The Electric Comet theory

[David Talbott]

No time left, but yes dasmiller, the mass issue is critical—for both the standard and the electric comet ideas—unless you assume that under the influence of gravity a rock-solid crust formed around a marshmallow. Personally, I tend to prefer the electric answer. Bye to all.

 

[Haig]

Yes, I was responding to Haig, and specifically addressing the post that he linked. I don't know whether Talbott has weighed in on the apparent mass issue, so my question may be limited to Haig's (and "scowie's") concept of EC.

Someone else that you can add to your list "justcurious"

Re: Does a density of 0.4 g/cm^3 mean 67P cannot be rock?
post by justcurious » Mon Dec 08, 2014 10:27 am

Rosetta/Philae is an interesting mission as it can scan the interior of the comet, and hopefully get some samples, and identify what it is composed of. That way we can get definitive answers (hopefully) to the questions of mass, matter and gravity. Currently, we can only speculate and hypothesize on the interiors of planets and moons and their masses based on orbits, but this comet can be a potential game-changer. I thought it was a well known fact that spacecraft slingshotted around planets accelerate more than is expected by newtonian gravity calculations, so what is it?

I think my explanation is very simple. Do you think it more likely that planets, moons and asteroids/comet nucleii do have densities that are fractions of that of water [and in the case of some exoplanets, as dense as styrofoam]? I certainly don't. My explanation allows these bodies to have sensible densities and compositions instead of the puzzling ones that the mainstream are faced with.

No time left, but yes dasmiller, the mass issue is critical—for both the standard and the electric comet ideas—unless you assume that under the influence of gravity a rock-solid crust formed around a marshmallow. Personally, I tend to prefer the electric answer. Bye to all.

Bye, thanks for shaking up the locals and boosting the ratings

 

[tusenfem]

No time left, but yes dasmiller, the mass issue is critical—for both the standard and the electric comet ideas—unless you assume that under the influence of gravity a rock-solid crust formed around a marshmallow. Personally, I tend to prefer the electric answer. Bye to all.

Well, that was a pointless participation.

 

[ben m]

I promise that, as the report continues, I will not ignore criticisms posted on this ISF thread. <SNIP>

It's true, I interpret your total lack of understanding of E&M as a fatal shortcoming in "Electric Comet theory"---to be blunt, I think "EC theory" (insofar as it's a theory at all) is already disproven by basic E&M, and the only open issue is whether you will ever understand the disproof.

...

Similarly, I don't believe in, or fall for the argument-dodging techniques of: 9/11 conspiracy theorists, creationists, the Iron Sun guy, cold-fusion promoters, etc. etc. etc.

Edited by LashL: 

Edited to remove quote of moderated content, and part of response to same.

 

[Ziggurat]

No time left, but yes dasmiller, the mass issue is critical—for both the standard and the electric comet ideas—unless you assume that under the influence of gravity a rock-solid crust formed around a marshmallow.

Why not? What's the impediment to that happening?

Personally, I tend to prefer the electric answer.

Of course you do. It fits your dogma.

 

[dasmiller]

No time left, but yes dasmiller, the mass issue is critical—for both the standard and the electric comet ideas—unless you assume that under the influence of gravity a rock-solid crust formed around a marshmallow. Personally, I tend to prefer the electric answer.

And that would be . . . ?

 

[Reality Check]

So where are the mainstream comet predictions?

So where is your understanding of the inanity of that quotation, Haig !
This is The Electric Comet theory thread.

Repeating David Talbott's list of mostly fantasies about the Rosetta spacecraft capabilities does not make them predictions.
8 December 2014 David Talbott: What instruments will detect what you state can be detected in your predictions?

 

[Dancing David]

So where are the answers to the questions then ?

So why don't Apollo objects shows comas, why do only 6 of the asteroid belt objects show comas?

I asked you these two questions before, no answers forthcoming that are coherent.

 

[Reality Check]

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

Not quite right, David Talbott - the zone is not set in stone: Circumstellar habitable zone

Solar System estimates
Estimates for the habitable zone within the Solar System range from 0.725 to 3.0 astronomical units, though arriving at these estimates has been challenging for a variety of reasons. Venus, for example, has an orbit whose aphelion touches the inner reaches of the Solar System's habitable zone, but has an extremely thick carbon dioxide atmosphere which causes the surface temperature to reach 462 °C (864 °F).[31] Although the entire orbits of the Moon,[32] Mars,[33] and the dwarf planet Ceres[34] lie within various estimates of the habitable zone, and seasonal flows on warm Martian slopes have not yet been ruled out, these three bodies have atmospheric pressures that are far too low to create a strong greenhouse effect and sustain liquid water on their surfaces.

But in general I agree - it includes Mars. Venus is doubtful.

You ignored the rest of my post for that nitpick:

To put it bluntly, you are wrong about the purpose of Stardust and its results, David Talbott
...
So not just cosmic dust - also from the coma of comet Wild 2 from !
...
That is APPRECIABLE stardust + mixing of solar system and interstellar matter.

I know that some of the dust particles form the Stardust mission came the inner solar system.
I know that "typical ON PLANETS IN THE HABITABLE ZONE" is just wrong, David Talbott. These dust particles were typical of the dust forming in the early history of the solar system billions of years ago. Read at what I highlight above.
No granite.
No basalt.
No sandstone .
Not even any limestone !
Stardust did find olivine and pyroxene, which form a majority of the upper mantel of Earth and are also found in asteroids, i.e. are not typical ON JUST PLANETS IN THE HABITABLE ZONE. But the surface of the Earth also contains granite, basalt, limestone, sandstone and many other distinctive minerals.

The main point is that you cannot predict detection of material "typical of rocky planets" when that material is also typical of every body that formed in the solar system! That includes asteroids and comets.
Your prediction has to differentiate between material from the early solar system and material from the surface of rocky planets.

 

[Dancing David]

The fastest way to find answers wrt the breakdown of distinctions between comets and asteroids is to go to the extremes. The so-called "Great Comets" have MUCH more elliptical orbits, reaching MUCH farther away from the Sun than Apollo asteroids. Nevertheless it would not be entirely surprising to see minor dust raising events even on some larger Apollo asteroids. In fact the "Apollo asteroid" Wilson-Harrington DID turn out to be a comet.
http://www.cyclopaedia.de/wiki/Comet_Wilson–Harrington

But the actual history of "asteroidal comets" makes clear that most of the potential instances would likely have to be viewed up close—an example of direct observation trumping arbitrary numerical values. In many instances a rock and rock with a dust cloud will not be easily distinguished. Nor would we want to ignore the essential considerations I noted earlier.

So one, Apollo object showed a coma, what about all the others? Why don't they show comas?

You know the 5765 other Apollo objects?

Although I do have say a big thank you for an answer, if not a direct answer to the question.


Why don't the other 5765 Apollo objects show comas?

 

[Reality Check]

The The so-called "Great Comets" have MUCH more elliptical orbits, reaching MUCH farther away from the Sun than Apollo asteroids.

Which raises another electric comet issue, David Talbott.
This statement seems to be that you predict that the more elliptical the orbit, the brighter the comet. This is reasonable since the electric comet idea is that it is electric discharges caused by the movement through the Sun's electric field that cause comet activity. The greater the movement, the greater the activity.

But this is quite easily testable: Just plot eccentricity (how elliptical the orbit is) against activity and see if there is a correlation. This is something your team could do quite quickly.

On the other hand there are many asteroids in orbits with bigger eccentricity than comets and they are not comets, David Talbott !
See Electric comets still do not exist !.

 

[Reality Check]

Check; per the ech, comets are homogeneous, and composed of 'rock'.

Not quite complete, JeanTate: per the ech, comets are homogeneous, and composed of 'rock' that has been blasted from the surface of planets "recently".
The highlighted bit is important because those predictions should include that comets will have compositions matching the current surface of rocky planets. The ones that were blasted from the surface of Earth will have granite, basalt, sandstone, limestone, etc.

In fact a ech prediction would be that we will find fossils on comets .
Scientists go looking for fossils in meteorites that have their origins on Mars. So fossils in rock blasted from the surface of Earth are likely.

 

[Reality Check]

The fact that forsterite is very common in the mantle of the Earth does support the origin of Electric Comets from conditions in the zone of the inner planets.

Wrong, Haig: The fact is that forsterite is common throughout solar systems, including ours.
For example Asteroid belt zooms around alien star

The star, known as HD69830, is a bit smaller and younger than the Sun. But unlike other stars of its type, HD69830's starlight reveals a lot of rocky debris in orbit.

In particular, the material appears to be a mineral called forsterite, the same stuff detected in the tail of Comet Hale-Bopp and a common volcanic mineral on Earth

Forsterite in Earth's mantel is not unique to the mantel.
You are wrong about origin of Electric Comets - they do not originate "from conditions in the zone of the inner planets". They originate from the inner planets themselves recently. So we expect to see everything from the current surfaces of inner planets, including fossils from Earth.

 

[Reality Check]

Is it appropriate to describe an active comet as "hot and dry?

Not if you are doing scientific predictions, David Talbott.
Not if you are doing scientific predictions about a comet that is not Borrelly, David Talbott.
Not if you are doing scientific predictions about 67P in 2014, not 2002, David Talbott.

Yes if you are comet investigators responding to the Borrelly findings in 2002 (Deep Space 1 probe) in a press release.
NASA Spacecraft Finds Comet Has Hot, Dry Surface April 5, 2002

Comet Borrelly has plenty of ice beneath its tar-black surface, but any exposed to sunlight has vaporized away, say scientists analyzing data from Deep Space 1, managed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

"The spectrum suggests that the surface is hot and dry. It is surprising that we saw no traces of water ice," said Dr. Laurence Soderblom of the U.S. Geological Survey's Flagstaff, Ariz., station, lead author of a report on the Borrelly flyby results appearing in the online edition of the journal Science.

"We know the ice is there," he said. "It's just well-hidden. Either the surface has been dried out by solar heating and maturation or perhaps the very dark soot-like material that covers Borrelly's surface masks any trace of surface ice."

"No traces of water ice" on the surface is of course a reason why they were so surprised and why they gave reasons why there would be no surface water ice on this comet detected.

 

[Reality Check]

I can promise that, as the report continues, I will not ignore criticisms posted on this ISF thread...snipped insults...

I suggest that you start with finding out what the Rosetta spacecraft can actually measure rather then just making up stuff about what they can detect, David Talbott:
8 December 2014 David Talbott: What instruments will detect what you state can be detected in your predictions?

And a critical part of the predictions is missing- if we detect X how can we tell the difference between X happening in the comet model and X happening in the electric comet idea?
For example, the comet model expects to detect x-rays since we have detected then before. But the electric comet idea also predicts x-rays as in your list.

But Electric comets still do not exist !.

 

[Reality Check]

Someone else that you can add to your list "justcurious"

Unfortunately this "justcurious" is just wrong, Haig .
There are definite answers to the masses of comets in science, just not on Thunderbolts: Electric comets still do not exist !.
scowie replied from a stance of ignorance or incredibility.
David Talbott prefers an imaginary "electric answer" for the masses when he should know that there is no such thing - just wishful thinking.

 

[Reality Check]

...unless you assume that under the influence of gravity a rock-solid crust formed around a marshmallow.

Your statement is wrong, David Talbott since no one assumes this.
The formation of an ice-solid crust around a "marshmallow" is expected by anyone who knows about comets because they are heated by the Sun. The surface loses more volatile material than the interior. Thus a crust is expected. The strength of the dust and ice crust in 67P is a interesting development because it is at least close to solid ice.

 

[Sol88]

I must wonder why the EC bunch keeps on insisting that mainstream has to use Whipples 1950s model of the dirty snowball, which was developed before we had any close-by information of cometary nuclei?

It's because thats the bedtime story the mainstream keeps telling the mums and dads to tell the kiddies!!

leftovers from the solar system formation, hangn out in the Oort cloud waiting for some random event......

 

[Andy_Ross]

Wrong, Haig: The fact is that forsterite is common throughout solar systems, including ours.
For example Asteroid belt zooms around alien star

Forsterite in Earth's mantel is not unique to the mantel.
You are wrong about origin of Electric Comets - they do not originate "from conditions in the zone of the inner planets". They originate from the inner planets themselves recently. So we expect to see everything from the current surfaces of inner planets, including fossils from Earth.

Haig seems to have missed my post from earlier today.

Forsterite seen in dusty clouds surrounding a forming Star Spitzer results

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

 

[Matthew Cline]

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."

So you don't need to put any numbers to it, because you'll know it when you see it?