Electric Comet ISON - Revealed

reply to post by Pinkorchid

Hmmm. Yes, that was interesting.

I found this one for you.

Thermoremanent magnetization (TRM) is “the most efficient remanent magnetization mechanism in nature…resulting in the largest specific magnetization intensity compared to other mechanisms.”
SOURCE

As it happens though, EC doesn't appear to say anything about tying magnetization of the comet mass to the origin of the planetary body it originated from. Maybe someone here is an expert in that area and comment on that possibility from the standpoint of the EU model. This is what I have.

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.




As I said afore, EC theory does not appear to have much to say about the possibility of a magnetic state in the nucleus originating from the parent body / or bodies. And like I say somebody correct me if I am wrong there.

With regard to a comet constituted by two different parent bodies consider comet Hartley 2 with it’s odd bridged structure connecting two sphericals postulated to be two different bodies fused together by EC advocates. Anyway the EC model needs to be seen within the Electric Universe theory, and that means the Sun too is electric. There are so many interesting aspects to this theory and model of the universe. It is still being hammered out as data comes in, like any good theory, and shouldn’t be seen as somehow written in stone and unchangeable. DST sure is not. Just look at the problems they have getting DST to fit with the facts the new technology is bringing them. Talk about the ship sailing over the horizon. Metaphorically speaking its doing that right now.

See these quotes below from the PDF I link to at the bottom of the first post of my OP.

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.

The electrical quality of the comet is explained by strong electrical field across the comet’s surrounding plasma sheath

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.

Compressed sunward facing sheath results in the electric field is strong enough to accelarate charged particles to X-ray energies (the jets we see at the front).

reply to post by charlyv

I think you raise some valid points and starred you for that reason. But it seems to me the EC and DST models do kind of rule each other out. My guess is you would be looking for a different model again. And that is entirely possible.

Several points necessary to the EC model are part and parcel of the EU model itself and so I have to say I think to advocate EC necessarily means to rule out the DST model and vice versa. See the point list below taken from the EC PDF. I think the EC/DST relative exclusiveness is a major reason why the mere mention of EC raises such near hysterical reaction from DST advocates. Since DST is the dominant theory it would take a very brave independent scientist / researcher to publically buck the status quo. They would be also be working independently of government or major institutional funding you would think. But it is entirely feasible to my mind at least that top-level scientists, those working in the military, are already working with the EU theory or something akin to it.

We are simply not supposed to know about that kind of thing. It would as I have already said elsewhere bring down the entire capitalist system itself (its already the walking dead – decayed to an extent far worse than just a bunch of zombie banks). Commerce based on oil and gas, and nuclear energy would be over. The textbooks would have to be rewritten, and so by the way would the history books just to account for all of the lies we would find out we had been told. This is pretty much my take on what would have to be some serious sh**, don't you think?

Here are the main points of the EC model as set out in the PDF I link to in the first part of the OP at top of thread.

“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


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. If the water is not on the outside it must be on the inside, right?

I am pretty sure we have no photos of a comet surface that give us anything that looks like the DST predicts.

The only photos of the surface of comets that we have ever been allowed to see look virtually interchangeable with asteroids. Exactly as the EC model predicts. So interchangeable that the terms comet and asteroid may as well label the same space object. We have seen with the strange spinning comet emitting six jets only days ago just how similar they can be.

Let's see what Deep Impact brings back to us. Presuming of course we are allowed to see the images.

reply to post by Tallone


Deep Impact will not be taking any images of ISON ever again. The craft is defunct (it's stuck in reboot mode). It is also no where near ISON, nor will it be close to ISON again.

Take a look at these images and tell me which ones are made up mostly of ice, and which ones are not:







The answer? All three are made up mostly of ice. All three have densities that measure very close to 1.0 g/c^3.

The more rock you have, the more dense an object is. Looks can be tricky. One picture looks like a large ball of rock with some ice frosting on it. In fact, it's almost all ice, covered by dark dust.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Actually, I have studied that snowball theory pretty thoroughly when I believed in it even though it did not seem to be rational. I was led to believe something I now am starting to severely question. Although some comets seem to have a dirty snowball effect, that does by no way mean that this is actually happening. I was a fool for accepting that the theory was right.

I look at a comet as a shared electron of a molecule tying it to the substrate that it is in, that being the oort cloud in the case of some. You need both the law of attraction and the law of repulsion to accomplish this. I am sure if we had a powerful enough microscope we could look at an atom and see little asteroid and comet like particles in orbit around it. Repetition of shapes is evident in the universe, from smallest to largest.

If you want to believe in a theory with no actual evidence backing it go ahead. The interaction a comet with the material coming from the sun is a lot more complex than the dirty snowball theory states. Something that is not being addressed in the theory is happening. I can't say the EC theory is totally correct only that it more correctly can relate to some things that are happening. Maybe if they used occams razor they could find out both things are happening..

eriktheawful
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.

People who believe the standard model don't think this. It's a lie propagated by the EU people. You might as well say standard model scientists think every planet is identical. Do they say there are shared characteristics? Yes. Never will you see anyone saying they are all identical.

Tallone
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

If the water is not on the outside it must be on the inside, right?

That's actually exactly what Deep Impact found. You know, the quote you used out of context to make it look like it supported EC when in fact it supported the standard model 100%.

www.nasa.gov...

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.

From Deep Impact ...

During the mission extension, the EPOXI observations of comet Hartley 2 showed that the comet's smooth waist was emitting pure water

Tallone
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

Right, something that has never been observed in the history of modern astronomy. The only alleged evidence of that happening are the ancient drawings and symbols.

Electrical discharge between planets? Please show me the evidence and scientific literature of this happening. Pictures of craters and ridges alleged to be from electric machining don't count. They are prefectly explainable by impacts and geologic activity (just like the comet's coma, dust tail and ion tail are prefectly explainable by the "snowball" model).

Why don't we see this electrical interaction (which is supposed to be spectacular) between the planets right now?

Every time I look at the EU / EC, I see fairytales being spun out for the thrill-seeking crowd. It is the modern equivalent of ancient myths of gods and gigantic thunderbolts, except now they're trying to pass it for legitimate science.

~~~

Some reading material:
neutrinodreaming.blogspot.co.uk...
dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.co.uk...
dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.co.uk...

According to EC theory ISON had electrical interaction with Mars that was covered up by NASA. On november 15th EC theory predicts this would happen again with Mercury .... Do you agree Tallone?

If Tallone refuses to reply to this it's because he knows EC is a hoax, and simply wants to be an ostrich.



The DST model predicts nothing like this would happen on the 15th. Well, the 15th has come and passed. Did this happen? If it did, EC model is correct. If it did not, EC model is wrong. Did anyone notice anything like this happening?

reply to post by Tallone


Alfven received the Nobel Prize for his pioneering work in magnetohydrodynamics, so it is not as though there is a vast conspiracy to cover up the field of plasma physics. The problem is, some cranks think that electricity can replace all the other fundamental forces. Are black holes caused by intense electrical fields? No, they are not. Because the Sun can be observed to be emitting charged particles, there are clearly electrical and magnetic interactions taking place throughout the Solar System. No-one questions this. The problem is that the EU theory does not approach these interactions with a proper mathematical model, presumably because the math is too hard for the sort people who want to overthrow the "scientific establishment." Even the pdf of an address to the Electrical Engineers' professional organization uses qualitative rather than quantitative arguments!

Tallone, your screeds are long on rhetoric and prophecy, short on math. You will never make a "convert" that way. People here will agree with the ideas you expound not because they make any sense, but because they affirm a world view where science is a dark conspiracy that threatens their personal belief systems.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


I really think part of the problem lays with how the IAU (International Astronomical Union) decided upon the definition of "comet". They define it as:

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.

Source

To me, and others that I know who work with astronomy, that definition needs to be redefined by the IAU (just as they redefined the term "planet").

The definition should read something more like this:

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.

Bold emphasis mine.

The problem that the original definition has is that word "icy". Your lay person hears the word "ice" or "icy" and normally equate it to: water or H2O.

That is because normally when we describe some other material that is not water in solid form, we use modifiers to the word: Dry Ice (solid CO2), Oxygen Ice, Nitrogen Ice, etc.

Something can be "Icy" or "Ice" if in it's normal room temperature form it's a liquid or gas.

So let us think of a object, 2 miles in diameter that comes from the outer part of the solar system where the temps are cold enough to keep even certain gases frozen solid. Let us say it's made up of rock, carbon dioxide and some other trace elements.

It moves towards the sun in a highly eccentric orbit, as it get's closer, the CO2 warms and forms a coma around it, and a tail forms.

It's a comet. It's an icy body, with a highly eccentric orbit around the sun that forms a coma and a tail.

Not one drop of water in it. But it's still an "Icy Body".

However, people will cling to that term and think "water", and with good reason: there is a LOT of water in our solar system. Cassini showed us how most of Saturn's moons are huge balls of water ice.

So it would really help if the IAU would redefine what "comet" means.

reply to post by eriktheawful


That I can agree with. The definition is very simple, but anyone in the field understands the actual thing is a bit more complex. EC proponents would have us believe they all think they are snowballs with some bits of rock in them.

The definition you presented 100% invalidates the EC theory. EC proponents predicted Deep Impact would find comets with no "ice" material whatsoever. They believe the real "magic" is caused by interactions between negatively charged comets and positively charged solar winds. Nevermind the fact Solar Winds are NOT positively charged and are charge neutral.

reply to post by Tallone


Ok I'm just theorizing here. What if what we are looking at in Comet Ison is a stony meteorite called carbonaceous chondrite.

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.

holographicgalaxy.blogspot.com.au...

Bare with me for a moment.

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

www.coolmagnetman.com...

So we have a comet that is composed of mainly iron and metals which has attracted to itself liquid oxygen and other materials which when it comes into contact with any other magnetic field like that of other planets or our Sun, begins to exhibit a changed or altered magnetic field as below:-

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!

When the comet comes within another magnetic field the domains align so :-

www.coolmagnetman.com...

This then creates the potential for a plasma burst to occur between the two magnetic bodies.

This would also account for the intermittent behaviour of the comet.

Also because a magnet of this sort can attract liquid oxygen and other materials , then the outgassing could be a result of the super heating of the comet and liquid oxygen being released as it vaporizes.

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.

www.buzzle.com...

So in fact what we could have with Ison is a ice covered rock , which when superheated by the sun and within its magnetic field becomes magnetized and begins to demonstrate very un-comet like behaviour.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04



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

Why dont you confine your debate to what EC ACTUALLY predicts rather than what a poster on ATS predicted?

Mainly because the poster is on ATS. That is why we are interacting with him and his presentation of the theory.

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.

Yes, it does. If a theory makes a prediction, and that prediction fails, the theory has been falsified.

reply to post by Pinkorchid

And where would you find liquid oxygen in space?

In vacuum, oxygen can only exist as either gas or solid (or bound to other atoms, like in CO2 or H2O). Liquid oxygen can only exist under pressure, such as our atmosphere provides.

DJW001
reply to post by Dragoon01


Yes, it does. If a theory makes a prediction, and that prediction fails, the theory has been falsified.

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.


As far as a few other topics in this thread.

There are all kinds of dark interactions when it comes to electricity, specifically gamma rays causing lighting and discharging 'dark' lighting has been in the news quite a bit recently.

Comets have passed through our solar system countless times, small asteriods pass very close to planets and moons nearly every day. It is illogical to expect electrical discharges or spectacular events to occur during a process that has been documented and witnessed many times before.

The electric comet is a pretty sound hypothesis with good grounding in reality. You can not take youtube documentaries designed to encourage investigation of a topic as facts to be expounded upon, that's just guessing. You don't have any actual information, you are basing a prediction on a general trait, that's unwise.

There was ZERO reason to expect a discharge from ISON, a few people from thrunderbolts made comments along the lines of "it'd be nice if.....but don't expect it....."

Finaly, where is this information of a "Neutral Solar wind" coming from? I apologize if you linked it already and I missed it. The solar wind is a stream of energized, charged particles, primarily electrons and protons, flowing outward from the Sun, through the solar system at speeds as high as 900 km/s and at a temperature of 1 million degrees (Celsius). It is made of plasma.

Are we talking net charge here?

To Expound the usual critic says this:

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.

Source

I would agree with the net charge but there is evidence to the contrary, and especially that the solar wind may not be hetero-genus in its dispersion and that areas of space may infact contain negative and positive charges. Anyway, lunch time.

reply to post by vind21

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.

There are predictions and there are predictions. The OP was issuing prophecy, not making a prediction. On the other hand, McCanney's theory predicts that the solar wind should be positively charged. It is not. Because that prediction is central to his model, its failure does indeed falsify his theory. (The aether theory of light was falsified by a single experiment because it predicted that the speed of light would vary with direction, and it does not!)

Aliensun
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.

I can't see what dangers the theory of Electric Comets has to existing theories. The Sun has a solar wind which is a stream of charged particles. Those are going to hit the comet nucleus, and the comet is going to build up an electric charge. Negative electric charge prefers convex points - the electrons can only travel on the surface of an object. So what would be a regular electrically neutral stream of gas and dust is going to become electrically charged. That's going to have all sorts of interesting effects. The green halo comes from ionisation of cyanogen:

cometison.blogspot.no...

We know the moon builds up an electric charge when it travels through the magnetic tail of the earth, so it shouldn't be any different for a comet getting close to the sun.