The Electric Comet theory

[Tubbythin]

I'll take a shot at it. I'm writing this as I watch (and pause) the video:

The narrator mentions the issue about the corona being hotter than the surface of the sun, and asking how that can happen if the sun is being powered by fusion at the core. He's got a point, but his conclusion is wrong. The corona is not heated by fusion at the core of the sun, or at least not directly. Some other mechanism must heat the corona.

But there are some rather critical points to keep in mind. Although the corona is fantastically high temperature, it's also almost transparent. This means that it loses heat very slowly. So while we need some additional heating mechanism, the power requirement for this heating mechanism are low, orders of magnitude below the total solar output. In fact, this is trivial to determine simply by the fact that the corona isn't nearly as bright as the photosphere, and can only be seen by eye when the photosphere is eclipsed, so it must be outputting far less energy.

Conclusion: we need a mechanism to transfer energy to the corona other than radiant heat from the photosphere. A model that only has fusion at the core of the sun creating radiant heat transfer won't accomplish that. But a model where fusion at the sun drives secondary processes, and those secondary processes create secondary heating of the corona, is not prohibited by this observation.

Sunspots:
He says that we can see further into the sun at sunspots, the interior of the sun is supposed to be hotter, and so sunspots should be hotter. This reasoning is seriously flawed.

Why are sunspots cooler? Because the plasma in them gets trapped by magnetic fields, so it can't convect as fast. Convective heating is a major component of heat transfer near the surface of the sun, so if you slow that down, you slow down the heating of plasma near the surface. It will still radiate heat away, but won't regain that heat as fast. So any plasma in the sunspot which can radiate into space will be colder than plasma not in the sun spot. And what plasma can we see? Why, plasma which can radiate into space.

So sunspots being cooler is exactly what we expect from the standard model. And regardless of that one might want to claim about the source of the sun's magnetic field, it's been observed. So the idea that sun spots are the result of magnetic fields isn't "warped", it's a very well-supported theory.

I skipped over much of the comet stuff, because it bores me to tears. But I will note this: comets make up an exceedingly small fraction of the mass of the solar system, and the universe. When trying to figure out what theories best describe the universe, should I start with one that explains what most of the matter is doing exceptionally well, but might have some problems with this little bit of matter on the side, or should I start with one that explains those little bits of matter, but fail spectacularly when trying to describe what's going on with most of the mass?

In other words, comets are a piss-poor way to try to figure out stellar physics or cosmology.

Then they move on to neutron stars, and simply declare without explanation that neutron stars are impossible. That doesn't cut it. Their reasoning is so absent I can't even criticize it, because there's nothing to criticize. And that's the problem.

Then they object to black holes. They complain that the jets shouldn't exist if light can't escape a black hole. But that's an incredibly ignorant assertion. Light can't escape from inside the event horizon of a black hole. But light, AND matter, can still escape from outside the event horizon. And the accretion disk and jets all form outside the event horizon. Then they claim that the accretion disk is a hypothetical object. But it's not. Hell, Saturn has one. All the accretion disk is is a torus of matter orbiting the body. There's nothing abstract about it.

Then there's the whole redshift thing. Aarp's data is crap. He cherry picks examples of quasars in close angular proximity to galaxies, and claims that this means that they're also close in distance. But they aren't. And that picture they include with the "luminous bridge"? Absolute crap. Give me any two broadened signals with a bit of overlap, and an intensity map will make it look like there's a "bridge" between them.

Their bit on Birkeland is particularly amusing. Birkeland did a bunch of plasma experiments, including some where he tried to reproduce something equivalent to planetary rings. And he did get ring-shaped plasma glows around his sphere. But planetary rings aren't glowing plasma. They're made from solids. They don't glow. They're only visible through reflected light. On the far side of Saturn, they are dark, as the planet casts a clear shadow across them. Birkeland can be forgiven for this mistake given the limits of astronomy at the time, but the folks in this video can't be.

And then there's the whole HAARP causing earthquakes conspiracy. They note that HAARP can put "immense quantities of energy" into the ionosphere. I don't think they've got any idea of what "immense" actually entails, because the energies involved with HAARP aren't anywhere close to the energies involved in earthquakes.



It's a nice enough package, I'll agree with that, but the content is garbage.

You clearly have a higher boredom threshold than me.

 

[dasmiller]

I'll concur with everything Zig said, and add my own observation: for several of the segments (black holes, neutron stars, redshift, etc), the narrator explained the things that he thought were problems with conventional astrophysics, but never explained how EU had better predictions. Even if everything he said about black holes, neutron stars, and redshift was completely correct (and I agree with Ziggurat that the things the narrator said were profoundly flawed), it wouldn't add a shred of evidence to support any EU theories.

It's like claiming that Indianapolis is the capital of Canada because he drove past Ottawa and didn't see any governors.

 

[Haig]

It's like claiming that Indianapolis is the capital of Canada because he drove past Ottawa and didn't see any governors.

"Comets are perhaps at once the most spectacular and the least well understood members of the solar system." Marcia Neugebauer, JPL

From 2001 and it turned out to be true

The Deep Impact mission seems rather pointless when the cathode arcs are doing the job of exposing the comet's subsurface. However, if comets are an electrical phenomenon and have nothing to do with the formation of the solar system then astronomers are bound to be baffled once more. And that could be worth every dollar NASA spends on Deep Impact.

http://www.holoscience.com/news/comet_borrelly.html

 

[Haig]

Comet Hartley 2 - rock and EDM not dirty iceballs and sublimation

Comet Hartley 2 is not a dirty iceball having sublimation. Comet Hartley 2 and all other comets are rock/mineral with virtually no ice and the amazing jets are EDM (Electric Discharge Machining) occuring on the surface due to the potential difference between this object as it comes closer to the sun.

The electric nature of comets is shown in the amazing comet tails that stretch for millions of miles across our solar system.

The electric nature of comets is shown by the fact that jets appear and grow and move.

The electric nature of comets is shown by the fact that they explode, sometimes very far from the sun, this is due to electrical stresses.

Everything we will find out in the future will question and surprise scientists who still go on about comets being dirty ice balls. Every image will show them as rocks having electrical discharges

 

[dasmiller]

"Comets are perhaps at once the most spectacular and the least well understood members of the solar system." Marcia Neugebauer, JPL

From 2001 and it turned out to be true
http://www.holoscience.com/news/comet_borrelly.html

Please, in your own words, can you explain the connection between your quote or your link and my complaint about a youtube video's discussion of black holes, neutron stars, and redshift?

 

[Dancing David]

Comet Hartley 2 - rock and EDM not dirty iceballs and sublimation

Which is why there are asteroids which should show these discharge events but don't, as already pointed out there are objects which have more elliptical orbits and therefore should show a greater discharge, yet they don't, epic fail. Why do the Apollo objects not have comas Haig? That one comes from farther out in the solar system and comes closer than Hartly-2 by a factor of at least four.

No idea how they make methane and CO₂ come off the asteroids, do they. Let me guess, if I check the link there will see some science citations right Haig?

ETA: Figures, a lack of citations forum post, weak. Weaker Haig. A quote from the BBC and a quote from Thunderbolts.

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: Do you know that the number 0.6 is not the number 3.0

Comet Hartley 2 - rock and EDM not dirty iceballs and sublimation

The author of that quote is wrong and very ignorant of the basic physics of comets. See The totally stupid electric comet idea debunked

Haig: Do you know that the number 0.6 is not the number 3.0 (densities of comets and rocks: Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids). )
That author is obviously so deluded or ignorant that they cannot.

Or what about:
The EC idea predicts that 528,157 asteroids should be comets
Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (actually no EU X-ray bursts).
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.
Cometary dust as collected by the Stardust mission contain forms of carbon that are not in meteorites.

 

[Zeuzzz]

I'll take a shot at it. I'm writing this as I watch (and pause) the video:

The narrator mentions the issue about the corona being hotter than the surface of the sun, and asking how that can happen if the sun is being powered by fusion at the core. He's got a point, but his conclusion is wrong. The corona is not heated by fusion at the core of the sun, or at least not directly. Some other mechanism must heat the corona.

But there are some rather critical points to keep in mind. Although the corona is fantastically high temperature, it's also almost transparent. This means that it loses heat very slowly. So while we need some additional heating mechanism, the power requirement for this heating mechanism are low, orders of magnitude below the total solar output. In fact, this is trivial to determine simply by the fact that the corona isn't nearly as bright as the photosphere, and can only be seen by eye when the photosphere is eclipsed, so it must be outputting far less energy.

Conclusion: we need a mechanism to transfer energy to the corona other than radiant heat from the photosphere. A model that only has fusion at the core of the sun creating radiant heat transfer won't accomplish that. But a model where fusion at the sun drives secondary processes, and those secondary processes create secondary heating of the corona, is not prohibited by this observation.

Sunspots:
He says that we can see further into the sun at sunspots, the interior of the sun is supposed to be hotter, and so sunspots should be hotter. This reasoning is seriously flawed.

Why are sunspots cooler? Because the plasma in them gets trapped by magnetic fields, so it can't convect as fast. Convective heating is a major component of heat transfer near the surface of the sun, so if you slow that down, you slow down the heating of plasma near the surface. It will still radiate heat away, but won't regain that heat as fast. So any plasma in the sunspot which can radiate into space will be colder than plasma not in the sun spot. And what plasma can we see? Why, plasma which can radiate into space.

So sunspots being cooler is exactly what we expect from the standard model. And regardless of that one might want to claim about the source of the sun's magnetic field, it's been observed. So the idea that sun spots are the result of magnetic fields isn't "warped", it's a very well-supported theory.

I skipped over much of the comet stuff, because it bores me to tears. But I will note this: comets make up an exceedingly small fraction of the mass of the solar system, and the universe. When trying to figure out what theories best describe the universe, should I start with one that explains what most of the matter is doing exceptionally well, but might have some problems with this little bit of matter on the side, or should I start with one that explains those little bits of matter, but fail spectacularly when trying to describe what's going on with most of the mass?

In other words, comets are a piss-poor way to try to figure out stellar physics or cosmology.

Then they move on to neutron stars, and simply declare without explanation that neutron stars are impossible. That doesn't cut it. Their reasoning is so absent I can't even criticize it, because there's nothing to criticize. And that's the problem.

Then they object to black holes. They complain that the jets shouldn't exist if light can't escape a black hole. But that's an incredibly ignorant assertion. Light can't escape from inside the event horizon of a black hole. But light, AND matter, can still escape from outside the event horizon. And the accretion disk and jets all form outside the event horizon. Then they claim that the accretion disk is a hypothetical object. But it's not. Hell, Saturn has one. All the accretion disk is is a torus of matter orbiting the body. There's nothing abstract about it.

Then there's the whole redshift thing. Aarp's data is crap. He cherry picks examples of quasars in close angular proximity to galaxies, and claims that this means that they're also close in distance. But they aren't. And that picture they include with the "luminous bridge"? Absolute crap. Give me any two broadened signals with a bit of overlap, and an intensity map will make it look like there's a "bridge" between them.

Their bit on Birkeland is particularly amusing. Birkeland did a bunch of plasma experiments, including some where he tried to reproduce something equivalent to planetary rings. And he did get ring-shaped plasma glows around his sphere. But planetary rings aren't glowing plasma. They're made from solids. They don't glow. They're only visible through reflected light. On the far side of Saturn, they are dark, as the planet casts a clear shadow across them. Birkeland can be forgiven for this mistake given the limits of astronomy at the time, but the folks in this video can't be.

And then there's the whole HAARP causing earthquakes conspiracy. They note that HAARP can put "immense quantities of energy" into the ionosphere. I don't think they've got any idea of what "immense" actually entails, because the energies involved with HAARP aren't anywhere close to the energies involved in earthquakes.


It's a nice enough package, I'll agree with that, but the content is garbage.

I agree with most said here.

I especially agree with:

* "Some other mechanism must heat the corona"

* "A model that only has fusion at the core of the sun creating radiant heat transfer won't accomplish that"

* "So sunspots being cooler is exactly what we expect from the standard model"

* "comets make up an exceedingly small fraction of the mass of the solar system, and the universe. When trying to figure out what theories best describe the universe, should I start with one that explains what most of the matter is doing exceptionally well, but might have some problems with this little bit of matter on the side, or should I start with one that explains those little bits of matter, but fail spectacularly when trying to describe what's going on with most of the mass"

* "Then they move on to neutron stars, and simply declare without explanation that neutron stars are impossible. That doesn't cut it." (Their "Island of chemistry" reason for neutrinos seems flawed to me, but maybe not their criticism of millisecond pulsars. Do you have further reasons behind why their explanation for pulsar data is unsound?)

* "Aarp's data is crap."

* "I don't think they've got any idea of what "immense" actually entails, because the energies involved with HAARP aren't anywhere close to the energies involved in earthquakes."


I dont agree with everything you said. However the points I do not agree with are nothing to do with your critique about comets so im wary of taking this thread off at a tangent ...

 

[tusenfem]

the amazing jets are EDM (Electric Discharge Machining) occuring on the surface due to the potential difference between this object as it comes closer to the sun.

Ah, the amazing EDM, the source for everything.
Haig, can you now please google your @$$ off and find me a paper in which this EDM is qualitatitvely AND quantitatively described as applied to comets? I'd be surprised if you found one.

How interesting if you read Alfvén's and Peratt's books that there is "mathematics galore" almost everything is calculated, but when the EU/ES/EC community writes something you get words, and then more words and basically nothing substantial whatsoever.

So, Haig put your money where your mouth is, show us something concrete that one can work with: put up or shut up!

 

[Haig]

I'll take a shot at it.

Thanks for your points, I found it interesting but well debated on other threads on the forum.

I skipped over much of the comet stuff, because it bores me to tears. But I will note this: comets make up an exceedingly small fraction of the mass of the solar system, and the universe. When trying to figure out what theories best describe the universe, should I start with one that explains what most of the matter is doing exceptionally well, but might have some problems with this little bit of matter on the side, or should I start with one that explains those little bits of matter, but fail spectacularly when trying to describe what's going on with most of the mass?

I'm disappointed you took this view. The reason I posted the video was to highlight the points about comets and to get the mainstream reaction to them.

In other words, comets are a piss-poor way to try to figure out stellar physics or cosmology.

I don't see it that way. In brief:

In the Electric Universe model, a comet is an electrically charged body. During its long period in the outer reaches of the solar system, it acquires a strong negative charge with respect to the Sun. Then, as it approaches the inner limits of its orbit, accelerating through the electric field of the Sun, it will begin to discharge to the plasma surrounding it, producing the familiar bright coma and tail.

The electric comet is thus tied to the electric view of the Sun:
The Sun has an electric field and interacts electrically with comets and planets, including the Earth;

The Earth, like all of the planets, is a charged body;

The Sun is not powered by some mysterious, internal "nuclear furnace", but rather externally by electric currents flowing along the arms of the Milky Way;

99.9% of the universe consists of PLASMA, a conducting medium that has been found to exhibit strong electrical properties. All of space is teeming with charged particles;

All evidence for the electric comet is therefore evidence for the electric Sun and for the electrical nature of stars.

In more detail:
Electric Comets Re-write Space Science

If you, by way of contrast, compare the mainstream view of comets given HERE and HERE by NASA you may understand why they interest me.

It's a nice enough package, I'll agree with that, but the content is garbage.

Your view, but it's been well argued elsewhere

I dont agree with everything you said. However the points I do not agree with are nothing to do with your critique about comets so im wary of taking this thread off at a tangent ...

Yes Ziggurat made interesting points. Thanks for not derailing the thread but I hope you and he do post comment's on electric comets sometime.

 

[Haig]

Please, in your own words, can you explain the connection between your quote or your link and my complaint about a youtube video's discussion of black holes, neutron stars, and redshift?

Sure,I'll do my best to explain, you said:

I'll concur with everything Zig said

and if you agree with your own words you'll know that Zig didn't comment on the electric comet piece in the video despite my bold drawing attention to that as being the point of my posting, see HERE

Could you expand on that dismissal a little? If you could use your expertise to explain away the points raised in this short video "The Electric Universe" particularly the points about electric comets.

Zig also said (with which you concur) that he didn't see the point in studying comets as they have so little matter (pun intended) when compared to the rest of the visible Universe. I'm not quoting Zig exactly but that's the jist, as I remember it, just scroll back if your not sure.

So, maybe now you understand? If not, let me try to spell it out as I understand it.

Comets are worth studying because as charged bodies moving in highly eccentric orbits, in an electric field, they come under electrical stress resulting in unusual behaviour but fully in line with EU/PC theory.

Mainstream, with it's dirty snowball theory of comets from the mythical Oort cloud has always struggled.

 

[Haig]

Happy birthday DD

Which is why there are asteroids which should show these discharge events but don't, as already pointed out there are objects which have more elliptical orbits and therefore should show a greater discharge, yet they don't, epic fail. Why do the Apollo objects not have comas Haig? That one comes from farther out in the solar system and comes closer than Hartly-2 by a factor of at least four.

It's the charge as well as the eccentric orbit DD. How much charge do the asteroids have? The MORE charge relative to the Sun's electric field (you can't have an electric comet or asteroid without an electric Sun) the MORE the electrical stress. Conversely, the LESS charge the LESS electrical stress. You might not agree with the theory but surely you can understand what's being said?

Let me turn this point, you keep making, back at you DD. Hartly 2 is one of the SMALLEST (a dumbbell shape, one mile x half a mile approx) yet MOST active comets so far studied, but ONLY at the ends not the smooth waist, Q add hoc explanation from mainstream.

That was a huge surprise to mainstream and the further add hoc explanation is that it has more icy volatiles than other MUCH LARGER comets. How can that be if, as mainstream believe, dirty snowball comets from the Oort cloud are left overs from the formation of the solar system? It’s ALL supposed to be the same stuff? Why all this variability?

For electric comet theory (or asteroid or planet) the explanation is simply the charge is not dependant on size (or density RC) and they reflect the properties of their parent body and process of electrical expulsion.

No idea how they make methane and CO₂ come off the asteroids, do they. Let me guess, if I check the link there will see some science citations right Haig?

Same way electric comets do DD. Sure, you can get loads of science citations when public funds are given to the research.

ETA: Figures, a lack of citations forum post, weak. Weaker Haig. A quote from the BBC and a quote from Thunderbolts.

Easily solved with a fraction of the funding mainstream receive. We know plasma physics works here on Earth (any number of science citations) and it's scalable. It explains 99.99% of what we see in Space without the need to believe in Black, Dark, Un-knowable stuff that's imagined to be 96% of Space.

 

[Haig]

The author of that quote is wrong and very ignorant of the basic physics of comets.....snip the usual RC spam ...Cometary dust as collected by the Stardust mission contain forms of carbon that are not in meteorites.[/COLOR][/URL]

Well RC your MO hasn’t changed.

All the answers to your points are HERE and HERE enjoy

 

[Haig]

Ah, the amazing EDM, the source for everything.
Haig, can you now please google your @$$ off and find me a paper in which this EDM is qualitatitvely AND quantitatively described as applied to comets? I'd be surprised if you found one.

Ah! qualitatitvely AND quantitatively. Taking the definition HERE this is the closest I can get. It's only the abstract but I expect the actual paper gives what your asking.
The Electrical Nature of Comets
ABSTRACT
Comet displays are thought to be due to sublimation of volatile ices from an inert nucleus in the heat of the Sun. For example, the Stardust mission has shown that the origin of comets requires some high-temperature conditions. A 'cross-eye' stereo pair of comet Wild 2's nucleus showing typical EDM erosion. Comet flybys have shown phenomena of great complexity and higher energy than expected. Comet Hyakutake showed unsuspected high-energy processes taking place in the comet. A forbidden oxygen spectral line in the coma of Comet Austin pointed to an intense electric field. Activity is restricted to small areas on each comet nucleus and takes the form of collimated jets, which maintain their filamentary coherence across tens of millions of kilometers. The complex structure and high-energy behavior can be explained if the comet is a charged body moving in a radial electric field responsible for accelerating the solar-wind plasma, rather than an inert, heated body in a rarefied supersonic "wind." The jets and surface topography of comets are consistent with EDM erosion of a cathode surface. The fine dust particles may be the result of cathode sputtering. The presence of the OH radical may be due to combination of sputtered negative oxygen ions from the comet nucleus with solar 'wind' protons and is consistent with the lack of water ice observed on comet nuclei. On the basis of an electrical theory of comets, the author predicted that the Deep Impact mission would observe an electrical flash before impact with the copper projectile and that the outburst would be more energetic than expected. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4346306

How interesting if you read Alfvén's and Peratt's books that there is "mathematics galore" almost everything is calculated, but when the EU/ES/EC community writes something you get words, and then more words and basically nothing substantial whatsoever.

It's amazing how powerful words and ideas can be.

So, Haig put your money where your mouth is, show us something concrete that one can work with: put up or shut up!

I've done as you asked.(as best I can anyway) Now tusenfem can you cite a mainstream paper on the theory of comets that hasn't been falsified since the Space age began, say pre 1950?

So, tusenfem put your money where your mouth is, show us something concrete that one can work with: put up or shut up!

If EU/PC theory were given just a fraction of the taxpayers money that mainstream are given you would get a huge pile of papers on electric comets, EDM and the rest.

It's not PC (and I'm not taking about plasma cosmology here) to mention electricity in matters about Space but if you mention something acceptable to mainstream, like magnetic re-connection you get the funds for research and are able to publish papers like these about comets HERE, HERE and HERE and as we all know magnetism and electricity go hand in hand. So really, these type of papers on comets are confirmation of electric comet theory by the back door! (I know the authors or the mainstream believers here, won’t admit to that)

 

[Ziggurat]

Thanks for your points, I found it interesting but well debated on other threads on the forum.

So are comets. The EU predictions don't wash. I particular, their "model" (which, again, fails to make any quantitative predictions) has no way to distinguish comets from asteroids. And no, the orbits don't distinguish them. Most asteroids happen to follow fairly circular orbits, but not all of them.

I don't see it that way. In brief:

In brief, the EU model you're advocating cannot account for the total power output of the sun. It's a complete failure. And the basic reason it's a failure is the same reason the electric comet theory won't work: the proposed electric fields simply don't exist. They can't exist. Even if you were to magically create the charge separation needed to produce such fields in the first place, the forces involved would be so strong that the separated charges would get pulled back together ridiculously fast.

And you can't power it externally, because external sources would face the same problem. The circuit analogies don't work. You can maintain charge separation in circuits because metals have what's known as a work function: it costs energy for charges to leave the surface of a metal. But it doesn't take energy for a charge to leave a plasma. No work function means no insulation. Even if you've got some galactic charge separation going on, the charges are still going to come rushing back together, and they'll do so on VERY short time scales compared to the actual time scales we know stars and galaxies evolve over. The irony is that the very fact that the universe is mostly plasma precludes the suggested model, precisely because plasmas conduct electricity and electric forces are so strong. When charges are free to move (as they are in a conductor), they will move towards equilibrium. When the forces are large, they will do so quickly. So an electric model should have reached equilibrium long ago. But the sun is shining, which means it's not in equilibrium.

Again, a fusion model is the ONLY model to date which can account for the total power output of the sun. You can fiddle around the edges of that model if you want, but the power output cannot come from electricity. And since it's not coming from electricity, there's no evidence that the electric fields necessary to produce the proposed comet effects exist. In fact, given that the solar wind carries both positive and negative charges in the same direction, there's good evidence that such a field does NOT exist.

 

[Ziggurat]

Zig also said (with which you concur) that he didn't see the point in studying comets

That's not what I said. Rather, if I want to understand what powers the sun, or what controls the structure of the cosmos, it's rather misguided to start with comets. If I want to understand comets for their own sake, that's fine. If I want to study comets to refine a working model for the solar system, I could even do that. But I need to START with what's most important. And comets are not what's most important in the solar system, or the cosmos. The most important part of the solar system is the sun, and the most important feature to explain about the sun is the total power output. Core fusion can do that. Nothing else can right now.

 

[dasmiller]

So, maybe now you understand? If not, let me try to spell it out as I understand it.

Comets are worth studying because as charged bodies moving in highly eccentric orbits, in an electric field, they come under electrical stress resulting in unusual behaviour but fully in line with EU/PC theory.

So, you weren't addressing the bulk of my post, which was about neutron stars, redshift, and black holes; you were actually addressing Zig's remarks and you quoted me because I referred to Zig.

That explains my confusion, I suppose.

As for electric comets, how much of the light we see from a comet is sunlight reflected by the ejecta vs. illumination due to the discharges?

Also, if the comets are discharging because they're traveling through a varying e-field, shouldn't they go dark around perihelion?

 

[Dancing David]

Happy birthday DD
It's the charge as well as the eccentric orbit DD. How much charge do the asteroids have? The MORE charge relative to the Sun's electric field (you can't have an electric comet or asteroid without an electric Sun) the MORE the electrical stress. Conversely, the LESS charge the LESS electrical stress. You might not agree with the theory but surely you can understand what's being said?

What causes the difference in charge, any identifiable theory?
we know it is not position relative to teh sun at apahelion or perehelion, we know it is not the magnetosphere of planets.

So what is it Haig?

Let me turn this point, you keep making, back at you DD. Hartly 2 is one of the SMALLEST (a dumbbell shape, one mile x half a mile approx) yet MOST active comets so far studied, but ONLY at the ends not the smooth waist, Q add hoc explanation from mainstream.

That was a huge surprise to mainstream and the further add hoc explanation is that it has more icy volatiles than other MUCH LARGER comets.

You still lack citations, why would that be, who gave that as an explanation?

How can that be if, as mainstream believe, dirty snowball comets from the Oort cloud are left overs from the formation of the solar system? It’s ALL supposed to be the same stuff? Why all this variability?

Lack of citation again, bad poster!

Um who the heck said the Oort cloud was homegenous, any citations of that?

For electric comet theory (or asteroid or planet) the explanation is simply the charge is not dependant on size (or density RC) and they reflect the properties of their parent body and process of electrical expulsion.

What do yo mean by 'expulsion'?

Same way electric comets do DD. Sure, you can get loads of science citations when public funds are given to the research.

False dichotomy Haig, wah wah wah, you do know that Guth and halley doid not have huge budgets.

What lab process would show CO2 coming from an asteroid, hmmm. Come one Haig, what does EC say teh asteroids are made of and what process makes methane and CO2.

Easily solved with a fraction of the funding mainstream receive. We know plasma physics works here on Earth (any number of science citations) and it's scalable. It explains 99.99% of what we see in Space without the need to believe in Black, Dark, Un-knowable stuff that's imagined to be 96% of Space.

More false dichotomy, your lack of evidence and teh incoherence of your theory is noted.

Steven Hawkings does not have a huge budget either, wah, wah wah.

 

[dafydd]

So are comets. The EU predictions don't wash. I particular, their "model" (which, again, fails to make any quantitative predictions) has no way to distinguish comets from asteroids. And no, the orbits don't distinguish them. Most asteroids happen to follow fairly circular orbits, but not all of them.



In brief, the EU model you're advocating cannot account for the total power output of the sun. It's a complete failure. And the basic reason it's a failure is the same reason the electric comet theory won't work: the proposed electric fields simply don't exist. They can't exist. Even if you were to magically create the charge separation needed to produce such fields in the first place, the forces involved would be so strong that the separated charges would get pulled back together ridiculously fast.

And you can't power it externally, because external sources would face the same problem. The circuit analogies don't work. You can maintain charge separation in circuits because metals have what's known as a work function: it costs energy for charges to leave the surface of a metal. But it doesn't take energy for a charge to leave a plasma. No work function means no insulation. Even if you've got some galactic charge separation going on, the charges are still going to come rushing back together, and they'll do so on VERY short time scales compared to the actual time scales we know stars and galaxies evolve over. The irony is that the very fact that the universe is mostly plasma precludes the suggested model, precisely because plasmas conduct electricity and electric forces are so strong. When charges are free to move (as they are in a conductor), they will move towards equilibrium. When the forces are large, they will do so quickly. So an electric model should have reached equilibrium long ago. But the sun is shining, which means it's not in equilibrium.

Again, a fusion model is the ONLY model to date which can account for the total power output of the sun. You can fiddle around the edges of that model if you want, but the power output cannot come from electricity. And since it's not coming from electricity, there's no evidence that the electric fields necessary to produce the proposed comet effects exist. In fact, given that the solar wind carries both positive and negative charges in the same direction, there's good evidence that such a field does NOT exist.

Thank you for summing up the thread in manner that even a layman like me can understand.

 

[Reality Check]

In more detail:
Electric Comets Re-write Space Science

In more detail: You cite a link to a web site that is known to lie to its readers. See The totally stupid electric comet idea debunked

The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.
Wallace Thornhill is obviously ignorant of the actual results of the mission and in a couple of cases actually lies about the results.

Haig: Do you know that the number 0.6 is not the number 3.0?
(first asked 14 Dec 2010)