The Electric Comet theory

[Matthew Cline]

What is it about the ECH that precludes the formation of comet-sized icy bodies during the initial formation of the solar system? What happens after that is not part of my question.

Or maybe the ECH allows for their creation during that time period and for them still existing, but doesn't allow for them to form comas and tails when close to the Sun?

 

[Haig]

Why only once exception? Mars has plenty of surface ice. So too does Europa, Ganymede (which is larger than Mercury, BTW), Callisto, Mimas, Enceladus, Tethys, Dione, Rhea, and Titan (also larger diameter than Mercury).

It's just my understanding Ziggurat you can read this yourself on Thunderbolts, I'm not a spokesman for the EU / PC crowd ...

Of the planets understood to have been involved Earth has by far the most ice and of course water. Mars by comparison has only a tiny amount of ice. The others you mention aren't involved in the "past few thousand years" but the other "main" players are Venus, Jupiter, Saturn with "bit" parts for Mercury and our Moon.

You still aren't understanding my question.

What is it about the ECH that precludes the formation of comet-sized icy bodies during the initial formation of the solar system? What happens after that is not part of my question.

The accretion disc theory of planet formation doesn't carry much weight in EU / PC circles

Does the ECH claim that there was no ice available during the initial formation of the solar system? Does the ECH claim that any available ice would have been in the wrong place? Does the ECH claim that available ice would only have formed in large concentrations on bodies significantly larger or smaller than comet-sized objects? Does the ECH claim that any icy comet-sized bodies formed during the initial stages of the solar system would have been destroyed by now?

Gezz Ziggurat, your answers are on ALL the EU / PC sites I've linked to, try reading a bit of the Thunderbolts stuff.

What is it about the ECH that precludes comet-sized icy bodies?

The RECENT nature of comet formation from Planetary conflict. "Worlds in Collision"

 

[Reality Check]

Of the planets understood to have been involved ...

What is this "understanding" and how does it select the planets or moons to be involved, Haig?
N.B. Starting with a fantasy that comets are rocks despite the multiple ways that their density has been measured to be less than water is not understanding - it is denial of science.

How does this "understanding" exclude comets from being formed by being blasted by thunderbolts from icy moons such as Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, Mimas, Enceladus, Tethys, Dione, Rhea, and Titan, Haig?

You do remember the D/H ratios of ice on comets, Haig, and how they basically exclude comets from forming oceans on Earth? They also exclude comets from being blasted from Earth .
Except before oceans existed which is not the electric comet idea of the origin of comets.

 

[ben m]

A Thunderbolt from a large planet sized comet excavating a planetary surface with exploding double layers could just as easily lobe chunks of ice into space as chunks of rock that then become comets.

No it couldn't. Good lord.

Sometimes I'm tempted to look for some simple core mistake which, encircled and reinforced and echoed a million times, turned into the giant bog of mistakes known as EU theory.

Then they remind me of this stuff. This is wall-to-wall cartoon nonsense.

No, Haig, a "thunderbolt from a large planet" could not do any of those things. That is what an alien laser beam from a sci-fi action movie can ("can"!) do. That is not something that real-world electromagnetism can do. Seriously, it's just cartoon gibberish. A "double layer" is a real thing and a "chunk of rock" is a real thing and a "thunderbolt" is a real thing and they obey real laws of physics. There are no laws of physics that allow your cartoon-discharge-explosions to actually happen and to do what your cartoons have made them do.

 

[Haig]

No it couldn't. Good lord.

Sometimes I'm tempted to look for some simple core mistake which, encircled and reinforced and echoed a million times, turned into the giant bog of mistakes known as EU theory.

Then they remind me of this stuff. This is wall-to-wall cartoon nonsense.

No, Haig, a "thunderbolt from a large planet" could not do any of those things. That is what an alien laser beam from a sci-fi action movie can ("can"!) do. That is not something that real-world electromagnetism can do. Seriously, it's just cartoon gibberish. A "double layer" is a real thing and a "chunk of rock" is a real thing and a "thunderbolt" is a real thing and they obey real laws of physics. There are no laws of physics that allow your cartoon-discharge-explosions to actually happen and to do what your cartoons have made them do.

Well ben m, That's WHY the Thunderbolts Project is called that

Planetary Science

In the recent history of the solar system, its electrical environment changed. Under changing electrical conditions planetary orbits changed as well. Close approaches of planets led to powerful electric arcing between planets and moons. All rocky bodies in the solar system show the massive scars of these kinds of electrical events.

Electric discharge scarring is occurring even now on Jupiter’s closest moon, Io, and on Saturn’s moon, Enceladus. Electrical activity continues on Mars, driving “dust devils” the size of Mount Everest – created by the electrical differential between the surface of Mars and surrounding space.

All of the dominant surface features of Mars show the patterns of electric discharge, suggesting that in the past a vast quantity of material was excavated electrically from Mars. Electric Universe proponents suggest that it was an interplanetary arc that created the Martian Valles Marineris, the largest known scar on a solid planet. Much of the rocky material exploding from Mars became comets, asteroids, and meteorites.

Additional information about the electrical scarring of Mars is available here.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Conveniently this all happened in the past but recently enough for humans to have observed it and recorded it. But then for some reason everything changed and it doesn't happen now.

Rather convenient.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Conveniently this all happened in the past but recently enough for humans to have observed it and recorded it. But then for some reason everything changed and it doesn't happen now.

Rather convenient.

 

[Reality Check]

Thunderbolts "Exploring the Electric Universe" ignorance and delusions

Well ben m, That's WHY the Thunderbolts Project is called that

Well, Haig, the delusions that you quote from Thunderbolts confirms that they are a bunch of Velikovsky cranks .
This is the idiocy that the orbits of planets changed in recent history leading to close encounters between them.
So many lies, ignorance and delusions on one page!

• They are ignorant of the existence of light and ferromagnetism where magnetic fields are not generated by electric currents.
• The delusion that "plasma cosmology" is valid science.
• The ignorance about Plasma Cosmology being wrong - and not the crank "plasma cosmology".
• A lie about "plasma cosmology" predicting major discoveries of the space age - it has not.
• A lie about the Big Bang, dark matter, dark energy, neutron stars and black holes being "purely theoretical". These are observations backed up by theory.
• A delusion about "galactic current filaments in dusty space plasma" forming stars.
• A delusion about fusion happening at or close to the surface (ignoring the gamma rays from it frying the Earth !)
• The usual fantasy about comets: Electric comets still do not exist!
• A delusion that recently the electrical environment changed enough to alter planet orbits.
• This lead to close encounters - that had no effect at all on planets and their moons and were never recorded by people, e.g. no one noted that Venus was once bigger than the Moon or that the surface of the Earth was blasted off to form comets !
• A delusion that "Electric discharge scarring" is happening on Io or Enceladus.
• A fantasy that Mars dust devils are magically driven by electrical stuff.
• A delusion that features on Mars were formed by electrical discharges.

 

[ben m]

Well ben m, That's WHY the Thunderbolts Project is called that

Does that explain something? The quote that follows is yet more cartoon nonphysics.

In the recent history of the solar system, its electrical environment changed.

Nope. No evidence for this.

Under changing electrical conditions planetary orbits changed as well.

There are no possible electrical conditions under which that is true. It's not just a no-evidence proposal for the past condition, it's a no-evidence proposal for the condition plus a physical-law-ignoring daydream about the effects of this condition.

It gets worse from there. What on Earth possesses you to write a sentence like that ("planetary orbits changed" under "electrical conditions") without checking the actual laws of E\&M? If you had checked, you would have noticed that no "electrical conditions" can possibly be strong enough to "change planetary orbits".

 

[Haig]

Does that explain something? The quote that follows is yet more cartoon nonphysics.

