You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Comets - A Brief Primer

in #steemstem4 years ago

Wow, you put a lot of work into this, too bad it is based entirely on antiquated theories that do not stand up to the observations. Nonetheless, I will still upvote it for the excellent effort. I stopped reading at the mention of ice because comets have no ice. None was discovered when they landed a probe on a comet. Which if one pays close attention to that landing there were some troubles, all of which were predicted by Wal Thornhill the day before the event. This slushy snowball theory does not work especially since comets have been observed with tails at a distance considered too far from the sun therefore too cold to melt any alleged ice.
When they landed the probe on the comet it was a rough landing as they expected a slushy snowball but found a rock. Prior to landing, they shot a charge at the comet to investigate its interior but before the charge made contact there was a flash and then the explosion which blinded the cameras because it was brighter than expected.

Rather than I explaining it pedantically, listen to Wal Thornhill's presentation with an open mind and if so inclined leave a comment. And lest I forget Karl Popper has something to say too.



Bollocks. There is a huge amount of ice on comets. Carbon Monoxide drives comet activity on distant comets, water closer in, and even silicate rock when close enough to the sun. We have known this for a very long time because we can observe their emission signature in a spectrograph (i.e a century before Rosetta went to 67P).

With all due respect; can a spectrograph tell the difference between a water molecule and disassociated hydrogen and oxygen atoms especially at those distances involved?

It is folly to compare the electric universe theory to flat earth as by doing so you are demeaning many prominent scientists of the past century from Sir Fred Hoyle to Irving Langmuir, Hannes Alfven, Kristian Birkeland and many more. I note that you are neither knighted nor are you a Nobel laureate and seem to have no regard for the wisdom of Karl Popper. It also suggests an emotional attachment to your beliefs, which is anathema to scientific progress. I have no doubt that you are a very learned man with a well organized intellect and I, in no way, question your accomplishments, but, even geniuses can be wrong.

Plasma constitutes 99.6% of the observable universe. Double Layers, Alfven lectured at the Marshall Space Flight Center on Double Layers in Astrophysics, "should be treated as a new type of celestial object". ~

There are only two ways to produce a magnetic field, one is with the use of a dynamo, the other is through electric current, just about every instance of a so-called "magnetic rope" or a magnetic field in space is an indicater of electric currents. Double layers allow for a separation of charge and plasma is highly conductive with very little resistance. Alfven is also known for his modelling of the heliospheric current sheet as a "ballerina skirt"

The undulatory nature of this configuration has a conductor(plasma) moving through magnetic fields which anyone with a basic electrical background knows produces electric current.

Kristen Birkeland mocked and demeaned by the likes of the great Lord Kelvin(because he believed space was empty) in his day for his postulations regarding electric currents in space was proven correct decades later with the observation of Birkeland currents in the ionosphere. His experimental work with his terrelaa showed significant evidence of the electric nature of the sun and the solar system, Saturn's rings etc.
A paper by Dr.Don Scott modelling Birkeland currents as having double layers rotating in opposite directions.

I often see those of the standard model try to dismiss the electric potential in space by saying things such as the charge is "nearly balanced" therefore neutral. This is like saying a woman is nearly pregnant. Either it is or it isn't. If the charge is nearly balanced that means it is slightly out of balance, and considering double layers and the highly conductive nature of plasma, any slightly out of balance charge has an electrical potential. To further the argument, a battery has charge balanced but connect the poles with a load and you have current flow.

So, are you in the game or out of the game as Karl Popper puts it? Do you believe the science is settled? Are you a modern day Lord Kelvin clinging to antiquated beliefs? In the end it doesn't really matter to me what you choose to believe and if any of my words find you offended, well, I apologize. As I do hope that we can, at the very least, agree to disagree respectfully.


Can you post references from Sir Fred Hoyle, Irving Langmuir, Hannes Alfven and Kristian Birkeland regarding Electric Comet Theory? I mean where they directly commented on it? I'm betting you can't....

So, what are you willing to bet?

It took me a while but I found a link to Birkeland's theories on comets.

This is all in his book 'The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition, 1902-1903'

By the way, I did see your fakebook post referring to me. It left me feeling sorry for you.


Flag down spam

Lol. You would win that bet because electric comet theory was not their forte per se. But all those mentioned were supporters of electric theories pertaining to astrophysics, whether it is electric-plasma models of the solar system, the sun and the universe in general as I somewhat already outlined. And being as they supported the electric universe hypothesis it is not a stretch to think that they would not contradict the electric comet hypothesis.

But, I understand why you ask such a question as it is merely an attempt at avoidance as no-one likes to face the possibility that after years of investment they may be wrong.

One of the reasons I like talking to those with a different opinion than mine is that it challenges me in my opinion when they take the intellectual scientific route. What you have done is absolutely not that. You could talk science with me and critically discuss the ideas I have presented but instead, you have done the opposite, you asked a question which you already knew the answer to. Oh well. I guess I am not worthy. lol

I guess you are, as Karl Popper said, no longer in the game as a scientist.

Looking forward to your next post.

Flagged as spam.

Lol. Thank you for proving my point.


What is your end motive here? This seems like a very accusative post for essentially winding down to saying that comets have rocks instead of ice. Ice is, of course, essentially a rock.

If comets were made out of ordinary rock as in rocks found on Earth, how do you explain the extremely visible outgassing tail? Such outgassing makes perfect sense when you consider that the comet came from the far outer solar system where ices don't melt. The ice then sublimates when it approaches the sun as sunlight increases. If rocks outgassed like this, the moon would have an atmosphere. The Philae lander itself showed that the landing site contained hard water ice. If you're going to make claims that the ice tails have been observed at distances too far to sublimate, you'll need sources to back that up. If it isn't ice, what is it? Isn't ice the simplest answer?

It's "Electric Comet Theory". Comet sciences answer to the flat earth theory. From the people that DIDN'T bring you all the wonderful things science gave us, like medicine, internet, computers, cars, etc :)

The outgassing tail is due to a difference of charge picked up when having left the heliosphere(becomes -Q) and when it re-enters the heliosphere, the Q+ of the solar wind causes ionic action stripping hydrogen and oxygen atoms from the comet. Since the moon is firmly ensconced in the mostly positive charge of the solar wind it does not experience what a comet experiences.

There's a few issues I see right away.

  • Where is the negative charge coming from when the comet leaves the solar system? A positively charged object doesn't lose charge unless it is so charged that it can eject electrons to the vacuum.

  • If the moon (and the rest of the inner solar system) were all positively charged, and no charge transfer took place to neutralize them, all of the inner planets and moons would repel each other via the electrostatic force. The moon would slowly be pushed out of Earth's orbit. If the charge was able to neutralize via electrons ejecting across the vacuum, then the force would be gone but so also would the charge.

  • Finally, how is this is a simpler explanation than icy rocks from far from the sun where ice doesn't melt coming closer and sublimating gas out into the tail? What does it explain that the comets being made of ice doesn't? The simplest answer that explains everything about a process is usually correct.

Thanks for commenting.
The negative charge is what exists outside of the heliosphere which is itself predominantly a positive charge due to the solar wind. When comets leave the heliosphere they pick up the negative charge and when they re-enter the heliosphere, the negative charge just picked up by the comet interacts with the positive charged solar wind producing the coma.

We do not know what the charges are of all the planets. Earth is predominantly a negative charge. We do know that the solar wind is a predominantly positive charge.

It is simpler because it fits the observations such as comas on comets too far from the sun for there to be any heat to cause an alleged sublimation and the fact there was no ice or snow when they landed on a comet and even lead scientists at ESA have said recently that we need to rethink the slushy snowball hypothesis.

The simplest answer is usually correct, but that answer has to be proven and the model needs to predict observations. This isn't the case with the slushy-snowball hypothesis.

"Here on the left is an artist’s impression of a comet surface before the first flyby of the nucleus of a comet on March 14, 1986. It shows icy vapours wafting into space. In the centre is an artist’s impression of the Philae lander on the surface of comet 67 P where you can see the surface still appears icy, the only concession to images of other comet nuclei being the crater and ridges. On the right is the real surface of comet 67 P, which is actually blacker than photocopier toner. But despite the stark reality, the story of comets remains unchanged."...Wal Thornhill

" “Pinnacles range from tens of meters to over 100 m in height, and they have varied shapes including spires with pointed tops near the resolution of the images. The pinnacles were not anticipated land forms on primitive bodies, and their origin on Wild 2 is a mystery."...ESA scientists recounting their observations of comet Wild 2 not fitting their model's predicition.

"Returning to comet Halley in 1986, water molecules are supposed to sublimate (change directly from solid to gas) off the comet nucleus in the heat of the Sun. Later, ultraviolet light from the Sun is thought to split the water molecule into OH and H. So we should expect more H2O near the nucleus than OH. However, the Vega 2 spacecraft found the reverse, which “may indicate the existence of parents of OH other than H2O.” "..W.Thornhill

The small size of the dust particles from comet Halley was a surprise. “The dust particle mass spectra do not exhibit the expected low-mass cutoff at 10-14 gm; instead they continue to rise to 10-16 gm.” “The most striking feature is the large number of low-mass particles.” “Indeed, the first particles encountered at the ‘fringes’ of the coma had the lowest masses measured, instead of the higher masses predicted by the ‘fountain’ model first introduced by Eddington and later widely developed to predict the mass distribution of cometary dust.” ** Low mass particles fit with electrical sputtering of surface atoms and molecules but not with the standard model of gas jet dispersal of interstellar dust grains trapped in dusty ice.**

most of these quotes come from a single source, if truly interested you should check it out.


Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.68
TRX 0.10
JST 0.076
BTC 58134.78
ETH 4688.92
BNB 639.71
SBD 7.37