The Electric Comet theory

[Haig]

None of which actually answers my question and I don't think it answers DD's.

Is the glow that we see from a comet simply sunlight reflected from the ejecta or are we seeing ejecta and interplanetary plasma glowing due to ongoing electrical discharges? If it's a mix, then is the electrical glow a significant contributor?

Sorry, just got time to copy and paste just now.

If you and DD really want to know the EU/PC view, of why comets shine, my previous post and this one are good places to start.

Comets Impact Cosmology

Some of the complex phenomena of a glow discharge can be seen.

Scientists of the day could see the many parallels between the behavior of the luminous comet and a laboratory glow discharge. But in the following decades they abandoned that vision. Electrified comets required an electrified Sun. Astronomers in the 20th century were never taught the physics of gas discharges, and the idea of electricity in space was anathema to them. They turned their eyes away from the signs of electrical activity and adapted the older mechanical theories to explain comet behaviour as buffetings in a solar "wind." The gas discharge model was passed over for Fred Whipple''s 'dirty ice ball' model of comets

Snip

The Electric Comet and its Impact on Cosmology

Comets are important, they are the key to the universe!

If comets are essentially an electrical phenomenon then the implications for cosmology are profound. It means that everything we believe about the Sun, and therefore all stars, is wrong.

Snip

Positive ions (protons) are accelerated from the Sun, which indicates that the Sun is positively charged. Yet the solar wind is electrically neutral (within the limits of our measurements, it contains equal numbers of positive ions and electrons), so how can a comet exhibit electrical effects?

The answer, as always, is to go back to the proposed model to see how it fits with the data, or to see if the experiments performed so far can actually answer the question. In classic 'Back to the Future' style, Ralph Juergens proposed in the 1970's that the Sun was the anode focus of a glow, or corona discharge. It simply requires the Sun to be a body positively charged relative to its galactic environment. Welcome back to the nineteenth century!

Snip

The Sun exhibits the features of a stressed anode.

The 'negative glow' region can be seen to have a strong electric field. People objected to Juergens' model because we don't find relativistic electrons, accelerated by a strong radial field in interplanetary space, rushing toward the Sun. But plasma phenomena in a glow discharge are complex, so appeals to simplistic models based on electrostatics are irrelevant. Instead, I propose that Juergens' model be modified and that interplanetary space is the extensive 'positive column' region of a glow discharge. Cobine writes, "The positive column is a region of almost equal concentrations of positive ions and electrons and is characterized by a very low voltage gradient.

Snip

As the comet approaches the Sun, the nucleus moves at a furious speed through regions of increasing charge density and voltage. The comet's surface charge and internal polarization, developed in deep space, respond to the new environment by forming cathode jets and a visible plasma sheath, or coma. The strong electric field in the comet’s plasma sheath generates x-rays. The cathode discharge hot spots characteristically jump about the nucleus, and the comet may shed and grow new tails. Or the comet may explode like an overstressed capacitor, breaking into separate fragments or simply giving up the ghost and disappearing. The 'non-gravitational' forces observed perturbing comet orbits are simply due to these electrical interactions.

Wal Thornhill

 

[tusenfem]

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. [snip]

Ah so, an abstract is all you can give us? And in the abstract there is nothing concrete about anything. Thanks!

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

Dude, I have posted so much real science here on the board, that most of the EU/ES/EC community just ignore (e.g. MM never even deigned to repond to my analysis of Birkeland's scientific work).

Let's see what do we have, first of all the analysis by Tim Thompson in post 9 of this thread.
Then I comment on ionization of cometary material and then look at the next three posts after that, where I actually point to two papers (Laakso and Vourlidas et al.) where there are actually data and analysis done and checked with scientific methods.
Then there were Sol88's misconceptions about comets and X-rays.
Then there is a bit of a discussion about the electric fields around a comet
Or pointing out to a EU/ES/EC proponent that he does not understand double layers
and a discussion once more about DLs and magnetic field draping

So, and I just stop there, you can go through the thread yourself, there is a discussion about water production in the soil of the moon, there is a discussion about Mercury and Enceladus etc. etc.

