The Electric Comet theory

[Ziggurat]

Yep, I known, both have their basis in conservation of energy.

Actually, Kirchoff's radiation law is based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics, not the 1st. Violating it would mean we could decrease entropy, which in practice means free energy (all thermal energy becomes freely available), but it's not strictly an energy conservation violation.

 

[Belz...]

As the space sciences take that question seriously (as IS happening), the immediate shift in focus will be just the beginning.

You'll forgive me for pointing out that such declarations are usually trotted out by woo believers and conspiracy theorists, so they are not very useful in determining if such a shift really occurs. This said, could you provide evidence that this shift is beginning ?

 

[Ziggurat]

Our variable Electric Sun

Fail again.

"But something is wrong: During a coronal mass ejection the Sun emits up to 10 billion tons of charged matter not only 0.01g. Why did this huge positive charge not explode the Sun before its ejection?

The probable answer is to find in the plasma. Through plasma, the electric forces seemingly cannot act."

So the website you're citing is using the very assumption (E=0) that Alfven rejects, and which you keep trying to use as an excuse to accept electric universe ideas uncritically. Talk about ironic.

And the claim is obviously wrong anyways even without appealing to Alfven. Nothing about plasmas can violate Gauss's law. The reason that plasmas "seem" to stop electric fields is because they can form screening charges. That means if you've got a positive charge at the center of the sun, then the surrounding plasma will form a negative screening charge around it, blocking the electric field around it. But you can't violate conservation of charge: to form that negative screening charge at the center, you've got to have a balancing positive charge on the surface. And presto, we've got charge that will explode off the sun again.

Plasmas aren't magic. They can't violate conservation of charge, and they can't violate Gauss's law.

And apparently you EU folks can't even keep from contradicting each other.

 

[JeanTate]

Thank you Ziggurat.

Imagine you have two flat surfaces close to each other, with vacuum between. One is a blackbody, the other is not. They can only exchange energy via radiation. When both are at the same temp., there can be no net flow of energy, or the 2nd law of thermodynamics is violated.

The blackbody surface radiates X amount of radiation. Some fraction R is reflected from the non-blackbody, for a total amount RX. The nonblackbody must also emit some radiation Y. We know that Y+RX = X, or else there is a net flow of energy, which means Y=(1-R)X. In other words, the more you reflect, the less you emit, and emission is always as a fraction of the blackbody spectrum. And that's basically Kirchoff's law of thermal radiation. Violate that, and you can make energy flow between objects which should be at equilibrium. One will get hotter, one colder, and you can then run a standard heat engine off the difference. Presto, perpetual motion.

If Robitaille is right, then astronomy is the least of it: we have perpetual motion, free energy, and the end to the number one source of human conflict (resource scarcity). But he's not.

I realized I did not actually know what Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation is, so I consulted my good friend WP: "For a body of any arbitrary material, emitting and absorbing thermal electromagnetic radiation at every wavelength in thermodynamic equilibrium, the ratio of its emissive power to its dimensionless coefficient of absorption is equal to a universal function only of radiative wavelength and temperature, the perfect black-body emissive power."

At the time - early 1860s - Kirchhoff had no knowledge of x-rays, and even the radio part of the electromagnetic spectrum was essentially unknown; Planck's work on photons (and the blackbody SED) was more than a generation in the future.

It thus seems mighty strange for Robitaille to focus on Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation rather than Planck's law, say.

As for Scott et al, they may simply have missed the implications. Or perhaps they just don't care, as long as the money flows from the rubes. I really couldn't say which.

I can't think of any angle to view this in in which Scott et al. would look anything other than pretty bad. If nothing else, this is deeply connected with electromagnetism (both the classical Maxwell's equations and the quantum photons), which is supposedly what they are most passionate about. Maybe in their view of science consistency has little value?

 

[The Man]

First, we would integrate the questions posed by space exploration with the questions posed by plasma laboratory experiments. The overriding, most pressing issue would be whether, since the beginning of the space age, we've been asking the wrong questions. The "electrical" answer would not just be good news, it would add more driving energy and funding to space explorations than any of the younger space scientists have seen in their lifetimes.

Is a comet discharging electrically? As the space sciences take that question seriously (as IS happening), the immediate shift in focus will be just the beginning. One comet indisputably exhibiting electric discharge eroding its surface could well trigger a change of mind across all of the disciplines concerned with solar system formation and evolution. Who says A must say B. The optimism within the Electric Universe community today comes from the knowledge that, in terms of facts now established, the scales have already tipped, even if official acknowledgments take a bit of time to catch up.

Later today, I'll begin a summary of comet facts and reasons for this optimism.

Really, the scales have been tipped? While you assert you're still waiting for that confirmation data of "One comet indisputably exhibiting electric discharge eroding its surface"? How have you been trying to falsify the Electric Comet Theory? Sorry, when there is an Electric Comet Theory how might that be falsified?

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning, Matthew Cline,

But the overwhelming devotion of funds to the dirty snowball illusion is impossible to deny.

What would electric comet proponents due with the funding, aside from laboratory experiments?

There's a great deal of material in the forum which Haig recommends going to to get answers to specific questions about the electric comet ideas (questions he freely admits he himself can't answer). I've been reading at least some of the parts on the electric comet, and while I cannot claim to have read anywhere near all of it, from what I have read there's essentially nothing on what experiments, observations, etc electrical theorists could do if only they had the $$.

A month ago I would have found this simply unbelievable; how could so many people so enthusiastic about electric comet ideas, loudly claiming they were not being investigated scientifically, so nearly unanimously fail to even hint at experiments or observations or simulations which could be done (even if only in principle)? And when I started posting here I thought the kinds of things Haig and Sol88 wrote would be atypical, with their near[1] absence of any suggestions on what research might be done (that hasn't already been done); if you spend some time reading what's posted on that forum you'll quickly see that it's not at all unusual.

To be fair though, there have been a small number of suggestions on what could be done, like the SAFIRE project, and (electrical theorist?) Ransom's EDM work. However, for whatever reason, none of this seems to have been even submitted to any relevant peer-reviewed journal ... [2]

[1] to his credit, Sol88's recent suggestion of obtaining the OSIRIS FITS (?) data and analyzing it is an exception; however, his reluctance to even consider doing his own BOTE calculations is more typical
[2] I'll enter my - by now standard - caveat: as far as I know; if you, Haig, Sol88, David Talbott, know of any such, please provide the details

 

[tusenfem]

As the space sciences take that question seriously (as IS happening), the immediate shift in focus will be just the beginning.

You'll forgive me for pointing out that such declarations are usually trotted out by woo believers and conspiracy theorists, so they are not very useful in determining if such a shift really occurs. This said, could you provide evidence that this shift is beginning ?

Yeah, I would like to see some actual DATA which show this discharging.

 

[David Talbott]

And yet another useless boobtube link.

haig can you not go search for some real estimates for the water production of an electric comet? We have measured what comes off, what better way to show the sovereignty of the EC model?

A perfectly reasonable suggestion, and I'll pass the question on to an advisor. I do think you need to re-formulate your question with respect to available protons, however, since the entire volume of the coma will be available for transactions with the solar wind, not just a hemispheric surface area on a tiny nucleus. Also, keep in mind that the role of clays on the surface (potentially a critical pointer to formative processes), AND the role of accumulated solar PROTONS on the surface, as already suggested by Russian astrophysicist Subhon Ibadov, will all have to be taken into consideration.

More on Ibadov later, since he highlights the "electric discharge mechanism of cometary outbursts" (his words, not mine).

Oh...would y'all agree that the Ibadov citation counts as evidence for a shift in thinking? Look him up.

 

[The Man]

Actually, Kirchoff's radiation law is based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics, not the 1st. Violating it would mean we could decrease entropy, which in practice means free energy (all thermal energy becomes freely available), but it's not strictly an energy conservation violation.

Well, strictly speaking all energy (available to do work) is free, it is getting it to do the work you want that takes some expense. You still have to pay the piper if you want Maxwell's demon to dance. Eliminating an increase in entropy, while doing work, doesn't mean you get more energy it just means you don't lose useful energy in the cycle. You maintain the same energy and entropy you started with (again perpetual motion as you mentioned).To actually decrease entropy means you have to get energy from somewhere else or violate conservation of energy.

 

[tusenfem]

A perfectly reasonable suggestion, and I'll pass the question on to an advisor.

No, not an advisor, how about an EC physicist.

I do think you need to re-formulate your question with respect to available protons, however, since the entire volume of the coma will be available for transactions with the solar wind, not just a hemispheric surface area on a tiny nucleus.

No the available protons per second (that would be particle flux) are given by the (slowed down) solar wind density. Unless you think that the protons just keep on hanging there in the coma and from far away start "raining" onto the cometary nucleus.

I hope you do know that in the cometosheath the plasma flows just in the solar wind direction down the tail. Oberervations and measurements have actually shown this.

Also, keep in mind that the role of clays on the surface (potentially a critical pointer to formative processes), AND the role of accumulated solar PROTONS on the surface, as already suggested by Russian astrophysicist Subhon Ibadov, will all have to be taken into consideration.

Any water molecule (or OH for all I care) which is released is one proton lost. If we see 1 pint of water per second coming off the comet (just accept this for the moment to entertain me), that means that there are 0.5 liters of water per second, with the 18 proton masses per water molelcule, this means that there is 0.5 liter = 0.5 kg = 1.5 10²⁵ molecules are released per second.

The solar wind brings in, 4 km circular comet, a solar wind velocity of 300 km/s, a solar wind density of 1 particle per cubic centimeter leads to a proton influx of 4 10¹⁸ protons per second. So there is a discrepancy of more than 6 orders of magnitude in proton influx and proton (water) outflux.

More on Ibadov later, since he highlights the "electric discharge mechanism of cometary outbursts" (his words, not mine).

Can you link to the published papers of Ibadov? I see some of them on ADS, from the 1990s, and none of them seem to be even cited once.

Oh...would y'all agree that the Ibadov citation counts as evidence for a shift in thinking? Look him up.

Not until you actually show a real paper of this guy.

ETA:
Just looked through a 1998 paper of Ibadov. He wants the X-ray emission of comets created by the collision of high energy cometary dust and zodiacal dust, which would create a "plasma blob" which somehow with a sudden equation would give an X-ray luminosity. Too bad that is has been shown that the X-rays that are emitted fit exactly laboratory experiments with highly ionized heavies (e.g. O⁷⁺) from the Sun which charge-exchange with a neutral from the comet.

 

[phunk]

But I did learn something new (or not):

Regarding density, there is a known anomaly in capacitors, where a charged capacitor weighs less than when it's not charged. A piezoelectric or electrostatic potential might affect the influence of gravity, hence the velocity, thus altering the calculated mass. Therefore, those comets with a low apparent mass, could be more dense than what has been calculated. Not saying that this is the case, just that the potential exists for this kind of unaccounted for anomaly.

They have it backwards, charged capacitors weigh more, not less.

 

[Haig]

Ehhhh, a 7 year old thread from BAUT (now cosmoquest) regarding electric comets, between mainstreamers (me, captain swoop, van rijn, nereid, etc.) and EU proponents (vanderL, solar, starboy, upriver, etc.).
What exactly is copycat here? You may want to express your complaints a little more clearly. You will see that in 7 years EC has still not made any progress, whatsoever.

All moving bodies in a plasma will be somehow charged, it is just the extent of charging which is taken to ridiculous levels by the EC community.

So where is the paper or more details for this new comet hypothesis? ... The Cometary Charge Exchange Arora or whatever the latest name for it is.

Seeing as it bins the Dirty Snowball and Snowy Dirtball models along with surface and subsurface sublimation that can't be found. All those peer reviewed papers and calculations just so much wasted effort and cost!

 

[David Talbott]

No, not an advisor, how about an EC physicist.

No I'm taking about an expert in electrochemistry. I've got your calculation, and i believe you're not stating the region of electrochemical action accurately. That region would be the full volume of the coma.

The water or OH detected is not measured coming off the surface as your calculation implies. It is measured in the coma, the electrochemical factory. That's the electric comet assumption as I understand it. Hence, the vast cloud or envelope of hydrogen surrounding the nucleus of a comet is not irrelevant by any means. And it would not be there to be measured were the electric force inactive.

On the other hand, I do appreciate corrections if I'm misstating some fact. That's why i'll want to discuss this issue with an expert.

 

[tusenfem]

So where is the paper or more details for this new comet hypothesis? ... The Cometary Charge Exchange Arora or whatever the latest name for it is.

Seeing as it bins the Dirty Snowball and Snowy Dirtball models along with surface and subsurface sublimation that can't be found. All those peer reviewed papers and calculations just so much wasted effort and cost!

I have not got the foggiest what you are talking about, my dear haig.

The cometary charge exchange generating X-rays has been checked in the laboratory and fits the observations. this is the latest paper I could find on the topic (already a 2015 paper!) it should have all the relevant references.

Apparently, you seem to think that the sublimation of volatiles it the only topic that is studied, well maybe it is in the dirty snowball world, but not in the real world.

Up to now, you have still not been able to give us an EC estimate for the water production (I guess I will concentrate on this, because that seems to be your main grievance), not even David Talbott, who has an EU website for decades already, does not have an answer to this simple question.

I could give you loads of papers about the plasma interaction of the solar wind with an outgassing comet, but I am sure you will not read them. Just look up the two books that I posted pages ago, Swamy Krishna's book and "Comets II" you would find there all the information that you would like to have and then some.

 

[David Talbott]

On the question as to how much water is being produced in the coma of comets:

...not even David Talbott, who has an EU website for decades already, does not have an answer to this simple question.
.

The Thunderbolts site has been around for about ten years, not decades.

Did I just see you suggest I should be calculating how much water is being produced by a comet? Never thought to challenge anyone on that . Is there some reason I shouldn't trust the calculations of OH or water production already given by comet investigators?

The issue I've wanted to follow is the role of electrochemistry in the creation of MEASURED water or OH. Is there room for explaining the observations via electrical activity at the surface of the nucleus and in the vastly larger VOLUME of the coma (in other words, not just a nucleus surface area calculation). Why would we want to ignore the larger electrochemical factory, within which a great deal of energetic electrical activity is evident?

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: What is the electric comet idea's prediction for the color of 67P

67P is still looking like a chunk of Mars ...snipped more delusions...

no Haig - you have the delusions that a single image of 67P looks like a chunk of Mars and that scientists are so idiotic that they could think that 0.6 is 3.0 !

It is quite possible that the color of 67P is actually red - it is covered with organic molecules. So ...

4 December 2014 Haig: What is the electric comet idea's prediction for the color of 67P?

• 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?
• 24 November 2014 Haig: Please cite the electric comet predictions for the albedo of comet nuclei (actual numbers not fantasies!)
• 24 November 2014 Haig: Can you understand that this ES "paper" is ignorant about and lies about astronomy?
• 25 November 2014 Haig: Please cite the electric comet calculations for density of comets, e.g. 67P.
  Start by showing that the electric field of the Sun does not make the real density of comets less than the gravitationally calculated values
• 25 November 2014 Haig: Please cite the electric comet calculations for the production of a coma and jets from 67P at some 250 million miles from the Sun and at a temp of 205-230K (surface) and 30-160k (subsurface).
• 25 November 2014 Haig: Please cite the electric comet calculations for the production of organic compounds from 67P at some 250 million miles from the Sun and at a temp of 205-230K (surface) and 30-160k (subsurface).

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: Present the evidence that our variable Sun has changed 67P activity

Our variable...snipped electric sun delusion....

Which only leaves a delusion that this thread is about the electric sun delusion, Haig !

We know that the Sun is affecting 67P in mainstream ways, e.g. heating it up and creating jets. But your assertion is that this activity has varied according to the activity of the Sun. Thus
4 December 2014 Haig: Present the evidence that our variable Sun has changed 67P activity.

 

[Dancing David]

Reality Check, the data that's coming in is directly falsifying the standard model.

Um like what in specific, you need to cite the evidence and the mainstream model it contradicts.

 

[Dancing David]

that we might visit a comet and find a rock plain and simple.

So why do asteroids like the Apollo and Centaur bodies not show comas, besides the six identifies asteroid belt objects that show comas, why don't the other asteroids show comas?

I have asked this question many times, and so far have no received a coherent answer.

Please respond.

 

[tusenfem]

On the question as to how much water is being produced in the coma of comets:



The Thunderbolts site has been around for about ten years, not decades.

Did I just see you suggest I should be calculating how much water is being produced by a comet? Never thought to challenge anyone on that . Is there some reason I shouldn't trust the calculations of OH or water production already given by comet investigators?

The issue I've wanted to follow is the role of electrochemistry in the creation of MEASURED water or OH. Is there room for explaining the observations via electrical activity at the surface of the nucleus and in the vastly larger VOLUME of the coma (in other words, not just a nucleus surface area calculation). Why would we want to ignore the larger electrochemical factory, within which a great deal of energetic electrical activity is evident?

david the watervgeneration is a MAJOR item in thr EC.
for al ii care you leave it be
this is soooo tedious, like pulling teeth, trying to get an actual answer from ECtians.