Electric Comet numbers

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

Reality Check
Guest

Electric Comet numbers

Unread post by Reality Check » Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:54 pm

The Electric Comet hypothesis does not seem to have many numbers.
For example,
They are described as rocks or rocky. This leads to the assumption that they are as dense as rocks in space such as asteroids.
The properties (such as the radiation spectrum that they emit) of the electric discharges creating the tail material are not listed anywhere that I can find.
The orbital (and other) criteria under which a rocky body becomes an Electric Comet seem to be missing. My guess is the eccentricity of the orbit (i.e. how far the rocky body moves toward the Sun) plus a minor contribution from the strength of the solar activity.

Can anyone point me to these numbers?
I would especially be interested in the density of Electric Comets.

mharratsc
Posts: 1405
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:37 am

Re: Electric Comet numbers

Unread post by mharratsc » Tue Aug 11, 2009 4:53 pm

Mind you- I'm not a 'spokesman' for Thunderbolts, or for EU/PC Theory, so take my comments as just trying to be helpful and not as some official response to your queries:
The Electric Comet hypothesis does not seem to have many numbers.
Based mostly upon observation of mainstream work- to my knowledge they haven't exactly funded any 'Electric Comet' missions from NASA yet. :P
They are described as rocks or rocky. This leads to the assumption that they are as dense as rocks in space such as asteroids.
They ARE just rocks in space.
The orbital (and other) criteria under which a rocky body becomes an Electric Comet seem to be missing. My guess is the eccentricity of the orbit (i.e. how far the rocky body moves toward the Sun) plus a minor contribution from the strength of the solar activity.
Absolutely! The farther out in orbit it goes, the larger the differential in charge between the comet under observation and the Sun gets. The closer in orbit it comes to the Sun and it's velocity will determine the 'cometary display' that occurs as material is removed from the comet by the electrical discharge as it moves towards charge neutrality with the 'solar wind' in it's position.
Can anyone point me to these numbers?
Again- it's not like anyone has funded any studies based upon an Electric Comet model, that I know of.
I would especially be interested in the density of Electric Comets.
That is a whole 'nother ball of wax, right there. Are you asking about density, or apparent mass? If you're talking about actual density, I don't think any experimentation has actually been done on that, has it? If you're asking what the suspected density ofa comet is, we could probably reply with "think of an average asteroid."

That's my layman two cents. Maybe one of the other guys will reply with a bit more scientific fact than I can muster personally.

I will say one thing, however- have you checked out the TPOD archive by Subject? You might be able to find some good information in there:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00subjectx.htm#Comets

Hope it helps :)

Mike H.
Mike H.

"I have no fear to shout out my ignorance and let the Wise correct me, for every instance of such narrows the gulf between them and me." -- Michael A. Harrington

Reality Check
Guest

Re: Electric Comet numbers

Unread post by Reality Check » Tue Aug 11, 2009 8:03 pm

Thanks Mike H.
What I am really interested in is numbers from the Electric Comet theory so that they can be compared to the existing observations of comets (no "'Electric Comet' missions from NASA" needed :) )

The density of comets have actually been measured. You can derive it from measuring their orbital parameters and applying Kepler's third law ro get their mass. A measurement of their size and shape then gives you the volume and thus their density. Another way is to measure the change in their orbits due to the ejected matter that forms their coma and tail (see "Cometary masses derived from non-gravitational forces" by Sosa & Fernandez, 2009 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.393..192S).
And then you can just hit one with a big lump of metal and look at how the ejecta from the impact travels, i.e. Determining Comet Tempel 1's gravity, mass, and density" by Richardson, et al., 2007 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007Icar..190..357R).

mharratsc
Posts: 1405
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:37 am

Re: Electric Comet numbers

Unread post by mharratsc » Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:05 pm

I'm a bit confused by what 'numbers you're looking for, RC :\

Are you looking for an 'EU formula for cometary density' or something?

Mike H.
Mike H.

"I have no fear to shout out my ignorance and let the Wise correct me, for every instance of such narrows the gulf between them and me." -- Michael A. Harrington

Reality Check
Guest

Re: Electric Comet numbers

Unread post by Reality Check » Wed Aug 12, 2009 3:51 pm

I am looking for a definitive source for the numeric values contained in the Electric Comet theory. It would be good to have the equations used so that I can verify the results. The values that I am especially interested in are:
1. The density of EC.
2. The criteria that makes rocky bodies into EC.

You stated (not as a 'spokesman') that Electric Comets "ARE just rocks in space". So they must have the density of rocks in space, i.e. asteroids.
Unfortunately this must be wrong. The density of asteroids is about 3 g/cc. The measured density of comets is around 0.6 g/cc as in the scientific papers that I cited.

This statement from you leads to EC numbers:
“Absolutely! The farther out in orbit it goes, the larger the differential in charge between the comet under observation and the Sun gets. The closer in orbit it comes to the Sun and it's velocity will determine the 'cometary display' that occurs as material is removed from the comet by the electrical discharge as it moves towards charge neutrality with the 'solar wind' in it's position.”

Main-belt comets (http://star.pst.qub.ac.uk/~hhh/mbcs.shtml) give an couple of Electric Comet numbers that determine when a rocky body (asteroid) becomes an Electric Comet:
- the minimum eccentricity of an orbit .
- the minimum periapsis (point of closest approach) to the Sun.
There are 4 observed main-belt comets with a minimum eccentricity of 0.1644 (133P/Elst-Pizarro). So the EC minimum eccentricity must be this (or lower!).

Conclusion: Any rocky body with an eccentricity > 0.1644 and that gets as close to the Sun as the asteroid belt will be an Electric Comet.

Does that look right?

User avatar
solrey
Posts: 631
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: Electric Comet numbers

Unread post by solrey » Wed Aug 12, 2009 10:30 pm

This is just my personal understanding of the EC model.

A preliminary question before I begin;
Where are the formula's for the standard theory of comets?
If any exist, do they match the real world data?

Saying that a comet is an asteroid on a highly eliptical orbit is a broad generalization. You could also say that there isn't necessarily a difference in composition between asteroids and comets, only that they both have a variety of compositions. Regarding density, there is a known anomaly in capacitors, where a charged capacitor weighs less than when it's not charged. A piezoelectric or electrostatic potential might affect the influence of gravity, hence the velocity, thus altering the calculated mass. Therefore, those comets with a low apparent mass, could be more dense than what has been calculated. Not saying that this is the case, just that the potential exists for this kind of unaccounted for anomaly.
Math is a useful tool, but if all relevant factors are not considered, the results will be erroneous.

Regardless, density is irrelevant in the EC model. A cometary discharge is an electrochemical and/or electrodynamic discharge process, independent of density. Electrostatic potential, plus composition of both the object in question and the solar wind plasma, are the primary factors involved in a cometary reaction. Technically this reaction could happen at a variety of distances from the Sun. Eccentricity is a factor, but definitely not the only factor.
As far as main belt comets go, Jupiter likely has an influence on those electrochemical reactions.

Here is a recent article describing an electrochemical process for extracting oxygen from moon rock.
I only provide this link as a demonstration of the electrochemical process, and how a difference in composition produces different by-products. Due to the complex chemical reactions, the OH detected in cometary tails could be produced by quite a few different reaction chains. The production of OH does not have to include water, although it can.

The EC model does not say that water ice does not exist at all on comets or asteroids, just that the presence of water ice is not necessary for cometary displays. Any comet or asteroid could have a certain percentage of water ice.

CME's often accompany sungrazer comets, too often to be mere coincidence. The sungrazers initiate a smaller, preliminary CME on the opposite side of the sun, closely followed by the main, more powerful, CME on the comet side. This phenomena is pretty much expected with the EC model. Explain that with a gravity only model. :shock:

Drawing on my English tutoring days, based on content and style, I'd say that RealityCheck is a.k.a. Nereid, one of EU's more aggressive skeptics. Whattup, Nereid? :D
I don't think the comet density strawman is gonna work here. Sorry 'bout your luck ;)
“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality"
Nikola Tesla

Reality Check
Guest

Re: Electric Comet numbers

Unread post by Reality Check » Wed Aug 12, 2009 11:09 pm

solrey wrote:This is just my personal understanding of the EC model.

A preliminary question before I begin;
Where are the formula's for the standard theory of comets?
If any exist, do they match the real world data?
I do not know what the standard theory of comets has for formulas. But that does not matter. This is a forum about the Electric Comet theory.
From my little knowledge of astronomy, the measured density of comets (~0.6 g/cc) matches the standard theory (icy dirtball) in that the density is predicted to be much less than that of rock and that is what is found.
solrey wrote:Saying that a comet is an asteroid on a highly eliptical orbit is a broad generalization. You could also say that there isn't necessarily a difference in composition between asteroids and comets, only that they both have a variety of compositions. Regarding density, there is a known anomaly in capacitors, where a charged capacitor weighs less than when it's not charged. A piezoelectric or electrostatic potential might affect the influence of gravity, hence the velocity, thus altering the calculated mass. Therefore, those comets with a low apparent mass, could be more dense than what has been calculated. Not saying that this is the case, just that the potential exists for this kind of unaccounted for anomaly.
Math is a useful tool, but if all relevant factors are not considered, the results will be erroneous.
Can you give a citation for this? Otherwise it is just a potential.
A quick Google just reveals anti-gravity ideas.
solrey wrote: Regardless, density is irrelevant in the EC model…snip…
I agree - so long as the EC theory does not state that a comet is a rocky body. If it does then it has a problem since the measured density of comets is much less than rock.
EC could just state that the density and so composition of comets is unknown. Then density would be irrelevant in the EC model.
solrey wrote: Drawing on my English tutoring days, based on content and style, I'd say that RealityCheck is a.k.a. Nereid, one of EU's more aggressive skeptics. Whattup, Nereid? :D
I don't think the comet density strawman is gonna work here. Sorry 'bout your luck ;)
I am not Nereid (whoever he is). Sorry 'bout that :D

Are you stating that EC does not state that comets are rocky bodies?
That is what the “comet density straw man” implies.

User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: Electric Comet numbers

Unread post by MGmirkin » Thu Aug 13, 2009 7:57 am

mharratsc wrote:They ARE just rocks in space.
Wish they'd put a lander 'feet on the ground' on a comet and settle the issue once and for all... Assuming it survives the debris / coma / ion tail intact and functional. But as you say, hard to get missions funded to research non-mainstream ideas.

Stardust's results certainly give a tantalizing glimpse, with all the high-temperature minerals and the lack of water / volatiles. But it's not as decisive between models as a 'feet on the ground' investigation would be (as they still argue "yeah but", "it's just due to mixing of those things with the usual water & volatiles," etc., etc.). Guess we'll just have to wait-and-see.

But, yes, the EU theory of comets does say they are essentially charged and internally charge-polarized rocky debris usually on eccentric (elliptical) orbits. Density would likely depend on specific composition, no?

Though there are a few odd objects like the Centaurs that seem to bridge the gap between asteroids and comets. They're generally identified as asteroids or minor planets, but they have sometimes been known to sport comas.

Best,
~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law

User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: Electric Comet numbers

Unread post by MGmirkin » Thu Aug 13, 2009 8:08 am

Reality Check wrote:The Electric Comet hypothesis does not seem to have many numbers.
I share your pain in trying to find specific info. One of the problems is that information is scattered between so many sources (journals, poster presentations, newsletters, books & web sites), it's a bit daunting to try to track it all down. Aside from which many of the journals require subscription fees to access the content. So, they're often not available for free online.

Thus far, there hasn't really been a good way around this. Peril of the modern world, I suppose. Not to make excuses, just to point out a minor nuisance when trying to find info...

I seem to recall Thornhill may have published something recently in an IEEE journal, but I don't recall whether it was specifically on comets, or whether it was on his electrically-based theory of gravity. Might have been the latter... Might have to poke around through my e-mails and see if anyone forwarded me a link to it, whatever it was. No guarantees though.

Best,
~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law

User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: Electric Comet numbers

Unread post by MGmirkin » Thu Aug 13, 2009 8:17 am

mharratsc wrote:I will say one thing, however- have you checked out the TPOD archive by Subject? You might be able to find some good information in there:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00subjectx.htm#Comets

Hope it helps :)

Mike H.
Granted, the TPODs are generally aimed directly at the layman reader and do not include maths or significant amounts of technical detail.

The Electric Comet PDF is one source of information, but again, this was from a poster presentation presented in general terms, and not a journal article. So, it is similarly not entirely technical. Though it does discuss OH radical production in the coma through recombination of Oxygen liberated from silicates on the rocky surface with hydrogen in the solar wind (not unlike the independently proposed mechanism of "sputtering" for the production of OH radicals in the atmosphere and tail of Mercury, where temperatures at the surface are too hot to support water for the usual photolysis theory of OH production through the breakup of water when exposed to sunlight [uv?]).

(The Electric Comet)
http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf

Again, they basically say comets equate to asteroids out of equilibrium with their local plasma environs (either due to elliptical orbits taking them to regions of lower voltage potential for the majority of their orbit or possibly other processes unknown leading to charge imbalance in the case of a few less eccentrically orbiting bodies).

Best,
~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law

User avatar
solrey
Posts: 631
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: Electric Comet numbers

Unread post by solrey » Thu Aug 13, 2009 9:37 am

I said "comet density strawman" because density is irrelevant to the Electric Comet model.
Asteroids and comets can have a pretty wide range of densities.

Some density numbers, in g/cm3:

Water: 1.0
Ice: 0.920
Pumice: 0.25 - 0.64
4 of 5 Comets: 0.6
CO2 Ice: 1.98
Coal: 1.1 - 1.4
Basalt: 2.8 - 3.0
Quartzite: 2.6 - 2.8
Aluminum: 2.7
Zinc: 7.1
Iron: 7.8

So the comets with "measured" densities are about the same as pumice, but just 2/3 the density of water ice. Porosity is obviously a factor as well. Increasing porosity means decreasing density. Seems to me that density says nothing at all about composition.
To say that a comet density of 0.6 is less than "rock", therefore it must be a dirty iceball, is incorrect when considering it depends on which type of rock you're talking about as well as an unknown porosity.
Stardust's Big Surprise.

Capacitor Anomaly

My apologies, Reality Check, for my erroneous assumptions regarding your identity, btw. :oops:
“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality"
Nikola Tesla

Reality Check
Guest

Re: Electric Comet numbers

Unread post by Reality Check » Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:31 pm

MGmirkin wrote:
mharratsc wrote:They ARE just rocks in space.
Wish they'd put a lander 'feet on the ground' on a comet and settle the issue once and for all... Assuming it survives the debris / coma / ion tail intact and functional. But as you say, hard to get missions funded to research non-mainstream ideas.
Actually landing on a comet to do research is a very mainstream idea.
The Deep Impact mission is essentially the “lander 'feet on the ground' on a comet” that you want. That showed that the Tempel 1 comet consists of talcum powder sized dust and ice. The quantity of ice being 2-5 times less than the dust.
Deep Impact
A total of 5 million kilograms (11 million pounds) of water and between 10 and 25 million kilograms (22 and 55 million pounds) of dust were lost from the impact.
MGmirkin wrote:
mharratsc wrote: Density would likely depend on specific composition, no?
The density of a specific comet would depend on the specific composition of that comet.

The Deep Impact mission and the measured density of comets (0.62 g/cc for Tempel 1) shows that the issue has been resolved – comets are not just “rocks in space” as in solid rocky bodies. There are enough gaps between the particles of dust & ice (porosity) to reduce the density of solid ice (1 g/cc) and solid rock (>1 g/cc) to the observed values. Thus we have the description of comets as icy dustballs. (or dirty snowballs).

I wish EC would make this clear. The EC authors mislead people into thinking about solid objects when they use “rocks” or “rocky bodies”.

Reality Check
Guest

Re: Electric Comet numbers

Unread post by Reality Check » Thu Aug 13, 2009 6:00 pm

solrey wrote:I said "comet density strawman" because density is irrelevant to the Electric Comet model.
I see now – the EC model is incomplete in that it cannot explain everything about comets like their density. Thus density is irrelevant to the Electric Comet model.
I would call it an idea for now since there is no evidence yet of an mathematical model that generates EC numbers that can be compared to observational data. Once that happens EC will be a hypothesis. The model will also produce falsifiable predictions that can be tested. At that point there will be an EC scientific theory.
solrey wrote: Asteroids and comets can have a pretty wide range of densities.

So the comets with "measured" densities are about the same as pumice, but just 2/3 the density of water ice. Porosity is obviously a factor as well.
That is correct.
Asteroids have densities of the order of 3 g/cc (I am not sure of the ramge). This indicates that they are solid bodies.
Comets have densities of the order of 0.6 g/cc (ranging from 0.3 to 1). This indicates that they are porous bodies.
solrey wrote: So the comets with "measured" densities are about the same as pumice, but just 2/3 the density of water ice. Porosity is obviously a factor as well. Increasing porosity means decreasing density. Seems to me that density says nothing at all about composition.
To say that a comet density of 0.6 is less than "rock", therefore it must be a dirty iceball, is incorrect when considering it depends on which type of rock you're talking about as well as an unknown porosity.
The density of comets is not measured by assuming a composition and porosity and then calculating the density.
I posted the methods used before. Basically orbital parameters tell us the mass of a comet. Observations tell us the size and shape of a comet and so the volume. Divide the 2 numbers to get the density. A measured density of a comet of less than that of water means that the comet is a dirty snowball (or an icy dustball) rather than a solid rock.
You are right that density does not say much about composition. All the density of comets tells us is that they are porous, i.e. are not rocks.

Noli Me Tangere
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:46 am

Re: Electric Comet numbers

Unread post by Noli Me Tangere » Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:01 am

Reality Check wrote: Actually landing on a comet to do research is a very mainstream idea.
The Deep Impact mission is essentially the “lander 'feet on the ground' on a comet” that you want. That showed that the Tempel 1 comet consists of talcum powder sized dust and ice. The quantity of ice being 2-5 times less than the dust.
Deep Impact
A total of 5 million kilograms (11 million pounds) of water and between 10 and 25 million kilograms (22 and 55 million pounds) of dust were lost from the impact.
Of course, Wikipedia 'forgot' to tell us, like the original article does, that this is what the observers estimate, based on the current assumptions:
Observers estimate the impact released about 5 million kilograms of water from beneath the comet's surface and between two and five times as much dust.
The EU stand is that the fine dust results from the comet outburst due to the charge imbalance due to the impact/ electrical discharge between Tempel 1 and the Deep Impact probe. The 'water' is't water, but the OH hydroxyl radical that is supposed to be formed from water, but actually forms 'in situ' when the protons from the solar wind combine with the oxygen extracted by the electrical discharge machining (EDM).
Reality Check wrote:
MGmirkin wrote:
mharratsc wrote: Density would likely depend on specific composition, no?
The density of a specific comet would depend on the specific composition of that comet.

The Deep Impact mission and the measured density of comets (0.62 g/cc for Tempel 1) shows that the issue has been resolved – comets are not just “rocks in space” as in solid rocky bodies. There are enough gaps between the particles of dust & ice (porosity) to reduce the density of solid ice (1 g/cc) and solid rock (>1 g/cc) to the observed values. Thus we have the description of comets as icy dustballs. (or dirty snowballs).

I wish EC would make this clear. The EC authors mislead people into thinking about solid objects when they use “rocks” or “rocky bodies”.
The Wikipedia article (actually the articles on which it is based) is loaded with suppositions. For example:
Initial results were surprising as the material excavated by the impact contained more dust and less ice than had been expected. The only models of cometary structure astronomers could positively rule out were the very porous models which had comets as loose aggregates of material. In addition, the material was finer than expected; scientists compared it to talcum powder rather than sand.[36] Other materials found while studying the impact included clays, carbonates, sodium, and crystalline silicates which were found by studying the spectroscopy of the impact.[11]
They think about excavation being mechanical; an electrical discharge, that produces also chemical reactions is not taken into account.
Clays and carbonates usually require liquid water to form and sodium is rare in space.[37]
Of course, they could be formed through chemical reactions in plasma.
Observations also revealed that the comet was about 75% empty space, and one astronomer compared the outer layers of the comet to the same makeup of a snow bank.[11]
I think that these 'observations' were made this way (if you have informations otherwise please share them; it is only my supposition at work here):
1. The average density of the materials found according to the spectral analysis is on earth about 2.5
2. The mass of the comet calculated with the density * volume formula is four times the mass calculated using the orbital parameters (which gives a density of 0.62).
3. The conclusion is that the comet contains these materials, but they are porous, or the comet is somehow 75% empty.

The EU stance is that the charge influences the orbital parameters, and with them the apparent mass.

David Talbott
Site Admin
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:11 pm

Re: Electric Comet numbers

Unread post by David Talbott » Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:52 am

Well now, I see that this discussion needs a little perspective.

It makes no sense to use the numbers game ("Show me the math!") as an answer to the electric comet hypothesis. How could a mathematical analysis be worth more than the assumptions that went into it? The first requirement is to get facts correct, and if NASA will entertain the questions, the technology is available to answer them.

The first and most obvious question requires no mathematics at all. Is electric discharge occurring on the surface of an active comet? With a little well-directed curiosity here, the question could have been answered decades ago. And consider the implications: a direct and undeniable answer will either refute the electric comet hypothesis or forever change modern astronomy, well before the mathematicians have gotten started.

There also are practical questions with respect to the weak electric field of the Sun, a field that is likely immeasurable across short distances. But surely, with a little ingenuity, the question could be answered, perhaps by something as simple as stretching a cable across a sufficient distance relatively close to the Sun. :)

A healthy skepticism about the "density" of comets, as calculated from theoretical assumptions, could achieve wonders. And NASA's credibility within our group would be much higher if it would seriously ask why the traditional distinction between comets and asteroids is breaking down. Why do asteroids on more elliptical orbits begin discharging as comets? Why do comets breaking up exhibit little more than dust?

Why not look more closely at the electrical exchange occurring between the cometary coma and charged particles from the Sun, with a specific eye to determining if the comet is out of electrical balance, contributing excess electrons to the exchange. And what mysterious force is holding in place the immense surrounding cloud of hydrogen ions from the Sun, against the relentless "pressure" of the solar wind.

Of course much, much more could be asked as well. Addressing such questions would make for excellent content in this thread.

David Talbott

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests