The Electric Comet theory

[Haig]

Citing Ian Tresman's website, is not citing a real science source, that is a reasonably well informed amateur in plasma universe with a hang to EU.

If you would just look into the history of what Birkeland currents are, then you would understand that they are specifically named after Birkeland because of his idea that there are strong field aligned currents driving the aurora. When they were discovered in actual in-situ measurements, they were called Birkeland currents.

Unfortunately, there is the tendency to call any and all field aligned currents Birkeland currents, which is just wrong from a historic point of view.

Yes, and I did not say that that was NOT the case.
Just out of educational grounds I felt the need to point attention to the fact that field aligned currents cannot generate the magnetic fields that they are flowing along, because of Maxwell's equations (which I hope you don't put to question). And thus saying that the source of magnetic fields in space is currents and then linking to a description of Birkeland currents makes no sense because they cannot be the source of the magnetic fields in space.


Whatever that may mean.

Interesting you bring up History and Kristian Birkeland.

Kristian Birkeland: The first space scientist

Today, plasma physicists strongly believe that many significant cosmic phenomena result from streams
of Birkeland currents

The Electric Sun/Earth Connection Confirmed

"It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds." -- Kristian Birkeland

As for the history of Electric Comets this is a good start ...
The True Origins of Electric Comet Theory

Velikovsky said that the only way the evidence could be reconciled with current scientific knowledge would be through consideration of ELECTROMAGNETISM.

In Worlds in Collision, he wrote:
"I became skeptical of the great theories concerning the celestial motions that were formulated when the historical facts described here were not known to science....Fundamental principles in celestial mechanics, including the law of gravitation, must come into question if the sun possesses a charge sufficient to influence the planets and their orbits, or the comets in theirs. In the Newtonian celestial mechanics, based on the theory of gravitation, electricity and magnetism play no role."

 

[tusenfem]

Interesting you bring up History and Kristian Birkeland.

I am well versed in the history of Birkeland

Kristian Birkeland: The first space scientist

Actually, what Egeland says in the paper (instead of the abstract) is

Today, many plasma physicists are convinced that many phenomena such as
1. auroral rays, auroral arcs and bands with ray structures,
2. auroral electrojets,
3. inverted-V structures in particle precipitation, and
4. flux ropes
result from streams of Birkeland currents (Egeland and Burke, 2005).
Birkeland currents are most probably involved in several other phenomena in the plasma universe. Peratt (1996) has suggested that pinched Birkeland currents are the mechanism responsible for initiating the gravitational collapse of matter in the plasma state.

The first four points are known, the Peratt reference is given, but we know that Peratt's ideas are not valid, at least not the ones about gravitational collapse and galaxy formation.

Anyway, this does not take away anything from my comment that the magnetic fields along which these field aligned currents are flowing cannot be generated by these same currents. That fact stands, no matter how many references you are going to make to Birkeland currents.

As for the history of Electric Comets this is a good start ...
The True Origins of Electric Comet Theory

Really, Velikovsky?

 

[David Talbott]

You do understand that those charge particles come from the the sun and that even charged particles running into you will warm you up? Increasing the number of impacts or the average velocity of the particles, or both, increases the rate of energy transfer.

The point is that mere warming by the Sun will never account for the litany of comet outbursts, which is why comet scientists are moving increasingly toward an electrical understanding of this behavior. Purported explanations by reference to pockets of subsurface gas exploding through an insulating surface layer simply do not work. That would imply sudden eruptions and rapidly declining energies over extremely short time frames. Nothing of the sort has ever been documented. Nor have we ever seen ANY exposed ice that would be the first prediction of the explanation.

Of this quandary, now inescapable, 67P gives us a splendid demonstration. The standard explanation of nucleus erosion, when applied to this bizarrely irregular form, would require that subsurface ice already be prominently on display. Where is this subsurface ice?

Well, maybe we'll find some. But are those who still cling to an outdated model willing to stick their necks out, at least far enough to acknowledge that the exposure of subsurface ice would be a certainty if this sharply carved nucleus is doing what has been so long claimed about comets. I hope everyone will keep an eye on this question over the coming months, while also watching for well-focused glow discharge on the surface. Perhaps even visible and sustained electrical arcing where image resolution is sufficient.

 

[David Talbott]

Citing Ian Tresman's website, is not citing a real science source, that is a reasonably well informed amateur in plasma universe with a hang to EU.

This statement leaves me mystified. Do the scientific sources Ian Tresman cites not have the authority of the sources you cite?

If you would just look into the history of what Birkeland currents are, then you would understand that they are specifically named after Birkeland because of his idea that there are strong field aligned currents driving the aurora. When they were discovered in actual in-situ measurements, they were called Birkeland currents.

Unfortunately, there is the tendency to call any and all field aligned currents Birkeland currents, which is just wrong from a historic point of view.

Okay, still mystified. If there's anything to Birkeland's unique discernment of electric currents driving the auroras, wouldn't it be appropriate to acknowledge his contribution by giving his name to equivalent currents now apparent elsewhere in the solar system and beyond. After all, Birkeland did speculate on electric currents across the cosmos, and it's not as if the idea of interplanetary and interstellar currents could be found in the previous lexicon of standard astronomy.

Giving credit where credit is due should be one of the first principles of ethical astronomy.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Giving credit where credit is due should be one of the first principles of ethical astronomy.

Misrepresenting, appeals to authority, cherry picking, obfuscating, ignoring questions and not providing evidence to support your stories would go a long way to being ethical.

 

[tusenfem]

The point is that mere warming by the Sun will never account for the litany of comet outbursts, which is why comet scientists are moving increasingly toward an electrical understanding of this behavior. Purported explanations by reference to pockets of subsurface gas exploding through an insulating surface layer simply do not work. That would imply sudden eruptions and rapidly declining energies over extremely short time frames. Nothing of the sort has ever been documented. Nor have we ever seen ANY exposed ice that would be the first prediction of the explanation.

Of this quandary, now inescapable, 67P gives us a splendid demonstration. The standard explanation of nucleus erosion, when applied to this bizarrely irregular form, would require that subsurface ice already be prominently on display. Where is this subsurface ice?

Well, maybe we'll find some. But are those who still cling to an outdated model willing to stick their necks out, at least far enough to acknowledge that the exposure of subsurface ice would be a certainty if this sharply carved nucleus is doing what has been so long claimed about comets. I hope everyone will keep an eye on this question over the coming months, while also watching for well-focused glow discharge on the surface. Perhaps even visible and sustained electrical arcing where image resolution is sufficient.

and what is your source that that cannot happen, through the warming of the sun?

i think the characteristic of SUBsurface ice is that it is located UNDER the surface.

further nonsense discarded

 

[Dancing David]

Pure bluster is my guess. The most telling thing here is how the EC proponents have studiously avoided answering questions, especially in not explaining how comets and asteroids exhibit different behavior. Cheese shop, indeed.

Mr. Praline: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That parrot is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not 'alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged squawk.

 

[Dancing David]

Reality Check, if the last posts of yours above are not garbled, what should I call them?. You're just repeating the same pronouncements, assorted quips, and slander. No argument from any facts at all. Why not start with a single misstatement of fact in the Electric Comet documentary and the accompanying addendum? That would actually be helpful, not just to me but to everyone who would like to get to the truth.

I've extended this invitation to quite a number of comet scientists over the past 18 months, and I will never ignore a reasonably stated objection.

Hi,
Why do Apollo objects not show comas?

Why do only 6 objects in the asteroid belt show comas, when other asteroid belt objects go through exactly the same regions of space?

 

[tusenfem]

This statement leaves me mystified. Do the scientific sources Ian Tresman cites not have the authority of the sources you cite?



Okay, still mystified. If there's anything to Birkeland's unique discernment of electric currents driving the auroras, wouldn't it be appropriate to acknowledge his contribution by giving his name to equivalent currents now apparent elsewhere in the solar system and beyond. After all, Birkeland did speculate on electric currents across the cosmos, and it's not as if the idea of interplanetary and interstellar currents could be found in the previous lexicon of standard astronomy.

Giving credit where credit is due should be one of the first principles of ethical astronomy.

let me say that ian now and then has his own interpretation of what mainstream claims. (though he was always willing to learn)
butvas you know zilch about plasma physics i cannot expect you to see that.

you may extent birkeland currents to mean all field aligned currents. but the "real" birkeland currents have a special place in magnetospheric physics, its specific driver etc. its very special, why dilute this special discovery?

mr b gets all the credit that is his due, specifically for also doing lab experiments to try and explain stuff. people are still using terrellas for example.

 

[tusenfem]

daer david talbott

when are you going to actually answer some of the scientific questions put to you?

i thought you were going to do something?

the "advisors" of thunderdolts have no answers for you?

 

[Belz...]

In the Electric Comet documentary, there are many quotes from respected authorities on comet science. In aggregate they demonstrate that a coherent comet theory no longer exists.

Even were that true, it wouldn't help the EC theory, since it A) violates the laws of physics and B) is not in evidence.

 

[Andy_Ross]

In the Electric Comet documentary, there are many quotes from respected authorities on comet science. In aggregate they demonstrate that a coherent comet theory no longer exists.

Cherry Picking you mean?

 

[LashL]

I have split some posts to Abandon All Hope. Please cut out the personalizations and insults and remember your Membership Agreement. Stick to the topic of the thread, keep it civil, and address the argument rather than attacking the arguer. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[JeanTate]

Good evening, Haig.

Good morning, Haig.

Sorry, it's not at all obvious.

In fact, there's zero evidence for 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, right?

So, since I'm so incapable of seeing any such evidence, how about you summarize it, in bullet form perhaps? And for avoidance of doubt, the "billions of volts" is key ... so the evidence for this will have to be quantitative. Oh, and if there are zero references to relevant papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, I don't think I'll be putting too much effort into trying to understand your reply (I have, quite frankly, wasted too much of my life following the things you post, only to find no answers to the questions I've asked you).

Sure it's obvious.

I'll take your word for it, that it's obvious to you.

I don't think your really trying.

I cannot force you to accept what I write.

If you write out the script of this documentary you should find it sinks in

Or just click on the link underneath (SHOW MORE) for much more information.

Episode 3 Symbols of an Alien Sky: The Electric Comet (Full Documentary)

You can even get the Electric Comet Credits

Sorry Haig, still zero evidence for 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.

If you still can't understand I guess I'll have to reluctantly give you up as a lost cause.

I think you're right; I don't think that you and I can have a rational, science-based discussion.

But really I'm not asking you to agree with it ... just understand it

I think I do "understand it"; there's zero evidence for 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. Which is the central assumption in the electric comet idea.

edit:
Just a last thought that you might finally "get" it if you look at this much shorter video. It's been posted here before but it's worth another look imho.

Rosetta Mission Update | The Rocky Comet

Sorry, still zero evidence for 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.

Over and out.

 

[JeanTate]

Good evening, David Talbott.

First, thank you for taking the trouble to at least appear to respond to a post of mine that was directed more at Haig than you.

However, I'm rather disappointed that you have not, yet, presented the evidence you said you would present. Nor, apparently, have you answered any of the science-based questions you have been asked, on the electric comet ideas, not least on material in the document a link to which Haig posted (and which apparently has your name on it, as author). Further, you have not yet responded - one way or the other - to my question of whether you'd consider never ignoring a reasonably stated question, about electric comet ideas, as published (and which have your name on them)?

Instead, you posted this:

Good morning, Haig.

Sorry, it's not at all obvious.

In fact, there's zero evidence for 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, right?

Hmmm. Why this feeling of deja vu?

I'm quite sure that we've exchanged notes as to your claim here in the past, though perhaps you were wearing a different identity. Now, years later, you continue to ask for mathematical precision where such precision would be factually dependent on measurements not yet available.

But since you appear to love mathematics, even in the absence of concrete measurements, why don't you calculate for us how, in the absence of an electric field, charged particles of the solar wind can be continually accelerated out past the planets? Do you envision these charged particles as little rocket ships, or what?

One value of working with electrical engineers as we do is the fact that they know how to accelerate charge particles.

Huh?

But since there's concrete evidence that you did, in fact, read my question, how about I ask you, directly (in addition to having asked Haig)?

David Talbott, would you please present evidence that:
a) there is an approximately radially symmetric electric field, centered on the Sun, and
b) there is a potential drop of "billions of volts" between ~the Sun's corona and ~the heliosphere?

For avoidance of doubt, the kind of evidence I am hoping to see is directly relevant, peer-reviewed papers, published in relevant journals. If you do not know of any such evidence, would you please say so explicitly? Thank you in advance.

 

[JeanTate]

Quoting a post of my own, ...

Good morning, tusenfem.

Actually, I think it's central to the electric comet idea, as published; especially to the 2006 document Haig posted a link to (and which has David Talbott as an author).

The electric comet idea rests on the existence of an approximately radially symmetric electric field, centered (approximately) on the Sun, and which has a potential drop of "billions of volts" from ~the Sun's corona to ~the heliosphere. The electric Sun BOTE calculations show this to be impossible, as in 'inconsistent with the existence of the Sun as a ~constant source of electromagnetic radiation with a SED that is close to a ~5700K blackbody'.

Thus electric comet ideas are falsified, and most of this thread is simply a gigantic waste of time.

Unless and until the electric comet ideas are modified, and the nature of the solar system-wide electric fields substantially revised. So far, no one has pointed to any such revision of electric comet ideas, not Haig, not Sol88, not even David Talbott.

However, I will - perhaps tomorrow - write some posts in the electric Sun ISF thread, copying relevant ones here, so anyone interested in following this 'stake through the heart of the electric comet' can do so over there.

I've changed my mind.

As of now, I can see no point in doing what I described above. The calculations have been presented in the electric Sun thread (although it's not straight-forward to find them all), and no one (or no JREF/ISF member) has challenged them in any meaningful way.

Further, no ISF member currently trying to present electric comet ideas as science-based seems to be willing or able to try to at least understand the calculations, much less challenge or question them. Which is pretty disappointing, but is also somewhat reassuring ... nothing has changed in terms of the scientific basis for electric comet ideas (and directly relevant electric Sun ones) in the several years since these two threads were started.

At least, that's how I see it, as of now.

 

[Dancing David]

Citing Ian Tresman's website, is not citing a real science source, that is a reasonably well informed amateur in plasma universe with a hang to EU.

Ian was very nice to talk to when he was here, he did not waffle, he cited actual articles and then tried to integrate the information in the articles into what he was saying.
But he gave up trying to rationalize his preconceived notions and left.

 

[JeanTate]

Good evening, David Talbott.

<text which has nothing to do with electric comets snipped>

I hope everyone will keep an eye on this question over the coming months, while also watching for well-focused glow discharge on the surface.

What, specifically, would these look like?

For example, what SEDs, intensities, scales, fluxes, and so on? And which instruments would be expected to observe them?

Perhaps even visible and sustained electrical arcing where image resolution is sufficient.

What "image resolution" would be required/sufficient?

And the same questions as above, what, specifically, would such "visible and sustained electrical arcing" look like?

More generally, how can someone who is not an electrical theorist work out - independently - what sorts of observable phenomena to expect (and to not expect)?

 

[Dancing David]

The point is that mere warming by the Sun will never account for the litany of comet outbursts,

That is just assertion and lacks any basis in facts.
What is the temperature of the material in the comet, how much ambient radiation does it receive, what is the threshold for mostly heating to not be responsible.

You make a positive claim that conventional thermodynamics can't explain it.

Burden of proof falls to you, what data and what evidence supports your assertion? That you have refuted an uncited mainstream hypothesis?

which is why comet scientists are moving increasingly toward an electrical understanding of this behavior. Purported explanations by reference to pockets of subsurface gas exploding through an insulating surface layer simply do not work.

More unsupported assertion, please substantiate your claims.
[/quote]
That would imply sudden eruptions and rapidly declining energies over extremely short time frames. Nothing of the sort has ever been documented. Nor have we ever seen ANY exposed ice that would be the first prediction of the explanation.

Of this quandary, now inescapable, 67P gives us a splendid demonstration. The standard explanation of nucleus erosion, when applied to this bizarrely irregular form, would require that subsurface ice already be prominently on display. Where is this subsurface ice?

Well, maybe we'll find some. But are those who still cling to an outdated model willing to stick their necks out, at least far enough to acknowledge that the exposure of subsurface ice would be a certainty if this sharply carved nucleus is doing what has been so long claimed about comets. I hope everyone will keep an eye on this question over the coming months, while also watching for well-focused glow discharge on the surface. Perhaps even visible and sustained electrical arcing where image resolution is sufficient.[/QUOTE]

While you are at it please why under the Electric Comet hypothesis, the Apollo objects do not show comas?
And why there are only six bodies in the asteroid belt that show comas?

 

[Dancing David]

This statement leaves me mystified. Do the scientific sources Ian Tresman cites not have the authority of the sources you cite?



Okay, still mystified. If there's anything to Birkeland's unique discernment of electric currents driving the auroras, wouldn't it be appropriate to acknowledge his contribution by giving his name to equivalent currents now apparent elsewhere in the solar system and beyond. After all, Birkeland did speculate on electric currents across the cosmos, and it's not as if the idea of interplanetary and interstellar currents could be found in the previous lexicon of standard astronomy.

Giving credit where credit is due should be one of the first principles of ethical astronomy.

Citing a web page that is hardly discussion, why aren't your actually bring forward specific arguments and defending them, go ahead.
That is what this forum is about, we have all done it, if you want to be part of teh discussion, then discuss something specific.

i found Ian to be very open to discussing his ideas, why don't you participate in a discussion.

What is one specific thing on Ian's page related to EC that you would like to discuss?