The Electric Comet theory

[Tubbythin]

Tubbythin: tiny objecting comments without support or content.

Haig makes two completely unsubstantiated claims:
1) That the mainstream models shouldn't give circular impact craters
2) That density measurements will be wrong if the comets are 'electrical'.
I tell him these claims are false, giving a short explanation of 1) and yet it is my comments that are without support? Biased much Siggy?

 

[Reality Check]

VEGA observations of electric fields and plasma in the Comet Halley environment
[/quoyte]
You should realize that this is the expected behaviour of metallic objects travelling through a plasma Haig.

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.
You should try it RC.

And what makes you think that the spectrum of ions is used to measure the mass of comets?
Try reading:

Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).
​

from The totally stupid electric comet idea debunked

P.S.
A bit of information for a layman:
The Electrical Nature of Comets is a conference presentation from that crank Wallace Thornhill. It is not a peer reviewed paper.

 

[Reality Check]

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

So what has inpressed you, Haig with those links:

• An editorial which does not mention comets!
• A web page listing papers on the known fact that cometary environments have electrical currents.
• That a web page that is supposed to list peer reviewed papers on cosmology exist?
  But it includes a presentation by Thornhill on comets?

You should really read your sources. However it is excusable for a layman not to know that

• editorials are not peer reviewed.
• conference presentations are not peer reviewed.
• electric currents are discussed quite often in peer reviewed papers.

I hope that you will learn the lesson and stick to citing the peer reviewed literature on electric comets (not really since you seem to be totally fooled by Thunderbolts).

 

[Dancing David]

Asteroid Juno!

Aphelion 502.050 Gm (3.356 AU)
Perihelion 297.40 Gm (1.988 AU)
Eccentricity 0.2559

Hmmm, no coma huh?

And it comes from farther out, to closer in ,than the other two.

So what about just this one? Hmmm Haig?

Why no coma?

BTW: the average eccentricity for an asteroids orbit:
.17
http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/advanced/asteroid.html

So 118401 LINEAR has a less than average eccentricity.

 

[Dancing David]

Now let us consider something else, Haig.

If the sun is the creator of this alleged charge that fires up the Electric Comets and causes then to have the come, then teh distance from the sun is important, if in fact it was to follow normal EM fields then it would be related to the inverse square of the distance from the sun, yes?

Now if the reason a comet glows in the EC model is because of the charge difference between apehelion and perehelion, middle school math would tell you that the closer to the sun the greater the difference effect.

So the Apollo asteroids should have truely great electrical field differences
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apollo_asteroids

When we look at the main belt asteroids they would have a charge factor of 1(2.5)^{2 compared to asteroids that come within the earth's orbit. That means the charge difference for main belt objects would be 16% of those at the earth's distance from the sun. And because of the 1/r2 effect any asteroid that has roughly the same sort of orbit is going to have a charge difference orders of magnitude higher than for main belt objects. The apehelion and perehelion charge difference is going to be roughly 4-10 higher for Apollo asteroids than for main belt asteroids. So where are the comas/}

 

[Tim Thompson]

Electric Comets IV

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

Wrong. The actual predictions of the standard theory of comets are vastly superior to the actual predictions of the electric comet theory. Of course, the standard model has the additional advantage of not obviously violating the laws of physics, which of course the electric comet theories do quite vigorously.

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.

So what? Electric currents are now and always have been a fundamental ingredient in mainstream space & astrophysical plasma physics and cosmology. If you think otherwise, then your layman's perspective is being seriously distorted by a less than honest claim put forth by electric universe/comet fans.

So, layman Haig, are you trying to make some kind of a point? All you ever do is cut & paste what other people tell you to cut & paste. Do you ever think about what you cut & paste? As I recall, I asked you a question a while back, to which I never saw an answer:

If you are, as you say, a layman, then how do you know that magnetic reconnection theory is a "dead end"? What personal knowledge of your own tells you this? Or perhaps it is enough for you to simply parrot something that someone else tells you to say? How many plasma physics courses have you taken? How many plasma physics texts have you read?

How does layman Haig know that the things you cut & paste & link are not simply bunk, when understood from the perspective of a non-layman, an expert in the relevant fields?

Like I said before, it's just the same tired garbage year after year after year after year ...

Does anyone in the electric comet crowd have any new ideas? Are we eternally doomed to re-debunk and re-falsify the same ideas already debunked & falsified before?

 

[Haig]

This numpty layman has to work just now but I've just enough time to copy and paste something that is OT but interesting.

The Myth of Magnetic Reconnection

Astronomers today are taking pictures of something they call “magnetic reconnection” on the Sun, and space probes are measuring something else in the Earth's magnetosphere that has also been given the same name. If you ask a plasma cosmologist about these, he'll tell you that the astronomers don't know what they're talking about. They're looking at well-understood plasma phenomena, exploding double layers and electric discharge, not magnetic reconnection.

Of course this is all just talk from Thunderbolts - Will this still be called magnetic reconnection (although it hardly resembles the original theory at all)?

 

[Reality Check]

The Myth of Magnetic Reconnection

Of course this is all just talk from Thunderbolts - Will this still be called magnetic reconnection (although it hardly resembles the original theory at all)?

Since plasma cosmology does not exist (except as collections of mutually exclusive, mostly invalid theories that various people have put together according to their own personal criteria), it is impossible to ask a "plasma cosmologist" anything.


But

• The experimentally observed magnetic reconnection will be still called magnetic reconnection.
• The observation of magnetic reconnection (e.g. in the Earth's magnetosphere) will still be called magnetic reconnection.
• The theory of magnetic reconnection will still be called magnetic reconnection theory.

And it resembles the original theory a lot.
ETA: Did you notice the usual poor scholarship from Thunderbolts, Haig?
The falsehood that magnetic reconnecton is based on that astronomers think that there are no electric currents in space? The lack of citations?

 

[Dancing David]

33 Polyhymnia
Aphelion 573.325 Gm (3.832 AU)
Perihelion 283.846 Gm (1.897 AU)
Eccentricity 0.338

324 Bamberga
Aphelion 537.241 Gm (3.591 AU)
Perihelion 265.576 Gm (1.775 AU)
Eccentricity 0.338

Both closer to the sun at perihelion and farther from the sun aphelion, but no comas.

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 2

 

[Dancing David]

Of course this is all just talk from Thunderbolts -

All talk, no theory, no data, no evidence, no citations.

Just the Holy Church of Assertive Statements with No Foundation.

So Haig, what is credible about Thunder[strik]bolts[/strike]dolts, nothing.

Why don't they cite their sources? Why don't they provide evidence, why just a rambling blog of unrelated assertions ?

Haig, Electric Comets do no fail because we doubt them, they fail because they do not match the data and the theory contradicts the data that is available.

So what about just those three asteroids Haig, why no comas?

 

[Dancing David]

Remember the Apollo asteroids Haig?

What about this one?
1999 XS₃₅

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(74308)_1999_XS35

from 1.5 AU to the orbit of Neptune, eccentricity of .948

And no coma.

 

[Reality Check]

The EC idea predicts that 528,157 asteroids should be comets

The previous post on this flaw in the EC idea was dated 31st August 2009 so it is time for an update (the previous numbers were 173,583 and 459,893).

EC universe: Rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity (which detemines the shape of the orbit) above a minimum value will be comets.
There may be other factors involved but since there is no actual EC model there is no list available.

There are 4 observed main-belt comets with a minimum eccentricity of 0.1644 (133P/Elst-Pizarro). So the EC minimim must be this (or lower!).

Real universe: There are rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value that are not comets.
In fact there are asteroids in orbits that are get close to cometary orbits, e.g. 2005 VX3 with an eccentricity of 0.9955142)

The JPL Small-Body Database Browser has a search engine. This shows that there are 205,878 cataloged asteroids with an eccentricity > 0.17.


Good examples of the asteriods that should be comets according to the EC idea are many of the named asteroids:

• Juno (e=0.2553, observed over a span of 67,610 days).
• Pallas (e=0.2309, observed over a span of 64,291 days)
• Astraea (e=0.1917, observed over a span of 59,759 days)
• ...More than 46 other named asteroids observed 1000's of times over decades.
• Vera (e=0.1939, observed over a span of 45,191 days)

This analysis is in fact being generous to the EC idea. A stricter analysis would be to look at the orbital parameters of all comets (not just main-belt comets). This shows that the comet 158P/Kowal-LINEAR has an eccentricity of 0.0279 and a perihelion distance of 4.594 AU.

There are 528,157 asteroids with eccentricities greater than the minimum observed eccentricity of comets (0.0279). These should be EC comets.

 

[tusenfem]

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

Oh boohoohoo, just because you are a layman, and cannot do the math, you expect us just to believe the drivel from thunderdolts that you bring to this board. Sorry, but that kite does not fly. There is nothing wrong with a layman's interest in science, but you should at least then take a more humble stance, and maybe believe what some of the experts in plasma(astro)physcis and space physics are telling you.

What makes you qualified to judge that the against-the-mainstream opinions presented on your favourite website should supersede the dozens and dozens of papers and books on the topic by real scientists?

 

[tusenfem]

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.

Well, if you actually would read what you copy-and-paste you would notice that they are talking about electric WAVE fields up to 300kHz and at a frequency of 100 Hz there was substantial activity. So we are dealing here with some kind of plasma wave. Unfortunately, you link only gives the abstract and no paper. Luckily, I found this link to the paper where one can actually get at it. And if you read further, you see that these oscillating electric fields that are measured are actually magnetoacoustic wave or whistler mode waves, which are to be expected in such a location. Nothing here indicates on an electric comet theory.

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.
You should try it RC.

Naturally, spacecraft that are in a plasma environment will get charged both by interaction with the plasma if there is no sunlight or with the UV radiation of the Sun. That is why my institute builds the so-called ASPOC instrument which can control the charge of the spacecraft. If the spacecraft is charged too much, then the mass spectrometers will not work correctly, and measure a different energy of the incoming ions/electrons and thus the mass and energy-per-charge of these cannot be measured accurately. However, this has no consequences for the determination of the mass of a cometary nucleus.

 

[Haig]

The experts view of comets (my bolding)

Comets are icy leftovers from the solar system's formation billions of years ago. They usually hang out in the cold, distant regions of the solar system, but occasionally a gravitational tug from a planet, another comet, or even a nearby star sends them into the inner solar system. Once there, the sun's heat and radiation vaporizes gas and dust from the comet, forming its tail. Comets typically have two tails, one made of dust and a fainter one made of electrically conducting gas, called plasma.

Comet Encke was traveling within the orbit of Mercury when a CME scrunched the tail and eventually tore it off the comet.

Scientists have been aware of this spectacular phenomenon, the disconnection of the entire plasma tail of a comet, for some time. However, the conditions that lead to these events remained a mystery.

The observations reveal the brightening of the comet tail as the CME swept by and its subsequent disconnection and transport by the CME front.

"The comet had its own space weather event," said Angelos Vourlidas, Lead author and Researcher with the Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC. "We think it experienced a magnetic reconnection event very similar to what Earth experiences when CMEs impact our own protective magnetosphere."

The brightening of the comet tail as the CME passes is, to me, a clear indication of the electrical nature of comets.

The EU/PC view of comets

The New Scientist reported, “We have now had four close encounters with comets, and every one of them has thrown astronomers onto their back foot.” 96 The popular model of comets as dirty snowballs no longer fits space age discoveries.

When a theory fails to anticipate discoveries and theorists are continually surprised by new data, it is essential that the theory be questioned. Astronomers believe that by discrediting a simplistic early electrical model of comets they had dismissed all electrical models. Is this stance justified in the light of what we now know about plasma discharge phenomena? The question can be answered by comparing the dirty snowball model with a new plasma discharge model of comets.

In the accepted model, a comet is an aggregate of ice and dust evaporating in the heat of the Sun. In the electric model, a comet could be a solid rock discharging as it plunges more deeply into the Sun's electric field. A proper comparison of the two models, however, will require attention to details, accentuating the contrast between two radically different perspectives. Systematic comparison can only highlight the contrasts in predictive ability—the test of a good theory.

Haven't the time to do more than copy and paste the above(what's new) but I'll try to answer those questions left hanging when I can.

DD and RC seem to be setting up those "straw man" asteroids big time. Guy's you need to read the source again, your NOT knocking over EU/PU theory.

 

[nvidiot]

You can't knock over an idea which isn't even wrong. It knocks itself over. Is it just a massive coincidence of of collective ignorance or an active conspiracy against the masses that every single physics institution rejects EU theories?

I'm a layman as well, but with a mind which tends to enjoy science and technology in all its wonderful forms. I am far from learned in these matters. But even as a layman I can tell that electric universe theories* are rubbish.

If you're right, (which you're not,) why has it not become the standard model by which we calculate and predict the motions and actions of the universe? Why do the predictions of electric universe theories* fall flat and those of the standard model work exceedingly accurately? Sure there's a whole lotta universe out there to discover and we're always going to find something out there that makes us have a collective "Huh?" moment, but when we learn something new we incorporate it and test it as much as we can to make sure we know what is actually going on.

But of course I'm a layman and my opinion on electric universe theories and advanced physics and astronomy isn't worth squat. The opinions of the people that do matter all say you're wrong. If there was convincing evidence of these ideas it should be easy to quantify and show to every scientist worth the title. But there isn't that kind of evidence for EU is there? It's just vague descriptions of non existent phenomena with no data or predictive power.

_{*I use the term theories here with my nose pinched with one hand while I hold it at arms length with the other making a dash for the bin. In no way would I consider EU to be a theory in the scientific sense of the term}.

 

[Haig]

Predictions of the Electrical Universe
Numerous predictions have been made by the team at Thunderbolts.info. Many of these predictions have gone against conventional wisdom and yet were remarkably accurate in their forecasts. The predictions have been captured on this page. A grade has been assigned to each prediction as follows:
Comets: Deep Impact

Posted before but worth a second read I think.
Paradigm Lockout, Paradigm Paralysis?

 

[Haig]

The Way Forward

It is often joked that science progresses in three stages:

1. New theories are ignored and/or ridiculed
2. Their importance is denied
3. It is pretended that the new theory was known all along

The trouble is, many a true word is spoken in jest, and right now we seem to be somewhere betweens stages 1 and 2. For how much longer can the importance of Cosmical Electrodynamics be overlooked?

"Ideas needed: The hunt for a theory of everything is going nowhere fast." Headline, New Scientist, 10th December 2005

At the very least it must be time for scientists from different disciplines to sit down and compare notes.

The following is quoted from Thunderbolts.info 6th April 2005.

As plasma physicists look at astronomy and astronomers look at plasma, the respective languages, cultivated over many decades, can only accentuate the gap in viewpoints. The language of 'plasma cosmology', describing the formation of galaxies, stars, and planets, includes many terms more familiar to electrical engineers than to astronomers -- Langmuir sheaths, z-pinches, glow discharges, arc discharges, plasmoids.

Astronomers have cultivated a different language. Having banished charged plasma from space, they concentrate on the much simpler behaviour of a 'magnetized gas', not the charge. Their equations for the behaviour of plasma are typically those used to describe flowing water and blowing wind, with a modification due to magnetic effects -- the math of classical mechanics. Thus, their lexicon reflects their perspective, with words one might expect from a weatherman -- winds and jets, bowshocks and shock waves, winds and rains of charged particles, wind socks, etc.

What NASA scientists call a 'surprising rain of charged particles' in the vicinity of Jupiter’s moon Io is interesting and dangerous weather for spacecraft. But in an electric universe the phenomenon means much more than a cosmic weather report. It is a signature of electrical activity that could not fail to produce a continuous stream of surprises for those unaccustomed to the behaviour of electrified plasma.

 

[nvidiot]

Wow that straw might be flammable, make sure you keep it away from naked flames.

Any chance of a considered response rather than simply cutting and pasting?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Predictions of the Electrical Universe
Numerous predictions have been made by the team at Thunderbolts.info. Many of these predictions have gone against conventional wisdom and yet were remarkably accurate in their forecasts. The predictions have been captured on this page. A grade has been assigned to each prediction as follows:
Comets: Deep Impact

If you would spend even a small fraction of the time you so obviously spend reading material on the thunderblots website reading the posts in this thread prior to to your own, first post, you'd discover that each of these so-called predictions has been examined, in some detail, and found wanting (IIRC, Sol88 was very keen on them too, back then).

Now perhaps it's because you are unfamiliar with how modern science works - being a layman and all - but have you ever wondered if any of those so-called predictions could be independently verified? I mean, independent verification is critical in science, so how - in detail - were the things presented on that webpage derived? Starting from Maxwell's equations (say), what was the logic (and math) that produced those claims? And for the next comet mission, how could those details be repeated, to produce independently verifiable predictions?

If, as I think you will find, the only way to reproduce any of the results is to go ask Thornhill, then how could it be called science? I mean, oracular declarations are the very antithesis of science, aren't they?

Siggy_G, if you're still reading this thread, what say you; can you show us how - in detail - any one of those "predictions" was derived?