Tom, that is because they are "problems" of your
own making. Misrepresenting or misunderstanding the Electric Comet hypothesis is common issue so that contrary arguments to it (ECh) are a line of straw men to easily knock over.
The quotes below from
HERE should help you understand.
We've understood electromagnetism for over 100 years. The Maxwell Equations defined in the 1860s are still in use today, and combined with the knowledge of atomic structure, in the last 50 years have discovered many interesting configurations possible in the laboratory, as well as nature. All of them yield their secrets under mathematical analysis. Numerical simulations of plasmas are actually accurate enough to provide the basis for commercial ventures.
Electric Universe: Plasma Physics for Fun AND Profit!
If EU 'theorists' are still hiding behind excuses for their refusal to present numerically testable models, it is most likely a reflection of their lack of competence in the electromagnetism, plasmas, and astronomy. Considering some of the bizarre claims they have made which I have addressed:
On Magnetic Reconnection and "Discharges"
Electric Universe: Making Electric Fields
The Sad State of the Electric Sun(s) - Not So Bright. A popular racket in pseudo-sciences is to have multiple, radically different, even incompatible models, to which supporters can switch when cornered on problems with any particular one. Hopefully, the EU fans will stop following before the EU supporters' unworkable claims get exposed full circle!
Though my favorite whopper is the paper I discuss in
Scott Rebuttal. IV. 'Open' magnetic field lines, which actually managed to get published in IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science.
It is no surprise that IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science has since placed a disclaimer on their site,
http://plasmauniverse.info/, dis-associating themselves from EU:
"The Plasma Universe and Plasma Cosmology have no ties to the anti-science blogsites of the holoscience 'electric universe'."
Again, the mysterious kabal of EU 'theorists' who never actually demonstrate they can do anything. They just make vague claims and then send their acolytes to spread their message CLAIMING they're doing 'leading-edge' science and a testable Electric Universe theory will be available Real Soon Now.
Sorry Tom for not responding earlier I don't have a lot of free time to always check previous pages and can easily miss questions directed at me.
And yet you dodged them again...
I've documented many of the Electric Universe failures on these 'hypotheses' which EU supporters refuse to address or even acknowledge:
Challenges for Electric Universe 'Theorists'...
Cart before the horse Tom it's ALL about evidence !
Again, you claim 'a weak electric field of constant strength'. What strength? What charge distribution creates it?
The questions before still apply and your 'resources' don't come anywhere close to answering them:
1) Where is the EU method of computing the electric and magnetic fields and particle fluxes in any of these galactic birkeland currents?
2) Where are the numbers that we can compare to actual spacecraft measurement?
3) What is the amount of microwave emission we would detect for such currents? Both the one driving the Sun and those driving other stars? How does this compare to current instrument sensitivity in the detection bands of instruments like PLANCK or even ground-based radio telescopes?
4) What's the electric charge on the comet and the Sun?
5) How does the presence of the electrostatic force between the comet and Sun affect the comet's motion?
6) Want to complain that this doesn't include effects of the Sun's magnetic field? Then compute them, otherwise you're just making excuses.
Yet without including any of these 'electric sun' features, the Rosetta team managed to navigate their spacecraft for 10 years to a precision rendezvous.
7) If the mainstream model is so wrong, how did they manage that when they didn't include all the charges and electric fields in this environment advocated by EU?
EU retracting their 'theory' to an 'hypothesis' and that it's too soon to insist that it be capable of producing numerical predictions is just another cowardly approach to evade/avoid making actual numerical predictions for anything because every time they do they get publicly skewered by all the evidence that they are wrong.
Then they also try the popular creationist strategy of claiming that every 'problem' or 'anomaly' in the mainstream science is automatically evidence for their claims. Here's just some of those and others have documented:
Yet Another Claimed Stake-through-the-Heart of Big Bang Cosmology?
Regurgitating EU 'Scripture' does not constitute evidence - well, maybe 200 years ago it was sufficient, in the days long before space flight or spectroscopy and atomic physics, but not today.
To save face, EUs current strategy is to fall back to claiming it is only a 'hypothesis'.
The mathematical tools for solving charge and current configurations, even in plasmas, exist and are taught in many astrophysical plasma courses.
The computational tools for solving fairly large computational problems in electromagnetism and plasma physics are available in just about any BestBuy. With open source tools, multiple machines can be clustered in configurations that far exceed the computational power of the supercomputers used by Tony Peratt.
Electric Universe: Real Plasma Physicists BUILD Mathematical Models
Still waiting for that computation promised by Siggy_G!
The tools exist to solve these problems, so again, we hit the question of what is the excuse of EU 'theorists'?
Perhaps there is a lack of competence among the Electric Universe 'theorists' so their claims are indistinguishable from wishful thinking?
Or it this just EU's latest tactic to stall the day-of-reckoning, the day when EU supporters realize they've been played for suckers into buying books, DVDs, and attending 'conferences' by the EU 'elite'?
Frankly, I prefer to spend my money with people who have demonstrated real expertise in comprehending the science and designing, building and operating missions in space.
!
!): Evidence for solar wind modulation of lightning http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/5/055004/article
