The Electric Comet theory

[Haig]

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

I see your at stage one

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

No chance, I'm actually at work now. Your entitled to your views Nvidot

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).

I read this stuff years ago when the "heretics" were being ridiculed for suggesting EM forces acting in the solar system. Now look at it .. "space weather" or as I see it is EM.

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?

So you’re a believer in the experts saying we can only know 4% of the universe? If you can take the blinkers off EU/PC theory makes more sense than that IMHO

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?

If you think it's only Thornhill, you aren’t really looking.

Got to go now but before I do .....

Sungrazers

Other comets have defied convention, as well. Shoemaker-Levy 9 exploded into shards when it crossed Jupiter's powerful magnetosphere, but the freshly broken pieces did not expel any of the volatile compounds astronomers hoped to see. When Deep Space 1 flew by comet Borrelly in 2001 it was found to be hot and dry instead of cold and wet. The Stardust mission to comet Wild 2 discovered a great deal of dust nearby, but no trace of water could be found on its surface.

Sungrazers tend to reaffirm the Electric Universe opinion about comets. If comets are the remains of electrical events that took place early in the life of the Solar System, then their "anomalous" behavior can be easily explained. 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 kilometers long.

The increased electric charge that comets accumulate as they near the Sun is demonstrated by sungrazers. Since the Sun's e-field is a dynamic structure, it changes in strength and size depending on the electric currents flowing into it from the galaxy. It is in a state of constant flux, requiring only a small trigger for it to discharge violently. Such discharges are known as solar flares or coronal mass ejections (CME).

 

[dasmiller]

Got to go now but before I do .....

The increased electric charge that comets accumulate as they near the Sun is demonstrated by sungrazers. Since the Sun's e-field is a dynamic structure, it changes in strength and size depending on the electric currents flowing into it from the galaxy.

So, if I'm following this, comets glow because their local e-field strength is changing due to their elliptical orbits.

When the sun's e-field changes, doesn't that mean that the local e-field strength is changing for everything in the solar system? Why doesn't everything in the solar system glow from time to time?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I read this stuff years ago when the "heretics" were being ridiculed for suggesting EM forces acting in the solar system.

When was that?

It must have been in the early 1950s (at the latest), well before there were internet discussion fora (are you really that old?).

Now look at it .. "space weather" or as I see it is EM.

Good grief Charlie Brown!

After reading all this material (so you say), you are still so ignorant as to confuse the behaviour of space plasmas with classical electromagnetism as a whole?!?

Surely you can't be that ignorant, can you? I mean, even Sol88 now seems to know the distinction.

Perhaps you posted in haste?

So you’re a believer in the experts saying we can only know 4% of the universe?

Where did THAT come from?!?!?

This is a thread about the "Electric Comet theory", and what I wrote was in response to a specific post by you, on just that topic. If you want to discuss cosmology, there are already (quite long) threads on the topic, in this very section of JREF (or you could start your own, new one).

If you can take the blinkers off EU/PC theory makes more sense than that IMHO

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion.

However, in a discussion forum whose title is "Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology" don't you think it would be a good idea to base your opinions on the relevant science?

If you think it's only Thornhill, you aren’t really looking.

Fair comment, if rather badly stated.

The webpage you linked to, in the section on Deep Impact, refers to just one TPOD (the links are broken btw - did you know that?) with "predictions". Unlike many (most? nearly all?) TPODs, that particular one is unsigned.

However, the Executive Editors are given as Talbott and Thornhill; the authors of the PDF on the topic (that you provided a link to) are T&T, and so on.

So, fair question for you Haig: who is the "we" in that TPOD?

Got to go now [...]

Nice one Haig, you've picked up Zeuzzzzzz' seagull posting style nicely, haven't you?

Tell me, how much do the folk over there pay you to do this kind of blatant promotion for them?

 

[Dancing David]

Haig,

There is a reason I focused on the main belt comets as an issue. It points out exactly what is wrong with the EC theory.

The reason there are 4 main belt comets is because they are comets , IE they contain frozen gases that sublimate and out gas. That is why they have comas.

Now the EC idea that somehow comets are rocky bodies that go from one area of electrical charge to another and then show a coma, has a HUGE problem!

There are plenty of rocky bodies that go through the exact same zones that supposedly cause this EC effect, yet they do not have comas.

In fact if the EC theory was correct, the Apollo asteroid I referenced earlier is exactly one that should show a coma, it would be going areas of great difference and therefore should show a coma. Yet it does not, despite the fact that from the EC theory it should be the strongest candidate for showing a coma.
So it is not the change from one area of the heliosphere to another that causes the comas of comets, they are not rocky bodies. There are plenty of rocky bodies that should show comas if the EC was accurate, yet they don’t.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

The increased electric charge that comets accumulate as they near the Sun is demonstrated by sungrazers. Since the Sun's e-field is a dynamic structure, it changes in strength and size depending on the electric currents flowing into it from the galaxy.

So, if I'm following this, comets glow because their local e-field strength is changing due to their elliptical orbits.

When the sun's e-field changes, doesn't that mean that the local e-field strength is changing for everything in the solar system? Why doesn't everything in the solar system glow from time to time?

It gets worse, much, much worse, for T&T (and Haig) and this kind of idea.

If the Sun's "e-field" (whatever that is) "changes in strength and size depending on the electric currents flowing into it from the galaxy", how come the Sun's total output - in photons - is so stable?

Perhaps we can ask Haig about the Thornhill "paper" he got "published" (the reviewers were clearly asleep, or perhaps Peratt - the senior editor - did not even bother sending the draft out for review?) in which he clearly states that the Sun's "EM" output (to borrow Haig's own term) is directly proportional to the current density (amps per square metre) at the photosphere (where these giant, galactic currents magically turn into photons)?

How about it Haig? How much does the incoming current vary by (in "strength and size"), over a day? a month? a year? a decade?

I'll make a prediction of my own: Haig will not answer this question (although he may respond, with a diversion, more marketing hype, and/or more Zeuzzzz-like woo-spam).

 

[Haig]

So, if I'm following this, comets glow because their local e-field strength is changing due to their elliptical orbits.

When the sun's e-field changes, doesn't that mean that the local e-field strength is changing for everything in the solar system? Why doesn't everything in the solar system glow from time to time?

After reading all this material (so you say), you are still so ignorant as to confuse the behaviour of space plasmas with classical electromagnetism as a whole?!?

However, in a discussion forum whose title is "Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology" don't you think it would be a good idea to base your opinions on the relevant science?

Now the EC idea that somehow comets are rocky bodies that go from one area of electrical charge to another and then show a coma, has a HUGE problem!

There are plenty of rocky bodies that go through the exact same zones that supposedly cause this EC effect, yet they do not have comas.

In fact if the EC theory was correct, the Apollo asteroid I referenced earlier is exactly one that should show a coma, it would be going areas of great difference and therefore should show a coma. Yet it does not, despite the fact that from the EC theory it should be the strongest candidate for showing a coma.
So it is not the change from one area of the heliosphere to another that causes the comas of comets, they are not rocky bodies. There are plenty of rocky bodies that should show comas if the EC was accurate, yet they don’t.

If the Sun's "e-field" (whatever that is) "changes in strength and size depending on the electric currents flowing into it from the galaxy", how come the Sun's total output - in photons - is so stable?

Perhaps we can ask Haig about the Thornhill "paper" he got "published" (the reviewers were clearly asleep, or perhaps Peratt - the senior editor - did not even bother sending the draft out for review?) in which he clearly states that the Sun's "EM" output (to borrow Haig's own term) is directly proportional to the current density (amps per square metre) at the photosphere (where these giant, galactic currents magically turn into photons)?

How about it Haig? How much does the incoming current vary by (in "strength and size"), over a day? a month? a year? a decade?

I'll make a prediction of my own: Haig will not answer this question (although he may respond, with a diversion, more marketing hype, and/or more Zeuzzzz-like woo-spam).

Sure, I'll answer that - I don't know. The actual answer will depend on understanding why the sunspot cycles happen and why all the other Sun cycles happen and why the "solar wind" varies so much. Not to mention why the "solar wind" accelerates charged particles to a million miles an hour. EU/PC theory has answer to these WHY's. Why don't you?


Judging by the above posts - It’s occurred to me that that background to the “electric comet” might not be known to some here.

Comets: Kristian Birkeland's theoryKristian Birkeland's theory of comets derives from his laboratory experiments with rarefied gases in a discharge tube. He presented his theories in his book, The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition 1902-1903
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Comets:_Kristian_Birkeland's_theory

A Brief History of Plasma Ihttp://www.plasmacosmology.net/history.html

A Brief History of Plasma IIhttp://www.plasmacosmology.net/history2.html


The Electric Universe theoryhttp://www.electricuniverse.info/Introduction

 

[Dancing David]

You did not answer my questions Haig.

Haig,

There is a reason I focused on the main belt comets as an issue. It points out exactly what is wrong with the EC theory.

The reason there are 4 main belt comets is because they are comets , IE they contain frozen gases that sublimate and out gas. That is why they have comas.

Now the EC idea that somehow comets are rocky bodies that go from one area of electrical charge to another and then show a coma, has a HUGE problem!

There are plenty of rocky bodies that go through the exact same zones that supposedly cause this EC effect, yet they do not have comas.

In fact if the EC theory was correct, the Apollo asteroid I referenced earlier is exactly one that should show a coma, it would be going areas of great difference and therefore should show a coma. Yet it does not, despite the fact that from the EC theory it should be the strongest candidate for showing a coma.
So it is not the change from one area of the heliosphere to another that causes the comas of comets, they are not rocky bodies. There are plenty of rocky bodies that should show comas if the EC was accurate, yet they don’t.

 

[Reality Check]

Comets: Kristian Birkeland's theoryKristian Birkeland's theory of comets derives from his laboratory experiments with rarefied gases in a discharge tube. He presented his theories in his book, The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition 1902-1903
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Comets:_Kristian_Birkeland's_theory

We are quite familiar with Birkelands work (at least I am). I have a copy of his book and have read it.
His book is only gets the stuff about the aurora right.
He also thought that the electrical discharges from a brass sphere in an electric field were analogies for

• solar activity
• planetary formation
• galaxies
• comets
• zodiacal light
• Saturn's rings

He was wrong, e.g. galaxies are not electrical discharges.

 

[Reality Check]

Predictions of the Electrical Universe
Comets: Deep Impact

You need to learn to read Haig:
The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.

This is a summary of the lies, failures and confirmations of the prediction of the Thunderbolts web sit about the Deep Impact mission.
The sloppiness of the author is obvious when you look at what they call results. They are all dated a few days or weeks after the impact and so must be based on press releases and news reports. There is no citation at all to any scientific literature.

The lies

• ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Lying about flashes
• ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: electrical energy release
• ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Lying about the energetic effects

The failures

• ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: missing water non-prediction
• ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Sheath around impactor
• ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Comet breakup
• ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: System failure
• ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Water in coma
• ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Multiple craters
• ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Surface geology
• ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Surface arcing

Confirmed but also confirming the mainstream

• ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Fine dust
• ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Possible new jet

Posted before but worth a second read I think.
Paradigm Lockout, Paradigm Paralysis?[/quote]
Worth noticing the author repeating his lie:

ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Lying about flashes
​

And making up another:

With a different paradigm, the observation confirmed that the comet is mostly, and perhaps entirely, solid rock.

He does get one thing right for the state of knowledge of 2006

Of course in the prevailing model the nebular cloud from which comets are thought to have formed places their formation out beyond Pluto, and therefore the temperature would have been far below 1300 degrees.

The Stardust mission did show that some of the dust that makes up comets was formed in the inner part of the planetary nebula that formed the solar system. That is the prevaling theory now (2010).

 

[Haig]

You did not answer my questions Haig.

Sorry DD, there are quite a few that I haven't answered and it's due to lack of time.

But your very persistant, so I'll try and give you my understanding, as a layman.DD Judging by the questions your asking. I think your referring to this:
When Asteroids Become Comets
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060407cometasteroid.htm

In it it says this:

So an 'asteroid' on a sufficiently elliptical orbit will do precisely what a comet does—it will discharge electrically. What distinguishes the cometary 'asteroids', observed by the University of Hawaii astronomers, are the paths they follow, moving them through the radial electric field of the Sun to a greater extent than is typical of other bodies in the 'asteroid belt' (See chart above).

Cometary effects may also be expected from an asteroid if it passes through the huge electric comet tail [called the magnetosphere] of a giant planet.

So it takes a "sufficiently elliptical orbit" or "if it passes through the huge electric comet tail [called the magnetosphere] of a giant planet" to show cometary effects, right DD?

To me that means the "charge" in the asteroid has to be different from the surrounding solar plasma. A charged body in an electric field forms a plasma sheath / double layer around itself as it tries to achieve electrical stability. IF the electrical stress is sufficiently high the sheath will be visible in glow mode.

So, from the NASA example “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 electrical stress was increased and the tail brightened. How would you explain that with mainstream theory?

Comets or asteroids in “glow mode” have been compared to the aurora which is only visible when the Sun shoots out CME or Flares that interact with Earth’s plasma sheath / double layer. The difficulty in predicting how bright a comet (or asteroid) coma and tail will be is notorious and that is probably due to the variability of the Sun’s solar wind / electric field.

So, I’ve rambled on a bit here but I’m sure you get the jist although, I expect you still won’t agree.

To finish, the bulk of the asteroids are in electrical stability and their plasma sheaths / double layer are in dark mode so we don’t see it, just like Venus’s tail.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Sure, I'll answer that - I don't know.

Well, I freely admit to being pleasantly surprised, and that my prediction has been falsified!

The actual answer will depend on understanding why the sunspot cycles happen and why all the other Sun cycles happen and why the "solar wind" varies so much. Not to mention why the "solar wind" accelerates charged particles to a million miles an hour.

Quick follow-up question: why does the answer to my question (How much does the incoming current vary by (in "strength and size"), over a day? a month? a year? a decade?) depend on understanding these why's?

EU/PC theory has answer to these WHY's. Why don't you?

If it does, then it'll be a piece of cake for you to answer my follow-on question, won't it?

Further, if "EU/PC theory" does, in fact, have answers to those questions, does it also have an answer to my question (How much does the incoming current vary by (in "strength and size"), over a day? a month? a year? a decade?)?

If not, why not?

Judging by the above posts - It’s occurred to me that that background to the “electric comet” might not be known to some here.

Comets: Kristian Birkeland's theoryKristian Birkeland's theory of comets derives from his laboratory experiments with rarefied gases in a discharge tube. He presented his theories in his book, The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition 1902-1903
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Comets:_Kristian_Birkeland's_theory

A Brief History of Plasma Ihttp://www.plasmacosmology.net/history.html

A Brief History of Plasma IIhttp://www.plasmacosmology.net/history2.html

The Electric Universe theoryhttp://www.electricuniverse.info/Introduction

OK, now that you've shown that you are not like Zeuzzzzz (or Sol88) how about you, yourself, show that the electric comet idea - per your links - just doesn't add up?

Let's start with the Sun, and you try to estimate the average current per square metre, at its photosphere, based on the material you've cited.

Now the Sun's energy output is ~4 x 10^26 J/sec (this is good enough for you to show the EC idea doesn't add up, but feel free to use more accurate numbers), and its radius is ~700,000 km (ditto), so its average energy output per square metre is ... ?

(I'm sure you'll have no difficulty with this simple calculation, but just in case you do, I'm sure plenty of JREF members reading this post will be happy to help you)

 

[Dancing David]

Sorry DD, there are quite a few that I haven't answered and it's due to lack of time.

But your very persistant, so I'll try and give you my understanding, as a layman.DD Judging by the questions your asking. I think your referring to this:
When Asteroids Become Comets
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060407cometasteroid.htm

In it it says this:



So it takes a "sufficiently elliptical orbit" or "if it passes through the huge electric comet tail [called the magnetosphere] of a giant planet" to show cometary effects, right DD?

Well you said that was the answer to my question when I asked it again.

The issue is Haig that there is not some magic magnetosphere that only those four cometary bodies are going to go through.

There are hundreds of other asteroids that are going through the same space at roughly the same time.

So you have all those rocky bodies, but only four out there in the main belt show comas.

So if it some planet's magnetosphere, it would effect a whole lot of those asteroids out there, and not just those four.

To me that means the "charge" in the asteroid has to be different from the surrounding solar plasma. A charged body in an electric field forms a plasma sheath / double layer around itself as it tries to achieve electrical stability. IF the electrical stress is sufficiently high the sheath will be visible in glow mode.

So, from the NASA example “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 electrical stress was increased and the tail brightened. How would you explain that with mainstream theory?

Synchrotron radiation, I don’t know. Excitation and driving of electrical shells leading to emission of photons.

This has nothing to do with the main belt cometary objects.

Comets or asteroids in “glow mode” have been compared to the aurora which is only visible when the Sun shoots out CME or Flares that interact with Earth’s plasma sheath / double layer. The difficulty in predicting how bright a comet (or asteroid) coma and tail will be is notorious and that is probably due to the variability of the Sun’s solar wind / electric field.

So, I’ve rambled on a bit here but I’m sure you get the jist although, I expect you still won’t agree.

Comet Enke is not a main belt asteroid is it?

I am not disagreeing with you Haig , I am pointing out the inconsistency of the EC theory, there are hundreds of other asteroids in orbits and in the same space just like those four main belt objects that show comas.

It is not the environment that causes the difference, they are in the same environment.

To finish, the bulk of the asteroids are in electrical stability and their plasma sheaths / double layer are in dark mode so we don’t see it, just like Venus’s tail.

And then why just those four Haig, again to repeat.

There are four main belt objects with comas, there are asteroids that have more eccentric orbits, there are those that go through exactly the same magnetosphere (presumably mars’) as those that have comas but these rocky bodies do not show comas.

Why is that, are you willing to admit that Thunderbolts may be incorrect in the case of the four bodies in the main belt that show comas?

The EC theory needs to explain why those four and not all the others, the mainstream has a possible explanation.

 

[Tubbythin]

.So you’re a believer in the experts saying we can only know 4% of the universe?

Sigh, yet another one of the EU/PC crowd that doesn't know the difference between astronomy and cosmology.

 

[Tubbythin]

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.

Says the person who decided to assert with no justification whatsoever, that the mainstream predicted most impacts on comets should not leave spherical craters.Sorry, this seems a little hypocritical to me.

 

[Reality Check]

The experts view of comets (my bolding)
The brightening of the comet tail as the CME passes is, to me, a clear indication of the electrical nature of comets.

You would be almost right!
The brightening of the comet tail as the CME passes is, to anyone, a clear indication of the electrical nature of the interaction between the solar wind and the comet tail. The stronger the solar wind (as in a CME) the stronger the interaction and the brighter the tail.

The EU/PC view of comets

The totally stupid electric comet idea debunked

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.

I wonder who posted this:

Here, this explains it better and in more detail:

an 'asteroid' on a sufficiently elliptical orbit will do precisely what a comet does—it will discharge electrically. What distinguishes the cometary 'asteroids', observed by the University of Hawaii astronomers, are the paths they follow, moving them through the radial electric field of the Sun to a greater extent than is typical of other bodies in the 'asteroid belt' (See chart above). Cometary effects may also be expected from an asteroid if it passes through the huge electric comet tail [called the magnetosphere] of a giant planet.

Did you even read what Thunderbots is saying?

They are saying that an asteroid in a sufficiently elliptical orbit will be a comet. A little orbital mechanics for you Haig: How elliptical an orbit is is determined by the orbital eccentricity e.


A few minutes with the JPL Small Objects Database gives that The EC idea predicts that 528,157 asteroids should be comets

• There are 205,878 cataloged asteroids with an eccentricity > 0.17 (the lowest e for main belt comets)
• There are 528,157 asteroids with eccentricities greater than the minimum observed eccentricity of comets (0.0279). These should be EC comets.

and the situation will only get worse as more asteroids are cataloged!

The abysmal scholarship of Thunderbolts is obvious. By not doing the simple step of checking their facts they are in effect lying to the reader (again!). But lets be charitable - maybe it is just that their knowledge of astronomy is limited to cartoons like the "chart above" they mention.

 

[Reality Check]

While I am here:

I read this stuff years ago when the "heretics" were being ridiculed for suggesting EM forces acting in the solar system. Now look at it .. "space weather" or as I see it is EM.

So you read the easily debunked EC idea years ago:
Have you noticed that there has been no progress on turning the idea into a hypothesis, i.e. producing a model that has testable, falsifiable predictions?
Have you noticed that most of the links that you are giving are to web pages that are 4 years old?

So you’re a believer in the experts saying we can only know 4% of the universe?

It is a bit of a derail but in actual fact we know a lot more than 4% of the observable universe in terms of its composition. Analysis of the WMAP data tells us about 100% of the universe.

 

[Siggy_G]

(...) 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?

I haven't studied the electric comets hypothesis extensively yet, but since you, in essense, are asking for sources for the hypothesis, I can provide it for you.

Here are a couple of Wallace Thornhill's papers in IEEE's archieve (full text to be purchased, I believe, like with Springerlink):

"The electrical nature of comets"
"The plasma Z-pinch morphology of supernova 1987A and the implications for supernova remnants"

Here are Wallace Thornhill's articles on the comets and their composition:

Deep Impact
Deep Impact 2
Comet-Astroid link confirmed

Here are excerpts from the Electric Universe (hereby Electric Comets) by Wallace Thornhill/David Talbott, provided by Thunderbolts:

Excerpts From The Electric Universe, Electric Comets Part 1
Excerpts From The Electric Universe, Electric Comets Part 2
Excerpts From The Electric Universe, Electric Comets Part 3
Excerpts From The Electric Universe, Electric Comets Part 4
Excerpts From The Electric Universe, Electric Comets Part 5
Excerpts From The Electric Universe, Electric Comets Part 6
Excerpts From The Electric Universe, Electric Comets Part 7
Excerpts From The Electric Universe, Electric Comets Part 8
Thunderbolts predictions on "Deep Impact"

 

[Reality Check]

"Comet-Astroid link confirmed" pseudo-science from Thunderbolts

Comet-Astroid link confirmed

The Stardust mission never sampled the nucleus of Wilde 2. It collected dust (and only dust) from the coma and took pictures of the nucleus. That dust is only part of the the material that is ejected from the nucleus.
Thus the web page is wrong by implying that the nucleus is a rocky body: "the discovery that the comet is made of “rocky material, like an asteroid.”".
And of course, the author reveals their ignorance of basic science. Wilde 2 has a measured density of 0.6 g/cc. It cannot be a rocky body.

A bigger problem is the cherry picking of the results. The facts are that the Stardust results reveal that the coma dust is a mixture of inner and outer system dust. Wilde 2 formed in the outer system from dust that had been driven there by light pressure from the inner system and from dust that was already there.
Comet Dust Reveals Unexpected Mixing of Solar System

A new analysis of dust from the comet Wild 2, collected in 2004 by NASA's Stardust mission, has revealed an oxygen isotope signature that suggests an unexpected mingling of rocky material between the center and edges of the solar system. Despite the comet's birth in the icy reaches of outer space beyond Pluto, tiny crystals collected from its halo appear to have been forged in the hotter interior, much closer to the sun.

The really absurd pseudo-science is the following statement by Wallace Thornhill:

The matter in comets (and asteroids and meteoroids) has been through several processes, first in a star, then within a gas giant and possibly a rocky planet before being discharged into space.

Cometary material was "formed in a star" is right if he means the fact that heavy elements are always formed in stars. But who knows with Wallace Thornhill? He may mean actual rocky material for comets.
Cometary material being processed in gas giants or rocky planets is ridiculous. Neither gives off cometary material. A little thing called gravity prevents it.

 

[Reality Check]

More psuedo-science from Thunderbolts

Here are Wallace Thornhill's articles on the comets and their composition:
Deep Impact

That is basically the list of predictions that mainly failed, a couple were confirmed and a couple he lies about:
The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.

Deep Impact 2

And now we have confirmation that he is still lying about the predictions as of 27 October 2010. Thank you Siggy_G.

This website carried the only prediction of the unexpected initial flash before impact: “before physical impact occurs, we may expect a sudden discharge between the comet nucleus and the copper projectile. It will have the characteristic light-curve of lightning, with rapid onset and exponential decay. The question is, will it be a mere spark or a powerful arc?” Also, I predicted that instead of seeing very little impact effect: “the energetic effects of the encounter should exceed that of a simple physical impact, in the same way that was seen with comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 at Jupiter.”
With these successful predictions, what might we expect from Deep Impact 2?

The lies are ongoing rather than 4 years old:

• ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Lying about flashes
• ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: electrical energy release
• ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Lying about the energetic effects

I suspect that Wallace Thornhill has been so obsessed by his debunked idea that he still ignoring the scientific results from the Deep Impact mission.

Comet-Astroid link confirmed

"Comet-Astroid link confirmed" pseudo-science from Thunderbolts

Here are excerpts from the Electric Universe (hereby Electric Comets) by Wallace Thornhill/David Talbott, provided by Thunderbolts:
Excerpts From The Electric Universe, Electric Comets Part 1
Excerpts From The Electric Universe, Electric Comets Part 2
Excerpts From The Electric Universe, Electric Comets Part 3
Excerpts From The Electric Universe, Electric Comets Part 4
Excerpts From The Electric Universe, Electric Comets Part 5
Excerpts From The Electric Universe, Electric Comets Part 6
Excerpts From The Electric Universe, Electric Comets Part 7
Excerpts From The Electric Universe, Electric Comets Part 8

All that needs to be said is:

The totally stupid electric comet idea debunked​

N.B. Siggy_G, it is the EC idea that is stupid because it is so easily and comprehensively debunked.
The authors of the idea are quite smart - see how many people that they have fooled into buying into the EC idea!
There is you, Haig, Sol88, solrey and probably more.
​

Thunderbolts predictions on "Deep Impact"

Try reading

The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.
​

rather than embarrassing Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott even more by bringing the lies on that web page to the attention of the world.

 

[dafydd]

so I'll try and give you my understanding, as a layman.DD .

I am a layman too,I have been following this thread and by reading the links and the explanations provided by people here who know what they are talking about I can see where you are going wrong.It seems to me that you made up your mind about this before you looked at the evidence.This is the very antithesis of the scientific method.