The Electric Comet theory

[Reality Check]

Well RC your MO hasn’t changed.

All the answers to your points are HERE and HERE enjoy

Well Haig your MO hasn’t changed.
You are still citing links to a crank web site that lies to its readers.
You are still ignoring the science that totally debunks the EC idea, e.g.

• The EC idea predicts that 528,157 asteroids should be comets
• Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (actually no EU X-ray bursts).
• No EDM sparks are seen in images of comet nuclei.
• No EDM hot spots are seen in thermal maps of Tempel 1.
• Voltage potentials are many orders of magnitude too small.
• Cometary dust as collected by the Stardust mission contain forms of carbon that are not in meteorites.

Try reading some of the many flaws in the EC idea. Enjoy

 

[Siggy_G]

Secondly, as usual the peeps from thunderdolts give no explanation at all. The only thing is that they say: "See, collimation, must be discharge" No physics, not math, not explanation just, "this is how it is and astronomers are misguided as they don't know about electric fields blah blah blah".

You're allowed to have an opinion. But I disagree, as Thunderbolts blogs and picture-of-the-day articles give comparative analysis, explanations and relates it to (plasma) physics. Less of the math though, and the articles are not scientific papers any more than articles/news on NASA's site are. You can explain how an electrical circuit works, without using math. You can explain how a satelite orbits a planet, without using math. Hawking explains a lot of abstract ideas in his books, without refering to papers or using equations, and he's not held guilty of any charges, as far as I know. If you refer to the open forum discussions or people from there, that would of course depend on the topic and each respective poster's background, and you could of course be right.

 

[Siggy_G]

I disagree. Cosmology is the study of the origin and evolution of the Universe as a whole. Astronomy is the study of a subset of objects within the Universe.

You keep pointing to this, so I'll bite. If you take Wikipedia's definition(a source I know most of you like to qoute), which also seems quite correct here, physical cosmology is a branch of astronomy that studies the large-scale structures and dynamics of the universe.

Formation and evolution is central. Cosmonogy and origin, however, is mostly a metaphysical trademark of the Big Bang theory. If one assumes a universe that don't expand (Plasma Cosmology / Electric Universe), there is no scientific basis for knowing the "point of creation" for the universe as a whole. One may still study how elements of the universe seem to originate, process and evolve.

In any case, Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe are different pictures attempting to describe the Universe. Hence, they describe both cosmological aspects and astronomical aspects, because several interpretations throughout the full picture are different from the standard model (whether or not you agree with those views). That's why you may hear someone talking about the Sun, comets, galaxies and redshift within in a cosmology labeled subject. If the pieces make sense, they may assemble the full picture.

 

[Ziggurat]

You're allowed to have an opinion. But I disagree, as Thunderbolts blogs and picture-of-the-day articles give comparative analysis, explanations and relates it to (plasma) physics.

You're right, they do give explanations. But the explanations are wrong, and even if they weren't they remain insufficient to actually perform any quantitative analysis.

You can explain how an electrical circuit works, without using math. You can explain how a satelite orbits a planet, without using math. Hawking explains a lot of abstract ideas in his books, without refering to papers or using equations, and he's not held guilty of any charges, as far as I know. If you refer to the open forum discussions or people from there, that would of course depend on the topic and each respective poster's background, and you could of course be right.

Indeed, you can explain things without using math. And you can even put math into words.

But if you don't use math (in words or equations), then you can't make quantitative predictions. Without such predictions, how are we to determine which explanation is correct? After all, it's not enough to have an explanation, we need explanations that have predictive power, and which makes accurate predictions. And for that we NEED math. Hawking might not use math when he talks to amateurs, but he sure as hell needs to use it when he does actual work.

The problem is not that the thunderbolts folks have math-free explanations. The problem is that they don't really have anything else.

 

[Tubbythin]

You keep pointing to this, so I'll bite. If you take Wikipedia's definition(a source I know most of you like to qoute), which also seems quite correct here, physical cosmology is a branch of astronomy that studies the large-scale structures and dynamics of the universe.

The point I'm really trying to make is that saying "ooh the mainstream theory of the Sun/solar system/comets/asteroids ignores these plasma/electric phenomenon" (whether it actually does or doesn't) has no bearing on the validity (or otherwise) of the big bang cosmology.

Formation and evolution is central. Cosmonogy and origin, however, is mostly a metaphysical trademark of the Big Bang theory.

Well, its certainly not metaphysical when you have multiple independent lines of evidence giving complimentary measurements of the age of the Universe (whether this actually constitutes the origin of the Universe is a point for debate I am not going to go in to). Moreover, other cosmologies can still consider this issue, if only to say there wasn't an origin).

If one assumes a universe that don't expand (Plasma Cosmology / Electric Universe),

...then one appears to be assuming something in contradiction to observation.

there is no scientific basis for knowing the "point of creation" for the universe as a whole. One may still study how elements of the universe seem to originate, process and evolve.

Well there is the small issue of the second law of thermodynamics.

In any case, Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe are different pictures attempting to describe the Universe. Hence, they describe both cosmological aspects and astronomical aspects, because several interpretations throughout the full picture are different from the standard model (whether or not you agree with those views). That's why you may hear someone talking about the Sun, comets, galaxies and redshift within in a cosmology labeled subject. If the pieces make sense, they may assemble the full picture.

But they don't make sense. Plasmas are generally restricted by the Debye length, gravity is not. Moreover, to describe the Sun and comets one can ignore general relativity to a good approximation. To do so for the whole Universe makes a mockery of the advancements in physics in the 20th century.

 

[Siggy_G]

I'll take a shot at it. I'm writing this as I watch (and pause) the video:

Impressive feedback there and I could agree to some of the points made. The video is not the best representation of EU. However, some discussion though (sorry, long post):

So while we need some additional heating mechanism, the power requirement for this heating mechanism are low, orders of magnitude below the total solar output.

Hot water won't heat up surrounding gas to hundreds of degrees above the water's own temperature regardless of the gas' transparency, light weight or low pressure. Radiation can accelerate surrounding particles further, but the heat observed in the corona doesn't make sense from an underlying heating mechanism.

But a model where fusion at the sun drives secondary processes, and those secondary processes create secondary heating of the corona, is not prohibited by this observation.

But this is merely a scientific guess and such secondary processes should still manifest themselves and be measureable in some transitional form. However, if the energy was applied externally (Electric Sun hypothesis), the observed order and difference in thermal energy (compared to each medium's density) would at least be expected.

Because the plasma in [sunspots] gets trapped by magnetic fields, so it can't convect as fast. (...) So any plasma in the sunspot which can radiate into space will be colder than plasma not in the sun spot.

Sounds quite plausible. However, pinched intense magnetic fields should cause proportionally intense movements of charged particles (outwards/inwards/twirling), relative to the rest of the surface. Wouldn't one then measure more intense emissions of some form (e.g. synchrotron radiation) within these areas?

In other words, comets are a piss-poor way to try to figure out stellar physics or cosmology.

They are tangible objects and a part of the picture, and may explain quite a bit if they are like the electric comet hypothesis describe.

Then they move on to neutron stars, and simply declare without explanation that neutron stars are impossible. That doesn't cut it. Their reasoning is so absent I can't even criticize it, because there's nothing to criticize.

Not explained in the video, but the EU critique is directed towards these super dense states of matter being highly hypothetical and impossible to falsify. Not possible to criticize, if you want. Have we experiments on collapsed atoms as described in neutron stars? Or in black holes for that matter?

Then they object to black holes. They complain that the jets shouldn't exist if light can't escape a black hole. (... )But light, AND matter, can still escape from outside the event horizon.

Escape yes, but what justifies gigantic energetic jets (outside the event horizon) as matter is being sucked into the black hole? Some inertia, orbiting or bypass of approaching matter, sure, but the complete opposite effect of intense gravity? Riddle me that. On the other hand, torus formations and jets (incoming/outgoing/twisting filaments) have been studied in plasma labs for decades.

Then there's the whole redshift thing. Aarp's data is crap. He cherry picks examples of quasars in close angular proximity to galaxies, and claims that this means that they're also close in distance. But they aren't. And that picture they include with the "luminous bridge"?

I've also questioned the "bleeding pixels" in low resolution or blurry images. I was pointed to Arp's collection of images at higher res, that show this same coincidence, indicating interacting objects (quasars/galactic filaments), while having significantly different redshift (and assumed distance). So other mechanisms seem to influence the redshift values to a larger extent than distance. If the redshift due to expansion assumption is wrong, then it shakes one of the fundamental aspects of standard cosmology. But I've read about a few errors in Arp's model , whilst his observations and critique of the overconfident one side meaning-of-redhsift are interesting.
(Papers reviewing different red shift mechanisms; here and here)

Their bit on Birkeland is particularly amusing. Birkeland did a bunch of plasma experiments, including some where he tried to reproduce something equivalent to planetary rings. And he did get ring-shaped plasma glows around his sphere. But planetary rings aren't glowing plasma. They're made from solids. They don't glow.

One has to have in mind that, in dusty plasma formations, dust particles can eventually condense into larger clumps (ref. Peratt). Birkeland showed "Saturn ring" plasma formations, even if Saturnian rings now are mostly a non-radiant mixture of heavy grains and dusty plasma, it could well have formed from a dusty plasma torus. Are there any experimental confirmations that show Saturnian like rings as a result of gravity?

And then there's the whole HAARP causing earthquakes conspiracy. They note that HAARP can put "immense quantities of energy" into the ionosphere. I don't think they've got any idea of what "immense" actually entails, because the energies involved with HAARP aren't anywhere close to the energies involved in earthquakes.

The HAARP stuff is more like a tiny subject in the speculative section in the Thunderbolts forum, and is not a part of EU theory. But "triggering a process" (like with a catalyst) is not the same as equaling the energy amounts in what is triggered (earthquake). He refers to the coincidence of ionospheric electromagnetic activity prior to certain earthquakes. Whether the ionospheric activity is a cause or effect (of induced magnetic fields within local magma) is another issue.

 

[Siggy_G]

I'll concur with everything Zig said, and add my own observation: for several of the segments (black holes, neutron stars, redshift, etc), the narrator explained the things that he thought were problems with conventional astrophysics, but never explained how EU had better predictions. Even if everything he said about black holes, neutron stars, and redshift was completely correct (and I agree with Ziggurat that the things the narrator said were profoundly flawed), it wouldn't add a shred of evidence to support any EU theories.

Well, the Electric Universe theory do have explanations on the observations made in regards to neutron stars, pulsars, jets (donut-on-a-stick) and red shift. It's a pity the video didn't include those. The video author does sometimes add "in my opinion" – e.g. how he understands or is convinced by the theory. "Thunderbolts of the Gods" and "Cosmology Quest (2)" are still the best representations of the Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology. There's also the more recent clips "Symbols of an Ancient Sky", "The Cosmic Thunderbolt", "The Thunderbolt that Raised Olympus Mons" and "When Meteorites Felll From Mars" (do a search in YouTube or Google Video).

Since you all like to debunk, this must be good viewing, and it may even tangent the thread subject.

 

[Tubbythin]

One has to have in mind that, in dusty plasma formations, dust particles can eventually condense into larger clumps (ref. Peratt). Birkeland showed "Saturn ring" plasma formations, even if Saturnian rings now are mostly a non-radiant mixture of heavy grains and dusty plasma, it could well have formed from a dusty plasma torus.

Its mostly ice.

Are there any experimental confirmations that show Saturnian like rings as a result of gravity?

Yes, I can probably find you a whole list of papers if you really want. But I'm not going to bother unless you are genuinely interested.

 

[Ziggurat]

Hot water won't heat up surrounding gas to hundreds of degrees above the water's own temperature regardless of the gas' transparency, light weight or low pressure.

I know that. Which is why I stated that there's got to be some secondary heating mechanism. But the transparency is VERY relevant to the power requirements involved. The power output of the corona is miniscule compared to the power output of the photosphere. So while the photosphere is not responsible for heating the corona via radiation, the reverse is also true: the photosphere isn't heated by the corona. This secondary heating mechanism of the corona is MUCH lower power than the primary heating mechanism of the photosphere.

But this is merely a scientific guess and such secondary processes should still manifest themselves and be measureable in some transitional form.

Yes. And there are lots of ideas for how that happens.

However, if the energy was applied externally (Electric Sun hypothesis), the observed order and difference in thermal energy (compared to each medium's density) would at least be expected.

If the energy is being applied externally, why is the majority of the power being deposited in the photosphere and not the corona? Again, we can look at more than just the temperatures, we can also examine the power output. And the power output of the photosphere is WAY larger than the power output of the corona. Furthermore, just as the secondary processes I mentioned should manifest themselves, so should your external power source. But it doesn't. We can find no giant currents coming into the sun that could power it. Oh, there are particle flows, and there are currents, but none of them add up to anything close to the total solar power output.

Sounds quite plausible. However, pinched intense magnetic fields should cause proportionally intense movements of charged particles (outwards/inwards/twirling), relative to the rest of the surface. Wouldn't one then measure more intense emissions of some form (e.g. synchrotron radiation) within these areas?

Synchrotron radiation is always emitted perpendicular to the magnetic field, so you won't see it when looking straight down. But the frequency depends on the thermal energy of the charge and the strength of the magnetic field. If that's low enough, then it's going to blend into the thermal background. And sunspots do emit light, they're not actually black, they're just not as bright as the surrounding photosphere.

They are tangible objects and a part of the picture, and may explain quite a bit if they are like the electric comet hypothesis describe.

That's a mighty big "if". And my point is that if you want to figure out whether that "if" is true, start with the big stuff first.

Not explained in the video, but the EU critique is directed towards these super dense states of matter being highly hypothetical and impossible to falsify.

I don't think they are impossible to falsify. We can't test them directly, and so your confidence in their existence might be lower than more tangible things, but indirect tests (such as particle accelerator tests of nuclear forces) can still provide potential falsification.

Have we experiments on collapsed atoms as described in neutron stars? Or in black holes for that matter?

We have lots of tests of the theories which predict these things. Falsify the theory, you falsify the prediction.

Escape yes, but what justifies gigantic energetic jets (outside the event horizon) as matter is being sucked into the black hole? Some inertia or bypass of approaching matter, sure, but the complete opposite effect of intense gravity? Riddle me that.

Well, here's one possibility:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_process

On the other hand, torus formations and jets (incoming/outgoing/twisting filaments) have been studied in plasma labs for decades.

Do plasmas form tori by themselves? Or do they do so in response to something external? I know of multiple examples of the latter (such as tokamaks) but no examples of the former. If it's the latter, what's doing it here?

I've also questioned the "bleeding pixels" in low resolution or blurry images.

The objects themselves are extended. It's not simply a resolution issue, you'll get "bridge" artifacts from overlapping signals even with zero blur.

I was pointed to Arp's collection of images at higher res, that show this same coincidence, indicating interacting objects

That's precisely the problem: Aarp can't show that any of this is anything more than just a coincidence. If it's just a coincidence (and he can't show it's not), then there IS no interaction.

If the redshift due to expansion assumption is wrong, then it shakes one of the fundamental aspects of standard cosmology.

Yes, it would. But Aarp's cherry-picking doesn't demonstrate that it is. Nor have any plausible alternative mechanisms been put forth to explain what else could provide the red shift.

One has to have in mind that, in dusty plasma formations, dust particles can eventually condense into larger clumps (ref. Peratt). Birkeland showed "Saturn ring" plasma formations, even if Saturnian rings now are mostly a non-radiant mixture of heavy grains and dusty plasma, it could well have formed from a dusty plasma torus.

Birkeland's experiments used a gas-filled chamber, where a ring of gas was ionized into a plasma. No orbit, no coalescing, just a ring of ionized gas surrounded by non-ionized gas. That's no model for Saturn's orbiting solid particulate rings surrounded by vacuum. The only similarity is that they're both tori. But so are donuts. Saturn is not surrounded by a giant flat donut.

Are there the experimental confirmations that show Saturnian like rings as a result of gravity?

There are numerical simulations which show that gravity can produce such results. It's kind of hard to run lab experiments to demonstrate the effect.

But "triggering a process" (like with a catalyst) is not the same as equaling the energy amounts in what is triggered (earthquake).

True. But given the energy scales involved, it doesn't make sense that HAARP could even trigger such events.

He refers to the coincidence of ionospheric electromagnetic activity prior to certain earthquakes. Whether the ionospheric activity is a cause or effect (of induced magnetic fields within local magma) is another issue.

Before you try to prove if it's a cause or an effect, you should prove that they are actually related at all. That one happened prior to the other doesn't prove any relationship.

 

[Dancing David]

You're allowed to have an opinion. But I disagree, as Thunderbolts blogs and picture-of-the-day articles give comparative analysis, explanations and relates it to (plasma) physics. Less of the math though, and the articles are not scientific papers any more than articles/news on NASA's site are. You can explain how an electrical circuit works, without using math. You can explain how a satelite orbits a planet, without using math. Hawking explains a lot of abstract ideas in his books, without refering to papers or using equations, and he's not held guilty of any charges, as far as I know. If you refer to the open forum discussions or people from there, that would of course depend on the topic and each respective poster's background, and you could of course be right.

I see you aren't presenting any theory, evidence or data, hmmm, do you have more than rhetoric?

 

[Dancing David]

You keep pointing to this, so I'll bite. If you take Wikipedia's definition(a source I know most of you like to qoute), which also seems quite correct here, physical cosmology is a branch of astronomy that studies the large-scale structures and dynamics of the universe.

Formation and evolution is central. Cosmonogy and origin, however, is mostly a metaphysical trademark of the Big Bang theory. If one assumes a universe that don't expand (Plasma Cosmology / Electric Universe), there is no scientific basis for knowing the "point of creation" for the universe as a whole. One may still study how elements of the universe seem to originate, process and evolve.

In any case, Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe are different pictures attempting to describe the Universe. Hence, they describe both cosmological aspects and astronomical aspects, because several interpretations throughout the full picture are different from the standard model (whether or not you agree with those views). That's why you may hear someone talking about the Sun, comets, galaxies and redshift within in a cosmology labeled subject. If the pieces make sense, they may assemble the full picture.

EU, lacks cohernet theory, lacks evidence of alleged events, lacks a basis for explanation.

Got theory or data yet?

 

[Dancing David]

Well, the Electric Universe theory do have explanations on the observations made in regards to neutron stars, pulsars, jets (donut-on-a-stick) and red shift. It's a pity the video didn't include those.

I notice you didn't either. Start a thread present the explanations, I can guarantee the red shift ones will not wash.

 

[Siggy_G]

I see you aren't presenting any theory, evidence or data, hmmm, do you have more than rhetoric?

It was a response to tusenfem's post, which didn't include theory, evidence or data, just an opinion on the "peps from Thundebolts". In fact, I explained why not all text you read will or need to be math and data. Such as the content of many posts in this thread (rhetorics perhaps), also from yourself.

I notice you didn't either. Start a thread present the explanations, I can guarantee the red shift ones will not wash.

I did mention some of the critique in a previous post. Thunderbolts picture of the day (subject archive) and some of the video material (my previous post) do present some of the EU view in this regard. I realize the material is not the same as peer-reviewed papers. If I find the time these busy days, I'll consider starting separate threads on them, but I guess some of these aspects are mentioned during the (long) Electric Universe thread?

 

[Dancing David]

Now Siggy G, this is the perrenial isue any for EC or EU proponent when asked to present theory, data and evidence that supports the theory suddenlt doesn't present any.

But then they start to say all sorts of things rather than present the theory and data. Without theory and data, you have a blog by Thunderbolts with unsubstantiated assertions.

 

[Siggy_G]

Now Siggy G, this is the perrenial isue any for EC or EU proponent when asked to present theory, data and evidence that supports the theory suddenlt doesn't present any.

I see where you're heading and I think it's a bit of a blunt argument. I already described the content and reasoning behind the post you originally refered to, and they weren't primary meant to describe data or theories per se. I justified the common language in some of the presentations of EU materal. If you ask me to present data from paper archives or re-package EU material, from the continously new aspects that comes up during discussion, that obviously takes time and effort. I were just pointing to the fact that mentioned things have been embraced by EU theory.

I think many of the EU proponents in this thread have been just as relentless as yourself, and the other guys at your side of the fence, in continously presenting new data, papers or citations. Really, what it boils down to, is that you will just keep requesting more material, state that it's not scientific enough or point to how EU theory doesn't agree with the standard model (shocking that).

But then they start to say all sorts of things rather than present the theory and data.

You can't expect all attacks and opinions from your (/others) side to stand unanswered. They are not always about data, but simply blunt arguments about EU theory or proponents in general. Which this and the previous post is about; the presentation or representation of EU theory versus your reactions to it.

Without theory and data, you have a blog by Thunderbolts with unsubstantiated assertions.

As mentioned in this and other EU/PC related threads, there are also published papers by Anthony Peratt, Wal Thornhill, C E R Bruce and Donald Scott that makes much of the foundation of EU theory, whether or not you believe you have debunked it. If you really mean that EU theory just boils down to a blog, and that there is no data or scientific/engineering basis, then your alleged insight into EU theory is not there. Then I'd say that's the proof that you're arguing just for the sake of it.

 

[Dancing David]

I see where you're heading and I think it's a bit of a blunt argument. I already described the content and reasoning behind the post you originally refered to, and they weren't primary meant to describe data or theories per se. I justified the common language in some of the presentations of EU materal. If you ask me to present data from paper archives or re-package EU material, from the continously new aspects that comes up during discussion, that obviously takes time and effort. I were just pointing to the fact that mentioned things have been embraced by EU theory.

And every time someone asked for the data, people change the subject.

I think many of the EU proponents in this thread have been just as relentless as yourself, and the other guys at your side of the fence, in continously presenting new data, papers or citations.

Uh sure Siggy, they have presented blog posts, they have not presented theory or data.

take the EC theory, well we know it is not from either the movement from one part of the solar system to another and that it has nothing to do with the magnetosphere of the planets.

So what does it have to do with.
present the theory.

Really, what it boils down to, is that you will just keep requesting more material, state that it's not scientific enough or point to how EU theory doesn't agree with the standard model (shocking that).

No Siggy the problem is that so far you and the other EC proponents have not presented a coherent theory that matches the observable data.

So what makes an EC shine Siggy G, start there and educate me. Then we can discuss the evidence/

My guess is that you will not present either theory or evidence.

You can't expect all attacks and opinions from your (/others) side to stand unanswered. They are not always about data, but simply blunt arguments about EU theory or proponents in general. Which this and the previous post is about; the presentation or representation of EU theory versus your reactions to it.

Not at all Siggy_G, I notice you are stalling rather than presenting either the theory or the evidence. I am very open minded, and I have examined the ideas. They lack a coherent theory and data to back them up.

Answer the question Siggy_G, and it is germane to this thread:

1. What makes an EC comet shine?

-present your theory
-present your evidence.

As mentioned in this and other EU/PC related threads, there are also published papers by Anthony Peratt, Wal Thornhill, C E R Bruce and Donald Scott that makes much of the foundation of EU theory,

And funny thing about that
NONE of them match the observable data, all around us in the universe Siggy_G, so if you think they do, start a thread.

NONE of them have a coherent theory except for Scott and his ideas so far are out of synch with all observable data.

Meanwhile in this thread answer this question
What makes an EC comet shine?

whether or not you believe you have debunked it. If you really mean that EU theory just boils down to a blog, and that there is no data or scientific/engineering basis, then your alleged insight into EU theory is not there. Then I'd say that's the proof that you're arguing just for the sake of it.

I would say you haven't presented a coherent theory or the data to back it and you are engaging in stall tactics to avoid the issue.

As predicted when asked to present theory and evidence you stall.

What makes an EC comet shine?

 

[Dancing David]

Now Siggy G, this is the perrenial isue any for EC or EU proponent when asked to present theory, data and evidence that supports the theory suddenly doesn't present any.

But then they start to say all sorts of things rather than present the theory and data. Without theory and data, you have a blog by Thunderbolts with unsubstantiated assertions.

What makes an EC comet shine?

 

[Haig]

What makes an EC comet shine?

The evidence suggests that comets are highly negatively charged with respect to the Sun. As they rush toward the Sun, the voltage increases until at some point the comet nucleus begins to discharge. Electrons are stripped from a few points on the comet surface where the electric field is strongest. These “spark discharges” finely machine rocky material from the surface to form a “cathode jet” of negatively charged dust together with surface matter that has been torn apart to release ionized atoms and molecules, including oxygen.

Under the conventional model there is no reason for the high density of negative ions discovered near the comet nucleus. Negative ions are difficult to produce by solar heating and are quickly destroyed by solar radiation. Nevertheless, in March 1986 when the Giotto spacecraft flew within 600km of Comet Halley, an abundance of negatively charged atoms was discovered in the inner coma—direct evidence that a comet is the cathode in an electric exchange with the Sun.

Electric Comet by Wallace Thornhill

 

[dasmiller]

The evidence suggests that comets are highly negatively charged with respect to the Sun. As they rush toward the Sun, the voltage increases until at some point the comet nucleus begins to discharge. Electrons are stripped from a few points on the comet surface where the electric field is strongest. These “spark discharges” finely machine rocky material from the surface to form a “cathode jet” of negatively charged dust together with surface matter that has been torn apart to release ionized atoms and molecules, including oxygen.

Under the conventional model there is no reason for the high density of negative ions discovered near the comet nucleus. Negative ions are difficult to produce by solar heating and are quickly destroyed by solar radiation. Nevertheless, in March 1986 when the Giotto spacecraft flew within 600km of Comet Halley, an abundance of negatively charged atoms was discovered in the inner coma—direct evidence that a comet is the cathode in an electric exchange with the Sun.

Electric Comet by Wallace Thornhill

None of which actually answers my question and I don't think it answers DD's.

Is the glow that we see from a comet simply sunlight reflected from the ejecta or are we seeing ejecta and interplanetary plasma glowing due to ongoing electrical discharges? If it's a mix, then is the electrical glow a significant contributor?

 

[Siggy_G]

This is why I'm wondering about data of the ionization degree within a coma, especially close to the nucleus. If the inner part of the coma is a gas, it has dielectric properties. As soon as it gets ionized (I would assume above a lower threshold; 1%) due to radiation etc. it has plasma properties. The ionosphere is partially ionized (at least within certain volumes/clouds), and there are examples of long-range discharges there; red sprites.

Formation of ordered structures of charged microparticles in near-surface cometary gas-dusty atmosphere

The properties near-surface cometary atmosphere is considered, as mediums, in which the formation of ordered structures from charged microparticles is possible. Based on dates on cometary atmospheres and guesses of mechanisms of charging of sublimating microparticles the calculations of an electric field near to a surface of a comet are executed. The electric field strength is determined by a charge of large particles (20 ... 50 micrometer) also reaches values 500 V/m. In such conditions in a near-surface atmosphere of a comet, the discharges similar to the discharges in high layers of an Earth's atmosphere are possible.

(!)