I am bending over backwards to provide the EU/ES/EC community with read scientific literature, where the data are shown, where conclusions are checked whether they are in agreement with real life physics. And what do we get in return? The drivlings from Thunderdolts, where apparently just claiming that it is so, makes it so. Like Captain Picard has the final word! A clear example is the "electric comet poster" that apparently was at a conference, but nowhere in the program was said presentation to be found.

But I'll gladly shut up, if real life science (including real data and math and not just bunny physics) is too difficult for you.

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.

If they would come with a consistent model of how things work, then we could discuss it. However, this whole thing is just a cornucopia of thing that may or may not happen, mixed together, without any analysis if one process can actually happen with another process simultaneously happening, e.g. the "plasma screening" of the nucleus, but then still insist that there are discharges and EDM going on at the surface. How does that work when the comet hast to be in equilibrium with the (never measured) electric field around the Sun.

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)

If you want a discussion of the tail separation of the comet, then look at the
Vourlidas paper, and MRx is nothing "electric comet" is is mainstream physics that MM wants to claim is actually "circuit or particle reconnection" but after asking him dozens of times to show how this "kind" of reconnection works in a whole system I get no answer.

These papers, that you quote, have nothing to do with the non-existing models of electric comets. First of all you will have to show a paper that actually models such an electric comet.

The fact that the draped magnetic field over the nucleus of a comet can display phenomena that are similar to what is happening in the Earth's magnetotail or a better example Venus's magnetotail is not a confirmation for some magical electric comet model. It is a confirmation that what we mainstreamers expect what can happen, actually happens.

 

[Siggy_G]

Not at all Siggy_G, I notice you are stalling rather than presenting either the theory or the evidence.

This just shows a tactic from your side, Dancing David. I have previously refered to both papers and articles by Wallace Thornhill, a primary source of the hypothesis. (my post and another one) This has received reactions and discussion, which may well require further evidence and paper citing from my (or indirectly Thornhill's) side. But that doesn't mean I haven't presented the basis for the hypothesis, which can be objectively scrutinized (e.g. by you guys).

Sometimes people ask for more data, evidence or papers for subsequent or other mechanisms discussed, and this is why I say such further gathering of additional material takes time and effort. It has nothing to do with stalling for the fun of not presenting material, as you imply.

Answer the question Siggy_G, and it is germane to this thread:

1. What makes an EC comet shine?

-present your theory
-present your evidence.

Thornhill explains this, but since none of you want to see this material again (according to DeiRenDopa), I'll present some other aspects.

(According to the standard view (NASA site), the light observed from a comet is the reflection of sunlight from the nucleus surface and the dust/ice in the coma. In addition the coma gases release energy absorbed from the sun, causing them to glow.)

According to the Electric Comet hypothesis, the light observed is partly the result of reflected Sun light, but mainly electrical discharges at the nucleus surface as well as ionization and recombination within the coma. The latter is simply the same principal as a neon light, as a response to ultraviolet light / photoelectric effect. This is something the NASA site intends to say, but doesn't explain so well, since they refuse to use the terms ionization, plasma and electricity. Generally, the coma appear to contribute highly to the glow (shine) of the nucleus and dominate the entire appearance of what we see as a comet. Just take any image of a comet at distance to verify this.

( Comet image example )

Also, comets' emissions speaks more of electrical processes than reflective dry surfaces (nucleus or coma dust).

X-Ray Emission From Comet Hale-Bopp

Comparison of the ROSAT photometry of the comet to our ROSAT database of 8 comets strongly suggests that the overall X-ray faintness of the comet was due to an emission mechanism coupled to gas, and not dust, in the comet's coma.

X-ray Emission from Comets

The discovery of x-ray emission from comet Hyakutake was surprising given that comets are known to be cold.

X-Ray and extreme ultraviolet emissions from comets

These analyses confirm charge exchange as the main excitation mechanism, which is responsible for more than 90% of the observed emission, while each of the other processes is limited to a few percent or less.

Refractory comet dust analogues by laser bombardment and arc discharge production

In this paper we describe our facilities to produce and characterise elemental carbon, hydrogenated carbon, silicate and mixed carbon-silicate grains by laser bombardment and arc discharge techniques. We use field emission scanning electron microscopy and transmission and analytical electron microscopy to identify the textures, morphologies and grain compositions and structures in analogue samples. Spectroscopy (from far ultraviolet to far infrared) is used to study their optical responses. Some analogue properties, e.g. grain texture and morphology, are similar to those detected in chondritic interplanetary dust particles that may include solid debris from periodic comets.

Influence of Ion Field Emission on the Dust Charge

Investigations of spontaneous grain discharging allow us to suggest that the field desorption (together with post-ionization) is the main process responsible for observed gradual discharging of used metallic grain samples. However, the grain charge is accumulated in a thick surface layer of non-conducting samples. The thickness of this layer depends on the mass and energy of primary ions. We can thus conclude that the charging history (mass and energy of used beam ions) together with the grain material are main factors determining the discharging currents.

Currents in the cometary atmosphere

If the structure of the magnetic field and electric current in the cometary type I tail can be represented by an electric current circuit, disruption of the cross-tail current system may lead to a current discharging through the cometary ionosphere, and the dissipation of the magnetic energy stored in the tail.

Formation of ordered structures of charged microparticles in near-surface cometary gas-dusty atmosphere

The electric field strength is determined by a charge of large particles (20 ... 50 micrometer) also reaches values 500 V/m. In such conditions in a near-surface atmosphere of a comet, the discharges similar to the discharges in high layers of an Earth's atmosphere are possible.

So, no, the emissions from comets can't be just emissions from the Sun reflected by the nucleus and coma dust, even according to the standard model, and it's definitelly in line with the electric comet hypothesis. Emissions are mainly due to electrical processes.

 

[Dancing David]

The evidence suggests that comets are highly negatively charged with respect to the Sun.

And what causes that charge Haig?

That is the big sticking point.

As they rush toward the Sun, the voltage increases until at some point the comet nucleus begins to discharge. Electrons are stripped from a few points on the comet surface where the electric field is strongest.

And again what mechanism causes that charge, that is the sticking point.

 

[Dancing David]

This just shows a tactic from your side, Dancing David. I have previously refered to both papers and articles by Wallace Thornhill, a primary source of the hypothesis. (my post and another one) This has received reactions and discussion, which may well require further evidence and paper citing from my (or indirectly Thornhill's) side. But that doesn't mean I haven't presented the basis for the hypothesis, which can be objectively scrutinized (e.g. by you guys).

Sometimes people ask for more data, evidence or papers for subsequent or other mechanisms discussed, and this is why I say such further gathering of additional material takes time and effort. It has nothing to do with stalling for the fun of not presenting material, as you imply.

Simple enough then present the theory for how the cometary bodies acquire this charge differential, the data that supports it and explain why other bodies in the exact same environment do not show comas.

Thornhill explains this, but since none of you want to see this material again (according to DeiRenDopa), I'll present some other aspects.

(According to the standard view (NASA site), the light observed from a comet is the reflection of sunlight from the nucleus surface and the dust/ice in the coma. In addition the coma gases release energy absorbed from the sun, causing them to glow.)

According to the Electric Comet hypothesis, the light observed is partly the result of reflected Sun light, but mainly electrical discharges at the nucleus surface as well as ionization and recombination within the coma. The latter is simply the same principal as a neon light, as a response to ultraviolet light / photoelectric effect. This is something the NASA site intends to say, but doesn't explain so well, since they refuse to use the terms ionization, plasma and electricity. Generally, the coma appear to contribute highly to the glow (shine) of the nucleus and dominate the entire appearance of what we see as a comet. Just take any image of a comet at distance to verify this.

( Comet image example )

Also, comets' emissions speaks more of electrical processes than reflective dry surfaces (nucleus or coma dust).

X-Ray Emission From Comet Hale-Bopp



X-ray Emission from Comets



X-Ray and extreme ultraviolet emissions from comets



Refractory comet dust analogues by laser bombardment and arc discharge production



Influence of Ion Field Emission on the Dust Charge



Currents in the cometary atmosphere



Formation of ordered structures of charged microparticles in near-surface cometary gas-dusty atmosphere



So, no, the emissions from comets can't be just emissions from the Sun reflected by the nucleus and coma dust, even according to the standard model, and it's definitelly in line with the electric comet hypothesis. Emissions are mainly due to electrical processes.

Thanks Siggy_G, I will reread and see what you have brought to the table, but I will ask the same question that I asked Haig, as I am guessing it is not addressed, what causes the charge difference?

I notice you discuss x-ray emission, but lets start with the actual theory:
1. What leads to the charge difference that causes the phenomena of EC discharge.

ETA: I just did a quick check of the links, an array of cometary studies, which is fine, however here is the first order of business:

0. What do you or Thornhill for that matter propose as the mechanism for creating the alleged charge on cometary bodies that leads to the discharge phenomena in EC?

This is crucial to what I feel is a problem for the theory. I am open minded and I am asking for the actual basis of the theory of the EC. You show me the basis of the theory and how it explains the data and I will embrace it. I understand enough of it to know that cometary bodies have or acquire an electrical charge which then is discharged or interacts with some other electrical forces.

But this is the point at which I do not see the supporting theory or evidence to support the theory.

0. What do you or Thornhill for that matter propose as the mechanism for creating the alleged charge on cometary bodies that leads to the discharge phenomena in EC?


This mechanism should be able to explain why the Apollo asteroid with the highest known eccentric orbit for an asteroid does not show a come, it should also explain why the four mainbelt that show comas are different from the other main belt objects.

So let us start with the actual question that I asked:

What makes an EC comet shine? Where does the electrical charge come from?

 

[Haig]

And what causes that charge Haig?

That is the big sticking point.

And again what mechanism causes that charge, that is the sticking point.

It seems clear to me DD he answers those points in the last few paragraphs. (my bold)

A comet's tail arises from the interaction between the electric charge of the comet and the solar discharge plasma. The comet spends most of its time far from the Sun, where the plasma charge density and voltage with respect to the Sun is low. The comet moves slowly and it easily accumulates enough charge to balance the ambient voltage.

As the comet approaches the Sun, the nucleus moves at a furious speed through regions of increasing charge density and voltage. The comet's surface charge and internal polarization, developed in deep space, respond to the new environment by forming cathode jets and a visible plasma sheath, or coma.

Comets Impact Cosmology by Wal Thornhill

 

[dasmiller]

According to the Electric Comet hypothesis, the light observed is partly the result of reflected Sun light, but mainly electrical discharges at the nucleus surface as well as ionization and recombination within the coma. The latter is simply the same principal as a neon light, as a response to ultraviolet light / photoelectric effect.

So, again, why don't comets go 'dark' around perihelion when they've reached near-equilibrium with the local e-field?

Now, if I assume that
1) Hale-Bopp is a 40 km spherical capacitor,
2) its orbit brings it through a very strong sun-centered e-field
3) as its orbit brings it closer to the sun, it is constantly discharging to the local interplanetary plasma, giving us most of the glow that we see

I'm getting a total delta-voltage from aphelion to perihelion of about 2E14 volts. If we assume a typical 1/r² e-field, then in the vicinity of Earth, the sun's e-field gradient should be ~2000V/m.

Does that sound like it's in line with the whole electric comet thing?

(I'm really not sure I did all the math right; has anyone else done similar calculations?)

 

[tusenfem]

You're allowed to have an opinion. But I disagree, as Thunderbolts blogs and picture-of-the-day articles give comparative analysis, explanations and relates it to (plasma) physics. Less of the math though, and the articles are not scientific papers any more than articles/news on NASA's site are.

Of course they are not scientific papers. However, the difference between NASA and Thunderdolts is that at NASA there is a scientific paper behind the public outreach page, whereas at Thunderdolts this is not present at all.

You can explain how an electrical circuit works, without using math. You can explain how a satelite orbits a planet, without using math.

Yes, I can explain how a circuit or an orbit works without math, however, in order to show that it indeed works that way, I need to put in some numbers. I can say I have a satellite at a 100 km altitude which stays above the white house all the time to check what Bammy is doing. However, then it can be shown that you need some major energy supply in that satellite in order to actually keep it in that orbit. Words are fine, when they have a solid background behind them, as in your following comment:

Hawking explains a lot of abstract ideas in his books, without refering to papers or using equations, and he's not held guilty of any charges, as far as I know.

No, of course not, because Hawking has the papers to show he is right. He will "dumb it down" for the masses, but he cannot write anything in his books that can be shown is wrong, because then his peers will take him to pieces .

If you refer to the open forum discussions or people from there, that would of course depend on the topic and each respective poster's background, and you could of course be right.

I have no problem with posters of various background, however I do have problems with people who know (self admittedly) little of math and physics and then come into the discussion and say "well I think this deserves a place in the science community" and when asked why, then just say "well it just sounds like it might have some reason to it," and then when shown that it is nonsense basically remain at their stance that "well I think it has a place anyway, no matter if it is backed up by physics or math or observations."

 

[Dancing David]

It seems clear to me DD he answers those points in the last few paragraphs. (my bold)

Comets Impact Cosmology by Wal Thornhill

Yes but then there are all sorts of bodies that DO EXACTLY the same thing all the time yet they do not show comas Haig, so from what you are saying, ALL the bodies in SIMILAR orbits should show comas. But they don't.

All bodies that spend the same amount of time in 'deep space' and move to a similar distan e from the sun should show comas, yet they don't.

That is the issue that the EC does not address, and that is why it is incoherent, explain why only some bodies show comas but other which are exactly in the same places and go through exactly the same transitions do not show comas.

That is why the Apollo bodies should show comas if the EC is correct, yet they don't.

Why is that Haig?

It is not the oprbits they are in, it is not planetary magnetospheres, why do only some bodies show comas and not others? Why do some acquire a charge and others in the exact same environments at the exact sort of time frames do not?

This is where the EC is incoherent and inconsistent.

 

[Ziggurat]

The Sun exhibits the features of a stressed anode.

No it doesn't.

People objected to Juergens' model because we don't find relativistic electrons, accelerated by a strong radial field in interplanetary space, rushing toward the Sun. But plasma phenomena in a glow discharge are complex, so appeals to simplistic models based on electrostatics are irrelevant.

They're not irrelevant. The defense is basically to claim that the electrons get slowed down to non-relativistic speeds by the thin plasma surrounding the sun. But the absence of relativistic electrons is hardly the only problem. As I've already calculated, Juergens' model would make the protons on the sun explode at relativistic speeds as well. The model is a complete failure. And it's pretty obvious why: the power requirements preclude it.

The power from an electric current is P = IV. If we take Juergens' proposed voltage of 10 billion volts, we get an exploding sun (see above link). We could reduce that required voltage at the expense of increasing the current. But there are two problems with that. First, we don't observe such a current. Second, the smaller you make V, the less charge there is on the sun, and the faster your incoming current (which must get bigger as you drop V) will drive that charge to zero. The sun will "burn out" far too quickly. Hell, even at 10¹⁰ Volts (less than 10⁹ Coulombs), your required current is over 10¹⁶ amps. That means you're going to discharge the sun in less than 10^-7 seconds. That's bloomin ridiculous. His model is ALREADY charged beyond what's physically possible, and it's STILL going to burn out too quickly. To make it last longer, you would have to up the voltage even more, but charging beyond what's not possible is... not possible.

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

I missed this before, and others have commented already, but it's worth really hammering home the point that this is just plain wrong. Money isn't what's holding EU/PC theories back. The fact that the ideas don't hold water does. I've been able to show how completely unworkable the ideas are without any funding. Simple calculations about total power output, charge vs current, etc. don't take any money to perform. Hell, they don't even take much expertise, it's all freshman physics level stuff. But none of the EU/PC folks will do these obvious and easy calculations with their own models. Why on earth do you expect them to get funding if they can't even do the easy stuff that requires no money? I can tell you for damned sure that a mainstream physicists won't get any money either if their grant applications were so shoddy.

 

[tusenfem]

And what causes that charge Haig?

That is the big sticking point.

And again what mechanism causes that charge, that is the sticking point.

I would like to know what this "evidence" is that Thornhill is talking about, there is none on the web page where the quote comes from.

 

[Reality Check]

Also, comets' emissions speaks more of electrical processes than reflective dry surfaces (nucleus or coma dust).

X-Ray Emission From Comet Hale-Bopp
X-ray Emission from Comets
X-Ray and extreme ultraviolet emissions from comets
Refractory comet dust analogues by laser bombardment and arc discharge production
Influence of Ion Field Emission on the Dust Charge
Currents in the cometary atmosphere
Formation of ordered structures of charged microparticles in near-surface cometary gas-dusty atmosphere .

Scientists are well aware that electrical processes happen in space. These are examples of them happening around comets.

So what - The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked
Anyone with elementary education should be able tell the difference between ~0.6 g/cc (comets) and ~3.0 g/cc (rock).

 

[Reality Check]

Formation of ordered structures of charged microparticles in near-surface cometary gas-dusty atmosphere
(!)

An astobiologgy paper (!)

The properties near-surface cometary atmosphere is considered, as mediums, in which the formation of ordered structures from charged microparticles is possible. Based on dates on cometary atmospheres and guesses of mechanisms of charging of sublimating microparticles the calculations of an electric field near to a surface of a comet are executed. The electric field strength is determined by a charge of large particles (20 ... 50 micrometer) also reaches values 500 V/m. In such conditions in a near-surface atmosphere of a comet, the discharges similar to the discharges in high layers of an Earth's atmosphere are possible. The estimates of parameters of dusty plasma are made. This plasma will have properties, close to properties of laboratory dusty plasma, in which formation ordered structures from charged microparticles is explored. It is shown, that there are requirements for development of processes of a self-compression of dusty plasma of a cometary atmosphere, that is an incipient state forming of ordered structures. Thus, the near-surface atmospheric layer represents unique medium, in which one alongside with existence prebiotic conditions, there are conditions for development of processes of self-organization of structures, which one afterwards can be used as a template for prebiological structures.

 

[Reality Check]

Under the conventional model there is no reason for the high density of negative ions discovered near the comet nucleus. Negative ions are difficult to produce by solar heating and are quickly destroyed by solar radiation. Nevertheless, in March 1986 when the Giotto spacecraft flew within 600km of Comet Halley, an abundance of negatively charged atoms was discovered in the inner coma—direct evidence that a comet is the cathode in an electric exchange with the Sun.

Electric Comet by Wallace Thornhill

Can you back up this claim with citations other than to a web site that has been shown to lie to its readers (see The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked)?

I suspect that you are merely parroting what this crank web site is stating rather than researching the actual science involving comets.

 

[Reality Check]

Comets Impact Cosmology
Wal Thornhill

There you go again - citing an author who is known to lie to his readers.
See The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked

 

[Siggy_G]

An astobiologgy paper (!)

So what - are you implying they don't know what they're talking about? They refer to near-surface discharge mechanisms being possible, the ones you in the dubunk posts state can't ever happen. The fact that the researchers study what those discharges can do in relation to astrobiology, doesn't make it any less in support of discharge mechanisms.

I'd say this is a good foundation for falsifying arguments about cometary near-surface discharges not being possible. Independent researchers sees the plausibility of such discharges.

 

[Reality Check]

So what - are you implying they don't know what they're talking about? They refer to near-surface discharge mechanisms being possible, the ones you in the dubunk posts state can't ever happen. The fact that the researchers study what those discharges can do in relation to astrobiology, doesn't make it any less in support of discharge mechanisms.

I'd say this is a good foundation for falsifying arguments about cometary near-surface discharges not being possible. Independent researchers sees the plausibility of such discharges.

What I am saying in The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked post is that the electrical discharges as vaguely described by EC proponents cannot happen, i.e. from the well outside the comet ("far-surface") to the surface of the comet. But that is the thing about the EC idea - it is just an idea. EC proponents have no scientific model for their invisible electrical discharges and so are free to fantasize about it.

My point is that the authors may be primarily biologists rather than physicists and so their expertise in that area is in doubt.

But they may be correct. However...
Just what does "near-surface atmosphere of a comet" mean? I am sure that you can quote their defintion of "near-surface" from the paper.
Are they talking about a meter from the surface?
Are they talking about a kilometer from the surface?

In either case, the already debunked EC idea remains a delusional idea because of the many flaws in its basic premise that comets are rocks:

• Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).
• EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets
• etc.

It is quite ignorant to assert that just because the electrical discharges may exist then they can do anything that you want to. In science you have to do the research and calculations to back up your assertions.

Siggy_G: Show us that these electrical dicharges in this paper can actually produce the effects that the already debunked EC idea says that they can.
​

The physical fact is that these electrcal discharges are not significant in comets. You have cited papers that show exactly that (the x-ray emission papers). Read The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked

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

I find it somewhat amusing how EU enthusiasts so readily ignore the very laws of physics they claim their hypothesis is built on, namely the laws of electromagnetism. It does not significantly matter where the X-ray action is, it matters what the X-ray action is. Arcing will produce flashes of emission simultaneously from gamma rays all the way down to radio waves. if there is arcing then those flashes must be observed. Those flashes are not observed. Therefore there is no arcing, there is no major discharge activity and no electric machining.

But you doubly violate the laws of electromagnetism. You casually overlook the fact that all of the X-ray emission that we do see is readily & easily explained by other processes, while being simultaneously inconsistent with arcing, or particle acceleration in a plasma sheath. We see narrow line emission at specific charge exchange energies verified by controlled laboratory experiments. Acceleration of electrons in a plasma sheath will not produce that kind of narrow line emission. We see broad band thermal X-ray emission that easily fits the known spectral energy distribution (SED) of thermal electron-neutral bremsstrahlung. Bremsstrahlung is what you get when electrons are slowed & stopped by a resisting medium and has a different SED from electrons accelerated in a plasma sheath. And finally, you expect plasma sheath X-ray emission to decrease in strength in a higher density medium because the mean free path of the accelerated electrons is collisionally reduced, which prevents acceleration to high energies. So the EU hypothesis predicts weaker X-ray emission from comets in the higher density inner solar system. But what we actually see is not consistent with this EU prediction.

So in fact all of the X-ray emission actually seen from comets in the solar system directly contradicts the necessary predictions from EU ideas.

Posted on 22nd June 2009


And the other reasons that EDM is not happening on comets:

• 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.

 

[Siggy_G]

Scientists are well aware that electrical processes happen in space. These are examples of them happening around comets.

Yes... Dancing David wondered what makes an Electric Comet shine, and I responded to that. It's mainly electrical processes, and not mere reflection of Sun light, as mentioned by some.

So what - I believe I have debunked the electric comet hypothesis
Anyone with elementary education should be able tell the difference between ~0.6 g/cc (comets) and ~3.0 g/cc (rock).

Aren't the density derived from equations that has gravity as force in relation to orbital speed, and nothing related to resistance of a medium or other counter acting processes?

Scenario 1: do the calculation take into account that the nucleus in fact ejects matter, in the form of gas/dust/plasma/jets? If it was radial and equal in all directions the forces would cancel eachother out. But the ejection of matter is happening to a larger extent on the sun facing side, hence matter ejection counter acts gravity to a slight degree as it approaches the Sun. The effect will add to gravity as it recedes the Sun. This may explain the highly eliptic orbit and will interfere a little with Kepler's law that explains the movement of dormant objects affected only by gravity.

Scenario 2: do the calcuation take bow shock into account? The fact that a fast moving and accelerating comet plunges through interstellar medium and the solar wind? This would during most of the orbit have a vector that counteracts the direction of gravity, hence slowing down the comet a little compared to a scenario where there is no medium resistance. It would appear as less gravity (F) acts on the two bodies (M*m), and since the Sun's mass (M) is known, the comet's mass (m) will appear smaller than it really is.

So, again, please show me in detail how the mass is calculated and if all factors are taken into consideration during a comet's orbit. (I don't need to see the density formula).

 

[Reality Check]

Aren't the density derived from equations that has gravity as force in relation to orbital speed, and nothing related to resistance of a medium or other counter acting processes?

If you read the post you will see that both methods are used.

1. Kepler's third law tell us the mass of the comet.
2. How the comet orbit changes also tells us the mass of the comet (F=ma).

The jets have a small effect on the comet orbits.
I believe that the major determination of the eccentricity of cometary orbits (the orbital parameter that means that EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets) is the initial perturbation that sends them into the inner system. That is why many of the orbits are hyperbolic (they come in once and never return).


You can even look at the paths of ejecta to determine the mass. Read

• Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).

from The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked

If you are interested in the details I suggest you read an astronomy book or two. There are entire books just on comets and they are backed up by science (rather than the fantasies of a crank web site).