The Electric Comet theory

[Haig]

Considering you haven't addressed the paradoxes and contradictions of the EC theory why don't you explain them first.

Sure I have DD it's just that you don't agree with my answers that I keep repeating, let me try again:

From my understanding of EU/PC theory on comets. It's not just the eccentric orbit but also the existing charge and the conditions in the current (excuse the pun) local solar environment of the comet. That is: the changing solar wind of our variable Sun affects the reaction of the comet rushing in to a close approach to determine that size and brightness of both the corona and the tail.

It's this variability that makes the predictability of comets so difficult and interesting IMO.

Like the four main belt comets, why do none of teh other asteroids in teh main belt show comas?
Why don't Appolo objects show comas?

Like I say above, it's not just the eccentric orbit but the existing charge of any asteroids and/or the Appolo objects have, along with the conditions of the solar plasma, that determine if cometary traits are displayed.

Haig, you mean the posts where you said I don't know?

No DD

That is really weak Haig, you did not address my questions about the four main belt objects and the Appolo objects, you basically refuted teh Electric Comet theory when you responded to my questions, it is NOT placement in the solar system, it is not differences in orbit. Thanks for playing.

Well DD you didn't answer my point about why one of the smallest comets being one of the most active now did you?

Lets see Haig, do yo mean this one that basically says the the Apollo bodies should show comas, or that if fourmain belt objects show comas they should all show comas?

No DD that's what you say not what EU/PC theory on comets say

Why do you avoid the fact that I am presenting evidence that directly contradicts Thornhills theory?

I haven't DD, scroll back and see but when you ignore my answers and keep saying the same things over and over again, I get bored. I really don't have a lot of free time for this so why should I bother going round in circles?

By his theory the Apollo objects should show comas, yet they dont.

How many times are you going to repeat this?

His words that you quoted

Yes DD read again: (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."

It's the charge DD that you fail to recognise as an important factor. All the planets are charged bodies and have Langmuir plasma sheaths around them with double layers controlling the charge exchange with the solar plasma, just as the Sun has with the Galactic plasma which mainstream call the Heliosphere.

Comets environment are changing so rapidly that the electrical forces of the Langmuir plasma sheaths around them with double layers controlling the charge exchange with the solar plasma become visible in "glow mode" rather that the "dark mode" Hence, we see comas and tails forming for a time until "dark mode" balance resumes.

So the Apollo objects are exactly the kind of objects that should show comas, yet they don't. If they spend more time at distance farther than say halley comet and come closer to teh sun, and many of them do, then they should show comas, as should other less elliptical orbits asteroids.

It's also the charge and the solar conditions DD have I said this before?

Hi Haig, you still have not responded to this post.

I have DD many times

YOU have not addressed the questions.

YOU have not acknowledged my answers, I don't expect you to agree with them DD just recognise that it's the EU/PC theory of comets and it explains the anomalous behaviour of comets and some asteroids, that is such a puzzle to the mainstream dirty snowball theory that has to be continuously changed.

Sungrazers
Apr 22, 2009

Sungrazers tend to reaffirm the Electric Universe opinion about comets. If comets are the remains of electrical events that took place early in the life of the Solar System, then their "anomalous" behavior can be easily explained. Since there is a radial electric field from the Sun permeating the Solar System, as comets come closer to its greater charge density they experience a breakdown in their electrical equilibrium and begin to glow. The charged material, or plasma sheath, surrounding the cometary nucleus is accelerated out and away, sometimes forming a tail millions of kilometers long.

The increased electric charge that comets accumulate as they near the Sun is demonstrated by sungrazers. Since the Sun's e-field is a dynamic structure, it changes in strength and size depending on the electric currents flowing into it from the galaxy. It is in a state of constant flux, requiring only a small trigger for it to discharge violently. Such discharges are known as solar flares or coronal mass ejections (CME).

Comet NEAT swung close by the Sun in 2003, apparently initiating a CME eruption that appeared to impact the comet. Astronomers at the time discounted any relationship between the two events because of the size differential between the comet and the Sun. However, several other sungrazers have been associated with violent flares. One event can be a coincidence, two can be long odds, but three or more can not be dismissed as mere oddities.

When comet 96P/Machholz circled the Sun, it came so close that if it were composed of ice with a small percentage of rock and dust it would have certainly disintegrated. It did not rapidly dissipate, however. Instead, its intense charge differential caused a gigantic CME to discharge from the Sun, blasting out for millions of kilometers.

The electrical connection between comets and the Sun seems certain. If that is the case, then the electrical connection between the Sun and its entire family of planets and moons is certain. Changes in solar input and output can affect the environments of every member in that family: weather, orbits, magnetic fields, and surface features. Climate change, for example, rather than being an anthropic phenomenon, is doubtless an aspect of the electrical connection between Earth, the Sun, and the galaxy.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090422sungrazers.htm

 

[Reality Check]

Like I say above, it's not just the eccentric orbit but the existing charge of any asteroids and/or the Appolo objects have, along with the conditions of the solar plasma, that determine if cometary traits are displayed.

Haig:

• Can you cite the papers that show that asteroids have an "existing charge", e.g. actual measurements? How big is this charge?
• How do asteroids get their "existing charge"?
• Why are these "existing charges" not turn all asteroids in comet-like orbits into comets?

