It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Comets follow their elongated paths within a weak electrical field centered on the Sun. In approaching the Sun, a charge imbalance develops between the nucleus and the higher voltage and charge density near the Sun. Growing electrical stresses initiate discharges and the formation of a glowing plasma sheath, appearing as the coma and tail.
In the 1960s, engineer Ralph Juergens, an admirer of Hannes Alfvén, proposed that the Sun is a glow discharge, the center of an electric field extending to the heliopause. This field is the cause of solar wind acceleration. In the 1970s Juergens elaborated the theoretical concept and suggested that a comet’s display is provoked by its electrical exchange with the Sun.
The comet spends most of its time far from the Sun, where the plasma voltage is low relative to the Sun. In remote regions, the comet moves slowly and its charge easily comes into balance with its surroundings.
But as the comet falls toward the Sun, it begins to move at a furious speed through regions of increasing voltage. The comet's charge, developed in deep space, responds to the new environment by increasing internal electric polarization and by forming cathode jets and a visible plasma sheath, or coma.
The jets flare up and move over the nucleus irregularly, leaving scars typical of electric discharge machining, The comet may shed and grow anew several tails. Or it may explode like an over-stressed capacitor, breaking into separate fragments or simply giving up the ghost and disappearing.
“ELECTRIC COMET MODEL:
• Comets are debris produced during violent electrical interactions of planets and moons in an earlier phase of solar system history. Comets are similar to asteroids, and their composition varies. Most comets should be homogeneous—their interiors will have the same composition as their surfaces. They are simply “asteroids on eccentric orbits.”
• Comets follow their elongated paths within a weak electrical field centered on the Sun. In approaching the Sun, a charge imbalance develops between the nucleus and the higher voltage and charge density near the Sun. Growing electrical stresses initiate discharges and the formation of a glowing plasma sheath, appearing as the coma and tail.
• The observed jets of comets are electric arc discharges to the nucleus, producing electrical discharge machining” (EDM) of the surface. The excavated material is accelerated into space along the jets’ observed filamentary arcs.
• Intermittent and wandering arcs erode the surface and burn it black, leaving the distinctive scarring patterns of electric discharges.
• The jets’ explode from cometary nuclei at supersonic speeds and retain their coherent structure for hundreds of thousands of miles. The collimation of such jets is a well-documented attribute of plasma discharge.
• The tails of comets reveal well-defined filaments extending up to tens of millions of miles without dissipating in the vacuum of space. This “violation” of neutral gas behavior in a vacuum is to be expected of a plasma discharge within the ambient electric field of the Sun.
• It is the electric force that holds the spherical cometary coma in place as the comet races around the Sun. The diameter of the visible coma will often reach millions of miles. And the visible coma is surrounded by an even larger and more “improbable” spherical envelope of fluorescing hydrogen visible in ultraviolet light.
• The primary distinction between comet and asteroid surfaces is that electrical arcing and “electrostatic cleaning” of the comet nucleus will leave little or no dust or debris on the surface during the active phase, even if a shallow layer of dust may be attracted back to the nucleus electrostatically as the comet becomes dormant in its retreat to more remote regions.”
reply to post by charlyv
Bravo! I would give you more than one star for your post if I could.
Just like asteroids that are not all the same, nor are they all made up of the same material, too many people seem to think comets are like that. That they must be made up of the same thing each time, or must all have the same ratio of materials.
reply to post by eriktheawful
If the water is not on the outside it must be on the inside, right?
I would sure like to see just one photo of the surface of a comet looking like a dirty snowball, or having vents to indicate where the so called water emissions came from.
During the mission extension, the EPOXI observations of comet Hartley 2 showed that the comet's smooth waist was emitting pure water
The EC model determines comets are products of electrical interaction from close proximity events between planetary bodies, that is rather than being icy primordial residual from the beginning of our solar system.
The origin of comets lies in electrical discharge between planets and the resulting fragmentation and fusing
A comet is a body made of rock and ice, typically a few kilometres in diameter, which orbits the Sun. Comets may pass by the Sun only once or go through the Solar System periodically. A comet’s tail is formed when the Sun’s heat warms the coma or nucleus, which releases vapours into space.
A comet is a body made of various materials in solid form, typically a few kilometres in diameter, which orbits the Sun. Comets may pass by the Sun only once or go through the Solar System periodically. A comet’s tail is formed when the Sun’s heat warms the coma or nucleus, which releases materials into space.
