Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
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
Click to expand...

RC should read up on that one!

Type II jets, also called filaments display a much more collimated struc- ture and have been traced back to specific regions of cometary nuclei. For instance on 81P / Wild 2 they could be associated to the walls of large, vertical sided pits (Brownlee et al. 2004; Sekanina et al. 2004). On 9P / Tempel 1, such jets were also linked to a ragged area bordering a large smooth terrain, and in partic- ular to a the scarped edge of this terrain (Farnham et al. 2007
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
jonesdave116 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Good stuff JD116!

Something we can get our teeth into!!!

I'll print the papers, give 'em a read and then we can get stuck into it! ;)
 
tusenfem said:
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.
Click to expand...


Cheers Tusenfem


modified Weibel instability, interesting.

The Weibel instability is a plasma instability present in homogeneous or nearly homogeneous electromagnetic plasmas which possess an anisotropy in momentum (velocity) space.
Click to expand...

Ohhhh...it's just one of those plasma instabilities like those pesky bloody Bennett pinch instability (also called the z-pinch instability )

Ummm....what are we talking about again? Electric discharge or some such....
 
@ Tusenfem

Vowerk Martin
Field line draping and current sheets in comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko's coma
Click to expand...

Very interested to read any material you maybe able to share.

And

Good luck, Martin! :)
 
Sorry no link as it's being discussed at the COMETS2016 abstracts by alphabetical order, click here.

Modelling of the Plasma Environment Surrounding 67p: What Is the
Effect of the Convective Electric Field on Ion Density Profiles?
Arnaud Beth (1), Marina Galand (1) , Steven Schwartz (1)
(1) Imperial College London
Department of Physics, Prince Consort Road, SW7 2AZ, London, United Kingdom
EMail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT
By following comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko along its orbit, Rosetta during its cruise is
offering us the unique opportunity to understand the complex evolution of the comet with its
environment. Although the coma is not bounded at the surface, its photo-ionisation by solar extreme
ultraviolet radiation is creating a complex plasma environment, which is interacting with and
influenced by the solar wind.
In particular, electrons and water ions, such as H2O+, are produced from the photo-ionisation of
sublimated water molecules. As the newborn electrons are more energetic than ions, they escape
faster and an ambipolar should be set up to ensure the quasi-neutrality between ions and electrons.
Furthermore, since the comet bathes inside the solar wind, these new ions are affected by the Lorentz
force: it includes the effect of the convective electric field which can be described by the ideal Ohm’s
law of the solar wind. This force may affect strongly the dynamic of new ions and electrons and thus
their density profiles around the comet.
We present our first results on the ionospheric density profiles for ions with a kinetic and
collisionless approach.
Click to expand...

from the Wiki link above
[1]The impact of the solar wind onto the magnetosphere generates an electric field within the inner magnetosphere (r < 10 a; with a the Earth's radius) - the convection field-. Its general direction is from dawn to dusk. The co-rotating thermal plasma within the inner magnetosphere drifts orthogonal to that field and to the geomagnetic field Bo. The generation process is not yet completely understood.[2] One possibility is viscous interaction between solar wind and the boundary layer of the magnetosphere (magnetopause). Another process may be magnetic reconnection. Finally, a hydromagnetic dynamo process in the polar regions of the inner magnetosphere may be possible. Direct measurements via satellites have given a fairly good picture of the structure of that field.[3][4][5] A number of models of that field exists.[6][7][8][9]

A widely used model is the Volland-Stern model [10][11] [12]
Click to expand...

So it DOES seem electric fields are very important VERY IMPORTANT!!

because

Origin of Convection Field The origin of the electric convection field results from the interaction between the solar wind plasma and the geomagnetic field. In the polar regions with open magnetic field lines (where the geomagnetic field merges with the interplanetary magnetic field), the solar wind flowing through the polar magnetosphere induces an electric field directed from dawn to dusk. Charge separation takes place at the magnetopause. This area is connected via the last closed shell parameter Lm with the ionospheric dynamo region. Thus, discharging currents flow via electric field-aligned currents (Birkeland currents) along Lm within the ionospheric dynamo region.[16] The field-aligned currents flow into the ionosphere on the morning side and out of the ionosphere on the evening side. The variability of the solar wind flux determines the magnetospheric activity, generally expressed by the degree of geomagnetic activity observed on the ground.
Click to expand...

How does that tie in with the work you are doing Tusenfem?

mainly on current sheets.
 
@Tusenfem


Geez, you've got the good stuff!

Plasma Density Variations and Waves in the Inner Coma of Comet 67P

ABSTRACT
The plasma in the inner coma of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, sampled by the instruments of the Rosetta Plasma Consortium (RPC) for two years, has proven to be very dynamic. Stable conditions are rare, with density fluctuations often reaching tens of per cent over short time periods.
Spectral analysis of data from the Langmuir probe instrument RPC-LAP typically shows turbulent spectra rather than linear waves, sometimes with enhancements around resonance frequencies like the lower hybrid frequency. Some fluctuations appear as short pulses of higher density plasma while others have more wavelike appearance. We study the density fluctuations themselves with LAP, using other RPC sensors mainly for context, and discuss the characteristics and origin of the variations.
Click to expand...

Can we hear any more on this subject as well?
 
Unexpected and Significant Findings in 67P: the latest news

What's would be unexpected with a gently sublimating dustysnowball???

it's all there, no?
 
Thank you Jonedave116, I'd owe you one if I'd have something in return, which unfortunately is just an inquiring mind.

Unexpected and significant findings in comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view
Click to expand...

WoW!!! :jaw-dropp

Are you prepared to have a crack at any of those, JD116?

Jean-Pierre Bibring proposition that comets are not
dirty ice balls (Whipple 1950)
Click to expand...
but more like
much of the nucleus mass is in the form of mineral aggregates
(silicates and sulfides), so that a better definition may be ‘mineral
organic(e)s’.
Click to expand...

Whoops!!!

He nearly said they were rock, albeit fluffy rock, but NOT much of the mass is h2O,CO2,CO ices as was EXPECTED... which segway's nicely into A HIGH DUST-TO-WATER RATIO, ACTIVE AREAS HARD TO FIND, 5 NO DISTRIBUTED WATER SOURCES, 7 THERMO-PHYSICAL MODELS FAIL, 10 67P PLASMA to name just a couple that we all have been banging on about for 7 odd years now.

But NONE are are problem if as the ELECTRIC COMET postulates, they are ROCKS discharging in the radial electric field of the ELECTRIC SUN....but hey feel free to fish for some grant funding and sit around scratching your nuts wondering how you are going to reconcile
dirty ice balls (Whipple 1950)
Click to expand...
with the data now at hand.

Love to be able to attend one of this cometary get together's!!!

but alas, it's not to be.
 
Last edited:
But NONE are are problem if as the ELECTRIC COMET postulates, they are ROCKS discharging in the radial electric field of the ELECTRIC SUN....but hey feel free to fish for some grant funding and sit around scratching your nuts wondering how you are going to reconcile
Click to expand...

I refer you back to the majority of the post here, from just a few days ago:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11585429&postcount=2674
It took nowhere near two years for the same spacecraft instruments to quickly determine that Steins and Lutetia were asteroids (i.e. rocks). Those same instruments, over two years, have found zero evidence that 67P is at all rock-like. That is purely mythology inspired, unscientific woo, with nothing more than pareidolia to offer as 'evidence'. Unless you have some evidence from MIRO, CONSERT, density measurements etc, to say otherwise? Thought not. So that is a non-starter, as has been pointed out (and known) for years.
And where is this varying electric charge as the comet approaches the Sun? Any evidence from this mission? Or the previous six decades of spaceflight? No, didn't think so. So that is also a non-starter.
Electric discharges? Where are they? There were a shed load of instruments on that craft that would have detected them. None were detected. Nor seen. Again, purely unscientific nonsense. A couple of woo merchants, who don't understand how to interpret images (seems to be a common theme among denizens of their book sales website!), think they are bright, and therefore look like discharges! Laughable. I refer to the post after the one above:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11585630&postcount=2675
Discharges that need sunlight in order to be seen! Discharges that are as 'bright' as the nucleus shown in this image: http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/files/2014/10/albedo_comparison_4_new.jpg
From the blog post here: http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/10/17/navcams-shades-of-grey/
Perhaps you could tell us whether dust, reflecting ~ 4% of the incident sunlight, looks like a discharge to you? Or is this just more pareidolia based woo, with zero evidence to back it up? And the majority of the jets were considerably darker than that surface.
So yet again, another non-starter.

As for Whipple; in his 1950 work, when we had never gotten a close up view of a comet, he described them as "icy conglomerates" that were made up of ice, dust and rock. The media coined the term "dirty snowball". So that is an irrelevance. Despite that, both Whipple and the media were far closer to the evidence seen at numerous comets than Wallace & Gromit have been, despite them having the benefit of more recent data.
Evidence from the intervening 60 odd years has mostly borne Whipple out. T & T are still batting zero. As I may expand upon in forthcoming posts re Talbott's 'predictions' (he actually got one right! I wonder if you can spot it?).

So, as it stands, the electric comet explains precisely zero, and has no evidence whatsoever to back it up. Its proposed mechanisms are laughable. How is that a better explanation?
 
Last edited:
He nearly said they were rock, albeit fluffy rock....
Click to expand...

No, he didn't. That is just a typical obfuscation from the woo merchants of Thunderdolts. He actually said:

The Rosetta Mission confirms that 67P is an extreme mixture of volatile ices formed in very cold regions, and of minerals partly coming from the inner hot proto-solar nebula.
Click to expand...

How much of the mass ratio for JFCs was due to dust/ ice was not known. Previous experiments had to assume a particular composition, with limited data. Now they don't have to assume. That is how science works. Not by having a faith based belief in some woo or other, and then making up stories based on an inability to understand data and images.

I think you'll be hard pushed to find a definition of 'rock' that says that it is a highly porous mixture of dust (some compact, some lighter than air), organics and ice.
 
Sol88: One of many observations of jets are not electrical discharges

Sol88 said:
RC should read up on that one!
Click to expand...
Because you are still deluded about comets, Sol88?

Are fractured cliffs the source of cometary dust jets? Insights from OSIRIS/Rosetta at 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko= (PDF)
Type II jets, also called filaments display a much more collimated struc- ture and have been traced back to specific regions of cometary nuclei. For instance on 81P / Wild 2 they could be associated to the walls of large, vertical sided pits (Brownlee et al. 2004; Sekanina et al. 2004). On 9P / Tempel 1, such jets were also linked to a ragged area bordering a large smooth terrain, and in partic- ular to a the scarped edge of this terrain (Farnham et al. 2007
Click to expand...

15 November 2016 Sol88: Cites one of many observations that makes jets = electrical discharges into a delusion.
Type II jets are traced to the low points that discharges do not come from - walls of pits and cliffs :jaw-dropp
 
Sol88: A lie by quote mining Fulle, M., et al, 2016

Sol88 said:
Whoops!!!
Click to expand...
15 November 2016 Sol88: A lie by quote mining Fulle, M., et al, 2016
The conclusion starts with
The classical model of comets as dirty iceballs (Whipple1950) has focused most models of comets on ices. The more we visit comets, the dustier they appear. With 67P’s dust-to-water ratio of 6 (and possibly larger), it is now necessary to spend much more time in modelling the non-volatile matrices with a modest content of ices inside. Jean-Pierre Bibring proposes a new word naming this stuff, ‘organic(e)s’, where the modest content of ices (within brackets) well summarizes the dominant non-volatile component. Between the sizes of 0.1 and 1 mm, 99 per cent of the dust mass is in the form of compact particles, denser than the nucleus. This implies that much of the nucleus mass is in the form of mineral aggregates (silicates and sulfides), so that a better definition may be ‘mineral organic(e)s’
Click to expand...
This is comets made of ices and dust not Sol88's delusion of comets made of rock.
 
Sol88: A lie and repeat of his delusion that comets are rocks

Sol88 said:
But NONE are are problem if as the ELECTRIC COMET postulates, ...
Click to expand...
15 November 2016 Sol88: A lie and repeat of his delusion that comets are rocks.
A delusion cannot explain anything about comets.

The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 7 years of delusions from Sol88 and Haig!).
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.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 : The delusion that cometary science stopped in 1950 with Whipple

Sol88 said:
...wondering how you are going to reconcile [dirty ice balls (Whipple 1950)] with the data now at hand.
Click to expand...
15 November 2016 Sol88: The delusion that cometary science stopped in 1950 with Whipple :jaw-dropp!

The evidence in 1950 was that most comets were "dirty ice balls". It has always been standard cometary science that comets vary from a lot of ices and a little duct to a lot of dust and a little ice. This is a easily understood consequence of the fact that comets sublimate ices but not for the persistently ignorant Sol88! If they cannot restore the ices, they get dustier.
The evidence that has been gathering for the last couple decades is that comets are dustier than we knew in 1950.
 
Last edited:
The evidence that has been gathering for the last couple decades is that comets are dustier than we knew in 1950.
Click to expand...

True. I was just reading something on Google Books, that talks about Whipple's model, and the fact that Delsemme had estimated a dust/ice ratio of 0.61 - 0.76 in 1977. Fly-by missions have moved that up to 1:1 or greater. Now we have a more accurate figure. That is not to say that the ratio is applicable to every comet. Oort cloud comets could be very different. Hale-Bopp was spewing out ~ 250 000 l/s in 1997. Hartley 2 was seemingly far more 'icy' than 67P and Tempel 1, and had a large distributed source - that is, shed loads of ice in the coma.
Unsurprisingly, not all comets are the same. None of them, however, are electric.
 
Reality Check said:
15 November 2016 Sol88: A lie of "He nearly said they were rock, albeit fluffy rock".
Unexpected and significant findings in comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view (PDF) Fulle, M., et al, 2016

This paper does not contain the word "rock".
Click to expand...

Just to add Rosetta scientists unveil the source of ice and dust jets on comet 67P
One of the big surprises of the Rosetta mission has been discovering just how dark 67P is: completely unlike an "dirty snowball", which was how astronomer Fred Whipple described comets in the 1950s. Although images from missions to other comets have shown surfaces that are more likely to be mixtures of ice and rock, findings from an instrument called the Visible and Infrared Thermal Imaging Spectrometer onboard Rosetta have shown that 67P is rocky and almost completely covered in a layer of organic compounds – which was not expected. So where is all the ice?

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-09-rosetta-scientists-unveil-source-ice.html#jCp
Click to expand...

Reality Check??

A HIGH DUST-TO-WATER RATIO, ACTIVE AREAS HARD TO FIND, 5 NO DISTRIBUTED WATER SOURCES, 7 THERMO-PHYSICAL MODELS FAIL, 10 67P PLASMA
 
Last edited:
jonesdave116 said:
I refer you back to the majority of the post here, from just a few days ago:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11585429&postcount=2674
It took nowhere near two years for the same spacecraft instruments to quickly determine that Steins and Lutetia were asteroids (i.e. rocks). Those same instruments, over two years, have found zero evidence that 67P is at all rock-like. That is purely mythology inspired, unscientific woo, with nothing more than pareidolia to offer as 'evidence'. Unless you have some evidence from MIRO, CONSERT, density measurements etc, to say otherwise? Thought not. So that is a non-starter, as has been pointed out (and known) for years.

Snip

As for Whipple; in his 1950 work, when we had never gotten a close up view of a comet, he described them as "icy conglomerates" that were made up of ice, dust and rock. The media coined the term "dirty snowball". So that is an irrelevance. Despite that, both Whipple and the media were far closer to the evidence seen at numerous comets than Wallace & Gromit have been, despite them having the benefit of more recent data.
Evidence from the intervening 60 odd years has mostly borne Whipple out. T & T are still batting zero. As I may expand upon in forthcoming posts re Talbott's 'predictions' (he actually got one right! I wonder if you can spot it?).

Snip
Click to expand...

Would Visible and Infrared Thermal Imaging Spectrometer

Visible and Infrared Thermal Imaging Spectrometer onboard Rosetta have shown that 67P is rocky and almost completely covered in a layer of organic compounds – which was not expected. So where is all the ice?
Click to expand...

Does that count JD116?

As Jean-Pierre Bibring proposition that comets are
much of the nucleus mass is in the form of mineral aggregates
(silicates and sulfides), so that a better definition may be ‘mineral
organic(e)s’.
Click to expand...



[URL="http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2016/09/aa28634-16.pdf"](For instance, “consolidated materials” refers to units that appear rocky and are cohesive enough to display lineaments and fracture)- Well consolidated mineral aggregates??[/URL]??? Rock?

Reminded me of our building maintenance person installing a "vision panel" in door ways to stop people accidental opening them on someone coming from those other side, bit like doors into a restaurant's kitchen, we a called them windows but he was adamant they were "Vision Panels"??

Seems if they slip and call them "well consolidated mineral aggregates" instead of "rock" then we can keep the mainstream view of what comets were THOUGHT to be!!
 
Last edited:
:blush:So....again that leaves mainstream (Jonesdave116, Reality Check, Tusenfem, Captain Swoop et al) with the density and porosity problem!!!
Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko


Mass 1013 kg
Volume 25 km3
Density 0.4 g/cm3

maybe resort to the 'ol chestnut and call it DARK DENSITY!! :boggled:
 
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