Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

[abaddon]

Yip, you're right, it was and it's now posted on the right thread.

Pity I can't edit it off this thread but it's past the time allowed to edit

No, it's not a pity at all. The inability of cranks to delete their egregious baloney is a benefit to all net denizens.

Do you agree or not?

 

[Haig]

So far all EU 'evidence' is based upon utterly misinterpreting mythology, experimentally unsupported or unsound self published papers and youtube videos.

Whereas mainstream understanding of electricity, which immediately rules out most of EU's 'theories', literally powers every single device in the world.

It's easy to convince people though. The EU universe should allow the currents to and from the sun to be tapped. Providing unlimited free energy to the world. Build a generator based upon the principles and show it works.

In the meantime in the real universe extensive measurements show that the comet dawn is orbiting has NO magnetic charge.

Speaking of the "comet dawn" Yes, an easy mistake to make !


Actually, the mysterious dwarf planet Ceres is a great example for this thread.

Just consider

Ceres: An Electrically Scarred World | Space News

Published on 27 May 2015
In April of 2015, the NASA Dawn Spacecraft began transmitting new, close-up images of the mysterious dwarf planet Ceres. The images to date have only deepened the mystery surrounding the puzzling bright spots on the planet’s surface. However, in addition to this ongoing puzzle, questions remain about Ceres that planetary scientists seem unready to ask. The surface of Ceres is massively cratered, with a variety of types of craters, including so-called bulls-eye craters (craters with central craters), craters with central peaks, and weird hexagonal craters, such as those seen on Mars, Mercury, and the Saturnian moon Mimas. Dawn’s exploration of Ceres is a startling reminder of just how inadequately the modern theory of planetary cratering explains what we actually see on planets and moons.

So how do you get hexagonal craters and the hexagonal clouds of Saturn's poles ?

Mmm EU could do it

But wait ! It doesn't stop there. As Dawn gets closer to Ceres we get much higher resolution pictures with more puzzles for mainstream but not EU.

That's a lot of nice crater chains on Ceres "How the heck could they form" I hear mainstream saying ? Fit's nicely with the EU view

Our Closest View Yet Of Ceres' Pockmarked Surface

Can't wait for closer views of Ceres

Electric Comets need an Electric Sun needs an Electric Universe

 

[Haig]

No, it's not a pity at all. The inability of cranks to delete their egregious baloney is a benefit to all net denizens.

Do you agree or not?

No I don't agree

You may understand why from my previous post but I doubt it !

How do you explain crater chains : hexagonal craters, such as those seen on Ceres, Mars, Mercury, and the Saturnian moon Mimas : the hexagonal clouds of Saturn's poles ?

I won't hold my breath waiting for a coherent answer

 

[rwguinn]

No I don't agree

You may understand why from my previous post but I doubt it !

How do you explain crater chains : hexagonal craters, such as those seen on Ceres, Mars, Mercury, and the Saturnian moon Mimas : the hexagonal clouds of Saturn's poles ?

I won't hold my breath waiting for a coherent answer

Don't know how that relates to Electric Universe, but:
I don't explain it. I look to experts to do so. And amazingly enough, replicate it in the lab--Something EU Proponets will NEVER be able to do...
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2010/2471.html

 

[jonesdave116]

Don't know how that relates to Electric Universe, but:
I don't explain it. I look to experts to do so. And amazingly enough, replicate it in the lab--Something EU Proponets will NEVER be able to do...
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2010/2471.html

Or even here: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2003/pdf/1311.pdf

 

[tusenfem]

Oh Puhleeze! rwguinn and jonesdave116, you are linking to actual science and an lpsc abstract.
Have you not learned yet that only when you have a boobtoob link to further the ideas your message has any mertin.

 

[Haig]

Don't know how that relates to Electric Universe, but:
I don't explain it. I look to experts to do so. And amazingly enough, replicate it in the lab--Something EU Proponets will NEVER be able to do...
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2010/2471.html

Or even here: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2003/pdf/1311.pdf

This is how it relates to the Electric Universe ...

Galactic Hexagon

Many natural structures have been shown to be hexagonal: Saturn's hexagon, hexagonal craters on planets and moons, and hurricane eyes, to name a few. Despite one astronomer's contention that fluid dynamics is all that is needed to explain Saturn's hexagon, it is not possible to use that explanation for the other phenomena, as well. Besides, there are other occurrences on Saturn that are clearly electrical in nature: the ring spokes, the Dragon Storm, the Great White Spot, the polar aurorae, and the mid-latitude ultraviolet discharges.

A diocotron instability explains the Saturnian hexagon quite well. Plasma's characteristic behavior also explains the other Saturnian events. Can the same explanation appertain to galaxies?

Diocotron instability also Diocotron instability in an annular sheath of a gas-discharge nonneutral electron plasma


Then there is the mainstream puzzle of nice crater chains on Ceres "How the heck could they form" I hear mainstream saying ? They also fit nicely with the EU view.

What's the explanation ? More piece meal / ad hoc suggestions I expect but when you compare it to an explanation that can explain ALL of it !

That should make you think ! Occam's Razor in science

Its scientific application is to select priority between developing theories of equal predictive power. The "simpler" theory with fewer (or less onerous) assumptions is probably the most appropriate one. For example, if you see hoof-prints on your local walking trail, think horses, not unicorns.

Oh Puhleeze! tusenfem give us your opinion on how so many crater chains on Ceres could have formed ? This should be good

 

[BazBear]

Oh Puhleeze! tusenfem give us your opinion on how so many crater chains on Ceres could have formed ? This should be good

Probably the same way that at least 8 crater chains formed on Jupiter's moon Callisto, as well as the ones on Mars and many other moons. And I'll give you a hint, it wasn't lightning bolts or plasma balls; it wasn't even pink unicorns that formed them. If you had used Occam's Razor instead of Haig's Bowling Ball, you'd know this.

 

[Ziggurat]

Galactic Hexagon

Oh my god! Bees are PLASMA! Honeycombs are double layers! Electric pollination!

 

[tusenfem]

Probably the same way that at least 8 crater chains formed on Jupiter's moon Callisto, as well as the ones on Mars and many other moons. And I'll give you a hint, it wasn't lightning bolts or plasma balls; it wasn't even pink unicorns that formed them. If you had used Occam's Razor instead of Haig's Bowling Ball, you'd know this.

Or "crate chains" on Jupiter when Shoemaker-Levi wanted to fly by.

BTW, "mertin" should of course have read "merit".

 

[Haig]

Probably the same way that at least 8 crater chains formed on Jupiter's moon Callisto, as well as the ones on Mars and many other moons. And I'll give you a hint, it wasn't lightning bolts or plasma balls; it wasn't even pink unicorns that formed them. If you had used Occam's Razor instead of Haig's Bowling Ball, you'd know this.

This is NASA's explanation of crater chains on Ganymede. Do you think it likely ? Do you see any problems with it ? Only "impact" as a cause is really short-sighted

Oh my god! Bees are PLASMA! Honeycombs are double layers! Electric pollination!

Or "crate chains" on Jupiter when Shoemaker-Levi wanted to fly by.

BTW, "mertin" should of course have read "merit".

I was wrong !

It wasn't good at all. Two posts with no attempted answer to the question posed

how so many crater chains on Ceres could have formed ?

Well the answer that seems favourite imo is this ...

EDM - Electrical Discharge Machining my bold

Crater Chains

The chances of an impacting body breaking up to form a neat line of craters is very slim. The chances of this happening with the frequency that we see is practically zero. The crater chain pictured right is one of many that can be seen on Gannymede, a moon of Jupiter.

Crater chains result from electric arcs passing over a cathode surface. With slight variations in the current, the arc may cut a trench instead of jumping from one crater to the next. Because electrical arcs lift material from the surface, excavations are left relatively clean. The 'collapsed lava tube' explanation fails in this important respect. 'Missing debris' is just one defining characteristic that distinguishes electrical erosion from mechanical processes. These processes have been replicated in the laboratory.

Now doesn't that explanation make more sense ?

 

[JeanTate]

In the case of the electric comet, the way to avoid a cart running pell mell ahead of the horse is do what is presently being done: gather systematic observations of comet behavior and open the door of scientific imagination to a possibility too long ignored. Where is the problem in that approach? Is the comet discharging electrically? At some point a possibility deserving more complete investigation will become obvious—for the very reason that the electric comet IS becoming obvious to many scientists today. That's just a fact.

Direct observation, directly-measured values, design of experiments (in the case at hand scaleable models of the Sun and of a comet)—all will be certain to follow. The fact that this is beginning to occur now is simply because discerning scientists have begun to recognize evidence for what it is. Direct evidence is king, and particularly so when a major challenge to a popular "consensus" is at stake. Where is the error in working with evidence first?

(source, my bold)

In light of the data from the Rosetta mission, I think it's an appropriate time to revisit what one of the (three? four?) leading 'electric theorists' had to say, just a few months' ago.

Well, Haig - you admirer of facts - is 67P "discharging electrically"?

Is "the electric comet [..] becoming obvious to many scientists today"?

Numpties may not be able to 'do' science, but they can - by your own admission - collect 'facts'. Let's see the evidence for DT's claims.

(for avoidance of doubt, I do not expect you, Haig, to be able to provide any such evidence; your posting behavior here is more consistent with that of a spam troll than a fact-loving numpty).

 

[jonesdave116]

I wonder who all these scientists are to whom the electric comet is becoming obvious?

 

[JeanTate]

Therefore, before I have a chance to change my own prediction of NO WATER ICE ON THE SURFACE (beyond a trivial frost as on Tempel 1), here are my predictions as they stood just a couple of hours ago. Expect some modest changes, but no wholesale retractions based on new info.

• likelihood of a hot and dry surface ("hot," as in the familiar lexicon of comet science)
• no layers's of ice exposed beneath the surface, despite the requirements of standard theory
• no ice at the source of jets, not even where the most energetic jets are active
• electric discharge as the essential contributor to the comet's increasing activity
• abundance of unexplained rocky debris on the surface, as seen on asteroids, including sharp edged boulders exhibiting no ices.
• visible electrical erosion of the surface in the fashion of electrical etching of surface materials and electric discharge machining (edm)
• surface electrochemically transformed and burned black by this discharge activity, as in laboratory experiments
• focused glow discharge enigmatically moving across the surface during the course of the Rosetta observations
• useful comparisons of this activity to the moving electrified plumes of Jupiter's moon Io and Saturn's moon Enceladus
• electric fields configuring and reconfiguring layers of dust on the surface, despite the absence of an atmosphere
• removal of “astonishing,” complex crystalline molecules from the surface, with comparisons to materials on planets and moons, likely including Mars or Earth, or both.
• no appreciable “stardust,” the long-presumed primeval matter of comets
• no support for the long-presumed "compositional zoning" in textbook solar system history and comet theory
• useful comparison of dust configurations on the surface to formations seen in laboratory experiments with electric fields acting on layers of dust
• x-ray and ultraviolet emissions exceeding any scientific predictions just 20 years ago
• evidence for electrochemical production of hydroxyl and/or water by electrical action on surface silicates and clays
• evidence for production of water and/or hydroxyl by electrical activity in the coma
• unexpected negative ions close to the nucleus
• improbable hydrogen cloud gathered and held in place at the outer regions of the coma
• additional electrochemical transactions in the coma adding to diverse chemistry, ranging from CO2 to methane, alcohol, cyanide, and more
• relationship of comet flaring to arrival of charged particles from solar outbursts

Add the POSSIBILITY of a break-up of the nucleus in response to a solar outburst, though that’s not something I'd hang a hat on.

(source)

While many - most? - of these predictions are quite, um, loose, at least some are good enough to have been tested - by direct evidence (David's gold standard) - using the data so far made public, from the Rosetta mission.

Direct question to Haig: what is the DIRECT EVIDENCE from the Rosetta mission that is consistent with each of these predictions? Which predictions have zero DIRECT EVIDENCE (to date)?

Related: DT states that there are "moving electrified plumes of Jupiter's moon Io and Saturn's moon Enceladus"; what is the DIRECT EVIDENCE (in your words, "facts") for such things?

 

[JeanTate]

This is NASA's explanation of crater chains on Ganymede. Do you think it likely ? Do you see any problems with it ? Only "impact" as a cause is really short-sighted






I was wrong !

It wasn't good at all. Two posts with no attempted answer to the question posed


Well the answer that seems favourite imo is this ...

EDM - Electrical Discharge Machining my bold



Now doesn't that explanation make more sense ?

"Now doesn't that explanation make more sense ? "

You're joking, right?

For this explanation to make sense (whether more or less), the existence of solar system electrical discharge machines is essential. What is the DIRECT EVIDENCE of such machines, Haig? And who built them?

 

[JeanTate]

No I don't agree

You may understand why from my previous post but I doubt it !

How do you explain crater chains : hexagonal craters, such as those seen on Ceres, Mars, Mercury, and the Saturnian moon Mimas : the hexagonal clouds of Saturn's poles ?

I won't hold my breath waiting for a coherent answer

What, pray tell Haig, does this have to do with "The Electric Comet Theory"?

If you're so interested in this topic, why don't you start a new thread on it? That way we can focus, here, on the explicit topic of this thread ...

 

[Ziggurat]

This is NASA's explanation of crater chains on Ganymede. Do you think it likely ? Do you see any problems with it ? Only "impact" as a cause is really short-sighted

Do I think it's likely? Yes. Tidal forces should tear apart a body in one direction. Not in lots of directions. That will create a string of objects, which will then create a chain of impacts anywhere they hit. Simple freshman physics. But then, you've established beyond any doubt that freshman physics is far beyond your capabilities.

I was wrong !

It wasn't good at all. Two posts with no attempted answer to the question posed

That's because
1) it has nothing to do with "electric comets",
2) it has nothing to do with hexagons,
3) the answer is well known already, it's not a mystery, you could find out if you actually cared.

 

[tusenfem]

This is NASA's explanation of crater chains on Ganymede. Do you think it likely ? Do you see any problems with it ? Only "impact" as a cause is really short-sighted

I was wrong !

It wasn't good at all. Two posts with no attempted answer to the question posed


Well the answer that seems favourite imo is this ...

Now doesn't that explanation make more sense ?

No, it does not, because there have actually been billions of years to create these crater chains, and as we have witnessed Shoemaker-Levi and have never witnessed an actual EDM event in nature, it is quite clear that impact cratering is the solution.

 

[tusenfem]

I wonder who all these scientists are to whom the electric comet is becoming obvious?

Well, we do talk about an electric field in our paper (linked above), but that is the motional electric field of the solar wind in the spacecraft reference frame, following Maxwell: E = - v x B.

Then there have also been some comments on the expected charging of the nucleus (too busy/lazy to search for the abstracts mentioning this).

I am sure the EU peeps will grab that to claim their electric comet.

 

[BazBear]

This is NASA's explanation of crater chains on Ganymede. Do you think it likely ? Do you see any problems with it ? Only "impact" as a cause is really short-sighted

Well, since we witnessed an impact chain event on Jupiter when the tidally pulled apart bits of Shoemaker-Levi 9 plowed into it, and we have absolutely zero evidence of any EDM events - as well as zero evidence of any mechanism that could cause such events - I'd say your EDM hypothesis has just few* more problems than the chain impact theory.


*Okay, more like a ship-load of problems