The Electric Comet theory

[Reality Check]

Care to explain that Mars geology, in the video, from a mainstream point of view RC?

No - I am not a geologist.
Care to explain why I should watch a video from an author who posts on a web site that lies to its readers and displays an deep ignorance of basic science, Haig?

Care to explain why I should watch a video on Marian geology by David Talbott

David N. Talbott (born 1942) is an American author and inveterate promoter of neo-Velikovskian ideas. Inspired by Immanuel Velikovsky, he proposes a “Polar Configuration” involving the five planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, Mars, Earth, in order, and its influence on the human mythology

So David Talbott is ignorant of basically all science since before Newton.

 

[Zeuzzz]

So David Talbott is ignorant of basically all science since before Newton.

He's not ignorant, I suspect that he knows at least some post Newtonian physics, just chooses to ignore the parts that don't adhere to his world view. He does come across to me as a strong catastrophist proponent, and mild velisophsky cultist.

He's definitely not a real scientist.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Comets Are Not "Rocks" II

NASA Releases Images of Man-Made Crater on Comet

That's a post and a site I don't recognise ...

OK, so not only do you not recognize the NASA website that you posted, but you don't even recognize your own post. Maybe you should post less, and think about what you post just a bit more?

Personally, I think "fragile and weak" and "dirty ice ball" go together fairly well. On the other hand, "rocks having electrical discharges" and "fragile and weak" don't go together well at all. So Haig quotes material that proves Haig's quote is wrong. Interesting.

Not sure what your getting at here ...

I thought it was pretty obvious:
Haig posts EU website that claims comets are rocks (post #924)
Haig posts NASA website that shows comets are "fragile and weak" (post #1111).
Haig posts mutually contradictory websites trying to imply that both are correct.
Conclusion: One does not believe that Haig knows what Haig is talking about. The fact that Haig cannot recognize his own post, or the website he posted, certainly reinforces this conclusion.

Also see my earlier posts: Comets Are Not "Rocks" (1 August 2009) and Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (21 June 2009).

 

[Haig]

OK, so not only do you not recognize the NASA website that you posted, but you don't even recognize your own post. Maybe you should post less, and think about what you post just a bit more?

I don't recognise it Tim because I didn't post it. It's not the NASA link (that's the next one in your post #1116). The first one is "electriceverything.com" which I have never seen before you posted it HERE

You seem a bit mixed up Tim but no need to apologise just let me do a RC on you and throw your own words back at you:

OK, so not only do you not recognize the NASA everythingselectric.com website that you posted, but you don't even recognize your own post. Maybe you should post less, and think about what you post just a bit more?

I thought it was pretty obvious:
Haig posts EU website that claims comets are rocks (post #924)
Haig posts NASA website that shows comets are "fragile and weak" (post #1111).
Haig posts mutually contradictory websites trying to imply that both are correct.
Conclusion: One does not believe that Haig knows what Haig is talking about. The fact that Haig cannot recognize his own post, or the website he posted, certainly reinforces this conclusion.

Kind of rings a bit hollow when it's your mistake Tim

Also see my earlier posts: Comets Are Not "Rocks" (1 August 2009) and Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (21 June 2009).

Thanks for these, I'll have a look when I've more time but I hope they make more sense than your last post

 

[W.D.Clinger]

OK, so not only do you not recognize the NASA website that you posted, but you don't even recognize your own post. Maybe you should post less, and think about what you post just a bit more?

I don't recognise it Tim because I didn't post it. It's not the NASA link (that's the next one in your post #1116). The first one is "electriceverything.com" which I have never seen before you posted it HERE

Haig, you posted a link to that "electriceverything.com" (ETA: actually "everythingselectric.com") URL in post #924:

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

Everybody here can confirm the bogosity of your denial by clicking on the link in that quotation. (ETA: by clicking on the red link next to Haig.)

Maybe you should post less, and think about what you post just a bit more.

 

[Dancing David]

Funny Haig!

Your post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6654747&postcount=924

Your link:
http://www.everythingselectric.com/...=58c3883ddec84807ebac1dbd3b006284&topic=329.0

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

Do you really want to deny the second part?

Are you for real Haig?

That one blog post or any others ays it all haig, they calim all sort so reasons the mainstream science, in this case geology, is wrong. then they give a bunch of made up stuff to support imaginary claims.

I see what you mean. It's not well put IMO.

Do you really think that electrical forces blasted the Matterhorn 500 km. ? Do you really think that mainstream geology does note xplain it?

Mmmmm I'd need a bit more evidence than I read in that piece. Yes, mainstream geology does have a plausible explanation.

So far there is nothing I have read on Thunderbolts that makes sense in the evidence.

I think that video on the weird Martian geology makes me think mainstream can't explain it's formation easily. Perhaps you do?

yes, I do read it, and try to understand it, that is the way you can critique, apparently not something you have done for mainstream comet science.

Know the enemy! I understand that I do read some mainstream comet science but yes, not as much as I should. Lack of time unfortunately.

I started posting on this thread again because of the re-visit to comet Temple 1 on Valentines day. I've just seen the pictures of the man-made crater and I'm rather surprised by how small it is. I guess I was expecting something better after the huge flash in 2005.

NASA Releases Images of Man-Made Crater on Comet

The Stardust-NExT mission met its goals, which included observing surface features that changed in areas previously seen during the 2005 Deep Impact mission; imaging new terrain; and viewing the crater generated when the 2005 mission propelled an impactor at the comet.

"This mission is 100 percent successful," said Joe Veverka, Stardust-NExT principal investigator of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. "We saw a lot of new things that we didn't expect, and we'll be working hard to figure out what Tempel 1 is trying to tell us."

Several of the images provide tantalizing clues to the result of the Deep Impact mission's collision with Tempel 1.

"We see a crater with a small mound in the center, and it appears that some of the ejecta went up and came right back down," said Pete Schultz of Brown University, Providence, R.I. "This tells us this cometary nucleus is fragile and weak based on how subdued the crater is we see today."

Tempel 1 Impact Site
This pair of images shows the before-and-after comparison of the part of comet Tempel 1 that was hit by the impactor from NASA's Deep Impact spacecraft. Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Maryland/Cornell

 

[Haig]

Haig, you posted a link to that "electriceverything.com" (ETA: actually "everythingselectric.com") URL in post #924:
Everybody here can confirm the bogosity of your denial by clicking on the link in that quotation. (ETA: by clicking on the red link next to Haig.)
Maybe you should post less, and think about what you post just a bit more.

Funny Haig!
Your post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6654747&postcount=924
Your link:
http://www.everythingselectric.com/...=58c3883ddec84807ebac1dbd3b006284&topic=329.0

Do you really want to deny the second part?

Are you for real Haig?

Sincere Apologies to Tim Thompson, he was totally right. My thanks to W.D. Clinger and DD for pointing out my mistake.

Maybe you should post less, and think about what you post just a bit more.

Is definitely appropriate in my case

No defence, but i didn't realise Tim was referring to a post of mine from quite a few pages back and one that I had just copied and pasted here without looking at or reading any of the source.

 

[Haig]

The Dragon's Den Feb 28, 2011
Saturn's electrically charged atmosphere has erupted in spectacular fashion.

Sungrazers are comets that pass close to the Sun in their highly elliptical orbits. They tend to reaffirm the Electric Universe opinion about comets: If comets are the result of electrical events that took place early in the life of the Solar System, then their several "anomalous" behaviors can be easily explained.

Some comet anomalies include Hale-Bopp's ion tail and coma when it was far past Jupiter's orbit, the catastrophic explosion of Comet Linear when it was over 100 million kilometers from the Sun, the desert-like, cratered appearance of Comets Borrelly and Tempel 1 (contrary to the "dirty snowball hypothesis), and Shoemaker-Levy 9's broken pieces refusing to expel any water vapor.

The Sun's radial e-field is a dynamic structure, changing in strength and size depending on the corresponding strength of electric currents that flow into it. For that reason, it is in a state of constant flux, requiring just a small trigger for it to explosively discharge with solar flares or coronal mass ejections (CME).

Comet NEAT initiated a CME eruption that appeared to impact the comet. Several other sungrazers have been associated with violent flares. When comet 96P/Machholz circled the Sun its intense charge differential caused a gigantic CME to blast out from the Sun 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 electrical activity affect the environments of every member in that family.

Saturn could be thought of as a solar system in its own right, with a family of 31 moons. It possesses a Langmuir charge sheath (plasmasphere) that isolates it from the Sun's own charge sheath that, in turn, is isolating it from the charged interstellar medium.

Many things about Saturn have changed in the 31 years since the two Voyager spacecraft passed by the giant gas planet. Saturn's magnetosphere grew by more than a million kilometers and then contracted, only to begin expanding again. The spokes in Saturn's B ring disappeared and then reappeared. The equatorial thunderstorm (known as the Dragon Storm) that raged continuously broke up, moved toward the poles, and then erupted again.

The most likely explanation for the storms on Saturn is that they are equivalent to sunspots. As the Sun changes its behavior over the course of a 22 year cycle, the electrical output that connects it with its family of planets varies.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00current.htm

I have read and stand by the source of this but it is time for me to post less and do other things in my limited free time for sure.

Spring at last

 

[Dancing David]

The Dragon's Den Feb 28, 2011
Saturn's electrically charged atmosphere has erupted in spectacular fashion.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00current.htm

I have read and stand by the source of this but it is time for me to post less and do other things in my limited free time for sure.

Spring at last

Post and run, so what evidence does that blog present?

Besides none?

 

[Dancing David]

This link will be here tomorrow it is the archive:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/arch11/110228den.htm

 

[Reality Check]

The Dragon's Den Feb 28, 2011
Saturn's electrically charged atmosphere has erupted in spectacular fashion.[/quote]
I see that Thunderbolts not only lies to its readers (The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions. ), it spouts gibberish as well.
That web page is citing a thunderstorm on Saturn as evidence for CME on the Sun being initiated by sun-grazer comets.
The author is so ignorant that they do not know the difference between a star and a gas giant !

 

[Haig]

The author is so ignorant that they do not know the difference between a star and a gas giant !

There is not as big a difference as you might think, even for mainstream beliefs:
Brown dwarfs are sub-stellar objects

Brown dwarfs occupy the mass range between that of large gas giant planets and the lowest-mass stars; this upper limit is between 75[1] and 80 Jupiter masses (MJ). Currently there is some debate as to what criterion to use to define the separation between a brown dwarf and a giant planet at very low brown dwarf masses (~13 MJ ), and whether brown dwarfs are required to have experienced fusion at some point in their history

For EU/PC theory it's an even more straightforward thing:
Saturn

 

[Vermonter]

Except it doesn't work that way.

Brown dwarfs cool over time since there's not enough mass to sustain any stable fusion. This is why they usually show up in the infrared spectrum.

As to Saturn, astronomers are still uncertain as to exactly how the south pole of Saturn is warmer than the surrounding atmosphere. I'm not knowledgeable enough to properly guess at it, but it could be a number of factors from a sustained breakdown of the polar vortex. Or there could be a mechanism that draws heat from the interior to the vortex via adiabatic compression. Or it could be due to prolonged exposure to the sun, since the south pole has been exposed to the sun for 18 years. However, there is nothing about the polar vortex that screams "the model is incorrect!!!!" To say that we don't know what causes it is correct, but that doesn't mean the entire model is defunct. It's absurd.

There is nothing in Thunderbolts that explains it without breaking the laws of physics. See my last post as to how the Electric Sun fails.

 

[Reality Check]

There is not as big a difference as you might think, even for mainstream beliefs:
Brown dwarfs are sub-stellar objects

That just points out the idiocy on that web page - they are not comparing brown dwarfs and gas giants. They are comparing the Sun and Saturn (or any star and any gas giant) which is ignorant in the extreme.

Saturn[/url]

So the EU/PC theory is a theory from a web site that lies to its readers and you believe it? Sorry that just makes you gullible (I have a certain bridge in New York that you may be interested in )

The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.
​

They even lie about Saturn!

Anoher lie from Thornhill on the Thunderbolts web site (about Saturn's poles)
​

 

[Haig]

Comet Elenin on anyone's radar yet?

An electric comet in action?

Page 1 and Page5

Could be very interesting

 

[Reality Check]

Comet Elenin on anyone's radar yet?

An electric comet in action?

Page 1 and Page5

Could be very interesting

Oh what a short memory you have:
Firstly you are citing a web site that lies to its reader again

The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.
​

They even lie about Saturn!

Anoher lie from Thornhill on the Thunderbolts web site (about Saturn's poles)
​

Secondly electric comets do not exist

1. Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).
2. Comets may not have the composition of asteriods
3. Deep Impact confirmed that comet nuclei are made of dust and ice not rock. There were a couple of surprises in that the dust was talcum powder rather than sand and the amount of ice was smaller than expected.
   "Analysis of data from the Swift X-ray telescope showed that the comet continued outgassing from the impact for 13 days, with a peak five days after impact. A total of 5 million kilograms (11 million pounds) of water[35] and between 10 and 25 million kilograms (22 and 55 million pounds) of dust were lost from the impact."WP
   Thus the water content of Comet Tempel 1 is 20% to 50%.
4. Cometary dust as collected by the Stardust mission contain forms of carbon that are not in meteorites.
5. Electric Comets I
6. Electric Comets II: References
7. Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (actually no EU X-ray bursts).
8. The EC assumption of EDM machining does not produce jets.
9. EDM in the EC idea needs a dielectric material which does not exist!
10. No EDM sparks are seen in images of comet nuclei.
11. No EDM hot spots are seen in thermal maps of Tempel 1.
12. Voltage potentials are many orders of magnitude too small.
13. EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets
14. Water, water everywhere (except in the EC idea)

