The Electric Comet theory

[JeanTate]

Hello again Sol88.

So why call it "gas"???

You think the public are drongos, 'Ol mate?

If I am not mistaken, millions of your fellow Aussies can at least converse in at least one language other than English (or, if you prefer, Strine). From your recent posts, about the definitions of particular words and their usage, I infer that you are not one of them.

Cobber, Aussies of all people surely appreciate that language usage can be mad as a cut snake! I mean, what is the swagman's 'waltzing matilda'? A girl called Matilda who does the waltz? Here in the US we call them 'French fries'; you call them, what, 'chips', like what goes into your computer? And the French? Well, a crude Aussie translation might be "English fritters"*, right? Yet the relevant listeners/readers have zero difficulty understanding the speaker's/writer's meaning, right?

When astronomers refer to (some) plasmas as 'gas' (and not 'plasma'), do you think other astronomers fail to understand what they mean?

If you're interested in this sort of thing, may I suggest that you study linguistics?

*for readers who do not speak Strine, a "Pommie", or "Pom" is an immigrant from England (sorta). My friend Google has introduced me to some very colorful (or should I write colourful) words and phrases from 'Down Under'

 

[Ziggurat]

Good afternoon, Sol88.

Do you have a source for this?

Specifically, a primary source (i.e. a paper published in a relevant peer-reviewed journal, or perhaps a conference presentation).

If you do not have such a source, please be honest enough to say so.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/251/4992/408.short

It's a silly argument, really. "Forbidden" transitions are not really forbidden, they're just very slow. Apparently some of the EU crowd believes that the observation of this line indicates the presence of a strong electric field, but that's actually discounted by the lack of any observed Stark splitting in any other lines.

 

[JeanTate]

Good afternoon, David Talbott.

<snip>

<snip>

Last question. Is anybody else curious about the pervasive, or should I say perverse, double standard that continually shows its face in postings to this thread? It's not as if the Inquisitors posing their strategic ripostes are "quantifying" their answers or meeting any standard of scientific discourse at all.

<snip>

I'll respond to this separately, later.

OK, here goes.

I will speak only for myself; others have already responded, directly or indirectly (and more may do so later).

"Is anybody else curious about the pervasive, or should I say perverse, double standard that continually shows its face in postings to this thread?"

I do not perceive any such double standard. At least, not with respect to the electric comet ideas/hypothesis/model/theory* (and the directly relevant aspects of the electric Sun ones). However, I have observed a curious tendency for many posts in this thread to 'wander', to go off-topic. For example, there seems a strong tendency to try to steer this thread towards a discussion of 'the dirty snowball model' (or similar), despite the fact that it is not what this thread is supposed to be about.

"It's not as if the Inquisitors posing their strategic ripostes are "quantifying" their answers or meeting any standard of scientific discourse at all."

I've already asked you, at least once, what you mean by "Inquisitors", but I've gotten no replies. So, again, what/who are you referring to?

What do you mean by "strategic ripostes"?

As to quantifying, well, I've read quite a few ""quantifying" their answers" posts on the ech, by several ISF members; here, for example, here, and here (this last one is indirect). Myself, I've asked you for quantified answers, but recently no longer do so.

And as for "meeting any standard of scientific discourse at all", well, for myself I've stopped trying to understand the ech in quantitative terms, but instead am trying to understand it in objective, logical terms. If you think such an approach to understanding the ech is inconsistent with "meeting any standard of scientific discourse at all", would you please say so?

Finally, would you be kind enough to spell out, in some detail, just how we (ISF members) could "meet[] any standard of scientific discourse at all" in examining/questioning/challenging/critiquing/researching/etc the ech? A single aspect, as an example, would be nice; perhaps 'the other end of arcs'?

*"ech" for short

 

[tusenfem]

Good afternoon, Sol88.

Do you have a source for this?

Specifically, a primary source (i.e. a paper published in a relevant peer-reviewed journal, or perhaps a conference presentation).

If you do not have such a source, please be honest enough to say so.

to safe time and to getvreal papers:

there is a paper in icarus, however about comet hartley, not austin
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103512002497

ah also comet austin
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17775104

i do not have the pdfs of these papers

 

[ben m]

It's a silly argument, really. "Forbidden" transitions are not really forbidden, they're just very slow. Apparently some of the EU crowd believes that the observation of this line indicates the presence of a strong electric field, but that's actually discounted by the lack of any observed Stark splitting in any other lines.

And "slow" doesn't even make them necessarily rare or low-intensity. "Forbidden" transitions are slower to occur than "allowed" transitions---but in a very low-density environment that's fine. In most terrestrial experiments, most "forbidden" transitions are slow compared to the atomic collision rate and so an atom in the relevant state will usually deexcite collisionally before it has a chance to emit a photon. In space, not so much.

The whole discussion, such as it is, reminds me of ex-poster Michael Mozina's longstanding insistence that the words "open field lines" were evidence that plasma physicists were morons, since Maxwell's Equations insist on all field lines being endless loops. (In fact it's a terminology issue: physicists commonly refer to "a field line that leaves the box or subsystem I'm studying" as "open"; it does not refer to a violation of Maxwell's Equations.) MM was very eager for excuses to call physicists morons, that he leapt on things like this without knowing what he was talking about.

 

[Haig]

i did not talk about water production, i have only talked about outgassing comets and interaction with the solar wind. my "ec" estimate was in post 2250 if that is what you mean.

Yes, it was 2250 I was thinking about. This bit in particular ...

"Any water molecule (or OH for all I care) which is released is one proton lost. If we see 1 pint of water per second coming off the comet (just accept this for the moment to entertain me), that means that there are 0.5 liters of water per second, with the 18 proton masses per water molelcule, this means that there is 0.5 liter = 0.5 kg = 1.5 1025 molecules are released per second.

The solar wind brings in, 4 km circular comet, a solar wind velocity of 300 km/s, a solar wind density of 1 particle per cubic centimeter leads to a proton influx of 4 1018 protons per second. So there is a discrepancy of more than 6 orders of magnitude in proton influx and proton (water) outflux."

I remembered it as you suggesting water was being produced in the electrochemical reaction of the solar wind with the comet coma. Where the "H" comes from the Sun where it is plentiful and the "o" from the coma / nucleus.

But of course that's the Electric Comet hypothesis.

In the electric model, negative oxygen ions are accelerated away from the comet in energetic jets, then combine preferentially with protons from the solar wind to form the observed OH radical and the neutral hydrogen gathered around the coma in vast concentric bubbles.

Makes sense right ?

guess you claim this as another confirmation for ec, because ec probably knew this all along or predicted it or whatever.

Probably

But it is another surprise for the mainstream.

Earth's water did NOT come from comets: Rosetta results deepen mystery of how oceans first arrived on our planet

University of Maryland astronomer Michael A'Hearn, who wasn't part of the research, called the results startling but said they don't eliminate comets altogether.

The water could have come from other types of Kuiper Belt comets, he said.

NASA Near Earth Object program manager Donald Yeomans, however, thinks it does pretty much rule out comets.

While asteroids are a good suspect — they probably had more water on them 4 billion years ago than they do now — another possibility is that Earth kept some of its original water in its crust or in ice at the poles, Altwegg said.

'This surprising finding could indicate a diverse origin for the Jupiter-family comets – perhaps they formed over a wider range of distances in the young Solar System than we previously thought,' says Kathrin Altwegg, principal investigator for ROSINA and lead author of the paper reporting the results in the journal Science this week.

'Our finding also rules out the idea that Jupiter-family comets contain solely Earth ocean-like water, and adds weight to models that place more emphasis on asteroids as the main delivery mechanism for Earth's oceans.'

'We knew that Rosetta's in situ analysis of this comet was always going to throw up surprises for the bigger picture of Solar System science, and this outstanding observation certainly adds fuel to the debate about the origin of Earth's water,' says Matt Taylor, ESA's Rosetta project scientist.

'As Rosetta continues to follow the comet on its orbit around the Sun throughout next year, we'll be keeping a close watch on how it evolves and behaves, which will give us unique insight into the mysterious world of comets and their contribution to our understanding of the evolution of the Solar System.'

The EU / PC crowd have a very good hypothesis of how Earth got it's water but I suspect you won't want to hear it right now.

 

[ben m]

But of course that's the Electric Comet hypothesis.

Makes sense right ?

Thanks for clarifying: "cometary water is made out of solar-wind hydrogen" is the EC hypothesis. That's good to know, because "cometary water is made out of solar-wind hydrogen" is the hypothesis that was just falsified, by the observation---which I see is not unique to Rosetta---that cometary water does NOT have a solar-like isotope ratio.

 

[Reality Check]

Reality Check, nice list

Do you meant the list of ignorance, delusions and some lies in a Thunderbolts video about 67P, Sol88?
This is the third such video to contain ignorance and delusions - one begins to wonder if Thunderbolts have ever done a scientifically knowledgeable or valid video

 

[Reality Check]

So why call it "gas"???

A rather ignorant question with an obvious answer for any one who knows about gas and plasma, Sol88!
Because space contains gas and plasma (and solids and liquids)! And it is often hard to tell the difference between gas and plasma. For example comet jets are gas but are likely to have a tiny degree of ionization, e.g. disassociation of water by light. Then the coma has a higher degree of ionization and AFAIK evidence that it acts like plasma.
Thus astronomers use the word gas to mean both gas and plasma.

 

[Reality Check]

Interesting to read the water vapour emanating from Comet 67P is not the type of water they were expecting.

It is more interesting that the water vapor emanating from Comet 67P is not predicted at all by the electric comet idea, Haig !
Electric comets still do not exist !

P.S.

Haig: List of outstanding questions

Two questions about basic science that you have missed Haig:
8 December 2014 Haig: Do electromagnetic waves contain electric currents (they have magnetic fields!)?
8 December 2014 Haig: Do electrons have intrinsic angular momentum and thus a magnetic moment without any electric currents?

ETA: 5 December 2014 Haig: Can you see the delusions and ignorance in the linked Electric Comet web page?, e.g. "The possibly Velikovskian delusion of "violent electrical interactions of planets and moons""

 

[Reality Check]

You just need to consider what would happen if it was Earth and Mars interacting

We would consider that someone suggesting this was insanely delusional, Haig, given the millions of kilometers between Earth and Mars !
Hmmm ... the list of ignorance, delusions and some lies in a Thunderbolts video about 67P

* the usual idiotic image of "electrical discharges" between two planets that look like Earth and Mars!

 

[tusenfem]

Yes, it was 2250 I was thinking about. This bit in particular ...

"Any water molecule (or OH for all I care) which is released is one proton lost. If we see 1 pint of water per second coming off the comet (just accept this for the moment to entertain me), that means that there are 0.5 liters of water per second, with the 18 proton masses per water molelcule, this means that there is 0.5 liter = 0.5 kg = 1.5 1025 molecules are released per second.

The solar wind brings in, 4 km circular comet, a solar wind velocity of 300 km/s, a solar wind density of 1 particle per cubic centimeter leads to a proton influx of 4 1018 protons per second. So there is a discrepancy of more than 6 orders of magnitude in proton influx and proton (water) outflux."

I remembered it as you suggesting water was being produced in the electrochemical reaction of the solar wind with the comet coma. Where the "H" comes from the Sun where it is plentiful and the "o" from the coma / nucleus.

But of course that's the Electric Comet hypothesis.

Makes sense right ?

Yes I was discussing the EC fantasy there, you are correct.

Probably

But it is another surprise for the mainstream.

Earth's water did NOT come from comets: Rosetta results deepen mystery of how oceans first arrived on our planet


The EU / PC crowd have a very good hypothesis of how Earth got it's water but I suspect you won't want to hear it right now.

Yeah, it was all created when Venus passed by the Earth and large discharges machined out the grand canyon.

 

[Sol88]

Hello again Sol88.

If I am not mistaken, millions of your fellow Aussies can at least converse in at least one language other than English (or, if you prefer, Strine). From your recent posts, about the definitions of particular words and their usage, I infer that you are not one of them.

Cobber, Aussies of all people surely appreciate that language usage can be mad as a cut snake! I mean, what is the swagman's 'waltzing matilda'? A girl called Matilda who does the waltz? Here in the US we call them 'French fries'; you call them, what, 'chips', like what goes into your computer? And the French? Well, a crude Aussie translation might be "English fritters"*, right? Yet the relevant listeners/readers have zero difficulty understanding the speaker's/writer's meaning, right?

When astronomers refer to (some) plasmas as 'gas' (and not 'plasma'), do you think other astronomers fail to understand what they mean?

If you're interested in this sort of thing, may I suggest that you study linguistics?

*for readers who do not speak Strine, a "Pommie", or "Pom" is an immigrant from England (sorta). My friend Google has introduced me to some very colorful (or should I write colourful) words and phrases from 'Down Under'

Yeah, kinda gets conusing eh? I mean seppo's call petrol "gas" and I know astronomers know what they know otherwise they would'nt know, ay!

So why not just call a neutral gas...well gas and inoized gas...PLASMA, you know!

Again just a reminder for the non astronomers, gas is not PLASMA and PLASMA is not gas. PLASMA is special does funky non linear majic.

and I love to "waltz" my Matilda every chance I can get.

and lucky I'm not from our close mates country, otherwise "you want a chup bro"

 

[Haig]

Yes I was discussing the EC fantasy there, you are correct.

Gee tusenfem, that's a shame the mainstream theory is falsified again

"Our finding also rules out the idea that Jupiter-family comets contain solely Earth ocean-like water, and adds weight to models that place more emphasis on asteroids as the main delivery mechanism for Earth's oceans.'"


The water revelation is wonderfully ironic after Wal's workshop video featuring the ESA's computer-generated mythology:

Wal Thornhill: Breaking News | EU Workshop

Yeah, it was all created when Venus passed by the Earth and large discharges machined out the grand canyon.

Nope, not then. The Earth had oceans long before that

 

[Ziggurat]

Gee tusenfem, that's a shame the mainstream theory is falsified again

"Our finding also rules out the idea that Jupiter-family comets contain solely Earth ocean-like water, and adds weight to models that place more emphasis on asteroids as the main delivery mechanism for Earth's oceans.'"

First off, you fail to notice (even though it's made explicit in your quote) that this only falsified one of two competing mainstream ideas. Second, as I've said many, many times now: even if we were to falsify mainstream theory in its entirety, that doesn't mean that electric comet or electric universe nonsense is correct. We know it's not. We know it's wrong. Even the very evidence you're trying to use to support it does the opposite. If the mainstream is wrong, then the truth is something else, not this electric nonsense.

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: What is the logical fallacy of false dichotomy

Gee tusenfem, that's a shame the mainstream theory is falsified again

Gee Haig, it is a pity about the tiny lie which hopefully is a mistake in your formatting of your sentence - that article does not have "mainstream theory is falsified again".
Let us get a bit closer to the science with the actual Rosetta announcement: Rosetta fuels debate on origin of Earth’s oceans

The pity is that "mainstream theory is falsified again" is really ignorant, Haig - the mainstream theory is that comets and asteroids provided the Earth's water. So an observation about one comet does not falsify this. It is evidence that the water came mostly from asteroids.

The pity is that your ignorance about the logical fallacy of false dichotomy continues !
12 December 2014 Haig: What is the logical fallacy of false dichotomy and why does it make your comments about the mainstream ignorant?

 

[Reality Check]

Rosetta shows that the water on comet comes from the comet, not the solar wind

Rosetta fuels debate on origin of Earth’s oceans
Ziggurat pointed out

Well, they don't state it explicitly, because only EU proponents would be stupid enough to even consider it a possibility, so there's really no reason they would bother. But the data is right there: there's far too much deuterium relative to ordinary hydrogen. It doesn't match the solar wind, which will be lower than Jupiter or Saturn (since it was formed from the same starting stuff, but hydrogen fusion in the sun burns up deuterium fast). So the hydrogen (and therefore the water) must be coming from the comet, and not the solar wind.

Thus: Rosetta shows that the water on a comet comes from the comet, not the solar wind. This falsifies the electric comet idea yet again.
Electric comets still do not exist !

 

[Reality Check]

A wide range of D/H ratios falsifies the electric comet idea

Science keeps on giving: Rosetta fuels debate on origin of Earth’s oceans

Previous measurements of the deuterium/hydrogen (D/H) ratio in other comets have shown a wide range of values. Of the 11 comets for which measurements have been made, it is only the Jupiter-family Comet 103P/Hartley 2 that was found to match the composition of Earth’s water, in observations made by ESA’s Herschel mission in 2011.

And what is the electric comet dogma but the origin of comets? That they were blasted from unspecified planets and moons by imaginary electrical discharges. Thus there should not be a wide range of D/H ratios - there should be clusters around a few values.
A cravat though - this delusional base of the electric comet idea is really vague. No one has told us which planets and moons participated in this fantasy.

 

[ben m]

Nope, not then. The Earth had oceans long before that

Is that so? Because your buddy Wal Thornhill sure thinks that electrical discharges machined out the Grand Canyon.

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/mars-and-the-grand-canyon/
https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/arch08/080929grandcanyon.htm
http://electric-cosmos.org/ouruniverse.htm

Maybe you're just disputing whether Venus is responsible?

 

[Reality Check]

Wal Thornhill: Breaking News | EU Workshop

Thank you Haig for confirming the delusional stance that the electric comet authors are coming from:

Yeah, it was all created when Venus passed by the Earth and large discharges machined out the grand canyon.

Two delusions there

• That Venus bounced around the solar system in violation of orbital mechanics.
• That "large discharges machined out the grand canyon".

and an implied delusion of the water on Earth was created (the "it was all created" above?) during this fairy story - the Earth had oceans for billions of years before the Grand Canyon existed.