The Electric Comet theory
- Thread starter Sol88
- Start date
- Status
You'd have better luck opening up a physics book to find information about plasma. It'd be like opening up an electrical engineering book and being outraged that oil isn't mentioned or some other nonsense because oil can be turned into electricity. As far as I know Stephen Hawking is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist, not an electrical engineer or astrophysicist. Why on Earth would he mention plasma beyond "space contains plasma"?
On a lark I looked on wiki for "Fundamental Interaction". This seems relevant:
Let me know when you discover a way to shield against gravitational waves, please.
I am troubled every time I see research from the late 19ths / early 20th century being heralded as cutting-edge. Many of these observations were made before we even knew what atoms were made of, much less how the fundamental forces operate and interact. We also know that electromagnetism has a strong tendency to cancel out, whereas gravity...doesn't.
One can go on about "Uncle Wal" or "Grandpappy Birkeland" had to say, but that doesn't mean they were right just because they wrote about it a long time ago. That's what creationists use as their primary tactic. It was written by Birkeland, therefore it's true! Why is it true? It was written by Birkeland, of course. It's this kind of circular reasoning that prevents any kind of meaningful discussion and discourse. The sooner that charade is dropped the sooner an actual discussion can be had.
Of course, to turn around and claim that we (if I may be so bold as to speak for my better-educated colleagues) adhere to the Mainstream Ideals because Hawking or Greene or Einstein wrote about it a Long Long Time Ago is simply disingenuous.
The facts stand on there own merits, regardless of who wrote them, said them, or pontificated them. Science does not operate in the way that religion operates. Ideas are ruthlessly attacked, searching for any signs of weakness. Science changes. This is an inherent feature and it helps science work properly. It cannot function by proclaiming something to be true and then locking it up in a box, never to be studied again.
Sol88
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2009
- Messages
- 8,437
Global Solar Wind Interaction and Ionospheric Dynamics
Wing-Huen Ip
National Central University, Taiwan
Seems the real hang up is the comets are made of dust and ice and it's the ice's SUBLIMATING that is the source of the cometary plasma.
but if they are dust and rock....ELECTRIC COMET
Wing-Huen Ip
National Central University, Taiwan
Seems the real hang up is the comets are made of dust and ice and it's the ice's SUBLIMATING that is the source of the cometary plasma.
but if they are dust and rock....ELECTRIC COMET
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
If you do this, I hope you correct your claim that magnetic field lines "can never have an endpoint." Many physicists say that, but it's a false claim unless you qualify it by saying you're talking about endpoints that actually belong to the field line.
It's easy to produce concrete examples of magnetic field lines that arise or fade out at a neutral point. The neutral point is not part of those magnetic field lines, but it is a limit point of those lines. Mathematicians would be comfortable referring to the neutral point as an endpoint of the field lines that arise or fade out at the neutral point.
This is directly relevant to Scott's argument. Donald Scott is wrong, but so are the physicists who say ∇B=0 implies magnetic field lines cannot have endpoints.
Good morning, Sol88.
To see if I understand, I'll repeat this, using my own words. Please comment and make any corrections necessary.
- = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = -
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?
{unknown; see below for more details}
2) What primary source, or sources, can you cite, re "in the ECH jets are an electrical discharge phenomena"?
As a temporary shorthand, M. Gmirkin (2008), W. Thornhill (2007), and Birkeland (1913) {but see below}
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?
{unknown; see below for more details}
- = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = -
On 1): M. Gmirkin (2008) simply states "The observed jets of comets are electric arc discharges to the nucleus, producing “electrical discharge machining” (EDM) of the surface"; W. Thornhill (2007) is behind a paywall, and the abstract does not contain a derivation. And Birkeland (1913) is irrelevant because it's an experiment involving CO2, coal, graphite , or carbonic acid (not 'rock'); further, in his model "the comet is charged negatively by cathode-rays from the sun", which is inconsistent with the ech.
On 2): M. Gmirkin (2008) is clearly not a primary source (he is simply reporting what others wrote), nor is Birkeland (1913) (his model is inconsistent with the ech). W. Thornhill (2007) looks like it could be a primary source, but as it's behind a paywall, who can tell?
On 3): M. Gmirkin (2008) has nothing about this, Birkeland (1913) is irrelevant, and who knows what's in W. Thornhill (2007) (it's behind a paywall)?
But the ech is remarkably simple; why do you say "the obviously very complex ech"?
I do find it rather amazing that you have had such difficulty finding primary sources (and I'm also amazed that Haig - apparently - was unaware of W. Thornhill (2007)). Even more that the only primary source (on this question) you could find is behind a paywall!
Perhaps the most remarkable thing is that no one - not you, Haig, M. Gmirkin, D. Talbott, no one - seems to have described what the 'other electrode' is, the 'other end' of the arcs (which are the observed jets, in the ech; W. Thornhill may have done so, but this apparent primary source is behind a paywall).
I'm now quite curious; how many of the other "predictions" in David Talbott's list are also not derivable - objectively - from the ech assumptions?
Thanks for this, much appreciated.
To see if I understand, I'll repeat this, using my own words. Please comment and make any corrections necessary.
- = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = -
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?
{unknown; see below for more details}
2) What primary source, or sources, can you cite, re "in the ECH jets are an electrical discharge phenomena"?
As a temporary shorthand, M. Gmirkin (2008), W. Thornhill (2007), and Birkeland (1913) {but see below}
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?
{unknown; see below for more details}
- = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = - - = + = -
On 1): M. Gmirkin (2008) simply states "The observed jets of comets are electric arc discharges to the nucleus, producing “electrical discharge machining” (EDM) of the surface"; W. Thornhill (2007) is behind a paywall, and the abstract does not contain a derivation. And Birkeland (1913) is irrelevant because it's an experiment involving CO2, coal, graphite , or carbonic acid (not 'rock'); further, in his model "the comet is charged negatively by cathode-rays from the sun", which is inconsistent with the ech.
On 2): M. Gmirkin (2008) is clearly not a primary source (he is simply reporting what others wrote), nor is Birkeland (1913) (his model is inconsistent with the ech). W. Thornhill (2007) looks like it could be a primary source, but as it's behind a paywall, who can tell?
On 3): M. Gmirkin (2008) has nothing about this, Birkeland (1913) is irrelevant, and who knows what's in W. Thornhill (2007) (it's behind a paywall)?
Thanks.
But the ech is remarkably simple; why do you say "the obviously very complex ech"?
I do find it rather amazing that you have had such difficulty finding primary sources (and I'm also amazed that Haig - apparently - was unaware of W. Thornhill (2007)). Even more that the only primary source (on this question) you could find is behind a paywall!
Perhaps the most remarkable thing is that no one - not you, Haig, M. Gmirkin, D. Talbott, no one - seems to have described what the 'other electrode' is, the 'other end' of the arcs (which are the observed jets, in the ech; W. Thornhill may have done so, but this apparent primary source is behind a paywall).
I'm now quite curious; how many of the other "predictions" in David Talbott's list are also not derivable - objectively - from the ech assumptions?
Hello Sol88.
Don't you find it rather ironic to be asking for an OSIRIS image, while the sole primary source you've been able to come up with (so far) re "the observed comet jets are an electrical discharge phenomena" (or, more accurately, "The observed jets of comets are electric arc discharges to the nucleus, producing “electrical discharge machining” (EDM) of the surface" (source)) - Thornhill (2007) - is behind a paywall?
Perhaps you could ask Uncle Wal to provide you a free copy, which you could post here?
(my bold)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...
Don't you find it rather ironic to be asking for an OSIRIS image, while the sole primary source you've been able to come up with (so far) re "the observed comet jets are an electrical discharge phenomena" (or, more accurately, "The observed jets of comets are electric arc discharges to the nucleus, producing “electrical discharge machining” (EDM) of the surface" (source)) - Thornhill (2007) - is behind a paywall?
Perhaps you could ask Uncle Wal to provide you a free copy, which you could post here?
Good morning, Haig.
You see, I did a series of experiments, with rocks in weak electric fields, and did not observe any arcs, much less any EDM.
Further, as both the Moon and Mercury are 'rocks with some dust' and both "follow elongated paths" within what at least one proponent claims is "a weak electrical field centered on the Sun", jets should be observed, which "are electric arc discharges to the [object], producing “electrical discharge machining” (EDM) of the surface." (source)
Finally, neither you nor Sol88 (David Talbott is AWOL) has been able to derive the observed comet jets are an electrical discharge phenomena from the ech assumptions (there is an electric field centered approximately on the Sun AND comets are homogeneous 'rock'), so I can only conclude that this claim is made up, that the conclusion comes from the premises by magic (not logic, or science). In short, that the ech is indistinguishable from creationism.
Perhaps this thread could be moved to a more suitable sub-forum within the ISF?
Actually, I think "the ELECTRIC COMET hypothesis" is dead, at least in terms of science.The key (as Sol88 keeps saying) is the comet JETS.
Understanding them will go a long way in settling the argument.
Formation of jets in Comet 19P/Borrelly by subsurface geysers PDF
If the above mainstream view of supersonic collimated comet jets is falsified and the jets are shown to be E/M in nature then we need to look more into the ELECTRIC COMET hypothesis.
Very interesting times ahead for Electric Comet 67P
You see, I did a series of experiments, with rocks in weak electric fields, and did not observe any arcs, much less any EDM.
Further, as both the Moon and Mercury are 'rocks with some dust' and both "follow elongated paths" within what at least one proponent claims is "a weak electrical field centered on the Sun", jets should be observed, which "are electric arc discharges to the [object], producing “electrical discharge machining” (EDM) of the surface." (source)
Finally, neither you nor Sol88 (David Talbott is AWOL) has been able to derive the observed comet jets are an electrical discharge phenomena from the ech assumptions (there is an electric field centered approximately on the Sun AND comets are homogeneous 'rock'), so I can only conclude that this claim is made up, that the conclusion comes from the premises by magic (not logic, or science). In short, that the ech is indistinguishable from creationism.
Perhaps this thread could be moved to a more suitable sub-forum within the ISF?
Don't think it's only been tusenfem who's been on the sauce 
The Electric Comet pdf Copyright © 2006 Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott
A free taste of Electric Comet hypothesis 12 months previous to 2007
The Electric Comet pdf Copyright © 2006 Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott
A free taste of Electric Comet hypothesis 12 months previous to 2007
Good morning again, Haig.
Not rock.
Not electric.
The jets will certainly be interesting, but the ech is dead. Killed by, of all things, direct observation!
Good morning again, Sol88.
On top of that, as no one - not "uncle Wal", not David Talbott, not Haig, not M. Gmirkin, not even you! - seems to be able to show how jets as "electric arc discharges to the nucleus, producing “electrical discharge machining” (EDM) of the surface" is an inevitable logical consequence of the ech assumptions, we can only conclude that the derivation is 'by magic', or 'by fiat'.
This makes the ech indistinguishable from creationism. And as creationism is pure faith, it cannot be tested by any direct observations.
Actually, Birkeland's work is irrelevant to the ech, because one (of two) key ech assumptions is that comets are homogeneous rocks (or, in the heretical Sol88 version, 'chunks of rock covered with dust'); rocks, furthermore, which are not coal.
On top of that, as no one - not "uncle Wal", not David Talbott, not Haig, not M. Gmirkin, not even you! - seems to be able to show how jets as "electric arc discharges to the nucleus, producing “electrical discharge machining” (EDM) of the surface" is an inevitable logical consequence of the ech assumptions, we can only conclude that the derivation is 'by magic', or 'by fiat'.
This makes the ech indistinguishable from creationism. And as creationism is pure faith, it cannot be tested by any direct observations.
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
So Sol, no problem citing an article containing beaucoup math (derivatives, integrals and bears, oh my!) so long as you think or guess it supports the ech? The axes of the graphs are labeled with real numerical units, unlike the cartoon-graphs we see in the Thunderbolts videos. Are you sure this isn't some mainstream scientist trying to dazzle you with math bunnies?
The author discusses the ion emission spectra of the comet, in particular ions of carbon and hydrogen oxides. No mention at all of ions you'd associate with rock, like Si, Fe and Mg. In fact, while the article contains words like "plasma" and "ions", the words "rock" and "rocky" appear nowhere in the article. Why did you link to it?
ferd
Cygnus_X1
Student
Not really since none of the ECH supporters have yet presented a model that demonstrates the charges and fields between the Sun and the comet! The ECH model was falsified in the 1920s.
Unless ECH can solve that problem, it is still dead.
Without solving that problem, you're essentially trying to use problems with understanding tornado formation as evidence Earth isn't round.
Except this isn't the only model for the jets.
In the case of no subsurface cavities, where ice and dust may be clumped together like an aggregate, and never strongly differentiated. The water may be spraying out over half the sky (2 pi steradians) but collisional effects alone will keep it slightly denser around the centerline of symmetry of the half-sphere. What you see as a 'jet' actually becomes an artifact of the scattering of sunlight when the material is actually being spread all around.
Not too different from the reason you can see the beam of a flashlight on an evening with thin fog. There's moisture all around in the air, but the reason you see the beam is due to the scattering along its line.
If you've ever observed a large pile of snow and asphalt and dirt plowed to the side of the road after a big snowfall, it just evaporates like crazy all over the exposed surface on the first really clear and warm sunny day. The only thing stopping the molecules from flowing straight up and out is collisions with surrounding air. Now I've got a reason to root for a big snowfall this winter! I can try to set this up under more controlled conditions and do some side experiments!
Actually, tusenfem, do you know if we have any good spectra of the jets closeup? The spectra of dust in the coma and tail are dominated by reflected sunlight with resonance flourescence and some photoionization. I don't recall finding anything on a broad-band optical spectrum of the jets themselves.
For ECH, it would have to be an emission spectrum dominated by lines corresponding to atomic & molecular states excited by electron collisions as opposed to photon collisions.
Cygnus_X1
Student
Thanks. I've added an update to that post linking to your reconnection examples.
Sol88
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2009
- Messages
- 8,437
Are you saying there is no electric field entered on the Sun, JeanTate?
oh well time to pack the bags and move on.
maybe you can come back when you've worked out the MAJOR problems for mainstreams explanation of the thermonuclear bomb sun.
Meantime I'll hang around for the announcement that comets are rock and the jets are cold cathode electrical discharges arising from a charged body moving in the radial electrical field centred on a Sun powered externally.
But I guess that will be some time whilst the various science teams fight each other, which in itself is quite amusing.
oh well time to pack the bags and move on.
maybe you can come back when you've worked out the MAJOR problems for mainstreams explanation of the thermonuclear bomb sun.
Meantime I'll hang around for the announcement that comets are rock and the jets are cold cathode electrical discharges arising from a charged body moving in the radial electrical field centred on a Sun powered externally.
But I guess that will be some time whilst the various science teams fight each other, which in itself is quite amusing.
Last edited:
Jrrarglblarg
Unregistered
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12,673
I'm looking forward to this summer when the comet should be close enough to the sun to be active. That'll be awesome, having a spacecraft flying along to study it. Somehow I doubt any published results will budge the ElectroWhaterism Faithful from their strategy of ignoring data, cherry picking facts, Texas-sharpshooter circling random electricish words in real science and flat out making stuff up.
Time to wake up ApolloGnomon
Electric Comet 67P has been active for months ! Just clock these jets dude ...Rosetta Comet Scrambles its Jets
- Status