The Electric Comet theory

[tusenfem]

I see some still choose not to believe?



That it is also the most likely possibility for OH production on comets? as opposed to "ice" hidden under the surface?

i.e.

and form a coma around the rocky body as well as a tail?

Yeah, that is probably why the moon is enveloped by a thick water cloud not unlike the coma of a comet. Unfortunately, the satellites we have circling around the Earth and the moon are incapable of measuring watergroup ions because of their polar covalent bonding and hydrogen bridges which destructively interfere when measurements are being taken with the electrostatic analysers. Even possible, so called cyclotron waves, generated by these watergroup ions will not be measured because the fall outside the frequency range of the magnetometers, which was done on purpose such that the clouds of water created by the enormous amounts of small ice-comets (as proposed and observed by Lou Frank) do not mess up the measurements of the hypothetical but unlikely reconnection process.

 

[Sol88]

Yeah, that is probably why the moon is enveloped by a thick water cloud not unlike the coma of a comet. Unfortunately, the satellites we have circling around the Earth and the moon are incapable of measuring watergroup ions because of their polar covalent bonding and hydrogen bridges which destructively interfere when measurements are being taken with the electrostatic analysers. Even possible, so called cyclotron waves, generated by these watergroup ions will not be measured because the fall outside the frequency range of the magnetometers, which was done on purpose such that the clouds of water created by the enormous amounts of small ice-comets (as proposed and observed by Lou Frank) do not mess up the measurements of the hypothetical but unlikely reconnection process.

Enveloped in THICK CLOUD Tusenfem? U forgot the dust

but you concede the process is more or less the same, on the moon (rocky body) as a comet (rocky body) exposed to the time varying magnetic fields and charged particles stream/s?

 

[Zeuzzz]

I think that most of this electric comet theory stuff is bunk from what I've seen. Props to Solrey for trying to put some numbers to it, however. But then again I dont really even know what the electric comet theory is. If someone could put it into a nutshell that would be great, rather than me dredging through the (rather confusingly inconsistant) posts in this thread.

 

[Reality Check]

I think that most of this electric comet theory stuff is bunk from what I've seen. Props to Solrey for trying to put some numbers to it, however. But then again I dont really even know what the electric comet theory is. If someone could put it into a nutshell that would be great, rather than me dredging through the (rather confusingly inconsistant) posts in this thread.

Easy:
According to a certain book advertisment web site (the only "official" source), the EC idea is that comets are rocky bodies that have no actual water. All the water that comprises the coma and tail is created by magic electrical stuff.

It is the usual electric universe bunk: Throw away the scientific theory that explains something, state that it is all "electrical" and forget about making your idea into actual science.

 

[Reality Check]

but you concede the process is more or less the same, on the moon (rocky body) as a comet (rocky body) exposed to the time varying magnetic fields and charged particles stream/s?

The Moon is a rocky body covered in dust and in the given environment (the Earth's magnetosphere + solar wind) the process happens.
Replace the Moon with another rocky body covered in dust and the process will still occur.
That is obvious.

Of couse only an idiot would think that a comet is a rocky body covered in dust. See Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).

 

[Zeuzzz]

Easy:
According to a certain book advertisment web site (the only "official" source), the EC idea is that comets are rocky bodies that have no actual water. All the water that comprises the coma and tail is created by magic electrical stuff.

Now modify this to say:

According to Eu proponents the EC idea is that comets are rocky bodies that have no actual water. All the water that comprises the coma and tail is created by electrical and plasma discharges.

And that might be a more believeable theory.

But I have yet to see the complete EC theory.

 

[Reality Check]

Now modify this to say:

According to Eu proponents the EC idea is that comets are rocky bodies that have no actual water. All the water that comprises the coma and tail is created by electrical and plasma discharges.

And that might be a more believeable theory.

But I have yet to see the complete EC theory.

That is because there is no "complete EC theory".

There are only some ideas about EC comets spread around various pages on the web site (and I assume in one or more of the books that it sells).
The lack of an actual published EC theory means that every EU proponent seems to have their own version of the idea.

For example Sol88 seems to insist that EC comets are "rocky bodies" (as does the web site). solrey seems to have some other idea about the composition of comets or is just too busy posting stuff that has little to do with comets to realize the implications of this.

I have to agreee with your "Props to Solrey for trying to put some numbers to it". It is a pity that the numbers that he has come up with invalidate the already dumb EC idea even further !

 

[Reality Check]

Zeuzzz's post about the EC "theory" reminded me that there does not seen tro be a reply to this post for solrey:

Can you give a link to the section in the forum used as a repository for scientific papers?
Maybe a list of the scientific papers published on the EC idea?

My guess is that the scientific papers are similiar to the ones you have been citing, i.e. papers with no menton at all of the EC idea.
This means that you have to show how these papers apply to the EC idea. That is impossible without an actual EC model other then "electricity did it".

 

[Sol88]

The Moon is a rocky body covered in dust and in the given environment (the Earth's magnetosphere + solar wind) the process happens.
Replace the Moon with another rocky body covered in dust and the process will still occur.
That is obvious.

Of couse only an idiot would think that a comet is a rocky body covered in dust. See Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).

Good one RC!



Just to show how "good" the density calculations are, how dense is Saturn again? Are you saying Saturn is a comet? The densities are the same

Just humor me and say you concede that rock can make water with electricity, oh I see you have

What happens when we turn the current up? different composition of rock, changing charged particle flux et cetera?

'Cos I love it when faced with the very evidence that proves the mechanism that EC theorist have proposed foe OH production on comets is found to be common on all airless rocky bodies exposed to the solar wind stream and your like well doh! So what eh!


you my friend along with all the cattle in the herd need a big slap upside your head, just to see whats plainly (for the last 100yrs) is right in front of your face, the Universe is electric (and so are comets).

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88: How dense is the Earth (a rocky body)? Are you saying the Earth is a comet? The densities are the same according to the EC idea

Just humor me and say you concede that rock can make water with electricity, oh I see you have

I have not conceded that rock can make water with electricity in the environment of comets and to the extent that explains the water on comets. That is your delusion.

What happens when we turn the current up? different composition of rock, changing charged particle flux et cetera?

We get varying amounts of water.
Now give your physical evidence that comets have the current "turned up" enough to produce the required amount of water.

'Cos I love it when faced with the very evidence that proves the mechanism that EC theorist have proposed foe OH production on comets is found to be common on all airless rocky bodies exposed to the solar wind stream and your like well doh! So what eh!

eh?
If you mean the Moon/wind mechanism then you are totally wrong. It has only been found for the Moon. That is not "found to be common on all airless rocky bodies".
It is possible that the mechanism means that there is a tiny bit of water on airless bodies all over the solar system.

As solrey states this means that at most < 0.1% (and more likely < 0.01% or even 0.001%) of the surface layer of the bodies will be water. This is for the Moon. For bodies further away from teh Su the % will be less.
Anyone who knows anything about comets knows that this is totally inadequate to explain the amount of water that they have in their nuclei, coma and tail.

Since your Alzheimer's seems to be acting up :
Deep Impact showed that the % of water in Comet Tempel 1 was between 20% and 50%.
I hope that you can tell the difference between 0.1% and 20% !

you my friend along with all the cattle in the herd need a big slap upside your head, just to see whats plainly (for the last 100yrs) is right in front of your face, the Universe is electric (and so are comets).

you my friend along with all the cattle in the EU herd need a big slap upside your head, just to see whats plainly is right in front of your face, the Universe is based on electromagnetism, strong interaction, weak interaction (also known as "strong" and "weak nuclear force") and gravitation.

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88:
I just want to check that you still believe 0.6 g/cc (the measured density of actual comets) is 3 g/cc (the predicted density of EC comets).

Is this right?

 

[Sol88]

Sol88:
I just want to check that you still believe 0.6 g/cc (the measured density of actual comets) is 3 g/cc (the predicted density of EC comets).

Is this right?

YES!

 

[Sol88]

Water on the moon??

“The Cabeus topographic features as observed by SMART-1 vary greatly during the lunar rotation and the yearly seasons due to the polar grazing illumination conditions,” said Foing. “The floor of Cabeus
near LCROSS targets shows a number of small craters and seems old enough to have accumulated water ice delivered from comets and water-rich asteroids, and might have kept it frozen in its shadowed
area.”

LINK

what A BUNCH OF JOKERS!!!

The water is made in situ!

As is the water on Mercury!!!

Water vapor is present, being released by a combination of processes such as: comets striking its surface, sputtering creating water out of hydrogen from the solar wind and oxygen from rock, and sublimation from reservoirs of water ice in the permanently shadowed polar craters. The detection of high amounts of water-related ions like O+, OH-, and H2O+ was a surprise.[55][56] Because of the quantities of these ions that were detected in Mercury's space environment, scientists surmise that these molecules were blasted from the surface or exosphere by the solar wind.[57][58]

Sodium and potassium were discovered in the atmosphere during the 1980s, and are believed to result primarily from the vaporization of surface rock struck by micrometeorite impacts. Due to the ability of these materials to diffuse sunlight, Earth-based observers can readily detect their composition in the atmosphere. Studies indicate that, at times, sodium emissions are localized at points that correspond to the planet's magnetic dipoles. This would indicate an interaction between the magnetosphere and the planet's surface.[59]

LINK

Along with deep impacts surprise amount of dust and the surprising low water ice content!

 

[Reality Check]

YES!

You really believe that 0.6 g/cc is the same as 3 g/cc?

I am sure that any lurkers on this thread would be interested in the abysmal level of eduation that this reveals.

Do you also believe that 1 = 0 and that 3 = pi?

 

[Reality Check]

Water on the moon??

LINK

what A BUNCH OF JOKERS!!!

The water is made in situ!

At least they are not a bunch of deluded crackpots like the EU and EC bunch!!!

To be serious, your simplistic view (comets never impacted the Moon and so could not have left water?) has a consequence:
You are predicting that the abundence of ice found in this mission will be as already found, i.e. < 0.1% of the material in the top few centimetres of the Moon's surface.

Is this an EC idea prediction?
If so will the discovery of >0.1% water in Cabeus invalidate the EC comet model even further?
Not that EC idea is needs more invalidation! It is a rather pitiful idea.

Along with deep impacts surprise amount of dust and the surprising low water ice content!

20% to 50% is what was measured for the water content in Deep Impact.
And yes that was surprising. It was expected to be a bit bigger (I think values like 40% to 70% were expected).
So what?

 

[Reality Check]

A collection of problems with the EC idea

(updated to add the failure of the voltage drop prediction from EC)

EC universe: Comets are rocky bodies, comparable to asteriods and probably created in the same event as asteriods (according to Thunderbolts).


Real universe:

1. Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).
2. Comets may not have the composition of asteriods
3. Deep Impact confirmed that comet nuclei are made of dust and ice not rock. There were a couple of surprises in that the dust was talcum powder rather than sand and the amount of ice was smaller than expected.
   "Analysis of data from the Swift X-ray telescope showed that the comet continued outgassing from the impact for 13 days, with a peak five days after impact. A total of 5 million kilograms (11 million pounds) of water[35] and between 10 and 25 million kilograms (22 and 55 million pounds) of dust were lost from the impact."^WPThus the water content of Comet Tempel 1 is 20% to 50%.

EC universe: Comet jets, coma and tails are created from material that that is created from rock by electrical discharge machining.

(but according to solrey EDM does not mean EDM in the EC universe!).

Real universe:


Start with Tim Thompson's posts about this

• Electric Comets I
• Electric Comets II: References
• Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (actually no EU X-ray bursts).

Then look at

• 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 universe: Rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value will be comets.N.B. Solar activity may cut tails in two but there have been no observations of comets turning off during low solar activity.(Sol88: I may be wrong - if so please provide the citations to these marvelous events.)

However this assertion has the fatal flaw of EC predictions - no mathematics or numbers.
But we can do their work for them can't we Sol88?

There are 4 observed main-belt comets with a minimum eccentricity of 0.1644 (133P/Elst-Pizarro). So the EC minimim must be this (or lower!).

Real universe: There are at least 173,583 asteroids (rocky bodies) that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value that are not comets. This includes asteroids that have been observed for decades.
There are 459,893 asteroids with eccentricities greater than the minimum observed eccentricity of comets (0.0279).
EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets


EC universe: solrey pointed out in this post that EC idea expects that the voltage potential a comet experiences would be orders of magnitude higher than that of the cloud to ground voltage potential in a thunderstorm (10⁹ volts).
"Several" is more than a couple so the EC idea expects a voltage drop around a comet of at least 10¹² volts.

Real universe: tusenfem pointed out that "Electric Fields and Cold Electrons in the Vicinity of Comet Halley" by Harri Laakso gave the measured potential drop between electrical layers around Comet Halley as 50 kV in this post. This is 10,000 times less than the thunderstorm potential and 10,000,000 times less that requires by the EC idea.


EC universe: Only give qualitative predictions.
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).

What actually happened was a flash on or after impact followed by a bigger one from deeper in the nucleus (according to NASA).

Real universe: Scientific theories model the data mathematically and produce both qualitative and quantitative predictions.


Someone could start with the papers of Whipple

1. Whipple, Fred L. (1950). "A Comet Model. I. The acceleration of Comet Encke". Astrophys. J. 111: 375–394.
2. Whipple, Fred L. (1951). "A Comet Model. II. Physical Relations for Comets and Meteors". Astrophys. J. 113: 464.
3. Whipple, Fred L. (1955). "A Comet Model. III. The Zodiacal Light". Astrophys. J. 121: 750.

and then go ointo the 1000's of scientific papers and many textbooks about comets. Tim Thompson recommened Introduction to Comets by Brandt & Chapman (Cambridge University Press, 2004, 2nd edition).


EC universe: Turn yourself into a crackpot idea by not publishing papers in peer reviewed journals.
Real universe: Take the risk being wrong and become part of the scientific process by publishing papers in peer reviewed journals, e.g. Fred L. Whipple.

 

[tusenfem]

Enveloped in THICK CLOUD Tusenfem? U forgot the dust

but you concede the process is more or less the same, on the moon (rocky body) as a comet (rocky body) exposed to the time varying magnetic fields and charged particles stream/s?

Methinks someone does not understand irony and mockery.

 

[tusenfem]

The water is made in situ!

Yeah yeah, joker!

Then show us please how much water gets produced at a comet.

And at Mercury Zurbuchen says that there may be three sources of water:
How could there be water on Mercury? Zurburchen listed three possibilities, which are not mutually exclusive. Firstly, it has long been theorized (but not yet proved) from Earth-based radar observations that there may be reservoirs of water ice in small areas of Mercury's poles where local topography creates permanently shadowed spots in crater walls that might trap water over the age of the solar system. Second, the water could come from comets. Third, the process of chemical sputtering could create water where none existed before from the ingredients of solar wind and Mercury rock, as Zurburchen explains.

On the moon, where there is no magnetosphere to shield it, the production of water could be up to 1 quart per tonne of surface material, spread out over the surface in an approximately 3 mm thick layer, according to Sunshine.

Solrey gave some interesting, but meaningless, calculations at least.

How about you do some work too, instead of writing posts full of emoticons?

 

[Sol88]

You really believe that 0.6 g/cc is the same as 3 g/cc?

I am sure that any lurkers on this thread would be interested in the abysmal level of eduation that this reveals.

Do you also believe that 1 = 0 and that 3 = pi?

YES!

 

[Sol88]

ETA RC

For the first time, astronomers have confirmed that an asteroid contains frozen water on its surface. Analysis of asteroid 24 Themis shows evidence of water ice along with organic compounds widespread across the surface.

What's your take RC? comet or asteroid?

snip

The 160-kilometer wide asteroid averages a distance from the sun of about 3.2 times that of Earth’s. At that range, frozen water on the surface would readily vaporize, Campins said. That means the ice must be continually replenished, possibly by a reservoir of frozen water within the rock.

Oh ohhh!!! let's spout the usual nonsense, in the same context as comets "water ice" replenishment, as follows

One possibility is that ice lies buried several meters below the surface of 24 Themis, and when hit by space debris, the ice makes its way to the surface. If this is the case, it could confirm that some asteroids resemble comets, becoming active suddenly and venting material into space when pockets of ice vaporize, Campins said.

But wait there's more the electric universe says this is the most likely option, same as the moon, mercury, comets and now asteroids!

Another option is that an action similar to the recent findings of water on the Moon, where solar wind interacts with a rocky body without an atmosphere to create H2O and OH molecules. Without an atmosphere, the body is exposed to solar wind, which includes hydrogen ions. The hydrogen is able to interact with oxygen in surface of the asteroid to create water molecules.

Booya!!!

There may be no need for NASA's "hidden" ices, they are made right out of the solar wind!

RC said

eh?
If you mean the Moon/wind mechanism then you are totally wrong. It has only been found for the Moon. That is not "found to be common on all airless rocky bodies".
It is possible that the mechanism means that there is a tiny bit of water on airless bodies all over the solar system.

As solrey states this means that at most < 0.1% (and more likely < 0.01% or even 0.001%) of the surface layer of the bodies will be water. This is for the Moon. For bodies further away from teh Su the % will be less.
Anyone who knows anything about comets knows that this is totally inadequate to explain the amount of water that they have in their nuclei, coma and tail.

Oh and check out it's density!

how would you like your crow, RC, Tusenfem, Dancing David, Zeuss?