The Electric Comet theory

[Reality Check]

Where exactly does it say (as you claim) "Electrical discharges have the sane charge and so the electric comet idea predicts that jets will not merge" in ANY EU / PC source ?

There will be no such claim from ANY EU / PC source, Haig, because they are ignorant about electromagnetisms and even their own delusions !

They have an undetected solar electric field charging up comets. That charge by definition is one charge - if it was both the comet would be neutral !
Then there are electrical discharges from the surface to somewhere (the coma?). These will be flows of the same charge, e.g. electrons. Like charges repel, Haig!

That FINE STRUCTURE IN THE COMET’S JETS does not support the scientific model of comets is a lie. The scientists are talking about the scientific model of comets where jets are created by sublimation of ices.

Very telling comments, e.g.

Prof Harvey Rutt says:
The comet's gravity is minute and the escape velocity very low. A very gentle jump would give you escape velocity.
The dust particles are accelerated by gas, mainly water vapour, ablating from the comet as it warms up. Very quickly as they move away from the comet the gas density falls to very low values, and the dust particle just keeps going. The gas itself is largely invisible. You have to be very careful about any sort of intuitive or 'common sense' interpretation of what you see; conditions on 67P are so radically different to what we are used to.
Others will doubtless tell you the jets are the result of electrical discharges. The mainstream physics community regards this as utter nonsense.

(my emphasis added)
Obviously he does not know that the electric comet idea is based on the delusion of planets colliding and so is beyond nonsense !

 

[Reality Check]

Thunderbolts authors state that they have been fooled by Velikovsky's delusion

Visible Jet Sources!
COMET ON 10 JANUARY 2015 – NAVCAM

Yes Visible Jet Sources!, Haig!
Interesting to see the ignorance of the fact that the source of jets on 67P is known to be on both lobes and the neck

Interesting to get another deluded Thunderbolts video link from you, Haig. Rosetta Mission Update | 67P—The Violent Birth of a Comet

The electric comet idea forces us to consult the astronomical testimony of our earlier forebears, where independent accounts, told with different words and different symbols in different parts of the world, convey a story of planetary catastrophe.

The Thunderbolts authors explicitly state that they have gone off the deep end into the 1950's Velikovsky's delusion about worlds colliding based on myths.

 

[Reality Check]

Oh Dear...

Wrong, Haig - it is not up to us to support the electric comet delusion. It is up to those gullible enough to believe in the electric comet delusion to support it with science.
Linking to deluded Thunderbolts YouTube videos (about Mars this time) yet again does not make the electric comet delusion any better.

 

[Reality Check]

As I understand the mainstream view on comet jets they think they are a supersonic jet of gas and dust. So why would that NOT just fan out in the vacuum of space ?

Do you think that 67P is the only comet that we have ever observed, Haig .
This fanning out of comet jets has been seen on every comet that we have looked at.
Now we have close up and detailed images of the quite strangely shaped 67P and see that on 67P there are jets that look like smaller jets are merging. That this is e/m is delusional because all that is happening is that gas is escaping from the comet. It may be hydrodynamic - my first thought was some kind of effect from close together jets. People who actually know science called astronomers are studying the image data and applying valid science to formulate credible mechanisms to explain this.

There is no point in trying to explain science to you, Haig - over 4 years of persisting in ignorance and denial about comets shows that you are not willing to learn. The continued citation of Thunderbolts delusions hints that you are not even willing to apply what basic science you must know to their delusions about planets colliding.

 

[Dancing David]

And: don't electrical discharges seek out the protruding points on an object, not the deepest pockets?

What? try to reason with an EC troll?

 

[Andy_Ross]

As I understand the mainstream view on comet jets they think they are a supersonic jet of gas and dust. So why would that NOT just fan out in the vacuum of space ? And, why should a supersonic jet of gas and dust stay collimated and interact with other jets ?

Why would they not stay collimated? what would make the particals in the jets change direction?

Rocket exhaust in a vacuum stays collimated.

 

[Reality Check]

And, why should a supersonic jet of gas and dust stay collimated and interact with other jets ?

And where is your citation to the science that comet jets do not interact, Haig?
We actually have images of jets on 67P interacting and merging !
Jets are fans of gas that get thinner the further you go from their centerline. Jets that are close together would be expected to interact. The surprise on 67P is that interaction causes them to merge.

 

[Cygnus_X1]

Oh Sorry, I misunderstood you. You have the data from:

1. Ion Composition Analyser (ICA)
2. Ion and Electron Sensor (IES)
3. Langmuir Probe (LAP)
4. Fluxgate Magnetometer (MAG)
5. Mutual Impedance Probe (MIP),

Instruments ?????




Please, share the data from the first probe to orbit a comet with the rest of us mortals.


Some pretty picture from the OSIRIS camera would also be quite nice.

So let me get this straight.

You're advocating a charge and electric field system that spans at least from the solar photosphere to at least the heliopause, sufficient to possibly power most, if not all, of the Sun's power output in photons, and you are claiming

1) this electric field system extending across billions of kilometers has no influence on the motion of planets and comets (all claimed to be carrying significant electric charge), whose orbits we've been monitoring and measuring from Earth-based observatories for several hundred years;

2) this electric field system extending across billions of kilometers has no influence on the motion of charged particles (electrons and ions) in the solar wind, which we have been monitoring from space-based instruments for over fifty years.

So the EU model can show NO MEASURABLE EFFECT that can distinguish it from the standard model which handles this data quite well, enough for us to accurately send missions to planets, asteroids, and comets.

By implication, you are also claiming that ALL the evidence of this humongous electric system is somehow confined to the region being monitored by the Rosetta mission in a region only a few hundred (at most) kilometers across?

Fine.

Just waiting for some researcher to state in a report or press release that they found evidence of an electric field, or some measurement which they cannot (yet) explain then crying THIS BE PROOF OF ELECTRIC COMETS is pretty weak evidence for ECH. It's not that different from the psychological games and ambiguous 'predictions' made by tabloid psychics and cold readers.

The standard model predicts a number of *local* electric fields around an icy, dusty object like a comet nucleus due to photoionization from solar UV photons, and charge exchange, electron impact, etc. from the solar wind, many of these documented by myself and others in this thread. Those researchers can actually demonstrate these local process can produce a field up to a couple thousand volts that doesn't need EU's monster electric fields at all.

Then you should be willing to predict a range of actual data values ECH predicts for your aforementioned instrument measurements, and of course how you obtain those estimates and their relationship to other requirements (charged sun and planets) required by EU.

That's the standard that REAL scientists have to meet, but EU 'theorists' have yet to meet.

 

[tusenfem]

Then you should be willing to predict a range of actual data values ECH predicts for your aforementioned instrument measurements, and of course how you obtain those estimates and their relationship to other requirements (charged sun and planets) required by EU.

That's the standard that REAL scientists have to meet, but EU 'theorists' have yet to meet.

It is always easier to just tell people (experts) they are wrong, than actually show that you are right.

 

[Cygnus_X1]

It is always easier to just tell people (experts) they are wrong, than actually show that you are right.

Will Sol88, like virtually all EU supporters, continue to invoke every comment of a surprising observation from scientists in a press release as evidence for EU and falsification of the standard comet model, while completely ignoring the THOUSANDS of correct predictions by researchers that made it possible for the mission to get there in the first place?

EU supporters can't even use the 'standard' model to design a trajectory to rendezvous with a comet, much less design one based on their claimed solar system filled with large electric fields and charges.

In regards to the 'scale' of what it takes to falsify a theory, I remember a great quote from cosmologist David Schramm:
"Those how argue that problems in galaxy formation are evidence against Big Bang cosmology are essentially arguing that problems in understanding tornado formation are evidence Earth isn't round."

 

[Sol88]

a 2013 paper on the collimation of the jets of comet borrelli www.planetary.brown.edu/pdfs/4623.pdf

From the paper above:

The results of this work rely on a time-dependent, dynamic
view of jet activity, in which discrete active areas may evolve on
relatively short time scales, rather than remaining unchanged for
several apparitions. Time-resolved data of activity on Comet 67P/
Churyumov-Gerasimenko from the Rosetta Mission (Glassmeier
et al., 2007; Colangeli et al., 2007; Kissel et al., 2007) should provide
new clues to the role of time-dependent versus steady-state
solutions for the formation of narrow dust jets.

SO again we, as in the royal we, are waiting for the data from Rosetta in particular the OSIRIS images.

Nice find on the paper Tusenfem! Bodes well for the ELECTRIC COMET and has major issues with surface/subsurface sublimation of ice!!!

for instance:

Our numerical simulations suggest that the collimation mechanism
requires a relatively narrow vent or hole. Emission from a
flat patch of ice on the nucleus surface results in only diffuse
activity.

And then maintains that collimation over distances upto 3.8 AU (570 million km / 360 million miles)

 

[tusenfem]

And then maintains that collimation over distances upto 3.8 AU (570 million km / 360 million miles)

Sheesh!
Who woudda thunk Sol88 would know the difference between a surface jet and a cometary magnetotail.
Probably nobody, so we have confirmed our expectations.

 

[Sol88]

Sheesh!
Who woudda thunk Sol88 would know the difference between a surface jet and a cometary magnetotail.
Probably nobody, so we have confirmed our expectations.

So the surface jets ends ....@x and the cometary magnetotail starts...@y, Tusenfem????

because if we are getting down to nails mainstream make a distinction and the EU nutters don't!

One's a continuum the others two different processes!

 

[Sol88]

So let me get this straight.


Snippyed snip....




Then you should be willing to predict a range of actual data values ECH predicts for your aforementioned instrument measurements, and of course how you obtain those estimates and their relationship to other requirements (charged sun and planets) required by EU.

That's the standard that REAL scientists have to meet, but EU 'theorists' have yet to meet.

And there you have the crux of the problem, Cygnus X-1.

The data comes back, doesn't agree with the model so therefore the data is incorrect so add something hidden to save the model....dark matter and dark energy!!!

Never question the model, I repeat, never question the model....but the Esa have opened the data, when released, to the public and then cut it off....why????

because it does not agree with the Whippleites dirtysnowball model!!!

And the data, we are all waiting for, does not fit with the model and your out of fudge factors...= egg on face!

No subsurface ice reservoirs, no surface ice and definitely not Reality Checks, boulders of icy dust!!

 

[tusenfem]

So the surface jets ends ....@x and the cometary magnetotail starts...@y, Tusenfem????

because if we are getting down to nails mainstream make a distinction and the EU nutters don't!

One's a continuum the others two different processes!

Really, if you have to ask questions like this, it is hopeless to start giving answers.

 

[Dancing David]

Blather, rinse, repeat

Sol88, you have yet to present any evidence and data.

 

[Sol88]

Really, if you have to ask questions like this, it is hopeless to start giving answers.

So you have no idea?

What keeps the jets collimated?

I would like to hear your view, Tusenfem, for all the non plasma scientist peeps reading the thread.

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88 does not know the difference between comet jets and tails

because if we are getting down to nails mainstream make a distinction and the EU nutters don't!

You are getting it, Sol88: The EU proponents are nutters because they display ignorance about astronomy and still make up fantasies about astronomy !

Here is a paper about comet jets: Geologic control of jet formation on Comet 103P/Hartley 2
You state a fantasy about it applying to the electric comet delusion.
You go on to make that fantasy into a delusion through ignorance about comets (a link to a web page about comet tails).

 

[Sol88]

Blather, rinse, repeat

Sol88, you have yet to present any evidence and data.

Bit the same as mainstreams dogma of subsurface ice chambers!!!

No evidence just hand waving word salad

So bit like the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Reality Check]

And there you have the crux of the problem, Cygnus X-1.

No, Sol88, the crux of the problem is repeated statements of ignorance about science.
Established models are questioned all of the time in science. Sometimes they are overthrown and replaced by other models - think about guys called Bohr, Einstein, Hubble, Rutherford, Schrodinger, Wegener, etc. !

The other "crux of the problem" is that the replacement models are not "Worlds in Collision" delusions that go on to ignore reality (e.g. the measured density and composition of comets), Sol88.