Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sol88 said:
Jonesdave116????

or

is your mate going to step in again?
Click to expand...

Already been answered TWICE, at least. See post 1910, just up the previous page.

More to the point, given all the evidence, how do YOU explain it?
 
Last edited:
Search in the paper for key words PLASMA, SURFACE CHARGE, DUSTY PLASMA, ELECTRONS, IONS, LORENTZ FORCE, AMPS, CURRENT, LEVITATION.

None, nothing, zip....but we do still need
Our numerical simulations suggest that the collimation mechanism requires a relatively narrow vent or hole. Emission from a
flat patch of ice on the nucleus surface results in only diffuse
activity.
Click to expand...

None observed in the HAPI region!

4. Summary

The jet features detected in August and September 2014 originated mostly from the Hapi region of 67P.

The ever-changing morphology of the jet features can be seen by the consecutive observations over a timescale from one rotation period to several days. These variations in the jet appearance might be controlled by a certain on-and-off mechanism (i.e., the gas source has become extinguished) as the surface or subsurface temperature distribution evolved; alternatively, the reason might be the changing viewing geometry from Rosetta.

The excess total brightness of the collimated jet is 3~10% brighter than the background dust coma. The values of the jet brightness slopes are higher than the background coma. This means that the dust grains emitted from the neck region might be subject to fast sublimation, fragmentation, or acceleration.
Click to expand...

So really its a non starter just like the Formation of jets in Comet 19P/Borrelly by subsurface geysers paper.


So that's the mainstreams total for peer reviewed papers on cometary jets?
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Search in the paper for key words PLASMA, SURFACE CHARGE, DUSTY PLASMA, ELECTRONS, IONS, LORENTZ FORCE, AMPS, CURRENT, LEVITATION.

None, nothing, zip....but we do still need

None observed in the HAPI region!



So really its a non starter just like the Formation of jets in Comet 19P/Borrelly by subsurface geysers paper.


So that's the mainstreams total for peer reviewed papers on cometary jets?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you are talking utter nonsense, as usual. What the hell has "PLASMA, SURFACE CHARGE, DUSTY PLASMA, ELECTRONS, IONS, LORENTZ FORCE, AMPS, CURRENT, LEVITATION" got to do with icy jets coming from the surface?????????

Have you, in your infinite wisdom, and vast scientific knowledge, written to the authors of that paper and told them why it is a non-starter??????
No, would be the answer to that, I'm guessing. The reason being; they have a pretty good idea what they are talking about; you don't.

So, oh wise one, spell out, in scientific terms, why the model doesn't work. Seems strange that you find it easy to believe that Earth used to orbit Saturn, that comets are rocks blown off of planetary surfaces etc, yet can't get your head around something that actually conforms to the evidence we have for comets. Go figure.

"None observed in the HAPI region!"
Again, rubbish. Below is an image of the 29 July outburst area, prior to the outburst. And no, the red circle isn't electric woo. Looks like at least a couple of circular/ quasi-circular type features within that. We'll see more when Rosetta can get close again.
And try not to forget; you are the one defending a silly hypothesis with zero evidence to back it up. Arguments from ignorance about "mainstream" interpretations are not going to change that.

2en7rys.jpg
 
Haig said:
So you dismiss it BEFORE seeing the evidence and data.

The Safire team are independent scientists and are NOT part of the Electric Universe crowd. There will be papers published in respected journals.

Prepare to eat your words :p
Click to expand...

I have seen and actually worked with the Rosetta RPC data, and no, there is nothing there that even comes remotely to the EC claims.

I think I will go hungry.
 
Sol88 said:
So we are now all happy to call the "gas" and "dust" on/around a comet PLASMA then?
Click to expand...

NO, dust is not plasma. Dust, when charged, can change the plasma behaviour.

Sol88 said:
That's great we are making good head way to comets being ELECTRICAL in nature!
Click to expand...

No, because, for one thing, "electrical in nature" does not mean anything.
You seem to think that whenever there is a plasma, or for all you care a single charge, that things are "electrical", whatever you mean by that.

Sol88 said:
gas or a plasma?
The dust is acting as a plasma as well as like charged particles!
Click to expand...

No, it is dust which might be embedded in plasma. Fluffy particles are not a plasma, not even when they are charged.

Sol88 said:
Hard for subsurface sublimation of pressurised chambers of ice/gas and to blow thru an extremely weak fluffy dust layer, entrain and accelerate dust out past Rosetta!

Extremely hard to explain, I'd say with mechanical gas dynamics ONLY. :blush:

What's your take on , Tusenfem?
Click to expand...

My take on it is that you are cherry picking in your quotes again, and probably don't understand a word of what is further presented in that GIADA paper, otherwise you would have found that further down in the paper in section 4 Discussion it is written that
We consider the dust drag equation in a spherically symmetric coma (Wallis 1982) balancing the dust acceleration with the gas drag and the nucleus gravity forces:
and then a whole explanation is giving about the dust particles increase in velocity.
 
Last edited:
Sol88: 6 years and counting of ignorance of the basics of comets

Sol88 said:
is your mate going to step in again?
Click to expand...
You want me to point out your delusions and ignorance yet again, Sol88? Here you go.
5 November 2015 Sol88: Yet another irrelevant question about the mainstream science of comets and their jets
The idiocy is that you are continuously derailing this thread away from the topic in a futile attempt to hid the insanity that is the electric comet delusion that comets are rocks, etc.

It is getting to the point that I am thinking about reporting further posts that are derailing the thread. On the other hand these derailing posts are a good example for lurkers and future readers of this thread about how a mindless obsession with a delusion can make someone appear totally ignorant about the topic they are supposed to be interested in!
6 November 2015 Sol88: 6 years and counting of ignorance of the basics of comets, e.g. how jets are formed.

You are also lying about mainstream science not having answers when you have been supplied with the answers and have even supplied them yourself :jaw-dropp. They are in this very long thread. They are in textbooks. They are in the scientific literature.
You have cited many times a mechanism to create narrow jets, e.g.
4th November 2015:
Sol88 said:
Where are the pits, sinkholes, pressurised subsurface chambers with nozzles/orifices, as required under this model Formation of jets in Comet 19P/Borrelly by subsurface geysers
Click to expand...
6 November 2015 Sol88: It is a lie that there are no explanations about how comet "jets are formed, maintained and collimated".
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Search in the paper for key words PLASMA, SURFACE CHARGE, DUSTY PLASMA, ELECTRONS, IONS, LORENTZ FORCE, AMPS, CURRENT, LEVITATION.
Click to expand...
The delusion of expecting to see the words PLASMA, SURFACE CHARGE, DUSTY PLASMA, ELECTRONS, IONS, LORENTZ FORCE, AMPS, CURRENT, LEVITATION in every paper that exists, Sol88 :p!
jonesdave116 said:
For what it's worth, here we go again: http://planetary.brown.edu/pdfs/4623.pdf
Perhaps Sol could tell us what is scientifically inaccurate about the model?
Click to expand...
This is Geologic control of jet formation on Comet 103P/Hartley 2 and what you did not quote:
Visible light images of Hartley 2 show correlations between specific surface structures with both narrow-angle and fan-shaped dust jets; associations include pits, arcuate depressions, scarps, and rimless depressions.
Click to expand...
(my emphasis added)
Yet another nail in the electric comet coffin!

Sol88 said:
None observed in the HAPI region!
Click to expand...
Ignorance of basic English, Sol88. The word "includes" does not start a list of every source of jets. It means a partial list of the sources of jets.
Morphology and dynamics of the jets of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko: Early-phase development
The jets detected between August and September 2014 mostly originated in the Hapi region.
Click to expand...
Also a lie - depressions, etc. have been observed in the HAPI region!

The total delusion that the mainstream has only published one paper on comet jets, Sol88 :jaw-dropp!
Scientific literature, textbooks and even Wikipedia did not vanish just because you have been too obsessed with the electric comet delusion for over 6 years to learn about real comets.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
and are we talking "gas" or a slightly ionized "gas" (Plasma)?

I ask, because to the mainstream they seem interchangeable.


tusenfem said:
they are not even remotely interchangeable.
the ratio ionized vs. neutral gas is about 10-6, in the coma of 67P, comparison of all p!asma instruments with the cops neutral gas measurements.
now can we call this a plasma, is the question?
and the answer in this case is yes, because we can e.g. observe the electron upper hybrid frequency, indicating collective behaviour of the charged particles, one (1) of the requirements of a plasma.
a little knowledge goes a long way, sol, why not try to actually read e.g. alfven's cosmic electrodynamics and actually learn something about space plasmas or any other book on plasma physics: kivelson & russell, baumjohann & treumann, chen, stix, ..., heck even perrat gets the plasma physics correct if not his simulations)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


What is the solar wind?

“The solar wind is a stream of particles, mainly protons and electrons, flowing from the sun’s atmosphere at a speed of about one million miles per hour. The magnetic field carried by the solar wind as it flows past Mars can generate an electric field, much as a turbine on Earth can be used to generate electricity. This electric field accelerates electrically charged gas atoms, called ions, in Mars’ upper atmosphere and shoots them into space,” according to a NASA description.
Click to expand...

Is that a gas or a plasma, Tusenfem?


Oh and from the story...Mars lots its atmosphere because of an ELECTRICAL EVENT!!! Amazing stuff this electrically charged GAS


Hell, gas, plasma it's all the same stuff eh! :blush: and it DOES seem you can use the terms interchangeably!


Now it would be reasonable to expect the same thing going on for 67P.

The language is changing PLASMA must be used instead of GAS and a lot of confusion would be like the atmosphere of Mars...gone!
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
tusenfem said:
NO, dust is not plasma. Dust, when charged, can change the plasma behaviour.



No, because, for one thing, "electrical in nature" does not mean anything.
You seem to think that whenever there is a plasma, or for all you care a single charge, that things are "electrical", whatever you mean by that.



No, it is dust which might be embedded in plasma. Fluffy particles are not a plasma, not even when they are charged.



My take on it is that you are cherry picking in your quotes again, and probably don't understand a word of what is further presented in that GIADA paper, otherwise you would have found that further down in the paper in section 4 Discussion it is written that
We consider the dust drag equation in a spherically symmetric coma (Wallis 1982) balancing the dust acceleration with the gas drag and the nucleus gravity forces:
and then a whole explanation is giving about the dust particles increase in velocity.
Click to expand...


Well I think you, Tusenfem, should ring up U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL)and tell they've got it all wrong!

Plasmas are charged dust particles that can occur naturally in the mesosphere -- generated an artificial plasma cloud in the upper-atmosphere to validate the theory of 'dressed particle scattering' caused by this phenomenon.
Click to expand...
LINK
 
jonesdave116 said:
Sorry, but you are talking utter nonsense, as usual. What the hell has "PLASMA, SURFACE CHARGE, DUSTY PLASMA, ELECTRONS, IONS, LORENTZ FORCE, AMPS, CURRENT, LEVITATION" got to do with icy jets coming from the surface?????????

Have you, in your infinite wisdom, and vast scientific knowledge, written to the authors of that paper and told them why it is a non-starter??????
No, would be the answer to that, I'm guessing. The reason being; they have a pretty good idea what they are talking about; you don't.

So, oh wise one, spell out, in scientific terms, why the model doesn't work. Seems strange that you find it easy to believe that Earth used to orbit Saturn, that comets are rocks blown off of planetary surfaces etc, yet can't get your head around something that actually conforms to the evidence we have for comets. Go figure.

"None observed in the HAPI region!"
Again, rubbish. Below is an image of the 29 July outburst area, prior to the outburst. And no, the red circle isn't electric woo. Looks like at least a couple of circular/ quasi-circular type features within that. We'll see more when Rosetta can get close again.
And try not to forget; you are the one defending a silly hypothesis with zero evidence to back it up. Arguments from ignorance about "mainstream" interpretations are not going to change that.
Click to expand...

Put the same key words into this paper, 'ol mate!

DUSTY PLASMA EFFECTS IN COMETS:
EXPECTATIONS FOR ROSETTA

Sorry, but you are talking utter nonsense, as usual. What the hell has "PLASMA, SURFACE CHARGE, DUSTY PLASMA, ELECTRONS, IONS, LORENTZ FORCE, AMPS, CURRENT, LEVITATION" got to do with icy jets coming from the surface?????????
Click to expand...

So which paper do I think we should be concentrating on, Jonesdave116?
 
Sol88 said:
Is that a gas or a plasma, Tusenfem?
Click to expand...

As a plasma adheres to all gas laws, and is usually created out of neutral gas, plasma is a special kind of gas.
Properties of gas:
  • they are easy to compress
  • they expand to fill their containers
  • hey occupy far more space than the liquids or solids from which they form


The pressure of a gas: Pj = Σj Nj k Tj
The pressure of a plasma: Pj = ΣjNj k Tj
where the j stands for the species making up the gas.

Naturally, plasma is a gas+, because it comes with a significant amount of charge carriers, and thus is electrically conducting. But it still behaves like a gas. If it would not we would be in a lot of trouble.

I doubt you or any other EU fanatic will ever understand that.
Further discussion is pointless
 
Sol88 said:
Well I think you, Tusenfem, should ring up U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL)and tell they've got it all wrong!
Click to expand...

Indeed, that is not how I would write it, but then, that whole paragraph reads like someone did not proof read it.
 
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