Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
The idea holds some plausibility, yes, it lacks a good match to observable data however.
The Electric Comet theory
- Thread starter Sol88
- Start date
- Status
The idea holds some plausibility, yes, it lacks a good match to observable data however.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Nice unsourced false dichotomy, there are at least three other possibilities.
So you have set up a straw argument.
tusenfem
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 3,306
Reality Check said:
Well, let's look at Krishna Swamy's book, and to the dust chapter 9.
KS said:
Just to put things in context, some things are difficult (or impossible) to detect unless you have specialized equipment on an in-situ mission. And Talcum Powder has a grain size just below 0.1 μm.
Last edited:
Ok DD, so you don't like this:
What do you think caused the craters and why are they mostly circular?
Apart from volcanism and impact, what are the, at least, three other possibilities? links please.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Haig:
What do you think caused the craters and why are they mostly circular?
Remember the basic physical impossibility of electrical discharges through a plasma.
ETA
An extra bonus question: Do you really think the measured density of comets (~0.6 g/cc) is that of of rocky bodies such as asteroids (measured to be ~3.0 g/cc)?
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Possible new jet
All Thunderbolt quotes are from their Predictions Confirmed page.
Possible new jet
Thunderbolt prediction:
Mainstream prediction
Result: both confirmed
All Thunderbolt quotes are from their Predictions Confirmed page.
Possible new jet
Thunderbolt prediction:
Mainstream prediction
Result: both confirmed
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Surface arcing
All Thunderbolt quotes are from their Predictions Confirmed page.
Surface arcing
Thunderbolt prediction:
Thunderbolt confirmed prediction:
Another failed prediction.
All Thunderbolt quotes are from their Predictions Confirmed page.
Surface arcing
Thunderbolt prediction:
Thunderbolt confirmed prediction:
No detection of the predicted temperature results. All we have is
- Thornhills "interpretation" of white spots on images.
- No "signature of electric arcing" is reported on teh web page.
- He even mentions a probable cause of the white spots: "highly reflective spots".
Another failed prediction.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
You made your claim Haig and so far you have cited Thunderbotls as your authority for your claim.
Go to something other than Thunderbotls to establish that those are the ONLY two possible mechanisms considered by the mainstream.
Sheesh, your claim your burden, there are others but I know your internet browser can't go to any real astrophysics or astrogeology web sites.
This is the original quote you wrote
So the burden is on you to establish that it is not a false dichotomy, so you set that browser of your to astrophysics and see what you can see.
What reputable source say that volcanism is a mechanism in comets, seriously? I mean IO and Europa, maybe but not a comet.
Outgassing yes, sublimation yes, subsidence after outgassing, yes, volcanism, no.
Your quote has only four references on Google, two of them are the JREF and two are about lunar craters on Thunderbolts.
So where have YOU established that those are the only two causes in cometary craters?
That is why you used a false dichotomy.
So the burden rests squarely on you.
Last edited:
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Haig, the observed sublimation of material from a comet indirectly was in 1985, since then there have been hundreds of papers on the topic, your source mentions 1922. And there were many observation of comets since then.
Really 1922?
It is 2010 and you are quoting a debate from 88 years ago as the 'mainstream'?
Really 1922?
It is 2010 and you are quoting a debate from 88 years ago as the 'mainstream'?
Craters formed by the arcs are most often circular because electromagnetic forces cause them to maintain right angles to the impact zone. Since two or more filaments rotate around the arc axis, it can behave like a drill, excavating steep side walls and "pinching" a rolled rim. Often, the filaments will leave behind a central peak. Minerals in the crater will be electrically heated, scorched, and melted.
As I understand it: plasma is an excellent conductor of electricity
"Just as there are no causes within the Earth to cause lightning to strike, there are no processes operating within the comet to cause the outbursts. Both are simply evidence of the location of the electrical breakdown path and are therefore surface/atmospheric effects rather than processes within the body. The comet nucleus behaves like a passive electret subjected to external electrical stress."
A charged comet nucleus moving through the solar plasma will form a Langmuir sheath or double layer, where the comet's electric field is concentrated. This plasma sheath is controlled by electromagnetic forces
All practitioners of discharge science should be familiar with Irving Langmuir’s beautiful work http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~lieber/LiebermanGEC05rev.pdf
Well, from my understanding of PC/EU theory, comets are charged bodies and as such, a charged comet nucleus moving through the solar plasma will form a Langmuir sheath or double layer, where the comet's electric field is concentrated. This plasma sheath is controlled by electromagnetic forces.
That being so, calculating the density without regard to these forces acting on the comet nucleus is prone to error.
Anyway, the charge of a body is not dependent on it's density, is it?
All practitioners of discharge science should be familiar with Irving Langmuir’s beautiful work http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~lieber/LiebermanGEC05rev.pdf
ELECTRIC COMET MODEL:
• Comets are debris produced during violent electrical interactions of planets and moons in an earlier phase of solar system history. Comets are similar to asteroids, and their composition varies. Most comets should be homogeneous—their interiors will have the same composition as their surfaces. They are simply “asteroids on eccentric orbits.”
• Comets follow their elongated paths within a weak electrical field centered on the Sun. In approaching the Sun, a charge imbalance develops between the nucleus and the higher voltage and charge density near the Sun. Growing electrical stresses initiate discharges and the formation of a glowing plasma sheath, appearing as the coma and tail.
• The observed jets of comets are electric arc discharges to the nucleus, producing “electrical discharge machining” (EDM) of the surface. The excavated material is accelerated into space along the jets’ observed filamentary arcs.
• Intermittent and wandering arcs erode the surface and burn it black, leaving the distinctive scarring patterns of electric discharges.
• The jets’ explode from cometary nuclei at supersonic speeds and retain their coherent structure for hundreds of thousands of miles. The collimation of such jets is a well-documented attribute of plasma discharge.
• The tails of comets reveal well-defined filaments extending up to tens of millions of miles without dissipating in the vacuum of space. This “violation” of neutral gas behavior in a vacuum is to be expected of a plasma discharge within the ambient electric field of the Sun.
• It is the electric force that holds the spherical cometary coma in place as the comet races around the Sun. The diameter of the visible coma will often reach millions of miles. And the visible coma is surrounded by an even larger and more “improbable” spherical envelope of fluorescing hydrogen visible in ultraviolet light.
• The primary distinction between comet and asteroid surfaces is that electrical arcing and “electrostatic cleaning” of the comet nucleus will leave little or no dust or debris on the surface during the active phase, even if a shallow layer of dust may be attracted back to the nucleus electrostatically as the comet becomes dormant in its retreat to more remote regions.
Since there is a radial electric field from the Sun permeating the Solar System, as comets come closer to its greater charge density they experience a breakdown in their electrical equilibrium and begin to glow. The charged material, or plasma sheath, surrounding the cometary nucleus is accelerated out and away, sometimes forming a tail millions of kilometres long.
The layman can simply look at the best images of comets and see that they look nothing like dirty snowballs. They appear to be burned out rocks with sharply carved relief, not the smooth ice balls expected from mainstream theory.
In the Electric Universe model, a comet is an electrically charged body. During its long period in the outer reaches of the solar system, it acquires a strong negative charge with respect to the Sun. Then, as it approaches the inner limits of its orbit, accelerating through the electric field of the Sun, it will begin to discharge to the plasma surrounding it, producing the familiar bright coma and tail.
The electric comet is thus tied to the electric view of the Sun:
1. The Sun has an electric field and interacts electrically with comets and planets, including the Earth;
2. The Earth, like all of the planets, is a charged body;
3. The Sun is not powered by some mysterious, internal "nuclear furnace", but rather externally by electric currents flowing along the arms of the Milky Way;
4. 99.9% of the universe consists of PLASMA, a conducting medium that has been found to exhibit strong electrical properties. All of space is teeming with charged particles;
5. All evidence for the electric comet is therefore evidence for the electric Sun and for the electrical nature of stars.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/goodspeed08/100109_electric_comets.htm
Yes, I find Thunderbolts an excellent source for logical explanations of comet phenomena that puzzle the mainstream. Here is another good example that makes the case, strongly, for electric comets – Electric Comets Re-write Space Science by Michael Goodspeed
Thunderbolts lay it on a plate as regards comets You, RC and the rest on here seem to have far more time than I do for participating in this and other topics so I would expect and appreciate more from you. After all, I'm just an interested layman
I'm just stating what's obvious to me. I'm puzzled why you won't, at least, state "the others", are they secret?
I don't know of anyone that's claimed volcanism as a cause for craters on comets or asteroids. From what I've read in the mainstream it's "impacts" they say are the cause. PC/EU are the only source I know that suggest electric discharge machining (EDM) as the cause of MOST of the craters on comets and asteroids (plus other charged bodies) the other craters being impact.
