Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
In which peer-reviewed journal may one read the details of this "electric comet model" (a reference please)?
|
Not yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
When we all have the same (purported) model in front of us, we may be in a position to challenge and question this assertion.
If we do not all have a copy of it - to read, study, etc - in other words, if it's not public, then how could it be verified, falsified, or even understood?
|
It can be verified/falsified by the Rosetta mission, it can be understood qualitatively as described in the electric comet pdf.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
Perhaps I have misunderstood that document, or do not know enough about comets, but the linked PDF refers to an estimate of the "total potential drop between the Sun and the Earth".
|
Yes, but why would that field magically stop at 1 AU, more likely it extends all the way to the heliospheric boundary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
While the Thornhill and Talbott PDF (T&T) is, indeed, almost entirely devoid of anything falsifiable, I think we can assume that by 'comets' they refer to objects some of which have been observed at distances well beyond 1 au from the Sun.
|
What's the point you are trying to make?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
Further, Lacombe et al. state, in the abstract "The total potential drop between the Sun and the Earth, which results from a succession of small potential drops during the Sun-Earth travel time [...]" (emphasis added). At first glance this seems to be inconsistent with T&T ("The Sun's radial electric field is weak but constant with distance in interplanetary space" emphasis added).
Could you clarify please?
|
Maybe at first glance, but in an current-carrying plasma there will be boundaries (density variations, double layers, or as Lacombe et al. say "small potential drops"), so there is no problem there. The main thing is that a weak field exists.
Cheers.