The Electric Comet theory

[Reality Check]

Reality Check,
Some corrections to your statements:

Siggy_G, Some actual physics for you to hopefully learn:

• There need not be "some kind of configuration of electric currents or moving charges" to a B field.
  

  You do not have to have a current to have a B-field.
  * Electromagnetic waves have B fields and do not have a current.
  * Electrons have a B field and no current.
  * Ferromagnetic materials have a B field and no currents.
  * Magnetic flux tubes (as in solar corona) have B fields that have dissociated with the currents that created them. They are in plasma so there are also other currents.

• Electromagnetic waves are the same issue. They have a B field and no moving charges or electric current as you state, Siggy_G, .
• Electrons are not spheres with a charge distributed on them, Siggy_G . There are no moving charges, there is no classical spin, their magnetic moment is because of their angular momentum.
• In ferromagnetic materials, the electrons have spins (and so magnetic moments - see the point above) that are aligned in regions thus leading to the magnetic field of the material. It is nothing to do with the electrons moving, Siggy_G .
• Ignorance about what a magnetic flux tube is, Siggy_G, should lead you to try to learn what a magnetic flux tube is, not think that it has anything to do with a Birkeland current, !

Siggy_G: the point about flux tubes is that they can be disconnected from any electrical currents that created them, e.g. the ones in the Sun. Coronal loops are magnetic flux tubes that float up through the photosphere, emerge into the atmosphere and then fill up with plasma.

 

[Siggy_G]

Siggy_G, Some actual physics for you to hopefully learn:

• There need not be "some kind of configuration of electric currents or moving charges" to a B field.
  
• Electromagnetic waves are the same issue. They have a B field and no moving charges or electric current as you state, Siggy_G, .
• Electrons are not spheres with a charge distributed on them, Siggy_G . There are no moving charges, there is no classical spin, their magnetic moment is because of their angular momentum.
• In ferromagnetic materials, the electrons have spins (and so magnetic moments - see the point above) that are aligned in regions thus leading to the magnetic field of the material. It is nothing to do with the electrons moving, Siggy_G .
• Ignorance about what a magnetic flux tube is, Siggy_G, should lead you to try to learn what a magnetic flux tube is, not think that it has anything to do with a Birkeland current, !

Siggy_G: the point about flux tubes is that they can be disconnected from any electrical currents that created them, e.g. the ones in the Sun. Coronal loops are magnetic flux tubes that float up through the photosphere, emerge into the atmosphere and then fill up with plasma.

Reality Check,
Some actually physics and interpretational linguistics for you as well then:

My point about electromagnetic waves is that they are a massless entity that have both an E and B field, which fluctate perpendicularly to eachother. They are not illustrative of how net B fields are induced in systems of matter. Hence, they are a different issue (of what has been discussed previously i.e. plasma scenarios).

My description of the electron holds true and wasn't corrected nor interpreted correctly by you. It's a spining entity of charge, hence in motion (and yes, with an angular momentum, of course). The angular moment is defined by a circulating current. Also, there are spin-orbital cases for an atomic electron.

My description of the magnetic fields in ferromagnets holds true. It is related to a plenum of microscopic bound currents (see above) alligned in a molecular grid. For a similar allignment in a plasma, an electric current, direct or induced, is the source.

Flux tubes. From the Wikipedia article: «A well-known example is the flux tube between Jupiter and its moon Io.» ... What Wikipedia forgot to mention is that this well-known example of a flux tube is a well-known electric current as a result of a dynamo process. Sometimes it is also simultaneously refered to as a flux tube and a Birkeland current system between Jupiter and Io. Coronal loops are other examples of electric currents and/or flux tubes. As I said, a flux tube is a configuration of electric currents (but with emphasis on its magnetic flux).

Read these neat papers for more info on flux tubes and their electric current duality:

Tubes of magnetic flux and electric current in space physics

Duality of the magnetic flux tube and electric current descriptions of magnetospheric plasma and energy flow

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Nice to see you're still with us, Siggy_G!

Reality Check,
Some actually physics and interpretational linguistics for you as well then:

My point about electromagnetic waves is that they are a massless entity that have both an E and B field, which fluctate perpendicularly to eachother. They are not illustrative of how net B fields are induced in systems of matter. Hence, they are a different issue (of what has been discussed previously i.e. plasma scenarios).

I think you're well on your way towards an advanced degree in quibbling, but I'll let it go (for now).

My description of the electron holds true and wasn't corrected nor interpreted correctly by you. It's a spining entity of charge, hence in motion (and yes, with an angular momentum, of course). The angular moment is defined by a circulating current. Also, there are spin-orbital cases for an atomic electron.

My description of the magnetic fields in ferromagnets holds true. It is related to a plenum of microscopic bound currents (see above) alligned in a molecular grid. For a similar allignment in a plasma, an electric current, direct or induced, is the source.

Not here, however.

If you wish to develop a mental picture of electrons as chickens descended from dinosaurs, who cares? As long as that picture is fertile, in that it helps produce insights and understandings which the mathematical treatment of quantitative models shows is consistent with experimental results (and astronomical observations), it's nigh on irrelevant; isn't it?

For the EU, however, that doesn't work.

The EU is barren, utterly useless when it comes to practical applications and detailed (quantitative) understanding of experimental results (and astronomical observations).

Unless and until you, and your fellow EU travellers, can show - quantitatively, with numbers, equations etc - that your "description of the electron" and your "description of the magnetic fields in ferromagnets" is not a barren desert, who cares if you disagree with RC or not?

[...]

So?

How does that help you - and your fellow EU travellers - work out, ahead of time, whether Rosetta will be fried to crisp when it gets within 10 km of 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko (or not)?

 

[Reality Check]

Reality Check,
Some actually physics and interpretational linguistics for you as well then:

Some basic facts for you, Siggy_G:
Electromagnetic waves have a B field and an E field. Repeating this basic fact does not address the even simpler fact that they do not have moving charges or current., Thus a B field can exist without moving charges or current .
They are an example of a B field existing without moving charges.

Your description of a election is wrong, the lies to the gullible spread by the EU cranks or at least the "lies to children" told to high school students.
"spining entity of charge" is a lie. What the article states I

In atomic physics, the electron magnetic dipole moment is the magnetic moment of an electron caused by its intrinsic property of spin.

where spin is QM spin, not a the spin of a sphere (classical spin).

The angular momentum of an electron is defined as

In quantum mechanics and particle physics, spin is an intrinsic form of angular momentum carried by elementary particles, composite particles (hadrons), and atomic nuclei.[1][2] Spin is a solely quantum-mechanical phenomenon; it does not have a counterpart in classical mechanics (despite the term spin being reminiscent of classical phenomena such as a planet spinning on its axis).[2]

and has nothing to do with "a circulating current" !

Your description of the magnetic fields in ferromagnets remains wrong.

One of the fundamental properties of an electron (besides that it carries charge) is that it has a magnetic dipole moment, i.e., it behaves itself as a tiny magnet. This dipole moment comes from the more fundamental property of the electron that it has quantum mechanical spin. The quantum mechanical nature of this spin causes the electron to only be able to be in two states, with the magnetic field either pointing "up" or "down" (for any choice of up and down). The spin of the electrons in atoms is the main source of ferromagnetism, although there is also a contribution from the orbital angular momentum of the electron about the nucleus. When these tiny magnetic dipoles are aligned in the same direction, their individual magnetic fields add together to create a measurable macroscopic field.

Ferromagnetism is the result of the intrinsic magnetic dipole moments of electrons + the orbital angular momentum of the electron.

Flux tubes remain as flux tubes regardless of any obsession with Birkeland current or delusions about a Birkeland current system between Jupiter and Io.

The insanity of a Google search as a citation! The even more insane idea that 1 result from a book means that the astronomers call flux tubes Birkeland currents.

The ignorance in citing
Equivalent Electric Circuit Models of Coronal Magnetic Loops and Related Oscillatory Phenomena on the Sun
is obvious - the authors explicitly state that coronal magnetic loops exist. They model the known electrical currents inside the plasma filled loops in the solar atmosphere which are not the generators of the loops which happened hundreds of kilometers below the photosphere.

And wow - you think that the centuries-old duality between the B and E descriptions of electromagnetic systems is new!

 

[Reality Check]

The insanity of a Google search as a citation! The even more insane idea that 1 result from a book means that the astronomers call flux tubes Birkeland currents.

Just in case you think that calling that Google search an insane citation is over the top, Siggy_G, here is an example of a proper literature search.

The SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) is a Digital Library portal for researchers in Astronomy and Physics, operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO) under a NASA grant. The ADS maintains three bibliographic databases containing more than 10.9 million records covering publications in Astronomy and Astrophysics, Physics, and the arXiv e-prints.

So there must be hundreds of papers published on the Birkeland current system between Jupiter and Io and indexed in ADS. Right, Siggy_G?

A search on "Birkeland current system between Jupiter and Io" gives Selected and retrieved 13 abstracts .
Add "flux tube" and you get 1 result.

P.S. There are observations that support Birkeland currents around Jupiter but these are not associated with the Jupiter-Io flux tube. For example aurora displays on Jupiter are evidence of Birkeland currents between Jupiter and the Io plasma torus (The Jovian auroral oval).

P.S. There are observations that support non-Birkeland currents between Jupiter and Io that seem to start from 1979: Magnetic field studies at Jupiter by Voyager 1 - Preliminary results

The analysis and interpretation of magnetic field perturbations associated with intense electrical currents (approximately 5 million amperes) flowing near or in the magnetic flux tube linking Jupiter with the satellite Io and induced by the relative motion between Io and the corotating Jovian magnetosphere are reported.

 

[Siggy_G]

Your description of a election is wrong, (...)

The electron is an entity of charge. How is an electron's angular momentum not a "charged entity in motion"? How is an electron's orbital spin around a nucleus not a "charged entity in motion". Both of these motions would give it a magnetic moment.

( However, the QM model of the electron being a point particle has both saved it from a superluminous surface velocity and turned the (corrected 1/2 spin) angular momentum and magnetic moment into "mysterious built-in", as the cited course called it, with no relation to electrodynamics as it applies to larger-than-atom scale scenarios. Since it is of no spatial extent, it is merely a mathematical representation, with little relation or no attempt at describing the physical shape of the entity. Otherwise it would have infinite mass density and infinite charge density. Earth could also be described like a point mass pasted with intrinsic angular momentum and magnetic moment, for the sake of calculations. It works for the math, but it bears little relation to what's going on physically. There exist other electron (and photon) models that account for their electrical parameters in relation to a B-field. )

Flux tubes remain as flux tubes regardless of any obsession with Birkeland current or delusions about a Birkeland current system between Jupiter and Io.

I pointed, with references, to the fact that flux tubes are electric currents as much as magnetic tubes, because of the duality. I also mentioned that they are sometimes referred to as Birkeland currents. You haven't refuted any of that.

The ignorance in citing
Equivalent Electric Circuit Models of Coronal Magnetic Loops and Related Oscillatory Phenomena on the Sun
is obvious - the authors explicitly state that coronal magnetic loops exist. They model the known electrical currents inside the plasma filled loops in the solar atmosphere which are not the generators of the loops which happened hundreds of kilometers below the photosphere.

The coronal flux tubes being generated further away or deeper down, by another electric current system, was not something I opposed.

And wow - you think that the centuries-old duality between the B and E descriptions of electromagnetic systems is new!

I never claimed that the duality of E and B fields is something new. You, on the other hand, claimed more or less that there isn't a duality. I pointed out the electric component in each of your B-field-only examples.

 

[Siggy_G]

Just in case you think that calling that Google search an insane citation is over the top, Siggy_G, here is an example of a proper literature search. (...)

The attempt was to find an example (one link) I had read earlier on, not provide a list of all abstract available on the subject (seems I pasted the wrong URL though). What's your point? If you want to use SAO/NASA database properly, the search would be "flux tube birkeland currents" (48 abstracts) or add "jupiter io" (4 abstracts).

It doesn't change the message, which was that "sometimes it is also simultaneously refered to as a flux tube and a Birkeland current system" (between Jupiter and Io).

 

[ben m]

The electron is an entity of charge. How is an electron's angular momentum not a "charged entity in motion"? How is an electron's orbital spin around a nucleus not a "charged entity in motion". Both of these motions would give it a magnetic moment.

You answer your own question:

( However, the QM model of the electron being a point particle has both saved it from a superluminous surface velocity and turned the (corrected 1/2 spin) angular momentum and magnetic moment into "mysterious built-in",

Whether or not you like it, the fact is: quantum mechanics seems to be telling us that angular momentum, and magnetic dipoles, can be "built in" to point particles and do not need to correspond to any sort of motion.

Since it is of no spatial extent, it is merely a mathematical representation, with little relation or no attempt at describing the physical shape of the entity.

Intrinsic angular momentum does not attempt to describe the "physical shape" of the electron because the electron does not appear to have a physical shape. I repeat, just because you don't personally like it does NOT mean that it's not a good model. Nor does it mean that you can cite aspects of your personal dislike and treat them as reasons to ignore this model or pretend it's untrue or approximate.

Otherwise it would have infinite mass density and infinite charge density.

Only if you're trying to pretend it's a shape with a well-defined volume and density. That classical-ish mental picture is invalid.

 

[Reality Check]

The electron is an entity of charge.

As ben m points out - an electron is described by QM and so you answered your own question. The magnetic moment of an electron has nothing to do with any fantasy of moving charge.

I pointed that

Flux tubes remain as flux tubes regardless of any obsession with Birkeland current or delusions about a Birkeland current system between Jupiter and Io.

You provided no citations that state that a flux tube is a Birkeland current system.
I provided citations about the Birkeland current system between Jupiter and Io's plasma torus.

The coronal flux tubes being generated further away or deeper down, by another electric current system, was not something I opposed.

And that is irrelevant, Siggy_G: The point is hat the coronal flux tubes disconnect from the point of generation and float up through the photosphere without electrical currents generating them .

You, on the other hand, claimed more or less that there isn't a duality.

That is really bad reading comprehension on your part, Siggy_G - I have never claimed even "more or less" that there is no E/B field duality.

I pointed out the electric component in each of your B-field-only examples.

Which is wrong since the "electric component" in question is currents:
* No currents in electromagnetic waves.
* No currents generating the magnetic filed of an electron
(except for totally ignorant people who think that an electron is a spinning charge - by now that should not be you, Siggy_G)
* No currents in ferromagnetic material (there is a contribution from orbital angular momentum of electrons).
* No currents for magnetic flux tubes.

There is trivial and irrelevant fact that changing B fields always have dual E fields.
As I understand it, that is basically how magnetic flux tubes sustain themselves. The B field induces an E field. The E field accelerates electrons and ions. This generates a B field that is the magnetic flux tube.

 

[Reality Check]

It doesn't change the message, which was that "sometimes it is also simultaneously refered to as a flux tube and a Birkeland current system" (between Jupiter and Io).

Siggy_G:
It points out that the message began as a lie because you cited only 1 instance of a caption in a book, Siggy_G !
The scientific literature has only a handful of papers that mention both a flux tube and a Birkeland current system" especially between Jupiter and Io.

That there are papers that refer to separately to a flux tube and Birkeland currents is no surprise. There are transient flux tube events between the Earth and the solar wind. There is an unrelated (permanent?) Birkeland current system around the Earth.
There is a flux tube between Io and Jupiter and an unrelated Birkeland current system between Jupiter and Io's plasma torus. This is explicitly mentioned in your book citation at the start of section 7.5.4.6 Coupling to Ionosphere which describes figure 7.3 (the one with the Birkeland current caption), Siggy_G !

It points out that the message remains a lie because you have not cited any scientific literature (or any literature at all) that states that a flux tube is a Birkeland current system !

 

[Reality Check]

Otherwise it would have infinite mass density and infinite charge density

Once again you slip into classical thinking that ignores about a century of scientific progress, Siggy_G.
The electron is treated as a point particle with the property of charge and mass and this gives one of the most precisely tested scientific theories ever - Quantum electrodynamics.
Experimentally the upper limit of the electron radius is many magnitudes less than the classical radius.

The electron having a magnetic moment is evidence that it is a point particle. If there was a surface with charge on it then to produce that magnetic moment that surface has to be classically spinning faster than the speed of light. This is impossible.
Spin quantum number

When the idea of electron spin was first introduced in 1925, even Wolfgang Pauli had trouble accepting Ralph Kronig's model. The problem was not that a rotating charged particle would have given rise to a magnetic field but that the electron was so small that the equatorial speed of the electron would have to be greater than the speed of light for the magnetic moment to be of the observed strength.

In 1930, Paul Dirac developed a new version of the Wave Equation which was relativistically invariant (unlike Schrödinger's one), and predicted the magnetic moment correctly, and at the same time treated the electron as a point particle. In the Dirac equation all four quantum numbers including the additional quantum number, s, arose naturally during its solution.

 

[tusenfem]

I fail to see how this amusing discussion about the nature of electrons has to do with the nonsense theory of Electric Comets.

Maybe Siggy_G (or Haig, yeah right!) can finally provide us with some qualitative AND quantitative theoretical models that can be tested with the Rosetta mission.

E.g. 67P/CG emits about 300 ml of water per second (or 50 - 400 x 10²³ molecules/s), how does that agree with the EDM (electric discharge machining) model of creating water by solar wind impact on the regolith of the cometary nucleus.

I am looking forward to your qualitative AND quantitativeanswers.

 

[Haig]

I fail to see how this amusing discussion about the nature of electrons has to do with the nonsense theory of Electric Comets.

A theory of Electric Comets requires an Electric Universe. So the above discussion is relevant.

Maybe Siggy_G (or Haig, yeah right!) can finally provide us with some qualitative AND quantitative theoretical models that can be tested with the Rosetta mission.

It will come in time but you're right, not from Haig,

I am looking forward to your qualitative AND quantitativeanswers.

Here is Thunderbolts view of the NASA electric asteroid model and other points ... Interesting

NASA Warns Astronauts of Electric Asteroids | Space News

Published on 4 Jul 2014
A new NASA report describes the potential dangers that electrical environments of asteroids could pose for astronauts in future space missions. NASA scientists are now attempting to create models that will successfully predict dangerous electrical interactions between an approaching spacecraft and an asteroid. The report begins with a brief, surprising description of space rarely seen in official press releases.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrYaM9Q-mCM

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Hey Haig!

Remember you wrote this, over a week ago now?

I don't have that much time for this just now, too many questions, all you genuine guys really have to do your own thinking if you want answers.

It seems all us "genuine guys" really did do your own thinking, and we all came to the conclusion that the EU/ES/EC is junk, worthless, and incapable of explaining anything at all.

Ben m responded like this, trying to help you out:

I don't have that much time for this just now, too many questions, all you genuine guys really have to do your own thinking if you want answers.

Good advice! I do my own thinking; that's how I reached the conclusion that EU/PC doesn't work.

(Somehow I don't think that's what you meant.)

Do you do your own thinking? Why don't you show us some of the independent EU/PC calculations you've done?

Have you had a chance - in this last week - to prepare some answers to questions from us "genuine guys"?

In particular, have you started on preparing an answer to ben m's request, for you to show us some of the independent calculations you've done?

ETA: our posts crossed; in response to tusenfem's speculation (maybe you "can finally provide us with some qualitative AND quantitative theoretical models that can be tested with the Rosetta mission"), you said "not from Haig"

So, you freely admit you're nothing but a spam troll?

 

[Haig]

ETA: our posts crossed; in response to tusenfem's speculation (maybe you "can finally provide us with some qualitative AND quantitative theoretical models that can be tested with the Rosetta mission"), you said "not from Haig"

So, you freely admit you're nothing but a spam troll?

Hey! DeiRenDopa,

Sure I don't personally provide qualitative AND quantitative theoretical models but pointing out others that do and inviting you and anybody else to consider the facts is a valid position. You need to get out more.

Still don't have a lot of spare time but that doesn't make me a bad person does it?

Solar System Shift
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYSIN5zhoow

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Here is Thunderbolts view of the NASA electric asteroid model and other points ... Interesting

NASA Warns Astronauts of Electric Asteroids | Space News


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrYaM9Q-mCM

As will no doubt be pointed out to you, there's nothing of any scientific value in this; there are no models, no numbers, no predictions.

Worse, it contains outright, bald-faced lies, which have been exposed many times before (e.g. Wal Thornhill: "Based on ... I made the prediction before the Deep Impact mission that when the probe approached the comet, there would be a spark before it touched the comet. And this is what was seen"; "... there is no real difference between comets and asteroids, and this particular claim has been born out by almost every experiment done to determine the composition of comets"; "... the magnetic field contained by the solar wind is not explained." "The convection zone beneath the surface of the Sun [...] has not been found" )

You know what Haig, since you're so gullible as to continue to believe these con-men, I've got this really great bridge you really want to buy ...

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Hey! DeiRenDopa,

Sure I don't personally provide ANY qualitative AND OR quantitative theoretical models

ftfy

but pointing out others that do

Oh?

I have yet to see any (and I do read everything you post; it's wonderful entertainment ), but maybe I forgot the one occasion when you did.

Care to remind me, please?

and inviting you and anybody else to consider the facts is a valid position.

Only if you are willing to spend time discussing what you post. Otherwise you're just a spam troll, aren't you?

And yeah, well us "genuine guys" did "consider the facts", and have concluded that the EU/ES/EC is little more than a con. Especially considering that 0% of the money gullible folk pay them is used for scientific research.

Still don't have a lot of spare time but that doesn't make me a bad person does it?

A gullible fool perhaps, unless you are getting paid to spam forums like this with utterly worthless trash like all these YouTube vids ...

But why the (apparent) intense reluctance to actually do what you recommend others do? Why is it that you have not - ever, apparently - done your own, independent investigation into the validity of the (entirely non-quantitative) claims by the EU con-men?

 

[Haig]

But why the (apparent) intense reluctance to actually do what you recommend others do? Why is it that you have not - ever, apparently - done your own, independent investigation into the validity of the (entirely non-quantitative) claims by the EU con-men?

You're assuming. Look into the origins of EU/PC theory when the Mainstream science said that space was only a vacuum and EM forces in Space wasn't possible. They only needed Newtonian gravity.

My, how that view has changed.

Sure I'm only a numpty and can only take a view on what makes sense of the facts as I understand them. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Maybe you can use your superior mind to explain this in simple terms for us dummies?

The Vacuum Catastrophe - Zero-Point Energy

 

[DeiRenDopa]

You're assuming. Look into the origins of EU/PC theory when the Mainstream science said that space was only a vacuum and EM forces in Space wasn't possible. They only needed Newtonian gravity.

What?!?!?!

You actually believed the con-men's lies? You never actually bothered to go check for yourself, to see if any of these outrageous lies were true (HINT: they're all so wrong it's not even funny; "mainstream science" was investigating all that stuff before Thornhill, Scott, et al. were even born).

My, how that view has changed.

The only thing that has changed is how much money the con-men are making from creating Ponzi-would-be-proud YouTube vids.

Sure I'm only a numpty and can only take a view on what makes sense of the facts as I understand them. I don't see anything wrong with that.

I'll take you at your word and ask you this: how much of your time have you spent reading material on websites - like this one - which debunk the EU?

My guess would be "essentially none". If so, then you have chosen - willingly - to believe liars and con-men, and have chosen to not do your own fact checking. It's good that you are posting here, because this site is a great resource to help you check facts on your own. However, people here have been pointing out the 'not even wrong' factual mistakes in the material you keep spamming us with for a very long time now. And yet you seem to have not even bothered to read any of the material they recommend, much less ask critical questions of it.

Maybe you can use your superior mind to explain this in simple terms for us dummies?

The Vacuum Catastrophe - Zero-Point Energy

What, another YouTube video!?!?

Why don't you give us your own summary of the key points it's making, and what it is about those points you feel is so compelling? I mean, just for once, stop being a spam troll, OK?

 

[tusenfem]

A theory of Electric Comets requires an Electric Universe. So the above discussion is relevant.

there is an appropriate thread for that this is for electric comets, and the EU proponents should post their models.

It will come in time but you're right, not from Haig,

"come in time" are you frakking kidding? we have been discussing EU nonsense well over a decade!!!! and you cannot parrot anything you get from thunderdolts that is even close to being a quantitative model.

If the water is created by EDM as EC peeps claim, then please show us the numbers, that claim has also been made about a decade ago if not longer!

Not even the mainstream water creation on the surface of the moon has been taken as a starting point to apply to comets.

EU/ES/EC has once more shown to be an absentee landlord.

Here is Thunderbolts view of the NASA electric asteroid model and other points ... Interesting

NASA Warns Astronauts of Electric Asteroids | Space News

sorry I am not going to watch any youtube vids, you can ask for a written explanation.

Indeed, surfaces in space can be charged (that is why we have an ASPOC instrument on our spacecraft), whether or not it is dangerous for astronauts remains to be seen, the same was thought for the moon landing.

I cannot find the actual NASA press release, only the EU youtube :-(, but I seem to remember there was mention of tethers which would be used on the astronauts. Naturally, these CAN be dangerous, as we well know that the magnetic field is flowing along with about 400 km/s and the tether can obtain a significant potential across it, which can vary from 0, when the magnetic field is along the tether to something maximum, an electric field E = vxB = 400E3 x 5E-9 = 0.002 V/m ... and here I go again doing the math for you guyz.