The Electric Comet theory

Status
Not open for further replies.
David Talbott said:
I do think you need to re-formulate your question with respect to available protons,
Click to expand...
This is not correct behavior, David Talbott: tusenfem's question was about water production of an electric comet. You cannot arbitrarily change that to protons. That is a separate question:

David Talbott, Please provide some real estimates for the proton production of an electric comet.

David Talbott said:
Oh...would y'all agree that the Ibadov citation counts as evidence for a shift in thinking?.
Click to expand...
No one would agree, David Talbott. A name is not a citation :eek:.
Science shifts its thinking constantly - that is almost a definition of science!

Does Subhon Ibado even know about the electric comet theory?
If not then which of his possibly many papers supports the electric comet theory? Is it On the production of multicharge ions in planetary nebulae :D?

But Google works and gets this symposium presentation (not a scientific paper)matching what you have quoted: Possible Mechanism of Cometary Outbursts
The possibility of transformation of the kinetic energy of high-energy (more than 1 MeV) protons ejected during solar flares into the electrical energy of macroscopic electric double layer in the subsurface region of a cometary nucleus is considered. It is found that at certain conditions, concerning dielectric properties of the nucleus, the energy of the electric field generated during strong solar flares is restricted by discharge potential of the nucleus material. This energy is comparable to the energy of large cometary outbursts. Simulation of the electric discharge mechanism of cometary outbursts in the corresponding technical high-voltage generating device seems a relevant problem.
Click to expand...
Notice the absence of the word "rock" in the presentation?
This is a mainstream comet.

ETA: And yes - you "should be calculating how much water is being produced by a comet" by the electric comet theory. Otherwise people are free to conclude that the electric comet prediction is
  • no water is produced which automatically makes it wrong or
  • too little water is produced which automatically makes it wrong or
  • too much water is produced which automatically makes it wrong.
Or that the electric comet theory is useless because it has no quantitative predictions which is bad for the theory and a hint of incompetence from the authors who have seem to have made no progress in the 8 or 9 years since it was proposed.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
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?
Click to expand...

Dead set :confused:

If it's a dirtysnowball then the Electric Comet is falsified :rolleyes:

but apparently if the snowballs falsified then well just rejgger the edges a litle bring it back into alignment with theory...again ;)

jets, jets, jets everywhere! where's the ice/water?? :mad:

I WAS told there was water and ice making these jets, now where is it :blush:
 
Reality Check said:
This is not correct behavior, David Talbott: tusenfem's question was about water production of an electric comet. You cannot arbitrarily change that to protons. That is a separate question:

David Talbott, Please provide some real estimates for the proton production of an electric comet.


No one would agree, David Talbott. A name is not a citation :eek:.
Science shifts its thinking constantly - that is almost a definition of science!

Does Subhon Ibado even know about the electric comet theory?
If not then which of his possibly many papers supports the electric comet theory? Is it On the production of multicharge ions in planetary nebulae :D?

But Google works and gets this symposium presentation (not a scientific paper)matching what you have quoted: Possible Mechanism of Cometary Outbursts

Notice the absence of the word "rock" in the presentation?
This is a mainstream comet.

ETA: And yes - you "should be calculating how much water is being produced by a comet" by the electric comet theory. Otherwise people are free to conclude that the electric comet prediction is
  • no water is produced which automatically makes it wrong or
  • too little water is produced which automatically makes it wrong or
  • too much water is produced which automatically makes it wrong.
Or that the electric comet theory is useless because it has no quantitative predictions which is bad for the theory and a hint of incompetence from the authors who have seem to have made no progress in the 8 or 9 years since it was proposed.
Click to expand...

Righto emu legs

Tell me Reality Check, how much water/water ice on/in 67P to account for the observed OH, do you come up with??

Enough???? :cool:
 
tusenfem said:
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.
Click to expand...

Tusenfem, bang on!

this will show which model EC or (Your comets model, Tusenfem) is correct.

now those OSIRIS images are 6-12 months off you say...

again jets, jets, jets :cool:
 
Well now Reality Check. It seems that an endlessly repeated lie has taken over the critical comments here on the Electric Comet hypothesis: the lie is that until a quantitative "model" is completed you can ignore evidence falsifying a longstanding theory and pointing to a rational alternative. When did the history of scientific progress ever support such an idea?

Incidentally, you've garbled everything in this last post of yours. Shouldn't you at least take a breath before you lose your entire audience?
 
Good evening, Ziggurat,
Ziggurat said:
David Talbott said:
Jean Tate, it appears you've got the entire sequence of good science backwards. Your apparent formula, asking math to race ahead of evidence, could only perpetuate a huge theoretical mistakes. If I give you Don Scott's estimate of the potential of the Sun—"probably in the order of several billion volts" (his words)—you will not have anything to work with to quantify a comet's electrical behavior. Are you aware of why that is so? Meaningful quantification does not arise out of thin air.
Click to expand...
Billions of volts is indeed meaningful, and that value doesn't even originate with Scott, it originates with Juergens. I'm surprised you don't know this. And the meaning is that the theory is obviously nonsense: you cannot have billions of volts on the sun. I've done the calculations. Such a large voltage would cause the surface of the sun to explode.

You might object that I've done the calculation using the simplest voltage profile (the sun being the only charge, ground being at infinity) and that the "real" profile should be much more complex. And it's true that this is the way I did the calculation, because it's simple. But here's the thing: any other profile just makes the problem worse. Any other profile increases the strength of the electric field, since there's less space over which to distribute the voltage change. Any other profile will increase the propensity for the sun to explode. So my simplifying assumption actually makes it easier to pass the test, not harder, and yet it still fails.

Your billions of volts are indeed meaningful, but the meaning is that the theory is wrong. Very, very wrong.
Click to expand...
I'm sure David Talbott is very busy, simply keeping up with this fast-moving thread!

May I make a suggestion?

Why not re-write that post (the one you linked to), here? And use 2 billion volts, and explain in some detail why your BOTE calculation is likely to be 'better' than any more detailed one, using the plasma physics of Alfven (say).

Also, Tom Bridgman has three webpages on Scott's model, Electric Cosmos: The Solar Capacitor Model. I, Electric Cosmos: The Solar Capacitor Model. II, and Electric Cosmos: The Solar Capacitor Model. III. All three contain BOTE calculations. Would you mind taking a look at them and commenting one how they differ from your BOTE calculation?

By their own admission, neither Haig nor Sol88 can, or will, appreciate these; however, other readers certainly will. And David Talbott is new here; it's possible he has never seen these before, let alone has had a chance to appreciate them, comment on them, critique them, etc.

Other members reading this: have you reviewed Ziggurat's calculations? Tom Bridgman's? Do they seem sound to you? If not, what flaws have you noticed? From your reading of the material Haig has provided links to, do Ziggurat's or Tom Bridgman's calculations misrepresent Scott's model in any significant way? If so, how?
 
Good evening, David Talbott,
David Talbott said:
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.
Click to expand...
(my bold)

What "Ibadov citation"?

Your post does not seem to include one, and when I checked ADS, I found dozens of citations!

Is "Russian astrophysicist Subhon Ibadov" an electrical theorist?
 
Good evening, Haig.
Haig said:
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!
Click to expand...
May I ask, what has this got to do with the topic of this thread?
 
JeanTate said:
Good evening, Haig.

May I ask, what has this got to do with the topic of this thread?
Click to expand...

Strange I have to state it more clearly for you, it seems very obvious to me.

The mainstream theory of comets appears to be morphing into a very close likeness of the ELECTRIC COMET hypothesis imho

Hence my request :)

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!
Click to expand...
 
Thank you Haig.
Haig said:
Strange I have to state it more clearly for you, it seems very obvious to me.

The mainstream theory of comets appears to be morphing into a very close likeness of the ELECTRIC COMET hypothesis imho

Hence my request :)
Click to expand...
I'm sure you won't be surprised to read that I do not agree with you.

Per the material you have posted - and which David Talbott has not said is wrong - the core assumptions in all the electric comet ideas are a) an approximately radially symmetric electric field, centered on the Sun, with a potential drop of "billions of volts" between ~the Sun's corona and ~the heliosphere (this is the primary assumption); and b) that (all) comets are the same as (all) asteroids, in that they are essentially homogeneous and composed of 'rock'.

There is nothing in what you have posted that even hints at either assumption being validated, accepted, incorporated, ... into any models of comets (other than 'electric comet'; at least, not in anything you've posted).

But let's get back to electric comets, shall we? Specifically, what is the evidence for assumption a)?
 
JeanTate said:
Thank you Haig.

I'm sure you won't be surprised to read that I do not agree with you.

Per the material you have posted - and which David Talbott has not said is wrong - the core assumptions in all the electric comet ideas are a) an approximately radially symmetric electric field, centered on the Sun, with a potential drop of "billions of volts" between ~the Sun's corona and ~the heliosphere (this is the primary assumption); and b) that (all) comets are the same as (all) asteroids, in that they are essentially homogeneous and composed of 'rock'.

There is nothing in what you have posted that even hints at either assumption being validated, accepted, incorporated, ... into any models of comets (other than 'electric comet'; at least, not in anything you've posted).

But let's get back to electric comets, shall we? Specifically, what is the evidence for assumption a)?
Click to expand...

Just look at the video in the link I posted, it's really quite obvious.

Here it is with it's full title ...

Episode 3 Symbols of an Alien Sky: The Electric Comet (Full Documentary)
 
Sol88 said:
If it's a dirtysnowball then the Electric Comet is falsified :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Sol88 - this is the trap that cranks often fall into because of their ignorance about how science (and even the real world) operates :rolleyes:.
Evidence for one theory need not be evidence against another theory - this is the logical fallacy of false dichotomy.

The Electric Comet is falsified because the evidence says that it is false.
 
Sol88: how much water/water ice on/in 67P to account for the observed OH

Sol88 said:
Righto emu legs
Click to expand...
Righto emu legs:
4 December 2014 Sol88: how much water/water ice on/in 67P to account for the observed OH, does the electric comet fantasy come up with?

  1. 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)?
  2. 5th August 2009 Sol88, How does the electric comet idea explain main-belt comets?
  3. 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.
  4. 17 November 2014 Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the density of comets
  5. 18 November 2014 Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the amount of surface ice on 67P (no detected surface ice).
  6. 18 November 2014 Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the amount of surface ice on Tempel 1 where surface ice was found
  7. 18 November 2014 Sol88: Please present the electric comet calculation for the electric charge differential around comets and show that it matches the measurements.
  8. 20 November 2014 Sol88: Can you understand that the Thunderbolts authors even lie about predictions
  9. 20 November 2014 Sol88: Can you understand the significant delusions on that Thunderbolts web page on 67P "predictions"?
  10. 24 November 2014 Sol88: Please cite the electric comet predictions for the albedo of comet nuclei (actual numbers not fantasies!)
  11. 1 December 2014: A rather pathetic attempt to answer the above questions (mostly repeats of ignorance and fantasies).
  12. 2 December 2014: Sol88 does not notice that Wal Thornhill narrates an ignorant and deluded video about 67P!
  13. 3 December 2014 Sol88: What about the jets is specifically predicted by the electric comet fantasy to be confirmed by the OSIRIS instrument?
  14. 3 December 2014 Sol88: What about the jets is specifically predicted by the electric comet fantasy to be confirmed by the OSIRIS instrument?
  15. 3 December 2014 Sol88: What does the electric comet fantasy predict about jet locations, especially on 67P?
 
David Talbott said:
Well now Reality Check. It seems that an endlessly repeated lie has taken over the critical comments here on the Electric Comet hypothesis: the lie is that until a quantitative "model" is completed you can ignore evidence falsifying a longstanding theory and pointing to a rational alternative.
Click to expand...
Well now David Talbott, it seems that you may be determined to start some endlessly repeated lies :p!

Models can be qualitative but it is better if they are quantitative.
There has been no evidence presented here that falsifies the existing model of comets. People whining about the name is not falsifying evidence. Pointing out mainstream physics is not falsifying evidence.
If such evidence exists this does not validate any other theory - logical fallacy of false dichotomy.
If such evidence exists then it does not validate any theory that has already been falsified (comets do not have the density of rocks, etc.)
The electric comet theory as presented by proponents here is not a rational alternative. It is simply people going on about electricity doing anything they want it to do.

My last post was not "garbled".
David Talbott, Please provide some real estimates for the proton production of an electric comet.
is very clear. The answer is either the real estimates or the acknowledgement that the electric comet is incapable of doing the estimates.
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
Just look at the video in the link I posted, it's really quite obvious.
Click to expand...
Correct, Haig, it's really quite obvious that you still cannot recognize ignorance and delusion when you see it in a video!
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?
And here we have "Episode 3 Symbols of an Alien Sky: The Electric Comet (Full Documentary)" - an hour and a half of probably the same ignorance and delusions. So let us see where the first ignorance/delusion appears ...
6:06 "Not billions of years ago but a much more recent episode of planetary instability and violence. One that reached even into early human times" states the truly deluded part the of Electric Comet model. This is basically Velikovsky's worlds in collision fantasy applied to comets.
Click to expand...
I included the bit where the commentator makes the electric comet idea into a delusion by having them created "into early human times".

P.S. Haig, this video has the fantasy of electrical arcs "burning" the surface of the nucleus to blacken it. But what does this do to your fantasy about the red color of an image making 67P a "chunk of Mars" :eek:?
Shouldn't 67P be soot black, not organic red?
 
Last edited:
Righto emu legs:
4 December 2014 Sol88: how much water/water ice on/in 67P to account for the observed OH, does the electric comet fantasy come up with?
Click to expand...

You were asked first 'ol mate :)

give it a crack or can't you do the maths? :cool:

Should be pretty simple, no?

Comet gives off x amount must mean it comes from y amount that's what YOUR THEORY OF COMETS REALITY CHECK, demands or it's falsified. If you cant find y then...

Dead bloody simple


So what is YOUR model of a comet Reality Check??? Tusenfem said there not dirtysnowballs either now.

So I feel a bit stupid for calling them dirtysnowballs still, so what can I call them now?
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
The mainstream theory of comets appears to be morphing into a very close likeness of the ELECTRIC COMET hypothesis imho
Click to expand...

"The plasma of the solar wind electromagnetically interacts with the coma and tail of the comet" is very close to "electrostatic discharge machining releases oxygen from the comet's nucleus"?
 
Sol88 said:
...
Click to expand...
No, Sol88, I am not idiotic enough to give into insane demands that I support an already valid model of comets when the topic of this thread is the electric comet theory.
  1. 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)?
  2. 5th August 2009 Sol88, How does the electric comet idea explain main-belt comets?
  3. 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.
  4. 17 November 2014 Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the density of comets
  5. 18 November 2014 Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the amount of surface ice on 67P (no detected surface ice).
  6. 18 November 2014 Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the amount of surface ice on Tempel 1 where surface ice was found
  7. 18 November 2014 Sol88: Please present the electric comet calculation for the electric charge differential around comets and show that it matches the measurements.
  8. 20 November 2014 Sol88: Can you understand that the Thunderbolts authors even lie about predictions
  9. 20 November 2014 Sol88: Can you understand the significant delusions on that Thunderbolts web page on 67P "predictions"?
  10. 24 November 2014 Sol88: Please cite the electric comet predictions for the albedo of comet nuclei (actual numbers not fantasies!)
  11. 1 December 2014: A rather pathetic attempt to answer the above questions (mostly repeats of ignorance and fantasies).
  12. 2 December 2014: Sol88 does not notice that Wal Thornhill narrates an ignorant and deluded video about 67P!
  13. 3 December 2014 Sol88: What about the jets is specifically predicted by the electric comet fantasy to be confirmed by the OSIRIS instrument?
  14. 3 December 2014 Sol88: What does the electric comet fantasy predict about jet locations, especially on 67P?
  15. 4 December 2014 Sol88: how much water/water ice on/in 67P to account for the observed OH, does the electric comet fantasy come up with?
Of course the simple answer to most of the questions is that the electric comet theory is useless at making quantitative predictions - not that we will ever get this degree of honesty from you Sol88 (or Haig?) given the years of electric comet self-deception you have behind you.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom