The Electric Comet theory

[Haig]

for those interested, a new review by tamas gombosi on "physics of cometary magnetospheres" will be published soon in an AGU monograph. an interesting read.

Physics of Cometary Magnetospheres

Yes tusenfem, it was an interesting read, well that is, what I could read in the few preview pages allowed ... but I won't be buying the book. Not only because of the price I was quoted on-line £108 / $165 / Euro 138 ... that's way too high for what is (imho) only a mainstream magnetic version of the electric comet hypothesis but without naming a plasma sheath, double layers, charge or mentioning too much about electric effects.

Worse than that ... they appear to be trying to "reinvent the wheel", so to speak. We already know from Plasma (physics) in lab experiments and peer reviewed papers that charged bodies in a plasma produce Shocks or double layers, Electric fields and circuits as well as forming a Cellular structure.

There is no reason NOT to apply this science to real Space Plasma but , of course, only with Hannes Alfvén Second Approach.

ALL charged bodies in the Solar System have Plasma Sheaths around them ... from the Sun ... to the Planets ... to Comets.

We should recognise the common origin of these phenomena and stop treating them separately and inventing new jargon to describe the same effects Plasma (physics) has already named in the lab.


Review of recent laboratory double layer experiments


Laboratory and Space Experiments as a Key to the Plasma Universe.

 

[Cygnus_X1]

Are you saying there is no electric field entered on the Sun, JeanTate?

We've known about solar electric fields for decades, mostly in solar active regions (sunspots). But they are insufficient to explain solar luminosity.
Electric fields in the solar atmosphere - A review

maybe you can come back when you've worked out the MAJOR problems for mainstreams explanation of the thermonuclear bomb sun.

Let's see.
Missing Solar neutrinos - Found
Perhaps you mean the coronal temperature? But considering this temperature is is based on the motion of VERY low density gas (and plasma), it has an energy density less than one BILLIONTH of the energy density of the photosphere. So just a very tiny fraction of the total energy output from the nuclear-powered Sun gets channeled into a tiny amount of atoms and ions in the solar atmosphere.

Meantime I'll hang around for the announcement that comets are rock and the jets are cold cathode electrical discharges arising from a charged body moving in the radial electrical field centred on a Sun powered externally.

And I'll wait for EU 'theorists' to produce a theory that can actually be used for determining the radiation hazards and designing and planning missions in space.

I suspect we'll both be waiting a VERY long time.

 

[Reality Check]

...
So the mainstream comet hypothesis morphs towards the Electric Comet hypothesis is even more obvious and needed.

Wrong, Haig: No astronomer would be so ignorant about comets as to think that Electric Comet hypothesis was correct - comets are not as dense as rocks for a start !
Electric comets still do not exist !

THE PLASMA ENVIRONMENT OF COMET 67P/CHURYUMOV-GERASIMENKO THROUGHOUT THE ROSETTA MAIN MISSION (PDF)

The plasma environment of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, the Rosetta mission target comet, is explored over a range of heliocentric distances throughout the mission: 3.25 AU (Rosetta instruments on), 2.7 AU (Lander down), 2.0 AU, and 1.3 AU (perihelion). Because of the large range of gas production rates, we have used both a fluid-based magnetohydrodynamic
(MHD) model as well as a semi-kinetic hybrid particle model to study the plasma distribution. We describe the variation in plasma environs over the mission as well as the differences between the two modeling approaches under different conditions. In addition, we present results from a field
aligned, two-stream transport electron model of the suprathermal electron flux when the comet is near perihelion.

is a scientific model of the plasma environment of comet 67P in the scientific model of comets (i.e. gas from sublimating ices) analyzed in 2006.

There is no delusion that planets whizzed around the solar system to meet up with each other in recent times in volition of the laws of physics (looks like Earth and Mars in that fantasy video !).
There is no fantasy about comets being blasted off the surface of planets or moons by unspecified electric stuff.

