The Electric Comet theory

[Ziggurat]

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.

We can dismiss this possibility rather easily. Comets are long-lived. As such, they must expel a miniscule fraction of their mass each orbit. The momentum transfer must therefore be vanishingly small.

The only way around that is if the ejected mass is not a miniscule fraction of the mass. But if that's the case, the orbit is the least of our problems, because the lifetime becomes prohibitive at lower loss rates. So if the mass loss rates are low enough to produce comets that live as long as we expect, then we're automatically in the clear on orbits.

Scenario 2: do the calcuation take bow shock into account?

They don't need to. Bow shock will drag the cloud of the comet, but will do basically nothing to the nucleus. The cross section to mass ratio is just way too small.

 

[Tubbythin]

We can dismiss this possibility rather easily. Comets are long-lived. As such, they must expel a miniscule fraction of their mass each orbit. The momentum transfer must therefore be vanishingly small.

Doesn't the fact that the orbits are Keplerian tell us this anyway?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

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.

There's been some discussion, and comments, on this post, but I think it's worth going over it again, in some detail.

That the level of presentation, the depth of analysis, etc is comparable may be somewhat contentious, but I think this hides a really deep difference between "EC theory" and anything that could be called space science/plasma physics/etc.

Further, I think that some proponents of EU/EC/ES ideas are very well aware of this difference, and - for whatever reasons - choose to gloss over it, divert attention from it, etc. Most such proponents, however, simply seem ignorant; some may actually be incapable of grasping that difference.

And what is it? What is this vital difference? Stay tuned!

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

And here it is: articles/news on NASA's site, in Hawking's books, etc are not all that there is!

With even a modest effort, anyone can find, and read, the vast amount of material that is behind these; the decades of solid research, hundreds of papers (published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals) that what's mentioned on NASA's site, in Hawking's books, etc is built on.

How does that compare with Thunderbolts blogs and picture-of-the-day articles?

There's no comparison whatsoever.

The core concepts - "EU theory", "Electric Comet theory", "Electric Sun/Stars", etc - have, at best, perhaps one or two "papers" to back them up. However, even these cannot be called anything more than the briefest of qualitative sketches of an idea. In terms of physics they do not even register.

Why not?

Because, as has been pointed out thousands of times in JREF Science threads on EU/EC/ES ideas, physics is quantitative, and has been since at least the time of Newton or Galileo.

And, as we have seen in dozens of threads, and (very likely) thousands of posts, no EU/EC/ES proponent has ever been able to provide even the outlines of a quantitative skeleton on which these ideas are built.

An order-of-magnitude derivation of the power output of the Sun? Nope.

A back-of-the-envelope calculation of the x-ray emission from an solar wind-comet discharge? Don't have one of those.

A value for the number of amps per square metre that the giant galactic Birkeland current delivers to the photosphere of a star of spectral class B? (silence)

An estimate of the reaction rate(s) for the production of water from OH ions and (whatever) via EDM (or whatever) at (or near) a comet's surface? Sorry, the electric theorists have never said.

And so on.

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)

And here we have about as good an illustration of the point I am trying to make as one could hope for (although note "a primary source", not "the primary source").

Can you make a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the x-ray emission from an IPM-comet discharge, from this primary source material?

No, you can't.

And you can't derive, estimate, calculate, ... anything quantitative from any of the material - primary source or not - presented by any EU/EC/ES proponent, here in JREF's Science section, period.

Don't believe me? It's very easy to prove me wrong Haig/Siggy_G/etc. Simply post a link to the post(s) which contain(s) such!

This has received reactions and discussion, which may well require further evidence and paper citing from my (or indirectly Thornhill's) side.

Let's be 100% clear here Siggy_G; there has been no physics-based material presented, so far, on the central aspects of the EU/ES/ES ideas.

It would be really nice if, one day, some EU/EC/ES proponent actually presented any such; it sure would be break from a many-year drought.

But that doesn't mean I haven't presented the basis for the hypothesis, which can be objectively scrutinized (e.g. by you guys).

Do you honestly think what you have presented, so far, can be called a quantitative basis for "the hypothesis"?

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.

I won't speak for DD, but I think that unless and until you (and Haig, and ...) are open about the complete lack of any quantitative basis for the central aspects of the EU/ES/ES ideas (so far), and are prepared to stop spamming this (and other) JREF threads with non-quantitative material, I think "stalling" is a very apt description.

 

[Ziggurat]

And you can't derive, estimate, calculate, ... anything quantitative from any of the material - primary source or not - presented by any EU/EC/ES proponent, here in JREF's Science section, period.

That's not completely true. On a few occasions, I've seen material that could be used to produce quantitative calculations. Of course, every time it happens, the numbers turn out to disprove the idea, but still, they have shown up a handful of times in the hundreds of pages of posts.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

That's not completely true. On a few occasions, I've seen material that could be used to produce quantitative calculations. Of course, every time it happens, the numbers turn out to disprove the idea, but still, they have shown up a handful of times in the hundreds of pages of posts.

I'm not sure I agree with you, in the sense that no EU/EC/ES proponent endorsed the results of such calculations (at least not here in this section of JREF), and I have a sneaky suspicion that any such material (that could be used to produce such quantitative calculations) was subsequently declared, by at least one EU/EC/ES proponent, to be invalid/incorrect/wrong/not-to-be-used-EVER!

But I'm very willing to state, unequivocally, that what I wrote (the bit you have quoted) is wrong.

But what I'd like is for Haig or Siggy_G or solrey (or any other EU/EC/ES proponent) to find - and quote - any such material. To be clear, I do not want/wish that you, Ziggurat (or RC, or TT, or TT, or DD, or ...) go find it.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not sure I agree with you, in the sense that no EU/EC/ES proponent endorsed the results of such calculations

Sure, but some numbers have been put forth by some EU folks to do the calculation. They may bury their heads in the sand about the results (and that in itself is damning), but there aren't no numbers. Just not enough to form anything like a real model, and never anything that can produce sensible results.

Your basic point, however, still stands: the EU folks almost always try to avoid anything quantitative about their own models, and their ideas cannot produce sensible quantitative predictions for even the most basic observations. They mostly treat quantitative analysis as irrelevant or even misguided.

 

[Haig]

This thread is about "Electric Comet theory" and the rules of this forum state: (my bold)

Forum Rules

Our forum is provided free of charge for people interested in discussing skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way.

However, since you guys insist on wandering off topic and "electric comets" need an "electric Sun".

This copy and paste (it's all I have time for just now) from Donald E. Scot is relevant IMHO.

Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos
Donald E. Scot

V. ROLE OF ELECTRIC CURRENTS IN THE COSMOS

“No real magnetic field can exist anywhere without an associated moving charge (electric current). Conversely, any electric current will create a magnetic field. The applicable Maxwell
equation describes this inherent interrelationship”

“Although magnetic fields are often included in astronomical hypotheses, the inherently associated electric currents are rarely mentioned. In addition, as is true in the proposed reconnection mechanism, the behavior of cosmic magnetic fields and the release of energy from those fields can only be understood by referencing the behavior of their causative electric currents.”

http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf

and this too

Summary

If the Electric Star hypothesis is even partially correct, there is no guarantee that the Sun will continue to shine for millions of years as we have been assured by the experts. What anxieties will this realization engender in a scientifically semi-literate public? But, it may be reassuring for them to know that Earth has much less to fear from a near collision with an asteroid or comet than they now think. Why have billions of tax payer dollars been used to support "accepted" solar fusion models and the Big Bang but none invested in any alternative ideas, however worthwhile they may be?

The fundamental challenges that are described in these pages contain the most potentially explosive ideas ever to have been issued in science. They constitute a cosmic reality check for the entire intellectual community. There is almost no field of academic endeavor that will not be affected in some way (or even overturned) by these ideas. Areas of science that refuse to honestly address these questions will become irrelevant.

Will it take another several hundred years (as it took Galileo) to gain official recognition of the validity of these challenges from those who presently occupy Fortress Science? Will it ever happen? I don't know. But does it have practical importance? You bet your pocketbook it does. The eventual outcome depends on the public's attitude - do you want the expensive magic show to continue - or do you want honest answers from science?

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/summary.htm

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Haig,

I think you have, once again, for whatever reason, missed a key part of that forum rule, even though you highlighted it ("Our forum is provided free of charge for people interested in discussing skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way").

How can we discuss science - in this case physics/astronomy/space science - if we (actually just you and Siggy_G, for now) completely ignore (refuse?) to even acknowledge its essential quantitative nature?

The answer is, we can't.

And what happens if you (and Siggy_G) continue to ignore this?

Well, whatever happens it certainly won't be a discussion.

Now, since you quoted Scott, let's rip it to shreds, shall we?

The applicable Maxwell equation describes this inherent interrelationship

Actually, I'll start with this: what, Haig, is "the applicable Maxwell equation" Scott is referring to?

Although magnetic fields are often included in astronomical hypotheses, the inherently associated electric currents are rarely mentioned.

And why is this Haig?

I'm quite serious about asking you this, because there are lots - possibly dozens - of posts on this, and I'm interested to learn if you a) read them, b) understood them.

it may be reassuring for them [scientifically semi-literate public] to know that Earth has much less to fear from a near collision with an asteroid or comet than they now think

How does Scott know what this public thinks?

What does Scott mean by "much less"? A factor of 10? a million? a trillion?

Why have billions of tax payer dollars been used to support "accepted" solar fusion models [...] but none invested in any alternative ideas, however worthwhile they may be?

What data - cold, hard data - did Scott use/rely upon to reach this conclusion?

Why would anyone invest in "any alternative ideas" that were not quantitative?

The fundamental challenges that are described in these pages contain the most potentially explosive ideas ever to have been issued in science.

And yet, not once (apparently) "in these pages" is there a quantitative presentation of why the Sun is a sphere, of how the proposed giant galactic Birkeland current (or any other) is consistent (quantitatively, remember) with the observed power output of the Sun, etc!

If his ideas are so "explosive" (other than for the purposes of ripping off a gullible public), why has Scott never (apparently) taken the trouble to do even a back-of-the-envelope calculation to show that they are plausible? After all, for an electrical engineer it's a calculation that would take a max of, what, an hour to do?

Will it [official recognition of the validity of these challenges from those who presently occupy Fortress Science] ever happen?

Sure it will; you, Haig, can start the process that will get it onto the front pages of your favourite newspaper within months tops, today, right now!

And of course, you are not the only potential hero, to be lionised and made immensely rich by doing the one, simple, thing; anyone - Siggy_G, Scott, Thornhill, solrey, even Sol88 - can do it!

You know what that one simple thing is Haig, so how about it?

do you want honest answers from science?

Yep, I do.

I want answers that are objective, that can be independently verified, and, above all, are quantitative.

What has Scott given us? Nothing.

 

[Dancing David]

This thread is about "Electric Comet theory" and the rules of this forum state: (my bold)

Forum Rules



However, since you guys insist on wandering off topic and "electric comets" need an "electric Sun".

This copy and paste (it's all I have time for just now) from Donald E. Scot is relevant IMHO.

Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos
Donald E. Scot
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf

and this too

Summary

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/summary.htm

You may habe missed it Haig but it was Siggy_G who started the derail.

You still haven't explained how or why EC work as well.

Unless it was you Haig who started the dereail:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6636845&postcount=915

 

[Siggy_G]

You may habe missed it Haig but it was Siggy_G who started the derail.

Oh, it was I? If so, it was partly based on video responses and generic (slightly off-topic) attacks on the Electric Universe aspects and proponents, baked into various posts by you and others, which I responded to.

 

[Siggy_G]

(...) I want answers that are objective, that can be independently verified, and, above all, are quantitative. (...)

I see your points. Objective answers, sufficient data, complete model, testability and falsibility. But what you also seem to be saying, is that you don't ever want to see neither concepts or hypothesis being put forward for processes and observations we don't fully understand, or for those which currently has vicarious explanations. You want to see the working hypothesis or final theory, after all the research is done and all the probes have been sent out to collect the neccesary data one once decidec upon. In your posts, you almost can't find words that sufficiently belittles the Electric Universe aspects or proponents enough, which is a little amusing. You also seem to believe that the current state of astrophysics and the standard model cosmology are so complete and factual, that there is almost no need to do any further research. As if we know exactly how the Sun and all stars work, how galaxies work, what gravity is - and it doesn't seem to bother you that there's a significant quantity of unknown (but labeled) forces, particles and entities that makes the foundation for explaining the universe. Howcome new observations or finding tend to surprise astrophysicists or make a foundation for new and different research? Are perhaps some physical dynamics left out of current (astro)phyiscal equations? Are perhaps some purely mathematical concepts and gravity-only driven approaches over-riding what otherwize would need a different scientific approach?

You want objective answers, but what about questions? What kind of scientific questions (a part of science remember) would you like to see being asked?

I think Wall Thornhill explains a few aspects quite well in this (part 1) video. I think it is relevant for the thread as he is a primary source for the theory and it also tangents the proposed nature behind (electric) comets.

 

[Tubbythin]

You also seem to believe that the current state of astrophysics and the standard model cosmology are so complete and factual, that there is almost no need to do any further research.

Any evidence for this bit?

 

[Dancing David]

I see your points. Objective answers, sufficient data, complete model, testability and falsibility. But what you also seem to be saying, is that you don't ever want to see neither concepts or hypothesis being put forward for processes and observations we don't fully understand, or for those which currently has vicarious explanations.

Not so Siggy_G, the problem is that the EC does not produce predictions that match the evidence, they produce predictions which are incorrect.


So again that is why I ask for theory and evidence, you seem to be a supporter of the EC, so I ask again:

What leads to the charge differential that makes EC shine?

 

[Zeuzzz]

It is well known that a spacecraft will build up a charge if they are traveling through an electrical field, as they adjust to the voltage of the surrounding ambient space plasma. Often referred to as ‘electrostatic charging’ or ‘differential charging’.

Electrostatic charging phenomena of contaminated spacecraft thermal blankets - AIAA and ASME, Joint Thermophysics and Heat Transfer Conference, 5th, Seattle, WA, June

The build-up of static charge on spacecraft will occur naturally in order to minimize the potential difference between the spacecraft surfaces and the ambient plasma environment.

So as the object is traveling through the weak E-field produced by the sun it will reach a certain equilibrium where its charge in relation to the solar wind stay constant. This value will depend on the surface conductivity of the object, if it conducts electricity well then it will adjust very quickly to the voltage of the surrounding plasma, but if it has a low surface conductivity the charge will take longer to adjust, and so will build up to a higher amount.

http://www.eas.asu.edu/~holbert/eee460/spc-chrg.html

Absolute charging occurs when the satellite potential relative to the ambient plasma is changed uniformly. Differential charging occurs when parts of the spacecraft are charged to different potential relative to one another. Absolute charging is on the order of microseconds. Differential charging typically occurs over seconds to minutes because of capacitance considerations. The absolute charging of spacecraft surfaces (relative to ambient plasma) is not generally detrimental; rather it is the possible discharge effects from differential charging (see Fig. 4) which can disrupt satellite operations. Most of the undesired effects of charging are due to the discharge arcing, and include physical materials damage and EMI generation (and resultant transient pulses). Arc-discharges occur when the electric fields created by differential charging exceed breakdown potentials. The arcs are rapid (~ nanosec) and rearrange charge distribution by punch-through (internal dielectric breakdown), and by flashover between surfaces or between surfaces and space.[….]

Typically, differential charging has occurred after geomagnetic substorms, which result in the injection of keV electrons into the magnetosphere. While in eclipse, the spacecraft may negatively charge to tens of kilovolts.

The interplanetary potential has never been measured, and so no-one really knows the charge on the sun past a few different theoretical values.

I do however find it hard to see any differential charging on comets being significant enough to account for their "glow", due to the almost negligible strength of the E-field the sun emanates.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

(...) I want answers that are objective, that can be independently verified, and, above all, are quantitative. (...)

I see your points. Objective answers, sufficient data, complete model, testability and falsibility.

Then it seems you do not.

So let me try to explain it, once more.

Objective and independently verifiable: in respect of an ES/EU/EC idea/theory/model this means (not a complete list):
* sources cited (default assumption: if no source is cited, it is the original work of the authors)
* ability to reproduce the stated outputs/conclusions/results from the stated inputs/assumptions/etc, without having to go to the authors to ask for details

Quantitative: at least order-of-magnitude estimates, values, numbers; if these are derived, then the equations/models/etc from which they are derived are provided.

So, the specific parts you did not seem to have grasped are:
-> "sufficient data": no, the data merely needs to be quantitative
-> "complete model": most definitely not! any model merely needs to be quantitative, and it can be a very simple model
-> "testability and falsibility": these are certainly nice to have, but were not part of what I consider to be the basics; if you don't have objective, quantitative, independently verifiable answers, then being testable and/or falsifiable is not worth anything.

But what you also seem to be saying, is that you don't ever want to see neither concepts or hypothesis being put forward for processes and observations we don't fully understand, or for those which currently has vicarious explanations.

If this is what you understood, by reading what I wrote, then you misunderstood; allow me, please, to explain.

The sort of qualitative, non-quantitative, speculative 'thinking-out-loud' sort of stuff you seem to be describing is important. However, it's something that we can, in a discussion here in the STTM section of JREF, move beyond within a few hours, a day or so tops (I'm referring to physics, astronomy, etc; geology, biology, economics, ... may well be different).

Further, if it's a hypothesis, then, by definition, it will be quantitative (even if only at the order-of-magnitude level).

You want to see the working hypothesis or final theory, after all the research is done and all the probes have been sent out to collect the neccesary data one once decidec upon.

I hope you can now see that that is not what I want to see at all.

In your posts, you almost can't find words that sufficiently belittles the Electric Universe aspects or proponents enough, which is a little amusing.

If that's how it comes across to you, well, I cannot deny your subjective experience.

You also seem to believe that the current state of astrophysics and the standard model cosmology are so complete and factual, that there is almost no need to do any further research.

I have no idea how you arrived at that perception.

So, let me be very clear on this:
* the current state of astrophysics and the standard model cosmology is factual.
* the current state of astrophysics and the standard model cosmology is VERY FAR FROM being complete
* there is A GREAT need to do further research

As if we know exactly how the Sun and all stars work, how galaxies work, what gravity is - and it doesn't seem to bother you that there's a significant quantity of unknown (but labeled) forces, particles and entities that makes the foundation for explaining the universe.

It certainly doesn't "bother" me; rather, there are some very good questions, some excellent hypotheses, some powerful models, ... and a lot of research that could be done to get some answers, do some testing, and provide inputs to adjust (or abandon) things.

Howcome new observations or finding tend to surprise astrophysicists or make a foundation for new and different research?

I think a more pertinent question might be something like "why do the marketing people who write the Press Releases that end up in the popular press - many of whom don't have science degrees - feel it is so important to constantly use language which leaves the impression that astrophysicists tend to be surprised by the results?"

Are perhaps some physical dynamics left out of current (astro)phyiscal equations? Are perhaps some purely mathematical concepts and gravity-only driven approaches over-riding what otherwize would need a different scientific approach?

You've got answers?

Then write down the idea, give it at least a quantitative skeleton, plug in some numbers, turn the handle, and if it looks promising, write it up and get it published.

After all, what do you think thousands of astrophysicists do, every day?

You want objective answers, but what about questions? What kind of scientific questions (a part of science remember) would you like to see being asked?

Siggy_G, this is a thread entitled "The Electric Comet Theory"

The questions, in this thread, are many, and a lot are precisely the kind of scientific questions that should be asked ... about the central concept ("The Electric Comet Theory").

Sadly, essentially no answers - of a scientific kind - have been given, to any of those questions.

Why is that?

I think Wall Thornhill explains a few aspects quite well in this (part 1) video. I think it is relevant for the thread as he is a primary source for the theory and it also tangents the proposed nature behind (electric) comets.

This question has been asked, over and over and over and over again: What "theory"?

As in, what theory-in-physics, or what theory-in-space-physics, or what theory-in-astronomy, or what theory-in-plasma-physics, or ...?

 

[Haig]

So again that is why I ask for theory and evidence, you seem to be a supporter of the EC, so I ask again:

What leads to the charge differential that makes EC shine?

Well DD this piece explains it: -

The Comet and the Future of Science

A comet discharging electrically as it approaches the Sun means simply that the Sun is the focus of electrical activity strong enough to produce the observed cometary phenomena. That includes the visible flare-up of comets while in “deep freeze” beyond the orbit of Saturn. The implication, according to Electric Universe advocates, is that sufficient electrical energy is available from the galaxy to power the Sun. A tiny charged comet occasionally taps into that solar circuit to produce a visible display.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060227comet.htm

 

[Haig]

You still haven't explained how or why EC work as well.

I've tried DD.

Here is how Kristian Birkeland explained it: -

"It is possible, however, that there are also other, just as natural, ways of looking at the matter. It might be imagined that after great heating by direct insolation, the comet is charged negatively by cathode-rays from the sun, and that the charging reaches so high a potential that the comet discharges itself electrically, so to speak in the direction of its own shadow. These discharges may also be imagined to be due to some extent to an emission of secondary rays from the cosmic dust of the comet. I have been led to this thought by experimental analogies which will be described farther on. Answering to the idea that a comet is an accumulation of carbonaceous cosmic dust almost without atmosphere, I have carried out experiments in which the cathode in a vacuum-tube consisted of a carbonaceous material. The most recent investigations of the comet-spectrum seem to indicate that the radiation from a cornet may be compared to that from a cathode in a Crookes ' tube (DESLANDRES, FOWLER)."

"It would be natural, therefore, to compare the above-mentioned layers that were favorable to the development of comet 's tails with the pencils of the strongest and magnetically stiffest corpuscle-rays which we imagine to emanate from the region surrounding the sun-spots, and which, when they sweep past our earth, produce powerful magnetic disturbances. It may be that it is these very rays, with their abundance of energy, that can charge the comet mass to a high negative tension, and thus occasion the secondary electric discharge from the comet into space.

"One circumstance that speaks strongly in favour of a hypothesis such as this, is the greater development thought to have been found in years of sun-spot maxima than in years of sun-spot minima. This has been demonstrated, for instance, in Encke 's comet, by BERBERICH and BOSLER, the latter having given an exceedingly interesting graphic representation of this condition, which is reproduced here. The agreement, as will be seen, is so striking that it seems to leave little room for doubt that we here have phenomena that must be intimately connected with one another."

http://www.plasma-universe.com/Comets:_Kristian_Birkeland's_theory

Unless it was you Haig who started the dereail:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6636845&postcount=915

You have a point but you can't have electric comets without an electric Sun.

 

[Reality Check]

I think Wall Thornhill explains a few aspects quite well in this (part 1) video. I think it is relevant for the thread as he is a primary source for the theory and it also tangents the proposed nature behind (electric) comets.

The first problem with the EC idea is it is idiotically easy to debunk - see 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).
There are a few people in this trhead who suffer from the same inability to undestand the simple maths that the nmber 0.6 is different from the number 3.0. It looks like we will have to add Wall Thornhill to the list !

The big problem with citing Wall Thornhill as a source for anything is that he has been lying about the EC predictions for many years (or ignorant or delusional or maybe just a scam artist interested in selling his book):

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.
​

He continues to lie about Deep Impact, see Deep Impact 2 - More Surprises in Store and his continued lie about predicting the initial flash:

ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Lying about flashes
​

 

[Reality Check]

You have a point but you can't have electric comets without an electric Sun.

We know that the electric comet idea is idiotic (The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked).
So does your logic go both ways Haig? Does stupidity of the EC idea mean that the electric sun idea is equally stupid?

I would say not. The evidence that the electric sun idea is wrong is separate and covered in other threads. Please take the derail into those threads.

 

[tusenfem]

I've tried DD.

Here is how Kristian Birkeland explained it: -

http://www.plasma-universe.com/Comets:_Kristian_Birkeland's_theory

You have a point but you can't have electric comets without an electric Sun.

Well, a lot has changed since Birkeland made his experiments.
He is still talking about cathode rays, though later he has stated that the "solar wind" would consist of equal amounts of positive and negative charge.
Why would only the negatively charged cathode rays interact with the comet? Could this conclusion be drawn because of the experimental setup that Birkeland used?
His idea that sun spots send out "stiffest corpusculair rays" which create large magnetic disturbances at the Earth is clairly wrong.

Birkeland was a great scientist, but his stuff is over 100 years old.