The Electric Comet theory

[JeanTate]

Good morning, Sol88.

G'Day Jeantate

Sol88 seems to enjoy being sarcastic, and focused on posting what he seems to think are anomalies and inconsistencies with/in "the mainstream" (again, re comets). Despite the fact that he himself started this thread, and titled it "The Electric Comet theory", Sol88 also seems to have little understanding of the ech, and even less interest in discussing it. True, he does sometimes post a lot of links and selected quotes; however, he seems to do less of this than Haig, and his sources seem more diverse.

pointing what he seems to think are anomalies and inconsistencies with/in "the mainstream" , that should have forced a rethink about standard comet theory years ago, which for me was around when I got booted of varies forums that staunch mainstreamers frequented and found ISF to be able to discuss theses very anomalies and inconsistencies with/in "the mainstream"

I've been back and forth on this forum since 2009 and whilst Reality Check maybe just a bedroom scientist, Tusenfem is up to his codlies in the Rosetta Plasma Consortium experiment package around 67P, so I'm very interested in his take on the latest findings.

Thanks for that.

If I may, I'd like to suggest that if your aim is to understand "the mainstream" - whether models of comets or anything else in space science/astronomy/astrophysics/cosmology - an investment of your time and effort on learning 'the basics' would produce great returns.

For example, you seem to rely very heavily on secondary sources - PRs, popsci reports, blogs, etc. Nothing wrong with that per se ... except if you mistake these for primary sources.

Another: JPEG, GIF, etc images are nearly always pale shadows of the actual data. And in many cases the data is not easily converted to an easily understood 'image-like' format. You want to understand "the mainstream"? You'll have to teach yourself how to understand data!

Finally, if your aim - in this thread - is to discuss 'anomalies and inconsistencies', you shot yourself in the foot by calling it "The Electric Comet model" (IMHO).

@Haig, @Sol88: accept, for now at least, that I am genuinely interested in the supposed topic of this thread.

Job done then!

I've never said I was an expert and in fact stated many times i'm hopeless at maths but that does not make me an idiot who does not understand the principles of the ELECTRIC COMET - ELECTRIC SUN - THE UNIVERSE IS ELECTRIC.

Again, thanks for that.

Something which 'does not compute' for me, Sol88: if - as you seem to claim - you "understand the principles of the ELECTRIC COMET - ELECTRIC SUN - THE UNIVERSE IS ELECTRIC", why do you not engage in discussion with me, on exactly these things?

On jets, for example, a topic you yourself specifically introduced:

Good morning, Sol88.

<stuff not on the ech snipped>

but as stated in the ECH jets are an electrical discharge phenomena

Thanks for this.

A bit briefer than I was hoping for ...

Let me ask you about jets, electrical discharge phenomena, and the ECH, OK?

1) How do you get from:
* there is an electric field centered approximately on the Sun AND
* comets are homogeneous 'rock'
to:
* the observed comet jets are an electrical discharge phenomena?

Would you please walk me through the logical steps from premises to conclusion?

2) What primary source, or sources, can you cite, re "in the ECH jets are an electrical discharge phenomena"?

3) Per the ECH, what are the two (or more) 'ends' of the electrical discharge(s) that are comet jets? Or, what acts as electrodes?

I think that will do for now; I look forward to continuing to discuss comet jets in the ECH.

And the interdisipinary nature of the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE has shown me things science (maths) will NEVER understand or model, ever.

As above, so below...

Right, so here's what I see as the biggest disconnect: ELECTRIC, as science, is very well understood ... from Maxwell's equations, to atomic physics, to Quantum Electrodynamics. As is plasma physics. And to understand ELECTRIC you need to at least understand the "(maths)".

If you have a phenomenon which you want to call ELECTRIC, then by definition you must be able to model it (and understand it), at some level, using the science of electromagnetism, plasma physics, etc. And that involves maths.

On the other hand, if you are using ELECTRIC as a shorthand for "may be electromagnetism/plasma physics, or may not; but whatever it is it cannot be modelled, ever", then your ELECTRIC is no different from magic (and cannot be electromagnetism/plasma physics).

Yet you seem quite unconcerned by this apparent, fundamental disconnect.

What am I missing?

and I apoligize for my sarcasim but when up against the likes of Reality Check and his impressive list of problems I should solve for HIM to try and understand the basics of the electric comet. I mean, you've read them right? I've been called many an unprofessional name on many forums but sticks 'n stones...

A suggestion, if I may: at least in this thread, respond to what others ask of you, about the ech - whether Reality Check or any other ISF member - with something on the ech. If you don't understand the question, ask for clarification. If you don't know the answer - and the question is genuinely about the ech - say so (and then go do the research to find the answer). If it's not about the ech, either say so directly (better) or ignore it (not so good).

And if there appears to be an anomaly or inconsistency in the ech (either internal or with some relevant observational data), I think you're better off acknowledging it.

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning again Sol88.

<snip>

And you are correct Reality Check, soon the ELECTRIC COMET will be actual science and my interest in the mis information on comets will problem stop.

<snip>

May I ask, how will you - Sol88 - know (when "the ELECTRIC COMET will be actual science")?

 

[LSSBB]

Water is a broad statement, what kinda water are they talking about H₂0¹⁶? or H₂0¹⁸?, Heavy water?, or if it was "made" in the near surface and it becomes neutral, gravity should do it's thing a draw it to the surface. See an EU proponent saying Gravity does stuff....but compared the the EM force

[sarcasm]The ionized state??[/sarcasm] Ummm....sorry got my source from JPL, they implied no surface water/ice.

LINK

and none of the videos I've watched from the AGU Fall Meeting, NONE have stated Categorically they have found ICE of any sort on the surface of comet 67P and only trivial amounts of frost on Tempel 1.

This I would have EXPECTED from the mainstream interpretation of comets and would have expected it to be on the evening news by now......but nix.

The lack of explicit mentions of ice, as I have said before, is probably to an extent because whether ice exists on a comet is uninteresting to most.

What physical state is water at on a comet? If you prefer to differentiate the water, list the potential types and their state. And doesn't lots of water detected AT the surface provide explanation for the comet halo and tail?

Did anyone happen to photo, video or detect any electric discharges? How many of those does your hypothesis predict?

 

[Dancing David]

Anywhoo back to the subject...

How do we, the public, get our hands on this

• P41C-3939Jets of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko as Observed by Rosetta/OSIRIS

?????

Photoelectrons from the surface of the comet is also very interesting!

Delete

 

[Ziggurat]

BTW, there is some genuine interesting plasma physics being done in regards to comets. Here's an example article:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~tamas/TIGpapers/2007/Hansen2007.pdf
Note that, in contrast to the EU folks, this work involves actual quantification, not just handwaving. It's also based on real physics, not EU delusions.

 

[Ziggurat]

BTW, there is some genuine interesting plasma physics being done in regards to comets. Here's an example article:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~tamas/TIGpapers/2007/Hansen2007.pdf
Note that, in contrast to the EU folks, this work involves actual quantification, not just handwaving. It's also based on real physics, not EU delusions.

 

[Reality Check]

Mmmm... According to the COSIMA instrument team, “Cometary dust models need to be significantly adjusted” because the dust collection rate “much” exceeded expectations…again. Last time was Deep Impact

Hmmm, Sol88 ... Apparently the COSIMA instrument team are not so dumb that they think that comets are rock and so are proposing that “Cometary dust models need to be significantly adjusted” because of new observations.
That is how science works, Sol88 !

Still lying abut "struggling to find ICE on the surface though" - surface ICE was found on Tempel 1, ICE below a dust layer was found on 67P.

 

[Reality Check]

This I would have EXPECTED from the mainstream interpretation of comets and would have expected it to be on the evening news by now......but nix.

Your expectation is wrong, Sol88.
The mainstream scientific model of comets predicts that there would be surface ice on the surfaces of comets. It also predicts that comets will vary, e.g. older comets will have fewer volatiles. We observe the comets vary -at least one (Tempel 1) has some surface ice, at least one (67P) has surface ice under dust at least one point. This is standard, not news worthy science.

 

[LSSBB]

Your expectation is wrong, Sol88.
The mainstream scientific model of comets predicts that there would be surface ice on the surfaces of comets. It also predicts that comets will vary, e.g. older comets will have fewer volatiles. We observe the comets vary -at least one (Tempel 1) has some surface ice, at least one (67P) has surface ice under dust at least one point. This is standard, not news worthy science.

Also note that they did not announce "we have found NO ice anywhere on 67P, in direct contradiction to our models". You think if that were the case, it would be newsworthy.

I guess since they didn't say that it is all rock, it must not be true that it is all rock.

 

[Reality Check]

So I'm think more DUSTY PLASMA type stuff happ'n and NOT SUBLIMATION

The delusion of "NOT SUBLIMATION" aside, Sol88, we have the fact that dust can be charged to form a dusty plasma and thus comets may have dusty plasma.
This is standard plasma physics applied to the scientific model of comets as ice and dust. There are 772 abstracts for "comet dusty plasma" at ADS. Tis is not unknown physics, e.g. Ion plasma waves in dusty plasmas - Halley's comet was published in 1988!

Ion waves in a plasma are investigated in the presence of massive charged dust particles, a common space-plasma component now known to exist also in planetary rings and comets.

(my emphasis added)

 

[Sol88]

Good morning, Sol88.

Thanks for that.

If I may, I'd like to suggest that if your aim is to understand "the mainstream" - whether models of comets or anything else in space science/astronomy/astrophysics/cosmology - an investment of your time and effort on learning 'the basics' would produce great returns.

For example, you seem to rely very heavily on secondary sources - PRs, popsci reports, blogs, etc. Nothing wrong with that per se ... except if you mistake these for primary sources.

Another: JPEG, GIF, etc images are nearly always pale shadows of the actual data. And in many cases the data is not easily converted to an easily understood 'image-like' format. You want to understand "the mainstream"? You'll have to teach yourself how to understand data!

Finally, if your aim - in this thread - is to discuss 'anomalies and inconsistencies', you shot yourself in the foot by calling it "The Electric Comet model" (IMHO).


Again, thanks for that.

Something which 'does not compute' for me, Sol88: if - as you seem to claim - you "understand the principles of the ELECTRIC COMET - ELECTRIC SUN - THE UNIVERSE IS ELECTRIC", why do you not engage in discussion with me, on exactly these things?

On jets, for example, a topic you yourself specifically introduced:




Right, so here's what I see as the biggest disconnect: ELECTRIC, as science, is very well understood ... from Maxwell's equations, to atomic physics, to Quantum Electrodynamics. As is plasma physics. And to understand ELECTRIC you need to at least understand the "(maths)".

If you have a phenomenon which you want to call ELECTRIC, then by definition you must be able to model it (and understand it), at some level, using the science of electromagnetism, plasma physics, etc. And that involves maths.

On the other hand, if you are using ELECTRIC as a shorthand for "may be electromagnetism/plasma physics, or may not; but whatever it is it cannot be modelled, ever", then your ELECTRIC is no different from magic (and cannot be electromagnetism/plasma physics).

Yet you seem quite unconcerned by this apparent, fundamental disconnect.

What am I missing?


A suggestion, if I may: at least in this thread, respond to what others ask of you, about the ech - whether Reality Check or any other ISF member - with something on the ech. If you don't understand the question, ask for clarification. If you don't know the answer - and the question is genuinely about the ech - say so (and then go do the research to find the answer). If it's not about the ech, either say so directly (better) or ignore it (not so good).

And if there appears to be an anomaly or inconsistency in the ech (either internal or with some relevant observational data), I think you're better off acknowledging it.

thanks for engaging with me JeanTate

The problem I have is the LIES mainstream tell us the gullible public on ALL things cosmological dark energy, dark matter, black holes, comets...etc etc

Comets being "discovered" to be an electrical phenomena will knock over the whole house of cards.

Dusty Plasma is more or less the electric comet and the best place to look for this evidence is to send a probe to look for this evidence...ROSETTA.

This data is still not available, AFAIK to the public but the chatter i'm picking up on is it's something to do with DUSTY PLASMA (the comet is an electrical phenomena)

SO the STORY about dustyicy leftovers from the birth of the solar system just does not wash because there was never in anything in the general public arena about plasma dusty or not, it's all ice and dust.

So the change that's happening as we speak will should change science forever if the scientific method is followed and the preconcived ideas about the birth of the solar system are put aside for the time being.

 

[Reality Check]

The problem I have is the LIES mainstream tell us the gullible public on ALL things cosmological dark energy, dark matter, black holes, comets...etc etc.

The problem I have, Sol88, is you presenting no evidence that the "LIES to the mainstream tell us the gullible public on ALL things cosmological dark energy, dark matter, black holes, comets...etc etc" exist !
And the ignorance about comets - they are not cosmological !

Is the mainstream lying about
* comets having measured densities less than that of water?
* Deep Impact smashing into a comet made of ices and dust?
* Philae landing on a comet that is ice covered in dust?
* comets existing in conditions where ices sublimate?
* comet jets forming from those sublimating ices?

DUSTY PLASMA is a well known electromagnetic phenomena, not part of the electric comet fantasy that comets are rocks.

The big bit of ignorance: there are lots of observations of "electrical phenomena" already discovered about comets and the scientific model of comets as ices and dust still works!
Electric comets still do not exist !

 

[Sol88]

The delusion of "NOT SUBLIMATION" aside, Sol88, we have the fact that dust can be charged to form a dusty plasma and thus comets may have dusty plasma.
This is standard plasma physics applied to the scientific model of comets as ice and dust. There are 772 abstracts for "comet dusty plasma" at ADS. Tis is not unknown physics, e.g. Ion plasma waves in dusty plasmas - Halley's comet was published in 1988!

(my emphasis added)

Ha ha ha ah thats good RC

I have never said it was not standard physics it's just never been apllied to comets i.e we have never, before the Rosetta mission, probed for dusty plasma. it's allways about the sublimating ice.

Now mainstream are being forced to apply standard plasma physics its like the've made some breakthru discovery

Much like Birkeland who discoverd field aligned currents back when they were blue'n with Chapman.

And I see you, Reality Check are now accepting that dust plasmas play a very important role in cometary displays...comets are an elecrical discharge phenomenon

 

[Matthew Cline]

Dusty Plasma is more or less the electric comet and the best place to look for this evidence is to send a probe to look for this evidence...ROSETTA.

Wait, I thought that the Electric Comet hypothesis was the source of cometary water was oxygen released from a rocky body via EDM. Now it's "dusty plasma"?

This data is still not available, AFAIK to the public but the chatter i'm picking up on is it's something to do with DUSTY PLASMA (the comet is an electrical phenomena)

So, "something involving plasma is going on with the comet" equals "the comet is an electrical phenomena"?

 

[Sol88]

The problem I have, Sol88, is you presenting no evidence that the "LIES to the mainstream tell us the gullible public on ALL things cosmological dark energy, dark matter, black holes, comets...etc etc" exist !
And the ignorance about comets - they are not cosmological !

Is the mainstream lying about
* comets having measured densities less than that of water?
* Deep Impact smashing into a comet made of ices and dust?
* Philae landing on a comet that is ice covered in dust?
* comets existing in conditions where ices sublimate?
* comet jets forming from those sublimating ices?

DUSTY PLASMA is a well known electromagnetic phenomena, not part of the electric comet fantasy that comets are rocks.

The big bit of ignorance: there are lots of observations of "electrical phenomena" already discovered about comets and the scientific model of comets as ices and dust still works!
Electric comets still do not exist !

I'm not spinning my wheels with you Reality Check, the data is coming out and as a "new" discovery are announced then we can discuss some more about the electric comet!

the standard mainstream models are being revised as we speak.

 

[Reality Check]

I'm not spinning my wheels with you Reality Check, ...

So you have no evidence to back up your assertion about LIES, Sol88? Why am I not surprised

Yes - the standard mainstream models about comets are being revised as we speak to include more known physics (e.g. dusty plasma).
But no astronomer would be deluded enough to make comets into rocks when their measured densities are less than water ! So the electric comet idea is still dead.

 

[Sol88]

Wait, I thought that the Electric Comet hypothesis was the source of cometary water was oxygen released from a rocky body via EDM. Now it's "dusty plasma"?



So, "something involving plasma is going on with the comet" equals "the comet is an electrical phenomena"?

Where do we see the highest concentration of -OH??? not on the nucleus but further down the coma and tail.

Ummm....what i've maintained all along is comets are an electrical discharge phenomenon...not sublimating ice as we have been told.

 

[Reality Check]

I have never said it was not standard physics...

I never said that you said that:

The delusion of "NOT SUBLIMATION" aside, Sol88, we have the fact that dust can be charged to form a dusty plasma and thus comets may have dusty plasma.
This is standard plasma physics applied to the scientific model of comets as ice and dust. There are 772 abstracts for "comet dusty plasma" at ADS. Tis is not unknown physics, e.g. Ion plasma waves in dusty plasmas - Halley's comet was published in 1988!

(my emphasis added)

This is me pointing out that this is standard physics that has been applied to comets since before 1988. Dusty plasmas were "probed" in the flybys of Halley's comet in 1988. This is before the Rosetta mission, Sol88 !

Dusty plasmas and comets are an not a fantasy about "elecrical discharge phenomenon", Sol88. Dusty plasmas are plasma with dust in them. For comets
* the plasma is the solar wind + outgassed gasses ionized by radiation and collisions with the solar wind.
* the dust is .... dust!

 

[Reality Check]

Where do we see the highest concentration of -OH??? not on the nucleus but further down the coma and tail.

Well Duh, Sol88 !
It is water as a gas that is ionized by radiation to form OH and H. That needs sublimation or vaporization of ices. All of the water on the surface is solid. That is what ice means.

 

[Matthew Cline]

Where do we see the highest concentration of -OH??? not on the nucleus but further down the coma and tail.

The further away from the nucleus the water gets, the more chances it has to become ionized. Conversely, water that's very close to the nucleus hasn't had very much time in which it could become ionized.