Charge exchange and comet X-Rays

[sol88]

Could someone gives us quick run down on this method of cometary x ray production?

[mharratsc]

A very good synopsis could be found here:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/ ... -xrays.htm

There's another link at the bottom of that page to the following article also:

http://www.holoscience.com/news/comet_borrelly.html

Hope that helps!

Mike H.

[MGmirkin]

It seems like from several Holoscience.com articles, we can derive a fairly basic barebones overview of of the EU says the solar system functions:

Sun = anode, holding a high positive voltage. Heliosheath = virtual cathode.
Comet = cathode, holding a negative charge. Coma = glow discharge.

Planets and comets all constitute secondary cathodes in the heliospheric glow discharge model...

Hopefully I said all that correctly.

(Newton’s Electric Clockwork Solar System)
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=q1q6sz2s

The Electric Sun is a positively charged anode and the focus of a galactic glow discharge. Most of the voltage difference between the Sun and its interstellar environment occurs at the ‘virtual cathode’ — the solar wind boundary known as the heliopause.

Each planet acts as a small secondary cathode in this solar glow discharge and develops an invisible cometary plasma sheath, the tail of which stretches away from the Sun in the plane of the ecliptic.

(Comet Wild 2)
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=ayxpdjcb

Briefly, in [the Electric Universe / Electric Star] model a comet is a highly negatively charged body with respect to the Sun. Like all charged bodies in plasma, a comet will be enveloped in a plasma sheath (the coma) that limits the reach of the comet's electric field.

X-rays are generated naturally by high-voltage discharges.

(Comet Borrelly rocks core scientific beliefs)
http://www.holoscience.com/news/comet_borrelly.html

The boundary of the comet's coma defines the virtual anode region of a plasma glow discharge. Electrons are accelerated outward and positive ions inward across the sheath. Strong X-rays are generated where these particles recombine.

(First Evidence of Comet Ice – What Does it Mean?)
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=nm613913

The activity in a comet coma should be viewed in terms of low-pressure gas discharge phenomena, not simply gas-phase chemistry and photolysis. If more evidence were needed that this is so, we need only remember the baffled surprise of astronomers when an orbiting x-ray telescope was accidentally pointed at a comet and strong x-ray emissions found. An explanation was cobbled together after the discovery. It involved the recombination of solar wind ions with electrons from the comet. But that constitutes an electric current between the comet and the solar wind.

The so-called "near nucleus ion pile-up" is simply a manifestation of a cometary plasma sheath, or double layer. It is a region with a strong electric field and consequently capable of generating strong x-rays. The cometary x-rays were found coming from a region that didn't conform to simple hydrodynamic collision calculations. It was remarked that it was like finding the shockwave from a supersonic aircraft several kilometres to one side of the aircraft. A plasma sheath is controlled by electromagnetic forces and is not expected to conform to bow-shock physics.

Seems reasonable enough... And explanatory as to why comets should discharge and why the Sun-Earth electrical connection ("flux tubes," "magnetic flux ropes," "magnetic portals," etc., etc.) might exist.

Best,
~Michael Gmirkin

[sol88]

Thanks Michael,

Is it kinda like, yeah we knew this charge exchange mechanism was responsible for these X rays all along!

Just a poster I'm discussin with at the moment keeps bang'n on with these two pearlers

As any intellegent person can see the electric comet model fails totally on two fundamental predictions for all comets (not just Tempel 1).

* It predicts that comets will have densities ~3 gm/cm3.
The actual measured densities are < 1 3 gm/cm3.
FAILURE.
* It predicts that comets will emit many X-ray bursts from the electrical discharges.
These many X-ray bursts are not seen.
FAILURE.

Thanks anyway I understood correctly what was going on.

[mharratsc]

A. Fairly certain that all of the comets seen up close so far have been ROCKS. Rocks aren't dense enough for him?

B. They pointed an X-ray telescope at a comet by accidentand they saw copious x-ray emissions. What the hell is he talking about?

Mike H.

[nick c]

hi Michael,
That just about summarizes the EU view of comets. The only thing I would add, is the effect of orbital configuration.
That is,
planets- low eccentricity ellipse, tending toward circular
comets- high eccentricity ellipse
This results in comets experiencing increasing electrical stress as they approach the Sun. In general, an eccentric (elliptical) orbital configuration (causing rapid changes in electrical stress) determines a celestial objects' identification as a comet.

A planet on such an orbit would put on a spectacular cometary display.

With regard to x-rays and Comet Halley:

That the material was being electrically removed was confirmed by the discovery of x-rays and high energy ions near the nucleus.

From The Electric Universe, Slide Presentation and Notes(1998) pp 48-9

nick c

[sol88]

If the comet is inside a double layer, would this affect what radiation makes it "out" of the double layer for our instruments to "see". I'm thinking high energy stuff like UV, Xrays et cetera

Did we have a radio telescope trained on Temple 1 during imapct? Did we detect any radio noise during impact?

[sol88]

A. Fairly certain that all of the comets seen up close so far have been ROCKS. Rocks aren't dense enough for him?

B. They pointed an X-ray telescope at a comet by accidentand they saw copious x-ray emissions. What the hell is he talking about?

Mike H.

A. 'cos they measured their densities using non-gravitational effects, with such high precision that they can confine the density to around 400 kg/m3

How accurate would that be?

He looking for xrays from arcs on the surface.

[MGmirkin]

hi Michael,
That just about summarizes the EU view of comets. The only thing I would add, is the effect of orbital configuration.
That is,
planets- low eccentricity ellipse, tending toward circular
comets- high eccentricity ellipse
This results in comets experiencing increasing electrical stress as they approach the Sun. In general, an eccentric (elliptical) orbital configuration (causing rapid changes in electrical stress) determines a celestial objects' identification as a comet.

A planet on such an orbit would put on a spectacular cometary display.

With regard to x-rays and Comet Halley:

That the material was being electrically removed was confirmed by the discovery of x-rays and high energy ions near the nucleus.

From The Electric Universe, Slide Presentation and Notes(1998) pp 48-9

nick c

Well, if you REALLY want to get into it on comets... ;o]

One could address the subject of electric gravity as well, but that opens another can of worms. Though it may address question 1 of the 2 above from ye olde [pseudo-]skeptic's poster...

But, yes, the EU does also talk about the orbits of planets, among other things. I guess I'll throw out there a snippet from a longer mashup I'm working on privately. In this case I kind of took a random subject and mashed statements from 3-4 articles together. I think the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

While this particular snippet doesn't get too far into the underlying electric gravity model, it does summarize one aspect of its predicted effects: the stabilization of chaotic systems, orbital circularization, and capture.

Enjoy!

If the changing electrical charge on a planet can directly affect its apparent mass to a significant degree, by way of altering its internal charge polarization and the alignment of the atomic and subatomic electric dipoles throughout its volume, a new and important consideration is introduced into celestial mechanics. The 'clockwork' of the solar system is governed by gravity and its stability is provided electrically. Charge exchange among the planets is they key to orbit stabilization and circularization in an electric solar system. It also provides an efficient means of capture.

Many planetary plasma tails have been found to brush the plasma sheath of the planet in the next orbit outward from the sun. This connection provides an intermittent path for charge exchange between adjacent planets. As the plasma tail of the inner planet sweeps across the plasma sheath of the adjacent outer planet, electrons are transferred via filamentary field-aligned currents (Birkeland currents). As the inner adjacent planet gives up electrons, its internal charge polarization is reduced as is the degree of subatomic electric dipole distortions, thus its apparent mass decreases. In a similar fashion, the adjacent outer planet is the recipient of additional electrons that serve to increase its internal charge polarization and likewise its apparent mass. If the inner adjacent planet's apparent mass decreases through charge exchange, its orbital radius with respect to the sun must decrease slightly in order to conserve energy. Likewise, if the outer adjacent planet's mass increases through charge exchange, its orbital radius with respect to the sun must also increase to conserve energy. The closer the planets are orbitally spaced, the greater the charge exchange between them and resultant orbital adjustments will be.

This seems to be an efficient means for collision avoidance and for rapidly spacing the planetary orbits into a system of "least interaction" -- assuming the inner planet reduces its internal charge polarization (diminishing its mass) and the outer planet increases its internal charge polarization (increasing its mass).

Any body on an eccentric orbit around the sun will experience discharge activity. The discharge will cause non-Newtonian accelerations because the mass of the body will be changing. However, 'gravity' is the operating force.

Orbital eccentricity is damped by 'cometary' charge exchange with the solar wind. As a secondary cathode in the solar discharge, each planet normally supplies some electrons to the solar wind. Such charge exchange varies with a body's distance from the sun over the course of its orbit. The eventual result of the combination of interplanetary charge exchange and 'cometary' charge exchange with the solar wind is that planets settle into low-eccentricity orbits where they disturb each other the least. In the case of an intense comet-like discharge, the continuous discharge can shrink and circularize the planet's orbit. It is an efficient capture mechanism that is not available under Newton's gravitational law.

As an example, the cometary plasma sheath of Venus was found to stretch as far as the Earth during inferior conjunction. Researchers were puzzled by the coherent 'stringy' nature of the Venusian plasma tail. The filamentary 'stringiness' is confirmation of Birkeland currents stretching between Venus and the Earth, which transfer charge between the planets. Venus now has the most circular orbit of any planet.

For fuller explanations (and the sources of the original quotes) see here:

(Newton’s Electric Clockwork Solar System)
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=q1q6sz2s

(Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe)
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=89xdcmfs

(A Real 'Theory of Everything')
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=gdaqg8df

(Antigravity?)
http://www.holoscience.com/news/antigravity.html

Best,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

Thanks Michael,

Is it kinda like, yeah we knew this charge exchange mechanism was responsible for these X rays all along!

Just a poster I'm discussin with at the moment keeps bang'n on with these two pearlers

As any intelligent person can see the electric comet model fails totally on two fundamental predictions for all comets (not just Tempel 1).

• It predicts that comets will have densities ~3 gm/cm3.
• The actual measured densities are < 1 3 gm/cm3.

FAILURE.

I seem to be having trouble locating a reference for the ~3 gm/cm^3 prediction figure?

I would however note that Thornhill endeavors to address the disparity between observed "apparent" mass (and/or density) and the fact they basically look like giant rocks and we've retrieved high-temperature minerals suggestive that they are indeed composed of rock.

(A Real Theory of Everything)
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=gdaqg8df

This new electrical concept suggests that Newton's "universal constant of gravitation," or "G," is a dependent variable. G depends upon the charge distribution within a celestial body. Highly charged objects like comets look like solid rock, yet they have a gravitational field that suggests they are fluff-balls. And as they discharge they suffer what is euphemistically called "non-gravitational" accelerations.

(Newton’s Electric Clockwork Solar System)
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=q1q6sz2s

Oddball Orbits

It has long been known that comets have “oddball orbits” that do not obey Newton’s law of gravity. The anomalous accelerations are due to the motion of an electrically discharging body in the Sun’s weak, radial electric field. In recent years “anomalous orbital energy changes” have also been observed for spacecraft that flew by the Earth for a gravity assist. In their time away from the Earth, the spacecraft establish a charge polarization with respect to the solar wind. When they again encounter the Earth, their masses will have changed. The effect on spacecraft acceleration with respect to the Earth is of the same variable nature as the “non-gravitational” acceleration of comets with respect to the Sun.

(Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe)
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=89xdcmfs

The consequences are profound for cosmology. The mass of a celestial body cannot tell us about its composition. We cannot say what the Sun is made from! Another example is comet nuclei, which are electrically charged bodies. They register masses that should have them constructed like an empty sponge yet they look like solid rock. It is their appearance, together with the recently recovered high-temperature minerals (rock particles) from a comet, that give the accurate picture. Comets and asteroids are fragments of planets. They are not primordial—quite the reverse, in fact.

