• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Electric Comet theory

Status
Not open for further replies.
Haig said:
Face it RC
Click to expand...
Face it, Haig: The electric comet model is only believed in by deluded people who are so ignorant that they cannot tell the difference between 0.6 and 3.0 :jaw-dropp!
Electric comets still do not exist!
The mainstream model works no matter what these deluded people say or the people who have fooled by them think.

Then these cranks put their delusions into a video and on a web page.

Which reminds me Haig:
Reality Check said:
Wrong Haig - you have not answered any of my questions that I can recall. If you have then just supply the links to them:
* Haig (7th July 2014), is 3.0 different from 0.6?
* Haig (30th June 2014): Why do EU supporters continue to claim that astronomers ignore E fields, etc.?
* Plus any scientific answers to the science stated in Electric comets still do not exist!
...
A new question for you:
Haig: How can you believe in the competence of the EU proponents when the speakers at their 2014 conference was a collection of cranks, actual deluded people and some electrical engineers?
(the deluded people were the Velikovsky belivers: David Talbott, Daniel Jencka, Dwardu Cardona)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Lukraak_Sisser said:
So, would you be the one to answer the small series of questions I posed a few posts up?

Maybe start with the one calculating the energy needed to create a lightning bolt several AU long and a radius measured in hundreds of meters overcoming vacuum resistance?
Click to expand...

Maybe you or RC could answer this:-

"During a close encounter with Hyperion on 26 September 2005, unexpected measurements from several instruments on board the Cassini spacecraft indicated that something strange was taking place in the particle – plasma environment."

... snip ...

"The large difference in potential between the surface and the spacecraft resulted in a flow of electrons being accelerated from Hyperion toward Cassini," said Tom Nordheim. "It was rather like Cassini receiving a 200 volt electric shock from Hyperion, even though they were over 2000 km apart at the time."
http://sci.esa.int/cassini-huygens/54777-cassini-caught-in-hyperions-electron-beam/


So can you, RC or anyone here explain why we (the tax paying public) wait 9 years to hear about this? and how about calculating the energy needed for this event to happen? That's 200 V of charge across 2,000 km !!

This comment from a thread on Thunderbolts says a lot ..
Most Undeniable Evidence of the Electric Universe to Date
Postby Maustin » Sat Oct 18, 2014 5:04 am

I don't actually expect a discharge between Philae and 67P, since the lander's approach has been slow so far, and I expect there has been enough time for charge equalization already. High-speed approaches between differing charge potentials seems to trigger discharge. I fully expect something extraordinary today or tomorrow between Siding Spring and Mars.
Philae, if I were a betting man, will not experience a lightning bolt, but simply smash into a brick wall. 67P is solid rock and no part of the lander was designed for a hard surface. The only saving grace may be that the comet's gravitational field is so relatively tiny it won't contribute much to the lander's death.

I'm stunned the press release about a 200 volt electrical exchange comes NINE YEARS after the event occurred.
Click to expand...
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15345
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
Maybe you or RC could answer this:-
Click to expand...
No Haig - there is no point in answering a question from someone who is incapable of telling the difference between 0.6 and 3.0!
It is a waste of our time because you will go on believing in the delusion that is electric comets no matter what the answer is.
It is a waste of our time because a bunch of ignorant cranks at Thunderbolts not knowing about the many observations of electrical fields in astronomy is evidence that you are obsessing about a bunch of ignorant cranks :p!
It is a waste of our time because you quote a fantasy from the Thunderbolts forum ("67P is solid rock ") as an example of the inability to see a fantasy when you see it. Forget about unable to tell the difference between 0.6 and 3.0, Haig - you and that poster are even ignorant of the density of 67P!
It is a waste of our time because you will not be able to understand that Cassini caught in Hyperion's electron beam (written 16 October 2014) is evidence against the electric comet delusion. There is a rocky icy body charging up as in the electric comet delusion by travelling through a magnetosphere and it is not a comet!
It is a waste of our time because you will not be able to understand that this is a team analyzing data from 9 years ago - the tax paying public is hearing about that analysis about a month after the paper was published:
Detection of a strongly negative surface potential at Saturn's moon Hyperion, by T. Nordheim et al., is published in Geophysical Research Letters, 2014; DOI: 10.1002/2014GL061127. Publication date: 11 September 2014
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
No Haig - there is no point in answering a question from someone who is incapable of telling the difference between 0.6 and 3.0!
It is a waste of our time because you will go on believing in the delusion that is electric comets no matter what the answer is. ... snip usual RC stuff...
Click to expand...

Yes RC - there is every point in answering this issue on a thread about Electric Comets !!!

This is what the mainstream said in that article ... my bold ...
The first confirmed detection of surface charging on an object in the outer Solar System has wide-ranging implications. This fundamental process is predicted to occur on many different bodies, including asteroids, moons and the surface of comets.
Click to expand...
http://sci.esa.int/cassini-huygens/54777-cassini-caught-in-hyperions-electron-beam/

Charged bodies interacting in a plasma are what Electric Comets are all about. So answer the questions, if you can ;)
 
Cassini caught in Hyperion's electron beam (written 16 October 2014) is evidence against the electric comet delusion. But it does give a clue IMO about some of the surface features of 69P.
Scientists have previously suggested that surface features observed on the asteroid Eros and several Saturnian moons are due to the motion of charged dust across their surfaces. On small objects with low gravity, dust grains might even be able to overcome the force of gravity and escape into space.
Click to expand...
The movement of charged dust looks like the equivalent of a wind. And we see dune-like structures on 69P.
 
Haig said:
Yes RC - there is every point in answering this issue on a thread about Electric Comets !!!

This is what the mainstream said in that article ... my bold ...
http://sci.esa.int/cassini-huygens/54777-cassini-caught-in-hyperions-electron-beam/

Charged bodies interacting in a plasma are what Electric Comets are all about. So answer the questions, if you can ;)
Click to expand...

Surface charging is a well-understood phenomenon; this is the first time it's been observed in the outer solar system primarily because it's a relatively small effect (it can still be exciting for a spacecraft) and thus difficult to detect.

As for 200V over 2000 km . . . back when I did my own estimate of the voltage needed to get sufficient sputtering to make a rock act like a comet, I was getting on the order of 2000V/M. Your new "most undeniable evidence" is 0.1v/km, or less than one ten-millionth of the voltage needed.

With undeniable evidence like that, who needs counter-arguments?
 
Last edited:
dasmiller said:
Surface charging is a well-understood phenomenon; this is the first time it's been observed in the outer solar system primarily because it's a relatively small effect (it can still be exciting for a spacecraft) and thus difficult to detect.

As for 200V over 2000 km . . . back when I did my own estimate of the voltage needed to get sufficient sputtering to make a rock act like a comet, I was getting on the order of 2000V/M. Your new "most undeniable evidence" is 0.1v/km, or less than one ten-millionth of the voltage needed.

With undeniable evidence like that, who needs counter-arguments?
Click to expand...

So you say surface charging is a well-understood phenomenon but Geraint Jones of MSSL says it's not in this environment ... my bold

"Surface charging as a fundamental phenomenon affecting planetary objects is currently not well understood and while it has been observed on Earth's Moon, the Saturn system presents us with an opportunity to study this effect in an environment where many parameters are completely different," said Geraint Jones of MSSL, who co-supervised Tom Nordheim's research.
"Our observations show that this is also an important effect at outer planet moons and that we need to take this into account when studying how these moons interact with their environment."
"After 10 years in orbit around Saturn, Cassini continues to demonstrate its importance in probing the physics of the highly complex, interconnected system made up of the giant ringed planet, its moons and their immediate space environment," said Nicolas Altobelli, ESA's Cassini-Huygens Project Scientist.
"We see once again that the knowledge gained by this remarkable explorer can be applied to other places in the Solar System and beyond."
Click to expand...
http://sci.esa.int/cassini-huygens/54777-cassini-caught-in-hyperions-electron-beam/

You need to sound a lot more convincing if you hope to defend the "dirty snowball" myth of comets against the reality of 67P findings and it's agreement with Electric Comet theory
 
19 items of ignorance and delusion in 11 minutes of a Thunderbolt video

Haig said:
You need to sound a lot more convincing if you hope to defend the "dirty snowball" myth of comets against the reality of 67P findings and it's agreement with Electric Comet theory
Click to expand...
You need to stop lying about the 67P findings agreeing with the delusions and ignorance stated in yet another Thunderbolts crank YouTube video, Haig.
This is the ignorance an delusions in the other 67P crank video you cited
Reality Check said:
ETA: Had a look at the video which is full of ignorance and delusions from Wal Thornhill and David Talbott
  1. Mainstream did not expect a "smooth icy body" (0:28).
  2. The idiocy of an analogy to electric arc in hematite (0:40).
  3. The idiocy of "it is a mystery to scientists so we can explain it".
  4. The idiocy of comparing to rocky formations n Earth, sand dunes on Mars, (1:43).
  5. Fantasies about electrical discharge machining shaping the surface from 1:19.7. Thinking that infilling of crater on the Moon means that they will infill on a comet (2:58)
  6. The sharp walls of the Comet 67P craters = electric arcs (3:50)!
  7. The Victoria crater on Mars (3:55) is more electrical arcs!
  8. Delusions about an ""electrical birthing process from a planetary surface" (4:14)
  9. Sand dunes in Victoria crater are "more easily explained" by electrical arcing (4:26)
  10. Imaginary "cathode edging" (4:35)- compared to Io image!
  11. "Mysterious" pixel saturation of Temple 1 images from Deep Impact = electrical arcs (5:24).
  12. Total delusion of prehistoric ancestors witnessing what looks like the creation of comets ("involving the thunderbolts of the planetary gods") (6:04) :eek:
  13. A partial lie about not finding "a trace of water" (6:27) - there is plenty of water detected, just not surface ice.
  14. A "under general theory the gases could not be released at this distance from the Sun" thus we are right delusion (6:39).
  15. Description of sublimation then an assertion that the current outgassing cannot be explained, specifically CH2O, H2S, HCN, SO2 and CS2. (7:35) ... thus electric comets :eye-poppi!
  16. The delusion that an electric comet model actually exists (8:35). What they have is a collection of fantasies that predict whatever they want. A model should give actual numbers.
  17. A fantasy of sputtering of surface materials by protons in the solar wind (8:44)
  18. Ends with vague statements, no actual electric comet predictions for the Rosetta mission.
Click to expand...

And here we have "Episode 3 Symbols of an Alien Sky: The Electric Comet (Full Documentary)" - an hour and a half of probably the same ignorance and delusions. So let us see where the first ignorance/delusion appears ...
  1. 1:28 The delusion that science should know everything correctly and fully! This is the usual crank idea that because science does no know everything that their ideas are right (fallacy of false dichotomy).
  2. 1:28 In this case they have a quote mine of a sentence without context or a citation:
    "Everytime we look, we find textbooks were wrong.” - Ed Weiler, NASA Science Mission.​
    Searching for the quote gives all types of crank web sites (some more delusional than Thunderbolts!)
    I will assign this to their ignorance abut how science works - by rewriting textbooks!
  3. 1:47 The next quote mine of a sentence without context or a citation:
    "It is a mystery to me how comets work at all" Donald Brownlee Principal Investigator The Stardust Mission​
    (more deluded web sites on searching)
  4. 1:56 A lie about the "long ignored electrical behavior of the Sun" and the delusion that this lie changes the pictures about comets!
  5. 2:20 Images of solar flares and what looks like CME implies ignorance about the source of the solar wind (not solar flares or CME!)
  6. 3:20 Fred Whipple "envisioned" the dirty snowball model is just wrong - the evidence showed that comets were made of water, etc. (their densities) and had dark surfaces - thus the evidence for a dirty snowball model.
  7. Up to 5:40 More about the standard theory full of "imagines" woo.
  8. 5:40 the electric comet delusion starts to be explained.
  9. 6:06 "Not billions of years ago but a much more recent episode of planetary instability and violence. One that reached even into early human times" states the truly deluded part the of Electric Comet model. This is basically Velikovsky's worlds in collision fantasy applied to comets.
  10. 6:33 The delusion that electrical arcs "blasted" comets, asteroids and meteors from the surfaces of planets and moons.
  11. 6:43 The idiocy of an analogy to electric arc in hematite (comparing to an image of Comet Hartley 2)
  12. 7:08 The fantasy about the Sun's electrical field magically creating electrical discharges, to form the coma and tail.
  13. 7:20 Fantasies about electrical discharge forming jets.
  14. 7:37 Fantasy about electrical arcs "burning" the surface of the nucleus to blacken it.
  15. 8:21 Ignorance about the "long twisty" structures of comet tails leads to the delusion that it is electrical.
  16. 8:40 A fantasy about the electric force holding the coma in place around a comet.
  17. Then onto "The "Laws" of Compositional Zoning" (their quotes around Laws) - the basic physics that materials that form far from the Sun are different from those that form close to the Sun.
  18. 10:00 Denial of basic physics of compositional zoning. Goes onto the Stardust mission which showed that some of the dust in a comet came from the inner system. This leads to the delusion that ell of a comet cmes from the inner system.
  19. 11:00ish Basically lying about the Stardust Mission. The discovery of inner system dust did not "challenge all prior theories of a comets origins". It was the new discovery that the origin of most the dust in comets forming in the outer system was the inner system.
 
Last edited:
Dear Haig, you can quote all random youtubes you want, but electricity is a well known, understood and measured concept.
We KNOW the resistance of a vacuum like local space.
We KNOW the composition of local space.
We KNOW the voltage required to create an electrical discharge in any medium you care to think of
We KNOW the relation between distance and energy.

So it is possible to exactly calculate the amount of energy needed to create the electrical phenomena you defend. And yet this is never done. With reason, as it gives values that are so extreme that nothing could create such energy slowly drifting trough a vacuum.

What is more, the electrical phenomena you propose behave in way exactly opposite to how observed electricty behaves (getting stronger when objects get closer rather than weaker and pointing away from the interacting objects rather than between them)

So not only is some unknown and unmeasurable energy source needed, you also need to prove that electricity in space works completely different from electricity on earth, without affecting electronics IN space.
 
For those interested in discussing the actual paper and not press releases you can go to the GRL homepage and download it. It has been published in "open access."

But not for me at the moment, I have a Rosetta Plasma Consortium meeting to host this week and will be very busy preparing for the landing event next week and I need to write a short paragraph for my Halley paper in order to satisfy the referee and have it published.

The fact that it "took 9 years" before it was reported is because there was only one flyby of Hyperion and there were probably more interesting objects (e.g. Enceladus) that took up most of the researcher's time. The scientific community is not that big, there is only so much one can do, this was a little gem that remained hidden, until Tom picked it up, sort of like Bilbo pocketing "my precioussssss".


I am very happy for Tom that he got this publication out, it is a pretty good read, after scanning through it.
 
Last edited:
Haig: Have you understood that Hyperion is an icy moon, not a rock

Reality Check said:
..Which is to be expected from someone who is incapable of telling the difference between 0.6 and 3.0 :p!
Click to expand...
Maybe something to be added to the list:
Haig (4 November 2014): Have you understood that Hyperion is an icy moon (mean density 0.544±0.050 g/cm3) and so is not part of the electric comet delusion about rocky bodies being comets?
In fact you have cited evidence against the electric comet delusion. This surface charging happens on a very big chunk of ice. It is possible that the same happens on a dirty ice ball (or a icy dirtball). Thus the electric comet fantasy that electrical discharges are the source of water on comets also applies to icy bodies having their ice vaporized :eek:!

In the real universe, comet nuclei should be shielded by their coma against the solar wind and thus any surface charging will be less than observed on Hyperion and millions of times too small for any electrical discharges.
 
In a few hours we will see if Happy Philae will land or if Poor Philae will be zapped to death.
 
Thumbs up! Well done ESA.

Let the science begin!!!

Bummer about the harpoons :(
 
Last edited:
I predict the failure of the harpoons and the bounce will be something to do with the comet being electric.
 
Hi, I am new here. I've been looking at the first science sequence infographic which states that the CONSERT instrument, whose purpose is to study the internal structure of the comet nucleus, was scheduled to have run by now.

Is there any information available on whether it has already returned data, and what it returned?

I am hearing that the lander rebound was an indication of higher strength material at the surface, which some mission engineers have described as a surprise.

I understand that this electric comet idea elicits a lot of emotion, as I've seen a lot of these debates online. I am mildly familiar with Wal Thornhill's classical hypothesis for gravity, and this question of whether or not 67P is a rock on the inside would appear to be critically important not just to the notion of electric comets, but also to physics, more generally.

I have to imagine that people would think twice about ridiculing the electric comet idea in light of any CONSERT data that indicates that 67P is a rock throughout. Does the ESA already have this information in hand?
 
pln2bz said:
I have to imagine that people would think twice about ridiculing the electric comet idea in light of any CONSERT data that indicates that 67P is a rock throughout. Does the ESA already have this information in hand?
Click to expand...

If 67P is rock throughout, that will indeed throw a major monkey wrench in our understanding of solar system physics, no question.

But you're wrong about that making people think twice about electric comet ideas, at least as formulated by Thornhill et al. Why? Because their ideas are transparently nonsense, we already know that they don't work and are contradicted by the evidence. When you have to throw out an established theory because you find out it doesn't work, you don't replace it with one you already know doesn't work, you have to go find a new one.
 
Ziggurat said:
If 67P is rock throughout, that will indeed throw a major monkey wrench in our understanding of solar system physics, no question.

But you're wrong about that making people think twice about electric comet ideas, at least as formulated by Thornhill et al. Why? Because their ideas are transparently nonsense, we already know that they don't work and are contradicted by the evidence. When you have to throw out an established theory because you find out it doesn't work, you don't replace it with one you already know doesn't work, you have to go find a new one.
Click to expand...

That's a curious response to anybody who scrolls through the thread, as tusenfem has repeatedly pointed to 67P's apparent density relative to rock as the primary reason for casting away the electric comet idea. I appreciate your taking the time to respond, but I'd prefer to hear from tusenfem directly.
 
pln2bz said:
That's a curious response to anybody who scrolls through the thread, as tusenfem has repeatedly pointed to 67P's apparent density relative to rock as the primary reason for casting away the electric comet idea.
Click to expand...

I don't think that correctly characterizes his position. People have focused on the density issue because it's a single parameter which is easy to understand, which simplifies the debate for others who don't understand much physics (like Haig). It's sufficient to disprove Haig's claims, but it's not the only way. When there are multiple fatal flaws with a theory, it's hard to call any one of them the "primary" reason for its failure.
 
pln2bz said:
Hi, I am new here. I've been looking at the first science sequence infographic which states that the CONSERT instrument, whose purpose is to study the internal structure of the comet nucleus, was scheduled to have run by now.

Is there any information available on whether it has already returned data, and what it returned?

I am hearing that the lander rebound was an indication of higher strength material at the surface, which some mission engineers have described as a surprise.

I understand that this electric comet idea elicits a lot of emotion, as I've seen a lot of these debates online. I am mildly familiar with Wal Thornhill's classical hypothesis for gravity, and this question of whether or not 67P is a rock on the inside would appear to be critically important not just to the notion of electric comets, but also to physics, more generally.

I have to imagine that people would think twice about ridiculing the electric comet idea in light of any CONSERT data that indicates that 67P is a rock throughout. Does the ESA already have this information in hand?
Click to expand...
bolding and underlining are mine

Welcome to the forum.

Hi ,
I think of greater concern would be the lack of any electrical charge difference sufficient to make a comet glow.

Please provide an data which would support the EC theory, and then there is a host of other questions to answer.

Seriously, we have discussed this for many pages in many threads, any ridicule is fully earned by a theory with out data, whose sole evidence is bunny pictures, mischaracterizations and outright fantasy.

Apollo objects show no coma, only six bodies in the asteroids show comas, despite hundreds being in the same spaces for the same duration and times, never has an EC proponent explained when exactly an asteroid crossed a magic magnetosphere and then burst into full glow.
 
Last edited:
pln2bz said:
That's a curious response to anybody who scrolls through the thread, as tusenfem has repeatedly pointed to 67P's apparent density relative to rock as the primary reason for casting away the electric comet idea. I appreciate your taking the time to respond, but I'd prefer to hear from tusenfem directly.
Click to expand...

It seems that perhaps you are not actually aware of Tusenfem's position, the lack of any charge sufficient to cause the comet to glow would be the main one, although I should not speak for them.
 
Ziggurat said:
I don't think that correctly characterizes his position. People have focused on the density issue because it's a single parameter which is easy to understand, which simplifies the debate for others who don't understand much physics (like Haig). It's sufficient to disprove Haig's claims, but it's not the only way. When there are multiple fatal flaws with a theory, it's hard to call any one of them the "primary" reason for its failure.
Click to expand...

But, I think you might be simply confusing matters even more, for tusenfem previously disclosed that theorists have already had to re-invent conventional cometary theory. Can you please explain why revisions to theory, in light of observations, should only be available to one particular hypothesis? In the event that there was a failure to observe surface ice, which is then subsequently followed by a failure to observe subsurface ice, how would this not be a "fatal flaw" for the idea of sublimating ices? I'm now extremely confused about what this idea might morph into ...
 
i have never said that the comet has the density of rock (not that i know), ah i read wrong and you mean reality check, not me about comparing the comet density to asteroid density.

consert is operating and has e.g. indicated the location diamond (in the press conference) where philae should be found. (see www.esa.int for a replay of todays press conference) it mainly depends on the permittivity that you use for the inversion of the signal.

further scans are underway.

lots of data from romap (magnetic field and plasma) are being returned. that is going to give me a lot of work.
 
pln2bz said:
But, I think you might be simply confusing matters even more, for tusenfem previously disclosed that theorists have already had to re-invent conventional cometary theory. Can you please explain why revisions to theory, in light of observations, should only be available to one particular hypothesis? In the event that there was a failure to observe surface ice, which is then subsequently followed by a failure to observe subsurface ice, how would this not be a "fatal flaw" for the idea of sublimating ices? I'm now extremely confused about what this idea might morph into ...
Click to expand...

ther was a change from "dirty snowball" from whipple in the 1950s before any nearby observatins were made.
then we flew by halley and for the first time saw a nucleus "up close" (600 km) and saw that the surface looked more (dare i say it) "rocky", which led to the understanding that it is more a "snowy dirtball".
a short orbit comet is not expected to have much ice (if any) on the surface, when it passes by the sun every 6 years like 67P/CG.
we see the water come from the surface in the pictures, in beams which means it needs to come from under the surface and is ejected under pressure.
also, the deep impact mission showed that a lot of water ice was ejected after impact (see the book i posted a page or two back.
altough we say that every comet we visit is completely different and expect the unexpected, some basic properties are wellnunderstood, see the krishns swamie book
and it is always the water that iscommented on, but how do the criticasters explain the almostvequal amounts of CO which are also emitted?
 
pln2bz said:
But, I think you might be simply confusing matters even more, for tusenfem previously disclosed that theorists have already had to re-invent conventional cometary theory. Can you please explain why revisions to theory, in light of observations, should only be available to one particular hypothesis?
Click to expand...

First off, at a certain point you're no longer revising a theory, you're replacing it. Surface to subsurface is a revision: the critical fact (ice is sublimating to form the comet tail) remains.

If comets do not contain ice, then we cannot revise our current comet theories, we have to discard them.

But here's the thing: electric comet ideas are inextricably linked to so-called "electric universe" theories. And we know that these electric universe theories are wrong. They contradict many, many observations. The entire foundation for electric comet theories is simply false. If electricity has anything important to do with comets (and there's no evidence it does, and significant evidence it does not), it will be very different from what current electric comet proponents believe, because they have constructed their entire theory on a falsehood. They will not be coincidentally right about this peripheral phenomenon when the heart of their theory is completely wrong.
 
pln2bz said:
That's a curious response to anybody who scrolls through the thread, as tusenfem has repeatedly pointed to 67P's apparent density relative to rock as the primary reason for casting away the electric comet idea.
Click to expand...
As already pointed out, the measured densities for comets and rocks being different is an easy point to grasp which is why there is so much emphasis on it, pln2bz.
The electric comet proponents are not just ignoring solar physics here - they are denying basic physics that has been known and tested over centuries (from Kepler onwards).
Comets have measured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids) (7th August 2009!)
So here is one method that is used for both comets and asteroids or any planetary body.

Firstly calculate the mass of the body:
Measure the orbit of the body around the Sun to determine its semi-major axis (a) and period (P).
Plug this into Kepler's third law to get the mass (usually as a ratio to a known mass).
Next calculate the volume of the body. For closer bodies you can just look in a telescope. For further bodies you can measure radii as the body occludes stars.
Divide the mass by the volume to get the density.

A method for comets:
Jets observed to come from comets alter their orbits. This is the same physics used in rockets - throw mass away and the reaction will push the comet the other way.
This can be used to calculate their masses, e.g. see "Cometary masses derived from non-gravitational forces" by Sosa & Fernandez, 2009.

For the Tempel 1 comet:
The Deep Impact mission crashed an impactor into the nucleus of Tempel 1. The ejecta from this impact was used to calculate the mass of Tempel 1.
See "A ballistics analysis of the Deep Impact ejecta plume: Determining Comet Tempel 1's gravity, mass, and density" by Richardson, et al., 2007.

For a more general paper: "Size Distribution, Structure and Density of Cometary Nuclei" by Weissman & Lowry, 2006.
Click to expand...
 
pln2bz said:
Can you please explain why revisions to theory, in light of observations, should only be available to one particular hypothesis?
Click to expand...
This is not the situation, pln2bz.
One property of science is that theories are revised as new observations as collected. Another property is that if the observations contradict the theory enough then scientists go looking for a replacement for the theory.
The observations of comets throughout the years have always been that they are made of ice and dust. The revision is about the proportions and locations of that ice and dust. This does not contradict the theory thus there is no need for a replacement theory.

Now look at the electric comet idea. It was proposed at least a decade ago (before Tempel 1 and Deep Impact). It has not been revised because of new observations. This is not science. The treatment of this idea as almost dogma is not that much of a surprise - David Talbott , a founder of the electric universe, is a comparative mythologist
David N. Talbott (born 1942) is an American author and long-time promoter of neo-Velikovskian ideas. Inspired by Immanuel Velikovsky, he proposes a "Polar Configuration"[1] involving the five planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, Mars, Earth, in order, which formerly orbited the Sun as a linear assembly while it rotated about its barycenter and influenced human mythology.[2]
Click to expand...
 
pln2bz said:
But, I think you might be simply confusing matters even more, for tusenfem previously disclosed that theorists have already had to re-invent conventional cometary theory. Can you please explain why revisions to theory, in light of observations, should only be available to one particular hypothesis? In the event that there was a failure to observe surface ice, which is then subsequently followed by a failure to observe subsurface ice, how would this not be a "fatal flaw" for the idea of sublimating ices? I'm now extremely confused about what this idea might morph into ...
Click to expand...



You do know that the ice is not just H2)?

BTW do you live some place that has snowy winters, are you familiar with plow wall and snow piles?

I can assure you that a plow wall can be quite hard and non-elastic.

Seems you are counting your conspiracy theory before it hatches and poisoning the well, I wonder how many revisions happen to most scientific theories?
 
Interesting to note Philae recorded three touch down times, ie it bounced twice.

Still unsure if the harpoons fired or not?

15:33, 17:26 and 17:33 means 113min and 7 min bounces. Dougbouncestimates = 0.285m/sec to 455m and 0.019m/sec to 3m
Click to expand...

His colleague explains a bit more: “The rebound of the lander is an indication of a higher strength material, and that was a surprise to us. … So we have seen a variety of surfaces, a snow field of soft stuff, and this rocky field of rock stuff, which could be a [stronger material], and we also see this shiny stuff,” which he says could also be a stronger material.
Click to expand...

Maybe the harpoons and Philae bounced off this rock stuff they talk about. So both the thruster failed and harpoons failed to anchor.

Still a brilliant achievement and fascinating science.
 
I see the mainstreamer's getting a little antsy :D

pln2bz, welcome aboard!

As you've picked up Reality Check thinks comets are NOT rock and Dancing David is under the wrong impression the comet nucleus glows. So I'm not 100% sure they actually understand the Electric comet theory and it's funny (if it was not so serious) to see them squirm and act "surprised"
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
You do know that the ice is not just H2)?

BTW do you live some place that has snowy winters, are you familiar with plow wall and snow piles?

I can assure you that a plow wall can be quite hard and non-elastic.

Seems you are counting your conspiracy theory before it hatches and poisoning the well, I wonder how many revisions happen to most scientific theories?
Click to expand...

but we have no substantial ice's AT ALL :confused:

So now revise the dirtysnowall model DD!!!

Whats a comet now then??
 
Sol88 said:
but we have no substantial ice's AT ALL :confused:
Click to expand...
A state of ignorance and belief in delusions will make anyone confused, Sol88 :jaw-dropp!
Sol88's denial of science, basic arithmetic and lack of reading comprehension.

We have substantial ices observed on comets.
We have substantial H2O, CO, CO2, CH4, etc. from comets which is those ices sublimating.
We have substantial surface ices observed on Tempel 1.
We have a lack of surface ices observed on 69P.
Wow - comets vary! Who except those cranks at Thunderbolts would be ignorant of this basic fact.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
A state of ignorance and belief in delusions will make anyone confused, Sol88 :jaw-dropp!
Sol88's denial of science, basic arithmetic and lack of reading comprehension.

We have substantial ices observed on comets.
We have substantial H2O, CO, CO2, CH4, etc. from comets which is those ices sublimating.
We have substantial surface ices observed on Tempel 1.
We have a lack of surface ices observed on 69P.
Wow - comets vary! Who except those cranks at Thunderbolts would be ignorant of this basic fact.
Click to expand...

My bolding, we did??? Reality Check your a tripper :rolleyes:

We report the direct detection of solid water ice deposits exposed on the surface of comet 9P/Tempel 1, as observed by the Deep Impact mission. Three anomalously colored areas are shown to include water ice on the basis of their near-infrared spectra, which include diagnostic water ice absorptions at wavelengths of 1.5 and 2.0 micrometers. These absorptions are well modeled as a mixture of nearby non-ice regions and 3 to 6% water ice particles 10 to 50 micrometers in diameter. These particle sizes are larger than those ejected during the impact experiment, which suggests that the surface deposits are loose aggregates. The total area of exposed water ice is substantially less than that required to support the observed ambient outgassing from the comet, which likely has additional source regions below the surface.
Click to expand...
Exposed Water Ice Deposits on the Surface of Comet 9P/Tempel 1


A state of ignorance and belief in delusions will make anyone confused, Sol88 !
Sol88's denial of science, basic arithmetic and lack of reading comprehension.
Click to expand...

You say we did find substantial water ice on the surface, the peer reviewed paper says we didn't....who's right Reality Check???

Seems the shoe is on the other foot, eh Reality Check! :D
 
But, I think you might be simply confusing matters even more, for tusenfem previously disclosed that theorists have already had to re-invent conventional cometary theory. Can you please explain why revisions to theory, in light of observations, should only be available to one particular hypothesis? In the event that there was a failure to observe surface ice, which is then subsequently followed by a failure to observe subsurface ice, how would this not be a "fatal flaw" for the idea of sublimating ices? I'm now extremely confused about what this idea might morph into ...
Click to expand...
We report the direct detection of solid water ice deposits exposed on the surface of comet 9P/Tempel 1, as observed by the Deep Impact mission. Three anomalously colored areas are shown to include water ice on the basis of their near-infrared spectra, which include diagnostic water ice absorptions at wavelengths of 1.5 and 2.0 micrometers. These absorptions are well modeled as a mixture of nearby non-ice regions and 3 to 6% water ice particles 10 to 50 micrometers in diameter. These particle sizes are larger than those ejected during the impact experiment, which suggests that the surface deposits are loose aggregates. The total area of exposed water ice is substantially less than that required to support the observed ambient outgassing from the comet, which likely has additional source regions below the surface.
Click to expand...
So no ice on top (all comets visited) and no ice below(Temple 1) so where could the ice be???? as Reality check pointed out we can see the gases so where's the ice???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom