The Electric Comet theory

[ben m]

Whoa ben m, You claimed this ...

So you're wrong to say "Peratt dropped the whole line of inquiry like a hot potato, didn't he?"

Started in late 1970s / early 1980s and still putting out a paper on it in 1995 !!!

And then dropped it like a hot potato.

Hey, Haig, I'm trying to help you here. You are citing a paper that you should be embarrassed to cite in 2015.

In our ongoing quest to figure out "What is EU theory and why does anyone believe it", your Peratt citation provides the usual answer:

a) EU theory is this stale pile of crap that's already well-known to be false. (That's a worse answer than "EU is a dynamic field whose new ideas are good and getting better")

b) EU's advocates don't understand what they're quoting and are therefore not worth arguing with.

 

[JeanTate]

Good afternoon, Haig.

I don't normally post in the afternoon, and also try to avoid discussions on things other than the explicit topic of this thread. However, today - the day after New Year's Day and before a weekend - is a bit special, so I'll make an exception ...

Can you Tom debate Miles Mathis on these ? or can anyone else ?

<other stuff snipped>

Thanks for the links, here and earlier; most ... what's the word ... entertaining.

I suspect you've been conned, Haig. You see, I think Miles Mathis is not doing science, nor intending to do any science; rather, I get the impression that he's an artist (you did check out his whole website, didn't you?). A rather clever one too, in that he's able to write stuff that looks - to people who have no real understanding of science - like it could be science. But he's also clearly (to me, anyway) not trying to do physics, mathematics, or anything like what you'd learn in a first year university course.

And some of his stuff is quite clever, but I suspect that bright high school kids would quite enjoy ripping it to shreds, and high school teachers assigning it as 'extra credit' homework (e.g. his pi=4 stuff).

If you're genuinely interested in understanding just how, er, flawed his work is, why not start a new thread? One that's devoted to Miles Mathis and his 'physics/mathematical proofs'? If nothing else, I'm sure it would be quite enjoyable entertainment for other ISF members!

 

[JeanTate]

Hello again, Haig.

Gee tusenfem, have I got to keep pointing it out to you ?

Electric Comets require an Electric Sun require an Electric Universe / Plasma Cosmology

It's a package deal ! Sure the thread is about Electric Comets but the other elements in the "trinity" can be discussed a bit. IMHO

<other stuff snipped>

If you genuinely believe this, and if you hold consistency dear, then you yourself have already shown the whole "package deal" to be a pile of nonsense.

Surprised? Wondering how I can so easily claim that?

It starts with an assumption, that you accept that the work Peratt published (at least, that on galaxy formation, his simulations, etc) is genuinely within the EU/PC paradigm. And is based on plasma physics (or something similarly mainstream). In short, that you accept that 'electrical theorists' base their scientific research on the same understanding of electromagnetism and plasma physics as Peratt, Alfven, Birkeland, etc.

If so, then the absence of observations consistent with the existence of giant, intergalactic Birkeland currents, the absence of observations consistent with the Sun having a relative potential difference (with the heliosheath/whatever) of ~billions of volts, the absence of observations consistent with ongoing EDM on comet nuclei, ... rules out the whole EC/ES/EU/PC "package deal".

As science anyway. Of course, you can continue to believe in this "package deal", replacing 'electric'-like words with magic, and so on. But that means you accept that the whole EC/ES/EU/PC "package deal" is, intellectually, indistinguishable from creationism (as, most recently, new member jmckaskle has been pointing out).

 

[JeanTate]

Good afternoon, rwguinn.

Question for Haig, Sol88, et al.
How do you run a computer simulation/analysis without mathematics? Don't you need, like, equations and stuff?
Unless you have Asimov's MULTIVAC and say "Here's all the data. What's the answer?"

It's a bit odd, isn't it?

Especially with the insistence of David Talbott, Haig, and even Sol88 on the primacy of "observations", direct ones even.

In the case of galaxy rotation curves, some are derived from observations of "the 21-cm hydrogen line", which requires acceptance of some rather nice quantum mechanics, because no one has observed such emission in any laboratory. And then there's Rosetta: no poor person strapped to the spacecraft for a decade or so, using their own eyeballs to watch what happens, writing it down on a piece of paper, and sending it back to base; rather, rather amazing instruments built using mathematics, equations, and stuff. Instruments which report their detections back to us on Earth via radio signals, encoded using more mathematics, equations, and stuff. Radio signals which surely would be very much messed up by giant intergalactic Birkeland currents, EDM-creating electrical discharges, etc.

Do you think the apparent hypocrisy is deliberate? Or that, perhaps, David Talbott, Haig, Sol88 et al. simply do not know how completely dependent on mathematics, equations, and stuff contemporary "observations" are?

 

[JeanTate]

Thank you Haig, for providing direct evidence of the fundamental hole in the whole EC/ES/EU/PC package deal!

<stuff snipped>

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

Answer:
Science does not begin with mathematics, but with direct observation, experiment, and special insights into cause-and-effect relationships.

Many popular mathematical constructs today were devised early in the 20th century to help explain aspects of gravity-centric theory. Now, the picture has changed, and gravity is no longer sovereign on the macrocosmic scale. The cosmic “container” of objects in space is not an empty vacuum. Nor is it the neutral plasma medium that theorists once assumed based on limited observations.

We now see massive flows of charged particles, ranging from immeasurably subtle to explosively energetic — a universe more hugely complex than most theorists of the 20th century ever imagined. Gravitational models, based on a single Newtonian equation, can no longer describe things now displayed in the heavens across the full electromagnetic spectrum.

(my bold)

The webpage you provide a link to has a JPEG image on it, titled "A solar Eruption on August 31, 2012, as captured by NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory. What we see is a plasma instability, the effect of high energy electric discharge between regions of different charge. Some day we may be able to predict such occurrences mathematically, but the electrical nature of such events has been recognized for decades."

NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory eh? And "as captured by" too.

Do you happen to know where "NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory" was when it "captured" this JPEG image, Haig? How did it get there? How did it return what it "captured" back to us? I'm pretty sure it wasn't in the form of the JPEG posted on that webpage; rather, it was in some other format, one which required some mathematics embedded in software and/or hardware to turn into a JPEG image.

In short, while it may have been an observation, it most certainly was not "direct"!

There's more ... sschirott (the stated author of that article) is pretty unambiguous: "What we see is a plasma instability, the effect of high energy electric discharge between regions of different charge." Really? How did (s)he know that? And - more important - how can anyone else (you, me, ben m, tusenfem, ...) independently verify this claim? In an objective way?

I mean, the "direct observation" is a 550x309 pixel JPEG, with some black, some white, some yellow, etc. How do you get from this rather pretty set of pixels to "the effect of high energy electric discharge between regions of different charge"? Without using any mathematics?

 

[JeanTate]

While the posts in this thread which I quote are by Haig, this post itself is not addressed specifically to Haig; rather, it's a comment on something rather ironic I found in his posts ...

<stuff not relevant to the point I want to make snipped>

Proof from NASA that π is 4

<stuff not relevant to the point I want to make snipped>

Following a link on the above URL, you get to read this (source):

Abstract: I show that in kinematic situations, π is 4. For all those going ballistic over my title, I repeat and stress that this paper applies to kinematic situations, not to static situations. I am analyzing an orbit, which is caused by motion and includes the time variable. In that situation, π becomes 4. When measuring your waistline, you are not creating an orbit, and you can keep π for that. So quit writing me nasty, uninformed letters.

Here's part of another of Haig's recent posts:

<stuff not relevant to the point I want to make snipped>

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

Answer:
Science does not begin with mathematics, but with direct observation, experiment, and special insights into cause-and-effect relationships.

<stuff not relevant to the point I want to make snipped>

So, did Haig use "direct observation, experiment, and special insights into cause-and-effect relationships" to check Miles Mathis' "mathematics"?

I do not know.

However, I did!

I got a piece of string, stuck one end to a board covered with paper (I used a drawing pin), and a bit of 'lead' from a pencil at the other. I pushed the taut string around its center, to make a circle. Using a different piece of string and a ruler, I measured both the radius of the drawn circle and its circumference. Within the limits of accuracy, I confirmed that the circumference of my circle is ~3.14 times the diameter of the circle.

That's Miles' "static situation".

For his "kinematic situation", I replaced the bit of lead with a bit of real lead, and flicked it, making it "go into orbit" ... the lead became an object "in orbit" around the drawing pin, constrained in its path by the taut string (I had to repeat this several times to get it to work properly; for example, sometimes the pin came loose, sometimes the lead didn't go all the way round).

By "direct observation" - i.e. by following the path of the lead with my eyes, and seeing whether it followed a path different from the circle I'd drawn earlier - I confirmed that the orbit of the lead was a circle, the same as the one I'd drawn earlier (to the limit of my eyes, etc).

So, doing science per Haig's link, I have shown Mathis' mathematics to be inconsistent with direct observation.

Of course, Miles Mathis spends a lot of words in his "paper", "explaining" why his analysis/claim that pi=4 in "kinematic situations" is correct; to Haig these words may seem like "mathematics". But those words are have zero value, as science, because they contradict direct observation.

Over to you Haig ...

 

[Haig]

While the posts in this thread which I quote are by Haig, this post itself is not addressed specifically to Haig; rather, it's a comment on something rather ironic I found in his posts ...

Following a link on the above URL, you get to read this (source):



Here's part of another of Haig's recent posts:


So, did Haig use "direct observation, experiment, and special insights into cause-and-effect relationships" to check Miles Mathis' "mathematics"?

I do not know.

However, I did!

I got a piece of string, stuck one end to a board covered with paper (I used a drawing pin), and a bit of 'lead' from a pencil at the other. I pushed the taut string around its center, to make a circle. Using a different piece of string and a ruler, I measured both the radius of the drawn circle and its circumference. Within the limits of accuracy, I confirmed that the circumference of my circle is ~3.14 times the diameter of the circle.

That's Miles' "static situation".

For his "kinematic situation", I replaced the bit of lead with a bit of real lead, and flicked it, making it "go into orbit" ... the lead became an object "in orbit" around the drawing pin, constrained in its path by the taut string (I had to repeat this several times to get it to work properly; for example, sometimes the pin came loose, sometimes the lead didn't go all the way round).

By "direct observation" - i.e. by following the path of the lead with my eyes, and seeing whether it followed a path different from the circle I'd drawn earlier - I confirmed that the orbit of the lead was a circle, the same as the one I'd drawn earlier (to the limit of my eyes, etc).

So, doing science per Haig's link, I have shown Mathis' mathematics to be inconsistent with direct observation.

Of course, Miles Mathis spends a lot of words in his "paper", "explaining" why his analysis/claim that pi=4 in "kinematic situations" is correct; to Haig these words may seem like "mathematics". But those words are have zero value, as science, because they contradict direct observation.

Over to you Haig ...

Hey JeanTate, you don't get it do you ?

Miles Mathis was for the MATH MATH MATH guys on here

Feel free to knock yourself out on his Electric Sun stuff below (charge is electrical right?)

From my post HERE ...

Can you Tom debate Miles Mathis on these ? or can anyone else ?

Don't go for the man (I doubt you can resist) what are the arguments against his math and logic in these three papers.

Miles Mathis isn't in the EU / PC crowd and he certainly isn't in the mainstream, he's kinda unique but in discussions of an Electric Sun and with his focus on "charge" as one of the overlooked factors of an electrical nature should / must be included IMHO

The Cause of the Solar Cycle PDF

It has been known for a long time that the main Solar cycle is about 11 years, but that is just an average. It goes from a minimum of about 9 years up to about 14 years. Although some theories have been presented, the cause of all three numbers is unknown. I will show you the correct answer here.

The reason I so quickly hit on the right answer is that I knew where to look. In my other long paper on Sun cycles (ice ages), I have already shown that Jupiter is the cause of the secondary variance. In this
case we will see that Jupiter is the cause of the primary variance. Upon reading the NASA data, Jupiter is the first place I looked. The NASA writers even give us a hidden clue, though it is doubtful anyone but me tripped over it.

The fact that the alignment of Jupiter/Uranus is determining this maximum in 2012 is what has made it strange and small. In 2012, we finally hit our first peak of the cycle, and that is when Uranus is still near the line, Saturn is near the line, and Neptune is moving toward it again. Although none are strictly aligned with Jupiter, this near alignment of all four planets is about the best we are going to get in this weak cycle.

Saturn is now (late 2014) moving toward 90, so we are moving toward a minimum. But we are not moving very positively toward it even this late in the cycle, since Neptune is going to opposition. This will stretch the peak of cycle 24, pushing it well into 2015. The slope of the graph won't really start to drop strongly until after Neptune moves off the line. This will cause a pretty precipitous drop from 2015 to 2018. In 2018, Saturn will be at about 45, Neptune will at about 90, and Uranus will be at 90. So you can see easily the cause of the minimum there.

Magnetic Reconnection and Coronal Temperatures PDF

At any rate, I have long had a simple mechanical theory for charge effects: it has been part of my unified field for years. But until now I have not connected it to the corona. Even when I wrote a paper on the Sun a couple of years ago, I had nothing much to say about the creation of the coronal energy. But now that I have used the charge field to explain the brightness of planets, moons, and comets—via magnetic interaction—I now have a mechanism for the corona. Some of my readers understood me
immediately, and made the connection before I even got here. They wrote and asked me if the brightness of Enceldaus was linked to the heat of the corona. Rather than just say “yes,” I decided to write this paper for all my readers, making the connection explicit.

In those previous papers on comets and moons, I showed how the spins on the photons could cause the unexplained brightness. We only require photons meeting anti-photons, and charge recycling—along with an ambient field—was able to explain both. In short, all spherical bodies from electrons to
galaxies recycle charge. The spin of the sphere in an ambient field naturally creates field potentials which draw photons in at the poles and emit them most heavily at the equator. This emitted charge then rejoins the ambient field at a boundary, and this rejoining can cause spin cancellations. In the right circumstances, these spin cancellations can cause big effects, and that is what we are seeing with increased brightness. It is also what we are seeing with the corona

The Heliospheric Current Sheet PDF

Ethan Siegel and Xiaoying Xu of the University of Arizona analyzed the distribution of dark matter in our Solar System, and found that the mass of dark matter is 300 times more than that of the galactic halo average, and the density is 16,000 times higher than that of the background dark matter.

You know what, they are right, except for one thing. That isn't dark matter they are calculating, it is charge. There is always going to be more charge in the vicinity of baryonic matter, as we have known for 200 years. Benjamin Franklin put the charge signs on matter, and we still do. We have always defined charge as a relationship of matter, so of course it is going to exist with more density around matter. I have shown why this is: matter recycles charge. Spinning protons, neutrons, and electrons recycle charge photons, and the spins and photons are real. Everything involved has mass, spin, and radius. Nothing is virtual. Nothing comes out of the vacuum or returns into it.

But they pretend not to be able to figure this out. In the new articles, they tell us that there seems to be a mysterious link between dark matter and baryonic matter, since there is more dark matter in the vicinity of baryonic matter. They ask, “How do dark matter and baryonic matter interact?”

According to consensus among cosmologists, dark matter is believed to be composed primarily of a new, not yet characterized, type of subatomic particle. The search for this particle, by a variety of means, is one of the major efforts in particle physics today.

You have to be kidding me. How about the subatomic particle we call the photon? Like dark matter, it doesn't react with E/M fields, and it creates a field that is “transparent.” It is so transparent, we have forgotten all about it, apparently. It has become transparent to our physics.

All this was caused by refusing to assign charge to a real field. Currently, it is mediated by a messenger photon, which is virtual. Imaginary. Therefore, charge currently has no real presence in the field. Which is why, when we come across new evidence indicating the presence of a powerful field of
particles, we forget about charge. “Charge is nothing, just imaginary field potentials, so we need a new field to explain new data!” Perverse.

To see mainstream physicists continue to assign all new things to dark matter is perverse, considering that they already have a field that contains it and explains it, without mystery. Why would they do that? Well, in addition to the ascendance and takeover of science fiction, we have the longstanding fact that physicists do not want to rewrite their field equations again. They had enough trouble adding Relativity to them, and they don't want to add charge, too. It would require too much work (they think). They think they have proof of the gravity-only field (since their equations work pretty well),
and this allows them to keep the field they inherited from Laplace centuries ago. Besides, they just spent decades belittling all the “cranks” who wanted to add charge or E/M to the field. The Velikovsky affair is still warm in some places, and to admit Velikovsky was even partially right about anything is
too painful for them. So it is easier to hide and misdirect than to look directly at the evidence in front of them.

However, I have done the work for them, and it turns out they can keep a lot of their old prize equations. The revolution will turn out to be a lot less messy than they have thought. It is far simpler than anyone imagined, because their old fields already contained charge. They just didn't know it. The charge field is already inside Newton's gravity field, in the constant G. And since General Relativity was just the addition of transforms to Newton, Einstein's equations already contain charge as well. And charge is already inside the Lagrangian, too, as I have shown.

That's right. The unified field was hiding in plain sight, too. It has been hiding inside G for centuries. Because it was already in the Newtonian field equations, we don't have to rewrite anything. We just have to re-expand and re-interpret what we already had.

btw Happy New Year

 

[Haig]

This debate on the Electric Sun is really getting interesting Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation?

Hey JeanTate no comment on The SAFIRE Project latest ? Don't disappoint me now

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

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.

Links can be found HERE

 

[Sol88]

Happy New Year again, Sol88

I have never said it was not standard physics it's just never been apllied to comets i.e we have never, before the Rosetta mission, probed for dusty plasma. it's allways about the sublimating ice.

Do you mind if I ask, how did you come to this conclusion?

Because that's what we, the gullible public, have been told...time and time again and if you don't believe us then we'll dazzle you with some maths.

and if you can't do the maths yourself then how would you know what we are talking about?

 

[Sol88]

Question for Haig, Sol88, et al.
How do you run a computer simulation/analysis without mathematics? Don't you need, like, equations and stuff?
Unless you have Asimov's MULTIVAC and say "Here's all the data. What's the answer?"

Equations and stuff, with "stuff" being assumptions.

That's the real kicker here, the mainstream assume X and the Electric Universe assumes Y.

I play around with space engineers (a game) and the maths used to simulate gravity is, I guess, spot on but I notice no magnetic fields, electric fields, double layers and Birkeland currents (field aligned currents) in the game, when these are clearly in space.

I'd hazard a guess and say far too complex for such a simple simulation but gravity...piss easy.

 

[Sol88]

Hello again, Sol88.
(my bold)

As you yourself have chosen to bring up the topic of jets, I think this might be a good time to remind you - and readers in general - that I had asked you about jets some time ago. And that you have yet to address my questions. So I'll repeat them here (source):

Let me ask you about jets, electrical discharge phenomena, and the ECH, OK?

1) How do you get from:
* there is an electric field centered approximately on the Sun AND
* comets are homogeneous 'rock'
to:
* the observed comet jets are an electrical discharge phenomena?

Would you please walk me through the logical steps from premises to conclusion?

2) What primary source, or sources, can you cite, re "in the ECH jets are an electrical discharge phenomena"?

3) Per the ECH, what are the two (or more) 'ends' of the electrical discharge(s) that are comet jets? Or, what acts as electrodes?

I think that will do for now; I look forward to continuing to discuss comet jets in the ECH.

Thanks for reminding me JeanTate.

Comets are chunks of rock covered in dust. When a combination of factors come into play with their changing electrical enviroment they respond electrically. We see these same process's happen at various power levels on various moons, including our own Lunar, as well as ALL planets in our solar system.

The ELECTRIC SUN is the main instigator in this process with it's large but weak electric field. I mean this should now be indisputable...just google "NASA + Stringy Things" and "Flux Ropes" and "Flux Tubes" "Solar wind electric fields" "Magnetic Bubbles" "Electron Beams + Moon" "Ion fountains + Moon"

but again we digress from the EC.

