tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post1194779959067338421..comments2023-11-19T19:19:12.773-05:00Comments on Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Electric Comets: Failures of the Electric Comet ModelW.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-38001101292644983242015-01-28T06:34:19.405-05:002015-01-28T06:34:19.405-05:00Dear Tom,
As I said before, I appreciate very muc...Dear Tom,<br /><br />As I said before, I appreciate very much your work. I know how difficult it is to argue with people who are fixated on one particular mechanism that they have taken heart to. Glad to have contributed an entertaining question. <br /><br />Best wishes,<br />lodayalodayanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-11238266192904125142015-01-19T20:48:02.343-05:002015-01-19T20:48:02.343-05:00To Anonymous (January 2015),
Since we don't h...To Anonymous (January 2015),<br /><br />Since we don't have an actual mission going to ISON, the statement is a bit of a non-sequitur.<br /><br />However, the Electric Universe contingent at the International Skeptics Forum (formerly the JREF forum), has not been doing well since re-invigorating the <a href="http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=147374&page=32" rel="nofollow">Electric Comet thread in April 2014</a>. <br /><br />I have participated in this in recent weeks and the Electric Comet supports have yet to present a coherent 'theory' that could be used for planning any future comet mission. The predictions of the standard comet model (without gigantic electric discharges) seems to do pretty well. <br /><br />EU's bizarre claim of how water is being generated by 67P fails on basic chemistry.W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-53007442377187753272015-01-15T21:12:47.859-05:002015-01-15T21:12:47.859-05:00...Good luck shovelling that snow on ISON. lol...Good luck shovelling that snow on ISON. lolAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-69913474309257232582014-12-06T13:19:06.318-05:002014-12-06T13:19:06.318-05:00To Lodaya,
I read this multiple times and I'm...To Lodaya,<br /><br />I read this multiple times and I'm still not sure if it is meant to be sarcastic. Still, it raises an entertaining question.<br /><br />As I've noted many times before (see <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/p/challenges-for-electric-universe.html" rel="nofollow">Challenges...</a>), we've yet to see Electric Universe 'theorists' do ANYTHING that accurately relates to any measurements we routinely make of the space environment. <br /><br />Could 'engineers' promoting the Electric Universe actually profile the mission you describe? Here's just some of the questions they'd need to answer before they could even propose such a mission.<br /><br />-How do they determine the charge on the comet nucleus?<br /><br />-How much charge would be needed near Earth to attract it? How long would the course change take and what is the resulting trajectory? Certainly a number of different trajectories could be profiled for different charge configurations?<br /><br />-What kind of charge generator would you need in space? How much would it cost to build? What kind of rocket (or fantastic Electric Universe technology) would be needed to loft it into space? How would it maintain position once it starts attracting the comet (that pesky Newtonian action-reaction stuff!).<br /><br />-How will the charge generator maintain a net charge in the plasma space environment?<br /><br />After answering these questions, they might start considering budgetary issues to do it. I suspect it would require far more than a billion Euros.<br /><br />I suspect Electric Universe 'theorists' cannot even do this basic mission outline, instead probably hiding behind a claim such as there are too many variables to actually profile such a mission.<br /><br />Yet these geniuses of the Electric Universe never explain how all those scientists promoting the mainstream ('false') space model ARE able to do it, planning years in advance of the actual mission. Not only that, but they accomplish it with a pretty good rate of success considering the actual 'unknowns' in the problem. If the space environment were really as electrically dangerous as Electric Universe advocates try to sell, virtually all of these missions would fail.<br /><br />So I have to ask, who are the real incompetents, mainstream scientists or Electric Universe advocates?<br /><br />One thing we can say for certain, is if you want to undermine a nation's space flight efforts, you couldn't do much better than putting a bunch of Electric Universe supporters in charge (sic).W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-3846319007097910642014-12-04T02:20:16.109-05:002014-12-04T02:20:16.109-05:00Dear Tom,
Thanks for your work in putting up this...Dear Tom,<br /><br />Thanks for your work in putting up this blog. It seems clear from the EU theory that sending Rosetta to the comet 67P was an expensive mistake. Instead one could have built a charged device, kept it a few hundred kilometres out in space above the Earth, and <i>attracted</i> the comet. Then one could have taken as many pretty pictures as one wanted before sending the comet off on its path again. The proponents of the EU theory can work out how much less this would have cost than the billion Euros which ESA has spent.lodayanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-54243700795475725122014-11-17T21:04:50.968-05:002014-11-17T21:04:50.968-05:00To Ian Whittaker,
Actually, I am exploring some c...To Ian Whittaker,<br /><br />Actually, I am exploring some charge estimates for the nucleus based on the density claim. <br /><br />I'm also finding some interesting problems with Thornhill's claim of OH radicals forming from oxygen from the nucleus with hydrogen from the solar wind. It takes a LOT of solar wind to produce the amount of OH we see, not to mention the amount of of water detected by the VIRTIS instrument.<br /><br />All of these could be tied back to actual estimates for the spacecraft measurements, but you don't see an EU 'theorists' doing that!<br /><br />I've had some EU spammers post comet claims to other off-topic threads which I'm trying to collect into an Electric Comets II post.W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-62289140508062333272014-11-17T07:58:08.389-05:002014-11-17T07:58:08.389-05:00These lunatics have gone off the scale since the R...These lunatics have gone off the scale since the Rosetta mission hit the headlines. Every damn comment section of every article. When I asked one of these nutters to explain the observed density of 67P, 0.4gm/cm^3, I was told it could be an "electrostatic" force pushing the orbiter, and therefore making the gravity seem less than it actually was!<br />I kid you not.Ian Whittakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12942574539846148540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-82730621344628878942014-01-12T19:49:19.867-05:002014-01-12T19:49:19.867-05:00To Anonymous:
Really? Have you ever actually see...To Anonymous:<br /><br />Really? Have you ever actually seen snow? Have you ever worked with snow, shoveling, building, or similar?<br /><br />You have to get really close to see the 'rock' inside a comet. How many rocks form 'clouds' streaming around them millions of miles long? They have to be the rock with 'something extra'. The rocks are the 'dirt' in 'dirty snowball' and we see them as meteors after the comet breaks up.<br /><br />If it's not a 'snowball', then why do the spectra show the 'clouds' emitting spectral lines of water, CO2, and various molecular combinations more intense than their continuum emission? There's an awful lot of water and CO2 in that 'rock'.W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-85734903053905390132014-01-12T17:53:17.050-05:002014-01-12T17:53:17.050-05:00Only a crazy person tries to convince people that ...Only a crazy person tries to convince people that a huge piece of rock seen on pictures is a "dirty snowball"...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-78811916973297582492013-11-29T22:00:35.557-05:002013-11-29T22:00:35.557-05:00Thanks to the visitor above who pointed out additi...Thanks to the visitor above who pointed out additional details about comets and electric charging that is pretty well understood, no help from the Electric Universe cranks.<br /><br />There is currently an Electric Universe outbreak regarding Comet ISON going on in the comment stream over at <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/28/comet-ison-appears-to-be-toast/" rel="nofollow">WattsUpWithThat?: Comet ISON appears to be toast – goes “poof” in video, then comes back to life</a>.W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-36789180463551224422013-11-29T04:39:25.252-05:002013-11-29T04:39:25.252-05:00Well, there are numerous more problems. First, the...Well, there are numerous more problems. First, they make huge claims about charging but they seem to have no idea on how charging works. So yes, a bare nucleus has an insulating surface and can charge up. But how?<br /><br />In a solar wind plasma & UV environment, what happens is:<br /><br />UV from the Sun causes photo emission of electrons which charges the surface positively. <br /><br />As electrons have higher thermal velocity/spread (due to their lower mass) in the solar wind, they are the responsible particle species for charging the surface. This contributes to negative surface charging.<br /><br />Electron irradiation, however, also causes release of secondary electrons, which tend to make the surface charging less negative. <br /><br />Balance of these three factors determines the charging voltage level at the surface.<br /><br />To have strong negative charging one has to diminish the sunlight. So strong negative charging is more possible far from the sun, not close to it! Even in that case, "strong" is defined inn relative terms. Charging voltages are in the order of the electron temperature: e.g. even if one removes the sunlight, the surface would have to charge negatively to huge/infinite levels. Emissions of secondary electrons diminishes the negative charging, and sometimes can even make it positive!<br /><br />But there is more. As one approaches the Sun, UV emission and photoelectron production (ie. positive charging) increases fast due to the 1/r^2 law. Electron temperature increases much slower, but electron density also increases as 1/r^2. These two effects should cancel out largely, so this thing of charging much more negatively makes more sense...<br /><br />More? At 1 AU we know from Earth's moon that its sunlit surface is charged positively, as photoelectron production dominates.<br /><br />Even more: Where the moon becomes negatively charged are the reions approaching its terminator, and of couse its wake. This is because sunlight hits the surface in shallower angles (or there is no sunlight at all). So this is where one expects larger negative charging. If this discharge phenomena would occur in a charged object in the solar wind, it would be mostly close to the terminator. "Strangely" wee see active regions of comets mostly in the subsolar part (where charging is positive).<br /><br />And a final comment. All this theory about spacecraft discharging near a comet's surface has nothing specific to the comet, as far as I know. If such a theory had any merit, we should have seen discharges at any object where landings were attempted/execute (Hayabusa, NEAR, Earth's moon). No point to add here what we have (not) seen...Visitornoreply@blogger.com