Not to get too deep into it, But Thornhill is basically saying that the charge acquired or lost by a body can affect its apparent mass (due to changes in internal charge polarization, meaning a change in the internal radial electric field, a change in how significantly the fundamental particles and neutral atoms get deformed into electric dipoles, thus how well aligned they become to the internal electric field and the sum of the weak dipolar electric force of the body's constituent particles / atoms [equating to its mass and gravitational field]).

Again, I hope I've stated everything accurately. In any event, read the articles listed previously for the larger context of the quotes.

The mashup & summarization process is ongoing and may take a while.

Best,
~Michael Gmirkin

[nick c]

hi sol88,
Back to that poster. Am I missing something, what is he talking about? (Assuming he is not being intentionally deceptive.) He puts out two flimsy strawmen and then destroys them:

As any intellegent person can see the electric comet model fails totally on two fundamental predictions for all comets (not just Tempel 1).

* It predicts that comets will have densities ~3 gm/cm3.
The actual measured densities are < 1 3 gm/cm3.
FAILURE.
* It predicts that comets will emit many X-ray bursts from the electrical discharges.
These many X-ray bursts are not seen.
FAILURE.

1. The electric comet model offers no general predictions about densities or interiors of comets. It is the electrical state with regards to the heliosphere resulting from the orbital eccentricity of the body, not the composition or density that is of significance. Where did he get those numbers
2. Wow, is he serious? this is just plain wrong! as shown in this thread
In conventional comet theory this was another in a long line of "unexpected" discoveries:
[url2=http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/rosat/hyakutake.html]First X Rays From A Comet Discovered[/url2]

X-rays were never found from a comet before, and scientists had optimistically predicted an intensity that turned out to be about 100 times weaker than the radiation actually detected by ROSAT. Strong changes in the brightness of the X-rays were another surprise. There were pronounced increases and decreases in the X-ray brightness from one ROSAT observation to another, typically over a time difference of a few hours.

I would say that qualifies as bursts.

Explaining the unexpected bright X-ray emission is the next major task for the science team. One preliminary theory is that X-ray emission from the Sun was absorbed by a cloud of gaseous water molecules surrounding the nucleus of the comet, and then were re-emitted by the molecules in a process physicists call "fluorescence."
[...]
A second possible explanation is that the X-rays are produced from the violent collision between the comet material and the supersonic "wind" of plasma and particles streaming away from the sun.

They are truly struggling with mechanical explanations, including accompanying euphemisms.

Ask this:

In 1996 the European Space Agency’s ROSAT satellite observed x-rays being emitted from Comet Hyakutake. Astronomers were again “surprised.” A non-electrical “dusty snow-ball” would not do that. But x-rays are expected from a high-voltage double layer such as would enclose a comet’s plasma sheath. So we are gaining more and more evidence that comets are good examples of an electrical phenomenon – mainstream astronomers not only do not believe it – they get downright insulting to anyone who mentions the idea.
How does your dentist produce x-rays? Does he throw snowballs around his office?
highlight added
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=hrpk2p16

nick c

[mharratsc]

@ Nick-

You go, boyee!! (tip o' the hat to Wal on that one, too!)

Mike H.

[MGmirkin]

The electric comet model offers no general predictions about densities or interiors of comets.

While not a prediction per se, nor specifying a quantitative density, the EU does essentially say they're "rock" and will be shown to be rock by closer examination. Likewise that there are a number of assumptions that apparently go into the standard model calculations of the apparent mass / gravitational field of such a body (some of which may or may not be well-founded).

~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

I would say that qualifies as bursts.

I think that was probably one of the observations referred to by Thornhill either in the articles previously mentioned, or in the Electric Comet PDF. Either way, if it's the one I'm thinking of, he refers to it more like the flickering of a fluorescent lamp, just on a larger scale and over a longer time frame. Not necessarily "bursts," per se.

Certainly an intermittent signal and a detection of "completely unexpected" x-rays from ye olde "sublimating snowball"... *Cough*

~MG