If we model comets a little more like we do the moon, I'm sure the surprise that mainstream express would be tempered.

as an example:

Electric Moon Jolts the Solar Wind Did they just say ELECTRIC MOON??? anywhoo, just for this thought experiment JeanTate, lets replace the Moon with what we the EC mob think a comets is, ROCK, much the same as our Moon is.

 

[Sol88]

Electric Moon Jolts the Solar Wind

Now, a powerful combination of spacecraft and computer simulations is revealing that the moon does indeed have a far-reaching, invisible influence – not on us, but on the Sun, or more specifically, the solar wind.

So maths and "stuff"

The solar wind is a thin stream of electrically conducting gas called plasma that's constantly blown off the surface of the Sun in all directions at around a million miles per hour.

So not just a Gas but something special PLASMA

Unlike Earth, the moon is not surrounded by a global magnetic field. "It was thought that the solar wind crashes into the lunar surface without any warning or 'push back' on the solar wind," says Dr. Andrew Poppe of the University of California, Berkeley. Recently, however, an international fleet of lunar-orbiting spacecraft has detected signs of the moon's presence "upstream" in the solar wind. "We've seen electron beams and ion fountains over the moon's day side," says Dr. Jasper Halekas, also of the University of California, Berkeley.

So not just a mechanical impact, so they thought wrong or you could say ASSUMED according to the mainstream theory.

Computer simulations help explain these observations by showing that a complex electric field near the lunar surface is generated by sunlight and the flow of the solar wind. The simulation reveals this electric field can generate electron beams by accelerating electrons blasted from surface material by solar ultraviolet light. Also, related simulations show that when ions in the solar wind collide with ancient, "fossil" magnetic fields in certain areas on the lunar surface, they are reflected back into space in a diffuse, fountain-shaped pattern. These ions are mostly the positively charged ions (protons) of hydrogen atoms, the most common element in the solar wind.

Mmmm.....now moving away from mechanical and toward the electric

"It's remarkable that electric and magnetic fields within just a few meters (yards) of the lunar surface can cause the turbulence we see thousands of kilometers away," says Poppe. When exposed to solar winds, other moons and asteroids in the solar system should have this turbulent layer over their day sides as well, according to the team.

Absolutely remarkable!!!....for the mainstream.

"Discovering more about this layer will enhance our understanding of the moon and potentially other bodies because it allows information about conditions very near the surface to propagate to great distances, so a spacecraft will gain the ability to virtually explore close to these objects when it's actually far away," said Halekas.

Didn't they find the same with Halley, way back in the 80's????

Abstract: A few hours prior to the crossing of the Comet Halley bow shock, the Giotto spacecraft intermittently encountered an electron foreshock region. The electron foreshock is characterized by magnetic connection to the cometary bow shock and increased field aligned electron heat flux directed away from the bow shock. A similar region was intermittently encountered by the ICE spacecraft prior to its crossing of the Giacobini-Zinner bow wave. During periods of magnetic connection with the Halley bow shock, enhanced magnetic field fluctuations were observed. These enhancements are interpreted as indirect evidence of an ion foreshock in the electron foreshock. No clearly identifiable backstreaming protons are observed during these periods of magnetic connection, however, because it may be difficult to separate a backstreaming population from the cometary pick-up proton population already present in the upstream region.

 

[Sol88]

Reality Check, you still here?

 

[Matthew Cline]

This one.

Ah, the one where the simulation ends up with there being zero stars in the regions between the arms of spiral galaxies, when in reality those regions have a star density of around 80% to 90% of the arms.

 

[Sol88]

Ah, the one where the simulation ends up with there being zero stars in the regions between the arms of spiral galaxies, when in reality those regions have a star density of around 80% to 90% of the arms.

Really, Mathew Cline can you point me in the direction of that finding?

Oh that's because we didn't use any fudge factor i.e

Galaxy formation in the Plasma Universe is modeled as two adjacent interacting Birkeland filaments. The simulation produces a flat rotation curve, but no hypothetical dark matter is needed, as required by the conventional model of galaxy formation.

but again we slip from the topic THE ELECTRIC COMET

Now back to them pesky jets...