 

[Haig]

We've known about solar electric fields for decades, mostly in solar active regions (sunspots). But they are insufficient to explain solar luminosity.
Electric fields in the solar atmosphere - A review


Let's see.
Missing Solar neutrinos - Found
Perhaps you mean the coronal temperature? But considering this temperature is is based on the motion of VERY low density gas (and plasma), it has an energy density less than one BILLIONTH of the energy density of the photosphere. So just a very tiny fraction of the total energy output from the nuclear-powered Sun gets channeled into a tiny amount of atoms and ions in the solar atmosphere.


And I'll wait for EU 'theorists' to produce a theory that can actually be used for determining the radiation hazards and designing and planning missions in space.

I suspect we'll both be waiting a VERY long time.

Gee Tom, so you think you have sussed out our variable Electric Sun ?

So Why ? is there a 11 year sunspot cycle : a 22 year Hale (magnetic) cycle and Why is our star entering into a Grand Solar Minimum ? I think that's a 400 year cycle ( from memory ) ... Brrr Little Ice Age

Magnetic Storm, Radio Blackout - Jan.4.2015

 

[Reality Check]

Rosetta Mission Update | Oops! No Water on Comet 67P?

Are these the usual ignorance and even delusions from the Thunderbolts team about comets, Haig?
The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site and videos.
The bad science in Newton’s Electric Clockwork Solar System by Wal Thornhill is also relevant if he is a contributor to the video.

The answer to the question is: Water Found on Comet 67P as already noted in this thread !

 

[Reality Check]

Rosetta Mission Update | Rubble on 67P Defies Current Comet Theory

Argument form incredibility and maybe ignorance from the Thunderbolts team, Haig.
I see no problem with "rubble" formed from ice and dust in the scientific model of comets.
* There are craters. There will be ejecta from those craters. That ejecta is rubble!
* There are cliffs. Cliffs crumble. There will be rubble form this.

 

[Haig]

Are these the usual ignorance and even delusions from the Thunderbolts team about comets, Haig?
The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site and videos.
The bad science in Newton’s Electric Clockwork Solar System by Wal Thornhill is also relevant if he is a contributor to the video.

The answer to the question is: Water Found on Comet 67P as already noted in this thread !

Welcome back Reality Check, it's show time again

Maybe you need to catch up on the Electric Comet ?

Rosetta Mission Update | Comet 67P -- Electrical Sculpting of Surface Dust

Watch Update #1: The Rocky Comet
Watch Update #2: Comets May Not Be What We Thought
Watch Update #3: Oops! No Water on Comet 67P?
Watch Update #4: Rubble on 67P Defies Current Comet Theory
Watch Update #5: Jets of Comet 67P -- Failed "Explanations" Continue

 

[Reality Check]

Those jets are getting stronger The Jets

Wrong , Haig, an unlabeled image does not show that The Jets are getting stronger .

Michael Goodspeed's blog entry contains a lie:

Twenty-four hours before the impact event, in collaboration with the Thunderbolts.info group, Thornhill predicted that an electrical "flash" might precede the impact and explosion, and that the explosion would be far more energetic than NASA anticipated. And this is precisely what happened on July 4, 2005, much to the astonishment of NASA and astronomers around the world.

This is precisely what did not happen as you should know, Haig, from 4 years ago !
28th November 2010: The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.

 

[Reality Check]

More Thunderbolts fantasies in Jets of Comet 67P -

Rosetta Mission Update | Jets of Comet 67P -- Failed "Explanations" Continue

Update #5: It seems that the puzzle of cometary jets continues to haunt comet science. The mystery has been stated and re-stated for decades. But it’s possible that a resolution is now within reach, through the Rosetta Mission to comet 67P?Churyumov Gerasimenko?

The answer to the narrator's questions have been known for decades: sublimated gasses escaping from the surface from jets and the simple fact that in low gravity things to move in very slightly curved lines. David Talbott even cites this explanation !

Then argument from analogy and incredibility results in fantasies!
* Astronomers have no problem with the speed of the gas.
* a mythologist surrounded by no working astronomers thinks that the sublimating gas has to build up a "high pressure" by being held in by overlaying dust.
* a fantasy about the jets being an "explosive release of gas pressure".
AFAIK it is sublimating gas being shaped by the walls of a chamber into a jet.
* a fantasy about immediate exposure of the ice below the surface.
* a suggestion of observing jet chambers below the surface.
I suspect that we cannot look at the base of a jet and see any chamber since the jet will hide it.
* ignorance about the science that we expect jets all over a comet including the shadowed side as in Hartley 2. A rotating body will be heated up fairly uniformly. Any body will transmit heat from a sunlit side to a shadowed side - thus jets (but not as many).
* a repeat of the exploding pocket of gas fantasy.
* fantasies about "evidence" of some unspecified electric activities.
* a rather ignorant expectation about experiments replicating the production of jets on comets. We do not have the low gravity, high vacuum environments needed to do such experiments here on Earth!
I suspect that it could be possible to spend some millions of dollars and do such an experiment on the ISS.

 

[Reality Check]

Maybe you need to catch up on the Electric Comet ...

Been there done that, gone away appalled at the ignorance, Haig: 19 items of ignorance and delusion in 11 minutes of a 90 minutes Thunderbolt video!
Are these new videos any less ignorant or even deluded than the previous Thunderbolts videos as above?
I looked at one and it was very ignorant: More Thunderbolts fantasies in Jets of Comet 67P

 

[Reality Check]

I don't know how many of them are out there really...

Hi, paladin17: Have a look at the JPL Small-Body Database Browser which will allow you to search the database from many kinds of objects.
One thing I pointed out many years ago was that EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets. Of course EC has no valid predictions so I had to assume that it was the eccentricity of the orbit that made an asteroid into a comet.

 

[Reality Check]

can't put it better than uncle Wal

Uncle Wall seems unable to get past publicity videos to the actual science, Sol88 !
A molten ball of rock (the Earth) cooled and then there were oceans - where did the water come from?
The scientific answer is from off the Earth in the form of comets and asteroids. The Rosetta results are an outlier of the large range of D/H rations that have already been observed and put further doubt on comets being the only origin of the Earth's oceans. The obvious possibility is that most of the water came from asteroids. A less obvious possibility is that the current comet D/H ratio is not what it was during the formation of the oceans but I think astronomers will have looked at this.

Congratulations Rosetta, Shame About The Science… is more about sorry about fantasies Wal makes up about the science!
* Wal Thornhill starts with comparing artists drawings with Rosetta images!
* Holger Sierks confirms that 67P is not rock but Thornhill goes into a fantasy about harpoons bouncing off rock.
* the measured D/H of 67P does not say that it did not form in the earth solar system - just that it formed in a different part from the other comets with measured D/H ratios.
* irrelevant stuff about other comets with the repeated fantasy that comets are rock.
* a fantasy about " sputtering of rock minerals".
* "The lesson to be learned is the real meaning of E=mc^2: MASS and ENERGY are PROPERTIES of MATTER. "
Is rather ignorant - the real meaning of E=mc^2 is that ENERGY and MASS are equivalent. And trivial since MATTER does have the PROPERTIES of MASS and ENERGY (and SPIN, CHARGE, etc.)
* The calculated density of comet 67 P tells us what it cannot be made of (i.e. rock), ignoring any wishful thinking about electric stuff.
* The statement "If it looks like rock, it’s safest to assume it is rock!" is bad.
As any scientist knows, an image needs backing up by analysis. Comets are measured to have densities less than water by several methods and so they are not rock even if someone thinks they look like rock.
Next Wal Thornhill is going to tell us that the coma and tail are made of candy floss because they look like candy floss !

 

[Reality Check]

Mmmmmm...... maybe your right? Electric Galaxy

This looks like Anthony Peratt's model of galaxy formation which already has a thread, Sol88: Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation
And you are right, Sol88, this simulation does not match observations
* spiral galaxies actually have plasma between their arms.
* double lobed radio galaxies are hosted in elliptical galaxies.
* no radiation from galaxy sized filaments.

Some fantasy in a quote about experiments on galaxies

We digress from the fantasy that is ELECTRIC COMET THEORY: Electric comets still do not exist !
and the even worse fantasy that planets whizzed around the solar system in recent times to meet up and blast comets from each other.

 

[Reality Check]

Peratt confirmed the late 1970s / early 1980s galaxy simulations in this 1995 paper

Sorry Haig but you are wrong - that 1995 paper is a speculation based on his 1986 computer simulation that failed to match real galaxies. Those simulations were invalid in 1986 and have never been run again. That 1995 paper cites his 1986 papers.

As an aside - the strong evidence for dark matter existing when Peratt states that it does not is further evidence against his already invalid model.

 

[Reality Check]

a) ... They were performed at best on a Cray X-MP running at 0.8 gigaflops---less than the computing power of a first-generation iPhone.

Interesting aside - I read about one of the EU conferences (2014?) and recall that someone was proposing to waste their time doing just that - run Peratt's simulation on a mobile phone!

 

[Reality Check]

...maybe by this mathis guy...

That Miles Mathis guy is a typical internet physics crank but very productive (5,513 PDF pages!). He touts his books on that web page but the chapter titles alone will tell anyone (except maybe Haig!) how bad they are, e.g.
* Angular Velocity and Angular Momentum. Both current equations are shown to be false
* The Equation v = v0 + at is False.
* A Critique of Einstein's Original Paper. Here I attack Einstein line for line, using "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (Annalen der Physik, 1905) as my text.
* Why the Transforms of Special Relativity are not Symmetrical.
* A Break in the Pioneer Case.
* The Perihelion Precession of Mercury. A long critique of the historical problem, showing the major errors of Einstein and others.

 

[Reality Check]

Really, Mathew Cline can you point me in the direction of that finding?

Really, Sol88 - have you never read Peratt's actual papers on his simulations and seen his comparison of computer maps and galaxy images?
Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation
The basis is 3 papers:
On the evolution of interacting, magnetized, galactic plasmas (1983) for the SPLASH simulation details.
Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets (1986).
Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies (1986).

And then there is:

Have you ever read Equilibrium of Intergalactic Currents, B. E. Meierovich and A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 20, p.891, 1992?
This is that paper where Meierovich and Peratt show that the effects of gravity are 7 OOM (10,000,000) times greater than that of the EM forces. They did not realize this but tusenfem pointed this out on 5th June 2009.
So the irony is that Peratt falsifies his own model in this paper !

 

[Reality Check]

So are they rock or not ?

The answer is obviously no, Haig, since comets have densities less than that of water.
Even posting the thousands? of comets images that exist in this thread and imagining that that they are rock will not change this physical fact.

 

[Reality Check]

So Why ? is there a 11 year sunspot cycle : a 22 year Hale (magnetic) cycle and Why is our star entering into a Grand Solar Minimum ? I think that's a 400 year cycle ( from memory )

The answers are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_dynamo, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_dynamo and probably not based on one guy's opinion in Forbes (ETA: The predictions are for the next cycle to be weaker with a possibility of the one after also being weaker but that is about as far as models go).

 

[tusenfem]

* "Double layers [...] were visually and/or qualitatively observed near the surface of the anode" Really? They visually observed double layers!?!

Hi JeanTate!

Just a little comment on DLs.
In the laboratory, in a double plasma machine (see part of it in the first pic), a double layer is usually created by having a plasma in a tube, and applying a voltage between the anode and the cathode. If you crank up the voltage enough then an anode sheath is created, because plasma does not like large scale electric fields and concentrates them in (multiple) small scale regions, e.g. the anode sheath.



After that sheath is formed (which lights up, because of the increased excitation by the accelerated electrons) and you increase the voltage even more, then the sheath is released from the anode and moves further into the tube along the plasma column.



Then you have a double layer in the plasma column, a region in which the potential drop between cathode and anode is concentrated. You see that on the anode side the plasma column lights up because of increased excitation, whereas on the cathode side it is rather dark.

In this experiment I used Argon at a pressure of 0.12 mTorrr and a voltage of 160 V and a magnetic field strength of 200 Gauss