The Electric Comet theory

[Andy_Ross]

Forsterite seen in dusty clouds surrounding a forming Star

http://phys.org/news/2011-05-spitzer-crystal-outer-clouds-infant.html

 

[David Talbott]

To put it bluntly,

I know that "typical ON PLANETS IN THE HABITABLE ZONE" is just strange, David Talbott, because the only planet in the HABITABLE ZONE is Earth. We could stretch it to Mars by redefining HABITABLE as non-human HABITABLE .

From the beginning, the "habitable zone" has conventionally reached from the orbit of Venus to the orbit Mars, including "planets close enough to the sun for solar energy to drive the chemistry of life—but not so copse as to boil off water or break down the organic molecules on which life depends."
http://www.pbs.org/lifebeyondearth/alone/habitable.html

 

[tusenfem]

Tusenfem is hinting that mainstream will soon declare their MS-version-Electric Comet hypothesis will discover comets have charge and a magnetic field.

That a cometary nucleus would have a slight charge would not be a surprise, because we know that atmosphere-less bodies get charged in the solar wind and radiation. See e.g. the charge on the moon (both pos and neg) and th levitating dust.

Naturally a comet could have a remnant magnetic field, but if so, it would be very weak. It is too early to make any comments on that. The Philae data will have to be well calibrated and investigated before such claims can be made.

Nothing to do with the EC fantasy.

 

[Ziggurat]

From the beginning, the "habitable zone" has conventionally reached from the orbit of Venus to the orbit Mars

That really doesn't matter. You're quibbling about an irrelevancy, since no matter how you define "habitable zone", your assertion that forsterite can only form on planets simply isn't true. You've also ignored the fact that many minerals found on such planets are absent from comets and meteorites.

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning Matthew Cline.

<snip>

As far as I know, the solar wind is charge neutral (over distances larger than ~a few Debye lengths); to a first approximation, it consists of equal numbers of electrons and protons (ignoring any neutral species, such as hydrogen atoms). If there were a radial electric field, the protons and electrons would be going in opposite directions, wouldn't they? And yet in situ observations of the solar wind are consistent with them going in the same direction, right?

IIRC, the "Iron Sun" proponent Mozina claimed that the electric field accelerated the protons, and the protons then dragged the electrons along with them (or maybe it was visa-versa)

I'm quoting this post of yours because it reminded me of something I've touched on briefly earlier, the fact that the electric comet hypothesis is subjective and cannot be independently verified.

It's a bit like what I posted earlier, something I found in the forum Haig recommended I turn to for answers he could not provide ... someone giving their personal opinion that a capacitor 'weighs less' when charged than when not (as a reason why the estimated density of comets is significantly lower than that of asteroids). It would seem that anyone can declare that they understand the electric comet hypothesis sufficiently well as to write any idea they might have and say it is part of that hypothesis (as Haig keeps doing). And no one can gainsay them ... except if an electrical theorist (in practice just David Talbott, Wal Thornhill, or Don Scott) explicitly declares such original, off-the-cuff ideas to be verboten.

In short, yet more concrete evidence that whatever the electric comet hypothesis is, it most certainly is not science.

A later post by David Talbott illustrates this very well; I intend to comment on it in some detail.

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning David Talbott.

How interesting that the electrical theorist Ralph Juergens, more than 40 years ago, stated in no uncertain terms that the longer time a comet has spent in the outermost regions of the Sun's influence, the more electrons it would contribute to its display. In this, we have a pretty good explanation as to why a sizable intruder from the outer reaches never seems to enter the solar system without becoming a comet. "Great Comets" (Halley, Hale-Bopp, Hyakutake, etc.) do indeed seem to have the most HIGHLY elliptical orbits.

Just so that I'm clear on this: if the spacecraft which have gone (or are going) out beyond Neptune's orbit - Voyager 2, New Horizons, to pick just two examples - were ever to return to the inner solar system, per the electric comet hypothesis they'd become comets?

If part of any 'no' answer involves "they would not be sizable intruders", what does size and/or 'intrusion' have to do with it?

Of course, it's well established that many "asteroids" have erupted with comet-like comas or tails. And though ellipticity of orbits seems to be a major factor, when considering orbits alone there is a zone of ambiguity between comets and asteroids. The ability of constituent matter to adjust to regions of different charge would surely contribute to the differences.

But this has not been investigated by electrical theorists, right?

And it came as a surprise to them, right?

What does not appear ambiguous is the fact that large bodies falling toward the Sun from the outermost reaches never fail to become comets. So both the ambiguous and unambiguous distinctions between comets and asteroids must be taken into account.

Within the electric comet hypothesis how - quantitatively - should such distinctions be taken into account?

 

[David Talbott]

Good morning David Talbott.
Just so that I'm clear on this, you will be relying on things like the Rosetta blog, ESA PRs, and informal comments by various people as your primary sources (in seeking to understand what Rosetta has detected, in appreciable quantities, on the surface of 67P)?

Or do you intend to wait until relevant papers - written by the scientists directly involved (such as tusenfem) - have been published in peer-reviewed journals?

I'm eagerly awaiting the publication of papers. At the same time it would be silly to ignore significant announcements by principal investigators and mission team members. Numerous ESA and NASA news releases are already a goldmine for gaining a sense as to where the mission is taking comet science. And of course attention to such announcements is exactly what ESA and NASA are hoping for.

Also, out of curiosity, what do you consider to be the detection of "appreciable ices on the surface of 67P"?

I hope you're not demanding "quantification" JeanTate.
Let's just say that a light frost descending to the comet's surface from the coma would not be "appreciable." That was the state of the surface of Tempel 1: about .5 percent of the water required by theory to support the volume of water production in the coma. If you have some numerical value you'd want to inject for "quantification" purposes in relation to 67P why not just name it? I'd not ask anyone for fixed numbers ahead of meaningful facts. When you see the word "appreciable" in context, take it as meaning "requiring appreciation by its ability to confirm, or challenge, prior assumptions."

 

[Ziggurat]

Within the electric comet hypothesis how - quantitatively - should such distinctions be taken into account?

I think we all know the answer to that question.

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning, Sol88.

Comets are dirty snowballs left over from the formation of the solar system. They contain volitile ices and dust.

Huh?

Aren't you confusing two very different things?

One can investigate the nature - structure, composition - of comets independently of their origins, right?

Your woefully outdated description also completely ignores the well-known fact that not all comets are identical.

For example, 'Oort cloud' comets may be making their first perihelion passage (e.g. Hale-Bopp); longish-period ones have certainly already made several (e.g. Halley's); Jupiter-family ones have much smaller aphelia than either the previous two (e.g. SL9); many sungrazer comets are the remnants of much bigger ones which likely broke up in an earlier perihelion passage (e.g. ISON?); etc.

So, for me, the mystery of why you insist on approaching this topic from the perspective of long-outdated ideas and extreme simplicity still eludes me.

 

[Dancing David]

What happens when you rub a comet in your hair ?

You can stick a balloon to it!

 

[Dancing David]

So we're right back to the classic response of Inquisitors when a fundamental challenge is developing with the power to transform science: "Where's the math"? "Where's the peer-reviewed research."? For a few moments in the history of scientific progress, the ruse can be effective. Then suddenly people begin to realize that the first priorities are ALL ABOUT DIRECT EVIDENCE. Scientific revolutions begin when evidence, pointing directly to cause and effect, has become sufficiently clear to those who did not see it yesterday.

Seems to me this is exactly what is happening.

Here we are reading you not answering simple direct questions.

Here is some direct evidence to address;


Apollo objects do not show comas, yet it seems they should(under the EC hypothesis, they spend large amounts of time in low charge space (under the EC hypothesis and then come into highly charged space (under the EC hypothesis), they move from what should eb an area of low charge (under EC hypothesis) to areas of very high charge (under the EC hypothesis)


So David Talbot, why don't Apollo objects show comas?

 

[Andy_Ross]

So, for me, the mystery of why you insist on approaching this topic from the perspective of long-outdated ideas and extreme simplicity still eludes me.

Because they can't contradict Velikovsky and the outdated ideas and simple models they use support their own ideas.

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning again, David Talbott.

Just quickly here, David Talbott.
(my bold)

From what has been posted in this thread to date, would I be correct in concluding that this "electric comet research" has resulted in zero published papers, to date?

So we're right back to the classic response of Inquisitors when a fundamental challenge is developing with the power to transform science: "Where's the math"? "Where's the peer-reviewed research."?

Um, excuse me, but what does this have to do with the electric comet hypothesis? And with my question?

But to answer your question directly, even though it is waaaay off-topic: who, or what, are "Inquisitors"? What "fundamental challenge"* are you talking about? As there's nothing fundamentally different* in what's proposed - in the electric comet hypothesis - why would/could it "transform science"? My question did not refer to any "maths"; why did you introduce that?

For a few moments in the history of scientific progress, the ruse can be effective. Then suddenly people begin to realize that the first priorities are ALL ABOUT DIRECT EVIDENCE.

Even more way off-topic, but you seem to have been reading very different primary sources on "the history of scientific progress" than I have.

But since you've introduced "DIRECT EVIDENCE", let me ask you about it: do you, David Talbott, regard what has been published - in relevant peer-reviewed journals - on the data from previous space probes to comets other than 67P as "DIRECT EVIDENCE"? Do you regard the data which can freely downloaded (from sources tusenfem cited), from in situ investigations as old as that on Comet Halley, as "DIRECT EVIDENCE"?

How about highly processed JPEG images posted on blogs, do you consider those "DIRECT EVIDENCE"? Or is the only primary such evidence the FITS files (if indeed they are in FITS format)?

In the long chain of data processing which all data returned from spaceprobes goes through, when/where does "DIRECT EVIDENCE" end?

Scientific revolutions begin when evidence, pointing directly to cause and effect, has become sufficiently clear to those who did not see it yesterday.

You and I covered this in a previous post, so I'm not going to go into any detail here; instead I'll simply say that you did not respond to my earlier post where I pointed out that your views seem to be quite inconsistent with reality.

Seems to me this is exactly what is happening.

Stripped of the bluster, then, the answer to my question - would I be correct in concluding that this "electric comet research" has resulted in zero published papers, to date? - is "no, none of the research into the electric comet hypothesis has resulted in published papers yet."

Thank you for confirming what I had surmised.

*In this case it's especially puzzling, to me, because the electric comet hypothesis is not at all a fundamental challenge; as I understand what I've read, the physics involved is classical electromagnetism plus a little bit of atomic physics; at a higher level, it's plasma physics, something which hundreds of universities (etc) are actively researching

 

[D'rok]

I assume the above includes ices the same as the "Ice's" we are expecting and are REQUIRED to find...so how's that going, Tusenfem?

Do you even bother reading the thread?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10359366#post10359366

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10359379#post10359379

 

[D'rok]

David Talbott has pinned his colours to the mast with predictions for Electric Comet 67P as he said he would.

Those aren't scientific predictions. They are qualitative descriptions designed to be subjectively interpreted post-hoc every time the Rosetta team releases some info.

So where are the mainstream comet predictions?

Do you even bother reading the thread?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10358490#post10358490

 

[David Talbott]

Well now Jean Tate. Why I am I suspecting that your primary interest here is to continue a ruse about "quantification"? I see you promoting this ruse even in cases where conclusions are inescapable based on officially-announced discovery. Are we supposed to wait until someone has modeled a phenomenon mathematically before we acknowledge the critical discovery itself? Now I'm finding myself laughing every time I see you use the world "quantitative" on the front end of a challenge. Am I overstating something when I suggest that the motive is all too transparent—a desire to obscure facts that carry immediate, obvious, and far-reaching implications?

Just so that I'm clear on this: if the spacecraft which have gone (or are going) out beyond Neptune's orbit - Voyager 2, New Horizons, to pick just two examples - were ever to return to the inner solar system, per the electric comet hypothesis they'd become comets?

Of course not. But then I've assumed you've followed at least a few earlier discussions of the electric comet idea and the issues posed by "asteroids" becoming "comets". An inability to adjust fully to a changing electrical environment is the whole idea of the electric comet. Not just size, but constituent materials of the moving body, the activity of the Sun, the direction of solar outbursts, the strength and configuration of the Sun's electric field, the speed of passage through this electric field, the presence of double layers around the comet, and the density of the regional environmental charge, would all (quite obviously) affect the comet's electrical response.

Okay...let's see now...

But this has not been investigated by electrical theorists, right?

And it came as a surprise to them, right?

As comet science began to acknowledge the breakdown of distinctions between asteroids and comets, that was a milestone admission, certainly not surprising, and we advertised it.

Within the electric comet hypothesis how - quantitatively - should such distinctions be taken into account?

Hmmm, there's that word again. Forget everything I said above. The cited distinctions should have no value, since I didn't do a single mathematical calculation. Conceptual frameworks for developing a new understanding of cause and effect must be avoided at all costs. Just throw out equations floating in the air, and everything will come out fine.

Or perhaps I could actually persuade you to drop this silliness, JeanTate, and help us persuade comet scientists to ask the most essential questions. They're the ones who could bring with them the tools of a multi-billion dollar industry, an industry chartered to carry out observation, measurement, and analysis, including specialized mathematical modeling. After all, wouldn't you agree that, if comet science has been guided by an incorrect idea (dirty snowball, icy dirt ball), the questions posed here actually COUNT FOR SOMETHING?

Sorry to say, all I can see in your recent responses is a deliberate ruse. Please dissuade me from this impression before I wander off. I do not have a high tolerance for wasting time.

 

[JeanTate]

Once more ...

Or putting things in different words: Scientific revolutions begin just as soon as rare individuals, convinced by an extraordinary idea, begin to persuade well trained people through their use of evidence. This typically occurs long before "peer reviewed" papers begin to show up explicitly supporting the idea.

No, in the history of astrophysics, that has not happened. I do not know how you came to conclude something like this; there is - as far as I know - simply no evidence for it.

Right now, good people are pausing long enough to consider evidence, and the result is a growing movement outside the mainstream but able to attract working scientists inspired by what they see.

So you say.

The objective, independently verifiable, evidence for this assertion is, what, exactly?

We grant anonymity to anyone who needs it (for reasons that are pretty obvious).

In short, you have set out on a path which you know full well is antithetical to some core principles of science (e.g. the need for hypotheses to be objective and independently verifiable).

Be that as it may, do you have an estimated time-frame for when you expect the first electric comet hypothesis paper to be submitted to a relevant peer-reviewed journal? to arXiv?

Also, per Haig's links, there seem to have been some conferences you (and/or your fellow electrical theorists) organized, at which some individuals presented material directly relevant to the electric comet hypothesis. And there's no anonymity here, not least because some of the presentations seem to have been videotaped and uploaded to freely accessible sites. As far as I know, presentations at scientific conferences typically result in draft papers being submitted to arXiv (and journals), often within a few months. Yet as far as I can tell, nothing like that has happened re electric comet hypothesis-related presentations at 'your' conferences. May I ask why not?

In fact, aren't you the author of a poster, on the electric comet theory (?), presented at a plasma physics conference many years' ago? (I may be misremembering; I thought I read that in one of the links Haig posted).

 

[phunk]

Or putting things in different words: Scientific revolutions begin just as soon as rare individuals, convinced by an extraordinary idea, begin to persuade well trained people through their use of evidence. This typically occurs long before "peer reviewed" papers begin to show up explicitly supporting the idea.

Can you provide an example?

 

[D'rok]

It's amazing the rhetorical lengths that EU/EC cranks will go to avoid addressing scientific questions and doing any actual science.

Let me add to the chorus: where are the EU/EC papers based on the freely available data from previous comet missions? This question has been consistently ignored.

I guess data is just too quantitative for EU/EC "scientists" to cope with. The constant lip service to "evidence" by the EU/EC crowd is beyond laughable at this point.

 

[Ziggurat]

Hmmm, there's that word again. Forget everything I said above. The cited distinctions should have no value, since I didn't do a single mathematical calculation.

You never have.

Conceptual frameworks for developing a new understanding of cause and effect must be avoided at all costs.

And how do you know if your conceptual framework is correct? Why, you test it. Quantitatively.

Just throw out equations floating in the air, and everything will come out fine.

Real scientists don't throw out equations floating in the air. They develop equations based upon their conceptual framework. If the equations don't produce the right answer, then they know that there's a problem with their conceptual framework.

But you never test your conceptual framework, so you live in denial of its multitude of errors. And even when others test your conceptual framework for you, you simply ignore it.

Or perhaps I could actually persuade you to drop this silliness, JeanTate, and help us persuade comet scientists to ask the most essential questions. They're the ones who could bring with them the tools of a multi-billion dollar industry, an industry chartered to carry out observation, measurement, and analysis, including specialized mathematical modeling.

Why should anyone do that? We already know that you're wrong. It doesn't even take "specialized mathematical modeling". Very simple, elementary models are sufficient to prove that.

After all, wouldn't you agree that, if comet science has been guided by an incorrect idea (dirty snowball, icy dirt ball), the questions posed here actually COUNT FOR SOMETHING?

You seem to believe that if mainstream scientific understanding of comets is wrong, then your ideas must therefore be correct. But that's simply not true. You are wrong. We already know that. Even if mainstream comet science is also wrong, that cannot and will not make you right.

Sorry to say, all I can see in your recent responses is a deliberate ruse.

As opposed to your perpetual evasions?


<SNIP>

Please, cut out the personalization. There has already been a mod-box warning in this thread; any further breaches will result in infractions and/or suspensions.

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