Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dancing David said:
And their electric discharges
:D
Click to expand...

Damn!!! :mad:

Can't happen I tell ya's

Electric sparks may alter evolution of lunar soil

Powerful solar storms can charge up the soil in frigid, permanently shadowed regions near the lunar poles, and may possibly produce "sparks" that could vaporize and melt the soil, perhaps as much as meteoroid impacts, according to NASA-funded research. This alteration may become evident when analyzing future samples from these regions that could hold the key to understanding the history of the moon and solar system.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2017-01-nasa-solar-storms-soils-moon.html#jCp
Click to expand...


CME impact on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

any correlation I'd often wondered :)

What say ye DD, JD116 or most importantly Tusenfem because he was a co author on the CME impact paper.

Any relationship?
 
Sol88 said:
CME impact on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

any correlation I'd often wondered :)

What say ye DD, JD116 or most importantly Tusenfem because he was a co author on the CME impact paper.

Any relationship?
Click to expand...

Err, no. That would involve the solar wind actually reaching the comet nucleus for it to even have a chance of doing anything. It will do at large heliocentric distances, but the CME you are quoting only affected the coma and plasma environment.
An interesting **mainstream** hypothesis. Just because it uses the word 'electric' does not suddenly make it non-mainstream. Believe it or not, electricity in space has been studied for a long time. Far longer than Wal and his coterie have been around. Unless they predicted such a possibility, and I missed it?
Last I saw, they were predicting a highly negatively charged, rocky nucleus (something to do with a non-existent electric Sun, and its equally non-existent varying radial electric field), which then causes electric discharges and EDM. Or some such woo.

Anyways, I believe this proposed effect requires an area to be in shadow for a long time. That is not the case at comets or asteroids, for the most part.
 
jonesdave116 said:
Wrong. The sunlit side will be largely POSITIVE! The shadowed side will be negative.



Wrong. What discharges? I'm sure Tusenfem and the rest of the RPC cabal might have mentioned that! And then you have to explain what is going on between ~April and ~January, when the SW isn't even getting near the spacecraft, let alone the nucleus. And, as mentioned seemingly interminably, these 'discharges' are at best the same 'brightness' as the nucleus. That is, reflecting about 6% of the incident sunlight. What kind of discharges do that?



For which there is zero evidence, nor even a viable mechanism. What is supplying the EMF for these galaxy spanning currents? God? Off topic, anyway.

And as for Thornhill's nonsense in the link, it is just that; nonsense. Evidence-free nonsense, at that. Interlaced with obfuscation, lies and misunderstandings. As pointed out many times.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
tusenfem said:
I am good with the real mainstream model.
If there are double layers then they will be small, because of all the turbulence and a potential drop of about 15 V (i.e. for plasma with 20000 K temperature).
And there are no electric discharges that you and your TB friends want to have.

Now, what are you going to present? Marina Galand et al.'s paper?
Click to expand...


:D
 
Observational support for dust grain emission by electrostatic forces

Abstract
Dust collected close to the comet 67P by the COSIMA instrument, indicates that fluffy grains up to sizes of several 100 um are lifted off the comet surface and transported to the instrument substrate several tens of kilometers away. The temperature of the surface and the detected gas densities are too low to properly explain lifting grains from the cometary surface. We investigate grain dynamics using electrostatic forces. Comet surface lighting conditions create small scale multi pole electric fields by photons. These fields create forces on both charged and neutral dust grains and may serve as "active regions". The forces acting on the grain, scale as D3 with grain size and therefore large grains are proportionally simpler to elevate, provided the mass is not increasing at the same rate. The fluffy structure of the grains seem to fulfill this requirement. The limiting factor of this mechanism is set by the tensile strength of the grains. If the electrostatic force created exceeds the tensile strength, the grain will disintegrate through Coulomb explosion. The mechanism would favor lifting large fluffy grains off the surface because they have a capability of most easily creating mobile charges which interact in a favorable manner with the multi pole fields. Because of the conglomerate nature of the grains, a splitting of a grain may trigger a Coulomb explosion setting free the bulk dust distribution of small grains detected. The measured elongated impacts also suggest that disintegration is taking place close to the spacecraft. This would also be supported by the proposed model as the space craft charging represents a small scale field anomaly where grain splitting could become enhanced. The observed grains seem to fulfill all requirements of this tentative model.
Click to expand...

and and

Explosive solar activity, like flares and coronal mass ejections, blasts highly energetic, electrically charged particles into space. Earth's atmosphere shields us from most of this radiation, but on the moon, these particles—ions and electrons—slam directly into the surface. They accumulate in two layers beneath the surface; the bulky ions can't penetrate deeply because they are more likely to hit atoms in the regolith, so they form a layer closer to the surface while the tiny electrons slip through and form a deeper layer. The ions have positive charge while the electrons carry negative charge. Since opposite charges attract, normally these charges flow towards each other and balance out.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2017-01-nasa-solar-storms-soils-moon.html#jCp
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Clues to cometary circular polarization from studying the magnetic field in the vicinity of the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko

Abstract

Circular polarization in cometary continuum bands has been observed for more than 30 years. Recently, imaging data on circular polarization have been obtained for more than 10 comets using the 6-m Big Telescope Alt-azimuthal (BTA) telescope (Russia). However, despite the accumulation of significant amounts of data, the mechanisms that form circular polarization in the cometary environment are still a mystery. Regular mechanisms, such as multiple scattering in an optically thick medium or the domination of particles or materials of a specific mirror asymmetry (including homochirality), could not explain the observations. Particle alignment was considered the most feasible mechanism; however, the cause of the particle alignment was not clear. The most reasonable mechanism, alignment in a magnetic field, was considered doubtful, as comets do not have their own magnetic field and, according to the in situ results for comet Halley, the solar magnetic field could not penetrate deeply into the coma. However, new theoretical studies of cometary coma interaction with the solar magnetic field and, especially, Rosetta observations of the diamagnetic cavity of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko showed that the solar wind magnetic field can penetrate as close to the nucleus as several dozen kilometres. This allows us to suggest alignment in the solar magnetic field as a reason for the observed circular polarization. Based on the data obtained for comet 67P, we estimate the time necessary for the alignment of cometary particles in the solar magnetic field. The estimates obtained are consistent with the observations of cometary circular polarization.
Click to expand...

Interesting Tusenfem?
 
oh nuff'n

just think'n maybe the mainstream may not have all the answers!!


but hey!!!!

were working on it!

good on ya mainstream!
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
oh nuff'n

just think'n maybe the mainstream may not have all the answers!!


but hey!!!!

were working on it!

good on ya mainstream!
Click to expand...

then why are you quoting mainstream papers?
looks to me they have (all) the answers, you just don't understand them.
you want to make things the same that are not the same.

I don't know who "were" working on it, but I guess we will see what came out of it.
 
Sol88 said:
Observational support for dust grain emission by electrostatic forces



and and
Click to expand...


.......and not related. Dust levitation has been around as a hypothesis for far longer than Wal and his motley crew. The second piece you quote (via phys.org) is from the paper I already addressed. It is for airless bodies, with areas that are permanently shadowed (or at least shadowed for a long time), as the mechanism requires low temperatures, and some time (weeks?) for the charge to become sufficient. This will not happen at a comet. It spins on its axis (every 12 hrs at 67P).
As for mainstream not having all the answers - who said they did? EU certainly hasn't got any.
You will find that the second paper you referenced builds on an earlier proposal made in 1989, about its possible effects at Io:

Surface Discharges on Natural Dielectrics in the Solar System
Campins, H. & Krider, P. E. (1989)
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/245/4918/622
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989BAAS...21..985C

The rate of dielectric breakdown weathering of lunar regolith in permanently shadowed regions
Jordan, A. P, et al. (2017)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103516305358

So, if Wal and the gang want to claim this as some sort of win, then they need to show that not only have they predicted it, but that they predicted it prior to any 'mainstream' scientist (i.e. 1989).
 
Sol88: A lie of "lack of sensible mechanism" for comet jets

Sol88 said:
Great! we should get back to the "jets". Talk about lack of sensible mechanism :blush:
Click to expand...
No - we will talk about about the subject of this thread which is the electric comet delusion that comets were blasted from the Earth by electrical discharges between it and Venus in recent times and so have to be rocks :jaw-dropp!

The scientifically valid and sensible mechanism for jets (sublimating ices) has been pointed out to you many times.
11 January 2017 Sol88: A lie of "lack of sensible mechanism" for comet jets.
 
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