Electric Comet numbers

[Reality Check]

Of course, Wikipedia 'forgot' to tell us, like the original article does, that this is what the observers estimate, based on the current assumptions:

The assumptions used were that the laws of physics are correct, i.e. the radiation spectrum emitted by matter can be used to calculate the mass of the matter.
The Swift observatory measured the spectrum of the ejected material and thus the amount of water. I do not know what observed the dust (the Science article is not accessible).

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.

I think that the observations are the original measurement of the density of Tempel 1 plus the composition of the material ejected by the impact.

[Reality Check]

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

A mathematical model turns a set of assumptions into a hypothesis. If the EC assumption does not have a mathematical model then it is not even a hypothesis and is far from becoming a scientific theory.

Your question "Is electric discharge occurring on the surface of an active comet?" seems to be easily answered. All you have to do is state the properties of the electrical discharge that will allow it to be observed. Can you provide a link to the page in your web site where these properties are listed, e.g. a description of the spectrum of the electric discharge in the various bands that are observed (UV, visible, infrared, X-ray). Or maybe this is just stated in your book.

As an author of the book, perhaps you can clear up the “rocks” and “rocky body” ambiguity. Are EC comets are actual asteroids that just happen to be the right orbits so that EDM can occur and turn rock into the comet coma and tail?
The other posts suggest that composition is a factor but then we get to EC comets that are the same as mainstream comets!

[David Talbott]

A mathematical model turns a set of assumptions into a hypothesis. If the EC assumption does not have a mathematical model then it is not even a hypothesis and is far from becoming a scientific theory.

This statement makes me wonder how many theoretical scientists agree with you. It is not be encouraging to think that the majority may have fallen into this trap. No one is going to prove the electric field of the Sun by calculation. But when an electric field is measured, the issue is settled and the mathematicians have something reliable to work with. The underpinning of the hypothesis will be the measurement, not the calculation. Which is not to take anything away from the essential contribution of mathematics, but let's not carried away here!

One promising opening would be a project to determine the relationship between electric field strength and acceleration of the solar wind, combining laboratory measurements with observational data on solar wind acceleration. This would take work, but is certainly within reach if a project were given that worthy task.

Your question "Is electric discharge occurring on the surface of an active comet?" seems to be easily answered.

Yes, that was my point. Working scientists will not have any difficulty designing probes to observe electrical arcing on the surface of a comet, through all of its manifestations--saturation of visible light, UV, very possibly x-rays (assuming sufficient resolution), surface comparison to electrical discharge machining and more. That the question has not been definitively answered is due entirely to the fact that the question has not been asked. In advance of Deep Impact, Wal Thornhill and the Thunderbolts group registered predictions about the event that surpassed, in accuracy, any set of predictions in the history of comet science. But we see no movement toward answering the obvious challenge that follows. If the scientists in our group appear exasperated at times, that is one reason why.

A mathematical model turns a set of assumptions into a hypothesis. If the EC assumption does not have a mathematical model then it is not even a hypothesis and is far from becoming a scientific theory.

This statement makes me wonder how many theoretical scientists agree with you. It is not encouraging to think that the majority may have fallen into this trap. No one is going to prove the electric field of the Sun by calculation. But when an electric field is measured, the issue is settled and the mathematicians have something reliable to work with. The underpinning of the hypothesis will be the measurement, not the calculation. Which is not to take anything away from the essential contribution of mathematicians, but let's not carried away here!

Long before any such measurement, history will show that a credible hypothesis was offered, based on dozens of undeniable observations of solar behavior and a sound knowledge of the way nature works, in particular the behavior of plasma, electric fields and glow discharge. Insights offered by pioneers of the electric sun concept gave us this hypothesis long before mathematicians had offered anything more than gross calculations.

As an author of the book, perhaps you can clear up the “rocks” and “rocky body” ambiguity. Are EC comets are actual asteroids that just happen to be the right orbits so that EDM can occur and turn rock into the comet coma and tail?