And a question for you, Haig: Do you really think that this comet wiill turn off at perihelion when other comets have not? EC comets switch off at perihelion

 

[Haig]

Oh what a short memory you ....snip the usual RC made up stuff on electric comets rather than what is actually claimed by EU/PC theory .... have Water, water everywhere (except in the EC idea)

And a question for you, Haig: Do you really think that this comet wiill turn off at perihelion when other comets have not? EC comets switch off at perihelion

I don't see where I or any electric comet proponent have said this comet wiill turn off at perihelion - can you give a source for that claim? I just had a short time to skim thro' the link you gave and found nothing.

The "predictions pending" on comets are HERE on Thunderbolts and that claim isn't one of them

As I understand it, that's not part of EU/PC thinking on comets at all! They say, the comets display comas and tails as long as they are under electrical stress as a charged body in the electric field of the Sun until they reach dark mode balance when they move far enough away from it, like the planets have in their less stressful orbits.

Did you know Venus has a tail that almost reaches the Earth? but it's in dark mode now but the ancients have strange stories about Venus calling it "The bright torch of Heaven" but that's off topic and another story as you know

 

[Dancing David]

Comet Elenin on anyone's radar yet?

An electric comet in action?

Page 1 and Page5

Could be very interesting

Uh sure, yeah, so lets see some comments on another forum, that is meaningful.

Considering all the unanswered questions regarding the incoherence of the EC.

 

[Dancing David]

I don't see where I or any electric comet proponent have said this comet wiill turn off at perihelion - can you give a source for that claim? I just had a short time to skim thro' the link you gave and found nothing.

The "predictions pending" on comets are HERE on Thunderbolts and that claim isn't one of them

As I understand it, that's not part of EU/PC thinking on comets at all! They say, the comets display comas and tails as long as they are under electrical stress as a charged body in the electric field of the Sun until they reach dark mode balance when they move far enough away from it, like the planets have in their less stressful orbits.

Haig, there is no dark mode, thar is just silly, but please make up some more bizzare stuff.

One of the many problems that YOU have NOT addressed in this thread.

Why do the comas on comets continue to grow as they leave the solar system?

You do know that Hyakutale was much more visible and its coma was much much larger as it was leaving the sun?

Did you know Venus has a tail that almost reaches the Earth? but it's in dark mode now but the ancients have strange stories about Venus calling it "The bright torch of Heaven" but that's off topic and another story as you know

This is more stupid, you do know that Venus is the brightest object in magnitude of the planets, frequently day time visible?

And that the 'tail' you reference as a coma is not, you were called out on this and now you are just spamming the thread with the same old junk.

 

[Dancing David]

No, the interaction of Venus with the solar wind magnetotail is more comet like than Earth like, because Venus does not have a internal magnetic field. The solar wind gets "hung up" in the ionosphere of Venus and thus a so called induced magnetosphere is created.

No, Venus's tail was NEVER in the visible range, as there is basically nothing there to reflect light, like in a cometary tail. Measurements by Venus Express have shown that basically hydrogen and oxygen is escaping along Venus's tail.

You could just as easily say than that the Earth's tail of Jupiter's tail should be visible. The idea is preposterous.

Oh whoops, here is the comment of a real scientist who works in the field.

And maybe while you are spamming teh forum with trash you can answer this post to you from back in November?

Okay, Haig, the please work it out how the EDM works on a comet, how much the charging needs to be, how much water is produced by this EDM to create the observed water (also a EC prediction) and if the surface of the comet is negatively charged (yes it will be charged, indeed, this is even taken into account in the Rosetta lander Philae). Never anything worked out comes from thunderbloats, it's always pretty pictures, never anything concrete.

Maybe you should read an excellent introductory book on Comets: K. S. Krishna Swamy, Physics of Comets, 3rd edition, 2010, then maybe you will really know what the mainstream model is, instead of getting this information of delusional thunderdolts websites and michael suede blogs.

X-rays are easily explained in comets (see the excellent Tim Thompson post)
Filamentary tails: why would mainstream not expect that?
There is no link between comets and CMEs, the disconnection of a tail is very well explained by mainstream physics and is basically the same kind of process that his happening in every planetary magnetotail.