Ahhh..so basically we just differ here (My bold)

But if this is "sparking" we observe, then what’s the voltage? PS Seen some wicked voltage built up by induced electric/magnetic fields and capacitors

Didn’t mentions what directions thaysa going'n there partner do you think they "flow" in?

I think there much like stronger versions of Mars electric "dust devils"

But my way of thinking is, it's in relative to Sol? Not relative to us at all then really, here on Earth (Though I suspect all planetary magnetic fields would influence the comet and vis a vis ) Wild weather you say over in Austria? Something about Jetstreams or some such, I thought I'd read somewhere.


We've measured it (electric charge density) of the sun from widely separated orbits from Sol? (real time, instantaneous readings from say, out past Saturn and say Mercury?)

1. the problem that you don't seem to comprehend is that the charge separation in the halo would "turn off" the electric field in the halo, and thus nothing will happen in the nucleus, because it experiences no electric field.

2. First of all it is not sparking, secondly, if it were, you can do the math yourself to calculate the needed electric voltage.

3. I don't think anything, you suddenly come up with Birkeland currents and pinches, which up to now had no place in the discussion of your sparking. So, I don't care how they would flow (as they don't) and will leave it up to you to tell us all about them.
So, either you are telling us here that birkeland currents are electrical dust storms at mars or you are telling us that these dust storms (not being birkeland currents) are taking place in the comet.
Please, for once write a sensible model of the EC and maybe this discussion will go somewhere.

4. The fact that you still don't understand why I put the velocity of the Earth in that message bodes ill for you. As I told you, I chose a velocity of the comet through the solar system (on its elliptical orbit) and to see whether this was not totaly ridiculous, I compared that velocity with the velocity of the Earth in it elliptical orbit around the sun. Capice? My goodness, I don't know why I take the effort to type all this.

5. Storms over Europe, yeah, once in about every 15 years such a hurricane happens in nothern Europe, I guess it was time again.

6. We have measured zilch! Not one probe has measured that there was a net electric charge floating around in the solar system. The solar wind plasma is neutral, however consists of differently charged particles, positive ions and negative electrons. There have been measurements around Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, with modern instruments. There is no net charge of the solar wind.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Please take the time to read the Electric Universe Model., thread, specifically the extensive set of posts on the 'electric comet' ideas.

Please re-Read this first, re posting "Electric Universe" ideas here.

When you have 'electric comet' material ready, that properly addresses the guidelines for discussion of specific, concrete, focussed EU ideas, please PM me or another mod, and this thread will be reopened, to allow you to post that material.

Please be very sure that what you prepare is not simply a repeat of the contents of the posts in the EU model thread, or this one.

ATKINS: if you have answers to the questions here, please PM me or another mod, and this thread will be re-opened so you may post them.

Thread closed.

In response to the earlier questions by Nereid to provide answers to these questions:
I cannot provide a complete theory, so I do not wish to provide details or specifics (like a circuit diagram) that do not exist (yet), and I don't have the time, nor the expertise to work them out myself.

What I can do is provide all the quantitative material that I can find, which means that I am looking for:
1. Supportive evidence (as in the the earlier link to "lunar soil water").
2. Details from the missions that study comets and argue how they fit in.
3. Look for specific tests, or new data that can be used to verify/refute an EC model.

So, in the EC model the assumption is that comets are negatively charged wrt their environment. That means the model is really quite simple, and the question where the charge comes from is irrelevant until the evidence of the assumed charge difference is reasonably established.

What I will try to do is list the reasons (supportive evidence) that comets can be considered "electrical" in nature, include a list of tests that can verify/refute an EC model and also try to answer questions.
(more later...)

Cheers.

(my bold)

How much charge, in the EC idea, do comets have (wrt their environments)?

It would seem that, if all there is to the EC idea is "comets are negatively charged wrt their environment", we can all go home now ... even a net charge of just 1.6 x 10^-19 C would be sufficient.

If we could find a comet which has a net positive charge (wrt its environment), would that falsify the EC idea (as you have presented it)?

I am sorry, but I have the feeling this is going to be just more blahblah.
Lots of qualitative word salat, that becomes increasingly difficult to refute in any reasonable length message. And why is it that only the non-capable of physics and math seem to put forward that the comets are electric?
A very sceptical mainstreamer here.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

because you people who rely on Math don't see the bigger picture of course!

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

The charge of a comet wrt it's environment changes during it's orbit. The difference is highest when the comet is close to the Sun, and almost negligible at aphelion. So to better state the EC idea; for any object in the solar system to show cometary activity (asteroids included) a net charge difference must exist.

I don't know for sure if a positively charged object would also show cometary characteristics, I imagine that any charge difference automatically leads to some sort of discharging. But to answer your question, yes, it would falsify the EC idea as I presented it.

Cheers.

And how does this comet pick up this charge, and why is it then not removed by all the free floating positive charge of the solar wind?

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

How long would it take to "remove" (equalize) this charge, remembering that it is moving into a region of increasing difference. Seems to me it couldn’t until it started to move away from the sun or "disintegrated" from electrical over stress.

And I would surmise that the "free floating" positive charge's from the sun's EM field is removing electrons from the comet, hence the observed effects i.e. jets, coma UV, X-rays and so on.

But I'm afraid again, I can not supply the math’s to the level required to "explain" this to people more proficient in said discipline than me.

And it seems, they must move on an ecentric orbit, or be within/under the influence of a strong EM field i.e. moons of the gas giants.

So, like, does that mean you haven't convinced your own skeptical self yet? Or are you able to be swayed by lesser evidence?

__________________
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 ...

As usual the to-be-expected wordsalat.
First of all, it is not the question how long it would take to remove the charge, the first question is how the charge gets there in the first place. And what do you exactly mean when you say: it is moving into a region of increasing difference. Increasing difference of what? Density, magnetic field, solar power, Earth distance? And how does this difference affect the comet?

I think that if the comet would only be a teenyweeny bit negatively charged, then the solar wind positive charge would quickly take that away. Well, maybe just like space craft charging, a slight net charge could be created, but I expect nothing like the excessive charge that would be needed for the effects that you state, apart from the fact that they can be easily explained with the regular comet theories.

Please, try to edumacate yourself in some phys and math. And apparently, there are no EC proponents that are qualified in phys and math, otherwise we would already have had a reasonably complete EC model to discuss, instead of word salat.


I assume that you mean "e.g." (exempli gratia, means: for example) instead of i.e. (id est, means: that is), but anyway, what are you trying to say here? Comets behave the same as the Jovian moons and their interaction with the strong magnetic field of Jupiter?

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

So if a comet has a magnetic field, such as
LINK

With a speed of

LINK
How many kilowatt hours is that? Either which way it's a lot of energy!

And the Heliocentric IMF, LINK

As well as the “solar wind” which,
Mmmm... so what could cause Sol's corona to get so "hot" and accelerate plasma's into space and then keep accelerating them to higher speeds? The interior of the Sun? Meh

LINK

So an example below might be relevant? Just swapping the variables with those below with some of the ones we know about in regard to the IMF, Comet speed etc etc and if we throw in the comet nucleus may very well be of a slightly lower charge than it's immediate environment and not able to readily equalize this charge, because of the variables mentioned above.

LINK

So we have at least, a rocky body with a magnetic field moving at great velocity(Kinetic energy) through a highly variable magnetic field and highly charged plasma stream on varying degrees of eccentricity and angle, with reference to the IMF.

In addition the plasma sheath that forms around the nucleus can be 10’s million Km wide by 100’s million Km long, or act as akinda large Ampèrian surface, which no doubt interacts with other magnetosphere’s within the IMF

So, I think, my interpretation of it is not quite psudoscience, just not very well investigated phenomena (well maybe investigated, but from the wrong point of view IMHO.)


So what numbers shall we plug in?

I see you have been harvesting again.
Indeed the solar wind magnetic field drapes around the comet. This is not a magnetic field generated by the comet's interior. The maximum magnetic field strength around the comet according to Irsaelivich and Ershkovich is 50 nT, that is 50 x 10^-9 T, which means that it is about 4 orders of magnitude smaller than in your example on Earth (the pathetic generator). The currents flowing around the comet, creating the "ionosphere" separating the magnetic boundary from the diamagnetic cavity is less then 8 microAmps/m², and more likely in this model to be 1 nanoAmp/m².

Now, what do you need the kinetic energy for? In electrodynamics only the velocity of the object counts (unless e.g. you want to convert flow energy to magnetic energy using the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability). Okay, it has a lot of energy if it would plow into the Earth, but who cares how many kiloWatthours that represents?

Then you found the Parker spiral, and you discovered the solar wind. Did you ever realise that the two may be related?

Powering the solar wind, is still an interesting research topic. There are several models, and most likely it is a combination of various kinds of heating an outward pressure. I am not going through the whole gamit but you can read up on it in the book by Lamers & Cassinelli, Introduction to Stellar Winds.

If I am not mistaken, the Parker spiral field falls off as 1/r, so the background field is not so highly variable. Naturally there will be flares and CMEs, but these are local things and may not interact with the comet.

And what is an Amperian surface?

The Earth has flown through the tail of Comet ... (I cannot get the name right now) about 6 years ago. I don't think anything happened. This is because the magnetic field of the comet's tail will have reduced so much that it is back again at IMF values. What you will see is the dust trail behind the comet (which naturally was believed to carry deseases and disaster if the Earth would fly through it).

So, I think your interpretation leaves lots and lots of questions that need to be answered.

You tell me, it is your idea, but with a field of 50 nT your "pathetic generator" becomes a "pathetic example".

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

So my best friend asked me something this evening that I couldn't answer.

In the EU "model," what is the physical substance of comets? What are they actually made of? We know they have a physical substance, because we've sent probes to several. (Well, two, that I can name, anyway.) I'm kind of curious as to where they come from in an EU concept, but I'll settle for what they're made of.

She's also curious as to why people come up with these ideas, but I don't think there's ever going to be a satisfactory answer to that, since to EU proponents, it's obvious, and to the rest of us, it doesn't make any sense.

__________________
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!"

Comets have the same composition (and diversity) as asteroids.

The electric comet idea is very old (19th century), it was not until the early sixties that Ralph Juergens realised that comets as an electrical phenomenon makes better sense than than Whipple's snowball model. A summary of the history of the electric comet can be found
here.

Cheers.

Well, I could tell you what I think and I can tell you what EU theorists think, but for the moment it would be better to start with the assumption that the activity that comets show is caused by a differential charge. The onus is on the proponents to "prove" it, but that won't happen very soon. As of now, all we have is circumstantial evidence, the same as the snowball model; no one has actually proven that pockets of subsurface water ice (or other volatiles) is heated to produce cometary jets.

That's exactly what is happening! The process of getting into equilibrium is what causes the plasma phenomena like the coma, plasma tail, arcs ("bright spots") and EDM (fine dust) and jets. The plasma around the comet organizes into a "bubble" where the charge difference is concentrated in the double layers (actually several, the largest of which contains the "Hydrogen cloud").

Before you start the "word salad" stuff (I think you mean word salad, not wordsalat) again, I fully agree this model lacks many specifics, but model is falsifiable even without having all kinds of specifics (like the amount of charge, densities and electric field strengths).

In an earlier post I mentioned some ways to do this with current technology. Ideally we would want:
1. a camera recording the dynamic behaviour of the jets and their sources from quiescence to maximum activity
2. a plasma instrument close to the comet and
3. a lander collecting samples from the comet (also from below the surface)

The Rosetta misson could fulfill this task, maybe not on all points, but at least some. This could show us exactly if indeed the comet jets are produced by arcs or evaporating gases, if the comet is made of ice or rock and if the comet's surface is fluffy and porous, or rock hard and "machined" by electric arcs. In the meantime EU proponents try to find supporting evidence for the EC idea and answer questions.

Cheers.

Maybe as an aside a question for the challengers: what evidence would falsify the snowball model (or it's current watered-down "muddy fluffball" incarnation).

Right from the start

Parker spiral mebe? LINK

Also

But they very well may!, from same link So we agree there is a dynamic wave structured rotating magnetic field that varies it's flux dynamically on relatively short time spans? Basically like a bar magnet spinning along it's vertical axis ?

So if a slightly magnetic/charged "rock" heads on thru it, you'd have a or one would expect, if the were interacting somewhere on the EM spectrum.

Which brings me to this: Is there not some form of energy conservation laws going on here Shouldn’t the comet be slowing down a little by this exchange of energy? Takes some grunt to power EDM and Nucleosynthesis , but booya she's got some energy of motion there.

And so I understood the Amperian surface, can be taken has the whole surface area of a curly magnetic field being available for help in inducing magnetic field/s, so if you calc of this I take, was over the entire surface area of a comets coma, corona and tail? And then that power: KiloWatts? maybe MegaWatt-Gigawatt Hrs be focused/pinched in to a small area, it could then be available to do "work"


I'd say much the same as rocky/irony <sp?> asteroids/moons the higher the iron/metal content, the better conductors they would be? e.g able to sustain a greater "load".

May very well be true, but these things are huge (tails<> '00 Millions Km) and they would appear to be electrically conductive to some extent still? I just "see" them "draping" over our planet as well, maybe enhancing aurora or giving the ionosphere a bit a tickle. And considering some of the latest evidence, of a connection between the Ionosphere and weather patterns.... now what were the main "disasters" foretold by those silly, unedgeamucated "ancient civilizations" Mmmmm....? Impacts with comets might be extremely rare, but their EM interaction with our magnetosphere (and other planets) may not be!

You can assume anything you want.

And how much charge is needed for that, and how much voltage?
How can a double layer contain a hydrogen cloud?
And linking to the "renske" page, in your post to Gillianren, well if that is all the EC community can come up with...

The model lack everything. After asking a zillion times to make this all a little more qualitative, put some number on it, we get zilch.
But naturally, if you keep your model vague enough, then you can always say that whatever is observed was predicted by your EC model.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

The point is to try and "prove" the assumption

I was proposing to try and first make it likely ("prove") that indeed comets are electrical, the details of how much charge, voltage, densities etc, would come later.

The point for the "Rense" link was not to give you a complete model (admittedly tehre is no complete model), merely to show that the idea of electrical comets is old, and who started it approximately when.

I can't give you what is not there, but I can try and falsify the model before any quantitative detail is known. So I don't see the point in speculating about the amount of charge needed, and speculating where it all comes from (we don't have the strength of the radial electric field centered on the Sun yet) without verifying that the premise of an electric comet has past the first test; being viable.

Conversely, one can always argue that predictions (recall Deep Impact where an early flash, no ice, more energy release than predicted by mainstream) do not count as predictions for all kinds of reasons. I would argue that we need to concentrate on the differences that should really distinguish the electric model from all others (the "snowball" model in it's various forms).

Cheers.

So the nuts and bolts of the situation:

So, what would falsify the "snowball" model (in all its flavour's)

and then

What would falsify the "Electric" model (and all it's flavours)

Remembering what the implications are!

why don't you tell us?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

the only implication I could tink of is that you are wrong, I don't have any problem with that because you are.

__________________
If it's just us, it seems like an awful waste of space.
Contact Carl Sagan

http://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

Is that Ad homium

Anyways

captain swoop wrote:Which ones? I'd thought I'd give it a go, compiling a list, but the "mainstream" or currently accepted model is in a constant state of flux. Which "source"/"expert" shall I quote?

Or to make it a bit easier, in which theory do you subscribe to Cap'n Swoop

As for the EC theory I'm gunna stick with the Thunderbolts and Holosciences version without having to repeat argumentum ad nauseam, the stonework of this theory. Needless to say davidlpf the implications are huge! Well, for "current theory" anyway.

No. ("Ad hominem.") "You are wrong" is not an insult. It's intended as a statement of fact. You, of course, have every opportunity to prove that statement in error by showing that you're actually right, but I don't see you being able to do that any time soon.

