Astronomy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for astronomers and astrophysicists. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Following question enter link description here

After watching the Thunderbolt Project on Youtube I have a very very very fresh perspective on the universe - the electric universe. From the electric comet theory that pretty much proves water forms at the comet, and comets are not frozen water.

In the solar wind all that hydrogen missing an electron and/or free electrons, fuse/react with oxygen-silicate elements of long orbit bodies that have been long long long holding opposite --- charges +++ inside and at the outside surfaces. When the rocky body nears a sun it gains plasma discharged from the sun, it arch's like a plasma torch, and water is formed, stealing the oxygen long held in the rock formation. A comet is an asteroid that has just had a long long long time to build up a charge.

So with that and deep space showing dancing archs of electric plasma, ie space lightning, across the universe being as, or more influential as a force/energy, than gravity even, and with Einstein's admission that he was missing something in a unified theory, my question is: while neutrinos interact weekly with quote unquote solid matter, in a magnetic electrified universe are neutrinos subject to capture/interaction in Electro-magnetic currents or where voltage potential and capacitance is built up ? A?

I understand particle accelerators speed up sub atomic particles using electromagnetism but does it also translate that due to speed of atomic particles they are more likely to react with neutrinos than as a solid in out environment? B?

share|improve this question

closed as unclear what you're asking by Moriarty, TildalWave, Eduardo Serra, called2voyage Jan 27 '14 at 22:02

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

Be very weary of what you call as proof. I watched that 6 minute primer on the "electric comet" theory, and I'm already less convinced than I would be if I didn't watch it at all. For example, if water really formed through interaction of hydrated silicate dust with solar flux, then how does this theory explain outgassing of fast spinning comets? One single side would be exposed to solar flux only for a short period of time, preventing polarised field or required strength around it to form, basically discharging on each rotation. This is not what we observed so far at all. It's quackery. QED. – TildalWave Jan 27 '14 at 6:03
Hmm, not certain of anything myself in realm of chemistry and physics but last time I got out of a hot tub while my girlfriend was on the patio and I discharged into ground through her. Without ground, yet more and more charges accumulating approaching the sun somehow the magnetic field of th rock or iceball flux shifts on the rock body dues to charge no doubts in my mind certain times plasma Constant build up of charge over time and then huge reslease as compared to Tesla plasma lamp emitting high spikes in voltage radio frequency energy might be – Cymatical Jan 27 '14 at 6:32
OK, you're confusing triboelectric effect of contact-induced charge separation between two previously charge-isolated bodies with bound charge electric polarisation of the same body here. Are we done reading the quack bible from the soup of alphabetti spaghetti now? – TildalWave Jan 27 '14 at 6:53
Without ground constant charge accumulation approaching the sun must cause magnetic fields while heating still and both factors occasion/cause affect/crack surface/core. Ice/rock both valid. Dust being a chemical wild card, spin/momentum should loose dust into space but instantly any dust, particle or piece that separates from the core body - ZAP!! Or does it?? Water aura may be mild magnetic atmosphere? Since "quack" electric theory creates water, silica-oxygen rocks to hydrogen-oxygen rock cycle seems feasible. Ice=rock in space. Radio frequency discharge detection of ZAP might tell us more. – Cymatical Jan 27 '14 at 7:37
I guess not. Tried to rewrite my first response but timed out. From you second response it looks like my third is not going to help my case whats so ever. Thunderbolt is intriguing even still seeing that there is no doubt universe i full of plasma and magnetic fields that spiral and dance. Do neutrinos dance to triboelectric effects or charge isolated bodies? – Cymatical Jan 27 '14 at 7:46

I can tell you just from this page alone that it's a bunch of pseudoscience and quackery.

These folks are conspiracy theorists and catastrophists. Please correct me if there is, but I cannot find a single article on this that is published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal.

share|improve this answer
Up-vote-worthy, and perhaps it wouldn't go amiss mentioning that it's these type of quasi-scientistic quacks that also caused a mass suicide so the souls of their followers will board an alien spaceship that was the Hale–Bopp comet. – TildalWave Jan 27 '14 at 6:57
Didn't even read text, just watched the one short electric comet and longer electric universe movies then moved on thinking cool new science. After many many ScienceDaily reads, 25+ years of SciAm as a hobby, enough Sci-Fi and real history books I generally catch the hacks and quacks in my filters. I do not claim to be a scientist and thought the electric sky for ancients relative in context during the video. Even still, intriguing to think pulling the right asteroid (not already sucked of oxygen-silicate) from the belt towards the sun might provide water for space-farers or farmers. – Cymatical Jan 27 '14 at 8:02
link support the formation of water at the comet. As for Neutrinos, I should have had a better understanding before even asking the question. – Cymatical Jan 29 '14 at 6:44

Silicates are rather stable, and there are only small amounts of protons in the interplanetary space near a comet, hence only tiny amounts of hydroxyl or water can form within a short period of time by photochemical processes. Thus the hypotheses of the Thunderbolt Project can easily be discarded.

The surface of comets and asteroids will be charged by ultraviolet light due to photoelectricity. This can lead to dust levitation. But electric charge cannot be accumulated arbitrarily. At some point the comet would desintegrate due to electrostatic repulsion. Even before that point charge is mostly neutralized by (electrons of) the surrounding interplanetary medium.

Neutrinos are electrically neutral and don't have any known inner structure of possibly charged electric particles. Therefore no interaction with electromagnetic fields is to be expected.

At high energies (more than 100 GeV) electromagnetism and weak force are thought to fuse to one electroweak interaction. You get neutrino reactions via $Z^0$ bosons at that energy level.

These extreme conditions will be found in or near neutron stars, or near black holes. They will also be caused by collisions with high energy cosmic rays, and will have been prevailing early after the big bang.

The electroweak energy region is accessible to large colliders.

In-depth paper about the electroweak interaction.

High-energy collisions take a tiny amount of space and time; therefore it's still unikely, that some lurching neutrino gets involved. With the exception of the very dense and hot very early universe.

share|improve this answer
Thank you Gerald! Next step - – Cymatical Jan 28 '14 at 6:40
Nice cosmology lectures on graduate level. Thanks for this link! – Gerald Jan 28 '14 at 12:35

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.