Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

tusenfem said:

Because there is an extra necessary ingredient for the diocotron instability (not mentioned in this abysmal wiki page, but you could find it in Peratt's book), which is not there for the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability.

Click to expand...

SelfSim said:

That paper by Donald Scott and his similar (pre-print?) one here, effectively demonstrates Scott's ignorance of the Physics of Birkeland Current fields!
The second paper was reviewed here. After reviewing the paper at length, (in Mozina's chosen realm), it was difficult to escape the conclusion that the bulk of the core technical content was entirely Lundquist's and not Scott's. In fact, Scott then went on to completely misinterpret the original fundamental physical definitions/models, resulting in his subsequent analysis going rapidly downhill thereon.

RC's above reference to 'abysmal ignorance', therefore, is not limited to mere 'EU enthusiasts'! (Ie: it clearly covers the popular EU 'theorist' (Scott) reference as well).

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

So you also believe in "magnetic reconnection" then too I 'spose

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

Another mainstream "lemming"....

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

Seems your "review" ended in a dead end, much like mainstream cosmology.

You have much to learn young padiwan!

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

Ahhhh...the secret ingredient!

Click to expand...

The instability leading to the filamentation of the beam is know at the "slipping stream" or "diocotron" [instability] and occurs when charge neutrality is not locally maintained, for example, when electrons and ions separate.

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

Don't wont to hop of on te wrong foot but are we disagreeing? There are no such things as force free field aligned currents?

I'm confused Seflsim, are there?

Click to expand...

MHD equilibria, waves and instabilities

Equilibria of sunspots, prominences, coronal loops and other solar structures are described by the force balance:

j x B - grad(p) + ρg = 0 (3.11)

Along the magnetic field there is no contribution form the magnetic force, ans so we have a hydrostatic balance between pressure gradients and gravity. In places such as active regions, where the magnetic field dominates, (3,11) reduces to the disarmingly simple form:

j x B = 0

and the fields are said to be force-free, where

j = curl(B / μ)

and

div(B) = 0.

Thus the electric current is parallel to the magnetic field, and so

curl(B) = α B (3.13)

where α is a scalar function of position. Taking the divergence of (3.13) gives

B • grad(α) = 0

so that α is a constant along a field line. If α is uniform, the curl of (3.13) yields

(nabla² + α²) B = 0.

Solutions to this are known as linear or constant-α fields and are well understood. The particular case α=0 gives potential fields with zero current. ...

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

Don't wont to hop of on te wrong foot but are we disagreeing? There are no such things as force free field aligned currents?

I'm confused Seflsim, are there?

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Ahhhh...the secret ingredient!

Click to expand...

Yes, if you would actually take the time to learn something or look something up in a *gasp* book you would find: (quoting your friend Peratt)

Quote:
The instability leading to the filamentation of the beam is know at the "slipping stream" or "diocotron" [instability] and occurs when charge neutrality is not locally maintained, for example, when electrons and ions separate.
This instability can occur, but usually in extreme conditions, e.g. in pulsar magnetospheres (Petri, 1997).

There is nothing extreme in a comet's induced magnetosphere, and quasi neutrality holds very well, and thus the term (ne - ni) in Peratt's Eq. (1.13) is basically 0. And thus we speak of the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability in the plasma and not of the diocotron instability when we have plasmas that stream relatively to each other, because it is the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability which is triggered by the plasma and not the diocotron instability.

Click to expand...

Quite simple, actually.

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Ahhhh...the secret ingredient!

Click to expand...

Yes, if you would actually take the time to learn something or look something up in a *gasp* book you would find: (quoting your friend Peratt)

Quote:
The instability leading to the filamentation of the beam is know at the "slipping stream" or "diocotron" [instability] and occurs when charge neutrality is not locally maintained, for example, when electrons and ions separate.
This instability can occur, but usually in extreme conditions, e.g. in pulsar magnetospheres (Petri, 1997).

There is nothing extreme in a comet's induced magnetosphere, and quasi neutrality holds very well, and thus the term (ne - ni) in Peratt's Eq. (1.13) is basically 0. And thus we speak of the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability in the plasma and not of the diocotron instability when we have plasmas that stream relatively to each other, because it is the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability which is triggered by the plasma and not the diocotron instability.

Click to expand...

Quite simple, actually.

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
What are you predicting, Sol? Not cr*p like this, surely:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2441

From a certain person called David Talbott (zero scientific qualifications). Care to tell us how it gets better than this? Surely it can't get worse? Yep. Not gone well, has it? Perhaps dear old Dave can ......ohhhh no I'll get banned for calling out...blah, blah, blah.
Perhaps we could concentrate on the idiot Thornhill. Yes? Now, who came up with this crap about solar wind creating water (lol)? Who thought that up? Eh? Must have taken a genius, yes? Can you tell when I'm being sarcastic? Eh, Sol? Care to explain it to us? Perhaps the cretin Thornhill is reading, and would like to defend himself from accusations of being scientifically illiterate. Un-bloody-likely, I know.
So, Sol, given that this whole mission has been a complete kick in the ar*e for the EU cretins, what would you suggest next? See if Wal & Dave might not have been lying about asteroids? Carry on believing the rubbish because you have never been to college? I give up, seriously I do. Because there is no point in talking to people like you. You believe in fairytales, but you can't do science. Eh? How many years will it take of no results? Forever, eh, Sol? Sad.
Talbott's, pretty much spot on...
Quote:
• relationship of comet flaring to arrival of charged particles from solar outbursts
See CME impact on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

from the paper
Quote:
We have observed how a CME impacts on comet 67P when the comet was at 1.41 au from the Sun (past perihelion). Rosetta was at this time on its inbound leg from the dayside excursion located at about 800 km from the nucleus. The plasma environment is significantly disturbed during the impact. The cold plasma density increases by as much as a factor of 10, to reach a maximum of 600 cm−3, the suprathermal electron flux (10–200 eV) increases by a factor of 5–10, and the background magnetic field increases by a factor of ∼2.5, from about 40 to 100 nT, while individual magnetic spikes reach above 200 nT.
sounds like a "flare" of the comet to me?

jonesdavid116, what say ye on Talbott's prediction?

Should we ask the scientific expert, Tusenfem?

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].
Comets: looking ahead
Michael F. A’Hearn
Department of Astronomy, University of Maryland, College Park,
MD 20742-2421, USA

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

The instability leading to the filamentation of the beam is know at the "slipping stream" or "diocotron" [instability] and occurs when charge neutrality is not locally maintained, for example, when electrons and ions separate.

So no charge separation happening around/on a comet then?

Oh, also PULSARS are a mathematical fictitious ad hoc the mainstream, just like Black Holes, Magnatars etc etc...

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

The impact/electrical discharge will be into rock, not loosely consolidated ice and dust. The impact crater will be smaller than expected.

Tap tap...

Click to expand...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
What are you predicting, Sol? Not cr*p like this, surely:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2441

From a certain person called David Talbott (zero scientific qualifications). Care to tell us how it gets better than this? Surely it can't get worse? Yep. Not gone well, has it? Perhaps dear old Dave can ......ohhhh no I'll get banned for calling out...blah, blah, blah.
Perhaps we could concentrate on the idiot Thornhill. Yes? Now, who came up with this crap about solar wind creating water (lol)? Who thought that up? Eh? Must have taken a genius, yes? Can you tell when I'm being sarcastic? Eh, Sol? Care to explain it to us? Perhaps the cretin Thornhill is reading, and would like to defend himself from accusations of being scientifically illiterate. Un-bloody-likely, I know.
So, Sol, given that this whole mission has been a complete kick in the ar*e for the EU cretins, what would you suggest next? See if Wal & Dave might not have been lying about asteroids? Carry on believing the rubbish because you have never been to college? I give up, seriously I do. Because there is no point in talking to people like you. You believe in fairytales, but you can't do science. Eh? How many years will it take of no results? Forever, eh, Sol? Sad.
Talbott's, pretty much spot on...
Quote:
• relationship of comet flaring to arrival of charged particles from solar outbursts
See CME impact on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

from the paper
Quote:
We have observed how a CME impacts on comet 67P when the comet was at 1.41 au from the Sun (past perihelion). Rosetta was at this time on its inbound leg from the dayside excursion located at about 800 km from the nucleus. The plasma environment is significantly disturbed during the impact. The cold plasma density increases by as much as a factor of 10, to reach a maximum of 600 cm−3, the suprathermal electron flux (10–200 eV) increases by a factor of 5–10, and the background magnetic field increases by a factor of ∼2.5, from about 40 to 100 nT, while individual magnetic spikes reach above 200 nT.
sounds like a "flare" of the comet to me?

jonesdavid116, what say ye on Talbott's prediction?

Should we ask the scientific expert, Tusenfem?
Did Talbotts prediction turn out to be correct or not?

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

Just a yes no will do.

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

Another mainstream "lemming"....

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

There are no such things as force free field aligned currents?

Click to expand...

S. Lundquist, 'Magneto-hydrostatic fields', Ark.Fys. 35, 361 (1950);
S. Lundquist, 'On the Stability of Magneto-Hydrostatic Fields', Phys.Rev. 83, 107 (1951).

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

The impact/electrical discharge will be into rock, not loosely consolidated ice and dust. The impact crater will be smaller than expected.

Click to expand...

• He asks "What drives Earth’s pattern of climate variation?" and then practically ignores the drivers of climate variation!
  Ice ages are an example of long term climate variations and have little to do with the short term observed global warming. The ice age "pattern" goes back billions of years and is not "fractal" or even periodic. There are gaps.
• Misleading by data mining.
  He only graphs Greenland and Vostok data. There are reconstructed temperatures for other places which leads to the hockey stick graphs.
  He stops plotting data at 1800 AD, maybe to avoid showing the non-ice age spike of current global warming.
• Deep ignorance in a "The past 200 years – the industrial age" section.
  Greenland is not the entire northern hemisphere. Vostok is not the entire southern hemisphere. His guesses about temperatures when he knows the results are not science.
• A lie of the EU model of comets being "overwhelmingly confirmed".
  He obviously cannot recognize the lies and non-predictions on the Thunderbolts web site about confirmed predictions.
• The lie of "The Standard model’s explanation of stars does not stand up to scrutiny" when it is relatively simple physics.
  To have a stable star we need a balance of pressure and gravity which leads to a temperature increasing with depth, i.e. a power source at the core of a star. The coronal heating problem has physically valid explanations.
• A lie of the solar wind being a current when it is neutral.
• A lie of a current from the Sun flowing from the Earth’s pole to the equator (image of what looks like the Earth's magnetic field pushing the solar wind away).
• An ignorant "Why solar radiation is constant" question - it is not!
  There is the ~11 year sunspot cycle. There is the current 40 year long decrease in solar intensity. There is the billions of years of increase in solar radiation.

1. is mostly hydrogen and helium with small traces of other elements.
2. does not have the magnetic field of an electromagnet.
   For example, in March 2000 the Sun had two north poles and a south pole "smeared" around the equator!