The Electric Comet theory

[Reality Check]

Go on Zig have a read
VLT telescope reveals mysterious alignment of quasars with the Universe’s large-scale structure

Confirmation of the right hand rule in electromagnetism

What else BUT ...... EU/PC could give this result?

Confirmation of the stupidity of EU/PC ideas - this has nothing to do with the basic fact that the right hand rule exists, Haig !

What else BUT ...... actual physics that works and has already predicted correlations, Haig!
Spooky Alignment of Quasars Across Billions of Light-years

“A correlation between the orientation of quasars and the structure they belong to is an important prediction of numerical models of evolution of our Universe. Our data provide the first observational confirmation of this effect, on scales much larger that what had been observed to date for normal galaxies,” adds Dominique Sluse of the Argelander-Institut für Astronomie in Bonn, Germany and University of Liège.

 

[Reality Check]

To start ...just read and understand this ... Know plasma, know 99.999% of the Universe

Why should we look at something that you have obviously not read or understood, Haig ?
The universe is not 99.999% plasma (it is 4% plasma)
Plasma has no cosmological effects (Debye length).

 

[Reality Check]

...sniped EU fantasies....Your straw man calculation...more ranting...

Sorry, Haig, but that "straw man" comment reveals that you still do not understand that Ziggurat's calculation is basic electromagnetism and orbital mechanics.
It is simple enough - in order for EM forces to have a significant effect on the Sun, the Sun has to have a charge that would make it explode !

It should be obvious to you by now, Haig, that it is ignorant to cite Occam’s Razor to support the EU/PC delusions. Occam’s Razor is a way to select a more likely correct theory from a set of equally valid theories.

Stating your ignorance about EU/PC is also no a good idea, Haig.
Electric Comets is a total delusion.
Electric Sun is just a delusion.
Electric Universe is a lot of delusions.
Plasma Cosmology does not even exist !

It is lying to state that any of these "is the best fit to the data and facts we have". There is no much that they do not fit that it would take days to list them all .
Just about everything about comets - density, activity, EM activity, composition.
Just about everything about the Sun - energy output, neutrino production.
Just about everything about the universe - galaxy rotation curves, galaxy cluster collisions, cosmological redshift, CMB temperature, black body spectrum, power spectrum, large scale structure, galaxy formation.

 

[JeanTate]

Hello again Haig. (links removed; I still can't post them)

Hi JeanTate,

Sorry my posts couldn't satisfy you.

Me too.

From the sheer quantity of material you posted, I was certainly expecting at least some answers to my (very simple) questions.

And you seem to be extremely knowledgeable on the electric comet (and electric Sun) idea, so I was rather disappointed to find essentially no answers to any of my questions, anywhere in any of the many documents you posted.

Perhaps part of the reason is that you yourself don't really think about things quantitatively? That you do not seek 'electric' or 'electrical' explanations which are firmly tied to the relevant equations and calculations with electricity? (this is a genuine question; I am having difficulty reconciling your apparent zeal for these ideas with the apparent dearth of anything quantitative, or even scientific, to support them).

The latest I've read is this paper JMP and SAFIRE: What makes the sun shine?[/URL] Click on the link and you'll see some recent information and a Video of the presentation. Also, at the bottom, below the video, you can download a PDF that may have what your looking for.

Thanks.

I've downloaded the PDF, and will go through it - and the video - later.

From what you've written, may I take it that you could not answer any questions I may have, about what I find in those documents.

One of the best places to find further information is the Thunderbolts site.

If you join and ask your questions on the forum you will get straight answers without the ad-homs so common here. If you are genuine you won't have any problems there. Thunderbolts Forum Registration Application

Good luck in your quest

Thanks.

I had a quick skim of the site, before I even signed up as a member here (there are a great many links to it, in this thread). I found nothing at all resembling answers to any of the questions I asked you in this thread (which you seem to be unable or unwilling to even try to answer). Before I do anything like signing up on that site, I will certainly do a lot of reading; if I find that there are essentially no materials posted there, of the kind I'm looking for, I doubt I'll sign up. After all, if there's essentially nothing scientific in any of the threads there, what's the point?

In any case, I'll certainly come back here and let you know what I find!

 

[JeanTate]

Thanks Haig.

.
Same reply as in my last post to you Jean Tate

But why? None of my questions is particularly difficult, are they?

And I'm not even asking you to provide the calculations etc; rather, I'm simply asking you - who has obviously spent vastly many more hours than I have on this electric comet idea - to point me to material which contain such calculations (etc).

In any case, I'm looking forward to your answers to dasmiller's questions (sorry I can't link to the post).

 

[Reality Check]

Try understanding this ....

Try understanding that linking to a crank pre-print is bad for you, Haig.
Some crank working at "ThinkIncubate, Inc., Wellesley, Mass., USA" writes an obviously wrong pre-print about galaxy rotation curves being explained by an imaginary electrostatic charge between. He just reveals his ignorance, e.g. that there are multiple lines of evidence of dark matter.

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: Please cite the electric comet predictions for the albedo of comet nuclei

...snipped Thunderbolts lies...
Mars Spacecraft Reveal Comet Flyby Effects on Martian Atmosphere

The non delusional science, Haig, is

Comet C/2013 A1 Siding Spring traveled from the most distant region of our solar system, called the Oort Cloud, and made a close approach around 2:27 p.m. EDT within about 87,000 miles (139,500 kilometers) of the Red Planet. This is less than half the distance between Earth and our moon and less than one-tenth the distance of any known comet flyby of Earth.

Dust from the comet impacted Mars and was vaporized high in the atmosphere, producing what was likely an impressive meteor shower. This debris resulted in significant temporary changes to the planet’s upper atmosphere and possible longer-term perturbations. Earth-based and a host of space telescopes also observed the unique celestial object.

Astrophotographers Capture Dramatic Photos of Comet Siding Spring Approaching Mars

While we’re waiting, amateur astronomers have been busy shooting additional photos and creating videos from their images. Fritz Helmut Hemmerich made this video from 1200-meters at Tenerife in the Canary Islands showing Comet Siding Spring immediately after its Mars encounter. One thing we know for certain is that the comet is intact after its close brush.

The video shows the impact of the dust clearly:
Comet C/2013 A1 post-encounter with Mars

Comet C / 2013 A1. Shortly after his encounter with Mars Short video between 21 h and 22 h UT UT. 75 shots of 40 sec duration. Recordings from tonight in Tenerife (1200 meters altitide). Hyper Star 14 "with 460 mono Atik. SWAN_band filter.

P.S.

• Haig (30th June 2014): Why do EU supporters continue to claim that astronomers ignore E fields, etc.?
• Haig (3 November 2014) supplied another example of this ignorance by a EU supporter posting on the Thunderbolts forum.
• Haig (7th July 2014), is 3.0 different from 0.6?
• Haig (7th July 2014), if you want to see many cases of delusional thinking and ignorance from an EU "expert" often citing other EU "experts" then have a look at the Thunderbolts picture of the day blog!
• Haig (14th July 2014), How can you believe in the competence of the EU proponents when the speakers at their 2014 conference was a collection of cranks, actual deluded people and some electrical engineers? (the deluded people were the Velikovsky belivers: David Talbott, Daniel Jencka, Dwardu Cardona)?
• Haig (3 November 2014): What is the density of comet 67P; What is the density of rock? Are they the same?
• Plus any scientific answers to the science stated in Electric comets still do not exist!
• Haig (3rd November 2014): Have you noted the 19 items of ignorance and delusion in the first 11 minutes (out of 90!) of a Thunderbolt video that you cited?
• Haig (4th November 2014): Have you understood that Hyperion is an icy moon, not a rock (so why is it not a comet )?
• Haig (20th November 2014): Can you understand the ignorance and delusions in that Thunderbolts video about Mars?

ETA: You have claimed that the electric comet delusion can predict things about comets so:
24 November 2014 Haig: Please cite the electric comet predictions for the albedo of comet nuclei (actual numbers not fantasies!)

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88: Please cite the electric comet predictions for the albedo of comet nuclei

which was also a BIG surprise for the mainstream...again

Which is a greet deal of ignorance from you, Sol88, ... again !
Astronomers have known since 1986 when the Giotto spacecraft visited Halley’s Comet that comets are very dark. They have a good explanation for this - dust + organic molecules. What Comets, Parking Lots and Charcoal Have in Common

• 5th August 2009 Sol88: Now where in the many published papers on the electric comet idea is the prediction that the electrical discharges are of duration 10-15 ms (your claim)?
• 5th August 2009 Sol88, How does the electric comet idea explain main-belt comets?
• 17 November 2014 Sol88: Please cite the announcement of the discovery of hard rock (not "rock stuff" but the solid rock your theory demands) on comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko.
• 17 November 2012 Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the density of comets
• 18 November 2014 Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the amount of surface ice on 67P (no detected surface ice).
• 18 November 2014 Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the amount of surface ice on Tempel 1 where surface ice was found
• 18 November 2014 Sol88: Please present the electric comet calculation for the electric charge differential around comets and show that it matches the measurements.
• 20 November 2014 Sol88: Can you understand that the Thunderbolts authors even lie about predictions
• 20 November 2014 Sol88: Can you understand the significant delusions on that Thunderbolts web page on 67P "predictions"?

ETA: 24 November 2014 Sol88: Please cite the electric comet predictions for the albedo of comet nuclei (actual numbers not fantasies!)

 

[Reality Check]

The latest I've read is this paper JMP and SAFIRE: What makes the sun shine?

No, Haig - that is not a scientific paper that we would expect a reasonable person to link to in a section of the forum about science ! It is not even a paper !
That is a web page written by physics cranks about a proposed plasma experiment with which they will do "I see bunnies in the clouds" logic.

SAFIRE is according to Michael Clarige, a speaker at the 2014 crank conference:

The basic approach is to create an environment as similar as possible to the conditions of the Sun and to assumed conditions of the ES model. Known anomalous characteristics of the Sun and Corona can then be correlated with measurements from SAFIRE. It is also possible that the project could dispel some long-held assumptions of mainstream Solar Physics, such as “Electric fields do not exist in Coronal plasmas,” or “Magnetic fields can exist in the vacuum of space without corresponding electric fields.

which is a quite idiotic approach. If they simulate an electric sun fantasy then of course they will see an electric sun !
The ignorance is obvious to anyone who knows basic electromagnetism or about plasma.
* Astronomers know that electrical fields exist in Coronal plasmas because plasmas are partially ionized gases, i.e. ions and electrons = electrical fields!
* Changing magnetic fields generate electric fields so in practice you do not see magnetic fields alone. Magnetic fields can exist in the vacuum of space without corresponding electric fields - just put a bar magnet in a vacuum! Magnets only generate magnetic fields (so long as you do not wave them around).

 

[JeanTate]

Getting back to you, as I promised, Haig.

<...>

The latest I've read is this paper JMP and SAFIRE: What makes the sun shine? Click on the link and you'll see some recent information and a Video of the presentation. Also, at the bottom, below the video, you can download a PDF that may have what your looking for.
<...>

Before I comment, may I ask, did you read the PDF? Did you watch the video?

Assuming that you did (I am just being cautious, I don't doubt that you did), what key questions occurred to you? How accurate did you find the intro/background to be?

 

[JeanTate]

Hi again Haig.

I noticed this earlier, but forgot to respond.

