Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

[jonesdave116]

Amazing isn't it?

Once you become aware of this aspect of "the EU", it becomes obvious, and pretty much ubiquitous in all their material ...

"When I first began examining The Electric Sky, I considered it a diversion from my creationism debunking efforts. Now I’m not so sure. While it is not the Christian/Judaism/Islamic version of creationism, much of Scott's model hides connections behind 'invisible' dark currents. These 'Dark Currents' seem to fulfill in Scott's ‘theology’ the role of God in creationist claims as a form
of invisible agent. If there were a large modern religion based around Thor or Zeus, their creationism would probably contain many of the concepts of the Electric Universe. The Electric Sky is creationism for the Norse or Greco-Roman pantheon of gods. This notion is further reinforced by the imagery used on the many web sites advocating the Electric Universe model."

From Tom Bridgman's debunking of Scott's laughable book. Available here:
https://crankastronomy.org/anomalies...y_20080322.pdf

^As previously posted in post #467.

I have to agree, there cannot be any question that they are wrong! Despite their claims to be "scientific", they use the same tactics as the creationist loonies of conveniently ignoring damning evidence of their mad hypotheses, and simply carry on with their gish-gallup hoping to steer people away from the fact that they cannot answer the evidence shown to them. In fact, they are generally scientifically illiterate, in my experience, certainly in the fields in which they are making claims, i.e. Physics, Astrophysics and Planetary Science, for the most part. Even their high priests do not seem to be qualified to any great degree, and certainly not in those fields. I've outlined Talbott's qualifications, which aren't even in science, Thornhill allegedly has a Ph. D, although I heard he was kicked out of his University and Scott may or may not have been a decent electrical engineer, but one only has to look at his electric sun model to see his lack of understanding in that field. So what is it all about?
Money making is my guess, or a religious type fervour for things Velikovskian.

 

[ferd burfle]

Amazing isn't it?

Once you become aware of this aspect of "the EU", it becomes obvious, and pretty much ubiquitous in all their material ...

I think the EU people sometimes sound very similar to post-Modernist critics of science, if you ignore the very big difference that po-Mos think there are multiple valid culture-specific ways to do science, while EU folks are like fundies who believe only in their One True Faith.

 

[Haig]

None of that garbage you posted has anything to do with electric anything on Mars. I'll look at it later, assuming it isn't links to crank science.

Garbage you say ? But you haven't looked at it ? That's a neat trick or a bad case of pre-judging something

The first four links are mainstream about Mars clearly showing it still has lots of puzzles that you appeared to claim were understood in the mainstream hypothesis.

The last link between the Hilite is the EU / PC view of ... Scars Of The Planetary Wars I like this and you should try and understand it ...

"Talbott and Thornhill suggest that it is not possible to explain the surfaces of planets and moons today through any old paradigm. They claim that all of the defining features of these bodies mimic the scarring patterns of electrical discharge. It may appear as if "towering volcanoes" rise from the surface of Mars, or that great volumes of water cut the Valles Marineris. But as Talbott states, "It's only necessary to look more closely. For instance, the great mound of Olympus Mons, and the continental scale trench of the Valles Marineris, can now be viewed in extraordinary detail. The old explanations fail, while the electrical discharge hypothesis finds astonishing new support. This is why we are urging that laboratory experiments with electric arcs be performed to determine if what we are saying is true."

The question regarding Toutatis, is that it is a rock, as you claim 67P is, it has an eccentric orbit very similar to 67P, it has similar aphelion and perihelion distances to 67P, it is moving through exactly the same medium. So, if it's made of the same stuff, has a very similar eccentricity and similar orbital parameters, why the hell is it NOT charging in the same way as 67P. Get it? Because Thunderdolts says, as you posted, "The same thing would happen to an object of any size on a cometary orbit through the Sun's electric field". Comprende?

Sure, I get it but you don't get it. One of the points of bringing up the electrical scarring on Mars is to show the source of a huge number of Electric Comets blasted off the planet in extreme electrical distress. The events varied in intensity and so did the CHARGE each piece of rock received. It's what makes Electric Comets so unpredictable and interesting. So to spell it out for you in even plainer terms the history of Toutatis and 67P aren't likely to be the same and the charge certainly isn't or they would both be Electric Comets ! Comprende?

Why is one charging and not the other? What is so special about one lump of silicate rock that causes it to be charged, but not the other lump of silicate rock?

History and events dear boy

And as has already been explained before, a body like this CANNOT build up a significant charge in the solar wind. There are free electrons (negative) and free ions (positive). What happens when the body takes on a charge of either sign? That's right, it repels like charges, and attracts opposite ones. It neuitralises. Electrickery 101.

Your making the usual mistake

Scars Of The Planetary Wars

To understand the model of charged planets and moons revolving around an electric sun, it is essential that one not get trapped in concepts of static electricity. On the Thunderbolts Picture of the Day, Of Pith Balls and Plasma, the distinction is made clear:
"A common mistake when first trying to understand the Electric Universe is to think in terms of electrostatics. Experiments with pith balls in Freshman Physics Lab come to mind The Electric Universe model is based on electrodynamics. And not simply on Freshman Physics electrodynamics from a textbook but on the electrical behavior of plasma as observed in laboratories and by spacecraft. Understanding actual plasma behavior requires rejecting familiar presuppositions: Bodies immersed in plasma aren't isolated; they are connected by circuits. They often aren't at equilibrium; most astronomical bodies are radiating energy because they are in unstable conditions and are moving toward equilibrium. Currents in plasma contract into linear filaments; and the force between filaments decreases linearly with distance, which makes it the most powerful long-range force in the universe. Plasma divides into cells that are separated by capacitor-like double layers; and this ensures that plasma phenomena are characterized by conditions of non-isotropy, discontinuity and inhomogeneity."

If the electric theorists are correct, then no artificially generated "energy beam" can compare to the power displayed by the electric force in the heavens.

This power of electricity is vastly greater than commonly recognized. Cosmologists continually toy with the gravitational force, barely cognizant that the electric force is ten to the thirty-ninth power (a thousand, billion, billion, billion, billion times) more powerful.

Comprende?

What is the charge on 67P? Miniscule, otherwise it would have been noticed! And certainly not 33 Gigavolts, which is what you need to explain the density.

Who knows but think on this ...

Of Pith Balls and Plasma

Understanding actual plasma behavior requires rejecting familiar presuppositions: Bodies immersed in plasma aren’t isolated; they are connected by circuits. They often aren’t at equilibrium; most astronomical bodies are radiating energy because they are in unstable conditions and are moving toward equilibrium. Currents in plasma contract into linear filaments; and the force between filaments decreases linearly with distance, which makes it the most powerful long-range force in the universe. Plasma divides into cells that are separated by capacitor-like double layers; and this ensures that plasma phenomena are characterized by conditions of non-isotropy, discontinuity and inhomogeneity.

Assumptions and deductions imported from the “already known” of gravitational theory will lead to confusion and absurdity. As astronomer Halton Arp said in another context: “Sometimes it’s better not to know one wrong thing than to know a hundred things that are right.” The first step in understanding electricity in space is to set aside theories and to gain empirical familiarity with real plasma behavior. It is a step advocated by the father of plasma physics, Hannes Alfvén, in his 1970 Nobel Prize acceptance speech.

That's pretty amazing, Haig.

I never thought I'd see the day when you posted material that is heretical in direct contradiction to a core aspect of the ES!

Per the material to which you have provided links (a great many times), "the AMOUNT of out-of-balance charge compared to the solar electric field" is a function of only two things, the distance of the body from the Sun, and the eccentricity of its orbit. Thus 67P C-G and 4179 Toutatis are required to have very similar charges.

(but I promise not to tell Talbott or Scott about your, um, contrarian beliefs opinion )


I dunno, but you clearly do ... care to share the answers with us?

Oh dear JT You don't seem to have grasped the hypothesis of Electric Comets

Read my reply and links to jonesdave116 above and you should understand

 

[grmcdorman]

One of those images, Haig, has two points that are directly contradicted by the evidence others have posted here.

| Any body on an eccentric orbit about the Sun will experience discharge activity |Sorry, no: it has been repeatedly pointed out there are bodies on eccentric comet-like orbits that do not show comet activity.
| The discharge will cause non-Newtonian accelerations... |Sorry, no: all comet behaviour shows Newtonian orbits (for both the comets and objects affected by them, such as - but not limited to - Rosetta ). There are no objects in the Solar System that show this, as far as I know.

You keep repeating these points, and others keep pointing out this; I have yet to see any sort of sensible accounting for these. And these problems are just the tip of the iceberg, it appears for the EU/electric comet idea.

 

[Matthew Cline]

Per the material to which you have provided links (a great many times), "the AMOUNT of out-of-balance charge compared to the solar electric field" is a function of only two things, the distance of the body from the Sun, and the eccentricity of its orbit. Thus 67P C-G and 4179 Toutatis are required to have very similar charges.

I think what they're trying to claim is something like:

1) Variations in solar space weather causes varying drops in voltage in different places, differing charge densities in different areas, and so on.

2) Depending upon which types of space weather an object passes through, the amount of charge it picks up can be high or low.

3) From the point of view of each object with a highly eccentric orbit, the pattern of space weather is persistent and stationary. That is, if an object with a highly eccentric orbit passes through a configuration of space weather that means it only picks up a low charge, it will always only pick up a low charge, and thus never look like a comet, even though it has a highly eccentric orbit.

 

[jonesdave116]

According to Haig:
"Sure, I get it but you don't get it. One of the points of bringing up the electrical scarring on Mars is to show the source of a huge number of Electric Comets blasted off the planet in extreme electrical distress. The events varied in intensity and so did the CHARGE each piece of rock received. It's what makes Electric Comets so unpredictable and interesting. So to spell it out for you in even plainer terms the history of Toutatis and 67P aren't likely to be the same and the charge certainly isn't or they would both be Electric Comets ! Comprende?"

Sorry, but that is the biggest load of scientifically illiterate, neo-Velikovskian, puerile garbage that I've ever had the misfortune to read, since the one time I made the mistake of visiting the Thundercrap forum.
There is no point in arguing, as you obviously have not the slightest scientific knowledge, and deal purely in fantasy. It's not difficult to see how somebody of such limited knowledge got taken in by this ludicrous fantasy in the first place.
As I've said before, it's all kind of irrelevant, as this lunacy is never going to be taken seriously by real science, and will remain, just like Velikovsky, a laughing stock long into the future.
Rocks being blown off planets, Jesus. Have you ever worked out the amount of energy required to get that sort of mass off a planet (in one piece, no less!) at escape velocity?
It would be vapourised. But hey, why ruin a psuedo-science with real science. As long as they keep selling the books and DVDs to deluded numpties (your word) like yourself, I'm sure they'll be happy.

 

[jonesdave116]

I think what they're trying to claim is something like:

1) Variations in solar space weather causes varying drops in voltage in different places, differing charge densities in different areas, and so on.

2) Depending upon which types of space weather an object passes through, the amount of charge it picks up can be high or low.

3) From the point of view of each object with a highly eccentric orbit, the pattern of space weather is persistent and stationary. That is, if an object with a highly eccentric orbit passes through a configuration of space weather that means it only picks up a low charge, it will always only pick up a low charge, and thus never look like a comet, even though it has a highly eccentric orbit.

Nope. Haig posted this, straight from the Thunderdolts site:
"The changing electrical stress on a comet is due to its highly elliptical orbit. The Sun has a weak radial electrical field. A comet spends most of its time far from the Sun and becomes adjusted to the voltage there. As it zips in for a quick fly-by of the sun, the voltage and charge density of the solar plasma changes rapidly, generating increasing electrical stress on the comet. When the electrical stress is high enough, the comet¹s plasma sheath lights up to form the classic cometary spectacle. The comet nucleus begins discharging and the resulting cathode jets sweep back to form a tail that is "blown" in a direction aligned with the Sun¹s electric field.

The same thing would happen to an object of any size on a cometary orbit through the Sun's electric field. If the Earth, which is a charged body, were on a cometary orbit, its magnetosphere would glow."

