Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
DPS 2015: A little science from Rosetta, beyond perihelion
Since I wasn't able to attend the European Planetary Science Congress last month, the Division for Planetary Sciences meeting was my first opportunity to see science results from the Rosetta mission since comet Churyumov-Gerasimenko passed through perihelion on August 13. Here are my scattered notes from DPS sessions on Rosetta:

Martin Paetzold updated the basic physical properties of the comet. The mass -- about 10 billion tons (or a GM of 666.2 ± 0.2m3/s2) -- is the smallest ever determined through radio tracking. Now that sunlight has arrived to the previously winter-dark south pole of the comet, there are updated shape models, and the total volume of the comet has decreased by about 10% from what was reported in the first science papers. Mass and volume give you density: 0.533 ± 6 kg/m3. That's half the density of water ice, but we know that the comet contains at least some silicate material. With a bit of modeling, Paetzold concluded that the comet's porosity is a huge 72%. So then the next question is: are there gigantic caverns within the comet, or is the porosity an intrinsic property of cometary material? With several measurements of the gravity field complete, Paetzold concluded the latter: the comet seems to be homogeneously dense in its interior, and its ice and dust seem to be put together in a form that has lots and lots of open pores.
Click to expand...
 
That blog reminded me about OSIRIS observations of meter-sized exposures of H2O ice at the surface of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko and interpretation using laboratory experiments
Since OSIRIS started acquiring high-resolution observations of the surface of the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, over one hundred meter-sized bright spots have been identified in numerous types of geomorphologic regions, but mostly located in areas receiving low insolation. The bright spots are either clustered, in debris fields close to decameter-high cliffs, or isolated without structural relation to the surrounding terrain. They can be up to ten times brighter than the average surface of the comet at visible wavelengths and display a significantly bluer spectrum. They do not exhibit significant changes over a period of a few weeks. All these observations are consistent with exposure of water ice at the surface of boulders produced by dislocation of the weakly consolidated layers that cover large areas of the nucleus. Laboratory experiments show that under simulated comet surface conditions, analog samples acquire a vertical stratification with an uppermost porous mantle of refractory dust overlaying a layer of hard ice formed by recondensation or sintering under the insulating dust mantle. The evolution of the visible spectrophotometric properties of samples during sublimation is consistent with the contrasts of brightness and color seen at the surface of the nucleus. Clustered bright spots are formed by the collapse of overhangs that is triggered by mass wasting of deeper layers. Isolated spots might be the result of the emission of boulders at low velocity that are redepositioned in other regions.
Click to expand...
 
Fascinating.

A few questions.
1: Where is the voltage coming from and why isn't it detected?
2: Why does that voltage not affect the probes we have out in space?
3: Why would there be arcing when there is nothing that allows a charge to build up?
4: Such a mechanism should produce a comet that is attracted to the sun, thus significantly altering its orbit from the predictions of gravity. Why do we not see this?
5: Why does this mechanism not affect the far more iron rich astroids?
6: Is there ANY experimental evidence suggesting this is possible at all?
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
Fascinating.

A few questions.
1: Where is the voltage coming from and why isn't it detected?
2: Why does that voltage not affect the probes we have out in space?
3: Why would there be arcing when there is nothing that allows a charge to build up?
4: Such a mechanism should produce a comet that is attracted to the sun, thus significantly altering its orbit from the predictions of gravity. Why do we not see this?
5: Why does this mechanism not affect the far more iron rich astroids?
6: Is there ANY experimental evidence suggesting this is possible at all?
Click to expand...


A few answers. (just my opinion ... not official EU ones ;) ok?)
1: Space is infinite and there is charge separation. Birkeland currents have been detected throughout Space.
2: Current free double layers.
3: Plasma Sheaths, Cells, and Current-Free Double Layers
4: We do. Comets have been noted for their strange behaviour since they have been studied.
5: Charge difference. Comets are out of balance with the electrical environment of the Sun. The asteroids are, generally, not out of balance electrically.
6: Yes, Electric Comets require an Electric Sun. The Safire Project is making excellent progress HERE and from HERE in particular from 20m 03s for future studies relevant to electric comets.

Some background ...

Comparison chart

Double layer (plasma)

Plasma Sheaths, Cells, and Current-Free Double Layers

Electric Currents and Transmission Lines in Space

Birkeland currents
 
1: I know the EU claims this, but there has been no real evidence at all. As the currents needed would fry everything in space
2: Magic?
3 Magic?
4: The behaviour predicted by actually applying EU would not be strange, it would run counter to observations
5: Magic
6: I'll take the electric sun more seriously the moment a mechanism is proposed that would prevent nuclear fusion from happening under solar conditions. Because we *know* nuclear fusion can happen under the pressures predicted in the sun and we know that the energy produced by the sun correlates to the predicted fusion rate.
Because again here the EU runs directly counter to actual observation.
 
Haig said:
Some people still believe comets are dusty snowballs or snowy dirtballs billions of years old :eek:
Click to expand...
That is a lie, Haig.
Most people have a high school education and can apply what they learned in science classes. Thus most people believe in the evidence that comets are made of ices and dust and formed billions of years old.

A few people have the delusion that comets are rocks blasted from planet surfaces as witnessed by people and recorded in myths :jaw-dropp!
These people are so obsessed with their delusion that they deny simple physical facts about comets such as their density and observed composition. They are deluded enough (see the posts by Sol88 and you Haig) that they think that crank videos and lies from the Thunderbolts cult is science!
They are deluded enough to think that the people who read this thread are do not know already about the ignorant, deluded and lying Thunderbolts cult.
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.
 
Last edited:
Haig: Six delusions about comets and a lie about Birkeland currents

Haig said:
A few answers. (just my opinion ... not official EU ones ;) ok?)
Click to expand...
A few delusions and a lie, Haig.
1a: Space is infinite has nothing to do with charge separation. So a delusion about charge separation.
1b: It is a lie that "Birkeland currents have been detected throughout Space".
2: A delusion about Current free double layers.
3: A delusion about Plasma Sheaths, Cells, and Current-Free Double Layers
4: A delusion about "Comets have been noted for their strange behaviour since they have been studied".
Nothing that has been observed about comets (density, composition, X-rays, etc.) supports the electric comet delusion as you know Haig.
5: A delusion about Charge difference.
6: A delusion about an Electric Sun
23 November 2015 Haig: Six delusions about comets and a lie about Birkeland currents.

Linking to the Thunderbolts idiots does not help your case, Haig: 10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.
Especially when these idiots being cited is concealed by linking to a crank web site (everythingselectric) which is mainly a front for the Thunderbolts cult. It inks to the deluded Thunderbolts POD which may be the source for your lie about Birkeland currents. The Thunderbolts POD authors are so insanely ignorant about plasma and Birkeland currents that they think that all plasma filaments in space are Birkeland currents!
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
5: Charge difference. Comets are out of balance with the electrical environment of the Sun. The asteroids are, generally, not out of balance electrically.
6: Yes, Electric Comets require an Electric Sun. The Safire Project is making excellent progress HERE and from HERE in particular from 20m 03s for future studies relevant to electric comets.
Click to expand...

5. Where is this charge difference? Spacecraft have been all over the solar system for nigh on 60 years. Never seen. Why doesn't Rosetta, which has been following this comet for 15 months, experience this change in charge, yet the comet does?

A: It isn't there.

Why aren't asteroids out of balance electrically with the Sun? Plenty of NEOs in highly elliptical orbits. 4179 Toutatis, for instance. Then you have comet 73P/Schwassmann-Wachmann in a nearly circular orbit. Behaves like a comet, though. No, I think you're overlooking the basic fact that comets have been proven to be composed of ice and dust, whereas asteroids are rocky. Easy mistake to make, I suppose.

6. There isn't an electric Sun. Zero evidence, and not even a working hypothesis that couldn't be pulled apart by a HS physics student.
First question that the SAFIRE project will face, assuming they ever try to publish in a respectable astrophysics journal, is: "To run this experiment, you plugged your sphere into the mains. What is the equivalent for the Sun, and where is the evidence? Sorry chaps, try the IEEE, we're not publishing that."
 
Last edited:
Questions by Lukraak Sisser and "answers" by Haig, followed by some minor comments by me:

Q1: Where is the voltage coming from and why isn't it detected?
A1: Space is infinite and there is charge separation. Birkeland currents have been detected throughout Space.

Naturaly this is not an answer. "Space is infinite" has nothing to do with "charge separation". Indeed, in my limited laboratory setup in Stockholm, I had very good charge separation while I was studying double layers.
Birkeland currents are almost never driven by charge separation, but by a ponderomotive force, usually the v x B force. Naturally, a "real" EU proponent would have known that, but then, Haig tells us these are not the official EU answers (then why not make the effort to actually give the official EU answers???).

Q2: Why does that voltage not affect the probes we have out in space?
A2: Current free double layers.

Again, there they are these magical "double layers" (with or without currents, it does not matter).
So, now there is a "current free double layer" and our probes, which should measure electric fields, do not measure these fields, because it is a "current free double layer"??
So I guess Haig thinks that a "current free double layer" does not have an electric field? Would be an interesting double layer without a measurable electric field. Of course this could mean that they are not there? Or it is one of those magical EU double layers that seem to be able to do anything, except being located.

Q3: Why would there be arcing when there is nothing that allows a charge to build up?
A3: Plasma Sheaths, Cells, and Current-Free Double Layers

Another non-answer, who would expect anything different. Now, as I did my PhD on double layers, I would be the last person to deny that DLs can exist in a space plasma, BUT ...
these structures are a reaction to the plasma condition, the DLs are there for a reason, and that is creating an equilibrium in the disturbed plasma. There is no DL that will generate a create and "arcing", that is just not how DLs work.
Indeed, Alfven talkes about "exploding double layers", however, except for the sudden cut-off of high-voltage connections, there is such thing as an exploding DL, and at the power-switch I am not even certain I would want to call that a DL.

Q4: Such a mechanism should produce a comet that is attracted to the sun, thus significantly altering its orbit from the predictions of gravity. Why do we not see this?
A4: We do. Comets have been noted for their strange behaviour since they have been studied.

And what strange behaviour would that be? Yes, the rotation of the comet is changing because of the jets that we see (at 67P) but apart from gravitational effects and these jets there is nothing unexplained, definitely not by a radial electric field from the Sun.
But maybe Haig can give some actual examples of what he thinks is "strange behaviour".

Q5: Why does this mechanism not affect the far more iron rich astroids?
A5: Charge difference. Comets are out of balance with the electrical environment of the Sun. The asteroids are, generally, not out of balance electrically.

That makes absolutely no sense, as said before, that there are also highly elliptical asteroids, which do not show the same behaviour as comets.
Naturally, it could be that asteroids are protected by a current free double layer from getting out of electrical balance??

Q6: Is there ANY experimental evidence suggesting this is possible at all?
A6: Yes, Electric Comets require an Electric Sun. The Safire Project is making excellent progress HERE and from HERE in particular from 20m 03s for future studies relevant to electric comets.

No, the paper from your beloved saffire project does not make any claim of an electric sun.
 
Any OSIRIS images released yet of 67P "jet" source?

over 12 months and still waiting... WHY?

Thought it would be extreamly easy to zoom in on the sublimation sources that produce the "jets" but zip, nada, nix.

Just 1 pic of some crater rim but still no "ice", why?
 
Sol88 said:
over 12 months and still waiting... WHY?
Click to expand...
Any chance that you will stop being ignorant about the real world where the Rosetta teams get first dibs on data, Sol88? And the universe does not cater for ignorant demands for images of jet sources.
Astronomers do not look for jet sources in images that may not exist- they trace the jets in images that actually exist to their sources.
Morphology and dynamics of the jets of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko: Early-phase development
Aims. The OSIRIS camera onboard the Rosetta spacecraft obtained close-up views of the dust coma of comet 67P. The jet structures can be used to trace their source regions and to examine the possible effect of gas-surface interaction.

Methods. We analyzed the wide-angle images obtained in the special dust observation sequences between August and September 2014. The jet features detected in different images were compared to study their time variability. The locations of the potential source regions of some of the jets are identified by ray tracing. We used a ring-masking technique to calculate the brightness distribution of dust jets along the projected distance.

Results. The jets detected between August and September 2014 mostly originated in the Hapi region. Morphological changes appeared over a timescale of several days in September. The brightness slope of the dust jets is much steeper than the background coma. This might be related to the sublimation or fragmentation of the emitted dust grains. Interaction of the expanding gas flow with the cliff walls on both sides of Hapi could lead to erosion and material down-fall to the nucleus surface.
Click to expand...


Sol88 said:
Just 1 pic of some crater rim but still no "ice", why?
Click to expand...
Because you are lying about there being no ice, Sol88, as you know. There was plenty of ice detected on 67P and other comets.
OSIRIS observations of meter-sized exposures of H2O ice at the surface of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko and interpretation using laboratory experiments
And maybe a lie about "some crater rim" because there is an image of jet-like features being emitted from a pit (not crater).
Getting to know Rosetta’s comet – Science special edition (22/01/2015)
Active pit detected in Seth region of Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko. Enhancing the contrast (right) reveals fine structures in the shadow of the pit, interpreted as jet-like features rising from the pit.
Credits: ESA/Rosetta/MPS for OSIRIS Team MPS/UPD/LAM/IAA/SSO/INTA/UPM/DASP/IDA
Click to expand...
Some sources of discrete jets of activity have also been identified. While a significant proportion of activity emanates from the smooth neck region, jets have also been spotted rising from pits.
Click to expand...
That looks like one image from a number of jet emitting pit images.


List of 64 items of ignorance, lies and delusions from Sol88
145 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:
Sol88 said:
Any OSIRIS images released yet of 67P "jet" source?

over 12 months and still waiting... WHY?

Thought it would be extreamly easy to zoom in on the sublimation sources that produce the "jets" but zip, nada, nix.

Just 1 pic of some crater rim but still no "ice", why?
Click to expand...

Like this pit, you mean?

2rnuao3.jpg


Or the one shown here: https://i0.wp.com/www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/67P-Seth-Active_pitsANNO.jpg

A lot more sublimation going on than there is EDM!
 
jonesdave116 said:
Like this pit, you mean?

[qimg]http://i65.tinypic.com/2rnuao3.jpg[/qimg]

Or the one shown here: https://i0.wp.com/www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/67P-Seth-Active_pitsANNO.jpg

A lot more sublimation going on than there is EDM!
Click to expand...

And that's it, "jets" issuing from the RIM of a pit?

There are thousands of pictures and they release ONE that could be interpreted as a "jet" issuing from a subsurface pressurised chamber?

:blush::blush::blush:

and no ice was seen at this location so what exactly was sublimating?

Sounds more like a
Abstract

We have investigated through simulation the electrostatic charging of the nucleus of Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko during periods of weak outgassing activity. Specifically, we have modeled the surface potential and electric field at the surface of the nucleus during the initial Rosetta rendezvous at 3.5 AU and the release of the Philae lander at 3 AU. 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...
effect to me!
 
Sol88: Repeats a delusion that a jet from "a subsurface pressurised chamber"

Sol88 said:
And that's it, "jets" issuing from the RIM of a pit?
Click to expand...
Sol88, this is not your delusion about "jets" (with quotes). This is not your delusion about jets issuing from the RIM of a pit :jaw-dropp! This is an image of a jet issuing from inside a pit.

List of 64 items of ignorance, lies and delusions from Sol88
  1. 24 November 2015 Sol88: A delusion about jets issuing from the RIM of a pit when we have a jet issuing from inside a pit.
  2. 24 November 2015 Sol88: Ignorance of English where "jets have also been spotted rising from pits" is plural!
  3. 24 November 2015 Sol88: Repeats a delusion that a jet has to come from "a subsurface pressurised chamber".
    This is based on the previous idiocy that a paper with a proposed mechanism to create narrow jets applies to all jets.
  4. 24 November 2015 Sol88: The delusion that no ice is in images of the ices and dust on the surface of 67P!
    We have an image of a jet-like feature issuing from a pit that has formed in the ices and dust on the surface of 67P. The jet is coming from sublimating ices!
  5. 24 November 2015 Sol88: Lies about the contents of a Surface charging paper.
    Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity is not about the jets from the ices sublimating on 67P.
145 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.[/[/QUOTE]

ETA: I missed Sol88's inability to count to 2 :eek:!
  1. Getting to know Rosetta’s comet – Science special edition (22/01/2015) has an image of jets from inside a pit.
  2. jonesdave116 linked to a different image with jets from sublimating ice at a pit.
    That shows jets issuing from inside or even the rim of a pit (N.B. Not Sol88's rim delusion because Sol88 is ignorant about these images existing!). The associated article is Rosetta’s Comet Sparkles with Ice, Blows Dust From Sinkholes (July 2, 2015)
ETA2: Rosetta’s Comet Sparkles with Ice, Blows Dust From Sinkholes has an explanation about why the bright spots detected were water ice rather than other ices
How do we know it’s water ice and not CO2 or some other form of ice? Easy. When the observations were made, water ice would have been vaporizing at the rate of 1 mm per hour of solar illumination. By contrast, carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide ice, which have much lower freezing points, would have rapidly sublimated in sunlight. Water ice vaporizes much more slowly in comparison.
Lab tests using ice mixed with different minerals under simulated sunlight revealed that it only took a few hours of sublimation to produce a dust layer only a few millimeters thick. But it was enough to conceal any sign of ice. They also found that small chunks of dust would sometimes break away to expose fresh ice beneath.
“A 1 mm thick layer of dark dust is sufficient to hide the layers below from optical instruments,” confirms Holger Sierks, OSIRIS principal investigator at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research.
It appears then that Comet 67P’s surface is mostly covered in dark dust with small exposures of fresh ice resulting from changes in the landscape like crumbling cliffs and boulder-tossing from jet activity. As the comet approaches perihelion, some of that ice will become exposed to sunlight while new patches may appear. You, me and the Rosetta team can’t wait to see the changes.
Click to expand...
And gives a number to the identified active pits:
In another new study appearing in the science journal Nature, a team of researchers report that 18 active pits or sinkholes have been identified in the comet’s northern hemisphere
Click to expand...
So maybe 16 more images of jets from pits exist.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
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