The Electric Comet Theory /SAFIRE Part V

[tusenfem]

Would you mind answering my question, and in your own words?

I'm asking you in what way does this water generation prove your general theory. And while you're at it, why and how does it make the "mostly icy comet" theory incorrect?

forget it, we are never going to get a straight answer from sol

 

[Belz...]

Oh, I know.

 

[steenkh]

To be fair, Sol88 did make what seemed like a good faith effort to at least start to sketch an Electric Comet (EC) idea. Sadly, however, he gave up once even making ball-park estimates (or guesses) seemed too hard.

You goaded him into it, but he soon gave up because he realised what this would lead to.

Just like he will not even attempt to show how the EC mechanism can produce the measured amount of water.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Or explain why the 'potential difference' needed to make his EC 'model' work does not affect the solar wind. Or planets. Or spacecraft.

Or explain how the putative currents fueling his EC sun model do not fry the planets as those are more conductive than the vacuum of space.

Or explain what mechanism would even create a uniform potential difference around each star that does not interfere with any other star.

In fact, his whole MO is avoiding anything to do with explaining and modelling his 'theory' and only focus on quote mining and misinterpreting minute details in order to steer away from having to actually explain things.

 

[jonesdave116]

You goaded him into it, but he soon gave up because he realised what this would lead to.

Just like he will not even attempt to show how the EC mechanism can produce the measured amount of water.

Well, the problem for Sol is that the 'mechanism' keeps changing! First off, it was Thornhill's dumb idea of solar wind H⁺ combining with O^-which had been created by EDM (lol) of the surface. It was trivially easy to show that this could not explain the water production rate in the very early stages of the mission, by ~ 7 OOM, even if it were a viable mechanism. Which it isn't. And the inconvenient fact that the solar wind is getting nowhere near the nucleus for months on end. So, that got kicked into touch.

Next up was hydrated minerals! That was also easy to show to be impossible, due to the temperatures required to extract any water from these minerals.

So, now we are onto some indefinable woo regarding hydrocarbons.
It is rather pathetic to watch, as a non-scientist tries to hang on to their quasi-religious belief system, by continually having to make up nonsense to justify it in their own mind. It is an interesting spectacle, from a psychological point of view, to watch this occurring. If I ever choose to do another degree, I might use this as a case history in something along the lines of, 'The Psychology of Pseudoscience.' It would make a decent thesis!

Of course, it has nothing whatsoever to do with real science.

 

[Sol88]

Or explain why the 'potential difference' needed to make his EC 'model' work does not affect the solar wind. Or planets. Or spacecraft.

Or explain how the putative currents fueling his EC sun model do not fry the planets as those are more conductive than the vacuum of space.

Or explain what mechanism would even create a uniform potential difference around each star that does not interfere with any other star.

In fact, his whole MO is avoiding anything to do with explaining and modelling his 'theory' and only focus on quote mining and misinterpreting minute details in order to steer away from having to actually explain things.

We have currents.

Cool. Be very difficult in an electric Universe with no actual currents.

Electric currents not needed or required in a Big Bang Universe.

If the extended tail if a comet is a current system....


Any charge seperation leading to an electric field and a potential difference at comets?

Yes, yes but they don’t do anything..... classic mainstream ignorance.

 

[jonesdave116]

We have currents.

Cool. Be very difficult in an electric Universe with no actual currents.

Electric currents not needed or required in a Big Bang Universe.

If the extended tail if a comet is a current system....


Any charge seperation leading to an electric field and a potential difference at comets?

Yes, yes but they don’t do anything..... classic mainstream ignorance.

Classic gibberish and word salad. Zero science. As usual.

 

[jonesdave116]

Any charge seperation leading to an electric field and a potential difference at comets?

Yes, yes but they don’t do anything.....

So, instead of talking crap, how about you tell us what you think they are doing? You know - a model that we can test against observation and evidence?
I'll tell you what this planetary science grad, with sod all interest in, nor understanding of, plasma physics, thinks - the Debye length in the solar wind is ~ 10m. Less, I would imagine, in a cometary coma. Any charge separation is going to be limited in extent, both spatially and temporally. The plasma, by definition, is quasi-neutral, and will react to preserve that quasi-neutrality. There is no way that it cannot. The polarisation (ambipolar) fields that have got you wetting your knickers, are exactly what is expected in a quasi-neutral plasma. It is retarding one charge, and accelerating another, to overcome any small scale charge separation. Happens in all sorts of places, I imagine. Hence the magnetic Reynolds number, and the Debye length. Et boring cetera. What are those values for the solar wind? A cometary coma? The magnetosphere? The solar corona? I doubt anybody associated with EU woo even understands the questions, let alone can provide an answer. And that includes clowns like Scott and Thornhill.
So, when you have found yourself somebody with clue one about plasma physics, get back to us. Hint; not going to happen!

EDIT:
I should say that my interest, such as it is, in plasma physics, only goes back a few years to the time when I first encountered EU wooists at the Rosetta blog. Thanks to people like Tusenfem, and others, as well as the scientific literature, it has not been difficult to see that EUists are clueless on the subject. Why they believe otherwise, is beyond me!

 

[jonesdave116]

3. Space Plasmas vs. Laboratory Experiments

Whoops. Had to write to Jean Lilensten about that! Has emailed me, and told me that he has removed Scott's woo from his site. This is a serious site about planeterrella experiments, public education, etc. He now knows about his error, and has fixed it.

 

[Sol88]

Whoops. Had to write to Jean Lilensten about that! Has emailed me, and told me that he has removed Scott's woo from his site. This is a serious site about planeterrella experiments, public education, etc. He now knows about his error, and has fixed it.

Ummmm.....

The Northern Lights are nature’s very own beautiful and dynamic light show, captivating all who gaze upon them. Since the beginning of time, people have tried to understand what causes the aurorae, resulting in myriad myths and legends. But it was only a hundred years ago, when Norwegian physicist Kristian Birkeland led a daring expedition to the top of an arctic mountain, that scientists realised that the aurorae are created by charged particles from the Sun travelling along the Earth’s magnetic field lines and exciting our atmosphere. Back in his laboratory in Oslo, Birkeland proved his hypothesis to the world with a famous experiment where he created auroral light around magnetic spheres inside a small vacuum chamber.

Jean Lilensten, Dr Gabrielle Provan of the University of Leicester's

Birkeland current
A Birkeland current usually refers to the electric currents in a planet’s ionosphere that follows magnetic field lines (ie field-aligned currents), and sometimes used to described any field-aligned electric current in a space plasma.[3] They are caused by the movement of a plasma perpendicular to a magnetic field. Birkeland currents often show filamentary, or twisted “rope-like” magnetic structure. They are also known as field-aligned currents, magnetic ropes and magnetic cables).

What are Birkeland currents?

How are Birkeland currents formed? What do Birkeland filaments have to do with space plasma?

Why does astronomy and science refer to these twisting spiralling charged plasma phenomena as magnetic ropes, Flux Transfer Events (FTE's), space tornadoes?

Are the confirmed Birkeland plasma currents in our solar system, connecting the planets to the sun, evidence of an Electric Universe?

You can read more about the discoverer of them, Kristian Birkeland.

Birkeland filaments, plasma z-pinches (zeta pinch) and plasma double layers also seem to be a common plasma partnership in space.

The gas, of course, is plasma, a word that’s not present in consensus astronomy’s lexicon. The filaments are Birkeland currents, identifiable by their coherence over large distances, their twisting about each other into cable structures, and their pinching into high-density “star-forming” instabilities. The networks are better known in plasma physics as circuits. The image above is a snapshot of a cosmic electrical discharge.

Further reading on Birkeland currents and the Electric Universe



Good thing you warned Jean Lilensten!

 

[jonesdave116]

Ummmm.....
Jean Lilensten, Dr Gabrielle Provan of the University of Leicester's







Further reading on Birkeland currents and the Electric Universe



Good thing you warned Jean Lilensten!

Nope. He wrote science, you followed it up with links to woo sites. As usual.

 

[Sol88]

Nope that’s mainstream science followed by its application to the universe.


Cheers again.

Glad you had the cojones to email ‘ol mate.

Are you now denying Birkeland currents? This is mainstream science.

Same argument we are having now as Birkeland did 100yrs ago.

He was correct, funnily enough.

 

[Sol88]

Birkeland currents, Z pinch and double layers are the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE.

 

[jonesdave116]

Nope that’s mainstream science followed by its application to the universe.


Cheers again.

Glad you had the cojones to email ‘ol mate.

Are you now denying Birkeland currents? This is mainstream science.

Same argument we are having now as Birkeland did 100yrs ago.

He was correct, funnily enough.

Errr, we've known about Birkeland currents in the magnetosphere since before your cult was formed.

 

[jonesdave116]

Birkeland currents, Z pinch and double layers are the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE.

And where are they? No, the electric universe crap is about invisible, impossible currents powering the Sun. And comets being rocks left over from Velikovskian woo a few thousand years ago. And craters ditto. Et cetera. All demonstrably wrong, and totally lacking in science.

 

[tusenfem]

Don't have to, my mate Reality Check has confirmed I now must call the standard mainstream model of comets "Icy dirtballs"

Fair call, cob?

nope, no fair call, why trust RC at all?

 

[tusenfem]

Whoops. Had to write to Jean Lilensten about that! Has emailed me, and told me that he has removed Scott's woo from his site. This is a serious site about planeterrella experiments, public education, etc. He now knows about his error, and has fixed it.

Liliensten is the doctor father of my new postdoc
We are going to build a planeterrella at our institute for public outreach.

 

[tusenfem]

Ummmm.....
Jean Lilensten, Dr Gabrielle Provan of the University of Leicester's

Further reading on Birkeland currents and the Electric Universe

Good thing you warned Jean Lilensten!

Indeed good, because the rubbish that you quoted here shows clearly that the EU gang only quote mines and writes inunderstandable "explanations" like "They are caused by the movement of a plasma perpendicular to a magnetic field."

I am sure we will get soon the Thornhill paper again, where he reinvents the wheel and claims he is the only one who knows it all (repeating textbook physics, sometimes incorrectly).

 

[tusenfem]

Birkeland currents, Z pinch and double layers are the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE.

Birkeland currents, Z pinches and double layers are regurlar (space) plasma physics.
When you misappropriate these structures without basic knowledge of plasma physics you get the electric universe.

 

[Sol88]

Ok