I haven't said that DD. From what i've read, mainstream use either volcanism or impact to explain craters generally,but for small bodies like comets or asteroids only impacts makes sense to them. PC/EU theory gives another possibility for the cause, that of EDM which explains the frequency of circular craters very well as well as the other odd feature's that baffle mainstream. see Here
Just trying to add a bit of historical perspective. Let me try again - Comets: Kristian Birkeland's theory
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Comets:_Kristian_Birkeland's_theory
Abstract
the predictions of plasma cosmology have been strengthened by new observations, including evidence for the stellar origin of the light elements, the plasma origin of large-scale structures, and the origin of the cosmic microwave background in a "radio fog" of dense plasma filaments.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?reload=true&tp=&arnumber=1265349&isnumber=28301
http://bigbangneverhappened.org/p27.htm
Birkeland current
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Birkeland_current
Birkeland currents in the Earth's magnetosphere
The presence of Birkeland currents has been absolutely confirmed with satellite-borne particle and magnetic field experiments conducted over the past two decades. These satellite observations have determined the large-scale patterns, flow directions, and intensities of Birkeland currents in the auroral and polar regions, and their relationship to the orientation and magnitude of the interplanetary magnetic field. The Birkeland currents are directly associated with visible and UV auroral forms observed with satellites.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h5771446ux3xh584/
Understanding of solar wind structure might be wrong
The plasma particles flowing from the Sun and blasting past the Earth might be configured more as a network of tubes than a river-like stream
http://www.lanl.gov/news/releases/u...ind_structure_might_be_wrong_newsrelease.html
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
That is idiotic. The craters caused by impacts are mostly circular.
There can be no "arcs" because: plasma is an excellent conductor of electricity . This means that it is impossible for electric discharges to occur ("arcs") in plasmas.
Parroting crackpot insanity will make people think that you are as deluded as them.
I suggest that you learn to think for yurself.
Oh so wrong and ignorant, Haig.
Haig, you need to learn to understand the posts rather than parroting a crank web site
- ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Possible new jet is not just a confirmed EC prediction. It is a confirmed EC and mainstream prediciton.
This is about the only prediction that Thornhill gets right. - ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Surface arcing is a failed EC prediction because there was no evidence presented of any temperature caused by surface arcing. That "surface arcing" is impossible anyway because: plasma is an excellent conductor of electricity .
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Surface arcing
All Thunderbolt quotes are from their Predictions Confirmed page.
Surface arcing
Thunderbolt prediction:
Thunderbolt confirmed prediction:
No detection of the predicted temperature results. All we have is
Another failed prediction.
All Thunderbolt quotes are from their Predictions Confirmed page.
Surface arcing
Thunderbolt prediction:
Thornhill is wrong: A mechanical impact will produce tens of thousands of degrees over a very small area. The temperatures in meteor impacts are high enough to vaporize the meteor so that the resulting explosion usually digs out a circular crater.
Thunderbolt confirmed prediction:
No detection of the predicted temperature results. All we have is
- Thornhills "interpretation" of white spots on images.
- No "signature of electric arcing" is reported on teh web page.
- He even mentions a probable cause of the white spots: "highly reflective spots".
Another failed prediction.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
That is the problem with being a layman with little knowledge of the mainstream theory. If all you know is that the name of the theory is the "dirty snowball" model then you would ignorantly expect that comets would be
- Spherical like a snowball.
- Made mostly of snow like a snow ball (with some dirt).
- Astronomers know that the masses of comets are too low for gravity to make them into spheres. In fact the standard "spherical cow" approximation used to model comets is to use ellipsoids.
- Astronomers know that the out-gassing of comets means that their volatile material content will vary. So some comets will be dirty snowballs and others will be icy dirtballs.
- Sharply carved relief is to be expected since the gravity is too low to erode sharp features.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
The EC idea fails yet again: Sharply carved relief and comet shapes
!
So there are electrical discharges on comets according to the debunked EC idea. Where do electrical discharges occur Haig?
Electrical discharges happen on high points and sharp edges. That is why electrical discharge machining produces smooth surfaces. So anyone who can think can see that that the EC idea predicts that comets will have
For example, looking at Tempel 1 images
Oh wow - you get keep on giving Haig
!So there are electrical discharges on comets according to the debunked EC idea. Where do electrical discharges occur Haig?
Electrical discharges happen on high points and sharp edges. That is why electrical discharge machining produces smooth surfaces. So anyone who can think can see that that the EC idea predicts that comets will have
- No or few sharp edges.
- No or few high points.
For example, looking at Tempel 1 images
- Impact craters have raised (high points!) edges.
- There are cliffs with sharp edges.
As I said in this post
“All I see with asteroids and comets are lumps of rocks in various shapes and sizes, pock-marked with craters. Most are circular! What are the odds of that?
Random impacts should give a random angle of impact. Where are all the glancing blows and oblique craters?”
So RC, where ARE the glancing blows
and oblique craters like these?
You say it’s explained by high-energy impacts that tend to leave circular craters. Have you any evidence for that, showing the distinct OTHER features of the craters we see?
And why wouldn’t high-energy impacts of relatively large craters shatter “low density” smallish comets?
In my view, a more obvious explanation is this: The Craters Are Electric giving supporting evidence that comets are electric. At any rate the possibility shouldn’t be ruled out IMHO.
Sure it can RC, “the large cathode potential difference disappears, and the plasma column contracts. This new state of electric discharge is called an arc”
The Z pinch is a well-known plasma phenomena and the plasma in space is not exempt according to EU/PC theory.
Care to expand on that a little RC?
Glad to be of help RC. Maybe you can do something for me.
Comet Tempel 1. The impact site for Deep Impact's impactor shown HERE before the impact
Where is the picture of the crater caused by the impactor?
I understand that was one of the primary objectives of the mission, is that right RC?
The unexpected flash (arc?) and second huge explosion (electrical?) blinded the instruments on Deep Impact preventing the picture of the impact site from being taken, is that right RC?
I do my bestOh wow - you get keep on giving Haig
As I understand it, mainly at the comet nucleus’s closest point to the double layer (coma) that surrounds it RC. But I can do no better than parrot this:
“as they accelerate in toward the Sun, their voltage is increasingly out of equilibrium with the voltage and increasing density of the solar plasma. A plasma sheath forms around them—the coma and tail. And filamentary currents—jets—between the sheath and the nucleus erode, particle by powdery particle, the circular depressions with terraced walls that are typical of electrical discharge machining. As the discharge channels move across the surface of the comet, they burn it black.”
If you can think, can you give the source on EU/PC sites that say that?
Hint: they don’t!
Here's what Thunderbolts have to say about comets
Yes Ben, its high power phenomena for sure and obviously I don’t have the answers myself but EU/PC theory seems the way forward to me. Interestingly, NASA are now saying the huge power to drive the aurora come via magnetic ropes from the Sun these flux tubes are really Birkland currents, as he predicted a hundred years ago.
As I understand it, the Sun and most of the bodies in the solar system carry a charge; All have a Langmuir sheath or double layer around them. The ones around Earth, Jupiter and Saturn have been detected but mainstream call them “magnetospheres” Even the Sun’s heliosphere has a double layer around it.
Venus had its, double layer sheath, detected in 1996 by SOHO confirming its tail almost reached the Earth.
All these planet plasma sheaths are in dark mode unlike the comets plasma sheaths when the double layer can’t cope with the electrical stress they change from dark mode to glow mode and the coma and tail become visible powered by Birkland currents from the Sun.
I put this at the end of a previous post and I think it's worth another go! Looks like a lot of Birkland currents to me, what do you think?
Understanding of solar wind structure might be wrong
The plasma particles flowing from the Sun and blasting past the Earth might be configured more as a network of tubes than a river-like stream
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Haig you made a statement that in the mainstream, there are only two ways to form craters, that sets up a false dicotomy.
Which is a logical fallacy.
I did state the, the fact that you did not read them is noted.
I would rather think that you are a sloppy debater that a liar Haig.
Um, you did Haig, so now not only do you not read what others write, you don't read what you write, I even quoted your statement.
If one thing is certain it is that you don't reaf anything other than Thunderbolts, what if any have you read in te mainstream?
But you did.
Then give the mainstream source.
That is not a mainstream source, now is it?
So you are not capable of debate and understanding what you and others write Haig, pitiful really.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
So Haig, read this post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6580051&postcount=711
Do you deny that you made this statement?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6580051&postcount=711
Do you deny that you made this statement?
Last edited:
- Status