The Electric Comet theory

[Haig]

We can read all about the science of comet Borrelly's jets in this Icarus paper by Roger Yelle, and this is a paper by Soderblom et al..

The latter states (and I copy from Yelle et al.)



The Yelle et al. paper (freely available through the link) then goes on to explain why there is no ice and why the surface temperature is high ~320 K or so. And then how the jets of the comet are created through deLavalle nozzles etc. Borrelly was apparently at 1.36 AU during the measurements.

Well, that just proves my colleagues usual comment.
- "What is the comet like?"
- "Unlike any comet we have seen so far."



Apparently me linking to papers that I and my colleagues have published, for the whole world to see (and if you do not have access I will send you the pdf) has passed by you completely, as well as the quantifying calculations I have made on this board.

In contrast

Evidence for Electric Comets from 67P

the chief principals of the Thunderbolts Project, Wal Thornhill and David Talbott, take a closer look at the latest information from the Rosetta mission to Comet 67P

 

[phunk]

Then, an this is the clincher, Valles Marineris looks like an electrical scar if ever I saw one.

So what you're saying is, you've never seen one?

 

[Haig]

So what you're saying is, you've never seen one?

Nope, not saying that

Electrical Scarring of Planets and Moons

 

[Ziggurat]

In contrast

Evidence for Electric Comets from 67P

So I'm watching some of this video, and ran into the claim that the water production was too high. Given my own calculations showing that enough energy was available to sublimate far more water that was actually seen, this seemed a curious claim. It was doubly curious that the displayed text used as a reference doesn't seem to support the claim that the narrator made (that there was too much water to explain). But the text was truncated, so I thought maybe the claim is supported by text not being shown. So I tracked it down, and here's a link to the announcement:

http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/06/23/first-detection-of-water-from-67pc-g/

And indeed, upon examination I find that there was critical information contained in the text which was cut:

"This first estimate of the water production rate is within the range of models being used for comet 67P/C-G, and is excellent confirmation that MIRO is on target with its science goals."​

In other words, this source directly contradicts the narrator's claim.

Oops!

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88: List of outstanding questions

1. 5th August 2009 Sol88: Now where in the many published papers on the electric comet idea is the prediction that the electrical discharges are of duration 10-15 ms (your claim)?
2. 5th August 2009 Sol88, How does the electric comet idea explain main-belt comets?
3. 17 November 2014 Sol88: Please cite the announcement of the discovery of hard rock (not "rock stuff" but the solid rock your theory demands) on comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko.
4. 17 November 2014 Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the density of comets
5. 18 November 2014 Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the amount of surface ice on 67P (no detected surface ice).
6. 18 November 2014 Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the amount of surface ice on Tempel 1 where surface ice was found
7. 18 November 2014 Sol88: Please present the electric comet calculation for the electric charge differential around comets and show that it matches the measurements.
8. 20 November 2014 Sol88: Can you understand that the Thunderbolts authors even lie about predictions
9. 20 November 2014 Sol88: Can you understand the significant delusions on that Thunderbolts web page on 67P "predictions"?
10. 24 November 2014 Sol88: Please cite the electric comet predictions for the albedo of comet nuclei (actual numbers not fantasies!)
11. 1 December 2014: A rather pathetic attempt to answer the above questions (mostly repeats of ignorance and fantasies).
12. 2 December 2014: Sol88 does not notice that Wal Thornhill narrates an ignorant and deluded video about 67P!
13. 3 December 2014 Sol88: What about the jets is specifically predicted by the electric comet fantasy to be confirmed by the OSIRIS instrument?
14. 3 December 2014 Sol88: What does the electric comet fantasy predict about jet locations, especially on 67P?
15. 4 December 2014 Sol88: how much water/water ice on/in 67P to account for the observed OH, does the electric comet fantasy come up with?
16. 5 December 2014 Sol88: Is "ice at the jet source" how we know comets produce jets and OH-?

 

[LSSBB]

Nope, not saying that

Electrical Scarring of Planets and Moons

So a phenomena nowwhere witnessed is responsible, and is currently responsible for unwitnessed yet sworn to occur cometary discharges? Why don't they happen now, is your god dead?

