Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)
- Thread starter Sol88
- Start date
- Status
Jrrarglblarg
Unregistered
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12,673
tusenfem
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 3,306
My goodness, man, how long have you been playing this game already?
Conferences are open to anyone, you need to register and pay the registration fee.
For the rest you can use NASA's ADS service to search for literature, and you can just go to the homepages of the journals that I listed above and see what is being published at the moment, with some journals having open access.
tusenfem
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 3,306
Here is a paper by Etienne Behar
For the rest, at the moment there is not much being done with electric fields, AFAIK.
Last edited:
tusenfem
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 3,306
Well I guess you missed the paper by Patrick Meier in which the singing comet is explained by a modified Weibel instability created by the freshly picked up ions near the comet.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Sol88: Usual delusions about comets which have expected features of cliffs, etc
11 November 2016 Sol88: Usual ignorant delusions about comets which have expected features of cliffs, etc.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
It is not funny that someone persists with the delusion that comets are rocks many years after they know the facts about comets.
It is not funny when many of your recent posts are ignorant, deluded or even lies.
- 29 August 2016 Sol88: Repeating a lie does not make it true. You know that the electrostatic transport of dust across airless bodies is not anything to do with sublimation.
- The multiple lies about Static electricity may transport dust across airless planetary bodies.
- 29 August 2016 Sol88: A lie about data showing an electrical discharge screams your persistent delusions about comets
! - 29 August 2016 Sol88: The stupidity of a "The effect of surface topography on the lunar photoelectron sheath and electrostatic dust transport" paper.
- 30 August 2016 Sol88: A lie about collimated jets since there is no such problem, e.g. they can issue from pits which any rational person knows collimates them
! - 30 August 2016 Sol88: A delusion that the 19 Feb. outburst issued from an area where it was impossible for it to be collimated (which it was not !).
- 30 August 2016 Sol88: A delusion that the Sun does not exist
! Sunlight ionizes gas. - 30 August 2016 Sol88: A delusion that a landslide possibly triggering the outburst magically makes it impossible for it to be collimated.
- 30 August 2016 Sol88: The delusion that an outburst described as clouds is collimated jets
- 30 August 2016 Sol88: Repeated delusion that electrostatic transport of dust has anything to do with his debunked delusions about comets
- 8 November 2016 Sol88: Still an unthinking cult follower of the Thunderbolts delusion of an electric comet.
- 8 November 2016 Sol88: Lies about a paper being related to jets.
- 8 November 2016 Sol88: An irrelevant half-lie about lightning and mainstream science.
- 8 November 2016 Sol88: Lies about us having to reconcile a "dust covered ice" surface and a porous "dust/ice" interior.
- 10 November 2016 Sol88: A "ROCK" lie and a lie abut porosity measurements.
- 10 November 2016 Sol88: Repeated inability to understand the words "surface" and "interior"
! - 10 November 2016 Sol88: The delusion that the rock (as in asteroids) he thinks comets are is "70%-80% Vacuum"
!
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.
More than a year and counting of fear of doing basic 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.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Sol88: A typical ignorant delusion - that double layesr do magic
If double layers (which is not the probable case) in the coma of 67P could cause the "singing", it is not evidence for your delusion that comets are rocks :! That would be mainstream cometary science.
11 November 2016 Sol88: A typical ignorant and irrelevant delusion - that double layers do magic.
If double layers (which is not the probable case) in the coma of 67P could cause the "singing", it is not evidence for your delusion that comets are rocks :
! That would be mainstream cometary science.Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Sol88: The "a surprise and so my delusion is correct" delusion
An metallic asteroid that is not a comet happens to have water on its surface.
11 November 2016 Sol88: The "a surprise and so my delusion is correct" delusion!
An metallic asteroid that is not a comet happens to have water on its surface.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Sol88: A comment about comet 67P in an article about comet 67P
Water ice found on the surface of comet 67P
Only one person making up stories in this thread. How does it feel to have been conned for at least 7 years, Sol88?
11 November 2016 Sol88: A comment about comet 67P in an article about comet 67P, not metallic asteroids.
Water ice found on the surface of comet 67P
In the comments jonesdave points out how deluded this makes the Thunderbolts (Wal, etc) cult for the last 24 years!
Only one person making up stories in this thread. How does it feel to have been conned for at least 7 years, Sol88?
jonesdave116
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 6,222
In response to some of the comments above, I'll note the following;
the comet shows no rock-like properties when compared to asteroids (i.e. rocks) that were also scanned by MIRO:
MILLIMETER AND SUBMILLIMETER OBSERVATIONS OF ASTEROIDS FROM THE ROSETTA SPACECRAFT
Hofstadter, M., et al, 2012
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012DPS....4410201H
Millimeter and submillimeter measurements of asteroid (2867) Steins during the Rosetta fly-by.
Gulkis, S., et al, 2010
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0032063310000553 (paywalled)
It should also be noted that despite finding ice beneath the surface of 67P, MIRO failed to find it at either asteroid. It should be further noted that the mass and density of Lutetia was measured by Rosetta, and was found to be what one would expect for an asteroid (i.e. a rock):
Asteroid 21 Lutetia: Low Mass, High Density.
Pätzold, M., et al, 2011
http://scripts.mit.edu/~paleomag/articles/Paetzold_2011_Science.pdf (conference poster)
As regards the obviously low density of comets, and the hard layer encountered by MUPUS;
And;
From: Sublimation of ice–tholins mixtures: A morphological and spectrophotometric study.
Poch, O., et al, 2016
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103515005163 (paywalled)
See also: Sublimation of water ice mixed with silicates and tholins: Evolution of surface texture and reflectance spectra, with implications for comets.
Poch, O., et al, 2016
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103515005709 (paywalled)
Then we would also have to ask (again) why did the impact into Tempel 1 make such a large crater? And why did it eject a lot of solid ice? Strange thing to happen if you are impacting rock. And why is the density of comets so low? I recall some EU nonsense about repulsion due to the charge on the comet affecting the measurements! Strange how the Rosetta team were so successful in orbiting the comet in bound orbits, when the charge on the spacecraft was regularly changing. Surely the repulsion would therefore also vary, and Rosetta would have been all over the place!
As for the asteroid Psyche, it is nothing like a comet! It has a density between ~3.3 - ~6.7 g/cm^3. 67P is ~0.5 g/cm^3! It likely got the water/OH from collisions with smaller objects, as the article Sol quoted went on to say. He seems to have missed that bit out.
So, I'll say what JT said further up the thread - pretty much everything predicted by David Talbott was wrong. This is hardly surprising, coming from someone who co-authored a poster to a 2006 IEEE conference (allegedly), in which it was claimed that the water found at comets was OH, and that it was misinterpreted by scientists as being H2O! This despite more than 20 unambiguous detections between 1986 & 2006. Around a dozen of those came from the ODIN satellite, summarised in this paper:
Submillimetre observations of comets with Odin: 2001–2005
Biver, N., et al, 2007
https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0610779.pdf
The results for most, or all of those comets, were in the public domain by the time T & T wrote their mythology inspired fiction. There were others, notably from Halley and Tempel 1, as well as some detected by the NIRSPEC instrument at the Keck telescope.
Then, of course, there is their mechanism for creating the water. Via the solar wind. Shown many times to be impossible. First of all, the solar wind ions are travelling too quickly to combine with anything in the coma. And if they manage to reach the surface, there are many orders of magnitude too few of them to somehow create even 1 litre of H2O per second. And, of course, we had about 7 or 8 months where the solar wind was getting nowhere near the comet.
And regarding the porosity, we are not talking about dirty great voids in the comet! It is rather the porosity of the dust itself, as well as the material not being highly compacted. Some of the latest work on the CONSERT data is here:
A porosity gradient in 67P/C-G nucleus suggested from CONSERT and SESAME-PP results: an interpretation based on new laboratory permittivity measurements of porous icy analogues.
Brouet, Y., et al, 2016
http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/462/Suppl_1/S89.full.pdf+html
In the last paragraph of that paper, the authors note that;
All in all, I'm surprised any EU supporter would want to resurrect this thread, given that their comet model has been a total and utter failure. All predictions wrong, and not a single piece of evidence in favour of any of it, after over two years of in-situ observations. One would be hard pressed to imagine how it could have possibly gone more badly for them!
If anybody wants any of the paywalled papers above, send me a pm.
the comet shows no rock-like properties when compared to asteroids (i.e. rocks) that were also scanned by MIRO:
MILLIMETER AND SUBMILLIMETER OBSERVATIONS OF ASTEROIDS FROM THE ROSETTA SPACECRAFT
Hofstadter, M., et al, 2012
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012DPS....4410201H
Millimeter and submillimeter measurements of asteroid (2867) Steins during the Rosetta fly-by.
Gulkis, S., et al, 2010
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0032063310000553 (paywalled)
It should also be noted that despite finding ice beneath the surface of 67P, MIRO failed to find it at either asteroid. It should be further noted that the mass and density of Lutetia was measured by Rosetta, and was found to be what one would expect for an asteroid (i.e. a rock):
Asteroid 21 Lutetia: Low Mass, High Density.
Pätzold, M., et al, 2011
http://scripts.mit.edu/~paleomag/articles/Paetzold_2011_Science.pdf (conference poster)
As regards the obviously low density of comets, and the hard layer encountered by MUPUS;
And;
From: Sublimation of ice–tholins mixtures: A morphological and spectrophotometric study.
Poch, O., et al, 2016
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103515005163 (paywalled)
See also: Sublimation of water ice mixed with silicates and tholins: Evolution of surface texture and reflectance spectra, with implications for comets.
Poch, O., et al, 2016
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103515005709 (paywalled)
Then we would also have to ask (again) why did the impact into Tempel 1 make such a large crater? And why did it eject a lot of solid ice? Strange thing to happen if you are impacting rock. And why is the density of comets so low? I recall some EU nonsense about repulsion due to the charge on the comet affecting the measurements! Strange how the Rosetta team were so successful in orbiting the comet in bound orbits, when the charge on the spacecraft was regularly changing. Surely the repulsion would therefore also vary, and Rosetta would have been all over the place!
As for the asteroid Psyche, it is nothing like a comet! It has a density between ~3.3 - ~6.7 g/cm^3. 67P is ~0.5 g/cm^3! It likely got the water/OH from collisions with smaller objects, as the article Sol quoted went on to say. He seems to have missed that bit out.
So, I'll say what JT said further up the thread - pretty much everything predicted by David Talbott was wrong. This is hardly surprising, coming from someone who co-authored a poster to a 2006 IEEE conference (allegedly), in which it was claimed that the water found at comets was OH, and that it was misinterpreted by scientists as being H2O! This despite more than 20 unambiguous detections between 1986 & 2006. Around a dozen of those came from the ODIN satellite, summarised in this paper:
Submillimetre observations of comets with Odin: 2001–2005
Biver, N., et al, 2007
https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0610779.pdf
The results for most, or all of those comets, were in the public domain by the time T & T wrote their mythology inspired fiction. There were others, notably from Halley and Tempel 1, as well as some detected by the NIRSPEC instrument at the Keck telescope.
Then, of course, there is their mechanism for creating the water. Via the solar wind. Shown many times to be impossible. First of all, the solar wind ions are travelling too quickly to combine with anything in the coma. And if they manage to reach the surface, there are many orders of magnitude too few of them to somehow create even 1 litre of H2O per second. And, of course, we had about 7 or 8 months where the solar wind was getting nowhere near the comet.
And regarding the porosity, we are not talking about dirty great voids in the comet! It is rather the porosity of the dust itself, as well as the material not being highly compacted. Some of the latest work on the CONSERT data is here:
A porosity gradient in 67P/C-G nucleus suggested from CONSERT and SESAME-PP results: an interpretation based on new laboratory permittivity measurements of porous icy analogues.
Brouet, Y., et al, 2016
http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/462/Suppl_1/S89.full.pdf+html
In the last paragraph of that paper, the authors note that;
.
All in all, I'm surprised any EU supporter would want to resurrect this thread, given that their comet model has been a total and utter failure. All predictions wrong, and not a single piece of evidence in favour of any of it, after over two years of in-situ observations. One would be hard pressed to imagine how it could have possibly gone more badly for them!
If anybody wants any of the paywalled papers above, send me a pm.
Last edited:
jonesdave116
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 6,222
Well, there is this lot to be getting on with:
A MODEL OF SHORT-LIVED OUTBURST IN THE ANUKET REGION OF COMET 67P/CHURYUMOV-GERASIMENKO.
Skorov, Y.V., et al, 2016
http://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2016/pdf/1901.pdf
Note in that poster that there is no mention of any detection of electrical activity. There was, however, an increase in detected supervolatiles.
Morphology and dynamics of the jets of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko: Early-phase development.
Lin, Z-.Y., et al, 2015.
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2015/11/aa25961-15.pdf (free access)
The jets were not accompanied by any unusual electrical activity, as would be expected from Talbott's "electric discharge as the essential contributor to the comet's increasing activity." As noted in the paper:
Not very bright then, and certainly not what one would expect from an electrical discharge.
A mini outburst from the nightside of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko observed by the OSIRIS camera on Rosetta
Knollenberg, J., et al, 2016
https://hal-insu.archives-ouvertes.fr/insu-01371309/ (abstract only; I have the full paper)
Again, just dust and gas, no electric woo.
Sunset jets observed on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko sustained by subsurface thermal lag
Shi, X., et al, 2015.
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2016/02/aa27123-15/aa27123-15.html (paywalled)
No surprise that nothing resembling an electrical discharge was detected here. And they also note that:
That is, it isn't visible until it emerges into sunlight. As one would expect from dust, but not from an electric discharge. Rather damning, that bit.
Summer fireworks on comet 67P
Vincent, J.-B., et al, 2016
http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/09/21/mnras.stw2409.full.pdf+html (free access)
Again, sadly, no electric gubbins being detected here. Just:
As well as:
Given that the nucleus is as dark as coal, this means that the jets are not very bright either. Not sounding like Dave's electrical discharges to me. Sounding more like pareidolia.
The mechanism for many of the outbursts reported in the above paper, was discussed by the same author in this paper:
Are fractured cliffs the source of cometary dust jets? Insights from OSIRIS/Rosetta at 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Vincent, J.-B., et al, 2016
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.03193.pdf
And then we have:
Sublimation of icy aggregates in the coma of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko detected with the OSIRIS cameras on board Rosetta
Gicquel, A., et al
http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/462/Suppl_1/S57.full.pdf+html (free access)
Which, again, does nothing for the water-free, electrical woo of Messrs Thornhill & Talbott.
Again, if anybody wants any of the paywalled papers, pm me.
Last edited:
jonesdave116
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 6,222
I suspect that the analysis will take the usual route - ignore the evidence, and just make stuff up.
jonesdave116
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 6,222
RPC Langmuir Probe (RPCLAP) (the good stuff), Data from 2010????
There is a paper published this month which uses RPC-LAP data:
Observations of high-plasma density region in the inner coma of 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko during early activity
Lei Yang, et al.
http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/462/Suppl_1/S33.full.pdf+html
Sol88
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2009
- Messages
- 8,437
So I guess just not that important then?
Strange 'cos is seems it's doing "stuff"
How strong is this electric field?
Sol88
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2009
- Messages
- 8,437
- Status