The Electric Comet theory

[BenBurch]

"The Electric Comet Theory"

Hmmm....

Is that anything like "The Electric Slide?"

 

[Reality Check]

1. An abundance of water on or below the surface of the nucleus (the underlying assumption of the “dirty snowball” hypothesis) is unlikely.
2. Tempel 1 has a low-eccentricity orbit. Therefore its charge imbalance with respect to its environment at perihelion is low. (It is a “low-voltage” comet.) Electrical interactions with Deep Impact may be slight, but they should be measurable if NASA will look for them. They would likely be similar to those of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 prior to striking Jupiter’s atmosphere: The most obvious would be a flash (lightning-like discharge) shortly before impact.
3. The impactor may form a sheath around it as it enters the coma, becoming a “comet within a comet”.
4. Electrical stress may short out the electronics on board the impactor before impact.
5. More energy will be released than expected because of the electrical contributions of the comet. (The discharge could be similar to the “megalightning” bolt that, evidence suggests, struck the shuttle Columbia).
6. Copious X-rays will accompany discharges to the projectile, exceeding any reasonable model for X-ray production through the mechanics of impact. The intensity curve will be that of a lightning bolt (sudden onset, exponential decline) and may well include more than one peak.
7. If the energy is distributed over several flashes, more than one crater on the comet nucleus could result—in addition to any impact crater.
8. Any arcs generated will be hotter than can be explained by mechanical impact. If temperature measurements are made with sufficient resolution, they will be much higher than expected from impact heating.
9. The discharge and/or impact may initiate a new jet on the nucleus (which will be collimated—filamentary—not sprayed out) and could even abruptly change the positions and intensities of other jets due to the sudden change in charge distribution on the comet nucleus.
10. The impact/electrical discharge will not reveal “primordial dirty ice,” but the same composition as the surface.
11. The impact/electrical discharge will be into rock, not loosely consolidated ice and dust. The impact crater will be smaller than expected.

I numbered these "predictions" for easier reference.

1. There was an "abundance" of water detected on or below the surface of Tempel 1 (a fifth to a half of the ejecta was water).
2. There was no flash "shortly before impact".
3. Also a mainstream possibility.
4. Also a mainstream possibility.
5. How much is "more energy"? Was that amount observed?
6. How much is "copious"? Was that amount observed?
7. Two flashes are not "several". Ejecta would create more than 1 "impact" crater in any case.
8. No arcs were observed or generated.
9. More jets are also expected in the mainstream theory (more heat = more jets). Ditto for "change the positions and intensities of other jets".
   Can you give a citaiton to the "collimated—filamentary—not sprayed out" jets?
10. Can you give a citation to the paper that states that the composition of the ejecta from the impact was exactly the same as the surface?
    Otherwise another wrong "prediction".
11. Totally wrong. The impact was consistant with an impact into dust ("There was much more material in the curtain than expected indicating that the strength of the material lying within tens of meters of the comet's surface is very weak and powdery.").

Solar System Exploration: Deep Impact Legacy Site: Mission Results: Excavating Comet Tempel 1

end of story, Sol88

 

[Sol88]

I numbered these "predictions" for easier reference.

1. There was an "abundance" of water detected on or below the surface of Tempel 1 (about a fifth of the ejecta was water).
2. There was no flash "shortly before impact".
3. Also a mainstream possibility.
4. Also a mainstream possibility.
5. How much is "more energy"? Was that amount observed?
6. How much is "copious"? Was that amount observed?
7. Two flashes are not "several". Ejecta would create more than 1 "impact" crater in any case.
8. No arcs were observed or generated.
9. More jets are also expected in the mainstream theory (more heat = more jets). Ditto for "change the positions and intensities of other jets".
   Can you give a citaiton to the "collimated—filamentary—not sprayed out" jets?
10. Can you give a citation to the paper that states that the composition of the ejecta from the impact was exactly the same as the surface?
    Otherwise another wrong "prediction".
11. Totally wrong. The impact was consistant with an impact into dust ("There was much more material in the curtain than expected indicating that the strength of the material lying within tens of meters of the comet's surface is very weak and powdery.").

Solar System Exploration: Deep Impact Legacy Site: Mission Results: Excavating Comet Tempel 1

end of story, Sol88

1 Bullturd! There was more dust than expected under the icydirtball model which was one up on the fluffysnowball model that was falsified by 19P/Borelly, now, according to Temple 1, comets are now dirtyiceballs witth the emphasis on dirty or more accurately dustyiceballs that have minerals formed under extremely high temperatures such as Forsterite! So any logical person would assume there would be little if any ice included in this "fine" dust of high temperature minerals.

2 there where TWO flashes, as predicted and occurring shortly before impact! unless you are gullible enough to believe that the copper impactor hitting "fine" dust would vaporize before hitting some hidden and unseen, undetectable, unmeasurable "harder" surface below causing the OBSERVED TWO flashes! or as PREDICTED by Wallace Thornhill based on known electrodynamics and plasma physics?

3 Ok, though EC are talking a plasma sheath or DL/'s.

4 Ok, but something happened to them, eh! I'm think dust no bigger than smoke or bigger would have as much of an influence as an electrical interaction.

5 More energetic than the calculated and predicted than the 19 gigajoules. And what did we observe and calculate?

6 More than none and afaik we (mainstream) did not look for the x ray flash that would accompanying the lightning like flash or as NASA said like a brilliant flash, lasting less than two tenths of a second, because why would it? it's just ice! We did have observation of instrument able to have sufficient resolution to see the DL's X-ray production, though.

7 Yes you are correct RC two is not several but there appears to be two points of light in these pictures! And how is your "dust" going to from another impact crater, this stuff (the dust) is not much bigger that smoke!

8 Sufficient resolution was not applied, though we did detect electrostatic noise and whistlers, indicative of something electrical going on!

9 Can you give a citation to the "collimated—filamentary—not sprayed out" jets? collimation of the beam is very tight and not sprayed out, though this is not Temple , collimated beams or jets have been observed on all comets, none have ever behaved like gas in a vacuum should.

10 No I can't. Can you cite a paper for me that the water observed in the coma is the same as the water somewhere on the comet or better still that the high temp minerals caught from Vild 2 are the same as when that "blew" off the nucleus along with the sublimating "ices"?

11 See point 2 Vaporizing copper using loose powdery dust in less than a blink of the eye, !!new science discovered!!

You've already said there are electrical interactions happening RC, so whats your hang up? Lack of knowledge? understanding? common sense? right and left halves of your brain? what?

 

[Reality Check]

1 Bullturd! There was more dust than expected under the icydirtball model which was one up on the fluffysnowball model that was falsified by 19P/Borelly, now, according to Temple 1, comets are now dirtyiceballs witth the emphasis on dirty or more accurately dustyiceballs that have minerals formed under extremely high temperatures such as Forsterite! So any logical person would assume there would be little if any ice included in this "fine" dust of high temperature minerals.

So what?
That has nothing to do with the EC idea's "prediction".

2 there where TWO flashes, as predicted and occurring shortly before impact! unless you are gullible enough to believe that the copper impactor hitting "fine" dust would vaporize before hitting some hidden and unseen, undetectable, unmeasurable "harder" surface below causing the OBSERVED TWO flashes! or as PREDICTED by Wallace Thornhill based on known electrodynamics and plasma physics?

There were TWO flashes. The first happened on or after the impact as stated by NASA.
This was NOT PREDICTED by Wallace Thornhill

5 More energetic than the calculated and predicted than the 19 gigajoules. And what did we observe and calculate?

I do not know. You tell me since it is the EC "prediction".

6 More than none and afaik we (mainstream) did not look for the x ray flash that would accompanying the lightning like flash or as NASA said like a brilliant flash, lasting less than two tenths of a second, because why would it? it's just ice! We did have observation of instrument able to have sufficient resolution to see the DL's X-ray production, though.

In other words the EC "prediction" was not testable and so was not a scientific prediction.

7 Yes you are correct RC two is not several but there appears to be two points of light in these pictures! And how is your "dust" going to from another impact crater, this stuff (the dust) is not much bigger that smoke!

It will fall back to the nucleus under its weak graviational force. The impact will create craters (small ones). The dust has a variety of sizes - from talcum powder to grains.

8 Sufficient resolution was not applied, though we did detect electrostatic noise and whistlers, indicative of something electrical going on!

In other words the EC "prediction" was not testable and so was not a scientific prediction.

9 Can you give a citation to the "collimated—filamentary—not sprayed out" jets? collimation of the beam is very tight and not sprayed out, though this is not Temple , collimated beams or jets have been observed on all comets, none have ever behaved like gas in a vacuum should.

Evolution of a Spiral Jet in the Inner Coma of Comet Hale-Bopp (1995 O1)
I would expect jets to be "collimated" in the sense that they are jets and so by definition they are collimated.

You do know that jets are not "gas in a vacuum"? They are jets of gas interacting with the coma and the solar wind. They are not expected to behave like gas in a vacuum.

10 No I can't. Can you cite a paper for me that the water observed in the coma is the same as the water somewhere on the comet or better still that the high temp minerals caught from Vild 2 are the same as when that "blew" off the nucleus along with the sublimating "ices"?

It is an EC "prediction" thus unless you can find the citation it means that the "prediction" failed.

11 See point 2 Vaporizing copper using loose powdery dust in less than a blink of the eye, !!new science discovered!!

See point 2
More dancing monkeys!

You've already said there are electrical interactions happening RC, so whats your hang up? Lack of knowledge? understanding? common sense? right and left halves of your brain? what?

That is right - electrical interactions hapen everywhere in the universe, including around comets.
Just because they may happen does not mean that they happen.
Just because they happen does not mean that they have any measurable effect.

So whats your hang up? Lack of knowledge? understanding? common sense? right and left halves of your brain? what? Has a certain book advertisement web site killed off your brain cells ?



We have the lack of evidence for the energetic electrical interactions needed by the EC idea (thank you Sol88 for starting this thread to expose the total failure of the EC idea !)

• Electric Comets I
• Electric Comets II: References
• Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (actually no EU X-ray bursts).
• The EC assumption of EDM machining does not produce jets.
• EDM in the EC idea needs a dielectric material which does not exist!
• No EDM sparks are seen in images of comet nuclei.
• No EDM hot spots are seen in thermal maps of Tempel 1.
• Voltage potentials are many orders of magnitude too small.

 

[Reality Check]

The EC idea failed to predict the actual Deep Impact flashes

Sol88 is not reading the list of problems with the EC idea so here is a separate post on this specific failure.

EC universe: Sol88 posted a list of EC "predictions" for Tempel 1 and Deep Impact. The closes it gets to an actual quantitative predictions is "The most obvious would be a flash (lightning-like discharge) shortly before impact." (emphasis added).

Real universe: What actually happened was a flash on or after impact followed by a bigger one from deeper in the nucleus (according to NASA).
Before impact is not the same as on impact.

The observations of the impact fit a nucleus with a highly porous surface.

The Deep Impact Collision: New Results

The Deep Impact experiment is providing fundamental new insights into the nature of the upper 20m of a middle-age comet. In this experiment the speed and mass of the impacting probe was known. But the nature of the surface (composition, structure, roughness) and the final impact angle could not be predicted. We now know that the impact occurred at an angle near 30° in a region that appears to have a thick veneer filling old craters. The cratering event produced successive stages of the cratering process that were very similar to experimental results for gravity-controlled craters: (a) impact flash, downrange expanding plume composed of heated organics and H2O; (b) distinctive conical ejecta curtain that grew without detachment from the surface of the comet; (c) zone of ejecta avoidance uprange. There were also distinctive differences: a very faint initial flash, uprange-directed plume, high-angle column of ejecta, curving ejecta rays, and an evolving composition of the ejecta. These differences can be explained in terms of a highly porous upper surface. With assumed values for ejection angles and gravity-scaled velocity distribution, a bulk density of ~0.6 g/cc has been derived for the comet. Very likely the excavated material, however, was much lower. Based on estimates of the mass ejected from the crater (ground based observers) and the evolution of the ejecta (from the spacecraft), the size of the crater can be estimated to range from 130m to 200m in diameter. The actual crater, however, could not be seen during the flyby due to dust above the crater. This dust can be interpreted as high-angle, low velocity ejecta typical for impacts into high-porosity targets.

(emphasis added)

This paper was published in December 2005. Here is a later (October 2007) paper.
Evolution of the Deep Impact flash: Implications for the nucleus surface based on laboratory experiments

The Deep Impact flyby spacecraft obtained high-speed images of the evolving impact event. Multiple exposures captured a self-luminous impact flash, caused by the heating and vaporization of the cometary surface. Laboratory investigations show that target conditions affect the photometric and spatial evolutions of the impact flash; thus, the flash can be used to constrain the state of the target if the other initial impact conditions are known. Through comparisons of DI flash observations to laboratory impact experiments, the impact flash evolution can be used to determine the type of impact that occurred and to interpret the nature of the impacted Tempel 1 surface. The Deep Impact flash was of relatively long duration, though its luminous efficiency was an order of magnitude lower than expectations. Both uprange and downrange self-luminous plumes were observed. Comparisons of the DI observations with the results of laboratory experiments suggest that the surface of Tempel 1 contains silicates, volatiles, and carbon compounds, and is a highly-porous substrate.

 

[Sol88]

So what?
That has nothing to do with the EC idea's "prediction".


There were TWO flashes. The first happened on or after the impact as stated by NASA.
This was NOT PREDICTED by Wallace Thornhill


I do not know. You tell me since it is the EC "prediction".


In other words the EC "prediction" was not testable and so was not a scientific prediction.


It will fall back to the nucleus under its weak graviational force. The impact will create craters (small ones). The dust has a variety of sizes - from talcum powder to grains.


In other words the EC "prediction" was not testable and so was not a scientific prediction.


Evolution of a Spiral Jet in the Inner Coma of Comet Hale-Bopp (1995 O1)
I would expect jets to be "collimated" in the sense that they are jets and so by definition they are collimated.

You do know that jets are not "gas in a vacuum"? They are jets of gas interacting with the coma and the solar wind. They are not expected to behave like gas in a vacuum.


It is an EC "prediction" thus unless you can find the citation it means that the "prediction" failed.


See point 2
More dancing monkeys!


That is right - electrical interactions hapen everywhere in the universe, including around comets.
Just because they may happen does not mean that they happen.
Just because they happen does not mean that they have any measurable effect.

So whats your hang up? Lack of knowledge? understanding? common sense? right and left halves of your brain? what? Has a certain book advertisement web site killed off your brain cells ?



We have the lack of evidence for the energetic electrical interactions needed by the EC idea (thank you Sol88 for starting this thread to expose the total failure of the EC idea !)

You are just trolling now RC, so give it up, first prediction on thunderbolts list

ELECTRIC MODEL PREDICTIONS FOR DEEP IMPACT:

* An abundance of water on or below the surface of the nucleus (the underlying assumption of the “dirty snowball” hypothesis) is unlikely

How much was the dust to ice ratio revised too again?


Reality check, Thunderbolts predicted two flashes and the timing becomes inconsequential, two flashes where predicted and observed! To cover the behinds they going to argue that the first flash was from loose powdery dust, the extremely small particles, from less than 1 to 300 micrometers.

And it was more energetic than expected, no maths was offered, i'd suspect because one would have to know the potential of the comet wrt the impactor, before they smash into each other!

What kind of dust do comets release along with the volatiles, reality check? I'd like to know so I do not have to go over the basics, again.

And you didn't even get to see the crater, let alone guess that particles, from less than 1 to 300 micrometers (1/1000th of a millimeter) in diameter can cause secondary impact craters!

 

[BenBurch]

No. Clearly "The Electric Slide" makes a whole lot more sense.

 

[Reality Check]

You are just trolling now RC, so give it up, first prediction on thunderbolts list

You are just trolling now Sol88, so give it up, first prediction on thunderbolts list: What is an "abundance"? How can we tell an "abundence" apart from a "profusion"?

There was an "abundance" of water detected on or below the surface of Tempel 1. About a fifth of the ejecta was water. A total of 5 million kilograms of water was ejected from the collision. There was even surface ice founs (not much since the evidence is that the surface is mostly covered in dust).

How much was the dust to ice ratio revised too again?

It was basically reversed for the case of Tempel 1 - from ice dominated to dust dominated. IMO this will be ths case for the maority of short preiod comets (they are more likely to have lost volitiles than long period comets).

So what? This has nothing to do with the EC idea's "prediction" which failed because an "abundance" of water was actually detected.
You have returned to your delusion that changes in the actual scientific theory to match the actual observations somehow invalidates the theory.
Guess what: that is the scientific method - theories are changed to match new observations.

Reality check, Thunderbolts predicted two flashes and the timing becomes inconsequential, two flashes where predicted and observed!

Read what you have quoted:
ELECTRIC MODEL PREDICTIONS FOR DEEP IMPACT:

Tempel 1 has a low-eccentricity orbit. Therefore its charge imbalance with respect to its environment at perihelion is low. (It is a “low-voltage” comet.) Electrical interactions with Deep Impact may be slight, but they should be measurable if NASA will look for them. They would likely be similar to those of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 prior to striking Jupiter’s atmosphere: The most obvious would be a flash (lightning-like discharge) shortly before impact.

This is a "prediction" of a flash shortly before impact.
It is a prediction that there will be a flash and its timing (shortly before impact).
There was no flash (lightning-like discharge) shortly before impact.

And it was more energetic than expected, no maths was offered, i'd suspect because one would have to know the potential of the comet wrt the impactor, before they smash into each other!

We do know the potential of Comet Halley wrt the Vega spacecraft and it is really small (OOM less than lightening bolts - thanks solrey!): Voltage potentials are many orders of magnitude too small.

Citation that the impact was more energetic than expected please. Just what wa sthe measured energy depositied b the impactor?

I did a search and there is this presentation which might use the predicted value:
Deep Impact: Excavating Comet Tempel 1

On 4 July 2005, Deep Impact delivered 19 GJoules of kinetic energy to comet 9P/Tempel 1. ...
The ejecta enable us to show that the strength of the surface layers, at scales from microscopic to a few hundred meters is remarkably weak and also to show that the bulk density of the nucleus is so low that the entire nucleus must be extremely porous.

And you didn't even get to see the crater, let alone guess that particles, from less than 1 to 300 micrometers (1/1000th of a millimeter) in diameter can cause secondary impact craters!

That is correct.
No one (I think) has imaged the impact crater directly or any hypothetical other craters (from ejecta or the EC non-science). Yet another failure of the EC idea's predictions.
Searching for the Deep Impact crater on Comet 9P/Tempel 1 using image processing techniques


Odd that the EC idea for jet porduction produces
Spitzer and Chandra Observations of the Deep Impact Encounter with Comet 9P/Tempel 1

 

[Sol88]

We do know the potential of Comet Halley wrt the Vega spacecraft and it is really small (OOM less than lightening bolts - thanks solrey!): Voltage potentials are many orders of magnitude too small.

No, you don't know the comets nucleus potential.

and the paper states that

On several occasions, the APV-V measurements are heavily influenced by dust particles striking the spacecraft structure. From these events we can conclude that the dust particles are strongly charged and partially coupled to cometary plasmas (or vice versa).

Link


Ummmm.......what we talk'n 'bout 'gain?



Seems there is enough voltage to do this or vica versa!

 

[Sol88]

So what? This has nothing to do with the EC idea's "prediction" which failed because an "abundance" of water was actually detected.
You have returned to your delusion that changes in the actual scientific theory to match the actual observations somehow invalidates the theory.
Guess what: that is the scientific method - theories are changed to match new observations.

theories are changed to match new observations untill it resembles nothing like the old theory at all, and infact it starts to resemble an alternate theory.

 

[Reality Check]

theories are changed to match new observations untill it resembles nothing like the old theory at all, and infact it starts to resemble an alternate theory.

You are getting it.
The dirty snowball model proposed by Whimple in the 1950's has been updated to match new observations to include a range of ices & dust. That includes a icy dirtball model for comets like Tempel 1.

 

[Dancing David]

theories are changed to match new observations untill it resembles nothing like the old theory at all, and infact it starts to resemble an alternate theory.

Democtrates, Rutherford, Bohr, Gell_Mann...

Shall we throw atomic theory out the window?

 

[Reality Check]

No, you don't know the comets nucleus potential.

and the paper states that Link

The "comets nucleus potential" will be of the same order as the potential between the layers.
But I am sure that you can show that the potential can increase by more than 6 orders of magnitude between the innermost layer and the nucleus.

Ummmm.......what we talk'n 'bout 'gain?

We are talking about the many problems with the EC idea, e.g.

• Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).
• Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (actually no EU X-ray bursts).
• The EC assumption of EDM machining does not produce jets.
• EDM in the EC idea needs a dielectric material which does not exist!
• No EDM sparks are seen in images of comet nuclei.
• No EDM hot spots are seen in thermal maps of Tempel 1.
• Voltage potentials are many orders of magnitude too small.
• EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets
• And the minor point that the Tempel 1 "predictions" are wrong, not testable or the same as the mainstream scientific theory.

Seems there is enough voltage to do this or vica versa!

On several occasions, the APV-V measurements are heavily influenced by dust particles striking the spacecraft structure. From these events we can conclude that the dust particles are strongly charged and partially coupled to cometary plasmas (or vice versa).

Seems there is enough charge on dust particles to influence the measurements of an instrument designed to detect plasma.
Who would have thought that dust particles in a plasma would gain charge! I know - anyone who knows anything about physics .

 

[Sol88]

So you do not think there is anything electrical going on wrt comets RC?

How did the dust couple to the plasma or vica versa? once coupled EM laws dominate over "sublimation"! and you can't see this?

 

[Reality Check]

So you do not think there is anything electrical going on wrt comets RC?

I have no idea where you got that idea. There are tons of "electrical" stuff going on wrt comets. There is the coma (a plasma) interacting with the solar wind (another plasma), There is the cometary tail.
Comets are very "electrical". Many of the papers that you, I and other posters have cited are about electromagnetic activity.

The delusion of the EC idea is that there is enough electrical activity to cause the observed effects.
The failure of the EC idea is that it ignores the physical facts:

• Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).
• Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (actually no EU X-ray bursts).
• The EC assumption of EDM machining does not produce jets.
• EDM in the EC idea needs a dielectric material which does not exist!
• No EDM sparks are seen in images of comet nuclei.
• No EDM hot spots are seen in thermal maps of Tempel 1.
• Voltage potentials are many orders of magnitude too small.
• EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets
• And the minor point that the Tempel 1 "predictions" are wrong, not testable or the same as the mainstream scientific theory.

 

[Dancing David]

So you do not think there is anything electrical going on wrt comets RC?

How did the dust couple to the plasma or vica versa? once coupled EM laws dominate over "sublimation"! and you can't see this?

You haven't demonstrated at all that the coma is produced by electrical discharge.

The sublimation of frozen 'ice; is reasonable. But please focus on the notion that ice is only water and not any other frozen material.

The material once released will interact in the unmysterious and unmagical fashion of standard physics.

 

[solrey]

As far as the chemical processes producing OH and H₂O on comets interaction with the solar plasma stream H⁺ protons, there is now confirmation of those processes closer to home.

Yes, There's Water on the Moon

Jessica Sunshine and colleagues with Deep Impact also found the presence of bound water or hydroxyl in trace amounts over much of the Moon’s surface. Their results suggest that the formation and retention of these molecules is an ongoing process on the lunar surface – and that solar wind could be responsible for forming them.

When those protons hit the lunar surface with enough force, suspects Taylor, they break apart oxygen bonds in soil materials, and where free oxygen and hydrogen are together, there's a high chance that trace amounts of water will be formed. These traces are thought to be about a quart of water per ton of soil.

One possible scenario to explain hydration of the lunar surface is that during the daytime, when the Moon is exposed to the solar wind, hydrogen ions liberate oxygen from lunar minerals to form OH and H2O, which are then weakly held to the surface. At high temperatures (red-yellow) more molecules are released than adsorbed. When the temperature decreases (green-blue) OH and H2O accumulate.

As I mentioned in previous comments, the same chemical reaction is responsible for the OH detected from Mercury as well.

The increased surface area of material in the dust that's discharged from a comets surface would produce a significantly higher percentage of OH and H₂O by this process alone. There are likely other electro-chemical reaction chains, as I've talked about, that add to the total quantity of OH and/or H₂O produced in-situ by comets.
I think we're going to find this OH/H₂O producing chemical reaction to be common throughout the universe.

 

[Reality Check]

I think we're going to find this OH/H₂O producing chemical reaction to be common throughout the universe.

Chemical reactions are quite common in the universe

So you have given up on the electric comet non-science?
No more mythical, invisible electrical arc/EDM thingies creating water?
Is the EC idea continuing to ignore the physical facts such as:

• Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).
• Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (actually no EU X-ray bursts).
• The EC assumption of EDM machining does not produce jets.
• EDM in the EC idea needs a dielectric material which does not exist!
• No EDM sparks are seen in images of comet nuclei.
• No EDM hot spots are seen in thermal maps of Tempel 1.
• Voltage potentials are many orders of magnitude too small.
• EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets
• And the minor point that the Tempel 1 "predictions" are wrong, not testable or the same as the mainstream scientific theory.

 

[Dancing David]

OMFSM! You mean there isn't water just in molecular clouds, who knew?

 

[solrey]

dancingdavid, it's the process by which water is created that's significant, and yes, water masers seem to be a pretty common source of water, among many others as I've been pointing out.

realitycheck; given up?...not even. This is confirmation of the electro-chemical reactions that I've been talking about. I never said that it was electric discharge alone that creates OH and H₂O, rather it's a combination of processes, the positive feedback loops and reaction chains that I've described, which together produce the hydroxyl's, and more, that are emitted by comets. The H⁺ ions (protons) are the key reactive/electrical agents
Also, each one of your "bullet points" has been addressed and explained by myself, and others, multiple times, to the point of becoming tiresome long ago.