Electric Comets

[Frantic]

After calling advocates of the electric universe whack jobs for 40 years it would be a real embarrassment to have to admit to their ignorant denial. Just a matter of time, they have to figure out how to take credit for the discovery and maintain the illusion of the EU as a whackjob theory.

[viscount aero]

So that puts things in a very very different perspective on the origin of water.

The effects seems to be replicated in a lab.

http://phys.org/news/2014-10-lunar-soil ... comet.html

Aaahhh..... and this is why they are not going to change their minds anytime soon I knew a little bit of press release denials would reveal their true position. From the "phys.org" article link above:

"...Bradley's work implies that water molecules must have been forming for billions of years on interplanetary dust particles, on the Moon, and possibly on asteroids. However, McCoustra warns that "This source of water, albeit new, won't be able to account for a large proportion of water in the solar system. Most of that water was formed during the process of star formation that our sun went through."

Some have argued that water-rich comets planted water on our planet. But McCoustra reckons that a single-source is unlikely. And this study provides another potential source for the material that helps make our planet habitable."

-------

And there you have it--the official denial by the establishment of the larger potential role of interstellar/interplanetary water creation by electrochemical reactions in space. That was categorically denied relevance once they so confidently said "Most of that water was formed during the process of star formation that our sun went through."

Alas, they cling to their old stellar models to invalidate any encroaching ideas.

Happy ignorance everyone!

[Maol]

I don't see the mystery. The solar wind contains positive ions of Oxygen and Hydrogen (protons) and negative ions (electrons), when the conditions are right, how can they not combine to make water?

[viscount aero]

I don't see the mystery. The solar wind contains positive ions of Oxygen and Hydrogen (protons) and negative ions (electrons), when the conditions are right, how can they not combine to make water?

Because exploring that idea farther and its ramifications will render the stellar evolutionary model and nebular collapse model highly questionable. Those must be kept. So synthesis of water in outer space--on comets, asteroids, moons, or planets--must remain only marginally interesting and a footnote rather than a main force of causation for ice, volatiles, and oceans.

[Rossim]

I think it's only a matter of time before the vast number of observations we are unaware of regarding Rosetta and comet 67P are used to connect the dots. I also think many astronomers are aware of the EU theory but cannot risk putting their dissenting ideas in the public without an incredible amount of straightforward data. Those mainstream scientists also want the fame and glory associated with a Nobel prize and the electric comet is a great way to get there. It would instantly require deliberation concerning star formation and the production of comets. At that point all astrophysicsts would probably be experts on EU theory, and planet-to-planet discharges would be investigated. The Rosetta mission is accurately named as it will use the comet to reveal an entirely new paradigm to the mainstream.

[viscount aero]

I think it's only a matter of time before the vast number of observations we are unaware of regarding Rosetta and comet 67P are used to connect the dots. I also think many astronomers are aware of the EU theory but cannot risk putting their dissenting ideas in the public without an incredible amount of straightforward data. Those mainstream scientists also want the fame and glory associated with a Nobel prize and the electric comet is a great way to get there. It would instantly require deliberation concerning star formation and the production of comets. At that point all astrophysicsts would probably be experts on EU theory, and planet-to-planet discharges would be investigated. The Rosetta mission is accurately named as it will use the comet to reveal an entirely new paradigm to the mainstream.

I respect your opinion but can't really agree with it. They will no time soon change anything they believe. Comets for them "seeded Earth's oceans" and are icy bodies even as direct observation indicates the complete opposite. They are blind.

[Bomb20]

The Mainstream is entrenched and will continue to upheld its Criticism of the Electric Comet.

Please, compare http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/9664.html

Claim 1 - they will continue to deny rocky bodies and continue to claim a porous material

Claim 2 - they will continue to deny EDM because they think the material should be scattered in all directions and that no dielectric material is in place. They will tell you there are no EDM sparks visible and not any EDM hotspots found.

Claim 3 - they will continue to tell you the analysis of Deep Impact by EU is wrong

Claim 4 - they will continue to claim a lack of X-ray emissions

Claim 5 - they will continue to claim the voltage potential is too small for EDM cathode arcing

Claim 6 - they will continue to tell you that there are many asteroids existing which do not show the behaviour expected by EU

etc. pp.

Therefore it needs overwhelming evidence on all levels to make them give up their positions. They will fight to the last moment with the very last cartridge spent.

Furthermore there is a need to consider different models of an Electric Sun. I did not see any reference by Charles Chandler to comets on his website, maybe I missed this part or he did not publish his ideas there or locked it away.
However, one has to ask how would an electric comet work if the Sun is a cathode sun!? If it would work at all ...

[Rossim]

All of those claims addressed by the mainstream were not regarding the Rosetta mission. The sublimation model began as a perfectly fine hypothesis, a very good one actually. The incoming data was agreeable with the model. The problems began when the scientists started turning a blind eye to some extreme 'surprises' and choosing to search for indirect confirmations of their model, rather than attempting to falsify it.

The Rosetta mission changes the game a bit. An incredible amount of direct observations will be taken for over a year as the comet continues its orbit. We've barely got jet activity right now, imagine when 67P is sporting an enormous tail with a nucleus covered in jets. We should come up with a list of observable falsifications, such as: once a jet moves from its original location, the area will be devoid of vents or craters and a collapsed vent would be impossible if no rubble is found.

So I remain optimistic not because of the ridiculous "debunkings" of the electric comet theory, but because of the exuberant amount of data that will be collected over the next year with so many eyes on this project. And I'm not stressed about the specifics of the solar model in conjunction with the electric comet, the change begins with recognizing that the physics which are at work are electrical then it's a relentless cascade from there.

[Maol]

EU needs to quit playing the ‘victim mentality’ card and simply discuss the physics which are obvious and well understood, and eventually the EU obvious to some will become obvious to all.

[CosmicLettuce]

All of those claims addressed by the mainstream were not regarding the Rosetta mission. The sublimation model began as a perfectly fine hypothesis, a very good one actually. The incoming data was agreeable with the model. The problems began when the scientists started turning a blind eye to some extreme 'surprises' and choosing to search for indirect confirmations of their model, rather than attempting to falsify it.

The Rosetta mission changes the game a bit. An incredible amount of direct observations will be taken for over a year as the comet continues its orbit. We've barely got jet activity right now, imagine when 67P is sporting an enormous tail with a nucleus covered in jets. We should come up with a list of observable falsifications, such as: once a jet moves from its original location, the area will be devoid of vents or craters and a collapsed vent would be impossible if no rubble is found.

So I remain optimistic not because of the ridiculous "debunkings" of the electric comet theory, but because of the exuberant amount of data that will be collected over the next year with so many eyes on this project. And I'm not stressed about the specifics of the solar model in conjunction with the electric comet, the change begins with recognizing that the physics which are at work are electrical then it's a relentless cascade from there.

Cheers, Rossim!!!! What the EU needs right now is data, observables, and a new math (get those mathematicians out of fantasy land and into some hard core work!!!). "Relentless Cascade" is a perfect description of what's going to happen when more scientists (like myself) realize that's we've been looking at everything from a "flat earth" perspective. When we all realize that the earth is round (using the same metaphor) and can go and see it for ourselves, the effects are going to blow our minds.

Peace and Patience, CL

Peace, CL

[viscount aero]

EU needs to quit playing the ‘victim mentality’ card and simply discuss the physics which are obvious and well understood, and eventually the EU obvious to some will become obvious to all.

The victims are those subject to non-science, most of which are unaware of their own victimhood. An example of a victim would be Michio Kaku or Stephen Hawking.

Plasma physics in society in general is not obvious nor well understood.

[Maol]

There you go again. You will only make them more stubborn by criticizing them as stupid or ignorant.

“You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.”

By “quit playing the victim card” I mean stop complaining “mainstream science won't listen” because they will eventually. To ignore by choice is one thing, stupid is another. It's not unusual for an intelligent person to be ignorant. To denigrate them for it is no different than arguing about global warming or politics or religion.

[viscount aero]

There you go again. You will only make them more stubborn by criticizing them as stupid or ignorant.

“You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.”

By “quit playing the victim card” I mean stop complaining “mainstream science won't listen” because they will eventually. To ignore by choice is one thing, stupid is another. It's not unusual for an intelligent person to be ignorant. To denigrate them for it is no different than arguing about global warming or politics or religion.

Yes these people are highly intelligent. You can't work for Fermilab or JPL if you're stupid. They're all probably vastly "smarter" than me, at least mathematically speaking. But that is part and parcel to the core of the problem, though: They are blinded by their own intellects and are bought into a highly compelling scientific (pseudo-scientific) paradigm. And I think to an extent we all are. As intelligent beings with biases and value judgments we can justify anything and be ok with it, especially if everyone else is justifying it, too. So people tend to polarize into camps, "us and them." This can be a vast discussion about human psychology and groupthink.

Suffice it to say, superlatives rise to the fore, like Michio Kaku, and they tend to become the mouthpieces and sales reps for that paradigm. But really they are propagandists for disinformation. For example, if I recall correctly from an interview I saw a while ago, Kaku says that the water geysers of Enceladus are caused by "tidal kneading"--as he made hand and arm gestures as if he were kneading bread dough. Tidal kneading ? What is that to supposed to mean? No actual explanation was given. It was just a term he made up to explain something he couldn't explain. So that is non-science. Yet he's an authority.

In my honest opinion, though, the real victims are the hapless public believing the fantasy press releases issued by the likes of ESA who claim that comets "created the oceans of the Earth" from the Oort Cloud. This idea is totally preposterous even if comets were literally snowmen in space. To keep promoting the idea, with such authoritative assurance, that the Earth's water probably had to come from comets is an egregious disservice to science and is, in my opinion, an abuse of authority.

[neilwilkes]

So people tend to polarize into camps, "us and them."

Which allows you to strip off all the excess baggage (right/wrong, good/bad etc) and get right down to specifics.

[Rossim]

Viscount aero, I think what Maol is getting at is that I read all over these forums how the orthodox scientists are ignorant, pseudoscientific, blind, and more... but not much is offered by the EU forum to actually help our cause rather than merely identify the problem. Obviously the Rosetta team isn't going to take a look at the Thunderbolts forum, read a thread, then change their perspective on the subject, but we could at least organize our thoughts in a constructive, concise manner for later reference.