The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked

 

[Reality Check]

Sungrazers
Apr 22, 2009

Quoting a bunch of liars again Haig?
The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.
And Anoher lie from Thornhill on the Thunderbolts web site (about Saturn's poles)

Try reading and understanding what you post, Haig.
What you have is a ignorant person making unsupported assertions.

No one expects comets to have high albedo like snowfields ! They are expected and observed to be covered in organic (dark) material.

The idioicy of asserting that sungrazer comets are linked to CME without an actual analysis of the data is obvious. CME happen all the time. Comets get close to the Sun all of the time. Some comets will be close to the Sun when a CME happens.

Where is the actual calculation from the author that comet 96P/Machholz should have disintegrated?
Where is are the citations to papers that shows that comet 96P/Machholz should have disintegrated?

I think that even you Haig can see that this is a typical dumb page from Thunderbolts.
And a final but unrelated question: Just who is Stephen Smith and why do you trust him so much?
He may be the same Steve Smith who is "just" an editor of the web site. That would explain the ingnorance and incompetence on the web page.

 

[nvidiot]

I too would like to know how you have determined that there are differences in charge between asteroids and comets which are the primary reason for their different behaviour even though they can and do occupy similar orbits around the sun. Somehow I doubt there is any such evidence forthcoming.

I've been following these electric universe/plasma cosmology/solid sun threads since I first found the JREF. In fact, it was trying to find out more about the ridiculous Solid Sun foolishness after reading Michael Ashleys review evisceration of Ian Plimers denialist manifesto "Heaven and Earth". This pointed me towards the phrase "The sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass" which then found Mr Mozina's name emblazoned in shame, which then pointed me to the JREF thread on that particular bunch of utter nonsense. The rest is history, and the JREF accumulated another Aussie cynic skeptic.

But look, Haig, just in case you haven't noticed, I'm going to be blunt with you here:

You need something unambiguous. You need an OBSERVATION of either the Sun or the comets or the asteroids which simultaneously shows that electrical forces are not just present, but responsible for their behaviours, AND shows that the existing theories are incorrect. Until you or Thunderbolts or any other scientist for that matter can show such data, (and it's replicable by others) the EU/PC "theories" about how the sun, the objects orbiting it, and the universe in general MUST be treated as the nonscientific mind fart that it is.

Now to be totally and utterly explicit here, DO NOT make the mistake of assuming that simply looking at a picture of a coma, or a pretty ribbon of solar ejecta, or a funny shape in a difference image, and then saying: "Look! Doesn't that look kinda-sorta-if-you-squint-and-hold-it-at-a-funny-angle look like a lighting bolt from the Flash comics!" OBSERVATION in this sense is a scientific proceedure which requires precision, replication, and basic scientific accountability. So far none of the posts made by you or any of the other EU/PC promoters has shown anything close to something like that.

So if you've got such data, or you know who does, and you can produce it, by all means do so. Every scientist and non-scientist on the planet would be totally stunned if you or other EU/PC promoters did this. But the other thing they would be is fascinated, and would immediately, post haste, straight away, start replicating these (non existent) findings and developing new ways to explain the universe utilising them.

But if you can't produce such a piece of incontravertable and paradigm shifting evidence, or if you don't know of anyone who has ever done so, (hint, no one here thinks you have done this so far) then it falls to you to follow the second part of the great scientific challenge of the ages: Put up, or shut up.

To the rest of the members and lurkers in this thread: Sry for the ramble, I'm very, very exhausted at 5.40 in the morning and frankly just had enough of seeing these dodges and obfuscations. Hope I haven't broken any rules.

 

[Vermonter]

I'm in the same boat as nvidiot. I've been following this since it appeared on BAUT (former BABB) and it hasn't gained any ground since then. Hence my rant the other day.

 

[Haig]

Haig:

• Can you cite the papers that show that asteroids have an "existing charge", e.g. actual measurements? How big is this charge?
• How do asteroids get their "existing charge"?
• Why are these "existing charges" not turn all asteroids in comet-like orbits into comets?

• RC: as I said in my reply to DD "From my understanding of EU/PC theory on comets" it follows that charged bodies like comets and asteroids, planets, the Sun: that show Comas/Magnetospheres/Heliopause, are reacting because they are immersed in an electrically dynamic environment and experience electrical interactions with one another so that a Langmuir plasma sheaths forms around them with double layers controlling the charge exchange with the plasma they are immersed in.
  
  Can I cite papers that asteroids have a charge? Nope, it's speculation.
  
  Just like the mainstream speculation that suggests the cause of this asteroid displaying vigorous cometary behaviour was due to a reactivation and sublimation of a freshly-exposed reservoir of volatile material.
  
  Physical Properties of Main-Belt Comet P/2005 U1 (Read)
  

  P/2005 U1 (Read), which showed vigorous cometary activity from 2005 October 24 to 2005 December 27

  
  
  So then I say:
  
  Comets ....Asteroids .... what's the difference? ..... electric charge maybe?
  
  The return of activity in main-belt comet 133P/Elst-Pizarro

  abstract
  Comet 133P/Elst-Pizarro is the first known and currently best-characterized member of the main-belt comets, a recently identified class of objects that exhibit cometary activity but which are dynamically indistinguishable from main-belt asteroids

  Finally, while 133P's trail appears shorter and weaker in 2007 than in 2002, other measures of activity strength such as dust velocity and coma contamination of nucleus photometry are found to remain approximately constant. We attribute changes in trail strength to the timing of observations and projection effects, thus finding no evidence of any substantial decrease in the activity strength between 2002 and 2007.

  
  A recent disruption of the main-belt asteroid P/2010 A2
  

  Here we report observations of P/2010 A2, a previously unknown inner-belt asteroid with a peculiar, comet-like morphology.

  Editor's summary When is a comet not a comet?
  When the peculiar object P/2010 A2 was discovered in January 2010, complete with a tail, it was designated as a comet. But its 'headless' appearance and its orbit in the inner reaches of the main asteroid belt were most un-comet-like, prompting suggestions that it was an asteroid with a tail. Two papers in this issue confirm the status of P/2010 A2 as an asteroid, rather than as a member of the recently recognized class of main-belt comets. Snodgrass et al. observed P/2010 A2 in March using the Rosetta spacecraft, which was approaching the asteroid belt for its 10 July flyby of the asteroid Lutetia. They conclude that the object's tail is made up of debris from an asteroid collision — and computer modelling identifies the event in question as a collision that occurred in February 2009. Jewitt et al. took high-resolution images of P/2010 A2 with the Hubble Space Telescope between January and May 2010, and estimate a 120-metre diameter for the object's 'nucleus', with millimetre-sized dust particles forming the tail. They too trace the collision back to early 2009.

  
  
  

  I too would like to know how you have determined that there are differences in charge between asteroids and comets which are the primary reason for their different behaviour even though they can and do occupy similar orbits around the sun. Somehow I doubt there is any such evidence forthcoming.

  See my reply to RC above. I'll post what I can as I go through this.
  

  But look, Haig, just in case you haven't noticed, I'm going to be blunt with you here:

  I've noticed
  

  You need something unambiguous. You need an OBSERVATION of either the Sun or the comets or the asteroids which simultaneously shows that electrical forces are not just present, but responsible for their behaviours,

  This fits the bill for me:
  
  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."

  AND shows that the existing theories are incorrect.

  Well, for me, this melted the mainstream theory of a dirty snowball from the Oort Cloud or the recent ad hoc "main belt comets" from the asteroid belt
  

  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:
  1. The Sun has an electric field and interacts electrically with comets and planets, including the Earth;
  2. The Earth, like all of the planets, is a charged body;
  3. 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;
  4. 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;
  5. All evidence for the electric comet is therefore evidence for the electric Sun and for the electrical nature of stars.
  The startling bottom-line is that comet scientists cannot give us any reliable story of comet formation. And the glaring contradictions are barely acknowledged, if at all. The "mysteries" of the Stardust mission -- which are not mysterious under an electrical model of comets -- are not even mentioned in the Space.com report. Obviously, the question of comets' origins is profoundly affected by the discovery of abundant minerals that only form under super-hot temperatures.
  The Electric Universe puts forth a very different hypothesis on the origins of both comets and asteroids. In an epoch of planetary instability in our solar system, many planets and moons, moving through the electric field of the Sun and immersed in an electrically dynamic environment, experienced electrical interactions with one another. Electric arcs shattered small moons and raked across planetary surfaces, producing the most dramatic scarring features we see on planetary bodies. These electrical scars include Valles Marineris, the stupendous chasm that stretches more than 3000 miles across the Martian surface. In this view the comets and asteroids we observe are leftovers from these violent electric discharge events. And the composition of comets is from the same material that planets and moons were formed.
  Many other "mysterious" comet discoveries and observations of comet behavior are best explained as electrical phenomena. These include:
  * Unexpectedly high temperatures and X-ray emissions from cometary comas (something never anticipated by mainstream theorists);
  * The sharply carved relief of comets -- the exact opposite of what astronomers expected under the dirty snowball model;
  * The unexplained ability of a relatively minuscule comet nucleus to hold in place a highly spherical coma, up to millions of miles in diameter, against the force of the solar wind (a phenomenon graphically displayed by Comet Holmes 17P);
  * Ejection of larger particles and "gravel" that was never anticipated under the idea that comets accreted from primordial clouds of ice, gas, and dust;
  * A short supply or complete absence of water and other volatiles on comets' nuclei;
  * The predicted occurrence of an advance flash prior to the impact of a projectile into the nucleus of Comet Tempel 1 (Deep Impact). Recently, the journal Icarus published a report confirming that the advance flash did indeed occur, "upstream" (and slightly off-course) of the projectile -- exactly as one might expect of an electric discharge just prior to impact.

  Until you or Thunderbolts or any other scientist for that matter can show such data, (and it's replicable by others) the EU/PC "theories" about how the sun, the objects orbiting it, and the universe in general MUST be treated as the nonscientific mind fart that it is.

  Just sticking to the topic
  
  In 1957 Alfven thought comets were electric:
  
  On the Theory of Comet Tails H. ALFVÉN
  

  Abstract
  According to Biermann's theory the repulsive force in comet tails is due to a corpuscular radiation from the sun. It is shown that some of the difficulties of this theory can be overcome if the assumed radiation consists of beams with a frozen-in magnetic field of the same type as required in the electric field theory of magnetic storms and aurorae.
  
  The interaction between such a beam and the head of the comet produces an amplified magnetic field which determines the shape of the tail. The high accelerations, which have been observed in the tails may be due to electromagnetic forces.

  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1957.tb01855.x/abstract
  

  Now to be totally and utterly explicit here, DO NOT make the mistake of assuming that simply looking at a picture of a coma, or a pretty ribbon of solar ejecta, or a funny shape in a difference image, and then saying: "Look! Doesn't that look kinda-sorta-if-you-squint-and-hold-it-at-a-funny-angle look like a lighting bolt from the Flash comics!" OBSERVATION in this sense is a scientific proceedure which requires precision, replication, and basic scientific accountability.

  Birkeland in 1913 thought comets were electric:
  
  Comets: Kristian Birkeland's theory
  

  "Another circumstance favorable to the assumption of the existence of such negative discharges from comets, is that of the various envelopes separated by dark interspaces so often observed in the heads of comets. Fig. 234 shows the head of Donati 's comet (1858). For several weeks the coma exhibited in iinrivalleri nerfertion the develonment and structure of concentric envelopes. It is easy to produce, round a globe as cathode in a large vacuum-tube, several concentric luminous envelopes separated by dark spaces. These different envelopes are more distinctly seen when the globe used as cathode is magnetised. In this case the originally spherical envelopes will be flattened so as to form a ring in the magnetic equator. Fig. 235 gives a representation of such an experiment. Such envelopes, as we know, contract or expand according as the gas-pressure in the vacuum-tube becomes greater or less. The very singular phenomenon of the contraction of the comet's head with the approach of the comet towards the sun can be reasonably explained by this view. Instead of expanding, as one would naturally expect it to do under the action of solar heat, the comet's head contracts when near the sun, just because the gas pressure about the comet becomes higher there, and the electrically-formed luminous envelopes therefore contract.
  "On some occasions comets have been furnished with several tails in a manner that is not quite easy to explain by the assumption that an emanation of tail-material from the comet could directly give rise to all the tails."

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

  So far none of the posts made by you or any of the other EU/PC promoters has shown anything close to something like that.

  I have to disagree
  

  So if you've got such data, or you know who does, and you can produce it, by all means do so. Every scientist and non-scientist on the planet would be totally stunned if you or other EU/PC promoters did this. But the other thing they would be is fascinated, and would immediately, post haste, straight away, start replicating these (non existent) findings and developing new ways to explain the universe utilising them.

  I suspect that what ever data, any EU/PC exponent, produced on electric comets, it STILL wouldn't be good enough
  

  But if you can't produce such a piece of incontravertable and paradigm shifting evidence, or if you don't know of anyone who has ever done so, (hint, no one here thinks you have done this so far) then it falls to you to follow the second part of the great scientific challenge of the ages: Put up, or shut up.

  It's all around if you care to take the blinkers off IMO.
  
  Comet samples are surprisingly asteroid-like
  

  NASA's Stardust mission swung by comet Wild 2 in 2004 to capture particles shed by the 5-kilometre object and returned them to Earth in 2006. Since then, scientists have been carefully analysing the microscopic fragments it collected.
  
  Early on, scientists found surprising evidence that Wild 2 contained some material from the inner solar system that had been heated to more than 1000° C due to its proximity to the Sun.
  
  Now, scientists have been surprised again as further study suggests Wild 2 is made mostly of material from the inner solar system, and that the object has a composition more like that of an asteroid than what was expected of a comet.

  
  Comet—Asteroid Link Confirmed
  

  “The remarkable properties of comets are not even remotely explicable by any of the numerous ad hoc assumptions of ‘modern’ comet theory.”
  — R A Lyttleton, FRS, Journey to the Centre of Uncertainty, Speculations in Science & Technology.

  
  Comet Tempel 1's Electrifying Impact
  

  In stark contrast to NASA scientists, who seem to be perpetually surprised, the adherents of an electrical model of comets have seen many of the quite specific predictions satisfied. How many surprises and disconfirmations of cherished beliefs about comets will it require before a fundamental rethink occurs, instead of mere revision of old ideas? Science works best when there is a plurality of ideas. The present establishment monoculture of ideas is crippling scientific progress.
  
  Wal Thornhill

  
  

  To the rest of the members and lurkers in this thread: Sry for the ramble, I'm very, very exhausted at 5.40 in the morning and frankly just had enough of seeing these dodges and obfuscations. Hope I haven't broken any rules.

  (my bold) Speak your mind, why don't you What I’ve posted here is my sincere and genuine view of the Electric Comet theory and while I’m only a layman I'm continually surprised by the ad homs flung at anyone suggesting EU/PC ideas.
  Why do that? Intimidation perhaps?

 

[Dancing David]

Sure I have DD it's just that you don't agree with my answers that I keep repeating, let me try again:

From my understanding of EU/PC theory on comets. It's not just the eccentric orbit but also the existing charge and the conditions in the current (excuse the pun) local solar environment of the comet. That is: the changing solar wind of our variable Sun affects the reaction of the comet rushing in to a close approach to determine that size and brightness of both the corona and the tail.

Except for in the case of the four main belt comets and the Apollo objects (to a lesser extent) , they travel through exactly the same conditions and same spaces as the comets with comas.

Why do you ignore that?

Why do you ignore the fact that Temple and Halley’s and other comets show coma all the time when they come into the inner system.

Under what you just said that would not be true. Short period comets would have times that they do not have comas at all, when did that happen with Halley's

Repeating the same errors does not make you correct.

It's this variability that makes the predictability of comets so difficult and interesting IMO.
Like I say above, it's not just the eccentric orbit but the existing charge of any asteroids and/or the Apollo objects have, along with the conditions of the solar plasma, that determine if cometary traits are displayed.

But under your theory they get that charge from where they orbit in the solar system, have you now added a hidden variable. They acquire the charge from where they are in the solar system, or not?

So similar bodies in the same areas acquire the same charges, yes or no?

No DD
Well DD you didn't answer my point about why one of the smallest comets being one of the most active now did you?

If it ejects more volatiles then it will have a larger coma.

No DD that's what you say not what EU/PC theory on comets say
I haven't DD, scroll back and see but when you ignore my answers and keep saying the same things over and over again, I get bored.

So the evidence that there is no way that the four main belt comets could have a way of getting that charge that the asteroids in the same area is what? Ignored by you? You are not bored, you are just not addressing it.

I really don't have a lot of free time for this so why should I bother going round in circles?
How many times are you going to repeat this?

Until you face the fact that the theory contradicts the observed evidence.

Yes DD read again: (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.

And there are asteroids that spend exactly as much time in the same places as the comets, some even more so. But they still don't show comas, why is that?

Asteroids that are deeper in the areas of the solar system for longer, yet no comas.

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."

Which is exactly what would happen to Apollo objects as well, yet they don't. Why not?

It's the charge DD that you fail to recognise as an important factor. All the planets are charged bodies and have Langmuir plasma sheaths around them with double layers controlling the charge exchange with the solar plasma, just as the Sun has with the Galactic plasma which mainstream call the Heliosphere.

And you have yet to address the fact that there are bodies that are supposedly just the same under EC theory, the same composition, and go through the exact same process, yet they don't show comas.

Why would it not be easier to admit that there would be a compositional spectrum, some bodies mainly volatile, some mainly rocky, those that are made of frozen gasses show comas, those that are mainly rocky don't.

Because under the EC you keep presenting they are all rocky bodies but there is a mystery as to why some show comas and some don't.

Comets environment are changing so rapidly that the electrical forces of the Langmuir plasma sheaths around them with double layers controlling the charge exchange with the solar plasma become visible in "glow mode" rather that the "dark mode" Hence, we see comas and tails forming for a time until "dark mode" balance resumes.

Except for the fact that those are just magic words that you wave around, that you got from blog posts.

Why don't the Apollo objects show the exact same thing.

Why only four main belt bodies?

You do know that one person in this thread who studies plasma physics for real said that this was bogus?

It's also the charge and the solar conditions DD have I said this before?

And the fact that there are other bodies that are in the same places that do not do this despite exactly the same conditions say that your eye roll is silly.

Answer the question.

Why only those particular bodies?

there are plenty of others that should show the exact same phenomena.


So it is not where they are in the solar system, it is not their movement through the solar system, it is not the solar wind or flare events.

So what is this mysterious hidden variable Haig?
[q/quote]

I have DD many times
YOU have not acknowledged my answers, I don't expect you to agree with them DD just recognise that it's the EU/PC theory of comets and it explains the anomalous behaviour of comets and some asteroids, that is such a puzzle to the mainstream dirty snowball theory that has to be continuously changed.
[/quote]
Um, so you think that frozen CO₂ doesn't exist?

Funny, that you can buy even.

Sungrazers
Apr 22, 2009

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090422sungrazers.htm

More citations of blog posts lacking real evidence?

Sure Haig, just answer the simple question:
If it is not orbits, places that the bodies traverse, if it is not the solar activity (because there are asteroids in the exact same conditions remember), then what is this mysterious hidden variable?

So far we can eliminate the three variables that you say are the key to EC, so what is it?

Maybe that some bodies are composed mainly of frozen gasses and that some are not? And that some fall in between?

 

[Dancing David]

RC: as I said in my reply to DD "From my understanding of EU/PC theory on comets" it follows that charged bodies like comets and asteroids, planets, the Sun: that show Comas/Magnetospheres/Heliopause, are reacting because they are immersed in an electrically dynamic environment and experience electrical interactions with one another so that a Langmuir plasma sheaths forms around them with double layers controlling the charge exchange with the plasma they are immersed in.

And that is silly because there are other bodies supposedly the same , that go through exactly teh same places, that do not show comas, so we eleimante teh three variable of EC, orbits, placement and solaer weather and now there is a hidden varable.

Can I cite papers that asteroids have a charge? Nope, it's speculation.

Just like the mainstream speculation that suggests the cause of this asteroid displaying vigorous cometary behaviour was due to a reactivation and sublimation of a freshly-exposed reservoir of volatile material.

Or that there are bodies of mixed compsitions?

Unless that reference the fifth one which was really a collision event.

Physical Properties of Main-Belt Comet P/2005 U1 (Read)

So then I say:

Comets ....Asteroids .... what's the difference? ..... electric charge maybe?

The return of activity in main-belt comet 133P/Elst-Pizarro


A recent disruption of the main-belt asteroid P/2010 A2




See my reply to RC above. I'll post what I can as I go through this.
I've noticed
This fits the bill for me:

The Electrical Nature of Comets
Well, for me, this melted the mainstream theory of a dirty snowball from the Oort Cloud or the recent ad hoc "main belt comets" from the asteroid belt

Just sticking to the topic

In 1957 Alfven thought comets were electric:

On the Theory of Comet Tails H. ALFVÉN

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1957.tb01855.x/abstract
Birkeland in 1913 thought comets were electric:

Comets: Kristian Birkeland's theory

http://www.plasma-universe.com/Comets:_Kristian_Birkeland's_theory
I have to disagree
I suspect that what ever data, any EU/PC exponent, produced on electric comets, it STILL wouldn't be good enough
It's all around if you care to take the blinkers off IMO.

Comet samples are surprisingly asteroid-like


Comet—Asteroid Link Confirmed


Comet Tempel 1's Electrifying Impact


(my bold) Speak your mind, why don't you What I’ve posted here is my sincere and genuine view of the Electric Comet theory and while I’m only a layman I'm continually surprised by the ad homs flung at anyone suggesting EU/PC ideas.
Why do that? Intimidation perhaps?[/QUOTE]

I have not flung ad homs at you haig, what are you whining about?

 

[nvidiot]

He's confusing ad hom with insults I think, in ref to my post.

 

[Reality Check]

RC: as I said in my reply to DD "From my understanding of EU/PC theory on comets" it follows that charged bodies like comets and asteroids, planets, the Sun: that show Comas/Magnetospheres/Heliopause, are reacting because they are immersed in an electrically dynamic environment and experience electrical interactions with one another so that a Langmuir plasma sheaths forms around them with double layers controlling the charge exchange with the plasma they are immersed in.

So what?
That does not answer the question:
The EC idea predicts that 528,157 asteroids should be comets from
The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked

Can I cite papers that asteroids have a charge? Nope, it's speculation.

Thanks for confirming that it is speculation, not science.

Just like the mainstream speculation that suggests the cause of this asteroid displaying vigorous cometary behaviour was due to a reactivation and sublimation of a freshly-exposed reservoir of volatile material.

That is quite ignorant of you Haig. The mainstream science is

• Comets are observed to made of dust and ice.
• Comets are in orbits. When they are far from the Sun the physical conditions are such that sublimation of ices cannot happen. When they are closer to the Sun, the conditions are such that sublimation can happen.

Physical Properties of Main-Belt Comet P/2005 U1 (Read)
So then I say:

Comets ....Asteroids .... what's the difference? ..... electric charge maybe?

So then I say that you remain ignorant.
Comets ....Asteroids .... what's the difference? ..... a lot :

The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked ​

The return of activity in main-belt comet 133P/Elst-Pizarro

A recent disruption of the main-belt asteroid P/2010 A2

The existence of main belt comets is confirmation that The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked. Thanks for the links.

In 1957 Alfven thought comets were electric:

On the Theory of Comet Tails H. ALFVÉN

And he was wrong: read The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked.

Birkeland in 1913 thought comets were electric:

Comets: Kristian Birkeland's theory
and he was wrong: read The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked.
(Birkeland also thought that Saturn's rings and galaxies were electric !)

Comet samples are surprisingly asteroid-like

And not:totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked.

• Cometary dust as collected by the Stardust mission contain forms of carbon that are not in meteorites.
  Physical composition of asteroids
• Physical composition of comet nuclei

Comet—Asteroid Link Confirmed

Now we have the idiocy of Thornhill, etc. being unable to tell that the number 0.6 (the density of comets) is less than the number 3.0 (the density of asteroids) !

Comet Tempel 1's Electrifying Impact

When are you going to quit citing this liar, Haig?

• The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.
• Anoher lie from Thornhill on the Thunderbolts web site (about Saturn's poles)

What I’ve posted here is my sincere and genuine view of the Electric Comet theory and while I’m only a layman I'm continually surprised by the ad homs flung at anyone suggesting EU/PC ideas.
Why do that? Intimidation perhaps?

No intimidation is meant. We are just pointing out that the people that you are citing are liars and ignorant. We are just pointing out that it is totally obvious that the EC idea is invalid. A primary school student can see that - just ask them if 3.0 is that same as 0.6!



The fact that you are "only a layman" did get you some leeway when you started to post here. That leeway is now over because you are constantly

• demonstrating that you seem to be unable to learn some basic science, e.g.
  Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).
• displaying an inability to back up the EC idea except with web sites and authors who lie to their readers (see above).
• cannot explain the fatal flaws in the EC idea and still believe it.
• do not seem to want to learn about the actual science of comets.

The obsession with citing the Thunderbolts web site (and the even worse holoscience site) is causing the most damage to your image. It is that which really makes me label you as obsessive and even deluded. I could be wrong - all you have to do is show that you are capable of some skeptical analysis of these people who are lying to you.


A reminder - it is not an ad hom to call someone obsessive or delusional if they show signs of being obsessed or deluded.

• Obsession is continuing to cite a lying web site.
• Delusion is not being able to tell the difference between 0.6 and 3.0.
• Delusion is not being able to explain that EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets and continuing to believe in the EC idea.

 

[Haig]

Comet X-rays (My bold)

The EU/PC explanation for it

Why point an x-ray telescope at Comet Hyakutake? Nothing in accepted theory would lead an astronomer to expect a comet to shine in x-rays. A comet is believed to be a dirty snowball slowly wasting away in the heat of the Sun. But this ROSAT image from March 27, 1996 reveals a comet radiating x-rays as intense as those from the x- ray stars that are ROSAT's usual target.

The x-rays flickered over a matter of hours like a failing fluorescent lamp. The Electric Universe contends that this is more than a simile: A comet is a light-producing load in the circuit of an electrically powered Sun.

The Sun's radial electric field is weak but constant with distance in interplanetary space. In a constant radial electric field, the voltage decreases linearly with distance. A comet on an elongated orbit spends most of its time far from the Sun and acquires a charge in balance with the voltage at that distance. But when a comet speeds inward for a quick spin around the Sun, the voltage of the comet becomes increasingly out of balance with that nearer the Sun.

Most of the voltage difference between the comet and the solar plasma is taken up in a double layer of charge, called a plasma sheath, that surrounds the comet. When the electrical stress is great enough, the sheath glows and appears as the typical comet coma and tail. Diffuse electrical discharges occur in the sheath and at the nucleus, radiating a variety of frequencies, including x-rays. The highest voltage differences occur at the comet nucleus and across the plasma sheath. So where the sheath is most compressed, in the sunward direction, the electric field is strong enough to accelerate charged particles to x-ray energies. That explains the crescent-shaped x-ray image in relation to the comet nucleus and the Sun. Flickering and occasional flare-ups are expected because plasma discharges behave in a non-linear manner.

and the mainstream explanation

Hot X-rays from a Cold Comet (my bold)

In 1996, Hyakutake dazzled observers across the globe as it passed less than 16 million km from Earth. Sunlight reflecting from its 500-million kilometer tail made it one of the brightest comets of the 20th century. No one expected Hyakutake to be a powerful x-ray source, but theorists at the time speculated that dusty gas surrounding the rapidly vaporizing core might scatter a small number of high-energy photons from the Sun, producing a faint x-ray halo.
Astronomers using ROSAT decided to look at Hyakutake and they were shocked by what they saw. ROSAT images revealed a crescent-shaped region of x-ray emission around the comet 1000 times more intense than anyone had predicted!

That problem -- the enigma of intense x-rays from comets -- would persist for four more years. During the interim, the ROSAT, EUVE and BeppoSAX satellites detected x-rays and extreme ultraviolet radiation from more than half-a-dozen comets including Comet Hale-Bopp. But it was not until last month when Chandra observed Comet LINEAR that the answer finally emerged.

When ions from the Sun blow past a comet, their strong positive charge attracts negatively-charged electrons from cometary atoms and molecules. In effect, the ions try to neutralize their own unbalanced charge by stealing electrons from the comet. Electrons that leap from neutral atoms to the passing solar wind ions emit x-rays as they cascade from high-energy to low-energy ionic orbits. This process, called a "charge exchange reaction," was first proposed in 1997 as a possible reason for cometary x-rays

Seems like Electric Comets to me

 

[Zeuzzz]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Seems to be yet another of the plethora of observations that seem to fly in the face of conventional astronomical theories. Weird that; how even theories thought well established might turn out to wrong and all.

 

[Zeuzzz]

The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked

Nice wording.

Might as well make anyone who supports any "electric comet" idea wear this t shirt.

Not that it would wind them up at all, im sure it will provoke a very productive non emotive response.

Sarcasm? Me ... Sarcastic? Never.

 

[Dancing David]

Comet X-rays (My bold)

The EU/PC explanation for it




and the mainstream explanation

Hot X-rays from a Cold Comet (my bold)







Seems like Electric Comets to me

So why do objects supposedly of the same composition, in the same orbits, same places and same space weather not show comas?

Hmmmmm?

 

[Dancing David]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Seems to be yet another of the plethora of observations that seem to fly in the face of conventional astronomical theories. Weird that; how even theories thought well established might turn out to wrong and all.

Hi Zeuzz, care to adrress the fact that teh EC theory does not address why only four main belt objects have comas, why Apollo bodies do not have comas?

care to address the inconsistencies with teh EC theory? Thunderbolts does not have an explanation for why Hyakutale produced x-rays. It has un supported blog post.

 

[Dancing David]

Gee Haig if you are going to argue by press release you could at least read the one that you cited!:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast23aug_1m/

When ions from the Sun blow past a comet, their strong positive charge attracts negatively-charged electrons from cometary atoms and molecules. In effect, the ions try to neutralize their own unbalanced charge by stealing electrons from the comet. Electrons that leap from neutral atoms to the passing solar wind ions emit x-rays as they cascade from high-energy to low-energy ionic orbits. This process, called a "charge exchange reaction," was first proposed in 1997 as a possible reason for cometary x-rays [ref].

A telltale sign of charge exchange is x-rays emitted at wavelengths that are specific to the internal energy levels of the ions. That's exactly what Chandra's ACIS instrument detected in the x-rays from Comet LINEAR -- spectral lines from oxygen and nitrogen ions present in the solar wind.

Here is an irony meter for you:



Here is a hint Haig the mainstream model does not ignore tehe ffects of eletrical charge. That is something made up by Thunderbolts.

So a high energy ion moving past a cometary particle produces an electric charge effect. What Does That Have To Do With The Electric Comet Theory? other that the word electric charge?

It is NOT A DISCHARGE PROCESS? It is not from an accumulated charge differential, now is it?


Here is some more recent news than that Thunderdolts blog post, this is a press release
http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Rosetta/SEMXA46DIAE_0.html

Oh my, what happen if you enter comet x-rays charge exchange into Google:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp...ays+charge+exchange&pbx=1&fp=e637dc619dfb9af3

Oh gosh here is one from 1997 even:
http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/1997/96GL03780.shtml

and one from 1998:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...c44e22ed4989d815b6746d3c29e1c267&searchtype=a

One from 2004:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1402-4896/70/6/N01;jsessionid=2B957C42FF1979C320E2DC83EB5D54B0.c1

Somebody's disertation:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...EwWAMw&sig=AHIEtbSmxExAZc3XldepuvOozYMUrBVYIw


So Zeuzz and Haig, what is the mystery of cometary x-rays that needs explaining?

here is a for you.

 

[Reality Check]

Comet X-rays

Seems like a gullible person citing liars to me

• The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.
• Anoher lie from Thornhill on the Thunderbolts web site (about Saturn's poles)

 

[Haig]

Papers on Electric Comets?

The cometary magnetic field and its associated electric currents

Abstract
Two different observations of Comet Kohoutek (1973f) seem to suggest the existence of substantial magnetic fields (not less than 100 gammas) in its coma and tail. The effects of the currents and hydromagnetic waves associated with these magnetic fields are considered. It is shown that while the currents closing through the inner coma may represent an important source of ionization in that region, the dissipation of hydromagnetic waves may also be a significant, if not dominant, source of heating there.

The generation of magnetic fields and electric currents in cometary plasma tails

Abstract
Due to the folding of the interplanetary magnetic field into the tail as a comet sweeps through the interplanetary medium, the magnetic field in the tail can be built up to the order of 100 gammas at a heliocentric distance of about 1 AU. This folding of magnetic flux tubes also results in a cross-tail electric current passing through a neutral sheet. When streams of enhanced plasma density merge with the main tail, cross-tail currents as large as 1 billion A may result. A condition could arise which causes a significant fraction of this current to be discharged through the inner coma, resulting in rapid ionization. The typical time scale for such outbursts of ionization is estimated to be of the order of 10,000 sec, which is in reasonable agreement with observation.

VEGA observations of electric fields and plasma in the Comet Halley environment

Abstract
The APV-V high-frequency plasma-wave analyzers aboard both Vega spacecraft measured electric fields at wave frequencies up to 300 kHz as well as the ambient plasma parameters. Substantial electric-field activity at f of about 100 Hz was detected (2.5-1) x 10 to the 6th km from the nucleus of Comet Halley. Closer to the nucleus the electric-field spectrum developed two maxima, whose evolution along the spacecraft trajectories has been traced.

The electric potential on dust particles in comets and in interplanetary space

Abstract
The electric surface potential reached by small dust particles in cometary atmospheres and in interplanetary space is calculated. Plasma temperature and density are varied over a wide range; a two-component plasma of ions and electrons in thermodynamic equilibrium is assumed. The calculations are performed for three types of grains whose photoelectric and secondary electron emission yield are chosen to cover about the range expected for real dust. Results for vanishing secondary electron emission are given for comparison. At the beginning, a short review of the theoretical formulation and the main assumptions are presented.

Induced magnetosphere of comet Halley. 2: Magnetic field and electric currents

Abstract
An induced magnetosphere of a comet rotates around the Sun-comet line along with the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) vector. During the Giotto flyby near comet Halley the direction of the IMF changed several times. For this reason, the trajectory of the Giotto spacecraft, being represented in the IMF-related coordinate system, covered rather well the transverse cross section of the comet Halley magnetosphere. As a result, two-dimensional distributions of both the magnetic field and electric current density have been calculated in the transverse cross section of the induced magnetosphere of comet Halley. The distributions reveal the following facts. The magnetic barrier is axially symmetric (within the accuracy of the grid (approximately 103 km). Such a behavior is associated with the fact that the magnetic field strength in the barrier is governed by the dynamic pressure of the solar wind and does not depend on the ion-neutral friction (which affects only the location of the magnetic field maximum). Along with draping about the dayside of a comet, magnetic field lines also drape about its flanks (where the magnetic field turns out to be enhanced). As a result, the Lorentz electric field inside the cometary ionosphere decreases. Lines of the electric current drape about the cometary ionosphere in a manner resembling the magnetic field lines. The region of the magnetic barrier in front of the contact surface is shown to be an electric load for the magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) generator arising as a result of the solar wind interaction with a comet.

 

[Reality Check]

Papers on Electric Comets?

Not Papers on Electric Comets!


Papers on the real comets that are not the imaginary comets in the EC idea (The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked )

• The cometary magnetic field and its associated electric currents
• The generation of magnetic fields and electric currents in cometary plasma tails
• VEGA observations of electric fields and plasma in the Comet Halley environment
• The electric potential on dust particles in comets and in interplanetary space
• Induced magnetosphere of comet Halley. 2: Magnetic field and electric currents

There are 584 papers listed in the ADS database from the query "electric electrical comet".

 

[Reality Check]

Nice wording.

Might as well make anyone who supports any "electric comet" idea wear this t shirt.

Not that it would wind them up at all, im sure it will provoke a very productive non emotive response.

Sarcasm? Me ... Sarcastic? Never.

That is right, no sarcasm is needed.
The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked
is nice wording for the reasons that it takes real (or even total) stupidity

• not to be able to tell the difference between 0.6 g/cc (the density of comets) and 3.0 g/cc (the density of asteroids)
• to constantly ignore the fact that the radiation emitted from electrical discharges is not observed from comets. See Tim Thompson's posts
  • Electric Comets I
  • Electric Comets II: References
  • Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (actually no EU X-ray bursts).
• to constantly ignore that EDM is an invalid mechanism for creating water
  • 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.
• to constantly ignore that the measured compositions of comets includes volatile materials such as water that must sublimate and create jets in the cometary conditions.
• to not see that EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets means that it is bunk
• to ignore that main source of the EC idea is a web site that lies to its readers (The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions. )