Let me ask you a question, here, Starboy, because I've never really gotten a straight answer when I ask this sort of thing.

It's come across as fairly obvious that you don't know a heck of a lot about the standard model going in--such as all those probes to Halley's Comet, for example. This means, at least it seems to mean, that you haven't come across a quirk in the model after years of studying it. You've just decided it's wrong. Why? What made you interested in the first place? And what made you decide electric comets made a better model? Especially since I don't even know how the electric comet model works. Say what you like about the icy dirtball/dirty snowball theory; it's been explained so that I understand pretty much everything I, the lay scientist, need to know.

__________________
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 was thinking of writing up the characteristics of comets. But I think wiki does not do a bad job, so I leave it with that.

Then the tails of the comet. First there is the dust tail, dust being blown away from the comet by the solar wind. This one is straight and pointing away from the sun. Is this tail connected to the comet? Well, if you call a connection that you can trace the dust back to the comet, then yes, if you call a connection physical, i.e. that there can still be interaction, I would say no. The dust has left the comet and the gravity of the comet is too small to do anything about it. The only reason there seems to be a connection is because the dust tail gets created continually.

Then the ion tail. This one is created by ions picked up by the solar wind magnetic field that passes by. Because of the bendedness of this magnetic field the ion tail is not straight but curved. The ions are mainly created by UV ionization of particles near the nucleus. The ion tail remains bright, because the ions will be excited by the solar radiation and will emit while de-exciting. Now, is there a connection between the comet and the ion tail. As with the dust tail, the ions are blown away, but have to follow the solar wind magnetic field, and thus follow a curved path. Also this tail is constantly created. But again, it is not physically a part of the nucleus of the comet.

Now Starboy has given a link to a press release, where the ion tail was studied as the comet went through the solar current sheet, where the ISM changes sign, and it was shown that the tail was "turned off". This is not surprising, as in the current sheet the magnetic field goes almost to zero, and there cannot be a structured pick up of newly formed ions. You don't need any current systems for this, this just happens. The pickup of ions near the nucleus does not need any EM apart from being an EM phenomenon by itself, the "gluing" of charged particles to magnetic fields. (although I expect you to throw my own research on e.g. Europa in my face, and start talking about the Alfven wings etc. etc. but these are results of pick up of ions)

I do hope you understand that micro-amps/m² are very very small current densities. Even though you may have a large "Amperian surface" (which I still don't know what it is) with a "curly magnetic field" (whatever that is) you cannot really do much with these kinds of current densities. You need enormous electric fields if you want to create you gigaWatthours of energy just through j.E (I leave it to you to calculate what kind of E-field you need).

As the magnetic field of the ion tail is the solar wind magnetic field, naturally it will interact with the Earth, if our planet happens to go through the tail. However, I have done a little literature search, and did not find any papers on the subject. This probably means that nothing much interesting happens. However, if I am correct, Venus flew through the tail of comet ... (dunno which one) just after VEX arrived. I think we are going to look at those data here in Graz, if anything intersting comes up, you'll hear about it.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

I will patiently wait until the EC finds a proponent that can do physics and math and who will come up with some real stuff. In my book you need e.g. a reasonable voltage to do the EDM, which EC proponents seem to like. We will see what comes up, in the mean time I need to work on the Earth's tail (instead of on a cometary tail).

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

And from our old mate wiki My bold, WOw-wee so many holes so little time. Your maths and physics is not suggesting (as in, spectrum suggests that the surface is hot and dry) it's yelling in ya face! It is indeed HOT and DRY, but no, maths and physics are "suggesting" it may be hidden, invisible water, just under the surface. Did DI find ice within the crater??

Also

But shouldn’t the theory predict this? EC theory had.

Double flash?
Collimated—filamentary jets
Microdust?
Extremely dark albedo?

We could go on and on, but that will get us know where. Or you could just go HERE

Plus there is a kick arse electrical storm, so it's time to go!

PS Gillianren, I'll have a crack at that tomorrow.