Electric Comets? Dustballs From The Deep Freeze?

Comet with ion trail

Comet Holmes with an Ion Trail

Original Image

Where’s The Water in Comets?

I was following a chain of articles and landed on this one:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060214comet.htm

that describes the comet impact test done by NASA a few years back. While I remembered the time it happened as having some issues with the amount of water found, I’d not put it in the context of the “Electric Universe” theories.

Don’t know exactly what to make of it, but that the comet was apparently far more of a dry dustball than expected is, er, a bit of an issue…

From the article:

Almost immediately after Deep Impact it was clear that the event had not produced the watery outburst NASA had expected. In a July 8 press release, the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics summarized the early findings with the headline, “Deep Impact Was a Dust-up, Not a Gusher”.

Also:


The Deep Impact team had hoped that, by excavating material from the comet’s interior, they could find the one thing the standard model required. “SWAS operators were puzzled by the lack of increased water vapor from Tempel 1”. In fact, an observation from the Odin telescope in Sweden found that the relative abundance of water decreased after the impact, due to the injection of quantities of dry dust, not water.

I’ve also often wondered why, given that ice sublimates in a vacuum, a comet was supposed to be a big ball of ice… always seemed like a bit of a problem to me…

The Electric Universe guys say that comets get a tail from ionization due to the voltage gradient they pass through, not solar heated ice.

Looks to me like they win this one…

About these ads

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Science Bits and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Electric Comets? Dustballs From The Deep Freeze?

  1. David says:

    Humm? not qualified to comment, but brings up a thought or two. I told my Oxford daughter in law that despite what her professors at Oxford said, the science of AGW is not settled.

    As one of many examples I asked her if she thought she could get thirty plus thousand scientist to sign a petition to dispute the standard fusion sun model, vs the plasma sun. She agreed this was unlikely.

    Of course there is far more political pressure to advocate CAGW, and therfore a coresponding response to look more closely at the “science” due to the extreme consequences of such action. Sort of like the intense and compounding economics battle between deflation and inflation.

    BTW, are you on either side in this current situation of lower lending, lower earnings, lower spending and tax revenues, verses gov inflationary forces struggling to percolate into the real world?

  2. E.M.Smith says:

    I’m ‘sort of neutral’ on the electric universe theories. If find them an interesting alternative to the standard model (mostly because they make me think about things…) but don’t see them showing much to disprove the basic workings of things like, oh, solar fusion, just yet.

    On economics:

    I probably ought to warn you that you have made the mistake of asking an economics question of an economist… You could grow old and die before a reasonable answer is reached ;-)

    Very Old Economics Joke:

    How many economists are there? If you took all the Economists in the world, and laid them end to end, you still could not reach a conclusion… 8-)

    With that preamble:

    Deflation vs Inflation are often presented as pure opposites. Do not forget the “Stagflation” years… The money can lose value (inflation) while you still don’t get more stuff as the prices and economy collapse… slowly…

    We are guaranteed a “buggering of the currency”. ALL Fiat Money inevitably suffers that fate. Bread cost a dime when I was a kid and gold was $45 / ounce. Now bread is $3 and gold is about $1200. A “Gentleman’s fine suit” has generally cost about 1 ounce of gold throughout history. We are living through a profound inflation and buggering of the currency right now. It’s not a question of IF, only of “how much faster from here?”

    (Gold is NOT a perfect hedge and “has issues” as money too. Just not as prone to inflation.)

    So as soon as you say to politicians that they can simply print and spend and effectively tax all holdings of money, they do it. Everywhere, under all economic systems, in all of history and for all time.

    So we WILL have inflation. Have had it, and do have it.

    Can we have ‘deflation’ too? Technically, no. But most folks don’t really mean classical deflation. They don’t expect that next year they will be paid less, their home will cost / sell for less, food will be cheaper, and they can spend less money for a car or vacation. Most folks really mean “stagflation”.

    They will find that they can buy less stuff, but some individual things in some individual industries may have slightly lower prices. On average, there will be inflation, but some key prices will be more stable and others might drop a little, but there will be pressure on business profits and employment. And that is, IMHO, what we are lined up to get. Some businesses and industries collapse. Wealth creation stagnates or goes negative.

    So, why?

    Pretty simple.

    There are not enough young workers to fund the entitlements our government has promised to us (for most of Europe, Japan, North America, and the ex-Soviet Block, among others). This is the “demographic bomb”.

    It’s all well and fine to promise everyone that they will have “free” medical care and a covered retirement as they age. You can even print up all the money needed to “pay” for it (via the hidden inflation tax). For a while.

    But who will change the sheets, grow the food, provide the nursing, drive the Outreach Cars …

    There are not enough young people working to physically provide all the “goodies” that have been promised when the Baby Boomers retire. Just can’t happen.

    That’s why there was the push to open the doors to immigrants from anywhere and everywhere.

    That’s why the present Obama Care Billl was passed (to rope all the younger folks into paying high premiums for medical care they will never use, but will fund MY Medicare… and keep the Ponzi Scheme running about 10 more years – MAX.)

    Thats’ always the answer to when Socialism starts to fail. MORE socialism. Rope more “new blood” into the Ponzi scheme.

    (BTW, as an Economist, I had to study both capitalism and socialism. Actually, and communism too… along with a couple of other minor -isms… So I can spend days talking about the pros and cons of BOTH or all of them. I’m quite able to give a long laundry list of the ills of capitalism… but we’re not at much risk of them any time soon.)

    So don’t take my calling it “Socialism” or a “Ponzi Scheme” to mean any pejorative on my part. They are accurate “terms of art”.

    For Social Security, we have no money. We rope in new ‘contributors’ to cover the money sent out already to the first crop who bought it. That’s a simple Ponzi Scheme. Period. Doesn’t mean there is a better way, just accurately describes it.

    The technical name for when minor industry and business is highly regulated but not government owned or run; yet major industries like banking, health care and auto makers ARE government owned, is “Lange Type Socialism”. And that’s what we have. Think of it as “Socialism Lite” if you like. But it IS a socialism type.

    Where is this going to end up? All depends on the next round of elections. But… most likely:

    We’re going to flounder around with Socialism Lite for a while and end up in the typical Socialism Collapse.

    EVERYONE loves the “Socialism Shiny Thing”. It’s easy to grasp “free stuff and everyone is taken care of”. Season lightly with “social justice” and some “Greenwash Feelgood” and it sells like hotcakes.

    That’s why all over the planet, it is repeatedly tried. Again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again,…

    And it always flounders on the same thing:

    “Sooner or later you run out of other peoples money to spend.”

    Once everyone is impoverished and the built up wealth of generations is squandered, it collapses. This can take 20 to 50 years, typically. Sometimes a bit faster, rarely slower.

    Sometimes in wars (as started by the National State SOCIALIST Party – Nazis – in Germany).

    Sometimes from internal decay (as in the Soviet Union).

    Sometimes from simple poverty (as in several latin American countries).

    Sometimes from monetary collapse (as in several latin American countries and a few in Africa – several of which adopted the US dollar in desperation).

    Sometime from a dozen other causes.

    But it does, inevitably collapse. It’s oh so slowly collapsing in China as they migrate to Capitalism. Taking their own odd path away from Socialism. Praising it to the end as the old guard dies, allowing all to save face, while abandoning it.

    In Venezula it will take longer as they have to burn off all their oil wealth first, and that will take 50 years or so.

    And after 200 years, the USA is finally embracing The Socialism Shiny Thing with more than a half assed fondle.

    The only real questions are:

    How long will it take to collapse?
    Which method of collapse will we take?

    I would guess about 10 to 20 years and that we’ll take a combination of economic stagnation / bankruptcy and social disorder leading to a ‘vote the bastards out’ movement.

    IFF we’re very lucky, that will happen in 6 years instead of 10. If God Smiles on us, it will happen in November. If we’re unluckly, we’ll end up in a ‘workers paradise’ for 50 years and ‘advance’ to about where Cuba is now.

    I don’t expect it to happen inside 15 years… People don’t learn that fast. It will take significant pain for them to realize they were very very wrong.

    (The basic problem is that to understand why the Socialism Shiny Thing is broken takes a year or two of focused study. Nobody much is willing to do that. Especially when the suit on TV tells them they can get “free stuff” if they just embrace him and his Socialism Shiny Thing that looks so nice and you can understand in 20 seconds: Free Stuff, everyone wins…. )

    FWIW, the same “issue” is playing out in California. We’re already completely bankrupt. The economy is in a death spiral, and the state has in the past, and will in the future, be issuing IOUs rather than paying debts. It is a larger problem (bigger economy), and in worse condition, than Greece. But hey, we have a Boat Load of Wonderful Socialism Programs!!! (We just can’t pay for them…) Greece is also headed for collapse. Yet they are being ‘bailed out’ by a consortium that includes Italy, Spain, and Portugal (IIRC) who are also headed down the tubes, just not as far along- yet. Remember that when Socialism starts to collapse it first tries to rope in more folks…

    So part of the ‘dynamic’ is the question of which OTHER bits of Socialism Paradise are going to explode first and how will they take down the others? A couple of these “blow up” and the pace of decline could accelerate quite a bit…

    (Sidebar on the House Crisis: FWIW, the whole “subprime mortgage” and “housing crisis” implosion are a direct result of creeping socialism. We had a stupid set of housing laws that were passed to “make home ownership affordable” and “forbid redlining”. This resulted in some incredibly bad loans. These had to go somewhere… so “new blood” was roped in via the stew of innovative financial instruments to third party the cost of this socialist agenda. The banks had no desire to be part of this, they had no choice. They were flat out told to make the loans or go out of business. Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac are creations of a (largely democratic) socialist agenda in congress… as are all the problems they have created as collateral damage. The republicans get their share of blame as they agreed to go along with the socialist agenda as long as all the safeties were taken off the financial industry via the repeal of Glass-Steagall and related “reforms”. One party was lighting the matches while the other took the fire extinguishers away and sold all the hoses and water pipes…)

    But thus has it always been…

    There is a cyclical nature to human events, and this is one of them. The genius of the original constitution was that it prevented this. Unfortunately, the move away from “States Rights” (and that does NOT mean ‘advocation of slavery or racism’ as some have attempted to redefine it) with the direct election of Senators (one of the amendments) means that one of the major brakes on the ability of the people to vote for themselves the largess of the government is now gone. As long as Senators were appointed by the states, there was a firebreak between the people and the public purse, and that tends to hold socialism in check. We no longer have that. So everyone, president, senate, house of representatives, ALL of them benefit if they promise the joys of The Socialism Shiny Thing. At that point, it’s about one generation. And that change was about one generation ago…

    FWIW, a similar change to the California constitution lead to the collapse of our counties. (Since we’re smaller, we got there faster). They are now essentially mandated by the state to provide “social services” they can not pay for, so are bankrupt. No real surprise that the other states are now joining California in the rush to bankruptcy as the Feds can now mandate THEIR poverty to pay for social programs. Repeat until you run out of money everywhere…

    One last point: Wealth vs Jobs.

    You will hear lots of noise about the need for full employment and jobs bills. This is another broken “social agenda”.

    You could have full employment tomorrow. Simply mandate that everyone take a spoon to the nearest dirt and dig a hole on odd days, fill it in on even, and send them a Government Cheque.

    But you are not creating any new WEALTH. (And that does not mean “rich people”, it means “increase of value”).

    The only thing that improves lives is more WEALTH.

    Socialism is great at providing JOBS, but destroys WEALTH.

    (Capitalism is great at creating WEALTH, but only mediocre at providing jobs… and lousy at equitable wealth distribution.)

    So we tend to cycle between WEALTH CREATION (that is presently happening in China and India, but not in the USA) and WEALTH DESTRUCTION that is presently underway in the USA as we embrace more of The Socialism Shiny Thing.

    But don’t worry, after we’ve consumed all the wealth created by 200 years of our ancestors, we’ll start over. There may be a revolution or two in the middle (there usually is some kind of despotism that takes over in the collapse phase – but as long as the 2nd amendment stands that is likely to be held off and it will be a ‘ballot revolution’). I give it about 20 years max to hit effective poverty as a nation. 10 years if China stops loaning us money. (We’re effectively bankrupt at the national level now, except the rest of the world, and especially China, are buying our phony IOUs. We’ll repay every dollar, but each dollar will buy about 1/10th of what it does now…) So as long as THAT particular Ponzi Scheme keeps running, we’ll keep afloat and accelerating toward the crash… they can extend the time and the velocity at impact, but that’s about it…

    The “big whack” comes when the baby boomers start cashing in all the promises of social programs. Medicare, Medicaid, Medi-Cal, Social Security, Union Pensions, etc. That starts now and gets really heavy in about 5 to 10 years. That’s when the demographic bomb explodes. The rest of it is just asking how long it takes for the building to fall down after the charges knock out the key supports…

    Think of it this way: Who will be working to pay all the taxes to FUND all those pensions? You would have to tax 100%+ of the wages of the Gen-X and Gen-Y folks. Would YOU go to work if your ‘take home’ was zero at the end of the day? Could you? Easier to not work and join the line at the perpetual unemployment office or collect food stamps. At least then you can eat…

    (That’s not a hypothetical. It’s already happened with the GM and Chrysler pensions along with a batch of others including many airline pensions. All now “third partied” onto the government via the bankruptcy laws and the socialism program of the Pension Guarantee of the Government… with a LOT more to come as local governments go bankrupt and third party their bits too… Socialism spreads the bills to wherever the money is; until the money is all gone, and it’s effectively gone now… just the Chinese Credit Card left to load up to the limit… and hope their bank doesn’t call soon..)

    Wish I could be more positive about it but they don’t call Economics “The Dismal Science” for nothing…

  3. David says:

    Wow, thank you for your answer, I realy appreciate the detail you touch upon and I mostly agree.

    As I mentioned my daughter is getting her PHD at Oxford, and has unavoidably been influenced by very “shiny” political views. After a commentor on her page made some very harsh comments about America, and she became a little embarresed at the political discussion which ensued, I became enguaged in a discussion with her that went as follows. BTW, I am not formally “educated” but this has the advantage that my thoughts are not as channeled as they may otherwise be. If you feel this is to long please delete it after you read it, but you may find it fasinating with some new perspectives on some very old ideas, or perhaps not. It gets better as it progresses.

    Speaking of her socialist friend whom’s comments irratated me I wrote her…”I know you said he was brilliant, and this concerns me, as I find him even his reasoned responses somewhat presumptive. I am not necessarily impressed by academia, to paraphrase Sri Yukteswar, “discerning the placement of a comma (well written theories of social science that flower with many words) does not account for an intellectual (unbiased intelligent analysis) coma. Truthfully, Nik may well be brilliant, but this may also mean that he can more quickly and readily assimilate an unbalance intellectual position. “The bloodless pundits smell unduly of the lamp.” Perhaps to harsh, perhaps not.

    To quote what Nik said that invoked my intial angst “the U.S. was founded by a group of religious fanatics who were too prudish for Britain. that should say more than enough. i don’t deny that China is screwed up too, perhaps more so than the U.S., but that doesn’t mean that I’m wrong about U.S. history or culture.”

    The “perhaps more so“is the most obvious problem here.. I hope you see this as an example of moral relativism going as far overboard as the moral absolutists you, Nik and I all critique. If Nik can not see a clear and profound difference between the moral value and world benefit of the United States vs. communist China, then this is further illustrative of a profound absence of common sense on the left.

    (Nik) “LOL, i think you may have taken my initial comment somewhat (or a lot) more hyperbolically than i’d intended.”

    How Humpty Dumpty of him. Of course we did not take his comments to mean that he thought that the Puritan’s wrote the Declaration of Independence. I did take him at his word however, which he reiterates below “ Puritanism has had a huge impact on american society“, which in relation to his first comment appears to be an opinion that it was the religious extremism and absolutism of the puritans that had the huge effect.

    (Nik) “of course i know the founding statesmen were deists, but they were also the intellectual elite and as is still the case, much more secular than most of the people they governed”

    If by secular Nik means non-religious then I cannot agree. If he means less closely aligned to a particular religion then the “common” person then this is somewhat true. Of course the noblemen of the 1770s were, due to greater education, more open minded. In some however this “educated” view tends to develop in to it own class system. Cultures will naturally divide according to the true (higher age) understanding of the caste system. This is inevitable, and something all Marxist and most socialist fail to grasp. In unenlightened times these natural divisions are greatly misunderstood and develop a social division never intended.

    What degenerated into the rigid cast system as practiced in India also degenerated into the aristocracy of the western world during the same time frame. Thus the secular “elite” in many cases develop there own negative form of sectarianism. However the founding father’s were not guilty of most of the negative aspects of sectarianism. Instead they demonstrated an ability to separate the wheat from the chaff. (They recognized the true import of various doctrines and set up a system where the essence could be more easily practiced without easily falling victim to competing external forms and dogma.)

    The deeply thoughtful moral founders of the United States, via the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, including separation of church and state, wrote a document that had fundamental spiritual non-secular truths, and was so all inclusive as to provide the basis for all that followed… the abolishment of slavery, Women’s rights, the civil rights movement, etc. These men were deeply thoughtful, and politically astute, they in all likelihood knew that the basis of individual freedom from all forms of tyranny (political and religious) which they wrote and deeply embedded in the political structure of the US, would probably result in many of the freedoms that were later won due to the structure they created.

    The fact that many diverse groups from the generally less educated population, as well as from the “elite” would and did resist a broader literal interpretation of phrases such as “all men are created equally, with an equal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness“, does not mean that Nik’s statement that Puritanism has had a huge impact on american society…” and …” the U.S. was founded by a group of religious fanatics who were too prudish for Britain”. are a correct presentation of either the founding of this country, or of what the protestant impact on American culture was. Nik appears to be saying that it was the narrow minded absolutist moral failings of the protestant religious culture that were the essence of what America became, and to this day is. The foundation of the United States was, and quite obviously is, the antisepsis of Puritan extremism, in my view making Nik’s statement, “hasty”.

    The fact is that many in the US came to escape all forms of tyranny, and this is the philosophy that won. Not only do I disagree with Nik’s “educated” view, I also think he confuses Max Weber’s interpretation of the Protestant influence on the US, with what Weber’s writings morphed into via the agency of the secular humanist view, prevalent in academia today.

    Weber was a thoughtful man, and it is more then presumptuous of me to summarize his writings on this issue in a few sentences, but I will do my best. Weber taught that the protestant work ethic (a term he coined) when exposed to capitalism, (in this case the striving for personal gain) morphed into evil selfishness, as the religious ideals of an all inclusive brotherhood, and Protestant ideals of simplicity and working hard, but not for self gain, were lost due to the evil influence of capitalism. Reiterated in a different way, it was Weber’s view that it was the loss of this selfless religious restraint, due to the spirit of capitalism, (the idea of a rational pursuit for personal prosperity) that was an inevitable result of the combining of the protestant work ethic with capitalism.

    Now this is a refinement of a very old understanding I achieved from a 1975 (I think?) conversation with My Uncle Buck, (Leonard P Wessell Jr.) Thirty five years is a long time so my memory may have misconstrued his conversational education which I received when I visited my relatives 34 years ago, but recent google search seems to confirm this understanding.
    Here is a brief academic description of my uncle on my Mother‘s side. He has three PhDs; one from the Univ. of Washington which I think was in German and Philosophy. He has a PhD in Philosophy from a university in Germany, studying in German, and one in philosophy in Spanish from the University in Salamanca, Spain. He currently lives in Bonn Germany, He speaks fluently French, Spanish, German and English and some Russian. His books and scholastic essays on Marx, “Karl Marx, Romantic Irony, and the Proletariat:” and “The Mythopoetic Origins of Marxism” probably being the most cited, led to his being banned from East Germany before the wall fell. We had a few interesting conversations during my 1975 visit which led to a discussion of atheism in which I held my own (-: I think that at that time he supported an atheistic view, however he was certainly no friend to socialism or to Karl Marx and Communism.

    Further recent study has led to the following understanding of Max Weber. It is thought by some that his main ideals mostly closely reflect what Europe has become today, but he never achieved much influence during his time, being somewhat between various extremes, and so had little practical applications of his social ideals. Weber’s writings were however actually used by Adolf Hitler to institute rule by decree, allowing Hitler’s government to suppress opposition and obtain dictatorial powers. I feel this would have horrified Weber, and in my view the fact that this happened was a reflection of Weber’s, and many sociologist, fundamental flaws in their views on capitalism, socialism, communism etc. In his later years Weber became disenchanted with socialism, both in European and Bolshevik variations.

    Well supporting this view of Weber, is that he eventually perceived Lenin’s ideal of inserting a hierarchical mode of organization society, as an attempt to enslave the common man. Weber “ believed that workers in socialist society still would work in hierarchy, but this time in much worse form of it, fused with government power“ The bureaucratic tendency of socialist systems is immense and often unstoppable waste. As the US has moved towards socialism it is not immune from this concern. As one small example the Department of Energy was instituted on 8-04-1977. It’s purpose was to lessen US dependence on foreign oil. Currently, 32 years later, the budget for this “necessary” department is 25 billion a year with 16,000 federal employees and 100,000 contract employees. Energy, the life blood of any economy is not so complicated. The incredible benefits of inexpensive readily available energy are well documented in numerous studies and lead to cleaner energy, lower population, and increased wealth available for real needs and problems. Currently the enslaved people (producers employed in the private sector) in the US earn only fifty percent of the income (total benefits) compared to those who receive paychecks from the government. Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.” ~~George Washington

    I think that due to Weber’s late caution with socialism, eventually he would have perceived socialism as being fodder for the Marxism that flourished under Weber’s contemporary, Lenin.

    The fact that Marxism advocated a revolutionary overthrow of capitalism that would lead to socialism before eventually transforming into communism, after class antagonisms and the state ceased to exist; was, I hope, not lost on Weber. However Weber’s own attempts to organize a liberal social party in the US were rejected by the US left, as too extreme and revolutionary.
    Weber studied the impact of various world religions on economic development. I think his idea that many religious views suppressed economic development were somewhat true of how religion was practiced in most countries during and previous to his time, as well as even now, and I credit Weber with his understanding that the Protestant work ethic helped increase the economic production of America. I think though he carries his view a bridge to far. Many areas in Europe, partially due to the protestant view of “let everyman read the bible for himself” were more literate relative to Catholic dominated parts of Europe, and therefore more prosperous.

    Aspects of some religious cultures such as India‘s “ So long as a man breathes the free air of the earth he is under duty to render grateful service” were apparently ignored or unknown by Weber. The fact that India had a very long period of material prosperity is also apparently unknown by Weber. Weber pointed out how some religious concepts such as the Christian concept that all work must be done for God alone, (Weber apparently did not realize that this also is a Hindu concept) and Karma, wrongly interpreted by many as this is my destiny, so I cannot do anything about it, limited economic development. Weber felt that the idea of pre-destination as taught by Protestants caused them to focus more on the here and now of material prosperity, as there was nothing one pre-destined could do; opposed to the Catholic view of achieving salvation through a combination of works (not for personal gain) and correct theology. It is in my view a fundamental mistake that Weber considered the idea of personal gain and power evil. When discussing Max Weber and his views I have several times said words such as apparently. This is because I do not know in detail much of what he wrote, yet the numerous writings summarizing his views present the picture I have outlined.

    I think that to a degree Weber also missed the true value of religion in achieving prosperity, and will a little later concisely state those benefits. Also I think that perhaps you miss the crucial difference between why I state that since the time both religions and non religious political powers (those that do not believe in individual property rights and democratic structure) have coexisted on the same stage, the non-religious one’s have done far more damage, only partially because of the number of people killed, The non-religious have been far greater mass murderers. Their “Borg” like version of collectivism which completely trounces free will is a devastating combination.

    I have made two fundamental criticisms of Weber’s view. One is that he failed to understand the material benefit to society (as partially realized by ancient India) of a proper understanding of the practice of satama dharma; specifically those traits which emphasize behavior that can be universally shown to engender happiness, and secondly his mistaken view that capitalism encouraged a evil selfishness in the pursuit of material prosperity.

    Let me review the ladder, although both statements are connected. In “Science of Religion” Partamahansa Yogananda stated that there is an inescapable form of selfish desire in the actions of all men. The removal of pain and suffering and the attainment of lasting happiness. “Someone may say I do not care anything about pleasure or happiness. I live life to accomplish something, to achieve success.” Another says : I want to do good in the world, I do not care weather I am in pain or not.” But if you look into the minds of these people, you will find the same working toward the goal of happiness. Does the first man want a success that has in it’s achievement no pleasure or happiness? Does the second want to do good to others, yet himself get no happiness in doing it? Obviously not. They may not mind a thousand and one physical pains or mental sufferings inflicted by others, or arising out of situations incidental to the pursuit of success or the doing of good to others; but because the one finds great satisfaction in success, and the other intensely enjoys the happiness of doing good to others’ the former seeks success, and the ladder seeks others good, in spite of incidental troubles.
    Even the most altruistic motive and the sincerest intention of advancing the good of humanity, for its own sake, have sprung from the basic urge for a chastened personal happiness approaching bliss.”

    Capitalism is in many respects fundamentally honest, and a reflection of the above. It is an admittance that personal gain is never absent, even in the most altruistic, and so capitalism makes no pretense of removing personal gain. It also makes no moral judgment of personal gain being bad. It is a neutral admittance that desire for personal gain exists, and cannot be legislated away. Social systems that vainly seek to legislate selflessness only condense the personal gain aspect into the most powerful people within the government, and in removing liberty and personal power from the common man, engender helplessness in the masses. The one who prospers in capitalism has the freedom to become a philanthropist, or the freedom to use his wealth in a narrow selfish way. Capitalism however has a basic tenant stating that even the purely selfish accumulation of material goods, if acquired in the honest production of a good or service of value to others in society, produces good for that society.

    It is stated by many “Power corrupts”. This also is fundamentally flawed. No reasonable persons seek to be powerless, to be a victim subject to the discretion of others; to have no control over there own lives and decisions. So others refine this saying, “The love of power corrupts” Yet this has the same problem. All love to feel empowered. Even the one who willfully submits to one in authority wishes to feel that it is both their choice, and that in that submission, they will gain the power to attain some end, either personal or to some benefit of society. The one who submits within a system does not mean he wishes to have no power or influence. All seek power, and in some ways all love power. A far better statement is that “Power reveals corruption” or alternatively, “love of power over the free will of others is corruption.” The corruption that power reveals is the use of power to compel others against their will, the desire to exercise tyrannical control of other people to accomplish some objective.

    So in this sense we see that both the desire to have power, and the desire to achieve personal gain are not inherently evil. It is the desire to exercise tyrannical power over others in connection with the desire for personal gain (even if one portends it is only for the protection of the less fortunate) that is fundamentally immoral or dishonest and which is evil and destructive to a society. “This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.” (Plato) Almost always the manifestation of seeking power in an immoral way involves exercising a form of tyranny, however petty it may be, over someone else or some other group. Thus what is immoral is the practice of seeking gain via an expression of tyranny over another person. Murder, as a blatant example, involves both the removal of another’s same right for seeking self gain, and is an expression of tyranny over another person. Almost all crimes which are common to societies are a reflection of this fundamental abuse of power which can manifest in either a personal or group expression.

    Those social systems which mostly easily engender tyranny should be rated poorly in their chance of producing a prosperous and happy society. To try to enforce selflessness, requires a strict application of the verb in this sentence, force. A society that so fundamentally distrusts the common people of the governed that strict central planning of economies and wealth is required, is in high danger (100%) of eventually falling victim to the revelation of the corruption which such consolidated power reveals, as well as becoming overburdened with inefficient bureaucracy. The current British threatened prosecution (because the were not licensed care providers) of two professionals who were each taking care of the other’s child while the other was at work, is a literal example of “The Nanny State” , and such examples will only get far worse with the environmental fascists currently trying for the beginning of one world government in Copenhagen.

    The Unites States recognition of the right to seek self gain, (capitalism) combined with the fact that we are a “republic” guaranteeing freedom from tyranny of other groups or from the tyranny of the majority, be that majority religious, political, corporate, or a combination thereof, is highly moral. However in empowering the individual there must be a strong co-commitment element of self-responsibility. One cannot expect the protections such a society enables, without both self responsibility and offering some form of service back to that society.

    The love of power for the purpose of subjugating others for one’s own end cannot be removed by any system. It just operates less effectively within a system built expressly for protection from such tyranny. The responsibility of the US form of government is to prevent the formation of such tyrannies: Corporate monopolies that unfairly drive out competition, lobby groups looking for special privileges, banking methods that rig the monetary system and allow leverage of assets tantamount to gambling, fractional reserve banking on steroids, government decisions making risk public but profit private, government sponsored enterprises that, under direct supervision of government regulators, do all of the above, are not caused by a capitalist / republic, but are a sick perversion of it caused by the love of power over others, and the lack of wisdom as revealed by satama dharma. It is the failure of the US government to police the above which is dereliction of their primary responsibility, the protection of individual freedom and power, from the tyranny of those with group power.

    No form of government can be free from intrinsic ignorance, but the evaluation of all systems should be based on their ability to resist the corruptions power reveal. Since WWII the US has been the most powerful nation on this planet. Despite its flaws, the US has demonstrated a far greater resistance to exerting tyranny over others then any other nation, relative to the power possessed. Remember that if power reveals corruption, the US has passed this test far better then any other nation. Many on the left often repeat the mantra, “live and let live,“ but remain ignorant of the danger of the system they wish to implement which is inherently duplicit to this maxim. The US system is the best “live and let live” system, specifically due to its republic / capitalist system, and within any society but particularly a large non-homogenous society this has many advantages. The “let live” part is easily forgotten in socialism, and both the “let live” and the “live” part are discarded in murderous communism.

    This brings us to the second fundamental misunderstanding I feel Weber and many sociologist engage in. Max Weber felt that the religious prescripts of his day were in many senses destructive of economic gain. It is perhaps fair to say your initial reaction may be to disagree with the below statement I made, at least the part I underlined.
    “If all outward religion was somehow abolished, then these ignorant acts of human nature would continue unabated. One can easily argue that they would in fact be worse, as formal religion is for many the ambassador for ideals of selfless love and compassion, and these ideals are the inspiration for their life’s that have enriched us all.”
    Please google “Democide, murder by Government” Then go to the home page and see the chart on the right showing all historic democide prior to the 20th century, and compare it with the sad facts of the 20th century.

    The religious goal of seeking a permanent happiness, even if in the next life, is not necessarily counterproductive to material success, and in many respects supports material prosperity. The religious tyrannies of the time period concurrent with and prior to the formation of America engaged in the stealing of wealth and material prosperity by the church, as well as many abuses based on both tyrannical selfishness and the misunderstanding of ancient wisdom. This, far more then the hope of an afterlife or principals of selflessness, were what prevented many from making greater material effort.

    These failings of human nature continue to manifest in religion today, most strongly in fundamental Islam, to a lesser degree in the corruption of ancient ideals in India, particularly in rural India, and to a even smaller grade in some of the policies you have discussed in regard to the US aid to Africa. These observations however do not override the benefits of the efforts made and inspiration of millions, moved to live a better life by the saints.

    Yogananda taught that in the ultimate sense “Truth is exact correspondence with Reality” As you well know India teaches what is called satama dharma, the eternal principals of righteousness, which Yogananda illustrated as being common to all the worlds religions. My basic premise, although in Nick’s words which I liked “ i’m certainly not prepared to do so off the cuff with any real intellectual robustness, is that these principals are contained within the worlds religions, and those saints which manifested them did inspire millions to practice them to various degrees.

    It is possible that the basic resistance to the dictatorships of the 20th century came from people who had a positive experience of religion based on satama dharma, and so were inherently more resistant to the message of these dictators then those who, disenchanted with the abuses of religion, rejected all religion (The proverbial throwing out the baby with the bath water), and so more easily fell in lockstep with the ideals of the leaders of communism and fascism.

    These disenchanted people, not understanding that the failures of religion were really the failures of every man and thus inherent in any system, fled to a new lover with a different dress, but with the same dark heart. Absent the positive inspiration of true religion which can awaken the conscience, they fell even further. This is a further argument in favor of the benefit to society of satama dharma, however weekly it has filtered through various religious groups during less enlightened times.

    For a more positive view of the role of monotheism in western culture I suggest reading “For the Glory of God; by Rodney Stark. Mr. Stark makes many compelling arguments for the benefits of the role of satama dharma as manifested by the Judea Christian faith. It is regrettable that his understanding of eastern thought is extremely limited, but this does not detract from many valid points raised.

    It is also noteworthy to recognize that the affect of America on religion was to moderate it and move it towards a more pure practice of the common principals most all humans can agree on. This was the result of the founding Father’s restraint of various religious groups from acquiring political power structures. In a similar effect, Paramahansa Yogananda sought to see past the outer form of various religions and to distill the essence within which is common to all the world’s religions, but often hidden in the cloak of various dogmas, tenants, or tradition which often obscure the true understanding originally intended. It may well be more then coincidental that one of Yogananda’s first actions on arrival in America was to lay flowers at the Washington memorial.

    Paramahansa Yogananda called the ten commandments, “The ten eternal rules of happiness.” In India the basic moral prescripts, called Yamma and Niyama, are the foundation of every successful culture. A scientific study of happiness would reveal that this is the case. A detailed study of the misery of many that win the lottery would be one small aspect of such a study on happiness. Those moral precepts which a scientific study would reveal as necessary for happiness, are correctly labeled wisdom.

    Education, not forced selflessness, is the best method of instilling wisdom in a culture. It is only in the teaching of this wisdom that any society can prosper and resist the corruption power reveals. This teaching must be a reflection and reinforcement of the family structure, not an opposition to it. While there may be many things some of the religious right say that both you and I disagree with, there also may be many things articulated there which could further educate you.

    It is true that if wisdom is gained a family would be less inclined to accumulate material possessions. For instance a 1800 sq’ house may well be perceived as adequate and no more necessary for happiness then a 3,000 sq’ house. And so sincere practice of some of the religious aspects of simplicity would have a moderating effect on economic growth. However what Weber apparently missed articulating is that the excesses of the tyrannical love of power within any system (which ultimately cause that system to collapse) can only be avoided by wisdom.

    Prosperity that occurs within such a illumined society would be immunized from the forms in which the corruption power reveals manifests in a capitalistic society.
    The economic bubbles and subsequent falls that form within current capitalistic societies would be eliminated by a disciplined (wise) monetary system as well as self disciplined general population, while the benefits of individual freedom and material prosperity would manifest. Capital, as a convenient means of value exchange, can better be visualized as a very efficient battery, a store house of productive energy to be committed to future ventures. If capital was rightly conceived of this way then attempts to do impossible things (Keynesian economics and monetarist) with it would be rejected as defying Newtonian economics.

    It is because of this basic requirement for wisdom within any social system that the democratic / republic form of capitalism practiced by the US is not guaranteed any long term success without the free choice wisdom practice of satama dharma of the individuals within. Compared to other forms of Government it is however inherently more resistant to the corruption power reveals and more capable of reinforcing the inherent wisdom common to the worlds religions in a non-violent way.

  4. E.M.Smith says:

    @David:

    I was lucky enough to learn a great deal from “uneducated” but very smart “dirt farmers and poor folks” prior to going off to school. Your comment:

    “Nik may well be brilliant, but this may also mean that he can more quickly and readily assimilate an unbalance intellectual position. ”

    Embodies a point I’ve tried to get across to folks on many occasions. Attend any Mensa meeting and you find a large number of highly gifted folks. With strongly divergent opinions on what is true… Look at the gaggle of lawyers we have in Washington DC (and one presumes in London and …) and the complete idiocy they often embrace. Yes, intelligence is nice to have, but it mostly just means you can more rapidly “assimilate an unbalanced intellectual position” based on sand. But very nicely tended sand…

    The major “complaint” I would have with the general points made by “Nik” center on the focus on “Puritans”. They were important (especially in the North East), but hardly central. Many religions sought freedom here. I’ve forgotten the details, but one of the key moments in US history was when, during the revolution, the US Army was about to be fried and had no money. The local JEWISH community pooled some gold to fund a key battle that eventually led to the USA being founded. They, too, wanted simply to be left alone in freedom. IIRC it was documented in the movie “Sons of Liberty”:

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031953/

    I could also point out that the early years of the old west included frequent “line marriages” and that for many years the Mormons were free to practice polygamy. In my case, one set of ancestors were Amish. They, along with Quakers, Mennonites, and several others came here to explore religious freedoms. Hardly something that would happen if the place were dominated by Puritans (who often had little tolerance for other religious views…)

    If you look closely at the “Founding Fathers” you find a modestly diverse group of folks who argued strongly over their differences but respected the right to hold those differences. And, IMHO, that is the key point. They built a place where you were free to hold YOUR beliefs, not someone else’s. And structured a government that let you do that (and prevented “official viewpoints” from being foisted on folks). It’s that last bit that’s been eroded horridly. We now have “hate speech” laws, for example. As Chomsky pointed out “Everyone is for freedom of speech for speech they agree with. ” and he went on to say that you must be for freedom of speech for the speech you find most vile (paraphrasing) for it to mean anything. Once you have “hate speech” forbidden, you are now in the definitional game of deciding what is ‘hateful’. Is being anti-democrat hateful? Anti-nazi? “I think your nose is too big”? “You have ugly kids”? Is it OK to say “I love what you did with those gas chambers” as it has a “positive tone”? If directed at Hitler? Huge and mindless can of worms. The original solution was the best one. Say whatever you want, but take the consequences from those around you. (Shunning. Counter speech. Ridicule. etc.)

    So look at the structure of the USA and it was NOT a Puritan Paradise. It was designed specifically to prevent them, or any one else, from telling others how to live.

    If anything, the structure is anti-religious in that it forbids religion from grasping the levers of power. Though it leaves you free to do what you want with religion on your own time…

    Per Weber, Lenin, Marx, et. al. I’ve read some of their stuff. I’m not impressed. Lots of words, not much content. Lots of elegant circumlocutions, not much of practical value. IMHO.

    I see things much more simply.

    Left to my own devices, I can “make a living” from the world around me. Collections of other people (governments, armies, other tribes) can prevent that (kill or enslave me, expel me,…) or they can enhance it (protect me with armies, provide structured work with economies of scale and specialization, prevent others from taking my work product).

    There is simply a constant battle between the “prevent” part of that equation and the “enhance” part.

    Most of the “isms” have too much of the “prevent” and not enough of the “enhance”. Capitalism captures most of the “enhance” but has some of the “prevent” leaking through (things like the rich buying up all the land and leaving the poor to die…) So we put ‘patches’ on capitalism to fix the worst ills. Socialism and communism usually fail to “prevent others from taking my work product”; in fact they usually advocate the state taking a large part or all of it.

    Don’t think it matters if you are a protestant puritan OR my other kin, the Irish Catholics who came here in the potato famine and did just fine, thank you very much. The Catholic part of my family would take some moderate offense at the notion of a “PROTESTANT” work ethic building America. Something about crushing labor on railroad work gangs and all… Oh, and the Chinese who also labored to build the west would probably take issue as well. We have “china towns” all over (not just San Francisco) to this day from their contribution to America. What about the “Buddhist Work Ethic” and the “Shinto Work Ethic” and …

    So at the end of the day, no matter WHAT religion you embrace or what moral code: If too much “prevent” happens you either die or simply stop trying to produce. If enough of the “enhance” is available, you will try to gain as much as you want or need. The USA simply started with the maximal “enhance” and the minimal “prevent”. That’s all.

    Though we’ve strayed from that, as your department of energy example showed. (FWIW, I could “fix” our energy dependence in about 5 years with very little more than a single precise ‘countervailing power’ tariff. But that’s another thread. Basically, put a price floor under OPEC oil so they can’t do predatory prices – about $80 / bbl would do. Then get rid of most of the rest of the DOE apparatus that mostly just prevents change.)

    Somewhere along the line I ran into the statement that no country long survives after more than 1/2 the production of the country goes to/through government. Prior to Obama Care we were dancing with 50%. With all the new $Trillions washing through DC, we are now well over it. Collapse is pretty much guaranteed from that point on.

    And the reason is pretty simple. I have a choice. I can watch the sun rise, think about my favorite book, talk with friends. Or I can chase money via a job I’m not very keen on. I’m willing to do the latter as long as I get some money at the end of it. The less money I get, the less I’m willing to do it. As the government ‘cut’ goes over 50%, more folks “take time to smell the roses” and fewer take time to haul steer manure to the rose garden… When you take enough that I can barely feed and clothe myself if I work, but have a social safety net that guarantees me food and clothing if I don’t… well….

    There are a lot of roses in the world that need smelling, a lot of fishing spots to explore, and I can make “hooch” out of just about any carbohydrate I can find along with an old plastic jug… ( I can make a fishing kit from most any line, a bit of wire, a small stone or metal bit, and some cork or bit of wood for a float. And I have…)

    So at the end of the day I think it is far more about the simple battle between greed and sloth rather than some grand scheme of religion and ethics. If I can do more of what I want and gain more, I will. If you take my stuff, well, I’ll find a way to avoid you and go fishing. Or, to paraphrase a Russian saying from the Communist days “They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work”.

    IMHO, religion is not relevant to the economic question. The only place it really enters is that communism (and to a lesser extent, socialism) tend to want to eradicate it as it puts limits on what they can mandate.

    FWIW, I also don’t see much in the “power corrupts” issue. IMHO the problem is more that “Power attracts the corrupt”.

    We have folks, like Warren Buffet, with immense power; yet a paragon of virtue. The bigger issue is that centralizing all the power in a single state, or office, or government tends to ATTRACT the power hungry to it, and that leads to corruption of the office.

    Part of the (vanishing) virtue of the US system was that power was “bottom up” and only a little got concentrated in DC. That, too, is long gone. Now we’ll have ever more corruption as the graspers after power concentrate in DC. Communism is worst at this (thus the Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao types) but Socialism is almost as bad (thus Hitler et. al.).

    Per all the dharma wisdom stuff: Part of the ‘structural wisdom’ of capitalism is that it lets folks fail. It is Darwinian. We don’t need wisdom, we only need that the wise can win and the dumb can fail. We had several attempts at communes (Amana appliances is the legacy of one). Most gone by the wayside. We had several attempts at dictatorial companies (folks tend to leave them for better places) and they too generally fade from the scene in time. (The Pullman Riots comes to mind.)

    So wisdom is nice, and it’s a great goal, but the core benefit of a diffuse power capitalist system is that it does not require any particular wisdom to be promoted. It simply lets wisdom win. And no one is the gatekeeper on WHICH wisdom does the winning…

    So I have friends who are Buddhists, wise, and successful.
    I have friends who are Confucian, wise, and successful.
    I have Catholic and Protestant family, wise and successful.
    I have Jewish friends that are wise and successful.
    I have Hindu friends and Muslim friends that are wise and successful.

    and right on down the list.

    And that, IMHO, is the ideal of what is America.

    ANYONE can “make it”, AND without being told how they must do it…

    There IS NO ONE ROAD.

    Though there are several that don’t work. Socialism being one of them. Communism another.

    And that, IMHO, is why Europe is further down this collapse road than the USA is today (with England well out in front). They keep trying to define the Approved Road and spend too little time just marking “Here There Be Dragons” on the well trodden roads to socialism and communism.

    OK, as much fun as this all is, it’s very much not about comets. If folks want to continue more of this sort of discussion, I’d rather open a thread on political economy and put it in the right category (so folks can find what they want to talk about).

    So if folks want more of this, rather than posting more polemics in comments here: Just note it here and I’ll open a Socialism Shiny Thing thread…

  5. suricat says:

    E. M. Smith.

    “So if folks want more of this, rather than posting more polemics in comments here: Just note it here and I’ll open a Socialism Shiny Thing thread…”

    Well my vote is that the only ‘shiny thing’ that needs comment on is the ‘shiny comet’ that was your first post, but that’s only my opinion. To continue:

    I’ll admit that I’ve also been beguiled by the ‘Electric Universe’ way of things, but the beguiling hasn’t amounted to conviction. Yes! There are truths that Astronomy doesn’t recognise, so science doesn’t recognise this either because it doesn’t percolate through. However, it’s more important that science per se takes aboard the input from the Electric Universe ‘movement’ and uses the pertinent theory to further science.

    I’ve read the three levels of links that your first posted link lead to and my attitude hasn’t altered, but my conviction has. I’m now convinced that our current scientific understanding isn’t corroborative. There are parts of ‘The Electric Universe Theory’ that seem to fit well with anomalies to the ‘standard model’. Perhaps I’ll expand on that later.

    Best regards, suricat.

  6. E.M.Smith says:

    Yeah, I think I’m in about the same place.

    Not committed to the Electric Universe model, but intrigued by some of the “catches” is makes.

    Things like the dry comets… I can sort of see a way to have an ice ball inside a rock crust. But then over millions of years I’d expect even a semi-enclosed ice ball to sublime in the vacuum of space. And if it’s had a few hundred passes by the sun?… There is just something missing. Where the Electric Universe idea of ionic spallation kind of covers the problems.

    I suspect it may be some of each. Comets often have 2 tails… perhaps some via ions and some via thermal driven vapors.

    Then there are the Birkland Currents. Explains some of the asymmetry of ozone with the hole at the south pole and that odd ‘two big dots’ pattern I’ve seen in ozone at the north pole. And they’ve been measured and shown to exist.

    The Jupiter Heat issue also bothers a bit. Where does the excess heat come from? You could claim U and Th decay, but the greater quantity ought to have still been subject to half-life decay… and if it’s a giant gas ball, where’s the U and Th? the gas isn’t fusing (i.e. it’s not a sun) and there isn’t a whole lot else to explain it. I don’t buy the ‘gravity did it’ excuse. (Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism) The gravitational compression was over long long ago. A few billion years. That heat ought to have long ago reached equilibrium with space. It’s not enough for the sun (only explains 18 M years, not several billion). Saturn is incredibly cold. Something doesn’t quite add up. So at the end of the day, where does the excess heat of Jupiter come from? If it’s Kelvin-Helmholtz some of the terms have got to be way out there.

    So it’s incredibly active in radio and other EM bands. It’s hot. And it has no visible means of generating the power. But it has a boat load of angular momentum and there is a load of Birkland Current available to it. The Electric model would have it heated by some particle method. I could see that. Big blob of stuff sucking down a large current in space. Yeah, that could heat things… The standard model says… what again?

    I’m a little uneasy with the notion that the sun is not fusing, though. I’d like to see an energy budget for where 4 to 10 billion years of power came from for sol sized stars if not from fusion.

  7. suricat says:

    E M Smith.

    “Things like the dry comets… I can sort of see a way to have an ice ball inside a rock crust. But then over millions of years I’d expect even a semi-enclosed ice ball to sublime in the vacuum of space. And if it’s had a few hundred passes by the sun?… There is just something missing. Where the Electric Universe idea of ionic spallation kind of covers the problems.”

    I’m not familiar with the term ‘ionic spallation’ and a google has shown me no result (cathodic loss?), but if you intend ‘ionic comet surface erosion by solar wind’ I think this unlikely, even at high solar wind speeds. Though, the solar wind must impart a kinetic component to the comet’s surface, thus, (on first principles) I would expect it to give rise to temperature increase and some mechanical drag. What happens next depends on the material makeup of the comet, thus, possible ‘thermal/mechanical spallation’, including out-gassing, due to solar wind influence.

    However, electromagnetic (EM) forces are also strongly at work near Sol. Any EM waveband (again on first principles) from ultraviolet (UV) through to gamma rays (GR) will provide varying levels of ionisation and secondary heating to a comet’s surface as it approaches Sol. I don’t think this comes under particle physics type ‘spallation’ as it’s an EM field kinetic, but the effect certainly breaks molecules and atoms, while stripping electrons as well. Would this be ‘ionic spallation’?

    “I suspect it may be some of each. Comets often have 2 tails… perhaps some via ions and some via thermal driven vapors.”

    There are some images of two tailed comets here on this google page:

    http://www.google.co.uk/images?q=%22two+tailed+comet%22&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&oe=&redir_esc=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=uTfUS4WsJKKI0wT46tndDQ&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CB4QsAQwAw

    I’m an engineer and no scientist, but after looking at these images I don’t think either tail is ‘thermal driven vapours’. I’ll explain my POV.

    If you look at the comet body, it appears to be surrounded by an ‘atmospheric like sphere’. I would conclude this to be most probably made up of comet debris and, perhaps, thermally out-gassed products. This ‘false atmosphere’ is vulnerable to high energy (HE) EM fluxes (UV and shorter wavelengths) and must surely be broken componentially into a baser and ionic form. Baser, because the primary ‘nature’ of these HE EM fluxes is to ‘denature’ material (molecules and atoms) and ionic, because the forced ‘denaturing of material’ always generates an electron imbalance (the way the electron imbalance is corrected depends on the materials involved [IE, conduction/insulation properties and gasses are usually good electrical insulators, thus, likely poor recovery of electrons within the 'false atmosphere']). This is the only way that I can understand (with my low level of knowledge) the apparent false atmosphere that surrounds the comet.

    The comet ‘tail’ is commonly assumed to be out-gassing and other debris of neutral material being carried outwards by the solar wind. When the solar wind per se has a makeup of +ve particles, how can a ground state atom, or molecule, exist without any anomaly within this +ve particle field? I don’t think it can. However, we need to investigate ‘two tailed’ comets to even begin to throw any logic at this! Let’s look at the ‘bow tail’ at the anterior, or the ‘ante-tail’ of these two tailed comets.

    There’s a striking difference between the tail and the ante-tail of a two tailed comet, the tail converges and the ante-tail diverges relative to the comet body. More importantly, what (from the denatured false atmosphere) can travel faster than the velocity of the comet? Electricity? Well, perhaps.

    This is where ‘The Electric Universe’ provoked my thoughts to ‘perhaps the universe is a gigantic semiconductor’ and to a point, this fits (I think). Perhaps the roaming electrons in the comet’s false atmosphere are attracted to the solar wind’s ‘electron holes’ and are attracted in a divergent configuration towards the greater potential of ‘electron holes’ (perhaps nearer Sol, but towards greater +ve potential). Electrons would certainly be the first order of migration, as protons are much heavier and need more kinetic energy input to move. Electron migration would provide greater electrical potential mitigation for the least energy input (greatest equilibrium candidate for local ‘attractors’ [if you're familiar with this discipline]).

    With some of the false atmosphere’s electrons being removed, the false atmosphere is now much closer to the +ve potential of the solar wind and becomes included within it as the ‘tail’. Any post comet material in the tail shall be eventually ionised by HE EM irradiation with a similar outcome. The eventual outcome of HE EM irradiation is hydrogen. Such is the effect of ionising HE EM radiation. However, this will only be found ‘down wind’ of the comet’s focus, where the focus has passed it’s divergence of natural components. The true ‘tale’ follows the divergent point of the anterior tail!

    This is why astronomers look to the recent ‘tail’ (before chemicals are altered) to calibrate meteoric constituents. However, is what they see actually what was in the meteor, or what it became when the meteor was subjected to thermal spallation?

    Enough already! I’ll post in your ‘sunspot thingy’ (when I get there). You’ve too many points to cover here.

    Best regards, suricat.

  8. P.G.Sharrow says:

    suricat

    I would not devalue your point of view because you are only an engineer. Engineers have to work with the real world as god made it and not the make believe universe of Scientists. I always look to cause and effect to trouble shoot for answers. Whether a balky engine or the universe, it’s all the same, look at the clues and follow your line of reasoning and if the clues lead to a different path, dump your line and develop a new line of thought. Only a fool would claim that the facts must be wrong because they don’t fit with the theory.
    Any good electrical or electronic engineer has to have a very good grasp on the behavior of particals and EMF.

    This dustball comet thing is a wonderful new clue to the true nature of the solar system.

  9. E.M.Smith says:

    @suricat:

    Not every possible combination of words is in Google… yet.

    Ionic spallation is simply to “spall” or have chunks (though tiny molecule sized most likely) nocked off by high energy ions from the sun. Basically it is a shorthand way of saying “If there is a big honking current from the sun that can heat things up enough or have enough kinetic energy to knock bits off”..

    Though I note that Wiki has a similar definition under ‘spall':

    Spall are flakes of a material that are broken off a larger solid body and can be produced by a variety of mechanisms, including as a result of projectile impact, corrosion, weathering, cavitation, or excessive rolling pressure (as in a ball bearing). Spalling and spallation both describe the process of surface failure in which spall is shed.

    The terms spall and spalling have been adopted by particle physicists; in neutron scattering instruments, neutrons are generated by bombarding a uranium target with a stream of atoms. The neutrons that are ejected from the target are known as spall.

    so there is prior art that uses “spall” with nuclear sized particles.

    I did not intend “solar wind” but rather the charged current flows that the Electric Universe folks postulate flow between bodies ( that is, things like Birkland Currents). I can’t really explain it better than that as the whole body of Electric Universe theory is new to me and a bit fuzzy ;-) but they postulate significant current density between bodies in space full of charge particles in excess of the solar wind.

    I’ve read once (and now only dimly remember) an explanation of the two tails on comets. IIRC it was that one was driven directly away from the sun by the pressure of light and particles while the other was ‘stuff’ left on the transit path of the comet. That was the (fuzzy…) concept I was alluding to. That there might be BOTH an atmosphere & dust tail being left in a trail (of passage) and also charged particles that were knocked off by “electric universe changed particles” (whatever they might be and with whichever charge…) that might be taking a path driven more by charge than by inertia…

    Rather as described here:

    http://www.windows2universe.org/comets/tail.html

    A comet generally has two tails, not one. One tail is due to the comet’s dust particles, the other is due to ionized gas from the comet coma.
    Dust particles form the first tail. This comet tail generally points back along the comet path (so if the comet is traveling right, the dust tail extends to the left).

    Ions (electrically charged particles), which first come from the nucleus as (neutral) gaseous particles, are swept into the second comet tail. Because of the special interaction with the Sun’s magnetic field, this tail always points directly away from the Sun.

    The addition to this basic idea being that a strong electrical or charged current could be the agent knocking small bits of dust off AND ionizing the gas. You don’t need steam jets from heated ice, just a strong ion beam. (Not saying that’s what must happen, just saying that’s how I *think* the Electric Universe folks would be explaining it… though if anyone has a better grip on the Elec. U. folks ideas, feel free to correct any of this. Lord knows I’ve only barely looked at it… )

  10. suricat says:

    E M Smith.

    With all due respect, your link to windows2universe.com only describes the splitting of the comet tail that is deposited in the ‘wake’ of the comet and solely posterior of the comet’s position on its path of trajectory. If you study the sources of the images that I linked to, I think you’ll find that current thinking is moving towards the recognition of a tail presenting itself in the forward path of the comet, as well as behind it. It’s said that at the trajectory angle that most comets orbit Sol the forward tail (ante-tail) can’t be observed. Any idea why? Could this be due to a limited angle of photon emission?

    Here’s a wiki entry on a recent comet, Lulin:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Lulin

    Intriguing, isn’t it. Comet Lulin also ‘lost its tail’ following coronal mass ejection, or CME. Anyone got any idea what process caused the loss? Radiation, or fast solar wind? Wiki states “Guide and colleagues believe the event was caused by a magnetic disturbance in the solar wind hitting the comet.”, so magnetic and electric (solar wind). Would that be an EM flux (EM radiation)? ;-)

    Well, I kept going with google and got the answer, but I’m not sure where I picked up the ‘e’ in ‘anti-tail’ from though! IT’S AN ILLUSION! 8-)

    As wiki explains here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitail

    Ha ha ha! I think ‘I’ need to go back to geometry as well. It’s all in the angles. So much for this part of Electric Universe. :-)

    Best regards, suricat.

  11. suricat says:

    E M Smith.

    OK, after that stupid blunder about the ‘anti-tail’ (you’ll have guessed that [apart from taking a few good pictures of Lunar craters] I’m not an astronomer either) I’ve reread the three pages from your first post link. Fine. Think I’m properly focused now.

    From page three:

    http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060217deepimpact3.htm

    In “1. Negatively charged nucleus.”. I don’t understand the phrase “the coma would encounter a number of plasma sheaths or double layers”. If the Electrical Universe Theory (EUT) has declared boundary layers around regions of electrical potential and called them ‘plasma sheaths’, what’s the eV potential that demarcates this regional boundary and does it have a ‘sliding’ caveat that keeps it in ‘sync’ with its surrounding electrical influences? The ‘sliding’ caveat is quite important because without this, natural ionic actions would just break down and all we would have is an electrical arc (anyone for arc-welding? Perhaps a fluorescent tube, neon sign, or a xenon flash lamp? No?).

    Oh! But, wait a minute! Everything that I put into brackets in the last sentence of the previous paragraph uses ‘plasma’ to ‘achieve’ its purpose! Could this mean that EUT uses the catastrophic breakdown of natural ionic interactions to formulate their ‘plasma sheath theory’? I doubt it. In fact I think that a ‘plasma sheath theory’ would promote the possibility that natural ‘photolysis’ (some of which ‘photolytic activity’ I tried to describe in my second post here) can be promoted within the region of the “plasma sheath” per se. I can’t comment further because I don’t fully understand the ‘plasma sheath’ phenomenon, but I’m willing to be educated.

    Best regards, suricat.

Comments are closed.