The Electric Comet theory

Sol88 said:

this mob says differnet!

Click to expand...

Thermal evolution models of comet 9P/Tempel 1 have been developed to understand how thermal evolution models of comet nuclei can help to interpret the results of Deep Impact and vice versa, how the Deep Impact results can constrain the comet nuclei models. We found a general agreement between the models' outcomes and the mission results, without need of an ad hoc choice of initial parameters. We found that a "standard" model of a porous, low-density nucleus made of initially amorphous water ice, volatile ices, and dust can reproduce the general activity pattern of 9P/Tempel 1, if the dynamical characteristics of this comet are taken into account. The general aspect of the nucleus is well reproduced by the presence of a dust mantle on the nucleus that, even if very thin, quenches water production. The models foresee the natural formation of a dust mantle on the comet's surface, and the water flux source is mainly a subsurface diffuse source, in agreement with the observations. However, no simple correlation is found between production rates of different volatile gases and their relative abundances in the nucleus. From our models' results we can affirm that the coma abundances of volatile species do not match their abundances in the nucleus.

Click to expand...

Reality Check said:

Can you give a citaton to the paper or textbook that states that the standard comet model predicts jets only on the sunward side of comets?

Thanks.

IMHO it is fairly obvious that it is possible for jets to appear on the dark side of the a comet. The dark side is where CO is most likely to solidify. It would not take that much heating to penetrate the comet or flow along its surface to create a jet from the CO.

Click to expand...

JET ENERGIES AND VELOCITIES

On this issue the electrical theorists are emphatic: by proposing mechanical “jets” from comet nuclei, standard theory has descended into the preposterous. No analogy either in space or in experimental science supports the idea that sublimating ices 150 million miles and farther from the Sun could generate “jet chambers” or produce the sonic and supersonic jet velocities our instruments have measured.

The notion is inherently contradictory and violates the most obvious dynamic principles. Collimated, mechanically induced jets over the observed distances they travel would require, first, a finely machined nozzle, even more precise than those used on rocket engines, not a jagged opening in a “dirty snowball”. The idea requires a chamber that is insulated from the Sun, though anything even casting a shadow would lead to instant freezing.

The “model” also requires subsurface heating in the deep freeze of these remote regions. The “heating” would have to reach through an insulating crust roughly estimated to be ten feet deep, yet achieving things inconceivable for solar heating even in the absence of insulation. Pressure must build up to an extraordinary level. Then when the pressure erupts, something most mysterious must occur. Despite the instant release, equivalent pressures must be sustained for long periods to maintain the supersonic velocities—even to alter the orbits of comets in the way some astronomers now propose. We’ve said it before: “To save the theory astronomers now cling to the incredible”.

For the electrical theorists, the answer is all too obvious. Electrical discharge accelerates material into collimated jets along the self-confining Birkeland currents that constitute the discharge arcs.

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

LINK

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

ETA (again) whats the plasma model Reality check???

Click to expand...

1. The electric comet idea uses electrical discharges not plasma streams (they are different).
   As an expert on the electric comet theory and all of its many published papers rolleyes you know this.
2. The cometary plasma jets are directed outward. To be "cutting rock" they would be directed into the nucleus.

Sol88 said:

Thunderbolts prediction

Explain to me again, slowly, how your craters and pits do this reality check? After you said

Click to expand...

But I can certainly make a guess for the source of jets that go in straightish lines. Look at the images of the surface of comets. Notice the craters and pits? A jet issuing from a crater or pit will be "collimated" by the walls of the crater or pit.

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

Your asking the wrong man RC, ask Tim Thompson 'cos that's what he said!

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

Ohh ok so we can have jets anywhere? Ok, so it does not matter if they come from the dark side or sunlit side, though your theory said only from the sunlit side![/quote]

Click to expand...

Reality Check said:

What you state Tim said is in red.
What you stated without citation is in blue.

Please supply the citation for your assertion. Thanks.

Click to expand...

Debate over comet composition
Comet Borrelly exhibits jets, yet is hot and dry.

Debate continues about how much ice is in a comet. In 2001, NASA's Deep Space 1 team, working at NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab, obtained high-resolution images of the surface of Comet Borrelly. They announced that comet Borrelly exhibits distinct jets, yet has a hot, dry surface. The assumption that comets contain water and other ices led Dr. Laurence Soderblom of the U.S. Geological Survey to say, "The spectrum suggests that the surface is hot and dry. It is surprising that we saw no traces of water ice." However, he goes on to suggest that the ice is probably hidden below the crust as "either the surface has been dried out by solar heating and maturation or perhaps the very dark soot-like material that covers Borrelly's surface masks any trace of surface ice".[59]

The recent Deep Impact probe has also yielded results suggesting that the majority of a comet's water ice is below the surface, and that these reservoirs feed the jets of vaporised water that form the coma of Tempel 1.[60]

However, more recent data from the Stardust mission show that materials retrieved from the tail of comet Wild 2 were crystalline and could only have been "born in fire."[61][62] More recent still, the materials retrieved demonstrate that the "comet dust resembles asteroid materials."[63] These new results have forced scientists to rethink the nature of comets and their distinction from asteroids.[64]

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

I've got a better idea, you supply me with a link to the standard model?

we'll go from there!

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

How many times Reality check, Tim Thompson, how many times are you presented with data that is not compatible without MAJOR assumptions, ice below the surface, comet migration to explain the high temp minerals et cetera before the model is abandoned for a model that PREDICTED some of the major phenomena!

Charge separation is happening before your very eyes, so wake up and smell the roses!

Click to expand...

Debate continues about how much ice is in a comet. In 2001, NASA's Deep Space 1 team, working at NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab, obtained high-resolution images of the surface of Comet Borrelly. They announced that comet Borrelly exhibits distinct jets, yet has a hot, dry surface. The assumption that comets contain water and other ices led Dr. Laurence Soderblom of the U.S. Geological Survey to say, "The spectrum suggests that the surface is hot and dry. It is surprising that we saw no traces of water ice." However, he goes on to suggest that the ice is probably hidden below the crust as "either the surface has been dried out by solar heating and maturation or perhaps the very dark soot-like material that covers Borrelly's surface masks any trace of surface ice".[59]
The recent Deep Impact probe has also yielded results suggesting that the majority of a comet's water ice is below the surface, and that these reservoirs feed the jets of vaporised water that form the coma of Tempel 1.[60]
However, more recent data from the Stardust mission show that materials retrieved from the tail of comet Wild 2 were crystalline and could only have been "born in fire."[61][62] More recent still, the materials retrieved demonstrate that the "comet dust resembles asteroid materials."[63] These new results have forced scientists to rethink the nature of comets and their distinction from asteroids.[64]

Click to expand...

The flyby of the nucleus of the Comet 19P/Borrelly by the Deep Space 1 spacecraft produced the best views to date of the surface of these interesting objects. It transformed Borrelly from an astronomical object shrouded in coma of gas and dust into a geological object with complex surface processes and a rich history of erosion and landform evolution. Based on analysis of the highest resolution images, stereo images, photometry, and albedo we have mapped four major morphological units and four terrain features. The morphological units are named dark spots, mottled terrain, mesas, and smooth terrain. The features are named ridges, troughs, pits, and hills. In strong contrast to asteroids, unambiguous impact craters were not observed on Borrelly's surface. Because of the relatively short period of this comet, surface erosion by volatile sublimation is, in geologic terms, a very active process. The formation and the morphologies of units and features appear to be driven by differential rates of sublimation erosion. Erosional rates across the comet are probably controlled by solar energy input and the location of the subsolar point during perihelion. Differences in energy input may produce different varieties of sublimation erosional landforms. The terrains on Borrelly suggest that solar energy input could map directly into erosional processes and landforms.

Click to expand...

Nucleus parameters

• Dimensions: 8×4×4 km[1]
• Density: 0.3 g/cm³[2]
• Mass: 2 × 1013 kg[3]
• Albedo: 0.03[4]

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

How many times Reality check, Tim Thompson, how many times are you presented with data that is not compatible without MAJOR assumptions, ...

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

... before the model is abandoned for a model that PREDICTED some of the major phenomena!

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

Charge separation is happening before your very eyes, so wake up and smell the roses!

Click to expand...

Tim Thompson said:

None. You have yet to present any "evidence" at all that is truly incompatible with standard theory. Good luck finding any.


False premise, the model never made the predictions you claim it made. it's the same old trick stage illusionists play. You just make sure you predict everything, and you're going to get a lucky hit. But in fact, if you examine the physics in some detail, you find that the "theory" you present does not make the predictions you think it makes.


No it isn't. So pull those roses out of your nose!

Click to expand...

Reality Check said:

I've got a better idea. You made the assertion about the standard model - you provide the link.

we'll go from there!

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

If you are expecting me to pull a paper of the web that has it all layed out in B&W you might have to wait, but if you would like links to papers that cast Doubt on the standard model and lend support to the Electric comet model, well you can't have been reading many of those links I've given.

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

No I'm asking you, Mr mainstream (RC) what is the standard model!

Obviously it has to include plasma!

Click to expand...

Tell me again Tim since it must of slipped your mind, about the whistler waves the electrostatic noise the charged and couple dust associated with bright surface patches that can be collimated into thin long beams and sheets ...et cetera!

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

No one then!!

Reality check??

Tim Thompson?

Tusenfem?

Dancing david??

'com people, your standard model must offer some sort of explanation!

Click to expand...

Reality Check said:

No I'm asking you, Mr woo (Sol88) what is the standard model!

And yes it does include plasma - this is astronomer shorthand for the ionized gas and charged dust particles in the comet coma and tail (and of course the plasma of the solar wind).

Click to expand...

It happened in an instant... it was 1986 and the Giotto space craft (the only satellite going to comet Halley that had an onboard camera - image right) was approaching that famous comet's nucleus through the clouds of dust and gas that surrounded it.



As the light faded due to the dense clouds eclipsing the solar light the only light came from the comet nucleus still buried deep in the cloud,

*

clue#1... why is the comet nucleus illuminated when the sunlight is blocked by the dense comet coma?. Hmmmm, could this be a "self luminous" object with an energy source other than sunlight... e.g. the plasma discharge current striking the comet nucleus? ... and
*

clue#2... how can the comet continue to form a tail from "solar radiation - sublimating ices off the comet nucleus" when the sunlight is so completely blocked by the dense comet coma?

No one at NASA or ESO or Harvard or Yale or Cornell or JPL or anywhere else... not even the news media... thinks to ask such difficult questions as they are all beaming with "the right stuff".

On with our story... an aging Fred Whipple has been invited to witness the "confirmation" of the dirty snow ball comet model. All the calculations had been done... all the journal articles had been refereed and all the PhDs had been given to the bright new crop of cometary scientists at all the best universities after years of hard study. Book sales were brisk and the public had purchased and read and applauded.



A comet was said to be a sparkling white snowy ball with some dust that was released as the sun's heat burned off the outer layers. 'Artists' full color art work dramatically reproduced the scientists' "predictions". The Giotto space craft moved closer to the comet nucleus sending back picture after picture... each one better defining the pure white potato shaped "snow ball".



The excitement rose to fever pitch as small jets could now be seen and the pure white nucleus became better defined with each returning photo. At last as the pure white nucleus that Whipple knew had to lie in the center of all the dust and gas became clearly defined - Whipple screams out on international television... 'it's the nucleus... there it is... it's the nucleus!!!!'. Just then the Giotto space craft broke through the final layers of gas and dust to reveal what is now known to be the darkest, blackest object ever photographed by any space craft in the history of the space program. Silence and shock filled the direct feed television and Giotto's picture broke up. Something terrible had gone wrong. There was no snowy nucleus. What was it? and how could all the journal articles have been wrong?.



The nucleus was not a loosely packed dirty snow ball but was a pitted burnt carbonaceous chondrite (rock). Dead silence filled the room. Seconds later the Giotto space craft started to gyrate wildly and the last signals received from it were with the electron particle counter off scale, circuits in overload and the magnetic sensors off the scale. Surely the space craft had been designed to exceed all expected criteria by the comet specialists at ESO and NASA.



Giotto had been hit by an electron beam. Giotto was temporarily rendered inoperable it as it passed directly to the sun ward side of comet Halley's nucleus. But from where could such an electron beam come from??. The dirty snow ball theory never said anything about anything like that.

Click to expand...

Reality Check said:

My guess:
Electrostatic noise = heavy ion pickup (standard electromagnetism)
Whistler waves = plasma interactions (standard plasma physics).

ETA
If someone knew how to use Google they would find:
Whistler wave cascades in solar wind plasma
A Wave-Wave Interaction in Whistler Frequency Range in Space Plasma

Click to expand...

So you are deduced to a common logical fallacy (false dichotomy), i.e. invalidating the standard comet model will validate the electric comet idea.

Guess what Sol88:
Invalidating the standard comet model will ... invalidate the standard comet model!

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

Can't find it, Reality Check! It's been ad hoc'd and changed so many times I can't keep up with it, so I'm asking you, what do you think the standard model is?

Click to expand...

Sol88;4971293 And Jim does a lovely job of showing up all the talking heads in his [URL="http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_maccanney05.htm" said:

web page[/url]

Electron beam? along with the whistler waves the electrostatic noise the charged and couple dust associated with bright surface patches that can be collimated into thin long beams and sheets ...et cetera!

Click to expand...

The nucleus was not a loosely packed dirty snow ball but was a pitted burnt carbonaceous chondrite (rock).

Click to expand...

The Giotto mission gave planetary scientists their first view of Halley's surface and structure. Although its coma may extend about 100 million kilometres into space,[26] Halley's nucleus is relatively small (barely 15 kilometres long, 8 kilometres wide and perhaps 8 kilometres thick; JPL lists its average diameter as only 11 km)[1][3] and roughly peanut-shaped. Its mass is extremely low; roughly 2.2×1014 kg.[4] Its average density is about 0.6 g/cm³, indicating that it is very loosely constructed.[6] Its albedo is about 4 percent, meaning that only 4 percent of the sunlight hitting it is reflected; about what one would expect for coal.[27] Thus, despite appearing brilliant white to observers on Earth, Halley's comet is in fact pitch black. As it approaches the inner Solar System, the Sun warms it, causing its surface to sublimate (change directly from a solid to a gas), and jets of volatile material to burst from its black surface. The nucleus rotates every 52 hours,[8] and its day side is far more active than its night side. The gases ejected from the nucleus are 80 percent water vapour, 17 percent carbon monoxide and 3–4 percent carbon dioxide[28] with traces of hydrocarbons.[29]
The nucleus is covered with a layer of dust, which retains heat. Each large dust grain is thought to consist of many tiny particles with spaces in between. Some of these spaces are filled with ice, and others are empty. When Halley's comet is closest to the Sun, temperatures can rise to about 77 °C. Near the Sun, several tons of gas and dust are emitted each second in the jets. Halley has several shallow craters which are about 1 km in diameter.

Click to expand...

RZ Sagdeev; PE Elyasberg; VI Moroz. (1988). "Is the nucleus of Comet Halley a low density body?". http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988Natur.331..240S.

Click to expand...

Reality Check said:

My guess:
Electrostatic noise = heavy ion pickup (standard electromagnetism)
Whistler waves = plasma interactions (standard plasma physics).

ETA
If someone knew how to use Google they would find:
Whistler wave cascades in solar wind plasma
A Wave-Wave Interaction in Whistler Frequency Range in Space Plasma

Click to expand...

A Whistler is a very low frequency electromagnetic (radio) wave which can be generated, for example, by lightning. Frequencies of whistlers are 1 to 30 kHz, with maximum usually at 3 to 5 kHz. Although they are electromagnetic waves, they occur at audio frequencies, and can be converted to audio using a suitable receiver. They are produced by lightning strikes (mostly intracloud and return-path) where the impulse travels away from the earth and returns to the earth traveling along magnetic field lines. They undergo dispersion of several thousand kHz due to the slower velocity of the lower frequencies through the plasma environments of the ionosphere and magnetosphere. Thus they are perceived as a descending tone which can last for a few seconds. The study of whistlers allows categorization into Pure Note Whistlers, Diffuse, 2-hop, and Echo Train types.

In addition, they have been received from Jupiter showing the presence of lightning there.

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

Great guess RC, but how does that fit with your melting dirtyiceball?

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

The electric comet theory can easily accommodate and in fact expects this STANDARD plasma physics, unfortunately a dirtysnowball melting in the Sun can't.

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

and this pearler from Reality check

The standard model has been falsified and made invalid, what are your options RC?

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

Wow there are electrical, who'd thunk it RC!!!

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

WIKI

And from comets!!! which of course we all know to be melting icydirtballs, no wait they are dirtyiceballs or was that a fluffysnowbank or was it...,who care they all incorrect!

Click to expand...

A Whistler is a very low frequency electromagnetic (radio) wave which can be generated, for example, by lightning. Frequencies of whistlers are 1 to 30 kHz, with maximum usually at 3 to 5 kHz. Although they are electromagnetic waves, they occur at audio frequencies, and can be converted to audio using a suitable receiver. They are produced by lightning strikes (mostly intracloud and return-path) where the impulse travels away from the earth and returns to the earth traveling along magnetic field lines. They undergo dispersion of several thousand kHz due to the slower velocity of the lower frequencies through the plasma environments of the ionosphere and magnetosphere. Thus they are perceived as a descending tone which can last for a few seconds. The study of whistlers allows categorization into Pure Note Whistlers, Diffuse, 2-hop, and Echo Train types.

Click to expand...

Reality Check said:

Yes there are electrical things in plasma. who'd thunk it Sol88!!!


Not from comet nuclei.
You need to learn the basics about comets. They are more than their nuclei. They also have coma and tails. Coma and tails are ionized gas and charged dust particles that are interacting with the solar wind. The interaction causes electrostatic noise and whistler waves (and other intersting stuff).

ETA
Whistlers


You do know that "for example" does not mean exclusively?

Can you give a reference to the paper on the electric comet idea that shows that whistler waves will be detected in the coma and tails of comets?

Click to expand...

Résumé / Abstract
The NASA DS1 spacecraft encountered Comet P/Borrelly on September 22, 2001 at a distance of ∼ 2171 km on the sunward side of the comet. The flyby speed was ∼ 16.5 km s-1. Using high temporal resolution (50 μs) absolute electric field amplitude measurements from a ∼ 1 m dipole antenna, new features of plasma clouds created by cometary dust impacts have been detected. The pulses have 1/e exponential decays of ∼ 650 Its duration, exponentially shaped overshoots with rise times of ∼ 2 ms, and exponential-shaped overshoot decay times of ∼ 10 ms. Assuming a plasma temperature of 104 K, these pulse features have been explained as plasma cloud space charge effects from the electron, proton and heavy ion portions of the clouds passing the antenna. Complex pulse shapes were also detected. These are believed to be due to either plasma cloud scattering off of the spacecraft, or to secondary impacts. Small electric pulses of duration 10-15 ms of cometary origin were detected but are presently unexplained. The electric component of the plasma wave spectra at closest approach had an f-2.4 power law shape from 10 Hz to 1 kHz. The electron cyclotron frequency was approximately 1 kHz. One possible explanation of the wave spectrum is that whistler mode waves associated with phase steepened cometary plasma waves are dispersed, leading to the broad spectrum. Finally, based on the present results, a new type of low-cost, large-area dust detector is proposed.

Click to expand...

While imaging N3 Lulin for UT Readers, Dr. Joe Brimacombe used a negative luminance frame to take a closer look at what's going on and discovered something quite out of the ordinary. First off, you'll notice an anti-tail – quite rare in itself – but if you take a look about halfway down the ion/dust tail, you'll see a very definite twist in the structure. It it rotating? Exactly what's causing it? Torsional stress? Is it possible that the kink in the tail is an instability resulting from currents flowing along the tail axis? Right now there's absolutely no information available about what's going on in the tail – because what you're seeing is perhaps one of the most current pictures of the comet that can be found!

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

Coma and tails and nucleus!

Plasma clouds associated with Comet P/Borrelly dust impacts : DS1/Comet Borrelly

Presently unexplained by a snowball melting in the Sun's heat!

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

Therefore comets are not melting snowballs but rock electrical discharging!

simple really!

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

The ONLY thing I've heard from the standard model wrt the solar "wind" is it "pushes" the dust away from the the comet forming the tail, but then they discovered the anti tail and well they made things hard for the meltingsnowball model no matter how high the dust to ice ratio is!

Comet Lulin is a good example
Your turn RC!

Click to expand...

Now where in the many published papers on the electric comet idea is the prediction that the electrical discharges are of duration 10-15 ms?

Click to expand...

Can the electric comet idea explain both tails that are visible when an antitail is present?
Can the electric comet idea explain why the tail is made of gas (plasma) while the antitail is made of dust?
(I think that it actually can using its non-existent electrical discharges but then you would have to admit that the standard model explains the tail and antitail just as well and includes numbers!)

Click to expand...

how can the comet continue to form a tail from "solar radiation - sublimating ices off the comet nucleus" when the sunlight is so completely blocked by the dense comet coma?

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

Where in the standard model does it say anything about electric discharges???

Booya!

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

What a hypocrite, you tell me how does the standard model explain the antitail?

Click to expand...

• Can the electric comet idea explain both tails that are visible when an antitail is present?
• Can the electric comet idea explain why the tail is made of gas (plasma) while the antitail is made of dust?

Sol88 said:

Lets talk about your X-rays RC, the last leg you have to stand on in your EPIC fail series of comet density and x ray production.

Jets, are not your little rockets, they are plasma discharges, so any density calculations that use your little rockets is bound to be wrong (which it is).

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

And your lack of Xray argument, you really mean lack of X-ray resolution on the comet nucleus don't you?

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

Have we had an X Ray camera on board any of the probes that have imaged the nucleus directly? Stardust? Giotto? any?

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

And you still did not answer why Whipples model did not include X ray production after all it should be standard plasma physics.

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

Scientists Measure How Deep "Deep Impact" Was, With X-rays

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

Is this true Tim Thompson?
How does your sunlight penetrate deep into the nucleus, where the ice is obviously, thru and optical thick cloud 25 AU from Sol and the pressurize and sustain a supersonic "jet?

Majik or what?

Click to expand...

Reality Check said:

Nowhere - that is an idocy of the electric comet idea.

You stated that "electric pulses of duration 10-15 ms of cometary origin were detected but are presently unexplained." are evidence for the electric comet idea . This means that you heva a paper or textbook that predicted that the NASA DS1 spacecraft on encountering Comet P/Borrelly would see these pulses.

Now where in the many published papers on the electric comet idea is the prediction that the electrical discharges are of duration 10-15 ms?

Booya!

Click to expand...

Reality Check said:

You need to cite this quote.

However:
"Sunlight" does not "penetrate deep into the nucleus". Sunlight heats the surface of the nucleus and the heat penetrates deep into the nucleus. This heat then creates the jets. FYI: Comets have very weak gravitational fields (low mass) and so it is easy for gas to be get to high (supersonic) speeds). You are probably unaware that when astronomers refer to cometary ice they mean all kinds of ice (not only water), e.g CO, CO2, CH4, NH3 and other frozen gases.

Give us a number for how "optical thick" the coma is and why you think that this will block all sunlight.

I suspect that you got this from your new favourite crackpot Jim (James McCanney).

Click to expand...

Sunlight bounces off the particles in the coma and in a comet's tail, giving the objects their popular bright appearance that on occasion grace the night sky. But inside those bright halos, the story is altogether different.

Click to expand...

Reality Check said:

Actually this link is a bit of a death knell for the electric comet idea.
The EC idea has electrical discharges. These should produce X-ray bursts. Let's ignore the fact that these X-ray bursts have never been detected. You have yet to actually produce a paper that states the rate of the electrical discharges or how they vary.
It is a reasonable assumption that the rate will be constant or only vary with the distance from the Sun (i.e. not on timescales of days). If this is not reasonable then please point out the EC paper that states otherwise.

For Tempel 1, astronomers see a comet that was dim in X-rays until the impact. After the impact the X-ray emission increases very day for several days. This is interpreted as material reaching the coma and producing more X-rays.

But EC states that the X-rays are produced by elecrical discharges! So according to EC somehow the impact produced more electrical discharges.

Where did these extra electrical discharges extending over days come from, Sol88?

Click to expand...

1. Measure the orbit of the body around the Sun to determine its semimajor axis (a) and period (P).
2. Plug this into Kepler's third law to get the mass (usually as a ratio to a known mass).

We compute masses and densities for 10 periodic comets with known sizes: 1P/Halley, 2P/Encke, 6P/d'Arrest, 9P/Tempel 1, 10P/Tempel 2, 19P/Borrelly, 22P/Kopff, 46P/Wirtanen, 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko and 81P/Wild 2. ...

Click to expand...