Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
jonesdave116 said:
Wrong. As I get sick to death of posting the link, you can look it up for yourself. They saw H2O ICE at Tempel 1 in the EJECTA, due to its absorption in the IR spectra. And at Hartley 2. That is SOLID grains of ICE. End of story. It is, in the words of the lead author of that paper, "unambiguous."
I'll ask again; how in hell would ice remain on the sunlit part of a comet for any length of time?
Water vapour has been unambiguously observed in the comae of very many comets, going back 3 decades to its detection at Halley. Too many to list. These are scientists, not some unqualified pseudoscientific burke from Thunderdolts. It is unambiguous. Instead of looking at pictures of lightning, try educating yourself and spend a few days looking on google for articles on the ro-vibrational states of H2O.
MIRO has already seen H2O vapour close to the surface of 67P at ~557 GHz in microwave. That is H2O, unambiguously. Philae detected it within a metre of the surface.
It is NOT OH! There is no chance of confusing the spectral lines of OH and H2O. Understand?
Click to expand...

So by that reasoning there should be a lot "mini" comets flying around?

We dont see that we chunks of non ice material silicate materiel...ROCK dislodged of the comet by mutual electrostatic repulsion!

As stated in the paper HERE

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.
It was shown by Öpik [1956], that a uniformly conducting
spherical solid of radius a and surface potential  and
of uniform tensile strength Ft would be split in half if the
electrostatic tension FE = 0E2/2 ' 2/(2a2) > Ft. This
implies that in order to escape disruption, the radius of a dust
grain must exceed a critical value ac(m) ' 20F–1/2
t |(V)|.
Incidentally, electrostatic disruption of spherical liquid
droplets and bubbles had been discussed much earlier by
Lord Rayleigh (1882), for the case of the cohesive force provided
by surface tension. Noting that cosmic dust grains are
expected to be far from spherical, Hill and Mendis [1981]
discussed the electrostatic disruption of non-spherical, conducting
grains idealizing them as prolate spheroids. These
authors showed that as such a body (assumed to be of
uniform tensile strength) is charged up, it will begin to electrostatically
chip-off at the poles, since that is where the
electric field (and hence the electrostatic tension) would be
largest. As the grain potential increases, this electrostatic
chipping will continue with the grain becoming more spherical.
This chipping process will eventually cease, while the
grain is still prolate, if its tensile strength is large enough. If
not, the process will continue until the grain becomes more
or less spherical, at which point it would split in two.
Click to expand...

Sublimation???? :blush:
 
Sol88 said:
Gaps?

No gaps, just a wrong theory! :D
Click to expand...

And which part of ice grains in the ejecta of the DI impact didn't you understand? Most of it I'm guessing. Ditto at Hartley 2. What were they Sol? You're the expert. Tell us, please. What did they mistake it for?
Be honest, you haven't got a clue. Just a slavish, quasi-religous devotion to an idiotic neo-Velikovskian load of claptrap, that doesn't have a single piece of evidence to back it up.
It's rubbish. Desist.
 
Further to the above, Sol, I suggest that instead of polluting this forum with your idiotic nonsense, you actually engage with the authors of the papers that show this garbage to actually be......well garbage........

33x78gh.jpg


So, Sol, who do we believe? An unqualified eejit at Thunderdolts, or a REAL scientist who actually knows what she's talking about?

Give it up, it's garbage.
 
Last edited:
jonesdave116 said:
Further to the above, Sol, I suggest that instead of polluting this forum with your idiotic nonsense, you actually engage with the authors of the papers that show this garbage to actually be......well garbage........

[qimg]http://i60.tinypic.com/33x78gh.jpg[/qimg]

So, Sol, who do we believe? An unqualified eejit at Thunderdolts, or a REAL scientist who actually knows what she's talking about?

Give it up, it's garbage.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Well done! looks like funding secured for a few more years :D
 
Sol88 said:
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Well done! looks like funding secured for a few more years :D
Click to expand...

So come on, Einstein, how are you getting WATER ICE SOLIDS in an ejecta plume that weren't there before? Come on, chemistry, quick.

Like I said, it's garbage, and evidence free garbage to boot. Give it a miss.
 
Last edited:
jonesdave116 said:
So come on, Einstein, how are you getting WATER ICE SOLIDS in an ejecta plume that weren't there before? Come on, chemistry, quick.

Like I said, it's garbage, and evidence free garbage to boot. Give it a miss.
Click to expand...


Why has COSIMA not detected ANY ice????? cos there is none!

as in

Just "fluffy" dust accelerated off the surface by
We have also investigated the possibility of dust acceleration and ejection above the nucleus due to electrostatic forces. Finally, we discuss these modeling results in the context of possible observations by instruments on both the Rosetta orbiter and the Philae lander.
Click to expand...
LINK

No ice because there is no ice and sublimation is not needed when ELECTRICITY can do the job!
 
Sol88 said:
Yeah but none found yet with COSIMA Aat 67P
Click to expand...
Actually the repeated ignorance of not reading what you reply to Sol88 :jaw-dropp!.
Deep Impact blasted ices and dust from the surface of Tempel 1. Rational, knowledgeable people expect ice grains from something hitting ice!

Rational, knowledgeable people know that dust, ice grains and water in the ejecta means that comets are make up of ices and dust and would give up the delusion that comets are rocks.

Rational, knowledgeable people know that 67P has sublimating ices that push dust off the surface. They do not expect ice grains as in Deep Impact. They do not expect COSIMA to detect ice grains. They do not quote mine (lie about) a bog pots.
COSIMA found that the dust was "fluffy" with no ice which they then explain
COSIMA watches comet shed its dusty coat
“We believe that these ‘fluffy’ grains collected by Rosetta originated from the dusty layer built up on the comet’s surface since its last close approach to the Sun,” explains Martin Hilchenbach, COSIMA principal investigator at the Max-Planck Institute for Solar System research in Germany.

“This layer is being removed as the activity of the comet is increasing again. We see this layer being removed, and we expect it to evolve into a more ice-rich phase in the coming months.”
Click to expand...
That was posted on 26 January 2015. Maybe that more ice-rich phase has been detected by COSIMA.

Rational people read and understand Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity instead of continuously posting ignorance about it, e.g. that it is modelling, not observations.
the possibility of elecrrstatic duct levitation from mosleding)
 
Sol88 said:
Why has COSIMA not detected ANY ice?????
Click to expand...
Because you ignorantly expect COSIMA to detect ices grains as detected in the Deep Impact ejecta, Sol88?
Because you have no understanding of what COSIMA detected?

Your delusion that there is no ice on comets including 67P is shown to be total by the detection of ices on comets :jaw-dropp!

You are continuing with the ignorance that Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity is about the detection of dust when what you quote explicitly states they are modelling the dust.

ETA: Since you seem unable to read or understand the paper, Sol88:
Charged submicron dust
...
Thus, it is clear that the dust instruments on the Rosetta orbiter are not capable of detecting charged submicron dust particles which are emitted from the nucleus. However, as pointed out by Szego et al. (2014), the RPC–IES instrument, while not designed to study dust, may be capable of directly detecting charged nanograins which are ejected from the nucleus.
Click to expand...
COSIMA is an instrument which cannot detect this dust :eek: The only mention of COSIMA in the paper is to dismiss the possibility of detecting the dust.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
Click to expand...
What part of
  • water ice on the surface of Tempel 1, Hartley 2, and C-G.
  • water ice in the ejecta from Tempel 1
  • water ice naturally coming out of Hartley 2 (and probably C-G)
  • water ice subliming from almost all comets [identified in telescopes]
  • and other ices CO2, Co, methane, ethane, etc. in comets.
debunking the electric comet delusion yet again do you not understand, Sol88 (otherwise you would not agree with the science so much)?

Or is this :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: The already debunked electric comet delusion has been debunked again :p?
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
As stated in the paper HERE

Sublimation???? :blush:
Click to expand...

It is clear you did not really read and understand that (part of the) paper.
This breaking up under electrostatic tension only works for small (fluffy) particles and is something completely different from surface charging and levitation (in the LOW ACTIVITY PHASE).

Small (fluffy) dust grains can become too charged to maintain their integrity and then break up, which has been known for ages.

Interesting, how EU proponents usually don't have a clue about electrodynamics/statics.
 
Sol88 said:
Why has COSIMA not detected ANY ice????? cos there is none!

as in

Just "fluffy" dust accelerated off the surface by LINK

No ice because there is no ice and sublimation is not needed when ELECTRICITY can do the job!
Click to expand...

Dear me. Did you even bother reading either the Tempel 1 or Hartley 2 papers? There were no absorptions from ice grains in the neck region of Hartley 2. There were emissions from H2O vapour. Just as at 67P, the sublimation in that region was "gentle". The ice grains were seen at the smaller lobe, where there was vigorous outgassing (i.e. jets) which was shown to be from CO2. CO2 is more volatile than H2O, and will entrain the ice grains (and larger chunks) from subsurface when it erupts from the comet.
There would be no expectation of seeing ice grains at 67P at the time when these measurements were made. They may well have been detected after the jets that erupted around perihelion. We'll have to wait and see.
In other words, you need something quite vigourous to excavate ice from the subsurface. Such as smashing an impactor into it, or CO2 jets.
 
Sol88 said:
No ice because there is no ice and sublimation is not needed when ELECTRICITY can do the job!
Click to expand...

then kindly present us here your model about how the measured water (or for all I care OH) in the coma is created through electricity.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
No ice because there is no ice and sublimation is not needed when ELECTRICITY can do the job!
Click to expand...

Utter rubbish. Why do you think we see the outgassing at a comet? The water vapour is invisible. We see it because it entrains dust within it when it sublimes. When we look spectroscopically at those jets (be they gentle or otherwise) what do we see? H2O and CO2, for the most part. If it was solely happening due to electricity, we wouldn't see those gases, just dust.
You are continually failing to read that paper properly. This mechanism, if it happens, can only happen at times of low activity. At other times the outgassing neutrals prevent access to the surface by the solar wind. This was shown in the sputtering data from some time ago. The sputtered Si was totally anti-correlated with the H2O. In other words, it was only happening in areas of low outgassing, where the SW had access to the surface. Where there is outgassing it can't reach the surface.
 
tusenfem said:
then kindly present us here your model about how the measured water (or for all I care OH) in the coma is created through electricity.
Click to expand...

Oh, that's easy, Tus; electric woo strips negative O ions from the surface rock. Never mind that we don't see O- ions near surface, that's irrelevant. Then these non-existent O- ions combine with a H+ ion from the solar wind. Never mind that that is extremely unlikely at ~400 km/s, it just does. Then this OH hangs about and attracts another H+ ion from the solar wind, thus forming H2O. Some of this H2O ends up in the coma, where we detect it. Some of it though, does a U-turn, heads back to the surface and burrows beneath it. There it waits, as ice, until humans release it as ice grains by smashing a spacecraft into it, or some CO2 decides to blast it out of the comet during a jetting episode.
What's not to believe about that!
 
I am reminded of the Catholic Church and it's position during most of the Renaissance and Middle Ages...
"We know how and why things are as they are, and don't need any of this 'science' **** to tell us differently"
 
tusenfem said:
then kindly present us here your model about how the measured water (or for all I care OH) in the coma is created through electricity.
Click to expand...

sigh, again?

ok then....

Simulating OH/H2O formation by solar wind at the lunar surface

3. Discussion and conclusion

Thus, using a laboratory modeling, we have shown that hydroxyl (de facto
OD) and water molecules (de facto D2O) are formed with proton (de facto
D+ and, perhaps, Dþ2) irradiation of silicates.
Click to expand...

and



There are three possible sources of that water. Comets and meteorites were a popular idea for a while. Another good candidate is the solar wind – the plasma that streams from the sun’s upper atmosphere and smashes high-energy protons into the moon’s surface. Cosmic rays from outside the solar system can also inject ions into lunar rocks, causing chemical changes that create water.

“All these mechanisms seem to work, but we still didn’t know which is the dominant source of lunar water,” says NASA scientist Alan Stern, who was not involved in the new work.
Click to expand...
LINK

so all you'd need is some sort of way to "Charge the Surface and electrostaticly levitate and accelerate dust" off the comet/s

Well blow me over with a feather, same thing happens on comets too!!! :D:thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
sigh, again?
Click to expand...

Yes, until you finally produce something real

Sol88 said:
ok then....

Simulating OH/H2O formation by solar wind at the lunar surface
Click to expand...

Link does not seem to work but this one does, but is it really appropriate?

No, not really, because the solar wind keV protons, that are discussed in that paper, have not been seen by the Rosetta plasma instruments for months now. There are keV ions (water ions!!!) observed now and then, but they move away from the comet.

So, before you come up with some other process which may or may not occur on the moon, you would do best to inform yourself about what is actually going on near 67P.

So, sigh, no it is NOT an explanation, especially not if you start to do the numbers, but I guess you don't do numbers.

Sol88 said:
and

LINK
Click to expand...

Again, this may or may not work at the moon, but the solar wind has long had no access anymore to the surface of 67P!

Sol88 said:
so all you'd need is some sort of way to "Charge the Surface and electrostaticly levitate and accelerate dust" off the comet/s
Click to expand...

And again, Tom's paper is for during periods of low activity
I thought to make this last part of the title a bit more legible for you, in case you lost your glasses or so. That stage has been left behind months and months ago!

So, again, no EC model, not even a hint of an EC model. Are you sure your friends on thunderdolts are really interested in explaining the electric comet, or are they only there to bitch about how "only mainstream is getting all the money" or "mainstream is stuck in its orthodoxy and does not allow real electrodynamics and plasma physics to be discussed" and other nonsense.
 
For those interested in real RPC science, Andrew Coates and coworkers wrote a paper on "Ion pickup observed at comet 67P with the Rosetta Plasma Consortium (RPC) particle sensors: similarities with previous observations and AMPTE releases, and effects of increasing activity"
(Methinks the title is too short)
 
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