Electric Comets

sol88 · #1 (**permalink**) 22-May-2006, 07:12 AM

After splitting some of the EU ideas into sub forums. I thought I have a go at trying to have a debate on the Electric Comet hypothesis.

After reading a little more on this subject, both mainstream and EU, seems there is a coming together of theories. This quote from Universe today:

Quote:

Scientists think that X-rays are produced through a process called charge exchange, in which highly (and positively) charged particles from the sun that lack electrons steal electrons from chemicals in the comet. Typical comet material includes water, methane and carbon dioxide. Charge exchange is analogous to the tiny spark seen in static electricity, only at a far greater energy.

By comparing the ratio of X-ray energies emitted, scientists can determine the content of the solar wind and infer the content of the comet material. Swift, Chandra, XMM-Newton and Suzaku each provide complementary capabilities to nail down this tricky measurement. The combination of these observations will provide a time evolution of the X-ray emission of the comet as it navigates through our solar system.

LINK

There does seem to be progress toward the EC idea, no?

The language appears to have progressed to a more electrical nature, the sentence "Charge exchange is analogous to the tiny spark seen in static electricity, only at a far greater energy." is extremely intriguing, 64 million dollar question is, how much energy?

Enough energy to shatter rock? Make the nucleus arc? Make the coma glow? Produce elements during charge exchange? Produce Birkland currents millions of miles long?

And my personal favorite interest, what does the electrical circuit look like?

let the debate start, and before any of the mainstreamers start going "rabid" this is all new territory, we "know" nothing.

Sol

tusenfem · #2 (**permalink**) 22-May-2006, 09:35 AM

It is, as said, analogous (but bad analogy), but not the same as a spark.

The highly positive ion needs to collide with, say, a water molecule, and then can "rip off" one of the electrons from the water molecule. The water molecule is then left one electron poorer and highly excited. The excitation is radiated away as an X-ray photon.

So it is a very very close contact process between an ion and a molecule, no sparks, no arches, and definitely no energy to crack rock or whatever.

P.Asmah · #3 (**permalink**) 22-May-2006, 11:38 AM

Here is another article about same:
http://spacescience.com/headlines/y2000/ast23aug_1m.htm

"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 ." (My bold.)

This claim from a mainstream source is that charge-exchange-reaction was first proposed in 1997!

Really? Didn't Ralph Juergens, who proposed the Electric Sun model, also propose the corollary that cometary comas and tails are produced by an electrical exchange between the sun and a comet. I think so.

papageno · #4 (**permalink**) 22-May-2006, 06:59 PM

In the now-closed EU thread I asked sol88:

Quote:

Originally Posted by papageno

Do you subscribe to upriver's fallacy that whenever mainstream scientists mention electric discharges, this is evidence in support of EU ideas?

Considering the OP, the answer should be "yes!".

What is so EU about the idea that ions from the Solar Wind exchange electron with molecules from the comet?
We have known for a while that there is some interaction between comets and Solar Wind.

papageno · #5 (**permalink**) 22-May-2006, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P.Asmah

This claim from a mainstream source is that charge-exchange-reaction was first proposed in 1997!

Really? Didn't Ralph Juergens, who proposed the Electric Sun model, also propose the corollary that cometary comas and tails are produced by an electrical exchange between the sun and a comet. I think so.

Why don't you show us that Juergens predicted X-ray emission from comet material, well before it was observed?
Wouldn't that make a strong case for EU theories?

If not, can you explain in detail or at least provide a reference to what Juergens said exactly?

P.Asmah · #6 (**permalink**) 22-May-2006, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by papageno

If not, can you explain in detail or at least provide a reference to what Juergens said exactly?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/velikovsky-ghost.htm
Go down to electric comets:

Quote:

The revolutionary electric Sun model set forth by Juergens in the early 70's included a view of comets as electric discharge phenomena. If the Sun is a glow discharge at the center of a radial electric field, then comets moving on highly elliptical orbits through this electric field will experience increasing stresses that can only be relieved through electrical arcing, removing material and accelerating it away from the nucleus, along the path of solar magnetic field lines.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/Rec...0Mechanics.pdf
Extract from an actual Juergen's paper:

Quote:

A comet on an extremely eccentric orbit spends by far the greater part of its time in the uttermost parts of the solar system. This is because, according to Kepler's Laws, orbital speeds near aphelion are so much less than near perihelion.

