Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
And by the way: don't forget the second half of Tom's paper

Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity
Click to expand...

All the pictures that you are showing are during high activity ...
 
Sol88 said:
Are they just a electrical-breakdown phenomena between the charged surface dust and the "boundary layer" to the solar wind?
Click to expand...

If you would read the pages you link to, and would read the papers that are linked to in this thread, you would see that for those bluesies there is again a breakdown of the insulating neutral atmosphere necessary.

Indeed, the blue light that you see is from the excited atmosphere.

Now, this does not exist at the comet, because there is a plasma (see e.g. H. Alfven & K.G. Falthammar Cosmical Electrodynamics for an explanation what a plasma is). During these bursts of which you show pictures there are plasma measurments by RPC. My paper (to be submitted end of this week) e.g. deals with 6 and 7 June 2015, when there were outbursts (well at least on the 5th, I have no pics of 6 and 7), but there was a very clear lower-hybrid frequency signal in the MIP data, indicating that there is a real plasma (collectiv behaviour etc.). Therefore it is basically impossible to generate such strong potential drops without them being destroyed again through the mobility of the surrounding plasma.

So, your apparent vision of "clumps of charged dust" discharging from the "boundary layer" to the charged surface is, to speak hounestly, male cow manure. But I am alway open for actual real scientifically based ideas, but to repeat Carl Sagan: It's good to have an open mind, but is should not be so open that your brain falls out.
 
Sol88 said:
...Like this [qimg]http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/files/2015/10/Perihelion_Jet_3D_left-eye-350x283.jpg[/qimg] FULL SIZE (Credits: ESA/Rosetta/MPS for OSIRIS Team MPS/UPD/LAM/IAA/SSO/INTA/UPM/DASP/IDA)
Click to expand...
I snipped your delusions about the science and image, Sol88.
This is a continuation of 7th October 2015 Sol88: Confirms ignorance of physics by asking what happens to dust escaping comets.
7th October 2015 Sol88: Someone with a blind faith in the ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc. will ignore the paper contents and thus ask an ignorant question about dusty plasma.
This is especially ignorant when the link is to the full text of the paper - no dusty plasma in it!

P.S. Now it is 106 days and counting of being afraid of doing simple physics: 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.
6 October 2015 Sol88: Please cite the observations that Deep Impact ejecta contained no water or other ices (i.e. where is the ejected rock as expected from hitting a rock!).
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Considering the paper on Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity we are discussing ATM Jonesdavid116, when the impactor vaporised the rock into dust, lots and lots of dust and not much to very little ice, what would we observe?
Click to expand...
Should we observe:
That you are deluded about the paper Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity, Sol88?
Because it is not about Deep Impact! It is about the possibility of dust on the surface of 67P being accelerated off the nucleus surface by charging.

That you are lying about "not much to very little ice", Sol88?
Deep impact produced 5 million kilograms of water which was a fifth to a half of the ejecta mass.

That you are still afraid to do physics (106 days and counting), Sol88?
25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.
 
Sol88: Do you really think that a comet tail is a comet jet

Sol88 said:
Ummm....really
Click to expand...
Actually Ummm.... Really parroting yet again 10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc., Sol88.

Sol88 said:
Comet Jet via sublimation within a pressurised subsurface chamber of highly volatile "ices" ejected thru a nozzle causing them to form collimated appearance to the casual non scientific observer?
Click to expand...
Other than the deluded mechanism: the casual non scientific observer who is willing to learn and has not fallen for the Thunderbolts delusions will conclude that these are jets of gasses and dust formed when ices sublimate.

No Thunderbolts delusion about an imaginary pressurized subsurface chamber needed. No Thunderbolts delusion about a imaginary nozzle needed.
For completeness: There is a paper that suggested a mechanism to explain some highly collimated jets on Tempel 1 which does have subsurface chambers with a nozzle.

Sol88 said:
OR
Click to expand...
An uncited image of a comet tail which is not a jet :jaw-dropp.
12 October 2015 Sol88: Do you really think that a comet tail is a comet jet?

