The Electric Comet theory

[tusenfem]

You are the PLASMA scientist here, so why be so candid?

I'm sure the great unwashed would like an answer from a proper mainstream scientist working on comet 67P under the RPC.

Why can't the observed OH and H₂O be produced in this manner?

You mentioned something about rate??

or will it get you into trouble with the rest of the team?

I have even calculated a rate making some simple assumptions, Sol, but apparently you are not interested in what other people write and show, unless it is haig, whom you trurst unquestioningly.
Just search for it.

 

[Dancing David]

PAH's amorphous carbon (soot) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (carbon-rich molecules found on barbecue grills and in automobile exhaust on Earth).


Asteroids, Comets, Planets: Cut From Same Cloth?

"like ice made of water"

Thanks fro making the non EC point.

 

[ben m]

I have even calculated a rate making some simple assumptions, Sol, but apparently you are not interested in what other people write and show, unless it is haig, whom you trurst unquestioningly.
Just search for it.

IIRC there were pages and pages of discussion (i.e. attempts to get Sol or Haig to notice/acknowledge) this calculation.

Totally useless. Lather, rinse, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat.

 

[Reality Check]

Ok boss.

Is this you saying that you are going to stop digging yourself into the pit of ignorance, delusions and lies that is the Thunderbolts web site, Sol88?
The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site and videos

 

[Reality Check]

Are they boulders of mainly ICE and a little DUST or are the mainly DUST and a bit of ICE?

I do not know and it does not matter - they are ICE and DUST, not ROCK, Sol88.

 

[Reality Check]

What is the relative speed for the solar wind over the comet?

What's the solar wind speed over the moon?

I suspect that the solar wind has about the same speed until you get out to the heliosphere. Sol88.
So the relevant physics is the density of protons and the surface area that they impact. The density of protons varies as 1/r² so it is massively less at 67P than at the Moon. 67P is not the size of the Moon ! Thus any production of water from the spluttering of dust or ice at 67P is tiny in comparison with the Moon: "pint per several football fields, over rhe lifetime of the moon" implies that if a comet were to hang around for a few billion years then there would be a few drops of water produced. Comets produce millions of tonnes of water !

ETA: It is the electric comet assertion via you Sol88 that the water on comets is produced by this mechanism. It is up to you to produce the evidence to support your assertion about the electric comet delusion, not us.
We are smart enough to know the electric comet is based on Velikovsky's delusion from the 1950's, and denies basic observations about comets (their density and composition). It is not worth wasting our time doing any calculations about a delusion!

 

[Reality Check]

The ignorance and delusions in "The Balloon goes up over lightning"

...The Balloon goes up over lightning!...

Oh dear: The delusion that Miles Mathis is anything but a deluded internet crank, Haig .

The Balloon goes up over lightning! was "Posted on January 29, 2002 by Wal Thornhill"

In August 2001 a high-altitude balloon was sent aloft to ride far above the great storms of the mid-west USA. ...

Here we have a balloon sent up above thunderstorms to record some known effects of lightning - sprites. The first half of the article is a description of the state of scientific knowledge of sprites in 2002.
But then we go into electric universe fantasies and the ignorance, delusions and even lies start !

1. Kristian Olaf Bernhard Birkeland worked on and explained aurora, not lightning.
2. Birkeland's experiments did not show that lightning requires a "electrical power source external to the Earth" because they were not about lightning.
   The fact is that lightning is explained by electrostatic forces in clouds here on Earth.
3. A wall of highlighted electric universe fantasies as if bold and highlighted text makes valid science!
4. Citing the crank Charles E. R. Bruce - an expert on lightning who thought that it happened on the Sun.
5. Quoting Birkeland being wrong!
   Birkeland thought that he could explain zodiacal light, Saturn’s rings, sun spots and spiral nebulae (galaxies) as analogous phenomena to what he saw in his experiment. He was wrong.
6. Ignorance about what plasma as in the ionosphere tail of Venus.
   Plasma is not an electrical current. Plasma is neutral on scales larger than the Debye length.
7. The delusion that "stringy things" are Birkeland currents.
8. The lie that "Plasma physicists have shown that Birkeland currents can remain coherent even over vast intergalactic distances."
   Birkeland currents by definition are planetary phenomena caused by stellar winds passing by planets with atmospheres.
9. More obsession with Birkeland.
10. A magnetosphere is not a "Langmuir sheath" (a plasma or Debye sheath). The surface of Earth is not in contact with a plasma - there is a thing called the atmosphere in between it and the solar wind !
11. The delusion that the climate is controlled by an imaginary "electric circuit" with the Sun.
    It is the heat from the Sun that heats the Earth - Duh!
12. Fantasies about Jupiter, Saturn, Io, etc.
13. A lie about "X-rays and gamma-rays are hallmarks of high-energy electric discharge processes."
    X-rays and gamma-rays are produced by any process that accelerates charges, e.g. lightning!
    It is narrow band spectrum X-rays and gamma-rays that are characteristic of electric discharges.

