I'm sure that there has been discussion in this forum about the "Electric Universe" model of comets. The idea that comets are electrically charged bodies obviously does not fit with the "mainstream" model, which describes comets as "dirty snowballs." I would hope that the Deep Impact event might provide an opportunity to settle the issue once and for all.

I'm very interested to see what folks in this forum expect will ultimately be revealed by Deep Impact. Also, what specific discoveries will either refute or support the "electric comet" hypothesis? (BTW, I chose to start a new thread independent of the existing Deep Impact ones, because I felt that the "electric comet" controversy probably needed to stand alone.)

Here is a review of the controversy from the vantage point of the electric model. http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...met-theory.htm

I would appreciate if proponents of the accepted model of comets could respond to this alternative theory, and offer their own expectations of the Deep Impact event.

BTW, at Thunderbolts.info the electric theorists have promised a complete review of expectations and predictions prior to Sunday evening's impact event (10:52 PM PDT.)

--Brian S.

I can't get to it. Does that make it controversial?

I'm assuming that this link is the intended one.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

{with bated breath}

will they publish something sufficiently precise that whatever happens we can make comparisons?

will what they publish be sufficiently different from 'the mainstream' that what happens will help to show they're wrong (or that the mainstream is wrong)?

if they're wrong, will they admit it?????

stay tuned for the next exciting episode of 'comets and copper, electrifying! (a study of modern angst, ancient myth, and the Norwegian Blue)', coming soon to a movie theatre near you!!

and here's me thinking all them probes what got sent up in '86 were going to solve the mystery once and for all . . . .

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

What's funny (or disturbing), I was going to write the responses that they would probably use after the probe didn't show any electrical activity, but they pretty muched covered themselves.

So if nothing at all electrical shows up, we know it's because of it's elliptical orbit. How convenient.

__________________
"The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest." - G'Kar

Well, I think they're saying that Tempel doesn't have a sufficiently elliptical orbit, so it's not a good candidate for testing their theory. A better candidate would be a comet that goes far out and then passes close to the sun, so there would be a greater electric differential, if such a differential exists.

But come to think of it, it would seem that this might lead to a prediction. If the electric comet theory is correct, then comets with more elliptical orbits ought to have bigger tails than those that have orbits that are close to circular. Seems like a feasible test to me.

__________________
As above, so below

It is depend on material of the comet and its electric capacity. If it is a frozen water only then the capacity is small.
Ionized hydrogen or oxygen can not create a crystals of the ice.

There might be another material additionally with higher capacity and such a condenser might be charged.
If there is more (+) charge then might be a repulsive force between Comet and Sun (The Sun is charged (+) by Cosmic Rays, I think).
The tail of the Comet would indicate it probably.

For anybody who is interested, here are the predictions posted at thunderbolts.info. They make some predictions about x-ray release and stuff like that, which I suppose should be testable.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20.../00current.htm

__________________
As above, so below

Pbbbt. More McCanney-style nonsense.

The giveaway for me is their claim that more X-rays will be seen than expected "exceeding any reasonable model for X-ray production through the mechanics of impact". The mechanics predict no X-rays. However, once the material is ejected, it is exposed to the Sun, which produces X-rays as well as a solar wind, which will make X-rays from the coma. Scientists not only predict that, but they're using Swift to observe those X-rays.

McCanney (and that site) will no doubt once again claim there should be no X-rays at all, and say this is further evidence of their model. I already debunked this kind of stuff on my McCanney page.

Is there anything within their prediction that could actually be seen as a prediction? I guess a huge lightning bolt striking and melting the impactor would be something measurable.

__________________
As above, so below

Before:

X-ray Eyes on Tempel 1



Waiting for after.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

Electric Universe supporters have little if anything to do with McCanney. They did once mention him on one of their pages, but only in passing.

I have met Thornhill and one or two others, and they seem like a reasonable and down-to-earth bunch. McCanney on the other hand can best be described as somewhat eccentric.

The page in questions makes the following predictions. Each of the points is dealt with in more detail on the actual page.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20.../00current.htm
I have their permission to quote from the site. Edits: Grammar

Something like the Halley comet, visited by five probes in 1986, of which Giotto was the closest?

(I actually remember Giotto from TV news...
Oh no! Now I feel old!)

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Electric Universe supporters predicted electrical (Lightning like) flashes shortly before impact.

You can download a movie from this NASA page
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/de...-05-movie.html
Does this support their prediction?

Nope.

The 3 "bursts" were seen more that 2 weeks (June14th) before impact, another one about a week later (June 22nd), and one 2 days before impact (July 2nd). No flashes were seen "shortly before impact".

edit to add:

Seeing that the impactor took pictures literally at ground zero, and no electrical flashes were observed, I think that pretty much puts the Electric Comet theory to rest.

__________________
"The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest." - G'Kar

What do people mean by 'The latter stages of approach'? Minutes, hours, days, or weeks?

How do we account for these flickers or outbursts?

No, but it supports a "theory" i've had for quite a while...

The electric universe folks don't have a "clue" as to how the Universe actually works.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Pockets of ice sublimating.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

These outbursts seem to be very bright ... and surround the whole comet. Does sublimating ice adequately account for these observations?

Personally, I reserve judgement pending the release of further, more detailed information.

News releases hint at a few surprises, but nothing substantive as yet.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...E29098,00.html

We have a bit of an advantage in that there is a spectrometer on board. Have a look at this page.

no, I remember that, too--in fact, I referenced it above. (no one ever pays attention to me on science threads!) but am I right in saying that all those probes should've long-since demolished the "theory"?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

I must have been too subtle. :-?
The only reason I brought up Giotto was your reference to 1986.
Next time I will put in a :wink: for you.

Well, I have not seen reference to these probes by "electric comets" proponents, but I have not done an extensive research about it.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

The Electrc Universe supporters are claiming plenty of initial support for their theories, but await further more detailed analysis.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20.../00current.htm

Halley's comet was visited by five probes in 1986.
Do the results fit with the theories of "electric Universe" proponents?

(This has been brought up already.)

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

From the site P.Asmah referenced:
So they expect a flash microseconds before the impact, but a surface layer of 10 feet wouldn't have an impact on the timing.
Let me calculate: 23,000 miles per hour = 6.4 miles per second = 10 km per second = 10 metres per millisecond = 10 millimetres per microsecond.
It would take about 300 microseconds to pass that first layer. I guess something going that slow (relatively) would have a considerable impact on the timing of the impact flare (measured in microseconds), contrary to what they claim.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

We are not talking about Comet Halley. I am not aware of EU supporters making any predictions in this regard.

Do you care to comment on all the surprises expressed by NASA in relation to Deep Impact?

They do not need to make predictions, just to analyze the data taken nearly twenty years ago and see whether they can be interpreted in their "electric Universe" picture.

So, the scientists were surprised.
That's what research is about: discovering new and unexpected things.

Does it support "electric Universe"? I doubt it, and the proponents of "electric Universe" have not provided anything vaguely better than the mainstream.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Yes, but we need some clarification here.

They just showed a slow motion clip of the impact on The BBC, and there appears to be a bright electrical-arc like flash before any actual impact with any surface materials.

Again, I await further, more detailed analysis ... before the mainstream theory about the first flash resulting from thin surface layers can be confirmed or denied.

For the time being, all we really have is NASA officials expressing their surprise.