Phaethon confirmed as rock comet by STEREO vision

Sep 10, 2013
Geminids over Pendleton, Oregon. Credit: Thomas W. Earle

The Sun-grazing asteroid, Phaethon, has betrayed its true nature by showing a comet-like tail of dust particles blown backwards by radiation pressure from the Sun. Unlike a comet, however, Phaethon's tail doesn't arise through the vaporization of an icy nucleus. During its closest approach to the Sun, researchers believe that Phaethon becomes so hot that rocks on the surface crack and crumble to dust under the extreme heat. The findings will be presented by David Jewitt on Tuesday 10 September at the European Planetary Science Congress (EPSC) 2013 in London.

Most arise when the Earth ploughs through streams of debris released from comets in the . The Geminids, which grace the annually in December, are one of the best known and most spectacular of the dozens of meteor showers. However, astronomers have known for 30 years that the Geminids are not caused by a comet but by a 5 km diameter asteroid called (3200) Phaethon.

Until recently, though, and much to their puzzlement, astronomer's attempts to catch Phaethon in the act of throwing out particles all ended in failure. The tide began to turn in 2010 when Jewitt and colleague, Jing Li, found Phaethon to be anomalously bright when closest to the Sun. The key to success was their use of NASA's STEREO Sun-observing spacecraft. Phaethon at perihelion appears only 8 degrees (16 solar diameters) from the sun, making observations with normal telescopes impossible. Now, in further STEREO observations from 2009 and 2012, Jewitt, Li and Jessica Agarwal have spotted a comet-like tail extending from Phaethon.

"The tail gives incontrovertible evidence that Phaethon ejects dust," said Jewitt. 'That still leaves the question: why? Comets do it because they contain ice that vaporizes in the heat of the Sun, creating a wind that blows embedded dust particles from the nucleus. Phaethon's closest approach to the Sun is just 14 per cent of the average Earth-Sun distance (1AU). That means that Phaethon will reach temperatures over 700 degrees Celsius – far too hot for ice to survive."

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
Movie showing Phaethon moving across the sky. Credit: Li/Jewitt/Agarwal /NASA/STEREO

The team believes that thermal fracture and desiccation fracture (formed like mud cracks in a dry lake bed) may be launching small that are then picked up by sunlight and pushed into the tail. While this is the first time that thermal disintegration has been found to play an important role in the Solar System, astronomers have already detected unexpected amounts of hot dust around some nearby stars that might have been similarly-produced.

So, is Phaethon an asteroid or a comet? Asteroids and comets derive from entirely different regions of the solar system; asteroids from between Mars and Jupiter (roughly 2 to 3.5 AU) and comets from the frigid trans-Neptunian realms (30 AU and beyond).

"By the shape of its orbit, Phaethon is definitely an asteroid. But by ejecting dust it behaves like a 'rock comet'," said Jewitt.

Explore further: Google exec makes record skydive from edge of space

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

The 2011 Geminid meteor shower

Dec 13, 2011

The 2011 Geminid meteor shower peaks on the night of Dec. 13-14, and despite the glare of a nearly-full Moon, it might be a good show.

Geminid meteor shower defies explanation

Dec 07, 2010

The Geminid meteor shower, which peaks this year on Dec. 13th and 14th, is the most intense meteor shower of the year. It lasts for days, is rich in fireballs, and can be seen from almost any point on Earth.

Asteroid Shower

Dec 03, 2007

Mark your calendar: The best meteor shower of 2007 peaks on Friday, December 14th.

Geminid meteor shower 2011

Dec 07, 2011

Its the finale of this year’s meteor showers: The Geminids will start appearing on Dec. 7 and should reach peak activity around the 13th and 14th. This shower could put on a display of up to 100+ meteors ...

Hubble brings faraway comet into view

Apr 23, 2013

(Phys.org) —The NASA Hubble Space Telescope has given astronomers their clearest view yet of Comet ISON, a newly-discovered sun grazer comet that may light up the sky later this year, or come so close to ...

Asteroid Steins in 3-D

Sep 02, 2013

(Phys.org) —Five years ago this week, ESA's Rosetta mission flew by asteroid Steins en route to comet Churyumov–Gerasimenko, where it will finally arrive next year after a decade in space.

Recommended for you

Hinode satellite captures X-ray footage of solar eclipse

Oct 24, 2014

The moon passed between the Earth and the sun on Thursday, Oct. 23. While avid stargazers in North America looked up to watch the spectacle, the best vantage point was several hundred miles above the North ...

User comments : 51

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (18) Sep 10, 2013
Re: "The tail gives incontrovertible evidence that Phaethon ejects dust"

So, here we go again: What sense does it make to dismiss a whole host of critiques regarding conventional cometary theory, as well as a competing, far simpler explanation of comets that can explain all of the known enigmas at once -- only to then pretend as though there is no competing explanation or critiques at all?

http://vimeo.com/71642784
http://www.thunde...omet.pdf

Of all conventional cosmic theories, cometary theory is by far the weakest link. The accepted theories for comets consistently defy logic and common sense.

Re: "Phaethon's closest approach to the Sun is just 14 per cent of the average Earth-Sun distance (1AU) ... "By the shape of its orbit, Phaethon is definitely an asteroid. But by ejecting dust it behaves like a 'rock comet'," said Jewitt."

In an electrical plasma environment, the circularity of this orbit would be the key to distinguishing the two categories.
rug
2.5 / 5 (16) Sep 10, 2013
Just a few ideas that might help you to understand.
1) Your pet theory has already been proven wrong so many times your butt must be hurting by now.
2) This "far simpler explanation of comets" of yours is based on your pet theory...see point 1 for explanation.
3) There is plasma in the universe, it does make up most of the visible mass in the universe, but there still has been no evidence your pet theory is correct. While there has been lots and lots and lots of evidence proving your pet theory wrong.

You know all of this as well as I do. All of it has been said to you before. I have read many prove you wrong so eloquently and decisively there is no way you don't understand. Therefore, you are nothing but an obvious dumbass troll. Get over your butt hurt and logical failures and join the rest of the intelligent people in the world in accepting the evidence as it stands.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (14) Sep 10, 2013
Still have yet to see the "proofs".
rug
2 / 5 (12) Sep 10, 2013
Only because you are a dumbass as well and I wouldn't doubt the same person. You have been proved wrong more times than I wish to bother counting and yet....here you are.....both dumbasses.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (13) Sep 10, 2013
Your post reveals much about you.
rug
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 10, 2013
Yeah, it reveals you are a dumbass. That was kinda the point.
barakn
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 10, 2013
Thanks for the link, HannesAlfven:
http://www.thunde...omet.pdf
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (13) Sep 10, 2013
I am plasma, you are glue,
whatever you say,
is repelled by me,
and sticks to you!

I bet we could get even more juvenile if we really tried.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (13) Sep 10, 2013
Re: "1) Your pet theory has already been proven wrong so many times your butt must be hurting by now."

The juvenile discourse here does not at all adequately reflect the thoughtful critique of conventional cometary theory that has been presented, nor the more logical proposition that cometary phenomena simply result from a dark mode plasma switching to glow and arc modes.

Re: "There is plasma in the universe, it does make up most of the visible mass in the universe, but there still has been no evidence your pet theory is correct."

The point which is tellingly never actually engaged are the very specific claims that the MHD models are highly idealized (and politically so, in service to the conventional theories). And yet, it stands to reason -- very plainly -- that if you acknowledge that plasmas dominate our view of the universe, then the way in which we model them should NECESSARILY be a vital topic of conversation.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (13) Sep 10, 2013
Re: "I have read many prove you wrong so eloquently and decisively there is no way you don't understand."

I'm very familiar with the work of Tim Thompson, Tom Bridgman, Leroy Ellenberger, APODNereid, Phil Plait and the others. Where it appears that you and I seem to have diverged is that I took the time, over many years, to actually talk to the theorists about these critiques with an open mind and in a manner which is respectful to those theorists. I was given adequate answers in each instance.

By contrast, my interactions with each of these EU critics has been completely disappointing. It has become clear that none of these people approach the subject with an open mind. Their intent is very blatantly to disprove the theory before properly learning it. Where they see something they don't understand, rather than check in with the theorists, they present this misunderstanding to others who don't know better as debunking.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (13) Sep 10, 2013
Re: "but there still has been no evidence your pet theory is correct. While there has been lots and lots and lots of evidence proving your pet theory wrong."

Note that when Tempel 1 was shot with Deep Impact's copper impacter, the results strongly supported the EU interpretation of comets on numerous points. In particular, the observation of two separate flashes of light was a particularly important red flag that a charge neutralization preceded the actual impact.

What was suggested instead, was that -- despite the video showing an obviously rocky surface -- that these two flashes indicated impact with separate layers of the comet. What is striking about such a claim is that the speed at which the impacter was traveling could not have possibly supported such an inference.

So, the question we are faced with here is: How many times do we have to witness objects not thought to be comets on eccentric orbits displaying observable cometary features before a 2nd look is warranted?
GSwift7
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 10, 2013
the circularity of this orbit would be the key to distinguishing the two categories


The what?

You mean eccentricity?

Anyway, never mind the troll.

This is kinda old news. The original finding was back in 2010, two orbits ago (phaethon has about a 1.5 year orbit, so three years after the first observation would give them a total of 3 observations). The only new thing here is that they teamed up with Jessica and improved their data.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (13) Sep 10, 2013
Re: "You mean eccentricity?"

Sure.

Re: "Anyway, never mind the troll."

A century-old tradition of inducing consensus by inviting ignorance ...

"... The theory of relativity and the hypothesis of energy quanta have been the two ideas upon which they have chiefly focused their attention. If they in their turn shall triumph, it will probably be not for the reason that all the questions which the opponents of the theories now bring forth shall have been satisfactorily answered, but because the questioners shall have ceased to question. We advance by ignoring our known ignorance and by concentrating upon our assumed knowledge."

- 1913, review of "A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity ..."

Will there be a similar quote for 2113?
rug
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 10, 2013
@GSwift - Plus a third verification. Test and retest the science way! lol

@everyone except GSwift (Who actually had a comment worth reading)
You are all a bunch of dumbasses and need to get over it. Your theory is dead, proven wrong, and completely useless in science, as are you.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (13) Sep 10, 2013
Re: "Your theory is dead, proven wrong, and completely useless in science, as are you."

Would you care to elaborate? Please enlighten us on how amazingly accurate the application of idealized MHD cosmic plasma models are to COLLISIONLESS plasmas ...

From "Why Space Physics Needs to Go Beyond the MHD Box" by George K Parks (who is, to be clear, not associated with any "pet theory") ...

"Serious objections have been raised from the beginning of the space era about the application of MHD theory to collisionless space plasmas (Chamberlain, 1960; Lemaire and Scherer, 1973; Heikkila, 1973, 1997; Alfvén, 1977; Scudder, 1997; Lui, 2001; Song and Lysak, 2001). Although it is well-known that MHD theory is applicable only to a restricted class of plasma problems of which collisionless plasmas are not a part (Krall and Trivelpiece, 1973), MHD and ideal MHD theories have been used in space without due regard to these restrictions."

Remember: 99% of what we see w/ telescopes is in plasma state.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (13) Sep 10, 2013
From "Importance of Electric Fields in Modeling Space Plasmas", again by George K Parks ...

"Space physics has progressed by making approximations. Instead of solving the fundamental Boltzmann transport equation coupled to Maxwell's equation of electrodynamics, the simpler MHD equations have been used. MHD theory relies on the conservation equations of mass, momentum and energy obtained from the first three velocity moments of the Boltzmann equation. As is well-known, the moments approach produces more unknowns than equations and thus requires additional equations. This closure problem is resolved by assuming plasmas behave like ordinary conductors and Ohm's law is added to the set of MHD equations. However, Ohm's law requires information on conductivity and conductivity is not precisely defined for collisionless plasmas (Alfven and Falthammer, 1963). This important issue is often ignored by arguing that electric fields in plasmas are small and thus negligible"

[...]
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (13) Sep 10, 2013
[...]

"The ideal MHD approximation treats plasmas as having infinite conductivity disregarding any resistive effects. MHD also uses an adiabatic equation of state assuming plasmas are in thermal equilibrium rather than solving the energy transport equation. While interesting concepts result from treating plasmas as ideal, these ideal concepts do not describe the behavior of real space plasmas.

This article will focus on the impact of ignoring the electric field. What physics is lost by doing so? We will show that the small electric field is what allows particles to move and interact with each other. Without this electric field, physics loses consistency. In ideal MHD theory, there is no electromotive force (EMF) and hence the total magnetic flux is conserved leading to the frozen-infield concept (Alfven and Falthammer, 1963). If ideal MHD theory is applied from the outset, the theory can describe only preexisting fields and currents that are frozen in the plasma."

[...]
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (13) Sep 10, 2013
[...]

"No new dynamics can be produced. A real understanding of space plasma must include the behavior of time dependent fields and currents and not be limited to just the frozen-in fields and currents."

---

So, is it that E-fields and electric currents cannot form between stars? Or, is it that the models which are being used to model the cosmic plasma -- acknowledged to represent 99% of the matter we can see w/ our telescopes -- have simply been idealized in order to accommodate the pre-existing worldview that E-fields and electric currents are not important first-order properties of the interstellar medium?

Please enlighten us on how you have determined a definitive conclusion to this half-century-old debate which was begun by a Nobel laureate ... It appears to be a question that is not even being asked, so I am very eager to hear how asking a question about how we are modeling the stuff that makes up 99% of what we see w/ telescopes has been "proven wrong" w/o any measurement.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (12) Sep 10, 2013
And then there was silence ...
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (13) Sep 10, 2013
That 2nd paper concludes with an important historical note ...

"The ideal MHD theory was introduced by Alfven when he was studying the behavior of MHD waves. He formulated the wave equation for finite conductivity fluid, incorporating Ohm's law which allowed currents to flow (Alfven and Falthammer, 1963). After he derived the wave equation which included the dissipative term, he studied the behavior of the waves imagining the fluid had infinite conductivity. This led to the concept of the frozen-in magnetic field but only as a limiting case. However, since Alfven's work, space theorists have ignored the small electric field from the outset.

Although the electric field in the plasma frame is small, theories must start with the full equation E' = E + V x B since otherwise the theory precludes induction of the EMF. If E' = 0 from the outset as in ideal MHD theory, the formulation only incorporates frozen-in physics."

[...]
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (13) Sep 10, 2013
[...]

"This is because the electric force the particles experience vanishes, and plasmas will lose the capability to interact. Therefore, no new currents will be generated and ideal MHD theory is restricted to describing only preexisting electromagnetic fields and currents that are frozen in the plasma. This theory cannot account for the production of boundaries nor can it describe dynamic phenomena such as auroras and flares that require generation of new currents. The importance of currents in dynamic plasmas has been repeatedly emphasized by Alfven (1977)."

---

In other words, one need only go as far as the aurora to observe the failure of MHD to describe collisionless plasmas. Talk about a red flag!

What in the world is the point of ignoring these arguments? Why do the "professionals" simply ignore such important claims associated with such important models?

The answer is the training. "Thinking like a scientist" now has ideological components to it.
rug
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 10, 2013
What in the world is the point of ignoring these arguments?

Because they have been proven wrong.
Why do the "professionals" simply ignore such important claims associated with such important models?

Because they are based on a theory that have been proven wrong.
The answer is the training.

I agree, people need to be able to spot dumbassery when they see it. Like your pet theory.
"Thinking like a scientist" now has ideological components to it.

Only seems that way to people that can't seem to understand they are wrong.

Hey Dumbass,
Post all the crap you want. It's not going to change the fact you are a dumbass for believing in something that has already been shown to you as being wrong. The only response you will get from me is wrong, DUMBASS, or some other reply that says how illogical you are and I think is funny. If you haven't noticed. I don't argue illogical ideas with illogical people.

The End
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (13) Sep 10, 2013
Moron
rug
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 10, 2013
I am plasma, you are glue,
whatever you say,
is repelled by me,
and sticks to you!

I bet we could get even more juvenile if we really tried.

And a bit later....
Moron


Doesn't seem so childish now does it? You think I'm a moron so you called me one. Good for you! Still doesn't change the fact YOU know I'm right. At least now you aren't trying to argue around in circles and waste everyones time. Thank you for that. :)

but your still a dumbass
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (12) Sep 10, 2013
Re: "Because they have been proven wrong."

Well ... Is it a secret?! Do we have to get an astrophysics degree before we're allowed to know this proof ... ?
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (13) Sep 10, 2013
Re: "Only seems that way to people that can't seem to understand they are wrong."

But it's not just the EU folk who are suggesting that ideology is part of the physics training ...

"My thesis is that the criteria by which individuals are deemed qualified or unqualified to become professionals involve not just technical knowledge as is generally assumed, but also attitude -- in particular, attitude toward working within an assigned political and ideological framework ...

The qualifying attitude, I find, is an uncritical subordinate one, which allows professionals to take their ideological lead from their employers, and appropriately fine-tune the outlook that they bring to their work. The resulting professional is an obedient thinker, an intellectual property whom employers can trust to experiment, theorize, innovate and create safely within the confines of an assigned ideology."

-- Disciplined Minds (p16) by Jeff Schmidt, 19-yr editor for Physics Today (writing about physics Phd)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (12) Sep 10, 2013
You know, the complexity of this situation is not lost on me. We absolutely need professionals in our society in order to create functional organizations which necessarily involve large numbers of people.

However, science is a very unique endeavor. From "Science Education and Scientific Attitudes" by Pravin Singh ...

"The current set of scientific attitudes of objectivity, open-mindedness, unbiassedness, curiosity, suspended judgement, critical mindedness, and rationality has evolved from a systematic identification of scientific norms and values ... Universalism requires that information presented to the scientific community be assessed independently of the character of the scientist who presents the information. The norm of communality requires that scientific knowledge be held in common, in other words, the researcher is expected to share his findings with other scientists freely and without favour"

[...]
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (12) Sep 10, 2013
[...]

"The norm of disinterestedness requires scientists to pursue scientific knowledge without considering their career or their reputation. Scientists are exhorted by the norm of organized skepticism never to take results on trust. They are expected to be consistently critical of knowledge.

To this list of institutional imperatives Barber (1962: 122-142) later added two more — rationality and emotional neutrality. Rationality relates essentially to having faith in reason and depending on empirical tests rather than on tradition when substantiating hypotheses. Scientists are encouraged also to conform to the norm of emotional neutrality i.e. to avoid emotional involvement which may colour their judgement."

---

Notice that by not acknowledging that there exists a somewhat obvious contradiction here between the values inherent to "professionals" and "scientists", the big question of how we can create large-yet-functional scientific organizations remains completely unasked.
barakn
4 / 5 (8) Sep 10, 2013
And then there was silence ...

...which is the appropriate response when someone copy-and-pukes a dozen irrelevant posts to one article.
Ober
5 / 5 (3) Sep 10, 2013
What about AWT, some kind of underwater waves and Vacuum physics? Do I need to say more to explain all this? Go to some dodgey site, and perhaps you will learn more!!

Now I would like my 19 * 1 votes just to satisfy my complete ignorance and contempt for modern day science.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (11) Sep 10, 2013
Re: "...which is the appropriate response when someone copy-and-pukes a dozen irrelevant posts to one article."

Whether or not people working in academia or the corporate world care, the public nevertheless should definitely care that the values associated with "thinking like a scientist" and acting in the capacity of a professional are plainly contradictory concepts, for it speaks directly to the meaning of consensus in science.

Does consensus naturally emerge, based upon the evidence -- as is mostly assumed by the public? Or, is ideology simply a part of professional training in the physics PhD program, as Jeff Schmidt claims in Disciplined Minds?
rug
1.6 / 5 (11) Sep 10, 2013
Obviously an educated fool with his mind on his money and his money on his mind.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (11) Sep 10, 2013
I am plasma, you are glue,
whatever you say,
is repelled by me,
and sticks to you!

I bet we could get even more juvenile if we really tried.

And a bit later....
Moron


Doesn't seem so childish now does it? You think I'm a moron so you called me one. Good for you! Still doesn't change the fact YOU know I'm right. At least now you aren't trying to argue around in circles and waste everyones time. Thank you for that. :)

but your still a dumbass

The irony is how completely stupid you must be to not see the intended irony.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (12) Sep 10, 2013
The idealization of the cosmic plasma models also matter a hell of a lot because these are not politically neutral idealizations. We are talking about the widespread usage of models which are completely incapable of modeling dynamic E&M phenomena.

This would not be such a big deal if these MHD models were suggested within the specific limited context of the conventional theories. But, that's not at all what is being claimed. MHD's applicability to cosmic plasmas is being sold to both students and the public as if there are no known significant idealizations involved at all, and as if they arrive from no pre-existing worldview.

Perhaps you are somehow blind to it, but it's very easy for many of us to see that electrically-sterile cosmic plasma models would favor a gravity-dominated universe.
Captain Stumpy
2.1 / 5 (14) Sep 11, 2013
actually, there is an easy way to settle this:

HannesAlfven, please provide the proof (not links to sites, or papers, but proof,) where peer reviewed EXPERIMENTS were done and re-done and in doing so validate your hypothesis.

are you willing? and don't link 'possible' experiments, or something "you can do at home"... peer reviewed published multiple experiments and their statistical data is what is needed...

thanks
rug
2 / 5 (12) Sep 11, 2013
Well, look at that Captain. You shut them both up! You have managed to do the impossible.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (12) Sep 11, 2013
actually, there is an easy way to settle this:

HannesAlfven, please provide the proof (not links to sites, or papers, but proof,) where peer reviewed EXPERIMENTS were done and re-done and in doing so validate your hypothesis.

are you willing? and don't link 'possible' experiments, or something "you can do at home"... peer reviewed published multiple experiments and their statistical data is what is needed...

thanks

Well, start with the work of Kristian Birkeland, there's Langmuir (coined plasma), Bostick, Alfven, Bennett, Bohm, Lerner, Peratt, Tesla, among others. There is over 100 years worth of experimental data on electric discharge in plasma, one only needs to remove the blinders imposed by the failed gaslight era guesses.
BTW, I think it's fair to ask for the experimental proof of whatever the standard theory POV is.
rug
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 11, 2013
Well, start with the work of Kristian Birkeland, there's Langmuir (coined plasma), Bostick, Alfven, Bennett, Bohm, Lerner, Peratt, Tesla, among others. There is over 100 years worth of experimental data on electric discharge in plasma, one only needs to remove the blinders imposed by the failed gaslight era guesses.
BTW, I think it's fair to ask for the experimental proof of whatever the standard theory POV is.

Um....that is proof about plasma that no one is debating. I think he is talking about proof of the plasma universe theory/electric universe itself. Different thing altogether. Can't point to plasma research and say, "Oh this is how everything works" without some kind of proof.

Tell you the truth, it would be pretty interesting if it was correct. It's an interesting idea. Too bad it's not. Since you consistently fail to provide proof I am left to believe (my original assessment) the theory is bunk science to begin with.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (13) Sep 11, 2013
Um....that is proof about plasma that no one is debating.

That is precisely what the debate is about! How we choose to describe the other 99.99%. Once again, PC/EU is based upon those same laboratory experiments, the "standard theory" is based upon theoretical models. The same theoretical models that had to be rewritten with in situ near earth measurements. Problem is, only the magnetospheric models changed, astrophysicists still treat interplanetary/stellar/galactic plasmas with the the same incomplete models. If what we are observing is electric discharge in plasma like those experiments by those previously named men, then PC/EU are on the right track, the standard model not so much.
rug
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 11, 2013
No, it's really not what the debate is about. According to your pet theory plasma is responsible for just about everything and just about everything is balls of plasma. Stars? yes that we know. What about everything else? That is the debate. You still haven't provided the information that has been requested. Either put up or shut up. The burden of proof lies on you. Extraordinary claims must have extraordinary evidence.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (13) Sep 12, 2013
No, it's really not what the debate is about. According to your pet theory plasma is responsible for just about everything and just about everything is balls of plasma.

It's quite clear from that statement you are arguing from ignorance.
rug
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 12, 2013
Oh, you might think so but but I'm just going off what what you have posted so many times. So, maybe it's you that is arguing from ignorance.

I still don't see any evidence coming from you. So put up or shut up.

I'm gonna have to go with shut up since you haven't put up a damn thing.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (12) Sep 12, 2013
I still don't see any evidence coming from you.

Well you're either blind or choosing willful ignorance. Probably both.
yep
1 / 5 (12) Sep 12, 2013
The problem is years spent learning about and regurgitating the standard model based on assumptions made almost 100 years ago. There is no room in some peoples brains for other possibilities because they have found the truth and faith is very powerful.
Many of you would be well advised to read Thomas Kuhn.
Rug, liquids, solids, gasses, equal 1% of our observable universe plasma makes up the other 99%. Plasma itself exists in three modes arc (lightning) glow (sun) dark (not visible). Voyager is passing out of the suns heliosphere. This whole region is not just an empty vacuum without charge. Within this vast area there are a few planets like the earth and we know from our measurements there is a permanent plasma fountain emanating from the polar regions of our magnetosphere interacting with the sun. A comet into deep space and back has picked up a different charge that is why a comet like Hale-Bopp can have an almost two million kilometer tail in an orbit farther out then Uranus.
rug
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 12, 2013
Oh, so we now have another dumbass in the mix.

So far I have seen cantdrive and HannesAlfven claim their EU theory covers everything from tornadoes on earth, climate change, dark matter, dark energy, to the volcanoes on IO. Yet neither of them have provided a shred of scientific evidence to support these claims. Many of the artifacts they claim to be existent do not infact exist such as Birkeland currents between stars and galaxies.

Here is what it comes down to. Either put up the peer reviewed, confirmed scientific data or shut the hell up about it.
yep
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 13, 2013
Rug I must reiterate what an outstanding tool you are. It almost seems pointless to post anything for you because the question of your ability to see anything you do not believe in.
Here are a few things to get your mind around.
http://science1.n...dec97_3/
http://www.uta.ed...2662.pdf
http://wsx.lanl.g...ieee.pdf
http://www.nasa.g...oYOC92FY
http://www.aaas.o...re.shtml
http://space.unh....2003.pdf
http://articles.a...55..487A
http://adsabs.har...c9c30343
http://adsabs.har...c9c28646
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (9) Sep 13, 2013
It matters little how much evidence you provide, the willful ignorance will continue. These people are comfortable with being told how it is, thinking is not an option.
GSwift7
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 13, 2013
Many of the artifacts they claim to be existent do not infact exist such as Birkeland currents between stars and galaxies


Well, to be fair, they do post SOME credible science, with the intent of backing their claims. There are several problems though.

First, they tend to use outdated references, which are now known to have been wrong. Meanwhile they furiously ignore modern work which has advanced way beyond the works of Parat and Alfven.

Second, they use perfectly valid work, but apply it to situations where it isn't appropriate or on scales that do not work.

Third, they just plain don't understand the basics like Maxwell, and the implications of those fundamental laws on their theory. Due to that lack of understanding, they can't deduce how a change in one theory would force a game-breaking change in another, like broken symmetry or conservation.

Pulp theory is always like that though. Just put on blinders to ignore the reasons it doesn't work. All is good.
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (9) Sep 13, 2013
Um....that is proof about plasma that no one is debating. I think he is talking about proof of the plasma universe theory/electric universe itself. Different thing altogether. Can't point to plasma research and say, "Oh this is how everything works" without some kind of proof.


rug is exactly correct.
and if you want proof of the standard model, enter any physics college courses and learn, that is what I am trying to do.
again, I have to quote rug:

According to your pet theory plasma is responsible for just about everything and just about everything is balls of plasma. Stars? yes that we know. What about everything else? That is the debate. You still haven't provided the information that has been requested. Either put up or shut up. The burden of proof lies on you. Extraordinary claims must have extraordinary evidence.


you have not given me any empirical data that I can take and research.
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (9) Sep 13, 2013
Well, to be fair, they do post SOME credible science, with the intent of backing their claims. There are several problems though.

First, they tend to use outdated references, which are now known to have been wrong. Meanwhile they furiously ignore modern work which has advanced way beyond the works of Parat and Alfven.

Second, they use perfectly valid work, but apply it to situations where it isn't appropriate or on scales that do not work.

Third, they just plain don't understand the basics like Maxwell, and the implications of those fundamental laws on their theory. Due to that lack of understanding, they can't deduce how a change in one theory would force a game-breaking change in another, like broken symmetry or conservation.

Pulp theory is always like that though. Just put on blinders to ignore the reasons it doesn't work. All is good.


thank you for putting it so succinctly. that is what I am trying to say... so far I have gotten nothing but the above.
yep
1 / 5 (5) Sep 28, 2013
"Well, to be fair" your not understanding plasma, and the rage it exists in is why you will not get anything.
Even the brilliant Gswift is missing that plasma is it's own distinct form of matter and often does not follow Maxwell's equations.