The Electric Comet theory

[Haig]

If the mass of an inner planet is reduced by charge exchange with the next outer planet, which changes the subatomic dipole distortion, the orbital radius of the inner planet must decrease proportionally to conserve energy. Similarly, the outer planet must gain mass and its orbit expands to conserve energy.

Oh my. This is really top-grade nonsense.

If two planets exchange mass, the process is certainly NOT going to keep the energy of each individual planet the same. Seriously, it makes no sense. The departing mass will not depart with zero energy. Why would it?

Plus, of course, the whole "charge polarization" concept of mass is utter nonsense.

Ah! so you want the math ???

The Cosmic Mass Deficit

To say it in the simplest possible way, the masses we have been measuring up to now have been unified field masses, coming out of Newton's unified field. But because we did not know Newton's field was a unified field, we did not know our masses were unified field masses. Because the unified field contains the sub-field of E/M, and because the sub-field of E/M is in vector opposition to the total field (causing it to be subtracted from the total), our current masses are deceiving. They are too small, and they are too small in the amount of the E/M field. To make the correction—to find the real mass—we have to add the E/M field to every mass in the universe. In other words, to make a correction to the total mass of the universe, we have to add the universal mass or mass equivalence of the entire E/M field.

Once you have fully absorbed that, you will have understood that calculating the true mass in this way must vastly increase the total mass of the universe. Over any dt, the mass of any material object is determined by the gravitational acceleration caused by that object during that time, by definition. But up to now, we have only been measuring a compound acceleration, which is the differential of the gravitational acceleration and the foundational E/M acceleration. That is, operationally, we can only measure with our instruments the force due to gravity minus the force due to the mass or momentum of all the radiation. Therefore the true mass must be the measured mass plus the mass of the radiation.
Also notice that this change in mechanics gives us a double addition of mass to the universe, since we gain both the mass of the radiation itself as well as the higher true mass of the radiating particle.
Both these statements are true:
1) The mass of the radiating particle must be greater than the mass measured by our instruments, since our instruments measure a compound mass.
2) The radiation itself has mass or mass equivalence due to energy, which is a second addition to the total mass of the universe. A radiating particle does not lose mass, which means that the “holes” left by radiation are filled by some creative means.

An Update on Weight

Abstract: In the first part, I show in more detail how my compound field works mechanically to create mass and weight. This solves a few problems left over from Part VII of my gravity papers. In the second part, I use a new thought problem to pose a question neither Newton nor Einstein has answered, or can answer. In answering it, I show that F=GMm/R2 is incomplete; that in certain situations it is, in fact, false: it gets the wrong answer. In compressing two fields into one equation, Newton unknowingly left certain information out of this equation, and this information is needed to solve a specific set of problems in dynamics.

 

[Sol88]

Hello again, Sol88.

Yes, somewhat. Thank you.

One thing I'll be checking is the relevant ech primary sources. So far, there seems to be just Thornhill & Talbott (2006)*. If you know of any other primary sources - re the ech - which are directly relevant, please cite them.

Because to the mainstream, it's crackpot pseudoscience and if want to earn a living in this field you better tow the party line.

Better ATM, to point out the contradictions in mainstream peer reviewed papers on trying to force prior beliefs into data coming back from all comet mission so far.

I mean

The total area of exposed water ice is substantially less than that required to support the observed ambient outgassing from the comet, which likely has additional source regions below the surface.

but

showing recession of icy cliffs at the margins.

so what's going on Jeanette?

And in particular

We also present a number of interesting coma features that were observed, including surface jets detected at the limb of the nucleus when the exposed ice patches are passing over the horizon, and features that appear to be jets emanating from unilluminated sources near the negative pole.

and the paper on jets emanating from those "icy cliff", you those icy cliffs that the total area of exposed water ice is substantially less than that required to support the observed ambient outgassing from the comet

 

[jond]

I can take a picture of snow that fell just after Christmas that now looks like black basalt along the side of the road.

Or a glacier in Iceland, last June? Photo, mine.

 

[Sol88]

Mainstream contradicted themselves on this occasion more than once to save face and the snowydirtball paradigm.

And now have gone into lock down mode with the OSIRIS images, Why?
This is, of course, not relevant.

Why, Sol88, do you find it so hard to stay focused?

This is on topic

Comments including links to sites irrelevant to the post or to unpublished theories or non peer-reviewed papers will likely be trashed.

Which includes the ELECTRIC COMET HYPOTHESIS

So i'm unsure what angle your trying to work there JT

 

[Sol88]

Hello again, Sol88.

Yes, somewhat. Thank you.

One thing I'll be checking is the relevant ech primary sources. So far, there seems to be just Thornhill & Talbott (2006)*. If you know of any other primary sources - re the ech - which are directly relevant, please cite them.


This is, of course, not relevant.

Why, Sol88, do you find it so hard to stay focused?

* not counting Thornhill (2007), which is behind a paywall

I see in your statement that you are rather preoccupied with peer review and publication with regard to theories and results. You should not be. When you are working at a frontier of knowledge, as indeed you are, you should not be unduly concerned with the peers. They represent existing and accepted knowledge which may of course be flawed, in which case peer acceptance would be a handicap. You may say that is the way of science but maybe that is why science is in a bit of trouble in many areas at this time, with surprise and incredulity expressed at every turn of the page.

Dude hit the nail on the head!

How can peer reviewed paper be accepted if the peers don't know Jack.Sheite?

It would be new to them as well, would it not?

 

[Sol88]

Or a glacier in Iceland, last June? Photo, mine.[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_926354ad48bcb77c8.jpg[/qimg]

Ahh...that's what I thought a comets surface might look like, a dirtysnowball or a snowydirtball

But not rock as in Tempel 1's clay, carbonates, and crystallized silicates with no ice as also imaged on 67P.

also is that glacier pic black because it's coated in PAH's?

 

[ferd burfle]

Isn't having spectroscopes in one's eyes considered a superpower?

Yeah, but XRF Man and EDX Girl would probably appeal to a pretty limited demographic

ferd

 

[Ziggurat]

Ah! so you want the math ???

Yes, I want the math.

But what have you given me instead? Words, only words. No math at all.

And the kicker (of course) is that this still has nothing to do with the Velikovskian nonsense about changing planet masses, it's about trying to solve the galactic rotation curve problem.

Classic Haig fail. As it was, so shall it ever be.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Haig's most trusted authorities appear to be Velikovsky and the Internet's most notorious crackpot.

Ah! so you want the math ???

The Cosmic Mass Deficit

An Update on Weight

That's crackpottery, not math. There's a difference.

Your first link goes to a web page that contains no math at all. It links to several other web pages by the same crackpot, Miles Mathis. I started to read the first those, his paper on charge. In that web page, Mathis calls attention to the fact that the units for Coulomb's law make sense, from which he concludes "We are being led on some sort of wild goose chase." He then claims the charge q₁ and q₂ have no units. Wondering how he arrived at that conclusion, I noticed he had written his second equation (for Coulomb's constant) as

k = 1/4πε₀​

instead of the correct

k = 1/(4πε₀)​

His third equation (for permittivity of free space) contains a similar error.

You can browse an entire web blog devoted to Miles Pantload Mathis, "The Internet's Most Notorious Crackpot".

He beat out some impressive competition. Before you dismiss that superlative as hyperbole, check out Mathis's alleged proof that pi equals 4.

 

[jond]

Ahh...that's what I thought a comets surface might look like, a dirtysnowball or a snowydirtball

But not rock as in Tempel 1's clay, carbonates, and crystallized silicates with no ice as also imaged on 67P.

also is that glacier pic black because it's coated in PAH's?

Dunno, you're the one who claims to be able to tell the composition from a b&w photo. Why don't you enlighten everyone.

 

[Ziggurat]

check out Mathis's alleged proof that pi equals 4.

Wow. I mean, it was obviously a crank page, but I really didn't stick around long enough to see just how deep. That's pretty amazing.

What say you, Haig? Is pi really 4?

 

[Andy_Ross]

for a sufficiently small value of 4

 

[paladin17]

Do you have a primary source for that ("In EC framework the bigger the semi-major axis is, the more diverse are the electric properties of the regions visited by the object along its route around the Sun")?

I'm really quite surprised by this, seeing as how one of the two core assumptions of the ech is that there's a (weak) ~radial electric field centered on the Sun. Given that assumption, surely it's an object's orbit's ellipticity that's the primary factor?

Further, for a given ellipticity, the change in electric field between aphelion and perihelion would depend on the how that field varies with distance from the Sun ... and the ech does not assume any particular radial form (as far as I know; perhaps Haig can help?).

Can you clarify please?

OK, now I see that I was mistaken.
The voltage between perihelion and aphelion is proportional to 2e/a(1-e²), and the mean orbital speed also obviously falls as a^-3/2, so this makes the effect of potential change even weaker for bigger orbits.
So yes, eccentricity is the main factor, and in this framework (where only radial field is considered) orbits with smaller semi-major axes would experience even higher voltage differentials. However, relative potential change (in terms of a ratio of change) is equal to 2e/(1-e) and is independent of the orbit size.

Thank you for pointing me on that.

 

[jmckaskle]

Sol88, you keep saying that there is no surface ice on comet Tempel 1, and you claim that scientists are saying there is no surface ice on Tempel 1, yet the links you provide are of scientists describing observed surface ice on Tempel 1. It is amusing, but you don't come off looking great. Icy cliffs are expected if you have subsurface ice. The walls of the cliffs are exposed subsurface ice, just like cliffs on earth are exposed subsurface strata. If you cut yourself a piece of cake, you will create a cake with icing on the top and an exposed subsurface cake.

 

[jmckaskle]

OK, now I see that I was mistaken.
The voltage between perihelion and aphelion is proportional to 2e/a(1-e²), and the mean orbital speed also obviously falls as a^-3/2, so this makes the effect of potential change even weaker for bigger orbits.
So yes, eccentricity is the main factor, and in this framework (where only radial field is considered) orbits with smaller semi-major axes would experience even higher voltage differentials. However, relative potential change (in terms of a ratio of change) is equal to 2e/(1-e) and is independent of the orbit size.

Thank you for pointing me on that.

Great, so plug in your numbers and see if that agrees with the data that we have.

 

[Reality Check]

Questions, questions, questions ...

I know that the cartoon that so far is a lie about the science is [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_382365493ec146d088.jpg[/qimg]

Followed by Haig: the delusions in Newton’s Electric Clockwork Solar System by Wal Thornhil !

Wal Thornhill lying about source of his cartoon is not a joke, Haig. That cartoon is not the image in "[6] Planet’s tail of the unexpected, New Scientist, 31 May 1997, p. 18.".
Wal Thornhill lying about the science is not a joke, Haig - there are no "Birkeland currents stretching between Venus and the Earth"
Wal Thornhill lying about a "cometary plasma sheath" is not a joke, Haig - Venus is not a comet ! This is a planetary ionosphere tail.

You are correct as I fixed in a later post:

This sounds like the 1996 discovery that SOHO could detect plasma from Venus with the still unverified speculation that it could be from the occasional ionosphere tail that Venus has.
The tail of Venus (January 29, 2013).

The problem is that (and his cartoon!) exposes Wal Thornhill's statement that the ionosphere extends to Earth as wrong. SOHO is at the L1 point, not on the surface of Earth or in orbit around the Earth. L1 is 1.5 million kilometers from Earth as shown by the gap in the image and the cartoon.

The New Scientist article speculates that this "tail" could reach the Earth. I have no problem with this.

 

[Reality Check]

Mmmmm.....seems we have a failure to communicate!

Mmmmm... seems we have you confirming that there is no failure to agree but a failure of you writing a coherent post Sol88 !

Our agreement can be stated in a simple paragraph:

On comet Tempel 1 we have the detection of surface and subsurface water ice. There is not enough surface ice to explain the amount of outgassing water thus the source is the subsurface water ice​

There is the evidence of Jet activity on the cliffs of comet 9P/Tempel 1 that you do not fully understand. These are icy cliffs. There is no evidence that I know of that these are water ice cliffs.

There is the idiocy of a single 2014 "rocky like but still not rock" statement about 67P being applied to 2006 observations of Tempel 1 !

You ignorantly go on about the detection of some minerals formed inner solar system which has nothing to do with the detection of surface and subsurface water ice or water vapor in jets, Sol88.

Surface ice but no surface ice (or subsurface) and rocky like but with the signature of rock

It looks like your "confusion" has turned into lying, Sol88:
* You have cited the detection of both surface water ice and subsurface water ice on Tempel 1.
* The signature of rock is measurements of the density and composition of rock thus "signature of rock" is a lie for comet nuclei. It is a partially right if you are talking about dust particles but you ignore all of the ice particles and gases. Oddly enough ice and gasses are not rock !

 

[Reality Check]

Gezz Ziggurat, Sure there is a reason and that reason is that the Ancients referred mainly to Saturn, Jupiter, Venus, Mars, Earth, Mercury and the Moon in their myths, stories, saga's and religious text's.

Could it be actually because Thunderbolts are lying about "the Ancients referred mainly to Saturn, Jupiter, Venus, Mars, Earth, Mercury and the Moon in their myths, stories, saga's and religious text's" and you are blindly parroting their lies, Haig ?
They need to back up the mainly assertion. There are a lot of myths, stories, sagas and religious texts that do not refer to any of the planets. P.S. you missed out the Sun which is one of the 7 classical planets and included the Earth which is not a classical planet.

 

[Reality Check]

As a side note, I see the Rosetta blog is back up.

Rosetta Blog

Your first complaint is that a blog about science will not allow non-science comments, Sol88 !

Your second complaint is quoting a commenter in ALL CAPS complaining about OSIRIS images being kept "secret".

You then expose ignorance yet again about why the OSIRIS team has first use of the images - it is a reward for spending 20 years working to collect the images !

You end up with the paranoia implied in "What are they hiding?"

Very telling!

 

[Reality Check]

Your're right Sol88,...

Haig: Sol88's post is wrong in its hints of paranoia about results being hidden.
The reason that the scientific images are not publically available has been explained a few times and Sol88 (and you Haig?) still cannot grasp the concept of a reward for 20 years of hard work is getting first use of the data that your work made possible .

The delay points out a difference between science and delusion. The astronomers have not just scanned through the images and endlessly repeated the dogma of "looks like rock and so must be rock"! They are actually analyzing the data that makes up the images which takes time.