|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
||||
|
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:
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 |
|
|||
|
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. |
|
||||
|
In the now-closed EU thread I asked sol88:
Quote:
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 "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) |
|
||||
|
Quote:
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?
__________________
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) |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Go down to electric comets: Quote:
Extract from an actual Juergen's paper: Quote:
|
|
|||
|
Quote:
Please answer the question that was asked. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Cheers. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Dont give any desire to participate ! |
|
||||
|
Quote:
I asked him to give more details, in particular how he reached the conclusion that Juergens' theory might explain the X-ray emission.
__________________
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) |
|
||||
|
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?
__________________
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) |
|
|||
|
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! Last edited by P.Asmah; 23-May-2006 at 01:49 AM.. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
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 |
|
||||||||
|
Quote:
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:
And since the spectrum can be quite complicated, they need a reference: Quote:
Quote:
Just plain old atomic physics. Quote:
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:
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:
Synchrotron radiation is not the same as radiation from charge-exchange. By the way: Quote:
__________________
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) |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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! |
|
||||
|
Quote:
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?
__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse |
|
||||||||||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The comet is heated by the electromagnetic radiation from the Sun, not by the Solar Wind. Quote:
Quote:
By the way, you have not explained what the Earth's magnetosphere has to do with the X-ray emission from comets. Quote:
Second, what makes you think that comets display the same properties? After all, the charge-exchange explanation for X-ray emission from comets does not require circuits. Quote:
Quote:
But are you prepared to face the fact that EU proponents are wrong? Quote:
Can you distinguish cosmology from comets? Quote:
In the meantime, astronomers and physicists will keep doing real research. Quote:
Quote:
So, once more: Quote:
__________________
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) |
|
||||
|
Quote:
So, answer my question: 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? Show us that it is relevant, or retract your claim. Quote:
So, answer the question: how is synchrotron radiation relevant to the charge-exchange reaction producing X-rays from comets? Show us that it is relevant, or retract your claim. Quote:
Show us that EU "theories" predicted such mechanism, or retract your claim. It is time to put up or shut up.
__________________
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) |
|
|||
|
Quote:
And as you said yourself, 'considering the energies involved'. In other words you imply that it goes without saying that X-Rays are probable. Quote:
On the one hand you infer that electrical reactions in space are insginificant, and on the other you admit that they are energetic enough to produce X-Rays. You cannot have it both ways. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Please do not attempt to broaden the scope beyond this topic. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
In particular, please provide links to materials which show the derivation of 'expected EM radiation' (from comets) from the theory? (I am sure, since you have called it a theory, that these details will include the relevant plasma physics equations). In which publications were the 'EM radiation' (from comets) expectations quantified? Where can one read the expected distribution of EM energy (from comets), by wavelength (or frequency)? What expectations were published, concerning the total (EM) energy (expected to be) radiated (from comets)? |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
The charge exchange process is not "electrical" in the EU sense. It does not involve the flow of anything identifiable as "electricity", it cannot be simulated using a closed circuit model. It does not compare with anything that Juergens predicted. Furthermore, there are no indications that I am aware of, either from theory or observation, that any of Juergens' predictions can be considered valid. It was Biermann who first predicted the existence of a corpuscular solar wind, by implication from the observed behavior of comet tails, which were already known to be plasma (Biremann, 1951). And the mainstream view that the magnetic field in the solar wind "piles up" around the head of the comet is due to Alfven (On the Theory of Comet Tails, Hannes Alfven, Tellus 9: 96). As for X-rays, nobody predicted them in advance, so far as I know, before they were observed by the soft X-ray camera onboard the Extreme UltraViolet Explorer (Krasnopolsky, 1997; Mumma, et al., 1997; publication of the scientific papers was delayed, which allowed the paper by Northrup, et al., 1997, to precede them by a few months). And the point here is that the plasma nature of comet tails, as well as the plasma nature of the solar wind, was well established before Juergens predicted anything. So you cannot single out his predictions as in any way exceptional without demonstrating that his predictions were both (a) radically different from anything in mainstream science, and (b) validated, or at least not contradicted, by observation. Quote:
So, since were are talking about comets in particular, I return to my previous reference: X-Ray and extreme ultraviolet emissions from comets; Krasnopolsky, Greenwood & Stancil, Space Science Reviews 113(3): 271-374, August 2004. You'll have to go find the original, you can't get it online without a subscription. But the detailed physics of cometary X-ray emissions is worked out therein. It is consistent with both laboratory & astronomical observation, and of course, it is consistent with standard physics. You can also refer to my post #18, and some subsequent discussion, in the UT story thread "Deep Impact Caused a Great Gush of Water Vapour". You, or somebody else (maybe sol88, he started this thread), needs to show why & how the EU interpretation of cometary X-rays is at least as good as this, if not better.
