The Electric Comet theory

[JeanTate]

Good morning Haig.

Thanks ferd, I do normally give sources in my posts, not sure why I didn't that time, too much of a rush probably, to err is human.

That's good to know. And yes, we all do make mistakes from time to time.

My "understanding" is that images in the "public domain" can be used on forums like this under the "copyright fair usage" guidelines ... with or without quoting the source.

Even if you could use images in that way, here in this part of the ISF I think you'd be very foolish to do so.

You see, an image without a source is utterly useless ... your 'nice rock mountains' one, for example, could likely be produced by a good photographer, as a close-up of some small part of a snowbank in their backyard. Or somewhere in Antarctica, in or near a glacier.

Haig, I think even you would admit that here, in this thread, other ISF members regard what you post as having little credibility. If you're truly interested in increasing their understanding of the electric comet hypothesis, I'd recommend that you work hard to build your credibility.

So, how about you write a post, linking to the previous ones which contain images-without-sources, and add the sources?

 

[Sol88]

Good morning, Sol88.

We don't know, yet, if Thornhill (2007) contains any maths at all. And if Talbott & Thornhill (2006) contains most of what's in Thornhill (2007), then there may be no maths.


I seem to recall that you've been asked questions about your visual acuity before, but I don't recall whether you answered or not.

Sol88, how can you tell, simply by looking at a stack of photos, that what's in them is arcs, glows, or vents?

If there were such a stack of photos, how would you advise me to look at them, so that I too could conclude there's vents (or arcs, or glows) in them?

Well eyesight is one of my stronger senses.

Just play along with me on this JT:

In your opinion are the surfaces of comets, on the whole, dry and dusty with little to no surface ice based on all observations of comets thus visited so far including 67P?

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning, paladin17.

Hi, paladin17: Have a look at the JPL Small-Body Database Browser which will allow you to search the database from many kinds of objects.
One thing I pointed out many years ago was that EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets. Of course EC has no valid predictions so I had to assume that it was the eccentricity of the orbit that made an asteroid into a comet.

What about semi-major axis? By adding the 133P/Elst–Pizarro's parameter (a>=3.16 AU) we get 19126 asteroids and 1039 comets. a>=4 AU already gives 1775 asteroids and 851 comets. a>=5 AU gives 1289 asteroids over 740 comets.
In EC framework the bigger the semi-major axis is, the more diverse are the electric properties of the regions visited by the object along its route around the Sun. I guess the other significant parameter is the orbital speed, since it influences the rate of potential change. And it obviously falls with the increase in semi-major axis. So it provides a counteraction of sorts.

(my bold)

Really?

Do you have a primary source for that ("In EC framework the bigger the semi-major axis is, the more diverse are the electric properties of the regions visited by the object along its route around the Sun")?

I'm really quite surprised by this, seeing as how one of the two core assumptions of the ech is that there's a (weak) ~radial electric field centered on the Sun. Given that assumption, surely it's an object's orbit's ellipticity that's the primary factor?

Further, for a given ellipticity, the change in electric field between aphelion and perihelion would depend on the how that field varies with distance from the Sun ... and the ech does not assume any particular radial form (as far as I know; perhaps Haig can help?).

Can you clarify please?

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning again, tusenfem.

Yep, Jupiter-Io torus. Fast-orbiting planet in the strongest planetary magnetic field. Its resulting electromagnetic and plasma behavior obeys all the standard laws of physics and is studied (and essentially understood) by math/numbers-using mainstream scientists.

This current hasn't moved Io's orbit by any observable amount in orbital records dating back to Galileo. Not a smidgen. The laws of E&M tell us how charges, voltages, and currents behave. It tells you what forces they exert and what sort of energies can "discharge". They tell you whether Io should be getting blasted out of its orbit, and the theory/math agrees with observations.

Nothing to do with EU.

I repeat: EU/PC claims about electricity altering orbits, excavating canyons, and launching comets do not make any sense and everything we know about E&M tells us those claims are wrong. Velikovsky et. al. just made stuff up, and people like you fell for it without checking the physics.

Go ahead, post more stuff Velikovsky made up. Or post one actual force-law-using calculation that tells me the source voltage, current, and amperage required to "launch a comet", and that shows that "launching a comet" (rather than "dissipating on its own") is the expected behavior of the source describe.

should not io have been accelerated in its path because of this strong electromagneticcurrentsflowinteraction and rotate arond jupiter much faster than its keplerian velocity?

Yes, I wondered that too.

More generally, isn't it possible to transfer angular momentum from a rotating primary with a (strong) magnetic field to a (conducting) secondary in orbit around it? A variation on the magnetic braking idea, I think.

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning again Haig.

<snip>

"Venus, for example, possesses a filamentary comet-like tail that stretches for millions of kilometers. Indeed, at its closest approach to Earth, every 584 days, the tail interacts with Earth’s magnetosphere."
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_382365493ec146d088.jpg[/qimg]

<snip>

The image is not in the document you provide a link to.

What is the source?

(You've posted this image quite a few times now, but not once have you provided a source, as far as I can tell).

May I suggest that you spend more time on providing meaningful responses, and less on apparently mindless link spam?

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning again, Sol88.

Good morning, Sol88.

We don't know, yet, if Thornhill (2007) contains any maths at all. And if Talbott & Thornhill (2006) contains most of what's in Thornhill (2007), then there may be no maths.


I seem to recall that you've been asked questions about your visual acuity before, but I don't recall whether you answered or not.

Sol88, how can you tell, simply by looking at a stack of photos, that what's in them is arcs, glows, or vents?

If there were such a stack of photos, how would you advise me to look at them, so that I too could conclude there's vents (or arcs, or glows) in them?

Well eyesight is one of my stronger senses.

That may well be so.

But it's surely a subjective judgement, isn't it? Not an objective statement of fact? And when we do science, don't we try our best to avoid subjectivity?

Whatever. You didn't answer my question, did you?

Just play along with me on this JT:

In your opinion are the surfaces of comets, on the whole, dry and dusty with little to no surface ice based on all observations of comets thus visited so far including 67P?

Rather too narrow a question, wouldn't you say?

I mean, if I thought that, "on the whole the surfaces of comets are dry and dusty but with lots of surface ice (...)?", should I answer "no"?

Or "on the whole the surfaces of comets are dry but not dusty with little to no surface ice (...)?", also "no"?

Then there's "ice" ... do you mean solid water? 'dry ice'? a mixture? other 'ices'?

And so on.

Here, however, is one part: I think the evidence to date is consistent with a complete lack of liquids on the surfaces of comets; i.e. they are all 'dry'. All over.

 

[Haig]

Good morning Haig.

That's good to know. And yes, we all do make mistakes from time to time.


Even if you could use images in that way, here in this part of the ISF I think you'd be very foolish to do so.

You see, an image without a source is utterly useless ... your 'nice rock mountains' one, for example, could likely be produced by a good photographer, as a close-up of some small part of a snowbank in their backyard. Or somewhere in Antarctica, in or near a glacier.

Haig, I think even you would admit that here, in this thread, other ISF members regard what you post as having little credibility. If you're truly interested in increasing their understanding of the electric comet hypothesis, I'd recommend that you work hard to build your credibility.

So, how about you write a post, linking to the previous ones which contain images-without-sources, and add the sources?

Yea, you have a point ....

So here's lots of pictures with source that is current ....and makes my point in a much better way than the previous post ... Electric Comet 67P ... Rock or Not ?

Can't be bothered going back to ALL my mistakes ... jezzz that would take ages

Hey JeanTate can you check THIS POST for me and list ALL the mistakes ? ... Ta

Credibility? I Don't Need No Stinking Credibility

 

[ferd burfle]

If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck then it probably is ... 67P ... the duck shaped comet

How...scientific

Well ferd to be serious for a minute this video gives a clue to your puzzle that you should consider ...

WHAT IF? Asking the Dangerous Questions with Tom Wilson

Why link to this video Haig? He gave the same LLAB "explanation" you gave, except he didn't pretend it was in jest. His arm-waving explanation of why the comet's density is nowhere close to that of rock has got to be one of the lamest in the ech repertoire. The same math and science that enabled Rosetta to rendezvous with the comet just happens to break down when used to determine the comet's density. Who are you guys trying to convince with all this? Your target audience surely can't be scientists.

Nope .. that by "my" logic would indicate overexposure or instrument saturation.

So the bright spot in the second image, more saturation, right?

ferd

 

[Haig]

Good morning again Haig.

The image is not in the document you provide a link to.

What is the source?

(You've posted this image quite a few times now, but not once have you provided a source, as far as I can tell).

May I suggest that you spend more time on providing meaningful responses, and less on apparently mindless link spam?

It's on the Thunderbolts Project site as far as I recall.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's just my understanding Ziggurat you can read this yourself on Thunderbolts, I'm not a spokesman for the EU / PC crowd ...

You're not an official spokesman, but you sure as hell are a vocal advocate.

Of the planets understood to have been involved Earth has by far the most ice and of course water. Mars by comparison has only a tiny amount of ice. The others you mention aren't involved in the "past few thousand years" but the other "main" players are Venus, Jupiter, Saturn with "bit" parts for Mercury and our Moon.

If Jupiter and Saturn are involved, how can their moons not be involved? That makes no sense.

The accretion disc theory of planet formation doesn't carry much weight in EU / PC circles

But I'm not talking about planet formation. I'm talking about the formation of comet-sized icy objects. Can you provide any reason, any reason at all, for why such objects could not or should not have formed during the beginning stages of the solar system?

Gezz Ziggurat, your answers are on ALL the EU / PC sites I've linked to, try reading a bit of the Thunderbolts stuff.

I have, Haig. I've wasted more hours than I care to admit reading through those places. And none of them that I can find answer my question. If you have a specific page that you know contains the answer, I'll be happy to look at it, but I'm not going to go back to sifting through the entire site on what appears to be your hope that the answer might be lurking somewhere in one of several different websites.

The RECENT nature of comet formation from Planetary conflict. "Worlds in Collision"

Not relevant to my question. My question is not how ECH advocates think comets form. My question is whether and why they think that comet-sized icy bodies could not form. Either you have an answer, or you don't. And it's increasingly looking like you have no answer. Not that I'm surprised, you never do.

 

[Sol88]

Good morning again, Sol88.

That may well be so.

But it's surely a subjective judgement, isn't it? Not an objective statement of fact? And when we do science, don't we try our best to avoid subjectivity?

Whatever. You didn't answer my question, did you?


Rather too narrow a question, wouldn't you say?

I mean, if I thought that, "on the whole the surfaces of comets are dry and dusty but with lots of surface ice (...)?", should I answer "no"?

Or "on the whole the surfaces of comets are dry but not dusty with little to no surface ice (...)?", also "no"?

Then there's "ice" ... do you mean solid water? 'dry ice'? a mixture? other 'ices'?

And so on.

Here, however, is one part: I think the evidence to date is consistent with a complete lack of liquids on the surfaces of comets; i.e. they are all 'dry'. All over.

So the jets issuing from the "ice" cliffs of Tempel 1 change your mind?

Comets, in particular Tempel 1 have enough surface ice to be able to produce jets?

Comparison of Deep Impact and Stardust photos of a smooth elevated feature on the surface of the nucleus showing recession of icy cliffs at the margins.

Jet activity on the cliffs of comet 9P/Tempel 1 Holger Sierks

The current work focusses on simulating at high resolu-
tion the activity seen on a peculiar terrain of 9P/Tempel
1. From in-situ and ground based observations, Farnham
et al ([3]) and Vincent et al ([2]) have linked some the
coma structures to the edge of one of the smooth regions,
where a cliff has been seen to recede from 2005 to 2011.
We propose a 3D model of the jet starting from the cliff.
The simulated domain is a cube of 400x400x400 me-
ters size, with a 3D topographic model of the region at
the bottom, reconstructed from in situ images. The out-
gassing rate is modulated by the solar input, through a
thermal model of the surface. We allow the vertical cliff
to emit up to 10 times more gas molecules than its sur-
roundings, for the same solar flux received. We model
first the expansion of the gas until we reach a steady flow.
We inject dust particles with zero velocity in the gas flow
and follow their acceleration in the jet.

So now we have two different interpretations, the above mainstream version and the Electric Comet version below

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.”

If it isn’t merely reflected light from a surface cleaned and etched by electric discharge then the “shining stuff” I expect to be active coronal discharges from the comet. If so, they will be featureless coronal discharge glows perhaps with unresolved bright points at active cathode spots.

LINK

Holger Sierks....he's the man!

So, just using my eyeballs the shiny stuff on Tempel 1 is either "icy cliff retreating" and producing jets or that's an image of electric discharge also producing jets.

Think what you may JT but one explanation is self consistent the other well cobbled together to save face.

You decide on the source of the jets in question remembering Holger Sierks has some pretty good pictures up his sleeve.

 

[Sol88]

Oh and by the way JT, nice dodge and weave!

I mean, if I thought that, "on the whole the surfaces of comets are dry and dusty but with lots of surface ice (...)?", should I answer "no"?

Or "on the whole the surfaces of comets are dry but not dusty with little to no surface ice (...)?", also "no"?

Then there's "ice" ... do you mean solid water? 'dry ice'? a mixture? other 'ices'?

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning Haig.

Good morning Haig.

That's good to know. And yes, we all do make mistakes from time to time.


Even if you could use images in that way, here in this part of the ISF I think you'd be very foolish to do so.

You see, an image without a source is utterly useless ... your 'nice rock mountains' one, for example, could likely be produced by a good photographer, as a close-up of some small part of a snowbank in their backyard. Or somewhere in Antarctica, in or near a glacier.

Haig, I think even you would admit that here, in this thread, other ISF members regard what you post as having little credibility. If you're truly interested in increasing their understanding of the electric comet hypothesis, I'd recommend that you work hard to build your credibility.

So, how about you write a post, linking to the previous ones which contain images-without-sources, and add the sources?

Yea, you have a point ....

So here's lots of pictures with source that is current ....and makes my point in a much better way than the previous post ... Electric Comet 67P ... Rock or Not ?

What previous post would that be, Haig?

And what point?

Can't be bothered going back to ALL my mistakes ... jezzz that would take ages

Hey JeanTate can you check THIS POST for me and list ALL the mistakes ? ... Ta

Sorry to have to remind you, Haig, but this thread is about the electric comet hypothesis (ech).

So, from my POV, your post is one giant mistake, with a few (minor?) exceptions (see below).

Why?

Because it's not relevant to the ech.

Because it cites no primary sources relevant to the ech.

Etc.

The exceptions?

"Getting back to Electric Comets the E/M reaction depends on the CHARGE difference when the PLASMA SHEATHS come in contact."

I don't recall reading anything about "PLASMA SHEATHS com[ing] in contact", in any of the primary sources on the ech. Would you be so kind as to point me to such primary sources? Otherwise, this too is a mistake.

"How about considering a more recent electromagnetic event just a few months ago. A tiny comet Siding Spring with unknown charge in it's plasma sheath came in contact with the plasma sheath also of unknown charge of Mars. The reaction was SPECTACULAR"

I don't recall reading anything about comet Sidings Spring in any of the primary sources on the ech. Would you be so kind as to point me to such primary sources? Otherwise, this too is a mistake.

"What's the latest on Electric Comet 67P active JETS "

This may be a typo - i.e. a small mistake - but there's no question mark.

If this is, in fact, a question, then your mistake is that the source you link to contains nothing on 67P, and certainly no analyses (of the objective, independently verifiable kind) on its jets, within the context of the ech.

Credibility? I Don't Need No Stinking Credibility

Sorry Haig, I don't 'do' youtube videos.

 

[Haig]

How...scientific

Why link to this video Haig? He gave the same LLAB "explanation" you gave, except he didn't pretend it was in jest. His arm-waving explanation of why the comet's density is nowhere close to that of rock has got to be one of the lamest in the ech repertoire. The same math and science that enabled Rosetta to rendezvous with the comet just happens to break down when used to determine the comet's density. Who are you guys trying to convince with all this? Your target audience surely can't be scientists.

It makes the point well ferd.

You don't even consider that the way "density" is measured / calculated on a CHARGED body could give erroneous results ?

It's certainly a HUGE test for the Electric Comet hypothesis. If comets are NOT found to be rock with a usual density then it's a fail.

Just get a sample and it would prove who is right !

So the bright spot in the second image, more saturation, right?

ferd

Yip

 

[JeanTate]

Hello Sol88.

So the jets issuing from the "ice" cliffs of Tempel 1 change your mind?

Comets, in particular Tempel 1 have enough surface ice to be able to produce jets?

Comparison of Deep Impact and Stardust photos of a smooth elevated feature on the surface of the nucleus showing recession of icy cliffs at the margins.

Jet activity on the cliffs of comet 9P/Tempel 1 Holger Sierks



So now we have two different interpretations, the above mainstream version and the Electric Comet version below

LINK

Holger Sierks....he's the man!

So, just using my eyeballs the shiny stuff on Tempel 1 is either "icy cliff retreating" and producing jets or that's an image of electric discharge also producing jets.

Think what you may JT but one explanation is self consistent the other well cobbled together to save face.

You decide on the source of the jets in question remembering Holger Sierks has some pretty good pictures up his sleeve.


[/FONT]

Almost out of time today, so just a note to say that I have read your post, and will respond tomorrow (or the day after, depends when I next post here).

 

[JeanTate]

Sol88,

Oh and by the way JT, nice dodge and weave!

I mean, if I thought that, "on the whole the surfaces of comets are dry and dusty but with lots of surface ice (...)?", should I answer "no"?

Or "on the whole the surfaces of comets are dry but not dusty with little to no surface ice (...)?", also "no"?

Then there's "ice" ... do you mean solid water? 'dry ice'? a mixture? other 'ices'?

Huh?

 

[ferd burfle]

You don't even consider that the way "density" is measured / calculated on a CHARGED body could give erroneous results ?

Please Haig, show me your assumptions and calculations resulting in numerical estimates that make this something I should consider. No links or copy-pasta unless they explicitly answer the question; any links need to be accompanied by an excerpt that gives me reason to follow the link . Your own calculations would also suffice.

Or admit the above is just another evasion, in this case of the "no claimer" variety.

Thanks,

ferd

 

[Belz...]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_382365493ec146d088.jpg[/qimg]

It's on the Thunderbolts Project site as far as I recall.

Nice picture. Sure trumps proving the theory with math and evidence and stuff.

 

[Haig]

Nice picture. Sure trumps proving the theory with math and evidence and stuff.

Yes, I totally agree with you (never thought I'd say that to you )



Venus' Tail of the Unexpected

Ancient peoples report that the planet Venus once had visible "ropes" stretching out to the Earth. Could a plasma glow discharge have been the cause?

Science : Planet's tail of the unexpected

ONE of our neighbouring planets can still pack a few surprises, it seems. Using satellite data, an international team of researchers has found that Venus sports a giant, ion-packed tail that stretches almost far enough to tickle the Earth when the two planets are in line with the Sun.

"I didn't expect to find it," says team member Marcia Neugebauer of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. "It's a really strong signal, and there's no doubt it's real."

 

[JamieK]

Yes, I totally agree with you (never thought I'd say that to you )

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_3823654ac17d8e163c.jpg[/qimg]

Venus' Tail of the Unexpected



Science : Planet's tail of the unexpected

That was discovered by NASA in 2007. How does that support ECH?

It is easily explained by ions in the upper atmosphere being captured by the solar wind.

Its not controversial or poorly understood. The extent of it was a surprise, as many things are. But those gaps in knowledge =/= toss out current cosmology for 'magic' theories.