The Electric Comet theory

[Tubbythin]

By this reasoning comet Halley’s nucleus had a density of only 0.1 to 0.25 that of water. But such conclusions are immediately invalidated if comets are electrically charged bodies moving through an electric field of the Sun. Where charged bodies interact across a plasma medium, all common assumptions about gravity become suspect.

Err, no they don't.

 

[Reality Check]

Been there, done that, haig. The material in them that is correct (tends to be the peer reviewed literature) will be ignored here, and the mistakes and ambiguities instead jumped on like a flash.

Yes, Haig - we will point out the magnetic reconnection is extensively researched in labs around the world and is a simple consequence of the rules of physics.
The material that is correct - the peer reviewed literature - will be ignored again by Zeuzzz (and apparently you): Magnetic reconnection and physical processes.
Your mistakes and ambiguities will be pointed out.

 

[Reality Check]

NASA Satellite Sees Solar Hurricane Tear Comet Tail Off

Thanks for posting this nice conformation of the standrd theory of comets, Haig.

The Myth of Magnetic Reconnection

Thunderbolts woo yet again. Try reading some science, Haig: Magnetic reconnection.
Or take the crackpottery to the correct thread:Magnetic reconnection and physical processes.

Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE, VOL. 35, NO. 4, AUGUST 2007
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf

Donald E Scott of the electric sun fanatasy?
The woo is great in you. Haig

 

[Siggy_G]

Just visited this thread after a long time off with other occupations. Interesting to read the activity, and here's my impression and collective feedback:

Haig: good to see someone discussing with a calm and sane tone - and adimring your effort in responding in a 4 to 1 ratio.
Reality Check: you have adopted a politician's or preacher's techinque of arguing by frequently repeating certain words and labels. Of course, you're doing this in the most negative way, by desperately trying to give the most negative accosiations to a site or supporters of a theory. "Crank, crackpot, idiocy, stupid, lies, fantasies, woo, deluded". Every post from you is colored with this crap and annoying smileys – you just can't resist these Tuorette's tendencies. People can probably do their own interpretation of a site by reading through it. Try to leave the spew sentences out, and keep the scientific content of your posts. You're coming through as a drunken brawler.
Dancing David: congrats with passing 22,000 posts. Are you a bot? At least there is something fishy about all your posts, and you're sharing Reality Check's patronizing phrasing tactics.
Tubbythin: tiny objecting comments without support or content.
Tusenfem: you do at least have some humble opinions and a great deal of scientific content in your posts, but you wouldn't exactly be making your respected teacher proud by continously giving him and his large scale plasma interpretations the finger.

For anyone thinking this is an ad hominem abusive post, just read through the last few posts from each of the respective posters, and a scientific analysis will show that my descriptions are pretty correct. At least, I'm just pointing to ad hominem abuse tendencies among the veteranes here, and it is something that a forum moderatr otherwize would do. At least a forum that has the slogan "a place to discuss skepticism (...) and science in a friendly and lively way". This thread at least only illustrates that this forum only normalizes patronizing, shouting, belittleling – blended with some science. One can see that some new-comers are affected by this, since their responses have to meet the same tone as the veterans' spew. I hope the thread is only read by the 5-6 active posters, and isn't affecting other minds too much.

 

[Reality Check]

Reality Check: you have adopted a politician's or preacher's techinque of arguing by frequently repeating certain words and labels.

I am repeating the physical facts about comets, e.g.

• They have different measured densities that rocky bodies lke asteroids.
• They have different measured cmpositions from rocky bodies lke asteroids.

I am repeating the obvious flaws in the EC idea that make it invalid and ultimately a stupid idea (stupid in the sense that anyone who can understand that ~0.6 g/cc is not ~3.0 g.cc can see that it is wrong): The totally stupid electric comet idea debunked

Of course, you're doing this in the most negative way, by desperately trying to give the most negative accosiations to a site or supporters of a theory. "Crank, crackpot, idiocy, stupid, lies, fantasies, woo, deluded".

I call Thunderbolts what it is:

• Crank because it is a crank web site.
• Crackpot because is is a crackpot web site.
• Fantasies because it contains the fantasies of its authors, not any scientific theories.
• lies because it lies to its readers in its "confirmed" predictions page: The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.
  N.B. See that I also credit it with a couple of successes)
• deluded/idiotic/stupid follow on from the above.

Every post from you is colored with this crap and annoying smileys – you just can't resist these Tuorette's tendencies.

Do you have psychic abilities to diagnose someone with Tuorette's tendencies over the internet?
I will continue to call Thunderbolts what it demonstrates itself to be: a crank web site that lies to its readers. That is nothing to do with Tuorette's. It is a conscious decision by me to label a web site by its content.

As for smileys: I note that you do not diagnose Haig with Tuorette's tendencies because he uses just as many smilies as I do. Now how do I show you that I am being sarcastic without using a smiley?

People can probably do their own interpretation of a site by reading through it.

That is correct. Anyone can apply critical thinking to any web site and see its good and bad points.

Unfortunately that does not seem to be the case with Sol88 and Haig. They seem to have swallowed the contents of Thunderbolts whole without applying any critical thinking to it. Haig especially is just uncritically posting links to various Thunderbolts web pages.

How about you, Siggy_G.
Are you an EC comet expert and can you fix the flaws in it with some actual science rather than the Thunderbolts handwaving?

• Why do comets have measured densities of ~0.6 g/cc (asteroids are ~3.0 g/cc)?
• Where did all of the water in the ejecta from the Tempel 1 impact (i.e. from inside the comet) come from?
• Can you explain where all the narrow band X-rays from the electrical discharges/EDM in the EC idea have vanished to?
• Why are the 459,893 asteroids in comet-like orbits not comets?
  That reminds me - it was a few months ago that I checked the JPL Small Bodies Database on this. More asteroids would have been cataloged and so the number should have changed.
• Should EC comets switch off at perihelion?
  After all they are powered by the potential they pick up by moving closer to the Sun. At perihelion they spend days at about same distance from the Sun. Electrical discharges quickly balance potentials. So I would say that the EC idea predicts that EC comets switch off.
  But you may be able to produce some numbers from the EC idea that shows that they do not.
• What shape does the EC idea predict for comet nuclei?
  Electrical discharges/EDM erode high spots so I would say that the prediction is for smooth surfaces and probably spheres.

 

[John Hewitt]

Just visited this thread after a long time off with other occupations. Interesting to read the activity, and here's my impression and collective feedback:

Haig: good to see someone discussing with a calm and sane tone - and adimring your effort in responding in a 4 to 1 ratio.
Reality Check: you have adopted a politician's or preacher's techinque of arguing by frequently repeating certain words and labels. Of course, you're doing this in the most negative way, by desperately trying to give the most negative accosiations to a site or supporters of a theory. "Crank, crackpot, idiocy, stupid, lies, fantasies, woo, deluded". Every post from you is colored with this crap and annoying smileys – you just can't resist these Tuorette's tendencies. People can probably do their own interpretation of a site by reading through it. Try to leave the spew sentences out, and keep the scientific content of your posts. You're coming through as a drunken brawler.
Dancing David: congrats with passing 22,000 posts. Are you a bot? At least there is something fishy about all your posts, and you're sharing Reality Check's patronizing phrasing tactics.
Tubbythin: tiny objecting comments without support or content.
Tusenfem: you do at least have some humble opinions and a great deal of scientific content in your posts, but you wouldn't exactly be making your respected teacher proud by continously giving him and his large scale plasma interpretations the finger.

For anyone thinking this is an ad hominem abusive post, just read through the last few posts from each of the respective posters, and a scientific analysis will show that my descriptions are pretty correct. At least, I'm just pointing to ad hominem abuse tendencies among the veteranes here, and it is something that a forum moderatr otherwize would do. At least a forum that has the slogan "a place to discuss skepticism (...) and science in a friendly and lively way". This thread at least only illustrates that this forum only normalizes patronizing, shouting, belittleling – blended with some science. One can see that some new-comers are affected by this, since their responses have to meet the same tone as the veterans' spew. I hope the thread is only read by the 5-6 active posters, and isn't affecting other minds too much.

I agree with these comments, certainly with respect to "Reality Check," and I would generalize them to most or all of his postings on this forum.

 

[Reality Check]

I agree with these comments, certainly with respect to "Reality Check," and I would generalize them to most or all of his postings on this forum.

I disagree with these comments as explained in my previous post.
It would be foolish to generalize them to most or all of my postings on this forum, just because you are still unable to coherently answer my questions about your assertions (John Hewitt "answers" my questions).
Unless you have done a comprehensive analysis of all of my 6,000 posts (a smiley just for Siggy_G!).

P.S. I must thank you again for reminding me that the fascinating phenomena of chemical oscillations exists.

