The Electric Comet theory

[ben m]

A possible excuse: plasma acts in a non-linear way, so they'd need lots of time on the world's most powerful supercomputers to do a proper simulation. Heck, maybe today's supercomputers still aren't powerful enough to do a proper simulation.

That doesn't stop them from citing the results of 3D plasma simulations from the 1970s, presumably done on an early PDP-11 or its like, running at 0.1 MHz. Results from this work are unimpeachable truths so perfect they're not worth zooming in on. In other words, I don't expect any supercomputer work.

 

[rwguinn]

That doesn't stop them from citing the results of 3D plasma simulations from the 1970s, presumably done on an early PDP-11 or its like, running at 0.1 MHz. Results from this work are unimpeachable truths so perfect they're not worth zooming in on. In other words, I don't expect any supercomputer work.

IBM 360 was State of the Art. Using FORTRAN, for scientific stuff...
(Oops. Ssorry. I mentioned mathematics,,,,)

 

[Cygnus_X1]

Response to Sol88 (#3311)

Ummm...... that's where we run into problems again.. because

Sunspots

In the plasma of the photosphere, both the dimensions of, and the voltages within the granules, depend on the current density at that location (near the Sun's anode surface). The existence of the double layer of electric charge associated with each granule (separating it from the corona plasma above it) requires a certain numerical relationship between +ion and electron numbers in the total current. This required ratio of electron to ion motion was discovered, quantified, and reported by Irving Langmuir over fifty years ago. Spicules, tall jets of electrons that emanate from the boundaries between granules, supply many of those needed electrons. In this Electric Sun model, as with any plasma discharge, the granular cells disappear wherever the flux of incoming electrons impinging onto a given area of the Sun's anode surface is not sufficiently strong to require the augmentation of anode size they provide. At any such location, the photospheric cells collapse and we can see down to the actual anode surface of the Sun. Since there is no arc mode plasma discharge occurring in these locations, they appear darker than the surrounding area and are termed 'sunspot umbrae'. Of course, if a tremendous amount of energy were actually being produced in the Sun's interior, these umbrae should be brighter and hotter than the surrounding photosphere. The fact that sunspot umbrae are dark and relatively cool (3000-4000 K or 2727-4227 °C) strongly supports the contention that very little, if anything, in the way of heat production is going on in the Sun's interior.

The idea that sunspots were holes in the solar surface that revealed a cooler interior (possibly even inhabited!) was a popular idea in the 1800s. But it was an idea that fell apart with better instruments, and better models.

Funny how so many Electric Universe notions tie back to the 1800s and earlier - pre-spaceflight, pre-airplane, pre-nuclear energy. I've occasionally described EU as the Steampunks of astronomy, though the Steampunks might be offended. ;^)

But the most successful model of sunspots is part of the thermal energy in the solar plasma gets exchanged with magnetic field energy. A simple energy budget analysis between thermal and magnetic energy densities gives some support for this hypothesis:

[latex]$$U = {B_1^2 \over {2 \mu_0}} + n_1 k T_1 = {B_2^2 \over {2 \mu_0}} + n_2 k T_2$$[/latex]
(is the LaTeX equation generator not working?)

First, determine the energy density with no sunspots. We need a particle density, and since in the standard model, sunspots originate just below the photosphere, we can choose a density of about 1e24 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter (about 1.7e-3 kg/m^3 = 1.7e-6 gm/cm^3). Since this hydrogen is mostly ionized, we have two particles per atom, so n_1 and n_2 are 2e24 particles/m^3. A photospheric temperature of 5800K with an average magnetic field of about zero for no sunspots gives an energy density of:

(0 Tesla)^2/2 mu_0 + (2e24 particles/m^3)*(1.3806503e-23 m^2 kg s-2 K-1)*(5800K) = 1.6e5 joules/m^3

With a sunspot temperature of 3500K, we can then solve for a magnetic field energy density in the spot:
1.6e5 Joules/m^3 - (2e24 particles/m^3)*(1.3806503e-23 m^2 kg s-2 K-1)*(3500K) = 6.33e4 joule/m^3
and therefore the magnetic field:
B = sqrt(Ub*2*mu_0)
= sqrt((6.33e4 joules/m^3)*2*(1.25663706e-6 m kg /s^2/A^2))
= 0.4 Tesla = 4000 gauss
This result is within about a factor of 2 of values we get from the Zeeman effect in sunspots (about 2500 gauss)!

It isn't proof, but it demonstrates a correlation between measured physical quantities which are important for good science. It means the energy needed for the magnetic field in sunspots can come predominantly from the plasma thermal energy. This treatment of the temperature-magnetic field correlation apparently originates from around the 1950s, though I've yet to find the original publication suggesting it.

This is better consistency between measured quantities than I've seen from any Electric Sun model, as I have documented.
Challenges for Electric Universe 'Theorists'.... The Thornhill model gives a whopping big magnetic field compared to what we measure, sufficient that induced voltages would fry an orbiting spacecraft; and the Scott model generates a deadly particle environment.

The standard model sunspot has been simulated in much greater detail and achieved substantial additional success with modern plasma simulations:

UCAR: Sunspots revealed in striking detail by supercomputers

ADS: Radiative Magnetohydrodynamic Simulation of Sunspot Structure
YouTube: Two sunspots simulated in 3D by model data, viewed from above and in cross section below the surface
YouTube: Sunspots Umbra and Penumbra

So where's the equivalent sunspot simulation from the Electric Sun model?

 

[Matthew Cline]

That doesn't stop them from citing the results of 3D plasma simulations from the 1970s, presumably done on an early PDP-11 or its like, running at 0.1 MHz. Results from this work are unimpeachable truths so perfect they're not worth zooming in on.

Heads I win, tails it's a tie: if the simulation matches observations, it means the hypothesis behind the simulation is correct. If the simulation doesn't match observations, it means that the computer isn't powerful enough to run the simulation at sufficiently small time-granularity and space-granularity.

 

[Sol88]

Heads I win, tails it's a tie: if the simulation matches observations, it means the hypothesis behind the simulation is correct. If the simulation doesn't match observations, it means that the computer isn't powerful enough to run the simulation at sufficiently small time-granularity and space-granularity.

Mmmmmm...... maybe your right? Electric Galaxy

These images from a supercomputer simulation trace the development of spiral structure in two interacting plasma blobs over a span of nearly 1 billion years. At the start of the interaction at upper left the filaments are 260,000 light-years apart; all 10 panels are reproduced at the same scale. Simulations such as this can reproduce the full range of observed spiral galaxy types using electromagnetic processes rather than gravitational ones. — Credit: A. Peratt, Plasma Cosmology, 1992.

Further

And so that there can be no objection, the computer simulations have been backed up by experiments in the highest energy density laboratory electrical discharges—the Z-pinch machine. The experiments verify each stage in development of the PIC simulations. This important work demonstrates that the beautiful spiral structure of galaxies is a natural form of plasma instability in a universe energized by electrical power

and backed up with experiment...trumped.

But we digress from the ELECTRIC COMET THEORY

 

[tusenfem]

But we digress from the ELECTRIC COMET THEORY

Well, yes, that is what you get when the proponents of the EC fantasy cannot even agree on what happens, and are too lazy to look at actual data to show that e.g. EDM is taking place.

 

[Matthew Cline]

Mmmmmm...... maybe your right?

Wait, you're not actually agreeing that you hold a "heads I win, tails its a tie" position, right?

 

[Sol88]

Wait, you're not actually agreeing that you hold a "heads I win, tails its a tie" position, right?

No, I'm saying they've run it thru a supercomputer and simulation agrees with observation AND is experimentaly verified.

So now what MATTHEW CLINE?

 

[Sol88]

Well, yes, that is what you get when the proponents of the EC fantasy cannot even agree on what happens, and are too lazy to look at actual data to show that e.g. EDM is taking place.

I've been poking thru the data on the ESA site and to my surprise they've been measuring the plasma/electrical/magnetic interactions between the solar wind and the comet since GIOTTO...but there still happy to say HIDDEN SUBLIMATING ICE as the cause for the observed effects, so much so the were more than happy to make a movie on what was expected. AMBITION

And the surprises they did find were relegated to the too hard does not fit with our paradigm so will let that slip thru to the keeper, fuggetaboutit.

Some of the language used is telling. I'll post the highlights as i've time too.

Although the transition fromm
supersonic to subsonic flow occurred at the
expected distance of 1.4 x 10^-5 km from the
tail-axis, it was not connected with a shock of
familiar signature. Among the other unexpected
results were the discovery of high-energy
particles with energies that cannot be explained
by the pickup process alone, and the occurrence
of strong magnetic-field turbulence up to the
Nyquist frequency of the ICE magnetometer
experiment of 1.5 Hz. It is very probable that
these observations are related.

In the
field-free region, we may also be able to observe
the cometary counterpart of flux-ropes detected
at Venus (Russell & Elphic, 1979).

 

[Sol88]

So again, Tusenfem the only issue seems to be how the dust is lifted from the surface of a comet.

Is it mainstream much cherished and beloved hidden subsurface pressureised chamber of volatiles being expelled with entrained dust.

or

Dusty Plasma interactions with the solar wind?

Just one OSIRIS image of the source of the jets and I'm a happy camper!

I WANT too look at the shiny stuff under the dust...

Holger Sierks said, “Higher strength material that was a surprise to us.” “With this picture of dust falling back to the surface forming high porosity layers, we failed to explain the rebounds.” “It’s rocky-like stuff, but not rock.” “We also see this stuff shining through where the dust layer is wiped away or fallen off following the gravitational field and exposing a higher-strength material and this is something we could consider be the reason for the rebound.”

 

[Matthew Cline]

No, I'm saying they've run it thru a supercomputer and simulation agrees with observation AND is experimentaly verified.

So now what MATTHEW CLINE?

Which simulation, using what assumptions, with what results?

 

[Haig]

First post of the New Year good wishes to all and lang may yer lum reek

So this thread is about Electric Comets and they require an Electric Sun and that requires and Electric Universe / Plasma Cosmology I hope that much is clear ?

Such a lot of muddying the waters going on and I do a little too but only as a numpty but others do it intentionally and shamelessly. What are they trying to hide ?

All that, and Haig still can't answer real questions about Electric Comets and their solar environments. So like the many other varieties of pseudoscientists (including creationists), he resorts to dragging in loads of other so-called 'evidence' on radically different topics to divert the discussion.

[ unnecessary rant and repetition deleted ]

So Tom, I have to say Scott was right and you are so predictable ... "At this point, I’m tired of wading through his half-truths, misunderstandings, ad hominem cuts,pseudo-intellectual swagger, and ignorance of most things electromagnetic."

Well Tom how about answering my question? You believe the Big Bang created the Universe from "nothing" or "near nothing" depending which Sect you adhere too. That makes you one of them, a Creationist, right ? btw which sect do you belong too ... the "nothing" or the "near nothing" Big Bang Believers ?

The Electric Sun is a given for the EU / PC folk but they are still trying to resolve outstanding issues with the Juergens Scott Thornhill (JST) electric sun model.

The issues are discussed very well in this video BOB JOHNSON: The Electric Sun Revisited | EU 2013

this talk by Bob Johnson is amongst the most important talks given at the recent EU conference in Albuquerque, January 3-6 2013. It raises questions that have not been discussed previously, and these questions may indeed have an impact on the SAFIRE experiment, a well-designed test of the electric Sun hypothesis, with the flexibility to consider qualitative alternatives.

There is also a very healthy debate on the Thunderbolts Forum on how the Electric Sun actually works ... constructive criticism is welcome ... Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation?

Tom complains the SAFIRE Project is behind schedule (and that is true) but if you watch the Bob Johnston video and follow the debate on the thunderbolts forum you should realise why it's late.

The SAFIRE Project and JMP®: What Makes Our Sun Shine? my bold

created by kathy.walker on 20-Aug-2014 10:53, last modified by ryan.dewitt on 06-Oct-2014 08:49 Version 6
Authors
Paul E. Anderson, Consultant, AXES LLC
Montgomery Childs, Aurtas International Inc.
Michael Clarage, Shepherd Scientific Consulting, LLC

Recent missions to local Earth and interstellar space, such as IBEX and Voyager 1 and 2, show unexpected fluxes of high-energy particles directed inward toward our sun. This, coupled with more recent observations of the solar minimum and high-resolution imaging of the sun surface from IRIS and SOHO, still do not fully explain certain phenomena. Why does the surface of the sun operate in the 3,000-4,000 K range, while the solar corona exhibits temperatures in the millions of degrees? How do the known current sheets attach our Earth to the sun? And why are they there? The scientific hypothesis of an externally powered sun has existed for nearly a century, and has recently undergone a revival due to these unanswered questions. For the purposes of this research, it is hypothesized that the emission of the sun, its composition, and its stellar classification is governed by a single mechanism: charged plasma affecting material at a different electrical potential. This presentation will share recent findings of the first of three phases of research known as SAFIRE (Stellar Atmospheric Function in Regulation Experiment). With JMP software, results of design of experiments (DOE), statistical analysis, data visualization, and regression analysis of electrical diagnostics from a unique three-dimensional plasma will be discussed. Further analysis using JMP from high-resolution emission spectroscopy and mass spectrometry will be shared. These results, along with high-resolution video imaging, point to strong similarities between certain phenomenon of the sun and SAFIRE, indicating the hypothesis of an electrical sun indeed warrants further investigation.

Conclusions
Combining a number of other experiments, redesigns, and refinements, further testing revealed structurally similar discharges on the anode that were very similar to the sun’s plasma (Figure 9). Double layers, caused by charge (+/-) separation in plasmas, which produce granules and cellular layers in plasmas, were visually and/or qualitatively observed near the surface of the anode. The sun too exhibits extensive charge separation, temperature changes, and granulation as a function of distance from the core. The sun exhibits coronal ejections; the anode exhibited eruptions at regular intervals. The sun goes through emission solar cycles; the anode exhibited regular pulses despite a fully regulated DC input and clean power supply. The sun possesses a higher coronal temperature at a farther distance from the core as gauged by spectroscopy; our SBJ assembly possesses an increase temperature farther from the anode as gauged from emission spectroscopy. The trihydrogen cation (H3+) is the most abundant molecule in the universe; H3+ was detected at high percentage levels with the mass spectrometer in our experiment. Visually, the anode bears a striking resemblance to the sun, and visible layers of charge separation (Figure 9). These observations lend both quantitative and qualitative indications that the electric sun hypothesis warrants further critical study and evaluation. JMP continues to be an integral tool in the design, test, and analysis of this hypothesis.

Getting back to the Electric Comet 67P
Rosetta Mission Update | Comet 67P -- Electrical Sculpting of Surface Dust

Published on 30 Dec 2014
For several months now, the Rosetta Mission has followed the comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko around the sun. And as we’ve expected, direct observation continues to add one mystery to another. How are we to understand the weird configurations of dust on the comet’s surface?

Watch Update #1: The Rocky Comet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-a_jlM50PU
Watch Update #2: Comets May Not Be What We Thought https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UliVkgc5s4
Watch Update #3: Oops! No Water on Comet 67P? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqxF5u_iaRg
Watch Update #4: Rubble on 67P Defies Current Comet Theory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QMkjPeeVYU
Watch Update #5: Jets of Comet 67P -- Failed "Explanations" Continue https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceZqIXkX3u0

 

[Sol88]

Which simulation, using what assumptions, with what results?

This one.

 

[ben m]

This one.

Glad to hear it. That's a nice classic piece of why astronomers reject plasma cosmology. Peratt's crappy simulations is of nearly-massless "stars" that get yanked around a "galaxy" in lockstep by ultra-strong magnetic fields.

This is so obviously disproven by the data that I thought that even the plasma cosmologists had given up on it. Peratt dropped the whole line of inquiry like a hot potato, didn't he? That's how bad and EU-disproving these results are, dude.

 

[Haig]

Glad to hear it. That's a nice classic piece of why astronomers reject plasma cosmology. Peratt's crappy simulations is of nearly-massless "stars" that get yanked around a "galaxy" in lockstep by ultra-strong magnetic fields.

This is so obviously disproven by the data that I thought that even the plasma cosmologists had given up on it. Peratt dropped the whole line of inquiry like a hot potato, didn't he? That's how bad and EU-disproving these results are, dude.

Wrong dude

Peratt confirmed the late 1970s / early 1980s galaxy simulations in this 1995 paper ... Authors:Snell, Charles M.; Peratt, Anthony L.

Rotation Velocity and Neutral Hydrogen Distribution Dependency on Magnetic Field Strength in Spiral Galaxies

Abstract
The rotation velocity of a simulated plasma galaxy is compared to the rotation curves of Sc type spiral galaxies. Both show ‘flat’ rotation curves with velocities of the order of several hundred kilometers per second, modified by E × B instabilities. Maps of the strength and distribution of galactic magnetic fields and neutral hydrogen regions, as-well-as as predictions by particle-in-cell simulations run in the late 1970s, are compared to Effelsberg observations. Agreement between simulation and observation is best when the simulation galaxy masses are identical to the observational masses of spiral galaxies. No dark matter is needed.

my bold

 

[tusenfem]

I've been poking thru the data on the ESA site and to my surprise they've been measuring the plasma/electrical/magnetic interactions between the solar wind and the comet since GIOTTO...

Wow, who would have thought they did something like that !

 

[tusenfem]

Rotation Velocity and Neutral Hydrogen Distribution Dependency on Magnetic Field Strength in Spiral Galaxies

There are some very weird sentences in that paper:

• The justification for applying plasma physics to galaxies evolving out of cosmic plasma is the overwhelming strength of the electromagnetic field; of order 10³⁶ times that of gravity and 107 times that of gravity in neutral hydrogen in the space environment. what does the difference in EM and gravity strength have to do with neutral hydrogen? Okay he claims neutral means 10^-4 ionized. Does that mean it is a plasma?
• When a plasma is only partly ionized, the electromagnetic forces act on the non-ionized components only indirectly through the viscosity between the ionized and non-ionized constituents. And how strong is this viscosity, or basically, what is the collision frequency of this space plasma?
• For the case of a fully ionized hydrogenic plasma, the ions drift inwards
  until they reach a radius where the temperature is well below the ionization
  potential and the rate of recombination of the hydrogen plasma is considerable. Becouse [sic] of this "ion pump" action, hydrogenic plasma will be evacuated from the surroundings and neutral hydrogen will be most heavily deposited in regions of strong magnetic field. I am not sure this follows actually. I would be hard pressed to see the recombination rate suddenly increase to form neutral hydrogen. It might be a nice idea, but if it will actually take place is another question. What happens to the energy of the electrons, what is the temperature of the plasma, etc.
• Figure 2 (left-side) shows the plasma spiral formed in this simulation overlayed on its magnetic field line (squared) isobars.The simulation is a plasma simulation, and I seem to remember no neutrals. But there are others who have discussed this simulation to death already.

As usual, there is nothing in that paper except for some (possibly) interesting ideas and the "look-alike" pictures of a plasma simulation and a neutral hydrogen image. There is no quantification, which one would expect, of what temperatures or densities one expects. What is the viscosity, can it really drive the motion of the neutral hydrogen? questions questions questions.

No wonder that after 20 years (published 1995) there have been no citations to this paper.

 

[Haig]

There are some very weird sentences in that paper:

• The justification for applying plasma physics to galaxies evolving out of cosmic plasma is the overwhelming strength of the electromagnetic field; of order 10³⁶ times that of gravity and 107 times that of gravity in neutral hydrogen in the space environment. what does the difference in EM and gravity strength have to do with neutral hydrogen? Okay he claims neutral means 10^-4 ionized. Does that mean it is a plasma?
• When a plasma is only partly ionized, the electromagnetic forces act on the non-ionized components only indirectly through the viscosity between the ionized and non-ionized constituents. And how strong is this viscosity, or basically, what is the collision frequency of this space plasma?
• For the case of a fully ionized hydrogenic plasma, the ions drift inwards
  until they reach a radius where the temperature is well below the ionization
  potential and the rate of recombination of the hydrogen plasma is considerable. Becouse [sic] of this "ion pump" action, hydrogenic plasma will be evacuated from the surroundings and neutral hydrogen will be most heavily deposited in regions of strong magnetic field. I am not sure this follows actually. I would be hard pressed to see the recombination rate suddenly increase to form neutral hydrogen. It might be a nice idea, but if it will actually take place is another question. What happens to the energy of the electrons, what is the temperature of the plasma, etc.
• Figure 2 (left-side) shows the plasma spiral formed in this simulation overlayed on its magnetic field line (squared) isobars.The simulation is a plasma simulation, and I seem to remember no neutrals. But there are others who have discussed this simulation to death already.

As usual, there is nothing in that paper except for some (possibly) interesting ideas and the "look-alike" pictures of a plasma simulation and a neutral hydrogen image. There is no quantification, which one would expect, of what temperatures or densities one expects. What is the viscosity, can it really drive the motion of the neutral hydrogen? questions questions questions.

No wonder that after 20 years (published 1995) there have been no citations to this paper.

Well tusenfem, if that's your thinking you need something magical like the mythical unknowable dark matter

However, despite interesting ideas and the "look-alike" pictures of a plasma simulation mainstream has still a fail. It's no wonder that after 83 years (?) there have been no confirmation of Dark Matter

There is another way that makes more sense ...

Still Chasing the Ghost of Dark Matter | Space News

Scientists using the Fermi Large Area Telescope have come up empty handed in their quest to prove their theories about dark matter. Tom Wilson explores why institutional science remains determined in its pursuit to prove dark matter's existence.

Oh! and another of the magical like the mythical unknowable creations of the mainstream Dark Energy is getting shaded out, in this recent paper, by of all things Time Dilation. ... It just gets better and better

Study finds possible alternative explanation for dark energy

(Phys.org)—Dark energy is an unknown form of energy that is proposed to drive the accelerated expansion of the universe. A new study by University of Georgia professor Edward Kipreos suggests that changes in how people think about time dilation—the slowing of time predicted by Albert Einstein—can provide an alternate explanation of dark energy.

Care to pick out the holes in this tusenfem ? Here is the actual paper ...

Implications of an Absolute Simultaneity Theory for Cosmology and Universe Acceleration

 

[Ziggurat]

[*]When a plasma is only partly ionized, the electromagnetic forces act on the non-ionized components only indirectly through the viscosity between the ionized and non-ionized constituents. And how strong is this viscosity, or basically, what is the collision frequency of this space plasma?

Not strong enough to drag stars along with it, that's for sure. So it can't have anything to do with galactic rotation curves, which is what the EU crowd needs.

 

[tusenfem]

Well tusenfem, if that's your thinking you need something magical like the mythical unknowable dark matter

However, despite interesting ideas and the "look-alike" pictures of a plasma simulation mainstream has still a fail. It's no wonder that after 83 years (?) there have been no confirmation of Dark Matter

There is another way that makes more sense ...

Still Chasing the Ghost of Dark Matter | Space News



Oh! and another of the magical like the mythical unknowable creations of the mainstream Dark Energy is getting shaded out, in this recent paper, by of all things Time Dilation. ... It just gets better and better

Study finds possible alternative explanation for dark energy


Care to pick out the holes in this tusenfem ? Here is the actual paper ...

Implications of an Absolute Simultaneity Theory for Cosmology and Universe Acceleration

sorry but who cares about dark matter/energy in an electric comet thread.
i just pointed out that that paper had nothing of substance, and basically should have been rejected on that ground, i would not have let it pass. it is all conjecture what they write.
maybe some of dm/de is also conjecture, but that does not make this eu paper acceptable.
as i know nothing about dm/de i am not going to discuss that with you.
as i am an expert on plasma physics (in alfven's second category) i can and will point out plasma humbug to you.
however as you have zero knowledge of even basic physics it is pointless to discuss with you because as a full blown creationist you will keep on throwing in unrelated stuff into the discussion as not to need answer actual questions. why on earth are we discussing dm/de in an electric comet thread? should we not discuss the non-existence of edm on comets, and why the ec gang will not work on actual data to show that edm does exist? as ibtol the other troll sol, look at comet halley, which was much much more active, and thus must be a paradise for edm. but that will not happen, will it, because you ans sol will come up with papers or press releases in which the words "surprise" or "unexplained" appear and then think you have proved something because of it, instead of actually doing something.
as i said before, it is pathetic.