The Electric Comet theory

[Haig]

Ah! So Haig you think this paper has any EU/PC non-science in it without even reading it?

Not really but it does move away from the magnetic reconnection notion of what drives solar flares and CME etc. Also they discuss EMF which is a better explanation for the acceleration of the solar wind.

It is obviously abut solar magnetic flux ropes and the toroidal Lorentz hoop forces on them.
There is also the well known mainstream acceleration of particles by the magnetic fields (producing X-rays).

Yes, even NASA are talking about magnetic ropes connecting the Sun to the Earth and supplying the power to drive the Aurora. How do these magnetic ropes not dispensate, maybe they are really Birkland currents

But I do see where you got the idea that it does - there is a Thunderbolts forum post mentioning the paper.

Ah! you read Thunderbolts too ;-)

The author merely quotes the abstract and underlines that the paper is an alternative electromagnetic explanation to the magnetic reconnection theory.

Yes, I know but it's a big step away from the dead end of magnetic reconnection theory.

I hope that you are not one of the ignorant people that do not know the 0.6 is less that 3.0.

Hope not.

The application of the laws of electromagnetism (e.g. Maxwell's eqiuations) to physical situations.

Agreed, they should be applied more in astronomy.

To those who fight the never ending battle against crackpots like Sol88, Mozina, etc.:

Your patience and endurance are admirable. Without your efforts these people would likely influence some of the uninformed audience to believe their nonsense. The more the lay public understands the nature of true science, the better off is our whole society.
Thank you for your contributions to this forum.

Your entitled to your view but 60 years ago the scientific heretics pointed to the electromagnetic nature of our solar system. Today, the mainstream has dropped the sterile vacuum of space in favour of "space-weather" A rose by any other name .... Tomorrow, they may don more of the heretics clothes.

Why?

Well, I like to read for myself, if possible, before forming a view on something. Also, this paper, at least in the abstract, dismisses magnetic reconnection, which is a huge step towards EU/PC in my opinion.

What, quantitatively, is the nature of the Sun's electric field, sufficient and necessary for the electric comet idea to be consistent with all the relevant observations (of comets)?

See my post to DD.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]
[me: why (does the paper you cited seem like EU/PC stuff to many)?]

Well, I like to read for myself, if possible, before forming a view on something. Also, this paper, at least in the abstract, dismisses magnetic reconnection, which is a huge step towards EU/PC in my opinion.

I think you may not have understood what the paper - or even the abstract - actually says (in terms of plasma physics) ... it does not "dismiss magnetic reconnection", it merely says that such a process may not be necessary to account for certain observed phenomena.

If I may be so bold, I'd recommend that, if you are interested in this subject, you take some time and trouble to learn at least the basics of plasma physics. That should stand you in good stead when it comes to making informed judgements about what you read on the TB website, and what's posted here by the likes of tusenfem (an active researcher in space physics, who studied (got his PhD?) under Hannes Alfvén). It would also prevent you from writing comments that put you in the same class as the likes of Sol88, who are not only grossly ignorant of the relevant science, but apparently very proud of their ignorance.

[me: What, quantitatively, is the nature of the Sun's electric field, sufficient and necessary for the electric comet idea to be consistent with all the relevant observations (of comets)?]

See my post to DD.

Sorry, I read that reply, several times, and I could find nothing *quantitative* in it whatsoever.

Would you care to have another go at answering my question?

 

[Reality Check]

Not really but it does move away from the magnetic reconnection notion of what drives solar flares and CME etc. Also they discuss EMF which is a better explanation for the acceleration of the solar wind.

Wrong: They propose an alternative mechanism to the magnetic reconnection driving of CME only.

Yes, even NASA are talking about magnetic ropes connecting the Sun to the Earth and supplying the power to drive the Aurora. How do these magnetic ropes not dispensate, maybe they are really Birkland currents

No they are not:Birkland currents

Yes, I know but it's a big step away from the dead end of magnetic reconnection theory.

No I do not bother reading a non-science, crank web site. I do know how to use Google though .

Yes, I know but it's a big step away from the dead end of magnetic reconnection theory.

Magnetic reconnection theory is not dead. It is alive and kicking and being used in magnetic reconnection experiments around the world.

Hope not.

So you agree that: The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked!
Thta is great to know that you are capable of learning physics, unlike Sol88 and the other EU/PC proponents.

Agreed, they should be applied more in astronomy.

They are applied all the time in astronomy.

I think that you are parroting the EU/PC delusion that the "electro" part of "electromagnetic" is ignored or downplayed in astronomy. That is wrong as a simple literature search will show you.
There is a practical aspect though - magnetic fields are easier to detect than electric fields. So astronomers tend to describe observations that are electromagnetic in terms of the magnetic field. They know that this is equivalent to describing the observations in terms of electrical fields (so long as relativistic effects can be ignored) because an electrical field can be deduced from a magnetic field.

Your entitled to your view but 60 years ago the scientific heretics pointed to the electromagnetic nature of our solar system.

Wrong: The electromagnetic nature of our solar system has been well known for a centry or so as pointed to by scientists, e.g. since Birkeland showed that aurora were generated from the interaction between the solar wind and the Earth's magnetic field.

Today, the mainstream has dropped the sterile vacuum of space in favour of "space-weather"

Still wrong by many decades.

Well, I like to read for myself, if possible, before forming a view on something. Also, this paper, at least in the abstract, dismisses magnetic reconnection, which is a huge step towards EU/PC in my opinion.
See my post to DD.

The paper does not dissmiss magnetic reconnection.
Dismissing magnetic reconnection for a specific set of observed phenomena has nothing to do with the validity of EU/PC.

EU/PC has no validity. It is a collection of often mutually exclusive theories that are mostly wrong and differ according to which EU/PC proponent you talk to.

But we are derailing the thread which is about the electric comet idea.
I suggest you take the general EU/PC non-science stuff to one of the other threads on teh subject.

 

[Sol88]

Agian what are the bright "spots" on the surface of


Borrelly

Halley

Wild 2

Hartley 2

Temple 1

RC? DD? DieRD? TimT?

 

[Sol88]

Lets try -4000v LINK

-4000V? On the whole moon? Sol88, have you ever done anything with that number? I just did. Calculate how much energy is stored by the excess charge on a 4000V moon. It's about one kilojoule. It's not enough electrical energy to brew a cup of coffee. It's not enough energy to fire a camera flashbulb. It's about the energy you get from eating one Tic Tac.



Yes, tiny static amount of charge separation, creating barely any voltage, storing practically no energy, and (listen carefully) NOT DISCHARGING. These are static conditions.



Not if they're still in the diffusion situation that separated them to begin with. Anyway, if they DO "get back together", nothing happens. There's no energy there to do anything visible.

Now I remember why I had you on ignore for years, Sol88.

Mmmmm....don't know if that'd be correct, I'll do some more digging. I feel positive that the is more energy involed than that of a tic tak!!!

 

[Humanzee]

Lovely pics. Are they suppose to mean something to this lurker. Do they prove or show something relevent?

 

[Sol88]

Lovely pics. Are they suppose to mean something to this lurker. Do they prove or show something relevent?

Yes, the bright spots in mainstream think are "ice" are they???

 

[Perpetual Student]

I see we have another "looks like a bunny" scientist--wannabe here.

 

[Reality Check]

Agian what are the bright "spots" on the surface of


Borrelly
http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/comet_borrelly.jpg

Halley

http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/comethalley.jpg

Wild 2

http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/~dean/blog/wild2.jpg

Hartley 2

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/epoxi/20101104/hartley-2-slide.jpg

Temple 1

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0507/tempel1_its_mov.jpg

RC? DD? DieRD? TimT?

I know what they are not - anything contained in The totally stupid electric comet idea that has been debunked!, e.g. the physically impossible electrical discharges.
Thank you once again Sol88 for reminding the world how utterly insane the electric comment idea is.


As for the bright spots, I would guess:

• Sunlight reflecting from reflective surfaces like water ice.
• Some look like whiter material revealed by the jets.
• Others could be internal material deposited by the jets.
• Sunlight reflecting from vertical surfaces providing a contrast to the horizontal surface (Temple 1?)
• etc.

 

[Reality Check]

Yes, the bright spots in mainstream think are "ice" are they???

As far as I know surface ice has only been found on Tempel 1.
The bright spots in the various images probably have various causes.

This of course points out the idiocy of posting images without links back to the source. I suspect that the sources say exactly what the bright spots are.
Except the crackpot holoscience web site which will proabably spout their fantasies about what the bright spots are.

 

[Sol88]

I konw what they are not - anything contained in The totally stupid electric comet idea that has been debunked!
Thank you once again Sol88 for pointing out how utterly insane the electric comment idea is.

As for the bright spots, I would guess:

• Sunlight reflecting from reflective surfaces like water ice.
• Some look like whiter material revealed by the jets.
• Others could be internal material deposited by the jets.

"ice" it is then!

LINK

This image of the surface of comet Tempel 1 was taken about 20 seconds before Deep Impact's probe crashed into the comet at 10:52 p.m. Pacific time, July 3. This particular region contains the impact site.

The bright patches in the image may consist of very smooth and reflective material, the composition of which will be determined by Deep Impact's spectrometer. Dark areas are in shadow and provide information about surface topography. Higher terrain appears rough relative to lower areas that appear very smooth. Is this a layered surface? And how did the smooth regions form? These are some of the questions the science team plans to address.

This image was taken by the probe's impactor targeting sensor.

Did Deep Impact's spectrometer get that mystery sorted?

Looks like a bunny, walks like a bunny....

 

[Sol88]

As far as I know surface ice has only been found on Tempel 1.
The bright spots in the various images probably have various causes.

This of course points out the idiocy of posting images without links back to the source. I suspect that the sources say exactly what the bright spots are.
Except the crackpot holoscience web site which will proabably spout their fantasies about what the bright spots are.

Yes you are correct RC, they site does indeed say exactly what the bright spot are....they're bright spots and we dont know why they are there!!!

But the jets seem to issue from bright "spots"

 

[tusenfem]

Lovely pics. Are they suppose to mean something to this lurker. Do they prove or show something relevent?

Apparently, at least according to Sol88, the overexposed parts of those pictures show electrical discharges from negatively charged surface to negatively charged surface.

For people who really think, it is clear that the albedo of the surface is NOT uniform (why should it be) nor is the colour. To make things visible in the dark parts of the comet's nucleus one unfortunately needs to over expose the brighter parts.

 

[tusenfem]

Oh this is going to be so much fun when I start working on the magnetic field and plasma data from Rosetta in 2014 (ughhh so long still), with the satellite in orbit around Churyumov-Gerasimenko and the lander on the nucleus.

 

[Aitch]

Apparently, at least according to Sol88, the overexposed parts of those pictures show electrical discharges from negatively charged surface to negatively charged surface.

For people who really think, it is clear that the albedo of the surface is NOT uniform (why should it be) nor is the colour. To make things visible in the dark parts of the comet's nucleus one unfortunately needs to over expose the brighter parts.

Ah, so they've ruled out the possibility that it's the light from the welding torches of the NWO operatives who are weaponizing the comets ready for the next false flag operation, then?

 

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Haig View Post
Yes, even NASA are talking about magnetic ropes connecting the Sun to the Earth and supplying the power to drive the Aurora. How do these magnetic ropes not dispensate, maybe they are really Birkland currents

Originally Posted by Reality Check: No they are not:Birkland currents

What are they then?

 

[Sol88]

Apparently, at least according to Sol88, the overexposed parts of those pictures show electrical discharges from negatively charged surface to negatively charged surface.

For people who really think, it is clear that the albedo of the surface is NOT uniform (why should it be) nor is the colour. To make things visible in the dark parts of the comet's nucleus one unfortunately needs to over expose the brighter parts.

How much information can we pull from the whiteout areas? How many pixels can we gather some sort of picture from?

I mean, I zoom in on non whitearea and see dark and gray spots, in the whiteout, ZIP!

What there metallic mirrors or something down there?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I see we have another "looks like a bunny" scientist--wannabe here.

Actually, I don't think so.

AFAICS, Sol88 has not offered any interpretation of images! Instead, he has asked what certain features he sees on those images are ... with the implication that because there is no good answer from the scientists who study comets, then the electric comet idea MUST be right! IOW, the logical fallacy called false dichotomy.

However, he does not actually say this; why?

 

[Dancing David]

Haig,
Two problems,
-the solar wind is comprised of three types of particles, negative ions, positive ions and neutral atoms and molecules, so what kind of the charge does that indicate? (You have to do better than you did.)
-Um you do know that many comets like Hartley2 , do not have hugely elliptical orbits and so how does this alleged charge difference generate, so there is really a charge difference in Hartly2's orbit? What about the asteroids with comas that are in almost circular orbits?

You do know that the ‘dirty ice’ is like CO₂ and things like that?

 

[tusenfem]

How much information can we pull from the whiteout areas? How many pixels can we gather some sort of picture from?

I mean, I zoom in on non whitearea and see dark and gray spots, in the whiteout, ZIP!

What there metallic mirrors or something down there?

If optical observations would be the only thing, then one needs to make pics with various resolutions, which was actually done. I just heard a talk by Nick Thomas in Bern, and the details of the surface we have of Hartley 2 are actually frakkin amazing!!! And in the pictures that can be used for scientific purposes, there is little or no over exposure. Oops, I am mixing up my flybys, this is about Rosetta flying by Lutetia.

Never mind, there are other experiments on deep impact that measure Hartley 2, and found out that there is a lot of CO₂ see here, I cannot find the pic at the moment where they show the CO₂ signature around the comet.

I am not familiar with how deep impact works and how versatile the camera that took the pictures is and I do not know how long the actual flyby lasted, for which there are images (and I am too lazy right now to look it up). But I can imagine that, as this is just extra stuff, the camera has just one exposure time and no pointing qualities, but I am gladly corrected on this by someone who knows better. Interesting is the 45 sec movie that shows the comet tumbling around and every time that the jets get into the sunshine the light up.

But Sol88 seems to have a kind of simple minded idea about how thing can/are working in such missions.