The Electric Comet theory

[Reality Check]

Thunderbolts ignorance of basic physics about magnetic fields

.
Well ad homs are a poor way to post Reality Check
..snipped yet another Google image search...

Wrong, Haig: Recording the facts about the Thunderbolts authors for the world to see for the foreseeable future is a public service .
The Thunderbolts authors have been lying on their web site since 2006 and I pointed that out in 2010.
The Thunderbolts authors are ignorant about comets and I have pointed that out.
ETA: This apparently extends to ignorance about what the magnetic fields in light and ferromagnetism are since Exploring the Electric Universe thinks that they are caused by electric currents !
The Thunderbolts authors use Velikovsky's delusion from the 1950's that planets have recently moved out of their orbits (and maybe even that Venus was ejected from Jupiter ).

Thus The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site and videos
The ignorance and delusions in "The Balloon goes up over lightning" by Wal Thornhill
The ignorance and delusions in "Comets Impact Cosmology" by Wal Thornhill

Is ignoring that they have lied an acknowledgement that you do not understand the English on their web site, Haig?

ETA: Anyone who can understand English can understand the lie in ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Lying about flashes where they "confirm" a prediction about a flash before impact with flashes on or after impact.
The lie in ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Lying about the energetic effects needs a little more thought. They "confirm" a prediction about more energetic effects than expected with the visual surprises of astronomers in press releases - which they at least misquote! They ignore the scientific literature about the impact where the energy released is found to be as predicted in experiments.

ETA2: I had thought that I had seen an explicit statement of the Thunderbolts ignorance of basic physics about magnetic fields and I have found it.
Essential Guide to the EU – Chapter 2 Magnetic and Electric Fields in Space

2.4 The Origin of Magnetic Fields
There is only one way that magnetic fields can be generated: by moving electric charges. In permanent magnets, the fields are generated by electrons spinning around the nuclei of the atoms. A strong magnet is created when all the electrons orbiting the nuclei have spins that are aligned, creating a powerful combined force.

Maxwell's equations state that magnetic fields can be created by changing electric fields - thus electromagnetic waves, i.e. light.
Electrons have been known to not "spin around the nucleus" for over a century.
The real origin of permanent magnetism in ferromagnetism

One of the fundamental properties of an electron (besides that it carries charge) is that it has a magnetic dipole moment, i.e., it behaves like a tiny magnet. This dipole moment comes from the more fundamental property of the electron that it has quantum mechanical spin. Due to its quantum nature, the spin of the electron can be in one of only two states; with the magnetic field either pointing "up" or "down" (for any choice of up and down). The spin of the electrons in atoms is the main source of ferromagnetism, although there is also a contribution from the orbital angular momentum of the electron about the nucleus. When these magnetic dipoles in a piece of matter are aligned, (point in the same direction) their individually tiny magnetic fields add together to create a much larger macroscopic field.

 

[Cygnus_X1]

@ Cygnus_X1 (Tom), Reality Check, GraculusTheGreenBird ... et al Guys,Guys, Guys your all barking up the wrong tree

The Pi man isn't here and I'm not eating your stale mince Pi. Mathis would run Pi rings around you lot if you try to debate him on his site or anywhere.

If you want to chat about his papers that I posted (relevant to this thread, scroll back ) ... that's fine. Otherwise it's just wishful Pi in the sky to be ignored

IIRC, you were the one who tried to divert the discussion to this junk. So it appears now you're just admitting you invoked it as a diversionary tactic.

A Lightning Strike in Africa Helps Take the Pulse of the Sun

Evidence for solar wind modulation of lightning PDF

Modulation of UK lightning by heliospheric magnetic field polarity

These are simply evidence that space researchers DO consider electric fields in space. These discoveries are notable because their effects are so small compared to other larger-scale effects that they've only recently collected enough data of sufficient quality to see the signal.

These discoveries are far from evidence that the Sun or comets are powered by external electric currents.

I'm currently (sic) reading David Stern's review article, Large-scale electric fields in the earth's magnetosphere, from 1977. Dr. Stern documents seven different processes that can generate electric fields in magnetospheric environments. None of them are evidence of external electric currents powering stars or comets.

And all of these researchers can generate real numerical predictions for their ideas, which are used for comparing to actual instrument measurements to designing spacecraft to survive harsh environments and protect astronauts.

What useful space physics results have Electric Universe theorists generated for the 'electric comet hypothesis' this week? I mean something beyond trying to 'spin' the press releases of work by other researchers into support for their claims?

Anything we can compare to instrument measurements, or are EU theorists still at the 'looks like' level, like the 'ghost hunters' of 'Reality TV'?

 

[GraculusTheGreenBird]

@ Cygnus_X1 (Tom), Reality Check, GraculusTheGreenBird ... et al Guys,Guys, Guys your all barking up the wrong tree

The Pi man isn't here and I'm not eating your stale mince Pi. Mathis would run Pi rings around you lot if you try to debate him on his site or anywhere.

If you want to chat about his papers that I posted (relevant to this thread, scroll back ) ... that's fine. Otherwise it's just wishful Pi in the sky to be ignored

We don't need to debate him here or anywhere else, anyone who states that Pi = 4 is objectively wrong, completely and utterly.

How do we know this?

Because, you, I, and anyone who is interested can draw a circle, and measure the radius, then measure the circumference. You don't need a computer, you don't need graph paper, you can do it with chalk, or a piece of string, or a tape measure.

The ratio of those results is always 3.14159 etc, it is never, ever, EVER = 4.

That is an objective fact. If his theory says otherwise, his theory is WRONG, because it does not fit the evidence.

Because as you are fond of saying, the evidence is king, right?

But you already know this, don't you? You don't actually believe that pi = 4, you are not stupid. So why bring that theory up at all, when you know it is utter rubbish?

 

[ben m]

Mathis would run Pi rings around you lot if you try to debate him on his site or anywhere.

Just like a crackpot. You try to get them to talk science and they just want run around in circles.

(Or in Mathis's case, squares.)

 

[Nonpareil]

We don't need to debate him here or anywhere else, anyone who states that Pi = 4 is objectively wrong, completely and utterly.

My reaction, as someone who just tuned in to this discussion.

The crazy is too strong, even for me.

 

[phunk]

.
How do you like these images of Electric Comet 67P ?

I like that they show the "jets" but I don't like that they have to be so overexposed to show the jets that you can't even see a lot of the comet.

You don't think the brightness is an electrical discharge, do you?

 

[paladin17]

It's interesting that the kinetic energy of solar wind protons (assuming 400 km/s velocity) is roughly equal to the potential energy of a proton (or an electron) on the surface of the comet nucleus (assuming the 400 V potential 10 km away from its center, and the diameter of the nucleus of 2 km).
Makes me think of some sort of dynamic equilibrium.

 

[tusenfem]

It's interesting that the kinetic energy of solar wind protons (assuming 400 km/s velocity) is roughly equal to the potential energy of a proton (or an electron) on the surface of the comet nucleus (assuming the 400 V potential 10 km away from its center, and the diameter of the nucleus of 2 km).
Makes me think of some sort of dynamic equilibrium.

kinetic energy of a proton of solar wind 0.5 m_p v² = 1.3 10^-16Potential of comet 400 V (only assuming that the whole comet is on this potential, but day and night will have different charge)
Potential energy q V = 6.4 10^-17 as measured from infinity
Now, how exactly would this be a dynamic equilibrium?

 

[Sol88]

Well, I guess I'm wrong and comets are indeed dirtysnowballs of sublimating ice, like Tusenfem and RC said.

I mean it's fairly obvious the rubble field is boulders of ice and dust and the bright patches already seen are surface ice sublimating.

And well the maths, you just cant argue with the maths! We built the Rostta mission to just confirm the facts we already know. Cross the T's dot the I's and we're all done.

So I guess we just wait for the announcement that scientist have now confirmed comets are the leftovers form the nebular collapse that formed the Sun and Planets and delivered water and organics to Earth.

Oh well.

 

[Reality Check]

Well, I guess I'm wrong and comets are indeed dirtysnowballs of sublimating ice, like Tusenfem and RC said.

I mean it's fairly obvious the rubble field is boulders of ice and dust and the bright patches already seen are surface ice sublimating.

And well the maths, you just cant argue with the maths! We built the Rostta mission to just confirm the facts we already know. Cross the T's dot the I's and we're all done.

So I guess we just wait for the announcement that scientist have now confirmed comets are the leftovers form the nebular collapse that formed the Sun and Planets and delivered water and organics to Earth.

Oh well.

Sol88: You have been wrong since the thread was started 5 years ago - the measured density of comets means that they are ices and dust.
It is the observation that comets are ices and dust than means that all of the surface features (e.g. boulders and rubble) are made up of ices and dust.
What you still have not grasped is:
* there is no math in the electric comet delusion.
* applying valid physics (including math) debunks the electric comet delusion as in the idea that solar wind spluttering on imaginary rock or actual dust could produce the observed rate of water from comets (pints versus millions of tonnes!).
* scientists have confirmed comets are the leftovers form the nebular collapse that formed the Sun, planets, moons, asteroids.
* Rosetta has confirmed that comets are not the source of the Earth's oceans.
* That comets have delivered organics to the Earth is almost a given. We have known about organics on comets for some time. We have known that comets impact the Earth for a long time. The only question I can think of is whether organics would survive the impacts.

 

[Reality Check]

Comet Lovejoy’s Tail, Flapping in the (Solar) Wind
and during December 2014
Q2 Lovejoy Loses Tail, Grows Another, Loses That One Too!

ETA: There is magnetic reconnection (MR) when comets lose their tails. If you go looking for the Thunderbolts opinion about magnetic reconnection then you find paranoia and ignorance here and here.

• The paranoia is that MR was invented by astronomers to hide electric currents in space.
• There is the fallacy of argument from authority (Hannes Alfven) and a small lie about his statements. Hannes Alfven did not dispute the existence of MR but did point out the incorrect usages of the frozen-in field approximation in MR in the 1980's.
• There is the ignorance of Dr. Donald E. Scott and Rev Nicholas Sykes about magnetic field lines. There is a "lie to children" that is taught to undergraduate students that magnetic field lines form closed loops that have no gaps. This is true in the cases that undergraduate students analyze. However a little thought would tell these students that this is wrong. Magnetic field lines do not exist in regions where there is no magnetic field (B=0) since there is no force on a charged test particle and thus no way to draw lines in that region. It is actually simple to create places where B=0 (null or neutral points), e.g. two identical parallel currents have a null point halfway between them. Now change the current or displace them - the magnetic field lines move across the null point. The magnetic field lines break at the null point and reconnect on the other side.
  This is so obvious that MR textbooks tend to have only a few pages on MR in vacuum before going onto the much more physically interesting MR in plasma.
• The ignorance of going on about magnetic field lines being not real or a mental aid as if that means that they are irrelevant to physics.
  Magnetic field lines are a map of magnetic fields. MR is a change in the topology of magnetic fields that results in magnetic field lines reconnecting.

 

[Reality Check]

That comets have delivered organics to the Earth is almost a given. We have known about organics on comets for some time. We have known that comets impact the Earth for a long time. The only question I can think of is whether organics would survive the impacts.

The answer seems to be yes - small objects such as dust can "soft-land"
Pre-biotic organic matter from comets and asteroids (1989)

SEVERAL authors1-3 have suggested that comets or carbonaceous asteroids contributed large amounts of organic matter to the primitive Earth, and thus possibly played a vital role in the origin of life. But organic matter cannot survive the extremely high temperatures (> 104 K) reached on impact, which atomize the projectile and break all chemical bonds. Only fragments small enough to be gently decelerated by the atmosphere-principally meteors of 10-12-10-6 g-can deliver their organic matter intact4. The amount of such 'soft-landed' organic carbon can be estimated from data for the infall rate of meteoritic matter. At present rates, only ~0.006 g cm-2 intact organic carbon would accumulate in 108 yr, but at the higher rates of ~4 x 109 yr ago, about 20 g cm-2 may have accumulated in the few hundred million years between the last cataclysmic impact and the beginning of life. It may have included some biologically important compounds that did not form by abiotic synthesis on Earth.

 

[Haig]

I like that they show the "jets" but I don't like that they have to be so overexposed to show the jets that you can't even see a lot of the comet.

You don't think the brightness is an electrical discharge, do you?

No I don't phuck, why do you think the JETS on 67P started approx 9 months earlier than "expected" and "planned for" by the Rosetta Mission ?

FINE STRUCTURE IN THE COMET’S JETS

the nucleus is deliberately overexposed in order to reveal faint jets and the collimated nature of the streams of gas and dust rising from the surface.

Why phunk, do you think the JETS are collimated ?

67P JETS


As well as the JETS what's the mechanism that can account for a comet's coma and tail ?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

In the conspiracy subfora we call posts like this Just Asking Questions, or JAQing off. And from what I've seen following this Electricaloid Whatchamacallit topic that seems to be all there is.

 

[Sol88]

In the conspiracy subfora we call posts like this Just Asking Questions, or JAQing off. And from what I've seen following this Electricaloid Whatchamacallit topic that seems to be all there is.

As you may have guessed AP, both Haig and I are for the ELECTRIC COMET and most others here are dead set against UNTIL the data from the Rosetta probe is released and papers are submitted.

Haig and I have both shown that all phenomena can be explained by electrical/plasma interactions with the solar wind and the sun electric field.

BUT

until it's written in some sort of complex mathamtical formula we are basicaly rehash'n the same ol same ol.

Tusenfem is the inside man around here in regard to the data release, so he'll know before anyone else, in fact he said there would be some papers released on the "singing" comet very soon.

this should have some bearing on the discussion here.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Haig and I have both shown that all phenomena can be explained by electrical/plasma interactions with the solar wind and the sun electric field.

Where did you do this?
I must have missed that post.

 

[Cygnus_X1]

As you may have guessed AP, both Haig and I are for the ELECTRIC COMET and most others here are dead set against UNTIL the data from the Rosetta probe is released and papers are submitted.

Haig and I have both shown that all phenomena can be explained by electrical/plasma interactions with the solar wind and the sun electric field.

Really?

Yet you present NOTHING to demonstrate that your model can do anything useful, like aid in planning a more ambitious future mission to a comet.

Your 'explanation' can answer none of these questions:

- What's the electric charge on the comet and the Sun? Mainstream astronomers tried to do this in the late 1800s - early 1900s and failed to get consistent results.

- How does the presence of the electrostatic force between the comet and Sun affect the comet's motion?

- What's the electric charge induced on the spacecraft in the ECH model? That is important for determining the electric forces between the comet and the spacecraft, not just its implications for the trajectory, the the changes and intensity of a voltage discharge between the comet and spacecraft.

Yet without including any of these 'electric sun' features, the Rosetta team managed to navigate their spacecraft for 10 years to a precision rendezvous.

- If the mainstream model is so wrong, how did the Rosetta team manage that mission when they didn't include all the charges and electric fields in this environment advocated by EU?

Attempts by others to answer these types of questions produce, at best, inconsistent results, and generate nothing but excuses from ECH proponents. ECH supporters continue to jump on any mention of electric fields in the mainstream science (usually in some local region) as if it is automatically support for their particular claims of heliosphere-spanning electric fields which can also explain the solar luminosity.

They still haven't explained what/where the energy source is that drives these huge voltage differences.

ECH and Electric Sun (hypothesis) is worse than wrong. It's useless.

The ECH claim that 'it looks like a discharge' or 'it looks like a rock' are about as scientifically precise as THIS evidence that elephants can fly. Such an 'explanation', like ECH, is indistinguishable from a fairy tale.

 

[Sol88]

Really?

Yet you present NOTHING to demonstrate that your model can do anything useful, like aid in planning a more ambitious future mission to a comet.

Your 'explanation' can answer none of these questions:

- What's the electric charge on the comet and the Sun? Mainstream astronomers tried to do this in the late 1800s - early 1900s and failed to get consistent results.

- How does the presence of the electrostatic force between the comet and Sun affect the comet's motion?

- What's the electric charge induced on the spacecraft in the ECH model? That is important for determining the electric forces between the comet and the spacecraft, not just its implications for the trajectory, the the changes and intensity of a voltage discharge between the comet and spacecraft.

Yet without including any of these 'electric sun' features, the Rosetta team managed to navigate their spacecraft for 10 years to a precision rendezvous.

- If the mainstream model is so wrong, how did the Rosetta team manage that mission when they didn't include all the charges and electric fields in this environment advocated by EU?

Snip

They still haven't explained what/where the energy source is that drives these huge voltage differences.

ECH and Electric Sun (hypothesis) is worse than wrong. It's useless.

The ECH claim that 'it looks like a discharge' or 'it looks like a rock' are about as scientifically precise as THIS evidence that elephants can fly. Such an 'explanation', like ECH, is indistinguishable from a fairy tale.

Patience you must have, young Padawan.


Waiting we are for the data you speak of.

 

[Sol88]

The image presented here was taken on 22 November 2014 by the OSIRIS wide-angle camera, from a distance of 30 km. It is part of a set of observations dedicated to the investigation of the comet’s general activity. As such, the nucleus is deliberately overexposed in order to reveal faint jets and the collimated nature of the streams of gas and dust rising from the surface

By understanding where exactly the jets are emerging, e.g., from the cliffs or plains, the scientists will learn exactly how the activity is generated. The scientists will also learn how the jets interact with the dust particles and gas coma that is surrounding the nucleus, but which is only clearly visible at much greater distances from the comet (for example, take a look at the coma as seen through the ground-based VLT).

My bold. I thought that was a given??? ICE sublimating is generating the activity, no????

LINK

Have a crack at explaining that with sublimating ice being blown back by the solar wind.

 

[tusenfem]

Waiting we are for the data you speak of.

There is SOOOO much data that can be used to test the EC fantasy.
No EC-tizen even tries to use the available data to test the EC fantasy.