Sol88 said:
Are they just ...
Click to expand...
Followed by an uncited image - looks like some idiot thinking that comets happen in the atmosphere :jaw-dropp!
That is a problem with not giving sources for your images - any appearance of idiocy in them becomes your appearance of idiocy by linking to them.
 
Sol88 said:
So what's the big hang up with "ice/s"??
Click to expand...
Sol88: We have no hang-up about ices.
You have the delusion that comets are rocks despite the overwhelming evidence that comets are not rocks. So it is you with the "hang-up" with rocks. We have the real world where ices are measured in large amounts in comets, e.g. up to half of the Deep Impact ejecta as water, all of the comet densities, observations of 67P, even surface water ices.
6 years ago you were told about the various ways that the density of comets are measured and that they give that comets are less dense than water. You still have delusion that comets are rocks.
Deep Impact happened in 2005 (a decade ago) and you are still ignorant about most of the results including that it is physically impossible for Tempel 1 to be a rock.
You deny basic English when Thornhill lied to you abut a confirmed prediction of a flash before image when no such flash was detected.
We have measurements of the inside of 67P that show that one lobe is made of ices and dust.
etc. etc.
 
Last edited:
Sol88: Please explain by why you are lying again about no surface water ice

Sol88 said:
Please explain why no water ice has been detected on the surface of any other comet we have visited (barring the trivial frost on 9/P) when this is the mechanism at work Comet 67P/C-G’s water-ice cycle
Click to expand...
Please explain by why you are lying by linking to a press release from 2002
  • When you know that surface water ice was found on Tempel 1 in 2005, Sol88?
  • The release is about Comet Borrelly only (not every comet), Sol88?
NASA Spacecraft Finds Comet Has Hot, Dry Surface April 5, 2002

Why are you fantasizing about a "trivial frost on 9/P"?
Comet 67P/C-G’s water-ice cycle is about a proposed mechanism "common in several regions of the nucleus" that brings water ice from depth to the surface. That is not trivial. That is not frost.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Ummm....really [qimg]http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-fc/yawn.gif[/qimg]...

We call them blue jets on Earth but they are just a subset of the greater transient luminous event (TLE) type phenomena.

Comet Jet via sublimation within a pressurised subsurface chamber of highly volatile "ices" ejected thru a nozzle causing them to form collimated appearance to the casual non scientific observer? :D

[qimg]http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/files/2015/10/Perihelion_Jet_3D_left-eye-350x283.jpg[/qimg]

OR

[qimg]http://www.chasseurs-orages.com/images/Orages/huet/img05.jpg[/qimg]


Are they just a electrical-breakdown phenomena between the charged surface dust and the "boundary layer" to the solar wind?

[qimg]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c4/Upperatmoslight1.jpg/250px-Upperatmoslight1.jpg[/qimg]

:cool:
Click to expand...


So where is the thunder storm on the comet? Much less the ionosphere
 
jonesdave116 said:
Riiight. That's all well and good, except for the rather inconvenient fact that the jets at Hartley 2 were shown to be composed of CO2, and the temperature data for the most active area of the comet showed it to be slightly lower than its surroundings. Not to mention that at neither at Hartley 2 nor 67P, has there been any indication of any electrical activity.
Click to expand...

Hmm Sol88, so your alleged lightning bolt is cold?
 
Reality Check said:
Should we observe:
That you are deluded about the paper Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity, Sol88?
Because it is not about Deep Impact! It is about the possibility of dust on the surface of 67P being accelerated off the nucleus surface by charging.

That you are lying about "not much to very little ice", Sol88?
Deep impact produced 5 million kilograms of water which was a fifth to a half of the ejecta mass.

That you are still afraid to do physics (106 days and counting), Sol88?
25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.
Click to expand...

It is about the possibility of dust on the surface of 67P being accelerated off the nucleus surface by charging. Please tell me more,Reality Check :D

Dust electrically accelerated off a comets nucleus??? whod thunk it ay RC ;)

Please show me (and the lurkers) the other papers on dust being accelerated off the nucleus surface by charging...if you are able to that is?
 
Sol88 said:
DONE DUDE :D :D
Click to expand...
That is a lie Sol88 - we have only seen your delusions that images that do not contain electrical discharges contain electrical discharges. None of the images show anything like lightning. A basic property of electrical discharges is that they follow the path of least resistance which changes - thus they branch.
 
Sol88 said:
It is about the possibility of dust on the surface of 67P being accelerated off the nucleus surface by charging.
Click to expand...
Of course someone too lazy read the title or to click on a link and read the paper will not understand that it is about 67P, not Tempel 1! Or the contents of the paper.
Reality Check said:
That you are deluded about the paper Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity, Sol88?
Because it is not about Deep Impact! It is about the possibility of dust on the surface of 67P being accelerated off the nucleus surface by charging.
Click to expand...


12 October 2015 Sol88: You are lying about "not much to very little ice" produced by Deep impact.

12 October Sol88: Do you really think that a comet tail is a comet jet?

12 October Sol88: Please explain by why you are lying again about no surface water ice?

Now you add the irrational demand that other papers on dust being accelerated off the nucleus surface by charging be produced when the paper cites them :eek:!. Thus making it obvious that you have not bothered to read the paper and are writing from a stance of ignorance. Not a surprise!

107 days and counting of fear of physics: 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Of course someone too lazy read the title or to click on a link and read the paper will not understand that it is about 67P, not Tempel 1! Or the contents of the paper.



12 October 2015 Sol88: You are lying about "not much to very little ice" produced by Deep impact.

12 October Sol88: Do you really think that a comet tail is a comet jet?

12 October Sol88: Please explain by why you are lying again about no surface water ice?

Now you add the irrational demand that other papers on dust being accelerated off the nucleus surface by charging be produced when the paper cites them :eek:!. Thus making it obvious that you have not bothered to read the paper and are writing from a stance of ignorance. Not a surprise!

107 days and counting of fear of physics: 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.
Click to expand...


Just to clear this up me 'ol mate, are you saying this is the FIRST paper on surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet? any comet?

or is it just confirmation of what the mainstream have KNOWN for the last 25years?
ben m

ACTUAL ROSETTA PLASMA SCIENTIST: "We've been studying the *weak* electrostatic phenomena on comets for 25 years. They're weak, we will see them with our sensitive instruments, and we definitely do not see giant electric arcs"
Click to expand...
 
Reality Check said:
Should we observe:
That you are deluded about the paper Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity, Sol88?
Because it is not about Deep Impact! It is about the possibility of dust on the surface of 67P being accelerated off the nucleus surface by charging.

That you are lying about "not much to very little ice", Sol88?
Deep impact produced 5 million kilograms of water which was a fifth to a half of the ejecta mass.

That you are still afraid to do physics (106 days and counting), Sol88?
25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:


Please explain...again


http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2015/08/Boulder_flying_by_comet

5. ELECTROSTATIC DISRUPTION IN THE
COMETARY ENVIRONMENT
[42] When a body is electrically charged, the mutual
repulsion of the surface charges lead to an electrostatic tension.
If the total electrostatic force across any plane section
of the body (which may be calculated by integrating the
component of this electrostatic tension, normal to the plane
section over either part of the body, bisected by the plane)
exceeds the total tensile force across the plane section, the
body will be electrostatically disrupted across that section.
Click to expand...
DUSTY PLASMA EFFECTS IN COMETS:
EXPECTATIONS FOR ROSETTA

AND here we observe this effect rosetta-tracks-debris-around-comet

and the experts are still banging on about contact binary and sublimation wasting the nucleus when the ELECTRICAL interaction/s is doing the job.

Sublimation can not accelerate, levitate, collimate or blow dust around in a vacuum! Electric fields CAN, dead simple really.
 
Last edited:
jonesdave116 said:
Edited by jsfisher: 
Moderated content removed.
Click to expand...

How much ICE on Giacobini–Zinner, Halley, Grigg–Skjellerup, Borrelly, Wild 2, Tempel 1, Hartley 2 and Churyumov–Gerasimenko?

On 67/P they did not find ICE they found BLUE and Bright patches! :confused: and ASSUMED them to be ice..... :yawn:


PS Not enough ICE has been found on or in ANY comet to support the observed production of OH radicals thru the two-step process (which is electrical in nature anyway but....)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom