The Electric Comet theory

Status
Not open for further replies.
Haig said:
These high energy plasma discharges images are NOWHERE to be seen by humans in our sky's today. So how could the Ancients from ALL over the world have been INSPIRED by them?
Click to expand...
Because that is a fantasy by various authors, Haig. This is the same as the ancient astronauts pseudoscience. That have cherry picked a FEW images from a FEW peoples from over the world. Instead of ancient astronauts (or alien visitors or dinosaurs!) they imagine these images to be "plasma discharges". They obsess with those images rather than looking at actual science.
Planetary orbits are relatively stable - you need other bodies to perturb them. There is no physically valid way that any other planet would have come near the Earth in historical times.

They invoke magic to make the discharges stop because: These high energy plasma discharges images are NOWHERE to be seen by humans in our sky's today and nothing has radically changed in the solar system :eek:.
 
Last edited:
Matthew Cline said:
As Reality Check pointed out, the mass of the comet wasn't determined via its orbit, but via how it's velocity changed due to outgassing.

Also: the orbits of the planets are not perfectly Keplerian, due to the interactions between the planets. Numerical simulations which assume only gravity track the actual orbits very well, to where the difference between the simulation and reality is within the expected margin of error due to: 1) not having infinitely accurate measurements, and 2) not having an infinitely small time granularity in the simulations. Thus, any effect the net charges of planets and the Sun have on the orbits must be pretty small.

And, as Lukraak Sisser pointed out, the various space probes that have been sent out used trajectories that only took gravity into account, yet got where they were intended to go.
Click to expand...
Heard of this?

Lorentz Accelerations in the Earth Flyby Anomaly
 
David Talbott said:
But Reality Check's couldn't find the quote except on pages citing the Thunderbolts Project. So he decided that we must have made the quote up. How about actually looking beyond a superficial Internet search? The quote is from an article by Stuart Clark, September 9, 2005, published by the NewSientist.com news service.
Click to expand...
Wrong, David Talbott.
In 19 items of ignorance and delusion in 11 minutes of a Thunderbolt video my points included that there were two out of context (single sentences!) and not cited (and still not cited :eek:) quotes.
I never said that Thunderbolts made them up. They are examples of poor scholarship
  • Cherry picking
  • Possible quote mining
  • Lack of citations
 
Haig said:
Heard of this?

Lorentz Accelerations in the Earth Flyby Anomaly
Click to expand...

Two issues, Haig. First, how big is this anomaly? As a fraction of the known gravitational acceleration, how much additional acceleration needs to be accounted for? Is it a big number, or a small number?

Second, did you actually read your source, or did you stop at the title? Because they conclude their abstract with the following sentence: "It is unlikely, based on this analysis, that Lorentz forces cause the flyby anomaly." So... not exactly an endorsement of EU nonsense there.
 
David Talbott said:
Well, I guess we could have another argument here as to who's most disappointed Tusenfem.

Actually I think I win. It's not as if you've stuck your neck out with any meaningful predictions to counter the explicit predictions of the electric comet. In fact, looking over a single week of my participation here, it appears I've added quite a lot by comparison, and I'll begin posting the content on a Rosetta blog on the Thunderbolts site this coming week.

... But hold on. Now we see a claimed "announcement" of water on the surface. Therefore, before I have a chance to change my own prediction of NO WATER ICE ON THE SURFACE (beyond a trivial frost as on Tempel 1), here are my predictions as they stood just a couple of hours ago. Expect some modest changes, but no wholesale retractions based on new info. :)

• likelihood of a hot and dry surface ("hot," as in the familiar lexicon of comet science)
• no layers's of ice exposed beneath the surface, despite the requirements of standard theory
• no ice at the source of jets, not even where the most energetic jets are active
• electric discharge as the essential contributor to the comet's increasing activity
• abundance of unexplained rocky debris on the surface, as seen on asteroids, including sharp edged boulders exhibiting no ices.
• visible electrical erosion of the surface in the fashion of electrical etching of surface materials and electric discharge machining (edm)
• surface electrochemically transformed and burned black by this discharge activity, as in laboratory experiments
• focused glow discharge enigmatically moving across the surface during the course of the Rosetta observations
• useful comparisons of this activity to the moving electrified plumes of Jupiter's moon Io and Saturn's moon Enceladus
• electric fields configuring and reconfiguring layers of dust on the surface, despite the absence of an atmosphere
• removal of “astonishing,” complex crystalline molecules from the surface, with comparisons to materials on planets and moons, likely including Mars or Earth, or both.
• no appreciable “stardust,” the long-presumed primeval matter of comets
• no support for the long-presumed "compositional zoning" in textbook solar system history and comet theory
• useful comparison of dust configurations on the surface to formations seen in laboratory experiments with electric fields acting on layers of dust
• x-ray and ultraviolet emissions exceeding any scientific predictions just 20 years ago
• evidence for electrochemical production of hydroxyl and/or water by electrical action on surface silicates and clays
• evidence for production of water and/or hydroxyl by electrical activity in the coma
• unexpected negative ions close to the nucleus
• improbable hydrogen cloud gathered and held in place at the outer regions of the coma
• additional electrochemical transactions in the coma adding to diverse chemistry, ranging from CO2 to methane, alcohol, cyanide, and more
• relationship of comet flaring to arrival of charged particles from solar outbursts
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif
Add the POSSIBILITY of a break-up of the nucleus in response to a solar outburst, though that’s not something I'd hang a hat on.

David Talbott
Click to expand...

Well done David :)

I have NEVER seen something comaprable to David's list above, in fact the few predictions made by the mainstream came as a SURPRISE :cool:

As for the predictive power of a theory, then EC wins hands down...remember the double flash predicted by Wal Thornhill :eek:

One theory predicted it the other came up with a convoluted ad hoc explination...hands down flat out crapola!

So you mob (Tusenfem, Reality Check, et al) the mans stuck his neck out, with no maths involved. Any one of those predidtion holds true, it's goodbye to TUSENFEM's 1950's dirtysnowyball of surprises.

HELLO ELECTRIC COMET...ELECTRIC SUN....ELECTRIC UNIVERSE :eye-poppi

But for those like Tusenfem, RC, DD, jean tate... still quaintly stuck in the atomic era...expect a lot more SURPRISES coming your way stemming from your misunderstanding of what comets are.

again well done David , let the data come in!
 
Last edited:
David Talbott said:
What is absolutely clear is that comet science as a whole never spoke of x-rays before they were discovered.
Click to expand...
That may be correct, David Talbott, but so what?
Once the x-rays were discovered, comet science realized that the coma should be emitting them basically because that is what plasma does!
The x-rays are evidence against the electric comet idea because they cannot be emissions from electrical discharges.

Electric comets still do not exist :jaw-dropp!
 
David Talbott said:
...enthusiasm was inspired first and foremost by the thought of achieving what solar physicists BELIEVED the Sun was doing at its core.
Click to expand...
Wrong, David Talbott. The theory that there is fusion at the Sun's core is a DERIVATION from the laws of physics governing a ball of plasma + nuclear physics. Solar physicists BELIEVE in the laws of physics :eek:!
The observations are that the Sun obeys those laws of physics, e.g. we detect neutrinos that can only come from that fusion at the rate that is predicted.

This is what is so horrific to me about the electric sun idea - the proponents are in denial of a large part of science, including the electromagnetism and plasma science that they so love!
 
Sol88 said:
Comets are dirty snowballs left over from the formation of the solar system. They contain volitile ices and dust.
Click to expand...
Right, Sol88, comets contain volatile ices and dust. That is the science.
Some people call comets "dirty snowballs".
Some people call specific comets "dirty snowballs".
Some people call comets "icy dustballs".
Some people call specific comets "icy dustballs".
 
David Talbott said:
So we're right back to the classic response of Inquisitors ...
Click to expand...
No we are not, David Talbott: We are still at the skeptical, scientific response of "is your theory developed enough to be peer reviewed"?
That does not even need math or quantitative predictions. If the science in the electric comet idea was correct then it should be able to be published in the scientific literature. Off hand though I cannot think of any published theories without quantitative predictions or fits to existing data but that is because of the field I worked in. Theoretical solid state physics sort of depends on maht!
 
David Talbott said:
Suspicion confirmed. You've translated a theoretical supposition into fact. No ice has been observed. But it MUST be there because the theory requires it.
Click to expand...
Wrong, David Talbott: Ice has been observed because that is the only thing that could be there after eliminating every other possibility such as solid rock.
Ice has been observed because the measurements fit experiments on .... ice :jaw-dropp!
Philae settles in dust-covered ice
“If we compare the data with laboratory measurements, we think that the probe encountered a hard surface with strength comparable to that of solid ice,” says Tilman Spohn, principal investigator for MUPUS.

Looking at the results of the thermal mapper and the probe together, the team have made the preliminary assessment that the upper layers of the comet’s surface consist of dust of 10–20 cm thickness, overlaying mechanically strong ice or ice and dust mixtures.
Click to expand...
 
David Talbott said:
Are the reports reading surface chemistry or the chemistry of the coma?
Click to expand...
Hold the presses, David Talbott, you do know that Philae is currently sitting on the surface of the comet :p?
The quest for organic molecules on the surface of 67P/C-G
The Ptolemy instrument on Philae is a compact mass spectrometer designed to measure the composition of the materials making up 67P/C-G, with a particular focus on organic molecules and mineral components. Earlier in 2014, Ptolemy had collected data at distances of 15,000, 13,000, 30, 20, and 10 km from the comet, while Philae was still attached to Rosetta.

But from 12 to 14 November, along with some other instruments on the lander, Ptolemy had the chance to operate at more than one location on the comet’s surface.

Ptolemy performed its first 'sniffing' measurements on the comet just after the initial touchdown of Philae. At almost exactly the same moment, the OSIRIS camera on Rosetta was imaging Philae flying back above the surface after the first bounce.
Click to expand...
(my emphasis added)
What Ptolemy is sniffing is the comet "atmosphere" just above the surface, i.e. the stuff that the surface is emitting such as water and organics.
 
Reality Check said:
Wrong, David Talbott: Ice has been observed because that is the only thing that could be there after eliminating every other possibility such as solid rock.
Ice has been observed because the measurements fit experiments on .... ice :jaw-dropp!
Philae settles in dust-covered ice
Click to expand...

Not to mention the spectrometry results showing mostly water. Ice confirmed.
 
David Talbott said:
Therefore, before I have a chance to change my own prediction of NO WATER ICE ON THE SURFACE (beyond a trivial frost as on Tempel 1),
Click to expand...
That is a big no-no, David Talbott:
You have no citations of any prediction of NO WATER ICE ON THE SURFACE.
You have no citations of any prediction of the AMOUNT OF SURACFE ICE ON TEMPEL 1 that makes up "trivial frost".

The detection of ANY WATER ICE ON THE SURFACE invalidates your prediction of NO WATER ICE ON THE SURFACE.

Your predictions as they stood just a couple of hours ago are not predictions since they are too vague..
Haig and Sol88 seem really obsessed with the logical fallacy of false dichotomy - please do not follow their lead. Evidence against one theory is not evidence for another theory unless you can show that these are the only two possible theories.

Ignoring the false dichotomy we have:
8 December 2014 David Talbott: How hot is hot? How dry is dry?
8 December 2014 David Talbott:
Which instrument is designed to detect
  • "electrochemically transformed and burned black" surface?
  • ice at the source of jets?
  • electric discharges?
  • "rocky debris on the surface, as seen on asteroids"?
  • "electrical erosion"?
  • "focused glow discharge"?
  • "electric fields configuring and reconfiguring layers of dust on the surface"?
  • "removal of “astonishing,” complex crystalline molecules from the surface"?
  • "stardust"?
  • support for "compositional zoning"?
  • "dust configurations "?
  • "electrochemical production of hydroxyl and/or water by electrical action on surface silicates and clays"?
  • "improbable hydrogen cloud"?
  • "additional electrochemical transactions"?
8 December 2014 David Talbott: If instruments detect that above activity, how will astronomers tell the difference between standard comet physics and the electric comet physics?

8 December 2014 David Talbott: Why should scientists do the idiocy of comparing x-ray and ultraviolet emissions to predictions from 20 years ago when they have more current predictions?

8 December 2014 David Talbott: What are the electric comet predictions for x-ray and ultraviolet emissions?

8 December 2014 David Talbott: "evidence for production of water and/or hydroxyl by electrical activity in the coma" is an ignorant prediction - water and hydroxyl and hydrogen ions have been detected in the coma. OH- will grab H+ to form water. Water will disassociate.

8 December 2014 David Talbott: What "unexpected negative ions close to the nucleus"?
 
Haig said:
Pointless answering your questions.

Try answering these important questions (from Dr. L. Körtvélyessy ) for Electric Comets >>> Electric Sun ...

Comets
Why does the ion-tail point in antisolar direction ?
Why does the "plasma-tail" not follow the solar, nonradial "frozen-in" field ?
What is the origin of the ions of a comet ?
Could a temperature of 4.6 MK of unknown origin cause the ions of Hyakutake ?
Why did the small Tsuchiya Kiuchi emit X ray in 1990 as strong as Hyakutake in 1996 ?
How can the ion-tail consist of million km long filaments ?
Why are the filaments of the ion tail not unified or mixed by the solar wind ?
Why is the "antigravity" of the tail-ions 20 times stronger than the solar gravity ?

The Sun as a process
Does any recent measurement show a stable Sun ?
Is the solar rotation stable ?
Is the solar diameter stable ?
Is the solar irradiation stable ?
Is the solar oscillation stable ?
Did GALLEX exactly follow the decay of the radioactive As in 1997 ?
Is the solar neutrino flux stable ?
Is the measured power of the solar core equal to the solar luminosity ?
Why are the solar non-magnetic parameters - e.g. the diameter - often shown interpolated as curves ?
Why do the curves of the non-magnetic parameters suggest a sunspot-periodicity ?
Is any realized current-circuit of the "solar dynamo" known ?
Is any estimation of the electric-current, -voltage, -power of the "solar dynamo" known ?
Does the poloid field - as "raw matter of the dynamo" - have a clear model ?
Is the differential rotation - as "drive of the dynamo" clear ?
"How does the differential rotation react to the creation of the field ?" (Vial )
"Where exactly is the " dynamo" situated ?" (Vial 1994)
How did the dynamo get started ?
Is the positive feedback of the solar dynamo clear ?
Did SOHO find the "solar dynamo" or any of the "deep flux tubes" ?
How can the "dynamo" "produce" big sunspots and also 150 km thin flux tubes ?
How can the "dynamo" produce 1 million km thick flux tubes ?
How can the "dynamo" produce and store many thick flux tubes ?
How can the "dynamo" produce 20 thick and radial flux tubes simultaneously ?
Which "dynamo" produces the flux tubes of the comets ?
Which "dynamo" produces the flux tubes of Abell 30 ?
Which "dynamo" produces the flux tubes of supernova-remnants ?
Which "dynamo" produces the gigatesla field of the neutron stars ?
Which "dynamo" produces the long and thin magnetic field of the radiogalaxies ?
Which "dynamo" produces the filaments of the superclusters ?


Solar wind
What releases the solar wind ?
Gravity ? Nuclear forces ? Magnetic force ?
Magnetics, perhaps via MHD-waves ?
Why did SOHO not find the source of the MHD-waves ?
Can the coronal heat be the source of the solar wind ?
Is the solar wind neutral, positive or negative ?
Why is the solar wind invisible in all wavelengths ?
Why are coronal holes "holes" ?
Why does the solar wind have a velocity of about 750 km/s ?
Why do the coronal holes mostly appear near the poles ?
Why does the wind seem to have a temperature over 1 MK ?
Why does SOHO show oxygen ions of 100 MK in the solar wind ?
Where is the "coronium light" in the aurora ?
Why is the solar wind not 40 MK hot ?
Why are the polar streamers thinner outwards ?
Why do the polar streamers strongly diverge ?
Why did Ulysses find ions in the wind in a 5 minute-rhythm ?
Why does the Sun have helmet streamers in sunspot-minimums ?
How can the helmet-streamers be asymmetrical to the solar equator ?
How can helmet streamers exist in close vicinity to each other ?
Why are polar streamers thin but helmet streamers thick ?
Why is the coronal hole black in X ray but bright in 1083.0 nm ?
Why are coronal holes black but the corona bright in X ray ?
Why are all coronal holes equally black in X ray ?
Does the solar wind have a "supersonic" speed ?
Did Ulysses detect the solar explosions ?
Why is the solar wind not braked by the gravity and by its expansion ?
How can the solar wind "blast" within seconds ?
Why does the "polar wind" have a high velocity ?
Why was the solar wind constantly very slow at Jupiter ?
Did Ulysses observe the Jovian electron torus ?
Did Ulysses observe a CME ?
Why did the solar wind "flow" faster and faster in 1993 ?
Why does the wind-curve show the solar rotation distinctly ?
Why was the wind slow (350km/s) in the ecliptics in 1995 ?
Why did Ulysses find quick reversals of the solar poloid field ?
Why does the "magnetic field frozen-in in the wind" alternate ?
Why do the coronal holes have a unipolar magnetic field ?
Why did two large coronal holes appear in 1974 ?
How can coronal holes rotate rigidly ?
Why does the aurora not appear in sunspot-minimum ?
Why do the aurora simultaneously appear on both poles of planets ?
Why are only few positive ions in the coronal holes ?
Why is the flux of the cosmic rays higher in sunspot-minimum ?

I'm expecting good answers from you Reality Check (I won't be answering yours until you do) :)

This should explain my last post as well ...
why electricity over magnetism?
Click to expand...

some of these questions by dr k are so idiotic, they are an insult to alfven who actually answered some of them.
clearly shows your knowledge of space plasma physics, haig, that you willy nilly copy such a list of questions.
 
Sol88 said:
Well done David :)

I have NEVER seen something comaprable to David's list above, in fact the few predictions made by the mainstream came as a SURPRISE :cool:

As for the predictive power of a theory, then EC wins hands down...remember the double flash predicted by Wal Thornhill :eek:

One theory predicted it the other came up with a convoluted ad hoc explination...hands down flat out crapola!

So you mob (Tusenfem, Reality Check, et al) the mans stuck his neck out, with no maths involved. Any one of those predidtion holds true, it's goodbye to TUSENFEM's 1950's dirtysnowyball of surprises.

HELLO ELECTRIC COMET...ELECTRIC SUN....ELECTRIC UNIVERSE :eye-poppi

But for those like Tusenfem, RC, DD, jean tate... still quaintly stuck in the atomic era...expect a lot more SURPRISES coming your way stemming from your misunderstanding of what comets are.

again well done David , let the data come in!
Click to expand...

sol do not dress up in other people's cloths. if you don't have anything of substance to say, tben stay quiet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom