Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

[jonesdave116]

As to what Alfvén thought in 1937 - ya know, back before we had space probes... and radio astronomy... and IR and UV etc. astronomy... not to mention 78 years more research and observations - might, just possibly, have been shown to be an inaccurate hypothesis by all that new data?

Sumpin' you just might wanna' consider, huh Haig ?

Precisely. I'm well aware of Alfven, as would be many people, especially Tusenfem. However, he isn't infallible. He got some things right, he got some wrong. MHD won him the Nobel prize, as EUers never tire of telling us. Rarely mention that Hans Bethe won it in 1967 for his solving problems in stellar nucleosynthesis!
Again, Alfven was another one who didn't buy in to electric Sun nonsense, and accepted nuclear fission as the power source of our star.

 

[Haig]

... snip ...
And for a synopsis of a supposedly serious idea, I really do suggest you look at that fifth line again, and then do a search on Wikipedia for "temperature of the photosphere".

His warnings were right - look at the mess astrophysics is in now with the nonsense of dark matter, dark energy, black holes and a belief in the miracle of the big bang

"a final word from Alfvén, who took the unprecedented step of predicting in his December 11, 1970 Nobel prize acceptance speech the eventual crash of astrophysics at the end of its long dark tunnel:"

The crash is overdue

 

[Haig]

Again, Alfven was another one who didn't buy in to electric Sun nonsense, and accepted nuclear fission as the power source of our star.

As did Immanuel Velikovsky Nobody is perfect

 

[JeanTate]

Some background information jonesdave116 that should answer a few of your questions. Don't share this with that JT I've got him on ignore now

Thanks for letting me know. Now I can say all sorts of things 'behind your back', and you'll never know!

<Gish Gallop material omitted>

Like RC has repeatedly said, the lies never stop, do they Haig?

Per your own words, the ech is part of a complete package, which includes the ES and the EU; in particular, the ech *requires* an ES. As Alfven never signed on to any ES, he cannot be dragged in, posthumously, in support of the your religious cult-like dogma. But nice try; pity that it exposes your tactics so clearly.

Maybe it's time to ask that this thread be moved to the Religion and Philosophy forum?

 

[jonesdave116]

His warnings were right - look at the mess astrophysics is in now with the nonsense of dark matter, dark energy, black holes and a belief in the miracle of the big bang

"a final word from Alfvén, who took the unprecedented step of predicting in his December 11, 1970 Nobel prize acceptance speech the eventual crash of astrophysics at the end of its long dark tunnel:"

The crash is overdue

Not sure we're on the same page; I was referring to the line in the SAFIRE PDF you linked to earlier (somewhere), here: https://community.jmp.com/docs/DOC-6676
which reads "Why does the surface of the sun operate at in the 3000-4000°K range...", quick answer is that it doesn't. Unless we've dropped down the Herzprung-Russell diagram a bit. Hardly inspires confidence in what follows.

 

[Ziggurat]

His warnings were right - look at the mess astrophysics is in now with the nonsense of dark matter, dark energy, black holes and a belief in the miracle of the big bang

As opposed to the Veliovskian miracle of planets changing their orbits completely because... well, just because.

 

[Haig]

Not sure we're on the same page; I was referring to the line in the SAFIRE PDF you linked to earlier (somewhere), here: https://community.jmp.com/docs/DOC-6676
which reads "Why does the surface of the sun operate at in the 3000-4000°K range...", quick answer is that it doesn't. Unless we've dropped down the Herzprung-Russell diagram a bit. Hardly inspires confidence in what follows.

I'm still not sure we're on the same page ! What's your point ? What do you mean "quick answer is that it doesn't" ?

I don't see much wrong with the statement "Why does the surface of the sun operate at in the 3000-4000°K range..."

Chromosphere my bold

By analysing the spectrum of the chromosphere, it was found that the temperature of this layer of the solar atmosphere increases with increasing height in the chromosphere itself. The temperature at the top of photosphere is only about 4,400 K, while at the top of chromosphere, some 2,000 km higher, it reaches 25,000 K

Care to explain ?

 

[ben m]

"a final word from Alfvén, who took the unprecedented step of predicting in his December 11, 1970 Nobel prize acceptance speech the eventual crash of astrophysics at the end of its long dark tunnel:"

The crash is overdue

Get in line! The impending collapse of evolution, of old-earth geology, etc., are even more overdue.

The sad thing is, erroneous predictions take forever to come true.

 

[Haig]

As opposed to the Veliovskian miracle of planets changing their orbits completely because... well, just because.

We have eyewitness testimony

 

[Ziggurat]

We have eyewitness testimony

No, you don't.

 

[Matthew Cline]

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

How can a "blast" not only have enough force to separate a kilometers wide chunk of rock from a planet's crust, but further have enough force to hurl that chunk into outer space, without that same blast fracturing the chunk into rubble much smaller across than a kilometer?

 

[JeanTate]

I have a question: has anyone who has been reading the stuff Haig has posted links to (and/or watching/listening to the videos) come across a claim to the effect that Alfven thought the Sun is powered by something other than fusion in its core? That Alfven wrote paper(s) which propose that the Sun is powered by some other mechanism? Sorta thing.

I must admit not being open to this, as I waded through page after page of nonsense in Haig's links; however, his recent posts seem to be clear (as clear as anything he writes): he thinks that there is evidence showing that Alfven's work can be shown to be consistent with some version of "the Sun is powered electrically", or even that Alfven himself found this idea compelling. And I really do not want to wade through the swamp again.

Why bother to find out?

Because it would be a monsterous lie, and would deserve to be exposed as such in the strongest terms.

 

[Ziggurat]

I have a question: has anyone who has been reading the stuff Haig has posted links to (and/or watching/listening to the videos) come across a claim to the effect that Alfven thought the Sun is powered by something other than fusion in its core? That Alfven wrote paper(s) which propose that the Sun is powered by some other mechanism? Sorta thing.

No, I've never seen anything like that. But I have seen Alfven explicitly state that the sun is powered by fusion. The EU folks think he was right about everything else except this. It doesn't really make any sense, but then, nothing about their beliefs does.

 

[Sol88]

Ultraviolet study reveals surprises in comet coma

Surprise!!!! IS IT???? I thought photolysis was the main cause any way so why the surprise?

Just need to find the ice now!!! Shall we look at the source of the JETS???

How's the search for the source of the jets going?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Alfven is to the EU crowd as Tesla is to the Free Energy crowd.

 

[jonesdave116]

Chromosphere my bold

Care to explain ?

The chromosphere is not what is intended when one says "the surface of the Sun", either to a layman or a scientist. The surface of the Sun is always taken to be the photosphere, which is where one sees "surface" features such as sunspots. Temperature = ~5800K.
The chromosphere is considered part of the Sun's "atmosphere", and is considerably less dense than the photosphere. Its temperature ranges from ~3800K to ~35 000K.
The chromosphere is not, nor ever has been, as far as I can tell, been considered part of the "surface". So it was a very strange use/misuse of the word "surface", if what they were really talking about was the chromosphere.
Not to mention inaccurate.

 

[jonesdave116]

No, I've never seen anything like that. But I have seen Alfven explicitly state that the sun is powered by fusion. The EU folks think he was right about everything else except this. It doesn't really make any sense, but then, nothing about their beliefs does.

I believe another of their heroes, Tony Perratt, was also a believer in a nuclear powered Sun. His Los Alamos National Laboratory website carries the following disclaimer: "The Plasma Universe and PlasmaCosmology have no ties to the anti-
science blogsites of the holoscience 'electric universe'."
http://plasmauniverse.info/

 

[jonesdave116]

Ultraviolet study reveals surprises in comet coma

Surprise!!!! IS IT???? I thought photolysis was the main cause any way so why the surprise?

Just need to find the ice now!!! Shall we look at the source of the JETS???

How's the search for the source of the jets going?

Not sure how that is going to make any difference to the reported results. They are seeing the dissociation of water and CO2. The exact location of where that water and CO2 is being sublimated from is not going to alter the fact that it is water and CO2.
If you go back a handful of pages, you will see Tusenfem's post about there being no indication of any electric discharges. So we can rule out any electric magic somehow turning silicate rock into water and CO2.

ETA:
As mentioned in the Rosetta blog post you linked, they say "By looking at the emission from hydrogen and oxygen atoms broken from the water molecules, we also can actually trace the location and structure of water plumes from the surface of the comet."
So I expect that all this data is being recorded and turned into pretty graphics that will eventually be released, and it will be interesting to see the areas where water sublimation predominates, where CO2 dominates, and the areas where there is less sublimation.

 

[ferd burfle]

Ultraviolet study reveals surprises in comet coma

Surprise!!!! IS IT???? I thought photolysis was the main cause any way so why the surprise?

Boy, Sol one minute the ech say the mainstream are dogmatic and unyielding and the next minute the ech fire up their false-dichotomy machine because the mainstream have new evidence and they're changing their model, therefore the ech must be right. So dogmatic or wishy-washy; which is it? Even though theiy're both wrong please pick one of the two and stick to it.

 

[Haig]

No, you don't.

Yes, the Ancients and their records

How can a "blast" not only have enough force to separate a kilometers wide chunk of rock from a planet's crust, but further have enough force to hurl that chunk into outer space, without that same blast fracturing the chunk into rubble much smaller across than a kilometer?

Mmmm maybe it could be in a similar way stuff is ejected from the strongest gravity body around. That E/M force sure is powerful

The chromosphere is not what is intended when one says "the surface of the Sun", either to a layman or a scientist. The surface of the Sun is always taken to be the photosphere, which is where one sees "surface" features such as sunspots. Temperature = ~5800K.
The chromosphere is considered part of the Sun's "atmosphere", and is considerably less dense than the photosphere. Its temperature ranges from ~3800K to ~35 000K.
The chromosphere is not, nor ever has been, as far as I can tell, been considered part of the "surface". So it was a very strange use/misuse of the word "surface", if what they were really talking about was the chromosphere.
Not to mention inaccurate.

Ah! So you're the one that misunderstood I think the Safire Team will accept your apology

I believe another of their heroes, Tony Perratt, was also a believer in a nuclear powered Sun. His Los Alamos National Laboratory website carries the following disclaimer: "The Plasma Universe and PlasmaCosmology have no ties to the anti-
science blogsites of the holoscience 'electric universe'."
http://plasmauniverse.info/

Hannes Alfvén did explicitly state that the sun is powered by fusion HERE. However, later in the light of new data and facts he seemed to change his mind.

The Electric Comet my bold

But how would an electric Sun respond to the approach of a relatively small but strongly charged object? In electrical terms, the influence of the comet could be far more significant than its trivial mass in relation to the Sun.

What will occur electrically if the charged plasma or “atmosphere” of the comet interferes with the isolating double layer of the Sun’s plasma sheath?

Perhaps the observation of Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfvén, the father of plasma cosmology, can put the issue in context. It was his opinion that coronal mass ejections are caused by a breakdown or breach of the Sun’s double layer - an event that provokes an explosive exchange between the insulated plasma cell of the Sun and the plasma of surrounding space.

So was Immanuel Velikovsky one who thought the Sun was powered by fusion. He was the inspiration for the Thunderbolts Project

Velikovsky also, later seemed to change his mind about the Sun as can be read in this correspondence with Einstein

The next step in my strategy is to show that the comets do not revolve as neutral bodies around a neutral sun. I quote from H. Spencer Jones:

“The presence of bright lines in the spectra [of comets] can only be due to a self-luminous body. . . . the electrical phenomena obtained by discharge through a Gessler’s vacuum tube enable the assertion to be made with a high degree of probability that the comet’s self-luminosity is due not to an actual combustion, but to an electrical phenomenon.”

More facts point to a charged state of the comets. The envelope (coma) of a comet contracts with the approach to the sun and expands with recession, though in the heat of the sun the reverse could be expected.

As to the sun: “Certainly the formation of coronals over centers of attraction and sunspots can be caused by the extended electrical fields of these areas of the sun; just so, coronals can be formed by the electrical fields about the end of a moving prominence.” (E. Pettit, “The Sun and Solar Radiation,” ibid., p. 296).

When prominences on the sun were observed to run one into another, “both prominences participating in the action recoiled violently . . . Strong electrical fields of the same sign might explain the phenomenon.” (Ibid., p. 297).

As to the spherical shape of the sun, the measurements were carried to one hundredth part of a second of an arc, and no departure from spherical shape was observed ibid., p. 260); the admitted error of observation could not exceed a tenth of a second.

Should we now assume that a comet moves in perihelion without experiencing an electromagnetic effect between itself and the sun?