The Electric Comet theory

Status
Not open for further replies.
If there where electric discharges that were not powerful enough to emit x rays then they should still be observable in the radio spectrum like white noise with crackles and pops and if they got powerful enough radiate into the x ray end of the spectrum.
No - unless you specify what the parameters of the electric discharges are and how they produce the "radio spectrum like white noise with crackles and pops".

Perhaps you can cite the EC paper that does this?

Have we observed and electrostatic noise? Whistlers? any electric discharge of any duration?
We have explained electrostatic noise and whistlers without unspecified electrical discharges.
I am unaware of any evidence for any "electric discharge of any duration" on or around comets.
Please cite the paper or textbook stating this.
 
Why then can we not point our telescopes at a comet nucleus and take a few happy snaps? why cant we usually see the nucleus?
Beacuse comets do not emit much light. Nothing to to with the light hat they absorb.

How does it sustain the jet for any length of time? instead of just a pressure build up and explosive release?
Because there is sustained heat - the Sun is quite constant.

So wouldn't the dust shade the surface of the comet? but still retains enough oomph to cause the bright patches from where the jets originate!
The dust is not an umbrella so it does not "shade the surface of the comet". Sunlight heats up the dust which as you know is so dark that it is very good at absorbing sunlight. The heat then travels through the dust and heats the interior. All the dust does is slow down the heat transfer and not by much as you quoted
The temperature map matches the topography of the nucleus, with the hottest areas close to the subsolar point. This is an indication that the thermal inertia is low (Groussin et al. 2006), probably lower than 100 J m2 K1 s1/2 ( hereafter these units are referred to as ‘‘MKS’’).
 
How does the electric comet idea explain main-belt comets

Sol88,

How does the electric comet idea explain main-belt comets?

Note that if you give the answer that I expect then you will invalidate the EC idea (hint: consider asteroids, where they are and their movements).
 
Sol88,

How does the electric comet idea explain main-belt comets?

Note that if you give the answer that I expect then you will invalidate the EC idea (hint: consider asteroids, where they are and their movements).

You mean this one?

When Asteroids Become Comets

The surprising discovery of asteroids with comet tails supports the longstanding claim of the electrical theorists—that the essential difference between asteroids and comets is the shape of their orbits.


:confused:


MBC

MBCs must have only "turned on" recently. Once they enter the inner solar system and begin outgassing for the first time, comets from the outer solar system typically only remain active for about 10,000 years before having most of their ice sublimated away and going dormant, or losing so much mass that they simply disintegrate. All indications are that the MBCs have occupied their current orbits in the inner solar system since the solar system's formation, 4.6 billion years ago. Had they been outgassing since then, they would have exhausted their ice supplies long ago and could not possibly be active now. Instead, they must have been dormant until very recently.
or else what could it be?
 
Last edited:
Comet Wild 2

This is an ideal opportunity to examine the picture of Wild 2 from the perspective of the electric universe model of comets. Briefly, in that model a comet is a highly negatively charged body with respect to the Sun. Like all charged bodies in plasma, a comet will be enveloped in a plasma sheath (the coma) that limits the reach of the comet's electric field. A forbidden oxygen line was discovered in Comet Austin's coma. "Forbidden lines" are spectral signatures that are not expected in space because here on Earth they are found only within strong electric fields. To astronomers' surprise, forbidden lines are common in space, not only in comets, but in nebulae and galaxies. A cometary display is produced when the nucleus discharges at a rate sufficient to generate a visible tail. The dust and gases that form the comet''s tail are not evaporated by the heat of the sun, but instead are electrically 'machined' from the nucleus by cathode arcs. Laboratory examination of cathode arcs shows that they jump around on the cathode surface, removing surface material in jets to form small circular craters. The industrial process of Electric Discharge Machining (EDM) uses this feature to erode a surface to accurate depth

Google it
 
holocrap said:
"Forbidden lines" are spectral signatures that are not expected in space because here on Earth they are found only within strong electric fields. To astronomers' surprise, forbidden lines are common in space, not only in comets, but in nebulae and galaxies.

I guess Mr. Holocrap does not really know what "forbidden lines" are. And no, on the Earth they are not "only within strong electric fields." Forbidden lines are just lines created by energy level changes with a very low probability. (so actually it should be "semi-forbidden") Astronomers are hardly surprised to see them, actually, they are used very often in astronomy. For a fuller definition:

encyclopedia.com said:
forbidden line An emission line in a spectrum that is emitted only by a low-density gas, as in interstellar regions and nebulae. Such a line is said to be forbidden because it does not occur under normal conditions on Earth, where gases are denser. A forbidden line is produced when an electron jumps from an upper energy level, where it can remain for a long time, to a lower level; such a jump, or transition, is said to have a very low transition probability. In the Earth's atmosphere, the excited atom would collide with other atoms or free electrons and lose energy in the collision (without producing a photon) long before it could radiate the energy away. However, in the low densities of interstellar space and the regions around hot stars, collisions are extremely rare and there is time for the spontaneous decay to occur. Forbidden lines are denoted by square brackets, such as the [O III] lines of doubly ionized oxygen. Forbidden lines disappear above a certain critical density (typically about 108 atoms/cm3), and so their existence is an indicator of density in interstellar gas. A semi-forbidden line, designated with a single square bracket, such as C III], occurs where the transition probability is about a thousand times higher than for a forbidden line.

Sheesh the crap that comes from holo.
 
You mean this one?

When Asteroids Become Comets

MBC

or else what could it be?
I want you to be totally sure of this.
You seem to be stating that EC claims comets and asteroids are exactly the same. The only difference between them is their orbit. They have exactly the same density and composition.
Thus main-belt comets ony differ from main-belt asteroids because of their orbit. They do not have icy crusts that sublimate (like comets) when they are closer to the Sun.

If you are sure of this then
What is the difference in orbit that makes a main-belt asteroid into a main-belt comet?

Can you guess what I am leading up to yet?
 
Last edited:
I want you to be totally sure of this.
You seem to be stating that EC claims comets and asteroids are exactly the same. The only difference between them is their orbit. They have exactly the same density and composition.
Thus main-belt comets ony differ from main-belt asteroids because of their orbit. They do not have icy crusts that sublimate (like comets) when they are closer to the Sun.

If you are sure of this then
What is the difference in orbit that makes a main-belt asteroid into a main-belt comet?

Can you guess what I am leading up to yet?

No please tell me!

Is eccentricity that you are alluding to?
 
No please tell me!

Is eccentricity that you are alluding to?
I think that I will keep what I am leading up to as a surprise.
But it should be obvious to anyone who has any knowledge of astronomy.

I will make the question a bit more clear:

I want you to be totally sure of this.
You seem to be stating that EC claims comets and asteroids are exactly the same. The only difference between them is their orbit. They have exactly the same density and composition.
Thus main-belt comets ony differ from main-belt asteroids because of their orbit. They do not have icy crusts that sublimate (like comets) when they are closer to the Sun.

If you are sure of this then
What is the numeric difference in orbit parameters (e.g. eccentricity) that turns a main-belt asteroid into a main-belt comet?
 
Comets may not have the composition of asteriods

Hi Sol88, I noticed that in the last post I assumed that the electric comet idea has comets with the same composition as asteriods. You have not disagreed with this so far. So here is the science (not as clear cut as the different densities of comets and asteroids).

Physical composition of asteroids
The physical composition of asteroids is varied and in most cases poorly understood. Ceres appears to be composed of a rocky core covered by an icy mantle, whereas Vesta is thought to have a nickel-iron core, olivine mantle, and basaltic crust,[15] and 10 Hygiea appears to have a primitive composition of undifferentiated carbonaceous chondrite. Many, perhaps most, of the smaller asteroids are piles of rubble held together loosely by gravity.
Meteorites also suggest that "Asteroids are believed to contain traces of amino-acids and other organic compounds".

Physical composition of comet nuclei
They are composed of rock, dust, water ice, and frozen gases such as carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane and ammonia.[9]
They are often popularly described as "dirty snowballs", though recent observations have revealed dry dusty or rocky surfaces, suggesting that the ices are hidden beneath the crust (see Debate over comet composition). Comets also contain a variety of organic compounds; in addition to the gases already mentioned, these may include methanol, hydrogen cyanide, formaldehyde, ethanol and ethane, and perhaps more complex molecules such as long-chain hydrocarbons and amino acids.[10][11][12]

This suggests that the composition of comets and asteroids differ in that comets have the addition of frozen gases while asteroids generally do not have frozen gases (but may have icy crusts).
 
Don't forget the space charge it's moving thru!

Also what cycle the Sun is in!
 
Don't forget the space charge it's moving thru!

Also what cycle the Sun is in!
What is the equation that the electric comet idea uses to determine the effect of "space charge it's moving thru" and "what cycle the Sun is in" on a rocky body?

For a first go we can neglect the effects.

Have you found the orbit parameters yet?
I would have thought that someone who was an expert in the electric comet idea would have found it sooner (you did research it throughly before becoming such a fan?).

Or is the electric comet idea useless?
 
What is the equation that the electric comet idea uses to determine the effect of "space charge it's moving thru" and "what cycle the Sun is in" on a rocky body?

For a first go we can neglect the effects.

Have you found the orbit parameters yet?
I would have thought that someone who was an expert in the electric comet idea would have found it sooner (you did research it throughly before becoming such a fan?).

Or is the electric comet idea useless?

Well, we'll start with Mercury and our Moon if you'd like!

Mainstream call them magnetic tornadoes or "flux transfer events" and "sputtering" and these happen on those rocky bodies! :rolleyes:

Yes the orbital parameters are all on wiki if you'd like to look!

Also there are only four MBC's discovered so far!

The fact that three MBCs have now been discovered from relatively limited observational data indicates that there are probably many more waiting to be discovered.
LINK

Be interesting to see what else they find amongst the asteroids/comet :)
 
Last edited:
...snipped nonsense...
Are you acknowledging that the electric idea is useless with this nonsense?

Or do you want to answer the question:
I want you to be totally sure of this.
You seem to be stating that EC claims comets and asteroids are exactly the same. The only difference between them is their orbit. They have exactly the same density and composition.
Thus main-belt comets ony differ from main-belt asteroids because of their orbit. They do not have icy crusts that sublimate (like comets) when they are closer to the Sun.

If you are sure of this then
What is the numeric difference in orbit parameters (e.g. eccentricity) that turns a main-belt asteroid into a main-belt comet?
 
Are you acknowledging that the electric idea is useless with this nonsense?

Or do you want to answer the question:
I want you to be totally sure of this.
You seem to be stating that EC claims comets and asteroids are exactly the same. The only difference between them is their orbit. They have exactly the same density and composition.
Thus main-belt comets ony differ from main-belt asteroids because of their orbit. They do not have icy crusts that sublimate (like comets) when they are closer to the Sun.

If you are sure of this then
What is the numeric difference in orbit parameters (e.g. eccentricity) that turns a main-belt asteroid into a main-belt comet?

Yep you are correct!

On March 22, 2006, astronomers (including David Jewitt and Henry Hsieh) announced that the near circular orbits of some icy asteroids in the outer reaches of the Main Asteroid Belt suggest that they are part of a population of "main belt comets." Three objects have been found with near circular, flat orbits in the main belt occasionally stream volatile materials, producing an observable tail for weeks and months at a time as their orbits bring them closer to the Sun. The astronomers speculate that past impacts on Earth from such inner comets may have been an important source of the water now found in Earth's oceans (IFA press release and web site on main-belt comets; and Jewitt et al, 2006).

More will be found, when they look for them as David Jewitt and Henry Hsieh said. It's interesting to note that like all comets they start to display on their inward journey and according to standard EC theory these MBC would be low voltage comets as they spend most of their time in the same area of the Sun's radial electric field.
 
have a look at these comets(asteroids)

THE ACTIVE CENTAURS


We observed a sample of 23 Centaurs and found nine to be active,
with mass-loss rates measured from several kg s−1 to several tonnes s−1. Considered as a group, we find that the
“active Centaurs” in our sample have perihelia smaller than the inactive Centaurs (median 5.9 AU versus 8.7 AU),
and smaller than the median perihelion distance computed for all known Centaurs (12.4 AU).
 
Yep you are correct!
You missed:
What is the numeric difference in orbit parameters (e.g. eccentricity) that turns a main-belt asteroid into a main-belt comet?

More will be found, when they look for them as David Jewitt and Henry Hsieh said. It's interesting to note that like all comets they start to display on their inward journey and according to standard EC theory these MBC would be low voltage comets as they spend most of their time in the same area of the Sun's radial electric field.
Yep you are correct - more MBC will be found. We may find 100 times more so that they will be much as 0.04% of asteroids.

And thank for confirming that MBC are actual EC comets.
Can you cite the "standard EC" source for your information?

This gives a hint for the answer to the first question. MBC are comets and so their eccentricity is the minimum eccentricity needed for a rocky body to be a comet.
Does your "standard EC" source give a value of ~0.16 for this minimum eccentricity?
 
You missed:
What is the numeric difference in orbit parameters (e.g. eccentricity) that turns a main-belt asteroid into a main-belt comet?


Yep you are correct - more MBC will be found. We may find 100 times more so that they will be much as 0.04% of asteroids.

And thank for confirming that MBC are actual EC comets.
Can you cite the "standard EC" source for your information?

This gives a hint for the answer to the first question. MBC are comets and so their eccentricity is the minimum eccentricity needed for a rocky body to be a comet.
Does your "standard EC" source give a value of ~0.16 for this minimum eccentricity?

I'd like to add it's just not eccentricity that plays a part in the rocky bodies being able to discharge into the suns plasma atmosphere but the charge density of the space they are moving thru at that time. This is a good animation of what I mean, have a look when the CME moves past and the "reconnection" event on Earth at the end of the video! And space is electrically neutral and charge separation can not happen! :mad: :rolleyes:

eg. Hale-Bopp flaring out 26 AU, If some of these ROCKS which would have the same mechanisms for charging as the our Moon here and here and Mercury, were to have their orbit intersect or parallel a Birkeland currents (FAC's) from a previous comet, then the local (to that rock) charge density would be higher than the surrounding space weather, same as if it passes thru a planets extended magnetosphere (The planets comet tail)!

So any rock (comet/asteroid) that moves any area of space in which the charges can not equalize fast enough, will cause that "rock" to discharge, the rate of which would be dependent on the charges involves, the fluxes of charged particles, and just how "square" the "rock" cuts the magnetic field lines!

Usually comets on an eccentric orbit will be rapidly closing in on the Sun increasing electric field, but there are times when the "rock" will cross or pass thru or indeed get "run over" by and local space "storm" (increases solar wind density et xetera)

So asteroid that sometimes show cometary activity may just be passing thru an increased charge density causing them to display, after passing the area they return to being asteroids!

You really do have no idea what the EC/EU is on about, do you reality check!

read the the links I've given and try and think, just for second, that the universe (and our solar system) is not electrical neutral!

Eureka!!! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I'd like to add it's just not eccentricity that plays a part in the rocky bodies being able to discharge into the suns plasma atmosphere but the charge density of the space they are moving thru at that time. This is a good animation of what I mean, have a look when the CME moves past and the "reconnection" event on Earth at the end of the video! And space is electrically neutral and charge separation can not happen! :mad: :rolleyes:
Yes space is electrically neutral and charge separation can not happen! :mad: :rolleyes:

Plasma though is in space and it is quasineutral. Charge separation can happen! The scale of that charge separation is (as Alfven stated) some 10's of Debye lengths or a few hundred meters in the solar wind.

...snipped EU stupp (this is the EC thread...
You really do have no idea what the EC/EU is on about, do you reality check!

read the the links I've given and try and think, just for second, that the universe (and our solar system) is not electrical neutral!

Eureka!!! :rolleyes:
read the the links I've given and try and think, just for second, that the universe (and our solar system) is actually measured by astronomers!

Eureka!!! :rolleyes:

You have ignored:
You missed:
What is the numeric difference in orbit parameters (e.g. eccentricity) that turns a main-belt asteroid into a main-belt comet?

Yep you are correct - more MBC will be found. We may find 100 times more so that they will be much as 0.04% of asteroids.

And thank for confirming that MBC are actual EC comets.
Can you cite the "standard EC" source for your information?

This gives a hint for the answer to the first question. MBC are comets and so their eccentricity is the minimum eccentricity needed for a rocky body to be a comet.
Does your "standard EC" source give a value of ~0.16 for this minimum eccentricity?
 
Plasma though is in space and it is quasineutral. Charge separation can happen!
:whistling

As the Electric universe mandates! :yahoo

Well done 'ol boy!
 
You have ignored:
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
You missed:
What is the numeric difference in orbit parameters (e.g. eccentricity) that turns a main-belt asteroid into a main-belt comet?

Yep you are correct - more MBC will be found. We may find 100 times more so that they will be much as 0.04% of asteroids.

And thank for confirming that MBC are actual EC comets.
Can you cite the "standard EC" source for your information?

This gives a hint for the answer to the first question. MBC are comets and so their eccentricity is the minimum eccentricity needed for a rocky body to be a comet.
Does your "standard EC" source give a value of ~0.16 for this minimum eccentricity?

the numeric difference in orbit parameters is irrelevant unless the local charged particle flux is also taking into consideration! What was the space weather in the MBC's locale when they "outgassed" reality check?
 
the numeric difference in orbit parameters is irrelevant unless the local charged particle flux is also taking into consideration! What was the space weather in the MBC's locale when they "outgassed" reality check?
Look it up.

What is the equation that EC uses to cater for both the numeric difference in orbit parameters and the numeric value of local charged particle flux?
 
:whistling
As the physics of plasmas mandates! :yahoo

You know the known physics of plasmas (ever hear of the Debye length, Sol88?)that the Electric universe actually ignores :jaw-dropp !

Are you saying the DeBye length maybe in error??

What did Ulysses pass thru again?

The interaction between comets' tails and the solar wind has been studied for decades. A comet's ion tail always points away from the sun, whether the body is traveling toward or away from the sun along the comet's elliptical orbit. It was this finding that eventually led in 1958 to the discovery of solar wind. The magnetism and velocity of the solar wind are so strong, the effect pushes the comet's tail forward. A paper on Ulysses' latest crossing of a comet tail was published in the Oct. 1 issue of Astrophysical Journal.

"I recall saying a few years back that the odds that Ulysses' flight path would intersect that of a comet tail were probably less likely than finding a needle in a haystack," said Smith. "Now that we have encountered three, I cannot help wondering when nature will have another one in store for us."

Smith is part of an international science team that has been working Ulysses data since its 1990 launch from the payload bay of Space Shuttle Discovery. Ulysses scans the sun's magnetic field, solar plasmas, solar radio noise, energetic particles, galactic cosmic rays and cosmic dust between the poles and the equator - imparting a more complete perspective of the sun's atmosphere. Understanding Earth's nearest star and its processes is of paramount importance, as the space weather created by the sun has a huge effect on the third rock from it and its inhabitants. The sun's gaseous outer atmosphere can create huge space storms. This violent space weather, in turn, can affect Earth's electrical grid, cell phone communications, satellite functioning, and the operation of astronauts in orbit.

Sublimating ice carrying dust can form those tails??? NO!

Can electric current thru a plasma form those tails?? Yes!

What happened to Ulysses as it passed thru those tails? what did it's instrumentation package tell us?

Ulysses Science Results

Ulysses has added comet spotter to its list of talents. Two papers published in Nature today report that on 1 May 1996, the spacecraft flew through the tail of comet Hyakutake whose nucleus was more than 3.5AU (one AU equals the Sun-Earth distance) away at the time. "This makes it the longest comet tail ever recorded", says Geraint Jones from Imperial College, London who is a member of one of the two instrument teams that made the discovery. "Ulysses's prime task is to map the solar wind above the Sun's poles: it had not been looking for Hyakutake, which happened to be at its closest approach to the Sun on 1 May 1996, or any other comet," says Richard Marsden, ESA's Ulysses Project Scientist. George Gloeckler from the University of Maryland who is a member of the other instrument team, says: "The discovery was made quite by accident. It was a bit like finding a needle in a haystack when you weren't even looking for a needle in the first place". Jones, Gloeckler and their colleagues stumbled across the telltale signature of a comet quite independently when poring over old Ulysses data.

"I was looking for changes in the ionisation levels of the solar wind that would tell me about unusual solar activity," says Gloeckler who is Principal Investigator of the SWICS (Solar Wind Ion Composition Spectrometer) instrument. "The solar wind normally consists of multiply charged ions. The signature stood out because the number of singly charged ions jumped to several thousand times the background level. I thought this might be due to strange solar eruptions. But when I looked at the composition of the ions, I knew immediately that they were cometary in origin." Cometary tails are rich in oxygen and carbon ions compared with the solar wind, but depleted in nitrogen and neon. Jones and colleagues found their evidence in data from the Ulysses magnetometer.

"The magnetic field lines were draped in a way that you'd expect in a comet's tail. The solar wind is slowed down at the centre of the tail compared with the edge, which gives the magnetic field associated with the travelling ions a characteristic hairpin shape," says Jones. The findings from both teams corroborate an earlier Ulysses discovery, reported in 1998 by Pete Riley and colleagues at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, of a drop in the proton density in the solar wind on 1 May 1996. "They wondered whether the drop could have been due to a comet, but went no further," says Jones. With the evidence now mounting, the Imperial College team decided to look for a comet that would have been in the right place at the right time to account for the Ulysses data. "Hyakutake was the first comet we looked at. When I compared the orbit of Ulysses with the orbit of the comet, I found that Ulysses was extremely close to Hyakutake's orbital plane at the time," says Jones. On 1 May 1996, Ulysses was aligned with the Sun and the position Hyakutake had occupied eight days earlier. Jones calculated that eight days was the time needed for material leaving the comet's nucleus to travel the 3.5AU distance to Ulysses. One of the most surprising aspects of the discovery is the length of Hyakutake's tail, which must have been at least 3.8AU as the nucleus had moved further away from Ulysses during the eight-day travel time. Cometary experts had thought that the molecules and ions that make up a comet's tail would mingle with the solar wind and eventually become indistinguishable.

"We found that the whole thing is preserved as an entity and doesn't spread out very much," says Gloeckler. "The comet is like a point source. It emits neutral atoms and molecules which become ionised by the solar wind as they move away from the nucleus. After several million kilometres, they are all ionised. But instead of then mingling with the surroundings, this ionised sample gets picked up by the solar wind which shoots it out," he explains. By comparing the Ulysses findings with those of the Giotto spacecraft for comets Halley and Grigg-Skellerup, Gloeckler and his team have even been able to determine where the material that they detected originated - in Hyakutake's coma, the diffuse shell of gas surrounding the comet's nucleus. One reason for the tail's survival is probably that it was travelling in the fast solar wind, a steady stream of charged particles flowing out from near the Sun's poles. Comet tails flowing through the more variable slow solar wind, which emanates from near the Sun's equator, are more likely to be disrupted.

"The fast solar wind helped to maintain the magnetic field signature over such a large distance. If it can persist as far as Ulysses, there's no reason to presume that it wouldn't continue to the edge of the heliosphere (the boundary about 100AU from the Sun between the solar wind and the interstellar medium)," says Jones. "This discovery makes us wonder whether Ulysses or other spacecraft have crossed a comet tail before. So we're going back to look again for other signatures. But it's probably a rare event," says Jones. The comet nucleus has to be in exactly the right position with respect to the Sun and the spacecraft for the tail to pass over the spacecraft at the right time - and the chances of that happening very often are probably small.
to the termination shock?? :boggled:

Cometary experts had thought that the molecules and ions that make up a comet's tail would mingle with the solar wind and eventually become indistinguishable. So why dos it not mingle and disperse like gas in vacuum should, instead of remaining coherent or collimated over distance of 100AU?
 
And what bearing does the mystery force have on measuring comet densities?

If all negatively charged objects accelerate toward the Sun?
 
Are you saying the DeBye length maybe in error??
No. I am saying DeBye length correct and rules out EU/EC theories.


What did Ulysses pass thru again?
Sublimating ice carrying dust can form those tails??? NO!
Sublimating ice carrying dust can form the material of those tails??? YES!

Can electric current thru a plasma form those tails?? Yes!
Can electric current thru a plasma form those tails?? No!

What happened to Ulysses as it passed thru those tails? what did it's instrumentation package tell us?

Ulysses Science Results
to the termination shock?? :boggled:
As you hiighlighted:
The fast solar wind helped to maintain the magnetic field signature over such a large distance. If it can persist as far as Ulysses, there's no reason to presume that it wouldn't continue to the edge of the heliosphere (the boundary about 100AU from the Sun between the solar wind and the interstellar medium)," says Jones.
Magnetic field signature maybe to the termination shock!! :eye-poppi

Cometary experts had thought that the molecules and ions that make up a comet's tail would mingle with the solar wind and eventually become indistinguishable. So why dos it not mingle and disperse like gas in vacuum should, instead of remaining coherent or collimated over distance of 100AU?
Read your quote again.
The tail was detected 3.5AU from the comet.
"We found that the whole thing is preserved as an entity and doesn't spread out very much," says Gloeckler. "The comet is like a point source. It emits neutral atoms and molecules which become ionised by the solar wind as they move away from the nucleus. After several million kilometres, they are all ionised. But instead of then mingling with the surroundings, this ionised sample gets picked up by the solar wind which shoots it out," he explains. By comparing the Ulysses findings with those of the Giotto spacecraft for comets Halley and Grigg-Skellerup, Gloeckler and his team have even been able to determine where the material that they detected originated - in Hyakutake's coma, the diffuse shell of gas surrounding the comet's nucleus. One reason for the tail's survival is probably that it was travelling in the fast solar wind, a steady stream of charged particles flowing out from near the Sun's poles. Comet tails flowing through the more variable slow solar wind, which emanates from near the Sun's equator, are more likely to be disrupted.
 
Comets have measured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids)

The electric comet idea states that comets are rocky bodies like asteroids.
For some reason EC proponents cannot grasp that the measured density of comet nuclei is ~0.6 g/cc, the measured density of asteroids is ~3.0 g/cc and that 0.6 is less than 3.0 :).
They tend to reply by asserting the methods used to calculate the density of comets are flawed in some unknown way.

So here is one method that is used for both comets and asteroids or any planetary body.


Firstly calculate the mass of the body:
  1. Measure the orbit of the body around the Sun to determine its semi-major 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).
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.

(added some more links and better language)
 
Hi Sol88
Judging by your last post you cannot remember the post about comet density so I will start collecting the evidence against the electric comet idea in one post. This will be updated as we discuss the many problems with the EC idea.

EC assertion: Comets are rocks.


Real universe:
  1. Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).
  2. Comets may not have the composition of asteriods
EC assertion: Comet coma and tails are created from material that that is created from rock by electrical discharge machining.
Real universe:


Start with Tim Thompson's posts about this
EC assertion: Rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value will be comets.
N.B. Solar activity may cut tails in two but there have been no observations of comets tuunring off during low solar activity.
Sol88: I may be wrong - if so please provide the citations to these marvelous events.
However this assertion has the fatal flaw of EC predictions - no mathematics or numbers.
But we can do their work for them can't we Sol88?

There are 4 observed main-belt comets with a minimum eccentricity of 0.1644 (133P/Elst-Pizarro). So the EC minimim must be this (or lower!).

Real universe:
Watch this space!
 
the numeric difference in orbit parameters is irrelevant unless the local charged particle flux is also taking into consideration! What was the space weather in the MBC's locale when they "outgassed" reality check?

Yeah sure, that is why all asteroids show coma's and tails, right?

It isn't that the asteroid belt to part of the Jupiter capture mechanism and that some comets end up there.

So, why then do the cometetary asteroids continue to discharge after they are in the asteroid belt, I mean they have been there, where do they store the charge?
 
Yeah sure, that is why all asteroids show coma's and tails, right?

It isn't that the asteroid belt to part of the Jupiter capture mechanism and that some comets end up there.

So, why then do the cometetary asteroids continue to discharge after they are in the asteroid belt, I mean they have been there, where do they store the charge?

Then why do they turn on and off, depending on where in there orbit they are?
 
Because they have a large amount of frozen stuff?

Yeah? Where? Ohhh I forgot it's under your "rind" of insulating "dust" and hidden from view!!! :rolleyes:

I've got an idea, how about we smash a copper projectile into a comet nucleus and that will PROVE the water (ice and other "volatiles") is under the rind of dust!!

Or how about we send a dust sample collection to a comet and return the pristine unaltered dust from the formation of the solar system to Earth to prove that they are primordial leftovers!

That will prove beyond all doubt that comets are iceydirtballs left over from the formation of the solar system!

Yeah lets do that, 'cos that will show how correct our theory is and how pathetic those electric/plasma crackpots are!
 
Or we could take all the data we have collected so far about "rocks" hanging out in the solar wind and work from there instead!

Lets take what we do know;

Any object not protected by an atmosphere or magnetosphere and in the solar wind stream will charge positive and the sunward facing side and negative on the nightside. This is a fact.

this charging of space bodies is achieved in part by the fact the proton (+) has a mass of 1.672621637(83)×10−27 kg and the electron (-) is 9.10938215(45)×10−31 kg.

Charged particles will follow magnetic field lines, we call these Birkeland currents after the man that discovered them 100 or so years ago. Today "real" scientist call them field aligned currents so as not to get to embarrassed by being beat'n to the punch by some crackpot! (again)

So once we have achieved charge separation and have a means for charge to accumulate well the rest is basic primary school physics! :)

Which bit do you NOT comprehend DD,RC?
 
Lets take a rock very close to us that we have walked on and sent numerous probes around, we call her Luna.

LINK

Every lunar morning, when the sun first peeks over the dusty soil of the moon after two weeks of frigid lunar night, a strange storm stirs the surface.

The next time you see the moon, trace your finger along the terminator, the dividing line between lunar night and day. That's where the storm is. It's a long and skinny dust storm, stretching all the way from the north pole to the south pole, swirling across the surface, following the terminator as sunrise ceaselessly sweeps around the moon.

Never heard of it? Few have. But scientists are increasingly confident that the storm is real.
So now you have heard of it.

snip

What could cause this? Stubbs has an idea: "The dayside of the moon is positively charged; the nightside is negatively charged." At the interface between night and day, he explains, "electrostatically charged dust would be pushed across the terminator sideways," by horizontal electric fields.

Even more surprising, Olhoeft continues, a few hours after every lunar sunrise, the experiment's temperature rocketed so high--near that of boiling water--that "LEAM had to be turned off because it was overheating."
Brilliant idea the moon is electric!!

But what happens when this rock passes thru the Earths comet tail or magnetotail?

The effect on the moon was first noticed in 1968, when NASA's Surveyor 7 lander photographed a strange glow on the horizon after dark. Nobody knew what it was. Now scientists think it was sunlight scattered by electrically charged moon dust floating just above the surface. That fits with data from NASA's Lunar Prospector, which orbited the moon in 1998-99. During some crossings of the magnetotail, the spacecraft recorded big changes in the lunar night-side voltage.

really? hows that work LINK

How it works

Our entire planet is enveloped in a bubble of magnetism generated by the rotating core. The solar wind, a stream of charged particles, pushes the bubble away from the sun and creates a long tail of magnetized material downstream.

"Earth's magnetotail extends well beyond the orbit of the moon and, once a month [at full moon] the moon orbits through it," said Tim Stubbs, a University of Maryland scientist working at the Goddard Space Flight Center. "This can have consequences ranging from lunar 'dust storms' to electrostatic discharges."

Here's what Stubbs and colleagues now think is happening:

At full moon, the moon passes through a huge "plasma sheet" — hot charged particles trapped in the tail. The lightest and most mobile of these particles, electrons, pepper the moon's surface and give the moon a negative charge, the researchers explained.

On the moon's dayside this effect is counteracted somewhat by sunlight: Photons knock electrons back off the surface, lessening the negative charge. But on the night side, electrons accumulate and the charge can climb to thousands of volts.
That is charges from the quasi-neutral plasma stream (solar wind) are separated!

Here is a little video.

If the charges become strong enough the dust will "leave" the rock and become a dusty plasma forming an atmosphere and tail!

This is all very alien to the mainstream view that space is electrically neutral!

Electrically active

Although the lunar environment is often considered to be essentially static, Halekas and his fellow researchers reported at the workshop that, in fact, it is very electrically active.

The surface of the Moon charges in response to currents incident on its surface, and is exposed to a variety of different charging environments during its orbit around the Earth. Those charging currents span several orders of magnitude, he said.

Dust adhesion is likely increased by the angular barbed shapes of lunar dust, found to quickly and effectively coat all surfaces it comes into contact with. Additionally, that clinging is possibly due to electrostatic charging, Halekas explained.

"I think it would behoove us to understand the lunar dust plasma environment as well as possible before we try to come up with detailed dust mitigation strategies," Halekas told SPACE.com. "This would mean characterizing the dust, electric fields and plasma around the Moon and understanding how they interact."

Halekas said that he advocates science experiments either in lunar orbit or on the Moon's surface—preferably both—in order to gauge the problem.

"At this point, we know so little about the near-surface electrodynamic environment and its effect on dust that we can't do much more than conjecture and try to predict the most likely scenario," Halekas said.

Just knowing that the dust is there, Halekas added, tells us that we need to deal with it. "But without more detailed knowledge than we currently have, I think we're handicapped in coming up with effective mitigation strategies."

Oh and LOOK the moon has water ice as well or a least the Hydrogen from it!

And as we look towards the Moon with thoughts of setting up a permanent home there, one new question is paramount: does the Moon have water? Although none has been definitely detected, recent evidence suggests that it's there.

That makes sense. If there is water on the Moon, it's probably hiding in the permanent shadows of deep, cold craters, safe from vaporizing sunlight, frozen solid.

So far so good, but... the Clementine data were not conclusive, and when astronomers tried to find ice in the same craters using the giant Arecibo radar in Puerto Rico, they couldn't. Maybe Clementine was somehow wrong.

In 1998, NASA sent another spacecraft, Lunar Prospector, to check. Using a device called a neutron spectrometer, Lunar Prospector scanned the Moon's surface for hydrogen-rich minerals. Once again, polar craters yielded an intriguing signal: neutron ratios indicated hydrogen. Could it be the "H" in H2O? Many researchers think so.

Lunar Prospector eventually sacrificed itself to the search. When the spacecraft's primary mission was finished, NASA decided to crash Prospector near the Moon's south pole, hoping to liberate a bit of its meager layer of water. Earth's satellite might briefly become a comet as amounts of water vapor were released.

Like deep impact!! and like deep impact this is what they found
Lunar Prospector crashed, as planned, and several teams of researchers tried to detect that cloud, but without success. Either there was no water, or there was not enough water to be detected by Earth-based telescopes, or the telescopes were not looking in precisely the right place. In any event, no water was found from Prospector's impact.

Can the moon and comets make "water" by the same process?

why not? they are both rocky objects in flying in the solar wind!!
 
Can we agree that MBC provide a minimum eccentricity for EC comets?

First asked 6 August 2009
You are still ignoring:
You missed:
What is the numeric difference in orbit parameters (e.g. eccentricity) that turns a main-belt asteroid into a main-belt comet?

Yep you are correct - more MBC will be found. We may find 100 times more so that they will be much as 0.04% of asteroids.

And thank for confirming that MBC are actual EC comets.
Can you cite the "standard EC" source for your information?

This gives a hint for the answer to the first question. MBC are comets and so their eccentricity is the minimum eccentricity needed for a rocky body to be a comet.
Does your "standard EC" source give a value of ~0.16 for this minimum eccentricity?
other than your derail into solar activity cutting comet tails in two.
Solar activity may cut tails in two but there have been no observations of comets tuunring off during low solar activity.
Sol88: I may be wrong - if so please provide the citations to these marvelous events.
Obviously the EC idea is just that (an idea) since you cannot provide any "standard EC" source.

Can we agree between ourselves that MBC provide a minimum eccentricity for EC comets?

This is a really obvious consequence of the EC idea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom