The Electric Comet theory

[tusenfem]

For those interested, at BAUT [urll=http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/41761-electric-comets-6.html#post771436]the poster was introduced by P.Ashma[/url], and one would have to go through the thread to find all the comments on it. Basically the whole "electric comet poster" is totally unsubstantiated, with lots of claims, no math and no references.
(I think it would be best to copy that whole BAUT thread here because then Sol88 does not have to write all his ridiculous claims again)

 

[Zeuzzz]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaRRGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Take a chill pill man

 

[Dancing David]

Um, there are a lot of reasons to think that comets are not solid rocks. But even so, there is no reason to assume that comets are homogenous either.

As too comets being black, what are aromatic carbons?

Sol88, I asked you before and I ask you again.

1. If comets are rocky and they are solely showing the coma and tail as a result of a disapation of an accumulated electrical caharge, why is the tail longer in many cases after the comet approaches the sun. (Any charge should be disapeted by then and decreasing, not increasing.)

 

[Sol88]

Um, there are a lot of reasons to think that comets are not solid rocks. But even so, there is no reason to assume that comets are homogenous either.

As too comets being black, what are aromatic carbons?

Sol88, I asked you before and I ask you again.

1. If comets are rocky and they are solely showing the coma and tail as a result of a dissipation of an accumulated electrical charge, why is the tail longer in many cases after the comet approaches the sun. (Any charge should be dissipated by then and decreasing, not increasing.)

Pick a comet and show me where in the orbit you'd think this would be the case.

And you say dissipation of an accumulated electrical charge, but the only place it would be after it passes that point in its outbound orbit, in which it reaches equilibrium with it's plasma surrounds.

On the inbound leg though it has the same charge as it had "lost" while out near aphelion, closing to the positively charged Sun just sets up a charge differential, an electrical potential difference,a voltage and if it's one thing nature abhors more than a vacum, it's a electrical potential difference!

But 'cos it's immersed in a plasma as well, some interesting things happen! it forms a double layer/s (coma), tail and ANTI tail, loads/slows the solar wind enough for recombination to happen, forms filamentary structures close to where the famous EDM is happening(think not massive lightening bolts, but a "gentle" St Elmos fire(like your $20 buck plasma globe)) Makes water along with a string of other organic "stuff" including Carbon(this fact alone should blow open a whole range of disciplines eg. where did Earths water come from again?) and a whole lot more plasma phenomena that we are only JUST starting to learn and understand!

And the length of the tail should do more with how far it has to go to complete the circuit! In the case of Hale-Bopp and Hyakutake and McNuaght is was a fair way! Short period comet tails should be shorter and discharge less, especially when the Sun is quite, like now.

 

[Sol88]

Now, I am puzzled!

Apparently, the only way that the EC can "explain" the electric nature of a comet is by misinterpreting and badmouthing the mainstream model. It is the old fallacy of letting mainstream defend all their claims, making no claims themselves and then if one little thingy does not fit, EC says "yeah! our model is correct." But ... there is no EC model! Nothing has been presented apart from handwaving arguments etc.

So, what I expect to get now, which I also asked in the 2nd message in this thread:



Show us the money, Sol88 and Zeuzzz, and don't forget that that "poster" by thundercrap is not a valid model. I want a detailed model presented here, and I want it now.

The model as presented is valid!

which bit don't you understand Tusenfem?

 

[Sol88]

Now, I am puzzled!

Show us the money, Sol88 and Zeuzzz, and don't forget that that "poster" by thundercrap is not a valid model. I want a detailed model presented here, and I want it now.

See post 25

 

[Dancing David]

Pick a comet and show me where in the orbit you'd think this would be the case.

And you say dissipation of an accumulated electrical charge, but the only place it would be after it passes that point in its outbound orbit, in which it reaches equilibrium with it's plasma surrounds.

On the inbound leg though it has the same charge as it had "lost" while out near aphelion, closing to the positively charged Sun just sets up a charge differential, an electrical potential difference,a voltage and if it's one thing nature abhors more than a vacum, it's a electrical potential difference!

But 'cos it's immersed in a plasma as well, some interesting things happen! it forms a double layer/s (coma), tail and ANTI tail, loads/slows the solar wind enough for recombination to happen, forms filamentary structures close to where the famous EDM is happening(think not massive lightening bolts, but a "gentle" St Elmos fire(like your $20 buck plasma globe)) Makes water along with a string of other organic "stuff" including Carbon(this fact alone should blow open a whole range of disciplines eg. where did Earths water come from again?) and a whole lot more plasma phenomena that we are only JUST starting to learn and understand!

And the length of the tail should do more with how far it has to go to complete the circuit! In the case of Hale-Bopp and Hyakutake and McNuaght is was a fair way! Short period comet tails should be shorter and discharge less, especially when the Sun is quite, like now.

In comets that have not visited the inner system too often it is almost always the case that the tail is much longer on the trip out.

So you have this tail that is the result of electrical charge, right?

So you are saying that it has more of a charge after it goes around the sun.

Or what are you saying?

if it is immersed in plasma then it would discharge more quickly.

 

[Reality Check]

The obvious errors in the electric comet idea are best explained in Tim Thompson's posts:
Electric Comets I, Electric Comets II: References and Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays.

 

[Reality Check]

The model as presented is valid!

The model as presented is a bunch of hand waving ideas.
A scientific model uses physics and mathematics to produce predictions that can be tested against actual observations (i.e. numbers to compare against measurements).

For example: What is the X-ray spectrum from an electric comet?

The electric comet "model" you have presented is a couple of invalid ideas:

• Comets are rocks.
  Comets are lighter than rocks as shown by their measured densities.
• Comet tails are formed from water vaporized from rock by electrical arcs.
  There are no flashes of X-rays from these electrical arcs.

I repeat tusenfem's request:
Show us the money, Sol88 and Zeuzzz, and don't forget that that "poster" by thundercrap is not a valid model. I want a detailed model presented here, and I want it now.

 

[tusenfem]

See post 25

That is the abstract of the poster if I am not mistaken.
In the poster there is only handwaving, with no quantitative estimates whatsoever.
It is rather easy to write a handwaving paper, that might sound a bit convincing to the general public, but when one then puts some real science and real numbers in it, then it is found that it does not work.

I would love to be proved false, by a quantitative phyisical discussion of that model, but I doubt that we will ever see that presented by either Soll88 or Zeuzzz on this board.

(because we have been there, done that here on JREF and on BAUT and never such a quantitative model was presented)

 

[tusenfem]

Possible Mechanism of Cometary Outbursts http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000mbos.work..177I

I missed that one. From this abstract:

The possibility of transformation of the kinetic energy of high-energy (more than 1 MeV) protons ejected during solar flares into the electrical energy of macroscopic electric double layer in the subsurface region of a cometary nucleus is considered.

I guess this is then a solid state double layer?

Unfortunately, Ibadov only seems to publish in Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions, a journal that I don't know and don't have access to. There is a paper by Ibadov and Ibadov that is available for free. (don't have time to read it now but will save it).

 

[Sol88]

The obvious errors in the electric comet idea are best explained in Tim Thompson's posts:
Electric Comets I, Electric Comets II: References and Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays.

Thanks RC

Lets take your advice and read Tim Thompsons links again, specifically No EU X-rays, to parse

If that's what you think, then the EU is toast already. Comets cannot be "rocks". While comet masses are hard to constrain, they are not so extremely uncertain as to confuse "ice" and "rock". Comet densities are constrained to the range of about 0.3 to 1.5 gm/cm3 in numerous different ways, from dynamic orbit modeling to direct observation. Compare this to the density of water ice, 1.0 gm/cm3, and light "rocks" which range from 2-3 gm/cm3 (coal is the lightest "rock" at 1.1-1.4 gm/cm3; do you propose that comets are made of coal?). The average density of Earth is about 5.5 gm/cm3 due to the presence of heavier elements like iron (7.9 gm/cm3). Nothing with a density as low as 1.5 gm/cm3 can be considered a "rock" in any reasonable sense of the word. Comets are already known not to be rocks. For comet density references, see for instance Sosa & Fernandez, 2009; Richardson, et al., 2007; Weissman & Lowry, 2006.

Dynamic Orbit modeling, like the probe changing paths slightly in relation to the comets mass? Using some fantastic looking maths regarding it's trajectory? to parse
from wiki

A familiar example of a trajectory is the path of a projectile such as a thrown ball or rock. In a greatly simplified model the object moves only under the influence of a uniform homogenous gravitational force field. This can be a good approximation for a rock that is thrown for short distances for example, at the surface of the moon. In this simple approximation the trajectory takes the shape of a parabola. Generally, when determining trajectories it may be necessary to account for nonuniform gravitational forces, air resistance (drag and aerodynamics). This is the focus of the discipline of ballistics.

Another nonuniform grivtational forcethe mainstream know squat about is the Pioneer anomaly!!


So yeah,I don't know just how good your guessatimation is using questionable constants as to determine the density of the nucleus, because using your second method of determining comet nucleus density, Direct observation, it "looks" like ROCK, specifically Chondrite

Chondrites are stony meteorites that have not been modified due to melting or differentiation of the parent body. They formed when various types of dust and small grains that were present in the early solar system accreted to form primitive asteroids. Prominent among the components present in chondrites are the enigmatic chondrules, millimeter-sized objects that originated as freely floating, molten or partially molten droplets in space; most chondrules are rich in the silicate minerals olivine and pyroxene. Chondrites also contain refractory inclusions (including Ca-Al Inclusions), which are among the oldest objects to form in the solar system, particles rich in metallic Fe-Ni and sulfides, and isolated grains of silicate minerals.

from the stardust mission (the return smaple)

CAI Particle Found in the Stardust Collection

One of the most remarkable particles found in the Stardust collection is a particle named after the Inca Sun God Inti. Inti is collection of rock fragments that are all related in mineralogical, isotopic and chemical composition to rare components in meteorites called "Calcium Aluminum Inclusions" or CAI's for short. CAI's are the oldest materials that formed in the solar system and they contain a remarkable set of minerals that form at extremely high temperature. In addition to these same minerals, Inti also has tiny inclusions that may have been the first generation of solids to condense from hot gas in the early solar system. These include compounds of titanium, vanadium and nitrogen (TiN and VN) as well as tiny nuggets of platinum, osmium, ruthenium, tungsten and molybdenum. In certain chemical environments and at high enough temperature in the early solar system these exotic materials were the only solid materials that could survive without being vaporized.

as well as

The comet samples collected by Stardust contain abundant crystalline minerals and in most cases it is clear that they did not form by the predicted mild heating of interstellar dust. Many are too large, and have complex mineralogical and chemical compositions that could not have formed by this process. Instead of the mild heating that astronomers envisioned the comet samples were heated during their formation to severe temperatures, temperatures high enough to melt or vaporize them. The temperatures above 1300 ¼C and the samples were white hot. This is quite remarkable because the some of the ice components of comets appear to have formed only 30 degrees above absolute zero.

Lets take 19P/Borrelly for a direct observation shall we? some details first from wiki

Nucleus parameters

* Dimensions: 8×4×4 km[1]
* Density: 0.3 g/cm³[2]
* Mass: 2 × 1013 kg[3]
* Albedo: 0.03[4]

But it has a hot and dry surface

"We know the ice is there," he said. "It's just well- hidden. Either the surface has been dried out by solar heating and maturation or perhaps the very dark soot-like material that covers Borrelly's surface masks any trace of surface ice."
The Deep Space 1 science team released pictures and other initial findings days after the spacecraft flew within 2,171 kilometers (1,349 miles) of the comet's solid nucleus on September 22, 2001. This week's report provides additional details about the nucleus and the surrounding coma of gases and dust coming off of the comet as measured by one of Deep Space 1's scientific instruments.

"Comet Borrelly is in the inner solar system right now, and it's hot, between 26 and 71 degrees Celsius (80 and 161 degrees Fahrenheit), so any water ice on the surface would change quickly to a gas, " said Dr. Bonnie Buratti, JPL planetary scientist and co-author of the paper. "As the components evaporate, they leave behind a crust, like the crust left behind by dirty snow."

and they also found by direct observation

# An especially important note

about the 2001 apparition is that this comet became only the second comet to be photographed up close by a space probe, when Deep Space 1 flew about 1350 miles from the nucleus on September 22. Pictures of the nucleus revealed it measured 5 miles long and about 2.5 miles wide. As the probe approached the comet a sharply defined jet about 60km long was detected extending toward the sun. As the probe moved closer this jet was resolved into three columns or jets, and at its closest, the probe revealed the jets were emanating from bright, smooth patches on the surface. The primary jet appears to emanate from the rotation axis. It was mentioned that there were signs that the jets were eroding away at the surface and creating basins. It was suggested that since the erosion is occuring along the rotation axis, this might eventually cause the comet to split.

so a Density: 0.3 g/cm³ for 19P/Borelly or more like 3-4g/cm³
One model PREDICTED one did not, simple

 

[Reality Check]

...snipped...

Lets take 19P/Borrelly for a direct observation shall we? some details first from wiki

Nucleus parameters

* Dimensions: 8×4×4 km[1]
* Density: 0.3 g/cm³[2]
* Mass: 2 × 1013 kg[3]
* Albedo: 0.03[4]

But it has a hot and dry surface

and they also found by direct observation

so a Density: 0.3 g/cm³ for 19P/Borelly or more like 3-4g/cm³
One model PREDICTED one did not, simple

Are you that dumb Sol88?
The model predicts that comets will have densities less than water and much less than rock.
The observations are that comets do have densities less than water and much less than rock.

In this case you state the density foe 19P/Borrellyyourself: Density: 0.3 g/cm³[2]
The rest is just your usual derail into things you do not understand.

You have disproved the electric comet idea !

 

[Sol88]

Are you that dumb Sol88?
The model predicts that comets will have densities less than water and much less than rock.
The observations are that comets do have densities less than water and much less than rock.

In this case you state the density foe 19P/Borrellyyourself: Density: 0.3 g/cm³[2]
The rest is just your usual derail into things you do not understand.

You have disproved the electric comet idea !

You grow tiresome RC <yawn> I state the density of .3g/cm3 is wrong I stated it would be closer to 3-4g/cm3!

Learn to read RC, then I know you and I can read from the same page!

 

[Reality Check]

You grow tiresome RC <yawn> I state the density of .3g/cm3 is wrong I stated it would be closer to 3-4g/cm3!

Learn to read RC, then I know you and I can read from the same page!

You grow tiresome Sol88 <yawn>.
What part of "density less than water" states that the density should be 3-4 times greater than the density of water ?
This has already been expained to you - porosity.

Learn to read Sol88, then I know you and I can read from the same page!

And from the article citation that you obviously ignored

Continuing work on comets has produced some indication of their bulk density. Analysis of ejecta trajectories observed during the Deep Impact encounter with Comet 9P/Tempel 1 indicates a bulk density of 0.62 +0.47/-0.33 g/cm3 [4]. Davidsson and Gutierez [5.6] estimated densities for comets 19P/Borrelley and 81P/Wild 2 by analyzing non-gravitational orbital changes. Wild 2 is estimated at between 0.38-0.6 g/cm3 and Borrelly comes in be-tween 0.18-0.3 g/cm3.

 

[Sol88]

I would love to be proved false, by a quantitative phyisical discussion of that model, but I doubt that we will ever see that presented by either Soll88 or Zeuzzz on this board.

(because we have been there, done that here on JREF and on BAUT and never such a quantitative model was presented)

So lets see from stardust

The hypothesis that tiny stardust grains would dominate comet dust came from the knowledge that comets formed in the coldest, most distant region of the young solar system. In this cold place the initial building blocks of the solar system, interstellar dust and gas, might survive without modification.

snip

Some of the bigger particles found at the ends of the carrot- shaped tracks are a million times more massive than typical stardust grains.

When we started pulling these particles out and examining them in electron microscopes and other instruments, we found even more surprises. First of all we found evidence that the standard astronomical predictions for the origin of dust in comets, or at least the ones in this comet, appear to be incorrect

Like in meteorites most of the components from the comet have isotopic compositions similar to Earth and are of solar system origin.

and you, RC can sit back and believe this crud they fees you??? You my friend are beyond hope I fear

Remember those PREDICTIONS from the king of thundercrap Wal Thornhill

The Electric Comet ' and its Impact on Cosmology

Comets are important, they are the key to the universe!

If comets are essentially an electrical phenomenon then the implications for cosmology are profound. It means that everything we believe about the Sun, and therefore all stars, is wrong. Rather than assuming the universe is electrically dead, it raises the possibility that Nature is at least as smart as we are and finds electrical energy extremely useful in creating and energizing the structures we see in space

 

[Reality Check]

So lets see from stardust

snip

and you, RC can sit back and believe this crud they fees you??? You my friend are beyond hope I fear

Remember those PREDICTIONS from the king of thundercrap Wal Thornhill

The Electric Comet ' and its Impact on Cosmology

Comets are important, they are the key to the universe!

and you, Sol88 can sit back and believe this crud these crackpot web sites feed you??? You my friend are beyond hope I fear

Why don't you learn some actual science rather relying on web sites that are set up to sell you nonsensical books from the king of thundercrap Wal Thornhill?

Comets are important. They are not the key to the universe.
They do demonstrate that the king of thundercrap Wal Thornhill is full of the afore mentioned c**p.

 

[Sol88]

and you, Sol88 can sit back and believe this crud these crackpot web sites feed you??? You my friend are beyond hope I fear

Why don't you learn some actual science rather relying on web sites that are set up to sell you nonsensical books from the king of thundercrap Wal Thornhill?

Comets are important. They are not the key to the universe.
They do demonstrate that the king of thundercrap Wal Thornhill is full of the afore mentioned c**p.

Jeez ya pretty witty there RC

Learn real science??? like plasma "science"?

Case 1: I think that comets are an electrical phenomena n line, more or less, with Thornhill's word salad, hand waving, crackpot, thundercr%£p theory, as shown numerous times in the thread both here and over on BAUT.

So what evidence would I expect and look for if I thought this was the case?




Case 2: I'm a mission specialist with NASA/ESA and I think comets are "balls" of sublimating "volatiles" under the heat of the Sun.




So what evidence would I expect and look for if I thought this was the case?

RC?

 

[Sol88]

Comets are important. They are not the key to the universe.

Means the Sun's electric! Means ALL stars are electric...Means the Universe is Electric et cetera

 

[Reality Check]

Means the Sun's electric! Means ALL stars are electric...Means the Universe is Electric et cetera

Comets are not electric except in your head and some other less deluded people like Thornhill (after all they are selling you the delusion !).