 

[Vermonter]

One problem I have with the EC/U idea is that it has no predictive power. There is no model. I see a lot of "well it looks like X to me" and that seems to be taken as gospel.

Our physical universe is one that can be described with mathematics. This consistency has allowed us to punt rovers from Earth to Mars with pinpoint accuracy and land a probe on a small, moving comet. It's allowed us to kick long-range probes into deep space via well-timed gravity boosts. It helped land men on the moon and get them back safely, multiple times. This is all math (or maths if you prefer). It works.

Heck, even GPS is based off of mathematical models; general and special relativity cause an observable effect upon GPS satellites.

If EC/U has a workable model, I'm just not seeing it. There is a very tenuous hypothesis with multiple contradictory and mutually exclusive explanations being proposed.

 

[Haig]

Really, Mathew Cline can you point me in the direction of that finding?

Oh that's because we didn't use any fudge factor i.e

but again we slip from the topic THE ELECTRIC COMET

Now back to them pesky jets...

Yes, the JETS from Electric Comet 67P are going to settle things. When is the Rosetta crowd going to show the latest data on the JETS ?

tusenfem, our inside man at ESA, do you know ? Are you allowed to tell us ? Sitting at the edge of my seat here waiting

Still ... some close up pictures of it really are excellent and not at all what a Dirty Snowball comet was supposed to look like and the comet song is kinda catchy ... but Hey! it's all good for an Electric Comet hypothesis

THE Rosetta: Comet 67P/C:G, CLOSE UP! Comet Anomalies

From The Rosetta Comet Landing, Comet Anomalies, Images of the comet 67P soft landing? on the surface of comet,........ 67P/C-G was successfully completed? on Nov. 12th, 2014, when 67P makes its closest approach to the sun. The comet takes 6.5 years to complete one orbit, and its path takes 67P as close to our star as 115 million miles (186 million km) — about 1.25 times the sun-Earth distance.

Secrets of High-Power Comet Observing

One of the most curious features within a jet is a knot of material that can easily be misidentified as a secondary nucleus. Secondary nuclei usually migrate tailward over several nights. So be leery of bright spots in the Sunward direction; these are probably clumps of gas and dust shooting off the nucleus within the jets. Many times the knots are brighter than the jets themselves, so a bright knot in a faint or invisible jet will certainly cause alarm! Comet Hale-Bopp exhibited several intense knots, especially in one strong and persistent north-pointing jet, during its passage around the Sun. -

What's this curious knot feature within a jet ???

tusenfem do you know ? Do you think 67P will display them when it becomes more active ? What's the mainstream explanation for knots in comet jets ?

Sounds very e/m like to me

 

[Haig]

One problem I have with the EC/U idea is that it has no predictive power. There is no model. I see a lot of "well it looks like X to me" and that seems to be taken as gospel.

Don't think you are really trying to see it !

Below is a collection of predictions based on Electric Universe principles, which have been confirmed by observations and data click HERE

Our physical universe is one that can be described with mathematics. This consistency has allowed us to punt rovers from Earth to Mars with pinpoint accuracy and land a probe on a small, moving comet. It's allowed us to kick long-range probes into deep space via well-timed gravity boosts. It helped land men on the moon and get them back safely, multiple times. This is all math (or maths if you prefer). It works.

Heck, even GPS is based off of mathematical models; general and special relativity cause an observable effect upon GPS satellites.

Again, I don't you are really trying !

Addendum: a kind reader just pointed me to a paper at The Space Review2 from 2008 by Stuart Harris. This paper reviews the controversy anew, and ends by calling Richard Hoagland a "notorious miscalculator." Again, I am not here to defend Richard Hoagland, but I can show that Stuart Harris is not only a terrible and purposeful miscalculator, he is also probably a propagandist paid by NASA to continue to blow dust. We can see this immediately when he says that the rocket was "a cruel three minutes later than would be predicted by the theoretical equation for T," then immediately shows the math, and his own math shows more than ten minutes difference. He even states it explicitly: "planned T = 104.5 min ; actual T = 114.8 min." I guess he thinks we can't subtract one number from another.

He then does some more fudging to bring that number down to around 9 minutes, saying that Goldstone, the point of acquisition of signal, was 36o from Canaveral, so the rocket had only gone 90% of its orbit. Two problems with that argument, 1) in that case the rocket should have been early, not late. If Harris is claiming a miscalculation by Von Braun, then a rocket will reach 90% before 100%, no? 2) all this requires we believe Von Braun didn't know that Canaveral and Goldstone were separated by some distance. Is Harris claiming that NASA doesn't own maps? Actually, there is a third problem, and that is that 9 minutes is still not "three cruel minutes."

click HERE for links to full story

 

[Sol88]

One problem I have with the EC/U idea is that it has no predictive power. There is no model. I see a lot of "well it looks like X to me" and that seems to be taken as gospel.

Our physical universe is one that can be described with mathematics. This consistency has allowed us to punt rovers from Earth to Mars with pinpoint accuracy and land a probe on a small, moving comet. It's allowed us to kick long-range probes into deep space via well-timed gravity boosts. It helped land men on the moon and get them back safely, multiple times. This is all math (or maths if you prefer). It works.

Heck, even GPS is based off of mathematical models; general and special relativity cause an observable effect upon GPS satellites.

If EC/U has a workable model, I'm just not seeing it. There is a very tenuous hypothesis with multiple contradictory and mutually exclusive explanations being proposed.

Kudos, well done and a pat on the back...but then the maths ran into problems so they invented to save the maths black holes, the old school boy howler were the smartest mathematicians dived by ZERO and came up with the greatest force in the universe able to do anything they so desire of it.

Then came dark energy to save some more maths....and then dark energy......so on and so on. The other thing they like to do is say it was long ago and hidden out of view.

So in my humble opinion mainstream has no predictive powers with regard to high energy phenomena seen in space in the modern era.

But if your happy with ballistics which is all you've really done then :roll eyes:


Now anyone like to talk jets?

 

[Vermonter]

Kudos, well done and a pat on the back...but then the maths ran into problems so they invented to save the maths black holes, the old school boy howler were the smartest mathematicians dived by ZERO and came up with the greatest force in the universe able to do anything they so desire of it.

Then came dark energy to save some more maths....and then dark energy......so on and so on. The other thing they like to do is say it was long ago and hidden out of view.

So in my humble opinion mainstream has no predictive powers with regard to high energy phenomena seen in space in the modern era.

But if your happy with ballistics which is all you've really done then :roll eyes:


Now anyone like to talk jets?

Not to be snide, but I have actually taken several college-level courses in astronomy while pursuing my degree. Do you have a citation for "invented to save the maths"?

I'm not sure if I accept dark energy or dark matter as they have been proposed, though I suspect that dark matter is non-baryonic in nature and it does not interact with the electromagnetic force in any observable way, but primarily through gravity alone. We lack the proper equipment to directly detect it, rather observe the peripheral effects it has on other objects. However, that's another discussion for another day.

Black holes are an extremely fascinating phenomenon. We're still scraping the surface of what they are in terms of stellar bodies, but the observations thus far help shed light upon their nature. Have you ever studied pulsars? They, too, are fascinating little balls of matter. Their rotational periods are on the order of milliseconds. You can even listen to the radio waves given off by them. There's a model that describes the life of a star from formation to death, and beyond.

What is the EC/U model for stellar formation? Stellar death? How are bodies (such as comets) formed? What happens when a star runs out of fuel? Granted, these are ancillary to the "electric comet" part but since Haig insists that they're all related and required for one another my comments seem germane.

My paragraph on ballistics was meant to display how models can and do work in reality. Bear in mind that those responsible for ballistic trajectories much also account for electromagnetic radiation and interference. Considering the success rate of the various probes and rovers, I would say that we understand electromagnetism pretty well. At least well enough to factor it into the designs of our probes. Our deep-space probes didn't explode upon reaching some magical point in space, and neither have any of our stellar-distance probes orbiting various bodies. If every body in the solar system has some kind of voltage differential, how come our probes have not exploded in a fantastic fireworks display? Why did Philae not explode when it landed upon the electric comet?

The arrogance is astounding.