This is the post by David Talbott that I was referring to in my earlier post.
For me, a key feature of a scientific hypothesis is that it is objective and independently verifiable. David has written about the electric comet hypothesis, and Haig has posted many links to materials which seem to refer to the same thing. Reading all this material, I myself am quite confused as to what, exactly, this electric comet hypothesis actually is (although the core assumptions seem to be clear; in shorthand:'Sun-centered strong electric field' and 'comets and asteroids have the same composition, rock').
Let's see what David wrote ...
<snip>
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.
David doesn't say so explicitly, but I think it's OK to assume that his predictions are derived from the electric comet hypothesis.
I will look at these, and see if I can - objectively, and independently - derive the same conclusions, starting with just the electric comet hypothesis ('ech' for short).
• likelihood of a hot and dry surface ("hot," as in the familiar lexicon of comet science)
Per the ech, the surface must be dry (so 'likelihood' is a certainty here). However, I cannot derive 'likelihood of a hot surface' from the ech. Can you?
• no layers's of ice exposed beneath the surface, <non-ech stuff snipped>
• no ice at the source of jets, not even where the most energetic jets are active
Check; per the ech, comets are homogeneous, and composed of 'rock'.
• electric discharge as the essential contributor to the comet's increasing activity
The ech does not - as far as I can tell - allow you to derive "
electric discharge". This may seem ridiculous, but the ech says nothing about the Sun-centered electric field (other than that it's Sun-centered), nor the conductivity of the 'rock' which comets are composed of, nor the conductivity of the inter-planetary medium, etc, etc, etc. As I understand it, "
electric discharge" can happen only within quite specific regimes; too, this is fully accepted by electrical theorists (per the materials Haig posted links to).
Of course, "
electric discharge" *may* occur when a rock travels through a Sun-centered electric field, but it is not inevitable.
• 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
I cannot see how any of these could be derived from the ech (other than the "
exhibiting no ices").
They may all be consistent with the ech, but each certainly introduces new assumptions, none of which have been stated (by David Talbott at least). It may well be that at least one pair of these predictions are mutually inconsistent. In short, none of them is objective, and none can be independently verified.
• useful comparisons of this activity to the moving electrified plumes of Jupiter's moon Io and Saturn's moon Enceladus
This, obviously, is well beyond the ech.
• 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.
I cannot see how any of these could be derived from the ech.
They may all be consistent with the ech, but each certainly introduces new assumptions, none of which have been stated (by David Talbott at least). It may well be that, combined with the predictions earlier in this list, at least one pair of these predictions are mutually inconsistent. In short, none of them is objective, and none can be independently verified.
• 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
Check; in the ech, comets are homogeneous 'rock'.
• 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
I cannot see how any of these could be derived from the ech.
They may all be consistent with the ech, but each certainly introduces new assumptions, none of which have been stated (by David Talbott at least). It may well be that, combined with the predictions earlier in this list, at least one pair of these predictions are mutually inconsistent. In short, none of them is objective, and none can be independently verified.
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
I cannot see how "
the POSSIBILITY of a break-up of the nucleus in response to a solar outburst" could be derived from the ech.
In conclusion, whatever the ech is, it sure ain't science (as far as I can tell, using the criterion I explicitly stated above).