Supposing, then, that space potentials in such regions are vastly greater, in the negative sense, than they are close to the sun, as the discharge hypothesis requires, any long-period comet could be expected to acquire local space potential quite readily during its long sojourn far from the sun. Quite possibly, too, its body materials would become electrically polarized in response to the buildup of charge on its surface. Consider next what would happen to this charged, electrically polarized body as its orbit brings it with ever increasing speed back toward the sun. By the time it reaches the orbit of Jupiter, solar-wind protons will have stripped away its superficial blanket of negative charge. No longer does its surface potential match that of its surroundings, yet its internal (radial) polarization produces an external electric field, just as polarization in an electret made of wax exhibits an external field here on earth. A space-charge sheath will begin to form to shield the interplanetary plasma from the comet's alien field. As the comet races toward the sun, its sheath takes the form of a long tail stretching away from the sun.

This happens, not because the electrified sun repels the tail material, but because voltage differences between the comet and the interplanetary plasma vary sharply with direction, and because sheath thicknesses are dictated not only by voltage differences, but by gas pressure as well. The potential difference between the head of the comet and the plasma in the direction of the sun might be substantial. But in any case, the potential difference between the comet and plasma farther out from the sun will be greater still. Also, the plasma density is greater nearer the sun than farther from the sun. Hence the sheath remains close to the comet on the sunward side, and it reaches perhaps millions of miles into space on the antisolar side.

This rather sketchy qualitative explanation for comet tails is not advanced here as any sort of final answer to the comet-tail mystery. I include it only as an example of the kind of explanation that can at least be discussed in the light of the discharge hypothesis. Hopefully, too, it offers a measure of solace to those who might feel cheated by the fact that the interplanetary plasma knocks down the idea that comet-tail gases might be repelled by the sun's electric charge.

Electromagnetic radiation is inevitable?

Nereid · #7 (**permalink**) 22-May-2006, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P.Asmah

http://www.thunderbolts.info/velikovsky-ghost.htm
Go down to electric comets:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/Rec...0Mechanics.pdf
Extract from an actual Juergen's paper:

Electromagnetic radiation is inevitable?

Please re-read papageno's question ('Why don't you show us that Juergens predicted X-ray emission from comet material, well before it was observed?') - my bold.

Please answer the question that was asked.

VanderL · #8 (**permalink**) 22-May-2006, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

Please re-read papageno's question ('Why don't you show us that Juergens predicted X-ray emission from comet material, well before it was observed?') - my bold.

Please answer the question that was asked.

Sorry to jump in here, but P.Asmah did answer the queation, apparently you didn't read the question asked by Papageno yourself (my bold):

Quote:

Why don't you show us that Juergens predicted X-ray emission from comet material, well before it was observed?
Wouldn't that make a strong case for EU theories?

If not, can you explain in detail or at least provide a reference to what Juergens said exactly?

Juergens might not have predicted X-rays (I don't know for sure, maybe he did, but I haven't seen any reference). Besides P.Asmah didn't claim Juergens predicted X-rays as far as I can see.

Cheers.

galacsi · #9 (**permalink**) 22-May-2006, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

Please re-read papageno's question ('Why don't you show us that Juergens predicted X-ray emission from comet material, well before it was observed?') - my bold.

Please answer the question that was asked.

I see only hair splitting and inquisition trial in this tread , very boring !

Dont give any desire to participate !

papageno · #10 (**permalink**) 22-May-2006, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanderL

Juergens might not have predicted X-rays (I don't know for sure, maybe he did, but I haven't seen any reference). Besides P.Asmah didn't claim Juergens predicted X-rays as far as I can see.

He brought up Juergens questioning the attribution of the "charge-exchange reaction" explanation for X-ray emissions from comet material.
I asked him to give more details, in particular how he reached the conclusion that Juergens' theory might explain the X-ray emission.

papageno · #11 (**permalink**) 22-May-2006, 09:57 PM

P.Asmah,
since Juergens' theory does not explictly predict X-ray emission by charge-exchange between solar wind ions and comet material, can you show us the reasoning that led you to the conclusion that Juergens' theory is relevant and should be mentioned when the explanation of the phenomenon is to be attributed?

P.Asmah · #12 (**permalink**) 22-May-2006, 11:25 PM

OK, I think we now all agree that comets display what is loosely referred to as charge-exchange-reaction, even if interpretations of this phenomena may vary? In others words, they exhibit some form of electrical behaviour?

Surely, therefore, some form of signature in the form of electromagnetic radiation is expected? In other words, 'It goes without saying' (To borrow from the lexicon of Tusenfem and Tim Thompson) that X-rays are probable?

And talking of EM radiation, didn't Alfven discover Synchroton (Very intense) radiation? If I remember rightly, it's produced by fast-moving electrons in the presence of magnetic fields. I guess its fairly important given that most of the radiation recorded by radio telescopes is derived from this mechanism?

In 1950 I think this was a remarkable suggestion, given that plasma and magnetic fields were thought to have little, if anything, to do in a cosmos filled with 'island universes' (galaxies). It provided additional evidence for the existence of extensive magnetic fields, and indicates that enormous amounts of energy may be converted, stored, and released by cosmic plasma!

sol88 · #13 (**permalink**) 23-May-2006, 01:51 AM

Quote:

In the now-closed EU thread I asked sol88:
Quote:
Originally Posted by papageno
Do you subscribe to upriver's fallacy that whenever mainstream scientists mention electric discharges, this is evidence in support of EU ideas?
Considering the OP, the answer should be "yes!".

What is so EU about the idea that ions from the Solar Wind exchange electron with molecules from the comet?
We have known for a while that there is some interaction between comets and Solar Wind.

Yes, but we have "known" for longer that they are sublimating dirty-snowy ice balls

So it seems that the interaction (comet & solar wind) is purely electrical, with all the associated observations confirming this observation and not the melting snowball hypothesis.

So what about the interaction between Earth and the solar wind? there is a story today on UT, with the cluster satellites moving thru the Earths magnetosphere, were the graphic looks uncannily like a comet. LINK

So for the Earth to have these properties (electrical/magnetic) then it must be completing a circuit, if a comet also displays these properties then must it not also be connected to a circuit?

So lets find the circuits, any ideas on how that could be achieved?

'

I think the biggest fear for the mainstreamers is if this all holds true (I believe it will) then they will feel cheated and disillusioned that most of the mainstream theories are fictions and have done a lot more damage than good (led us up the garden path).

Some have said "why do we need a different theory when we have made this one (Big Bang) fit (sort of)".

Well we don't need a new theory if your happy with the BB model, neutron stars, black holes, singularities, space as electrical neutral, non-interacting planetary bodies, magnetic reconnection, the Easter bunny and Father Christmas.

But if you believe other wise then there is a whole new universe to be discovered

The evidence is mounting

Sol

papageno · #14 (**permalink**) 23-May-2006, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P.Asmah

OK, I think we now all agree that comets display what is loosely referred to as charge-exchange-reaction, even if interpretations of this phenomena may vary?

What makes you think that there is room for interpretation?
tusenfem has explained what a charge-exchange reaction is, and the term is not applied "loosely" to explain the X-ray emission in comets:
ions from the Solar Wind hit (i.e., come into close contact, with distances of the order of the size of the molecules) molecules and atoms from the comet; ions and molecules exchange electrons, leaving the (ion + electron) in a highly excited state; when the newly formed atom undergoes a transition towards the ground-state, electromagnetic radiation is emitted (considering the energies involved, this radiation is composed of X-rays).
The observed emission can be used to do spectroscopy of Solar Wind particles:

Quote:

Originally Posted by UT

By comparing the ratio of X-ray energies emitted, scientists can determine the content of the solar wind and infer the content of the comet material.

They can only infer the comet material from these measurement, because the emission comes from Solar Wind material.

And since the spectrum can be quite complicated, they need a reference:

Quote:

Originally Posted by UT

Porter and his colleagues at Goddard and Lawrence Livermore tested the charge exchange theory in an earthbound laboratory in 2003. That experiment, at Livermore's EBIT-I electron beam ion trap, produced a complex spectrograph of intensity versus X-ray energy for a variety of expected elements in the solar wind and comet. "We are anxious to compare nature's laboratory to the one we created," Porter said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by P.Asmah

In others words, they exhibit some form of electrical behaviour?

The same type of electrical behaviour any piece of matter shows, but nothing peculiar of EU/PC ideas.
Just plain old atomic physics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by P.Asmah

Surely, therefore, some form of signature in the form of electromagnetic radiation is expected?

That is known as spectroscopy. It has been around for 200 years.
Using X-ray emission is a standard technique to identify the elements in a material, so standard that it can be imlpemented without to much trouble in electron microscopes (the electron beam excites the sample, which then emits X-rays).

Quote:

Originally Posted by P.Asmah

Surely it goes without saying (To borrow from the lexicon of Tusenfem and Tim Thompson) that some form of X-rays are highly probable?

What do you mean with "form"?
If you are referring to energy or wavelength, then yes some wavelengths are more probable because they correspond to specific and probable electronic transitions in atoms. That's why we can use spectroscopy to identify elements.

Quote:

Originally Posted by P.Asmah

And talking of EM radiation, didn't Alfven discover Synchroton (Very intense) radiation? If I remember rightly, it's produced by fast-moving electrons in the presence of magnetic fields. I guess its fairly important given that most of the radiation recorded by radio telescopes is derived from this mechanism?

In 1950 I think this was a remarkable suggestion, given that plasma and magnetic fields were thought to have little, if anything, to do in a cosmos filled with 'island universes' (galaxies). It provided additional evidence for the existence of extensive magnetic fields, and indicates that enormous amounts of energy may be converted, stored, and released by cosmic plasma!

Show us in detail how this is relevant to the OP.
Synchrotron radiation is not the same as radiation from charge-exchange.

By the way:

Quote:

Originally Posted by papageno

since Juergens' theory does not explictly predict X-ray emission by charge-exchange between solar wind ions and comet material, can you show us the reasoning that led you to the conclusion that Juergens' theory is relevant and should be mentioned when the explanation of the phenomenon is to be attributed?

It's time to answer.

P.Asmah · #15 (**permalink**) 23-May-2006, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by papageno

since Juergens' theory does not explictly predict X-ray emission by charge-exchange between solar wind ions and comet material

Haven't you answered this yourself? 'Considering the energies involved', my bold below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by papageno

ions from the Solar Wind hit (i.e., come into close contact, with distances of the order of the size of the molecules) molecules and atoms from the comet; ions and molecules exchange electrons, leaving the (ion + electron) in a highly excited state; when the newly formed atom undergoes a transition towards the ground-state, electromagnetic radiation is emitted (considering the energies involved, this radiation is composed of X-rays).

Quote:

Originally Posted by papageno

Show us in detail how this is relevant to the OP.
Synchrotron radiation is not the same as radiation from charge-exchange.

Because electromagnetic radiation, in whatever form, is a signature of...

Remember, these X-Rays were a big surprise for the mainstream, but EM radiation is expected by EU theories. I think it's time to stop splitting hairs!

Fram · #16 (**permalink**) 23-May-2006, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P.Asmah

Remember, these X-Rays were a big surprise for the mainstream, but EM radiation is expected by EU theories.

No, the X-rays were no surprise, the amount (brightness) was. X-rays from comets were detected 10 years ago. An explanation for them was logically only found after the discovery (otherwise it wouldn't have been an explanation but a prediction), so the 1997 explanation is the first.

That there is electromagnetic radiation is not such a surprise though, we can see comets, their infrared energy (heat), and so on. So what specifically makes you think Juergen was talking about X-rays?

papageno · #17 (**permalink**) 23-May-2006, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sol88

Quote:

Originally Posted by papageno

What is so EU about the idea that ions from the Solar Wind exchange electron with molecules from the comet?
We have known for a while that there is some interaction between comets and Solar Wind.

Yes, but we have "known" for longer that they are sublimating dirty-snowy ice balls

Have a look at this:

Quote:

The Sun's radiation pressure and solar wind accelerate materials away from the comet's head at differing velocities according to the size and mass of the materials.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sol88

So it seems that the interaction (comet & solar wind) is purely electrical, with all the associated observations confirming this observation and not the melting snowball hypothesis.

This is a strawman: mainstream astrophysics does not say that the interaction between Solar Wind and comet is responsible for melting the surface material.
The comet is heated by the electromagnetic radiation from the Sun, not by the Solar Wind.

Quote: