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:

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

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.

__________________

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)

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:
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


"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)

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?

__________________
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)

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.

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):

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.

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

Dont give any desire to participate !

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


"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!

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

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


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).


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.


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:
It's time to answer.

__________________
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)

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

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!

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?

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Have a look at this:
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.


Similar things can happen with the Earth, but the Earth has a magnetic field as well, so things are not exactly the same as for comets.

By the way, you have not explained what the Earth's magnetosphere has to do with the X-ray emission from comets.


First, what makes you think that the Earth needs to be in a circuit? Give us the details.

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.


I see that you have not slightest idea what research is about:
I am still waiting for EU believers to come up with any viable theory.
But are you prepared to face the fact that EU proponents are wrong?


We were talking about comets.
Can you distinguish cosmology from comets?


I am still waiting for EU proponents to come up with any scientific theory.
In the meantime, astronomers and physicists will keep doing real research.


You have never been involved in research, have you?


And it's not looking good for EU ideas.

So, once more:
Besides your wishful thinking.

__________________
papageno


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

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

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

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

The charge-exchange reaction producing X-rays was not predicted by Juergens, was it?

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.

Charges accelerating.
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.


The observed X-rays are produced by a specific mechanism.
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)

This is a strawman. No one has made the claim that Juergens made any such prediction. The point is that he was one of the first to predict energetic electrical reactions in relation to comets.

And as you said yourself, 'considering the energies involved'. In other words you imply that it goes without saying that X-Rays are probable.

Another strawman. No such claim has been made. My point is that EM radiation is a signature of EM phenomena in space on a much broader scale than just the behaviour of comets.

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.

sol88, this thread is devoted to a specific topic - 'electric comets'; the ATM idea that many of the observed properties of comets are consistent with EU/PU/PC ideas.

Please do not attempt to broaden the scope beyond this topic.

Would you be kind enough to provide references to EU materials which present the quantitative details of these theories (as they relate to comets)?

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)?

No, it is not a strawman. It is a perfectly valid point. You are operating under the extreme misconception that anything that involves charged particles is contrary to the mainstream view of physics, and indicative of an EU interpretation.

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.

EM phenomena in space are well involved in all of mainstream astrophysics. So it is not enough to simplistically assume that any mention of them must be some kind of problem for mainstream science. We expect, and predict, that there will be extensive EM phenomena everywhere. You need to go further, you need to demonstrate that the EU interpretation of observed EM phenomena is at least as good as the mainstream, if not better.

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

Short memory? See post #3:
Well, you thought wrong, even though you won't admit it.
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?
All you did is post quotes from the Thunderbolts website and from Juergens' Reconciling Celestial Mechanics and Velikovskian Catastrophism (1972).
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:
So, once more, 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?
If you cannot, just say so.

I let Tim Thompson respond to your wishful thinking:
Consider that we have about thirty years more observational results to test Juergens' ideas, and they don't pass the tests.


Juergens did not predict X-rays nor did he predict charge-exchange reactions between Solar Wind and comet material.
Therefore your reference to Juergens' "theory" is irrelevant to the topic, even though you don't want to admit it.


You are right! See post #12
The relevance of this was obscure, which is why I asked you:
To which you answered:
displaying an astounding misunderstanding of the topic at hand.

But I'll let again Tim Thompson say it:
Unfortunately, so far you have shown very little understanding of both mainstream and EU ideas.

You surely mean: "you do not attribute phenomena to electromagnetic effects against all the experimental data", unlike EU theorists like Juergens.
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)

No where does it mention X-Rays, only that they "fluoresce"

Where you dig this up Papaeno? "since over half of their material is ice", "evaporated molecules boil off" and "coma absorbs ultraviolet radiation and begins to fluoresce"

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

Oh, really?
You should read more carefully. That particular comment appears to be as old as 1997, when the X-rays were first observed. The idea of solar X-rays being absorbed & re-emitted does not hold up. But the part about collisions with the solar wind is what they call "pay dirt".

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

Let me quote the context:
Your reply gave me the impression that you thought that mainstream astrophysics attributes the sublimation of comet material to its interaction with the Solar Wind.
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:
Tim Thompson already addressed your comment:
EU proponents have no problems citing references thirty years out of date when it suits them (such as Juergens paper).


Then go to a library and read some real textbooks. Or do you think that everything is available on the Internet for free?


What makes you think that it is a matter of believe?
What makes you think that fluorescence has nothing to do with Electromagnetism?

Why don't address my points?
And, again:
So, care to answer?

__________________
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)

This discussion suffers from a terrible weakness, and that is the absence of any electric comet model. How are we supposed to discuss electric comets, if we don't know what they are supposed to be? Even Juergen's calls his own description a "rather sketchy qualitative explanation". So, is this the best description of an electric comet that the EU has to offer? Is there anything more precise? is there a model that actually uses real physics? Is there a model that actually has an equation in it somewhere?

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

"radiant heat from the Sun" out near Jupiter? Sublimation? has this been confirmed? Comets are mostly Ice?

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 wroteBut the mainstreamer have'nt got it right yet, so I suggest it is still very much wide open for debate .i.e.

My bold, this is were this layperson starts to see the duality of mainstream science and there Hypocrisy

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