The Electric Comet theory

[David Talbott]

One value of this discussion could be a bit of attention to the language used, perhaps spelling out the useful distinctions, even if somewhat arbitrary, between a hypothesis, a theory, and a model. I know that in the past I've referred to the "electric comet model." That seemed reasonable at the time, since the concept had numerous concrete and testable postulates, as noted in the post by Jean Tate above. But as we've moved toward more systematic investigation, where the possibility of quantification seems within reach, the lack of clear distinctions can confuse discussion. Earlier, with little or no experimental or observational data to provide more precise parameters, quantification did not seem within reach. I believe that picture will change dramatically over the next couple of years, with the SAFIRE project helping to clear a constructive path.

 

[tusenfem]

One value of this discussion could be a bit of attention to the language used, perhaps spelling out the useful distinctions, even if somewhat arbitrary, between a hypothesis, a theory, and a model. I know that in the past I've referred to the "electric comet model." That seemed reasonable at the time, since the concept had numerous concrete and testable postulates, as noted in the post by Jean Tate above. But as we've moved toward more systematic investigation, where the possibility of quantification seems within reach, the lack of clear distinctions can confuse discussion. Earlier, with little or no experimental or observational data to provide more precise parameters, quantification did not seem within reach. I believe that picture will change dramatically over the next couple of years, with the SAFIRE project helping to clear a constructive path.

little or no experimental or observational data ...
and that with a whole treasure trove of data from giotto and vega 1and 2 at comet halley to still be further investigated, still lots of interesting stuff there and all freey available.

 

[Belz...]

You are so sure in the science and evidence produced so far to 100% reject the Electric Comet theory?

No. I'm asking for solid evidence. A theory, not mere musings.

 

[Belz...]

Well now Belz..., instead of just offering up dismissive quips, will you and the gang of Inquisitors promise to pay attention if I begin a dispassionate listing of evidence?

Please begin.

And be warned: you're not dealing with gullible ignorants, here. What may work find on 4chan or stormfront will be met with cold disbelief here unless you throw some good evidence and reasoning. Just making up a hypothesis that more-or-less fits the facts you deem worthy to cherry-pick won't cut it.

 

[David Talbott]

Good morning, David Talbott,

...But I'm curious about this: "open the door of scientific imagination to a possibility too long ignored". Presumably you, and other electrical theorists, have not ignored this. Indeed, it's something you guys have been working on for what, over fifty years? And at least two electrical theorists - Scott and Thornhill - presumably have more than sufficient academic training to conduct their own, independent scientific research. Using downloaded data, available for free. Yet apparently they did nothing. Why not?

Not sure where you got your idea that Thornhill and Scott have done "nothing" with available data. Isn't it pretty obvious that they've done a lot more with the data than you have?

By all appearances, this condescension and tutoring on elementary science is little more than a strategic tool you've chosen to insult two individuals who've done the most to bring attention to the Electric Universe paradigm as a whole. Now I keep wondering if your practice of responding to written sentences, as if something else was written, is part of the same ruse. Any reader who wants to know what I'm referring to will only need to consider your last few posts in this thread.

 

[Belz...]

Not sure where you got your idea that Thornhill and Scott have done "nothing" with available data.

I think the reason is that there still isn't a viable electric universe/sun/comet theory available. In fact there seems to be no calculation, prediction or reasoning at all, only musings that seem to fit some facts.

 

[Belz...]

A question. Is there interest here in systematic discussion of evidence?

Try us. Give us some evidence to evaluate.

Or is this forum just going to be a garbage dump for irrational insults of good people.

"You're wrong" is not an insult.

 

[dasmiller]

Sure. Provide us with some
Be aware, however:
YouTube videos not based on an actual model are not evidence
Talking heads are not evidence
"It is believed" is not evidence without math to back it up.
Mathematics IS the model

I would add that:

Evidence against traditional astrophysics is not evidence for EU/EC.

<Alfven/Birkeland/whoever> once said X is not evidence that modern science is wrong about X.

The mere existence of plasmas, ions, E-fields, currents, etc, in our solar system is not evidence for EC. At issue is whether those plasmas, e-fields, etc, are sufficiently strong, dense, etc, to cause the effects that EC attributes to them.

 

[JeanTate]

Good afternoon, David Talbott,

Seems to me that the point should be pretty clear by now. There is no electric comet model, just a hypothesis that deserves more than you've granted it so far. <snip>

One value of this discussion could be a bit of attention to the language used, perhaps spelling out the useful distinctions, even if somewhat arbitrary, between a hypothesis, a theory, and a model. I know that in the past I've referred to the "electric comet model." That seemed reasonable at the time, since the concept had numerous concrete and testable postulates, as noted in the post by Jean Tate above.

Thanks for this.

One advantage of publishing papers in relevant peer-reviewed journals is that it's relatively straight-forward to follow the development of ideas, hypotheses, models, theories, and so on.

As far as I know, there are no such published papers on the electric comet hypothesis/model/theory, and essentially none on the electric Sun one either (at least those parts of the electric Sun which are of direct relevance to electric comets)[1].

Could you please cite material which you consider to be current, in which the electric comet hypothesis is described (in as much detail as you feel is currently warranted)? Having such material to refer to would certainly greatly reduce the great deal of wheel-spinning and talking-past-each-other that is clearly evident in this long thread.

But as we've moved toward more systematic investigation, where the possibility of quantification seems within reach, the lack of clear distinctions can confuse discussion.

May I ask, who is "we"?

Earlier, with little or no experimental or observational data to provide more precise parameters, quantification did not seem within reach.

The "The Electric Comet" document to which Haig provided a link, and of which you are an author (assuming you are, in fact, the David Talbott), is dated "2006". It refers to several comets - Hale-Bopp, Wild 2, Temple 1, ... - and several asteroids. Although credits are not given for the images (which is likely a violation of copyright and/or usage rights, by the way), some seem to have been published as late as 2005 or even 2006.

Yet there appears to be no reference, in that document, to any published papers on any of the comets or asteroids. However, there are likely hundreds of such papers, possibly thousands.[2] There thus seems to be a disconnect between what you wrote ("little or no experimental or observational data") and the facts.

I believe that picture will change dramatically over the next couple of years, with the SAFIRE project helping to clear a constructive path.

I'd like to believe you, really I would.

However, even you seem to be unable or unwilling to answer some simple questions of mine about SAFIRE, concerning consistency.

[1] As far as I have been able to find. Haig - who is vastly better informed about this than I am - has also been unsuccessful in finding any such papers. However, if there are, in fact, such papers, would you mind citing them please?
[2] For example, in ~a minute, I was able to find Tuzzolino+ (2005) - "Dust Measurements in the Coma of Comet 81P/Wild 2 by the Dust Flux Monitor Instrument" - a paper published in Science, with 82 citations (according to ADS)

 

[Haig]

"It is believed" is not evidence without math to back it up.
Mathematics IS the model

Here are two mathematical proofs that black holes don't exist ...

Physicist Claims to Have Proven Mathematically That Black Holes Do Not Exist
PDF HERE

Stephen Crothers Destroys the Quackademic "Black Hole" & Relativity

You STILL don't believe that black holes don't exist ... do you???

Mathematics isn't THE model after all !!!

Evidence is KING

 

[Reality Check]

The team has reason to suspect that comet surfaces, asteroid surfaces, and surfaces of planets and moons were all subjected to intense electric discharge in an earlier, more unstable phase of planetary history.

Hi David Talbott,, Can you list citations to the scientific literature that supports this assertion about surfaces?

From what I have seen of the Thunderbolts web site, the evidence your team have is "we can find electrical discharge related images that look like features on surfaces". This is what I call "I see bunnies in the clouds" logic, not science.

As an example, look at crater formation. Spluttering by electrical discharges will produce similar features to craters if someone were to cherry pick images. But scientists can explain just about all craters using the simple fact that meteoroids, asteroids and comets impact planets and moons at various angles and speeds. They have actual numbers to back up this. They can even do experiments here on Earth to verify the theory - thus the experimental versification of the double flashes after impact in Deep Impcat.
For that matter children around the world verify the theory by dropping ball bearings into sand .

David Talbott,, Can you list citations to the scientific literature that supports your assertion about an "earlier, more unstable phase of planetary history"?
What did this phase start?
When did this phase end?
What caused the phase to start and end?

 

[Reality Check]

....I assume it's the electric Sun theory where the sun is a giant capacitor which is slowly discharging into interstellar space, rather than the one where the Sun is a resistor in an interstellar circuit?

This is an illustration of the non-science from the Electric Sun proponents, Matthew Cline. They are quite happy to have 2 different theories!
The Sad State of the Electric Sun(s) - Not So Bright

Just How Many Electric Sun Models are There?
I've explored four - and they're all radically different, even contradictory!

Thornhill's "Solar Resistor" model: Death by Electric Universe. IV. The Z-Pinch (Solar Resistor) Model
Scott's "Solar Capacitor" model: Death by Electric Universe. II. The Solar Capacitor Model

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning, David Talbott,

...But I'm curious about this: "open the door of scientific imagination to a possibility too long ignored". Presumably you, and other electrical theorists, have not ignored this. Indeed, it's something you guys have been working on for what, over fifty years? And at least two electrical theorists - Scott and Thornhill - presumably have more than sufficient academic training to conduct their own, independent scientific research. Using downloaded data, available for free. Yet apparently they did nothing. Why not?

Not sure where you got your idea that Thornhill and Scott have done "nothing" with available data.

Thank you for the opportunity to explain further.

As I noted in my last post, there are likely hundreds, if not thousands, of papers and conference presentations on just the comets and asteroids you (and Wallace Thornhill) mention in "The Electric Comet" document. Those papers are the primary sources for scientific study of those comets (etc), along with the data repositories of the kind tusenfem has mentioned (and provided a link to). Yet that document did not reference any of those papers or data repositories.

More generally, I read every one of the links Haig provided, of direct relevance to electric comet ideas and electric Sun ones (of direct relevance to electric comet). Including all those which have Scott listed as author. In none of them could I find any reference to any of these hundreds/thousands of papers.[1]

Isn't it pretty obvious that they've done a lot more with the data than you have?

I freely acknowledge that I have done nothing with any of that data.

From my independent research, it seems that neither Thornhill nor Scott has done anything with that data either.

Here's an important distinction, however: I began reading this thread less than a month ago, and only became an ISF member ~a couple of weeks ago. I am not doing any research into comets, nor do I have any ideas/hypotheses/models/theories/etc on them (or the Sun) that I wish to explore. From the material Haig has provided links to, however, it seems that both Thornhill and Scott (and you) have been working on just such independent ideas/theories/etc for many decades.

By all appearances, this condescension and tutoring on elementary science is little more than a strategic tool you've chosen to insult two individuals who've done the most to bring attention to the Electric Universe paradigm as a whole.

I did not intend to insult anyone. If you have read insult into anything I wrote, please accept my apologies.

However, the facts speak for themselves: from material in the public domain, there appears to be no evidence that either Thornhill or Scott has made use of the data presented in the hundreds/thousands of relevant papers.[2]

Now I keep wondering if your practice of responding to written sentences, as if something else was written, is part of the same ruse. Any reader who wants to know what I'm referring to will only need to consider your last few posts in this thread.

Huh?

For this reader, you're going to have to explain; I have no idea what you mean.

[1] It is, of course, entirely possible that I have missed such references; however, Haig was unable to find any either. If you know of any, would you be kind enough to provide them? Thank you in advance.
[2] And if they did make use of any of it, they appear to have not acknowledged their source(s); that'd be a pretty big no-no.

 

[Reality Check]

...snipped rant....
Do THAT then you have .....

No Haig, we have a deluded and ignorant fantasy about electric comets needs a couple of deluded and ignorant fantasies about electric suns which needs more deluded and ignorant fantasies about cosmology.

 

[LSSBB]

As far as I can see, the opposite is a fact. Some scientists are interested in crank ideas and debunking them. They research and come across the Thunderbolts electric comet idea (and others). They then post and blog about just how wrong the electric comet idea is.
tusenfem (a working plasma physicist)
Tim Thompson (a retired NASA guy)
Reality Check (but my field was solid state physics)

Oddly enough, it looks like people who know about science and astronomy take a good look at the electric comet and see how bad it is!

Add my name to the pile

LSSBB Bachelors in Astrophysics. Also 5 years as military liaison with the Office of Naval Research.

Yes, electric comet theory is all bunk, as far as I can see from the evidence (actually lack thereof) provided by proponents.

 

[JeanTate]

A question. Is there interest here in systematic discussion of evidence? <snip>

I'm with the several other members who have already answered in the affirmative.

My caveat is this: given that this section of the ISF is "Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology", please provide references to primary sources for all evidence you choose to present. For avoidance of doubt, that means published papers, conference presentations, and the likes of the data repositories tusenfem has provided links to. If you choose to present evidence for which you have no primary source, please say so explicitly.

Thank you in advance.

ETA: I think you will be able to start posting links from either your next post (#15) or the one after; yay!

 

[Reality Check]

When someone says, "Hey, this comet activity looks electric," ...

Wrong, David Talbott, our response is to ask that person to back up this personal opinion with evidence.
Look where you are: This is the science section of a skeptics forum - how could you expect anything else !

We point out the fact that "electrical activity" has been studied for centuries. Scientists know how electricity works. Scientists know that electrical discharges emit a characteristic spectrum. Evidence for electrical discharges on comets is thus detection of that spectrum.

We point out that "electrical activity" around comets is a part of the standard model of comets and thus not automatically support for the electric comet idea.

We point out that this "electrical activity" is supposed to be taking place on a rock but that comets have measured densities less than that of water.

The science that is evidence against the electric comet idea has been pointed out many tines in this thread, e.g. my list

1. Comets have measured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).
2. Comets may not have the composition of asteroids
3. Deep Impact confirmed that comet nuclei are made of dust and ice not rock. There were a couple of surprises in that the dust was talcum powder rather than sand and the amount of ice was smaller than expected.
   "Analysis of data from the Swift X-ray telescope showed that the comet continued outgassing from the impact for 13 days, with a peak five days after impact. A total of 5 million kilograms (11 million pounds) of water[35] and between 10 and 25 million kilograms (22 and 55 million pounds) of dust were lost from the impact."WP
   Thus the water content of Comet Tempel 1 is 20% to 50%.
4. Cometary dust as collected by the Stardust mission contain forms of carbon that are not in meteorites.
5. Electric Comets I
6. Electric Comets II: References
7. Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (actually no EU X-ray bursts).
8. The EC assumption of EDM machining does not produce jets.
9. EDM in the EC idea needs a dielectric material which does not exist!
10. No EDM sparks are seen in images of comet nuclei.
11. No EDM hot spots are seen in thermal maps of Tempel 1.
12. Voltage potentials are many orders of magnitude too small.
13. EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets
14. Water, water everywhere (except in the EC idea)
15. EC proponents have the delusion that argument by YouTube video is somehow scientific !
16. EC proponents may think that EC comets switch off at perihelion?

 

[Reality Check]

if it's "black as coal" then why is the first "true color" image looking like a piece of rusty brownish red Mars?

The better question is what makes you think that this is a "true color" image, Haig ?
P41C-3942 Color Variegation on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

The ESA Rosetta Mission entered active operations around comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko in early August 2014. The full nucleus will be mapped at multiple resolutions before the Philae landing in November. The mapping will include imaging using the full spectral range of the Narrow Angle Camera of the OSIRIS imaging system (245nm to 1000nm in 11 optical filters). The color mapping will be done under good illumination condition at ~1m/pixel as part of the pyramid arc approach phase. This will later be followed by higher resolution imaging (down to 20 cm/pixels) of parts of the nucleus. These higher resolution images are acquired under somewhat worse illumination conditions because of the high angle between the orbital plane and the Sun direction.
This contribution will discuss the color variegation observed on the comet surface and its relationship to surface morphology and cometary activity.

No mention of "true color" . Or for that matter a "first" image
This is a color image. Rosetta's OSIRIS camera instrument Narrow Angle Camera images has a spectral range of 245nm to 1000nm. The filters range from UV through the visible range to IR. This specific image was rendered in red for some reason.

 

[Reality Check]

Thanks Reality Check.

Is there an easy way for someone - e.g. an ISF member - to find your posts there, and so to independently check the veracity of what you wrote (i.e. what I'm quoting)?

If my posts still exist then they may be in an "Electric comet numbers" thread.
I probably used a variation on my user name Reality Check/RealityCheck/etc.

 

[Reality Check]

Is there interest here in systematic discussion of evidence?

Yes there is, David Talbott. I would very much like to discuss the evidence that has been collected about comets that shows that they

• have densities less than water (are not rocks)
• contain both ices and dust (e.g. Deep Impact)
• emit x-rays that are not consistent with electrical discharges.
• have similar orbits to asteroids that are not comets.
• etc.

The problem is that Sol88 started this thread 5 years ago and has not been able to actually discuss this evidence. Haig joined the thread 4 years ago and is still unable to discuss this evidence. There was another poster (solrey?) supporting the electric comet idea who did try to discuss the evidence. However some of that discussion lead to some evidence against the electric comet idea!

N.B. Unsupported assertions that electricity magically fixes the evidence against the electric comet idea is not discussion.