Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Last edited:
Sol88: Lies about the observed fluffy dust being expected on the surface

Sol88 said:
It was expected to be soft and fluffy!!!
Click to expand...
20 January 2017 Sol88: Lies about the observed fluffy dust being expected on the surface.
The fluffy dust particles were observed in the coma by dust collectors on Rosetta.
The surface of 67P was expected to be "soft and fluffy" ices and dust but the SESAME instrument did not find this. That is no fluffy dust observed on the surface.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Sol88: Sticks with ignorant fantasies as support for his comets are rocks delusion

Sol88 said:
Well your coma would be optically thick at perihelion but sunlight can still power and sustain the jets! even on the night side!
Click to expand...
20 January 2017 Sol88: Sticks with ignorant fantasies as support for his comets are rocks delusion.

67P spins. The night side is not a side that can never see the Sun. Ditto for the dayside - it can spin into the dark. So according to your fantasy there could be no jets at perihelion :eek:!
Can/could because I am not sure of the orientation of 67P wrt the Sun and there is no use looking this up for a person who will remain deluded whatever science we cite.

We have images of 67P with a sunlit side at perihelion from a mission that you may know about - Rosetta :p! tusenfem might want to give a number for the coma's optical thickness but it does not look enough to stop the Sun from keeping the nucleus relatively hot.
 
Sol88: Maybe a lie or delusion about "JD116's electromagnetic induction"

Sol88 said:
I'm still going with JD116's electromagnetic induction!
Click to expand...
20 January 2017 Sol88: Maybe a lie or delusion about "JD116's electromagnetic induction"?

You asked electromagnetic induction?/So what's the conductor?and the reply was
jonesdave116 said:
This paper describes what happens re the diamagnetic cavity and electric currents (which is also referenced in Tusenfem's paper):

Fine structure of the diamagnetic cavity boundary in comet Halley
Israelevich, P. L. et al
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002JA009622/full
Click to expand...
The delusion would be that this has anything to do with comet jets.
 
Here we go:

MIRO observations of subsurface temperatures of the nucleus of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Scloerb, F. P. et al (2015)
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2015/11/aa26152-15/aa26152-15.html

It's all a bit technical, describing the instruments and the model, etc. However, the main point I was trying to make is covered by:

Moreover, we note that the temperatures seen by MIRO are consistent with the values required to explain the water gas production seen at this time from the active parts of the nucleus, as elaborated in the supplementary materials of Gulkis et al. (2015).
Click to expand...

These measurements were made in September 2014, almost a year prior to perihelion, between 3.45 and 3.27 AU. Given that the temperature at perihelion will be over 100 K warmer than those measured here, I really see no problems.
 
Reality Check said:
20 January 2017 Sol88: Maybe a lie or delusion about "JD116's electromagnetic induction"?

You asked electromagnetic induction?/So what's the conductor?and the reply was

The delusion would be that this has anything to do with comet jets.
Click to expand...

Oh I think he's getting confused because I said something (currents? flux ropes?) were 'induced' phenomena. In other words, they are induced by a CME or some such. They are not intrinsic to the comet, or connected to the Sun. Just as its magnetosphere is induced and not intrinsic.
 
Sol88 said:
It was expected to be soft and fluffy!!!

You were wrong AGAIN! ;)

If you put as much time into understanding the contradictions of the mainstream EXPECTED cometary features as you do compiling lists, then I'm sure your cranium would be happy to removed from your rectum!
Click to expand...

And certain people were expecting the comet to be made of rock, and for loads of discharges to be scarring the surface, and doing heaven knows what else.
How's that gone? (Hint: no rock, no discharges)
 
So along with water and carbon dioxide ice we also have acetamide, acetone, methyl isocyanate and propionaldehyde ices.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure all of those will be in the form of ice. Most of the COMs seen at comets have been detected in dense molecular clouds, protosolar nebulas etc. From what I remember, they can form on the surfaces of dust grains. That's probably why Philae measured them, after kicking up a bunch of dust after one of its bounces.
 
Sol88 said:
As we all know I'm totally stupip, are you able to explain to me how the current is generated by curl B?

Not sure I understand.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should read Peratt's book, the basic plasma physics in it is quite all right.

In the MHD regime of plasma physics, currents are determined by the changes in the magnetic field, through Ampere's law.
The magnetic field is generated in the Sun through amplification, the dynamo mechanism.
It can create a flux tube (prominence), which will have (observed) currents due to the motion of the footpoints.
As soon as a flux tube is in the solar wind, the current it has is determined by the structure of the flux tube, e.g. how much it is wound-up.

And wheter is current is strong or not depends on the environment it is measured in. You could calculate the current density and compare it with other numbers, or search the web for the currents in CMEs.
 
Last edited:
tusenfem said:
It can create a flux tube (prominence), which will have (observed) currents due to the motion of the footpoints.
As soon as a flux tube is in the solar wind, the current it has is determined by the structure of the flux tube, e.g. how much it is wound-up.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, well, that's me wrong then. I figured the flux tube was something that was induced in the coma due to interaction with the mixed up magnetic fields from the CME. Hey ho, nobody should be surprised that I'm no expert on flux tubes - whatever they are!

On a different note, Sol was asking about these complex organic molecules (COMs) at comets, and whether they were ice or not.
It seems that they can form on icy dust grains within dense molecular clouds and protosolar nebulae. I'm assuming, from what I've read, that they are then incorporated within other ices, such as H2O, and released when that sublimates. Therefore, I'm also assuming that what Philae kicked up when it bounced, included icy grains.

Some interesting papers on COMs at comets:

Complex organic molecules in comets C/2012 F6 (Lemmon) and C/2013 R1 (Lovejoy): detection of ethylene glycol and formamide
Biver, N. et al (2014)
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2014/06/aa23890-14/aa23890-14.html

Ethyl alcohol and sugar in comet C/2014 Q2 (Lovejoy)
Biver, N. et al (2015)
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/9/e1500863.full

The origin of complex organic ions in the coma of Comet Halley
Mitchell, D. L. et al (1992)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/001910359290213Q (paywalled)

Interestingly, the last paragraph of the abstract of that last paper, spells out that they can see no way of these COMs forming at the comet itself. Therefore it is strong evidence (among other lines) that show that comets are indeed primordial.
 
jonesdave116 said:
Ahhh, well, that's me wrong then. I figured the flux tube was something that was induced in the coma due to interaction with the mixed up magnetic fields from the CME. Hey ho, nobody should be surprised that I'm no expert on flux tubes - whatever they are!
Click to expand...

Oh, I was talking about CMEs actually here.
It is quite possible that the interaction of the CME with the induced magnetosphere around 67P generates flux tubes through reconnection.
I am not sure exactly what Niklas said, how the trains of flux tubes were created, and I don't have the paper at hand right now. I will take a look.
 
tusenfem said:
Maybe you should read Peratt's book, the basic plasma physics in it is quite all right.

In the MHD regime of plasma physics, currents are determined by the changes in the magnetic field, through Ampere's law.
The magnetic field is generated in the Sun through amplification, the dynamo mechanism.
It can create a flux tube (prominence), which will have (observed) currents due to the motion of the footpoints.
As soon as a flux tube is in the solar wind, the current it has is determined by the structure of the flux tube, e.g. how much it is wound-up.

And wheter is current is strong or not depends on the environment it is measured in. You could calculate the current density and compare it with other numbers, or search the web for the currents in CMEs.
Click to expand...

Right, right I think we maybe getting somewhere are you able to explain The magnetic field is generated in the Sun through amplification, the dynamo mechanism. and how that as soon as a flux tube is in the solar wind, the current it has is determined by the structure of the flux tube, e.g. how much it is wound-up.

Having trouble understanding if that's dutch or double dutch typed with an English dictionary on an ipad! :boggled:

So the electric current generating the magnetic flux rope is generated by the Sun? You've got me stumped on the whole, the magnetic field is generated in the Sun through amplification, part! :eye-poppi
 
tusenfem said:
Oh, I was talking about CMEs actually here.
It is quite possible that the interaction of the CME with the induced magnetosphere around 67P generates flux tubes through reconnection.
I am not sure exactly what Niklas said, how the trains of flux tubes were created, and I don't have the paper at hand right now. I will take a look.
Click to expand...

Okay, back at the office, and I took a look.
Niklas (and I guess I also) say that the creation of the flux tubes observed in the induced magnetosphere of 67P are probably generated by:

Edberg et al. said:
We suggest that these could possibly be formed by magnetic reconnection processes in the coma as the magnetic field across the CME changes polarity, or as a consequence of strong shears causing Kelvin–Helmholtz instabilities in the plasma flow.
Click to expand...
 
Sol88 said:
Right, right I think we maybe getting somewhere are you able to explain The magnetic field is generated in the Sun through amplification, the dynamo mechanism. and how that as soon as a flux tube is in the solar wind, the current it has is determined by the structure of the flux tube, e.g. how much it is wound-up.

Having trouble understanding if that's dutch or double dutch typed with an English dictionary on an ipad! :boggled:

So the electric current generating the magnetic flux rope is generated by the Sun? You've got me stumped on the whole, the magnetic field is generated in the Sun through amplification, part! :eye-poppi
Click to expand...

Actually it's chocolate fudge.
 
Ah...right of course, the only other variable needed for magnetic reconnection to occur, chocolate hot fudge. :D
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Nope, just refrigerator magnets (the flat business card type).
Click to expand...

Yes, well, they are kind of running out of arguments here. At first it was, "H2O doesn't exist at comets." Until it was pointed out to the eejits that it most certainly did. Then it was "ice doesn't exist", until it was pointed out to them that it most certainly did. And then they kind of ran out of arguments. And this was well before Rosetta reached 67P. Sad, really. Hey ho. People are entitled to believe whatever they like. Just don't equate it with science, eh?
 
Last edited:
jonesdave116 said:
Yes, well, they are kind of running out of arguments here. At first it was, "H2O doesn't exist at comets." Until it was pointed out to the eejits that it most certainly did. Then it was "ice doesn't exist", until it was pointed out to them that it most certainly did. And then they kind of ran out of arguments. And this was well before Rosetta reached 67P. Sad, really. Hey ho. People are entitled to believe whatever they like. Just don't equate it with science, eh?
Click to expand...

Yep, no magnetic reconnection has been a staple of EU proponents as long as I've been aware of them. Quite telling that proponents of Electro-magnetic dominance in the universe can be so astonishingly, demonstrably and stubbornly wrong about a fundamental aspect of magnetism that you can demonstrate to yourself with just some simple object you probably already have. Just a historically fundamental experiment in magnetism, a bar magnet and compass, demonstrates magnetic reconection as the compass primarily connected to the Earths field is not homeomophic to the compass primarily connected to the bar magnet field. That lack of homeomorphism just wasn't well understood in the early days of electromagnetic experimentation. If your whole shtick is electro-magnetism and you can't even get a fundamental aspect of that right you get nothing but fail.
 
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