Your the one claiming to be the expert tusenfem

I've answered lots of questions on this thread by pointing to where they are answers and giving my own opinion too occasionally, for what that's worth

Indeed you have. And that's a good thing.

However, for whatever reason, you have - it seems - singularly failed to point to anything resembling the kind of information which many of us have asked about (not just me).

May I suggest one small extra thing you could do? With regard to being (apparently) completely unable to provide any sources/links/papers/documents/etc of the kind which have been requested, why not simply - and clearly - say that you do not know if any such documents (etc) exist?

I know the questions I've asked you are difficult but you need to stop dodging them! They are important questions for mainstream to answer or they should simply drop the dirty snowball model of comets and adopt the Electric Comet one

Aside from the mismatch between your perceptions of what the current consensus understanding of comet is, among the relevant researchers, I think you're missing something really big here.

This thread is called "The Electric Comet theory".

It is NOT called "The Dirty Snowball Model (of comets)".

If you are interested in "the dirty snowball model", or how comets are currently understood by researchers such as tusenfem, why not start a separate thread on that topic?

IMHO, the more you (and Sol88) ask about "the dirty snowball model" - in this thread - the more it seems you are trying to divert attention away from a detailed examination of the electric comet ideas.

And if you genuinely believe - as Sol88 seems to - that every piece of evidence 'against' "the dirty snowball model" is evidence FOR the electric comet ideas, then at least be honest enough to say so openly. Then we would all have the opportunity to discuss what "false dichotomy" (etc) means, and why such an approach is, fundamentally, anti-scientific (IMHO, of course).

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: You cite an ES "paper" demonstrating the authors ignorance of astronomy

SAFIRE is according to Michael Clarige, a speaker at the 2014 crank conference.

When a rational person with some scientific knowledge looks at the PDF , the woo shines through, Haig.
The woo starts with the usual crank idiocy of "if the mainstream cannot explain it then our fantasy can". So they ignorantly cite

• IBIX's detection of a bright ribbon with the lie that it is "energetic and neutral particles streaming into our solar system, as well as electrons".
  Energetic neutral atoms (ENAs) are actually the solar wind which flows outward eek. An explanation for the ribbon is that is the region where the ENAs most strongly interact with the galaxy's magnetic field.
• The Photon Underproduction Crisis as "Another recent perplexing observation in the near earth environment". This is a comparison of is an observation of simulations to observations of light from the early universe - billions of light years away from the Earth !
• There is no "Core Temperature Paradox". The 2001 Scientific American article is about the corneal heating problem which had solutions then and has solutions today.
• Not cited "simultaneous flares on opposite sides" of the Sun needing faster than light travel!
• "sunspots, plasma filaments, coronal mass ejections (CMEs), moving granules in the photosphere, and rotation of the plasma atmosphere" are unified under a single theory - it is called solar physics !
• Kristian Birkeland identified an externally driven Earth (not Sun!). He speculated that the Sun was powered by radioactive decay.
• Ralph Juregens was a crank who published in a crank journal Kronos founded by Immanuel Velikovsky.
• They lie about "Birkeland currents are now accepted to travel over many kiloparsecs of space": Measurement of the Electric Current in a kpc-scale Jet does not mention Birkeland currents. There is an electric current and a "counter-current".
  This is a common EC lie - any current in space becomes a Birkeland current as if they were the only currents that exist!
• The ignorance of confusing auroral phenomenon with the corona. The aurora are neutral gas particles being excited by being bombarded by electrons and ions. The corona is gas being ionized by being heated up to millions of degrees.

Haig: You cite an ES "paper" demonstrating the authors ignorance of astronomy!

 

[Haig]

Hi again Haig.

I noticed this earlier, but forgot to respond.



Indeed you have. And that's a good thing.

However, for whatever reason, you have - it seems - singularly failed to point to anything resembling the kind of information which many of us have asked about (not just me).

May I suggest one small extra thing you could do? With regard to being (apparently) completely unable to provide any sources/links/papers/documents/etc of the kind which have been requested, why not simply - and clearly - say that you do not know if any such documents (etc) exist?


Aside from the mismatch between your perceptions of what the current consensus understanding of comet is, among the relevant researchers, I think you're missing something really big here.

This thread is called "The Electric Comet theory".

It is NOT called "The Dirty Snowball Model (of comets)".

If you are interested in "the dirty snowball model", or how comets are currently understood by researchers such as tusenfem, why not start a separate thread on that topic?

IMHO, the more you (and Sol88) ask about "the dirty snowball model" - in this thread - the more it seems you are trying to divert attention away from a detailed examination of the electric comet ideas.

And if you genuinely believe - as Sol88 seems to - that every piece of evidence 'against' "the dirty snowball model" is evidence FOR the electric comet ideas, then at least be honest enough to say so openly. Then we would all have the opportunity to discuss what "false dichotomy" (etc) means, and why such an approach is, fundamentally, anti-scientific (IMHO, of course).

I thought you said you were only interested in the Electric Sun model?

Why bring up the Dirty Snowball V Electric Comet points again? It's obvious the mainstream won't give up the myth of the sublimating ices on comets as it drives the science from ad hoc to ad hoc ad nauseum turning a blind eye to every dry ice free rocky comet empirical science finds. It's quite sad really.

Something to look at again ... Electric Comets Need an Electric Sun

Dr. Michael Clarage: Understanding the Electric Sun Model | EU2014

The SAFIRE Project will first consider the model of the Electric Sun (ES), as put forward by Wal Thornhill, Don Scott, and Ralph Jeurgens. The ES model suggests: 1) That all stars, the Sun included, are electrical in nature and exist in a galactic electrical environment; 2) Some of the physical attributes of the Sun and its Corona are not explicable through the standard fusion model originated by Hans Bethe in 1938; and 3) Many of these anomalous Solar attributes can be explained by assuming the Sun is at different electrical potential than its surroundings.

The basic approach is to create an environment as similar as possible to the conditions of the Sun and to assumed conditions of the ES model. Known anomalous characteristics of the Sun and Corona can then be correlated with measurements from SAFIRE. It is also possible that the project could dispel some long-held assumptions of mainstream Solar Physics, such as "Electric fields do not exist in Coronal plasmas," or "Magnetic fields can exist in the vacuum of space without corresponding electric fields."

Welcome back RC and your usual stuff

 

[Haig]

Space News | The SAFIRE Project:Testing the Electric Sun

Outside of the earth, the Sun is the most heavily studied body in the solar system. Yet almost all of the Sun's features present major quandaries for solar physicists. But now, an expert on "Design of Experiment" methodologies, Monty Childs, is heading up a project to demonstrate how an electrified plasma environment can produce the enigmatic features of the Sun in the laboratory. Monty and his research group are confident that the technology is now available to rigorously test the electric Sun hypothesis.

 

[JeanTate]

Hi Haig,

I thought you said you were only interested in the Electric Sun model?

I'm not, and I don't think I ever said I was.

To be clear, since you may still be confused: in this thread, I am interested in the electric comet ideas. However, per several of the materials you've posted, to understand this, one also needs to get a handle on some aspects of the electric Sun idea (e.g. Sun-centered radial electric field, solar wind).

Why bring up the Dirty Snowball V Electric Comet points again? It's obvious the mainstream won't give up the myth of the sublimating ices on comets as it drives the science from ad hoc to ad hoc ad nauseum turning a blind eye to every dry ice free rocky comet empirical science finds. It's quite sad really.

As I said, if you're interested in this, why not start a separate thread on it?

The electric comet ideas will stand (or fall) on their own two feet (so to speak).

Something to look at again ... Electric Comets Need an Electric Sun

Dr. Michael Clarage: Understanding the Electric Sun Model | EU2014

Thanks for that. While I've not looked at it yet, your headline summary is nothing new ... it's central to the first document I looked at, a link you posted quite some time ago now.

May I ask, does it contain calculations? links to textbook material on electricity? Quantitative analyses? If not, I'm afraid I'm going to have to stop checking out the material you post, unless you can state that such material does, in fact, contain this sort of thing. I hope you'll understand; my life is short - as is yours - and I really don't like wasting it on unproductive things.

But here's a question: if "the Electric Sun Model" fails - i.e. is incompatible with robust, relevant observational and experimental results - does that mean that the "Electric Comets" ideas also fail (as science)?

 

[JeanTate]

Hi again Haig,

Space News | The SAFIRE Project:Testing the Electric Sun

That's a bit dated, isn't it?

I mean, the later material you posted not only covers what's in this particular video, but also gives at least a 'status report' of SAFIRE, much after the date of this video. If so, why did you post this?

 

[JeanTate]

Hi again Haig,

Getting back to you, as promised.

<snip>

Something to look at again ... Electric Comets Need an Electric Sun

]Dr. Michael Clarage: Understanding the Electric Sun Model | EU2014

<snip>

Before I comment, may I ask you (again), did you yourself watch this video? If so (and I don't doubt that you did, just wanting to be sure), what did you think of his presentation of the basic (underlying) physics?

I really do hope you'll answer this, and the other questions I've recently asked you.

 

[Sol88]

Maths, maths, maths

You've got the cart before the horse my friend.

for instance www.researchgate.net/...Water_Production...Comet.../00b4952413c0f20...

I have no doubt your maths is correct

One way to characterize water production rates in comets is to calculate an equivalent
surface area of water ice, which when exposed to sunlight at the comet's heliocentric distance, is
required to produce the observed water vapor. Because of the reality of variable surface and
surface fractional coverage by water this is called the "minimum active area," It was calculated
for all SWAN water production rates of 103P/Hartley 2 from 1997 and 2010 and compared with
8
the measured minimum, maximum and mean cross sections of the nucleus from EPOXI imaging
(A'Hearn et al. 2011), and all are plotted in Figure 3. The minimum active area is similar but
not equal to the active area. It is defined as A = LQr2/[NAFS(1-AV)], where L=50 kJ mol-1 is the
latent heat of water for sublimation, r is the heliocentric distance in AU, NA=6.022 x 1023 mol-1
(the Avogadro constant), FS=1365 W m-2 (the solar constant), and AV=0.03 (the assumed bond
albedo of the nucleus). See (Keller 1990) for a discussion of this definition.

but

Water production rates were calculated for each usable SWAN image from September 14
to December 12, 2010. The dissociation chain of water to OH radicals and the H atoms
produced, plus their transit times to fill the observable coma, introduces a time delay from any
change in water activity near the nucleus to an observable coma response of 1 to 2 days.

your assumptions are wrong!!!


My bolding

you have found NO ICE water or any other kind.

Your beloved MATHS has lead you up the garden path, all you need is just good 'ol common sense

 

[Matthew Cline]

Why bring up the Dirty Snowball V Electric Comet points again? It's obvious the mainstream won't give up the myth of the sublimating ices on comets

So, you seem to be claiming: either the dirty-snowball model or the electric comet model is true, so if the dirty-snowball model is shown to be false, the electric comet model is shown to be true. Is that what you're trying to say?

 

[JeanTate]

Hi Sol88,

I don't know to whom you're addressing your post, but this part caught my eye:

<snip>

you have found NO ICE water or any other kind.

<snip>

I can't post links yet, but on 17th November 2014, 01:19 AM, in post #1644 in this thread, you wrote "whoa...wait a minute, i think i found the surface ice on comet Temple 1 [...] Look at all the bright ice on the surface, so bright it saturated the camera!!"

I'm quite confused ... if you yourself are convinced there's surface ice on at least one comet, why did you write "you have found NO ICE water or any other kind"?