Nope. No evidence for this.

There are no possible electrical conditions under which that is true. It's not just a no-evidence proposal for the past condition, it's a no-evidence proposal for the condition plus a physical-law-ignoring daydream about the effects of this condition.

It gets worse from there. What on Earth possesses you to write a sentence like that ("planetary orbits changed" under "electrical conditions") without checking the actual laws of E\&M? If you had checked, you would have noticed that no "electrical conditions" can possibly be strong enough to "change planetary orbits".

Don't be so sure of that !

Look what happens in our present "stable" solar system.

Consider the Jupiter - Io connection

the electromagnetic interaction between Jupiter and its satellite Io: “At the fundamental level first of all, we are trying to understand the system of Jupiter, and its moons, as surprising as they are fascinating. Next, the interaction between Io and Jupiter is the best example in astronomy of interaction between a body that is a conductor and a body that has a powerful magnetic field. South Pole Jupiter Thus this is a typical case, in which the physics involved can later be applied to other astronomical systems of the same type, but which may be more difficult to observe.

Io's Atmosphere and the Io Plasma Torus

As Io circles around Jupiter and through the plasma torus, an enormous electrical current flows between them. Approximately 2 trillion watts of power is generated. The current follows the magnetic field lines to Jupiter's surface where it creates lightning in the upper atmosphere. The first black and white Hubble Space Telescope image (top) shows the flux tube, where Io and Jupiter are linked by an electrical current of charged particles. Volcanic emissions from Io flow along Jupiter's magnetic field lines, through Io, to Jupiter's north and south magnetic poles. In the second black and white image, auroral emissions are visible at Jupiter's north and south poles. The ultraviolet image below shows how the structure and appearance of Jupiter's aurora changes at it rotates.

What can happen when our solar system is "unstable" ?

Worlds in Collision: Immanuel Velikovsky

1972 Horizon documentary on the controversial theories of Velikovsky shown in the UK on BBC 2

The Solar System

When a planet is surrounded by a double layer sheath, it is protected from direct electrical interaction with any outside body. Two electrically charged planets, each surrounded by such a plasma sheath cannot see each other electrostatically. However, if a body having a different electrical charge, penetrates the double layer, moving into the plasmasphere surrounding a planet, electrical interactions (current discharges) can and will occur. Thus, if any other body such as a large meteor (or asteroid, comet, etc.) should come close enough to Earth to penetrate our plasma sheath, violent electric discharges would occur between the two bodies. It would, of course, be unfortunate to be standing at the point of origin of such a discharge. But the discharge itself might destroy the intruder and thus protect the Earth from an otherwise disastrous collision.

 

[Reality Check]

Some ignorance on Donald E. Scott's web site

Look what happens in our present "stable" solar system.

Look at what has nothing to do with the stability of the solar system, Haig: Consider the Jupiter - Io connection
Look at the fantasies of an ignorant Immanuel Velikovsky as described in a 1972 Horizon documentary on the controversial theories of Velikovsky shown in the UK on BBC 2: Worlds in Collision: Immanuel Velikovsky
Look at a crank web page seemingly lying about Birkeland currents in a solar image, fantasying about planetary physics, repeating Thornhill's delusions about electric discharges forming planetary features (e.g. Valles Marineris and the Grand Canyon), the idiotic assertion that the Colorado River would have to flow uphill to create the Grand Canyon, ignorant assertions about Saturn's rings, etc. : The Solar System

ETA: You really need to read and understand the fantasies and delusions on the crank web sites and books you like before citing them in a forum section about science, Haig.
Above is a crank web site saying that planets will shield any electromagnetic interactions and so Immanuel Velikovsky and Thunderbolts are wrong with the fantasy of electromagnetic interactions altering the orbits of planets !

ETA: The crank who wrote this web site is Donald E. Scott, Ph.D. (Electrical Engineering). He still has an ignorant page on the solved solar neutrino problem with the insane demand that neutrinos need to be measured at every point along their path! This is just wrong - nuclear physics tells us what neutrinos are emitted in nuclear reactions and this is verified in experiments. So to see the net change in neutrinos (i.e. neutrino oscillations) we measure at one point along the path.
Donald E. Scott is ignorant what spiral and double lobed radio galaxies are. He thus cites Anthony Peratt's invalid model of galaxy formation which forms the basis for Peratt's assertion of an explanation for galaxy rotation curves and thus no dark matter as in this page which has more ignorance:
* cold dark matter is not "supposedly in dead stars, planets, brown dwarfs ("failed stars") etc" - it is everywhere.
* the observations evidence for dark matter is not just galaxy rotation curves!

Donald E. Scott cannot tell a debunked theory about redshift from valid science in this page about Arp imagining that associating quasars with nearby galaxies meant that they were emitted from those galaxies.
* Arp's 1971 assertion that NGC 4319 and Markarian 205 have a bridge between them that was debunked in 1992:

The matter was effectively settled when observations using the Hubble Space Telescope showed that the light from Markarian 205 was passing through the disk and halo of NGC 4319 to reach the observer, placing Markarian 205 behind this galaxy and thus further away.[10]

* Stephan's Quintet is a visual association of 5 galaxies - only 4 of then are physically interacting.
* Scott's ignorance that galaxies are not solid and so background galaxies can shine through them, e.g. a bright quasar through galaxy NGC 7319.

ETA: I was wondering why an electric engineer who supposedly knows about science would associate himself with the craziness of Velikovsky followers. But this page has uncritical support for many crank ideas:
* the fantasy from Cochrane, Cardona, and Talbott of the solar system being arranged differently within recent time based on myths and pictographs.
* A Thornhill fantasy about Earth orbiting a "proto-Saturn".
* Someone's fantasy about "Dinosaurs Are Impossible in Today's Gravity".
* The delusion that electrical arcs machined planetary features.
* A fantasy that Birkeland currents power the stars.
* Anthony Peratt's debunked theory about galaxy formation.
* Arp's debunked theory again!
Written by a Annis Pepion Scott but should have been vetted by him. So it looks like knowledge about the laws of physics does not stop someone from being gullible !

ETA: Donald E. Scott cannot understand what he writes about Olbers' paradox in this PDF. He has a clear description of it including the fact that stars get dimmer with distance. And then he complains about stars getting dimmer with distance so that the naked eye can only see ~8400 stars :!
He is wrong.
* The integration over apparent intensity as in his steps 1 and 3 needs to include all stars no matter how far they are from us. That is what integrating from 0 to infinity means.
* Astronomers have gone a long way past the naked eye! So his naked eye approximation is wrong.
There is a bit of arrogance here - he implies that the many astronomers who have published on Olbers' paradox over the centuries (often trying to refute it) have been unable to work out the mathematics properly. But he has done it and not published it!

 

[ben m]

Don't be so sure of that !

Look what happens in our present "stable" solar system.

Yep, Jupiter-Io torus. Fast-orbiting planet in the strongest planetary magnetic field. Its resulting electromagnetic and plasma behavior obeys all the standard laws of physics and is studied (and essentially understood) by math/numbers-using mainstream scientists.

This current hasn't moved Io's orbit by any observable amount in orbital records dating back to Galileo. Not a smidgen. The laws of E&M tell us how charges, voltages, and currents behave. It tells you what forces they exert and what sort of energies can "discharge". They tell you whether Io should be getting blasted out of its orbit, and the theory/math agrees with observations.

Nothing to do with EU.

I repeat: EU/PC claims about electricity altering orbits, excavating canyons, and launching comets do not make any sense and everything we know about E&M tells us those claims are wrong. Velikovsky et. al. just made stuff up, and people like you fell for it without checking the physics.

Go ahead, post more stuff Velikovsky made up. Or post one actual force-law-using calculation that tells me the source voltage, current, and amperage required to "launch a comet", and that shows that "launching a comet" (rather than "dissipating on its own") is the expected behavior of the source describe.

 

[tusenfem]

Yep, Jupiter-Io torus. Fast-orbiting planet in the strongest planetary magnetic field. Its resulting electromagnetic and plasma behavior obeys all the standard laws of physics and is studied (and essentially understood) by math/numbers-using mainstream scientists.

This current hasn't moved Io's orbit by any observable amount in orbital records dating back to Galileo. Not a smidgen. The laws of E&M tell us how charges, voltages, and currents behave. It tells you what forces they exert and what sort of energies can "discharge". They tell you whether Io should be getting blasted out of its orbit, and the theory/math agrees with observations.

Nothing to do with EU.

I repeat: EU/PC claims about electricity altering orbits, excavating canyons, and launching comets do not make any sense and everything we know about E&M tells us those claims are wrong. Velikovsky et. al. just made stuff up, and people like you fell for it without checking the physics.

Go ahead, post more stuff Velikovsky made up. Or post one actual force-law-using calculation that tells me the source voltage, current, and amperage required to "launch a comet", and that shows that "launching a comet" (rather than "dissipating on its own") is the expected behavior of the source describe.

should not io have been accelerated in its path because of this strong electromagneticcurrentsflowinteraction and rotate arond jupiter much faster than its keplerian velocity?

 

[Sol88]

put comet in title
put double layer in abstract
double layers are rare breed, though

I don't know about kettle of fish, don't you think that that would depend on where the double layer is, how strong the double layer is, etc.

Just got to love these immediate assumptions of EU-tians, if you have a DL then everything is solved.
Dear Sol, please explain us how this double layer is created, set up, and what it is doing to the jets.

Do you think it would change the mainstreams view on dirtysnowballs?

 

[Matthew Cline]

So what sorts of charges would planets have to possess to attract/repel each other enough to appreciably alter their orbits?

I repeat: EU/PC claims about electricity ... excavating canyons

About that: doesn't lighting tend to go for the highest point in the vicinity? So why would these gigantic bolts of lightning ignore the walls of the forming canyon, which are higher than the canyon floor, and instead go down between them to dig the canyon even deeper?

 

[Haig]

-- snip--
I repeat: EU/PC claims about electricity altering orbits, excavating canyons, and launching comets do not make any sense and everything we know about E&M tells us those claims are wrong. Velikovsky et. al. just made stuff up, and people like you fell for it without checking the physics.

Go ahead, post more stuff Velikovsky made up. Or post one actual force-law-using calculation that tells me the source voltage, current, and amperage required to "launch a comet", and that shows that "launching a comet" (rather than "dissipating on its own") is the expected behavior of the source describe.

OK ben m, How is this NOT science showing that catastrophes happened globally in the age of man ?

Earth in Upheaval

Neolithic or Early Bronze Age carry patterns associated with high-current Z-pinches provides a possible insight into the origin and meaning of these ancient symbols produced by man.

The above is the REASON all ancient religions began as planet worship. Man invented god, gods and religious rituals as a reaction to these events. In addition it sparked Art, Science, Culture and Paranoia in us and the evidence for this is still all around us today.

So, to sum up your position ben m ... you dismiss ALL the above with a wave of the hand and a curt "nonsense"

If I read you right, you think if it isn't happening NOW then it CAN'T have happened in the past... is that about right ?

Well what about ICE AGES ? They aren't happening NOW but you accept that they happened and WILL happen again. Right ?

Getting back to Electric Comets the E/M reaction depends on the CHARGE difference when the PLASMA SHEATHS come in contact.

So HOW much charge does the Earth, Mars or Venus have ? If we did know that we could predict the scale of the electrical interaction should a contact occur.

I know, I know, your saying THAT just can't and never has happened ! Right ?

Well is it JUST a coincidence that Venus has a Plasma Sheath tail that ...

"Venus, for example, possesses a filamentary comet-like tail that stretches for millions of kilometers. Indeed, at its closest approach to Earth, every 584 days, the tail interacts with Earth’s magnetosphere."



How about considering a more recent electromagnetic event just a few months ago. A tiny comet Siding Spring with unknown charge in it's plasma sheath came in contact with the plasma sheath also of unknown charge of Mars. The reaction was SPECTACULAR

Links HERE

Now ben m, Why does this NOT impress you ? Care to do the "actual force-law-using calculation" for it ?

Maybe the Ancients did have a REAL reason to react the way they did a few thousand years ago ????

What's the latest on Electric Comet 67P active JETS

Interesting to see our Electric Sun and it's electromagnetic effect on earth is showing itself more and more ...

Curious: Electromagnetic waves linked to particle fallout in Earth’s atmosphere, new study finds

the actual paper ...

Investigation of EMIC wave scattering as the cause for the Barrel 17 January 2013 relativistic electron precipitation event: A quantitative comparison of simulation with observations

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning, 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.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2548454aa48b9cff93.jpg[/qimg]

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.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2548454aa4660ccad5.jpg[/qimg]

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

Thank you very much!

So, I was wrong, and am happy to learn that I was wrong, and why.

But in the context of the SAFIRE report Haig provided a link to*, and given only what they published in that one paper, maybe not so much (leave aside, for now, what "observed qualitatively" might mean)?

Combining a number of other experiments, redesigns, and refinements, further testing revealed structurally similar discharges on the anode that were very similar to the sun’s plasma (Figure 9). Double layers, caused by charge (+/-) separation in plasmas, which produce granules and cellular layers in plasmas¹⁷, were visually and/or qualitatively observed near the surface of the anode.
[...]
¹⁷ Alfven, H. "Paradigm transition in cosmic plasma physics" (1982) Physica Scripta, T2(1), 10-19, (1982).

(my bold)

That they "visually observed" "granules" "near the surface of the anode", well yes, that's seems plausible; but without some analyses (which they didn't report), how could they deduce that the granules which they visually observed were double layers? In the experimental configuration they describe, has it been shown, conclusively, that all observed granules are double layers?

Etc.

*if you can't find this immediately, please let me know and I'll add it

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning, Sol88.

Hello Sol88.
(my bold)

Don't you find it rather ironic to be asking for an OSIRIS image, while the sole primary source you've been able to come up with (so far) re "the observed comet jets are an electrical discharge phenomena" (or, more accurately, "The observed jets of comets are electric arc discharges to the nucleus, producing “electrical discharge machining” (EDM) of the surface" (source)) - Thornhill (2007) - is behind a paywall?

Perhaps you could ask Uncle Wal to provide you a free copy, which you could post here?

can't do the maths, just want to see a picture. Thought a stack of photos, over a period of time, of the "shiny stuff" would be better.

We don't know, yet, if Thornhill (2007) contains any maths at all. And if Talbott & Thornhill (2006) contains most of what's in Thornhill (2007), then there may be no maths.

Then we can see if they are arcs or glows....or vents.

I seem to recall that you've been asked questions about your visual acuity before, but I don't recall whether you answered or not.

Sol88, how can you tell, simply by looking at a stack of photos, that what's in them is arcs, glows, or vents?

If there were such a stack of photos, how would you advise me to look at them, so that I too could conclude there's vents (or arcs, or glows) in them?

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning again, Sol88.

G'day JeanTate

Could you just clarify for me again, is the an electric field centred on the Sun in your opinion?

I do not know, Sol88, and would prefer not to speculate.

If you're interested - and I think that you are - why not ask? If you do, write your question to include a request for primary sources, so you would have the possibility to check out the science yourself (in principle, anyway).

 

[tusenfem]

Do you think it would change the mainstreams view on dirtysnowballs?

nah, when i look outside, i see lots of dirty snowballs here in austria