The Electric Comet theory

[JeanTate]

Good morning, David Talbott.

Well now Reality Check. It seems that an endlessly repeated lie has taken over the critical comments here on the Electric Comet hypothesis: the lie is that until a quantitative "model" is completed you can ignore evidence falsifying a longstanding theory and pointing to a rational alternative.

There are, of course, two parts to your statement:

1) until a quantitative "model" is completed you can ignore evidence falsifying a longstanding theory

2) until a quantitative "model" is completed you can ignore evidence pointing to a rational alternative

The first seems to me to be meaningless, scientifically; if there is "a longstanding theory", there must be at least one quantitative model. It is likely, however, that by "a quantitative "model"" you are referring to something which might be developed, one day, from electric comet ideas. If so, then your statement is correct ... the large body of solid research into the history of science shows exactly that (think of Neptune vs Vulcan, and theories of gravity, for example).

The second is more interesting ... the existence of 'a rational alternative' is surely a necessary precondition for there to be a quantitative model. However, unless and until such a quantitative model is developed (and published, etc), it is perfectly rational to ignore evidence pointing to its 'rational precursor'. Further, you'd be crazy not to do this; it is extraordinarily easy to create rational alternatives, for which there is at least some evidence pointing to such alternatives' plausibility. It's only when such rational alternatives have been successfully developed to the point where quantitative models can be constructed that they even start to become scientifically interesting (unless you're a historian, of course).

Combining the two into a single statement is tricky, if only because you're mixing two quite different factors.

When did the history of scientific progress ever support such an idea?
<snip>

It's pretty much a normal state of affairs, and those who've spent a lot of time examining how science actually works - Kuhn is perhaps the most famous, but also Quine, Latakos, Duhem, ... - have written extensively on this topic.

But this takes us well away from electric comets ...

 

[tusenfem]

Wouldn't increased solar activity cause an "increase in solar wind". Aren't we now going through a phase of increased or increasing solar activity?

yes that would give more interaction, but by then there is the screening by the bow shoch, which is probably developing by now, which " regulates" the interaction somewhat.

high sw activity would possibly give increased tail disconnection events, which would be very interesting, but rosetta will not be in the tail ever :-(

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning, Haig.

Thank you Haig.

I'm sure you won't be surprised to read that I do not agree with you.

Per the material you have posted - and which David Talbott has not said is wrong - the core assumptions in all the electric comet ideas are a) an approximately radially symmetric electric field, centered on the Sun, with a potential drop of "billions of volts" between ~the Sun's corona and ~the heliosphere (this is the primary assumption); and b) that (all) comets are the same as (all) asteroids, in that they are essentially homogeneous and composed of 'rock'.

There is nothing in what you have posted that even hints at either assumption being validated, accepted, incorporated, ... into any models of comets (other than 'electric comet'; at least, not in anything you've posted).

But let's get back to electric comets, shall we? Specifically, what is the evidence for assumption a)?

Just look at the video in the link I posted, it's really quite obvious.

Here it is with it's full title ...

Episode 3 Symbols of an Alien Sky: The Electric Comet (Full Documentary)

Sorry, it's not at all obvious.

In fact, there's zero evidence for an approximately radially symmetric electric field, centered on the Sun, with a potential drop of "billions of volts" between ~the Sun's corona and ~the heliosphere, right?

So, since I'm so incapable of seeing any such evidence, how about you summarize it, in bullet form perhaps? And for avoidance of doubt, the "billions of volts" is key ... so the evidence for this will have to be quantitative. Oh, and if there are zero references to relevant papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, I don't think I'll be putting too much effort into trying to understand your reply (I have, quite frankly, wasted too much of my life following the things you post, only to find no answers to the questions I've asked you).

 

[JeanTate]

You put the "E" in "JREF" for me, ApolloGnomon (even though this is ISF not JREF)!

In Texas Sharpshooter logic, yes.

I had not heard of this before, so I asked my friend Duckduckgo to help ... very nice, concise label for an all-too-common logical fallacy; thank you.

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning again, David Talbott.

<snip>

I've extended this invitation to quite a number of comet scientists over the past 18 months, and I will never ignore a reasonably stated objection.

It can get quite hot and heavy in this thread, at times, as even the skimpiest of skims of past pages will show. So I can understand that you may be overwhelmed by the responses you've been getting, since you joined.

However, I'd like to ask if you'd consider extending your commitment?

Would you consider never ignoring a reasonably stated question, about electric comet ideas, as published (and which have your name on them)?

I ask this, in part, because there are quite a few reasonably stated questions (on the electric comet ideas, etc) in the last couple or so pages of this thread, and you have - so far - not responded to them.

If it would help, I'd be willing to put together a concise summary.

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning, tusenfem.

Other members reading this: have you reviewed Ziggurat's calculations? Tom Bridgman's? Do they seem sound to you? If not, what flaws have you noticed? From your reading of the material Haig has provided links to, do Ziggurat's or Tom Bridgman's calculations misrepresent Scott's model in any significant way? If so, how?

I do not think there is anything wrong with the calculations.
Another electric sun calculation done by me, which I cannot find so quickly here on ISF, but hey, let's take the adversary's homepage as a source. haig copied my calculation on Thunderdolts.

However, this belongs in the electric sun thread, and not in the electric comet thread.

Actually, I think it's central to the electric comet idea, as published; especially to the 2006 document Haig posted a link to (and which has David Talbott as an author).

The electric comet idea rests on the existence of an approximately radially symmetric electric field, centered (approximately) on the Sun, and which has a potential drop of "billions of volts" from ~the Sun's corona to ~the heliosphere. The electric Sun BOTE calculations show this to be impossible, as in 'inconsistent with the existence of the Sun as a ~constant source of electromagnetic radiation with a SED that is close to a ~5700K blackbody'.

Thus electric comet ideas are falsified, and most of this thread is simply a gigantic waste of time.

Unless and until the electric comet ideas are modified, and the nature of the solar system-wide electric fields substantially revised. So far, no one has pointed to any such revision of electric comet ideas, not Haig, not Sol88, not even David Talbott.

However, I will - perhaps tomorrow - write some posts in the electric Sun ISF thread, copying relevant ones here, so anyone interested in following this 'stake through the heart of the electric comet' can do so over there.

 

[Belz...]

You put the "E" in "JREF" for me, ApolloGnomon (even though this is ISF not JREF)!

Should've called it "ISEF", I guess.

 

[David Talbott]

And then a citation that is nothing to do with the Electric Comet hypothesis, David Talbott !
Matt Taylor is not saying that 67P is a rock, that electrical discharges are creating water, that 67P was created by being blasted off the surface of a planet in relatively recent times etc.

You say the quote has "nothing to do with the Electric Comet hypothesis." I'd say that every intelligent reader can see the quote for what it is. The explicit subject is the role of charged particles in comet outbursts, a subject discussed at length in the Electric Comet documentary and largely ignored in comet science until quite recently. Was there a reason for injecting other issues into your response, apart from a desire to confuse readers?

As I said, the quote deserves to be checked out. But while you call yourself Reality Check, I don't see you actually checking anything.

 

[David Talbott]

Good morning, Haig.

Sorry, it's not at all obvious.

In fact, there's zero evidence for an approximately radially symmetric electric field, centered on the Sun, with a potential drop of "billions of volts" between ~the Sun's corona and ~the heliosphere, right?

Hmmm. Why this feeling of deja vu?

I'm quite sure that we've exchanged notes as to your claim here in the past, though perhaps you were wearing a different identity. Now, years later, you continue to ask for mathematical precision where such precision would be factually dependent on measurements not yet available.

But since you appear to love mathematics, even in the absence of concrete measurements, why don't you calculate for us how, in the absence of an electric field, charged particles of the solar wind can be continually accelerated out past the planets? Do you envision these charged particles as little rocket ships, or what?

