There's no need to exaggerate.
Exaggerate? I'm just quoting the mainstream and scientific sources. For example ...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071025155840.htm "Brian Marsden, director emeritus of the Minor Planet Center ... snip ... "
This outburst by Comet Holmes is extreme!" Indeed, the outburst has left experts scratching their heads."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071115093122.htm "the bright core of Comet 17P/Holmes which, to the delight of sky watchers,
mysteriously brightened by nearly a million-fold in a 24-hour period"
http://www.space.com/spacewatch/071025-comet-holmes.html "
Why Comet Holmes has undergone such an explosive outburst is not understood. ... snip ... Alas,
comets remain largely mysterious."
http://uanews.org/node/16695 "
Why comet P/17 Holmes has had such a sudden, explosive outburst "is not understood at all," Flandrau Astronomy Coordinator Michael Terenzoni"
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/home/10775326.html "In late October amateur astronomers were amazed by
the weirdest new object to appear in the sky in memory."
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/11372856.html "
Realistically, we may never know the cause. This comet's behavior, particularly the perfectly spherical outer halo, has confounded even the experts."
The cause of the outburst doesn't require invoking bizarre EU claims which neither jibe with established physics nor better explain existing data/observations.
Who was it who best predicted what would happen to the Deep Impact mission? It wasn't NASA. In fact, they didn't even come close. It was the Electric comet community. And they scored rather well.
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050719deepinterim.htm http://www.mikamar.biz/predictions.htm And the sudden eruption of Holmes would fit in very well with their theory. Whereas the mainstream astronomers are shrugging and saying we "may never know the cause".
I see my post wasn't clear. I was not attempting to claim you denied the presence of an ion tail. Rather, it's stated in the URLs I provided that a clearly recognizable ion tail did form, and, pointed away from the Sun.
Your first source
http://planetary.org/explore/topics/asteroids_and_comets/year2007_comet_holmes.html is, as David likes to say, a pop science website. It is not a scientific report by named scientists who reported a study of the tail like the one I quoted. It first makes the statement that "
A (BAC - that would be a generic) comet's tail spreads in the direction away from the sun". No argument there. It then says "our view of holmes is almost directly down its tail". But, of course, that statement is not at all inconsistent with the quoted numbers of the astronomers I cited who said the numbers indicate the tail was NOT pointing
directly away from the sun as it should but some 33 degrees off from the correct direction. That's still pointing "away". In fact, this leads to a question. If we are looking "almost directly down its tail", how come the tail only showed up on one side of the coma in images? Wouldn't we expect to see at least some tail on the other side? Given the relative locations of the sun, earth and comet, isn't that more consistent with the Canadian astronomers' conclusion that the tail is pointing some 33 degrees off from where it should be pointing?
Your second source
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap071105.html says "The blue ion tail is created by the solar wind impacting ions in the coma of Comet Holmes and pushing them away from the Sun. ... snip ... The detail visible in Comet Holmes' tail indicates that the explosion of dust and gas that created this dramatic brightness increase is in an ongoing and complex event." That again does not say how closely the tail is pointing to the direction it should be pointing. And as long as the ions are moving farther from the sun each second, wouldn't that be "away"? That leaves a lot of room.
Your third source
http://www.spaceweather.com/comets/gallery_holmes_page10.htm does not make any statement that I can find regarding the direction the tail is pointing.
You cited a blog article which didn't elaborate on specifics from the Canadian observers (nor does their own press release, unfortunately) -- it merely highlighted the possibility of a "faint tail-like structure" having been detected in infrared, based on a preliminary analysis. They never specifically stated it was a tail.
But it turns out to have been the developing tail. Right? But in any case, I find the wording of this NASA POD description interesting.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap071110.html " A beautiful blue ion tail has become visible in deep telescopic images of Comet Holmes. Pointing
generally away from the Sun and also planet Earth, the comet's ion tail is seriously foreshortened by our extreme viewing angle." So now it's suddenly "generally" away from the sun when the Rosetta mission site, and many other mainstream sites, previously said comet tails "always" point "directly" away from the sun. How times change.
Or perhaps here's the problem. Turns out there are two types of tails.
http://deepimpact.umd.edu/gallery/jpg/Anatomy2.jpg
Ion (the blue ones) and dust tails (yellow by most descriptions). Many sources (including NASA) say that Ion tails point "directly" (or now "generally") away from the sun. But I wonder ... being ions, shouldn't they be affected by the sun's magnetic field? If it isn't pointing radially away from the sun then perhaps that's why Holme's ion tail isn't pointing directly away from the sun.
Those same sources usually say that dust trails can seem to point in other directions besides directly away from the sun ... because as the dust is blown away from the comet by radiation pressure it remains in orbit and may therefore seem to lead or lag behind the coma. But the radiation pressure is directly away from the sun, right? So at least the root of a comet's tail (the part nearest the coma) should be aimed directly away from the sun. And in the case of Holmes, because of the sun, earth and comet alignment, the whole tail might actually be pointing directly away from the sun and be hidden by the coma. In fact, maybe that diffuse symmetric cloud we see is just the growing dust tail? In any case, I think I will agree that there's probably nothing terribly unusual about the direction of comet Holme's Ion tail. Satisfied?
Originally Posted by BeAChooser
On various threads on this forum I have even posted images of the tail and mentioned the fact that the tail disconnected at one point.
Just out of curiosity -- where on this forum? I searched your posts for relevant commentary and browsed back through them manually, but to no avail.
Sorry ... I forgot. The Holmes comments were in a post that the management deleted. (post 50 of
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99727&highlight=Beachooser&page=2 thread).
The ion tail which formed did indeed point away from the Sun, and is described as such in the imagery/links I provided.
It points away from the sun but your imagery/links did not prove that it points "directly" away or in the direction it should. I am forming the opinion that confusion has arisen because there are two types of tails and one appears to always point "generally" away from the sun and the other usually doesn't point "directly" away (unless the viewing situation is just perfect ... like it may have been with Holmes). Confusion has arisen, I think, because NASA and mainstream astronomers appear to have confused the two in their own websites and press releases.
I think your desire to selectively interpret if not shoehorn the text is what's leading you astray.
If anything has led me astray, it's been the confusion created by NASA and those Canadian astronomers. And let's see if you think I've been "shoehorn"ing all the other data that suggests a problem with NASA's comet model.
Look for a discussion of Comet Temple 1 (the Deep Impact mission), Comet Wild 2, Comet Hale-Bopp, Comet Borrelly, etc.
I'll have to give a second shot at digging them up. Were they dedicated threads or tangental discussions inside others?
For example, posts 26 and 73 of
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94229 . But don't worry ... I'll go over some of that data below.
Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Perhaps because you haven't convinced me that your model actually works at all. Maybe it's time to look at models that DO include well know plasma phenomena and electric current.
This is a non-answer.
No, it's a precise answer. I've stated my case ... consisting of two parts. First, I've posted descriptions and links on NUMEROUS specific observations that the mainstream model does not adequately explain or fails to explain at all. Second, I posted descriptions and links for an alternative that appears to be self consistent and which does indeed seem to explain all the data, including the items that the mainstream model is having so much trouble explaining. And I noted that based on that alternative, predictions were made for the Deep Impact mission which almost all came true ... in stark contrast to NASA's "expectations" regarding what would occur.
What is it specifically about McCanney's cometary claims you think have merit, and why?
LOL! I'm not defending McCanney's theory. Much of what he says may indeed be nonsense (note that I happen to subscribe to the Electric Comet theory espoused by the Thunderbolts group which is quite different). The point (maybe I should have been clearer) is that NASA's theory of comets is also nonsense ... otherwise they wouldn't be having so much trouble dealing with each and every new observation. The point is that the electric comet theory at least deserves mention on NASAs website.
I tell you what ... let me comment on your link's comments about McCanney's comet theory and see if the link you provided as debunking McCanney is itself honest and correct in what it claims.
With regard to the composition of comets, your link (
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/mccanney/snowballs.html ) says "80% of the material emitted by Halley was composed of water! ... snip ... And it's not just Comet Halley that has water ice; astronomers see lots of water ice in comets. ... snip ... Comets have water, and lots of it, and there is lots of proof of it. Tons, in fact, in every comet! ... snip ... Conclusion: Comets are cold balls of ice".
Let's start with the claim that 80% of the material emitted by Halley was composed of water. I could say ... so what? Afterall, the electric comet theory from the Thunderbolts group does not say there can't be comets with lots of water. But the standard model seems to require that most (all?) comets be mostly water. So if they aren't, the standard model may have a problem.
Furthermore, the 80% figure could just be misleading. It turns out that's 80 percent water by volume. But 80% by volume does not necessarily contradict a model where most of the comet is made of dry dust. In such a case, one could easily find the comet is mostly dust ... by mass. And I think that's what most of the other data on comets actually suggests.
Let's start with comet Temple 1, target of the Deep Impact mission. Mainstream scientists predicted the impactor would release a huge amount of water. But that did not happen. A press release titled "Deep Impact Was a Dust-up, Not a Gusher" (
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17385 ) from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics said that astronomers were "puzzled" by the "lack of increased water vapor from Temple 1". That's an understatement. Astronomers actually reported that "Post-impact measurements showed the comet was releasing only about 550 pounds of water per second - an emission rate very similar to pre-impact values, and less than seen by SWAS during natural outbursts in the weeks before the impact."
The Thunderbolts website discusses the issue of water and the observations in considerable depth. I highly recommend you read
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060214comet.htm ,
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060216deepimpact2.htm ,
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060217deepimpact3.htm . Their explanation is far more complete than what I can offer in the limited space available here. But here are some highlights:
Smithsonian astronomers reported seeing "
only weak emission from water vapor and a host of other gases that were expected to erupt from the impact site." It's noted that the Odin telescope in Sweden found that the
total amount of water seemed to decrease after the impact. Now you wouldn't know this reading NASA's public announcements. NASA's Deep Impact site posted a headline in February 2006 that "Deep Impact Finds Water Ice on Comet", saying "This is the
first time ice has been detected on the nucleus, or solid body, of a comet”. Here's a link:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/deepimpact/media/deepimpact_water_ice.html.
Turns out the ice covered less than 1% of Comet Tempel 1’s surface and of that area only 6% consisted of pure water ice. The rest was dry. And what NASA's public announcement didn't say is that the researchers concluded that the water ice is present in far too small of amounts to fit their model of what is supposedly happening on comets. Here's a statement from those who found ice.
http://english.sina.com/technology/1/2006/0202/64143.html "The deposits are too small in area to be the main source of outgassing water vapor from the comet nucleus, implying most of the water in the comet lies beneath the surface, the researchers said. "While they may be associated with natural outbursts, the water ice deposits detected on the surface of Tempel 1 reported here are not the dominant sources of outgassing," they wrote in the paper. "Therefore, assuming that the distribution of ice on the unobserved parts of the nucleus are broadly similar to those observed, the ambient outgassing observed for Tempel 1 likely has significant sub-surface sources," they concluded."
But as the Thunderbolts website noted: "if an 800 pound projectile meeting a comet at 23,000 miles per hour, could not release the “subsurface water” demanded by theory, how could mere sunlight in the deep freeze of space do the job?" If a thin crust of dust hides the water below the surface, "one would think that a newly formed crater, estimated to be the size of a football field and perhaps 65 feet deep, would add life to the comet’s water-producing ability". But it didn't.
And as the Thunderbolt group points out, none of the prior comet visits (Halley, Borrelly, Wild 2) revealed surface water/ice either. The flyby of Comet Borrelly in 2001 “detected no frozen water on its surface”. "The spectrum suggests that the surface is
hot and dry. It is surprising that we saw
no traces of water ice," said the lead investigator Dr. Laurence Soderblom.
Comet Wild 2 had a dozen jets of material exploding from the nucleus yet investigators could not find even a trace of water on the surface, despite the activity.
When comet Shoemaker-Levy-9 broke apart near Jupiter, according to the standard model, it should have exposed fresh ice that would have sublimated. But several ground-based telescopes and the Hubble Space Telescope trained spectroscopes on the tails of the fragments of SL-9, looking for traces of volatile gases, and found
none. Same thing happened with comet 1999 S4 LINEAR. It too broke up and was found to contain far less water than the mainstream astronomers thought.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050520linear.htm “Comet LINEAR seems to be dissolving into an amorphous haze of gas and dust”, exclaimed a NASA Express Science News release. ... snip ... Perhaps the greatest shock came from analysis of the debris left by the comet’s dissolution. According to Hal Weaver, an astronomer at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore (as reported in an AP story on May 18, 2001), researchers were “surprised at the ratio of ice to dust and rock in Linear”.
Analysis showed that Linear “had about 100 times more solid rock and dust than ice”."
And consider this.
http://www.rense.com/general70/star.htm "Dust particles ejected by Comet Wild 2 have provoked another surprise, contradicting the underlying assumptions of popular comet theory. When the Stardust mission returned "pristine comet material" from Comet Wild 2, project scientists were astonished to discover minerals that can only form at high temperatures -- up to thousands of degrees Fahrenheit. And the dust particles reveal no indications of the water that cometologists expected. ... snip ... As for the water (ice), that was supposed to be the primary constituent of comets. But the anticipated markers of water on the nucleus of Wild 2 are absent. ... snip ... According to Stardust principal investigator Donald Brownlee,
'no evidence of water has been detected in the particles'. One sign of water, for example, would be the presence of hydrate silicates, Brownlee said, 'but so far none of these have been found in the Stardust samples'."
And mainstream astronomers have no explanation. But instead of acknowledging there is a serious problem with their 80% for all comets model, NASA and it's proponents cling to the dirty snowball and hide from the public the real state of affairs.
Now the Thunderbolts group (see
http://www.rense.com/general63/elele.htm ) notes that "ironically, electrical activity within cometary comas may have deceived investigators into thinking" there is water on all comets. If a comet is highly negatively charged with respect to the Sun as electric comet theorists claim, then as it moves towards the Sun, it's nucleus will begin to experience spark discharges which will machine rock material from the surface, forming "a 'cathode jet' of negatively charged dust together with surface matter that has been torn apart to release ionized atoms". Among those atoms will be oxygen. The Thunderbolts group says "there is reason to believe that the positively charged hydrogen ions from the solar wind react preferentially with the negatively charged oxygen from the nucleus to generate the water observed surrounding comets."
Halley may in fact be a special case. In most cases, detection of OH radicals is simply interpreted to mean there was water on the comet. They assume the OH was formed by the breakdown of water under the sun's ultraviolet radiation. For example,
http://www.obs-nancay.fr/nrt/a_scirt.htm "The first detection of a comet at radio wavelength was made at Nancay in 1973, in the 18 cm line of the OH (hydroxyl) radical. ... snip ... A number of things can be learned from these observations, like the gas production rate in comets (in tonnes per second), since the OH radical is formed by the dissociation from the water molecule (H2O) by ultraviolet radiation from the Sun. Water represents about 80% of the gaseous matter evaporating from a cometary nucleus."
arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0703785 "Cometary diversity and
cometary families" by Jacques Crovisier, Observatoire de Paris ... "Unfortunately, these daughter-species studies do not inform us directly on the nature of their parent species. There is little doubt that the OH radical comes mostly form the photolysis of water and indeed, the
OH production rates are used as a proxy for the cometary water production rates. "
But ...
http://www.hyperspacecafe.com/forum45/3671.html "Electrical theorist Wallace Thornhill offers a different interpretation, consistent with the surprising discoveries of recent years. He notes that space probes have detected the negatively charged oxygen atom, or negative oxygen ion, close to cometary nuclei. Additionally, spectral analysis of neutral oxygen (O) shows a 'forbidden line' indicative of the presence of an 'intense' electric field. Negative ions near a comet nucleus puzzled investigators because such ions are easily destroyed by solar radiation. Thus, investigators reviewing the findings at comet Halley noted, "an efficient production mechanism, so far unidentified, is required to account for the observed densities" of negative ions. As stated by Thornhill, "...the intense electric field near the comet nucleus is inexplicable if it is merely an inert body plowing through the solar wind." But the electric model resolves the mysteries: "The electric field near the comet nucleus is expected if a comet is a highly negatively charged body, relative to the solar wind. Cathode sputtering of the comet nucleus will strip atoms and molecules directly from solid rock and charge them negatively. So the presence of negative oxygen and other ions close to the comet nucleus is to be expected. Negative oxygen ions will be accelerated away from the comet in the cathode jets and combine with protons from the solar wind to form the observed OH radical at some distance from the nucleus."
So your source didn't quite tell the full story, did it.
Now, what about your link's second claim regarding the solar wind (
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/mccanney/solarwind.html ).
It first states the sun is a big ball of gas. This is false. The sun is a made of plasma. The distinction might be very important to our understanding of the sun and the space around it because plasma can be influenced by electromagnetic effects and can carry electric current.
Next your source claims that experiments have found the solar wind is "electrically neutral". This is deceptive. The solar wind is at best "QUASI-neutral". The solar wind does not have to have a net positive or negative "charge" to act in an electrical manner. The inside of a discharge tube (like a fluorescent bulb is electrically neutral too. A neutral plasma acts like a wire in that current can flow through it. There is an electric field present in a wire ... which is what the electric comet theory of the Thunderbolts group requires. If you move a wire while electric current flows, magnetic fields will form. The same is true of plasmas. And if there is enough of a voltage difference between the comet and the surrounding environment, the comet would discharge ... as the electric comet proponents theorize is happening on the surface of comets.
Interplanetary space can be thought of as the 'positive column' region of the glow discharge tube. The positive column is a region of almost equal numbers of positive ions and electrons (it is quasi-neutral). It is also characterized by a very low voltage gradient. Similarly, the solar "wind" is quasi-neutral and it too is in a region with a low voltage gradient. As the Thunderbolts theorists state, the "wind" is just the conducting medium between the cathode at the edge of the solar system and the solar anode. "So looking for excess relativistic electrons rushing toward the Sun is no more sensible than looking at a current-carrying wire and asking where are all the excess electrons rushing from one end to the other."
Finally, your source claims that "if the Sun's wind were primarily positive particles, then the Sun would build up a vast negative charge on its surface. This would affect everything about the Sun, from its magnetic field to the way the surface features behave. We see no indications at all that the Sun has a huge negative charge." This is also false. There have been no experiments to see whether current flows in the solar wind or whether the sun is negatively charged.
In fact, according to electric sun proponents, it is impossible to send a spacecraft to directly measure the voltage of the solar plasma at some point because voltage is a relative thing. It "must be measured with respect to some datum. A spacecraft will start out having the same voltage as the surface of Earth. As it penetrates the plasmasphere and enters the solar plasma it will slowly accumulate charge and thus alter its voltage." So we do not know for sure, one way or the other.
Furthermore, the phenomena observed on the sun and above the sun actually do support the notion that the surface of the sun is acting as the anode in a discharge tube where the cathode is at the edge of the solar system. Numerous electrical engineers and plasma physicists say this is true and have even published these conclusions in peer reviewed journals. They have presented a clear and consistent explanation for the various solar phenomena that are still giving mainstream theorists problems and forcing them to introduce bogus physics like magnetic reconnection. And that information has been provided to this forum in numerous posts and is readily available just by reading Donald Scott's book ("the Electric Sky"), visiting the Thunderbolts websites,
http://www.the-electric-universe.info/the_electric_sun.html or visiting sites like this:
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm.
The electric sun model has no problem explaining solar granules and their chaotic behavior, sunspots and their interaction with each other, solar flares, solar prominences, the temperature variation of the chromosphere, the solar ring current, the appearance and extreme temperature of the corona, coronal mass ejections (CMEs), the production of various particles and radiation (heavy, neutrinos, x-rays, radio emission) by the sun and comets, the solar wind and changes in its intensity over time, the continued acceleration of the solar wind as it moves away from the sun, comet observations, heliospheric boundary observations, the behavior of the pioneer and voyager spacecraft, etc. All of these are phenomena that the mainstream model is STILL struggling to adequately explain, despite 30 years, billions of research dollars and the invention of bogus physics gnomes that clearly violate Maxwell's laws.
Moreover, the electric star model also more clearly explains the observed differences between the various types of stars as represented on the important Hertzsprung-Russel (HR) diagram and the exact shape of that diagram. In that regard, I recommend a visit to
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm, which fully explains this very positive attribute of the model. In contrast, mainstream astrophysicists have difficulty explaining X-ray flares observed from brown dwarfs, a star (
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap000712.html ) where over 10% of the surface seems to be covered by a single sunspot, Wolf Rayet stars, the hourglass/axial shape of nebula, and jets from pulsars.
And in contrast to the mainstream's core fusion/evolution model, the electric star model offers an explanation why some stars have been observed moving over a matter of weeks or months from one location on the HR diagram to a quite different location on it. Some of these cases are discussed in the
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm link. For example, the case of V838 Monocertis is noted where NASA's Picture of the Day announced "
Observations indicate that the erupting star transformed itself over a period of months from a small under-luminous star a little hotter than the Sun, to a highly-luminous, cool supergiant star undergoing rapid and complex brightness changes. The transformation defies the conventional understanding of stellar life cycles. A most notable feature of V838 Mon is the "expanding" nebula which now appears to surround it." Mainstream astronomers clearly can't explain what happened. But electric star proponents can ... and with ease. Just read Scott's book or the above link.
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm summarizes the topic thus: "A fresh look at the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, unencumbered by the assumption that all stars must be internally powered by the thermonuclear fusion reaction, reveals an elegant correspondence between this plot and the Electric Star model proposed by Ralph Juergens and extended by Earl Milton. In fact the correspondence is better than it is with the standard thermonuclear model. The details in the shape of the HR diagram are exactly what the tufted electric star model predicts they should be. The observed actions of nova-like variable stars, pulsars, the anomalies in the line spectra of B-type stars, and the high frequency of occurrence of binary pairs of stars are all in concordance with Thornhill's Electrical Universe theory, his stellar fissioning concept, and the Electric Star model as well. Completely mysterious and unexplained from the thermonuclear model point of view is the 'impossible' evolutionary behavior of FG Sagittae and V838 Monocerotis. Yet these phenomena are perfectly understandable using the ES model."
And such a theory is not inconsistent with the solar wind as measured. Indeed, according to Donald Scott, an electrical engineer, in
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/Rejoinder.htm "In the gas discharge model, interplanetary space is an extensive plasma region termed the ‘positive column,’ which is characterized by almost equal numbers of positive charges (ions) and electrons. The plasma is electrically ‘quasi-neutral,’ like a current-carrying copper wire. And like a copper wire, it is a region with a weak electric field that causes a steady drift of electrons toward the more positive ‘sink.’ (The drift speed of electrons in a current-carrying copper wire is typically measured in cm/hr!) The drift current focused down from the vastness of space powers the Sun. The drift field is also responsible for the weak acceleration of positive ions away from the Sun. The result is the quasi-neutral solar ‘wind.’ The electric Sun model is the only one that has a consistent satisfactory explanation for the solar wind." Plus, various observations support the notion that there are large currents in interplanetary and interstellar space ... meaning it is possible that current is flowing towards the sun to equalize a voltage difference between interstellar space and it. The reasons for believing the above have been presented in my earlier posts on this forum and are clearly spelled out on various Thunderbolts and Electric Universe links.
Now, I found this recent article particularly interesting. According to
http://www.thunderbolts.info/webnews/121707electricsun.htm "The disconnect between astronomical theory and discovery is in full display in the recent NASA press release, "NASA Spacecraft Make New Discoveries about Northern Lights" (
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/11dec_themis.htm ). The report discusses the THEMIS spacecraft's recent observations of 'giant magnetic ropes that connect Earth's upper atmosphere to the Sun and explosions in the outskirts of Earth's magnetic field.' ... snip ... Magnetic "ropes"? This expression begs the question of how the fluid dynamics envisioned by NASA can explain a "rope-like" structure that twists and changes dynamically, and extends all the way from Earth back to the Sun. NASA scientists often use the phrase "flux ropes" to describe these twisted filamentary pathways traversed by charged particles. But to electrical engineers, such terminology reveals a deep confusion among astronomers struggling to comprehend unexpected electrical activity. Professor Donald E Scott, author of The Electric Sky, says, 'Ropes, of course, have beginnings and ends. Magnetic fields do not. So this use of language from NASA fails to explain anything, and is conceptually wrong as well as misleading.' ... snip ... The 'ropes' to which the investigators refer are commonly described in plasma Science as electrical 'Birkeland currents,' named after the aforementioned Kristian Birkeland. The rope-like structure is not just a curiosity; it is the structure taken by current flow due to the long-range attraction and short-range repulsion between current filaments. The "twisted magnetic fields" are simply the signature of the electric current flow. In plasma cosmology, these entwined plasma filaments act as transmission lines carrying 'field-aligned' currents across interplanetary and interstellar space."
Here's more from the NASA report (
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/11dec_themis.htm ): "'The satellites have found evidence for magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere
directly to the Sun{/b],' says Dave Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at the Goddard Space Flight Center. 'We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras.' A 'magnetic rope"' is a twisted bundle of magnetic fields organized much like the twisted hemp of a mariner's rope. Spacecraft have detected hints of these ropes before, but a single spacecraft is insufficient to map their 3D structure. THEMIS's five satellites were able to perform the feat."
That does indeed sound like a description of Birkeland currents. This is highly suggestive evidence that there are currents flowing through interplanetary space to or from the sun. And these researchers are apparently unaware of it. They are too focused on their bogus gnomes, "reconnection" and "frozen-in magnetic fields", to see the truth that is staring them in the face.
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APCPCS000932000001000026000001 "Flux tubes in the fast and slow solar wind ... snip ... 6th Annual International Astrophysics Conference, Issue Date: August 28, 2007 ... snip ... "Recent studies suggest that flux-tube-like structures may exist in the solar wind. In this scenario, the solar wind plasma are confined in many individual flux tubes and plasma in these flux tubes move independently from each other. ... snip ... we analyze magnetic field data obtained from Ulysses spacecraft in both fast and slow solar wind, at various radii and latitudes. Our results show flux tubes exist in both the fast and the slow solar wind."
Yes, it's staring them in the face.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Plasma-lamp_2.jpg/300px-Plasma-lamp_2.jpg
http://www.waterdropgraphics.com/plamaball.gif
And here is another false Phil Plait comet related claim:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/mccanney/misc.html#X-rays "there are plenty of ways a comet could give off X-rays, even though it's cold. For one, comets get smacked by the high-energy particles from the Sun's solar wind. Ice, when hit like that, fluoresces; that is, gives off light. At those energies, the light given off is in the form of X-rays. So naturally, the part of the comet facing the Sun is where the X-rays come from."
One problem with this claim? A lot of the comets producing x-rays don't seem to have have ANY ice (or water for that matter) on them. Another problem? The emission of x-rays was actually a big surprise to mainstream astrophysicists. Why would the production of x-rays due to the solar wind "smacking" comets that the mainstream claimed at the time were 80% ice not be "expected" if the physics claimed by Phil is at all valid? Were those astrophysicists so incompetent they just missed that? In 1996, when the German X-ray Roentgen Satellite (ROSAT) viewed comet Hyakutake, it detected x-rays "100 times more intense than even the most optimistic predictions" (http://heasarc.nasa.gov/docs/rosat/hyakutake.html ) According to that NASA source, "'We had no clear expectation that comets shine in X-rays,' said Dr. Michael J. Mumma of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center ... snip ... 'Now we have our work cut out for us in explaining these data, but that's the kind of problem you love to have.' ... snip ... There were pronounced increases and decreases in the X-ray brightness from one ROSAT observation to another, typically over a time difference of a few hours."
And guess what? This NASA source (http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/rosat/hyakutake2.html ) provides this image (http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/Images/rosat/hyakutake.jpg ) and states that "The X-rays arise primarily from a crescent-shaped region with a diameter of about 50,000 km (BAC - the nucleus was 2 km), on the sunlit side of the comet. The directions toward the sun and of the comet motion are indicated by the arrows. No X-ray emission is detected from the nucleus, marked by the "+" sign." That simple fact completely demolishes Phil's red herring claim that high velocity solar wind particles hitting ice on the sunward side of the nucleus is the source of the x-rays. The x-rays are emitted well ABOVE the surface of the comet. So I guess both your source and McCanney are unreliable sources.
You certainly did suggest 96P/Machholz caused the CME.
Oh, all right. Looking back I guess I did. Let's see if anyone in the mainstream community suggests this:
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...4384.pdf+cme+comets&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=14&gl=us "Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 7, 04384, 2005 ... snip ... Impacts of comets onto the Sun and coronal mass ejections ... snip ... The energy of the impactors which may initiate the evolution of micro-instabilities, reconnection of magnetic field lines and ultimately trigger a CME may be substantially less than the final energy of CME."
Even so, I'm willing to grant that comets probably don't "cause" CMEs. But that doesn't mean the two aren't related in the underlying physics. And I still would like an explanation for how a CME caused a comet tail to disconnect that doesn't involve that magic gnome called "reconnection". 
