Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Sol88 said:

Ahh, me 'ol mate Tim Thompson...

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

Is your position on the Solar electric field the same as JD116 and Tim Thompson?

Click to expand...

So, there is a fundamental & intolerable conflict between the claim that the sun has a strong electric field, and the observation that the sun has a charge neutral solar wind. Either there is a huge misunderstanding in physics, as to how electric fields affect charged particles, or the hypothesis of a solar electric field is wrong. Both can't be simultaneously true, no matter how you slice it.

But how wrong can electromagnetism be? how far off can physics be, in its treatment of the relation between electric fields & charged particles? Not far, I think because this relationship has long since found its way into precise engineering applications that are very sensitive to such a large error. The reams of spacecraft data, and our knowledge of physics & engineering simply don't make enough room for the hypothesis of a solar electric field, such as required by the EU comet model, to survive. So I take the position that there is no such electric field. Discussing its affect on comets therefore seems a great waste of time. I don't see how anyone can ignore all that physics.

Click to expand...

Reality Check said:

I am saying you wrote an implied lie and have just made it clear that it was a lie.
6 July 2017 Sol88: Makes an implied lie into an explicit lie. Michael F. A’Hearn never stated that comets are rocks as in your delusion.

You cherry-picked one quote where standard mainstream science on comets was stated. The evidence in the 1950's was that comets were mostly ices with a smaller component of dust, etc. ("rock") The latest evidence is that the dust etc. component is larger for the comets we have a close look at than was thought.

Click to expand...

although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock

Click to expand...

although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly dust, etc

Click to expand...

Reality Check said:

ADS has Rosetta's comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko sheds its dusty mantle to reveal its icy nature (December 2016) as the latest science paper with Rosetta in the abstract. There are 6 papers this year about 67P.

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

So dust, etc is now rock?

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

You are saying

Click to expand...

At the simplest level, a very basic question is whether comets are mostly ice or mostly rock/dirt/refractory material. Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the first quantitative model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high as 6 have been cited [3,4].

Click to expand...

Reality Check said:

6 July 2017 Sol88: Derails from his comet delusion with irrelevant and ignorant questions and insults!

Back in 2004 Tim Thompson pointed out a quite basic fact. There are "no charges" (an slight exaggeration) where your comet delusion says comets are charging up to produce imaginary electrical discharges. This is something a child can understand - as the solar wind travels outward it expands and its density falls. So the overall neutral solar wind has decreasing density of charges, i.e. comets in the outer solar system encounter vastly fewer charges than closer comets.

Click to expand...

There are "no charges" (an slight exaggeration) where your comet delusion says comets are charging up to produce imaginary electrical discharges.

Click to expand...

The evidence suggests that comets are highly negatively charged with respect to the Sun. As they rush toward the Sun, the voltage increases until at some point the comet nucleus begins to discharge. Electrons are stripped from a few points on the comet surface where the electric field is strongest. These “spark discharges” finely machine rocky material from the surface to form a “cathode jet” of negatively charged dust together with surface matter that has been torn apart to release ionized atoms and molecules, including oxygen. (Dec 29, 2004)

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

Bloody hell, you nearly got it!

Click to expand...

Comets are sometimes described as "dirty snowballs," but a close flyby of one by NASA's Deep Space 1 spacecraft last fall detected no frozen water on its surface.

Comet Borrelly has plenty of ice beneath its tar-black surface, but any exposed to sunlight has vaporized away, say scientists analyzing data from Deep Space 1, managed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

"The spectrum suggests that the surface is hot and dry. It is surprising that we saw no traces of water ice," said Dr. Laurence Soderblom of the U.S. Geological Survey's Flagstaff, Ariz., station, lead author of a report on the Borrelly flyby results appearing in the online edition of the journal Science.

"We know the ice is there," he said. "It's just well-hidden. Either the surface has been dried out by solar heating and maturation or perhaps the very dark soot-like material that covers Borrelly's surface masks any trace of surface ice."

Click to expand...

jonesdave116 said:

My bolding.

Giant ripples on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko sculpted by sunset thermal wind
Jia, P. et al
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.02592.pdf

Doesn't sound as if they are particularly stumped to me. In fact, the only people who are stumped, and being very quiet on the matter, are the geniuses who came up with the electric comet charade, and promised us all kinds of impossible, exciting electric woo.

Click to expand...

