Electric Comets

[sol88]

After splitting some of the EU ideas into sub forums. I thought I have a go at trying to have a debate on the Electric Comet hypothesis.

After reading a little more on this subject, both mainstream and EU, seems there is a coming together of theories. This quote from Universe today:

Scientists think that X-rays are produced through a process called charge exchange, in which highly (and positively) charged particles from the sun that lack electrons steal electrons from chemicals in the comet. Typical comet material includes water, methane and carbon dioxide. Charge exchange is analogous to the tiny spark seen in static electricity, only at a far greater energy.

By comparing the ratio of X-ray energies emitted, scientists can determine the content of the solar wind and infer the content of the comet material. Swift, Chandra, XMM-Newton and Suzaku each provide complementary capabilities to nail down this tricky measurement. The combination of these observations will provide a time evolution of the X-ray emission of the comet as it navigates through our solar system.

LINK

There does seem to be progress toward the EC idea, no?

The language appears to have progressed to a more electrical nature, the sentence "Charge exchange is analogous to the tiny spark seen in static electricity, only at a far greater energy." is extremely intriguing, 64 million dollar question is, how much energy?

Enough energy to shatter rock? Make the nucleus arc? Make the coma glow? Produce elements during charge exchange? Produce Birkland currents millions of miles long?

And my personal favorite interest, what does the electrical circuit look like?

let the debate start, and before any of the mainstreamers start going "rabid" this is all new territory, we "know" nothing.


Sol

[tusenfem]

It is, as said, analogous (but bad analogy), but not the same as a spark.

The highly positive ion needs to collide with, say, a water molecule, and then can "rip off" one of the electrons from the water molecule. The water molecule is then left one electron poorer and highly excited. The excitation is radiated away as an X-ray photon.

So it is a very very close contact process between an ion and a molecule, no sparks, no arches, and definitely no energy to crack rock or whatever.

[P.Asmah]

Here is another article about same:
http://spacescience.com/headlines/y2000/ast23aug_1m.htm

"When ions from the Sun blow past a comet, their strong positive charge attracts negatively-charged electrons from cometary atoms and molecules. In effect, the ions try to neutralize their own unbalanced charge by stealing electrons from the comet. Electrons that leap from neutral atoms to the passing solar wind ions emit x-rays as they cascade from high-energy to low-energy ionic orbits. This process, called a "charge exchange reaction," was first proposed in 1997 as a possible reason for cometary x-rays ." (My bold.)

This claim from a mainstream source is that charge-exchange-reaction was first proposed in 1997!

Really? Didn't Ralph Juergens, who proposed the Electric Sun model, also propose the corollary that cometary comas and tails are produced by an electrical exchange between the sun and a comet. I think so.

[papageno]

In the now-closed EU thread I asked sol88:

Do you subscribe to upriver's fallacy that whenever mainstream scientists mention electric discharges, this is evidence in support of EU ideas?

Considering the OP, the answer should be "yes!".

What is so EU about the idea that ions from the Solar Wind exchange electron with molecules from the comet?
We have known for a while that there is some interaction between comets and Solar Wind.

[papageno]

This claim from a mainstream source is that charge-exchange-reaction was first proposed in 1997!

Really? Didn't Ralph Juergens, who proposed the Electric Sun model, also propose the corollary that cometary comas and tails are produced by an electrical exchange between the sun and a comet. I think so.

Why don't you show us that Juergens predicted X-ray emission from comet material, well before it was observed?
Wouldn't that make a strong case for EU theories?

If not, can you explain in detail or at least provide a reference to what Juergens said exactly?

[P.Asmah]

If not, can you explain in detail or at least provide a reference to what Juergens said exactly?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/velikovsky-ghost.htm
Go down to electric comets:

The revolutionary electric Sun model set forth by Juergens in the early 70's included a view of comets as electric discharge phenomena. If the Sun is a glow discharge at the center of a radial electric field, then comets moving on highly elliptical orbits through this electric field will experience increasing stresses that can only be relieved through electrical arcing, removing material and accelerating it away from the nucleus, along the path of solar magnetic field lines.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/Rec...0Mechanics.pdf
Extract from an actual Juergen's paper:

A comet on an extremely eccentric orbit spends by far the greater part of its time in the uttermost parts of the solar system. This is because, according to Kepler's Laws, orbital speeds near aphelion are so much less than near perihelion.

Supposing, then, that space potentials in such regions are vastly greater, in the negative sense, than they are close to the sun, as the discharge hypothesis requires, any long-period comet could be expected to acquire local space potential quite readily during its long sojourn far from the sun. Quite possibly, too, its body materials would become electrically polarized in response to the buildup of charge on its surface. Consider next what would happen to this charged, electrically polarized body as its orbit brings it with ever increasing speed back toward the sun. By the time it reaches the orbit of Jupiter, solar-wind protons will have stripped away its superficial blanket of negative charge. No longer does its surface potential match that of its surroundings, yet its internal (radial) polarization produces an external electric field, just as polarization in an electret made of wax exhibits an external field here on earth. A space-charge sheath will begin to form to shield the interplanetary plasma from the comet's alien field. As the comet races toward the sun, its sheath takes the form of a long tail stretching away from the sun.

This happens, not because the electrified sun repels the tail material, but because voltage differences between the comet and the interplanetary plasma vary sharply with direction, and because sheath thicknesses are dictated not only by voltage differences, but by gas pressure as well. The potential difference between the head of the comet and the plasma in the direction of the sun might be substantial. But in any case, the potential difference between the comet and plasma farther out from the sun will be greater still. Also, the plasma density is greater nearer the sun than farther from the sun. Hence the sheath remains close to the comet on the sunward side, and it reaches perhaps millions of miles into space on the antisolar side.

This rather sketchy qualitative explanation for comet tails is not advanced here as any sort of final answer to the comet-tail mystery. I include it only as an example of the kind of explanation that can at least be discussed in the light of the discharge hypothesis. Hopefully, too, it offers a measure of solace to those who might feel cheated by the fact that the interplanetary plasma knocks down the idea that comet-tail gases might be repelled by the sun's electric charge.

Electromagnetic radiation is inevitable?

[Nereid]

http://www.thunderbolts.info/velikovsky-ghost.htm
Go down to electric comets:



http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/Rec...0Mechanics.pdf
Extract from an actual Juergen's paper:


Electromagnetic radiation is inevitable?

Please re-read papageno's question ('Why don't you show us that Juergens predicted X-ray emission from comet material, well before it was observed?') - my bold.

Please answer the question that was asked.

[VanderL]

Please re-read papageno's question ('Why don't you show us that Juergens predicted X-ray emission from comet material, well before it was observed?') - my bold.

Please answer the question that was asked.

Sorry to jump in here, but P.Asmah did answer the queation, apparently you didn't read the question asked by Papageno yourself (my bold):

Why don't you show us that Juergens predicted X-ray emission from comet material, well before it was observed?
Wouldn't that make a strong case for EU theories?

If not, can you explain in detail or at least provide a reference to what Juergens said exactly?

Juergens might not have predicted X-rays (I don't know for sure, maybe he did, but I haven't seen any reference). Besides P.Asmah didn't claim Juergens predicted X-rays as far as I can see.

Cheers.

[galacsi]

Please re-read papageno's question ('Why don't you show us that Juergens predicted X-ray emission from comet material, well before it was observed?') - my bold.

Please answer the question that was asked.

I see only hair splitting and inquisition trial in this tread , very boring !

Dont give any desire to participate !

[papageno]

Juergens might not have predicted X-rays (I don't know for sure, maybe he did, but I haven't seen any reference). Besides P.Asmah didn't claim Juergens predicted X-rays as far as I can see.

He brought up Juergens questioning the attribution of the "charge-exchange reaction" explanation for X-ray emissions from comet material.
I asked him to give more details, in particular how he reached the conclusion that Juergens' theory might explain the X-ray emission.

[papageno]

P.Asmah,
since Juergens' theory does not explictly predict X-ray emission by charge-exchange between solar wind ions and comet material, can you show us the reasoning that led you to the conclusion that Juergens' theory is relevant and should be mentioned when the explanation of the phenomenon is to be attributed?

[P.Asmah]

OK, I think we now all agree that comets display what is loosely referred to as charge-exchange-reaction, even if interpretations of this phenomena may vary? In others words, they exhibit some form of electrical behaviour?

Surely, therefore, some form of signature in the form of electromagnetic radiation is expected? In other words, 'It goes without saying' (To borrow from the lexicon of Tusenfem and Tim Thompson) that X-rays are probable?

And talking of EM radiation, didn't Alfven discover Synchroton (Very intense) radiation? If I remember rightly, it's produced by fast-moving electrons in the presence of magnetic fields. I guess its fairly important given that most of the radiation recorded by radio telescopes is derived from this mechanism?

In 1950 I think this was a remarkable suggestion, given that plasma and magnetic fields were thought to have little, if anything, to do in a cosmos filled with 'island universes' (galaxies). It provided additional evidence for the existence of extensive magnetic fields, and indicates that enormous amounts of energy may be converted, stored, and released by cosmic plasma!

[sol88]

In the now-closed EU thread I asked sol88:
Quote:
Originally Posted by papageno
Do you subscribe to upriver's fallacy that whenever mainstream scientists mention electric discharges, this is evidence in support of EU ideas?
Considering the OP, the answer should be "yes!".

What is so EU about the idea that ions from the Solar Wind exchange electron with molecules from the comet?
We have known for a while that there is some interaction between comets and Solar Wind.

Yes, but we have "known" for longer that they are sublimating dirty-snowy ice balls

So it seems that the interaction (comet & solar wind) is purely electrical, with all the associated observations confirming this observation and not the melting snowball hypothesis.

So what about the interaction between Earth and the solar wind? there is a story today on UT, with the cluster satellites moving thru the Earths magnetosphere, were the graphic looks uncannily like a comet. LINK

So for the Earth to have these properties (electrical/magnetic) then it must be completing a circuit, if a comet also displays these properties then must it not also be connected to a circuit?

So lets find the circuits, any ideas on how that could be achieved? '

I think the biggest fear for the mainstreamers is if this all holds true (I believe it will) then they will feel cheated and disillusioned that most of the mainstream theories are fictions and have done a lot more damage than good (led us up the garden path).

Some have said "why do we need a different theory when we have made this one (Big Bang) fit (sort of)".

Well we don't need a new theory if your happy with the BB model, neutron stars, black holes, singularities, space as electrical neutral, non-interacting planetary bodies, magnetic reconnection, the Easter bunny and Father Christmas.

But if you believe other wise then there is a whole new universe to be discovered

The evidence is mounting

Sol

[papageno]

OK, I think we now all agree that comets display what is loosely referred to as charge-exchange-reaction, even if interpretations of this phenomena may vary?

What makes you think that there is room for interpretation?
tusenfem has explained what a charge-exchange reaction is, and the term is not applied "loosely" to explain the X-ray emission in comets:
ions from the Solar Wind hit (i.e., come into close contact, with distances of the order of the size of the molecules) molecules and atoms from the comet; ions and molecules exchange electrons, leaving the (ion + electron) in a highly excited state; when the newly formed atom undergoes a transition towards the ground-state, electromagnetic radiation is emitted (considering the energies involved, this radiation is composed of X-rays).
The observed emission can be used to do spectroscopy of Solar Wind particles:

By comparing the ratio of X-ray energies emitted, scientists can determine the content of the solar wind and infer the content of the comet material.

They can only infer the comet material from these measurement, because the emission comes from Solar Wind material.

And since the spectrum can be quite complicated, they need a reference:

Porter and his colleagues at Goddard and Lawrence Livermore tested the charge exchange theory in an earthbound laboratory in 2003. That experiment, at Livermore's EBIT-I electron beam ion trap, produced a complex spectrograph of intensity versus X-ray energy for a variety of expected elements in the solar wind and comet. "We are anxious to compare nature's laboratory to the one we created," Porter said.

In others words, they exhibit some form of electrical behaviour?

The same type of electrical behaviour any piece of matter shows, but nothing peculiar of EU/PC ideas.
Just plain old atomic physics.

Surely, therefore, some form of signature in the form of electromagnetic radiation is expected?

That is known as spectroscopy. It has been around for 200 years.
Using X-ray emission is a standard technique to identify the elements in a material, so standard that it can be imlpemented without to much trouble in electron microscopes (the electron beam excites the sample, which then emits X-rays).

Surely it goes without saying (To borrow from the lexicon of Tusenfem and Tim Thompson) that some form of X-rays are highly probable?

What do you mean with "form"?
If you are referring to energy or wavelength, then yes some wavelengths are more probable because they correspond to specific and probable electronic transitions in atoms. That's why we can use spectroscopy to identify elements.

And talking of EM radiation, didn't Alfven discover Synchroton (Very intense) radiation? If I remember rightly, it's produced by fast-moving electrons in the presence of magnetic fields. I guess its fairly important given that most of the radiation recorded by radio telescopes is derived from this mechanism?

In 1950 I think this was a remarkable suggestion, given that plasma and magnetic fields were thought to have little, if anything, to do in a cosmos filled with 'island universes' (galaxies). It provided additional evidence for the existence of extensive magnetic fields, and indicates that enormous amounts of energy may be converted, stored, and released by cosmic plasma!

Show us in detail how this is relevant to the OP.
Synchrotron radiation is not the same as radiation from charge-exchange.

By the way:

since Juergens' theory does not explictly predict X-ray emission by charge-exchange between solar wind ions and comet material, can you show us the reasoning that led you to the conclusion that Juergens' theory is relevant and should be mentioned when the explanation of the phenomenon is to be attributed?

It's time to answer.

[P.Asmah]

since Juergens' theory does not explictly predict X-ray emission by charge-exchange between solar wind ions and comet material

Haven't you answered this yourself? 'Considering the energies involved', my bold below.

ions from the Solar Wind hit (i.e., come into close contact, with distances of the order of the size of the molecules) molecules and atoms from the comet; ions and molecules exchange electrons, leaving the (ion + electron) in a highly excited state; when the newly formed atom undergoes a transition towards the ground-state, electromagnetic radiation is emitted (considering the energies involved, this radiation is composed of X-rays).

Show us in detail how this is relevant to the OP.
Synchrotron radiation is not the same as radiation from charge-exchange.

Because electromagnetic radiation, in whatever form, is a signature of...

Remember, these X-Rays were a big surprise for the mainstream, but EM radiation is expected by EU theories. I think it's time to stop splitting hairs!

[Fram]

Remember, these X-Rays were a big surprise for the mainstream, but EM radiation is expected by EU theories.

No, the X-rays were no surprise, the amount (brightness) was. X-rays from comets were detected 10 years ago. An explanation for them was logically only found after the discovery (otherwise it wouldn't have been an explanation but a prediction), so the 1997 explanation is the first.

That there is electromagnetic radiation is not such a surprise though, we can see comets, their infrared energy (heat), and so on. So what specifically makes you think Juergen was talking about X-rays?

[papageno]

What is so EU about the idea that ions from the Solar Wind exchange electron with molecules from the comet?
We have known for a while that there is some interaction between comets and Solar Wind.

Yes, but we have "known" for longer that they are sublimating dirty-snowy ice balls

Have a look at this:

The Sun's radiation pressure and solar wind accelerate materials away from the comet's head at differing velocities according to the size and mass of the materials.

So it seems that the interaction (comet & solar wind) is purely electrical, with all the associated observations confirming this observation and not the melting snowball hypothesis.

This is a strawman: mainstream astrophysics does not say that the interaction between Solar Wind and comet is responsible for melting the surface material.
The comet is heated by the electromagnetic radiation from the Sun, not by the Solar Wind.

So what about the interaction between Earth and the solar wind? there is a story today on UT, with the cluster satellites moving thru the Earths magnetosphere, were the graphic looks uncannily like a comet.

The Sun's radiation pressure and solar wind accelerate materials away from the comet's head at differing velocities according to the size and mass of the materials.

Similar things can happen with the Earth, but the Earth has a magnetic field as well, so things are not exactly the same as for comets.

By the way, you have not explained what the Earth's magnetosphere has to do with the X-ray emission from comets.

So for the Earth to have these properties (electrical/magnetic) then it must be completing a circuit, if a comet also displays these properties then must it not also be connected to a circuit?

First, what makes you think that the Earth needs to be in a circuit? Give us the details.

Second, what makes you think that comets display the same properties?
After all, the charge-exchange explanation for X-ray emission from comets does not require circuits.

I think the biggest fear for the mainstreamers is if this all holds true (I believe it will) then they will feel cheated and disillusioned that most of the mainstream theories are fictions and have done a lot more damage than good (led us up the garden path).

I see that you have not slightest idea what research is about:

"We are anxious to compare nature's laboratory to the one we created," Porter said.

I am still waiting for EU believers to come up with any viable theory.
But are you prepared to face the fact that EU proponents are wrong?

Some have said "why do we need a different theory when we have made this one (Big Bang) fit (sort of)".

We were talking about comets.
Can you distinguish cosmology from comets?

Well we don't need a new theory if your happy with the BB model, neutron stars, black holes, singularities, space as electrical neutral, non-interacting planetary bodies, magnetic reconnection, the Easter bunny and Father Christmas.

I am still waiting for EU proponents to come up with any scientific theory.
In the meantime, astronomers and physicists will keep doing real research.

But if you believe other wise then there is a whole new universe to be discovered.

You have never been involved in research, have you?

The evidence is mounting

And it's not looking good for EU ideas.

So, once more:

What is so EU about the idea that ions from the Solar Wind exchange electron with molecules from the comet?

Besides your wishful thinking.

[papageno]

since Juergens' theory does not explictly predict X-ray emission by charge-exchange between solar wind ions and comet material

Haven't you answered this yourself? 'Considering the energies involved', my bold below.

The charge-exchange reaction producing X-rays was not predicted by Juergens, was it?

So, answer my question: can you show us the reasoning that led you to the conclusion that Juergens' theory is relevant and should be mentioned when the explanation of the phenomenon is to be attributed?

Show us that it is relevant, or retract your claim.

Because electromagnetic radiation, in whatever form, is a signature of...

Charges accelerating.
So, answer the question: how is synchrotron radiation relevant to the charge-exchange reaction producing X-rays from comets?

Show us that it is relevant, or retract your claim.

Remember, these X-Rays were a big surprise for the mainstream, but EM radiation is expected by EU theories.

The observed X-rays are produced by a specific mechanism.
Show us that EU "theories" predicted such mechanism, or retract your claim.

It is time to put up or shut up.

[P.Asmah]

The charge-exchange reaction producing X-rays was not predicted by Juergens, was it?

This is a strawman. No one has made the claim that Juergens made any such prediction. The point is that he was one of the first to predict energetic electrical reactions in relation to comets.

And as you said yourself, 'considering the energies involved'. In other words you imply that it goes without saying that X-Rays are probable.

So, answer the question: how is synchrotron radiation relevant to the charge-exchange reaction producing X-rays from comets?

Another strawman. No such claim has been made. My point is that EM radiation is a signature of EM phenomena in space on a much broader scale than just the behaviour of comets.

On the one hand you infer that electrical reactions in space are insginificant, and on the other you admit that they are energetic enough to produce X-Rays. You cannot have it both ways.

[Nereid]

[snip]
Some have said "why do we need a different theory when we have made this one (Big Bang) fit (sort of)".

Well we don't need a new theory if your happy with the BB model, neutron stars, black holes, singularities, space as electrical neutral, non-interacting planetary bodies, magnetic reconnection, the Easter bunny and Father Christmas.

But if you believe other wise then there is a whole new universe to be discovered

The evidence is mounting

Sol

sol88, this thread is devoted to a specific topic - 'electric comets'; the ATM idea that many of the observed properties of comets are consistent with EU/PU/PC ideas.

Please do not attempt to broaden the scope beyond this topic.

[Nereid]

[snip] but EM radiation is expected by EU theories.

Would you be kind enough to provide references to EU materials which present the quantitative details of these theories (as they relate to comets)?

In particular, please provide links to materials which show the derivation of 'expected EM radiation' (from comets) from the theory? (I am sure, since you have called it a theory, that these details will include the relevant plasma physics equations).

In which publications were the 'EM radiation' (from comets) expectations quantified? Where can one read the expected distribution of EM energy (from comets), by wavelength (or frequency)? What expectations were published, concerning the total (EM) energy (expected to be) radiated (from comets)?

[Tim Thompson]

The charge-exchange reaction producing X-rays was not predicted by Juergens, was it?

This is a strawman. No one has made the claim that Juergens made any such prediction. The point is that he was one of the first to predict energetic electrical reactions in relation to comets.

No, it is not a strawman. It is a perfectly valid point. You are operating under the extreme misconception that anything that involves charged particles is contrary to the mainstream view of physics, and indicative of an EU interpretation.

The charge exchange process is not "electrical" in the EU sense. It does not involve the flow of anything identifiable as "electricity", it cannot be simulated using a closed circuit model. It does not compare with anything that Juergens predicted. Furthermore, there are no indications that I am aware of, either from theory or observation, that any of Juergens' predictions can be considered valid.

It was Biermann who first predicted the existence of a corpuscular solar wind, by implication from the observed behavior of comet tails, which were already known to be plasma (Biremann, 1951). And the mainstream view that the magnetic field in the solar wind "piles up" around the head of the comet is due to Alfven (On the Theory of Comet Tails, Hannes Alfven, Tellus 9: 96). As for X-rays, nobody predicted them in advance, so far as I know, before they were observed by the soft X-ray camera onboard the Extreme UltraViolet Explorer (Krasnopolsky, 1997; Mumma, et al., 1997; publication of the scientific papers was delayed, which allowed the paper by Northrup, et al., 1997, to precede them by a few months).

And the point here is that the plasma nature of comet tails, as well as the plasma nature of the solar wind, was well established before Juergens predicted anything. So you cannot single out his predictions as in any way exceptional without demonstrating that his predictions were both (a) radically different from anything in mainstream science, and (b) validated, or at least not contradicted, by observation.

... My point is that EM radiation is a signature of EM phenomena in space on a much broader scale than just the behaviour of comets.

EM phenomena in space are well involved in all of mainstream astrophysics. So it is not enough to simplistically assume that any mention of them must be some kind of problem for mainstream science. We expect, and predict, that there will be extensive EM phenomena everywhere. You need to go further, you need to demonstrate that the EU interpretation of observed EM phenomena is at least as good as the mainstream, if not better.

So, since were are talking about comets in particular, I return to my previous reference: X-Ray and extreme ultraviolet emissions from comets; Krasnopolsky, Greenwood & Stancil, Space Science Reviews 113(3): 271-374, August 2004. You'll have to go find the original, you can't get it online without a subscription. But the detailed physics of cometary X-ray emissions is worked out therein. It is consistent with both laboratory & astronomical observation, and of course, it is consistent with standard physics. You can also refer to my post #18, and some subsequent discussion, in the UT story thread "Deep Impact Caused a Great Gush of Water Vapour".

You, or somebody else (maybe sol88, he started this thread), needs to show why & how the EU interpretation of cometary X-rays is at least as good as this, if not better.

[papageno]

The charge-exchange reaction producing X-rays was not predicted by Juergens, was it?

This is a strawman. No one has made the claim that Juergens made any such prediction.

Short memory? See post #3:

Didn't Ralph Juergens, who proposed the Electric Sun model, also propose the corollary that cometary comas and tails are produced by an electrical exchange between the sun and a comet. I think so.

Well, you thought wrong, even though you won't admit it.
Of course, you were pretty confused about the charge-exchange mechanism, despite tusenfem's explanation. But what matters is that it contains the word "charge", right?

Remember post #5?

Why don't you show us that Juergens predicted X-ray emission from comet material, well before it was observed?
Wouldn't that make a strong case for EU theories?

If not, can you explain in detail or at least provide a reference to what Juergens said exactly?

All you did is post quotes from the Thunderbolts website and from Juergens' Reconciling Celestial Mechanics and Velikovskian Catastrophism (1972).
None of these quotes gives even the slightest hint that the EU theories predict or can explain X-ray emission from comets.

That's why I asked you in post #11:

since Juergens' theory does not explictly predict X-ray emission by charge-exchange between solar wind ions and comet material, can you show us the reasoning that led you to the conclusion that Juergens' theory is relevant and should be mentioned when the explanation of the phenomenon is to be attributed?

So, once more, can you show us the reasoning that led you to the conclusion that Juergens' theory is relevant and should be mentioned when the explanation of the phenomenon is to be attributed?
If you cannot, just say so.

The point is that he was one of the first to predict energetic electrical reactions in relation to comets.

I let Tim Thompson respond to your wishful thinking:

You are operating under the extreme misconception that anything that involves charged particles is contrary to the mainstream view of physics, and indicative of an EU interpretation.

The charge exchange process is not "electrical" in the EU sense. It does not involve the flow of anything identifiable as "electricity", it cannot be simulated using a closed circuit model. It does not compare with anything that Juergens predicted. Furthermore, there are no indications that I am aware of, either from theory or observation, that any of Juergens' predictions can be considered valid.

Consider that we have about thirty years more observational results to test Juergens' ideas, and they don't pass the tests.

And as you said yourself, 'considering the energies involved'. In other words you imply that it goes without saying that X-Rays are probable.

Juergens did not predict X-rays nor did he predict charge-exchange reactions between Solar Wind and comet material.
Therefore your reference to Juergens' "theory" is irrelevant to the topic, even though you don't want to admit it.

So, answer the question: how is synchrotron radiation relevant to the charge-exchange reaction producing X-rays from comets?

Another strawman. No such claim has been made.

You are right! See post #12

And talking of EM radiation, didn't Alfven discover Synchroton (Very intense) radiation? If I remember rightly, it's produced by fast-moving electrons in the presence of magnetic fields. I guess its fairly important given that most of the radiation recorded by radio telescopes is derived from this mechanism?

The relevance of this was obscure, which is why I asked you:

Show us in detail how this is relevant to the OP.
Synchrotron radiation is not the same as radiation from charge-exchange.

To which you answered:

Because electromagnetic radiation, in whatever form, is a signature of...

displaying an astounding misunderstanding of the topic at hand.

But I'll let again Tim Thompson say it:

My point is that EM radiation is a signature of EM phenomena in space on a much broader scale than just the behaviour of comets.

EM phenomena in space are well involved in all of mainstream astrophysics. So it is not enough to simplistically assume that any mention of them must be some kind of problem for mainstream science. We expect, and predict, that there will be extensive EM phenomena everywhere. You need to go further, you need to demonstrate that the EU interpretation of observed EM phenomena is at least as good as the mainstream, if not better.

Unfortunately, so far you have shown very little understanding of both mainstream and EU ideas.

On the one hand you infer that electrical reactions in space are insginificant, and on the other you admit that they are energetic enough to produce X-Rays. You cannot have it both ways.

You surely mean: "you do not attribute phenomena to electromagnetic effects against all the experimental data", unlike EU theorists like Juergens.
The idea that there is some contradiction in the mainstream explanations of astrophysical phenomena, is just the result of misunderstandings and ignorance.
Back up your claim with real evidence.

[sol88]

Quote:
Originally Posted by sol88
Quote:
Originally Posted by papageno
What is so EU about the idea that ions from the Solar Wind exchange electron with molecules from the comet?
We have known for a while that there is some interaction between comets and Solar Wind.
Yes, but we have "known" for longer that they are sublimating dirty-snowy ice balls
Have a look at this:

No where does it mention X-Rays, only that they "fluoresce"

As comets approach the Sun they develop enormous tails of luminous material that extend for millions of kilometers from the head, away from the Sun. When far from the Sun, the nucleus is very cold and its material is frozen solid within the nucleus. In this state comets are sometimes referred to as a "dirty iceberg" or "dirty snowball," since over half of their material is ice. When a comet approaches within a few AU of the Sun, the surface of the nucleus begins to warm, and volatiles evaporate. The evaporated molecules boil off and carry small solid particles with them, forming the comet's coma of gas and dust.

When the nucleus is frozen, it can be seen only by reflected sunlight. However, when a coma develops, dust reflects still more sunlight, and gas in the coma absorbs ultraviolet radiation and begins to fluoresce. At about 5 AU from the Sun, fluorescence usually becomes more intense than reflected light.

Where you dig this up Papaeno? "since over half of their material is ice", "evaporated molecules boil off" and "coma absorbs ultraviolet radiation and begins to fluoresce"

Have you a link to something on comets that is not aimed at 5 yr olds??

If you believe this version, then sorry, there is nothing I can do to "prove" to you that the primary reason for the observed phenomena is EM.

We can do what Galacsi said "split hairs and have an inquisition" fest or pull our combined resources and smarts and see what we can come up with.

Sol

[PhantomWolf]

Maybe I'm just ignorant, but exactly how does:

Electrons that leap from neutral atoms to the passing solar wind ions emit x-rays as they cascade from high-energy to low-energy ionic orbits.

jump to:

cometary comas and tails are produced by an electrical exchange between the sun and a comet.

and

the interaction (comet & solar wind) is purely electrical

[Tim Thompson]

Have a look at this:

No where does it mention X-Rays, only that they "fluoresce"

Oh, really?

Still another puzzle is the nature of the physical process that generates the X-rays, but the ROSAT image may contain clues to this process. In the image, the X-rays from the comet seem to come from a crescent-shaped region on the sunward side of Comet Hyakutake. One preliminary theory is that X-ray emission from the Sun was absorbed by a cloud of gaseous water molecules surrounding the nucleus of the comet, and then were re-emitted by the molecules in a process physicists call "fluorescence." According to this idea, the cloud is so thick that its sunward side absorbs nearly all the incoming solar X-rays, so that none reach the remainder of the cloud. This could explain why the cometary X-ray emission has the form of a crescent, rather than that of a sphere around the nucleus. A second possible explanation is that the X-rays are produced from the violent collision between the comet material and the supersonic "wind" of plasma and particles streaming away from the Sun.

You should read more carefully. That particular comment appears to be as old as 1997, when the X-rays were first observed. The idea of solar X-rays being absorbed & re-emitted does not hold up. But the part about collisions with the solar wind is what they call "pay dirt".

So, if the EUers would follow the conversation a bit more carefully, they might take my advice. The source of the X-ray emission is described in extreme detail in the paper I have already reference several times in several places: X-Ray and extreme ultraviolet emissions from comets. Of course, you will probably have to find it in some university library, it is not online. Enough of the hand waving, and non-reading. Is there an EUer capable of pointing out why the mainstream physics is wrong? Or maybe why the EU is better?

[papageno]

No where does it mention X-Rays, only that they "fluoresce"

Let me quote the context:

We have known for a while that there is some interaction between comets and Solar Wind.

Yes, but we have "known" for longer that they are sublimating dirty-snowy ice balls

Have a look at this:

The Sun's radiation pressure and solar wind accelerate materials away from the comet's head at differing velocities according to the size and mass of the materials.

So it seems that the interaction (comet & solar wind) is purely electrical, with all the associated observations confirming this observation and not the melting snowball hypothesis.

This is a strawman: mainstream astrophysics does not say that the interaction between Solar Wind and comet is responsible for melting the surface material.
The comet is heated by the electromagnetic radiation from the Sun, not by the Solar Wind.

Your reply gave me the impression that you thought that mainstream astrophysics attributes the sublimation of comet material to its interaction with the Solar Wind.
I pointed out that this is incorrect, because the sublimation is caused by the radiant heat from the Sun, and I gave a link to support this point.
The link was not meant to address the X-ray emission.


About your quote from this:

As comets approach the Sun they develop enormous tails of luminous material that extend for millions of kilometers from the head, away from the Sun. When far from the Sun, the nucleus is very cold and its material is frozen solid within the nucleus. In this state comets are sometimes referred to as a "dirty iceberg" or "dirty snowball," since over half of their material is ice. When a comet approaches within a few AU of the Sun, the surface of the nucleus begins to warm, and volatiles evaporate. The evaporated molecules boil off and carry small solid particles with them, forming the comet's coma of gas and dust.

When the nucleus is frozen, it can be seen only by reflected sunlight. However, when a coma develops, dust reflects still more sunlight, and gas in the coma absorbs ultraviolet radiation and begins to fluoresce. At about 5 AU from the Sun, fluorescence usually becomes more intense than reflected light.

Where you dig this up Papageno? "since over half of their material is ice", "evaporated molecules boil off" and "coma absorbs ultraviolet radiation and begins to fluoresce"

Tim Thompson already addressed your comment:

You should read more carefully. That particular comment appears to be as old as 1997, when the X-rays were first observed. The idea of solar X-rays being absorbed & re-emitted does not hold up. But the part about collisions with the solar wind is what they call "pay dirt".

EU proponents have no problems citing references thirty years out of date when it suits them (such as Juergens paper).

Have you a link to something on comets that is not aimed at 5 yr olds??

Then go to a library and read some real textbooks. Or do you think that everything is available on the Internet for free?

If you believe this version, then sorry, there is nothing I can do to "prove" to you that the primary reason for the observed phenomena is EM.

What makes you think that it is a matter of believe?
What makes you think that fluorescence has nothing to do with Electromagnetism?

Why don't address my points?

By the way, you have not explained what the Earth's magnetosphere has to do with the X-ray emission from comets.

[...]

First, what makes you think that the Earth needs to be in a circuit? Give us the details.

Second, what makes you think that comets display the same properties?
After all, the charge-exchange explanation for X-ray emission from comets does not require circuits.

[...]

We were talking about comets.
Can you distinguish cosmology from comets?

And, again:

What is so EU about the idea that ions from the Solar Wind exchange electron with molecules from the comet?

So, care to answer?

[tusenfem]

I think that a misinterpretation of electrodynamics with a few EU proponents lies in the fact that they think that anything not created by a current circuit is not EM.

Fluoresence is only the taking up of a photon and later re-emitting it, no circuit there.
Charge exchange is a collision in which an electron hops from one player to the other, no circuit there.

The EU want to have everything electrical (I gather from Sol88's messages) meaning they want to plug it in and drive a curent.

[Tim Thompson]

This rather sketchy qualitative explanation for comet tails is not advanced here as any sort of final answer to the comet-tail mystery. I include it only as an example of the kind of explanation that can at least be discussed in the light of the discharge hypothesis. Hopefully, too, it offers a measure of solace to those who might feel cheated by the fact that the interplanetary plasma knocks down the idea that comet-tail gases might be repelled by the sun's electric charge.

This discussion suffers from a terrible weakness, and that is the absence of any electric comet model. How are we supposed to discuss electric comets, if we don't know what they are supposed to be? Even Juergen's calls his own description a "rather sketchy qualitative explanation". So, is this the best description of an electric comet that the EU has to offer? Is there anything more precise? is there a model that actually uses real physics? Is there a model that actually has an equation in it somewhere?

I think that if there is no more precise, more physical description of an electric comet than this, then there is hardly a reason to pretend that this might be a serious discussion.

[sol88]

Your reply gave me the impression that you thought that mainstream astrophysics attributes the sublimation of comet material to its interaction with the Solar Wind.
I pointed out that this is incorrect, because the sublimation is caused by the radiant heat from the Sun, and I gave a link to support this point.
The link was not meant to address the X-ray emission.

"radiant heat from the Sun" out near Jupiter? Sublimation? has this been confirmed? Comets are mostly Ice?

Seems the team over at JPL's Stardust mission think otherwise, and I dare to say they are the mainstream, check out thier " Stardust Findings May Alter View of Comet Formation" Mmmm... interesting.

LINK

Tim wrote

Is there anything more precise? is there a model that actually uses real physics? Is there a model that actually has an equation in it somewhere?

I think that if there is no more precise, more physical description of an electric comet than this, then there is hardly a reason to pretend that this might be a serious discussion.

But the mainstreamer have'nt got it right yet, so I suggest it is still very much wide open for debate .i.e.

Many astronomers believe olivine crystals form from glass when it is heated close to stars, Brownlee said. One puzzle is why such crystals came from Wild 2, a comet that formed beyond the orbit of Neptune when the solar system began some 4.6 billion years ago.

"It's certain such materials never formed inside this icy, cold body," Brownlee said.

The comet traveled the frigid environs of deep space until 1974, when a close encounter with Jupiter brought it to the inner solar system. Besides olivine, the dust from Wild 2 also contains exotic, high-temperature minerals rich in calcium, aluminum and titanium.

My bold, this is were this layperson starts to see the duality of mainstream science and there Hypocrisy

I'm sure you've read how the EU'rs think this happens (link here if you'd like to look) Take a look, might put a new light on the subject!!

Sol