The Electric Comet theory

[Reality Check]

Well done David ...

Sorry, Sol88, but you and David Talbott seem not to know what a scientific prediction is.
A prediction in science has a few requirements.

• It should be based on a knowledge of the current science so that it just at least possible.
• It should not contain vague terms like "appreciable". If you detect something then it is "appreciable" . Comparative terns like most or little or some should appear.
• If you say X will be detected then it has to be detectable!
  That means that either an instrument exists that can detect X or that you can say that if another instrument detects Y then X can be deduced from Y. In either case you have to say how X is going to be detected.
• If you say X will be detected then it has to distinguish your theory from any other theory.

None of the "predictions" in that David Talbott's mention how the prediction is to be validated - no instrument named or what the instrument will measure.

For example:
David Talbott predicts that no appreciable "stardust" will be detected but Rosetta will not detect stardust. AFAIK that requires a mineralogy lab hare on Earth.
David Talbott seems ignorant about the Stardust mission which has already found "appreciable" stardust (7 whole particles!).
No one expects comets to be made mainly of "stardust" - they expect comets to be mainly made of planetary dust formed in the outer solar system + a contribution from the inner solar system (another Stardust mission result).

 

[Reality Check]

Electric Comet numbers is indeed a thread there, with the OP dated Tue Aug 11, 2009.

Had I not been actively involved in this ISF thread for the last couple of weeks, I would have been astonished at the non-answers to your simple questions! However, that thread is a good illustration of why Haig posts the way he does; by the apparent standards of that forum, Haig's posts here are quite normal.

That was back in the day (2009!) when I thought that the electric comet theory was more than a fantasy so I did ask some simple, polite questions.

 

[Reality Check]

But then there is the fact about galactic magnetic fields being ...

Ethan Siegel's blog Magnetism From Afar also includes those images:

In fact, the European Space Agency just released the greatest map of the galaxy’s magnetic field earlier this year!
...
Even more impressive? They’ve released still images of the detail of that magnetic field, with the hot-and-cold spots from the microwave background overlaid atop it. Check out the impressiveness!

 

[Sol88]

sol do not dress up in other people's cloths. if you don't have anything of substance to say, tben stay quiet.

Dude, the whole point of this thread is point out the mainstream zombies fantasy about a conglomeration of primordial dust and ice left over from the formation of the solar system.

What i have to say Tusenfem is comets are ROCKS discharging in the sun radial electric field!

You on the other hand are still bound by the 1950's dirtysnowball model, any deviation from it will sound the death knell for all the astrophysics has built so far, that's how big this Electric Comets deal is.

YOU are a scientist, YOU get paid the dollars to tell us mere mortals what comets are...YOU have the $$$ to go look and you have successfully dodged this question for sometime now.

IF, as you say TUSENFEM, comets are not dirtysnowballs, then what are they?

Because if they are not dirtysnowballs then they are not leftovers from the formation of the solar system and poof there goes your make believe story about the whole show.

 

[Reality Check]

What i have to say Tusenfem is comets are ROCKS discharging in the sun radial electric field!

What we have to say, Sol88, is that that is still after 5 years a completely ignorant statement given that Electric comets still do not exist ! .

This is especially ignorant since Haig has provided links that show the delusional basis of the electric comet idea. It is a child of the crank Velikovsky's fantasies. It is based on the really dumb idea that a few pictographs magically show electrical discharges between planets and moons that created these comets in volition of the known laws of physics. Hmmm ... maybe something more to add to Electric comets still do not exist ! .

 

[Reality Check]

Dude, the whole point of this thread is point out the mainstream zombies fantasy about a conglomeration of primordial dust and ice left over from the formation of the solar system.

Dude, that is really ignorant for the person who started this thread: This is The Electric Comet theory thread . The OP and following posts is mostly about the electric comet theory and some displays of scientific errors, e.g. from the first page

• the obsession with pretty pictures that have little to do with the actual composition of comets.
• argument from ignorance - comet tails are ionized gas formed from several different ionization processes.
• a basic mistake with units.
• unable to tall the difference between bulk density and the density of dust particles that makes up part of comets.
• a fantasy about Deep impact "smashed into a rock" when after quoting "75% empty space".
• Unable to tell the difference between comets Tempel 1 and Wild 2 .
• "uncle Wal" states a fantasy and cherry picks an opinion.
  Plus a bit of ignorance - it is long period comets that originate in the Oort Cloud, short period comets originate in the centaurs and the Kuiper belt.
• bringing up main-belt comets that invalidate the electric comet idea.
• mentioning uncle Wal's lie about a confirmed prediction of two flashes after the impact (the prediction was for a flash before the impact).

and the first page ends with

Now, I am puzzled!

Apparently, the only way that the EC can "explain" the electric nature of a comet is by misinterpreting and badmouthing the mainstream model. It is the old fallacy of letting mainstream defend all their claims, making no claims themselves and then if one little thingy does not fit, EC says "yeah! our model is correct." But ... there is no EC model! Nothing has been presented apart from handwaving arguments etc.

This is not the "displayed ignorance of the electric comet theorists about mainstream science that has observational evidence about comets being a conglomeration of primordial dust and ice left over from the formation of the solar system and makes actual scientific predictions".

We do appreciate you showing us just how ignorant the electric comet theorists are about science and current comet theory, Sol88, but that is not the topic of this thread .

 

[Matthew Cline]

Dude, the whole point of this thread is point out the mainstream zombies fantasy about a conglomeration of primordial dust and ice left over from the formation of the solar system.

So is it your position that one or the other of the "dirty snowball" theory or the EC theory must be true, so disproving one proves the other? Or is it that if the mainstream theory is disproven it will free up funding for research into non-mainstream theories? If it's the latter, then shouldn't you have made a thread titled something like "The mainstream theory of comets is wrong"?

 

[Matthew Cline]

Are you aware that Rosetta is at the comet? Why would I start throwing out arbitrary numbers when the fundamental factors for a reasonable quantitative prediction, now unknown, could well be published within a matter of weeks or months. Is the comet discharging electrically? If so, that will PROVE the electric comet hypothesis.

Is it you position that any discharges on the comet will prove the EC theory? That it doesn't matter how few, how infrequent and/or how weak the discharges are? And thus, since any discharges at all prove the EC theory, there's no need to predict in advance anything about them?

 

[David Talbott]

<SNIP>

Sorry, Sol88, but you and David Talbott seem not to know what a scientific prediction is.
A prediction in science has a few requirements.

• It should be based on a knowledge of the current science so that it just at least possible.
• It should not contain vague terms like "appreciable". If you detect something then it is "appreciable" . Comparative terns like most or little or some should appear.

• 
  Wow, i never stopped to realize that a word like "little" was preferable to words like "no appreciable."
  
  To put it bluntly, you missed the boat entirely in your comments about theoretical stardust and the "Stardust Mission." The mission received its name from the earlier theoretical assumption that comets are composed of interstellar dust. But the mission found NO APPRECIABLE stardust—in other words, not enough to ever speak again of comets made from stardust.
  
  

  None of the "predictions" in that David Talbott's mention how the prediction is to be validated - no instrument named or what the instrument will measure...
  No one expects comets to be made mainly of "stardust" - they expect comets to be mainly made of planetary dust formed in the outer solar system + a contribution from the inner solar system (another Stardust mission result).

  
  Yes, I could quadruple the length of the predictions by naming the instruments that could be used to confirm a concrete prediction. In fact we could be sure to inform comet investigators what a magnetometer is, what a Langmuir probe is, what a spectroscope is, and maybe even what a telescope is.
  
  What you failed to mention is the FACT that complex mineral structures found by Stardust (such as forsterite) were not typical of dust "formed in the outer solar system," but required variable conditions typical ON PLANETS IN THE HABITABLE ZONE. For those who actually understand the electric comet hypothesis, this was a stunning confirmation of a fundamental principle of the hypothesis: comets torn from planetary surfaces in an epoch of solar system instability and violence, when planets were episodically immersed in intense electric discharge.
  
  <SNIP>
  
  
  Please, cut out the personalization. There has already been a mod-box warning in the thread; any further breaches will result in infractions and/or suspensions.

  Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[rwguinn]

Well, if you want variable conditions present on planets I'm the habitable zone, it would be hard to beat a comet, since it would pass through that zone 2 times per orbit....

 

[LSSBB]

Dude, the whole point of this thread is point out the mainstream zombies fantasy about a conglomeration of primordial dust and ice left over from the formation of the solar system.

What i have to say Tusenfem is comets are ROCKS discharging in the sun radial electric field!

You on the other hand are still bound by the 1950's dirtysnowball model, any deviation from it will sound the death knell for all the astrophysics has built so far, that's how big this Electric Comets deal is.

YOU are a scientist, YOU get paid the dollars to tell us mere mortals what comets are...YOU have the $$$ to go look and you have successfully dodged this question for sometime now.

IF, as you say TUSENFEM, comets are not dirtysnowballs, then what are they?

Because if they are not dirtysnowballs then they are not leftovers from the formation of the solar system and poof there goes your make believe story about the whole show.

Well, seeing as the mass spectrometry shows mostly water, I would say rocky hard iceballs. And those could certainly be leftovers from solar system formation.

Certainly not rocks though. Sorry about your theory. Better luck on other endeavors.

 

[D'rok]

What i have to say Tusenfem is comets are ROCKS discharging in the sun radial electric field!

You on the other hand are still bound by the 1950's dirtysnowball model, any deviation from it will sound the death knell for all the astrophysics has built so far, that's how big this Electric Comets deal is.

YOU are a scientist, YOU get paid the dollars to tell us mere mortals what comets are...YOU have the $$$ to go look and you have successfully dodged this question for sometime now.

IF, as you say TUSENFEM, comets are not dirtysnowballs, then what are they?

Because if they are not dirtysnowballs then they are not leftovers from the formation of the solar system and poof there goes your make believe story about the whole show.

Do you even bother reading the thread?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10349297#post10349297

 

[Reality Check]

David Talbott: What will detect what you state can be detected

Well I see that Reality Check ....

David Talbott: If someone thinks that Rosetta will magically measure everything that they want it to measure regardless of the actual scientific instruments on the 2 spacecraft then I will ask the appropriate question:
8 December 2014 David Talbott: What instruments will detect what you state can be detected in your predictions?

8 December 2014 David Talbott:
Which instrument is designed to detect

• "electrochemically transformed and burned black" surface?
• ice at the source of jets?
• electric discharges?
• "rocky debris on the surface, as seen on asteroids"?
• "electrical erosion"?
• "focused glow discharge"?
• "electric fields configuring and reconfiguring layers of dust on the surface"?
• "removal of “astonishing,” complex crystalline molecules from the surface"?
• "stardust"?
• support for "compositional zoning"?
• "dust configurations "?
• "electrochemical production of hydroxyl and/or water by electrical action on surface silicates and clays"?
• "improbable hydrogen cloud"?
• "additional electrochemical transactions"?

 

[Reality Check]

To put it bluntly,

To put if bluntly, you are wrong about the purpose of Stardust and its results, David Talbott

Stardust was a 300-kilogram robotic space probe launched by NASA on February 7, 1999. Its primary mission was to collect dust samples from the coma of comet Wild 2, as well as samples of cosmic dust, and return these to Earth for analysis.

So not just cosmic dust - also from the coma of comet Wild 2 from !

The results were

An estimated 45 interstellar dust impacts were also found on the sample collector, which reside on the back side of the cometary dust collector.
...
In December 2006, seven papers were published in the scientific journal, Science, discussing initial details of the sample analysis. Among the findings are: a wide range of organic compounds, including two that contain biologically usable nitrogen; indigenous aliphatic hydrocarbons with longer chain lengths than those observed in the diffuse interstellar medium; abundant amorphous silicates in addition to crystalline silicates such as olivine and pyroxene, proving consistency with the mixing of solar system and interstellar matter, previously deduced spectroscopically from ground observations;[37] hydrous silicates and carbonate minerals were found to be absent, suggesting a lack of aqueous processing of the cometary dust; limited pure carbon (CHON) was also found in the samples returned; methylamine and ethylamine was found in the aerogel but was not associated with specific particles.

(my emphasis added)
That is APPRECIABLE stardust + mixing of solar system and interstellar matter.

I know that some of the dust particles form the Stardust mission came the inner solar system.
I know that "typical ON PLANETS IN THE HABITABLE ZONE" is just wrong, David Talbott. These dust particles were typical of the dust forming in the early history of the solar system billions of years ago. Read at what I highlight above.
No granite.
No basalt.
No sandstone .
Not even any limestone !
Stardust did find olivine and pyroxene, which form a majority of the upper mantel of Earth and are also found in asteroids, i.e. are not typical ON JUST PLANETS IN THE HABITABLE ZONE. But the surface of the Earth also contains granite, basalt, limestone, sandstone and many other distinctive minerals.

Personally I am a bit surprised that they did not find dust blasted from planets and moons by impacts - after all we find stuff from Mars here. On the other hand Stardust was really small and space is really, really big.

I know that "typical ON PLANETS IN THE HABITABLE ZONE" is just strange, David Talbott, because the only planet in the HABITABLE ZONE is Earth. We could stretch it to Mars by redefining HABITABLE as non-human HABITABLE .

 

[Sol88]

Do you even bother reading the thread?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10349297#post10349297

This is a one-mixing-bowl sized comet recipe:
1. 4 deciliter sand, which is the mineral content of the comet
2. an equal amount of water in the form of snow
3. a few spoon-fulls of carbon (representative of the carbon compounds)
4. a spritzer of complex hydrocarbons (in the cooking soja saus and sugar)
5. some not so fine stuff as ammonia (other more toxic stuff as H2S etc are omitted)
6. Alcohol! on small glass of schnapps
7. Carbondioxide or dry ice about 3-4 deciliter
8. to bind it all, 200 milliliter liquid water.

Mix it all well, and add sufficient liquid nitrogen to bake.

So not a dirtysnowball but a complex frozen chemistry "ball", now just to find all that frozen stuff.

I assume the above includes ices the same as the "Ice's" we are expecting and are REQUIRED to find...so how's that going, Tusenfem?

I thought you mob at the ESA were kinda cluey?

After watching this new short talk by uncle Wal, from 13:07 a few of the ESA big boys say "Higher strength material", "Rocky like, but not rock" "We see stuff shining thru the dusty layer".... whooboy!

and we are a year away from knowing anything different, so says the man.

One hi res OSIRIS image of the jets source and I'm a happy camper!

But yeah a chemical comet it is then!!! Bye bye dirtysnowball

 

[Haig]

some of these questions by dr k are so idiotic, they are an insult to alfven who actually answered some of them.
clearly shows your knowledge of space plasma physics, haig, that you willy nilly copy such a list of questions.

So where are the answers to the questions then ?

 

[tusenfem]

So where are the answers to the questions then ?

In a whole set of scientific books (for which you don't have time) and peer-reviewed journals (of which you just quickly scan the abstract for buzz words), dear haig.

An example, the questions
Why does the ion-tail point in antisolar direction ?
Why does the "plasma-tail" not follow the solar, nonradial "frozen-in" field ?

This is explained by Alfven in his paper in 1957!!! "On the Theory of Cornet Tails", Tellus, 9, 92-96.

I don't know who Dr. L. Körtvélyessy is, but apparently (s)he is not up to date with cometary physics after 1950. (nor with current solar physics skimming through his electric sun "magnetic loops" blog)
Ah, I found the following in his biography "His patented thermoelements and oxygen probes are based on his discovery of a new thermoelement-law, which happens to be the base for the model of his "Electric Universe". "
L. K. has applied his theory to the design of his very successful patented industrial thermocouples, described in his book4 on the subject. Both conductors of a thermocouple generate a voltage when there is a temperature difference between the junction at the hot end and the instrument connection at the cold end. The temperature reading is caused by the difference of these voltages. His very profitable thermocouple factory has enabled him to establish observatories in Germany and Hungary to study the Sun on a regular basis.

 

[Haig]

David Talbott has pinned his colours to the mast with predictions for Electric Comet 67P as he said he would.

So where are the mainstream comet predictions?

Their Dirty Snowball Model is falsified (right Tusenfem?) and their MS-version-Electric Comet hypothesis ( or whatever is the latest name? ) is still in hiding.

Reality Check claimed X-rays as a prediction but he had to admit he was wrong again.

Tusenfem is hinting that mainstream will soon declare their MS-version-Electric Comet hypothesis will discover comets have charge and a magnetic field.

That will just be another confirmation of the original Electric Comet hypothesis.

ESA are drip feeding their data and images to the waiting world about 67P

Originally Posted by tusenfem
Oh forget it Ben, they are not doing anything, David is just trolling.
They are waiting for mainstream researches to do something, and then they will twist the results to their own view.
IMHO David Talbott is the biggest disappointment that arrived at (JREF) ISF from thunder, I had expected a lot more.

Well, I guess we could have another argument here as to who's most disappointed Tusenfem.

Actually I think I win. It's not as if you've stuck your neck out with any meaningful predictions to counter the explicit predictions of the electric comet. In fact, looking over a single week of my participation here, it appears I've added quite a lot by comparison, and I'll begin posting the content on a Rosetta blog on the Thunderbolts site this coming week.

... But hold on. Now we see a claimed "announcement" of water on the surface. Therefore, before I have a chance to change my own prediction of NO WATER ICE ON THE SURFACE (beyond a trivial frost as on Tempel 1), here are my predictions as they stood just a couple of hours ago. Expect some modest changes, but no wholesale retractions based on new info.

• likelihood of a hot and dry surface ("hot," as in the familiar lexicon of comet science)
• no layers's of ice exposed beneath the surface, despite the requirements of standard theory
• no ice at the source of jets, not even where the most energetic jets are active
• electric discharge as the essential contributor to the comet's increasing activity
• abundance of unexplained rocky debris on the surface, as seen on asteroids, including sharp edged boulders exhibiting no ices.
• visible electrical erosion of the surface in the fashion of electrical etching of surface materials and electric discharge machining (edm)
• surface electrochemically transformed and burned black by this discharge activity, as in laboratory experiments
• focused glow discharge enigmatically moving across the surface during the course of the Rosetta observations
• useful comparisons of this activity to the moving electrified plumes of Jupiter's moon Io and Saturn's moon Enceladus
• electric fields configuring and reconfiguring layers of dust on the surface, despite the absence of an atmosphere
• removal of “astonishing,” complex crystalline molecules from the surface, with comparisons to materials on planets and moons, likely including Mars or Earth, or both.
• no appreciable “stardust,” the long-presumed primeval matter of comets
• no support for the long-presumed "compositional zoning" in textbook solar system history and comet theory
• useful comparison of dust configurations on the surface to formations seen in laboratory experiments with electric fields acting on layers of dust
• x-ray and ultraviolet emissions exceeding any scientific predictions just 20 years ago
• evidence for electrochemical production of hydroxyl and/or water by electrical action on surface silicates and clays
• evidence for production of water and/or hydroxyl by electrical activity in the coma
• unexpected negative ions close to the nucleus
• improbable hydrogen cloud gathered and held in place at the outer regions of the coma
• additional electrochemical transactions in the coma adding to diverse chemistry, ranging from CO2 to methane, alcohol, cyanide, and more
• relationship of comet flaring to arrival of charged particles from solar outbursts

Add the POSSIBILITY of a break-up of the nucleus in response to a solar outburst, though that’s not something I'd hang a hat on.

David Talbott

 

[Ziggurat]

What you failed to mention is the FACT that complex mineral structures found by Stardust (such as forsterite) were not typical of dust "formed in the outer solar system," but required variable conditions typical ON PLANETS IN THE HABITABLE ZONE.

That's simply not true. There is no reason to believe that forsterite cannot form under other conditions.

For those who actually understand the electric comet hypothesis, this was a stunning confirmation of a fundamental principle of the hypothesis: comets torn from planetary surfaces in an epoch of solar system instability and violence, when planets were episodically immersed in intense electric discharge.

You believe what you want to believe, and ignore what does not fit that belief. The presence of forsterite isn't confirmation of anything of the sort, because your base assumption (that it can only form on a planet) simply isn't true.

And this is the case with basically everything you believe about the Electric Universe nonsense. It always comes back to confirmation bias. You cherry pick evidence, and simply ignore the mountain of contrary evidence. Not once, for example, have you even addressed the fact that the basic premise upon which everything you believe hinges (the existence of massive charge on the sun) simply isn't possible. I've already proven that, yet you simply ignore it.

Edited by LashL: 

Removed quote of moderated content, and response to same.

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning David Talbott.

This thread is moving so fast it's hard to keep up. Nonetheless this post of yours seems to be the start of an interesting sub-thread ...

Okay, stop the presses. Has something occurred that I missed? Rosetta has now detected appreciable ices on the surface of 67P?

I don't think so.

Just so that I'm clear on this, you will be relying on things like the Rosetta blog, ESA PRs, and informal comments by various people as your primary sources (in seeking to understand what Rosetta has detected, in appreciable quantities, on the surface of 67P)?

Or do you intend to wait until relevant papers - written by the scientists directly involved (such as tusenfem) - have been published in peer-reviewed journals?

Also, out of curiosity, what do you consider to be the detection of "appreciable ices on the surface of 67P"?

Sorry to say that, based on your posting history here, I do not expect a meaningful answer from you, but would be delighted if reality proves to be inconsistent with my expectations.