The Electric Comet theory

[tusenfem]

Yes, that's the fun part, watching mainstream "adjust" their models!

At least mainstream has a model, EC is just blah

Seems you know the hows and whys of the observed H/D ratios but funnily enough there is an electrical explanation.

Please explain it to us then, how electricity can create a different H/D ratio as similar EDM processes on Earth when the Grand Canyon was created and the oceans filled.

remembering the EC mob do not subscribe to the formation of comets in any particular region but mainstream will continue to be dumbfounded by the new discoveries coming in from Rosetta.

Nope, in other comets the ratio was the same as on Earth. But then Mars and Earth are not the same either.
But I am glad that EC is soooo relaxed and not surprised by anything that has been found by Rosetta (except for the missing signatures of EDM of course, but let's not go into that tiny detail).

Some findings, no doubt, will be a surprise for both the mainstream and the EU mob the difference is the amount of "adjustments" needed.

No, I have not seen any surprises from the EC fantasts here on ISF.
But then, as there is no EC model, there is no need to be surprised about anything, now is there?

So. where is the evidence for the EDM, all those discharges that are taking place at and around the comet? Where are the signatures in the fields instruments?

 

[Sol88]

So. where is the evidence for the EDM, all those discharges that are taking place at and around the comet? Where are the signatures in the fields instruments?

Just one picture from OSIRIS of the source of the jets and it should be plainly visible!

 

[Sol88]

wOw, those AGU fall meetings videos are just amazing. they are so determined not to call the hard layer rock when asked.

but the MUPUS one was the best KOSI eperiments in the 90's was not as hard as we found on 67P....but it's not rock!!!

 

[Haig]

You really don't understand that paper do you? Do you just assume any mention of electric fields is automagically evidence for your claims?

Do you know the difference between an MHD and kinetic plasma model?

From the text: "Although this paper concentrates on only the plasma environment of the comet, the models we present are being coupled together with nucleus, Knudsen-layer, dust and gas models as part of an International Space Science Institute (ISSI) project."

The model inputs are the standard comet model: neutral gas flowing out from the nucleus ionized by solar ultraviolet light or impact by solar wind electrons combining with the plasma flow of the solar wind.

From the text: "Freshly born ions are accelerated by the motional electric field of the high-speed solar wind."

Do you know what is meant by a 'motional electric field'?

It's actually relativity in action. Riding on a particle moving through a magnetic field, you will measure an electric field and the simulation must be run in the reference frame of the comet nucleus.

These models take the input conditions and use physics to determine what happens. It's already well understood that currents can form under these conditions, and it shows in the model.

Want to add 'double layers'? How? Is there a magic 'double layer' object to install? Double layers don't just magically appear. They have causes. These models take the starting conditions and use physics to find where (and if) 'double layers' form. The problem is a 'double layer' is easier to define in a laboratory environment than 'in the wild'.

"Electric Comet" supporters have been unable to demonstrate even BASIC competence in electromagnetism.

Haig still has not addressed my earlier queries:

* How much of a voltage difference is needed to accelerate a proton or electron from zero to 1,000,000 miles per hour? This is a question that a competent high-school physics student can answer, yet I've not received an answer from any EU 'theorist'. 1e6 miles/hour is about 4e5 meters/second, so:

0.5 *m*v^2 = qV
0.5* (1.67e-27 kg)* (400e3 m/s)^2 = (1.6e-19 coulombs)* volts

comes out to about 840 volts for protons - about the magnitude found in the mainstream models. It's even lower for electrons. But it doesn't even need to be that large as collisional dynamics are important closer to the photosphere to give an initial push. In the mainstream models, this voltage is not applied by some mysterious external source, but is created by the expansion of the plasma from the photosphere into space, and the fact that the lighter electrons will tend to move faster than the heavier protons.

Rather inconsistent with EU claims, isn't it. Why?

Your site is quite an eye-opener Tom and the banner headline says it all ... "Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy"

So you're fighting the good fight Tom ? and you rope in the EU / PC crowd with the Creationists ? Really ?

But Tom you believe the Big Bang created the Universe from "nothing" or "near nothing" depending which Sect you adhere too. That makes you one of them, a Creationist, right ? btw which sect do you belong too ... the "nothing" or the "near nothing" Big Bang Believers ?

No need for a Numpty like me to answer you directly when I can just point to Scott who has already done a great job and to all your past and more recent re-hash points his finish is perfect "Nemo me impune lacessit"

The response and in-depth rebuttal of your criticisms of ALL things Electric Universe / Plasma Cosmology have already been made by D. E. Scott and can be read here: D. E. Scott Rebuts T. Bridgman PDF

The observations and conclusions from it posted below I find particularly telling.

OBSERVATIONS

As I went through Bridgman’s critique and examined his accusations against my work, I checked the actual statements I had made in The Electric Sky. I actively sought out evidence of whether I had been correct or had erred. In just about every case, I found new (at least to me) confirmation of my original statements. In instance after instance Bridgman has said or implied that I have said or implied things that I have not.


CONCLUSION

Astrophysics pseudo-skeptics like Bridgman have certain recognizable characteristics in common.

1. They speak down to their audience using ‘arguments from authority’.

2. They refuse to consider any electrical causation for anything in space.

3. When confronted with ‘in your face evidence’ such as the image of a high redshifted QSO in front of a more distant, low redshifted galaxy, they resort to arguments (usually involving math or statistics) to disprove – or at least make you doubt – what your eyes are telling you. The old Groucho Marx line comes to mind: “Who you gonna believe? Me? Or your lying eyes?”

4. They put forward their assumptions as if they were universal truths. The fact that they have been voted upon and accepted by a self-involved, insular group of ‘experts’ does not make them true. Winning a hand vote is not the same thing as scientific validation.

5. It is clear that they have never been exposed to the basic properties of plasma nor the fundamental inter-relationships between magnetic fields and electric currents. But they feel free to lecture those who have.

6. If the pseudo-skeptic has a monetary interest (such as maintaining a funding stream or a salary) his criticisms often become vituperative.

When I met Bridgman at his place of employment - NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD on March 16, 2009, he appeared more personable than his rant (and the addendum he has since issued) would indicate. I got the feeling at that meeting that if we could just sit down and talk about things, some area of agreement and mutual respect might be found. Apparently, from reading what he has written subsequent to this meeting, there is little hope of that.

It should be understood that if there are criticisms made by him that I have apparently neglected to address in detail in my comments here, it should not be assumed I have no response to them. At this point, I’m tired of wading through his half-truths, misunderstandings, ad hominem cuts, pseudo-intellectual swagger, and ignorance of most things electromagnetic.

Because I see no willingness on Bridgman’s part to discuss things calmly, with mutual respect, he remains, in my view, simply one more pseudo-skeptic who claims to know-it-all – not an open minded scientist.

Nemo me impune lacessit.

Must be quite devastating for you to see your arguments dismissed so easily ?

At voltages this low, claims of an externally-powered 'electric sun' become a joke. What is the energy flux of the outflowing solar wind?

* What's the electric charge on the comet and the Sun?

* How does the presence of the electrostatic force between the comet and Sun affect the comet's motion?

* The problem of all the positive ions detected in the comet tail moving away from the nucleus which I noted in post #3221. CH+, CO+, CO2+, N2+, OH+, H2O+, Ca+

Yet without including any of these 'electric sun' or 'electric comet' features, the Rosetta team managed to navigate their spacecraft for 10 years to a precision rendezvous.

* 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?

These are the types of questions that anyone building a spacecraft for these types of missions must be able to answer. Failure to answer them doesn't bode well for EU's competence in space science. So far, any space mission design by EU supporters will be held back by these questions they can't answer.

The simplest explanation is that the 'electric Sun' and 'electric comet' are just so much wishful thinking.

Well Tom, your right ... Electric Comets do need an Electric Sun

The Electric Sun is a given for the EU / PC folk but they are still trying to resolve outstanding issues with the Juergens Scott Thornhill (JST) electric sun model.

The issues are discussed very well in this video BOB JOHNSON: The Electric Sun Revisited | EU 2013

this talk by Bob Johnson is amongst the most important talks given at the recent EU conference in Albuquerque, January 3-6 2013. It raises questions that have not been discussed previously, and these questions may indeed have an impact on the SAFIRE experiment, a well-designed test of the electric Sun hypothesis, with the flexibility to consider qualitative alternatives.

There is also a very healthy debate on the Thunderbolts Forum on how the Electric Sun actually works ... constructive criticism is welcome ... Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation?

SAFIRE: A Real-World Test of the Electric Sun (Part 1) | EU2013

SAFIRE: A Real-World Test of the Electric Sun (Part 2) } EU2013

Of course, Haig fails to explain how this report has any relevance to Electric Universe or Electric comet claims. Perhaps he regards it as evidence that electric fields can magically happen at unexpected places?

Note that the effect was happening at the interface between two materials in a SOLID state in a very thin layer. The field drops off radically just outside that layer.

What's the average electric field inside an atom? Let's estimate:

The binding energy of a hydrogen atom is -13.6 electron volts which is also roughly the voltage difference between the nucleus and electron cloud. It varies substantially atom-to-atom, but we're just interested in a ball-park estimate. An atom has a radius of roughly one Angstrom or 1e-10 meters. That means the average electric field in the atom is roughly 13.6 volts/1e-10 meters ~ 1e11 volts/meter or 100 million volts/meter. Not so different from what these researchers found when measuring a field on the scale of interatomic distances.

It's probably more interesting that the researchers actually managed to measure this field on near atomic scales, NOT that it's there or has such a large magnitude.

This sounds similar to the molecular Stark effect, where a plasma which has a NEUTRAL average charge, can have very strong electric fields, say 1 million volts/m, on the very small distances between individual ions and electrons. This is the field that an individual ion 'senses' from the plasma surrounding it. These small-scale intense fields can cause broadening of spectral lines due to the electric field. It was hypothesized by Johannes Stark in 1906, and explored by astronomer Otto Struve in the late 1920s as an explanation for the broad spectral lines in O & B stars.

O. Struve. The Stark Effect in Stellar Spectra. Astrophysical Journal, 69:173–195, April 1929. doi: 10.1086/143174.

This field is also covered in modern astronomy texts such as Mihilas' "Stellar Atmospheres".

Yet more evidence astronomers have been studying electric fields in space for decades, contrary to EU theology.

Gee Tom, I only put it in yellow hilite

Huge electric field found in ice-cold laughing gas

Field is hoping to use the discovery to learn more about how stars form. He says that star-forming clouds are super-cold in the middle, which means there’s a possibility that spontelectric carbon monoxide could be present inside them, and may induce the process of star creation.

Electric Sun starting spontaneously in a "Z" pinch when the right plasma condition appears ?


Historic discovery: huge electric field occurs spontaneously in laughing gas

"Spontelectrics goes against our intuition. It doesn't seem to make any sense when you consider what we normally learn in physics and chemistry. The molecules arrange themselves entirely spontaneously - in a way that you would think they would not like. Fundamentally, we don't know what it is that makes them do it," says McCoustra.

Has implications for the Electric Gravity hypothesis too ?

By the way, where's Dave Talbott? Last he posted was just after I joined the discussion. If EU's acolytes on this board can't answer these questions, certainly an EU 'expert' like him should be able to present an 'official' response to the questions I've posed above. Or is EU now hiding behind the "it's just a hypothesis and too soon to expect it to produce numerical predictions."?

"Dave's not here, man!" ;^)

I'd say Tom from what I've seen here, Dave Talbot has better things to do with his time than waste it on you.

Probably thinks the same as D. E. Scott "At this point, I’m tired of wading through his half-truths, misunderstandings, ad hominem cuts,pseudo-intellectual swagger, and ignorance of most things electromagnetic."

Nonsense.

We understood the issues of orbits and even interplanetary trajectories mathematically for years before we launched spacecraft into orbit. We knew the energy requirements to do it, and that it was within the realm of engineering possibility. Most of the money was used to solve the engineering problems of building equipment sufficiently robust to survive the trip.

Even some details we discovered after making it into orbit, such as the existence of the radiation belts, were rather quickly understood sufficient for space-flight safety due to all the mathematical work 50 years earlier by Carl Stormer and others on particle motion in magnetic fields trying to understand the aurora.

Even before we sent spacecraft to Jupiter and the outer planets, we had models sufficient to estimate aspects of the environment so the spacecraft had a chance to survive. Solar Probe Plus will travel closer to the Sun than any previous mission. How do you think they determine how to build a spacecraft to survive the environment? They don't just slap a bunch of lead plates on it and hope for the best, a spacecraft that heavy would never make to launch (and it would melt before reaching perihelion).

If you want to define budgets, timelines, etc., you darn well better have a good understanding of the problems needed to be solved.

Even the basic claims made by Electric Sun supporters imply space flight would be nigh impossible due to the radiation problem. If you want to know the cost of your spacecraft shielding, you first need to know the amount of radiation in the environment:

Death by Electric Universe. I. EU's Unsolvable Problem

Death by Electric Universe. II. The Solar Capacitor Model

Death by Electric Universe. III. EU Excuses

Death by Electric Universe. IV. The Z-Pinch (Solar Resistor) Model

Death by Electric Universe. Radiation Exposure Revisited

Death by Electric Universe: Current vs. Voltage

When someone says they need large amounts of money just to START examining the problems, AND they can't answer BASIC questions, my SCAMMER
warning sign lights up.

We have more than sufficient understanding of electromagnetism and plasmas to evaluate Electric Universe claims.

Really Tom? You need to get out more.

Proof from NASA that π is 4

It has been known for some time that the orbit of Explorer 1 contained a huge anomaly, billions of times larger than the Pioneer Anomaly, in fact. An article in Newsweek in 1999 told us that the Pioneer Anomaly was “one ten-billionth the effect of gravity on Earth.” While that published number is dubious, in my opinion, the Explorer Anomaly is known to be much much larger. The launch of Explorer 1 in 1958, presided over by none other than Werner von Braun, provided an orbit that was more than 1/3 higher than expected. The orbit was so much larger that the rocket was at first thought to be lost. The expected signal was late, not by a few seconds, but by 12 minutes. Later that decade, Explorers 3 and 4 confirmed the anomaly, as did the three navy rockets of the Vanguard program.

Tom can you debate Miles Mathis on ALL these ? ...

THE GREATEST STANDING ERRORS IN PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS

His math and logic are impressive so it's a bit unfair on you ...

How about starting with these ? ...

THE HOLE at the center of the Sun

The Heliospheric Current Sheet

The Cause of the Solar Cycle

Magnetic Reconnection and Coronal Temperatures

Clarification of the equation a = v2/r

I've long thought that. They just want to claim credit for the actual work of others.

There's a number of posts on the Thunderbolts forum where the users claim some astronomy paper that mentions electric fields is actually based on Electric Universe ideas, in spite of the long history of electric fields in astronomy.

Trying to re-write space history Tom?

 

[Dancing David]

Yes, that's the fun part, watching mainstream "adjust" their models!

Seems you know the hows and whys of the observed H/D ratios but funnily enough there is an electrical explanation.

remembering the EC mob do not subscribe to the formation of comets in any particular region but mainstream will continue to be dumbfounded by the new discoveries coming in from Rosetta.


Some findings, no doubt, will be a surprise for both the mainstream and the EU mob the difference is the amount of "adjustments" needed.

Yup sure, and exactly what is the electrical explanation of H/D ratios Sol88, please do tell.

 

[Sol88]

Yup sure, and exactly what is the electrical explanation of H/D ratios Sol88, please do tell.

In the intense electrical discharge during the comets birth form a planetary surface and/or during increasing electrical stress on it's inbound leg, nucleosynthesis could take place.

As well as the EU mob are not sold on the the Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN)
model so this maybe a contentious point.

It will be interesting to see mainstreams ad hoc explanation.

 

[Dancing David]

In the intense electrical discharge during the comets birth form a planetary surface and/or during increasing electrical stress on it's inbound leg, nucleosynthesis could take place.

Um sure it will. Where is the evidence of electrical phenomena causing a change in isotopes?

Seriously, where is the evidence of that?
And then we can call the Nobel committee

 

[Sol88]

Um sure it will. Where is the evidence of electrical phenomena causing a change in isotopes?

Seriously, where is the evidence of that?
And then we can call the Nobel committee

Yeah I guess why wouldn't it???

We use it in industry here on Earth Isotope_separation

Abstract

Hydrogen isotope exchange reactions occurring in (H2O, D2)or (D2O, H2) reacting system under a DC electrical discharge were investigated using spectroscopic methods such asFourier-transform infrared (FTIR) and plasma emission spectroscopy(PES). The progress of the reactions was determined by real-time measurement of the IR absorbance of HDO molecule, a major product of the reaction. The progress of the reaction was studied as a function of the temperature, the current density, and the composition of the reactants, while the pressure of the system was maintained at approximately 67 mbar. The results revealed that the discharge method was far more effective in facilating the exchange reaction than was the conventional catalytic method. The (H2O, D2)system also generated a significant amount of D2O besides HDO andHD as the ratio of D2 to H2O was increased. The transient species of the system, such as H or D atoms, were monitored during the discharge using emission spectroscopy. The analysis of the final products by mass spectroscopy confirmed that neither H2 nor O2was among the major products of the system in the discharge

LINK

 

[BrianH]

Yeah I guess why wouldn't it???

We use it in industry here on Earth Isotope_separation

LINK

That process creates isotopes in much the same way a coin sorter creates different coins.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Yeah I guess why wouldn't it???

We use it in industry here on Earth Isotope_separation

LINK

That REALLY does not say what you think it says.
To translate it in a way you might understand the paper is about separating EXISTING isotopes using a detection method that indeed uses a plasma.
But in no way does it prove electrical phenomena can create new isotopes.

Now using electrons it is possible to change a proton into a neutron. And with sufficient power one could force a neutron onto another existing proton, changing two hydrogen atoms into a single deuterium atom. Unfortunately the energies and pressures needed to perform are present only in the heart of a star or a nuclear fusion bomb. This would vaporize any comet in nanoseconds or less. So, again, please show a method that actually uses the low energy electricity proposed by the EU 'theory' that can change hydrogen into deuterium.

 

[Sol88]

That REALLY does not say what you think it says.
To translate it in a way you might understand the paper is about separating EXISTING isotopes using a detection method that indeed uses a plasma.
But in no way does it prove electrical phenomena can create new isotopes.

Now using electrons it is possible to change a proton into a neutron. And with sufficient power one could force a neutron onto another existing proton, changing two hydrogen atoms into a single deuterium atom. Unfortunately the energies and pressures needed to perform are present only in the heart of a star or a nuclear fusion bomb. This would vaporize any comet in nanoseconds or less. So, again, please show a method that actually uses the low energy electricity proposed by the EU 'theory' that can change hydrogen into deuterium.

Ummm...... that's where we run into problems again..

Fusion in the Double Layer

The z-pinch effect of high intensity, parallel current filaments in an arc plasma is very strong. Whatever nuclear fusion is taking place on the Sun is probably occurring here in the double layer (DL) at the top of the photosphere (not deep within the core). The result of this fusion process are the 'metals' that give rise to absorption lines in the Sun's spectrum. Traces of sixty eight of the ninety two natural elements are found in the Sun's atmosphere. Most of the radio frequency noise emitted by the Sun emanates from this region. Radio noise is a well known property of DLs. The electrical power available to be delivered to the plasma at any point is the product of the E-field (V/m) times current density (A/m2). This multiplication operation yields Watts per cubic meter (power density). The current density is relatively constant over the height of the photospheric / chromospheric layers. However, the E-field is at its strongest at the center of the DL. Present thinking is that nuclear fusion takes a great deal of power - if that is so, then that power is available in the DL. It has reportedly been observed that the neutrino flux from the Sun varies inversely with sunspot number. This is expected in the ES hypothesis because the source of those neutrinos is probably z-pinch produced fusion which is occurring in the double layer - and sunspots are locations where there is no DL in which this process can occur. The greater the number of sunspots, the fewer the number of observed solar neutrinos.

because

Sunspots

In the plasma of the photosphere, both the dimensions of, and the voltages within the granules, depend on the current density at that location (near the Sun's anode surface). The existence of the double layer of electric charge associated with each granule (separating it from the corona plasma above it) requires a certain numerical relationship between +ion and electron numbers in the total current. This required ratio of electron to ion motion was discovered, quantified, and reported by Irving Langmuir over fifty years ago. Spicules, tall jets of electrons that emanate from the boundaries between granules, supply many of those needed electrons. In this Electric Sun model, as with any plasma discharge, the granular cells disappear wherever the flux of incoming electrons impinging onto a given area of the Sun's anode surface is not sufficiently strong to require the augmentation of anode size they provide. At any such location, the photospheric cells collapse and we can see down to the actual anode surface of the Sun. Since there is no arc mode plasma discharge occurring in these locations, they appear darker than the surrounding area and are termed 'sunspot umbrae'. Of course, if a tremendous amount of energy were actually being produced in the Sun's interior, these umbrae should be brighter and hotter than the surrounding photosphere. The fact that sunspot umbrae are dark and relatively cool (3000-4000 K or 2727-4227 °C) strongly supports the contention that very little, if anything, in the way of heat production is going on in the Sun's interior.

So the electric sun would preclude

unfortunately the energies and pressures needed to perform are present only in the heart of a star or a nuclear fusion bomb.

but we have ample energy and pressure in the T

he z-pinch effect of high intensity, parallel current filaments in an arc plasma is very strong

So it could happen but I suppose mainstream never bothered checking because they are happy with the H-bomb model.

 

[tusenfem]

Just one picture from OSIRIS of the source of the jets and it should be plainly visible!

Just waiting for that one picture, when the evidence could already be there in the fields data, only waiting to be discovered by you, take the challenge, get phaymoss!

 

[Sol88]

Just waiting for that one picture, when the evidence could already be there in the fields data, only waiting to be discovered by you, take the challenge, get phaymoss!

Tell me more, where can i get the data from?

Are you saying they have released this data but not OSIRIS images yet?

A picture speaks a thousand words.

 

[Sol88]

Tusenfem,

How do you think the D/H ratio on 67P came about?

 

[Dancing David]

Yeah I guess why wouldn't it???

We use it in industry here on Earth Isotope_separation

LINK

So at which point did the comet meet the criteria for that?

Hmmm? Which method applies to these cold bodies moving around the sun?

 

[tusenfem]

Tell me more, where can i get the data from?

Are you saying they have released this data but not OSIRIS images yet?

A picture speaks a thousand words.

so you don't read anything in this thread apparently.
I have told often that (except for the rosetta data) all data can be found on PDS (NASA) and PSA (ESA).
I would look at comet 1P/Halley, it was so much more active than 67P.

 

[tusenfem]

Tusenfem,

How do you think the D/H ratio on 67P came about?

Well, apparently it was formed in a region where the D/H ratio was different as compared to the Earth.

 

[Dancing David]

Well, apparently it was formed in a region where the D/H ratio was different as compared to the Earth.

 

[Cygnus_X1]

Your site is quite an eye-opener Tom and the banner headline says it all ...
[ unnecessary repetition deleted ]

All that, and Haig still can't answer real questions about Electric Comets and their solar environments. So like the many other varieties of pseudoscientists (including creationists), he resorts to dragging in loads of other so-called 'evidence' on radically different topics to divert the discussion.

The questions I asked in post #3287 are the kinds of questions any professional scientist would have to answer if they were proposing to send a mission to a comet. *When the taxpayers are trusting these researchers to hundreds of millions of dollars or euros to do these types of things, it is the responsibility of those managing the money, and the design and construction, to make sure a reasonable effort is made to design the mission so it has a chance of success. Evading the questions is not a option.

People who design and build and fly instruments on satellites know that Electric Sun, Electric Comets, etc. claims are bunk because Electric Universe (EU) 'theorists' can't tell them anything about the space environment (particle fluxes, energies, etc) important for the design and safety of operating a space mission.

Does Haig want to claim information about the radiation environment is not important for space flight?

Haig wants to invoke Don Scott and others as knowledgeable on these topics, yet not one of them has met these requirements either. Scott and others resort to similar tactics, to divert the topic to distract attention from the fact that they cannot answer these questions.

What do I think of being 'dismissed' by Don Scott? Nothing. Dr. Scott's understanding of the solar environment is useless for doing space flight and he has never presented testable numerical predictions for his model. A number of his claims about Maxwell's equations can be proven wrong with almost trivial examples. Come to think of it, I don't recall seeing any EU complaints about 'open field lines' from the 'top brass' of EU for a number of years now. Have they quietly abandoned it?

Researchers who take criticism of their science as a personal attack don't last long professionally. Sheldon Cooper (Wikipedia) may be entertaining television, but personalities that tied up in their own ego usually implode their own scientific careers. Every researcher, including myself, has made mistakes that were pointed out by others. If you can't learn from the experience and become a better researcher or even support scientist, then you won't last long in the field.

Is the Sun powered by an externally-applied electric field and/or current? Nope.

Are there electric fields on and in the Sun, created by various processes of thermal and radiant energy transfer from internal nuclear sources, propagating through the solar plasma to the surface and beyond? Yes. Even while some of the details are uncertain, that such fields exist has been certain among solar physicists for many decades.

Are comets visible because an electric discharge relative to the sun makes them glow? No.

It's been conclusively demonstrated wrong since the 1920s, if not earlier.

So now EU 'theorists' try to distract again from their failure to produce REAL results by claiming "it's just a hypothesis"?

How many years have they been calling Electric Comets a THEORY but they still have NOTHING to show that can be used for designing an actual space mission in the solar system? Instead, we just see EU supporters take any mention of electric fields in mainstream space-physics and try to cram it into their model and say that result was in their model all along. And even then they continue to propagate the falsehood that astronomers ignore electric fields in space.

So which electric sun and/or electric comet model is Haig trying to sell TODAY?

In post #2907 he was selling 'galactic birkeland currents'. Today it seems to be either the Scott model (all electrons moving towards the Sun) or the Birkeland model (all electrons moving away from the Sun), or perhaps he's got a new one? (see The Sad State of the Electric Sun(s) - Not So Bright)

The SAFIRE project video links Haig presents are from the beginning of 2013. It's nearly 2 years later. A Birkeland-type terrella can practically be built from kits today (Space.com: Scientists Spark Auroras In a Bottle for Traveling Northern Lights Show)? Why aren't we seeing any (even preliminary) results from an actual experimental run? I'm especially curious how they will validate this model, particularly the claims of fusion on the photosphere. Perhaps they'll claim success if it just emits a satisfying glow? Will they calibrate the spectrum of the terrella glow (an emission spectrum) with the voltage and current and compare this to a solar spectrum (an absorption spectrum, except in EUV)?

And I'm STILL waiting for those 'Electric Sun' space weather predictions that can rival Enlil at the Space Environment Center. BTW, these models were originally developed and tested on desktop-class computers, not much different from what you can purchase at BestBuy. EU 'theorists' have no excuse claiming they don't have access to necessary computer power.

What do the EU 'theorists' tell the engineers, designing a mission to an as yet unexplored region of the solar system (such as what Solar Probe Plus will do), just how much and what type of shielding they need for their spacecraft?

It seems that mainstream scientists are designing and developing missions to all these harsh environments making no use of an electrically-powered Sun or comets glowing from electric discharges. How do they manage such a high level of success if their model of the environment is so wrong?

For all Haig's rants, he and the other electric comet advocates still have not presented anything suitable for designing a space mission to a comet, yet they continue to arrogantly insinuate that those who have done it are incompetent.

If EU 'theorists' cannot produce useful results, what distinguishes their claims from wishful thinking?

 

[Matthew Cline]

The questions I asked in post #3287 are the kinds of questions any professional scientist would have to answer if they were proposing to send a mission to a comet. *When the taxpayers are trusting these researchers to hundreds of millions of dollars or euros to do these types of things, it is the responsibility of those managing the money, and the design and construction, to make sure a reasonable effort is made to design the mission so it has a chance of success. Evading the questions is not a option.

<EU-proponent>First they need millions of dollars to do experiments to get the data needed for figuring out the math that goes with their ideas. Then millions more to do experiments to test that math. Then they can say how the satellites should be designed.</EU-PROPONENT>

And I'm STILL waiting for those 'Electric Sun' space weather predictions that can rival Enlil at the Space Environment Center. BTW, these models were originally developed and tested on desktop-class computers, not much different from what you can purchase at BestBuy. EU 'theorists' have no excuse claiming they don't have access to necessary computer power.

A possible excuse: plasma acts in a non-linear way, so they'd need lots of time on the world's most powerful supercomputers to do a proper simulation. Heck, maybe today's supercomputers still aren't powerful enough to do a proper simulation.