__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell |
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Of course, you were pretty confused about the charge-exchange mechanism, despite tusenfem's explanation. But what matters is that it contains the word "charge", right? Remember post #5? Quote:
None of these quotes gives even the slightest hint that the EU theories predict or can explain X-ray emission from comets. That's why I asked you in post #11: Quote:
If you cannot, just say so. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Therefore your reference to Juergens' "theory" is irrelevant to the topic, even though you don't want to admit it. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But I'll let again Tim Thompson say it: Quote:
Quote:
The idea that there is some contradiction in the mainstream explanations of astrophysical phenomena, is just the result of misunderstandings and ignorance. Back up your claim with real evidence.
__________________
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) |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Have you a link to something on comets that is not aimed at 5 yr olds?? If you believe this version, then sorry, there is nothing I can do to "prove" to you that the primary reason for the observed phenomena is EM. We can do what Galacsi said "split hairs and have an inquisition" fest or pull our combined resources and smarts and see what we can come up with. Sol |
|
||||
|
Maybe I'm just ignorant, but exactly how does:
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. jump to: cometary comas and tails are produced by an electrical exchange between the sun and a comet. and the interaction (comet & solar wind) is purely electrical
__________________
Howling from the Shadows It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername Apollo: The History and the Hoax Enter the World of Athran |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So, if the EUers would follow the conversation a bit more carefully, they might take my advice. The source of the X-ray emission is described in extreme detail in the paper I have already reference several times in several places: X-Ray and extreme ultraviolet emissions from comets. Of course, you will probably have to find it in some university library, it is not online. Enough of the hand waving, and non-reading. Is there an EUer capable of pointing out why the mainstream physics is wrong? Or maybe why the EU is better?
__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell |
|
|||||||||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
I pointed out that this is incorrect, because the sublimation is caused by the radiant heat from the Sun, and I gave a link to support this point. The link was not meant to address the X-ray emission. About your quote from this: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What makes you think that fluorescence has nothing to do with Electromagnetism? Why don't address my points? Quote:
Quote:
__________________
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) |
|
||||
|
I think that a misinterpretation of electrodynamics with a few EU proponents lies in the fact that they think that anything not created by a current circuit is not EM.
Fluoresence is only the taking up of a photon and later re-emitting it, no circuit there. Charge exchange is a collision in which an electron hops from one player to the other, no circuit there. The EU want to have everything electrical (I gather from Sol88's messages) meaning they want to plug it in and drive a curent.
__________________
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) |
|
||||
|
Quote:
I think that if there is no more precise, more physical description of an electric comet than this, then there is hardly a reason to pretend that this might be a serious discussion.
__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Seems the team over at JPL's Stardust mission think otherwise, and I dare to say they are the mainstream, check out thier " Stardust Findings May Alter View of Comet Formation" Mmmm... interesting. LINK Tim wrote Quote:
Quote:
I'm sure you've read how the EU'rs think this happens (link here if you'd like to look) Take a look, might put a new light on the subject!! Sol |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|