The Electric Comet theory

[Reality Check]

EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets

Those four bodies in the asteroid belt ...

And expanding on why claiming that the main belt comets are the imaginary electric comets is ridiculous:
EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets

23 August 2013 - updated the numbers.
EC universe: Rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value will be comets.
There may be other factors involved but since there is no actual EC model there is no list available.

There are observed main-belt comets with a minimum eccentricity of 0.1644 (133P/Elst-Pizarro). So the EC minimim must be this (or lower!).

Real universe: There are rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value that are not comets.
In fact there are asteroids in orbits that are get close to cometary orbits, e.g. 2005 VX3 with an eccentricity of 0.9955142)

The JPL Small-Body Database Browser has a search engine. This shows that there are 234,719 cataloged asteroids with an eccentricity > 0.17.

The EC excuse (according to Sol88) is that low solar activity is the reason that these 234,719 cataloged asteroids are not comets. What Sol88 has not realized is that each asteroid is observed a number of times over a period of days to years. These 234,719 cataloged asteroids were not clse to the the Sun at the same instant of time. These asteroids were observed during a range of solar activity. That range included times that comets were visible.

So how many of these should be comets?

EC has no actual physical model and so never gives numbers so we do not expect help there.

Conclusion: EC currently predicts that 100% of the 234,719 asteroids should be comets.
We could be generous and assume that average solar activity is needed and so there are 86,791 asteroids that should be comets according to the EC idea. But that can wait until an EC proponent comes up with actual observations related to EC !
Good examples of the asteriods that should be comets according to the EC idea are many of the named asteroids:

• Juno (e=0.2553, observed over a span of 67,610 days).
• Pallas (e=0.2309, observed over a span of 64,291 days)
• Astraea (e=0.1917, observed over a span of 59,759 days)
• ...More than 46 other named asteroids observed 1000's of times over decades.
• Vera (e=0.1939, observed over a span of 45,191 days)

This analysis is in fact being generous to the EC idea. A stricter analysis would be to look at the orbital parameters of all comets (not just main-belt comets). This shows that the comet 158P/Kowal-LINEAR has an eccentricity of 0.0279 and a perihelion distance of 4.594 AU.

There are 605,650 asteroids with eccentricities greater than the minimum observed eccentricity of comets (0.0279). These should be EC comets.

Another EC excuse (according to solrey), is that composition plays a part determning whether "discharges" happen. He completely forgets about calculating the energy of these discharges as usual with EC proponents.

Numbers updated on 19 May 2014:
243,237 cataloged asteroids with an eccentricity > 0.17.
626,970 cataloged asteroids with an eccentricity > 0.0279.

 

[Dancing David]

Those four bodies in the asteroid belt have more negative charge than the other asteroids. Just as ALL the comets have different negative charge AND ALL the planets too. That's the answer DD and you have been given it many times!

They ALL set up Langmuir Sheaths.

In those four asteroids and all comets we call this effect "comas" and with planets we call it Magnetospheres.

Here look at this for a more detailed explanation of "The Electric Comet"

Enjoy

Except that is the problem Haig which you have never answered either.

there are all the asteroids that go through the exact same spaces for the exact same duration and times, and they don't show comas.

Why don't they show comas?

Thanks for demonstrating that you can't answer the question or fail to comprehend it.

 

[Haig]

* The idiocy of linking to a YouTube video!
* The implied inability to understand that 0.6 is not 3.0 (the basic ignorance of all EC proponents).

Same old RC

You could learn a lot from a YouTube video!

Only today two NEGATIVELY CHARGED sun diving comets disappeared into our variable POSITIVELY CHARGED sun http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISgBs_IrM4w

The evidence points to comets as charged objects. So you should realise your 0.6 / 3.0 issue disappears in EM effects.

Have you read the latest success of EU theory in Nature?

The electric suns solar wind affects lightning here on earth

Lightning linked to solar wind
Correlation suggests answer to longstanding question about what triggers bolts.

 

[Haig]

Except that is the problem Haig which you have never answered either.

there are all the asteroids that go through the exact same spaces for the exact same duration and times, and they don't show comas.

Why don't they show comas?

Thanks for demonstrating that you can't answer the question or fail to comprehend it.

I have answered DD

ALL bodies in space have charge! ... asteroids, comets, planets, suns ...

Did you know spacecraft pick up charge as soon as they are launched? We live in an electric universe DD

You claim to know the history of all the asteroids with respect to same space, duration and times - that's your error and why they don't ALL have the same charge.

