Star Water and Life in the Universe - An Electric Universe theory confirmed?

reply to post by wildespace

Apologies for assuming you're an EU proponent, but the Electric Universe is in the title of this thread, so it's natural that we discuss it here.

Thank you for the apology, I can’t tell you how difficult it is to reply here when all I feel is ridicule. Discussing the electric universe is fine, I enjoy learning new things.

I haven't read much about plasma cosmology, but from what I've read it simply doesn't match the observations or predictions. "Plasma cosmology is rejected by astrophysicists and cosmologists because, as described by its proponents, it does not provide as well-matched an account of the observations of astrophysical and cosmological phenomena as the accepted astrophysical and cosmological theories do.

If you are interested then do spend more time learning plasma physics. It is a real science and is not rejected by other scientists. The question is how it might explain observations. The universe is made up of 99% plasma. Plasma and electricity have similarities but are not the same. The Sun is plasma and therefore follows the rules of plasma physics. The solar wind is plasma, so is lightning and the Aurora Borealis. Plasma is electrically conductive and is affected by magnetic fields. Many astronomical observations show these affects.

For me at least, the dirty snowball model of comets makes perfect sense: the outer Solar System is icy. Bodies out there are more than 50% ice,

This seemed to make sense to me too until I spent time researching this topic. We do not know what is out in the Oort cloud so any claim is a theory at best.

some are even almost pure ice. It follows clearly, then, that comets, which originate from the outer Solar System, are icy.

Of all the comets that have been observed close up, by space craft like Deep Impact or Stardust, little to no water ice has been found on the surface. The thought is that the ice is beneath the surface yet Deep Impact doesn’t seem to confirm this hypothesis. Remember Deep Impact crashed into Temple 1 expelling dry dust, no water. It is quite possible that no water is present on or in any of these comets. The question then is where is the HHO coming from that is observed in their tails through spectral analysis? That is what I thought this thread was about.

The Stardust mission brought samples back from comet Wild 2 and found that this comet originated in the inner solar system and under high temperatures (@1000°C). So if little to no water has been observed under close inspection and evidence is found for an inner solar system origination then what does that do to the dirty snowball theory?

So to claim that comets are completely rocky or metallic and contain no frozen volatiles, goes against of what we know about the Solar System.

To be clear it is the data that is showing that comets are dry, rocky and/or metallic. It is not simply a “claim”. And what we “know”, as you put it, about comets is a theory that has been proven wrong in at least some capacity by way of data/ evidence. This is what science is supposed to do, prove theories wrong with evidence. The reason we still call comets “dirty snowballs” is further proof for denial of electrical interactions in space.

reply to post by Devino


So what creates those spectacular comas and tails in comets? The EU claims comets are negatively charged, and interact electrically with the positively charged Sun, thus creating comas and tails. What does the plasma cosmology say about that? How does all that stuff come off dry rocky/metallic bodies, and why does the ion tail point directly away from the Sun?

As for comets that were found to have no ice on the surface, that is just a small sample of them, and comets may have varying amounts of ices. Ice may indeed hide under the surface, being covered with dust and hydrocarbons.

reply to post by Devino

To be clear it is the data that is showing that comets are dry, rocky and/or metallic. It is not simply a “claim”. And what we “know”, as you put it, about comets is a theory that has been proven wrong in at least some capacity by way of data/ evidence. This is what science is supposed to do, prove theories wrong with evidence. The reason we still call comets “dirty snowballs” is further proof for denial of electrical interactions in space.

Once again, mainstream science does not deny the presence of electrical interactions is space. Why do you think scientists are paying so much attention to the reports from V'ger? It is understood that interstellar space has plasma winds and magnetic currents. Why do you think they launch probes like IBEX? They are still in the process of collecting data, that is why the theories are not more robust. In the standard model of comets, there are two tails, as actually observed. One is composed of dust (presumably silicates) and the other of ionized gas, ie; plasma. This has been explained to you before. One of the flaws in the EU theory is that it recognizes that oxygen is present in the solar wind in only trace amounts. It therefore has to admit that oxygen is already present in the comet if it is to produce any hydroxyls or water after interacting with the solar wind. The paradox is obvious. Given that 98% of the material in the solar system is hydrogen, the presence of oxygen in a comet automatically pre-supposes large quantities of hydrogen, as well. In other words, EU does not present any reason why hydroxyls and even water ice should not be present in comets all along!

Devino
reply to post by JadeStar

 

You Electric Universe types forget you need something called a conductor to have electrical interactions. Mostly empty space doesn't really make a good conductor.

Plasma is an excellent conductor. The solar wind is plasma.

What’s frustrating is that I don’t consider myself an EU type because I don’t know much about their theories. I have read a bit on plasma physics though and I would suggest you do the same.

There's a difference between the solar wind and the flux and density of plasma that can conduct at great distances.

The interstellar medium IS NOT the same as what you are thinking of, nor is it much of a conductor. I suggest you read more about density and flux interstellar space.

The fact is the Electric Universe ideas were based on Immanuel Velikovsky's "World's In Collision" which founded what is now known as psuedoscience. It has no validity.

reply to post by wildespace

So what creates those spectacular comas and tails in comets?... What does the plasma cosmology say about that?

I don’t know. However, moving an electrically charged body through a magnetic field produces an electric current which then creates a magnetic field around itself. This is how electric motors work.

How does all that stuff come off dry rocky/metallic bodies

I thought the OP’s article might have given some clues as to what could be happening. What happens when H+ interacts with O in the manner that they are describing? Does this interaction create heat or release energy? Is no one interested in the OP?

As for comets that were found to have no ice on the surface, that is just a small sample of them, and comets may have varying amounts of ices. Ice may indeed hide under the surface, being covered with dust and hydrocarbons.

You’re right, I have also thought about this. We have looked at such a small sample of what could potentially be out there. Perhaps most comets are all water ice but the evidence so far shows otherwise.

The definition of comets is that they are dirty snowballs originating from the outer solar system. What evidence is there for water? What evidence is there for outer solar system originations? We do have evidence that comets are dry and have originated in the inner solar system and under high temperature conditions.

reply to post by JadeStar

There's a difference between the solar wind and the flux and density of plasma that can conduct at great distances.

So

The interstellar medium IS NOT the same as what you are thinking of, nor is it much of a conductor.

Prove it.

The fact is the Electric Universe ideas were based on Immanuel Velikovsky's "World's In Collision" which founded what is now known as psuedoscience. It has no validity.

This so called “fact” is your opinion unless you can prove it. If you had actually read “Worlds in Collision” you might know that it is based on anthropology and ancient cultures. It is a story painted by way of a unity of myth found from ancient cultures around the world.

I suggest you read more about density and flux interstellar space.

If you mean read more about plasma physics and cosmology then yes, I will. That’s great advice, thank you.