That is no different to what many asteroids do. Are they all avoiding this space weather? Which after all, is the solar wind. Anyway, it is irrelevant, as it apparently gets its charge as it is blasted of the planetary surface, and retains this charge, in violation of who knows how many laws of physics.
You can't argue science with a fantasist. No different than creationists.

 

[Haig]

One of those images, Haig, has two points that are directly contradicted by the evidence others have posted here.

| Any body on an eccentric orbit about the Sun will experience discharge activity |Sorry, no: it has been repeatedly pointed out there are bodies on eccentric comet-like orbits that do not show comet activity.
| The discharge will cause non-Newtonian accelerations... |Sorry, no: all comet behaviour shows Newtonian orbits (for both the comets and objects affected by them, such as - but not limited to - Rosetta ). There are no objects in the Solar System that show this, as far as I know.

You keep repeating these points, and others keep pointing out this; I have yet to see any sort of sensible accounting for these. And these problems are just the tip of the iceberg, it appears for the EU/electric comet idea.

Sure, you can't reconcile the mainstream view with the Electric Universe theorists view but that can be no surprise. It's what fits the facts the best that counts and what makes correct predictions will show who's right in the long term.

I've read a lot of Electric Universe theorist stuff and NONE of them claim infallibility and there are many different view points in the lead group. There was two camps , the Electric Universe and the Plasma Cosmology and they have (sort of) come together.

The two statements you refer to are, I think, from Wallace Thornhill.

These links should help you form your own view on the matters you raise :-

The Electric Comet

The Sun’s radial electric field is weak but constant with distance in interplanetary space. In a constant radial electric field, the voltage decreases linearly with distance.

A comet on an elongated orbit spends most of its time far from the Sun and acquires a charge in balance with the voltage at that distance. But when a comet speeds inward for a quick spin around the Sun, the voltage of the comet becomes increasingly out of balance with that nearer the Sun - a situation leading to high-energy discharge.

Most of the voltage difference between the comet and the solar plasma is taken up in a double layer of charge, called a plasma sheath, that surrounds the comet. When the electrical stress is great enough, the sheath glows and appears as the typical cometary coma and tail. Diffuse electrical discharges occur in the sheath and at the nucleus, radiating a variety of frequencies, including x-rays.

The highest voltage differences occur at the comet nucleus and across the plasma sheath. So where the sheath is most compressed, in the sunward direction, the electric field is strong enough to accelerate charged particles to x-ray energies. That may explain recent crescent-shaped x-ray images in relation to the comet nucleus and the Sun.

Flickering and occasional flare-ups are also expected, because plasma discharges behave in a non-linear manner.

Newton’s Electric Clockwork Solar System

Oddball Orbits

It has long been known that comets have “oddball orbits” that do not obey Newton’s law of gravity. The anomalous accelerations are due to the motion of an electrically discharging body in the Sun’s weak, radial electric field. In recent years “anomalous orbital energy changes” have also been observed for spacecraft that flew by the Earth for a gravity assist. In their time away from the Earth, the spacecraft establish a charge polarization with respect to the solar wind. When they again encounter the Earth, their masses will have changed. The effect on spacecraft acceleration with respect to the Earth is of the same variable nature as the “non-gravitational” acceleration of comets with respect to the Sun.

 

[rwguinn]

Sure, you can't reconcile the mainstream viewReality with the Electric Universe theorists view but that can be no surprise. It's what fits the facts the best that counts and what makes correct predictions will show who's right in the long term.

I've read a lot of Electric Universe theorist stuff and NONE of them claim infallibility and there are many different view points in the lead group. There was two camps , the Electric Universe and the Plasma Cosmology and they have (sort of) come together.

The two statements you refer to are, I think, from Wallace Thornhill.

These links should help you form your own view on the matters you raise :-

The Electric Comet



Newton’s Electric Clockwork Solar System

FTFY

 

[Haig]

FTFY

The black art magic of dark matter, dark energy, black holes and the miracle of the whole universe being created in the big bang is your "reality" and it's a nonsense.

Hannes Alfvén saw that and maybe one day mainstream will see it too.

 

[grmcdorman]

Neither of your quotes resolve the issues, Haig. The first does not address the issue raised in any way - an issue that has been raised multiple times in this thread.

The quote second claims that both comets and spacecraft exhibit non-Newtonian orbital mechanics. To a first-order approximation, this is not true. The differences are so small that navigation is unaffected. This has been pointed out to you multiple times in this very thread, and you ignore this.

In both cases, EC/PC - as far as it can be determined, given that most of the proponents seem to be allergic to math or any detailed models - fails on the predictions. The mainstream does not, overall; as with all science, the details are revised as new data is obtained. Despite your claims, I do not see that Rosetta - or previous interplanetary science, such as Deep Impact - has been falsified or has made fatally incorrect predictions.

 

[jonesdave116]

The Electric Comet

Ye Gods, you don't even realise when you're posting something that contradicts something you've just said. To quote the eejits Thornhill & Talbott, "They are simply “asteroids on eccentric orbits.” Which begs the question, again, why don't asteroids on eccentric orbits charge up in the same way? Where does either of these scientific pygmies mention that the charge is imparted as the rock is somehow blasted off the planet, as you said earlier. Not that it matters either way, as none of this is possible in reality, but just for the ---- and giggles.

ETA:
A further gem from that eye-bleedingly horrible nonsense: "In the electric view, there is no real distinction between a comet and an asteroid, apart from their orbits."

 

[rwguinn]

The black art magic of dark matter, dark energy, black holes and the miracle of the whole universe being created in the big bang is your "reality" and it's a nonsense.

Hannes Alfvén saw that and maybe one day mainstream will see it too.

Put up or shut up.
My reality allows us to exactly figure out where a body will be in 2 years (or more), plot a course, using gravity and associated mathematics, and launch a projectile to USE that reality and have it arrive with pinpoint accuracy and precise timing to intercept it.
My reality allows us to calculate, with extreme precision and accuracy, the amount of energy produced by any reaction, chemical or nuclear.
My reality allows us to calculate the density and hardness of materials with extreme accuracy and precision.
Your reality?
"Looks like a rock"

 

[Haig]

Neither of your quotes resolve the issues, Haig. The first does not address the issue raised in any way - an issue that has been raised multiple times in this thread.

The quote second claims that both comets and spacecraft exhibit non-Newtonian orbital mechanics. To a first-order approximation, this is not true. The differences are so small that navigation is unaffected. This has been pointed out to you multiple times in this very thread, and you ignore this.

In both cases, EC/PC - as far as it can be determined, given that most of the proponents seem to be allergic to math or any detailed models - fails on the predictions. The mainstream does not, overall; as with all science, the details are revised as new data is obtained. Despite your claims, I do not see that Rosetta - or previous interplanetary science, such as Deep Impact - has been falsified or has made fatally incorrect predictions.

So you lot still believe in the dirty snowball model of comets that are billions of years old stored in the mythical Oort cloud and Kuiper belt ?

 

[Haig]

Put up or shut up.
My reality allows us to exactly figure out where a body will be in 2 years (or more), plot a course, using gravity and associated mathematics, and launch a projectile to USE that reality and have it arrive with pinpoint accuracy and precise timing to intercept it.
My reality allows us to calculate, with extreme precision and accuracy, the amount of energy produced by any reaction, chemical or nuclear.
My reality allows us to calculate the density and hardness of materials with extreme accuracy and precision.
Your reality?
"Looks like a rock"

Your version of reality isn't actually true, see this and understand

Keywords: Pioneer anomaly; spacecraft navigation; gravitation; Earth flyby anomaly; fundamental physics

Conclusion
In support of John D. Anderson – team leader of the original Pioneer anomaly investigation –who is strongly sceptical of the thermal recoil force hypothesis [18], this paper has argued that a heat-based explanation does not constitute a watertight „solution‟. Although the (new) heat based explanation overcomes the under-determinism that ensued from the comprehensive 2002 analysis, and is more likely and more scientific than all (to date) new physics based explanations, it too has its deficiencies. The major deficiency is its reliance upon an inferior quality extension (spanning 1980-86) of the highest quality data set (1987-98) to overturn the consensus view (1998-2010) of a (mean) constant anomaly. Having examined evidence that is both central and peripheral to the Pioneer anomaly, it is concluded that the anomaly should remain an open issue. Subsequently, the anomaly is neither an inconvenient truth, nor NASA‟s 12 year misconception. The ability of a dedicated space mission to significantly improve upon the navigational accuracy of the (40 year old) Pioneer spacecraft, and hence confirm or deny the veracity of the anomaly, was promoted.

 

[rwguinn]

Your version of reality isn't actually true, see this and understand

Keywords: Pioneer anomaly; spacecraft navigation; gravitation; Earth flyby anomaly; fundamental physics

Anderson, J D.; Laing, P. A.; Lau, E. L.; Liu, A. S.; Nieto, M. M.; Turyshev, S. G. (2002). "Study of the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11". Physical Review D 65 (8): 082004. arXiv:gr-qc/0104064. Bibcode:2002PhRvD..65h2004A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.082004.

A lengthy survey of several years of debate by the authors of the original 1998 paper documenting the anomaly. The authors conclude, "Until more is known, we must admit that the most likely cause of this effect is an unknown systematic. (We ourselves are divided as to whether 'gas leaks' or 'heat' is this 'most likely cause.')"

Next.

 

[Haig]

Next.

That refers to 2002 study commenting on an earlier 1998 study BUT the paper posted is the 2013 paper. Is that too confusing for you ?

Anderson, J D.; Laing, P. A.; Lau, E. L.; Liu, A. S.; Nieto, M. M.; Turyshev, S. G. (2002). "Study of the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11". Physical Review D 65 (8): 082004. arXiv:gr-qc/0104064. Bibcode:2002PhRvD..65h2004A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.082004.

A lengthy survey of several years of debate by the authors of the original 1998 paper documenting the anomaly. The authors conclude, "Until more is known, we must admit that the most likely cause of this effect is an unknown systematic. (We ourselves are divided as to whether 'gas leaks' or 'heat' is this 'most likely cause.')"

This is the conclusion of the 3013 paper (my Hilite)

the comprehensive 2002 analysis, and is more likely and more scientific than all (to date) new physics based explanations, it too has its deficiencies. The major deficiency is its reliance upon an inferior quality extension (spanning 1980-86) of the highest quality data set (1987-98) to overturn the consensus view (1998-2010) of a (mean) constant anomaly. Having examined evidence that is both central and peripheral to the Pioneer anomaly, it is concluded that the anomaly should remain an open issue.

Case re-opened (sure I know it's embarrassing for the mainstream and they keep trying any old excuse to try to close the issue)

 

[tusenfem]

Ye Gods, you don't even realise when you're posting something that contradicts something you've just said. To quote the eejits Thornhill & Talbott, "They are simply “asteroids on eccentric orbits.” Which begs the question, again, why don't asteroids on eccentric orbits charge up in the same way? Where does either of these scientific pygmies mention that the charge is imparted as the rock is somehow blasted off the planet, as you said earlier. Not that it matters either way, as none of this is possible in reality, but just for the ---- and giggles.

ETA:
A further gem from that eye-bleedingly horrible nonsense: "In the electric view, there is no real distinction between a comet and an asteroid, apart from their orbits."

well apparently, according to eu expert haig, now the pieces of rock have to be borne with a charge, when they were electrically excavated from e.g. mars.
naturally this does not jive (but may twist) with what other eu experts are saying.

 

[Haig]

well apparently, according to eu expert haig, now the pieces of rock have to be borne with a charge, when they were electrically excavated from e.g. mars.
naturally this does not jive (but may twist) with what other eu experts are saying.

Not really a twist tusenfem

How can a chunk of rock be blasted electrically from the crust of a planet and NOT receive an initial charge ?

That doesn't jive with the newly born Electric Comet on it's highly eccentric orbit assimilating the charge in deep space where it will spend most of it's time !

 

[Haig]

Electric Comets require an Electric Sun ! right tusenfem ?

SAFIRE—The Documentary (trailer)

The SAFIRE Project is an experimental investigation of electric discharge behavior of an anode (positively charged electrode) in a vacuum chamber, with special attention to correlations between such discharge behavior and “anomalous” features of the Sun.