The Electric Comet theory

[paladin17]

How do you get that from that set of graphs? From my quick look 47-65 keV protons seem to be running about the same as 38-53 keV electrons?

The protons are almost at 10⁴, and the electrons are around the middle of 10³.

 

[The Man]

The protons are almost at 10⁴, and the electrons are around the middle of 10³.

Yes the protons "are almost at 10⁴" at the very start of the graph, but if you look at the entire graph you will see that they are running "around the middle of 10³" just like the electrons.

 

[rwguinn]

Wouldn't it be simpler to sublimated/evaporate the water and other ices from the comet and let the solar wind push the resulting "steam"ish stuff away, than to assume some exotic combining of solar H ions being combined with electrolized H and O ions from a water that isn't there in the first place?
Seems to me that if your hypothesis eats it's own tail to survive, it doesn't survive any scrutiny at all.

 

[JeanTate]

Hello again, paladin17, and thank you for your extensive reply to my posts.

So, if I may, some questions about the peci:

* why is it that only comets have comas, tails, etc? In particular, why do the many asteroids with similar orbits to comets not have them?

* what is the expected range of densities of comets?

* what is the explanation for the two different kinds of comet tail (dust, ion)?

* what is the expected structure and composition of comets?

* what are jets?

(that'll do for now)

1) The key point is the regime of the interaction with the solar wind. I think under certain conditions it may switch from "asteroid-like" to the "comet-like".
There are several factors here. First of all, the eccentricity of the orbit. Then, I guess, mineral composition. Maybe an individual history of the object plays a certain role (where it was formed, how it was magnetized, what kind of discharges already took place etc.). Also the solar factor plays a role, since it is obvious that heliosphere is quite anisotropic, and certain parameters (magnetic field components, proton flux speed/density/temperature etc.) may vary substantially.
I know that there are at least 13 known ateroids that have become comets (see "Active main-belt asteroid 62412 (2000 SY178) develops a tail" on Astronomy Now). And I suppose the backward transition is also possible. In my interpretation ("peci") in is just the switching of the regime of interaction with the Sun due to one of the aforementioned factors, or some others.
So actually I don't think it is a problem. Maybe those asteroids with cometary-like orbits will soon also turn into comets.

As peci is, so far, just an idea (or series of ideas, not necessarily connected or consistent with each other), no worries.

Some more things for you to consider:
* why did the spaceprobes which have visited comets (there are quite a few of them now) not develop comas and tails?
* why do/did the New Horizons, Voyagers 1 and 2, Cassini, Dawn, etc have no comas or tails?
* many meteor showers have been associated with comets, and their constituent objects (proto-meteors?) follow very similar orbits to those comets; why do none apparently have comas or tails?

And a question: what - specifically - are the parts of your research program that will address this comets vs asteroids aspect?

2) I have completely no idea.
As far as I know, the only type of celestial bodies with completely known inner structure are meteorites (since we can directly slice them, or X-ray scan them), and I have doubts about the current model of the inner structure of the Sun and the planets. I think the current theories are only assumptions at best.
And as you understand the density of the body is very dependent on what the inner structure is. For example, if we assume that there are hollow voids inside of the body, then its density will not only depend on the density of the "solid" part of the material, but also on the volume of those voids.

I'm voting for a very careful treatment of the questions of mass, inertia, density etc. Today we have some outrageous (in my opinion) assumptions at hand that the matter that we see is only 1/6 of all the matter. Because otherwise the equations won't work (I mean the galactic rotation curves, of course). I think it is ill logic and it directly violates Ockham's razor. If our equations don't work, that simply means that they are bad (or the physical assumptions standing behind them are bad), not that there is some invisible matter somewhere.

(my bold)

A suggestion: you may wish to carefully consider how you use the words "assumption", "model", and "theory". In this regard, I think David Talbott was wise to have decided to stop using "model" and "theory", and use "hypothesis". In the case of much of what's in the part of your post I just quoted (much of it off-topic, by the way), you seem to display a very confused (or, worse, ignorant) understanding of what you write about.

Perhaps just a simple "I have completely no idea" might have been sufficient.

And a question: what - specifically - are the parts of your research program that will address this density aspect?

3) I don't know. I can only speculate.

4) If they are ripped off the rocky planets, obviously there should be structure and composition similar to those that are found on these planets.
However, there may be differences, since the dynamics of the process is rather unclear. For example those asteroid-meteoritic chondrules may form under the conditions of a discharge pretty much like those martian blueberries. And there could also be voids inside, due to the sublimation or even boiling of the rock.
These again are only assumptions.

Again, thanks.

However, I think what you write may be better characterized as "speculation" than "assumptions" (if you'd like, I'd be happy to spell out the key difference).

And a question: what - specifically - are the parts of your research program that will address this structure and composition aspect?

5) The jets are channels with a relatively elevated plasma density, I guess. Maybe the nearby streams of solar wind particles are being gathered together due to the Ampere's force, and thus the jets are formed, or something like that.

Again, thanks for this.

And a question: what - specifically - are the parts of your research program that will address this jets aspect?

<snip>

Good morning again, paladin17.

This seems inconsistent with what you wrote in an earlier post.

I'll explain: I'm tired of being attacked with the sentence that looks like "A=B!!!", and the corresponding behaviour as if it should put an end to all of my assumptions once and for all. And at the same time the guy can't even back his words up with a single reference.
If there's no data, but there is such an imprinted statement, what should I suspect? Blind faith seems quite logical.

to what extent do you assume that Maxwell's equations are a good foundation for understanding electromagnetism? Ditto that contemporary plasma physics is a good basis for understanding space plasmas?

I think they are a good place to start.
Do I think that they are complete and could not be somehow enhanced one day? No, that would seemingly contradict all of our human history.

I will write something in response to these parts of your post later, hopefully today.

 

[JeanTate]

I'll be brief, paladin17.

<snip>

<snip>

Good morning again, paladin17.

This seems inconsistent with what you wrote in an earlier post.

I'll explain: I'm tired of being attacked with the sentence that looks like "A=B!!!", and the corresponding behaviour as if it should put an end to all of my assumptions once and for all. And at the same time the guy can't even back his words up with a single reference.
If there's no data, but there is such an imprinted statement, what should I suspect? Blind faith seems quite logical.

to what extent do you assume that Maxwell's equations are a good foundation for understanding electromagnetism? Ditto that contemporary plasma physics is a good basis for understanding space plasmas?

I think they are a good place to start.
Do I think that they are complete and could not be somehow enhanced one day? No, that would seemingly contradict all of our human history.

I will write something in response to these parts of your post later, hopefully today.

Starting with the last one first: as far as I know, all the instruments on all the spaceprobes which have investigated comets have been designed, built, operated, etc under the assumption that 'the mainstream' understanding of electromagnetism* is sufficiently good that the data which comes back can be used. And since that data is obtained via radio links, the same assumption applies to the communications too.

Here's a corollary you might like to consider: if any part of peci involves (directly or indirectly) an assumption that 'the mainstream' understanding of electromagnetism is an inadequate basis, then you - as sole author of peci (and the only one who really understands it) - will have the burden of going through all the relevant data from all the spaceprobes and showing how it must be re-interpreted, re-evaluated, etc. (as an aside, I'll note that David Talbott has been asked about this - many times - but has yet to answer; and on this aspect, Haig's responses can be politely characterized as incoherent, IMHO).

If you don't mind, in responding to your posts I will explicitly ask you about this, to make sure we are not talking past each other.

Re "I'll explain: I'm tired of being attacked with ...": before I signed up to become an ISF member, I spent quite some time reading through this thread. It was an ... interesting experience. I do not know if you have done this or not, but I can certainly recommend it. If nothing else, you will likely have a better understanding of the context which members such as tusenfem inevitably bring to new posts (and posters); try as they might, it must surely be very difficult to not get annoyed to read the same electric comet ideas posted again and again, by new members and old, and the overwhelming majority of such new posts strongly suggesting that the posters have not done any homework at all (not least in at least reading the 50+ earlier posts in this thread).

There's another aspect, as I see it: this part of the ISF is "Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology". Many members - myself included - likely assume that discussions here will be science-based.

Hope this helps.

* this goes beyond Maxwell's equations of course, as I'm sure you are well aware (if not, I'd be happy to explain)

 

[Haig]

Yes, what about them ? Go on, tie that up to the electric nonsense.

From my post HERE

Sure, it's been said already my bold

A "rock comet" is a new kind of object being discussed by astronomers. It is, essentially, an asteroid that comes very close to the sun--so close that solar heating scorches dusty debris right off its rocky surface. Rock comets could thus grow comet-like tails that produce meteor showers on Earth.

"This is an example of paradigm creep. Moving toward the EC model without any acknowledgement. When the EC model is finally accepted, of course no credit will be given and they will say "we knew that for quite some time."

 

[Haig]

"Yes that is a great point. That is exactly what it is. They're doing it bit by bit to hide their ignorance and save face. The establishment cannot suddenly appear naked."

So we have the Dirty Snowball comet morphing into the Snowy Dirtball comet morphing into the Rock Comet morphing into the MS version Electric Comet

That's paradigm creep towards the original Electric Comet hypothesis, they just can't give credit where it's due

Mainstream had NO answer to this Electric Comet behaviour by Comet Holmes 17P, any of you care to explain it ? I won't hold my breath

The Electric Comet: The Elephant in NASA's Living Room?

One need only review the extraordinary spectacle provided by Comet Holmes 17P to see how deep the crisis in cometology reaches. In October of 2007, Holmes suddenly and unexpectedly brightened by a factor of a million. In less then 24 hours, it grew from a small 17th magnitude comet to a magnitude of 2.5, so large it was easily visible to the naked eye on Earth. Holmes' coma continued expanding until by mid-November of '07 it had become the largest object in the solar system, vastly larger than the Sun. The coma's diameter had grown from 28 thousand kilometers to 7 million km.

At the time of Holmes' extraordinary display, the comet was actually moving away from the Sun, and therefore cooling. Among the common sense questions posed by the enigma: how does such a gravitationally minuscule body hold in place a uniform, spherical coma 7 million kilometers in diameter? If Holmes' flare-up was the result of a collapse or explosion (as some scientists speculated) why was the ejected material not asymmetrical (as one would anticipate from an explosion)? Why did the claimed explosion not produce a variety of fragmentary sizes instead of the extremely fine dust that was actually observed? What explosive event could have caused the comet to luminate for MONTHS, rather than the SECONDS typical of an explosion's luminescence? Why did the comet's gaseous, dusty, spherical cloud persist for months, rather than dispersing quickly away from the comet?

Unfortunately, the science media and the astronomical community had barely anything to say about Comet Holmes. This seems nearly unbelievable, considering the enormous interest the comet generated on the Internet. As Thunderbolts contributor Scott Wall explained in his 2008 article, " Comet Holmes - a Media Non-event":
You might think that this remarkable behaviour would be big news, particularly among astronomers. A prominent Astronomy magazine recently published their top ten news stories of 2007. Surprisingly, this spectacular comet was not named as the top story. It didn't even finish in the top ten. In fact, the entire magazine completely ignored the comet. There was not even an editorial comment. Additionally, there was little if any newspaper or TV coverage....
One might think that the bizarre and unpredictable behavior of comets would inspire a fundamental reconsideration of comet theory. But comet science as a whole continues in a state of drift, never asking the questions that could change the picture entirely. For years, however, the questions have been asked by proponents of the Electric Universe, who contend that comets are charged objects moving through the electric field of the Sun. In recent years only the electric comet model has anticipated the major surprises in comet science, a fact anyone can confirm for himself. It is only reasonable, therefore, to ask if an electrical explanation might help us to understand the explosive behavior of Comet Holmes.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

From my post HERE

Sure, it's been said already my bold

Uh, no. The EC is what is creeping, by wandering around current astronomy and cosmology drawing Texas Sharpshooter targets around any bullet hole on the barn that seems to relate even vaguely to the EC-described symptoms while continuing to ignore the utter failure of EC to adequately explain the root causes of the phenomena.

And then your fellow chimp come in and flings poo at the cage bars.

 

[paladin17]

Some more things for you to consider:
* why did the spaceprobes which have visited comets (there are quite a few of them now) not develop comas and tails?
* why do/did the New Horizons, Voyagers 1 and 2, Cassini, Dawn, etc have no comas or tails?
* many meteor showers have been associated with comets, and their constituent objects (proto-meteors?) follow very similar orbits to those comets; why do none apparently have comas or tails?

Probably this is because those probes' exterior does not contain the quantity of oxygen-rich minerals enough to produce such a quantity of water, that can be interpreted as a "coma" (or "tail"), unlike the comets. And the meteoroids are simply too small, I think.

And a question: what - specifically - are the parts of your research program that will address this comets vs asteroids aspect?

I'm afraid we need direct observational data here. Both on the asteroids and the comets. That should prove or disprove that they haven't got much structural differences.

A suggestion: you may wish to carefully consider how you use the words "assumption", "model", and "theory".

I tend not to put too much weight in words, sorry. But that's again another topic (which is connected to the gnoseology and philosophy itself, so the discussion could last for ages). Just keep in mind that whenever you don't like how I designate things and you have a better word for them, I would gladly agree with you, since it's not a big deal for me.

And a question: what - specifically - are the parts of your research program that will address this density aspect?

I don't see many scenarios here. I don't see how an electric discharge (I mean the one that is supposedly happening at the comet) can alter the body's density. So I guess this question is not from this field.

And a question: what - specifically - are the parts of your research program that will address this structure and composition aspect?

The basic idea is that there isn't much structural difference between rocky bodies (Moon, Mars, Earth etc.) and the comets (well, and asteroids). And of course I do mean only upper crust of those large bodies, - the one that we are more or less capable to observe.

And a question: what - specifically - are the parts of your research program that will address this jets aspect?

Well, here is where some modeling could be made, I guess. The one would have to show that the jets indeed tend to form from a more diffuse stream of particles. Probably in the spots where the mineral composition (or a local field geometry) is such that the ionization potential (or surface capacity) is a bit decreased.

Thank you for your comments and questions.

 

[Haig]

Uh, no. The EC is what is creeping, by wandering around current astronomy and cosmology drawing Texas Sharpshooter targets around any bullet hole on the barn that seems to relate even vaguely to the EC-described symptoms while continuing to ignore the utter failure of EC to adequately explain the root causes of the phenomena.

And then your fellow chimp come in and flings poo at the cage bars.

My bold

If only that were true

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Not waiting for your fellow chimp, then?

Perhaps you could try addressing the content of my post first and snark after making some kind of rebuttal.

 

[Haig]

Not waiting for your fellow chimp, then?

Perhaps you could try addressing the content of my post first and snark after making some kind of rebuttal.

I did try addressing the content of your post first ...

And then your fellow chimp come in and flings poo at the cage bars.

If you ask a question in a polite civil manner I will respond likewise with an answer.

Or I may not notice or respond. (I may do that anyway, not enough time too much to do)

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Specifically, I would like to reiterate my assertion that your rocky comet --> validation of EC is a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. I would like to ask you to specifically address that point.

 

[dasmiller]

From my post HERE

Sure, it's been said already my bold

So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that observation of an asteroid shedding mass due to radiative heating from the sun supports the notion that comets shed mass due to EDM?

 

[tusenfem]

No, it cannot. There is only proton density.

I assume that the words "bow shock" mean nothing to you.

Well, it seems that you don't even have the data, only blind faith and a lot of arrogance and aggression that understandably accompany it. Which is quite sad, again.

Sorry sweety, I don't jump because you ask for it.
Search the web, you're sure to find it.
For example, use Cluster in the solar wind, CIS/CODIF and PEACE.

And what exactly is a "bow shock" in your mind?
What is upstream, what is downstream of a bow shock?

 

[Haig]

Specifically, I would like to reiterate my assertion that your rocky comet --> validation of EC is a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. I would like to ask you to specifically address that point.

I would simply rebut that assertion by pointing out ROCK comets have been denied throughout this thread.

Feel free to go back and check, but RC and DD (for example) have constantly gone on and on and on that comets can NOT be made of ROCK because their density is too low.

Now I know what your thinking. They (NASA) were talking about rock comets from asteroids and not regular Electric Comets but the point IS the EU / PC hypothesis says they ARE the same, electric change and orbit eccentricity mainly making the difference as I understand it.

Then coming to mainstream comet theory paradigm creep.

Ask tusenfem ... he says (if I understood him correctly) the Dirty Snowball model is outdated (although ALL the mainstream sites still talk about it) and the New comet model is one where the nucleus may have a charge, a magnetic field that interacts with the solar wind draping it's magnetic frozen in field around it to form the coma and tail. Also the comet can sing at 40-50 millihertz to the tune of the Sun and it's electric conductive media - the solar wind, now found to be A/C

So the creep towards the Electric Comet hypothesis is real.

 

[Haig]

So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that observation of an asteroid shedding mass due to radiative heating from the sun supports the notion that comets shed mass due to EDM?

Nope, did not say that. See my post(s) above

 

[Ziggurat]

I would simply rebut that assertion by pointing out ROCK comets have been denied throughout this thread.

Feel free to go back and check, but RC and DD (for example) have constantly gone on and on and on that comets can NOT be made of ROCK because their density is too low.

Now I know what your thinking. They (NASA) were talking about rock comets from asteroids and not regular Electric Comets but the point IS the EU / PC hypothesis says they ARE the same, electric change and orbit eccentricity mainly making the difference as I understand it.

But they aren't the same. They are very, very different. So this doesn't support the EU delusion. Ordinary comets show lots of water sublimating from them (far more than you can account for). Rocky "comets" do not: they give off dust, without appreciable water. And a rocky "comet" requires not only an eccentric orbit, but one which approaches much closer to the sun than an ordinary comet requires. Without that second part, they're just asteroids with eccentric orbits, not comets, rocky or otherwise.

 

[Belz...]

From my post HERE

Sure, it's been said already my bold

I'm sorry: what do rock comets have to do with the electric universe model ? Your quote does not answer that question.

 

[Haig]

I'm sorry: what do rock comets have to do with the electric universe model ? Your quote does not answer that question.

If you read these posts HERE HERE & HERE you should follow it ... and I say I have answered that question. You may not like the answer ... but there it is !