The Electric Comet theory

[Dancing David]

Well DD this piece explains it: -

The Comet and the Future of Science (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060227comet.htm) http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060227comet.htm

Well, that is the issue I have right there Haig, there are asteroids that do not have comas that come from exactly the same areas as the comets that do show comas, so that is a huge problem for the EC theory.

The fact that there are comets that show comas farther from the sun is in fact a huge problem for the EC theory, there would be little to no charge difference at those distances, and the fact that the comas can continue to grow as a comet leaves the area of the sun is another huge problem for the EC.

For EC to be a theory it should be able to explain why there are bodies that in EC are of the same composition from the same areas but have the crucial difference, it does not at this time do so.

So it is not a theory it is at best a hypothesis and one that in fact contradicts the evidence.

[Zeuzzz]

The surface conductivity of comets is likely highly different from meteors. Unless im mistaken meteorites are high in metals, which will conduct very easily and thus adjust to the ambient charge easier thus not developing net charge. Comets may be different.

[Dancing David]

Sorry Zeuzzz, the issue is that asteroids are what they are , rocky bodies and that comets are what they are, frozen bodies.

I beleive that most asteroids are noy-conductive. 75% are type C and non-metallic.

You can't say that comets are asteroids, which at some point EC says and then say they aren't.

[Zeuzzz]

Well asteroids that maintain a radial orbit will be staying at the same potential relative to the sun, such as ones in the asteroid belt. Comets have highly elliptical orbits so are traversing small solar E-field, and maybe will build up differential charge as they do so.

When I say maybe I mean "probably wont", and when I say small E-field I mean "the hypothetical one needed to make the model work". And when I say model I mean "the model that has not yet been actually presented".

:)

[Dancing David]

Well asteroids that maintain a radial orbit will be staying at the same potential relative to the sun, such as ones in the asteroid belt. Comets have highly elliptical orbits so are traversing small solar E-field, and maybe will build up differential charge as they do so.

When I say maybe I mean "probably wont", and when I say small E-field I mean "the hypothetical one needed to make the model work". And when I say model I mean "the model that has not yet been actually presented".

:)

Well Zeuzz, the issue is that there are asteroids that have very elliptical orbits and no comas and comets that have less elliptical orbits and have comas. And as mentioned earlier in the thread the four main belt objects that show comas do not have any more eccentric orbits than the other main belt objects.

So it is not an environmental factor.

:)

[Siggy_G]

We can dismiss this possibility rather easily. Comets are long-lived. As such, they must expel a miniscule fraction of their mass each orbit. The momentum transfer must therefore be vanishingly small.

Thanks for your response, and a little late from my side (I have a couple of more outstanding responses). Can we say for sure how long-lived comets are and how much matter they eject? In any case, most of this matter is ejected in the opposing direction of gravity, and (according kinetic energy laws) it will counter act gravity. The effect may be very small though, but still a weak contribution to obscure the actual mass of the comet.

They don't need to. Bow shock will drag the cloud of the comet, but will do basically nothing to the nucleus. The cross section to mass ratio is just way too small.

Bow-shock (and a compressed coma frontside) may still cause the coma to inflict some pressure/resistance onto the nucleus, but the effect may admittedly be really small. But I want to underline my main statement underneath, and I think it is an important one, especially since the interplanetary medium becomes increasingly dense closer to the Sun. Even if it is sparse, the comet travels a long distance through this, I'd say, a little resistant medium. While I haven't found any paper discussing this, I'd say the scenario can't be neglected:

"The fact that a fast moving and accelerating comet plunges through interstellar medium and the solar wind [must have a saying]. This would during most of the orbit have a vector that counteracts the direction of gravity, hence slowing down the comet a little compared to a scenario where there is no medium resistance. It would appear as less gravity (F) acts on the two bodies (M*m), and since the Sun's mass (M) is known, the comet's mass (m) will appear smaller than it really is."

[Siggy_G]

Well Zeuzz, the issue is that there are asteroids that have very elliptical orbits and no comas and comets that have less elliptical orbits and have comas. And as mentioned earlier in the thread the four main belt objects that show comas do not have any more eccentric orbits than the other main belt objects.

So it is not an environmental factor.

Aren't main-belt comets a thorn in the butt for any cometary model? Is there ANY reason why a dirty iceball should suddenly start vaporizing as mad out there? If they are icy asteroids since the early days of solar system formation, why on Earth hasn't the vaporizing come to and end by now? By the way, are the chemical components actually been detected for these comets/asteroids? Or let me guess, they are assumed and estiamted to be icy...?

The eccentric orbit would have an effect on an electric comet, as it moves in and out through the electric field of the Sun (more eccentric = more contrast / charge). At the top of my head, a comet's chemical components could alter and cause the nucleus to be less willing to charge at some point. This could explain extinct comets and varying type of comets. But I'm currently completelly unarmed for this statement, except for the description itself. I need to do some research into this (which chemical components they may consist of, how discharges can alter them, if there is a saturation threshold for the conductivity/charge etc.).

[Dancing David]

Aren't main-belt comets a thorn in the butt for any cometary model? Is there ANY reason why a dirty iceball should suddenly start vaporizing as mad out there?

Hi Siggy_G, who said they are vaporizing like mad, or did you just make that up?

The comas on the four main belt objects are not that large.

What makes you think that they are? What evidence and data say that it is a huge thorn in the butt for the mainstream model?

If they are icy asteroids since the early days of solar system formation, why on Earth hasn't the vaporizing come to and end by now?

Why should it?
What level of vaporization is needed to produce a low level coma, not as much as you might think.

So who says and by what data that this is a problem for the mainstream? Did you even look that one up, who says that it is a problem? What data, what evidence?

BTW , how many times do you think Swift-Tuttle or Hartley-2 have gone around the sun, how about Halley’s ? You do know that comets enter the system from farther out in the Ooort cloud and Kupier belt, some maybe from interstellar space?
Some have hyperbolic orbits, some parabolic, some elliptical, givin the size of Jupiter the same mechanism of capture and stability applies to an incoming cometary body as applies to other mainbelt asteroids.

So what part of mainstream theory says that any object in the main belt has been there since the birth of the solar system?

It is a huge problem for EC comets, there are hundreds of objects in exactly the same part of the solar system going through similar trajectories ALL the time, yet only four show comas,

Why is that Siggy_G?

By the way, are the chemical components actually been detected for these comets/asteroids? Or let me guess, they are assumed and estiamted to be icy...?

Cuts both ways, and yes they show the same composition as many other cometary bodies, in the gases that they give off. But EC has no means to show how a rocky body produces the gases seen in spectrography. Maybe water but there are hundreds.

Why don't you explain why just those four and none of the other main belt objects?
I would say that composition is a very good reason, they contain materials that sublimate and vaporize. They are not even needing to be ‘ice’ as in water, there are many other compounds which will act this way.



The eccentric orbit would have an effect on an electric comet, as it moves in and out through the electric field of the Sun (more eccentric = more contrast / charge). At the top of my head, a comet's chemical components could alter and cause the nucleus to be less willing to charge at some point.

Off the top of your head is not an explanation, the fact is that there are Apollo objects with greater eccentricity than any other objects in the solar system, except for some comets. They are rocky asteroids just like the EC comets, yet they have no comas.

They do not show comas.

This could explain extinct comets and varying type of comets.

Excuse me, but you are still just spinning speculation.

Extinct comets? You just made that up.

But I'm currently completelly unarmed for this statement, except for the description itself. I need to do some research into this (which chemical components they may consist of, how discharges can alter them, if there is a saturation threshold for the conductivity/charge etc.).



Yeah, okay.

So far you haven't explained what makes an Electric Comet shine, but please if you have an idea bring it back, but please remember, why these objects and not all the others in similar orbits?

No speculating what they may be made of unless you care to match the observations that are already made.

Siggy_G there are hundreds of objects that go through exactly the same orbits but they do not have comas, the mainstream gives a coherent explanation, so far the EC does not.

[Dancing David]

Siggy_G where does this quote come from?

"The fact that a fast moving and accelerating comet plunges through interstellar medium and the solar wind [must have a saying]. This would during most of the orbit have a vector that counteracts the direction of gravity, hence slowing down the comet a little compared to a scenario where there is no medium resistance. It would appear as less gravity (F) acts on the two bodies (M*m), and since the Sun's mass (M) is known, the comet's mass (m) will appear smaller than it really is."


What bizzarre physics underlie this, does it assume that the comet has a charge opposite that of teh solar medium?

Huh?

Wouldn't that mean the comet would accelerate and go away from the sun faster than it does on its way in?

[Siggy_G]

Siggy_G where does this quote come from?

From my previous post on the topic.

What bizzarre physics underlie this, does it assume that the comet has a charge opposite that of teh solar medium?

It has nothing to do with charge. It is nothing bizarre about it, and has to do with resistance of the medium the object travels trough. Drag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_%28physics%29) would be the proper term. It opposes the direction of motion, and opposes the direction of gravity most of the orbit, as explained.

[tusenfem]

From my previous post on the topic.



It has nothing to do with charge. It is nothing bizarre about it, and has to do with resistance of the medium the object travels trough. Drag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_%28physics%29) would be the proper term. It opposes the direction of motion, and opposes the direction of gravity most of the orbit, as explained.

Siggy_G, can you please calculate what the drag on the comet is.
Or you could try to find out what the ram pressure is of the solar wind (at Earth e.g. it is in the nano Pascals)
Give us a bone to chew on!

[Dancing David]

From my previous post on the topic.



It has nothing to do with charge. It is nothing bizarre about it, and has to do with resistance of the medium the object travels trough. Drag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_%28physics%29) would be the proper term. It opposes the direction of motion, and opposes the direction of gravity most of the orbit, as explained.

Huh, drag produced by what? And veru samll is not going to change the orbital mechanics anyway.

You are not going to have a darg unless you have a charge and a field , right?

And yes refering to drag is 'bizzare', sorry it was not a diplomatic choice of words, but there is not a 'medium' that the comet is traversing.

[Siggy_G]

Huh, drag produced by what? And veru samll is not going to change the orbital mechanics anyway.

You are not going to have a darg unless you have a charge and a field , right?

And yes refering to drag is 'bizzare', sorry it was not a diplomatic choice of words, but there is not a 'medium' that the comet is traversing.

Interplanetary medium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_medium) and/including solar wind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind) are medium, although sparse. I'll try to have a go at tusenfem's challenge of calculating the drag/resistance for a given type of comet. I think I found a paper that briefly mentioned it as well. Stay tuned.

The drag term applies to electromagnetics too (such as that of the electrostatic build-up of space shuttles and the result of triboelectric effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triboelectric_effect) etc.), but I'm simply refering to the mechanics part, similar to fluid and air resistance. Briefly explained in this Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_%28physics%29).

[Dancing David]

That is a mighty sparse thing to call a medium, I think if you were even travelling at relativistic speeds it would not be much of a drag.

I believe most people would call it a vacum.

:)

[ben m]

Interplanetary medium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_medium) and/including solar wind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind) are medium, although sparse. I'll try to have a go at tusenfem's challenge of calculating the drag/resistance for a given type of comet. I think I found a paper that briefly mentioned it as well. Stay tuned.

Don't try to use standard drag equations, like those from aerodynamics, which are always calculated in the continuous flow regime (projectile size larger than gas mean free path). In space you're in the free molecular flow regime. The calculate the drag force in molecular flow, just sum up the momentum transfers to all of the particles you crash into.

[Siggy_G]

Don't try to use standard drag equations, like those from aerodynamics, which are always calculated in the continuous flow regime (projectile size larger than gas mean free path). In space you're in the free molecular flow regime. The calculate the drag force in molecular flow, just sum up the momentum transfers to all of the particles you crash into.

Hm, yes, parts of the drag seems to be a negligible issue (the medium isn't really continous/dense enough for significant eddy currents to occur behind it), but the sum of collision is of significance, as with aerodynamics. However, the temperature must be of significance too. Although sparse, 20 000 Kelvin particles (if more or less in opposing direction of motion) must compensate a bit for the sparse density. I couldn't find equations that take that into consideration - except relative motion between the medium and the object. Temperature could be included into that factor. Anyway, I'll work a bit further on it and show what I may find. Also, it's Christmas eve over here, so give it a couple of days :)

[Dancing David]

The relative vectors of the heat expression are going to be randomized for the particles, the effect will be negligible and cancel out, I believe it is only the relative momentum/mass of impacted particles that that matters.

So let us say that our model comet is made of one mole of interplanetary medium and that it is a flat disk traveling face on, 10 cm in diameter. Pi x r2=3.14 x 25=78.5

So the cross section impact is going to be 5 particles per cm2 near the earth, so 392.5 particle for each centimeter traversed.

So over a km that would be 3.92 x 108 particles, so 30 km/sec for an average comet, so over an hour that would be 30 x 60 x 60 x 60 x 3.92 x 108 or 6.46 x 106 or 2.54 x 1013 particles per hour.

Now Avogadro’s number is 6.02 x 1023, so if we assume that this model is accurate and that I did the math correctly, always a risk!

Then we get that the difference in size momentum to impact momentum is 1010 or 10,000,000,000 and this is for a very strange and flat plate type comet traveling face on to the medium.

Given that it would take about 1, 141, 552 years for the impact momentum to equal out the innate momentum of the object.

Now let us say that the model comet is pure carbon, it would be a disk of about 12 grams in mass, with a plate section of ten cm. diameter, so a very thin disk of carbon traveling face on to the interstellar medium is going to take a million years or so to stop in its orbit.

[Siggy_G]

Thanks for your take on it, DD. Cool. I think there may have been a minor error among the conversion calculation, so I'll stick to SI units in my calculation (meters, seconds etc.) to be sure. I'll also try to use values for an average comet, and eventually see the effects in light of asteroidal densities. I did a few approaches, but here is the main one:

Take a comet of 10 km diameter and (3,14 * (5 km)2) 7.85 * 104 m2 surface area.

The interplanetary medium having an average density of 5 particles per cm3 at 1 AU, means 5,0 * 106 per m3.

Onto the cometary surface there will be:
(7.85 * 104) * (5,0 * 106) = 3,9 * 1011 colliding particles per meter traversed.

Take travelling speed of 30 km/s for an average comet. (3,9 * 1011) * (3.0 * 104) = 1,2 * 1016 colliding particles per second.

However, the medium is not static. At average it moves radially at 400 km/s, towards the apporaching comet. This gives:
(1,2 * 1016 ) * (4.0 * 105) = 4.8 * 1021 colliding particles per second.

Regarding the mass and density of the medium. Excluding electrons, the majority of the solar wind particles are protons (a trace are heavier elements ripped off the solar surface).

(Solar Center - on solar wind (http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qsolwindcomp.html))

Solar wind density (p):
5,0 * 106 (particles per m3 solar wind).

proton mass = 1g / 6.022 * 1023 = 1.6605 * 10-20 kg

p (solarwind) = (1.6605 * 10-20 kg) * (5,0 * 106) = 8.3 * 10-14 kg/m3

The drag formula has to do with the force experienced from colliding particles (medium density) and relative speed between object and medium.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/3/3/b/33b17228ada6950792af57e0dfe0c4af.png

The object's shape is indicated through the drag coefficient C (its aeordynamic shape) but since all of the colliding particles will transfer their kinetic energy to the comet (as opposed to aerodynamic collision) this value will be set to 1.0.

u (object's velocity relative to the medium): 3.0 * 104 + 4.0 * 105 = 4.3 * 105 m/s

A (surface area) = 7.85 * 104 m2

F(drag) = ½ (8.3 * 10-14) * (4.3 * 105)2 * 1.0 * 7.85 * 104 m2 = 60.3 N

Dividing by the comet's mass (see below), we also get the (negative) acceleration:
a = 60.3 N / (8.7 * 1011 kg) = 6.9 * 10-10 m/s2

The Sun's gravitational acceleration:

http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpgravity/gravity_acceleration_equation.png

g(sun1AU) = ((6.67300 * 10-11) * (1.9891×1030)) / (1.496 * 1011)2 = (1.32 * 1020) / (2.24 * 1022) = 5.9 * 10^-3 m/s2

If we assume that the comet IS consisting of asteroidal matter density (p) of 3,0 g/cm^3 (3.0 * 106 kg/m3), then we have:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/6/7/e678db0137d57dddf5d66f02a6fdf4ef.png = 2,9 * 105 m3

m (comet) = V*p = (2,9 * 105) * (3.0 * 106) = 8.7 * 1011 kg

The gravity force acted onto the comet is then:
F(gravity) = m*a = m(comet)* g(Sun1AU) = (8.7 * 1011) * (0.65 *10-3) = 5.7 * 108 N

CONCLUSION: The drag from the interstaller medium is really tiny in comparison to the gravity force at 1AU. Far less than suspected. For objects of rock size and larger, it seems mechanical drag (as with radiation pressure) can be neglected even for the relatively high speed an incoming comet and the opposing medium typically have. However, the density and speed of the solar wind can vary/fluctate, and the resistant force/acceleration may increase above what is calculated here (*2). Also, the more dusty interplanetary medium around Pluto's distance may have a different resistance due to way lower gravity from the Sun and higher or same density (due to additional dust) of the medium.

Related:

*1) Measuring the Interplanetary Medium with a Solar Sail (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0308/0308108v2.pdf)

*2) Extremely high speed solar wind: 29-30 October 2003 (1850 km/s) (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004JGRA..10909102S)

*3) Directly measured limit on the interplanetary matter density from Pioneer 10 and 11 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005PhLB..613...11N)

[Siggy_G]

Including this one as well:
ENERGY APPROACH (of the drag force question)

Solar wind density (p): 5,0 * 106 (particles per m3 solar wind).

proton mass = 1g / 6.022 * 1023 = 1.6605 * 10-20 kg

p(solarwind) = (1.6605 * 10-20 kg) * (5,0 * 106) = 8.3 * 10-14 kg/m3

medium mass traversed/collided per second:
(surface area) * (relative motion between comet and medium) * (medium density) =

(suffix test: m2 * m/s * kg/m3 = kg/s)

(7.85 * 104) * (4.3 * 105) * (8.3 * 10-14) = 2.8 * 10-5 kg/s

Opposing kinetic energy (i.e. medium) per second:
E(k) = ½ * m * v^2 = ½ * (2.8 * 10-5) * (4.3 * 105)^2 = 2.6 * 106 J

Comet's kinetic energy = ½ * (8.7 * 1011) * (4.3 * 105)^2 = 8.0 * 1027 J

I didn't carry one with this one as I went to drag force equations. But I guess this implies a similar contrast as when using the drag force and gravity equations. However, the comet's kinetic energy here is its accumulated velocity and not per second, so don't compare the order of magnitudes directly (if I did the math right, that is).

[Dancing David]

In other words the interstellar medium will have no effect upon the motion of teh comet and is not going to cause it to orbit as though it has less mass, now is it Siggy_G?

You are not going to have a rocky body sudenly orbiting as though it has less mass, now are you?

[Siggy_G]

In other words the interstellar medium will have no effect upon the motion of teh comet and is not going to cause it to orbit as though it has less mass, now is it Siggy_G?

Not due to mechanical drag at least (as calculated for 1 AU at normal solar wind output), as I first suspected. It was worth the calculation I guess, because considering the speed of the comet and the interplanetary medium (solar wind), one could suspect it to have some effect, and then reduce the comet's motion (and hence it's calculated mass).

For other kinds of matter/objects (solar sail, dust, plasma) it has an effect, but apparently not for larger bodies.

[Dancing David]

Thanks!

[Siggy_G]

Opposing kinetic energy (i.e. medium) per second:
E(k) = ½ * m * v^2 = ½ * (2.8 * 10-5) * (4.3 * 105)^2 = 2.6 * 106 J

Comet's kinetic energy = ½ * (8.7 * 1011) * (4.3 * 105)^2 = 8.0 * 1027 J
.

The comet's velocity is 30 km/s, not (solarwind+comet velocity) and an there's an error in the exponent. Correction:

Comet's total kinetic energy = ½ * (8.7 * 1011) * (3.0 * 104)^2 = 3.9 * 1019 J

One need to calculate how much kinetic energy the comet gains per second due to gravity. E(p) = mgh (uncertain application). It's kind of a energy potential and "free fall" towards the Sun, and the "height" is the distance traversed in a second. The same second and distance relative to the Sun as the opposing medium is calculated for (but the medium had velocity as well).

Comet's gained kinetic energy in one second (at 1AU): (8.7 * 1011) * ( 6,5 * 10-2) * (3.0 * 104) = 1.7 * 1015 J

In terms of kinetic energy, the energy gained from gravity would only be reduced with a 10-9 factor by the medium, which almost coincides with the drag force calculation.

[tusenfem]

Thanks for your take on it, DD. Cool. I think there may have been a minor error among the conversion calculation, so I'll stick to SI units in my calculation (meters, seconds etc.) to be sure. I'll also try to use values for an average comet, and eventually see the effects in light of asteroidal densities. I did a few approaches, but here is the main one:

Take a comet of 10 km diameter and (3,14 * (5 km)2) 7.85 * 104 m2 surface area.

The interplanetary medium having an average density of 5 particles per cm3 at 1 AU, means 5,0 * 106 per m3.

Onto the cometary surface there will be:
(7.85 * 104) * (5,0 * 106) = 3,9 * 1011 colliding particles per meter traversed.

Take travelling speed of 30 km/s for an average comet. (3,9 * 1011) * (3.0 * 104) = 1,2 * 1016 colliding particles per second.

However, the medium is not static. At average it moves radially at 400 km/s, towards the apporaching comet. This gives:
(1,2 * 1016 ) * (4.0 * 105) = 4.8 * 1021 colliding particles per second.


Nope, here you go wrong, you just add the SW velocity to the C velocity, so you would get:

3,9 * 1011) * (43.0 * 104) ~ 1.7 * 1017 colliding particles per second.

you have now multiplied twice with velocity, so you are now a factor 104 too high.


proton mass = 1g / 6.022 * 108sup]23[/suo] = 1.6605 * 10-20 kg


And another error, the proton mass is 1.67 10-27 kg.
So that makes your drag a factor 10-7 smaller.

[tusenfem]

Including this one as well:
ENERGY APPROACH (of the drag force question)

Solar wind density (p): 5,0 * 106 (particles per m3 solar wind).

proton mass = 1g / 6.022 * 1023 = 1.6605 * 10-20 kg


once more, the proton mass is 1,67 10-27 kg

so onece more you are a factor 107 too high here with the rest of your calculation.

The mass of the proton is just something you can look up and check! just google "proton mass" and you get the value.

[Siggy_G]

Thanks for the corrections tusenfem. This is what happens when doing math during late evening hours I guess. Not sure why the proton value was wrong - I thought I had checked it initially. Then the error followed.

[Ziggurat]

Thanks for the corrections tusenfem. This is what happens when doing math during late evening hours I guess. Not sure why the proton value was wrong - I thought I had checked it initially. Then the error followed.

I suspect you converted from g to kg the wrong way, which produces a factor of 10^6 difference, plus a shifted decimal place from using 1/6.022 = 1.66 instead of 1/6.022 = 0.166.

[Haig]

Snowballs in Hell (http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/00current.htm)
As Thornhill writes: "The EU model predicts that all active comets will exhibit frequent, short outbursts in different spots on their surface. The outbursts happen because they are electrical discharge phenomena, known technically as (cold) cathode jets. Their onset will be as sudden as an electric spark (described in one report as 'nearly instantaneous') and their duration extended only because space plasma has a limited current carrying capacity. The jets will focus on an extremely small bright area generally situated on a raised point or edge of the comet surface."

The cathode sparks erode minerals from the surface of comets (such as carbon) and, as Thornhill elucidates, they can dissociate comet minerals containing oxygen atoms so that the ionized O- atom combines with H+ ions, or protons, from the Sun's solar wind, forming the OH hydroxyl molecule. "It is an assumption," Thornhill insists, "that it is formed by the breakdown of H2O 'vapor' by solar UV radiation." The carbon from comet minerals may similarly combine with ionized oxygen to form carbon monoxide in his electric comet model.
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/00current.htm

[Haig]

Cometary Filaments (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090505filaments.htm)
Outbursts like those on Holmes 17P are how Electric Universe theorists expect comet tails to be produced. Because electric discharges are capable of removing solid material from surfaces, no volatile gases exploding out of "trapped pockets," then pushed away by radiation pressure, are necessary. A comet will produce a tail when electrical stress reaches a critical point and its plasma sheath starts to glow. Irrespective of its composition, a comet will obey the fundamental behavior of charged objects interacting with one another.

A comet's tail is created when its electric charge is struck by solar discharge plasma, conventionally called the "solar wind." As a comet approaches the Sun, its nucleus moves through envelopes of increased charge density. Its surface charge and internal polarization, developed in deep space, respond to the Sun's charged environment, changing its electrical potential.

As it moves away from the Sun, a comet's electrical balance with respect to the outer solar system will be different than when it was on its inward trajectory. If it meets another electrified plasma field of some kind it could begin to discharge again. What more electrically dynamic region than the one that exists around the gas giant planets? http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090505filaments.htm

[Haig]

This paper is in support of Electric Comet theory. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000SPIE.4137....1S

Formation of ordered structures of charged microparticles in near-surface cometary gas-dusty atmosphere
(http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000SPIE.4137....1S)
Abstract
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.

[tusenfem]

Cometary Filaments (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090505filaments.htm)
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090505filaments.htm

And yet again a thunderdolts page with possibly enormous consequences if it could be proven correct. But do they even try to get something quantitavely out of it? No, of course not!

At least Siggy_G put some real effort in trying to show that his idea had merit, which we cannot say about all the peeps in thunderdolts.

[tusenfem]

This paper is in support of Electric Comet theory. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000SPIE.4137....1S

Formation of ordered structures of charged microparticles in near-surface cometary gas-dusty atmosphere
(http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000SPIE.4137....1S)
Abstract

But then only in the sense that comets can have a surface charge (which is mainstream, look up the Rosetta mission, where they take that into account for the lander Philae)

Too bad Yuri G. Serezhkin only posted in SPIE conference proceedings, which I have no access to.

[Dancing David]

Snowballs in Hell (http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/00current.htm)

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/00current.htm

Cometary Filaments (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090505filaments.htm)
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090505filaments.htm

Are these more blogs posts with no citations or data Haig?

One bad link and a second with no data, citations or evidence.

I think that your snowballs one is this:
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/arch10/101227snowballs.htm

Still just as bad, strawmen evident and no real data or citations.

No evidence for the sparks supposedly making the ejecta?

Why is that Haig, why do they post no evidence for the sparks being present? And I mean the sparks that should be present at Hartly II , where are they?

As to the filamants, why do they trail behing the nucleus? Why are they 'pointing' at the nucleus, not the sun? Why does Thunderbolts make such wonderful mis-representations Haig?

[Reality Check]

Aren't main-belt comets a thorn in the butt for any cometary model?

main belt comets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main-belt_comet) are easily within the mainstream models
They are not the dirty snowballs of standard comets. They are asteroids with enough volatile material to produce cometary effects.


The eccentric orbit would have an effect on an electric comet, as it moves in and out through the electric field of the Sun (more eccentric = more contrast / charge).

From the many reasons that the EC idea is so idiotic:
100,000's of asteroids will have to be comets because they have orbits as eccentric as any comet.
EC comets will turn off at perihelion.
See The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6602584#post6602584):
EC universe: Rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value will be comets.N.B. Solar activity may cut tails in two but there have been no observations of comets turning off during low solar activity.(Sol88: I may be wrong - if so please provide the citations to these marvelous events.)


However this assertion has the fatal flaw of EC predictions - no mathematics or numbers.
But we can do their work for them can't we Sol88 and Haig?

There are 4 observed main-belt comets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main-belt_comet) with a minimum eccentricity of 0.1644 (133P/Elst-Pizarro (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/133P/Elst-Pizarro)). So the EC minimim must be this (or lower!).

Real universe: There are at least 173,583 asteroids (rocky bodies) that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value that are not comets. This includes asteroids that have been observed for decades.
There are 459,893 asteroids with eccentricities greater than the minimum observed eccentricity of comets (0.0279).
EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5061286&postcount=395)

EC comets switch off at perihelion (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5527313#post5527313)
EC universe: An EC prediction is that comets will switch off (or to be charitable to the EC idea they will be less bright) at perihelion.
Real universe: We observe that comets are brightest at perihelion .

[Reality Check]

Snowballs in Hell (http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/00current.htm)

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/00current.htm
Still being fooled by a web site that lies to its readers, Haig?
The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6599318#post6599318)
Wallace Thornhill is obviously ignorant of the actual results of the mission and in a couple of cases actually lies about the results.
(see The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6602584#post6602584))

[Siggy_G]

Reality Check, when there are estimated to be trillions of comets within the solar system, thousands reported by now, you seriously mean that the 6-7 mainbelt comets are representative for the rest? And you refute that astrophysicists humbly find those mainbelt comets a little odd in their behaviour?

[Dancing David]

Who says that they find them a little odd and why do they say so, Thunderbolts is a blog that is unsourced and lacks any rigor. So who said what where Siggy_G?

We must examine the basis of that belief.

And trillions of comets? You mean way out there in the Kupier Belt and Ooort cloud, I have pointed out the errors in the EC model regards the main belt bodies that show comas, please address them.

1. The orbits are standard main belt orbits and in fact they are less eccentric than many bodies that do not show comas.

2. There is no special place in the main belt where these bodies reside, there are hundreds of other main belt bodies that reside and go through the exact same spaces and areas.

Therefore the issue is not that they suddenly acquire and electrical charge and begin to discharge, they would not do so unless the other bodies did so as well. So it is not likely to be any effect that relates to charge and discharge, unless you can explain why these four bodies and not the others. It is not there orbits or where they orbit.

So it is their composition, the mainstream theory would say that they contain volatiles of frozen gases and some water that sublimate or evaporate and therefore create the coma.

So the unanswered question in the EC remains and applies to these four bodies, what makes them have a coma?

[Ziggurat]

Reality Check, when there are estimated to be trillions of comets within the solar system

Let's examine this claim in a little more detail:

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Rosetta/SEMSCM474OD_0.html

"A comet probably has enough surplus ice for a few hundred passes of the Sun.
...
The fact that comets die in what, astronomically speaking, is a short period of time (around 10 000 years), suggests that there must be a great reservoir of extra comets to restock them."

So the estimate of a trillion potential comets appears to be based in no small part of the very property of comets that you are disputing, namely that they are icy bodies which are evaporating when they get close to the sun. Do you not see any logic problem in accepting a conclusion based on a property of comets in order to disprove that property?

[Reality Check]

Reality Check, when there are estimated to be trillions of comets within the solar system, thousands reported by now, you seriously mean that the 6-7 mainbelt comets are representative for the rest?

I never state that. The 6-7 main belt comets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main-belt_comet) are obviously not representative in standard astrophysics because their cometary behavior is not typical. Basically what is thought to happen is that ice is exposed on their surface by impacts and then that ice sublimates to make them comets. This is a short-term phenomena. As soon as the ice is gone the main belt comet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main-belt_comet) is not a comet amy more until more ice is exposed.

But as far as I can see, The totally stupid electric comet idea (which has been debunked (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6602584#post6602584)) must deny that such processes exist for any comet. Otherwise all comets can be explained by sublimation of ices and the EC idea in not only physically impossible but also redundant.

You might try reading what I posted:
EC universe: Rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value will be comets.N.B. Solar activity may cut tails in two but there have been no observations of comets turning off during low solar activity.(Sol88: I may be wrong - if so please provide the citations to these marvelous events.)

However this assertion has the fatal flaw of EC predictions - no mathematics or numbers.
But we can do their work for them can't we Sol88 and Haig?

There are 4 observed main-belt comets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main-belt_comet) with a minimum eccentricity of 0.1644 (133P/Elst-Pizarro (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/133P/Elst-Pizarro)). So the EC minimum must be this (or lower!).

Real universe: There are at least 173,583 asteroids (rocky bodies) that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value that are not comets. This includes asteroids that have been observed for decades.
There are 459,893 asteroids with eccentricities greater than the minimum observed eccentricity of comets (0.0279).
EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5061286&postcount=395)

The important bits are emphasized in bold red.


And you refute that astrophysicists humbly find those mainbelt comets a little odd in their behaviour?
And once again I never say that.

Siggy_G: Are you still ignorant of the fact that Comets have measured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids). (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4980000&postcount=231)

See

Kepler's third law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion#Deriving_Keple r.27s_third_law) and
"A ballistics analysis of the Deep Impact ejecta plume: Determining Comet Tempel 1's gravity, mass, and density" by Richardson, et al., 2007 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007Icar..190..357R).
"Size Distribution, Structure and Density of Cometary Nuclei" by Weissman & Lowry, 2006 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006LPICo1325...76W).
or an astrophysics textbook.
That is all that is needed to debunk the idea. However the EC proponents posting in this thread have provided plenty of other reasons why the idea is so fanciful.

[Haig]

Superhot Planet Likely Possesses Comet-like Tail (http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2010/21/text/)
Observations taken with Hubble's Cosmic Origins Spectrograph (COS) suggest powerful stellar winds are sweeping the cast-off atmospheric material behind the scorched planet and shaping it into a comet-like tail.

Exocomets (http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/00current.htm)
In an Electric Universe, comet tails are produced when electric discharges reach a critical point and the plasma sheath surrounding the nucleus starts to glow. Irrespective of composition, comets obey the fundamental behavior of charged objects interacting with one another.

A comet's tail is created when its electrically charged substance is struck by solar discharge plasma, conventionally called the "solar wind," similar to what has been observed around a star 153 light-years from Earth. The faster a comet's electrical environment changes, the more likely that flaring will occur. http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/00current.htm

[Ziggurat]

Superhot Planet Likely Possesses Comet-like Tail (http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2010/21/text/)


Exocomets (http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/00current.htm)
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/00current.htm

Small problem: the orbit of that planet has a very low eccentricity. Given that the whole EU notion of comets as electrically discharging asteroids depends on them following very eccentric orbits which carry them through regions with very different voltages, that explanation obviously won't work here. Not that it works for comets either, but it's not even self-consistent in the case of HD 209458b.

[Reality Check]

Superhot Planet Likely Possesses Comet-like Tail (http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2010/21/text/)

You did read at least the title?

The planet has a "comet-like tail".

It is a planet (you do know what a planet is and that is is not a comet?)
It has a tail.
The tail is caused by its atmosphere being boiled away by closeness of the planet to the star and then stretched out by the stellar wind. Nothing to do with the debunked EC fantasy.


Exocomets (http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/00current.htm)
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/00current.htm
Citing this bunch of liars yet again Haig :jaw-dropp.
Please keep on providing even more evidence that you have been so throughly fooled by a web site that lies to its readers:
The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6599318#post6599318)
Wallace Thornhill is obviously ignorant of the actual results of the mission and in a couple of cases actually lies about the results.
(see The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6602584#post6602584))

HD 209458b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_209458b) has an eccentricity of 0.014. Its star is similar to the Sun.
So if the EC proponents claim it as a comet then any rocky body with an eccentricity >= 0.014 will be a comet.
There are 459,893 asteroids with eccentricities greater than the minimum observed eccentricity of comets (0.0279).
EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5061286&postcount=395)

[Dancing David]

Another lack of citation blog post from Thunderbolts.

[Haig]

NASA Spacecraft Closes in on Comet Tempel 1 (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/09feb_stardustnext/)

February 9, 2011: NASA is about to discover how solar heat devours a comet

"For the first time, we'll see the same comet before and after its closest approach to the sun," explains Joe Veverka, principal investigator for NASA's Stardust-NExT mission.
The comet is Tempel 1, which NASA's Deep Impact probe visited in 2005. Now another NASA spacecraft, Stardust-NExT, is closing in for a second look on Valentine's Day, Feb. 14, 2011. The two visits bracket one complete orbit of the comet around the sun--and a blast of solar heat

The layering is an interesting twist that should not exist with respect to "our" current understanding of these "dirty snowballs"

powdery flows or electrical discharges?

[Reality Check]

The layering is an interesting twist that should not exist with respect to "our" current understanding of these "dirty snowballs"

powdery flows or electrical discharges?
The layering is an interesting twist that should not exist with respect to "your" current understanding of these "dirty snowballs".
Scientists have a possible explanation (colliding protocomets) as you would have found if you had bothered to read the full article.

Definitely not electrical discharges: The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6602584#post6602584)

[Haig]

The layering is an interesting twist that should not exist with respect to "your" current understanding of these "dirty snowballs".
Scientists have a possible explanation (colliding protocomets) as you would have found if you had bothered to read the full article.

Definitely not electrical discharges: The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6602584#post6602584) I'm sure mainstream will continue to try and explain away the electrical nature of comets with more ad hoc stuff ;)

In a few days we should have some interesting data/ pictures ... that's why I posted this :rolleyes:

[Reality Check]

I'm sure mainstream will continue to try and explain away the electrical nature of comets with more ad hoc stuff ;)

Then you are rather deluded because the mainstream never "explains away" the electrical nature of comets. There are many papers about the electromagnetic properties of comets. Just read this thread!

But you are probably refering to the idiotic "electrical nature of comets" in the Electric Comet idea whose proponents cannot even grasp simple concepts such as

the number 3.0 is greater than the number 0.6 (Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids). (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4980000&postcount=231) )
EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5061286&postcount=395)
electrical discharges produce specific radiation which is not seen - Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4832138#post4832138) (actually no EU X-ray bursts).
See The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6602584#post6602584) .

In a few days we should have some interesting data/ pictures ... that's why I posted this :rolleyes:
There will be some interesting data and images from the next flyby of Tempel 1. There will be some interesting and surprising science derived from the observations.

That will have little impact on the insanity that is the EC idea (see The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6602584#post6602584) ). The proponents will probably do their usual "I see bunnies in the clouds" logic on the images.

[Haig]

Then you are rather deluded ..... to the idiotic "electrical nature of comets" ......... whose proponents cannot even grasp simple concepts ....... The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked ...... the insanity that is the EC idea .......The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked.......... The proponents will probably do their usual "I see bunnies in the clouds" logic on the images. So many ad homs and abusive statements in one post RC. Are you having a bad day? ;)

[Reality Check]

So many ad homs and abusive statements in one post RC. Are you having a bad day? ;)
So much that you cannot understand, Haig. Are you having a bad day? ;)

The "rather deluded" refers to your rather persistent ignoring of the scientific studies of the "electrical nature" of comets.

The rest is just observations on EC proponents in general. If you want to lump yourself in with a group of people who have no idea that the number 3.0 is greather than the number 0.6 then feel free ;)!

Are you still ignoring The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6602584#post6602584) , Haig?

Maybe you can tell us how different types of measurements of the density of comets are wrong?

Why are asteroids in comet-like orbits not comets, Haig?
EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5061286&postcount=395)
Where are all the X-ray bursts from comets, Haig?
Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4832138#post4832138) (actually no EU X-ray bursts).
Why are you citing a website that is recorded as lying to its readers, Haig?
The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6599318#post6599318)
Why do EC comets not switch off close to the Sun, Haig?
EC comets switch off at perihelion (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5527313#post5527313)

[Dancing David]

The layering is an interesting twist that should not exist with respect to "our" current understanding of these "dirty snowballs"

powdery flows or electrical discharges?

Science by blog post, blunderfull.

And the evidence for the lectrical discharge other than a bunny picture?

[Dancing David]

I'm sure mainstream will continue to try and explain away the electrical nature of comets with more ad hoc stuff ;)

In a few days we should have some interesting data/ pictures ... that's why I posted this :rolleyes:

Considering you haven't addressed the paradoxes and contradictions of the EC theory why don't you explain them first.

Like the four main belt comets, why do none of teh other asteroids in teh main belt show comas?
Why don't Appolo objects show comas?

[Haig]

So much that you cannot understand, Haig. Are you having a bad day? ;)

The "rather deluded" refers to your rather persistent ignoring of the scientific studies of the "electrical nature" of comets.

The rest is just observations on EC proponents in general. If you want to lump yourself in with a group of people who have no idea that the number 3.0 is greather than the number 0.6 then feel free ;)!

Are you still ignoring The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6602584#post6602584) , Haig?

Maybe you can tell us how different types of measurements of the density of comets are wrong?

Why are asteroids in comet-like orbits not comets, Haig?
EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5061286&postcount=395)
Where are all the X-ray bursts from comets, Haig?
Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4832138#post4832138) (actually no EU X-ray bursts).
Why are you citing a website that is recorded as lying to its readers, Haig?
The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6599318#post6599318)
Why do EC comets not switch off close to the Sun, Haig?
EC comets switch off at perihelion (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5527313#post5527313)


Science by blog post, blunderfull.

And the evidence for the lectrical discharge other than a bunny picture?

Considering you haven't addressed the paradoxes and contradictions of the EC theory why don't you explain them first.

Like the four main belt comets, why do none of teh other asteroids in teh main belt show comas?
Why don't Appolo objects show comas? Scroll back guys and you'll see the answers I gave before, they haven't changed.

I'm running out of time, sorry.

Let me just give you these before I go, I've posted part of the first one on another thread but it fit's well here too:

Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy (http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/davesmith_au08/101022_pseudoskeptic.htm)
Whilst a degree of well-informed skepticism is essential in the assessment of any scientific theory, pseudoskepticism has become rife on the internet, and in the popular media. It is practiced by many who pass themselves off as the voice of authority on a given topic, when in fact they are self-appointed 'debunkers' of anything which challenges their own, often limited, views.

Comet (http://www.plasma-universe.com/Comet)
A comet is a body in the solar system that orbits the Sun. It consists of a nucleus that is perhaps made of rock, dust, and ice, and may exhibits a coma (atmosphere, with associated ionosphere, magnetosphere, sometimes called a plasmasphere), and/or one or more tails: an ion tail (or plasma tail) and dust tail.
In the plasma of the solar wind, and due to the photoelectric effect, the comet nucleus may charge electrostatically, and the ions and dust in the ionosphere and tails produce their own magnetic and electric fields, and electric currents.
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Comet

[Haig]

Snowballs in Hell (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/arch10/101227snowballs.htm)
An electric comet hypothesis was proposed by Ralph Juergens in the early 1970's as a part of his electric Sun model. His physicist colleague, Dr. Earl Milton, and Wal Thornhill developed the model after Juergens' untimely death in 1979. The first article on electric comets on Thornhill's website appeared in October 2001 along with his predictions for the Deep Impact mission. Later articles appeared in January 2004 when the Stardust mission encountered comet Wild 2. And some results of the Deep Impact experiment were reported in July 2005.

As Thornhill writes: "The EU model predicts that all active comets will exhibit frequent, short outbursts in different spots on their surface. The outbursts happen because they are electrical discharge phenomena, known technically as (cold) cathode jets. Their onset will be as sudden as an electric spark (described in one report as 'nearly instantaneous') and their duration extended only because space plasma has a limited current carrying capacity. The jets will focus on an extremely small bright area generally situated on a raised point or edge of the comet surface."
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/arch10/101227snowballs.htm

Not long now: (my bold)

The comet is Tempel 1, which NASA's Deep Impact probe visited in 2005. Now another NASA spacecraft, Stardust-NExT, is closing in for a second look on Valentine's Day, Feb. 14, 2011. The two visits bracket one complete orbit of the comet around the sun--and a blast of solar heathttp://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/09feb_stardustnext/

[Vermonter]

And what happens when that model fails yet again? Will you move the goalposts back and claim something else? Posting blog links about the same discredited ideas is a useless waste of electricity. As others have demonstrated repeatedly, Thunderbolts is incorrect in its' predictions and worse, their methodology. Considering that it seems that every single EC proponent has a completely separate idea on how this pet obsession (it's not even worth calling it a theory) works, so the methodology will never be coherent and workable.

It's not even a matter of not having the money for experiments. EC is useless conjecture and fantasy that has absolutely no bearing with reality. If it did, respected scientists would actually take it seriously. The papers that have been published aren't cited or used except in the tiny EC circle. If you have a good model and a good paper, people may actually cite it. There's no conspiracy to keep EC down; it does a perfectly good job by itself of doing that.

If proponents can't even come together on solid definitions of their terms, or even create models that can be scrutinized, then the whole thing is doomed. I can't think of any other way to put it. There's no model. There's no theory. There's no math. It just doesn't work.

[Dancing David]

Scroll back guys and you'll see the answers I gave before, they haven't changed.

I'm running out of time, sorry.



Haig, you mean the posts where you said I don't know?

That is really weak Haig, you did not address my questions about the four main belt objects and the Appolo objects, you basically refuted teh Electric Comet theory when you responded to my questions, it is NOT placement in the solar system, it is not differences in orbit. Thanks for playing.

[Dancing David]

It seems clear to me DD he answers those points in the last few paragraphs. (my bold)

Comets Impact Cosmology by Wal Thornhill (http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=uf4ty065)

Lets see Haig, do yo mean this one that basically says the the Apollo bodies should show comas, or that if fourmain belt objects show comas they should all show comas?

Why do you avoid the fact that I am presenting evidence that directly contradicts Thornhills theory?

By his theory the Apollo objects should show comas, yet they dont.

His words that you quoted

A comet's tail arises from the interaction between the electric charge of the comet and the solar discharge plasma. The comet spends most of its time far from the Sun, where the plasma charge density and voltage with respect to the Sun is low. The comet moves slowly and it easily accumulates enough charge to balance the ambient voltage.

As the comet approaches the Sun, the nucleus moves at a furious speed through regions of increasing charge density and voltage. The comet's surface charge and internal polarization, developed in deep space, respond to the new environment by forming cathode jets and a visible plasma sheath, or coma.



So the Apollo objects are exactly the kind of objects that should show comas, yet they don't. If they spend more time at distance farther than say halley comet and come closer to teh sun, and many of them do, then they should show comas, as should other less elliptical orbits asteroids.

[Dancing David]

Yes but then there are all sorts of bodies that DO EXACTLY the same thing all the time yet they do not show comas Haig, so from what you are saying, ALL the bodies in SIMILAR orbits should show comas. But they don't.

All bodies that spend the same amount of time in 'deep space' and move to a similar distane from the sun should show comas, yet they don't.

That is the issue that the EC does not address, and that is why it is incoherent, explain why only some bodies show comas but other which are exactly in the same places and go through exactly the same transitions do not show comas.

That is why the Apollo bodies should show comas if the EC is correct, yet they don't.

Why is that Haig?

It is not the orbits they are in, it is not planetary magnetospheres, why do only some bodies show comas and not others? Why do some acquire a charge and others in the exact same environments at the exact sort of time frames do not?

This is where the EC is incoherent and inconsistent.

Hi Haig, you still have not responded to this post.

YOU have not addressed the questions.

[Haig]

Sorry DD I've ran out of time again but I will give answers to your points by tomorrow.

Things to do:(

[Dancing David]

:cool:

[Reality Check]

Scroll back guys and you'll see the answers I gave before, they haven't changed.
Scolled back and did not find any answers to:

Are you still ignoring The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6602584#post6602584) , Haig?

Maybe you can tell us how different types of measurements of the density of comets are wrong?

Why are asteroids in comet-like orbits not comets, Haig?
EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5061286&postcount=395)
Where are all the X-ray bursts from comets, Haig?
Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4832138#post4832138) (actually no EU X-ray bursts).
Why are you citing a website that is recorded as lying to its readers, Haig?
The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6599318#post6599318)
Why do EC comets not switch off close to the Sun, Haig?
EC comets switch off at perihelion (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5527313#post5527313)


Unless you means citations to a lying web site (The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6599318#post6599318))?

Maybe you can give us links to your answers. Start with why asteroids in comet-like orbits are not comets when the EC idea states that they have to be.
The Thunderbolt authors are quite clear that it is the shape of the orbit that matters. Try reading what you posted: ( Thunderbolt web page (http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060407cometasteroid.htm))


A few minutes with the JPL Small Objects Database gives that The EC idea predicts that 528,157 asteroids should be comets (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6609633#post6609633)

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

[Haig]

Considering you haven't addressed the paradoxes and contradictions of the EC theory why don't you explain them first.Sure I have DD it's just that you don't agree with my answers that I keep repeating, let me try again:

From my understanding of EU/PC theory on comets. It's not just the eccentric orbit but also the existing charge and the conditions in the current (excuse the pun) local solar environment of the comet. That is: the changing solar wind of our variable Sun affects the reaction of the comet rushing in to a close approach to determine that size and brightness of both the corona and the tail.

It's this variability that makes the predictability of comets so difficult and interesting IMO.
Like the four main belt comets, why do none of teh other asteroids in teh main belt show comas?
Why don't Appolo objects show comas?Like I say above, it's not just the eccentric orbit but the existing charge of any asteroids and/or the Appolo objects have, along with the conditions of the solar plasma, that determine if cometary traits are displayed.
Haig, you mean the posts where you said I don't know? No DD
That is really weak Haig, you did not address my questions about the four main belt objects and the Appolo objects, you basically refuted teh Electric Comet theory when you responded to my questions, it is NOT placement in the solar system, it is not differences in orbit. Thanks for playing.Well DD you didn't answer my point about why one of the smallest comets being one of the most active now did you?
Lets see Haig, do yo mean this one that basically says the the Apollo bodies should show comas, or that if fourmain belt objects show comas they should all show comas?No DD that's what you say not what EU/PC theory on comets say
Why do you avoid the fact that I am presenting evidence that directly contradicts Thornhills theory?I haven't DD, scroll back and see but when you ignore my answers and keep saying the same things over and over again, I get bored. I really don't have a lot of free time for this so why should I bother going round in circles?
By his theory the Apollo objects should show comas, yet they dont.How many times are you going to repeat this?
His words that you quoted Yes DD read again: (my bold)

"A comet's tail arises from the interaction between the electric charge of the comet and the solar discharge plasma. The comet spends most of its time far from the Sun, where the plasma charge density and voltage with respect to the Sun is low. The comet moves slowly and it easily accumulates enough charge to balance the ambient voltage.

As the comet approaches the Sun, the nucleus moves at a furious speed through regions of increasing charge density and voltage. The comet's surface charge and internal polarization, developed in deep space, respond to the new environment by forming cathode jets and a visible plasma sheath, or coma."

It's the charge DD that you fail to recognise as an important factor. All the planets are charged bodies and have Langmuir plasma sheaths around them with double layers controlling the charge exchange with the solar plasma, just as the Sun has with the Galactic plasma which mainstream call the Heliosphere.

Comets environment are changing so rapidly that the electrical forces of the Langmuir plasma sheaths around them with double layers controlling the charge exchange with the solar plasma become visible in "glow mode" rather that the "dark mode" Hence, we see comas and tails forming for a time until "dark mode" balance resumes.
So the Apollo objects are exactly the kind of objects that should show comas, yet they don't. If they spend more time at distance farther than say halley comet and come closer to teh sun, and many of them do, then they should show comas, as should other less elliptical orbits asteroids.It's also the charge and the solar conditions DD have I said this before? :rolleyes:
Hi Haig, you still have not responded to this post.I have DD many times :)
YOU have not addressed the questions.YOU have not acknowledged my answers, I don't expect you to agree with them DD just recognise that it's the EU/PC theory of comets and it explains the anomalous behaviour of comets and some asteroids, that is such a puzzle to the mainstream dirty snowball theory that has to be continuously changed.

Sungrazers
Apr 22, 2009 (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090422sungrazers.htm)

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).

Comet NEAT swung close by the Sun in 2003, apparently initiating a CME eruption that appeared to impact the comet. Astronomers at the time discounted any relationship between the two events because of the size differential between the comet and the Sun. However, several other sungrazers have been associated with violent flares. One event can be a coincidence, two can be long odds, but three or more can not be dismissed as mere oddities.

When comet 96P/Machholz circled the Sun, it came so close that if it were composed of ice with a small percentage of rock and dust it would have certainly disintegrated. It did not rapidly dissipate, however. Instead, its intense charge differential caused a gigantic CME to discharge from the Sun, blasting out for millions of kilometers.

The electrical connection between comets and the Sun seems certain. If that is the case, then the electrical connection between the Sun and its entire family of planets and moons is certain. Changes in solar input and output can affect the environments of every member in that family: weather, orbits, magnetic fields, and surface features. Climate change, for example, rather than being an anthropic phenomenon, is doubtless an aspect of the electrical connection between Earth, the Sun, and the galaxy.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090422sungrazers.htm

[Reality Check]

Like I say above, it's not just the eccentric orbit but the existing charge of any asteroids and/or the Appolo objects have, along with the conditions of the solar plasma, that determine if cometary traits are displayed.

Haig:

Can you cite the papers that show that asteroids have an "existing charge", e.g. actual measurements? How big is this charge?
How do asteroids get their "existing charge"?
Why are these "existing charges" not turn all asteroids in comet-like orbits into comets?
The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6602584#post6602584)

[Reality Check]

Sungrazers
Apr 22, 2009 (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090422sungrazers.htm)

Quoting a bunch of liars again Haig?
The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6599318#post6599318)
And Anoher lie from Thornhill on the Thunderbolts web site (about Saturn's poles) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6872946#post6872946)

Try reading and understanding what you post, Haig.
What you have is a ignorant person making unsupported assertions.

No one expects comets to have high albedo like snowfields :jaw-dropp! They are expected and observed to be covered in organic (dark) material.

The idioicy of asserting that sungrazer comets are linked to CME without an actual analysis of the data is obvious. CME happen all the time. Comets get close to the Sun all of the time. Some comets will be close to the Sun when a CME happens.

Where is the actual calculation from the author that comet 96P/Machholz should have disintegrated?
Where is are the citations to papers that shows that comet 96P/Machholz should have disintegrated?

I think that even you Haig can see that this is a typical dumb page from Thunderbolts.
And a final but unrelated question: Just who is Stephen Smith and why do you trust him so much?
He may be the same Steve Smith (http://www.thunderbolts.info/team.htm) who is "just" an editor of the web site. That would explain the ingnorance and incompetence on the web page.

[nvidiot]

I too would like to know how you have determined that there are differences in charge between asteroids and comets which are the primary reason for their different behaviour even though they can and do occupy similar orbits around the sun. Somehow I doubt there is any such evidence forthcoming.

I've been following these electric universe/plasma cosmology/solid sun threads since I first found the JREF. In fact, it was trying to find out more about the ridiculous Solid Sun foolishness after reading Michael Ashleys review evisceration of Ian Plimers denialist manifesto "Heaven and Earth". This pointed me towards the phrase "The sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass" which then found Mr Mozina's name emblazoned in shame, which then pointed me to the JREF thread on that particular bunch of utter nonsense. The rest is history, and the JREF accumulated another Aussie cynic skeptic.

But look, Haig, just in case you haven't noticed, I'm going to be blunt with you here:

You need something unambiguous. You need an OBSERVATION of either the Sun or the comets or the asteroids which simultaneously shows that electrical forces are not just present, but responsible for their behaviours, AND shows that the existing theories are incorrect. Until you or Thunderbolts or any other scientist for that matter can show such data, (and it's replicable by others) the EU/PC "theories" about how the sun, the objects orbiting it, and the universe in general MUST be treated as the nonscientific mind fart that it is.

Now to be totally and utterly explicit here, DO NOT make the mistake of assuming that simply looking at a picture of a coma, or a pretty ribbon of solar ejecta, or a funny shape in a difference image, and then saying: "Look! Doesn't that look kinda-sorta-if-you-squint-and-hold-it-at-a-funny-angle look like a lighting bolt from the Flash comics!" OBSERVATION in this sense is a scientific proceedure which requires precision, replication, and basic scientific accountability. So far none of the posts made by you or any of the other EU/PC promoters has shown anything close to something like that.

So if you've got such data, or you know who does, and you can produce it, by all means do so. Every scientist and non-scientist on the planet would be totally stunned if you or other EU/PC promoters did this. But the other thing they would be is fascinated, and would immediately, post haste, straight away, start replicating these (non existent) findings and developing new ways to explain the universe utilising them.

But if you can't produce such a piece of incontravertable and paradigm shifting evidence, or if you don't know of anyone who has ever done so, (hint, no one here thinks you have done this so far) then it falls to you to follow the second part of the great scientific challenge of the ages: Put up, or shut up.

To the rest of the members and lurkers in this thread: Sry for the ramble, I'm very, very exhausted at 5.40 in the morning and frankly just had enough of seeing these dodges and obfuscations. Hope I haven't broken any rules. :boxedin:

[Vermonter]

I'm in the same boat as nvidiot. I've been following this since it appeared on BAUT (former BABB) and it hasn't gained any ground since then. Hence my rant the other day.

[Haig]

Haig:
[LIST]
Can you cite the papers that show that asteroids have an "existing charge", e.g. actual measurements? How big is this charge?
How do asteroids get their "existing charge"?
Why are these "existing charges" not turn all asteroids in comet-like orbits into comets? RC: as I said in my reply to DD "From my understanding of EU/PC theory on comets" it follows that charged bodies like comets and asteroids, planets, the Sun: that show Comas/Magnetospheres/Heliopause, are reacting because they are immersed in an electrically dynamic environment and experience electrical interactions with one another so that a Langmuir plasma sheaths forms around them with double layers controlling the charge exchange with the plasma they are immersed in.

Can I cite papers that asteroids have a charge? Nope, it's speculation.

Just like the mainstream speculation that suggests the cause of this asteroid displaying vigorous cometary behaviour was due to a reactivation and sublimation of a freshly-exposed reservoir of volatile material.

Physical Properties of Main-Belt Comet P/2005 U1 (Read) (http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.1351)
P/2005 U1 (Read), which showed vigorous cometary activity from 2005 October 24 to 2005 December 27


So then I say:

Comets ....Asteroids .... what's the difference? ..... electric charge maybe? ;)

The return of activity in main-belt comet 133P/Elst-Pizarro (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.403..363H)abstract
Comet 133P/Elst-Pizarro is the first known and currently best-characterized member of the main-belt comets, a recently identified class of objects that exhibit cometary activity but which are dynamically indistinguishable from main-belt asteroids
Finally, while 133P's trail appears shorter and weaker in 2007 than in 2002, other measures of activity strength such as dust velocity and coma contamination of nucleus photometry are found to remain approximately constant. We attribute changes in trail strength to the timing of observations and projection effects, thus finding no evidence of any substantial decrease in the activity strength between 2002 and 2007.

A recent disruption of the main-belt asteroid P/2010 A2 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7317/full/nature09456.html)
Here we report observations of P/2010 A2, a previously unknown inner-belt asteroid with a peculiar, comet-like morphology.

Editor's summary When is a comet not a comet?
When the peculiar object P/2010 A2 was discovered in January 2010, complete with a tail, it was designated as a comet. But its 'headless' appearance and its orbit in the inner reaches of the main asteroid belt were most un-comet-like, prompting suggestions that it was an asteroid with a tail. Two papers in this issue confirm the status of P/2010 A2 as an asteroid, rather than as a member of the recently recognized class of main-belt comets. Snodgrass et al. observed P/2010 A2 in March using the Rosetta spacecraft, which was approaching the asteroid belt for its 10 July flyby of the asteroid Lutetia. They conclude that the object's tail is made up of debris from an asteroid collision — and computer modelling identifies the event in question as a collision that occurred in February 2009. Jewitt et al. took high-resolution images of P/2010 A2 with the Hubble Space Telescope between January and May 2010, and estimate a 120-metre diameter for the object's 'nucleus', with millimetre-sized dust particles forming the tail. They too trace the collision back to early 2009.


I too would like to know how you have determined that there are differences in charge between asteroids and comets which are the primary reason for their different behaviour even though they can and do occupy similar orbits around the sun. Somehow I doubt there is any such evidence forthcoming. See my reply to RC above. I'll post what I can as I go through this.
But look, Haig, just in case you haven't noticed, I'm going to be blunt with you here:I've noticed :eye-poppi
You need something unambiguous. You need an OBSERVATION of either the Sun or the comets or the asteroids which simultaneously shows that electrical forces are not just present, but responsible for their behaviours,This fits the bill for me:

The Electrical Nature of Comets (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?reload=true&arnumber=4346306)Abstract
Comet displays are thought to be due to sublimation of volatile ices from an inert nucleus in the heat of the Sun. For example, the Stardust mission has shown that the origin of comets requires some high-temperature conditions. A 'cross-eye' stereo pair of comet Wild 2's nucleus showing typical EDM erosion. Comet flybys have shown phenomena of great complexity and higher energy than expected. Comet Hyakutake showed unsuspected high-energy processes taking place in the comet. A forbidden oxygen spectral line in the coma of Comet Austin pointed to an intense electric field. Activity is restricted to small areas on each comet nucleus and takes the form of collimated jets, which maintain their filamentary coherence across tens of millions of kilometers. The complex structure and high-energy behavior can be explained if the comet is a charged body moving in a radial electric field responsible for accelerating the solar-wind plasma, rather than an inert, heated body in a rarefied supersonic "wind."
AND shows that the existing theories are incorrect.Well, for me, this melted the mainstream theory of a dirty snowball from the Oort Cloud or the recent ad hoc "main belt comets" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main-belt_comet) from the asteroid belt
In the Electric Universe model, a comet is an electrically charged body. During its long period in the outer reaches of the solar system, it acquires a strong negative charge with respect to the Sun. Then, as it approaches the inner limits of its orbit, accelerating through the electric field of the Sun, it will begin to discharge to the plasma surrounding it, producing the familiar bright coma and tail.
The electric comet is thus tied to the electric view of the Sun:
1. The Sun has an electric field and interacts electrically with comets and planets, including the Earth;
2. The Earth, like all of the planets, is a charged body;
3. The Sun is not powered by some mysterious, internal "nuclear furnace", but rather externally by electric currents flowing along the arms of the Milky Way;
4. 99.9% of the universe consists of PLASMA, a conducting medium that has been found to exhibit strong electrical properties. All of space is teeming with charged particles;
5. All evidence for the electric comet is therefore evidence for the electric Sun and for the electrical nature of stars.
The startling bottom-line is that comet scientists cannot give us any reliable story of comet formation. And the glaring contradictions are barely acknowledged, if at all. The "mysteries" of the Stardust mission -- which are not mysterious under an electrical model of comets -- are not even mentioned in the Space.com report. Obviously, the question of comets' origins is profoundly affected by the discovery of abundant minerals that only form under super-hot temperatures.
The Electric Universe puts forth a very different hypothesis on the origins of both comets and asteroids. In an epoch of planetary instability in our solar system, many planets and moons, moving through the electric field of the Sun and immersed in an electrically dynamic environment, experienced electrical interactions with one another. Electric arcs shattered small moons and raked across planetary surfaces, producing the most dramatic scarring features we see on planetary bodies. These electrical scars include Valles Marineris, the stupendous chasm that stretches more than 3000 miles across the Martian surface. In this view the comets and asteroids we observe are leftovers from these violent electric discharge events. And the composition of comets is from the same material that planets and moons were formed.
Many other "mysterious" comet discoveries and observations of comet behavior are best explained as electrical phenomena. These include:
* Unexpectedly high temperatures and X-ray emissions from cometary comas (something never anticipated by mainstream theorists);
* The sharply carved relief of comets -- the exact opposite of what astronomers expected under the dirty snowball model;
* The unexplained ability of a relatively minuscule comet nucleus to hold in place a highly spherical coma, up to millions of miles in diameter, against the force of the solar wind (a phenomenon graphically displayed by Comet Holmes 17P);
* Ejection of larger particles and "gravel" that was never anticipated under the idea that comets accreted from primordial clouds of ice, gas, and dust;
* A short supply or complete absence of water and other volatiles on comets' nuclei;
* The predicted occurrence of an advance flash prior to the impact of a projectile into the nucleus of Comet Tempel 1 (Deep Impact). Recently, the journal Icarus published a report confirming that the advance flash did indeed occur, "upstream" (and slightly off-course) of the projectile -- exactly as one might expect of an electric discharge just prior to impact.
Until you or Thunderbolts or any other scientist for that matter can show such data, (and it's replicable by others) the EU/PC "theories" about how the sun, the objects orbiting it, and the universe in general MUST be treated as the nonscientific mind fart that it is.Just sticking to the topic :)

In 1957 Alfven thought comets were electric:

On the Theory of Comet Tails (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1957.tb01855.x/abstract) H. ALFVÉN
Abstract
According to Biermann's theory the repulsive force in comet tails is due to a corpuscular radiation from the sun. It is shown that some of the difficulties of this theory can be overcome if the assumed radiation consists of beams with a frozen-in magnetic field of the same type as required in the electric field theory of magnetic storms and aurorae.

The interaction between such a beam and the head of the comet produces an amplified magnetic field which determines the shape of the tail. The high accelerations, which have been observed in the tails may be due to electromagnetic forces.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1957.tb01855.x/abstract
Now to be totally and utterly explicit here, DO NOT make the mistake of assuming that simply looking at a picture of a coma, or a pretty ribbon of solar ejecta, or a funny shape in a difference image, and then saying: "Look! Doesn't that look kinda-sorta-if-you-squint-and-hold-it-at-a-funny-angle look like a lighting bolt from the Flash comics!" OBSERVATION in this sense is a scientific proceedure which requires precision, replication, and basic scientific accountability.Birkeland in 1913 thought comets were electric:

Comets: Kristian Birkeland's theory (http://www.plasma-universe.com/Comets:_Kristian_Birkeland's_theory)
"Another circumstance favorable to the assumption of the existence of such negative discharges from comets, is that of the various envelopes separated by dark interspaces so often observed in the heads of comets. Fig. 234 shows the head of Donati 's comet (1858). For several weeks the coma exhibited in iinrivalleri nerfertion the develonment and structure of concentric envelopes. It is easy to produce, round a globe as cathode in a large vacuum-tube, several concentric luminous envelopes separated by dark spaces. These different envelopes are more distinctly seen when the globe used as cathode is magnetised. In this case the originally spherical envelopes will be flattened so as to form a ring in the magnetic equator. Fig. 235 gives a representation of such an experiment. Such envelopes, as we know, contract or expand according as the gas-pressure in the vacuum-tube becomes greater or less. The very singular phenomenon of the contraction of the comet's head with the approach of the comet towards the sun can be reasonably explained by this view. Instead of expanding, as one would naturally expect it to do under the action of solar heat, the comet's head contracts when near the sun, just because the gas pressure about the comet becomes higher there, and the electrically-formed luminous envelopes therefore contract.
"On some occasions comets have been furnished with several tails in a manner that is not quite easy to explain by the assumption that an emanation of tail-material from the comet could directly give rise to all the tails."
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Comets:_Kristian_Birkeland's_theory
So far none of the posts made by you or any of the other EU/PC promoters has shown anything close to something like that.I have to disagree :)
So if you've got such data, or you know who does, and you can produce it, by all means do so. Every scientist and non-scientist on the planet would be totally stunned if you or other EU/PC promoters did this. But the other thing they would be is fascinated, and would immediately, post haste, straight away, start replicating these (non existent) findings and developing new ways to explain the universe utilising them.I suspect that what ever data, any EU/PC exponent, produced on electric comets, it STILL wouldn't be good enough ;)
But if you can't produce such a piece of incontravertable and paradigm shifting evidence, or if you don't know of anyone who has ever done so, (hint, no one here thinks you have done this so far) then it falls to you to follow the second part of the great scientific challenge of the ages: Put up, or shut up.It's all around if you care to take the blinkers off IMO.

Comet samples are surprisingly asteroid-like (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13224)
NASA's Stardust mission swung by comet Wild 2 in 2004 to capture particles shed by the 5-kilometre object and returned them to Earth in 2006. Since then, scientists have been carefully analysing the microscopic fragments it collected.

Early on, scientists found surprising evidence that Wild 2 contained some material from the inner solar system that had been heated to more than 1000° C due to its proximity to the Sun.

Now, scientists have been surprised again as further study suggests Wild 2 is made mostly of material from the inner solar system, and that the object has a composition more like that of an asteroid than what was expected of a comet.

Comet—Asteroid Link Confirmed (http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=6y3ehr7j&keywords=comets#dest)
“The remarkable properties of comets are not even remotely explicable by any of the numerous ad hoc assumptions of ‘modern’ comet theory.”
— R A Lyttleton, FRS, Journey to the Centre of Uncertainty, Speculations in Science & Technology.

Comet Tempel 1's Electrifying Impact (http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=3kneumjj)
In stark contrast to NASA scientists, who seem to be perpetually surprised, the adherents of an electrical model of comets have seen many of the quite specific predictions satisfied. How many surprises and disconfirmations of cherished beliefs about comets will it require before a fundamental rethink occurs, instead of mere revision of old ideas? Science works best when there is a plurality of ideas. The present establishment monoculture of ideas is crippling scientific progress.

Wal Thornhill

To the rest of the members and lurkers in this thread: Sry for the ramble, I'm very, very exhausted at 5.40 in the morning and frankly just had enough of seeing these dodges and obfuscations. Hope I haven't broken any rules. :boxedin: (my bold) Speak your mind, why don't you :rolleyes: What I’ve posted here is my sincere and genuine view of the Electric Comet theory and while I’m only a layman I'm continually surprised by the ad homs flung at anyone suggesting EU/PC ideas.
Why do that? Intimidation perhaps?

[Dancing David]

Sure I have DD it's just that you don't agree with my answers that I keep repeating, let me try again:

From my understanding of EU/PC theory on comets. It's not just the eccentric orbit but also the existing charge and the conditions in the current (excuse the pun) local solar environment of the comet. That is: the changing solar wind of our variable Sun affects the reaction of the comet rushing in to a close approach to determine that size and brightness of both the corona and the tail.

Except for in the case of the four main belt comets and the Apollo objects (to a lesser extent) , they travel through exactly the same conditions and same spaces as the comets with comas.

Why do you ignore that?

Why do you ignore the fact that Temple and Halley’s and other comets show coma all the time when they come into the inner system.

Under what you just said that would not be true. Short period comets would have times that they do not have comas at all, when did that happen with Halley's

Repeating the same errors does not make you correct.

It's this variability that makes the predictability of comets so difficult and interesting IMO.
Like I say above, it's not just the eccentric orbit but the existing charge of any asteroids and/or the Apollo objects have, along with the conditions of the solar plasma, that determine if cometary traits are displayed.

But under your theory they get that charge from where they orbit in the solar system, have you now added a hidden variable. They acquire the charge from where they are in the solar system, or not?

So similar bodies in the same areas acquire the same charges, yes or no?


No DD
Well DD you didn't answer my point about why one of the smallest comets being one of the most active now did you?

If it ejects more volatiles then it will have a larger coma.

No DD that's what you say not what EU/PC theory on comets say
I haven't DD, scroll back and see but when you ignore my answers and keep saying the same things over and over again, I get bored.

So the evidence that there is no way that the four main belt comets could have a way of getting that charge that the asteroids in the same area is what? Ignored by you? You are not bored, you are just not addressing it.

I really don't have a lot of free time for this so why should I bother going round in circles?
How many times are you going to repeat this?

Until you face the fact that the theory contradicts the observed evidence.

Yes DD read again: (my bold)

"A comet's tail arises from the interaction between the electric charge of the comet and the solar discharge plasma. The comet spends most of its time far from the Sun, where the plasma charge density and voltage with respect to the Sun is low. The comet moves slowly and it easily accumulates enough charge to balance the ambient voltage.

And there are asteroids that spend exactly as much time in the same places as the comets, some even more so. But they still don't show comas, why is that?

Asteroids that are deeper in the areas of the solar system for longer, yet no comas.



As the comet approaches the Sun, the nucleus moves at a furious speed through regions of increasing charge density and voltage. The comet's surface charge and internal polarization, developed in deep space, respond to the new environment by forming cathode jets and a visible plasma sheath, or coma."

Which is exactly what would happen to Apollo objects as well, yet they don't. Why not?


It's the charge DD that you fail to recognise as an important factor. All the planets are charged bodies and have Langmuir plasma sheaths around them with double layers controlling the charge exchange with the solar plasma, just as the Sun has with the Galactic plasma which mainstream call the Heliosphere.


And you have yet to address the fact that there are bodies that are supposedly just the same under EC theory, the same composition, and go through the exact same process, yet they don't show comas.

Why would it not be easier to admit that there would be a compositional spectrum, some bodies mainly volatile, some mainly rocky, those that are made of frozen gasses show comas, those that are mainly rocky don't.

Because under the EC you keep presenting they are all rocky bodies but there is a mystery as to why some show comas and some don't.

Comets environment are changing so rapidly that the electrical forces of the Langmuir plasma sheaths around them with double layers controlling the charge exchange with the solar plasma become visible in "glow mode" rather that the "dark mode" Hence, we see comas and tails forming for a time until "dark mode" balance resumes.

Except for the fact that those are just magic words that you wave around, that you got from blog posts.

Why don't the Apollo objects show the exact same thing.

Why only four main belt bodies?

You do know that one person in this thread who studies plasma physics for real said that this was bogus?


It's also the charge and the solar conditions DD have I said this before? :rolleyes:

And the fact that there are other bodies that are in the same places that do not do this despite exactly the same conditions say that your eye roll is silly.

Answer the question.

Why only those particular bodies?

there are plenty of others that should show the exact same phenomena.


So it is not where they are in the solar system, it is not their movement through the solar system, it is not the solar wind or flare events.

So what is this mysterious hidden variable Haig?
[q/quote]

I have DD many times :)
YOU have not acknowledged my answers, I don't expect you to agree with them DD just recognise that it's the EU/PC theory of comets and it explains the anomalous behaviour of comets and some asteroids, that is such a puzzle to the mainstream dirty snowball theory that has to be continuously changed.
[/quote]
Um, so you think that frozen CO2 doesn't exist?

Funny, that you can buy even.


Sungrazers
Apr 22, 2009 (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090422sungrazers.htm)

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090422sungrazers.htm

More citations of blog posts lacking real evidence?

Sure Haig, just answer the simple question:
If it is not orbits, places that the bodies traverse, if it is not the solar activity (because there are asteroids in the exact same conditions remember), then what is this mysterious hidden variable?

So far we can eliminate the three variables that you say are the key to EC, so what is it?

Maybe that some bodies are composed mainly of frozen gasses and that some are not? And that some fall in between?

[Dancing David]

RC: as I said in my reply to DD "From my understanding of EU/PC theory on comets" it follows that charged bodies like comets and asteroids, planets, the Sun: that show Comas/Magnetospheres/Heliopause, are reacting because they are immersed in an electrically dynamic environment and experience electrical interactions with one another so that a Langmuir plasma sheaths forms around them with double layers controlling the charge exchange with the plasma they are immersed in.

And that is silly because there are other bodies supposedly the same , that go through exactly teh same places, that do not show comas, so we eleimante teh three variable of EC, orbits, placement and solaer weather and now there is a hidden varable.



Can I cite papers that asteroids have a charge? Nope, it's speculation.

Just like the mainstream speculation that suggests the cause of this asteroid displaying vigorous cometary behaviour was due to a reactivation and sublimation of a freshly-exposed reservoir of volatile material.

Or that there are bodies of mixed compsitions?

Unless that reference the fifth one which was really a collision event.




Physical Properties of Main-Belt Comet P/2005 U1 (Read) (http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.1351)



So then I say:

Comets ....Asteroids .... what's the difference? ..... electric charge maybe? ;)

The return of activity in main-belt comet 133P/Elst-Pizarro (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.403..363H)


A recent disruption of the main-belt asteroid P/2010 A2 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7317/full/nature09456.html)




See my reply to RC above. I'll post what I can as I go through this.
I've noticed :eye-poppi
This fits the bill for me:

The Electrical Nature of Comets (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?reload=true&arnumber=4346306)
Well, for me, this melted the mainstream theory of a dirty snowball from the Oort Cloud or the recent ad hoc "main belt comets" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main-belt_comet) from the asteroid belt

Just sticking to the topic :)

In 1957 Alfven thought comets were electric:

On the Theory of Comet Tails (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1957.tb01855.x/abstract) H. ALFVÉN

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1957.tb01855.x/abstract
Birkeland in 1913 thought comets were electric:

Comets: Kristian Birkeland's theory (http://www.plasma-universe.com/Comets:_Kristian_Birkeland's_theory)

http://www.plasma-universe.com/Comets:_Kristian_Birkeland's_theory
I have to disagree :)
I suspect that what ever data, any EU/PC exponent, produced on electric comets, it STILL wouldn't be good enough ;)
It's all around if you care to take the blinkers off IMO.

Comet samples are surprisingly asteroid-like (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13224)


Comet—Asteroid Link Confirmed (http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=6y3ehr7j&keywords=comets#dest)


Comet Tempel 1's Electrifying Impact (http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=3kneumjj)


(my bold) Speak your mind, why don't you :rolleyes: What I’ve posted here is my sincere and genuine view of the Electric Comet theory and while I’m only a layman I'm continually surprised by the ad homs flung at anyone suggesting EU/PC ideas.
Why do that? Intimidation perhaps?[/QUOTE]

I have not flung ad homs at you haig, what are you whining about?

[nvidiot]

He's confusing ad hom with insults I think, in ref to my post.

[Reality Check]

RC: as I said in my reply to DD "From my understanding of EU/PC theory on comets" it follows that charged bodies like comets and asteroids, planets, the Sun: that show Comas/Magnetospheres/Heliopause, are reacting because they are immersed in an electrically dynamic environment and experience electrical interactions with one another so that a Langmuir plasma sheaths forms around them with double layers controlling the charge exchange with the plasma they are immersed in.

So what?
That does not answer the question:
The EC idea predicts that 528,157 asteroids should be comets (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6609633#post6609633)from
The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6602584#post6602584)


Can I cite papers that asteroids have a charge? Nope, it's speculation.

Thanks for confirming that it is speculation, not science.


Just like the mainstream speculation that suggests the cause of this asteroid displaying vigorous cometary behaviour was due to a reactivation and sublimation of a freshly-exposed reservoir of volatile material.

That is quite ignorant of you Haig. The mainstream science is

Comets are observed to made of dust and ice.
Comets are in orbits. When they are far from the Sun the physical conditions are such that sublimation of ices cannot happen. When they are closer to the Sun, the conditions are such that sublimation can happen.

Physical Properties of Main-Belt Comet P/2005 U1 (Read) (http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.1351)
So then I say:

Comets ....Asteroids .... what's the difference? ..... electric charge maybe? ;)

So then I say that you remain ignorant.
Comets ....Asteroids .... what's the difference? ..... a lot :jaw-dropp :
The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6602584#post6602584)


The return of activity in main-belt comet 133P/Elst-Pizarro (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.403..363H)

A recent disruption of the main-belt asteroid P/2010 A2 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7317/full/nature09456.html)

The existence of main belt comets is confirmation that The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6602584#post6602584). Thanks for the links.



In 1957 Alfven thought comets were electric:

On the Theory of Comet Tails (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1957.tb01855.x/abstract) H. ALFVÉN


And he was wrong: read The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6602584#post6602584).


Birkeland in 1913 thought comets were electric:

Comets: Kristian Birkeland's theory (http://www.plasma-universe.com/Comets:_Kristian_Birkeland's_theory)
and he was wrong: read The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6602584#post6602584).
(Birkeland also thought that Saturn's rings and galaxies were electric :eye-poppi!)

[quote=Haig;6878247]
Comet samples are surprisingly asteroid-like (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13224)



And not:totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked.

Cometary dust as collected by the Stardust mission contain forms of carbon that are not in meteorites. (http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20061119014904data_trunc_sys.shtml)
Physical composition of asteroids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteriod#Characteristics)
Physical composition of comet nuclei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet#Nucleus)

Comet—Asteroid Link Confirmed (http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=6y3ehr7j&keywords=comets#dest)

Now we have the idiocy of Thornhill, etc. being unable to tell that the number 0.6 (the density of comets) is less than the number 3.0 (the density of asteroids) :jaw-dropp!


Comet Tempel 1's Electrifying Impact (http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=3kneumjj)



When are you going to quit citing this liar, Haig?

The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6599318#post6599318)
Anoher lie from Thornhill on the Thunderbolts web site (about Saturn's poles) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6872946#post6872946)

What I’ve posted here is my sincere and genuine view of the Electric Comet theory and while I’m only a layman I'm continually surprised by the ad homs flung at anyone suggesting EU/PC ideas.
Why do that? Intimidation perhaps?
No intimidation is meant. We are just pointing out that the people that you are citing are liars and ignorant. We are just pointing out that it is totally obvious that the EC idea is invalid. A primary school student can see that - just ask them if 3.0 is that same as 0.6!



The fact that you are "only a layman" did get you some leeway when you started to post here. That leeway is now over because you are constantly

demonstrating that you seem to be unable to learn some basic science, e.g.
Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids). (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4980000&postcount=231)
displaying an inability to back up the EC idea except with web sites and authors who lie to their readers (see above).
cannot explain the fatal flaws in the EC idea and still believe it.
do not seem to want to learn about the actual science of comets.
The obsession with citing the Thunderbolts web site (and the even worse holoscience site) is causing the most damage to your image. It is that which really makes me label you as obsessive and even deluded. I could be wrong - all you have to do is show that you are capable of some skeptical analysis of these people who are lying to you.


A reminder - it is not an ad hom to call someone obsessive or delusional if they show signs of being obsessed or deluded.

Obsession is continuing to cite a lying web site.
Delusion is not being able to tell the difference between 0.6 and 3.0.
Delusion is not being able to explain that EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5061286&postcount=395) and continuing to believe in the EC idea.

[Haig]

Comet X-rays (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040824comet-xrays.htm) (My bold)

The EU/PC explanation for it

Why point an x-ray telescope at Comet Hyakutake? Nothing in accepted theory would lead an astronomer to expect a comet to shine in x-rays. A comet is believed to be a dirty snowball slowly wasting away in the heat of the Sun. But this ROSAT image from March 27, 1996 reveals a comet radiating x-rays as intense as those from the x- ray stars that are ROSAT's usual target.

The x-rays flickered over a matter of hours like a failing fluorescent lamp. The Electric Universe contends that this is more than a simile: A comet is a light-producing load in the circuit of an electrically powered Sun.

The Sun's radial electric field is weak but constant with distance in interplanetary space. In a constant radial electric field, the voltage decreases linearly with distance. A comet on an elongated orbit spends most of its time far from the Sun and acquires a charge in balance with the voltage at that distance. But when a comet speeds inward for a quick spin around the Sun, the voltage of the comet becomes increasingly out of balance with that nearer the Sun.

Most of the voltage difference between the comet and the solar plasma is taken up in a double layer of charge, called a plasma sheath, that surrounds the comet. When the electrical stress is great enough, the sheath glows and appears as the typical comet coma and tail. Diffuse electrical discharges occur in the sheath and at the nucleus, radiating a variety of frequencies, including x-rays. The highest voltage differences occur at the comet nucleus and across the plasma sheath. So where the sheath is most compressed, in the sunward direction, the electric field is strong enough to accelerate charged particles to x-ray energies. That explains the crescent-shaped x-ray image in relation to the comet nucleus and the Sun. Flickering and occasional flare-ups are expected because plasma discharges behave in a non-linear manner.


and the mainstream explanation

Hot X-rays from a Cold Comet (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast23aug_1m/) (my bold)
In 1996, Hyakutake dazzled observers across the globe as it passed less than 16 million km from Earth. Sunlight reflecting from its 500-million kilometer tail made it one of the brightest comets of the 20th century. No one expected Hyakutake to be a powerful x-ray source, but theorists at the time speculated that dusty gas surrounding the rapidly vaporizing core might scatter a small number of high-energy photons from the Sun, producing a faint x-ray halo.
Astronomers using ROSAT decided to look at Hyakutake and they were shocked by what they saw. ROSAT images revealed a crescent-shaped region of x-ray emission around the comet 1000 times more intense than anyone had predicted!

That problem -- the enigma of intense x-rays from comets -- would persist for four more years. During the interim, the ROSAT, EUVE and BeppoSAX satellites detected x-rays and extreme ultraviolet radiation from more than half-a-dozen comets including Comet Hale-Bopp. But it was not until last month when Chandra observed Comet LINEAR that the answer finally emerged.

When ions from the Sun blow past a comet, their strong positive charge attracts negatively-charged electrons from cometary atoms and molecules. In effect, the ions try to neutralize their own unbalanced charge by stealing electrons from the comet. Electrons that leap from neutral atoms to the passing solar wind ions emit x-rays as they cascade from high-energy to low-energy ionic orbits. This process, called a "charge exchange reaction," was first proposed in 1997 as a possible reason for cometary x-rays


Seems like Electric Comets to me ;)

[Zeuzzz]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Seems to be yet another of the plethora of observations that seem to fly in the face of conventional astronomical theories. Weird that; how even theories thought well established might turn out to wrong and all. :rolleyes:

[Zeuzzz]

The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6602584#post6602584)



Nice wording.

Might as well make anyone who supports any "electric comet" idea wear this (http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000283620/polls_you_are_stupid_tee_shirt_4728_142925_answer_ 1_xlarge.jpeg) t shirt.

Not that it would wind them up at all, im sure it will provoke a very productive non emotive response.

Sarcasm? Me ... Sarcastic? Never.

[Dancing David]

Comet X-rays (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040824comet-xrays.htm) (My bold)

The EU/PC explanation for it




and the mainstream explanation

Hot X-rays from a Cold Comet (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast23aug_1m/) (my bold)







Seems like Electric Comets to me ;)

So why do objects supposedly of the same composition, in the same orbits, same places and same space weather not show comas?

Hmmmmm?

[Dancing David]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Seems to be yet another of the plethora of observations that seem to fly in the face of conventional astronomical theories. Weird that; how even theories thought well established might turn out to wrong and all. :rolleyes:

Hi Zeuzz, care to adrress the fact that teh EC theory does not address why only four main belt objects have comas, why Apollo bodies do not have comas?

care to address the inconsistencies with teh EC theory? Thunderbolts does not have an explanation for why Hyakutale produced x-rays. It has un supported blog post.

[Dancing David]

Gee Haig if you are going to argue by press release you could at least read the one that you cited!:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast23aug_1m/


When ions from the Sun blow past a comet, their strong positive charge attracts negatively-charged electrons from cometary atoms and molecules. In effect, the ions try to neutralize their own unbalanced charge by stealing electrons from the comet. Electrons that leap from neutral atoms to the passing solar wind ions emit x-rays as they cascade from high-energy to low-energy ionic orbits. This process, called a "charge exchange reaction," was first proposed in 1997 as a possible reason for cometary x-rays [ref].

A telltale sign of charge exchange is x-rays emitted at wavelengths that are specific to the internal energy levels of the ions. That's exactly what Chandra's ACIS instrument detected in the x-rays from Comet LINEAR -- spectral lines from oxygen and nitrogen ions present in the solar wind.


Here is an irony meter for you:
:id:


Here is a hint Haig the mainstream model does not ignore tehe ffects of eletrical charge. That is something made up by Thunderbolts.

So a high energy ion moving past a cometary particle produces an electric charge effect. What Does That Have To Do With The Electric Comet Theory? other that the word electric charge?

It is NOT A DISCHARGE PROCESS? It is not from an accumulated charge differential, now is it?

:id:
Here is some more recent news than that Thunderdolts blog post, this is a press release
http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Rosetta/SEMXA46DIAE_0.html

Oh my, what happen if you enter comet x-rays charge exchange into Google:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=research+comet+x-rays+charge+exchange&cp=37&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=research+comet+x-rays+charge+exchange&pbx=1&fp=e637dc619dfb9af3

Oh gosh here is one from 1997 even:
http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/1997/96GL03780.shtml

and one from 1998:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6T-3TGNFXH-F&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F1998&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1643878077&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c44e22ed4989d815b6746d3c29e1c267&searchtype=a

One from 2004:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1402-4896/70/6/N01;jsessionid=2B957C42FF1979C320E2DC83EB5D54B0.c1

Somebody's disertation:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:AC6PYCVpoo4J:dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/science/2007/d.bodewits/c1.pdf+research+comet+x-rays+charge+exchange&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgCJoQbrwX0Vw4U4KfGtPWH7nY8X9tETJ042gwj MPP-kgW5O_tknytZ19HKQyh7QQcNt1rybiTpmXXF5m0yhPOA8fKF7Q 8UIQVth1Mp8ZCGZs7QMSx7Ym99DJ77eEPyOYEwWAMw&sig=AHIEtbSmxExAZc3XldepuvOozYMUrBVYIw


So Zeuzz and Haig, what is the mystery of cometary x-rays that needs explaining?

here is a :rolleyes: for you.

[Reality Check]

Comet X-rays (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040824comet-xrays.htm)
Seems like a gullible person citing liars to me :jaw-dropp

The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6599318#post6599318)
Anoher lie from Thornhill on the Thunderbolts web site (about Saturn's poles) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6872946#post6872946)

[Haig]

Papers on Electric Comets? ;)

The cometary magnetic field and its associated electric currents (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975Icar...26..457I)
Abstract
Two different observations of Comet Kohoutek (1973f) seem to suggest the existence of substantial magnetic fields (not less than 100 gammas) in its coma and tail. The effects of the currents and hydromagnetic waves associated with these magnetic fields are considered. It is shown that while the currents closing through the inner coma may represent an important source of ionization in that region, the dissipation of hydromagnetic waves may also be a significant, if not dominant, source of heating there.


The generation of magnetic fields and electric currents in cometary plasma tails (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976Icar...29..147I)
Abstract
Due to the folding of the interplanetary magnetic field into the tail as a comet sweeps through the interplanetary medium, the magnetic field in the tail can be built up to the order of 100 gammas at a heliocentric distance of about 1 AU. This folding of magnetic flux tubes also results in a cross-tail electric current passing through a neutral sheet. When streams of enhanced plasma density merge with the main tail, cross-tail currents as large as 1 billion A may result. A condition could arise which causes a significant fraction of this current to be discharged through the inner coma, resulting in rapid ionization. The typical time scale for such outbursts of ionization is estimated to be of the order of 10,000 sec, which is in reasonable agreement with observation.


VEGA observations of electric fields and plasma in the Comet Halley environment (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986PAZh...12..683G)
Abstract
The APV-V high-frequency plasma-wave analyzers aboard both Vega spacecraft measured electric fields at wave frequencies up to 300 kHz as well as the ambient plasma parameters. Substantial electric-field activity at f of about 100 Hz was detected (2.5-1) x 10 to the 6th km from the nucleus of Comet Halley. Closer to the nucleus the electric-field spectrum developed two maxima, whose evolution along the spacecraft trajectories has been traced.


The electric potential on dust particles in comets and in interplanetary space (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989AN....310...67T)
Abstract
The electric surface potential reached by small dust particles in cometary atmospheres and in interplanetary space is calculated. Plasma temperature and density are varied over a wide range; a two-component plasma of ions and electrons in thermodynamic equilibrium is assumed. The calculations are performed for three types of grains whose photoelectric and secondary electron emission yield are chosen to cover about the range expected for real dust. Results for vanishing secondary electron emission are given for comparison. At the beginning, a short review of the theoretical formulation and the main assumptions are presented.


Induced magnetosphere of comet Halley. 2: Magnetic field and electric currents (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994JGR....9921225I)
Abstract
An induced magnetosphere of a comet rotates around the Sun-comet line along with the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) vector. During the Giotto flyby near comet Halley the direction of the IMF changed several times. For this reason, the trajectory of the Giotto spacecraft, being represented in the IMF-related coordinate system, covered rather well the transverse cross section of the comet Halley magnetosphere. As a result, two-dimensional distributions of both the magnetic field and electric current density have been calculated in the transverse cross section of the induced magnetosphere of comet Halley. The distributions reveal the following facts. The magnetic barrier is axially symmetric (within the accuracy of the grid (approximately 103 km). Such a behavior is associated with the fact that the magnetic field strength in the barrier is governed by the dynamic pressure of the solar wind and does not depend on the ion-neutral friction (which affects only the location of the magnetic field maximum). Along with draping about the dayside of a comet, magnetic field lines also drape about its flanks (where the magnetic field turns out to be enhanced). As a result, the Lorentz electric field inside the cometary ionosphere decreases. Lines of the electric current drape about the cometary ionosphere in a manner resembling the magnetic field lines. The region of the magnetic barrier in front of the contact surface is shown to be an electric load for the magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) generator arising as a result of the solar wind interaction with a comet.

[Reality Check]

Papers on Electric Comets? ;)

Not Papers on Electric Comets! :jaw-dropp


Papers on the real comets that are not the imaginary comets in the EC idea (The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6602584#post6602584) )

The cometary magnetic field and its associated electric currents (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975Icar...26..457I)
The generation of magnetic fields and electric currents in cometary plasma tails (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976Icar...29..147I)
VEGA observations of electric fields and plasma in the Comet Halley environment (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986PAZh...12..683G)
The electric potential on dust particles in comets and in interplanetary space (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989AN....310...67T)
Induced magnetosphere of comet Halley. 2: Magnetic field and electric currents (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994JGR....9921225I)
There are 584 papers listed in the ADS database (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/basic_connect?qsearch=electric+electrical+comet&version=1) from the query "electric electrical comet".

[Reality Check]

Nice wording.

Might as well make anyone who supports any "electric comet" idea wear this (http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000283620/polls_you_are_stupid_tee_shirt_4728_142925_answer_ 1_xlarge.jpeg) t shirt.

Not that it would wind them up at all, im sure it will provoke a very productive non emotive response.

Sarcasm? Me ... Sarcastic? Never.
That is right, no sarcasm is needed.
The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6602584#post6602584)
is nice wording for the reasons that it takes real (or even total) stupidity

not to be able to tell the difference between 0.6 g/cc (the density of comets) and 3.0 g/cc (the density of asteroids)
to constantly ignore the fact that the radiation emitted from electrical discharges is not observed from comets. See Tim Thompson's posts

Electric Comets I (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4827154#post4827154)
Electric Comets II: References (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4830147#post4830147)
Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4832138#post4832138) (actually no EU X-ray bursts).

to constantly ignore that EDM is an invalid mechanism for creating water

The EC assumption of EDM machining does not produce jets (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5020451&postcount=284).
EDM in the EC idea needs a dielectric material which does not exist! (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5024953&postcount=294)
No EDM sparks are seen in images of comet nuclei. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5024962&postcount=295)
No EDM hot spots are seen in thermal maps of Tempel 1. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5024976&postcount=296)
Voltage potentials are many orders of magnitude too small. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5061330&postcount=396)

to constantly ignore that the measured compositions of comets includes volatile materials such as water that must sublimate and create jets in the cometary conditions.
to not see that EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5061286&postcount=395) means that it is bunk
to ignore that main source of the EC idea is a web site that lies to its readers (The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6599318#post6599318))

[Haig]

That is right, no sarcasm is needed.
The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6602584#post6602584)
is nice wording for the reasons that it takes real (or even total) stupidity

not to be able to tell the difference between 0.6 g/cc (the density of comets) and 3.0 g/cc (the density of asteroids)
to constantly ignore the fact that the radiation emitted from electrical discharges is not observed from comets. See Tim Thompson's posts

Electric Comets I (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4827154#post4827154)
Electric Comets II: References (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4830147#post4830147)
Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4832138#post4832138) (actually no EU X-ray bursts).

to constantly ignore that EDM is an invalid mechanism for creating water

The EC assumption of EDM machining does not produce jets (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5020451&postcount=284).
EDM in the EC idea needs a dielectric material which does not exist! (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5024953&postcount=294)
No EDM sparks are seen in images of comet nuclei. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5024962&postcount=295)
No EDM hot spots are seen in thermal maps of Tempel 1. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5024976&postcount=296)
Voltage potentials are many orders of magnitude too small. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5061330&postcount=396)

to constantly ignore that the measured compositions of comets includes volatile materials such as water that must sublimate and create jets in the cometary conditions.
to not see that EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5061286&postcount=395) means that it is bunk
to ignore that main source of the EC idea is a web site that lies to its readers (The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6599318#post6599318))


A reminder - it is not an ad hom to call someone obsessive or delusional if they show signs of being obsessed or deluded. :eye-poppi

[nvidiot]

I'm sorry?

Did you just suggest that the entire solar and astrophysics community is deluded?

[Haig]

I'm sorry?

Did you just suggest that the entire solar and astrophysics community is deluded?Nope, just RC :D

edit:

btw, those are his words but he is a perfect fit ;-)

[nvidiot]

How? How is that a description of the posts RC is making? I don't always agree with the way he words it, but I imagine his patience is far more worn than mine and so calling the Electric Comet "theory" (pfffft!) "totally stupid" is probably as civil as you can expect.

Haig, you, me, heck a lot of the people in this thread are laymen. We have an interest in the world around and outside of us and seek explainations. The problem is that you seem to have for whatever reason latched onto one that is nonsense. EU/PC is not only unevidenced, but it's a total failure at every single hurdle it faces. It doesn't explain any observations quantifiably. It doesn't provide predictions of behaviour and then observe them to see if they're correct or not. It doesn't represent the standard solar and solar system models correctly either.

Thunderbolts LIES. They have been shown to do this so many times and in so many different ways for almost every single thing they state on that kludge of a site. It doesn't predict anything, it merely reacts.

You're going to have to start thinking seriously about the actual results that have been received from our observations, and when they don't agree with the nonsense that is EU/PC, you don't throw out the results, you throw out the hypothesis and look for an explaination that actually fits the data. You can't just say: "Well this data must be skewed in favour of the status quo, obviously the scientists involved are mistaken and didn't look for x feature or y process." Science makes mistakes, but it self corrects! The EU/PC hypothesis has been debunked at every prediction it makes. Every one.

It dishonors the good names of good scientists working over the last century or more to understand the nature of the universe. Birkeland was wrong, but if he had the observations and data we have today I wouldnt hesitate to say that he would come to the same conclusions that the modern science has. EU/PC raises up some scientists working outside their field of specialisation to semi-divinity, with individuals like Alfven who made some interesting suggestions about the nature of the universe which turned out to be utterly wrong. But EU/PC backers seem to think that a plasma physicist who did make a great contribution to his field must have somehow ex-nihilo hit on the true nature of the universe. Guess what? He was wrong about cosmology, mostly because he didn't know enough about it and did not have the tools to use that we do today

You know why we know that? Because he made specific predictions of what should be observed if he was correct and those observations disproved them. Why on earth and FSM above would you continue to think that thunderbolts is an accurate description of the asteroids, comets and planets when they're constantly shown to be not just wrong but observationally disproven.

Nw I'm a cynic as well as a skeptic so I can be a blunt instrument on these forums sometimes, but when someone who actually knows WTF they're taking about in a given subject comes in here I read and look for the evidence and references that they bring to the table. Then when I look what the EU/PC bring to the table and compare. And the EU /PC hypothesis isn't just wrong on the maths, it isn't just wrong on the observations and interepretations, and it isn't just wrong on the qualitative and quantitative data predicted and observed. It's wrong on all those things, and demonstrably shown to be that.

Look at the evidence and then make a prediction about what you should see in "x" case if EU/PC is correct. Then post those predictions and we shall look for what they suggest. If the observations are not significantly different from the ones predicted by standard theories then they're of little utility. If you find something that is significantly different, can be quantified and replicated, and is also consistent with an EU/PC model then you maybhave something. But frankly, I don't think that will be the case, because there is no EU/PC model, just bloggers and wannabe physicists who didn't make the math grades necessary for real physics pontificating to a small crowd of contrarians.

Sorry again to the other posters and to Haig himself for the ramble. I'm finding my mind wandering a lot lately and when it does this stuff just flows out. :boxedin:

[Tubbythin]

Nw I'm a cynic as well as a skeptic so I can be a blunt instrument on these forums sometimes, but when someone who actually knows WTF they're taking about in a given subject comes in here I read and look for the evidence and references that they bring to the table. Then when I look what the EU/PC bring to the table and compare. And the EU /PC hypothesis isn't just wrong on the maths, it isn't just wrong on the observations and interepretations, and it isn't just wrong on the qualitative and quantitative data predicted and observed. It's wrong on all those things, and demonstrably shown to be that.


I disagree. EU isn't wrong on the quantitative side because it simply doesn't have a quantitative side. Nobody ever presents it. And when competent physicists try to construct a quantitative analysis they just get told they're doing it wrong. And yet the people telling them they're doing it wrong refuse to show them how to do it right.

[Haig]

How? How is that a description of the posts RC is making?He IS a bit OTT and he used those words to me.

OK, it it seemed funny to fling it back at him but I understand many may not agree :boxedin:
The problem is that you seem to have for whatever reason latched onto one that is nonsense. EU/PC is not only unevidenced, but it's a total failure at every single hurdle it faces. It doesn't explain any observations quantifiably. It doesn't provide predictions of behaviour and then observe them to see if they're correct or not. It doesn't represent the standard solar and solar system models correctly either.Can you give a few examples of this?

Thunderbolts LIES. They have been shown to do this so many times and in so many different ways for almost every single thing they state on that kludge of a site. It doesn't predict anything, it merely reacts.How about some examples of this? I know RC says that ALL the time but I've never found that to be the case when I looked into it.

You're going to have to start thinking seriously about the actual results that have been received from our observations, and when they don't agree with the nonsense that is EU/PC, you don't throw out the results, you throw out the hypothesis and look for an explaination that actually fits the data. I do just that and EU/PC is doing fine. Show me some examples please.

The EU/PC hypothesis has been debunked at every prediction it makes. Every one. At every one! like what?

Birkeland was wrong, but if he had the observations and data we have today I wouldnt hesitate to say that he would come to the same conclusions that the modern science has.
What exactly do you think he was wrong about?

Alfven who made some interesting suggestions about the nature of the universe which turned out to be utterly wrong. What did he get wrong? Is this it? ... "Guess what? He was wrong about cosmology"

Why on earth and FSM above would you continue to think that thunderbolts is an accurate description of the asteroids, comets and planets when they're constantly shown to be not just wrong but observationally disproven.I wouldn't. Show me what you mean.

Sorry again to the other posters and to Haig himself for the ramble. I'm finding my mind wandering a lot lately and when it does this stuff just flows out. :boxedin:No problem. Glad you got all that out. I could tell it was frustrating you.

I haven't a lot of time for this and when the better weather comes along I'll just disappear until next winter.

So just give me the facts, if you can, that show the flaws in the EU/PC case and I'll give my honest view on it.

[Reality Check]

A reminder - it is not an ad hom to call someone obsessive or delusional if they show signs of being obsessed or deluded. :eye-poppi
A reminder - it is not an ad hom to reply to somone who shows signs of being obsessed or deluded if they keep on writing posts that show that they are obsesive or deluded . :eye-poppi

P.S. This is not Zeuzzz who is the person I actually replied to in full because he seemed to be unaware of all of the EC flaws that make it a stupid idea. I suspect that Zeuzzz has a better thgan primary school education and knows that 3.0 is greater then 0.6 :)

[Reality Check]

Nope, just RC :D

edit:

btw, those are his words but he is a perfect fit ;-)
BTW those are my words. It is honest of you to admit that you are a perfect fit of somone who "show signs of being obsessed or deluded" :rolleyes:

[Reality Check]

How about some examples of this? I know RC says that ALL the time but I've never found that to be the case when I looked into it.

Haig, you do know that one of the signs of being deluded is ignoring things that contradict your delusion. Have you been ignoring:

The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6599318#post6599318)
Anoher lie from Thornhill on the Thunderbolts web site (about Saturn's poles) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6872946#post6872946)

I do just that and EU/PC is doing fine. Show me some examples please.

Haig & nvidiot - I suggest that we keep to the thread topic and not derail into the EU/PC ideas. There are other threads for those psuedo-sciences.


What exactly do you think he was wrong about?

Birkeland was wrong about everything except the aurora and solar wind composition.


What did he get wrong? Is this it? ... "Guess what? He was wrong about cosmology"

Alfven was wrong about Plasma Cosmology (N.B. this is not the undefined non-science that is plasma cosmology)


I wouldn't. Show me what you mean.

nvidiot probably means:
The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6599318#post6599318)
or maybe
Anoher lie from Thornhill on the Thunderbolts web site (about Saturn's poles) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6872946#post6872946)

[Dancing David]

Can you give a few examples of this?



The charge in the inner solar system is measured how? What charge is on a comet to produce a coma?

Why do other objects in the same orbits, same places, same space weather not show comas?

An easier explanation than the hidden variable of 'where did that charge come from' if it is not from orbits, placement or space weather is that some bodies are made of gasses that are frozen and when they heat up they outgas.

[Dancing David]

Thunderbolts lies:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/arch11/110216fairy.htm
"A Galactic Fairy Ring"
"The first fairy dances a fantasy of Redshift-is-Proportional-to-Distance, overlooking half a century of contrary evidence. "

Contrary evidence
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050610arptest.htm

The evidence that the quazar is in the galaxy is NOT THERE, there is NO EVIDENCE that teh quazar is in the galaxy in the foreground. No gravitational effects, no nothing, just a reference to Halto Arp, who does NOT demonstrate that the quazar is in the galaxy. Arp shows a very weak correlation that the QSO is interacting with the galaxy.

"For the ring to appear as bright as it does, a second fairy must dance a pas de deux of Super Luminosity. " Funny how the link
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050221ulastronomy.htm

Provides NO EVIDENCE of a problem with super luminosity. There is a vague reference to some vague thing that Arp said, that is NOT evidence.

"Since the ring is constrained by the Assumption of Equivalence of Mass and Matter, a fourth fairy must squeeze in—and be squeezed to a supernatural density."

So they have some problem with density?

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=tyybhrr8&keywords=black%20hole
"Black holes tear logic apart"

So they think that gravity does not exist and they think that gravity does not effect photons?

And so what do we have hear Haig, a bunch of lies assembled to make a pretend story.

Arp is wrong, Dingle has not demonstrated that black holes do not exist. Dingle has not shown that gravity does not effect photons.

Arp has no alternative explanation for red shift. he has no data to show a strong correlation between gravitationally disrupted galaxies and QSOs.

In fact lies and wrong.

And that is only the first paragraph.


I can and will go through this with you Arp is wrong, Dingle is wrong and so is Thunderbolts.

This is not 1984 the novel, repeating a lie does not make it true, it is still a lie.

[Perpetual Student]

Just thinking (a little off topic): I wonder if EU proponents are also passionate advocates of so-called "alternative medicine" -- since both belief systems are based on ignorance of actual science and have hard core conspiratorial underpinnings?

[Tubbythin]

Just thinking (a little off topic): I wonder if EU proponents are also passionate advocates of so-called "alternative medicine" -- since both belief systems are based on ignorance of actual science and have hard core conspiratorial underpinnings?

Not to mention that when one looks at the numbers implied by the claims one discovers they are insignificant (at least with homeopathy on the alt med side).

[Zeuzzz]

Just thinking (a little off topic): I wonder if EU proponents are also passionate advocates of so-called "alternative medicine" -- since both belief systems are based on ignorance of actual science and have hard core conspiratorial underpinnings?


Just thinking (A Little off topic) aren't most of your posts nowadays in these really non productive, stereotypical and full of fallacies?

[Haig]

A reminder - it is not an ad hom to reply to somone who shows signs of being obsessed or deluded if they keep on writing posts that show that they are obsesive or deluded . :eye-poppi
P.S. This is not Zeuzzz who is the person I actually replied to in full because he seemed to be unaware of all of the EC flaws that make it a stupid idea. I suspect that Zeuzzz has a better thgan primary school education and knows that 3.0 is greater then 0.6 :)
BTW those are my words. It is honest of you to admit that you are a perfect fit of somone who "show signs of being obsessed or deluded" :rolleyes:Can we stop this roundabout so I can get off :)
Haig, you do know that one of the signs of being deluded is ignoring things that contradict your delusion. Have you been ignoring:

The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6599318#post6599318)
Anoher lie from Thornhill on the Thunderbolts web site (about Saturn's poles) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6872946#post6872946)

Thunderbolts

predictions pending
"Below is a list of predictions based on Electric Universe principles which are yet to be confirmed/refuted. The link above provides a list of confirmed predictions."
http://www.thunderbolts.info/predictions_pending.htm

predictions confirmed
"In science one of the best markers for the accuracy of a model or theory is how well it predicts outcomes. This applies not only to future events but can also be applied to existing data. Below is a collection of predictions based on Electric Universe principles, which have been confirmed by observations and data. The link above provides a list of pending predictions.

At present this list concentrates on those things predicted before the event, but will be expanded in the future to cover many facets of modern astrophysics and cosmology."
http://www.thunderbolts.info/predictions.htm
Haig & nvidiot - I suggest that we keep to the thread topic and not derail into the EU/PC ideas. There are other threads for those psuedo-sciences. Yes, good suggestion. So why don't you do that? :)

Birkeland was wrong about everything except the aurora and solar wind composition.
Alfven was wrong about Plasma Cosmology (N.B. this is not the undefined non-science that is plasma cosmology)
nvidiot probably means:
The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6599318#post6599318)
or maybe
Anoher lie from Thornhill on the Thunderbolts web site (about Saturn's poles) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6872946#post6872946)

Debunking Misconceptions About the Electric Universe - PART ONE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhyHCj_cVKk&feature=player_embedded

“In the nearly eight years since the website Thunderbolts.info has gone online, perhaps the most common request we've received from readers is that we address the innumerable misrepresentations of the Electric Universe hypothesis on the Internet. Newcomers to the theory face an arduous task of sorting through the considerable confusion created by pseudoskeptics. It's not reasonable to expect proponents of "mainstream" theory to immediately embrace the EU; but it is reasonable to ask that EU critics make the effort to learn what the theory actually proposes before loudly denouncing it. Unfortunately, the most vocal opponents of the EU have consistently failed on this front.”
http://current.com/news/92912562_debunking-misconceptions-about-the-electric-universe.htm

[Haig]

Just thinking (a little off topic): I wonder if EU proponents are also passionate advocates of so-called "alternative medicine" -- since both belief systems are based on ignorance of actual science and have hard core conspiratorial underpinnings?A little off topic :eek:
Not to mention that when one looks at the numbers implied by the claims one discovers they are insignificant (at least with homeopathy on the alt med side).:rolleyes:

Characteristics of pseudoskeptics
The first extensive analysis of the term pseudoskepticism was conducted by Marcello Truzzi, Professor of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University, who in 1987 claimed that pseudoskeptics show the following characteristics:

 The tendency to deny, rather than doubt,[2]

 Double standards in the application of criticism, [3]

 The making of judgements without full inquiry,[4]

 Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate,[5]

 Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks,[6]

 Presenting insufficient evidence or proof, [7]

 Pejorative labelling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.' [8]

 Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof, [9]

 Making unsubstantiated counter-claims,[10]

 Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence,[11]

 Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it,[12]

 Tendency to dismiss all evidence, [13]

http://www.plasma-universe.com/Pseudoskepticism

How many boxes can you guys tick? ;)

[Haig]

Getting back on topic :)

Comet (http://www.plasma-universe.com/Comet)
"A comet is a body in the solar system that orbits the Sun. It consists of a nucleus that is perhaps made of rock, dust, and ice, and may exhibits a coma (atmosphere, with associated ionosphere, magnetosphere, sometimes called a plasmasphere), and/or one or more tails: an ion tail (or plasma tail) and dust tail.
In the plasma of the solar wind, and due to the photoelectric effect, the comet nucleus may charge electrostatically, and the ions and dust in the ionosphere and tails produce their own magnetic and electric fields, and electric currents."

[Tubbythin]

 The tendency to deny, rather than doubt,[2]

Huh? Why does a tendency to deny something that is clearly false classify someone as a pseudosceptic?


 Double standards in the application of criticism, [3]

An example where I have done this?


 The making of judgements without full inquiry,[4]

Again, if the basic tenets are clearly false why inquire further?


 Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate,[5]

The work is "discredited" by the fact it bares no relation to reality. If you find this a problem I suggest you give up on science altogether and try something altogether easier... daydreaming perhaps?


 Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks,[6]

Do those who ridicule others for ignoring electromagnetism and then completely ignore our understanding of electromagnetism not deserve ridicule?


 Presenting insufficient evidence or proof, [7]

It is the proponent that is meant to present the evidence. That is what is commonly knows as "burden of proof".


 Pejorative labelling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.' [8]

Whaty about pseudoscepticism? is that not pejorative?


 Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof, [9]

The burden of proof is on the shoulders of the proponent. Nobody else.


 Making unsubstantiated counter-claims,[10]

Good job the counter claims to the unsubstantiated claims are both substantiated and quantitative then isn't it?


 Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence,[11]

Empirical evidence like the actual relative strengths of gravity and EM for the sitation in hand not a cherry-picked number from a completely irrelevant scenario?


 Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it,[12]

Nope, it is dismissed for the fact that quantitative assesment shows it to be trivially false. No other reason. It really is that simple.


 Tendency to dismiss all evidence, [13]

Nope. But if since there has been no quantitative evidence forthcoming from proponents it is pretty difficult to do that one.

[Reality Check]

Getting back on topic :)

Comet (http://www.plasma-universe.com/Comet)
"A comet is a body in the solar system that orbits the Sun. It consists of a nucleus that is perhaps made of rock, dust, and ice, and may exhibits a coma (atmosphere, with associated ionosphere, magnetosphere, sometimes called a plasmasphere), and/or one or more tails: an ion tail (or plasma tail) and dust tail.
In the plasma of the solar wind, and due to the photoelectric effect, the comet nucleus may charge electrostatically, and the ions and dust in the ionosphere and tails produce their own magnetic and electric fields, and electric currents."
Totally off topic :)
That is science not the EC fantasy.
Obviously:


A comet may charge electrostatically.
The ions and dust in the ionosphere and tails produce their own magnetic and electric fields, and electric currents.
The EC idea though cracks up when it states that the gases are produced by electrical discharges that are physically impossible and not detected.
The EC idea assumes that its readers are so dumb that they do not know the difference between the density of comets (~0.6 g/cc) and the density of asteroids (~3.0 g/cc)
The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6602584#post6602584)

[Reality Check]

Can we stop this roundabout so I can get off :)

Can you try reading the Thunderbolt lies:

The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6599318#post6599318)
All Thunderbolt quotes are from their Predictions Confirmed (http://www.thunderbolts.info/predictions.htm#cdi) page.
Anoher lie from Thornhill on the Thunderbolts web site (about Saturn's poles) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6872946#post6872946)

[W.D.Clinger]

Characteristics of pseudoskeptics
The first extensive analysis of the term pseudoskepticism was conducted by Marcello Truzzi, Professor of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University, who in 1987 claimed that pseudoskeptics show the following characteristics:

...snip...

How many boxes can you guys tick? ;)
It's pretty easy to find examples of those characteristics at the Thunderbolts web site.


 The tendency to deny, rather than doubt,[2]
Example:

Despite the glossy media image, modern science is a mess. When the fundamental concepts are false, technological progress merely provides science with a more efficient means for going backwards. At the same time, government and corporate funding promotes the rampant disease of specialism and fosters politicization of science with the inevitable warring factions and religious fervor.




 Double standards in the application of criticism, [3]
Example:

— cosmologists have been misled by theoretical physicists who don’t understand gravity, which forms the basis of the big bang theory. Imaginary ‘dark matter,’ ‘dark energy,’ and black holes have been added to make models of galaxies and star birth appear to work. When all else fails, mysterious magnetic fields are invoked. The bottom line is that cosmologists presently have no real understanding of the universe;

Why is that an example of double standards? Because, as seen below, Wal Thornhill has himself been misled by a wannabe theoretical physicist (Stephen J Crothers) who thinks he understands gravity better than the theoretical physicists whose ranks he wished to join.



 The making of judgements without full inquiry,[4]
Example:

The Big Bang is, by scientific standards, an execrable hypothesis that defies the principles of physics and common sense. Future historians of science will judge this era insane.




 Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate,[5]
Example:

Why does this matter to anyone? Because, Joe Average, not only is it your tax dollars which pay for this outrageous elitist regime, but your children are being slowly brainwashed into believing that some of the most inconceivable theories ever devised by man are now established fact. Take the so-called Big Bang for instance, which for all intents and purposes goes something like "Once upon a time, nothing went BANG!". Whilst that may seem a simplistic summary, it is none-the-less how the Fairy-Tale goes.




 Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks,[6]
Example:

Essentially, the big bang has it that everything currently in the universe once occupied a point in space of zero volume and incredible density, and then suddenly it exploded and expanded into what we see today. The parallel with creationism is obvious.

Another example along the same lines:

I submit this comment, coming from a staunch supporter of Fairie Dust [Fabricated Ad hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Efforts to Defend Untenable Scientific Theories] entities such as Black Holes, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and Neutron Stars, is the epitome of hypocrisy.




 Presenting insufficient evidence or proof, [7]
Example:

It allows us to verify that prehistoric mankind cut into solid rock their view of the last spectacular and frightening chapter in the history of the solar system — the capture of Earth by the Sun.

Yes, Wal Thornhill thinks our species was already present on earth when the earth first began to orbit the sun. That's an extraordinary claim. He presents no evidence beyond the petroglyphs themselves — speaking of which, see the example given below of an unsubstantiated counter-claim.



 Pejorative labelling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.' [8]
Example:

Entrenched science is constantly bolstered by sensational speculative announcements of “facts.” But wildly imaginative constructs such as "dark matter," "dark energy" and “black holes” are fictitious, not factual. Notwithstanding, pronouncements about the big bang have become a quasi-religious ideology, or scientism.




 Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof, [9]
Example:

Cosmology is in crisis because from the very outset the “big bang” was not science! The big bang invokes a miraculous creation of the universe from nothing. It is a misguided attempt to manufacture a creation story to complement, or compete with, the biblical Genesis story. But real science doesn’t do miracles. There was no contest anyway. The biblical creation story, like those of all other ancient cultures on Earth, has nothing to do with the creation of the universe. To believe so is to misunderstand the ancient meanings of “heaven” and “earth.”




 Making unsubstantiated counter-claims,[10]
Example:

Recent research, published by the authority on the many unique forms of high-energy plasma discharge instabilities, has found that prehistoric astronomers chiselled the most ancient astronomical records into solid rock around the globe.

The Thunderbolts site considers the genitalia of the Tapamveni petroglyph (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/070302plasmalab.htm) to be one of those "ancient astronomical records".



 Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence,[11]
Example:

The confidence of astrophysicists in their diagnosis of a “supermassive black hole” at the center of the galaxy has been boosted greatly by some brilliant observational work that has allowed the orbits of stars close to galactic center to be determined. Their motion has been used to better estimate the size and massiveness of the assumed “black hole” dwelling there. However, this brings us back to the question of what astrophysicists understand about gravity and mass.

In Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe I argue for the origin of mass and gravity in the electrical nature of matter.

(Because of that last sentence (and what follows it in Thornhill's essay), I have to admit that this counter-claim was based on implausibility rather than plausibility.)



 Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it,[12]
Example:

The so-called “queen” of the sciences, cosmology, is founded upon the myth that the weakest force in the universe—gravity—is responsible for forming and shaping galaxies, stars and planets. But even if this were true, gravity remains unexplained. How it works is a mystery.

Newton gave us a mathematical description of what gravity does. Einstein invoked an unreal geometry to do the same thing. Newton had the sense to “frame no hypotheses” about how gravity worked. Einstein made it impossible to relate cause and effect—which means that the theory of general relativity is not physics! How, precisely, does matter warp empty space? The language is meaningless.




 Tendency to dismiss all evidence, [13]
The Thunderbolts site contains a wealth of articles that ridicule and dismiss all evidence for quite a number of things. Many of those articles are just plain wrong about the evidence. Example:

It is also claimed by the very same "experts" that General Relativity predicts that the Universe is expanding. This is patently false. The mathematically rigorous proof that these "solutions" are nonsense is given below.

Crothers' articles are especially pernicious because general relativity is a difficult subject even for mathematicians and physicists, so laypeople have no realistic hope of evaluating Crothers' claims on their merits. In Crothers' narrative explaining how he did not earn a PhD (http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/PhD.html), he wrote:

Thus, General Relativity does not predict or permit the absurd black hole. Furthermore, for the same fundamental technical reason, General Relativity does not predict or permit the equally absurd expansion of the Universe or the ridiculous Big Bang.

Crothers is wrong.

[Perpetual Student]

Well done, W.D.Clinger!

[Vermonter]

Well-done indeed!

[Haig]

Yes, well done indeed.

Do you or anyone want to be honest enough to tick the boxes for your own side? and give examples :)

I can't be bothered ;) but don't think they are not there :p

[Dancing David]

Um haig, this is just a side show and unrelated to the fact that the EC theory does not match any data or observations we have available.

Some people make better arguments than others, but considering that the EC theory as presented by the blogs at Thunderbolts if unsubstantiated and contrary to the evidence, does it matter?

Here is the Thunderbolts post about how the Matterhorn was blasted out of the rock and depositied upside down?

This is one of the worst of their blog posts ever:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/071228vercorsplateau.htm

But it shows the typical citations of bad facts and made up theories and made up lies about conventional science.


Many of the so-called plutons have “eroded” into shapes that defy orthodox explanation. One example is probably the most famous monolithic structure in the Swiss Alps: The Matterhorn. The Matterhorn is a pyramid-shaped, limestone monolith resting on top of strata that is not consistent with its morphology. In fact, when compared with the overall stratigraphy surrounding it, The Matterhorn is inverted and twisted. It appears to have been wrenched out of the ground, wrung by incredible forces and then thrown back to Earth approximately 500 miles east of where it was originally located. What could create a titanic pyramid of solid rock, toss it like a pebble and then stand it on its head?

[W.D.Clinger]

Yes, well done indeed.

Do you or anyone want to be honest enough to tick the boxes for your own side? and give examples :)

I can't be bothered ;) but don't think they are not there :p
I'm sorry to hear you can't be bothered to support your allegations.

To ease your burden of proof, I suggest you just identify anyone you consider to be on my "own side" who's been spamming nonsense from anti-science blogsites while lacking the technical background required to evaluate that nonsense on its merits. Then I'll gather the supporting evidence for you, provided it actually exists, and we can call them out together.

[Haig]

I'm sorry to hear you can't be bothered to support your allegations.

To ease your burden of proof, I suggest you just identify anyone you consider to be on my "own side" who's been spamming nonsense from anti-science blogsites while lacking the technical background required to evaluate that nonsense on its merits. Then I'll gather the supporting evidence for you, provided it actually exists, and we can call them out together.
That's very sporting of you. It's everyone except the nicks Haig and Zeuzzz.

I'll lend you a hand ....... if I can find the time :)

[Haig]

Um haig, this is just a side show and unrelated to the fact that the EC theory does not match any data or observations we have available.Yes, the posts have drifted way too far off topic but the fact is EU/PC theory does match the data we have available IMO. Electric Comets (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00subjectx.htm#Comets)
Some people make better arguments than others, but considering that the EC theory as presented by the blogs at Thunderbolts if unsubstantiated and contrary to the evidence, does it matter?True, some are better at it than others. No, I don't agree Thunderbolts are far off the mark. Consider this video, it's OT but how do you explain it from a mainstream point of view?

The Lightning-Scarred Planet Mars -- Part One (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_T6__JDeyw)

Here is the Thunderbolts post about how the Matterhorn was blasted out of the rock and depositied upside down?
This is one of the worst of their blog posts ever:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/071228vercorsplateau.htm
But it shows the typical citations of bad facts and made up theories and made up lies about conventional science.Well DD, thanks for this. I didn't know you were into browsing Thunderbolts

If you've that much time consider these:

David Talbott continues his presentation on Martian mysteries, from the forthcoming DVD, "The Cosmic Thunderbolt," (Episode 2 in the series SYMBOLS OF AN ALIEN SKY).

For a playlist of selections from Episode One see:
 http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=1CAB005C3DDFD00B

Additional glimpses from Episode 2:

"The Cosmic Thunderbolt," Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwMDYNRZUKY

"The Cosmic Thunderbolt," Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-46CJ5Pt7U

"Planet of a Thousand Mysteries"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wOogk2LSSw

"When Meteorites Fell from Mars"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEWPVkFaEhY

"The Thunderbolt That Raised Olympus Mons"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DABEeixgxgs

Since this video is part of a much larger presentation of evidence, and all of the evidence is interlinked, it is best to start at the beginning.

[Dancing David]

That one blog post or any others ays it all haig, they calim all sort so reasons the mainstream science, in this case geology, is wrong. then they give a bunch of made up stuff to support imaginary claims.

Do you really think that electrical forces blasted the Matterhorn 500 km. ? Do you really think that mainstream geology does note xplain it?

So far there is nothing I have read on Thunderbolts that makes sense in the evidence.

yes, I do read it, and try to understand it, that is the way you can critique, apparently not something you have done for mainstream comet science.

[Reality Check]

True, some are better at it than others. No, I don't agree Thunderbolts are far off the mark. Consider this video, it's OT but how do you explain it from a mainstream point of view?
Anyone can "explain" it from a mainstream point oif view: It is a crank who posts on a web site that lies to its readers who has created a series of YouTube videos exposing his deluded ideas.

[Haig]

That one blog post or any others ays it all haig, they calim all sort so reasons the mainstream science, in this case geology, is wrong. then they give a bunch of made up stuff to support imaginary claims.I see what you mean. It's not well put IMO.

Do you really think that electrical forces blasted the Matterhorn 500 km. ? Do you really think that mainstream geology does note xplain it?Mmmmm I'd need a bit more evidence than I read in that piece. Yes, mainstream geology does have a plausible explanation.

So far there is nothing I have read on Thunderbolts that makes sense in the evidence.I think that video on the weird Martian geology makes me think mainstream can't explain it's formation easily. Perhaps you do?

yes, I do read it, and try to understand it, that is the way you can critique, apparently not something you have done for mainstream comet science.Know the enemy! I understand that ;) I do read some mainstream comet science but yes, not as much as I should. Lack of time unfortunately.

I started posting on this thread again because of the re-visit to comet Temple 1 on Valentines day. I've just seen the pictures of the man-made crater and I'm rather surprised by how small it is. I guess I was expecting something better after the huge flash in 2005.

NASA Releases Images of Man-Made Crater on Comet (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-056&cid=release_2011-056&msource=s20110215&tr=y&auid=7787065#5)
The Stardust-NExT mission met its goals, which included observing surface features that changed in areas previously seen during the 2005 Deep Impact mission; imaging new terrain; and viewing the crater generated when the 2005 mission propelled an impactor at the comet.

"This mission is 100 percent successful," said Joe Veverka, Stardust-NExT principal investigator of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. "We saw a lot of new things that we didn't expect, and we'll be working hard to figure out what Tempel 1 is trying to tell us."

Several of the images provide tantalizing clues to the result of the Deep Impact mission's collision with Tempel 1.

"We see a crater with a small mound in the center, and it appears that some of the ejecta went up and came right back down," said Pete Schultz of Brown University, Providence, R.I. "This tells us this cometary nucleus is fragile and weak based on how subdued the crater is we see today."


Tempel 1 Impact Site
This pair of images shows the before-and-after comparison of the part of comet Tempel 1 that was hit by the impactor from NASA's Deep Impact spacecraft. Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Maryland/Cornell

[Haig]

Anyone can "explain" it from a mainstream point oif view: It is a crank who posts on a web site that lies to its readers who has created a series of YouTube videos exposing his deluded ideas.Care to explain that Mars geology, in the video, from a mainstream point of view RC?

[Dancing David]

Care to explain that Mars geology, in the video, from a mainstream point of view RC?

Care to present a reason that Mons Olympus is not a volcano?

Seriously Haig, you pick one thing and you support it.

Like this here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040705olympus-mons.htm

What evidence is there that Mons Olympus is not volcanic in nature?

None other than, where did the ridges come from?

They talk about an anode blister, but guess what no scale, no measurements, no possible way for it to happen. I mean really? A giant steel anode?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/061122omridges.htm

Dendritic ridges

Who says that this poses a problem for geologists, what evidence is there of this claim?

None.

Any mechanisms for the electric discharge, zero.

http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/50528980.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=E41C9FE5C4AA0A14CA5397E42AF28592367C93C4D9A310B9 B0DB2FABA8D7D9E2B01E70F2B3269972

http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/ve/20357/npakistan_AST_2005300.jpg

They did not even try to look for mountain ridges with branching structures, I haven't even tried that hard.

[Dancing David]

Know the enemy! I understand that ;) I do read some mainstream comet science but yes, not as much as I should. Lack of time unfortunately.



Nope!

Know an argument before you criticize it.

[Dancing David]

They did not even try plateau edges at all
http://i.pbase.com/o3/93/329493/1/116811076.PEKMyj73.ArundelBeijingAug09565.jpg

http://earthasart.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/desolat_hires.jpg

http://earthasart.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/himalay_hires.jpg

http://earthasart.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/iran_hires.jpg


In fact I don't think they tried at all Haig

[Tim Thompson]

Comet Hartley 2 - rock and EDM not dirty iceballs and sublimation (http://www.everythingselectric.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=58c3883ddec84807ebac1dbd3b0062 84&topic=329.0)

Everything we will find out in the future will question and surprise scientists who still go on about comets being dirty ice balls. Every image will show them as rocks having electrical discharges.



Every image?

NASA Releases Images of Man-Made Crater on Comet (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-056&cid=release_2011-056&msource=s20110215&tr=y&auid=7787065#5)

"We see a crater with a small mound in the center, and it appears that some of the ejecta went up and came right back down," said Pete Schultz of Brown University, Providence, R.I. "This tells is this cometary nucleus is fragile and weak based on how subdued the crater is we see today."



Personally, I think "fragile and weak" and "dirty ice ball" go together fairly well. On the other hand, "rocks having electrical discharges" and "fragile and weak" don't go together well at all. So Haig quotes material that proves Haig's quote is wrong. Interesting.

The Thunderbolts / plasma universe & etc. comet pages are stupid and dishonest. They claim successful predictions that were not successful and they claim failures of standard theory that are not failures. Trust them at your own peril. Meanwhile, as I have said before ...

If that's what you think, then the EU is toast already. Comets cannot be "rocks". While comet masses are hard to constrain, they are not so extremely uncertain as to confuse "ice" and "rock". Comet densities are constrained to the range of about 0.3 to 1.5 gm/cm3 in numerous different ways, from dynamic orbit modeling to direct observation. Compare this to the density of water ice, 1.0 gm/cm3, and light "rocks" which range from 2-3 gm/cm3 (coal is the lightest "rock" at 1.1-1.4 gm/cm3; do you propose that comets are made of coal?). The average density of Earth is about 5.5 gm/cm3 due to the presence of heavier elements like iron (7.9 gm/cm3). Nothing with a density as low as 1.5 gm/cm3 can be considered a "rock" in any reasonable sense of the word. Comets are already known not to be rocks. For comet density references, see for instance Sosa & Fernandez, 2009 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.393..192S); Richardson, et al., 2007 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007Icar..190..357R); Weissman & Lowry, 2006 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006LPICo1325...76W).


And where does that leave us in the "comets are rocks" question?
Data favoring "rock": none.
Data favoring "not rock": lots.
Case closed, comets are not rocks.

Also see my earlier posts, all more than a year old ...

Comet Wild 2 & Electric Comets (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4966681#post4966681)
Comet Jets (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4965082#post4965082)
Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4832138#post4832138)

The "electric comet" hypothesis has never produced any line of explanation for any cometary phenomenon that is superior to the standard theory. So whay should anyone pay any attention to such a useless idea anyway?

[Haig]

Every image? That's a post and a site I don't recognise :confused: Clearly "every image2 is stretching it a bit ;)
Personally, I think "fragile and weak" and "dirty ice ball" go together fairly well. On the other hand, "rocks having electrical discharges" and "fragile and weak" don't go together well at all. So Haig quotes material that proves Haig's quote is wrong. Interesting.Not sure what your getting at here :confused: I am allowed to look at mainstream sites like NASA, right? It's great btw :)

I don't expect NASA to promote EU/PC theory just yet :D
The Thunderbolts / plasma universe & etc. comet pages are stupid and dishonest. They claim successful predictions that were not successful and they claim failures of standard theory that are not failures. Trust them at your own peril. Meanwhile, as I have said before ... Your entitled to your views but I've found Thunderbolts very honest and the predictions second to none.
Also see my earlier posts, all more than a year old ...

Comet Wild 2 & Electric Comets (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4966681#post4966681)
Comet Jets (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4965082#post4965082)
Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4832138#post4832138)
Thanks for these, I'll read them when i have more time.
The "electric comet" hypothesis has never produced any line of explanation for any cometary phenomenon that is superior to the standard theory. So whay should anyone pay any attention to such a useless idea anyway?So comets haven't given any surprises to mainstream :eye-poppi

27 October 2010
Deep Impact 2
Comment: It is amazing that comets are still thought to be "half ice" after the non-detection of ice on so many comet flybys. The spectroscopic survey is very important. I predict that photo-dissociation will be found totally inadequate to explain the degree and nature of ionization of molecules close to the nucleus. It has been known since the Giotto spacecraft flew through the inner coma of comet Halley that "negative ions occurred with densities 100 times greater than expected, and the discrepancy is still not well understood."

Only a week ago, NASA reported about comet Hartley 2 that, "recent observations of comet Hartley 2 have scientists scratching their heads, while they anticipate a flyby of the small, icy world on Nov. 4. Our observations indicate that cyanide (HCN) released by the comet increased by a factor of five over an eight-day period in September without any increase in dust emissions. We have never seen this kind of activity in a comet before..." This is simply another piece of contrary evidence suggesting that comets are not a homogeneous aggregate of primordial ice and dust.
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=nq9zna2m&keywords=comets#dest

[Dancing David]

Oh boy more unreferenced and uncited blog posts.

Who the **** said comets are homegenous, some *********** strawman?

[Tubbythin]

and the predictions second to none.

Have they made a single quantitative prediction?

[Reality Check]

Your entitled to your views but I've found Thunderbolts very honest and the predictions second to none.


Then your views are formed from a position of ignorance or gullibility. You have never understood that Thunderbolts has

Actually lied to its readers.
Has a record of very bad predictions that are either (or both)

Non-quantitative
Wrong

Qualitative predictions are not bad in themselves so long as they are explained in detail. They are a first step towards forming a viable hypothesis. But Thunderbolts qualitative predictions are mostly wrong and they lie about them, e.g. ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Lying about flashes (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6556192#post6556192)

Also see

The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6599318#post6599318)
Another lie from Thornhill on the Thunderbolts web site (about Saturn's poles) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6872946#post6872946)

27 October 2010
Deep Impact 2
...snipped link to crank web site...

Nice of you to post another link showing the ignorance of the EC authors :jaw-dropp.

No one expected the surface of comets to be covered in ice. The comet nuclei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_nucleus#Albedo) are some of the darkest surfaces in the Solar System. The cause is thought to be complex organic compounds on the surface. Scientists expect there to be some ice on the surface of comets since it is possible for outgassed material to return to the surface or for the outgassing to remove patches of theouter layer and expose ice. The only ice detected so far was on the surface of Tempel 1.

[Reality Check]

Care to explain that Mars geology, in the video, from a mainstream point of view RC?
No - I am not a geologist.
Care to explain why I should watch a video from an author who posts on a web site that lies to its readers and displays an deep ignorance of basic science, Haig?

Care to explain why I should watch a video on Marian geology by David Talbott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Talbott)

David N. Talbott (born 1942) is an American author and inveterate promoter of neo-Velikovskian ideas. Inspired by Immanuel Velikovsky, he proposes a “Polar Configuration” involving the five planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, Mars, Earth, in order, and its influence on the human mythology

So David Talbott is ignorant of basically all science since before Newton.

[Zeuzzz]

So David Talbott is ignorant of basically all science since before Newton.


He's not ignorant, I suspect that he knows at least some post Newtonian physics, just chooses to ignore the parts that don't adhere to his world view. He does come across to me as a strong catastrophist proponent, and mild velisophsky cultist.

He's definitely not a real scientist.

[Tim Thompson]

NASA Releases Images of Man-Made Crater on Comet (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-056&cid=release_2011-056&msource=s20110215&tr=y&auid=7787065#5)

That's a post and a site I don't recognise :confused: ...
OK, so not only do you not recognize the NASA website that you posted, but you don't even recognize your own post. Maybe you should post less, and think about what you post just a bit more?


Personally, I think "fragile and weak" and "dirty ice ball" go together fairly well. On the other hand, "rocks having electrical discharges" and "fragile and weak" don't go together well at all. So Haig quotes material that proves Haig's quote is wrong. Interesting.

Not sure what your getting at here ...
I thought it was pretty obvious:
Haig posts EU website that claims comets are rocks (post #924 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6654747#post6654747))
Haig posts NASA website that shows comets are "fragile and weak" (post #1111 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6892712#post6892712)).
Haig posts mutually contradictory websites trying to imply that both are correct.
Conclusion: One does not believe that Haig knows what Haig is talking about. The fact that Haig cannot recognize his own post, or the website he posted, certainly reinforces this conclusion.

Also see my earlier posts: Comets Are Not "Rocks" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4961075#post4961075) (1 August 2009) and Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4832138#post4832138) (21 June 2009).

[Haig]

OK, so not only do you not recognize the NASA website that you posted, but you don't even recognize your own post. Maybe you should post less, and think about what you post just a bit more?I don't recognise it Tim because I didn't post it. It's not the NASA link (that's the next one in your post #1116). The first one is "electriceverything.com" (http://www.everythingselectric.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=58c3883ddec84807ebac1dbd3b0062 84&topic=329.0) which I have never seen before you posted it HERE (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6893760#post6893760)

You seem a bit mixed up Tim but no need to apologise just let me do a RC on you and throw your own words back at you:

OK, so not only do you not recognize the NASA everythingselectric.com website that you posted, but you don't even recognize your own post. Maybe you should post less, and think about what you post just a bit more? :p
I thought it was pretty obvious:
Haig posts EU website that claims comets are rocks (post #924 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6654747#post6654747))
Haig posts NASA website that shows comets are "fragile and weak" (post #1111 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6892712#post6892712)).
Haig posts mutually contradictory websites trying to imply that both are correct.
Conclusion: One does not believe that Haig knows what Haig is talking about. The fact that Haig cannot recognize his own post, or the website he posted, certainly reinforces this conclusion.
Kind of rings a bit hollow when it's your mistake Tim :D
Also see my earlier posts: Comets Are Not "Rocks" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4961075#post4961075) (1 August 2009) and Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4832138#post4832138) (21 June 2009). Thanks for these, I'll have a look when I've more time but I hope they make more sense than your last post :)

[W.D.Clinger]

OK, so not only do you not recognize the NASA website that you posted, but you don't even recognize your own post. Maybe you should post less, and think about what you post just a bit more?I don't recognise it Tim because I didn't post it. It's not the NASA link (that's the next one in your post #1116). The first one is "electriceverything.com" (http://www.everythingselectric.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=58c3883ddec84807ebac1dbd3b0062 84&topic=329.0) which I have never seen before you posted it HERE (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6893760#post6893760)
:nope:

Haig, you posted a link to that "electriceverything.com" (ETA: actually "everythingselectric.com") URL in post #924:
Comet Hartley 2 - rock and EDM not dirty iceballs and sublimation (http://www.everythingselectric.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=58c3883ddec84807ebac1dbd3b0062 84&topic=329.0)
Everybody here can confirm the bogosity of your denial by clicking on the link in that quotation. (ETA: by clicking on the red link next to Haig.)

Maybe you should post less, and think about what you post just a bit more.

[Dancing David]

Funny Haig!

Your post:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6654747&postcount=924

Your link:
http://www.everythingselectric.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=58c3883ddec84807ebac1dbd3b0062 84&topic=329.0


Comet Hartley 2 is not a dirty iceball having sublimation. Comet Hartley 2 and all other comets are rock/mineral with virtually no ice and the amazing jets are EDM (Electric Discharge Machining) occuring on the surface due to the potential difference between this object as it comes closer to the sun.




Do you really want to deny the second part?

Are you for real Haig?

That one blog post or any others ays it all haig, they calim all sort so reasons the mainstream science, in this case geology, is wrong. then they give a bunch of made up stuff to support imaginary claims.I see what you mean. It's not well put IMO.

Do you really think that electrical forces blasted the Matterhorn 500 km. ? Do you really think that mainstream geology does note xplain it?Mmmmm I'd need a bit more evidence than I read in that piece. Yes, mainstream geology does have a plausible explanation.

So far there is nothing I have read on Thunderbolts that makes sense in the evidence.I think that video on the weird Martian geology makes me think mainstream can't explain it's formation easily. Perhaps you do?

yes, I do read it, and try to understand it, that is the way you can critique, apparently not something you have done for mainstream comet science.Know the enemy! I understand that ;) I do read some mainstream comet science but yes, not as much as I should. Lack of time unfortunately.

I started posting on this thread again because of the re-visit to comet Temple 1 on Valentines day. I've just seen the pictures of the man-made crater and I'm rather surprised by how small it is. I guess I was expecting something better after the huge flash in 2005.

NASA Releases Images of Man-Made Crater on Comet (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-056&cid=release_2011-056&msource=s20110215&tr=y&auid=7787065#5)
The Stardust-NExT mission met its goals, which included observing surface features that changed in areas previously seen during the 2005 Deep Impact mission; imaging new terrain; and viewing the crater generated when the 2005 mission propelled an impactor at the comet.

"This mission is 100 percent successful," said Joe Veverka, Stardust-NExT principal investigator of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. "We saw a lot of new things that we didn't expect, and we'll be working hard to figure out what Tempel 1 is trying to tell us."

Several of the images provide tantalizing clues to the result of the Deep Impact mission's collision with Tempel 1.

"We see a crater with a small mound in the center, and it appears that some of the ejecta went up and came right back down," said Pete Schultz of Brown University, Providence, R.I. "This tells us this cometary nucleus is fragile and weak based on how subdued the crater is we see today."


Tempel 1 Impact Site
This pair of images shows the before-and-after comparison of the part of comet Tempel 1 that was hit by the impactor from NASA's Deep Impact spacecraft. Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Maryland/Cornell

[Haig]

:nope:
Haig, you posted a link to that "electriceverything.com" (ETA: actually "everythingselectric.com") URL in post #924:
Everybody here can confirm the bogosity of your denial by clicking on the link in that quotation. (ETA: by clicking on the red link next to Haig.)
Maybe you should post less, and think about what you post just a bit more.
Funny Haig!
Your post:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6654747&postcount=924
Your link:
http://www.everythingselectric.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=58c3883ddec84807ebac1dbd3b0062 84&topic=329.0

Do you really want to deny the second part?

Are you for real Haig?
Sincere Apologies to Tim Thompson, he was totally right. My thanks to W.D. Clinger and DD for pointing out my mistake.

Maybe you should post less, and think about what you post just a bit more. Is definitely appropriate in my case :blush:

No defence, but i didn't realise Tim was referring to a post of mine from quite a few pages back and one that I had just copied and pasted here without looking at or reading any of the source. :o

[Haig]

The Dragon's Den (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00current.htm) Feb 28, 2011
Saturn's electrically charged atmosphere has erupted in spectacular fashion.
Sungrazers are comets that pass close to the Sun in their highly elliptical orbits. They tend to reaffirm the Electric Universe opinion about comets: If comets are the result of electrical events that took place early in the life of the Solar System, then their several "anomalous" behaviors can be easily explained.

Some comet anomalies include Hale-Bopp's ion tail and coma when it was far past Jupiter's orbit, the catastrophic explosion of Comet Linear when it was over 100 million kilometers from the Sun, the desert-like, cratered appearance of Comets Borrelly and Tempel 1 (contrary to the "dirty snowball hypothesis), and Shoemaker-Levy 9's broken pieces refusing to expel any water vapor.

The Sun's radial e-field is a dynamic structure, changing in strength and size depending on the corresponding strength of electric currents that flow into it. For that reason, it is in a state of constant flux, requiring just a small trigger for it to explosively discharge with solar flares or coronal mass ejections (CME).

Comet NEAT initiated a CME eruption that appeared to impact the comet. Several other sungrazers have been associated with violent flares. When comet 96P/Machholz circled the Sun its intense charge differential caused a gigantic CME to blast out from the Sun for millions of kilometers.The electrical connection between comets and the Sun seems certain. If that is the case, then the electrical connection between the Sun and its entire family of planets and moons is certain. Changes in electrical activity affect the environments of every member in that family.

Saturn could be thought of as a solar system in its own right, with a family of 31 moons. It possesses a Langmuir charge sheath (plasmasphere) that isolates it from the Sun's own charge sheath that, in turn, is isolating it from the charged interstellar medium.

Many things about Saturn have changed in the 31 years since the two Voyager spacecraft passed by the giant gas planet. Saturn's magnetosphere grew by more than a million kilometers and then contracted, only to begin expanding again. The spokes in Saturn's B ring disappeared and then reappeared. The equatorial thunderstorm (known as the Dragon Storm) that raged continuously broke up, moved toward the poles, and then erupted again.

The most likely explanation for the storms on Saturn is that they are equivalent to sunspots. As the Sun changes its behavior over the course of a 22 year cycle, the electrical output that connects it with its family of planets varies.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00current.htm

I have read and stand by the source of this but it is time for me to post less and do other things in my limited free time for sure.

Spring at last :)

[Dancing David]

The Dragon's Den (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00current.htm) Feb 28, 2011
Saturn's electrically charged atmosphere has erupted in spectacular fashion.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00current.htm

I have read and stand by the source of this but it is time for me to post less and do other things in my limited free time for sure.

Spring at last :)

Post and run, so what evidence does that blog present?

Besides none?

[Dancing David]

This link will be here tomorrow it is the archive:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/arch11/110228den.htm

[Reality Check]

The Dragon's Den (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00current.htm) Feb 28, 2011
Saturn's electrically charged atmosphere has erupted in spectacular fashion.
I see that Thunderbolts not only lies to its readers (The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6599318#post6599318)), it spouts gibberish as well.
That web page is citing a thunderstorm on Saturn as evidence for CME on the Sun being initiated by sun-grazer comets.
The author is so ignorant that they do not know the difference between a star and a gas giant :jaw-dropp !

[Haig]

The author is so ignorant that they do not know the difference between a star and a gas giant :jaw-dropp !
There is not as big a difference as you might think, even for mainstream beliefs:
Brown dwarfs are sub-stellar objects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_dwarf)Brown dwarfs occupy the mass range between that of large gas giant planets and the lowest-mass stars; this upper limit is between 75[1] and 80 Jupiter masses (MJ). Currently there is some debate as to what criterion to use to define the separation between a brown dwarf and a giant planet at very low brown dwarf masses (~13 MJ ), and whether brown dwarfs are required to have experienced fusion at some point in their history


For EU/PC theory it's an even more straightforward thing:
Saturn (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00subjectx.htm#Planets_Saturn)

[Vermonter]

Except it doesn't work that way.

Brown dwarfs cool over time since there's not enough mass to sustain any stable fusion. This is why they usually show up in the infrared spectrum.

As to Saturn, astronomers are still uncertain as to exactly how the south pole of Saturn is warmer than the surrounding atmosphere. I'm not knowledgeable enough to properly guess at it, but it could be a number of factors from a sustained breakdown of the polar vortex. Or there could be a mechanism that draws heat from the interior to the vortex via adiabatic compression. Or it could be due to prolonged exposure to the sun, since the south pole has been exposed to the sun for 18 years. However, there is nothing about the polar vortex that screams "the model is incorrect!!!!" To say that we don't know what causes it is correct, but that doesn't mean the entire model is defunct. It's absurd.

There is nothing in Thunderbolts that explains it without breaking the laws of physics. See my last post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6931698&postcount=2873) as to how the Electric Sun fails.

[Reality Check]

There is not as big a difference as you might think, even for mainstream beliefs:
Brown dwarfs are sub-stellar objects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_dwarf)

That just points out the idiocy on that web page - they are not comparing brown dwarfs and gas giants. They are comparing the Sun and Saturn (or any star and any gas giant) which is ignorant in the extreme.

Saturn[/B] (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00subjectx.htm#Planets_Saturn)
So the EU/PC theory is a theory from a web site that lies to its readers and you believe it? Sorry that just makes you gullible (I have a certain bridge in New York that you may be interested in :D)
The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6599318#post6599318)
They even lie about Saturn!
Anoher lie from Thornhill on the Thunderbolts web site (about Saturn's poles) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6872946#post6872946)

[Haig]

Comet Elenin on anyone's radar yet?

An electric comet in action?

Page 1 (http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4132) and Page5 (http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4132&start=60)

Could be very interesting ;)

[Reality Check]

Comet Elenin on anyone's radar yet?

An electric comet in action?

Page 1 (http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4132) and Page5 (http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4132&start=60)

Could be very interesting ;)
Oh what a short memory you have:
Firstly you are citing a web site that lies to its reader again
The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6599318#post6599318)
They even lie about Saturn!
Anoher lie from Thornhill on the Thunderbolts web site (about Saturn's poles) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6872946#post6872946)

Secondly electric comets do not exist (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6602584#post6602584)

Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids). (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4980000&postcount=231)
Comets may not have the composition of asteriods (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4976036&postcount=213)
Deep Impact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Impact_(space_mission)#Results) confirmed that comet nuclei are made of dust and ice not rock. There were a couple of surprises in that the dust was talcum powder rather than sand and the amount of ice was smaller than expected.
"Analysis of data from the Swift X-ray telescope (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Swift_Gamma-Ray_Burst_Mission) showed that the comet continued outgassing from the impact for 13 days, with a peak five days after impact. A total of 5 million kilograms (11 million pounds) of water[35] (http://forums.randi.org/#cite_note-BBC_News-34) and between 10 and 25 million kilograms (22 and 55 million pounds) of dust were lost from the impact."WP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Impact_(space_mission)#Results)
Thus the water content of Comet Tempel 1 is 20% to 50%.
Cometary dust as collected by the Stardust mission contain forms of carbon that are not in meteorites. (http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20061119014904data_trunc_sys.shtml)
Electric Comets I (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4827154#post4827154)
Electric Comets II: References (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4830147#post4830147)
Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4832138#post4832138) (actually no EU X-ray bursts).
The EC assumption of EDM machining does not produce jets (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5020451&postcount=284).
EDM in the EC idea needs a dielectric material which does not exist! (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5024953&postcount=294)
No EDM sparks are seen in images of comet nuclei. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5024962&postcount=295)
No EDM hot spots are seen in thermal maps of Tempel 1. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5024976&postcount=296)
Voltage potentials are many orders of magnitude too small. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5061330&postcount=396)
EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5061286&postcount=395)
Water, water everywhere (except in the EC idea) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5476776#post5476776)
And a question for you, Haig: Do you really think that this comet wiill turn off at perihelion when other comets have not? EC comets switch off at perihelion (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5527313#post5527313)

[Haig]

Oh what a short memory you ....snip the usual RC made up stuff on electric comets rather than what is actually claimed by EU/PC theory .... have Water, water everywhere (except in the EC idea)

And a question for you, Haig: Do you really think that this comet wiill turn off at perihelion when other comets have not? EC comets switch off at perihelion (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5527313#post5527313) I don't see where I or any electric comet proponent have said this comet wiill turn off at perihelion - can you give a source for that claim? I just had a short time to skim thro' the link you gave and found nothing.

The "predictions pending" on comets are HERE (http://www.thunderbolts.info/predictions_pending.htm#cdi) on Thunderbolts and that claim isn't one of them

As I understand it, that's not part of EU/PC thinking on comets at all! They say, the comets display comas and tails as long as they are under electrical stress as a charged body in the electric field of the Sun until they reach dark mode balance when they move far enough away from it, like the planets have in their less stressful orbits.

Did you know Venus has a tail that almost reaches the Earth (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090108venus.htm)? but it's in dark mode now but the ancients have strange stories about Venus calling it "The bright torch of Heaven" but that's off topic and another story as you know ;)

[Dancing David]

Comet Elenin on anyone's radar yet?

An electric comet in action?

Page 1 (http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4132) and Page5 (http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4132&start=60)

Could be very interesting ;)

Uh sure, yeah, so lets see some comments on another forum, that is meaningful.

Considering all the unanswered questions regarding the incoherence of the EC.

[Dancing David]

I don't see where I or any electric comet proponent have said this comet wiill turn off at perihelion - can you give a source for that claim? I just had a short time to skim thro' the link you gave and found nothing.

The "predictions pending" on comets are HERE (http://www.thunderbolts.info/predictions_pending.htm#cdi) on Thunderbolts and that claim isn't one of them

As I understand it, that's not part of EU/PC thinking on comets at all! They say, the comets display comas and tails as long as they are under electrical stress as a charged body in the electric field of the Sun until they reach dark mode balance when they move far enough away from it, like the planets have in their less stressful orbits.

Haig, there is no dark mode, thar is just silly, but please make up some more bizzare stuff.

One of the many problems that YOU have NOT addressed in this thread.

Why do the comas on comets continue to grow as they leave the solar system?

You do know that Hyakutale was much more visible and its coma was much much larger as it was leaving the sun?


Did you know Venus has a tail that almost reaches the Earth (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090108venus.htm)? but it's in dark mode now but the ancients have strange stories about Venus calling it "The bright torch of Heaven" but that's off topic and another story as you know ;)



This is more stupid, you do know that Venus is the brightest object in magnitude of the planets, frequently day time visible?

And that the 'tail' you reference as a coma is not, you were called out on this and now you are just spamming the thread with the same old junk.

[Dancing David]

No, the interaction of Venus with the solar wind magnetotail is more comet like than Earth like, because Venus does not have a internal magnetic field. The solar wind gets "hung up" in the ionosphere of Venus and thus a so called induced magnetosphere is created.

No, Venus's tail was NEVER in the visible range, as there is basically nothing there to reflect light, like in a cometary tail. Measurements by Venus Express have shown that basically hydrogen and oxygen is escaping along Venus's tail.

You could just as easily say than that the Earth's tail of Jupiter's tail should be visible. The idea is preposterous.


Oh whoops, here is the comment of a real scientist who works in the field.

And maybe while you are spamming teh forum with trash you can answer this post to you from back in November?
Okay, Haig, the please work it out how the EDM works on a comet, how much the charging needs to be, how much water is produced by this EDM to create the observed water (also a EC prediction) and if the surface of the comet is negatively charged (yes it will be charged, indeed, this is even taken into account in the Rosetta lander Philae). Never anything worked out comes from thunderbloats, it's always pretty pictures, never anything concrete.

Maybe you should read an excellent introductory book on Comets: K. S. Krishna Swamy, Physics of Comets, 3rd edition, 2010 (http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Comets-Scientific-Astronomy-Astrophysics/dp/9814291110/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1290417025&sr=8-1), then maybe you will really know what the mainstream model is, instead of getting this information of delusional thunderdolts websites and michael suede blogs.

X-rays are easily explained in comets (see the excellent Tim Thompson post)
Filamentary tails: why would mainstream not expect that?
There is no link between comets and CMEs, the disconnection of a tail is very well explained by mainstream physics and is basically the same kind of process that his happening in every planetary magnetotail.

[tusenfem]

Oh whoops, here is the comment of a real scientist who works in the field.

And maybe while you are spamming teh forum with trash you can answer this post to you from back in November?

Thanks DD!
I have give up any hope getting real answers from Haig, he can only copy/paste whatever the dolts at thunderbolts are writing (and reading Neried's electric sun thread there is really to make you scream in agony because of nitwits trying to do "science").
Haig has no scientific knowledge, he cannot answer questions, he just searches on thunderdolts or whatever other fringe website (I guess he has missed the now dead journal of cosmology to quote from) to whatever may fit the question and then believes that as gospel.
Let's just put Haig on ignore and do something productive ...

[Reality Check]

I don't see where I or any electric comet proponent have said this comet wiill turn off at perihelion - can you give a source for that claim?

They do not claim it. Read the link


As I understand it, that's not part of EU/PC thinking on comets at all! They say, the comets display comas and tails as long as they are under electrical stress as a charged body in the electric field of the Sun until they reach dark mode balance when they move far enough away from it, like the planets have in their less stressful orbits.

That is exacly that point of EC comets switch off at perihelion (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5527313#post5527313) . This fantasy of "electrical stress" high enough to create water from rock is powered by the movement of the comet closer to (and from the Sun).
At perihelion the comet is not getting any closer to the Sun. It discharges. The tail vanishes.


Did you know Venus has a tail that almost reaches the Earth (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090108venus.htm)? but it's in dark mode now but the ancients have strange stories about Venus calling it "The bright torch of Heaven" but that's off topic and another story as you know ;)
I will not be reading that link from a web site that lies to its readers:
The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6599318#post6599318)
Anoher lie from Thornhill on the Thunderbolts web site (about Saturn's poles) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6872946#post6872946)
Thanks for showing that Thiunderbolts are an even bigger bunch of cranks. They are not only liars but accordig to your post delusional. Ancients have "strange stories" abut everyhing!
Unfortunately it make you look even dumber for citing them :rolleyes:.

[Dancing David]

More on those snowball thrown out by Hartley2
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110718001336.htm


NEOWISE data show that the golf ball-sized chunks survive farther away from the comet than previously known, winding up in Hartley 2's trail of debris.

...

The observations also show that the comet is still actively ejecting carbon dioxide gas at a distance of 2.3 astronomical units from the sun,

What still outgassing, what a suprise!

(Actually it is the first detection)