The Electric Comet theory

[Dancing David]

Odd I can explain the mainstream theory of comets in a paragraph, the data and evidence that support that theory in another paragraph.

yet not a single supporter of teh EC can explain their theory without resorting to just copy and pasting.

And you still haven't presented the evidence for the EC.

Supernova z-pinch morphology? Seriously?

 

[Dancing David]

As too cometary dust, lets see, if the composition of comets is determined by the molecular clouds that the Kupier belt and Oort cloud objects form from:

1. They contain the 'soot' (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons ) of stars, the chondrite and non-chondrite materials,volitiles that have low 'freezing' temperatures CO₂ and the like, those that have higher freezing temperatures water, ammonia etc.

2. The mainstream theory suggests that comets are comprised of all these things and that as comets pass closer to stars they will heat and begin to evaporate and sublimate the materials that are 'frozen'. Along with the harder meteoric materials.

3. As a probe passes through the coma of the comet it is going to collect teh dust that is ejected along with the gasses.

Big surprise.

So how do these rocky asteroids make CO₂ and the host of other materials in the comas of comets ?

Oh darn these straw facts. Just like the hundreds of straw asteroids that pass through the exact same areas as comets but never show comas.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

(...) 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.

[...]

Sorry Siggy_G, I do NOT ask for "sources for the hypothesis", whether "in essence" or not!

My question is very clear; it asks about details of how the "predictions" were derived.

Why spam this thread with yet more woo, especially as the material you posted has been thoroughly debunked - more than once - in this thread already?

Since you're having trouble with my question, I'll narrow it down, by taking just one example:

More energy will be released than expected because of the electrical contributions of the comet.

How - specifics, details please - did the authors estimate the expected energy that would be released? They do not provide any values, nor any references, nor any derivations.

Can you, Siggy_G, even today independently estimate the energy the authors expected would be released?

It gets worse.

On the same "predictions" webpage, we read (my emphasis):

As for predictions, we find that NASA scientists have retreated from such essential adventures. Therefore we shall not attempt to speak for them. But we will summarize the best guesses of the electrical theorists.

Did I read this correctly? Did the authors clearly say that estimates of the energy expected to be released was just a guess, made by themselves?!?

 

[Haig]

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

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?

Why? Because calculating the incoming current is dependant on understanding the reasons for the first set of “Whys” before you can make the necessary approximations.

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

Nope. It’s fiendishly complex

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?

Well, this….Mathematics and the kinetic theory of ordinary Gases as applied to Plasma Physics The theories were mathematically elegant and claimed to derive all of the properties of a plasma from first principles. In reality this was not true. Because of the complexity of the problem, a number of approximations were necessary which were not always appropriate.From the theory, it was concluded that in the laboratory, plasmas could easily be confined in magnetic fields and heated to such temperatures as to make thermonuclear release of energy possible. When attempts were made to construct thermonuclear reactors, a confrontation between the theories and reality was unavoidable -- the results were catastrophic. Although the theories were generally accepted, the plasma itself refused to believe them.http://www.plasmacosmology.net/history2.html

how about you, yourself, show that the electric comet idea - per your links - just doesn't add up?

Why bother? Just read the links, it's all there! The problems are explained very well.

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)

63,000,000 W/m2 approximately but this is not the point IMHO.

To state the obvious: the mainstream see the Sun as the source of the energy in a gravitational fusion furnace and EU/PC theory see the Sun, as a focal point only, in a plasma "Z" pinch on an Galactic Birkeland current, so the powers coming externally.

Kind of fundamentally different don’t you think? Let me ask you a question:

Imagine this: a single electric arc welding machine operating continuously, the details aren’t important. Now further imagine billions of them operating, closely packed, around a globe of unknown diameter or substance. An observer some 93 units away can measure, heat, light, UV, X-rays etc and the, apparent, diameter of this phenomena. He can calculate the energy output from this display as 63,000,000 W/m2.

Now the observer is told it’s an electric arc process, and that is all. Can he calculate the current supply needed to power this with any degree of accuracy or not? If not, why not?

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

Yes.

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.

Yes, but it’s the charge in the body AND it’s eccentric orbit. If either is insufficient it results in no electrical stress and no glow mode. That’s part of the reason, as I understand it, why the brightness of comets (and asteroids) is so hard to predict. The other part is, as I understand it, the variability of the Sun in its cycles, sunspot, magnetic (22yr Hale) and the “other”, much longer, cycles.

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

It’s the charge in the body AND it’s eccentric orbit.

Comet Enke is not a main belt asteroid is it?

Your right DD but it is a great example of a how,due to a passing CME, the electrical stress was increased and the tail brightened. How would you explain that with mainstream theory? btw.RC's explanation doesn't wash and NASA calling it a "space weather" event is funny.

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.

Yes but it’s the charge in the body AND it’s eccentric orbit.

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

It’s the charge in the body AND it’s eccentric orbit.

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

It’s the charge in the body AND it’s eccentric orbit.

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.

It’s the charge in the body AND it’s eccentric orbit.

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?

It’s the charge in the body (asteroid) AND it’s eccentric orbit. Thunderbolts have never claimed infallibility.

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

The charge varies from body to body, from asteroid to asteroid. IF the plasma sheath / double layer around a charged body (four asteroids in this case) is sufficiently stressed it will go into glow mode and can be seen. The rest who have a different charge to the surrounding solar plasma, but not electrically stressed enough, will be in dark mode, their sheaths unseen. Others will have equalised with the solar plasma and have no sheath / double layer. That's from EU/PC theory, as I understand it DD.

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

Guilty, but it’s not just the EU/PC crowd is it?

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.

Your not being fair here Tubbthin. Read again what I actually said HERE
The EU/PC theory actually has a very good explanation for the mainly circular and other features of craters and they can be reproduced in labs SEE HERE
Sure, the mainstream has an explanation too, which I wasn’t fully aware of; although I doubt the lab results are as good as electrical discharge in not shattering a fragile comet. Is there any lab results you can link too

 

[Haig]

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?

They have done remarkable well with little or no public money. Think what they could do with a share of the funding. That’s the point!

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.

You mean 100% of the 4%

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.

Your wrong dafydd, I have looked at the evidence and I have yet to see any facts that falsify EU/PC theory. Can you say, honestly, YOU have not made up your mind about EU/PC theory before you read any of the links posted?

As for the scientific method: if you look at the theory of comets as dirty snowballs coming from the Oort Cloud. Where did that come from, facts or someone's imagination? The same with the electric comet theory. Where did that come from, facts or someone's imagination?

This is what NASA say about comets (my bold)

“Astronomers believe that comets are leftover debris from a collection of gas, ice, rocks, and dust that formed the outer planets about 4.6 billion years ago. Some scientists believe that comets originally brought to Earth some of the water and the carbon-based molecules that make up living things.”

You could say they have already made their mind up about what they expect to find, some might say. Is that the “scientific method” you’re talking about?

What's wrong with evaluating them both fairly, EU/PC and mainstream? Is THAT not the true scientific method?

Odd I can explain the mainstream theory of comets in a paragraph, the data and evidence that support that theory in another paragraph. yet not a single supporter of teh EC can explain their theory without resorting to just copy and pasting. And you still haven't presented the evidence for the EC. Supernova z-pinch morphology? Seriously?

So how do these rocky asteroids make CO₂ and the host of other materials in the comas of comets ?

just the same way as comets DD.

Oh darn these straw facts. Just like the hundreds of straw asteroids that pass through the exact same areas as comets but never show comas.

It’s the charge in the body AND it’s eccentric orbit.

Comets, Gravity, and Electricity

By now it should be obvious that something more than gravity is at work in the behaviour of comets. Since a comet holds a highly negative charge, it attracts the positively charged particles of the solar wind, giving rise to an immense envelope of ionized hydrogen, up to millions of miles across. But the comet watchers do not realize that this vast envelope is gathered and held electrically. And so the question continues to haunt them: How could a tiny piece of rock, no more than a few miles wide, gravitationally entrain and hold in place a ten million mile wide bubble of hydrogen against the force of the solar wind? Yes, the entrained envelope is extremely diffuse, but in gravitational terms it should not be there!

What causes asteroids to split apart?

Some asteroids (and moons) have craters that should have shattered them into fragments when they were hit by whatever took away one third of a hemisphere or punched a hole more than halfway to the other side. The only suitable explanation, according to gravity-based models of asteroid behavior, is that they are loosely compacted; when they are hit by other large objects they act like big sand piles and absorb the impacts without shattering. They have no hard crust to begin with so they haven't fractured despite repeated pounding.

The electric model of asteroid formation does not require that one body crash into another one for there to be craters. Electric arcs have the ability to cut surfaces, scoop out material and then accelerate it into space, leaving clean cuts, deep pits and chaotic topography. The effect is commonly called electric discharge machining (EDM). Comets also exhibit surface features that are the same as what has been seen on asteroids, leading Electric Universe theorists to speculate that the two are really one thing and not "dirty snowballs" vs. rocky bodies.

If the electrical stress does become too great within an asteroid – when it enters the magnetosphere of a planet like Earth, for instance, it may explode into tiny fragments that burn up. If the electrical stress is not too great as an asteroid flies through another e-field it might split into two large pieces instead of exploding. The same equalization of potential could take place but leave behind a pair of orbiting twins that continue on their way.

 

[Reality Check]

Yes but it’s the charge in the body AND it’s eccentric orbit.

The Thunderbolt authors are quite clear that it is the shape of the orbit that matters. Try reading what you posted:

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.

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

 

[dafydd]

Your wrong dafydd, I have looked at the evidence and I have yet to see any facts that falsify EU/PC theory. Can you say, honestly, YOU have not made up your mind about EU/PC theory before you read any of the links posted?

I had never heard of it before I saw this thread.You are wrong.

 

[dafydd]

As for the scientific method: if you look at the theory of comets as dirty snowballs coming from the Oort Cloud. Where did that come from, facts or someone's imagination? The same with the electric comet theory. Where did that come from, facts or someone's imagination?

1.Facts
2.Imagination

 

[Reality Check]

You mean 100% of the 4%

No I mean 100% of the observable universe.

Or to be mpre exact:

• !00% of the 4% of the observable universe that is measured to be visible matter.
• 100% of the 23% of the observable universe that is measured to be dark matter.
• 100% of the 74% of the observable universe that is measured to be dark energy.

Comets, Gravity, and Electricity

Still citing the ignorance (and lies) from Thunderbolts, Haig?
The quote is basically an argument from ignorance and incredibility. They lie to the readers by omission since astronomers know how comet coma and tails form and have no problems with their extent.

The rest is ignorant speculation that some unspecified effect of bodies passing through plasma will influence the measurements of their masses.
Easily debunked since 528,157 asteroids have comet-like orbits and their masses are no that of comets, e.g.

Juno (e=0.2553, observed over a span of 67,610 days) has a density of 2.98 ± 0.55 g/cc.
​

The way that comet (and asteriod) masses are measured is described in
Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids). from The totally stupid electric comet idea debunked

But Thunderbolts do point out another way - measure the influence of the comet on the trajectory of an observing spacecraft. No citation of course!

What causes asteroids to split apart?

The web page cites new article giving a cause for asteriod splitting: Sunlight Splits Asteroids into Pairs.
The rest is the usual speculation that electric fields do the stuff that they want them to do.

 

[Haig]

The Thunderbolt authors are quite clear that it is the shape of the orbit that matters. Try reading what you posted:

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

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

I had never heard of it before I saw this thread.You are wrong.

Fair enough, I apologise to you

1.Facts
2.Imagination

What facts about "dirty snowballs coming from the Oort Cloud" when it was first made public?

 

[dafydd]

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


Fair enough, I apologise to you
What facts about "dirty snowballs coming from the Oort Cloud" when it was first made public?

Do your own research.Read the links provided by people much more knowledgeable than us two.

 

[Haig]

!00% of the 4% of the observable universe that is measured to be visible matter.

OK

100% of the 23% of the observable universe that is measured to be dark matter.

Dark Matter isn't suppose to be observable directly?

100% of the 74% of the observable universe that is measured to be dark energy.

Dark Energy isn't suppose to be observable directly?

Have you any links to this RC?

 

[Ziggurat]

Now the observer is told it’s an electric arc process, and that is all. Can he calculate the current supply needed to power this with any degree of accuracy or not? If not, why not?

If all you have is the power, then you can only calculate the product of the current and the voltage. Crank up the voltage, and you can lower the current.

But there's a limit to how much you can crank up the voltage. It cannot be arbitrarily large. For example, the last time I saw an estimate from the electric universe folks for the voltage on the sun, it was orders of magnitude too large. So if we figure out an upper limit to our voltage, we can indeed calculate a lower bound for our current. And if that lower bound is too large, then we know the power isn't from a current.

 

[Reality Check]

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

Read it the last time that you cited it.

Nothing to do with what I posted.
Thunderbolt authors are quite clear that it is the shape of the orbit that matters. Try reading what you posted.

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

 

[Reality Check]

OK
Dark Matter isn't suppose to be observable directly?

Dark Energy isn't suppose to be observable directly?

Have you any links to this RC?

Not directly but that does not matter. It is observed.
Dark matter
Dark energy
WMAP 7 Year results
WMAP Cosmological Parameters Model/Dataset Matrix

 

[Dancing David]

just the same way as comets DD. It’s the charge in the body AND it’s eccentric orbit.

So you are saying that asteroids are not rocky bodies by composed partly of CO₂?

If they are rocky bodies where does the CO₂ come from Haig?

So what about that magnetosphere, those asteroids sure whiz through it just like the four bodies tahts how comas.

And BTW, you are so wrong about the Electric Sun, that is another thread, do not derail this one.

 

[Siggy_G]

(...) the original source of the EU/ES claim seems to be Thornhill, and as he is a well-known academic fraud, (...)

I noticed you threw in this one. What do you mean by it and what is your source? If you mean "academic fraud" by "not agreeing with the academic consensus" or "going against the mainstream", then yes, but then the term "fraud" is misleading and simply wrong.

 

[Siggy_G]

Thunderbolts is a crank web site set up primarily to sell crank books.

So you claim that the Thunderbolts team's sole motivation is to sell books, and has nothing to do with scientific engagement and desire for a different approach for understanding the Universe... If anyone wants to earn good money on scientific books, they should write about black holes, worm holes, time travel or some derivation of Hawking's theories these days, not the Electric Universe. If the EU has so few supporters as you imply, why would anyone want to maintain a site and "earn money" on selling books on the subject? Where's your logic?

 

[Siggy_G]

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.

You seem to assume that the plasma is close to fully ionized and perfectly conductive. Do we have data of the degree of ionization in the coma plasma? Partly and even fractionally ionized plasma will still behave and have properties like a plasma, but the degree of conductivity will obviously be proportional with the degree of ionization. For the same reason, there can be a good portion of neutral atoms, working as an insulating medium. Hence, there can well be discharge channels in a partially (or fractionally) ionzied plasma. Red sprites in the ionosphere is an example of that and new interpretation of the solar wind's structure is another. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, when two differently charged objects approach, depending on the ionization degree within the plasma medium, a discharge will instantly occur at least within a Debye length, and in some scenarios way longer. Red sprites in the ionosphere is one example of extreme long-range break-downs within a partially ionized plasma (taking Debye length into consideration), a [URL="http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?reload=true&isnumber=4598908&arnumber=4599111&count=280&index=180"]rotating plasma another example. On top of this again, electrons can travel in rays through high potential drop and close-to-vacuum scenarios (but those scenarios are more related to intense heat or electron canons). So Thornhill's scenario of electrical discharges isn't falsified based on your description, rather the opposite.

 

[Siggy_G]

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.

This is especially true when you consider that comets rotate. Thus every part of their surface will be available for "electrical discharges" to erode their surface and shape down to a smooth ball.

If one start off with a somewhat un-even object, that gets excavated at the tips and bumps (due to EDM) every now and then, one has a subtractive modeling process. Why should this process, with random crate volumes of material coming off, end up as a perfect sphere?? You're not just removing the tip itself, but most likely subsurface material with it. The object will keep being uneven and filled with crates till there's nothing left, during such a continuous process.