Russian meteorite's stony composition matches the composition of Asteroid 2012 DA14
Asteroid 2012 DA14 is a S-type asteroid mostly of magnesium silicate composition and iron. Only 17% of all asteroids are S-type having a stony composition similar to a variety of stony meteorites, consisting of magnesium silicates and iron. 87% of all meteorites are ordinary chondrites that vary in percentage of iron and metals. Ordinary chondrites like these samples are usually fragments reaching the ground that broke off from a larger asteroid, in this case from asteroid 2012 DA14. The compositions are both similar.
What we can find out this way, is some of the basics of magnetism, like:
• north poles repel north poles
• south poles repel south poles
• north poles attract south poles
• south poles attract north poles
• the force of attraction or repulsion varies inversely with the distance squared
• the strength of a magnet varies at different locations on the magnet
• magnets are strongest at their poles
• magnets strongly attract steel, iron, nickel, cobalt, gadolinium
• magnets slightly attract liquid oxygen and other materials
• magnets slightly repel water, carbon and boron
In unmagnetized ferromagnetic materials, the domains are randomly oriented and neutralize each other or cancel each other out. However, the magnetic fields are still present within the domains!
While liquid oxygen (LOX) sounds like a very difficult compound, it is quite easy to make it. Normal air consists of two main gases, nitrogen and oxygen. Both these gases liquefy at very low temperatures. To cool these gases to such low temperatures, the air is compressed and cooled, then allowed to expand again. By repeating this process over and over again, we have to get these two gases cooled to -196 °C, which is the boiling point of liquid nitrogen. Thus, we see that the boiling point of liquid nitrogen is lower than that of liquid oxygen. The liquid so formed at -196 °C is a combination of nitrogen and oxygen. To separate the two, the liquid is slightly heated to a temperature between -196 °C and -182.96 °C, where nitrogen becomes gaseous again, while oxygen still remains liquid.
Why dont you confine your debate to what EC ACTUALLY predicts rather than what a poster on ATS predicted?
The EC model predicts an interaction between bodies as the comet passes by. That interaction can be so dynamic that it is openly visable in the sky but it can also be rather dark and unnoticed unless devices were in place to measure it. While I appreciate what Tallone has done with his threads on EC and EU in general he has made predictions that no one offically connected with the EU theory would support. It was possible under the EC model that we could have seen a dynamic interaction with Mercury however no one could make an accurate prediction on the level of interaction unless we had direct measurments of the electrical conditions of the comet itself. Plenty of "Possible" and "Maybe" should have been added to that prediction to qualify the expectations. Had the dynamic interaction occured the DST could not have explained it. It did not occur. That however does not invalidate the EC.
reply to post by Dragoon01
Yes, it does. If a theory makes a prediction, and that prediction fails, the theory has been falsified.
McCanney Claim #2: The Sun's solar wind is not electrically neutral.
He makes this claim because it sets up a later claim about comets gaining mass. We'll get to that in just a moment, but since that part depends on the solar wind not being neutral, let's get this out of the way first.
All normal matter is made up of three types of particles: electrons, which have a negative charge, protons, which have a positive charge, and neutrons, which are neutral.
a wind from the Sun The Sun is a big ball of gas. It emits a wind of particles from its surface, called, of course, the solar wind. According to McCanney, this wind has a net positive charge because "it continually ejects large composite streamers of primarily protons in the solar wind" (from his book "Planet X Comets & Earth Changes", page 54).
This is simply wrong. There are many experiments in space which directly measure the solar wind, and have found it to be ionized, but electrically neutral. In other words, the same number of positive and negative particles are emitted (see, for example, here, or here). If the Sun's wind were primarily positive particles, then the Sun would build up a vast negative charge on its surface. This would affect everything about the Sun, from its magnetic field to the way the surface features behave. We see no indications at all that the Sun has a huge negative charge.
For McCanney to make this claim is just bizarre, and completely contradictory to all evidence. But he's stuck with it, because it's basic to his other silly claims.
You can't seriously think your statement is legit after rereading it can you? If one incorrect prediction invalidated a theory then we would have no theories.
reply to post by alfa1
He's right, the current theory keeps getting bent and bent more to contain as much of the old "snowball" theory as possible. Whipple was not to be challenged in his day and, buddy, your future depended upon following the conventional spiel if you were in that field. Whipple was lord and master.
You see, the problem is they have to keep on that route because they have no recourse. As detection devices got more varied and of better quality, they keep finding crazy things that comets were doing, such as the ion tails, but they had to continue the charade. The inner sanctum of astronomy and government knows what comets really are, controlled devices, but they can't tell us that. That would be tantamount to admitting the reality of UFOs here and now. Just as they have to keep the truth about Mars and Phobos and heavens know what else under wraps. We mere citizens can't handle the truth.
See Rethinking Comets in the Skunk Forum for an alternative view to both the conventional view of comets and the electric Universe theory. Other comet threads reside their also.