Which Thornhill 'predictions' did not, unless I missed them, contain:

- quantitative estimates, OOM ranges, or similar (of anything)

- references to any papers - peer-reviewed or otherwise - in which the underlying 'theory' is described/derived/whatever ... in quantitative terms

- anything at all which would allow the interested reader to repeat this work, so to independently check the conclusions, from 'first principles' (of the calculations, derivations, and so on).

Never mind the "quantitatives", that can be filled in later, just lookat the "qualitatives" first.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...adigmcomet.htm

This is to show how the observations from the Deep Impact mission make more sense when a comet is rocky with a little ice, and EDM is acting on the surface.

Cheers.

"Never mind" isn't a very good point to debate from.

__________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
Mark Twain

Avatar courtesy of Bunny.

... especially when followed by 'the "quantitatives"'!

True, otoh first things first, if observation show compelling evidence for some new ideas, the theory is bound to follow.

Cheers.

I have a feeling we've been here before ... If it took Thornhill ~30 years to get to that word picture, how long would it take him to get to an OOM calculation? to a model? And isn't this 'electric comet' idea the one which T claimed is behind his 'predictions' of what Stardust saw in Wild-2?

I wasn't impressed. There were constant references to popular news articles and many assertions. I didn't see any technical explanations. Some excerpts:

I fail to see the difference between these broad non-technical generalizations. What is the point to this comment?

Interesting assertion. On earth, they can be. There is no physical law that they must be.

How could a near vacuum supply enough hydrogen? How does the comet supply sufficient oxygen? Why don't we see the signatures of these massive oxygen and hydrogen clouds? Let's see a description of the physics and chemistry, with the math to show it is possible to supply this much water.

The point is that the theory proposed by Fred Whipple of comets as mostly ice, fails and it shows the tenacity of comet researchers to cling to this failing model and only change the description, not the model.

So what? Comets don't have much ice, why would rock or sedimentary rock not be an option? In the EU model comets and asteroids are compositionally very alike, what's wrong with calling this sedimentary rock? Btw it's not just Earth that has these minerals.

Well Oxygen is plentiful in rocks, if EDM can release surface material, isn't it likely that Oxygen ions are released? This has actually been measured, albeit around other comets, but we haven't seen spectral data on ions from the DI team yet.

Cheers.

So there is specific evidence that contradicts the "dirty snowball" model? Let's see the details. And remember that images without context are not evidence.

Because it is an unsupported assertion, as are the statements you just made about comets. "Sedimentary rock" has a specific definition with specific implications. If you want to show that this cometary material is sedimentary, you would be expected to show your evidence.


I don't see this as an answer, honestly. You are going from "there can be oxygen and there can be hydrogen" to "there is enough oxygen and hydrogen to account for the observed water." Let's see how sufficient oxygen became available from the "rock." Let's see the whole process mapped out. Failing that, it is just an unsupported assertion.

Hi Van Rijn,

You didn't know that there are grave problems with the "dirty snowball" model?
This is a quote from the september 9 New Scientist article on comets:

I don't know if this answers your question specifically, but to me this clearly shows that specialists can't fit theory with observations, in other words: a failing model.
This page discusses the article and Tempel 1's findings.


Cheers.

Can we please get back to discussing the (Thornhill) electric comet idea?

'Because Nereid's "white cheddar comet" idea is inconsistent with good observational results' rather lacks something as an answer to "In what way is the 'electric comet' idea quantitatively consistent with good observational results?", wouldn't you agree?

No, if the "white cheddar" model is the currently accepted model, it is sometimes necessary to see whether predictions are consistent with one or the other model. You're right that models should be valued separately, but if inexplicable observations to the current model exist and a new model does have an explanation for these observations, it is important to "compare notes".

Cheers.

Wait a minute here, how does this approach by Thornhill differ from the approach from the Cassini team working on "Methane Monsoons" and "Hydrocarbon lakes" and "coastlines" that were recently published during a conference in Cambridge? Would you call that unsupported assumptions as well? All they have is methane in Titan's atmosphere. I think this observational evidence needs to be interpreted with the available data: images and spectra.
How does "we can have oxygen and hydrogen ions recombine into water molecules" differ from "we have methane, so there should be lakes"?

Cheers.

Well, for one thing, they have specific quantities and temperatures. They's described the situation that is plausible for Titan getting to rain Methane. I haven't seen any quantitative analysis of how much rock has to be "machined" on a comet to get the amount of Oxygen to account for the water, or how much electrical energy it would take to make this happen, or whether there's enough Hydrogen out there near the comet coming from the Sun to account for the water.

So, there you go, lack of numbers is the difference.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

As I said, they only have methane concentrations of Titans atmosphere, the rest is just a lot of assumptions, the only difference between Thornhill's approach and the "Cassini scientists'" approach is that no one asks for OOM calculations of "Methane Monsoons", or if they do, they aren't challenged, because it seems the "logical approach". I see exactly as much reason to accept a "Methane Monsoon" as an "Electric Comet". And while I don't want to take this to a discussion of Titan's atmosphere, they really don't show numbers. Did you see this article on the "Dramatic Shoreline On Titan"? This is exactly the type of "it-looks-like" argument that earlier in this thread was used to ridicule the Thunderbolts articles, while I don't hear anybody complain about the same thing when it is proposed by the "Cassini team".

Don't get me wrong, they could be right in their assumptions, but so could the Thunderbolts team, it only shows the a priori attitude towards ATM ideas; there are double standards. I argue that it takes time to deliver the details, we shouldn't judge too fast; I think it won't take another year to get all the details necessary to deliver the calculations everyone is asking for (that's about the same time Nereid needs to "blow away" Arp's work).

Cheers.

We seem to be able to exactly pinpoint where comets form, but we're still unable to explain how cometary jets form. What are the bright spots and patches seen in the close-ups of Wild 2 and Tempel 1, what is their connection to the jets?

Cheers.

We've discussed this before. I've said that I think the most likely explanation for the "bright spots" is that they are spots that the dark material has been removed from. They seem to be points sticking out os a small ridge. I do not believe that they have any obvious connection to the comet's jets.

I know that the Electric Comets idea places a lot of importance on these spots, but I don't.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Z.Sekanina et al .,Science 304 ,1769 (2004). clearly connected the "bright spots" with the jets on comet Wild 2, so the connection is already established (you might still not believe this, but that belief isn't based on data). The only question from the EU point of view is whether these bright spots/patches have the signature of electric arcs. I think this would be a straightforward test, possibly the data are already available to the DI team.

Cheers.

While waitig for the DI observations (the papers are about to be pulished in Science instead of the special section of Science Express), there is more evidence of electric interactions that became visible recently. This article explains why Hyperion looks the way it does, why the giant crater can't be an impact crater; because they are too large to leave the impacted object intact (as in many other objects, notably Mathilde) and what connects Mars', Hyperion's and Io's surface features. Thornhill argues that the scaleability of plasma (discharge) effects can show microscopically what happened to Hyperion macroscopically. It also predicts Hyperion is likely reddened just like Mars and by the same process.

Cheers.

P.S Antoniseb, am I correct to conclude you agree that the bright spots on Wild 2 and Tempel 1 are most likely connected to how jets are formed?

I read all the Deep Impact articles in Science and I can't find ANYTHING that explains the bright patches or jets. Again the question to anyone: How do cometary jets form?

Cheers.

You have not to buy the full package , you can choose what suit you.

For instance :
I don't believe that Venus is a young Planet. (Not serious)
I don't believe in the Saturnian theory.(Sorry Mr Hogan)
And more I don't believe it is Welikovskian.
And however
i am pretty sure Electricity play a major role in the universe.
I am interested by concepts like Electric Sun , Electric erosion on planets and moons. (craters , riles , Io vulvanism ...)
I interested in the mythology (Difficult and badly interpreted )
I am very sceptical about black holes.
I dont think gravity can be infinite.
Big Bang make me laugh.

I said interested by electrical theories, not fully convinced.The Electric sun theory is a big piece to swallow
.

Sorry if any of this has already been covered.. trying to catch up on this thread but it's pretty long. I just noticed a discrepancy in the two main sources cited at the beginning of this thread (Don Scott's electric-cosmos and Tim Thompson's rebuttal):

Tim Thompson on the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis (2. Convection in the Sun): "Juergens says that this is "100 billion times greater than the critical value", and that therefore convection would be unexpected in the photosphere. As it turns out, Juergens is quite wrong." (emphasis mine)

The part in bold is false, neither Scott nor the Juergens quote claim that convection is not happening. Thompson left out the end of the Juergens quote: "Clearly, then, any convective motion in the photosphere should be violently turbulent and highly disordered...", which is the same as what Thompson is arguing. Just for clarity:

(Thompson) "So, in reality, the high Reynolds number of a stellar photosphere guarantees that any convective motion will be turbulent"

(Scott) "When the Reynolds number of any fluid exceeds a critical value, flow in that fluid due to convection or any other accelerating force will be turbulent and highly complex, not in laminar columns." (emphasis mine)

So everyone appears to agree that convection is happening. Thompson also mistakenly asserts, "Juergens thinks that it is the Reynolds number which determines whether or not convection will happen," which leads me to believe he misunderstood Scott's statement that we must "disregard what we know about convection" to believe the standard model. He was referring to an inconsistency in that model regarding the columns. Scott took issue with supposed "thin 150,000 mile long convection columns" not being able to exist in this environment, which Thompson does not address but would appear to agree with.

So let's try again: How can 'orderly' convective columns and an 'orderly' cellular structure exist in the 'turbulent and disorderly' solar photosphere, as assumed by the standard model contrary to accepted physics?

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

I happen to have read through Tim's response to the Electric Sun idea last night. I thought Tim made a couple of key points that were quite valid. The sun must have some kind of internal energy source, and the neutrino argument Scott used initially is pretty much a moot point these days.

I happen to agree with you that the sun is electric in nature, but I did in fact think that Tim presented some fair criticisms although not the one you mentioned. I can't believe I just sided with Tim.

Externally powered, either a thick iron shell or solid iron, depending on the ether model.
With clear evidence of p-p fusion on the surface(2.2mev neutron), the surface area is the same as the hypothetical core area, so you would get the same flux. If you look at the neutrinos from the sun picture, it shows a broad diffuse picture instead of a tight core.
Electrically powered from a Birkeland current from the Scorpius Association. Lockman Hole is, I think, looking directly down the current.
Z-pinches are the universal tool that provides GRBs, nova, nucleosynthesis, starbirth, etc depending on how much power they receive and the conditions.

I know it sounds crazy, but keep your eyes open to see if it really fits.
Once you understand the range of pinch effects its not so crazy.

Here's the conspiracy part. Because of the conditions created in a pinch, eg. it goes almost to zero, it is capable of creating new matter in the form of neutrons. Condensing ambient energy into matter.

__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M. C. Escher

"Freedom is popular." -Ron Paul

I can't believe I'm doing this, but....

I fail to see how it could be "externally" driven. Even if you have a lot of energy floating around in Birkeland currents, a structure as massively large as a sun is going to create heat and energy, even if it's based on fission and compression like a planetary core.

Perhaps you pointed it out once to me before, but I didn't catch it. What clear evidence of surface fusion did you mean? I too thought I might be seeing "fusion" at the arc points at one point in time but I couldn't find any significant evidence to support that idea.

One of the problems with neutrino detectors is that the images they create are extremely primitive compared to something like a digital image. They typically use a photomultiplier tube that ends up showing "bursts" during a hit rather than clearly deliniated point. Duane and I had a conversation about this awhile back and I was never able to get hold of anyone to confirm the mechanical details of how the one neutrino image I've seen was created. I'm not sure if we're talking about the same image however.

I'm into plasma cosmology and Birkeland currents but I still believe the sun must have an internal energy source of some sort. I think Tim's presentation on that part of the arguement was right on the money.

I don't think the idea of Birkeland currents is crazy, and I certainly believe the sun is electrical in nature and interacts with the universe around it. I don't think it's crazy, but I do think there's an internal energy source within the core of the sun itself and I pretty much agree with Tim's whole arguement about a neutral sort of core. Keep in mind that something even as small as the earth has a heated core. It's unlikely IMO that something the size of the sun is entirely powered externally.

Hmm. Well as long as you don't violate the first law of thermodynamics, anything is "possible". Personally I see a lot of evidence of matter reverting back into energy, but I see very few instances where energy has condensed into matter. I'm not saying it's not possible under the right conditions, but it would probably take something like a neutron star/black hole to do such a thing. I don't think something on the order of a sun is capable of doing that, nor do I believe that Birkeland currents are likely to do that on their own.

Whoa, I never said the sun is electric in nature That's a serious problem on these ATM forums... just because someone discusses an idea doesn't automagically mean they support it. I just found a fault in Thompson's argument and thought I'd mention it, since the first few pages of this thread cite his page as 'debunking' the electric sun model.

If you're really curious, I don't support any models or theories. There is no governor anywhere and we are absolutely free. Every theory is wrong somehow, that's why we have these discussions!

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

A blackhole is a area that(hypotheticaly) goes to zero. I kinda discount neuton stars and I think blackholes are really charge seperation sources where it pinches the space/ether.

There are definite problems with the supernova model.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0512/02supernova/

A pinch is an area that goes nearly to zero with one difference, its real.
It doesnt matter if you produce 1 neutron or a hundred million, your still getting the same effect.

Fusion on the sun.
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002700/a002750/


Read this. This means all particles below cosmic rays could be generated this way.
Consider that the standard cosmic ray model says that they are generated in supernova.

"A new approach to cosmic ray description based on the model of particle generation and acceleration in plasma pinches and on supposition that a new state of matter appears in cosmic ray interactions above 10^15 eV is considered. Consequences for various aspects of cosmic ray physics and some possibilities to check this hypothesis are discussed."
http://icrc2005.tifr.res.in/htm/PAPE...-og12-oral.pdf

__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M. C. Escher

"Freedom is popular." -Ron Paul

Oooops. I read that part in. I was just sloppy. Sorry.

But of course I think if there are "black holes" they are simply large neutron stars rather than anything particularly exotic.

I agree.

I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around what you are calling a "pinch" here. I'm assuming you are talking about electromagnetic and gravitational fields that are "pinching" waves of energy together. I want however to make sure we're both talking about the same influences here. It seems to me if you wish to "pinch" things you'll need a lot of mass and a lot of current flowing through this mass. In theory a large enough body could pinch energy into matter, but the energy itself must be attracted together in a very tight configuration. I would assume that a black hole is capable of such a feat. Keep in mind that anything this large is still likely to contain a whole lot of internal energy.

Ok. Thanks for the link. That's an interesting article.

I'll have to read that article a little later. I'm getting ready to catch a plane in the morning and I still have packing to do. I catch up to you in about a week.

Still trying to argue that the solar neutrino experiments are flawed? For what unfortunately won't be the last time here are references to the various experiments that observe solar, galactic, and terrestrial neutrinos. They don't seem to have any problems distinguishing between them. (By the way, it's not just one phototube in these experiments, it's arrays of several thousand phototubes that track the particles produced in the neutrino reactions.)

SNO
SuperKamiokande
KamLand
Soudan2
AMANDA

Now none of these is going to be able to produce a high resolution image such as those from SOHO. That doesn't mean that they can't make a valuable contribution. For one thing they showed that Oliver Manuel is deeply mistaken in his argument that the Standard Solar model is flawed. All of the neutrinos are accounted for. The old solar neutrino problem is resolved within the context of existing theories (with some modifications to be sure). Manuel's arguments for his iron sun hypothesis (or the latest stuff on a neutron star in the sun's core) are based on incorrect assumptions and on old, supplanted, experimental results. Frankly, he has no scientific leg to stand on.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli