Electric Universe theory is bolstered by recent data.

Mee_n_Mac · Oct 30, 2007

So I ask again, would spectroscopic analysis be able to say yea or nea to the electric comet hypothesis in this case ? What would I see in the spectrum of a plasma comet tail that could not be there via the standard explanation ? What must be observed in order for there to be a plasma tail ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -----------------------------------------------------Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, STOP ! </div>

MeteorWayne · Oct 30, 2007

I have to disagree with you here. There is no "evidence" of excessive induction current, in fact with no spectra to go on, not much can be said about what has caused the brightness increase. While it may suggest that to you, there is no scientific evidence to back up your assertion. Sorry <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

michaelmozina · Oct 30, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I have to disagree with you here. There is no "evidence" of excessive induction current, in fact with no spectra to go on, not much can be said about what has caused the brightness increase. While it may suggest that to you, there is no scientific evidence to back up your assertion. Sorry <hr /></blockquote> You should never be sorry for honest and valid criticism as you perceive it. I certainly will not take offense to it. I believe that there is ample evidence of induction currents, and other currents at play in the comet in the form of polarization patterns that reveal a small tail in this emission process at the near infrared spectrum. That tail is not pointing directly at or away from the sun, but rather it seems to following the parker spiral of the sun's plasma flows. http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=23901 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_spiral The spiraling arms of plasma that encircle the sun and carry current to and through the sun are also carrying electrical currents through the comet. That is also why we observe solar wind ions picking up electrons in the comets tail during CME events. The comet and it's tail become a conductor in the circuit and pass along electrons to the solar wind. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Oct 30, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />So I ask again, would spectroscopic analysis be able to say yea or nea to the electric comet hypothesis in this case ?<hr /></blockquote> I would think that the emission spectrum could be used to validate and falsify various theories, but I'm not certain how exactly to differentiate between theories based on the spectrum alone. I would think that an electric comet would show a relatively high energy spectrum output, whereas I'm not sure what we might hope to expect to see from some venting volatiles. Maybe someone who supports that idea can make some predictions as to what we might expect to observe from some venting of volatile, and how much venting might be required to make it increase in photon output by a million fold. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> What would I see in the spectrum of a plasma comet tail that could not be there via the standard explanation ?<hr /></blockquote> That's an excellent scientific question. I'm not sure what we are supposed to see in a "standard" explanation however, since there isn't a standard explanation as far as I know. In EU theory, I would expect to see a fairly broad range of higher energy photon output from an electrical interactions in plasma involving many different elements. I would not expect to see much in the way of changes to the size of the comets core. I don't have any idea how much venting gas it would take based on a standard theory to make the light increase by a million fold. Since I haven't seen a standard explanation yet, I have any idea what to expect to see in light reflected from the sun to look like in such an explanation. According to EU theory however, I would expect to see the light source is at the comet, and I would expect to see a range of elements present, not simply water vapor. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

MeteorWayne · Oct 30, 2007

Again, what makes you think that the detected tail conforms to a Parker spiral? What would the angle and direction be at this distance from the sun? Since you have researched this, you should know the answer and be able to demonstarte how you arrived at it, right? You seem to be suggesting things, without the predictions (or math) required to validate your claims. If I'm wrong, please show me. Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

michaelmozina · Oct 31, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Again, what makes you think that the detected tail conforms to a Parker spiral?<hr /></blockquote> Comet tails are typically pointed away from the sun. The tail is pointed in that direction because of the direction of the flow of the solar wind particles. In this case however, the tail is not pointed directly away from the sun. The angular nature of the tail would suggest that the flow of solar wind particles in that specific location is not directly pointed away from the sun. The direction of the tail denotes the actual flow pattern of the particles in the comet's current location. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />What would the angle and direction be at this distance from the sun? Since you have researched this, you should know the answer and be able to demonstarte how you arrived at it, right?<hr /></blockquote> Er, when has anyone had the time to "research" something like that? They just saw the tail yesterday as far as I know. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />You seem to be suggesting things, without the predictions (or math) required to validate your claims. If I'm wrong, please show me.<hr /></blockquote> Actually you're right. I never offered any math related to Parker Spirals. I'm simply offering a theoretical method to "interpret" the data at this point in time based upon tenets of EU theory. The kind of math that you're talking about would be best expressed by in-situ measurements of what's actually been measured to be going on in the solar wind in that specific location. The computer models that are used to simulate the sun's Parker spiral are not necessarily accurate at each and every location within the solar system. They are simply computer approximations at best case. The energy flow from the sun however is not uniform like a computer model, nor do all particles flow <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

MeteorWayne · Oct 31, 2007

"In this case however, the tail is not pointed directly away from the sun." I'm not sure that is the case. If you look at the positions of the earth and the comet, it's hard to see how the coma/tail would be deflected much (from our viewpoint) from straight away. "Er, when has anyone had the time to "research" something like that? They just saw the tail yesterday as far as I know." But you suggested it was the "Parker Spiral". Are you just guessing, or do you have something to support that? I agree with everything else you said, since you did admit your case is a possible interpretation, not a fact. One more comment though (I know, I'm a pain) "Keep in mind that as I explained in the opening post of this thread, it is still entirely possible that the comet slammed into an object in space, or that some other effect is responsible for that "tail". I was simply laying out the theory behind EU interpretations of these observations." Why don't we wait for some data before we suggest support for a particular theory, even yours or mine. I certainly don't object to you throwing your hat in the ring. But it seems to me that you can't resist intimating that your theory is the best. Personally I love the perspective. But I don't like implying it's the "best" answer when we have so little data to work with. A month from now, you may be undeniably proved correct! Or not <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Who knows, we will see. I suspect observations of this comet will come in from every spacecraft and telescope that can see it. We'll learn a whole bunch in the next month or two. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

michaelmozina · Oct 31, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I'm not sure that is the case. If you look at the positions of the earth and the comet, it's hard to see how the coma/tail would be deflected much (from our viewpoint) from straight away. <hr /></blockquote> I simply assumed that the analysis of the tail's orientation from the article was accurate: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=23901 <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />This elongated feature, probably a cloud of dust and gas, which resembles a small tail, is going out at position angle of 145 degrees (+/- 5 deg), measured from north and going east. This direction makes an angle of about 33 degrees relative to the Sun-comet direction. Although the images display tantalizing evidence of a tail, the direction of the feature does not point directly in the direction opposite to the Sun, as expected.<hr /></blockquote> <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />But you suggested it was the "Parker Spiral". Are you just guessing, or do you have something to support that?<hr /></blockquote> I'm essentially assuming that these folks accurately analyzed the images, and accurately described it's orientation. I'm also "guessing" as you put it that this orientation has something to do with the plasma flows in that region. That guess has sound support however because we always see the comets tail orient itself away from the plasma flow. I suppose I'm also "guessing' that the fact the plasma flow orientation is oriented at 33 degree angle has something to do with the twisting rotational action of the plasma flows around the sun. We do however know that they exist, and put a torque into the currents as they extend out into space. In the sense that I haven't sat down to figure out what sort of normalized angle or orientation we might ex <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Oct 31, 2007

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x279/davesmith_au/Mag_swe_7d.jpg http://www.aerith.net/comet/catalog/0017P/2007-mag2.gif http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x279/davesmith_au/Epam_7d.jpg Here are graphs of the solar wind and photon output data related that comet that were collected by Dave Smith. These graphs show the solar wind data as record by Ace during the flareup. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

doubletruncation · Nov 1, 2007

Hi Michael, I came across a book today on plasma physics/magneto-fluid dynamics which I thought you might find interesting. It's "Magneto-Fluid Dynamics: Fundamentals and Case Studies of Natural Phenomena (Astronomy and Astrophysics Library)" by Paul Lorrain, Francois Lorrain, and Stephane Houle, 2006. You can find it here: http://www.amazon.com/Magneto-Fluid-Dynamics-Fundamentals-Phenomena-Astrophysics/dp/0387335420 It's a very interesting and somewhat unorthodox approach to magnetohydrodynamics (though they argue against using the word "hydro"), particularly for the Sun, because it stresses currents/electric fields rather than magnetic fields (he even quotes Alfven's famous warning about putting too much emphasis on magnetic fields that EU proponents seem to be so fond of <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />). Anyway, just thought you might enjoy it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Nov 1, 2007

The Ace information isn't really relevant to the comet though. First, the ACE samples the stream near the earth,~ 1 AU; the comet was at 2.44 AU form the sun, considerably downstream, and second, at more than a 40 degree different direction for an outbound solar wind. Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

michaelmozina · Nov 1, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Hi Michael, I came across a book today on plasma physics/magneto-fluid dynamics which I thought you might find interesting. It's "Magneto-Fluid Dynamics: Fundamentals and Case Studies of Natural Phenomena (Astronomy and Astrophysics Library)" by Paul Lorrain, Francois Lorrain, and Stephane Houle, 2006. You can find it here: http://www.amazon.com/Magneto-Fluid-Dynamics-Fundamentals-Phenomena-Astrophysics/dp/0387335420 It's a very interesting and somewhat unorthodox approach to magnetohydrodynamics (though they argue against using the word "hydro"), particularly for the Sun, because it stresses currents/electric fields rather than magnetic fields (he even quotes Alfven's famous warning about putting too much emphasis on magnetic fields that EU proponents seem to be so fond of ). Anyway, just thought you might enjoy it. <hr /></blockquote> Thanks for the info! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Nov 1, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The Ace information isn't really relevant to the comet though.<hr /></blockquote> But you don't know that. You just assumed that there is no connection, but there is a distinct and definite increase in solar wind streams during the time frame that the comet "lit up". <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />First, the ACE samples the stream near the earth,~ 1 AU; the comet was at 2.44 AU form the sun, considerably downstream,<hr /></blockquote> The idea here is that it would simply be "downstream" (actually upstream) in terms of the (electron) current flow from the heliosphere. The incoming electrons (and negative ions) are highly attractive to the solar wind particles coming from the sun, and they accelerate the plasma streams coming off the sun. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />and second, at more than a 40 degree different direction for an outbound solar wind. Wayne<hr /></blockquote> Well, that's true. Then again, outbound bursts of solar wind can extend over very large distance, and there is no guarantee that the ACE instrument was ever in the most concentrated part of the solar wind flows. It may very well be that we (and ACE) took a glancing blow, while the comet has become a direct conduit in the primary part of the energy (electron and negative ion) stream. EU theory is predicated on the idea that the universe itself provides the bulk of the energy in the solar system. The sun, the planets, the comets and all the objects in our solar system are simply electrical conductors in a much larger circuit, that stretches over untold galaxies. A distance of 1AU is not really all that relevant in terms of the overall current flow. It's all part of the same circuit, and it moves at extremely high speeds. If the energy flow (from the universe) changes in any way, the solar system has to <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Nov 1, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Hi MichaelMozina. Interesting topic, one of those I like to check in on when I (rarely) get the time. Regarding any theoretical electrical activity within comets - is there any evidence that strongly supports such a conclusion?<hr /></blockquote> Yes, I think so: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/071001_comet_surprises.html You'll note that the solar wind is picking up electrons in the comet's tail, and it's slowing down in the process. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Just a suggestion - admittedly, I may be singing to the choir here - but it seems that electrical currents in a comet would almost surely generate magnetic fields - and RF "chatter"...... the latter of which should be detectable from Earth, esp. given the rather large current flows you theorize to be occurring. Remote acquisition using this and the aforementioned spectrographic data might support/ refute the EU theory...... and perhaps spur a mission to more accurately characterize environments near/ within comets - to help explain observed effects that do not fit current theory.<hr /></blockquote> That all sounds very helpful, and very logical actually. I'm sure a lot of this type of information will be forthcoming over the next few months. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />As far as various theories such as the EU attempting to understand the growing list of discoveries that do not fit standard theory - I'm all for it, esp. as there is obviously a great deal of our scientific knowledge that is clearly at least incomplete - and in some cases wrong. I'm not esp. loyal or dogmatic regarding any theory, just curious about what can explain our reality as accurately as possible. Glad to see you posting on this subject in such a level headed manne</blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

thebigcat · Nov 2, 2007

MichealMozina: it is rather silly to be calling the winner of a Nobel prize a "crackpot" Linus "Vitamin C cures the common cold" Pauling William "Let's try Eugenics" Shockley I could go on. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

robnissen · Nov 2, 2007

The Nobel Prize is generally given for "discoveries" not scientific theories. That is why the discoverers of the COB received the Nobel Prize, not the people who had previously theorized its existence. I am not surprised that some Nobel Prize winners are "crack pots." To go looking for things that have never been found, sometimes propably requires a little bit of the "crack pot" gene. (For those here that lack a sense of humor, I am aware that there is no such gene.)

michaelmozina · Nov 2, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The Nobel Prize is generally given for "discoveries" not scientific theories. That is why the discoverers of the COB received the Nobel Prize, not the people who had previously theorized its existence. <hr /></blockquote> Yes exactly. Hannes Alfven "discovered' how plasmas behave in various environments because he studied the behaviors of plasma all his life. He even went so far as to lay out the math behind the behaviors of plasma in various different environments. So why is that important enough to reward him with the Nobel Prize? Well, it turns out that our universe is mostly made up of plasma. Solids and liquids make up only a small fraction of the physical universe. Most of the universe is in the form of gas and plasma. Anyone who want to understand how a universe that is mostly plasma and gas works, will need to understand Alfven's MHD theories in great detail. Unfortunately most astronomers today understand very little of his work, or none of it. It should be required reading IMO if one wishes to become an astronomer because MDH thoery explains the behaviors of our universe based on the science of plasma physics. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I am not surprised that some Nobel Prize winners are "crack pots." To go looking for things that have never been found, sometimes propably requires a little bit of the "crack pot" gene. (For those here that lack a sense of humor, I am aware that there is no such gene.)<hr /></blockquote> In my experience, ignorant individuals often cannot handle an honest scientific debate. They cannot provide evidence to support their views, and they cannot find scientific reasons to reject the opposing view, so they resort to the oldest trick in the book, the handy ad hominem. It takes a real scientist to *show* scientifically that someone is incorrect about some aspect of their theory. It takes hard wo <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

kyle_baron · Nov 2, 2007

"It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds". Kristian Birkeland I would agree with that statement, if the electrons and ions are in wave form. As a consequence, of the BB. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · Nov 9, 2007

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2139/1902452859_6336c59092.jpg http://solarb.msfc.nasa.gov/movies/11022007_xrt.gif http://www.lmsal.com/solarsoft/last_events_20071023_0546/index.html These three images tell a very interesting story IMO. During the Holmes flareup, the four inner planets are in a rough alignment with Holmes. As we see in the Hinode image of the sun, there is a *huge* surface area that is undergoing an obvious electrical discharge process in the upper solar atmosphere. That electrically active region is rotating past the planetary configuration during that timeline. The third image shows us the solar wind data during the buildup to that same timeline, and the solar wind data from ACE is overlayed against the active region on the sun as seen in 195A SOHO images. The ACE instrument records a signiificant increase in solar wind activity as the active region rotates past the planetary alignment. That solar wind begins building on the 19th and "peaks" around the 21st, and undoubtedly passes by the comet a few days later. I think that this data suggests that the active region on the solar surface is interacting with the planetary and cometary alignments and that alignment results in a significant increase in the plasma flow around the comet. Here is a running difference still shot from around 7:30AM on 10/18/2007. The dark "wings" near the center of the sun represent areas where the CME originates. Since this particular CME is pointed directly at us, the Lasco c2 and c3 images won't do us much good to determine the exact direction on the CME, but I still need to poke around in the STEREO data. http://www.thesurfac</safety_wrapper <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

Electric Universe theory is bolstered by recent data.

Mee_n_Mac

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

doubletruncation

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

thebigcat

Guest

robnissen

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page