Electric universe theories here.

[DeiRenDopa]

Siggy_G, if we replace neutrinos with photons, and if we take Scott at his word, how can we say anything about any astronomical object (that we have not yet visited, to take measurements in situ)?

I mean, we *think* photons are emitted by the Sun (say), but since we have not actually been to the Sun, we cannot say what changes have occurred (if any) in the parts of the transmission channel (between Sun and Earth) close to the Sun, can we? Who knows, maybe photons turn into pumpkins then back into photons. Or perhaps the Sun emits pumpkins, but they change into photons before very long. Or ...

Can you explain, please, how Scott is not saying that astronomy tells us nothing (except for things like the Moon, Mars, and so on)?

My interpretation of Scott's pronouncement in this regard is that we can't take for granted that a given value of detected electrons (among other particles) should account for the otherwise missing neutrinos from a solar thermonuclear process.

(bold added)

What do electrons have to do with anything that Scott wrote? That I wrote?

In other words, when receiving data from any astronomical source, one ought to assume that what is detected is the extension of the energies delivered at the source, although spherically reduced and filtered through given mediums (scattering, absorption lines etc.).

I'm sorry Siggy_G, I can make neither head nor tail of this; would you be kind enough to elaborate and clarify please?

Specifically, what does "the extension of the energies delivered at the source" mean?

That, rather than assuming that a good portion of the incoming data really was something else before it turned into, say, detected photons or electrons. The latter is more a speculative assumption in physics, while the first isn't.

That may be so ... but it is, surely, completely irrelevant?

I mean, Scott did not qualify his statement ("pronouncement"? Who makes pronouncements? Why authorities whose wisdom may not be questioned! ), neither in the document from which the quote was taken, nor anywhere else (that I have been able to find - if you know of any such qualifications, please provide them Siggy_G).

And the statement is quite general, sweeping, and comprehensive; here it is again: "There is no way that a measurement taken at only one end of a transmission channel can reveal changes that have occurred farther up the channel."

So, we take a measurement using the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), of a point of light (a "star"); that is "one end of a transmission channel".

We have not been to that where the light is emitted (i.e. the surface of the star), nor have we sampled any part of this particular "transmission channel", beyond an au or three near the HST; we have, in Scott's words "a measurement taken at only one end of a transmission channel".

So, what happened between where the light (photons) was emitted and the HST? According to Scott, our measurement cannot "reveal changes that have occurred farther up the channel".

And since any such changes cannot be revealed, by our measurement, no one can say whether the light we measure began its journey as pumpkins, changing to photons only a few hundred au from the HST.

So, once again, how has Scott not declared all of astronomy (beyond the solar system) to be meaningless?

Astronomy tells us a lot, it's just the astrophysical interpretations of the data along the lines of "detected photons have in fact once been pumpkins" that probably are empirically invoked to defend the "pumpkin" model, rather than teaching us anything useful about our surroundings. Both ground based and in situ measurements are of high significance, independent of cosmological model. It is the approach and interpretation that is different.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with cosmology (why did you think that it did?)!

This is all about whether we can use astronomical observations (such as with the HST) to say that, for example, HD 172051 is very similar to the Sun, in terms of its temperature, luminosity, and metallicity. According to Scott, no such conclusions (or interpretations) are possible, even in principle.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Physically impossible again, e.g. the debye length of the Sun's plasma is much too small - the best you get is 10 metres for the solar wind!

I'm wondering how we can have coronal loops, interplanetary flux ropes and red sprites within the ionosphere, all of these being electric currents reaching over millions of Debye lengths within the respective medium.

What you wrote - that I'm quoting - may make sense to RC, but to me, I'm afraid, it is meaningless.

Can you elaborate and clarify please - what does what you wrote have to do with Scott's 2007 conference presentation (which is what RC is commenting on)?

Any explanation as to why current sheets within astrophysical plasmas apparently can be configured to violate Debye length so extensively?

Huh? What does "astrophysical plasmas apparently can be configured to violate Debye length" mean?

Do you know what the "Debye length" is?

 

[tusenfem]

There is no problem at all with (astrophysical)plasmas "violating" the Debye length. In general double layers (in any plasma) have a size of 10 (ten) Debye lengths. However the physics has to be correct to make it possible (e.g. a current that flows through a region with too little density).

The problems comes when the EU/PU/PC/ES/EC proponents want to do things that cannot be made possible by the physics involved. Electrostatic forces over long distances, currents driving the energization of complete stars (e.g. the sun) without somehow producing the associated magnetic fields (that we would measure around the Earth), filamentation of currents in space but Peratt can just use 35 kPc current "channels", discharges on the surface of comets creating water, and what have you nots, the list is endless.

Looking through this revamped thread, it is clear that it once more it just going to be words from the EU/PU/PC/ES/EC proponents, and no physics, and just a lot of comments to try and bring down mainstream, implicitly assuming that EU/PU/PC/ES/EC then will be vindicated.

So, Siggy_G, when can we expect something substantial from you? Not just words, and in-understandable proze, but a topic of EU/PU/PC/ES/EC and show that it works. You can do a search on this board, and you should be able to find several calculations that I have done, using the EU/PU/PC/ES/EC assumptions (in this thread, or search for Juergens if you want to see calculations about an electric sun ES model).

But I doubt we will get something like that from you anytime soon.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

There is no problem at all with (astrophysical)plasmas "violating" the Debye length. In general double layers (in any plasma) have a size of 10 (ten) Debye lengths. However the physics has to be correct to make it possible (e.g. a current that flows through a region with too little density).

The problems comes when the EU/PU/PC/ES/EC proponents want to do things that cannot be made possible by the physics involved. Electrostatic forces over long distances, currents driving the energization of complete stars (e.g. the sun) without somehow producing the associated magnetic fields (that we would measure around the Earth), filamentation of currents in space but Peratt can just use 35 kPc current "channels", discharges on the surface of comets creating water, and what have you nots, the list is endless.

Looking through this revamped thread, it is clear that it once more it just going to be words from the EU/PU/PC/ES/EC proponents, and no physics, and just a lot of comments to try and bring down mainstream, implicitly assuming that EU/PU/PC/ES/EC then will be vindicated.

So, Siggy_G, when can we expect something substantial from you? Not just words, and in-understandable proze, but a topic of EU/PU/PC/ES/EC and show that it works. You can do a search on this board, and you should be able to find several calculations that I have done, using the EU/PU/PC/ES/EC assumptions (in this thread, or search for Juergens if you want to see calculations about an electric sun ES model).

But I doubt we will get something like that from you anytime soon.

(bold added)

I'm glad that you understood what Siggy_G wrote, tusenfem!

I wonder, though, if what you wrote is what Siggy_G actually meant (in your first para)? I look forward to Siggy_G's clarifications ...

 

[Reality Check]

That depends on approach, doesn't it?

No it depends on the laws of physics as determined n=by observations and experiments.

The paper on an electric powered binary star is interesting in that it shows how electricity can be capable of sustaining strong stellar emissions, a process that only thermonuclear models have been taken to be of sufficient energy (I already pointed out "although dynamo based", so I know it doesn't equal the electrodynamic Electric Sun model of an incoming electron drift)

The paper on an electric powered binary star is interesting in that it shows how electricity can be capable of sustaining strong stellar emissions in stellar binary systems consisting of a magnetic and a non-magnetic white-dwarf pair.
You do know that the Sun is

1. Not a white dwarf?
2. Not part of a magnteic and non-magnetci white dwarf pair?

There's a couple of more papers from Donald E. Scott:

No - there are a couple of PDFs on the web from Scott, one of which I have already mentioned.
A paper is an article that is published in a journal.

 

[Reality Check]

I'm wondering how we can have coronal loops, interplanetary flux ropes and red sprites within the ionosphere, all of these being electric currents reaching over millions of Debye lengths within the respective medium. Any explanation as to why current sheets within astrophysical plasmas apparently can be configured to violate Debye length so extensively? Could it be due to such plasmas being far from symmetric or in non-equilibrium?

That sounds correct - the Debye length controls the physics of a plasma that is not deriven by an external energy source.
It is possible to have coronal loops, interplanetary flux ropes and red sprites within the ionosphere powered by the magnetic fields of stars and planets.
It is possible to have jets powered by black holes.

The scientific woo in the electric/plasma universe is evident when they forget that in order to get

• their galactic plasma filaments containing massive electric currents
• electric currents powering the Sun (which is already powered by fusion !)

they need an energy source. It is a simple physical fact that an electric current is driven by an EMF.

 

[Tubbythin]

ww.electric-cosmos.org/Rejoinder.pdf[/URL] (reply to Tim Thomason, 2001)
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/RebutTB.pdf (reply to Tom Bridgman, revisited 2009)

It is extremely telling that Scott makes no mention whatsoever of the fact that all his neutrino-related objections (right or wrong at the time) have been completely removed by all the subsequent data. Why could this be?

 

[Dancing David]

My bad - thought it was sufficient as a swift source on a bit of his work/research, which was requested. Thanks for the proper link. There is, as you know, also his books.



I'm wondering how we can have coronal loops, interplanetary flux ropes and red sprites within the ionosphere, all of these being electric currents reaching over millions of Debye lengths within the respective medium. Any explanation as to why current sheets within astrophysical plasmas apparently can be configured to violate Debye length so extensively? Could it be due to such plasmas being far from symmetric or in non-equilibrium?

And are they wide spread plasma effects?
Or are they concentrated pieces of plasma?

Now they are effects but are they effects that scale to galactic scales?

 

[Dancing David]

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?reload=true&arnumber=4346306

For example, the Stardust mission has shown that the origin of comets requires some high-temperature conditions.

Which is proof of high temperatures in molecular clouds and accretion disks, not proof of electrical comets!

A 'cross-eye' stereo pair of comet Wild 2's nucleus showing typical EDM erosion.

Note that is not evidence of EDM erosion, he just says that "it looks like it".

http://www.rsc.org/delivery/_ArticleLinking/DisplayArticleForFree.cfm?doi=a800079d

Sputtering by high-energy irradiation of cometary dust particles,
which is the mechanism invoked for the release of sodium from Mercury and from
the Moon, is a highly inefficient mechanism31 which cannot explain the observed production
of cometary Na. Metallic sodium could sublime from superheated cometary
grains, but it seems unlikely that metallic sodium exists freely in grains. The last possibility
is that Na comes from the photodissociation of parent molecules released from the
nucleus or from dust.

Back to Thornhill:

A forbidden oxygen spectral line in the coma of Comet Austin pointed to an intense electric field.

http://barolo.as.utexas.edu/anita/oxygen2.pdf

We report on the detection of atomic oxygen lines in the spectra of 8 comets. These
forbidden lines are a result of the photodissociation of the parent oxygen-bearing species
directly into an excited state. We used high resolution spectra obtained at the McDonald
Observatory 2.7m telescope to resolve the cometary oxygen lines from the telluric oxygen
lines and from other cometary emissions. We find that the relative intensities of the
two red lines (6300.304 and 6363.776 °A) are consistent with theory.

So it seems Thornhill does not look around for many other explanations, now does he?

 

[tusenfem]

Interestingly, for the Electric Comet (EC) proponents, I have cited several times the paper by Harri Laakso (Electric fields and cold electrons in the vicinity of Comet Halley), but none have ever read it, or commented on it. I like Harri, so I am pushing his paper once more, but I doubt ole thorny will read it.

 

[Dancing David]

Interestingly, for the Electric Comet (EC) proponents, I have cited several times the paper by Harri Laakso (Electric fields and cold electrons in the vicinity of Comet Halley), but none have ever read it, or commented on it. I like Harri, so I am pushing his paper once more, but I doubt ole thorny will read it.

That paper has been repressed!

 

[DeiRenDopa]

TB marketing advice: "The key is to just present your case with references, agreed to disagree and move on. [...] The thread (including this one) will stay there, continue to be read, and searched, for history (including their illogical rants)." (you can google the source).

And: "Feel free to throw yourself into discussions on those physics-whatever forums, but arm yourself with peer-reviewed material (Hannes Alfven, Birkeland etc.) and make sure to be in-line with the important arguments of Wallace Thornhill / the Thunderbolts project."

And: "Following siggy's advice on peer-reviewed material would be more appropriate for the scientific types. I also find it useful to dig up mainstream plasma physics papers, relating to research pertinent to the subject of the discussion, to support the EU stuff."

 

[Siggy_G]

DeiRenDopa, I'm sorry to say, but you keep asking me to elaborate or clarify my statements, some of which tusenfem and Reality Check were able to understand and respond to. I'm already spending enough time responding in a 1 to 3 ratio, so I won't spend additional time and energy re-phrasing or setting up new scenarios for each of my previous statements. Of course, if I have said something erroneous or where you're pointing to challenges, I'll try to respond to it.

Tusenfem and Reality Check: regarding Debye screening, what is interesting is that this behavior of plasmas (its ability to screen out external electric fields as a consequence of surrounding opposite charges to each sample particle), is sometimes cited as a reason why electric currents can't occur at stellar or galactic scales. In other words, one assumes that electric discharges only can happen within one Debye length (tiny scales) in a given plasma density.

Apparently, when significant charge builds up in one region (various mechanisms depending on scenario; ionizing radiation, triboelectric effect, photoelectric effect), there occurs a potential difference between this region and another given surrounding region. The plasma is in non-equilibrium and asymmetrical in regards to particle distribution within a certain volume. It is not necessarily restricted to a defined double layer (two regions of equal and opposite charge). A "virtual" double layer can be the surrounding plasma or any distant region with available ions to balance out the charge separation. The region in-between will define an electric field (and an azimuthal magnetic field as soon as electric currents start to flow). If the double layer is spherical the electric field will be relatively weak, but of an exponentially strong gradient as it approaches the central region. The "energy source" is the charge separation itself and the source to be balanced out (electromotive force). The currents would then flow through any available channel or regions of low density within the plasma, until the charge separation is balanced. It is this scenario that is scalable, and mathematically the factors would have to be proportional. Not only is it scalable, but it is a dynamic process, where regions move in respect to each other.

What do you reckon?

 

[Siggy_G]

Comets:
Even with the application of conventional physics/notions, it should be evident that comets inhabit very strong electric properties.

Imagine a comet in its orbit approaching the Sun. As the comet nucleus is exposed to radiation from the Sun, it will emit electrons due to the photoelectric effect. Especially so, if the material is of a rocky or partially metallic substance. Electrons will bind with positive ions in the solar wind and build up a comet coma. The recombinations will cause radiation in various bandwidth, depending on ion types and energy states.

The escalating exposure to radiation as the comet orbits towards the Sun, will increase the photoelectric effect. The comet's shadow side, is still exposed to protons from cosmic radiation. This will cause instabilities in the coma plasma as it partially emits electrons and partially receives protons. Electric discharges will occur within the coma (probably more so at the day/night border), which will cause x-ray emissions.

Since a portion of the coma also consists of neutral atoms, these will also respond to the radiation towards excited states and/or emitting electrons. The comet nucleus will build up a positive net charge on the Sun side, while the coma will be a non-equilibrium plasma. Dust will be charged and repel itself off the surface and manifest as the dusty plasma tail that moves in a more mechanical manner (appearing to lag behind) than the pure plasma tail that responds directly to rays from the Sun and solar wind (anti-sunward tail).

If there is any net charge difference between the comet and the Sun, it would have an additional electromagnetic influence on its orbit, which would mean that mass (and density) derived from orbital speed from gravity formulas would give wrong results.

While the above are my own words, these are relevant abstracts/papers in terms of what is observed (and possible interpretations):

X-ray and ultraviolet emissions from Comet C/Hyakutake 1996 B2

Possible Mechanism of Cometary Outbursts

On the electrostatic charging of the cometary nucleus

The Electrostatic (...) Variations and Outbursts of Brightness of Comets

 

[Siggy_G]

TB marketing advice: (...)

You're referring to a forum thread that discussed how diverted, conflicting and cluttered other forum discussions tend to be, including often misguided notions about what the Electric Universe theory is. The thread also included advices to EU proponents, involving themselves in various discussions, that one ought to have references to papers or peer reviewed material, supporting one's statements. An objective advice also relevant to JREF, BAUT or wherever. Also, that if presenting what the Electric Universe is, it should be in-line with e.g. Wallace Thornhill's work, which largely defines or summarizes the theory. Those that are into the EU theory find it just as interesting and engaging as anyone being into e.g. Big Bang, string theory or Hawking's scenarios, and one should be allowed to discuss theories. As to different public, one would discuss differently, just as material is presented differently in scientific papers versus popular science magazines.

This thread for instance, was initiated by JREF veterans to specifically discuss Electric Universe theory, so if you feel that my posts are of "marketing nature", than that's your own conspirational take on it. Should we take all the other forum threads (or magazines) discussing mainstream science as marketing campaigns as well? In that case, the Electric Universe is outnumbered, so don't worry. Luckily, science isn't based on votes (well...) and certainly not internet forum activity.

 

[tusenfem]

Tusenfem and Reality Check: regarding Debye screening, what is interesting is that this behavior of plasmas (its ability to screen out external electric fields as a consequence of surrounding opposite charges to each sample particle), is sometimes cited as a reason why electric currents can't occur at stellar or galactic scales. In other words, one assumes that electric discharges only can happen within one Debye length (tiny scales) in a given plasma density.

Well, that is patently wrong. If that would be the case then we would not have the currents flowing along the Io flux tube. I don't know in which book or on what website you read that.

And what on Earth is this about "electric discharges?" Why would there be discharges in a plasma? To get a discharge there needs to be a isolator between the cathode and the anode, which can break down and cause a discharge, like in lightning on Earth, where the neutral atmosphere breaks down and an ionized path is created through which the charge difference can equalize itself.

Apparently, when significant charge builds up in one region (various mechanisms depending on scenario; ionizing radiation, triboelectric effect, photoelectric effect), there occurs a potential difference between this region and another given surrounding region. The plasma is in non-equilibrium and asymmetrical in regards to particle distribution within a certain volume.

ionizing radiation does not create a net charge build up.
triboelectric effects create charged "dust" and ions, no charge build up
photoelectric effects create free electrons and a charges surface

which of these effects happen in a plasma and how exactly are they creating a "potential difference" is beyond me, but maybe you can explain?

It is not necessarily restricted to a defined double layer (two regions of equal and opposite charge). A "virtual" double layer can be the surrounding plasma or any distant region with available ions to balance out the charge separation.

I have not got the foggiest what you mean with a "virtual double layer." Apparently you want the processes above to create a charge imbalance in the plasma, but non of the effects above in a plasma create a charge imbalance. So, we'll send that to fairytale land.

The region in-between will define an electric field (and an azimuthal magnetic field as soon as electric currents start to flow). If the double layer is spherical the electric field will be relatively weak, but of an exponentially strong gradient as it approaches the central region. The "energy source" is the charge separation itself and the source to be balanced out (electromotive force). The currents would then flow through any available channel or regions of low density within the plasma, until the charge separation is balanced. It is this scenario that is scalable, and mathematically the factors would have to be proportional. Not only is it scalable, but it is a dynamic process, where regions move in respect to each other.

What do you reckon?

What I reckon is that you have absolutely no idea how plasmas work. You just come up with a "idea" that does not make any sense. How are you going to create a "spherical" double layer? What is maintaining it. It is not something that just can exist, it has specific existence criteria.

So, please go and learn plasma physics, and then come back.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

DeiRenDopa, I'm sorry to say, but you keep asking me to elaborate or clarify my statements, some of which tusenfem and Reality Check were able to understand and respond to. I'm already spending enough time responding in a 1 to 3 ratio, so I won't spend additional time and energy re-phrasing or setting up new scenarios for each of my previous statements. Of course, if I have said something erroneous or where you're pointing to challenges, I'll try to respond to it.

I'm cool with that; I'm very patient.

One of the things you'll learn I'm very big on is trying extremely hard to make sure I am on the same page as others who've posted in the same thread - if you're interested in finding out more about how hard I try at this, I'd be only too happy to provide you with some links.

Now I've been here a while, and tusenfem and RC have posted frequently in threads I've also been active in, so I now have a high degree of confidence that there is little miscommunication, or misunderstanding in our posts (of course, I can't speak for what degree of confidence they have).

Tusenfem and Reality Check: regarding Debye screening, what is interesting is that this behavior of plasmas (its ability to screen out external electric fields as a consequence of surrounding opposite charges to each sample particle), is sometimes cited as a reason why electric currents can't occur at stellar or galactic scales. In other words, one assumes that electric discharges only can happen within one Debye length (tiny scales) in a given plasma density.

Apparently, when significant charge builds up in one region (various mechanisms depending on scenario; ionizing radiation, triboelectric effect, photoelectric effect), there occurs a potential difference between this region and another given surrounding region. The plasma is in non-equilibrium and asymmetrical in regards to particle distribution within a certain volume. It is not necessarily restricted to a defined double layer (two regions of equal and opposite charge). A "virtual" double layer can be the surrounding plasma or any distant region with available ions to balance out the charge separation. The region in-between will define an electric field (and an azimuthal magnetic field as soon as electric currents start to flow). If the double layer is spherical the electric field will be relatively weak, but of an exponentially strong gradient as it approaches the central region. The "energy source" is the charge separation itself and the source to be balanced out (electromotive force). The currents would then flow through any available channel or regions of low density within the plasma, until the charge separation is balanced. It is this scenario that is scalable, and mathematically the factors would have to be proportional. Not only is it scalable, but it is a dynamic process, where regions move in respect to each other.

What do you reckon?

From tusenfem's subsequent post, I conclude that my initial impression - that your use of terms is not well aligned with the use of the same terms in plasma physics - was pretty much correct (if it helps, if only to save you time and effort, tusenfem did his PhD on double layers, and studied under Alfven; he has published several papers on space physics, specifically dealing with planetary magnetospheres, the interplanetary medium/solar wind, etc).

I'll close by quoting from an earlier post by tusenfem: "So, Siggy_G, when can we expect something substantial from you? Not just words, and in-understandable proze, but a topic of EU/PU/PC/ES/EC and show that it works."

I look forward to reading your answer to his question.

 

[Dancing David]

Siggy G, I know you are bombarded. When I mentioned the Debye length, it is because it does matter. Especially when claims are made about large scale plsma effects. So I await you statement and will review the one about comets.
But I will ask you this, if rocky bodies become comets, why don't the vast majority of asteroids show tails?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

OK, I said I'm very patient, and I hope that you will get around to answering my questions sometime.

Comets:
Even with the application of conventional physics/notions, it should be evident that comets inhabit very strong electric properties.

In line with making sure we are not talking past each other, what does "comets inhabit very strong electric properties" mean? I've not, IIRC, ever come across "inhabit" used this before.

Imagine a comet in its orbit approaching the Sun. As the comet nucleus is exposed to radiation from the Sun, it will emit electrons due to the photoelectric effect. Especially so, if the material is of a rocky or partially metallic substance.

For a given cometary surface - you specify the proportions of various metals, rocky materials, etc - how does the emission of photoelectrons, per square metre of surface, vary with distance from the Sun? A quantitative answer if you please (an OOM - order of magnitude - one, with bounds, is OK).

Electrons will bind with positive ions in the solar wind and build up a comet coma. The recombinations will cause radiation in various bandwidth, depending on ion types and energy states.

Can we then use the observed line (and band) emission from a comet's coma to estimate the rate of production of photoelectrons from the comet's surface? If so, how (as in, quantitatively)?

The escalating exposure to radiation as the comet orbits towards the Sun, will increase the photoelectric effect. The comet's shadow side, is still exposed to protons from cosmic radiation. This will cause instabilities in the coma plasma as it partially emits electrons and partially receives protons.

What sort of plasma instabilities will be caused?

How - specifically - would these instabilities arise?

Electric discharges will occur within the coma (probably more so at the day/night border), which will cause x-ray emissions.

I'm afraid I don't understand ... how can there be discharges in a plasma? Don't discharges require the breakdown of an insulator?

In any case, what would the x-ray spectrum from these discharges look like?

Since a portion of the coma also consists of neutral atoms, these will also respond to the radiation towards excited states and/or emitting electrons. The comet nucleus will build up a positive net charge on the Sun side,

Why? If there's a net positive charge on the surface, won't the liberated electrons flow to the surface, so neutralising it?

while the coma will be a non-equilibrium plasma.

I am unfamiliar with this term; can you explain what it means please?

Specifically, what is not in equilibrium?

Dust will be charged and repel itself off the surface and manifest as the dusty plasma tail that moves in a more mechanical manner (appearing to lag behind) than the pure plasma tail that responds directly to rays from the Sun and solar wind (anti-sunward tail).

If there is any net charge difference between the comet and the Sun, it would have an additional electromagnetic influence on its orbit,

I don't understand this, can you clarify please?

Specifically, since the solar wind/interplanetary medium is a highly ionised plasma, what sort of "electromagnetic influence" can there be between Sun and comet?

In any case, what net force(s) would act on the comet (quantitatively)?

which would mean that mass (and density) derived from orbital speed from gravity formulas would give wrong results.

Again, I don't understand; can you clarify please?

Specifically, how can the mass of a comet be "derived from orbital speed from gravity formulas"?

While the above are my own words, these are relevant abstracts/papers in terms of what is observed (and possible interpretations):

X-ray and ultraviolet emissions from Comet C/Hyakutake 1996 B2

Possible Mechanism of Cometary Outbursts

On the electrostatic charging of the cometary nucleus

The Electrostatic (...) Variations and Outbursts of Brightness of Comets

I have skimmed these - I'll read them in more detail later - but I can't find answers to any of my questions in them.

(to be continued)

 

[DeiRenDopa]

You're referring to a forum thread that discussed how diverted, conflicting and cluttered other forum discussions tend to be, including often misguided notions about what the Electric Universe theory is. The thread also included advices to EU proponents, involving themselves in various discussions, that one ought to have references to papers or peer reviewed material, supporting one's statements. An objective advice also relevant to JREF, BAUT or wherever. Also, that if presenting what the Electric Universe is, it should be in-line with e.g. Wallace Thornhill's work, which largely defines or summarizes the theory. Those that are into the EU theory find it just as interesting and engaging as anyone being into e.g. Big Bang, string theory or Hawking's scenarios, and one should be allowed to discuss theories. As to different public, one would discuss differently, just as material is presented differently in scientific papers versus popular science magazines.

Thanks for this.

I'll not ask any questions here, so you may concentrate on my other posts.

This thread for instance, was initiated by JREF veterans to specifically discuss Electric Universe theory, so if you feel that my posts are of "marketing nature", than that's your own conspirational take on it. Should we take all the other forum threads (or magazines) discussing mainstream science as marketing campaigns as well? In that case, the Electric Universe is outnumbered, so don't worry.

Not a question, just a comment.

So far, your posts here have done little - perhaps nothing - more than simply repeat what other EU proponents have said (posted) before, in this section of JREF, often several times.

To the extent that there is nothing new in what you post, it seems to me that you may be contributing to the "diverted, conflicting and cluttered" nature you mentioned.

Re: "often misguided notions about what the Electric Universe theory is" - even a quick skim of almost any of the many previous threads on EU ideas will show that trying to get a clear, accurate understanding of what "the Electric Universe theory is" has been a paramount objective of several JREF members. The same threads will also show that earlier EU proponents here do indeed "have references to papers or peer reviewed material"; however, in almost every case such material has, upon close investigation, proven to be anything but "support [for] one's statements." Instead, the proponents have demonstrated a clear and unambiguous lack of understanding of the referenced material (and, in some cases, pretty strong evidence that they had not even read it!), and an alarming inability to show how said material supports the case they were so clearly trying to make.

Luckily, science isn't based on votes (well...) and certainly not internet forum activity.

Indeed.

Let's hope that you can present the science in EU ideas in a way that it withstands the - admittedly low level - scientific scrutiny of JREF members (the peer-review process in the major, relevant, journals is, nearly always, far more challenging).