One value of working with electrical engineers as we do is the fact that they know how to accelerate charge particles.

 

[Haig]

ah no book ey! tough mainstream models come in books and papers, but yes there is a pdf of krishna swami's book somewhere on the internet.

Never mind, I couldn't find a pdf of krishna swami's book anywhere on the internet but I did find this ...

Its just NASA JPL but they do give what appears to be up to date information on comets.

The first part is just the old Dirty Snowball but later it seems much more plasma sheath like ...

How Does a Comet Work?

Against the solar wind, the coma grows increasingly dense and develops into distinct interior layers or regions, each of which embraces different chemical and physical activities. (See illustration.) As the solar wind encounters the denser gas in the inner coma, the solar plasma and interplanetary magnetic field lines are compressed. At the cometopause, they are pushed out and around the cometosphere, in which the cometary ions are themselves piling up against each other. If the comet is outgassing fast enough to produce a large amount of ions , the interior region of the coma will become free of any magnetic field and form an ionopause that pushes most of the cometary ions out and around the nucleus, into the streaming ion tail . If this ionosphere is expanding supersonically, it is deflected by the inner shock , where the neutral molecules outgassing from the nucleus still hold sway against the powerfully charged ionosphere .

Active Nucleus The final, but most mysterious layer, lies right on the surface of the nucleus where the coma is generated. This layer is little known because it is so difficult to observe through the dynamic coma from long distances. Rosetta, however, will have a front-seat view, and its lander Philae will be at center stage, sitting right on the surface of the comet’s nucleus. Scientists assume that the irregular shape and different elements of the nucleus will cause the gas jets erupting from the nucleus to vary in chemical composition and pressure. As a result, different parts of the coma near the nucleus may also vary.

http://rosetta.jpl.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/activeNucleus.gif

Edited by LashL: 

Edited to change hotlinked image to regular link. Please see Rule 5.

Compare the second half with this Electric Comet ...

The Electrical Nature of Comets

Comet displays are thought to be due to sublimation of volatile ices from an inert nucleus in the heat of the Sun. For example, the Stardust mission has shown that the origin of comets requires some high-temperature conditions. A 'cross-eye' stereo pair of comet Wild 2's nucleus showing typical EDM erosion. Comet flybys have shown phenomena of great complexity and higher energy than expected. Comet Hyakutake showed unsuspected high-energy processes taking place in the comet. A forbidden oxygen spectral line in the coma of Comet Austin pointed to an intense electric field. Activity is restricted to small areas on each comet nucleus and takes the form of collimated jets, which maintain their filamentary coherence across tens of millions of kilometers. The complex structure and high-energy behavior can be explained if the comet is a charged body moving in a radial electric field responsible for accelerating the solar-wind plasma, rather than an inert, heated body in a rarefied supersonic "wind." The jets and surface topography of comets are consistent with EDM erosion of a cathode surface. The fine dust particles may be the result of cathode sputtering. The presence of the OH radical may be due to combination of sputtered negative oxygen ions from the comet nucleus with solar 'wind' protons and is consistent with the lack of water ice observed on comet nuclei. On the basis of an electrical theory of comets, the author predicted that the Deep Impact mission would observe an electrical flash before impact with the copper projectile and that the outburst would be more energetic than expected.

 

[Haig]

Good morning, Haig.

Sorry, it's not at all obvious.

In fact, there's zero evidence for an approximately radially symmetric electric field, centered on the Sun, with a potential drop of "billions of volts" between ~the Sun's corona and ~the heliosphere, right?

So, since I'm so incapable of seeing any such evidence, how about you summarize it, in bullet form perhaps? And for avoidance of doubt, the "billions of volts" is key ... so the evidence for this will have to be quantitative. Oh, and if there are zero references to relevant papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, I don't think I'll be putting too much effort into trying to understand your reply (I have, quite frankly, wasted too much of my life following the things you post, only to find no answers to the questions I've asked you).

Sure it's obvious.

I don't think your really trying.

If you write out the script of this documentary you should find it sinks in

Or just click on the link underneath (SHOW MORE) for much more information.

Episode 3 Symbols of an Alien Sky: The Electric Comet (Full Documentary)

You can even get the Electric Comet Credits

If you still can't understand I guess I'll have to reluctantly give you up as a lost cause.

But really I'm not asking you to agree with it ... just understand it

edit:
Just a last thought that you might finally "get" it if you look at this much shorter video. It's been posted here before but it's worth another look imho.

Rosetta Mission Update | The Rocky Comet

 

[Dancing David]

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. After countless billions of dollars in space exploration, no standard model exists either. That's the effect of decades of surprises and failed predictions. But then again, better no model than one that calls for huge expenditures asking the wrong questions. Perhaps a hopeful perspective is actually possible in this year of Rosetta?

So you have a hypothesis, and no way to model it, seriously?

then you can't have evidence to support your model/theory, now can you?

talking about expenditures is silly, the theory of EC should have testable consequences that can be checked against existing data.

Like why do Apollo bodies not show comas?

 

[Reality Check]

..usual rant snipped...

Let me try to explain this to you simply, Sol88 !
The topic of this thread is "The Electric Comet theory".
Your implied ignorance of the scientific model of comets or its predications is not support for the electric comet theory.
Continuous demands that anyone does calculations for the scientific model of comets are irrelevant to this thread. The repeated demands actually fit a definition of insane - repeating an action expecting a different result!

Thus:

No, Sol88, I am not idiotic enough to give into insane demands that I support an already valid model of comets when the topic of this thread is the electric comet theory.

1. 5th August 2009 Sol88: Now where in the many published papers on the electric comet idea is the prediction that the electrical discharges are of duration 10-15 ms (your claim)?
2. 5th August 2009 Sol88, How does the electric comet idea explain main-belt comets?
3. 17 November 2014 Sol88: Please cite the announcement of the discovery of hard rock (not "rock stuff" but the solid rock your theory demands) on comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko.
4. 17 November 2014 Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the density of comets
5. 18 November 2014 Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the amount of surface ice on 67P (no detected surface ice).
6. 18 November 2014 Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the amount of surface ice on Tempel 1 where surface ice was found
7. 18 November 2014 Sol88: Please present the electric comet calculation for the electric charge differential around comets and show that it matches the measurements.
8. 20 November 2014 Sol88: Can you understand that the Thunderbolts authors even lie about predictions
9. 20 November 2014 Sol88: Can you understand the significant delusions on that Thunderbolts web page on 67P "predictions"?
10. 24 November 2014 Sol88: Please cite the electric comet predictions for the albedo of comet nuclei (actual numbers not fantasies!)
11. 1 December 2014: A rather pathetic attempt to answer the above questions (mostly repeats of ignorance and fantasies).
12. 2 December 2014: Sol88 does not notice that Wal Thornhill narrates an ignorant and deluded video about 67P!
13. 3 December 2014 Sol88: What about the jets is specifically predicted by the electric comet fantasy to be confirmed by the OSIRIS instrument?
14. 3 December 2014 Sol88: What does the electric comet fantasy predict about jet locations, especially on 67P?
15. 4 December 2014 Sol88: how much water/water ice on/in 67P to account for the observed OH, does the electric comet fantasy come up with?

Of course the simple answer to most of the questions is that the electric comet theory is useless at making quantitative predictions - not that we will ever get this degree of honesty from you Sol88 (or Haig?) given the years of electric comet self-deception you have behind you.

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: Can you see the delusions and ignorance in the Electric Comet web page

As has been said many times, Electric Comet hypothesis needs an Electric Sun hypothesis ....

So the delusional basis of the electric comet means that the electric sun is also based on delusions (Velikovsky's worlds in collision fantasy), Haig ?

Or the invalid electric sun theories (Thornhill and Scot) means that the electric comet theory is also invalid.

And what do we have in Electric Comet?

ELECTRIC COMET MODEL:
• Comets are debris produced during violent electrical interactions of planets and moons in an earlier phase of solar system history. Comets are similar to asteroids, and their composition varies. Most comets should be homogeneous - their interiors will have the same composition as their surfaces. They are simply “asteroids on eccentric orbits.”
• Comets follow their elongated paths within a weak electrical field centered on the Sun. In approaching the Sun, a charge imbalance develops between the nucleus and the higher voltage and charge density near the Sun. Growing electrical stresses initiate discharges and the formation of a glowing plasma sheath, appearing as the coma and tail.
• The observed jets of comets are electric arc discharges to the nucleus, producing “electrical discharge machining” (EDM) of the surface. The excavated material is accelerated into space along the jets’ observed filamentary arcs.
• Intermittent and wandering arcs erode the surface and burn it black, leaving the distinctive scarring patterns of electric discharges.
• The jets’ explode from cometary nuclei at supersonic speeds and retain their coherent structure for hundreds of thousands of miles. The collimation of such jets is a well-documented attribute of plasma discharge.
"• The tails of comets reveal well-defined filaments extending up to tens of millions of miles without dissipating in the vacuum of space. This “violation” of neutral gas behavior in a vacuum is to be expected of a plasma discharge within the ambient electric field of the Sun.
• It is the electric force that holds the spherical cometary coma in place as the comet races around the Sun. The diameter of the visible coma will often reach millions of miles. And the visible coma is surrounded by an even larger and more “improbable” spherical envelope of fluorescing hydrogen visible in ultraviolet light.
• The primary distinction between comet and asteroid surfaces is that electrical arcing and “electrostatic cleaning” of the comet nucleus will leave little or no dust or debris on the surface during the active phase, even if a shallow layer of dust may be attracted back to the nucleus electrostatically as the comet becomes dormant in its retreat to more remote regions.

Which is actually ELECTRIC COMET DELUSIONS AND IGNORANCE

• The possibly Velikovskian delusion of "violent electrical interactions of planets and moons".
  The delusion that comets are rocks - they have measured densities less than water
• The ignorant statement that electric arc discharges are possible around comets (no electric arc discharges in plasma or vacuum).
• The ignorant statement that comet jets are "electric arc discharges to the nucleus" (see above).
  Ignorance about electrical discharge machining (EDM): EDM in the EC idea needs a dielectric material which does not exist!
• Ignorance about the basic physics that says that jets exploding from cometary nuclei at supersonic speeds will retain their coherent structure for "hundreds of thousands of miles"!
  The delusion that their electric arc discharges (jets) are now plasma discharges.
• Ignorance about comet tails.
  * They are not "neutral gas" - they are ionized gas.
  * They are not "in a vacuum" - they are in the solar wind and solar magnetic field.
  * The "well-defined filaments" are what is expected from ionized gas in the solar wind and magnetic field .
  This leads to the delusion that tails are a plasma discharge.
• The delusion that "the electric force that holds the spherical cometary coma in place" - it is gravity.
• A repeat of the comets are rock delusion.

 

[Reality Check]

The first reply shows your flaw in using claimed data for a Fusion Sun to try to disprove a Electric Sun hypothesis. Others can judge for themselves the rest of the debate on those three pages.

Wrong, Haig - the Thunderbolts forum administrators have the policy that if someone were to ask basic questions such "does the electric comet theory have numeric predications" then they are banned .
So I am one of the "others" that cannot check out that debate.

 

[Reality Check]

You say the quote has "nothing to do with the Electric Comet hypothesis." I'd say that every intelligent reader can see the quote for what it is.

I'd say that any every intelligent reader has already seen what the Electric Comet hypothesis is - an invalid theory with a delusional part on comet formation.
I listed some of that:

• 67P is a rock,
• that electrical discharges are creating water,
• that 67P was created by being blasted off the surface of a planet in relatively recent times
• etc.

Electric comets still do not exist!

Those intelligent readers would

• Read that Matt Taylor is a astronomer working on comets and so would never comment on the invalid Electric Comet hypothesis.
• Know that the Forbes magazine is not a scientific journal .
• Read Harpoon Malfunction May Have Saved ESA's Philae Comet Lander and see that the context of the quote is a standard icy and dusty comet - not a rock.
  

  As for the current Rosetta mission, next August, the comet 67P will make its closest approach to the Sun when it will lie approximately between the orbits of Earth and Mars .
  
  By then Taylor expects that the interaction of the comet with charged particles from an increasing solar wind will cause more cometary outgassing and a much dustier environment which he says may severely impinge on the lander’s solar arrays.
  
  “We will be able to see how the comet’s nucleus waxes and wanes as it goes through its closest approach to the Sun,” said Taylor. “The key is to observe how this comet evolves in time; to see how it works.”

• Take Matt Taylor's comment as part of the standard model, i.e. that comets can be heated by the solar wind and so increase their activity.

That the electric comet includes a fantasy about charged particles and outbursts does not means that a scientist commenting ion charged particles and outgassing supports that fantasy, David Talbott .

Look at the context, David Talbott: it is the effect on the lander’s solar arrays that is the subject. Matt Taylor is saying that more outgassing around the lander will release more dust which will affect the solar arrays.

 

[Reality Check]

Now, years later, you ...

Wrong, David Talbott.
Jean Tate is not asking for mathematics - by now everyone in the world must know that the electric comet idea is incapable of this .

Jean Tate pointed out that no electric comet proponent has cited evidence for "for an approximately radially symmetric electric field, centered on the Sun, with a potential drop of "billions of volts" between ~the Sun's corona and ~the heliosphere".
This is what the electric comet people seem to really want - real world measurements of a real world phenomena !

 

[Reality Check]

How Does a Comet Work?

Compare the second half with this Electric Comet ...
The Electrical Nature of Comets

No Haig.
We will not compare actual science with anything by a crank so deluded that he thinks that the Grand Canyon was formed with electrical discharges !
We will look at what you have cited and how dumb the citation is:
This is an IEEE conference on plasma science, not astronomy or comets.
This is a conference presentation.
That presentation invalidates the electric comet idea :

On the basis of an electrical theory of comets, the author predicted that the Deep Impact mission would observe an electrical flash before impact with the copper projectile and that the outburst would be more energetic than expected.

Deep Impact had two flashes after impact.
The energy emitted matched what was expected: Photometric Evolution of the Deep Impact Flash (03/2006)

 

[Sol88]

Let me try to explain this to you simply, Sol88 !
The topic of this thread is "The Electric Comet theory".
Your implied ignorance of the scientific model of comets or its predications is not support for the electric comet theory.
Continuous demands that anyone does calculations for the scientific model of comets are irrelevant to this thread. The repeated demands actually fit a definition of insane - repeating an action expecting a different result!

Thus:

Cart before the horse again old mate, cart before the horse

You do not know if sublimation is the cause of the jets and the source of the OH^- because you can not tell me if you have found ice at the jet source!

and the maths for the OH^- production for the mainstream has the comet with more water ice than needed to supply the observed OH^- and because of the observed OH^- then there must be water on the comet. Mainstream even suggest that was how water was delivered to Earth...

So again Reality Check, show me the maths is just a tired old warcry from a camp under threat from the data coming in, in a flap even.

YOU ASSUME WATER ICE ON/UNDER THE SURFACE OF THE COMET AND YOU HAVE NOT SAMPLED ICE WITH PHILAE (but you did hit a "hard" surface as detected by MUPUS)

So MATHS is not needed...again

 

[Sol88]

Wrong, Haig - the Thunderbolts forum administrators have the policy that if someone were to ask basic questions such "does the electric comet theory have numeric predications" then they are banned .
So I am one of the "others" that cannot check out that debate.

Yeah, know the feeling

This has been the best forum for open, sometimes heated, debate on the Electric Comet