The Electric Comet theory

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sol88 said:
...snipped ranting...
Click to expand...
Nothing to do with the ignorance and delusions in a Thunderbolts blog, Sol88 :jaw-dropp
Reality Check said:
Haig once again cannot understand the ignorance and delusions in a Thunderbolts blog which are the only interesting points on that page :p!
Haig quotes them
  • lying about surface ice on comets - but their "little or no water or water-ice" fantasy probably includes a comet 100% covered in water or water ice :rolleyes:.
  • being deluded about science - that observations change theories is basic science.
  • logical fallacy of false dichotomy - imaginary evidence against the mainstream is not evidence for an electric comet idea that is easily seen to be delusional.
Click to expand...

So we have:
  • The idiocy of thinking that people talking about dust means that there is only dust on 67P when dust, water, CO2, CH4, etc. have been detected :jaw-dropp!
  • The repeated ignorance about the Tempel 1 results which confirmed the mainstream theory that comets are ice and dust by detecting ice and dust :jaw-dropp!
  • The paranoia of "conspiracy side of things":jaw-dropp!
  • Ignorance about Philae!
    Every science package on Philae worked as far as we know (analysis of the drill samples - if any -looks to be still outstanding).
  • Sol88 seems to be ignorant about the existence of Rosetta :rolleyes: which has its own science packages!
 
Sol88 said:
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=68321
Click to expand...
Oh dear, Sol88: Your last post was about only dust in jets from 657P and here you are citing dust and ice jets :jaw-dropp!
Spectacular Jets Erupting From Rosetta’s Active Comet
A spectacle of erupting jets are blasting away from the clearly active neck of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko in stunning new imagery captured by Europe’s Rosetta spacecraft as it swoops in ever closer to this bizarre remnant from the formation of our Solar System.
...
Jets of dust particles and sublimating ice are visibly exploding out from the comet’s “neck” region, centered between the two mysterious lobes of comet 67P, dubbed the “head” and the “body.”
Click to expand...
(my emphasis added)

It is funny that you cannot grasp the fact that no scientist who actually studies comets is ignorant enough to state that they are solid rock, Sol88 :).
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
so to recap so far
Click to expand...
So recap so far: You are citing a bunch of deluded and ignorant cracks yet again, Sol88 :jaw-dropp.
This is not a surprise since you have been citing the ignorance, delusions and even lies at Thunderbolts since you started this thread in 2009.
Show us that electric comet is not unsupported fantasies, Sol88:

Significant delusions on that Thunderbolts web page:
  • That the electric comet idea has any predictions - all it has is the fairy stories that Thunderbolts weave about it.
  • That Rosetta is looking for "interstellar dust".
  • That the fact that there were no electric discharges detected on landing is further evidence that the electric comet is a delusion (not that it is needed!)
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Rings a bell LINK

confirmation then for Kristian Birkeland credit, where credits due. 1913?? wow!
Click to expand...
Rings a woo bell being rung by an bell ringer who did not read what he replied to, Sol88 :p!
tusenfem writes about plasma (not named until 1928!) physics which started to have good theory in the 1940's (Alfvén and magnetohydrodynamics).
tusenfem writes about "ringing comets" that was not discovered until decades after Birkeland's death.

You cite the speculations of Birkeland who died in 1917 from 1913: Kristian Birkeland
Electrical discharges in rarefied gases - not plasma :jaw-dropp!
The ignorance of thinking that science stopped with Birkeland :D! Birkeland's book is full of his analogies between his terrella images and other images, e.g. of the Sun, Saturn, nebula (galaxies), etc. Scientific progress shows that he was wrong about most of these analogies:
  • The solar wind is not electrical corpuscle-rays from sunspots and calculated to travel a little less than the speed of light.
    The general idea of electrons and ions emitted from the Sun was correct.
  • The Sun is not a metal ball containing a magnet wired up to create electrical discharges!
    Solar activity such as prominences is plasma in magnetic fields.
  • Saturn's rings are not electrical phenomena!
  • Galaxies are not electrical phenomena!
  • Zodiacal light is not emitted by the Sun.
  • Comets are not just "an accumulation of cosmic dust". They are also an accumulation of cosmic ices as shown by their density (probably not known in 1913).
  • Cherry picking one example ("Encke 's comet") to support his speculation that there is a link between solar activity and comet brightness was wrong.
    An excuse could be a lack of comet brightness data.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Oh dear, Sol88: Your last post was about only dust in jets from 657P and here you are citing dust and ice jets :jaw-dropp!
Spectacular Jets Erupting From Rosetta’s Active Comet
Jets of dust particles and sublimating ice are visibly exploding out from the comet’s “neck” region, centered between the two mysterious lobes of comet 67P, dubbed the “head” and the “body.”
Click to expand...

(my emphasis added)

It is funny that you cannot grasp the fact that no scientist who actually studies comets is ignorant enough to state that they are solid rock, Sol88 :).
Click to expand...


sublimating ice?? We have?
 
Sol88 said:
sublimating ice?? We have?
Click to expand...
sublimating ice!! We have!
At least the people who can read and know what comets are in the real world have :p:
Spectacular Jets Erupting From Rosetta’s Active Comet
Jets of dust particles and sublimating ice are visibly exploding out from the comet’s “neck” region, centered between the two mysterious lobes of comet 67P, dubbed the “head” and the “body.”
Click to expand...

It is the basic physics that the Thunderbolts cranks are in denial of (or just ignorant of): Comets are made of ices and dust. Add heat from the Sun and you get sublimating ice. Sublimating ice jets out from the nucleus taking ice and dust particles with it. The ice particles then sublimate :jaw-dropp!
 
Ziggurat said:
Funny thing, though: you never actually do.

Nope. I've done the calculations. It won't work. Electromagnetic forces are off by many orders of magnitude more than gravity without dark matter. Electromagnetism at galactic scales is so pathetically weak as to be irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Ziggurat said:
Yeah, no.

Let's do some calculations, shall we? I know you're allergic to math, but don't worry, I'll do the actual calculations.

We know that the force of attraction between two charges is
F = k q1q2/r2Let's figure out the charge on the sun, which we'll call q2. We have
q2 = F r2/(k q1)
So from your source, we have a positive charge of 1031 Coulombs at the galactic core. We'll ignore the shielding of negative charge distributed between us and the galactic core for simplicity (this will overestimate the strength of attraction). So we have
q1 = 1031 C

I've previously calculated that the sun experiences an acceleration of about 1.7x10-10 m/s2. This requires a force of
F=ma=1.7x10-10 m/s2*2x1030 kg = 3.4x1020 N.

The distance to the galactic core gives us r = 2.6x1020 m

And of course, k = 9x1019 N m2/C2
So now let's put it all together:

q2 = 3.4x1020 N * (2.6x1020 m)2/(9x1019 N m2/C2 * 1031 C)
= 2.6x1010 C

That's what the charge on the sun would need to be in order to provide the necessary acceleration towards the galactic center. That's a big charge. How big? Well, as I pointed out before, serious estimates place the limit of charge on the sun at around 100 Coulombs, which is off by a factor of 100,000,000. But it gets worse: it's off in the wrong direction! The sun should be positively charged, but we need it to be negatively charged.

OK, maybe those estimates are wrong. What would happen if you stuck that much charge on the sun?

Well, again, I've done the calculation already. A charge of a mere 109 C would cause the sun to explode at relativistic speeds. And that's more than a factor of 10 smaller than what would be required to make electricity account for galactic rotation.

The idea is absurd. When you're off by a factor of 8, you're wrong. When you're off by a factor of 108, you've achieved supreme wrongness.
Click to expand...

Ziggurat said:
Quite so.

The stupidity of the idea comes from not recognizing that you can't just bunch like charge together like you can bunch mass together. If you spread that charge around throughout the galaxy, (which is an awfully big place), it's not that much. But that doesn't work, because then you just get these forces on the net charges floating around, and not on the mass. Concentrated mass would fly off, and the charge would get sucked back in. But that's not what happens. Our galaxy is rotating together. The gas clouds and the stars don't go in completely different directions. So they all need to be experiencing a force that's at least close to proportional to their mass. But since stars have masses which are INCREDIBLY concentrated compared to the galactic average, this theory demands that they have charges which are correspondingly concentrated. And that, well, that just blows up.

BTW, I know you know all this, and Haig probably won't accept it, but it's for the benefit of any lurkers.
Click to expand...

Your absolutely right Ziggurat I don't accept it.

So how can a numpty like Haig say I don't accept it? btw your "it's for the benefit of any lurkers" is a nice touch ;)

Let me try to explain (it's for the benefit of any lurkers) bearing in mind I'm not a "spokesman" for the EU/PU theory just someone who has read the literature and can see that it does make sense.

While i'm on my soapbox just let me express my surprise that on a forum for "International Skeptics" you, RC, DD, Tusenfem and others show so little scrutiny of the mainstream dogma.

So why is your calculation wrong?

In brief, you use an electrostatic model instead of the much more complex electromagnetism model. You further oversimplify things in your assumptions to get around the unknowns. In addition to making assumptions intentionally you are also making assumptions you don’t even know you are making!

It’s similar to the mistakes made by those calculating the force needed to hold spinning galaxies together. Seeing that gravity was woefully inadequate to do the job they imagine dark forces that can’t be seen or detected directly: black holes, dark matter, dark energy.

In this bizarre view of the universe (ours) the mainstream claim 96% of the universe is made up of black holes, dark matter, and dark energy.

Only 4% is left for “ordinary” matter such as: galaxies, stars, planets, moons, comets, asteroids, interstellar dust and gas.

So we can only know and study the 4%. Just think about that for a while and how wrong it sounds.

In the days when I actually did problem solving calculations, if you got an obvious “nonsense” answer you had to go back and check your math and assumptions. When did we stop doing that?

What’s the alternative?

The EU/PC view is that the universe is made up of 99.9% plasma with the remaining 0.1 made up of galaxies, stars, planets moons, comets, asteroids.

So we live in a Plasma universe that can actually study directly. Plasma behavior in an electromagnetic environment is well understood in laboratory experiments and the results are scalable to what we find in Space.

Getting back to your calculation for the exploding sun and assumptions that you don’t even know your making. Dr. Michael Clarage: Understanding the Electric Sun Model should help and the rest below ;) ...

Dr. Michael Clarage: Understanding the Electric Sun Model

Confirmed: Magnetic Waves Cannot Accelerate Solar Wind

More confirmation we live in an Electric universe with a galactic wide example of Electromagnetism's Right Hand Rule. How do you guy's explain this? more black arts I suspect :rolleyes:

Alignment of quasar polarizations with large-scale structures⋆ PDF

Scientists Observe Cluster of Quasars Aligned Perfectly Together

Electricity in space
Electricity is common throughout the universe, generated by all cosmic plasma as it moves through magnetic fields. Peer reviewed papers describe electricity in the Sun, and associated with the interplanetary medium (solar wind), planets and their satellites, comets, in interstellar space, other stars, and intergalactic space.


Importance of plasma
9.999% of the visible universe is a plasma, and all moving plasmas produced their own magnetic field and electric currents. For example, the Sun (and stars) produce current loops in solar flares, and currents flow thought extragalactic jets spanning many parsecs.

Space plasmas
Although outer space is a vacuum, it is permeated with the plasma of the Solar "Wind". This interacts with Sun's magnetic field, producing the heliospheric current sheet which carries about 3×109 amperes through our own Solar System. The galactic counterpart is estimated to carry of 1017 - 1019 Amps. The heliospheric current sheet is the largest coherent structure in our Solar System.


Laboratory science
Plasmas are strongly influenced by electro-magnetic forces. A laboratory simulation of two interacting electric "Birkeland" currents, models many characteristics of galaxy formation. The Electric Universe is based on the known properties of plasmas, in preference to unproven theoretical physics, and consequently does not require black holes, dark matter and dark energy, neutron stars and the Big Bang.
Click to expand...
http://www.electricuniverse.info/Introduction

Getting back to the Electric Comet theory and what makes them so fascinating to study is that they ARE out of balance electromagnetic bodies interacting with our electromagnetic sun.

In our stable solar system these electromagnetic forces are not active and gravity dominates.

Has our solar system always been stable? NO

Will it always be stable? NO
 
Um Haig,
You do know that electric stars would explode and that you are just hiding behind words and concepts you don't understand?

Apparently you don't know anything about actual plasma physics.
 
ApolloGnomon said:
I'm impressed by the depth of interpretation haig and sol88 have presented of a single black and white photograph. I've studied more than my share of geology and I'm unable to identify the substances and materials pictured other than "lander " and "not the lander."
Click to expand...

Ignorance breeds confidence.
 
In this bizarre view of the universe (ours) the mainstream claim 96% of the universe is made up of black holes, dark matter, and dark energy.

Only 4% is left for “ordinary” matter such as: galaxies, stars, planets, moons, comets, asteroids, interstellar dust and gas.

So we can only know and study the 4%. Just think about that for a while and how wrong it sounds.
Click to expand...

Argument From Incredulity fallacy.
 
Haig said:
So why is your calculation wrong?

In brief, you use an electrostatic model instead of the much more complex electromagnetism model.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no. I've taken courses in electromagnetism. I've not only read Griffiths' Introduction to Electrodynamics, he was my teacher. I've also read Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics. I'm well aware of the complexity of electromagnetism. I'm also well aware that electromagnetism doesn't negate electrostatics. Electrostatic forces still apply. If you want to claim that electrodynamic forces will somehow contain a system that electrostatic forces would make explode, you need to be able to describe (quantitatively!) what these supposed electrodynamic forces are which are doing the containment. And you can't, because they don't exist.

You further oversimplify things in your assumptions to get around the unknowns.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I made an assumption that reduced the necessary charge on the sun. The error introduced by my assumption makes it easier to satisfy the requirements. And yet, it still fails, spectacularly.

In addition to making assumptions intentionally you are also making assumptions you don’t even know you are making!
Click to expand...

Yet you cannot describe these apparently unknown assumptions.

It’s similar to the mistakes made by those calculating the force needed to hold spinning galaxies together. Seeing that gravity was woefully inadequate to do the job they imagine dark forces that can’t be seen or detected directly: black holes, dark matter, dark energy.
Click to expand...

Dark energy has nothing to do with galactic rotation curves.

So we can only know and study the 4%. Just think about that for a while and how wrong it sounds.
Click to expand...

Rocks fall from the sky, and rocks float. Just think about that for a while and how wrong it sounds.

Reality doesn't care if you think it's wrong. Plenty of real things defy our expectations.

In the days when I actually did problem solving calculations, if you got an obvious “nonsense” answer you had to go back and check your math and assumptions. When did we stop doing that?
Click to expand...

Who is this "we"? You're the one who stopped doing it, not me. You're the one who won't check your math or your assumptions. I went through the calculations, using YOUR preferred assumptions (that electricity can explain galactic rotation curves), and found out that the answer was nonsense. You refuse to check it. You refuse to reconsider your assumptions.

Getting back to your calculation for the exploding sun and assumptions that you don’t even know your making. Dr. Michael Clarage: Understanding the Electric Sun Model should help and the rest below ;) ...

Dr. Michael Clarage: Understanding the Electric Sun Model
Click to expand...

I'm not going to bother watching the video. Find a written source. But I will note this: the description of the video refers to Ralph Jeurgens as one of the sources for this model. Why is that noteworthy? Because it is precisely Jeurgens' model that I refuted when I calculated that the sun would explode with such a massive charge.

I won't bother with the rest of your links. You're just link-spamming the forum, they've all been refuted in one place or another already, and none of them address the calculation I just did which you're trying to change the subject from.
 
Disappointed in you Ziggurat.

The Dr Michael Clarage video is only 10 mins.

You also dodged the recent paper on the alignment of quasar polarizations with large scale structures. The PDF!

They are both important in the argument.
 
Haig said:
Disappointed in you Ziggurat.

The Dr Michael Clarage video is only 10 mins.
Click to expand...

Why should I watch a youtube video about a theory I already know is falsified? Give me a written source and I might look it over, but really, Jeurgens is a crackpot, I've already disproven him, and anything based on his ideas is bound to be wrong.

You also dodged the recent paper on the alignment of quasar polarizations with large scale structures. The PDF!
Click to expand...

Yes, I ignored it, because it's got nothing to do with galactic rotation curves, the sun, or comets. You're throwing mud at the wall hoping something will stick, but I'm not interested in chasing you from one topic to the next in a never-ending cycle of your denial or reality. I picked one topic that YOU brought up, and I've focused on that. I'm not going to change topics until we come to closure on that, which means either you demonstrate my alleged mistake (and simply appealing to "electromagnetism" doesn't cut it), or concede that the idea that galactic rotation curves can be explained by electromagnetism is wrong. Which will it be, Haig?
 
Well Ziggurat I'm surprised I have to explain it to an expert in electromagnetism like you.

From Electric Comets it follows - Electric Sun (the video) and from that it follows - Electric Universe / Plasma Cosmology ( the PDF gives strong support)

Make the effort why don't you ... could be interesting.
 
Haig said:
Well Ziggurat I'm surprised I have to explain it to an expert in electromagnetism like you.

From Electric Comets it follows - Electric Sun (the video) and from that it follows - Electric Universe / Plasma Cosmology ( the PDF gives strong support)

Make the effort why don't you ... could be interesting.
Click to expand...

No, actually, none of it follows. If comets were electric (of course, they aren't), that wouldn't mean that the sun was powered by electricity. Jeurgens is already disproven. As I've said before, even if we need to throw out our current models, that doesn't mean that we need to accept Electric Universe ideas. You don't substitute a broken model with one that's broken even more badly.

As for making an effort, you have yet to do so yourself. Never once have you seriously examined the evidence that contradicts your favored hypothesis. In contrast, I have spent effort examining it. That's how I came up with various proofs that different aspects of it were catastrophically wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom