The Electric Comet theory

[Ziggurat]

Superhot Planet Likely Possesses Comet-like Tail


Exocomets
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/00current.htm

Small problem: the orbit of that planet has a very low eccentricity. Given that the whole EU notion of comets as electrically discharging asteroids depends on them following very eccentric orbits which carry them through regions with very different voltages, that explanation obviously won't work here. Not that it works for comets either, but it's not even self-consistent in the case of HD 209458b.

 

[Reality Check]

Superhot Planet Likely Possesses Comet-like Tail

You did read at least the title?

The planet has a "comet-like tail".

• It is a planet (you do know what a planet is and that is is not a comet?)
• It has a tail.

The tail is caused by its atmosphere being boiled away by closeness of the planet to the star and then stretched out by the stellar wind. Nothing to do with the debunked EC fantasy.

Exocomets
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/00current.htm

Citing this bunch of liars yet again Haig .
Please keep on providing even more evidence that you have been so throughly fooled by a web site that lies to its readers:

The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.
Wallace Thornhill is obviously ignorant of the actual results of the mission and in a couple of cases actually lies about the results.
​

(see The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked)

HD 209458b has an eccentricity of 0.014. Its star is similar to the Sun.
So if the EC proponents claim it as a comet then any rocky body with an eccentricity >= 0.014 will be a comet.
There are 459,893 asteroids with eccentricities greater than the minimum observed eccentricity of comets (0.0279).
EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets

 

[Dancing David]

Another lack of citation blog post from Thunderbolts.

 

[Haig]

NASA Spacecraft Closes in on Comet Tempel 1

February 9, 2011: NASA is about to discover how solar heat devours a comet

"For the first time, we'll see the same comet before and after its closest approach to the sun," explains Joe Veverka, principal investigator for NASA's Stardust-NExT mission.
The comet is Tempel 1, which NASA's Deep Impact probe visited in 2005. Now another NASA spacecraft, Stardust-NExT, is closing in for a second look on Valentine's Day, Feb. 14, 2011. The two visits bracket one complete orbit of the comet around the sun--and a blast of solar heat

The layering is an interesting twist that should not exist with respect to "our" current understanding of these "dirty snowballs"

powdery flows or electrical discharges?

 

[Reality Check]

The layering is an interesting twist that should not exist with respect to "our" current understanding of these "dirty snowballs"

powdery flows or electrical discharges?

The layering is an interesting twist that should not exist with respect to "your" current understanding of these "dirty snowballs".
Scientists have a possible explanation (colliding protocomets) as you would have found if you had bothered to read the full article.

Definitely not electrical discharges: The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked

 

[Haig]

The layering is an interesting twist that should not exist with respect to "your" current understanding of these "dirty snowballs".
Scientists have a possible explanation (colliding protocomets) as you would have found if you had bothered to read the full article.

Definitely not electrical discharges: The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked

I'm sure mainstream will continue to try and explain away the electrical nature of comets with more ad hoc stuff

In a few days we should have some interesting data/ pictures ... that's why I posted this

 

[Reality Check]

I'm sure mainstream will continue to try and explain away the electrical nature of comets with more ad hoc stuff

Then you are rather deluded because the mainstream never "explains away" the electrical nature of comets. There are many papers about the electromagnetic properties of comets. Just read this thread!

But you are probably refering to the idiotic "electrical nature of comets" in the Electric Comet idea whose proponents cannot even grasp simple concepts such as

• the number 3.0 is greater than the number 0.6 (Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids). )
• EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets
• electrical discharges produce specific radiation which is not seen - Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (actually no EU X-ray bursts).

See The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked .

In a few days we should have some interesting data/ pictures ... that's why I posted this

There will be some interesting data and images from the next flyby of Tempel 1. There will be some interesting and surprising science derived from the observations.

That will have little impact on the insanity that is the EC idea (see The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked ). The proponents will probably do their usual "I see bunnies in the clouds" logic on the images.

 

[Haig]

Then you are rather deluded ..... to the idiotic "electrical nature of comets" ......... whose proponents cannot even grasp simple concepts ....... The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked ...... the insanity that is the EC idea .......The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked.......... The proponents will probably do their usual "I see bunnies in the clouds" logic on the images.

So many ad homs and abusive statements in one post RC. Are you having a bad day?

 

[Reality Check]

So many ad homs and abusive statements in one post RC. Are you having a bad day?

So much that you cannot understand, Haig. Are you having a bad day?

The "rather deluded" refers to your rather persistent ignoring of the scientific studies of the "electrical nature" of comets.

The rest is just observations on EC proponents in general. If you want to lump yourself in with a group of people who have no idea that the number 3.0 is greather than the number 0.6 then feel free !

Are you still ignoring The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked , Haig?

Maybe you can tell us how different types of measurements of the density of comets are wrong?

Why are asteroids in comet-like orbits not comets, Haig?

EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets
​

Where are all the X-ray bursts from comets, Haig?

Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (actually no EU X-ray bursts).
​

Why are you citing a website that is recorded as lying to its readers, Haig?

The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.
​

Why do EC comets not switch off close to the Sun, Haig?

EC comets switch off at perihelion
​

 

[Dancing David]

The layering is an interesting twist that should not exist with respect to "our" current understanding of these "dirty snowballs"

powdery flows or electrical discharges?

Science by blog post, blunderfull.

And the evidence for the lectrical discharge other than a bunny picture?

 

[Dancing David]

I'm sure mainstream will continue to try and explain away the electrical nature of comets with more ad hoc stuff

In a few days we should have some interesting data/ pictures ... that's why I posted this

Considering you haven't addressed the paradoxes and contradictions of the EC theory why don't you explain them first.

Like the four main belt comets, why do none of teh other asteroids in teh main belt show comas?
Why don't Appolo objects show comas?

 

[Haig]

So much that you cannot understand, Haig. Are you having a bad day?

The "rather deluded" refers to your rather persistent ignoring of the scientific studies of the "electrical nature" of comets.

The rest is just observations on EC proponents in general. If you want to lump yourself in with a group of people who have no idea that the number 3.0 is greather than the number 0.6 then feel free !

Are you still ignoring The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked , Haig?

Maybe you can tell us how different types of measurements of the density of comets are wrong?

Why are asteroids in comet-like orbits not comets, Haig?

EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets
​

Where are all the X-ray bursts from comets, Haig?

Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (actually no EU X-ray bursts).
​

Why are you citing a website that is recorded as lying to its readers, Haig?

The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.
​

Why do EC comets not switch off close to the Sun, Haig?

EC comets switch off at perihelion
​

Science by blog post, blunderfull.

And the evidence for the lectrical discharge other than a bunny picture?

Considering you haven't addressed the paradoxes and contradictions of the EC theory why don't you explain them first.

Like the four main belt comets, why do none of teh other asteroids in teh main belt show comas?
Why don't Appolo objects show comas?

Scroll back guys and you'll see the answers I gave before, they haven't changed.

I'm running out of time, sorry.

Let me just give you these before I go, I've posted part of the first one on another thread but it fit's well here too:

Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy

Whilst a degree of well-informed skepticism is essential in the assessment of any scientific theory, pseudoskepticism has become rife on the internet, and in the popular media. It is practiced by many who pass themselves off as the voice of authority on a given topic, when in fact they are self-appointed 'debunkers' of anything which challenges their own, often limited, views.

Comet

A comet is a body in the solar system that orbits the Sun. It consists of a nucleus that is perhaps made of rock, dust, and ice, and may exhibits a coma (atmosphere, with associated ionosphere, magnetosphere, sometimes called a plasmasphere), and/or one or more tails: an ion tail (or plasma tail) and dust tail.
In the plasma of the solar wind, and due to the photoelectric effect, the comet nucleus may charge electrostatically, and the ions and dust in the ionosphere and tails produce their own magnetic and electric fields, and electric currents.

http://www.plasma-universe.com/Comet

 

[Haig]

Snowballs in Hell

An electric comet hypothesis was proposed by Ralph Juergens in the early 1970's as a part of his electric Sun model. His physicist colleague, Dr. Earl Milton, and Wal Thornhill developed the model after Juergens' untimely death in 1979. The first article on electric comets on Thornhill's website appeared in October 2001 along with his predictions for the Deep Impact mission. Later articles appeared in January 2004 when the Stardust mission encountered comet Wild 2. And some results of the Deep Impact experiment were reported in July 2005.

As Thornhill writes: "The EU model predicts that all active comets will exhibit frequent, short outbursts in different spots on their surface. The outbursts happen because they are electrical discharge phenomena, known technically as (cold) cathode jets. Their onset will be as sudden as an electric spark (described in one report as 'nearly instantaneous') and their duration extended only because space plasma has a limited current carrying capacity. The jets will focus on an extremely small bright area generally situated on a raised point or edge of the comet surface."

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/arch10/101227snowballs.htm

Not long now: (my bold)

The comet is Tempel 1, which NASA's Deep Impact probe visited in 2005. Now another NASA spacecraft, Stardust-NExT, is closing in for a second look on Valentine's Day, Feb. 14, 2011. The two visits bracket one complete orbit of the comet around the sun--and a blast of solar heat

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/09feb_stardustnext/

 

[Vermonter]

And what happens when that model fails yet again? Will you move the goalposts back and claim something else? Posting blog links about the same discredited ideas is a useless waste of electricity. As others have demonstrated repeatedly, Thunderbolts is incorrect in its' predictions and worse, their methodology. Considering that it seems that every single EC proponent has a completely separate idea on how this pet obsession (it's not even worth calling it a theory) works, so the methodology will never be coherent and workable.

It's not even a matter of not having the money for experiments. EC is useless conjecture and fantasy that has absolutely no bearing with reality. If it did, respected scientists would actually take it seriously. The papers that have been published aren't cited or used except in the tiny EC circle. If you have a good model and a good paper, people may actually cite it. There's no conspiracy to keep EC down; it does a perfectly good job by itself of doing that.

If proponents can't even come together on solid definitions of their terms, or even create models that can be scrutinized, then the whole thing is doomed. I can't think of any other way to put it. There's no model. There's no theory. There's no math. It just doesn't work.

 

[Dancing David]

Scroll back guys and you'll see the answers I gave before, they haven't changed.

I'm running out of time, sorry.

Haig, you mean the posts where you said I don't know?

That is really weak Haig, you did not address my questions about the four main belt objects and the Appolo objects, you basically refuted teh Electric Comet theory when you responded to my questions, it is NOT placement in the solar system, it is not differences in orbit. Thanks for playing.

 

[Dancing David]

It seems clear to me DD he answers those points in the last few paragraphs. (my bold)

Comets Impact Cosmology by Wal Thornhill

Lets see Haig, do yo mean this one that basically says the the Apollo bodies should show comas, or that if fourmain belt objects show comas they should all show comas?

Why do you avoid the fact that I am presenting evidence that directly contradicts Thornhills theory?

By his theory the Apollo objects should show comas, yet they dont.

His words that you quoted

A comet's tail arises from the interaction between the electric charge of the comet and the solar discharge plasma. The comet spends most of its time far from the Sun, where the plasma charge density and voltage with respect to the Sun is low. The comet moves slowly and it easily accumulates enough charge to balance the ambient voltage.

As the comet approaches the Sun, the nucleus moves at a furious speed through regions of increasing charge density and voltage. The comet's surface charge and internal polarization, developed in deep space, respond to the new environment by forming cathode jets and a visible plasma sheath, or coma.

So the Apollo objects are exactly the kind of objects that should show comas, yet they don't. If they spend more time at distance farther than say halley comet and come closer to teh sun, and many of them do, then they should show comas, as should other less elliptical orbits asteroids.

 

[Dancing David]

Yes but then there are all sorts of bodies that DO EXACTLY the same thing all the time yet they do not show comas Haig, so from what you are saying, ALL the bodies in SIMILAR orbits should show comas. But they don't.

All bodies that spend the same amount of time in 'deep space' and move to a similar distane from the sun should show comas, yet they don't.

That is the issue that the EC does not address, and that is why it is incoherent, explain why only some bodies show comas but other which are exactly in the same places and go through exactly the same transitions do not show comas.

That is why the Apollo bodies should show comas if the EC is correct, yet they don't.

Why is that Haig?

It is not the orbits they are in, it is not planetary magnetospheres, why do only some bodies show comas and not others? Why do some acquire a charge and others in the exact same environments at the exact sort of time frames do not?

This is where the EC is incoherent and inconsistent.

Hi Haig, you still have not responded to this post.

YOU have not addressed the questions.

 

[Haig]

Sorry DD I've ran out of time again but I will give answers to your points by tomorrow.

Things to do

 

[Dancing David]

 

[Reality Check]

Scroll back guys and you'll see the answers I gave before, they haven't changed.

Scolled back and did not find any answers to:

Are you still ignoring The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked , Haig?

Maybe you can tell us how different types of measurements of the density of comets are wrong?

Why are asteroids in comet-like orbits not comets, Haig?

EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets
​

Where are all the X-ray bursts from comets, Haig?

Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (actually no EU X-ray bursts).
​

Why are you citing a website that is recorded as lying to its readers, Haig?

The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.
​

Why do EC comets not switch off close to the Sun, Haig?

EC comets switch off at perihelion
​

Unless you means citations to a lying web site (The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.)?

Maybe you can give us links to your answers. Start with why asteroids in comet-like orbits are not comets when the EC idea states that they have to be.

The Thunderbolt authors are quite clear that it is the shape of the orbit that matters. Try reading what you posted: ( Thunderbolt web page)


A few minutes with the JPL Small Objects Database gives that The EC idea predicts that 528,157 asteroids should be comets

• There are 205,878 cataloged asteroids with an eccentricity > 0.17 (the lowest e for main belt comets)
• There are 528,157 asteroids with eccentricities greater than the minimum observed eccentricity of comets (0.0279). These should be EC comets