 

[Reality Check]

Asteroids, Comets, Planets: Cut From Same Cloth?

What Soll88 did not quote from that article because it debunks the electric comet delusion about comets being blasted from planets:

Scientists have determined that comet Tempel 1 is a loosely assembled icy dirtball with the consistency of talcum powder. "The impactor was able to go 20 to 30 meters into the comet and release material that hadn't been baked or boiled by the comet's previous trips around the sun," said Lisse.

Lisse and his team later compared their Tempel 1 data to observations of comet Hale Bopp made by the Infrared Space Observatory in 1997. Although Hale Bopp did not show any of the iron-rich olivine silicates found in Tempel 1, team members did find many chemical similarities, like ice made of water, carbonates, sulfides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and other types of silicates.

They then looked at the Infrared Space Observatory's observations of a distant solar system called HD 100546, which many scientists believe is undergoing planet formation, and again found many of the materials observed in Hale Bopp and Tempel 1. However, unlike the comets, HD 100546 didn't contain some of the most primitive rock-forming elements.

So his source
* Confirms that Tempel 1 is not rock !
* Points out that Tempel 1 and Hale Bopp have "many chemical similarities" with a planet forming solar system, i.e. a solar system with no planets yet.
The lack of the most primitive elements at HD 100546 suggests that comets form before planets.

 

[Sol88]

A perfectly reasonable suggestion, and I'll pass the question on to an advisor. I do think you need to re-formulate your question with respect to available protons, however, since the entire volume of the coma will be available for transactions with the solar wind, not just a hemispheric surface area on a tiny nucleus. Also, keep in mind that the role of clays on the surface (potentially a critical pointer to formative processes), AND the role of accumulated solar PROTONS on the surface, as already suggested by Russian astrophysicist Subhon Ibadov, will all have to be taken into consideration.

More on Ibadov later, since he highlights the "electric discharge mechanism of cometary outbursts" (his words, not mine).

Oh...would y'all agree that the Ibadov citation counts as evidence for a shift in thinking? Look him up.

No, not an advisor, how about an EC physicist.



No the available protons per second (that would be particle flux) are given by the (slowed down) solar wind density. Unless you think that the protons just keep on hanging there in the coma and from far away start "raining" onto the cometary nucleus.

I hope you do know that in the cometosheath the plasma flows just in the solar wind direction down the tail. Oberervations and measurements have actually shown this.



Any water molecule (or OH for all I care) which is released is one proton lost. If we see 1 pint of water per second coming off the comet (just accept this for the moment to entertain me), that means that there are 0.5 liters of water per second, with the 18 proton masses per water molelcule, this means that there is 0.5 liter = 0.5 kg = 1.5 10²⁵ molecules are released per second.

The solar wind brings in, 4 km circular comet, a solar wind velocity of 300 km/s, a solar wind density of 1 particle per cubic centimeter leads to a proton influx of 4 10¹⁸ protons per second. So there is a discrepancy of more than 6 orders of magnitude in proton influx and proton (water) outflux.



Can you link to the published papers of Ibadov? I see some of them on ADS, from the 1990s, and none of them seem to be even cited once.



Not until you actually show a real paper of this guy.

ETA:
Just looked through a 1998 paper of Ibadov. He wants the X-ray emission of comets created by the collision of high energy cometary dust and zodiacal dust, which would create a "plasma blob" which somehow with a sudden equation would give an X-ray luminosity. Too bad that is has been shown that the X-rays that are emitted fit exactly laboratory experiments with highly ionized heavies (e.g. O⁷⁺) from the Sun which charge-exchange with a neutral from the comet.

1 particle per cubic centimeter leads to a proton influx of 4 10¹⁸ protons per second.?????

is that your assumption, Tusenfem??

 

[Reality Check]

1 particle per cubic centimeter leads to a proton influx of 4 10¹⁸ protons per second.?????

is that your assumption, Tusenfem??

Read what tusenfem wrote, Sol88: It is a calculation that emphasizes that the electric comet delusion is wrong even when David Talbott tries to cite science .

The solar wind brings in, 4 km circular comet, a solar wind velocity of 300 km/s, a solar wind density of 1 particle per cubic centimeter leads to a proton influx of 4 10¹⁸ protons per second. So there is a discrepancy of more than 6 orders of magnitude in proton influx and proton (water) outflux.

This was in response to David Talbott's fantasy that some obscure papers were a "shift in thinking".

If you think that the calculation is wrong then do the fairly basic math yourself, Sol88. Given
* a comet with a radius of 4 km
* a solar wind with velocity 300 km/s and density of 1 particle per cubic centimeter.
how many particles per second are hitting the comet?

 

[Sol88]

Not sure where you came up with 1 proton per cub is cm but give 1640 protons per cubic cm a crack as you assumption for density.

Solar wind interactions with Comet 19P/Borrelly

Within 10,000 km of the nucleus, the ion density increases rapidly, reaching a peak of 1640 cm−3 approximately 1500 km prior to closest approach (Fig. 6).

Same speed for now same radius as well.

but now assume 1640 cm−3 instead of 1 cm-3, any change Tusenfem in the production rate???

During this period, the water group abundance increased relative to total plasma density. Between −15,200 and +8600 km, the water group ion abundance exceeded 50% and peaked at over 90%, approximately 1500 km before closest approach. The near-nucleus perturbations to ion speed have a broader profile, with a minimum speed of 8 km/s roughly centered on closest approach.

or to put the cart before the horse again, you know the production rate of water, what variables for speed, density and surface area are needed to match the observed rate???

.............

Any Change?

 

[Haig]

Interesting points you raise W.D.Clinger ... thanks for talking me at my word "fine" Here is my straight answers.

Not hardly.

Mathis's ideas did not hold up very well even when they were discussed at the Thunderbolts Forum. That fiasco ended with this eye-roll by moderator Dave Smith:

Sure Miles Mathis is a controversial character but I'd say the "Miles Mathis Interview" on the thunderbolts forum was a "success" judging by the 13 pages of posts. Yes, it's true there was a division of opinion, 50/50 in a quick count and the choice of questions could have been better. Miles answers were straight and to the point, in my view. Yes, the moderator Dave Smith did call a halt because it drifted too "off topic" for a EU / PC forum. So what ? like THAT doesn't happen HERE

Anyone can read it and form their own opinion, what exactly is wrong with that ? Do you think "heretics" to mainstream OR EU /PC views should be "burned at the stake" ?

But Haig thinks Miles Mathis's papers have everything to do with EU and electric comets, which Haig describes as "a package deal". Until, of course, he's called upon to defend the Mathis papers he's chosen to cite:

In my first post mentioning Miles Mathis, I noted egregious errors very near the beginning of the paper Mathis cites as his proof near the beginning of the paper you cited. Those errors invalidated all of the Mathis papers you cited, and you have had no answer to that fact.

NO W.D.Clinger not "everything" in Miles Mathis's papers have "everything" to do with EU and electric comets. The last "count" of his papers, I remember, was approx 5,500 pages

What I actually said WAS the "package deal" is ... Electric Comets require an Electric Sun require an Electric Universe / Plasma Cosmology

The finger I claim Miles Mathis has in the above ... are the 5 papers of his I posted HERE and they are again these PDF's of his ...

The Cometary Antitail

Electrical Charge

More on the MASS GAP and YANG-MILLS

The Problem with Reduced Mass

The Electron Orbit (the greatest hole in Quantum Mechanics)

And I still stand by my claim that these 5 papers are reverent in the "package deal" above

You say that in a previous post of mine were I cite to 2 papers of Miles with the quip ...

Ah! so you want the math ???

The Cosmic Mass Deficit

An Update on Weight

... that you claim to have noted egregious errors that "invalidated all of the Mathis papers you cited" To whit : k = 1/4π ε0 instead of k = 1/(4π ε0)

To which I say ... you're wrong to ass/u/me a simple "typo" has been carried forward into his calculations.

The paper Electrical Charge it is very clear, further in, he hasn't made that error.

My point with this paper is not to assign a definite mass to the force-carrying sub-particle of the electrical field. It is to show that by giving mass to the electrical field we can totally dispense with charge, both the name and the idea. Charge is not a separate characteristic of matter. Charge is in fact the summed mass of these sub-particles.

This allows us to clean up the great mess of the electrical field. Rather than define a fundamental characteristic like charge by later interactions, we can resolve that characteristic into even more fundamental characteristics. <snip>

So, to me, this explains "why" the mainstream calculated density of "charged" Electric Comets is in error when compared to the calculated density of "uncharged" Asteroids of a similar size.

Also, it dispenses with the mainstream "need" for "the black arts" of black holes, dark matter, dark energy ...

Googling, I learned that Miles Mathis is a notoriously prolific crackpot. If you Google "SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION", you will discover that Mathis ends just about every one of his hundreds of crackpot papers with the following appeal:

That "foundation" appears to be run by one of Miles Mathis's pseudonyms. The appeal quoted above is followed by instructions on how to give Mathis money, complete with link.

Sticks and Stones .... W.D.Clinger And how do you expect a poor artist : math : thinker to pay the bills and survive ? His efforts aren't funded by the public purse for Science, to which a large portion is wasted (imho) on " "falsified" or "pet" theories

Haig, you're the one who brought Miles Mathis into this thread. You're the one who said Mathis "has a finger in ALL those" topics you've been promoting in this thread as a "package deal": electric comets, electric sun, electric universe, plasma cosmology. Since Miles Mathis isn't here, and you have been citing Mathis for support, it's up to you to defend Mathis's crackpottery.

Just done it

And it's up to you (and the team) to defend mainstream crackpottery

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited for Rules 4 and 6

 

[Reality Check]

Not sure where you came up with 1 proton per cub is cm ....

Once again, Sol88 - read what tusenfem wrote which includes his figure of "a solar wind density of 1 particle per cubic centimeter".
And try to recognize the inanity of asking me to try to support the electric comet delusion when I know that it is a delusion !

If you think that the calculation is wrong then do the fairly basic math yourself, Sol88. Given
* a comet with a radius of 4 km
* a solar wind with velocity 300 km/s and density of 1 particle per cubic centimeter.
how many particles per second are hitting the comet?

ETA: A major bit of ignorance there, Sol88: Solar wind interactions with Comet 19P/Borrelly
The Deep Space 1 flyby measured the ion density around the comet - that includes the solar wind and the ions in the comet coma. Less than 1% of the 1640 ion/cc that was measured was the solar wind.

Density of the Solar Wind has various values from 500 atoms/cc in the corona to ~7 around the Earth. A current distance of 2.56 AU from the Sun suggests that 1 atom/cc is a good estimate.

 

[Sol88]

Once again, Sol88 - read what tusenfem wrote which includes his figure of "a solar wind density of 1 particle per cubic centimeter".
And try to recognize the inanity of asking me to try to support the electric comet delusion when I know that it is a delusion !

Rogerwillco!

 

[Haig]

Oh dear: The delusion that Miles Mathis is anything but a deluded internet crank, Haig .

The Balloon goes up over lightning! was "Posted on January 29, 2002 by Wal Thornhill"

Here we have a balloon sent up above thunderstorms to record some known effects of lightning - sprites. The first half of the article is a description of the state of scientific knowledge of sprites in 2002.
But then we go into electric universe fantasies and the ignorance, delusions and even lies start !

1. Kristian Olaf Bernhard Birkeland worked on and explained aurora, not lightning.
2. Birkeland's experiments did not show that lightning requires a "electrical power source external to the Earth" because they were not about lightning.
   The fact is that lightning is explained by electrostatic forces in clouds here on Earth.
3. A wall of highlighted electric universe fantasies as if bold and highlighted text makes valid science!
4. Citing the crank Charles E. R. Bruce - an expert on lightning who thought that it happened on the Sun.
5. Quoting Birkeland being wrong!
   Birkeland thought that he could explain zodiacal light, Saturn’s rings, sun spots and spiral nebulae (galaxies) as analogous phenomena to what he saw in his experiment. He was wrong.
6. Ignorance about what plasma as in the ionosphere tail of Venus.
   Plasma is not an electrical current. Plasma is neutral on scales larger than the Debye length.
7. The delusion that "stringy things" are Birkeland currents.
8. The lie that "Plasma physicists have shown that Birkeland currents can remain coherent even over vast intergalactic distances."
   Birkeland currents by definition are planetary phenomena caused by stellar winds passing by planets with atmospheres.
9. More obsession with Birkeland.
10. A magnetosphere is not a "Langmuir sheath" (a plasma or Debye sheath). The surface of Earth is not in contact with a plasma - there is a thing called the atmosphere in between it and the solar wind !
11. The delusion that the climate is controlled by an imaginary "electric circuit" with the Sun.
    It is the heat from the Sun that heats the Earth - Duh!
12. Fantasies about Jupiter, Saturn, Io, etc.
13. A lie about "X-rays and gamma-rays are hallmarks of high-energy electric discharge processes."
    X-rays and gamma-rays are produced by any process that accelerates charges, e.g. lightning!
    It is narrow band spectrum X-rays and gamma-rays that are characteristic of electric discharges.

Seems like you missed this post HERE but let me re-post again for you Reality Check to make it CLEAR for you

So now lightning is also produced by Birkeland currents?
I am sure you can show me a model of the Earth's magnetic field in which the paths of lightning show up, and how they hit my front garden, which would make the lightning go at a very large angle with respect to the Earth's magnetic field.

This is another example of Haig constantly changing definitions and making up his own kind of "plasma physics", I guess he is following the third approach of plasma physics: "just suck it out of your thumb".

Gezz tusenfem, don't you know even that ?

The Balloon goes up over lightning!

An interesting footnote to lightning on Venus:
It is known that lightning backscatters microwaves at wavelengths of a few centimetres. One of the most puzzling discoveries by the Magellan Venus Orbiter was that all high terrain on Venus reflected radar signals as if it were coated by metal. I explained this phenomenon several years ago as being due to a glow discharge in a dense plasma. It is the most prevalent form of lightning on Venus because that planet doesn’t have clouds like the Earth to provide a convenient path to ground for cosmic electric power. Without clouds on Earth we too would have glowing mountain tops and destructive super-bolts from a blue sky. The Galileo spacecraft detected super-bolts on Venus.

A Lightning Strike in Africa Helps Take the Pulse of the Sun

Evidence for solar wind modulation of lightning PDF

Modulation of UK lightning by heliospheric magnetic field polarity

It turns out ALL the CHARGED bodies in our Solar system have Plasma Sheaths --- Electric Comets --- Planets --- Sun --- and the excess charge difference tries to equalise matters in anyway it can ... e.g. ...

Jets (Birkeland currents) to the (nucleus) of Comets e.g. ... Comet Holmes In The Electric Universe

Lightening (Birkeland currents) to the Planets (nucleus) e.g. ... The Balloon goes up over lightning!

Tufts (Birkeland currents) to the Sun (nucleus) e.g. ... The Electric Sun Hypothesis

Comets Impact Cosmology

 

[Reality Check]

...snipped wall of text...
And I still stand by my claim that these 5 papers are reverent in the "package deal" above

And you are still making the Electric Comet/Electric Sun/Electric Universe "package deal" even more delusional than it is by associating it with the really delusional "Pi=4" Miles Mathis, Haig !

You do not have to do this - the Thunderbolts authors do a very good job of this already :
The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site and videos
The ignorance and delusions in "The Balloon goes up over lightning" by Wal Thornhill

 

[Reality Check]

The ignorance and delusions in "Comets Impact Cosmology"

Seems like you missed this post ...
...snipped parroted delusions about plasma sheaths...
...snipped parroted delusions about Birkeland currents...
...snipped parroted delusions about lightning...

You are quoting me replying to the post that you think I missed, Haig !
The ignorance and delusions in "The Balloon goes up over lightning" by Wal Thornhill

ETA: Do we have another bunch of ignorance and delusions from Wal Thornhill in Comets Impact Cosmology.
Yes !

1. The idiocy of cherry picking quotes from before 1900 as if scientists then knew more than they do today!
2. Lying about modern astronomy thinking that "electricity in space" does nothing.
3. What seems to be his standard "observations are opinion" response to anything he does not understand or agree with.
   The Stardust mission returned dust particles that were found to have been formed in the early solar system!
4. A lie about "pits and craters are ascribed to impacts, with no evidence whatsoever".
   The only viable mechanism to create craters is impacts.
5. A lie about Shoemaker-Levy 9's tidal disruption being "pure supposition": The disruption of Shoemaker-Levy 9 fits what we expect for a comet approaching Jupiter.
6. A lie about Comet Wild 2 conforming to the electric model of comets - its density is not that of rock.
7. There is no imaginary "dark mantle hypothesis" - there is the observed fact that comet surfaces are dark!
8. A lie about the electric comet fantasy: He states that it predicts jets from high points while quoting
   

   most of the jets apparently originate near the latitude of the subsolar point and nine of the jets appear to rise from two depressed regions on the surface.

   (my emphasis added)
9. A fantasy about electric arc machining.
10. The idiocy of comparing an image of Wlid 2 with a cherry picked EDM image.
11. There is the delusion that the physics of comets is somehow linked cosmology.
12. A half-lie about protons being accelerated from the Sun indicating that the Sun is positively charges - electrons are also accelerated from the Sun!
13. He cites the crank Jurgen who published in the cranks Velikovsky's journal KRONOS
14. Followed by an irrelevant gas discharge wall of text with no relation to comets or cosmology.
15. Ending with a couple of delusions - the "dirty ice ball model" was always tenable and has not been discredited.

 

[Haig]

And you are still making the Electric Comet/Electric Sun/Electric Universe "package deal" even more delusional than it is by associating it with the really delusional "Pi=4" Miles Mathis, Haig !

You do not have to do this - the Thunderbolts authors do a very good job of this already :
The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site and videos
The ignorance and delusions in "The Balloon goes up over lightning" by Wal Thornhill

Ad homs is ALL you have Reality Check




The JETS of Electric Comets

 

[Reality Check]

Ad homs is ALL you have Reality Check

Wrong, Haig.
I have the recorded and obvious ignorance, delusions and lies from the Thunderbolts authors that you are insisting in pointing out again and again.
The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site and videos
The ignorance and delusions in "The Balloon goes up over lightning" by Wal Thornhill
The ignorance and delusions in "Comets Impact Cosmology" by Wal Thornhill

I have a Google search from you to support the electric comet delusion yet again - I guess you have given up on actual facts or science to support the electric comet Haig .

ETA: Anyone who can understand English can understand the lie in ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Lying about flashes where they "confirm" a prediction about a flash before impact with flashes on or after impact.
The lie in ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Lying about the energetic effects needs a little more thought. They "confirm" a prediction about more energetic effects than expected with the visual surprises of astronomers in press releases - which they at least misquote! They ignore the scientific literature about the impact where the energy released is found to be as predicted in experiments.

 

[Haig]

Wrong, Haig.
I have the recorded and obvious ignorance, delusions and lies from the Thunderbolts authors that you are insisting in pointing out again and again.
The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site and videos
The ignorance and delusions in "The Balloon goes up over lightning" by Wal Thornhill
The ignorance and delusions in "Comets Impact Cosmology" by Wal Thornhill

I have a Google search from you to support the electric comet delusion yet again - I guess you have given up on actual facts or science to support the electric comet Haig .

ETA: Anyone who can understand English can understand the lie in ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Lying about flashes where they "confirm" a prediction about a flash before impact with flashes on or after impact.

.
Well ad homs are a poor way to post Reality Check

How do you like these images of Electric Comet 67P ?

The JETS are the KEY to this bun fight