Comas only show (become visible) when the charge is sufficient to come out of dark mode. The behaviour of charged bodies in an electric field is the answer you claim to be looking for but you don't appear to actually want to know

 

[Dancing David]

I have answered DD

ALL bodies in space have charge! ... asteroids, comets, planets, suns ...

Did you know spacecraft pick up charge as soon as they are launched? We live in an electric universe DD

You claim to know the history of all the asteroids with respect to same space, duration and times - that's your error and why they don't ALL have the same charge.

That shows you ignore the celestial mechanics all the way and just make it up as you go along. care to show where those four asteroid are that is different?

They all fit in teh main belt.
https://www.google.com/search?q=ast...wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FJupiter_Trojan;600;600

Comas only show (become visible) when the charge is sufficient to come out of dark mode. The behaviour of charged bodies in an electric field is the answer you claim to be looking for but you don't appear to actually want to know

Except for the fact that you won't address, there are other asteroids that go through exactly the same space as the four that show comas, and they do so for the same time and duration.

Yet they don't show comas Haig, so why don't they have the same charge as teh four that show comas? is there some magic charge fairy?

If the charge comes from positions and duration they should show the exacts same comas as those four, I think you refuse to address that specific point.

Why don't the others? they should have the same charge, so what gives?

http://www.physics.csbsju.edu/370/langmuir_probe.pdf

Another source you didn't read, I wonder what part of that source says that you have to have charge to glow, I don't think you know what teh dark space is and just copy pasta.

 

[dasmiller]

Comas only show (become visible) when the charge is sufficient to come out of dark mode.

The last time I looked into this, there was a paucity of numbers and when I tried to come up with my own numbers, they didn't make sense. Is it better this time around? When you say "the charge is sufficient to come out of dark mode," do you have numbers like, "for a 1-km asteroid at 1.5 AUs, the charge is around XXX coulombs?" and "the sun has a net charge of YYY coulombs?"

 

[DeiRenDopa]

The last time I looked into this, there was a paucity of numbers and when I tried to come up with my own numbers, they didn't make sense. Is it better this time around? When you say "the charge is sufficient to come out of dark mode," do you have numbers like, "for a 1-km asteroid at 1.5 AUs, the charge is around XXX coulombs?" and "the sun has a net charge of YYY coulombs?"

I think the answer is a clear 'no, there have never been any numbers, and there are no numbers this time either'.

But I'd be delighted to be proven wrong!

 

[Haig]

One more time

That shows you ignore the celestial mechanics all the way and just make it up as you go along. care to show where those four asteroid are that is different?

It's EU / PC theory DD and they are different by the amount of charge they have.

Except for the fact that you won't address, there are other asteroids that go through exactly the same space as the four that show comas, and they do so for the same time and duration.

You don't know that DD.

Yet they don't show comas Haig, so why don't they have the same charge as teh four that show comas? is there some magic charge fairy?

Electrical conditions DD

If the charge comes from positions and duration they should show the exacts same comas as those four, I think you refuse to address that specific point.

We have a variable electric star DD (our sun) and electrical conditions around it vary. It's is becoming less active as it moves towards a Solar Grand Minimum from it's recent, 20th century very active cycle.

Why don't the others? they should have the same charge, so what gives?

But they don't have the same charge or we would see comas!

It's like the Auroras on the planets ... Earth, Saturn, Jupiter ... they are only visible when the electrical conditions are right. Understand?

In a similar way, as comets comas become visible when the D/L double layer that forms their Langmuir Sheath goes into glow mode from dark mode. The timing of that depends on the suns variable electric field and the size of the negative charge the comet has as it approaches the positively charged sun.

http://www.physics.csbsju.edu/370/langmuir_probe.pdf

Another source you didn't read, I wonder what part of that source says that you have to have charge to glow, I don't think you know what teh dark space is and just copy pasta.

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

Sure it's not the best example but you surely can get the idea! ... the electrical conditions in the plasma around the charged body (asteroid, comet, planet, sun) determine if it's in glow mode OR dark mode.

 

[Haig]

The last time I looked into this, there was a paucity of numbers and when I tried to come up with my own numbers, they didn't make sense. Is it better this time around? When you say "the charge is sufficient to come out of dark mode," do you have numbers like, "for a 1-km asteroid at 1.5 AUs, the charge is around XXX coulombs?" and "the sun has a net charge of YYY coulombs?"

I think the answer is a clear 'no, there have never been any numbers, and there are no numbers this time either'.

But I'd be delighted to be proven wrong!

This is just plasma physics which is scalable from plasmas here on earth to those in space. So pick your numbers from the appropriate papers and away you go. The Thunderbolts teams will be happy to keep you right if you ask them nicely.

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

 

[dasmiller]

This is just plasma physics which are scalable from plasmas here on earth to those in space. So pick your numbers from the appropriate papers and away you go.

When I've done my own numbers, they haven't worked out, but there are always some imbedded assumptions and I doubt that my assumptions would match yours.

Is there an example of an EU paper that gives the numbers for a typical comet, and for the sun, and shows how those numbers match the observed phenomena?

 

[Dancing David]

One more time
It's EU / PC theory DD and they are different by the amount of charge they have.

You don't know that DD.

Electrical conditions DD

We have a variable electric star DD (our sun) and electrical conditions around it vary. It's is becoming less active as it moves towards a Solar Grand Minimum from it's recent, 20th century very active cycle.

But they don't have the same charge or we would see comas!

It's like the Auroras on the planets ... Earth, Saturn, Jupiter ... they are only visible when the electrical conditions are right. Understand?

In a similar way, as comets comas become visible when the D/L double layer that forms their Langmuir Sheath goes into glow mode from dark mode. The timing of that depends on the suns variable electric field and the size of the negative charge the comet has as it approaches the positively charged sun.


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

Sure it's not the best example but you surely can get the idea! ... the electrical conditions in the plasma around the charged body (asteroid, comet, planet, sun) determine if it's in glow mode OR dark mode.

Apparently you don't understand your own theory very well, shocked I am!



Answer the question why when there are hundreds of other asteroid bodies that pass through the same spaces as the ones with comas , do the others not develop comas.

They do not have a unique history there are hundreds of other bodies that go through teh same conditions.

But this just shows you don't really understand EC theory very well at all, any charge difference needs to be renewed constantly because the electric coma will discharge any charge differential over time. So it must be renewed, now here is the contradiction.

it happens only for those four despite the hundreds of others in the same conditions.

Admit it Haig either you don't don't understand the EC theory at all or you can't explain this contradiction.

 

[Dancing David]

This is just plasma physics which is scalable from plasmas here on earth to those in space. So pick your numbers from the appropriate papers and away you go. The Thunderbolts teams will be happy to keep you right if you ask them nicely.

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

Pay no attention to the man behind teh curtain!

You make the theory look worse and worse Haig, you just copy pasta, you don't actually comprehend the EC at all.

Why do only four asteroid bodies show comas, it is not because of any charge they acquired because if they had, then hundreds of other bodies would show them too.

Why don't Apollo asteroids show comas, the spend more time in deep space and come closer to the sun, yet no comas.

 

[ben m]

I have answered DD

ALL bodies in space have charge! ... asteroids, comets, planets, suns ...

According to the laws of physics and electromagnetism, such bodies might have small amounts of charge. They cannot have large amounts of charge. Insofar as there is charge, it carries very little energy (tiny capacitances), drives no currents, and has virtually no effect on any visible phenomenon. That's what E&M and plasma physics says.

According to actual electromagnetic measurements, such bodies do not have large amounts of charge. Like the laws of E&M expected.

Mainstream astronomy is right about how much charge objects have. (EU/PC does not know how much charge objects have---that's why you can't cite a number anywhere.) Mainstream astronomy is right about what effects charges can have. (EU/PC is completely full of crap about these effects. "charged asteroids have tails"? What idiot made that up, and which bodily orifice did he pull it out of?)

 

[ben m]

This is just plasma physics which is scalable from plasmas here on earth to those in space. So pick your numbers from the appropriate papers and away you go.

If I pick the actually appropriate numbers (not the Thunderbolt guesswork) and apply the actual plasma scaling laws (not the Thunderbolt-style "I took a small picture and it looks like this big picture" fallacy), I get the standard, non-EU, non-PC result that asteroids and comets have experience no noteworthy electrostatic charge, electrostatic energy, discharges, currents, or Lorentz forces.).

Why don't you get that result? Oh, right, because you've never done any of this. You only read someone claiming to have done it, and you believed them, without checking in any way.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is just plasma physics which is scalable from plasmas here on earth to those in space. So pick your numbers from the appropriate papers and away you go. The Thunderbolts teams will be happy to keep you right if you ask them nicely.

This is a typical dodge on your part: when someone asks for numbers, you refuse.

And there are no appropriate numbers. You cannot get ANY set of numbers to make sense, because comets are not electric. The numbers will either be too small to produce enough power, or too large to be even marginally stable. No "sweet spot" exists, because the theory is impossible.

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

I doubt that electrical effects dominate at scales significantly larger than the Debye length of the plasma. The reason for that should be obvious.

 

[Haig]

If I pick the actually appropriate numbers (not the Thunderbolt guesswork) and apply the actual plasma scaling laws (not the Thunderbolt-style "I took a small picture and it looks like this big picture" fallacy), I get the standard, non-EU, non-PC result that asteroids and comets have experience no noteworthy electrostatic charge, electrostatic energy, discharges, currents, or Lorentz forces.).

Why don't you get that result? Oh, right, because you've never done any of this. You only read someone claiming to have done it, and you believed them, without checking in any way.

This is a typical dodge on your part: when someone asks for numbers, you refuse.

And there are no appropriate numbers. You cannot get ANY set of numbers to make sense, because comets are not electric. The numbers will either be too small to produce enough power, or too large to be even marginally stable. No "sweet spot" exists, because the theory is impossible.



I doubt that electrical effects dominate at scales significantly larger than the Debye length of the plasma. The reason for that should be obvious.

Numbers are NOT what you need first imo, if you really want to understand electric comets in the electric field of the sun, it's data ....

You guys seem to be unaware of the latest data coming from the satellites regarding the electrical environment between sun and earth and what it means ... or that it supports EU/PC theory.

Charge separation and double layers are key in this and these two recent videos are a good way to catch up, if you want.

"Dr. Michael Clarage shares new observations of some of the complexities of the Earth's electrical environment. The Sun and Earth are connected in ways very similar to how man-made electrical equipment is connected."
Dr. Michael Clarage: Earth's Electric Environment | EU2014

"Dr. Donald Scott described his investigation of the inherent properties of Birkeland currents and subsequent discovery that they produce unexpectedly far-reaching magnetic fields in cosmic space. These fields collect matter and compress it into concentric hollow cylinders. They also produce a long-range attractive force on other such currents. Without involving mathematics, Scott describes the results of his analysis of the magnetic structures that are produced by, and that surround, Birkeland Currents. This work and its results gives new insight into the understanding of the electrical properties of space"
Donald Scott: A New Model of Magnetic Structure in Space | EU2014

Also from Donald Scott this paper (pdf) Magnetic Fields of Birkeland Currents

 

[Dancing David]

Oh I see peer reviewed publications on Youtube...

Uh huh..

 

[dasmiller]

Numbers are NOT what you need first imo, if you really want to understand electric comets in the electric field of the sun, it's data ....

At what point do we need numbers, then?

Many of us believe that asteroids' electric fields are (far) too weak, and the solar wind too tenuous, to give the effects demanded by EU.

Further, we suspect that if an asteroid had sufficient charge to make it shed mass like a comet, it would instantly and violently explode, thus saving it from the indignity of traveling in an orbit that was obviously not dominated by gravitational attraction.

Providing us with some numbers could go a long way towards shutting us up. If, perhaps, you could show us a sample case, something like:

"assuming a 1 km asteroid with an initial net charge of z coulombs, in an x by y AU orbit around a sun with a net charge of w coulombs, and a solar wind with v properties. To sputter u kg of rock per second, we'd need an average discharge rate of t amperes, which would be replenished using mechanism s. With these net charges for the sun and the asteroid, the electrostatic attraction would be only r newtons, which is insignificant compared to the gravitational attraction of q newtons, so the orbit would not be noticably perturbed. For a 1 km sphere with a net charge of z coulombs, the electrostatic repulsion at the surface is only p newtons per square meter, which is well below the tensile strength for rock"

. . . if the numbers held up, it would mute much of the criticism. It still wouldn't resolve a number of observational issues, but it would make it seem . . . well . . . less crazy.

 

[Haig]

At what point do we need numbers, then? ... snip ...
. . . if the numbers held up, it would mute much of the criticism. It still wouldn't resolve a number of observational issues, but it would make it seem . . . well . . . less crazy.

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?

Remember, this data is from Mainstream satellites NOT EU/PC ... they only have a better theory ;-)

Numbers need to follow the complexity, right? What is the Mainstream view of this new satellite data?

 

[Ziggurat]

Numbers are NOT what you need first imo, if you really want to understand electric comets in the electric field of the sun, it's data ....

What exactly do you think data is?

You guys seem to be unaware of the latest data coming from the satellites regarding the electrical environment between sun and earth and what it means ... or that it supports EU/PC theory.

No, it really doesn't. Which is why you can't formulate a model which actually has numbers in it.

Charge separation and double layers are key in this

This is essentially a prayer for you. You invoke it on the basis of faith, not reason. "Double layers" is a mantra, not an argument.

A refusal to deal with numbers is the sine qua non of the physics crank.

Without involving mathematics, Scott describes the results of his analysis of the magnetic structures that are produced by, and that surround, Birkeland Currents.

Of course he doesn't involve math.