The Electric Comet theory

[dasmiller]

I understand your need for numbers but do you realise (from the first video alone) how complex the earth's electrical environments is? Then how hugely more complex the sun's electrical environment is proving to be?

<snip>

Numbers need to follow the complexity, right?

No, not necessarily. That's where approximations and simplifying assumptions come in.

I'm asking you to make up the example, so make up an example that's not too complicated. Maybe a simple case that shows that a reasonable electric charge could cause a comet to glow for at least a few hours?

 

[ben m]

I understand your need for numbers but do you realise (from the first video alone) how complex the earth's electrical environments is? Then how hugely more complex the sun's electrical environment is proving to be?

Wow, that's a great argument, isn't it?

"Electromagnetism is too complicated to ever understand! Stop pretending to know anything about it! You'll need hundreds more satellites to know anything useful about the Earth! (But EU/PC has understood it perfectly since before the space age, we didn't even need to learn physics first, we just looked at some photos.)"

 

[Reality Check]

Same old RC

You could learn a lot from a YouTube video!

Same old Haig .
You could learn a lot from basic arithmetic: 0.6 is not 3.0
You should learn about the stupidity of linking to YouTube videos.

You should learn about real comets and actual science rather than fall for the fantasies of cranks. In this case it is the insanely ignorant idea that "EM effects" magically change the density estimates of comets and asteroids.

 

[Reality Check]

ALL bodies in space have charge!

Wrong, Haig: Some cranks on the internet assert that "all bodies in space have charge" and that is the reason for everything. This delusion leads to the electric comet fantasy: Electric comets still do not exist!

Since you seem to be ignorant of some basic facts, Haig:
All bodies in the universe have charge. They are made of protons and electrons. Protons have positive charge !
Electrons have negative charge !

P.S. The electric Sun fantasy leads to the Sun exploding!
There is a limit to the charge of a star beyond which the charged particles overcome the force of gravity and the star explodes.
You are also wrong - most of the electric Sun fantasies have an invisible, undetectable electric current of electrons passing through the Sun so they would have a negatively charged Sun.

 

[Reality Check]

Page 112 Fig 5.1 Cathode glow (Coma) and Faraday Dark Space (Dark Mode).

Is this the idiocy of regurgitating from cranks without understanding what they are citing, Haig?
Langmuir’s Probe (PDF)

The purpose of this lab is to measure some basic properties of plasmas: electron temperature,number density and plasma potential.

This is about plasma, not rock .

You should not lie about about figure 5.1, Haig - no mention of coma. In fact the word coma does not appear anywhere in that PDF. Your imaginary caption does not exist:

Figure 5.1: When a current flows between the anode (+) and cathode (–), the gas in the tube partially ionizes, providing electrons and ions to carry the current. The resulting plasma is at a nearly constant potential. Electric fields (from potential differences) exist mostly at the edge of the plasma, in the plasma sheath. The largest potential drop is near the cathode. The resulting cathode glow is the region of plasma creation. Increased discharge current Ic results in expanded coverage of the cathode by the cathode glow, but not much change in the cathode voltage Vc. Note that if the anode/cathode separation were larger, a positive column of excited gas would be created between the Faraday dark space and the anode.

Faraday dark space is not "dark mode". In fact the phrase "dark mode" does not appear anywhere in that PDF .

If you mean the dark discharge mode of electrical discharges when the discharges are not visible to the naked eye, then you really need to learn that comets are not looked at only by the naked eye .

 

[Haig]

RC Ben Das Zig and the rest ... this is still the best explanation around and the latest data and facts support it ... more will come ... deal with it and stop looking for debating points.

The Electric Comet | Full Documentary

 

[Reality Check]

As over 99% of the universe is in a plasma state so it's ALL very relevant or do you doubt that?

That is
* wrong - the evidence is that less than 4% of the universe is plasma. It is 99% of the visible matter in the universe that is plasma.
* the idiocy that we see from EC/PU cranks all of the time.
Just because the majority of visible matter in the is plasma does not mean that plasma physics dominates at all scales.
* the ignorance of plasma physics that we see from EC/PU cranks all of the time.
Plasma physics states that its effects are limited to scales of Debye lengths without external influences. So we do not see spontaneous jets of plasma extending over thousands of light years. We do see jets from black hole powered plasma.
The Debye length of the intergalactic medium is 10,000 meters !
The Debye length of the interstellar medium and solar wind is 10 meters !

And you seem to be under the delusion that scientists ignore plasma in the universe!
Scientists know what plasma does.
Scientists know what gravity does.
They use them both appropriately.

 

[Reality Check]

Dr. Michael Clarage: Earth's Electric Environment | EU2014

Wow Haig - the idea that just because the physics is complex that it does anything that cranks fantasize it does !
The Earth's electric and magnetic environment is complex and well understood using standard physics.
So we have a video
* uploaded by ThunderboltsProject - IOW the Thunderbolts cranks who are so deluded that they cannot tell the difference between 0.6 and 3.0!
* by an expert in chaotic systems who seems to just give lectures.
Not a plasma physicist. Not an astronomer. Not an active researcher in any field?

Followed by yet another dumb YouTube link. I guess this reflects the level of your science knowledge - pretty videos rather than real science.

And a lie about a "paper" from Donald Scott. It is an irrelevant PDF on the web. It ends up with a statement illustrating the ignorance of the author:

For example, the observed counter-rotating (plasma) ‘winds’ of Saturn’s north polar region are supporting evidence for the validity of the results presented here.

The atmosphere of Saturn is not a plasma. Any "observed counter-rotating 'winds'" around Saturn’s north polar region are 'winds' in neutral gas .
The missing citation to this observation illustratrates the lack of scholarship of the author.

 

[Reality Check]

I understand your need for numbers but do you realise (from the first video alone) how complex the earth's electrical environments is? Then how hugely more complex the sun's electrical environment is proving to be?

One more time: Haig.
The idiocy of citing YouTube videos as if they were scientific literature should be obvious to you by now. Especially since the "first video" was uploaded by the Thunderbolts cranks and is a lecture by someone with no credentials in plasma physics or astronomy spouting their own little fantasy.

Complex environments do not give people the freedom to make up any fantasies that they like.
Complex environments such as the Earth's and Sun's electromagnetic fields are understood well enough that the idea that comets are rocks is totally delusional. These environments do not change the simple fact that the densities of comets means that they are not asteroids.

 

[Reality Check]

The Electric Comet | Full Documentary

Haig: The ignorance of citing YouTube videos continues !
You do not have to keep reminding us that there are people out there so deluded that they think that comets have the densities of asteroids even though the densities of comets are measured to be different.

We are not going to analyze a long video by cranks whose sole "evidence" looks like their imagination. Why do you not tell us their scientific evidence that answers the problems with the EC fantasy:

No answer to the simple facts:

1. Comets have measured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).
2. Comets may not have the composition of asteroids
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)
15. EC proponents have the delusion that argument by YouTube video is somehow scientific !
16. EC proponents may think that EC comets switch off at perihelion?

Wow - try learning to read, Haig !
The Thunderbolts team are just repeating the same ignorance of science and even English: They think that "before he impact" means "at the impact" :
The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.

 

[dasmiller]

RC Ben Das Zig and the rest ... this is still the best explanation around and the latest data and facts support it ... more will come ... deal with it and stop looking for debating points.

But whenever I try to come up with numbers for your "best explanation," they make no sense. I'm willing to allowing the possibility that I'm making mistakes, or that I'm simply misunderstanding EU, but no help seems to be forthcoming from the EU side.

I have no doubt that if I posted a conventional physics issue, like "when I do the math, it seems that any rocky planetoid over 1 km in diameter should be spherical, but Ida irregular and it's much larger,*" the various techies here would happily jump in, look at my assumptions, help me understand the calculations, etc. And when we got done, my calculations would match observations. It's happened before, it'll happen again.

But when it comes to EU, if my numbers don't work, I'm told "don't worry about the numbers."

So if you were me, what would you think? Conventional astrophysics, where I can do my own calculations that match observations and people can help me reconcile any discrepancies, or EU, where my calculations are wildly inconsistent with observations and such discrepancies are handwaved away?

*I've never tried to calculate how large an irregular rocky body can be, so that's not a real question and I'm not looking for help with it.

 

[ben m]

RC Ben Das Zig and the rest ... this is still the best explanation around and the latest data and facts support it ... more will come ... deal with it and stop looking for debating points.

I scrubbed through the whole (hour+) video and did not see one dataset, graph, equation, or number on screen. Haig, since you have watched the video yourself and mastered its contents, why don't you just post the "latest data and facts" directly, rather than trying to waste an hour of my time?

 

[Dancing David]

RC Ben Das Zig and the rest ... this is still the best explanation around and the latest data and facts support it ... more will come ... deal with it and stop looking for debating points.

The Electric Comet | Full Documentary

I notice you can't provide any data or evidence, nice hand wave at a Youtube video.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

RC Ben Das Zig and the rest ... this is still the best explanation around and the latest data and facts support it ... more will come ... deal with it and stop looking for debating points.

The Electric Comet | Full Documentary

(bold added)

I feel rather foolish, Haig ... how - precisely, in detail - do "the latest data and facts" support the explanation?

I get that the explanation works in the same sense that myths work, as prose stories; however, I can't bridge the gap between the fact that the explanation is prose, but the data are hard (and quantitative). And, to me, the explanation isn't even in the same ballpark as that found in mainstream papers, much less worthy of being judged "the best".

What criteria did you use, to arrive at your conclusion ("the best explanation")? In particular, how objective are these criteria?

 

[Matthew Cline]

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

I missed this before, and others have commented already, but it's worth really hammering home the point that this is just plain wrong. Money isn't what's holding EU/PC theories back. The fact that the ideas don't hold water does. I've been able to show how completely unworkable the ideas are without any funding. Simple calculations about total power output, charge vs current, etc. don't take any money to perform. Hell, they don't even take much expertise, it's all freshman physics level stuff.

Maybe they needs funds to hire other people to do the math for them?

I'm only half-joking about that...

 

[Haig]

I feel rather foolish, Haig ... how - precisely, in detail - do "the latest data and facts" support the explanation?

Well DeiRenDopa and the rest of you who posted comments on the Thunderbolts video of The Electric Comet theory

NASA look to be moving to the electric nature of the environment around asteroids. Not a large step to consider electric comets ... is it?

New NASA Model Gives Glimpse into the Invisible World of Electric Asteroids

understanding the electrical environment around an asteroid could help identify locations where astronauts can safely make first contact with the object," said co-author William Farrell of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. "If an astronaut is tethered to a spacecraft that is in sunlight and positively charged, and touches a negatively charged asteroid surface in shadow, there could be an unexpected current flow between the two systems upon contact. We simply can't speculate on the nature of that current without this model."

Plasma Simulation of the Solar Wind and a Near-Earth Asteroid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n8l62QJcBQ

 

[thedopefishlives]

Well DeiRenDopa and the rest of you who posted comments on the Thunderbolts video of The Electric Comet theory

NASA look to be moving to the electric nature of the environment around asteroids. Not a large step to consider electric comets ... is it?

New NASA Model Gives Glimpse into the Invisible World of Electric Asteroids


Plasma Simulation of the Solar Wind and a Near-Earth Asteroid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n8l62QJcBQ

Actually, it's a huge step. The fact that you don't understand this is telling.

 

[Haig]

Actually, it's a huge step. The fact that you don't understand this is telling.

Please give your explanation.

I see the mainstream view coming towards the electric universe view.

This from a thread on Thunderbolts ...

The point is that the mainstream concept of it makes it difficult to sort out. They have B-fields with no associated currents, and currents with no associated B-fields. And they don't have an electromotive force (i.e., an electric field). So they have this heliospheric current sheet, caused by nothing at all, sandwiched between opposing magnetic fields from the Sun, which have no business being open. As Birkeland currents, it all makes sense.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15027

 

[thedopefishlives]

Please give your explanation.

I see the mainstream view coming towards the electric universe view.

This from a thread on Thunderbolts ...

[qimg]http://pluto.space.swri.edu/image/figures/IMF.gif[/qimg]
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15027

You still have fundamental flaws with the theory before you even get to electromagnetism, for one. For example, the fact that comets are experimentally verified to be much less dense than asteroids. But furthermore, the point of the matter is that the mainstream view is not "coming towards" anything; electromagnetic theory has always posited that bodies exposed to a solar wind would accumulate charges. The fact that these charges are not significant enough to cause the effects you describe seems to have eluded you. Or perhaps you're going to show me some math that shows the supposed "impossibilities" in the "mainstream" explanation of the solar wind, as opposed to vague rhetoric and a neat diagram?

 

[Haig]

The fact that these charges are not significant enough to cause the effects you describe seems to have eluded you. Or perhaps you're going to show me some math that shows the supposed "impossibilities" in the "mainstream" explanation of the solar wind, as opposed to vague rhetoric and a neat diagram?

I would simply dispute that as a fact ...

The Modern Vacuum: Empty Space Has Unlimited EM Energy
http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/feb2/bearden_fn.htm