Journal mgmirkin's Journal: They Sing the Comet Electric; Second Aria! 52
The latest Stardust results are in. It appears that the Whipple (or "dirty snowball") model of comets is dead as a doornail, and it's time for astronomers to suck it up, step up and acknowledge it, so we can start debating a successor model (the Comet Electric).
Let's start off with some history. Getting on the "way, way back machine," one might reminisce about a Wired News article that stirred a small pot of controversy back in 2005, just before Deep Impact, after which the article was subsequently lost to the sands of time. It appears the time has come to revisit that article:
They Sing the Comet Electric (David McCandless, Wired News, August 2, 2005)
Specifically, one or more plasma physicists and/or electrical engineers (whom the article referred to, and the astronomical / astrophysical community continues to refers to, as "dissidents") noted, based upon an electrodynamic interpretation of comet nuclei, comas and the sun, that upon further observation it would be found that comets nuclei were not the "dirty snowballs" of legend. Rather, they would be found to be rocky bodies, completely or mostly devoid of the hypothesized ice and volatiles necessary to sustain the "dirty snowball" interpretation.
That and other predictions were registered briefly, and then forgotten. Fast forward a few years to the end of one Stardust mission. As initial materials and results came in from the Stardust mission, it appeared that they supported the claims of the dissidents. Indeed, cometary materials retrieved by Stardust appeared to be "born in fire" (under conditions of extreme heat and extreme pressure).
However, rather than admit that the "dirty snowball" model had been falsified, it was conveniently adjusted to a scenario whereby "somehow" materials from the hot inner solar system had become mixed with the hypothesized cold primordial materials (water, volatiles, etc.) of the outer solar system.
One might also note, that a class of objects intermediary between "comets" and "asteroids" exist. E.g. the centaurs (planetoids in an orbit approximately between Jupiter and Neptune), of which several (Chiron, 60558 Echeclus, and 166P/NEAT 2001 T4) have notably been identified as both comets and asteroids, blurring the distinction. This suggests that an alternate line of inquiry is required, in order to explain both bodies consistently via the same rules.
Fast forward past several more months of analyzing Stardust samples. It now appears that additional tests have revealed that Stardust comet dust resembles asteroid materials! Surprise! That comet is an asteroid, sort of...
So, it appears we've come full circle. Predictions were made by both camps, initial results are in, and one model appears to have had better predictive success (the goal of any scientist) than the other in yet another experimentum crucis predictive success for the dissidents. Prior predictive success includes the recent confirmation of a hot spot at the north pole of Saturn.
The Whipple ("Dirty snowball") model is out, and a successor must be chosen.
It's seems it's now time to sing the second aria of "The Comet Electric."
Let's start off with some history. Getting on the "way, way back machine," one might reminisce about a Wired News article that stirred a small pot of controversy back in 2005, just before Deep Impact, after which the article was subsequently lost to the sands of time. It appears the time has come to revisit that article:
They Sing the Comet Electric (David McCandless, Wired News, August 2, 2005)
Specifically, one or more plasma physicists and/or electrical engineers (whom the article referred to, and the astronomical / astrophysical community continues to refers to, as "dissidents") noted, based upon an electrodynamic interpretation of comet nuclei, comas and the sun, that upon further observation it would be found that comets nuclei were not the "dirty snowballs" of legend. Rather, they would be found to be rocky bodies, completely or mostly devoid of the hypothesized ice and volatiles necessary to sustain the "dirty snowball" interpretation.
That and other predictions were registered briefly, and then forgotten. Fast forward a few years to the end of one Stardust mission. As initial materials and results came in from the Stardust mission, it appeared that they supported the claims of the dissidents. Indeed, cometary materials retrieved by Stardust appeared to be "born in fire" (under conditions of extreme heat and extreme pressure).
However, rather than admit that the "dirty snowball" model had been falsified, it was conveniently adjusted to a scenario whereby "somehow" materials from the hot inner solar system had become mixed with the hypothesized cold primordial materials (water, volatiles, etc.) of the outer solar system.
One might also note, that a class of objects intermediary between "comets" and "asteroids" exist. E.g. the centaurs (planetoids in an orbit approximately between Jupiter and Neptune), of which several (Chiron, 60558 Echeclus, and 166P/NEAT 2001 T4) have notably been identified as both comets and asteroids, blurring the distinction. This suggests that an alternate line of inquiry is required, in order to explain both bodies consistently via the same rules.
Fast forward past several more months of analyzing Stardust samples. It now appears that additional tests have revealed that Stardust comet dust resembles asteroid materials! Surprise! That comet is an asteroid, sort of...
So, it appears we've come full circle. Predictions were made by both camps, initial results are in, and one model appears to have had better predictive success (the goal of any scientist) than the other in yet another experimentum crucis predictive success for the dissidents. Prior predictive success includes the recent confirmation of a hot spot at the north pole of Saturn.
The Whipple ("Dirty snowball") model is out, and a successor must be chosen.
It's seems it's now time to sing the second aria of "The Comet Electric."
Peer reviewed (Score:1)
Re: Peer reviewed resources. (Score:1)
Cheers, ~Michael Gmirkin
Thornhill's Electric Comet not there, why? (Score:1)
Perhaps one reason might be that Ian Tresman, a Contributing Editor to TPOD, is more concerned about things such as intellectual honesty than either WT or DT? After all, the TPOD page with the Hale-Bopp jets (heavily processed) image gives credit ("N. Thomas (MPAE) et al., 1.5-m La
Re: (Score:1)
APODNereid, accusations of fraud and dishonesty, are the types of comment I would expect from the National Inquirer. Deducing fraud from not being able to find something does not seem to me to be the most logical deduction, and I wonder whether the same logic applies to all that missing dark matter.
Thornhill and Ransom attended the IEEE-sponsored ICOPS 2006 conference giving poster presentations on Thursday 8th June [icops2006.org], and also at the ICOPS 2007 conference [nss-mic.org] where the poster presentation on comets was shown.
Not taking this seriously? (Score:1)
Unfortunately, you have, it seems, only made the issue more serious.
Let me explain.
The PDF document is not the least bit ambiguous: it states the authors are Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott; it states that it is a poster presentation at the ISCOP, Traverse City, Michigan June 4-8, 2006.
It does not state that "Thornhill and Ransom attended the IEEE-sponsored [...] ICOPS 2007 conference where the poster presentation on comets was shown." (my emphasis)
To claim that a docum
Re: (Score:1)
As for the exact contents of the poster presentation, I wasn't there. However, I trust all participants attending the conference do so in good faith, and whether all authors were credited and acknowledged, or even inadvertently omitted, I have no way of knowing.
As for integrity, one assumes good faith; hiding behind a pseudonym and casting stones does not meet
One more, perhaps only one more, time (Score:1)
I provided links showing that Thornhill and Ransom attending the IEEE-sponsored conference, both on the ICOPS website, and the IEEE conference record.
(my emphasis) ...
Perhaps you wrote in haste; perhaps you did not understand what I wrote; perhaps you missed my comment in an SD Science story thread*; perhaps
I will say this again, for avoidance of doubt.
The PDF document purports to have "Wallace Thornhill" and "David Talbott" as authors.
It purports to be a poster presentation at the 2006 ICOPS, in Michigan, in June 2006.
The IEEE website does NOT seem to have any mention of any such poster presentation, neither in the links you supplied, nor in the ones i
Re: (Score:1)
I shall repeat myself for the third time. I have provided links to show that Thornhill and Ransom were both at the ICOPS 2006 conference, and there is an IEEE conference record [ieee.org] showing that Thornhill exhibited an item on the electrical nature of comets.
I do not know whether the PDF document by Thornhill and Talbott was re-formated from the content from the 4-by-8-foot board, or whether it was an additional item, or whether Talbott's name was omitted from the conference record. As I did not attend the conf
OK, I'm done (thanks for the honesty) (Score:1)
there is an IEEE conference record showing that Thornhill exhibited an item on the electrical nature of comets.
Indeed there is ... at the 2007 ICOPS!
For the fourth (or more?) time, the PDF states it is a poster presentation at the 2006 ICOPS.
Further, I suspect that it has been available on an 'EU' website, for download, since well before the 2007 ICOPS (but of course I can't prove this, the nature of webpages being what they are).
As for the omission of the Hale Bopp image credit, I thank you for bringing it to my attention, and assume that you have also brought it to the attention of the authors, unless your only intent is to make mischief.
I originally brought to the attention of pln2bz, who has claimed, on numerous occasions, to have a direct line to Thornhill. Only after he failed to respond did I bring it to your at
Electric Comet model - anything but science!? (Score:1)
You probably know that SD writer pln2bz has introduced it in another story thread (The Secret of the Sun's Heated Atmosphere http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/22/1956200#topcomment [slashdot.org]), and asked what was incorrect about it.
I am in the process of answering that question, and taking this as a concrete example of "the Electric Universe framework and approach" (to use pln2bz' own t
Re: (Score:1)
You may also refer to the plasma-universe.com comets [plasma-universe.com] article which references a number of independent sources.
I don't know why you seem to think that there is no observational support for electrical / plasma processes @ comets, or with respect to the sun. I might also point out that this was a proposal for a general interst news article, NOT a journal paper. So, you are correct, in that it was NOT exhaustive of ALL
Re: (Score:1)
As you can see, there is a history of observations that led to extremely similar conclusions (Yes, that's 186
Re:Electric Comet model - based in lab science. (Score:1)
Or page 519:
Re: (Score:1)
(Where is the ice in comets? [It seems the comets just aren't giving it up! Or if they are, we're not seeing things consistent with it...])
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981ApJ...248L.147A [harvard.edu]
(Origin and Evolution of the Unusual Object 1996 PW: Asteroids from the Oort Cloud?)
http://adsab [harvard.edu]
Sorry, not relevant to what I wrote (it seems) (Score:1)
If you prefer additional references, you may certainly see Birkeland's theory on comets.
You may also refer to the plasma-universe.com comets article which references a number of independent sources.
All but four of those references clearly pre-date* the PDF document, yet not one was cited by Thornhill and Talbott. If you read pln2bz' comments, in the SD story thread I referenced, I think you'll see that most of the remaining ~30 sources are not within "the Electric Universe framework and approach" as he defined it. I will certainly check to see if any contain references to Thornhill and Talbott's ECM, or contain an electric comet model that is the same in terms of
Re: (Score:1)
You seem to wish to turn this into a discussion of the Electric Universe model as a whole (which wasn't the topic of the news item, though they are related), in an attempt to discredit by proxy the specific predictions made (comets will be shown to be rocky bodies [undergoing electrical discharges in their coma and sometimes at their surfaces as well]), which this journal entry reports on.
However, it does not discredit t
If I may quote pln2bz ... (Score:1)
Apologies if I've sounded at all combative or whatnot. Certainly not my intent. Nor to "drive you off."
Thanks, and with that invitation I shall comment on some of what you wrote. If at any time what I write is unacceptable to you, as a comment in your SD journal, please say so (as you did before), and I shall cease writing here.
I appreciate the note that it is being discussed elsewhere, was not aware of that.
I have now finished my comments on the ElectricComet.pdf document and its direct references; you may find them as replies to pln2bz' comment here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22190254 [slashdot.org]
You seem to wish to turn this into a discussion of the Electric Universe model as a whole (which wasn't the topic of the news item, though they are related), in an attempt to discredit by proxy the specific predictions made (comets will be shown to be rocky bodies [undergoing electrical discharges in their coma and sometimes at their surfaces as well]), which this journal entry reports on.
What I stated is that the specific document (ElectricComet.pdf) which you r
Re: (Score:1)
Comet - Asteroid Link Confirmed [holoscience.com]
With respect to his prior notes on the subject, you may wish to read up on:
Stardust Comet Fragments Solar System Theory [holoscience.com]
Comet Wild 2 [holoscience.com]
Comet Borrelly rocks core scient [holoscience.com]
Re: (Score:1)
What a marvelously substantiated statement! Too bad it is irrelevant. Have you noticed a reference to an Electric Universe theory in the original article? Then, by all means, do not hesitate to point it out. Or have you confused a popular PDF presentation for one? All I see is a refutation of the dirty snowball theory. Indeed, as the article says: "The Whipple ("Dirty snowball") model is out, a
Re: (Score:1)
"IEEE Transc. Space Sci." should be read as "IEEE Transc. Plasma Sci."
Dr. Scott should be read as "Dr. Scott"
"just one--comets" should be read as "just one--comet" And sorry for a sentence repetition. Leo
Brief response (Score:1)
What a marvelously substantiated statement! Too bad it is irrelevant. Have you noticed a reference to an Electric Universe theory in the original article? Then, by all means, do not hesitate to point it out. Or have you confused a popular PDF presentation for one? All I see is a refutation of the dirty snowball theory. Indeed, as the article says: "The Whipple ("Dirty snowball") model is out, and a successor must be chosen."
I have now finished my comments on the ElectricComet.pdf document and its direct references; you may find them as replies to pln2bz' comment here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22190254 [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org]
I have also replied to two of mgmirkin's comments, here in his SD journal (here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=433366&cid=22278298 [slashdot.org] and here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=433366&cid=22278664 [slashdot.org]).
I trust that my comments in the SD story thread, as well as the two linked to abo
Re: (Score:1)
Where's a mirror when you need one? (Score:1)
I don't have time to wade through gobs and gobs of argument on multiple threads. What does it have to do with the original subject? I suggest you stop diverting the readers' attention from comets
leokor,
pln2bz is on record, in ~>100 SD comments, berating folk who do not read what he presents.
May I present pln2bz' lament for your consideration?
Specifically, may I ask which of the "gobs and gobs of argument" (on just one thread) are off-topic with respect to the PDF document entitled "The Electric Comet" by Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott (that pln2bz introduced SD readers to)?
Or perhaps a timely reminder of mgmirkin's comment might be apt (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=433366&cid=22 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Are you referring to his last sentence? Quoting:
I don't find it unreasonable to suggest an alternative for further consideration, since the snowball hypothesis is now caput. It may come as a surprise to you, but experimental fields of science know a process called brainstorming. Fresh ideas are constantly being thrown in, whether or not they are already fleshed out. Moreover
Theories are a dime a dozen... True. (Score:1)
Surfer dude stuns physicists with theory of everything. [telegraph.co.uk]
Is space-time actually a superfluid? [newscientist.com]
Among others. Should we simply cover our eyes/ears and never consider or discuss any new idea (with some unknown potential to be incorrect)? A lot are bound to simply be wrong, in the final analysis. Does that mean we should simply not bother with hearing them out, or analy
Re: (Score:1)
I believe in the inherent power of science to defend itself. Experiment is the best apologist. Note how few controversies arise in the fields of science that are very close to experiment. In the areas that can be often hard to test, such as astrophysics, there may be situations when hypotheses remain untested for long periods of time, if ever. In such situation, I would expect to see multiple alternative hypotheses on the table.
Leo
Re: (Score:1)
Thus far, it appears the latter holds true with Stardust results intimating materials "born in fire" and with composition similar to that of asteroids and voids of several
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, not relevant to what I wrote (it seems) (Score:1)
It seems that you did not understand what I wrote, in my comment on mgmirkin's comment; would you mind reading it again please?
If you have references to published material, written within "the Electric Universe framework and method", as defined by pln2bz, in his comments on stories in the Science section of Slashdot (NOT leokor! you'll note that I explicitly excluded his previous SD comment from the scope of my present investigation), on the electric comet model, by all
Good luck! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Unfortunately, if one even uses the term "Electric Universe," further arguments are handily rejected on their face without a second glance. So, don't hold your breath on finding an article in a peer reviewed journal that says "Electric Universe" in its title (or, well, anywhere) [...] Not necessarily based upon the merits or lack thereof, but on the basis of an emotional reaction to the term.
I see that you have made this assertion several times; do you mind if I ask you what the factual basis of your assertion is?
To keep the scope manageable, why not start with the content of your journal entry - comets?
I'd prefer to simply discuss things openly without animosity. Refer to a few sources if required.
This is close to what I'm researching: what, in the "Electric Universe framework and approach"*, are the rules of discussion?
For example:
What constitutes legitimate evidence?
What is the role of independent verification and validation?
What is the role of hypothesis and theory?
How should hypothe
RE: Peer review, suppression, POVs, non-mainstream (Score:1)
(For Science's Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/health/02docs.html
(Quality and value: How can we research peer review?)
http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05006.html
(Publication Prejudic
Re: (Score:1)
However, it also does not answer the specific question I asked.
Here is the chain again, starting with mgmirkin (my emphasis):
Unfortunately, if one even uses the term "Electric Universe," further arguments are handily rejected on their face without a second glance. So, don't hold your breath on finding an article in a peer reviewed journal that says "Electric Universe" in its title (or, well, anywhere) [...] Not necessarily based upon the merits or lack thereof, but on the basis of an emotional reaction to the term.
Now my question (again, my emphasis):
I see that you have made this assertion several times; do you mind if I ask you what the factual basis of your assertion is?
To keep the scope manageable, why not start with the content of your journal entry - comets?
If I may ask my question again, without incurring your ire: what the factual basis of your assertion that there are no articles "in a peer reviewed journal that says "Electric Universe" in its title (or, well, anywhere)" because such articles "are handily rejected on their face without a second glance"?
In your reply, woul
Re: (Score:1)
So what is the subject of your investigation, then? "History and epistemological analysis of pln2bz's comments on slashdot.org"? While I'm glad that your opinion of pln2bz's expertise has reached such heights, and I personally respect him as well, I cannot give a guarantee that everything in his comments is 100% accurate. Who can? We're only human. You need to do more than follow a single person's explanations, especially considering that Plasma Universe (or Electric Universe, the same thing) is still in it
Re: (Score:2)
Addressing some specifics (Score:1)
pln2bz has also consistently berated (I can't think of a softer word that is also accurate) those who commented on what he wrote for their unwillingness to read, or ignorance of, the material he has cited*.
pln2bz has consistently used the term "Electric Universe"; to what extent is it synonymous with "Plasma Universe"? "Electric Space"?
Fr
Re: (Score:1)
Never have I seen it. If you really want to be specific, talk COMETS.
Leo
P.S. I see you mention experimental evidence of magnetic reconnection. The confusion about the concept here stems from the fact that you and your opponents understand it differently. What is really observed in experiments has as much to do with electrostatic interactions as with magnetic fields, if not more so. This makes the term
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
It's encouraging that you've finally decided to read a document related to the Electric Universe. My impression to date has been that you've still not read "The Electric Sky" or "The Electric Universe", which is unusual considering your extreme reaction to the ideas being presented. In the world outside of BAUT, people who criticize things are expected to have actually read the materials. The Electric Universe arguments will continue to seem as though they are a loose and convenient arrangement
Per mgmirkin's request ... (Score:1)
You'll see that mgmirkin does not wish me to write any more comments in his Slashdot journal, and I shall respect his wishes.
I look forward to reading further comments by you, in story threads in the Science section of Slashdot, and to responding to them.
And my apologies to mgmirkin again; I hope you find it acceptable for me to explain to pln2bz why I am unable to respond further here.
Re: (Score:1)
No, please don't leave. You haven't answered my questions yet.
Leo
Re: (Score:1)
However, as Pln2bz noted, sweeping criticisms w/o specific support in excess of "it's wrong because it's patently absurd" are the point I'm frustrated with. As I've shown in a few posts, prior scientists have arrived at much the same conclusions wit
Brief response (Score:1)
I have finished my comments on the document you referenced, in the SD story thread where you cited it.
I have also replied to mgmirkin's comments, in his journal, clarifying some apparent misunderstandings (here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=433366&cid=22278298 [slashdot.org] and here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=433366&cid=22278664 [slashdot.org]).
I trust that my comments, in these two URLs, clarify the misunderstandings about my comments; should you wish for further clarification, I'd be more than happy to p
Re: (Score:1)
I also think that some of the "taking issue with mathematics" comes into play with respect to how the mathematical process is used. IE, the assumption that one can work from pure mathematics alone and derive from that "how the universe works," as string theory and certain other theories sometimes tend to do. As opposed to the naturalistic [wikipedia.org] (I think that's the term?) lab process, wherein observation g
It may be a good idea to study physics (Score:1)
I think I read a comment of yours where you said you have no formal training in physics - is that correct?
This long comment of yours that I am responding to could make a good classroom exercise on confusions and misunderstandings of the nature of physics that can be found in the internet writing of smart people without formal training in physics (or something similar), in a History and Philosophy of Science 101 class say.
The simplest way to exemplify a deep confusion in what you write is to ask in
Re: (Score:1)
#1: in [the Electric Universe framework and approach], "theory" is indistinguishable from "speculation in prose".
Er, you're off to a terrible start if that is your premise. Birkeland experimented with real things in a real lab. That terella, his spheres, his electrical equipment was all significantly different from "prose", as were his list of "predictions".
#2: EU theories cannot be falsified, even in principle, by any experimental ("in the lab") or observational results.
What?!?!? You're the one peddling a Lambda-CDM theory cannot be falsified by anything! EU theories can be *verified* in a lab. Compare and contrast that with "inflation", or dark energy that it evidently shy around a lab. You're no 0 for 2, and you pegged t
Re: (Score:1)
Elementary charge [wikipedia.org]:
Electric charge [wikipedia.org]:
Re: (Score:1)
Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin
Re: (Score:1)
Been sitting at the keyboard too long. I'm gone.
~Michael
Where's the dirty snowball model? (Score:1)
The plain message of the original posting is that the "dirty snowball" model of comet is falsified, and I tend to agree.
I think that may have been, and still is, your intention.
However, don't you think it a little odd that you have no link to an explanation of what this model is (apart from a link to a BBC News webpage on the death of Whipple), much less references to the landmark papers which presented it to the world of science?
Re: (Score:1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet#Physical_characteristics [wikipedia.org]
What was the intent then? (Score:1)
I must confess that I read it as a first draft summary of why 'the electric comet' model (ECM) was worthy of more serious attention, given some recent results from a Stardust team