the perihelion case, using the two models together provides a better picture of the solar wind – comet interaction than either model provides individually.

So the mainstream comet hypothesis morphs towards the Electric Comet hypothesis is even more obvious and needed.

However as Hannes Alfvén said HERE PDF you need to take account of electric currents and double layers and the rest of the Second Approach criteria

Once the mainstream comet hypothesis adds electric currents and double layers it will be hard to tell it apart from the original Electric Comet hypothesis.

Alfvén and the Thunderbolts team will be "laughing" as each step brings mainstream inevitability towards the realisation of how important the electric "gas" is in the mix.

Huge electric field found in ice-cold laughing gas

Scientists in Denmark have made a curious and awesome discovery - cooled down, solid laughing gas can contain an enormous electric field.

The discovery occurred when physicists at Aarhus University were observing how electrons travel through nitrous oxide, or 'laughing gas', frozen to minus 233 degrees Celsius. When brought down to this temperature, the gas formed a thin, solid film, about one tenth of a micron thick, hovering over a strip of gold.

It was supposed to be a routine experiment, but the team soon realised something was amiss. A potential of around 14.5 volts appeared spontaneously on the film, which in turn produced an enormous electrical field of more than 100 million volts per metre. Based on widely accepted notions in physics, there should have been no electric current whatsoever.

Exactly why or how it happens remains a bit of a mystery, but the team suspects it has to do with laughing gas being made up of dipolar molecules, which act sort of like magnets. Each one tries to arrange itself so its south pole is facing the north pole of its neighbouring dipole molecule, which will do the same, and so on. This means the molecular structure of laughing gas will end up with slightly more negative charge on one end than on the other.

But when the electric field spontaneously occurs, it does something weird to these individual molecules. They do the opposite of what they’d normally do.

 

[Haig]

Also note that they did not announce "we have found NO ice anywhere on 67P, in direct contradiction to our models". You think if that were the case, it would be newsworthy.

I guess since they didn't say that it is all rock, it must not be true that it is all rock.

Here is the another view from the Thunderbolts team on Electric Comet 67P ... enjoy

Rosetta Mission Update | Oops! No Water on Comet 67P?

The comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko will be in the news for several months. And it has the potential to spark extensive controversy. Issues could range from electric fields in space, to solar system history and the history of earth itself.

Interesting to note NASA has found the heliosphere has a tail just like a comet with lobes of slow and fast moving particles twisting away. Sounds just like Cosmic Birkland Currents just waiting for them to add the electric currents and double layers
NASA’s IBEX Provides First View Of the Solar System’s Tail

NASA’s Interstellar Boundary Explorer, or IBEX, has mapped the boundaries of the tail of the heliosphere, something that has never before been possible. Scientists describe this tail, called the heliotail, in detail in a paper published on July 10, 2013, in The Astrophysical Journal. By combining observations from the first three years of IBEX imagery, the team mapped out a tail that shows a combination of fast and slow moving particles. There are two lobes of slower particles on the sides, faster particles above and below, with the entire structure twisted, as it experiences the pushing and pulling of magnetic fields outside the solar system.

 

[Haig]

Wait, I thought that the Electric Comet hypothesis was the source of cometary water was oxygen released from a rocky body via EDM. Now it's "dusty plasma"?



So, "something involving plasma is going on with the comet" equals "the comet is an electrical phenomena"?

You seem to be a little mixed up.

Here is the latest on Electric Comet 67P that might help you understand.

Rosetta Mission Update | Rubble on 67P Defies Current Comet Theory

Published on 20 Dec 2014
On the surface of today’s most well-studied comet, we see fields of rubble everywhere. From great boulders down to gravel, sand and dust, a surface littered with debris. Why would an evaporating clump of ice and dust look more like the debris-strewn surface of Mars than any comet that scientist ever dared to dream of?

Also interesting to read this on the plasma sheath around Venus.
NASA | The Mysterious Holes in the Atmosphere on Venus

Published on 11 Sep 2014
The European Space Agency's Venus Express mission saw something it could not explain. It appeared that there were holes on the nightside of Venus' ionosphere. Researchers at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center investigated these mysterious holes, and found evidence that the sun's magnetic field lines may be penetrating through the planet.

Those "holes" they found look like the double layers and electric currents Hannes Alfvén was talking about HERE PDF

That comets tail Venus has sure goes a long way back and almost touches the Earth's plasma sheath, wonder what would happen if the sheaths of both planets came in contact ? Maybe they have in the past ?

 

[Haig]

Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon View Post
Given that the Electric Whatever theories explicitly reject the importance of gravity in the universe would it be reasonable to describe them variously as antigravitationalism?

Reposting this because it was buried in Gish gallop. Question still stands.

No they don't, gravity has it's place in the EU / PC view.

Would you describe the mainstream cosmology as magicalantigravitationalism because poor little "ordinary" gravity can't hold things together without help from it's friends the invisible unknowable black holes, dark matter and dark energy ?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Your ElectricWhaterism lacks testabity. EWism postulates that comets and everything else are orbiting due to some unspecified unquantified magical electricalisticalish thingie or other, despite the mathematical consistency, test ability and reliability of gravitational explanations. The tortured "logic" of EWism require you to deny in the face of actual science that comets form a plume of sublumed water and entrained dusts and instead tap dance around drawing Texas Sharpshooter targets around any and every mention in actual science of even vaguely electrical terminology and insist science is "creeping towards" your crackpot hairbrained pseudoscientific "just watch the YouTube" dingbattery.

There is nothing whatever scientific about EWism. It is, in fact, a blind faith belief in the words of your particular scripture.

Mods: can we move this pool pile of a thread to religion, please?

 

[Haig]

Your ElectricWhaterism lacks testabity. EWism postulates that comets and everything else are orbiting due to some unspecified unquantified magical electricalisticalish thingie or other, despite the mathematical consistency, test ability and reliability of gravitational explanations. The tortured "logic" of EWism require you to deny in the face of actual science that comets form a plume of sublumed water and entrained dusts and instead tap dance around drawing Texas Sharpshooter targets around any and every mention in actual science of even vaguely electrical terminology and insist science is "creeping towards" your crackpot hairbrained pseudoscientific "just watch the YouTube" dingbattery.

There is nothing whatever scientific about EWism. It is, in fact, a blind faith belief in the words of your particular scripture.

Mods: can we move this pool pile of a thread to religion, please?

Seems someone is getting nervous what Electric Comet 67P is going to show us next

Those jets are getting stronger The Jets

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Seems someone is getting nervous what Electric Comet 67P is going to show us next

Those jets are getting stronger The Jets

:snorts derisively:

 

[Sol88]

Merry Christmas everyone, I hope you enjoy a day of family, food n fun!!!

 

[W.D.Clinger]

For perspective: On earth, the electrostatic field is about 100 V/m, so the 400 V you've been assuming is present (on average) over a vertical distance of 4 meters.

If the electrostatic phenomena you're discussing aren't terribly important in the far stronger electrostatic field you walk around in, then how could the far weaker field you've been assuming be any more important on comet 67P?

The gravity on 67P is much lower.
The temperature on 67P is much lower.
There is no atmosphere.
There is no magnetosphere.

That's the start of a good answer.

Well-established scientific laws allow us to calculate the consequences of each difference you mention. The third and fourth differences (absence of atmosphere and magnetosphere) simplify those calculations. The second difference (temperature) would have little effect on the phenomena you've been discussing. The effect of the first difference (gravity) is easy to calculate, and I've given you an example of that calculation.

The electric field you've been assuming for the comet is either 1/2500 that of earth (0.04 V/m) or 1/250 (0.4 V/m). The gravity of the comet is about 1/10000 that of earth. Under your assumptions, therefore, for the phenomena you've been discussing, calculation shows the effects would be 10000/2500 = 4 to 10000/250 = 40 times as large on the comet as on earth. The effects are insignificant on earth, and would be almost as insignificant (albeit larger) on the comet.

Due to the aforementioned points (and perhaps a couple of others) it's very likely that the behaviour of charged particles on 67P will be different. At least until nobody has proven that it should stay the same.

Instead of doing the simple calculation, you gave up.

Unlike most who have expressed interest in electric comets, you have shown some willingness to calculate. (In the best example of that, your two calculations are off by an order of magnitude, but those errors canceled out in the end. Besides, anyone can make a mistake.)

Don't give up. Calculate.

 

[paladin17]

The third and fourth differences (absence of atmosphere and magnetosphere) simplify those calculations. The second difference (temperature) would have little effect on the phenomena you've been discussing.

Please expand this a little.
Temperature directly influences thermal energy of the particles (here we have something like three times lower energy, and by the way diurnal cycles are much larger in amplitude) and their distribution by height (Boltzmann's). The lack of atmosphere changes the properties of surface materials (because of the near-zero pressure) and also perhaps the electric properties of the medium (evacuated dust versus air). And the lack of magnetosphere significantly impacts the behaviour of charged particles around the nucleus.
In short, this is a completely different environment. And one can hardly find a lot of similarities with the Earth's.

The effect of the first difference (gravity) is easy to calculate, and I've given you an example of that calculation.

The electric field you've been assuming for the comet is either 1/2500 that of earth (0.04 V/m) or 1/250 (0.4 V/m). The gravity of the comet is about 1/10000 that of earth. Under your assumptions, therefore, for the phenomena you've been discussing, calculation shows the effects would be 10000/2500 = 4 to 10000/250 = 40 times as large on the comet as on earth. The effects are insignificant on earth, and would be almost as insignificant (albeit larger) on the comet.

So what that gives? Only ratio of (E/E)/(g/g)? What this number is supposed to tell us? Why not consider along with it other relevant numbers: like charge/mass for the elementary particles? Or the fraction of charged particles and photons (both from the Sun and the galaxy) that are being blocked by Earth's protective layers? Or the (B/B)/(g/g), for example? (With B being the magnetic field flux density). Or the ratio of centrifugal forces? Etc.

Instead of doing the simple calculation, you gave up.

Unlike most who have expressed interest in electric comets, you have shown some willingness to calculate. (In the best example of that, your two calculations are off by an order of magnitude, but those errors canceled out in the end. Besides, anyone can make a mistake.)

Don't give up. Calculate.

I think one should firstly understand the logic and the laws of what's happening. Calculation in itself gives nothing (as I'm afraid your cloudy E/g ratio has shown).
But please provide an alternative numbers if you've encountered any mistake in mine.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Merry Christmas, paladin17.

The third and fourth differences (absence of atmosphere and magnetosphere) simplify those calculations. The second difference (temperature) would have little effect on the phenomena you've been discussing.

Please expand this a little.
Temperature directly influences thermal energy of the particles (here we have something like three times lower energy, and by the way diurnal cycles are much larger in amplitude) and their distribution by height (Boltzmann's).
The lack of atmosphere changes the properties of surface materials (because of the near-zero pressure) and also perhaps the electric properties of the medium (evacuated dust versus air). And the lack of magnetosphere significantly impacts the behaviour of charged particles around the nucleus.
In short, this is a completely different environment. And one can hardly find a lot of similarities with the Earth's.

As I said, the absence of atmosphere and magnetosphere greatly simplifies the relevant calculations. In particular, the absence of atmosphere means the atmospheric pressure is negligible, so you can assume it's essentially zero without bothering to calculate it using Boltzmann's formula. If you insist upon using Boltzmann's formula, you'll find the low temperature makes atmospheric pressure even more negligible.

So what that gives? Only ratio of (E/E)/(g/g)? What this number is supposed to tell us? Why not consider along with it other relevant numbers: like charge/mass for the elementary particles? Or the fraction of charged particles and photons (both from the Sun and the galaxy) that are being blocked by Earth's protective layers? Or the (B/B)/(g/g), for example? (With B being the magnetic field flux density). Or the ratio of centrifugal forces? Etc.

If you don't understand the relevant physics, then you won't be able to tell whether a calculation is correct or incorrect. My calculation was based upon F=ma and W=Fs. If you do the math, you'll understand why the ratios I used were relevant.

Don't give up. Calculate.

I think one should firstly understand the logic and the laws of what's happening. Calculation in itself gives nothing (as I'm afraid your cloudy E/g ratio has shown).

When you understand the relevant logic and physical laws, then calculation provides insight.

When you don't understand either, you're likely to reject the insight provided by calculations (as I'm afraid your parenthetical remark has shown).

 

[paladin17]

If you don't understand the relevant physics, then you won't be able to tell whether a calculation is correct or incorrect. My calculation was based upon F=ma and W=Fs. If you do the math, you'll understand why the ratios I used were relevant.

When you understand the relevant logic and physical laws, then calculation provides insight.

Your answer was absolutely indisputable and at the same time completely useless.

I remember the joke about Sherlock Holmes and John Watson, where they were flying on a balloon and landed in an unknown place. They've spotted a herdsman nearby. He came closer and Holmes asked: "My dear sir, where are we?"
Herdsman was silent for some time and then answered: "You are in a balloon basket", - and he went to his cows again.
Holmes: "Watson, that was a typical programmer."
Watson: "What makes you think so, Holmes?"
Holmes: "First of all, he took so much time to answer such a simple question. Secondly, his answer was absolutely right. Thirdly, his answer was totally useless."

 

[The Man]

This is a terrific observation and I am very pleased that you keep pointing it in every message as if it was something completely new. And relevant.

As long as you keep asserting 400eV means or implies 400 V the point remains relevant, though it was never something new.

But please give me a good example of another source of energy that can create a monoenergetic beam of electrons. You can choose 1 pitcher as your unit of energy if you like.

"another"? Exactly what "source of energy" and "monoenergetic beam of electrons" are you referring to?

If you are simply looking for other sources of electrons than an applied potential difference then I suggest you familiarize yourself with thermionic emission and the photoelectric effect...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermionic_emission

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect

both widely used in vacuum tubes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_tube


What exactly would be "1 pitcher" as a "unit of energy"?


Merry Christmas everyone.

 

[paladin17]

"another"? Exactly what "source of energy" and "monoenergetic beam of electrons" are you referring to?

Here source of energy is something that speeds the cometary electrons up from 0 to 400 eV. Monoenergetic beam is a flux of electrons with an energy of 400 eV from the comet to the probe, which mr. Lebreton mentions in his talk at the AGU Fall Meeting.

If you are simply looking for other sources of electrons than an applied potential difference then I suggest you familiarize yourself with thermionic emission and the photoelectric effect...

Thermionic and photoelectric effects, I'm afraid, will fail to give monoenergetic electron spectrum. They will most likely have continuous spectra like the one you can see here (Figure 4).

What exactly would be "1 pitcher" as a "unit of energy"?

According to your earlier calculatons, 1 pitcher = 119 Joules or 7.44*10¹⁷ keV.

 

[Haig]

Originally Posted by Haig
Seems someone is getting nervous what Electric Comet 67P is going to show us next

Those jets are getting stronger The Jets

:snorts derisively:

laughs smugly

"It seems that the puzzle of cometary jets continues to haunt comet science. The mystery has been stated and re-stated for decades.
But it’s possible that a resolution is now within reach, through the Rosetta Mission to comet 67P? Churyumov Gerasimenko?"

Rosetta Mission Update | Jets of Comet 67P -- Failed "Explanations" Continue


Historic discovery: huge electric field occurs spontaneously in laughing gas

Field is particularly interested in finding out whether the phenomenon plays a role when new stars are born.

Stars are created in huge clouds of dust and gas. In the middle of the clouds it is so cold that spontelectric carbon monoxide could potentially form. This would change the chemistry inside the cloud of dust and the way in which it would collapse to form a star.

"Spontelectrics may prove to have a big impact on our understanding of how stars are born," says Field.

"Wow. Can you imagine if the interior of stars are eventually found to be ice cold, and the million degree temperatures are found only in the upper "atmosphere"? I think a few heads would explode."


Investigations into the nature of spontelectrics: nitrous oxide diluted in xenon

The recent discovery of a new class of solids displaying bulk spontaneous electric fields as high as 108 V m−1, so-called ‘spontelectrics’, poses fundamental and unresolved problems in solid state physics. The purpose of the present work is to delve more deeply into the nature of the interactions which give rise to the spontelectric effect in films of nitrous oxide (N2O), by observing the variation of the spontaneous field as the N2O molecules are physically removed from one another by dilution in Xe. Data, obtained using the ASTRID storage ring, are presented for films diluted by factors ξ = Xe/N2O of 0.9 to 67, at deposition temperatures of 38 K, 44 K and 48 K, where films are laid down by deposition from a gas mixture. Results show that the spontelectric field decreases as ξ increases and that at ξ = 67 for 44 K deposition, the spontelectric effect is absent. Reflection–absorption infrared spectroscopy (RAIRS) data are also reported, providing insight into the structure of Xe/N2O films and specifically showing that N2O remains dispersed in the Xe/N2O films prepared here. A simplified theoretical model is developed which illustrates that electric fields can be understood in terms of dilution-dependent dipole orientation. This model is used to reproduce experimental data up to an average molecular separation, s, of ≥1.25 nm apart, [similar]4 times that associated with pure solid N2O. The disappearance of the spontelectric effect at larger average distances of separation, between s = 1.25 nm and s = 1.75 nm, is a phenomenon which cannot be described by any existing model but which shows that dipole–dipole interactions are an essential ingredient for the creation of the spontelectric state.

 

[paladin17]

Wow.
Look at what PP-SESAME measured during the descent (Lethuillier's talk at the AGU).
Why are those jumps? He seems to not even address this point.
And though this is supposed to be the measurement of potential, I'm not sure about the units, - what are they?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

When telling an old joke, omitting the best part is a crime against merriment.

I remember the joke about Sherlock Holmes and John Watson, where they were flying on a balloon and landed in an unknown place. They've spotted a herdsman nearby. He came closer and Holmes asked: "My dear sir, where are we?"
Herdsman was silent for some time and then answered: "You are in a balloon basket", - and he went to his cows again.
Holmes: "Watson, that was a typical programmer."
Watson: "What makes you think so, Holmes?"
Holmes: "First of all, he took so much time to answer such a simple question. Secondly, his answer was absolutely right. Thirdly, his answer was totally useless."

Watson's appreciative encomium was interrupted when the herdsman said "You must be in management."

"Why so?" asked Holmes.

"You don't know where you are. You don't even know which direction you're going. So you bring in a consultant and act like it's all his fault."

One might well ask what this joke has to do with electric comets. The answer: not much. On the other hand, we have already seen that physics in general has little to do with electric comets.

I infer that paladin17 told the joke because he feels lost, and doesn't know where he's trying to take this discussion, but believes the calculations and corrections he has been offered are useless.

It seems to me, however, that paladin17 has been given some good advice here. He won't appreciate the value of that advice until he follows it.

It's also true that paladin17 has been given a lot of poor or useless advice in this thread. In physics, distinguishing poor advice from good is not easy when you reject the utility of calculation.

 

[paladin17]

When telling an old joke, omitting the best part is a crime against merriment.



Watson's appreciative encomium was interrupted when the herdsman said "You must be in management."

"Why so?" asked Holmes.

"You don't know where you are. You don't even know which direction you're going. So you bring in a consultant and act like it's all his fault."

Hey, I've never heard that addendum. It's very nice.

One might well ask what this joke has to do with electric comets. The answer: not much. On the other hand, we have already seen that physics in general has little to do with electric comets.

I infer that paladin17 told the joke because he feels lost, and doesn't know where he's trying to take this discussion, but believes the calculations and corrections he has been offered are useless.

I told the joke just to illustrate my point about how informative your previous message was. You've basically ignored my questions, stating some abstract points and demonstrating some ill-founded superiority instead. So I guess it would be reasonable to simply ignore any further messages like that, keeping an eye, however, to anything relevant.

 

[Dancing David]

thanks for engaging with me JeanTate

The problem I have is the LIES mainstream tell us the gullible public on ALL things cosmological dark energy, dark matter, black holes, comets...etc etc

Comets being "discovered" to be an electrical phenomena will knock over the whole house of cards.

Dusty Plasma is more or less the electric comet and the best place to look for this evidence is to send a probe to look for this evidence...ROSETTA.

This data is still not available, AFAIK to the public but the chatter i'm picking up on is it's something to do with DUSTY PLASMA (the comet is an electrical phenomena)

SO the STORY about dustyicy leftovers from the birth of the solar system just does not wash because there was never in anything in the general public arena about plasma dusty or not, it's all ice and dust.

So the change that's happening as we speak will should change science forever if the scientific method is followed and the preconcived ideas about the birth of the solar system are put aside for the time being.

So still no evidence that there are electrical currents creating electrical discharges that cause comets to glow?