The hypothesis holds that any body sufficiently large to prevent adjustment to the changing electric environment as it moves on an elliptical orbit, will begin discharging. Even Mars on its minimally eccentric orbit exhibits a response to movement through the weak electric field of the Sun. That is the one and only plausible explanation for the sudden eruption of continental-scale and even global dust storms. And again, the issue will not be settled by mathematicians but by observation, measurement, pattern recognition, and common sense reasoning.

To avoid misunderstanding here, please bear in mind that we have a number of highly qualified mathematicians in our group. They are eager to see mathematical analyses progress from the vantage point of the Electric Universe. But they can only groan when they hear people suggest that it is mathematics that makes science science. A fundamental part of science, yes; the first requirement of "meaningful" science, hopefully never, if we've not already gone over the cliff here.

David Talbott

[solrey]

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?

Excellent statement, David.

Reality Check,
First, what is rock? Rock is an aggregate of 2 or more minerals, the three main types of rock are sedimentary, metamorphic and igneous. Generally, rocks are an inhomogeneous blend of various mineral crystals. Metals are commonly present in rocks also. Density has nothing to do with what a rock is. A highly porous rock with very low density is still a rock.
Electric Comet theory says nothing about density because that is irrelevant. It's about the electro-magnetic/electro-chemical conditions that initiate a cometary, glow discharge on a rocky body.

Second, math is NOT required for any scientific hypothesis, theory, or law.

The only time math is even mentioned in any of the several definitions given on that page is one definition for a scientific law:

A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement. (Krimsley, 1995).

Verbal OR mathematical.

Math does not hold all the answers to life, the universe and everything. It's a useful tool, that's it, no more, no less.

What is a theory?

An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence (Krimsley, 1995).

So far, the observations do match the electric comet hypothesis.

Reality Check wrote,

A mathematical model turns a set of assumptions into a hypothesis. If the EC assumption does not have a mathematical model then it is not even a hypothesis and is far from becoming a scientific theory.

The other posts suggest that composition is a factor but then we get to EC comets that are the same as mainstream comets!

Those statements are totally incorrect.

David wrote,

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

Agreed, although it seems like we're going in circles with a pseudo-skeptic here.

[davesmith_au]

Math does not hold all the answers to life, the universe and everything.

Darn! And I was getting so fond of 42...

[solrey]

Darn! And I was getting so fond of 42...

ROFL


That brings up an important point for me. Math without a complimentary verbal description is absolutely meaningless.
What is 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097
4944592307816406286208998628034825342117067... ?
pi
What is pi?
The ratio of the circumference of a circle to it's diameter.
Without the verbal description, the number by itself tells us absolutely nothing.


Why is the equation, 6.5 x 21 = 136.5 useful to me right now?

[davesmith_au]

The "density" of comets is somewhat predetermined in the standard model, and hence will have an effect on the outcomes of these so-called calculations. That is, they've already made their minds up that comets are porous bodies before doing any work. Let's take a look at just how "accurate" the numbers really are, before making our minds up that the mathematicians have it all in the bag.

The first of the two papers Reality Check has cited is the only one I have a copy of, so I'll concentrate on that one.

Cometary masses derived from non-gravitational forces
Andrea Sosa and Julio A. Fernandez

1. INTRODUCTION
Comets have a great cosmogonical interest since they are thought to be the relics of planet formation. They are icerich bodies formed beyond the snowline, i.e. the distance from the Sun at which water ice could condense.

[...]

Since comets are very small bodies, their self-gravity was never large enough to compact the material, so they are expected to conserve their primordial porous structure. Therefore, the comet nucleus is regarded as a very fragile and low-density structure.

Here the stucture and porosity of the comet is already assumed. The EC model makes no such assumptions, in fact it is clearly at odds with them.

Masses and sizes of comets are necessary to derive their bulk densities. The determination of these two physical parameters is not trivial. The main difficulty to determine the comet size is that comets are usually shrouded by a coma of dust and gas.

[...]

The determination of comet masses has been an even more difficult task.

[...]

All the results mentioned before can only be applied to particular cases and are very uncertain.

[...]

... the only general effect that can give us a direct estimate of the mass of the comet nucleus is the non-gravitational acceleration as shall be analyzed in the next section.

So the density is determined from the size and the mass, neither of which are "cut and dried" certainties. Not only that, but the "non-gravitational acceleration" (and hence the non-gravitational masses) are based on the effect of the jets, which are assumed to be mechanical rather than electrical in nature. Remove that assumption and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down...

Fast-forward.

4.2 Visual magnitudes and gas production rates

As we pointed out before, at heliocentric distances r <~ 3 AU [not rendered correctly in BB code, r is less than or approximately equal to 3 AU] the cometary activity is governed by the sublimation of water ice. The gas production rate of water ice is thus an adequate quantitative indicator of cometary activity. Direct observations of the H2O production rate are difficult and sparse because they involved sophisticated and oversubscribed instrumentation. Indirect observations (e.g. observation of water-derived products like the OH radical from its radio lines at 18 cm and from narrow-band photometry in the near UV) are more accessible, but also limited.

In the EC model the OH can be posited as a result of cathode sputtering, rather than the presence of water.

Moving right along...

6 THE RESULTS

We first introduce the main sources of uncertainty in the computation of the cometary masses, and then the results obtained for the comets of the sample.

[...]

6.1 Sources of uncertainty

The most important sources of uncertainty are the comet lightcurve, the model parameters (particularly the effective outgassing velocity, which maybe is the most uncertain of the parameters assumed), and the computed nongravitational change

Um, that's just about the entire paper, is it not?

6.1.1 The lightcurve

In order to estimate the uncertainty due to the lightcurve, we proceeded as follows:

[...]

6.1.2 The model parameters

From the discussion of Section 3, we assumed an error of ... We also assumed ...

[...]

6.1.3 The non-gravitational effect

For some comets we found in the literature an estimate of the absolute error ... For the rest of the comets we have to adopt some criteria in order to estimate the uncertainty of this parameter.

[...]

The estimated uncertainties range from ∼ 4 % for comets Kopff and H-M-P, up to ∼ 58 % for comet Wild 2.

[...]

8 CONCLUDING REMARKS

From non-gravitational force modeling we derive masses and densities for ten short-period comets of known sizes:

[...]

The present work is based on lightcurve data, the non-gravitational term A2, and different assumptions for some physical parameters. Our main conclusions can be outlined as follows:

[...]

(ii) The results obtained are in general consistent with other works [or it would likely not get peer-reviewed or published...]. Particularly, we remark the consistency with results from sophisticated thermophysical non-gravitational force modeling, and from the Deep Impact team using a different method for Tempel 1. In particular, this agreement gives us some reassurance of the usefulness of the non-gravitational method used here for deriving cometary masses, despite all the uncertainties inherent to it.

(iii) The method also relies on the empirical calibration between visual magnitudes and water production rates, which, in spite of its poor physical understanding, it has proved to be a very useful tool [for perpetuating dogma].

[...]

Even though the computed bulk density for a given comet has a large uncertainty, by computing them for a large sample of comets we could narrow down the uncertainty of the whole sample to meaningful values [or have a huge database of uncertain computations].

Gee. This writing scientific papers is easy. Just don't rock the boat, make lots of assumtions, estimate your uncertainties, and come up with a meaningless waste of computer storage whilst at the same time enhancing your scientific credentials. Who knows, someone may cite it in their similarly meaningless paper, and we'll all be scratching each other's backs down at the club...

Cheers, Dave.

[StevenO]

The behaviour of comets can best be understood from their mainly electrical nature.

For those not familiar with Miles Mathis' work (I recommend his website to everybody believing in EU), I'll try to comprehense his 1250 page book in a few lines. He basically shows that both Newtons gravitational equation and Coulombs electrostatic force equation are expressions of the same unified field in disguise. This field consists of an attractive gravitational field caused by the "expansion" of matter, which also causes mass and inertia, and a repulsive base E/M field of "virtual/messenger" photons (to stick with standard model terminology) that a.o. causes all electrical phenomena and is responsible for the stability of planetary orbits. If you decompose Mass into (Density x Volume) one can derive that gravity scales with first power of the radius of an object, while the base E/M force scales with the fourth power of the radius. At astronomical scales gravity will dominate, while at atomic scale the base E/M force dominates. It also explains that the equal diameter of the moon and sun as seen from earth is no coincidence. At the size of the earth, the measured acceleration, called G (9.81m/s^2) is composed of 99,9% gravitational force and 0.1% E/M force. At the size of the moon, the E/M force is about 110x larger and a.o. responsible for the earth's tides, in contrast to what "mainstream" science wants you to believe ("gravity gradient" )

At the size of a comet the E/M force will be totally dominant. It think the cometary plasma discharge is the interaction of this base E/M field of the comet with the solar wind.

[Reality Check]

[…]

David Talbott

I agree – mathematics does not make science.
Mathematics makes it easier to verify that a hypothesis matches the measurements that we make about the universe. An idea without mathematics can match the qualitative observations that we make about the universe.
Mathematics makes it easier to compare two theories since it is easy to compare numbers.

So it looks like my original question has been answered. The EC theory has no numbers. It is a purely descriptive theory.

You missed a question so I will rephrase it here:
What are the properties of the electrical discharge making up the EDM in the Electrical Comet theory that would allow it to be identified?

My naïve assumption is that they would show up clearly in visible light like lightening.

Just to be clear about the

hypothesis holds that any body sufficiently large to prevent adjustment to the changing electric environment as it moves on an elliptical orbit, will begin discharging.

Is that criteria for an arbitrary body to be a comet in EC the following?
It is “sufficiently large”, i.e. larger than the smallest comet observed.
It has an orbit that goes through a changing electric environment, i.e. with a greater eccentricity than the minimum eccentricity and possibly the minimum periapsis (point of closest approach) to the Sun for a comet.

[Reality Check]

Reality Check,
First, what is rock? Rock is an aggregate of 2 or more minerals, the three main types of rock are sedimentary, metamorphic and igneous. Generally, rocks are an inhomogeneous blend of various mineral crystals. Metals are commonly present in rocks also. Density has nothing to do with what a rock is. A highly porous rock with very low density is still a rock.

There is not much sedimentary rock in space
I know this. For example pumice can have densities of 0.25 g/cc.

Electric Comet theory says nothing about density because that is irrelevant. It's about the electro-magnetic/electro-chemical conditions that initiate a cometary, glow discharge on a rocky body.

It is nitpicking but density is relevant when EC authors use “rocks” and “rocky bodies” without qualifying the terms with “porous”. Anyone reading the web site for the first time would think that “rocks” means typical solid rocks.

Second, math is NOT required for any scientific hypothesis, theory, or law.

I agree. The question I had was whether EC has numbers. If it does not then it is a descriptive theory. That seems to be the case.

Agreed, although it seems like we're going in circles with a pseudo-skeptic here.

No circles – just a wish to clarify exactly what EC is.

[Reality Check]

The "density" of comets is somewhat predetermined in the standard model, and hence will have an effect on the outcomes of these so-called calculations. That is, they've already made their minds up that comets are porous bodies before doing any work. Let's take a look at just how "accurate" the numbers really are, before making our minds up that the mathematicians have it all in the bag.

The first of the two papers Reality Check has cited is the only one I have a copy of, so I'll concentrate on that one.

Cometary masses derived from non-gravitational forces
Andrea Sosa and Julio A. Fernandez
Here the stucture and porosity of the comet is already assumed. The EC model makes no such assumptions, in fact it is clearly at odds with them.

The structure and porosity of comets in the mainstream theory is mentioned not assumed. The structure of comets is ignored in the paper’s calculations. The porosity of comets is ignored in the paper’s calculations.

So the density is determined from the size and the mass, neither of which are "cut and dried" certainties. Not only that, but the "non-gravitational acceleration" (and hence the non-gravitational masses) are based on the effect of the jets, which are assumed to be mechanical rather than electrical in nature. Remove that assumption and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down...

Measured quantities are not exact – that is why they have error bars. Measured quantities in astronomy tend to have quite large error bars. You did notice the enormous ones in figure 16 of the paper?
A major point about this paper is that it demonstrates a different technique for measuring comet density. When you measure a quantity using tow different techniques and get similar results then you can be more confident about the quantity.

Replace the mechanical production of jets with an electrical production of jets and you get exactly the same result – jets of gas producing non-gravitational forces.

Fast-forward.

[…]

Gee. This writing scientific papers is easy. Just don't rock the boat, make lots of assumtions, estimate your uncertainties, and come up with a meaningless waste of computer storage whilst at the same time enhancing your scientific credentials. Who knows, someone may cite it in their similarly meaningless paper, and we'll all be scratching each other's backs down at the club...

Cheers, Dave.

As someone who as written a scientific paper (just that one before I left academia for greener pastures), I can tell you that it is hard.

Most scientific papers make assumptions. The universe is complex. As some point you have to simplify things in order to make progress. For example, I used the standard assumption that the effective scattering potential (a complicated function of energy and momentum transfer) could be replaced by its peak value.

Cheers Reality Check.

[sol88]

No what Reality Check (Hi RC) wants is a web page with an equation on it that "proves" comets are rocks and electrical phenomenon.

Just like the proof he has that, There are at least 173,583 asteroids that should be comets according to EC.

Reality check ask the more knowledgeable than I about electrostatic discharges on a comet?

After all you did say,

I saild that there is evidence of electrostatic charges on the Moon.
IMO it is possible that it could happen on other dusty rocky bodies moving through plasma sheets in a strong magnetosphere.
Someone should actually read Strange Things Happen at Full Moon and New Research into Mysterious Moon Storms, learn about magnetospheres (magnetotails) and the fact that they are the cause of the ESD on the Moon. The Sun does not have a magnetail

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... ost5000228

[solrey]

sol88, this is the same Reality Check that posted the following on randi.org, on the same day and within hours of when they started this thread on Aug 11, 2009 1:54 pm ?

11th August 2009, 06:46 PM
I will start collecting the evidence against the electric comet idea in one post. This will be updated as we discuss the many problems with the EC idea.

Looks like I was right when I said:

Agreed, although it seems like we're going in circles with a pseudo-skeptic here.

What Reality Check said,

No circles – just a wish to clarify exactly what EC is.

sounds pretty dishonest, now doesn't it?

Thanks for the heads-up, sol88. I don't think I'll be wasting my time with this one any longer.

[davesmith_au]

A major point about this paper is that it demonstrates a different technique for measuring comet density. When you measure a quantity using tow different techniques and get similar results then you can be more confident about the quantity.

The method follows the one developed by Rickman and colleagues (Rickman 1986, 1989; Rickman et al. 1987), which is based on the gas production curve and on the change in the orbital period due to the non-gravitational force.

Besides which, you can talk about "measured quantities" all you want, but that doesn't make the inferrences, assumptions and estimates any more reliable. You seem to have a fixation on "quantifying" yet little in that paper is quantified in the true sense of the word.

Replace the mechanical production of jets with an electrical production of jets and you get exactly the same result – jets of gas producing non-gravitational forces.

No, replace mechanical production of jets (from within the comet) with electric discharge machining of the surface, and you get very different results. Or to put it in more human terms, exfoliation (however achieved) is not the same as farting .

Nowhere in the mainstream literature is there any description of how the nozzle is formed to create such magical jets. And I would argue such a nozzle would likely crumble in next to no time if it was made from such a porous rock as is suggested. Not only that, nowhere is it adequately explained how same jets can form out past Jupiter, where sublimation of ice into vapour via the Sun's warmth is quite impossible.

And also, how can a comet of such low density and small volume have enough gravity to hold on to such a large coma as did 17P Holmes recently? It was larger than the Sun for goodness sake, so please explain this with your numbers.

Cheers, Dave.

[Tzunamii]

No, replace mechanical production of jets (from within the comet) with electric discharge machining of the surface, and you get very different results. Or to put it in more human terms, exfoliation (however achieved) is not the same as farting .

Cheers, Dave.

I don't think ill forget that analogy