Other interesting observations concern electrically charged nanograins in the inner coma, indicating a possible connection between dust at the surface of the nucleus and the comet's plasma environment [53]. Aeolian ripples (figure 20) on the surface of the nucleus of 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko [54] may be another hint of a pronounced impact of the plasma environment on the nucleus morphology. The ripples observed exhibit a wavelength of about 10 m, which is comparable to the wavelength of ion acoustic waves in that environment [55]. Such ‘plasmaeolian’ structures would demonstrate the importance of a deeper understanding of the cometary plasma environment, if the conjectured relation can be confirmed.

Click to expand...

Later, or closer to perihelion, the harmonic wave activity either disappeared or was buried in an environment of very large amplitudes (up to 270 nT), more erratic and chaotic magnetic field variations

Click to expand...

Abstract

Ion acoustic waves were observed in the diamagnetic cavity of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko by the Rosetta spacecraft on 2015 August 3, when the comet was 1.25 au from the Sun. Wave spectra recorded by the Langmuir probe (RPC-LAP), peak near 200 Hz, decrease for higher frequencies and reach the noise floor at approximately 1.5 kHz. These waves were observed only when the spacecraft was in the diamagnetic cavity or at its boundary, which is identified as a sharp drop in magnetic field magnitude, measured by RPC-MAG. The plasma, on both sides of the boundary, is dominated by a cold (a few hundred K) water group ion population, one cold (kBTe ∼ 0.1 eV) and one warm (kBTe ∼ 10 eV) electron population. The observations are interpreted in terms of current-driven ion acoustic waves, generated by currents that flow through bulges on the boundary of the diamagnetic cavity.

Click to expand...

The LAP probe current pulses presented in Section 3 were
found to be due to localised plasma regions of high density
and low electron temperature. Such density variations are
not unexpected since they developed in the hybrid simulations
for 67P at 1.3 AU by Koenders et al. (2015). Figure 6
of that study, which used spherically symmetric outgassing,
shows a relatively consistently varying density in the innermost
coma, out to some 30-50 km, where the expanding
plasma breaks up into filaments or "spikes" of thickness
less than 10 km, possibly down to the simulation grid resolution
of 2.2 km.

Click to expand...

ferd burfle said:

Nonetheless "Dust = Rocks!! Eleventy!!" coming in 3,2,1...

Thanks for the continued infusions of science, jd. I'll read the cite to see how they distinguished free ions from those that came from particles.

Click to expand...

(c) What are comets made of?

At the simplest level, a very basic question is whether comets are mostly ice or mostly rock/dirt/refractory material. Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the first quantitative model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high as 6 have been cited [3,4].

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

great, I'll see your sunset thermal wind and raise you the ripples are ‘plasmaeolian’. ...

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

...Bit like a wave guide??

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

Cold and warm electrons at comet 67P

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

3,2,1...

Click to expand...

1. 10 May 2017 Sol88: Lies about Thunderbolts delusions explaining the O2 observed on 67P.
2. 10 May 2017 Sol88: A lie about his comet delusions being supported by a real mechanism for O2 production on 67P (even as a joke).
3. 10 May 2017 Sol88: A delusion about cracks in the ranks.
4. 6 July 2017 Sol88: An implied lie about a "mostly rock" quote meaning that comets are rocks.
5. 6 July 2017 Sol88: Looks like a repeat of the 8 year old delusion of x-rays from electrical discharges from comets made of rocks blasted from the planets in recent times.
6. 6 July 2017 Sol88: Makes an implied lie into an explicit lie. Michael F. A’Hearn never stated that comets are rocks as in your delusion.
7. 6 July 2017 Sol88: Derails from his comet delusion with irrelevant and ignorant questions and insults!
8. 7 July 2017 Sol88: Idiocy of yet another link to the deluded Thunderbolts cult.
9. 7 July 2017 Sol88: Thunderbolts cult web page basically lies about water ice expected on the surface of 19P/Borrelly.
10. 7 July 2017 Sol88: Thunderbolts cult web page lies about Wild 2 and the Stardust spacecraft not finding surface water ice.

Reality Check said:

What does a rotating charged body do, Sol88?

Click to expand...

ferd burfle said:

Nonetheless "Dust = Rocks!! Eleventy!!" coming in 3,2,1...

Click to expand...

jonesdave116 said:

Not only interesting, but also shows that what was captured by the Stardust mission in its aerogel was not necessarily representative of the unaltered dust grains, probably because the volatile component had not survived the encounter. I'm sure I've seen the claim from EC supporters that this was evidence against ice on a comet. Wrong again, it would seem.

Click to expand...