 

[Reality Check]

Questions about the origin of electric comets

9 December 2014 David Talbott, Sol88 or Haig: Why are the orbits of comets not traced back to planets or moons?
Note that "wishful thinking about electricity" is not an answer!

9 December 2014 David Talbott, Sol88 or Haig: Why is the total mass of comets greater to or comparable to that of the rocky planets and moons (which still exist!)?

9 December 2014 David Talbott, Sol88 or Haig: What is the physical evidence of appreciable parts of the surfaces of planets and moons being removed in recent (say Neolithic or Early Bronze Age) times?

 

[Reality Check]

Interesting image of a rubble field on Mars to compare with the rubble field on 67P:
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/images...ntary-deposit-lakebed-rocks-pia19074-full.jpg

Nice "I see bunnies in n the clouds" statement that ignores the fact that comets are not rock from Mars, David Talbott .

Followed by unsupported assertions:
11 December 2014 David Talbott: Please cite the literature where "rubble on 67P remains a profound mystery".
11 December 2014 David Talbott: Please cite the literature where "stratification of jumbled cliffs" is "enigmatic".
11 December 2014 David Talbott: Please cite the literature where "sharply projecting peaks" is "enigmatic".
11 December 2014 David Talbott: Please cite the literature where those mysteries and enigmas are support for the electric comet idea, e.g. comets are rock.

Which leads to a possible point of ignorance:
11 December 2014 David Talbott: What is the logical fallacy of false dichotomy?

A paradox: "decades" of independent "research" by a half dozen "investigators" has continued a story of comets electrically torn from planetary surfaces with absolutely no cited evidence, but you cannot answer questions about the story!
ETA:
I put decades in quotes since the electric comet idea as stated on Thunderbolts just coming up to its first decade - but then there is Jürgen.
I put research in quotes because there seems to be no actual research done since Jürgen's original "papers" (close to stories in a science fiction magazine ). What has happened is that people have taken the hypothesis of comets = rock and based stories on it. These people have often committed the fallacy of thinking that, ignorance of, incredibility about or gaps in the scientific comet model is evidence for the electric comet idea.
I put investigators in quote because investigators implies that rational, knowledgeable people are doing the research. There has been no evidence of this, e.g. rational, knowledgeable people would know about and acknowledge the multiple techniques of determining comet density means that comets are not rock.

 

[Reality Check]

RC originally before Ra the Egyptians worshipped the planet Saturn known to them as Osiris my bold
The Worship of Saturn

Haig, this is The Immanuel Velikovsky Archive - you are citing the fantasies of a crank !
Googling "Osiris Saturn" gives some interesting results, e.g. A Saturnian Cosmology -- Jno Cook

In 1960 David Talbott started investigating the ancient literature of Mesopotamia and Egypt, and soon came to the conclusion that, in fact, Saturn had stood in the sky, ablaze like a sun, during an earlier period recalled by people of the second and third millennium BC.

Talbott concluded that, before about 3000 BC, Saturn had stood over the North Pole of Earth as an immense globe, connected to Earth with a stream of dust or water, with Mars in an intermediate position. The era of this polar apparition was universally remembered throughout the world as the "Era of the Gods." During this era, Saturn ruled and man lived in paradise with the Gods. The closing of that time was mourned throughout the world and has shaped us ever since. [note 4]

And: Saturn is the Latin equivalent to Atum-Ra my bold

 

[The Man]

Hi the Man

Yes, I did that calculation in post 2250.


A few of the complaints are:

• The electrochemical process also takes place in the coma, which is much larger than the nucleus
• There is a "storage" of protons around the comet, which can be accelerated by the cometary electric field (double layer)

During the passage of 1996 the coma was at it largest 2 arcminutes in diameter at a distance of about 1 AU, which trigonometry would tell us gives an approximate size of D = r sinθ ≈ r θ ≈ 1 AU * 6 10^-4 = 90000 km, which seems okay from a gut feeling.

Sounds good to me and thanks for the link back to your original post.

Naturally, the coma is not homogeneous, but is known to be basically exponentially dropping in density away from the nucleus with exponent {-ν r/ v_e} where ν is the ionization rate (10^-6) of the gas coming from the comet and v_e is the escape velocity (~1 km/s) and r is the distance. So one e-folding length would be on the order of the size actually. So you have density N at the comet and density N/e at the edge of the coma.

OK, I didn't realize the coma diameter would extend that far from the nucleus.

So 4 or 90000 km diameter makes a huge difference and in principle you would get your 10⁶ factor, BUT, we cannot use the mainstream outgassing, because mainstream thinks there is ice below the surface which sublimates, whereas EC says there is electric discharge machining of the surface, or there is proton electrochemical production of negative oxygen. No matter what, the surface of the comet must deliver the oxygen either in negative ion or in hydroxyl state. We do not know the rate for the EDM production, but the proton influx onto the comet still holds as in my calculation, as far as I can see.



Then again, we know that around the comet, in the draped magnetic field, the velocity of the shocked solar wind plasma is still rather high and down the tail. So there is no way of having a "reservoir" of protons hanging around.

Naturally, then they will invoke the "neutral hydrogen cloud" around the comet, of which through ionization protons can be formed. They would have to be accelerated towards the nucleus of the comet by the supposed cometary electric field (double layer?), with up until now has not been measured.

That is the answer I can give you at the moment. More details could be taken into account, but it is a rather pointless excersize, unless haig or David Talbott or Sol88 would like to take the challenge of improving/correcting on the quick analysis above and show us how it is done.

Well, thanks for the clarification anyway and the link back to your calculation.

 

[Reality Check]

You do know Reality Check that the Oort Cloud ànd Kuiper Belt pool of comets ...snipped ignorance...

You do know Haig, that

• the orbits of short period comets have aphelion (originate) in the Kuiper Belt?
• the orbits of long period comets have aphelion (originate) in the Oort Cloud?

Every body in the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud is a potential comet (especially according to the electric comet idea) - all it needs is for the orbit to be perturbed to bring to closer to the Sun. The scientific comet model predicts that the largest bodies will not become comets since there is too much thermal inertia, i.e. there is not enough time close to the Sun to heat up enough for outgassing. The electric comet idea has no such restriction - even if Pluto's orbit were to be disturbed enough to make it sewing close to the Sun, it is the distance it travels that creates the imaginary electric discharges.

9 December 2014 Haig: Why is the total mass of comets greater to or comparable to that of the rocky planets and moons (which still exist!)?

 

[Reality Check]

Maybe Tom could do the calculation for the energy involved in the COMET SIDING SPRING electromagnetic event with Mars and the proposed Electric Comet scenario ?

Maybe you should learn about the Electric Comet, Haig: It is an idea and seems incapable of producing numbers. Otherwise the answer to the Electric Comet number questions in Haig: List of outstanding questions would be "Please wait while I plug the observations into the electric comet equations" ! Thus we cannot compare numbers because the electric comet idea has none.

In any case there is no "proposed Electric Comet scenario". There is only one scenario - what actually happened! That was a part of the comet tail impacted the Martian atmosphere. C/2013 A1 - Encounter with Mars

 

[Ziggurat]

Maybe Tom could do the calculation for the energy involved in the COMET SIDING SPRING electromagnetic event with Mars and the proposed Electric Comet scenario ?

Nope. Nobody can do that, because there's nothing to calculate. There's no model from which anything quantitative can be drawn.

But the mainstream model can calculate the energy. It's estimated that that thousands of kilograms of comet material impacted mars, at a relative velocity of 56 km/s. The kinetic energy released by impact of 1000 kg is

KE = (1/2) mv² = (1/2) * 10³kg * (5.6x10⁴m/s)² = 1.57x10¹² Joules = 375 megatons

But the estimated mass is several thousand kilograms, not one thousand, so the energy should be several times larger.

Yeah, that's quite a bit of energy.

 

[Haig]

So a phenomena nowwhere witnessed is responsible, and is currently responsible for unwitnessed yet sworn to occur cometary discharges?

Who said is wasn't witnessed?

ALL this happened in the age of man, all the sources are in the text below for you to check, go ahead, you should

EARTH IN UPHEAVAL PDF Emmanuel Velikovsky
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/earth-upheaval.pdf

Cometary discharges of today are nothing compared to what the Ancients experienced.

Why don't they happen now, is your god dead?

Our solar system is stable now. Only tiny little Electric Comets show how it was ... Like Electric Comet SIDING SPRING see HERE

No "is your god dead?" is the wrong question. Why did man invent god, gods, religion ? Now you should have a clue to the answer

 

[Reality Check]

Seems I got under someone's skin by posing a reasonable implication of the electric comet. I wrote, "In fact, a comet ripped from Mars by planet-wide electric discharge and immersed in a cloud of rocky debris would surely look very much like the surface of 67P."

David Talbott: That comets are ripped from the surface of planets is an electric comet hypothesis with no evidence presented here. You have no "reasonable implication" because the density of 67P is not that of rock, despite whatever you imagine images to look like.
Personally I think 67P looks like a strange vegetable - that does not mean that 67P is a Martian vegetable !

 

[Reality Check]

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

No, David Talbott for oh so many reasons !

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

"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.

The repeat of this obsession with a phrase in a 2002 press release needs some questions:
11 December 2014 David Talbott: Is a press release scientific literature?
11 December 2014 David Talbott: Did research on comets stop in 2002 ?

ETA: You may want to follow tusenfem's example and look at the actual scientific literature on Borrelly.

 

[Dancing David]

Originally inspired by the controversial theorist Immanuel Velikovsky, Talbott envisioned a congregation of planets physically close to the earth in ancient times in which "the five planets Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, Mars and the Earth orbited the Sun as a single linear unit, which rotated about a point close to Saturn, before its break-up at the end of the Golden Age".[1] He claims that the violent evolution of this "Polar Configuration" provoked the myth-making epoch of human history.[13] Professor of Social Theory, Alfred de Grazia, noted that Talbott was one of several scholars who had "entered the full stream" of Velikovsky's work.[14]




I will stay quite unless I get a pertinent answer to the multiple direct questions.

 

[Reality Check]

In contrast

Evidence for Electric Comets from 67P

Certainly a contrast, Haig:
On one side, the scientific literature with actual science!
On the other side a YouTube video from the same people who have posted a couple of rather ignorant, deluded YouTube videos based on equally bad web pages !
Haig: List of outstanding questions

1. 
   ...
2. Haig (7th July 2014), if you want to see many cases of delusional thinking and ignorance from an EU "expert" often citing other EU "experts" then have a look at the Thunderbolts picture of the day blog!
3. Haig (14th July 2014), How can you believe in the competence of the EU proponents when the speakers at their 2014 conference was a collection of cranks, actual deluded people and some electrical engineers? (the deluded people were the Velikovsky belivers: David Talbott, Daniel Jencka, Dwardu Cardona)?
   ...
4. Haig (3rd November 2014): Have you noted the 19 items of ignorance and delusion in the first 11 minutes (out of 90!) of a Thunderbolt video that you cited?
   ...
5. Haig (20th November 2014): Can you understand the ignorance and delusions in that Thunderbolts video about Mars?
   ...

 

[Darwin123]

Who said is wasn't witnessed?

ALL this happened in the age of man, all the sources are in the text below for you to check, go ahead, you should

EARTH IN UPHEAVAL PDF Emmanuel Velikovsky
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/earth-upheaval.pdf

There is no evidence that all myths are based on astronomy. The holidays and festivals were generally timed with the seasons. You worship certain gods at certain times of the year. Often the timing of the festivals are based on economic activities rather than historical events. Although historical events may be cited, the festival has to do with yearly cycles. The ancient peoples kept track of the seasons and cycles with astronomy. So astronomy is rather secondary in peoples day to day lives.

Many scholars believe that the battles between gods symbolize the seasons. One god represents the spring-winter (Kor, Demeter, Kronos, Saturn, Isis) and one god represents the fall-summer (Ceres, Persepone, Zeus, Jupiter, Osiris). The god represents the climate and vegetation characteristic of a certain season. Very few cultures explicitly associate their gods with specific planets. T

The following author is a Creationists in Velikovskian clothing. This person doesn't accept the 'World's in Collision' Theory. He prefers to explain everything in terms of Noahs flood rather than electrostatics. However, he accepts with no evidence the idea that all ancient gods represented planets.

He rejects the theory by Frazier out of hand. See this link.

http://www.varchive.org/itb/satwor.htm
‘Sir James G. Frazer, the collector of folklore, came to regard Osiris as a vegetation god(20); likewise he saw in the Babylonian Tammuz, an equivalent of the Egyptian Osiris, a vegetation god and, carried away by this concept, wrote his The Golden Bough,(21) built around the idea of the vegetation god that dies and is resurrected the following year.’

James Frazier has a little more credibility than Velikovsky. He is the folklorist who came up with the theory of ritualism. He wrote it in ‘The Golden Bough’. He believed that most religions and myths started out as magical rituals. He thought the cosmic twin gods were mostly associated with fertility rituals. You should tell us why you think Frazier is wrong before you start explaining why Velikovsky is right !-)

Your reference acknowledges that Frazier had another theory. However, your reference completely dismisses the theory out of hand with no physical evidence behind it. He says that Frazier was carried away by the concept. However, most of us think that Velikovsky was carried away by his own ill-conceived theory.

Take the ancient Egyptians, for example. We find few pictures of their gods with the heavens. Most gods are drawn with animal heads. Most of their gods are personifications of animals. With the exception of a few solar gods, there is no god drawn as a 'planet'. Osiris was not associated with Saturn. His myth resembles the story of other fertility gods. However, there is nothing to correlate his worship with Saturn. There is only Velikovsky's speculation that his story relates to astronomy.

Mummy's were often sealed with seeds jammed in their bodies. This shows that rebirth was associated with vegetation. The story of Osiris and Isis is drawn on the mummy case. However, there is nothing planetary about these illustrations. The stories are clearly associated with crops and hunting, not with astronomy.

The ancient peoples used astronomy to align their work with the life cycles of vegetation. The position of the planets was used to decide when to plant crops, when to leave the land farrow, when to release the livestock and when to slaughter the livestock. Thus, it makes perfect sense that their gods represented the seasons. However, only some of these gods were associated with planets.

The struggle between two gods common in most farming societies most probably represented the struggle between winter and summer. One represents a time of plenty, and one represents a time of famine. The god who represents a time of plenty is usually killed, dismembered and buried in the earth. This is symbolic of the way crops are reaped, ground up for food, with seeds stored for next year. This has nothing to do with a period of time where ‘Saturn wash

For example, the ancient Egyptians did not associate Osiris with the planet Saturn. There is no indication that Osyrus was associated with any planet. The Babylonians may have associated gods with Jupiter and Saturn. However, the association may have more to do with the Jovian year and the lunar cycle.

Anyway, Jupiter and Saturn are gas giants. They have little rocky material in them, if they have rocky material at all. So it seems rather inconsistent to say that comets are made of rocks, being torn out of Jupiter and Saturn. I know that Venus is rocky. However, that is also inconsistent with being torn out of Jupiter and Saturn. So Velikovsky is rather dated even as a crackpot.

Creationism is not more logical than Velikovsky, but at least it has more tradition. I hesitate to replace Velikovsky with Creationism. However, there are a lot more Creationists in this country than Velikovskyites. There are even a few Creationist museums. There are no Velikovsky museums. ‘Creationism’ will be more profitable than ‘World’s in Collision’ until the WIC museum opens.

Try opening a Velikovsky museum. However, please remember to pay your taxes. Otherwise, you may be locked in a cell with Kent Hovind. This would be real hard time.

However, I suggest an alternative. I would prefer to believe that this comet is an alien spaceship. There reason the Europan probe bounced is that the aliens turned on their force field shields. The harpoons bounced off their spaceships metal hull.

I don’t believe the alien spaceship theory, per se. I just think AST is a lot more reasonable than Velikovsky or Hovind.

 

[phunk]

Nope, not saying that

Electrical Scarring of Planets and Moons

So where is the "electical scar" that Valles Marineris looks like?