 

[tusenfem]

Tusenfem: you do at least have some humble opinions and a great deal of scientific content in your posts, but you wouldn't exactly be making your respected teacher proud by continously giving him and his large scale plasma interpretations the finger.

If you have anything of scientific, qualitative and quantitative to report with regard to electric comets, then please share, I am all ear.

I guess my respected teacher would be Prof. Jan Kuijpers, who taught me everything about plasma physics, and who is quite proud of me. I am also sure, that is not whom you mean, you mean the nice old man that I met in Stockholm, probably. I am not giving Alfvén's work "the finger," I am trying to protect it from the idiocy of the EU/ES/EC clan.

 

[dafydd]

If you have anything of scientific, qualitative and quantitative to report with regard to electric comets, then please share, I am all ear.

I guess my respected teacher would be Prof. Jan Kuijpers, who taught me everything about plasma physics, and who is quite proud of me. I am also sure, that is not whom you mean, you mean the nice old man that I met in Stockholm, probably. I am not giving Alfvén's work "the finger," I am trying to protect it from the idiocy of the EU/ES/EC clan.

Who should I believe here,you who have actually studied the subject,or the delusionaut? Decisions,decisions!

 

[Dancing David]

Dancing David: congrats with passing 22,000 posts. Are you a bot? At least there is something fishy about all your posts, and you're sharing Reality Check's patronizing phrasing tactics.

SiggyG I am not a bot, and you are being rude. You have not read the thread and all my posts.

I take it that you support Haig quoting an unsourced blog, since you seem to find my post patronizing.

Seriously Haig quotes a blog page, in a prior post I asked for the actual source material on another claim, and yet again we have another quote of an unsourced blog.

Why don't you click on the link that Haig posted and see if you can find the citation for the statements made about Shoemaker-Levy?

Now do you really think that an quote of an unsourced blog post is not worthy of a laugh? You think that is some form of material debate? And that it is defensible as a debate tactic?

ETA: Considering your past participation in EU threads, I don't suppose you actually have any DATA and MODELS you would care to present regarding the Electric Comet theory?

 

[Haig]

Just visited this thread after a long time off with other occupations. Interesting to read the activity, and here's my impression and collective feedback:

Welcome to the thread.Thanks for an interesting an astute analasis

I am repeating the physical facts about comets, e.g.

Really RC? I think you've been sussed

I agree with these comments, certainly with respect to "Reality Check," and I would generalize them to most or all of his postings on this forum.

Ah! you know RC well? I agree too but I can't see him changing his ways or MO.

All this is way off topic so …. trying to get back to "The Electric Comet" .......

Been there, done that, haig. The material in them that is correct (tends to be the peer reviewed literature) will be ignored here, and the mistakes and ambiguities instead jumped on like a flash.

Had a look at some of your threads... and I see what you mean.

The noise to signal ratio there is unbearable ...snip...I at least (try to) put as much time into learning the mainstream theories *cough/baloney* as the other material or its just ... well ... delusional.

Understood, every group has it's problems.

Everyone is ignorant.

Only on different subjects.

And that is the whole problem with these EU/ES/EC proponents. They are like nice science fiction writers, lots of interesting sounding words (put the dilithium back in to the warp drive please) but when asked to actually do something, they run away scared.

Be fair, I’m a layman, who barely has time to cut and paste replies here and you expect me to do MATH too!

So, Haig, you keep on bitching about the fact that "mainstream does not work" but any real evidence, e.g. how the water is produced by EDM or something then your reply is ?????? No, you rather give a link to a blog with more words and nice science fiction stories about how the water is created electrically etc etc etc.

Well looking at the bigger picture of mainstream cosmology as it is now. 4% of the Universe is knowable with the other 96% invisible black or dark stuff we can only infer exists by studying the 4% we can see. WHY? Because the MATH (based on gravity only) can’t show how it all moves and hangs together without some other strange gravity sources.

It reminds me of Ptolemy's Epicycles If something doesn’t fit just add another circle. I know all this 96% invisible stuff has loads of peer review papers but so did Ptolemy's Epicycles.

When you compare EU/PC theory (that can explain what we see without the need for imaginary things) with mainstream cosmology and apply Occam's Razor the winner, IMHO, is the much simpler EU/PC theory.

So why don’t they see it too? Vested interests / too much to lose?

have yet to hear/read a quantitative electric comet story, it does not exist.

You wont agree with it: but it does exist.

The Electrical Nature of Comets

The complex structure and high-energy behavior can be explained if the comet is a charged body moving in a radial electric field responsible for accelerating the solar-wind plasma, rather than an inert, heated body in a rarefied supersonic "wind." The jets and surface topography of comets are consistent with EDM erosion of a cathode surface. The fine dust particles may be the result of cathode sputtering. The presence of the OH radical may be due to combination of sputtered negative oxygen ions from the comet nucleus with solar 'wind' protons and is consistent with the lack of water ice observed on comet nuclei.

And yes, on the surface of the nucleus there is not much water ice, and in my opinion that makes sense, because for older comets all the surface stuff would be sublimated already because of the passes by the sun. However, the fact that we see jets coming out of the nucleus shows you immediately that the ice is in pockets inside the nucleus, otherwise ne would not get any jets, that shoot out of holes in the surface.

It's easy to adapt a theory after the fact but a useful theory is one that can make correct predictions. The mainstream theory of dirty snowball comets is poor in it's predictions, right?

Err, no they don't.

Yes they do, this: http://thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf

Yes, Haig - we will point out the magnetic reconnection is extensively researched in labs around the world and is a simple consequence of the rules of physics. .

What do the labs use to generate their magnetic reconnection - electric currents. The same as in space, electric currents and magnetism go hand in hand.
.

The material that is correct - the peer reviewed literature - will be ignored again by Zeuzzz (and apparently you): .

Ptolemy's Epicycles was "peer reviewed" too but it didn’t make it correct..

Magnetic reconnection and physical processes
Your mistakes and ambiguities will be pointed out.

EU/PC theory has never claimed infallibility and it’s outstanding that it’s come as far as it has with virtually no funding. Strange that you, RC, don’t appear to even give a moments thought to mainstream mistakes and ambiguities.

Thanks for posting this nice conformation of the standrd theory of comets, Haig.

Yes, it’s great what you can do with public money.

Thunderbolts woo yet again. Try reading some science, Haig:.

VEGA observations of electric fields and plasma in the Comet Halley environment
Abstract
The APV-V high-frequency plasma-wave analyzers aboard both Vega spacecraft measured electric fields at wave frequencies up to 300 kHz as well as the ambient plasma parameters. Substantial electric-field activity at f of about 100 Hz was detected (2.5-1) x 10 to the 6th km from the nucleus of Comet Halley. Closer to the nucleus the electric-field spectrum developed two maxima, whose evolution along the spacecraft trajectories has been traced.

INFLUENCE OF ELECTRIC CHARGING ON THE ROSINA INSTRUMENT IN THE PLASMA ENVIRONMENT OF COMET 46P/WIRTANEN
http://www.space.unibe.ch/~wurz/7th_SCTC_2001_Paper.pdf
Measuring cold ions under spacecraft charging conditions is a particularly delicate matter. In the presence of electric and magnetic fields, ion detection is mass selective and the obtained mass spectra can be distorted.

Donald E Scott of the electric sun fanatasy?
The woo is great in you. Haig

You should try it RC.

Space and Cosmic Plasma
http://plasmascience.net/downloads/Editorial-IEEETPSAug07-CosmicPlasma.pdf

Peer reviewed papers
http://www.electricuniverse.info/Peer_reviewed_papers

Peer Reviewed Papers In Cosmology
http://sites.google.com/site/cosmologyquest/peer-reviewed-papers

 

[Haig]

Paradigm Lockout, Paradigm Paralysis?

The power of the paradigm tells you what you see. The prevailing comet theories see this image of Tempel 1 as an insubstantial "dirty snowball" or "fluffy dustball", and the Electric Universe theory sees this image as a substantial cratered rock, whether or not embedded ices are present.

 

[Dancing David]

So Haig, why do you quote Thunderbolt blog pages that do not even list the citations for the material?

1. If there are five cometary bodies in the asteroid belt, what makes them different from the other bodies in the asteroid belt? (In other words why do only five of them show comas?)
2. Why do asteroids that come from the same areas of the solar system as cometary bodies and have the same sort of orbits not show comas?

Iteration 1

 

[Dancing David]

Paradigm Lockout, Paradigm Paralysis?

And the citation for the composition of Temple1 as being rock is?

 

[Haig]

So Haig, why do you quote Thunderbolt blog pages that do not even list the citations for the material?

1. If there are five cometary bodies in the asteroid belt, what makes them different from the other bodies in the asteroid belt? (In other words why do only five of them show comas?)
2. Why do asteroids that come from the same areas of the solar system as cometary bodies and have the same sort of orbits not show comas?

Iteration 1

Thunderbolts has some interesting ideas, that's why.

You can do your own search for evidence. New theories don't often have initial confirmations...but if you test them.......and predictions from them turn out correct.....

I've answered your questions on the previous page HERE

And the citation for the composition of Temple1 as being rock is?

I think your missing the point of the piece or maybe your an example of it?

 

[John Hewitt]

I disagree with these comments as explained in my previous post.
It would be foolish to generalize them to most or all of my postings on this forum, just because you are still unable to coherently answer my questions about your assertions (John Hewitt "answers" my questions).
Unless you have done a comprehensive analysis of all of my 6,000 posts (a smiley just for Siggy_G!).

P.S. I must thank you again for reminding me that the fascinating phenomena of chemical oscillations exists.

The point I was agreeing with was the point about your lack of manners. It seems to me that you are repetitively abusing the people with whom you are, supposedly, debating.

You post to this forum, on average, seven or eight times per day and I am not aware of any thread to which you have contributed over the past three months where you have not, in my opinion, been engaged in such abuse. Certainly it seems to apply to the great majority of your posts. If my comment is unfair, please point out a counterexample.

I think your postings are deliberately inflammatory and irrelevant and amount to a form of behaviour usually characterized as "Trolling." I think it should be moderated. (There are, incidentally, many sites describing such behaviour, a good example being http://www.flayme.com/troll/ .)

(In response to RC's comments about me, and his oft-repeated link, other readers should I note that I had already replied to RC in post 38 of that same thread and he never had the courtesy to give a meaningful rebuttal of the analysis I gave there. Reality Check, please note, you are not being asked to do so now.)

 

[Dancing David]

Thunderbolts has some interesting ideas, that's why.

You can do your own search for evidence. New theories don't often have initial confirmations...but if you test them.......and predictions from them turn out correct.....

I've answered your questions on the previous page HERE
I think your missing the point of the piece or maybe your an example of it?

The Thunderbolts page does not say how they came to that conclusion, is that true or not?
Did they offer evidence?

Considering you are just citing Thunderbolts, they do not give the data on those orbits or teh data on the orbits of other main belt asteroids, why should it mean anything?

I think you have just given an example of an unfounded asertion by Thunderbolts.

 

[Dancing David]

Well DD, as I understand it, the five have sufficiently eccentric orbits, the rest don't.

Here, this explains it better and in more detail:

Except Haig, I can give you the orbits of many NEAR asteroids and others that have more eccentric and farther orbits that the ones listed on Thunderbolts.

In fact many an asteroid whizzes past our planets in any time period, many with very eccentric orbits, yet they show no comas.

here is teh Thunderbolts page you say answered teh question:
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060407cometasteroid.htm

You will notice that that page as well gives NO CITATIONS for the alleged picture. they give no eccentricities, they give no apehelion and perehelion figures whatsoever.

That sort of figures , doesn't it.

 

[Dancing David]

Here are the names of three of the asteroids with comas
7968 Elst-Pizarro
118401 LINEAR
P/2010 A2

The other two being
P2005 U1
P2008 R1

Orbital data for 7968 Elst-Pizarro

Aphelion 550.548 Gm (3.680 AU)
Perihelion 395.073 Gm (2.641 AU)
Eccentricity 0.1644


118401 LINEAR

Aphelion 570.136 Gm (3.811 AU)
Perihelion 386.104 Gm (2.581 AU)
Eccentricity 0.192

Now I will also note that P/2010 was decided to NOT have a coma, but a debris field.

The other tow I will have to do more reading to find the data on them.


So Haig, later I will look for main belt asteroid statistics and data, if I can show 9and I may not) that these are not remarkable for their orbits and eccentricities, will you acknowledge that in this case Thunderbolts is wrong?

 

[Tubbythin]

When you compare EU/PC theory (that can explain what we see without the need for imaginary things) with mainstream cosmology and apply Occam's Razor the winner, IMHO, is the much simpler EU/PC theory.

Then you have completely failed to grasp Occam's razor. Occam's razor is a guideline for choosing a preferred theory if and only if all other things are equal. If one theory makes countless quantitative predictions that are then backed up with numerous experimental observations (BBT) while the other makes random vague noises about EM being suppressed and little in the way of quantitaive predictions (EU/PC/whatever) then Occam's razor is clearly irrelevant.

Yes they do, this: http://thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf

Really? Strange then that comet's should have Keplerian orbits.