The Electric Comet theory

[Reality Check]

ETA RC

What is 2005 VX3's orbital period?

If you click on the link then you will see that it is 27,756.30 years.

ETA
While you are there click on the "show orbit diagram" link - it is kind of neat!

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Good to read that you're trying to clarify things solrey.

I'm puzzled about a few things though, perhaps you could explain?

I realize that my description of the stretched coma and tail, as well as the ionization sequence of OH^- was awkward, to say the least.
I'll try again.

First, the shells of the electro-magnetic environment

What does this mean?

are not to be confused with the visible dust shells which are the result of the off-gassing and dust from erosion being accelerated away from the points of discharge on the surface.

Is there any evidence that dust accelerates away from the surface of a comet?

Rotation of the comet swirls the stream around the nucleus as the outbound neg. ions in the coma mix with pos. ions moving towards the surface.

This seems another way of saying that there is a current between the nucleus and ... well, it's not clear what the other end of the current is, nor what drives it (the circuit must close somewhere) ...

The neg. ions give up electrons neutralizing the charge and decreasing the pos. potential of the highly ionized H⁺ ions that receive those electrons, on their way to electro-chemical reactions on, and near, the surface.

What are the electrons in the solar wind doing?

Also, an H⁺ ion is a proton; once it combines with an electron it becomes neutral; there is only one charge a proton can have, unlike the ionised form of other atoms (which have more than one electron to lose), so what do you mean by "highly ionized"?

The solar plasma stream flows from the pos. potential at the Sun outward to the relatively neg. potential at the heliopause.

Now I'm getting quite confused.

What evidence is there that the Sun is at a different potential than the heliopause?

The high velocity flow of strong pos. ionized particles drags the neg. and neutral atoms and molecules from the coma with them, while the voltage potential stretches the DL shells out to a teardrop configuration. The filaments and fans are field aligned currents in a dusty plasma.

Isn't the solar wind a plasma? If so, how can any charged particle in it respond to a non-zero charge more than a Debye length or so from it?

Is there any evidence that the kind of particle transport you describe can happen, a lab experiment say?

 

[tusenfem]

While it doesn't mention comets, there is a list of literature on double layers, even a list on multiple double layers, at the end of the following presentation.
Multiple Double Layers in Laboratory Experiments Relevant for Space Plasma Phenomena.

phys.uit.no/IPELS05/Talks&posters/Monday/SchrittwieserIPELS%208%20InvLect.pps


Generation and Dynamics of Multiple Double Layers in Plasma.

epsppd.epfl.ch/Roma/pdf/P4_011.pdf

Whether you think they apply to comets or not, this has all been in reply to the following statement:

What you seem to forget is that this "double layer" would be perpendicular to the piled up magnetic field. That is rather hard to achieve.

 

[solrey]

RealityCheck, your statements on eccentricity are simply your interpretation of a theory that you seem to know little about, and believe in even less.
No one involved with EC theory has ever set limits on eccentricity.

Consistently bringing up your interpretation of density and eccentricity issues are merely red-herrings that in no way falsify the EC theory, sorry.


Tusenfem, It's my understanding that the DL sheaths are perpendicular to the direction of particle flow. Introducing a magnetic field affects the direction of particle flow, thus the orientation of the sheaths. In the case of the comet, the particle flow is perpendicular to the surface therefore the sheaths will be perpendicular to this flow, thus parallel to the surface.


deirendopa, you're right about H⁺ ions, I know, one electron, and there are more than just hydrogen ions in the solar plasma stream. I should have said as a whole, the bulk ionization is slightly neutralized as the particles flow to the surface.
Interesting discoveries about ion drag and Debye length:
arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0411021

At the moment there is a controversy about the ion drag force: the model by Barnes et al. assumes that “... no ion interaction with the particles occurs outside of a Debye length” according to the standard Coulomb scattering theory. However, in complex plasmas the range of the ion-microparticle interaction is usually larger than the Debye screening length. Hence standard Coluomb scattering theory is not applicable.
As shown by Khrapak et al. this fact can lead to a strong enhancement of the ion drag force compared to the model by Barnes. Investigating the trajectories of particles falling through a rf discharge plasma, Zafiu et al. concluded that the ion drag force is given by Barnes’ formula if the electron Debye length is used there. However, in a bulk plasma with a subthermal ion drift velocity the Debye length is usually given by the ion Debye length leading to a significantly smaller ion drag force using Barnes’ formula.

So basically Barnes formula is accurate vs. experiment if the electron Debye length is plugged into the formula, as opposed to the, commonly expressed, ion Debye length, which yields a solution of < vs. experiment. Interesting that ion drag would have an electron Debye length component, which makes sense considering that a ⁺ ion wants to have it's vacant electron shell(s) repopulated.

Considering the heliosphere as a quasi-neutral dusty plasma, the plasma near the sun has a greater ⁺ charge density, which decreases with distance as particles collide and neutralize, thus producing a voltage potential between the sun and heliosheath. Full blown EU theory expands on this and says that the heliosheath is also a plasma Double Layer, the inner layer (sun side) of ^- charge, the outer layer (galaxy side) of ⁺ charge providing a voltage potential between the Sun and inner layer of the heliosheath.
I think Alfven was spot-on when he said that DL's should be treated as their own cosmological phenomena, and that we should see them everywhere.

 

[Reality Check]

RealityCheck, your statements on eccentricity are simply your interpretation of a theory that you seem to know little about, and believe in even less.
No one involved with EC theory has ever set limits on eccentricity.

Then correct me.
What is the actual EC critera that distinguishes between a rock and a comet (aside from the obvious coma and tail!).

If the EC idea is so primitive that it cannot distinguish between a rock and a comet then it is fairly useless.


Just using eccentricity is a bit simplistic. I should also add in perihelion distance (maybe within Jupiter's orbit).

• There are 459,893 asteroids with eccentricities greater than 0.0279.
• They have a variety of perihelion distances.
• They have a variety of other properties (mass, composition, inclination, etc.).
• Thus many of them should be comets according to the EC idea.
• But they are not.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

RealityCheck, your statements on eccentricity are simply your interpretation of a theory that you seem to know little about, and believe in even less.
No one involved with EC theory has ever set limits on eccentricity.

Consistently bringing up your interpretation of density and eccentricity issues are merely red-herrings that in no way falsify the EC theory, sorry.

[...]

(bold added)

solrey, are you using "theory" to mean a scientific theory (as in, for example, special theory of relativity)? If not, then what do you mean; perhaps something like a common synonym for "guess" or "speculation"?

If, perchance, you do mean scientific theory, may I ask where this theory has been published?

[...]

Considering the heliosphere as a quasi-neutral dusty plasma, the plasma near the sun has a greater + charge density, which decreases with distance as particles collide and neutralize, thus producing a voltage potential between the sun and heliosheath.

I have no idea what this means; can you clarify please?

Specifically, what does "the plasma near the sun has a greater + charge density" mean?

And after you've explained what it means, would you please say a few words about why?

Full blown EU theory expands on this and says that the heliosheath is also a plasma Double Layer, the inner layer (sun side) of - charge, the outer layer (galaxy side) of + charge providing a voltage potential between the Sun and inner layer of the heliosheath.

[...]

(bold added)

As JREF Forum members have learned, there is no such thing as an "EU theory", in the scientific sense (would you like some material on that?), so I guess this is just wild speculation, right?

Thanks for the other material, I'll take a careful look at it later.

 

[Reality Check]

I think Alfven was spot-on when he said that DL's should be treated as their own cosmological phenomena, and that we should see them everywhere.

Thanks for the reminder.
Debye Length

Hannes Alfven pointed out that: "In a low density plasma, localized space charge regions may build up large potential drops over distances of the order of some tens of the Debye lengths. Such regions have been called electric double layers. An electric double layer is the simplest space charge distribution that gives a potential drop in the layer and a vanishing electric field on each side of the layer. In the laboratory, double layers have been studied for half a century, but their importance in cosmic plasmas has not been generally recognized.".

(emphasis added)

The Debye length of the solar wind is about 10 metres. Some tens of the Debye lengths in the solar wind is at most 1000 metres. This suggests that the transition layers mentioned in tusenfem's post about Comet Halley comet are unlikely to be DLs.

 

[solrey]

OK, hypothesis.

RealityCheck, I was talking previously about ion-drag, of which Debye length of the solar plasma stream is a function, yes.
Debye length as related to DL's, however, is affected by a number of variables. The paper referenced below, in particular, is applicable to the EC hypothesis, in regards to the comet being an electrode (cathode), in a complex, dusty plasma with a DC bias (the sun). The RF modulation in the experiment is analogous to the RF band of EM waves that permeate the solar system. Note how increases in DC bias (voltage), result in corresponding increases in sheath thickness, and distance from electrode (radius of DL from surface). Take into consideration that just cloud to ground voltage potential in a thunderstorm is on the order of 10⁹V and the fact that the voltage potential a comet experiences, would be orders of magnitude higher.

Relationship Between the DC Bias and Debye Length in a Complex Plasma.
arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0701063

This next paper illustrates some interesting diversions from Child-Langmuir law that could be applicable if we consider the comet to be in a similar condition as that described in a weakly collisional plasma (solar wind stream of <10 protons/cm³
Sheath Thickness Evaluation for Collisionless or Weakly Collisional Bounded Plasmas
minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/handle/1793/10932/file_1.pdf?sequence=1

 

[Reality Check]

Take into consideration that just cloud to ground voltage potential in a thunderstorm is on the order of 10⁹V and the fact that the voltage potential a comet experiences, would be orders of magnitude higher.

Can you give a citation for "the fact that the voltage potential a comet experiences, would be orders of magnitude higher"?
Since it is a fact you must have actual measurements of the voltage potential between a comet and something else acting as a cloud (the coma?).

 

[Sol88]

Hints:
What is a "rock" in the EC universe?
What does comparing a comet to an asteroid really mean in the EC universe?

Rock is what "we" all call rock, rock

In geology, rock is a naturally occurring solid aggregate of minerals and/or mineraloids.

LINK

And as solrey said , hi solrey , density is not as important in EU as it is under the current mainstream understanding!

e.g. they are not fluffysnowballs, or highly porous dirtyiceballs

 

[Reality Check]

Rock is what "we" all call rock, rock LINK

And as solrey said , hi solrey , density is not as important in EU as it is under the current mainstream understanding!

e.g. they are not fluffysnowballs, or highly porous dirtyiceballs

In geology, rock is a naturally occurring solid aggregate of minerals and/or mineraloids

(emphasis added)
The defect in the density point is that you do know know what the the EC authors actually state. Read a certain book advertisement site sometime.
Asteroid Itokawa

In the electric model comets, asteroids, and meteorites originated in either the same or similar events. The model thus predicts that, as we come to learn more about comets and asteroids, we will see that their compositional types match those of meteorites, a class of objects that has been well studied.

Predictions on “Deep Impact”

Intermittent and wandering arcs erode the surface and burn it black, leaving the distinctive scarring patterns of electric discharge. The primary distinction between a comet and an asteroid is that, due to its elliptical orbit, electrical arcing and “electrostatic cleaning” will clean the nucleus’ surface, leaving little or no dust or debris on it.

(Google +site:thunderbolts.info +comet +rock +asteroid to get 554 results)

Comets have measured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids)

The electric comet idea states that comets are rocky bodies like asteroids.
For some reason EC proponents cannot grasp that the measured density of comet nuclei is ~0.6 g/cc, the measured density of asteroids is ~3.0 g/cc and that 0.6 is less than 3.0 .
They tend to reply by asserting the methods used to calculate the density of comets are flawed in some unknown way.

So here is one method that is used for both comets and asteroids or any planetary body.

Firstly calculate the mass of the body:

1. Measure the orbit of the body around the Sun to determine its semi-major axis (a) and period (P).
2. Plug this into Kepler's third law to get the mass (usually as a ratio to a known mass).

Next calculate the volume of the body. For closer bodies you can just look in a telescope. For further bodies you can measure radii as the body occludes stars.

Divide the mass by the volume to get the density.

A method for comets:
Jets observed to come from comets alter their orbits. This is the same physics used in rockets - throw mass away and the reaction will push the comet the other way.
This can be used to calculate their masses, e.g. see "Cometary masses derived from non-gravitational forces" by Sosa & Fernandez, 2009.

For the Tempel 1 comet:
The Deep Impact mission crashed an impactor into the nucleus of Tempel 1. The ejecta from this impact was used to calculate the mass of Tempel 1.
See "A ballistics analysis of the Deep Impact ejecta plume: Determining Comet Tempel 1's gravity, mass, and density" by Richardson, et al., 2007.

For a more general paper: "Size Distribution, Structure and Density of Cometary Nuclei" by Weissman & Lowry, 2006.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

OK, hypothesis.

[...]

No, it's not one of those either.

At least, not in the sense that "hypothesis" is used in science today (and this is, after all, the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology part of the JREF Forum).

Perhaps idea?

 

[solrey]

Since it is a fact you must have actual measurements of the voltage potential between a comet and something else acting as a cloud (the coma?).

My original statement was thus:

Take into consideration that just cloud to ground voltage potential in a thunderstorm is on the order of 109V and the fact that the voltage potential a comet experiences, would be orders of magnitude higher.

Note the qualifier, would, which I used intentionally. Not IS.
Regardless, the answer is that a DC electric field has been measured, as related below, but I don't have numbers on the exact strength of that field.

Based upon the behavior of the electric fields and the cold electrons, three regions can be identified in the cometosheath (in particular during the Vega 1 approach): transition layers are passed through at ∼780,000 km (R 1) and ∼360,000 km (R 2). The outer cometosheath (near and beyond R 1) is characterized by large-scale variations in the cold electron density and the electric field, peaking at ∼1 mHz. The R 2 crossing is detected in the plasma wave data as enhanced fluctuations at ∼15 mHz. About 25,000 km downstream of R 2, the spacecraft traverses a current layer (thickness ∼10,000 km) indicated by a sharp gradient in the dc electric field and the cold electron density.

RealityCheck, any random group of rocky bodies can have a wide range of densities. You keep coming back to the same red herrings, which seems to be a result of a very simplistic view of the EC hypothesis specifically, and of the related geology/chemistry/physics in general.

Yeah, EC is at least a hypothesis, deirendopa.
From the American Heritage Science Dictionary, 2005 ed.

A theory is a set of statements, including laws and hypotheses, that explains a group of observations or phenomena in terms of those laws and hypotheses. A theory thus accounts for a wider variety of events than a law does. Broad acceptance of a theory comes when it has been tested repeatedly on new data and been used to make accurate predictions. Although a theory generally contains hypotheses that are still open to revision, sometimes it is hard to know where the hypothesis ends and the law or theory begins.

From Collins Essential English:

Hypothesis
A suggested explanation for a group of facts, accepted either as a basis for further verification or as likely to be true

Now we're down to debating symantics? Hmmmmmmm.


HI sol88.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

Yeah, EC is at least a hypothesis, deirendopa.
From the American Heritage Science Dictionary, 2005 ed.



From Collins Essential English:




Now we're down to debating symantics? Hmmmmmmm.

[...]

Perhaps ...

... perhaps not.

In terms of how the speech community which is comprised of scientists (or at least physical science professioinals), "hypothesis" has a clear meaning, and from what you have presented so far in this thread, the EC idea most definitely is NOT a hypothesis! Among other things, AFAIK, there are no papers describing it (as in, published in relevant peer-reviewed journals); absent such papers, whatever it is, it CANNOT be a hypothesis (or a theory, or ...).

BTW, dictionaries and the like are fine at a coarse level, but as linguists have known for decades, specific speech communities make much finer distinctions, and within those communities, the fine distinctions matter a great deal!

Of course, here in the SMM&T section of the JREF Forum, the question of whether to use "hypothesis" or "idea" basically comes down to how effective you want to be at communicating your thoughts to readers here. I suggest to you that deliberately choosing a word which is manifestly inappropriate (to your intended audience) is counterproductive, in terms of being effective in communication.

Just my €0.02's worth ...

 

[solrey]

Hey deirendopa. Yes, I'm aware that broad definitions are narrowed down more specifically within a given discipline, or body of knowledge.

I define the EC as a hypothesis because it entails numerous individual processes that when combined, explain a particular complex system, or phenomena. It is testable, has a body of supporting evidence (some of which I have elucidated here), observations that fit the model (regardless if other explanations already exist), requires further investigation, both in the form of lab work and detailed, in-situ confirmation, and there is room for modification of various aspects within the model, if new evidence requires it, while remaining within the constraints, or reasonable margin of error, of the original hypothesis.

I feel that just calling EC an idea is an attempt to; demean and discredit as simplistic, a complex hypothesis and those who believe in it's validity.
If you choose to call a model that involves complex details in geology, chemistry, electro-magnetism and magnetohydrodynamics, merely an idea, then I suppose that's your choice.

I'm not saying symantics and proper terminology aren't important or necessary in science, of course they are.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Hey deirendopa. Yes, I'm aware that broad definitions are narrowed down more specifically within a given discipline, or body of knowledge.

I define the EC as a hypothesis because it entails numerous individual processes that when combined, explain a particular complex system, or phenomena.

OK

It is testable, has a body of supporting evidence (some of which I have elucidated here), observations that fit the model (regardless if other explanations already exist),

That may be so, however, AFAIK, none of this has been written up in the form of a paper, and published.

For example, the plausibility of a motley collection of stuff, strung together by nothing more than words (i.e. no apparent attempts at back-of-the-envelope consistency checks) is, I'm sure you'll agree, quite low in the eyes of regulars of an avowedly pro-critical thinking forum; a single paper would change that perception quickly.

requires further investigation, both in the form of lab work and detailed, in-situ confirmation, and there is room for modification of various aspects within the model, if new evidence requires it, while remaining within the constraints, or reasonable margin of error, of the original hypothesis.

Little, if any, of which has been presented here (AFAIK).

For example, within a few years' time, we will likely have some high quality, in situ, quantitative data from the Rosetta mission. Yet, AFAIK, little if any of that data could be used to test any EC ideas ... if only because virtually none of those ideas have been written up as testable hypotheses (again, apart from anything else, there's nothing quantitative about any EC ideas).

I feel that just calling EC an idea is an attempt to; demean and discredit as simplistic, a complex hypothesis and those who believe in it's validity.

I can't say what your feelings might, or might be; however, I can point out a likely, common, reaction that regulars here will have to "hypothesis" vs "idea".

For example, in an earlier post you directly linked "EC theory" to "full-blown EU theory" (or something like that). A more certain way to declare that "EC theory" is pure crackpottery would be hard to imagine, given the contents of several threads here ... and it matters not a jot how unfair, unreasonable, unjust, etc you may feel such a response would be.

If you choose to call a model that involves complex details in geology, chemistry, electro-magnetism and magnetohydrodynamics, merely an idea, then I suppose that's your choice.

It ain't a model neither!

As I have said, at least once now, there are no numbers ... goodness, there aren't even outlines of possible (electro-)chemical reactions (and "electro-magnetism" may be another red flag; you used this word before - "the shells of the electromagnetic environment" - to refer to something which only you seem to know about).

I'm not saying symantics and proper terminology aren't important or necessary in science, of course they are.

And I'm not saying there's nothing to this EC idea, of course there may be.

However, I'm trying to suggest (nothing more) that you may be making presentation of your ideas more difficult to follow (let alone accept) by using standard words (as used by your target audience) in non-standard ways.

 

[solrey]

In an acid-base neutralization reaction,
– H+ from acid reacts with the OH– from base → water, H2O
– The cation (M+) from base combines with anion from acid (X–) → the salt

HX(aq) + BOH(aq) → H2O(l) + BX(aq)
acid base water salt
Note: -An acid will always react with a base to produce water and a salt.
– It does not matter if the salt produced is soluble or insoluble since water always forming means a reaction always occurs.

Hmmmmm, could I just maybe know what I'm talking about here?
seattlecentral.edu/faculty/mvillarba/CHEM139/Chapter08.pdf
pg. 9

In the case of the comet, we're dealing with a gaseous solution instead of an aqueous one, but the chemistry remains the same as it's only H⁺ and OH^- (from the mineral base) that are involved in the reaction.

The next reaction in the chain is the electro-chemical reaction between the mineral salts and H₂O

The next reaction that would occur is when that water then reacts with free electrons, liberated from the surface, within the electric field of the discharge current. Mineral salts in the dust and flakes etched from the surface are probably involved in this reaction. The cathode reaction is:
2H2O + 2e- -> 2OH- + H2

That's one key reaction chain. I see several others that could apply to comets as well, in the above pdf., primarily the H₂O produced by a Hydrogen - Oxygen reaction either thermally induced (burning in the heat of the discharge on the surface) or catalytically (analogous to the catalytic reaction in a hydrogen fuel cell).

I have confirmed the proposed composition of a semi-conducting rock via comparison with the material analyzed in the stardust mission and all of the necessary materials are present.

I have analyzed and presented citations confirming the chemical/electro-chemical reaction chains.

I have reviewed the measured EM environment ( of one comet at least ) and compared it to laboratory research involving multiple double layers, ion-drag effects, as well as radius and thickness of the DL sheaths.
I'll hopefully get around to doing the math as applies to comets, but I'm afraid that insufficient data is available for some critical variables so I'm going to have to make some educated guesses, I suppose.


But hey, it's just an "idea"...right?

 

[solrey]

deirendopa, thank you for the friendly suggestions and advice.
I take it as valuable, constructive feedback.

 

[Reality Check]

RealityCheck, any random group of rocky bodies can have a wide range of densities. You keep coming back to the same red herrings, which seems to be a result of a very simplistic view of the EC hypothesis specifically, and of the related geology/chemistry/physics in general.

solrey, I keep on returning to the physical facts.
Comets have a range of measured densities centered around ~0.6 g/cc.
Asteroids have a range of measured densities centered around ~3 g/cc.
Any random group of comets have a different density from any random group of asteroids.
Thus comets are not asteroids.

This is a result of the many simplistic assertions on the EC web site that state that the EC "model" includes comets are asteroids.

 

[solrey]

realitycheck, have you reviewed my comments regarding Main Belt Comets and localized perturbations to their EM/chemical environment initiating a cometary phase or display? Or remember that I've been saying that all densities are valid within the EC?

Just for the sake of discussion, to consider a comet of ~ 0.6 g/cm³, of similar material as revealed in Stardust, fits easily within EC, as a factor of porosity.
It's that simple.

It's not worth dwelling on, really.

Tomaytow, tomahhtow...whaddya do?