The Electric Comet theory

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

First asked 6 August 2009
You are still ignoring:

other than your derail into solar activity cutting comet tails in two.
Solar activity may cut tails in two but there have been no observations of comets tuunring off during low solar activity.
Sol88: I may be wrong - if so please provide the citations to these marvelous events.
Obviously the EC idea is just that (an idea) since you cannot provide any "standard EC" source.

Can we agree between ourselves that MBC provide a minimum eccentricity for EC comets?

This is a really obvious consequence of the EC idea.

Unfortunately not with out knowing the charged particle flux at that location, so no, MBC will not give you a minimum eccentricity for a rock to electrically discharge.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Unfortunately not with out knowing the charged particle flux at that location, so no, MBC will not give you a minimum eccentricity for a rock to electrically discharge.

MBC will give you amd me a minimum eccentricity for a rock to electrically discharge because the "charged particle flux at that location" has nothing to do with EC.

ETA
This assumes that what you by "charged particle flux at that location" you mean a local charged particle flux from something.

If you mean the solar wind then it is fairly constant in the time scales that we are concerned with.
But if you want then give a number for the minimum solar wind "charged particle flux" to make a rocky body into a comet (remember that the solar wind is actually neutral)

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

MBC will give you amd me a minimum eccentricity for a rock to electrically discharge because the "charged particle flux at that location" has nothing to do with EC.

ETA
This assumes that what you by "charged particle flux at that location" you mean a local charged particle flux from something.

If you mean the solar wind then it is fairly constant in the time scales that we are concerned with.
But if you want then give a number for the minimum solar wind "charged particle flux" to make a rocky body into a comet (remember that the solar wind is actually neutral)

Do you conceade, Reality Check, that a rocky body can "charge/discharge" in the solar wind?

As found on our Moon(and others)?

Do you conceade that, even if comets are dirtyiceballs, this same process would happen on thier insulating "dusty rind"?

Do you conceade this would have to do with the space weather condition at its locale?

Would it also no be wrong to say it would depend on the comet/asteroids electrical conductivity. e.g. how fast charges would try and equilize, from the surface to the core, as well as how big it is?



Then why does it happen on our moon, which is more or less rock as say, any asteroid orbiting in the sloar electric field?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Yeah? Where? Ohhh I forgot it's under your "rind" of insulating "dust" and hidden from view!!!

I've got an idea, how about we smash a copper projectile into a comet nucleus and that will PROVE the water (ice and other "volatiles") is under the rind of dust!!

Or how about we send a dust sample collection to a comet and return the pristine unaltered dust from the formation of the solar system to Earth to prove that they are primordial leftovers!

That will prove beyond all doubt that comets are iceydirtballs left over from the formation of the solar system!

Yeah lets do that, 'cos that will show how correct our theory is and how pathetic those electric/plasma crackpots are!

I have not been rude to you, so please continue to shame yourself.

You can't answer your own question, so be sure to freak out.

Make a show.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Do you conceade, Reality Check, that a rocky body can "charge/discharge" in the solar wind?

As found on our Moon(and others)?

The Moon can gain change voltage from the interaction between the solar wind and the Earth's magnetosphere as is well known. Your links explain this clearly (Strange Things Happen at Full Moon and New Research into Mysterious Moon Storms).

Originally Posted by Sol88

Do you conceade that, even if comets are dirtyiceballs, this same process would happen on thier insulating "dusty rind"?

Do you conceade this would have to do with the space weather condition at its locale?

No I do not conceded this. I suspect that it may happen but there is no evidence for it.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Would it also no be wrong to say it would depend on the comet/asteroids electrical conductivity. e.g. how fast charges would try and equilize, from the surface to the core, as well as how big it is?
Then why does it happen on our moon, which is more or less rock as say, any asteroid orbiting in the sloar electric field?

It probably happens on dusty asteroids.

[Reality Check]

I will start collecting the evidence against the electric comet idea in one post. This will be updated as we discuss the many problems with the EC idea.

EC universe: Ignore the physical evidence such as the measured density of comets.
Real universe: Use the physical evidence such as the measured density of comets to construct theories.

EC universe: Comets are rocks.
Real universe:

1. Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).
2. Comets may not have the composition of asteriods
3. Deep Impact confirmed that comet nuclei are made of dust and ice not rock. There were a couple of surprises in that the dust was talcum powder rather than sand and the amount of ice was smaller than expected.
   "Analysis of data from the Swift X-ray telescope showed that the comet continued outgassing from the impact for 13 days, with a peak five days after impact. A total of 5 million kilograms (11 million pounds) of water[35] and between 10 and 25 million kilograms (22 and 55 million pounds) of dust were lost from the impact."^WP

EC universe: Comet coma and tails are created from material that that is created from rock by electrical discharge machining.
Real universe:
Start with Tim Thompson's posts about this

• Electric Comets I
• Electric Comets II: References
• Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (actually no EU X-ray bursts).

EC universe: Rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value will be comets.
N.B. Solar activity may cut tails in two but there have been no observations of comets turning off during low solar activity.
(Sol88: I may be wrong - if so please provide the citations to these marvelous events.)
However this assertion has the fatal flaw of EC predictions - no mathematics or numbers.
But we can do their work for them can't we Sol88?

There are 4 observed main-belt comets with a minimum eccentricity of 0.1644 (133P/Elst-Pizarro). So the EC minimim must be this (or lower!).

Real universe: There are rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value that are not comets.
In fact there are asteroids in orbits that are get close to cometary orbits, e.g. 2005 VX3 with an eccentricity of 0.9955142)

The JPL Small-Body Database Browser has a search engine. This shows that there are 173,583 cataloged asteroids with an eccentricity > 0.17.

EC universe: Only give qualitative predictions.
Real universe: Scientific theories model the data mathematically and produce both qualitative and quantitative predictions.

Sol88 posted a list of EC "predictions" for Tempel 1 and Deep Impact. The closes it gets to an actual quantitative predictions is "The most obvious would be a flash (lightning-like discharge) shortly before impact." (emphasis added).

What actually happened was a flash on or after impact followed by a bigger one from deeper in the nucleus.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

The Moon can gain change voltage from the interaction between the solar wind and the Earth's magnetosphere as is well known. Your links explain this clearly (Strange Things Happen at Full Moon and New Research into Mysterious Moon Storms).


No I do not conceded this. I suspect that it may happen but there is no evidence for it.


It probably happens on dusty asteroids.

Thank you, Reality check!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Thank you, Reality check!

You are welcome for this opinion from me .

It is a pity that it has absolutely nothing to do with the EC idea.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

You are welcome for this opinion from me .

It is a pity that it has absolutely nothing to do with the EC idea.

How so?

It's very EC my fuddeling friend!

Whats he difference between our moon an asteroid and a comets wrt your agreement on "moon charging"?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

EC universe: Only give qualitative predictions.
Real universe: Scientific theories model the data mathematically and produce both qualitative and quantitative predictions.

Sol88 posted a list of EC "predictions" for Tempel 1 and Deep Impact. The closes it gets to an actual quantitative predictions is "The most obvious would be a flash (lightning-like discharge) shortly before impact." (emphasis added).

What actually happened was a flash on or after impact followed by a bigger one from deeper in the nucleus.

Reality check plays no fair, I call uncle!

please show me mainstreams qualitative and quantitative predictions wrt dirtyiceballs?

and please do not ignore this question if your faith in the snowball model is so unshakeable! Must pages full of numbers and maths somewhere that proves comets are just dirtballs with some ice.

[Sol88]

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Do you conceade that, even if comets are dirtyiceballs, this same process would happen on thier insulating "dusty rind"?

Do you conceade this would have to do with the space weather condition at its locale?

No I do not conceded this. I suspect that it may happen but there is no evidence for it.

Suspect it may happen? what? Ummmm......der!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Suspect it may happen? what? Ummmm......der!

Suspect it may happen? what? Ummmm......der! That is what I suspect will happen.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Reality check plays no fair, I call uncle!

Have you finally realized that a measured density of ~0.6 g/cc (comet) is much less that of asteriods (~3g/cc) ?
Or is this still too tough a concept for you to grasp ?

Originally Posted by Sol88

please show me mainstreams qualitative and quantitative predictions wrt dirtyiceballs?

and please do not ignore this question if your faith in the snowball model is so unshakeable! Must pages full of numbers and maths somewhere that proves comets are just dirtballs with some ice.

And now we are back with your silly delustion that debunking theory A is evidence for theory B. That is what we tend to see from crackpots who have no confidence in thir own ideas.


Start with the papers of Whimple:

1. Whipple, Fred L. (1950). "A Comet Model. I. The acceleration of Comet Encke". Astrophys. J. 111: 375–394. doi:10.1086/145272. http://adsabs.harvard.edu//full/seri/ApJ../0111//0000375.000.html.
2. Whipple, Fred L. (1951). "A Comet Model. II. Physical Relations for Comets and Meteors". Astrophys. J. 113: 464. doi:10.1086/145416. http://adsabs.harvard.edu//full/seri/ApJ../0113//0000464.000.html.
3. Whipple, Fred L. (1955). "A Comet Model. III. The Zodiacal Light". Astrophys. J. 121: 750. doi:10.1086/146040. http://adsabs.harvard.edu//full/seri/ApJ../0121//0000750.000.html.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

How so?

It's very EC my fuddeling friend!

Whats he difference between our moon an asteroid and a comets wrt your agreement on "moon charging"?

This is not electric discarge machining.
The Moon/solar wind/Earth's magnetosphere interaction leads to electrostatic discharges not EDM.

[Reality Check]

I will start collecting the evidence against the electric comet idea in one post. This will be updated as we discuss the many problems with the EC idea.

EC universe: Ignore the physical evidence such as the measured density of comets.
Real universe: Use the physical evidence such as the measured density of comets to construct theories.

EC universe: Comets are rocks.


Real universe:

1. Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).
2. Comets may not have the composition of asteriods
3. Deep Impact confirmed that comet nuclei are made of dust and ice not rock. There were a couple of surprises in that the dust was talcum powder rather than sand and the amount of ice was smaller than expected.
   "Analysis of data from the Swift X-ray telescope showed that the comet continued outgassing from the impact for 13 days, with a peak five days after impact. A total of 5 million kilograms (11 million pounds) of water[35] and between 10 and 25 million kilograms (22 and 55 million pounds) of dust were lost from the impact."^WP

EC universe: Comet coma and tails are created from material that that is created from rock by electrical discharge machining.
Real universe:


Start with Tim Thompson's posts about this

• Electric Comets I
• Electric Comets II: References
• Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (actually no EU X-ray bursts).

EC universe: Rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value will be comets.
N.B. Solar activity may cut tails in two but there have been no observations of comets turning off during low solar activity.
(Sol88: I may be wrong - if so please provide the citations to these marvelous events.)
However this assertion has the fatal flaw of EC predictions - no mathematics or numbers.
But we can do their work for them can't we Sol88?

There are 4 observed main-belt comets with a minimum eccentricity of 0.1644 (133P/Elst-Pizarro). So the EC minimim must be this (or lower!).

Real universe: There are rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value that are not comets.
In fact there are asteroids in orbits that are get close to cometary orbits, e.g. 2005 VX3 with an eccentricity of 0.9955142)

The JPL Small-Body Database Browser has a search engine. This shows that there are 173,583 cataloged asteroids with an eccentricity > 0.17.

EC universe: Only give qualitative predictions.
Sol88 posted a list of EC "predictions" for Tempel 1 and Deep Impact. The closes it gets to an actual quantitative predictions is "The most obvious would be a flash (lightning-like discharge) shortly before impact." (emphasis added).

What actually happened was a flash on or after impact followed by a bigger one from deeper in the nucleus.

Real universe: Scientific theories model the data mathematically and produce both qualitative and quantitative predictions.

Someone could start with the papers of Whipple

1. Whipple, Fred L. (1950). "A Comet Model. I. The acceleration of Comet Encke". Astrophys. J. 111: 375–394. doi:10.1086/145272. http://adsabs.harvard.edu//full/seri/ApJ../0111//0000375.000.html.
2. Whipple, Fred L. (1951). "A Comet Model. II. Physical Relations for Comets and Meteors". Astrophys. J. 113: 464. doi:10.1086/145416. http://adsabs.harvard.edu//full/seri/ApJ../0113//0000464.000.html.
3. Whipple, Fred L. (1955). "A Comet Model. III. The Zodiacal Light". Astrophys. J. 121: 750. doi:10.1086/146040. http://adsabs.harvard.edu//full/seri/ApJ../0121//0000750.000.html.

and then go ointo the 1000's of scientific papers and many textbooks about comets. Tim Thompson recommened Introduction to Comets by Brandt & Chapman (Cambridge University Press, 2004, 2nd edition).

EC universe: Turn yourself into a crackpot idea by not publishing papers in peer reviewed journals.
Real universe: Take the risk being wrong and become part of the scientific process by publishing papers in peer reviewed journals, e.g. Fred L. Whipple.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Sol88

How so?

It's very EC my fuddeling friend!

Whats he difference between our moon an asteroid and a comets wrt your agreement on "moon charging"?

Just because a charge can occur does not mean that the mechanism you suggest causes cometary tails and coma.

Mainstream astronomy does have all the things you say it doesn't, plasma, electricity and magnetism.

[Reality Check]

Sol88's recent posts about "charged particle flux at that location" (I think that this is the solar wind) indicates that he did not read the highlighted portion of my summary post:

Originally Posted by Reality Check

EC universe: Rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value will be comets.

N.B. Solar activity may cut tails in two but there have been no observations of comets turning off during low solar activity.
(Sol88: I may be wrong - if so please provide the citations to these marvelous events.)
However this assertion has the fatal flaw of EC predictions - no mathematics or numbers.
But we can do their work for them can't we Sol88?

There are 4 observed main-belt comets with a minimum eccentricity of 0.1644 (133P/Elst-Pizarro). So the EC minimim must be this (or lower!).

Real universe: There are rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value that are not comets.
In fact there are asteroids in orbits that are get close to cometary orbits, e.g. 2005 VX3 with an eccentricity of 0.9955142)

The JPL Small-Body Database Browser has a search engine. This shows that there are 173,583 cataloged asteroids with an eccentricity > 0.17.

So I will rewrite this to make it simpler:
EC universe: Rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value will be comets.

N.B. Solar activity may cut tails in two but there have been no observations of comets turning off during low solar activity.
However this assertion has the fatal flaw of EC predictions - no mathematics or numbers.
But we can do their work for them can't we Sol88?

There are 4 observed main-belt comets with a minimum eccentricity of 0.1644 (133P/Elst-Pizarro). So the EC minimim must be this (or lower!).

Real universe: There are rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value that are not comets.
In fact there are asteroids in orbits that are get close to cometary orbits, e.g. 2005 VX3 with an eccentricity of 0.9955142)

The JPL Small-Body Database Browser has a search engine. This shows that there are 173,583 cataloged asteroids with an eccentricity > 0.17.

The EC excuse (according to Sol88) is that low solar activity is the reason that these 173,583 cataloged asteroids are not comets. What Sol88 has not realized is that each asteroid is observed a number of times over a period of days to years. These 173,583 cataloged asteroids were not clse to the the Sun at the same instant of time. These asteroids were observed during a range of solar activity. That range included times that comets were visible.

So how many of these should be comets?

EC has no actual physical model and so never gives numbers so we do not expect help there. Sol88 has not been able to cite any observations of comets turining off during low solar activity (or low "charged particle flux at that location"). Also just where is the citation to the EC analysis of the correlation of comet brightness with solar activity at set distances from the Sun?

Conclusion: EC predicts that 100% of the 173,583 asteroids should be comets.
We could be generous and assume that average solar activity is needed and so there are 86,791 asteroids that should be comets according to the EC idea. But that can wait until Sol88 comes up with actual observations related to EC !

Good examples of the asteriods that should be comets according to the EC idea are many of the named asteroids:

• Juno (e=0.2553, observed over a span of 67,610 days).
• Pallas (e=0.2309, observed over a span of 64,291 days)
• Astraea (e=0.1917, observed over a span of 59,759 days)
• ...More than 46 other named asteroids observed 1000's of times over decades.
• Vera (e=0.1939, observed over a span of 45,191 days)

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

This is not electric discarge machining.
The Moon/solar wind/Earth's magnetosphere interaction leads to electrostatic discharges not EDM.

Which is what the EU/EC is all about my friend!

lets have a look at ESD's shall we;

Quote:

Types of ESD

The most spectacular form of ESD is the spark, which occurs when a strong electric field creates an ionized conductive channel in air. This can cause minor discomfort to people, severe damage to electronic equipment, and fires and explosions if the air contains combustible gases or particles.

However, many ESD events occur without a visible or audible spark. A person carrying a relatively small electric charge may not feel a discharge that is sufficient to damage sensitive electronic components. Some devices may be damaged by discharges as small as 12 volts. These invisible forms of ESD can cause device outright failures, or less obvious forms of degradation that may affect the long term reliability and performance of electronic devices. The degradation in some devices may not become evident until well into their service life.

Spark? arc? spark machining?

hell if you give it enough juice you can even seperate oxygen from rock;

Quote:

The new device, a reactor developed by Derek Fray and his colleagues, was created from a modified electrochemical process the team invented in 2000 to get metals and alloys from metal oxides. The process uses the oxides — also found in Moon rocks — as a cathode, together with an anode made of carbon. To get the current flowing through the system, the electrodes sit in an electrolyte solution of molten calcium chloride (CaCl2), a common salt with a melting point of almost 800 °C.

The current strips the metal oxide pellets of oxygen atoms, which are ionized and dissolve in the molten salt. The negatively charged oxygen ions move through the molten salt to the anode where they give up their extra electrons and react with the carbon to produce carbon dioxide — a process that erodes the anode. Meanwhile, pure metal is formed over at the cathode.

LINK

and this is typical mainstream "in a rut" thinking

Quote:

To heat the reactor on the Moon would need just a small amount of power, Fray said, and the reactor itself can be thermally insulated to lock heat in. The three reactors would need about 4.5 kilowatts of power, which could be supplied by solar panels or even a small nuclear reactor placed on the Moon.

Solar panels or a nuke generator??? WTF!!! we really are cavemen

How many volts can the moons surface charge to? THE MOON IS THE GENERATOR or CHARGE SEPERATOR!!!!

So how strong with numbers and maths, do you relaity check, think these ESD's are on the moon? And asteroid? a comet (dusty "rind") covered dirtball?

those asteroids you listed would be a good place to start!

[Sol88]

And a spacecraft like Geotail could most probibly act like a comet on it's way thru our magntotail (Earths) if this passage coninsides with a space weather storm the effect should be inhanced, just like the MBC's!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

those asteroids you listed would be a good place to start!

And how many of those 173,583 asteroids (including the ones I listed) are Electric Comets, Sol 88?

My conclusion: Around zero.

[Reality Check]

I will start collecting the evidence against the electric comet idea in one post. This will be updated as we discuss the many problems with the EC idea.

EC universe: Ignore the physical evidence such as the measured density of comets.
Real universe: Use the physical evidence such as the measured density of comets to construct theories.


EC universe: Comets are rocks.


Real universe:

1. Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).
2. Comets may not have the composition of asteriods
3. Deep Impact confirmed that comet nuclei are made of dust and ice not rock. There were a couple of surprises in that the dust was talcum powder rather than sand and the amount of ice was smaller than expected.
   "Analysis of data from the Swift X-ray telescope showed that the comet continued outgassing from the impact for 13 days, with a peak five days after impact. A total of 5 million kilograms (11 million pounds) of water[35] and between 10 and 25 million kilograms (22 and 55 million pounds) of dust were lost from the impact."^WP

EC universe: Comet coma and tails are created from material that that is created from rock by electrical discharge machining.

Real universe:


Start with Tim Thompson's posts about this

• Electric Comets I
• Electric Comets II: References
• Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (actually no EU X-ray bursts).

EC universe: Rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value will be comets.N.B. Solar activity may cut tails in two but there have been no observations of comets turning off during low solar activity.
(Sol88: I may be wrong - if so please provide the citations to these marvelous events.)
However this assertion has the fatal flaw of EC predictions - no mathematics or numbers.
But we can do their work for them can't we Sol88?

There are 4 observed main-belt comets with a minimum eccentricity of 0.1644 (133P/Elst-Pizarro). So the EC minimim must be this (or lower!).

Real universe: There are at least 173,583 asteroids (rocky bodies) that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value that are not comets. This includes asteroids that have been observed for decades.
Why EC comets are not asteriods


EC universe: Only give qualitative predictions.
Sol88 posted a list of EC "predictions" for Tempel 1 and Deep Impact. The closes it gets to an actual quantitative predictions is "The most obvious would be a flash (lightning-like discharge) shortly before impact." (emphasis added).

What actually happened was a flash on or after impact followed by a bigger one from deeper in the nucleus.

Real universe: Scientific theories model the data mathematically and produce both qualitative and quantitative predictions.
Someone could start with the papers of Whipple

1. Whipple, Fred L. (1950). "A Comet Model. I. The acceleration of Comet Encke". Astrophys. J. 111: 375–394. doi:10.1086/145272. http://adsabs.harvard.edu//full/seri/ApJ../0111//0000375.000.html.
2. Whipple, Fred L. (1951). "A Comet Model. II. Physical Relations for Comets and Meteors". Astrophys. J. 113: 464. doi:10.1086/145416. http://adsabs.harvard.edu//full/seri/ApJ../0113//0000464.000.html.
3. Whipple, Fred L. (1955). "A Comet Model. III. The Zodiacal Light". Astrophys. J. 121: 750. doi:10.1086/146040. http://adsabs.harvard.edu//full/seri/ApJ../0121//0000750.000.html.

and then go ointo the 1000's of scientific papers and many textbooks about comets. Tim Thompson recommened Introduction to Comets by Brandt & Chapman (Cambridge University Press, 2004, 2nd edition).


EC universe: Turn yourself into a crackpot idea by not publishing papers in peer reviewed journals.
Real universe: Take the risk being wrong and become part of the scientific process by publishing papers in peer reviewed journals, e.g. Fred L. Whipple.

[Sol88]

Quote:

I will start collecting the evidence against the electric comet idea in one post. This will be updated as we discuss the many problems with the EC idea.

Ok, I'll start collecting the evidence for the electric comet idea in one post. This will be updated as we discuss the many problems mysteries involved with the dirtysnowball idea.

EC universe:Spark machining can and does occur on rocky bodies immersed in the solar wind stream, charge separation happens on a scale only recently discovered in the near Earth magnetosphere region down "wind" from the Sun(analogous to a comets tail).

Mercury "doesit" so does the Moon, Venus and Mars "do it"! we can see it in the moons of the gas giants, Io and Enceladeus are typical.

Real universeReality Checks):: Ummm..... it's something that surprised us and we are still not sure of the mechanism involved.

EC universe: Spark machining would involve ELECTRICITY with a gradient sufficient enough to cause OBSERVED effect, extremely fine dust sparked of the nucleus with high temp minerals made during the spark and "free" electrons and Ions in highly collimated "jets"/beams.

Real universe, well the jets are chambers of pressurized gas that sublimates somewhere below the dusty rind, this should disperse and be blown away by the solar wind. We not to sure why it's very fine dust and that there is more of it than volatiles, but, meh

EC: These arcs "eat" the surface of these asteroid/comets/moons/planets displaying the type relief we OBSERVE on these bodies. Because these "jets" do not do anything significant to it's orbit via reaction force, it would not matter who's equation you plug the numbers into, it would be wrong, so density estimates are at best estimates!


EC: The fact that X-Rays are observed at all should suggest highly energetic electrical/plasma events are taking place, most likely involving virtual cathodes, double layers, particle acceleration and a whole host of other OBSERVED plasma/electrical effects, including OH production.

Reality checks: Ummm.....what we talk'n 'bout?

You said Reality check, Rocky Bodies DO have ESD's, did you not? The rest is academic.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Ok, I'll start collecting the evidence for the electric comet idea in one post. This will be updated as we discuss the many problems mysteries involved with the dirtysnowball idea.

EC universe:Spark machining can and does occur on rocky bodies immersed in the solar wind stream,

Real universe: Spark machining causes bursts of narrow band X-rays. They are not observed on from comet nuclei. Therefore spark machining does not occur on comets.

Originally Posted by Sol88

charge separation happens on a scale only recently discovered in the near Earth magnetosphere region down "wind" from the Sun(analogous to a comets tail).
Mercury "doesit" so does the Moon, Venus and Mars "do it"! we can see it in the moons of the gas giants, Io and Enceladeus are typical.

True.

Originally Posted by Sol88

EC universe: Spark machining would involve ELECTRICITY with a gradient sufficient enough to cause OBSERVED effect, extremely fine dust sparked of the nucleus with high temp minerals made during the spark and "free" electrons and Ions in highly collimated "jets"/beams.

See above for the impossibility of spark machining.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Real universe, well the jets are chambers of pressurized gas that sublimates somewhere below the dusty rind, this should disperse and be blown away by the solar wind. We not to sure why it's very fine dust and that there is more of it than volatiles.

Yes - those are the observed facts. Cometary tails (from whatever sources, including the impossible EC idea) are blown away by the solar wind.

Originally Posted by Sol88

EC: These arcs "eat" the surface of these asteroid/comets/moons/planets displaying the type relief we OBSERVE on these bodies.

See above for the impossibility of spark machining.
Sublimination, jets and impacts "eat" the surface of these comets displaying the type relief we OBSERVE on these bodies.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Because these "jets" do not do anything significant to it's orbit via reaction force, it would not matter who's equation you plug the numbers into, it would be wrong, so density estimates are at best estimates!

They do: Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).

Originally Posted by Sol88

EC: The fact that X-Rays are observed at all should suggest highly energetic electrical/plasma events are taking place, most likely involving virtual cathodes, double layers, particle acceleration and a whole host of other OBSERVED plasma/electrical effects, including OH production.

Real universe: Mostly correct for X-rays generated from plasma. You forgot heating. But the actual X-ray spectrum from comets is broad band emission and readily identified as bow shock emission and bremsstrahlung (i.e. a OBSERVED plasma/electrical effects).

Originally Posted by Sol88

You said Reality check, Rocky Bodies DO have ESD's, did you not? The rest is academic.

I saild that there is evidence of electrostatic charges on the Moon.
IMO it is possible that it could happen on other dusty rocky bodies moving through plasma sheets in a strong magnetosphere.
Someone should actually read Strange Things Happen at Full Moon and New Research into Mysterious Moon Storms, learn about magnetospheres (magnetotails) and the fact that they are the cause of the ESD on the Moon. The Sun does not have a magnetotail.

The rest is academic.

[Reality Check]

The Electric Comet idea has three established failures so far:

1. Predicts the wrong density for comets.
2. No observation of narrow band X-ray bursts from the EC electrical discharge machining.
3. There are at least 173,583 asteroids that should be comets according to EC.

So lets go onto the next topic: The jets that are observed from comet nuclei, e.g. the jets observed by Deep Impact from Tempel 1.

What is the EC idea's explanation for these?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

The Electric Comet idea has three established failures so far:

1. Predicts the wrong density for comets.
2. No observation of narrow band X-ray bursts from the EC electrical discharge machining.
3. There are at least 173,583 asteroids that should be comets according to EC.

So lets go onto the next topic: The jets that are observed from comet nuclei, e.g. the jets observed by Deep Impact from Tempel 1.

What is the EC idea's explanation for these?

That would be those pesky ESD's and the associated electrostatic noise as it's machined "off".

1 If the "jets" are not "little rockets" (pockets of sublimating ice) then how does the equation go figuring the density, if it's more like the surface eroding away?

2. I suggest next comet bound mission we look more closely, all conditions are satisfied for X-ray production, but it would be more likely to be observed remotely on the cometosphere boundry (double layer) these are know to be rather good at accelerating charged particles. Though we did see it in ultraviolet light.

3. 173,583 asteroids that should be comets according to Reality check! Citation/s please.

Quote:

So lets go onto the next topic: The jets that are observed from comet nuclei, e.g. the jets observed by [url="http://deepimpact.umd.edu/gallery/images-results.html#jets"]Deep Impact from Tempel 1

Yes lets, Wal Thornhill says:

Quote:

This is an ideal opportunity to examine the picture of Wild 2 from the perspective of the electric universe model of comets. Briefly, in that model a comet is a highly negatively charged body with respect to the Sun. Like all charged bodies in plasma, a comet will be enveloped in a plasma sheath (the coma) that limits the reach of the comet's electric field. A forbidden oxygen line was discovered in Comet Austin's coma. "Forbidden lines" are spectral signatures that are not expected in space because here on Earth they are found only within strong electric fields. To astronomers' surprise, forbidden lines are common in space, not only in comets, but in nebulae and galaxies. A cometary display is produced when the nucleus discharges at a rate sufficient to generate a visible tail. The dust and gases that form the comet''s tail are not evaporated by the heat of the sun, but instead are electrically 'machined' from the nucleus by cathode arcs. Laboratory examination of cathode arcs shows that they jump around on the cathode surface, removing surface material in jets to form small circular craters. The industrial process of Electric Discharge Machining (EDM) uses this feature to erode a surface to accurate depth. To the naked eye, the EDM surface looks remarkably smooth. However, when viewed at high magnification, the peculiarities of the machined surface become clear. The tendency for the cathode arc to erode one high point then move to the next high point tends to generate chains of flat-floored craters. The finished surface appears as if someone used a circular cookie cutter to produce extended depressions and channels with scalloped edges. Variations in arc current will produce a layered or terraced effect both within craters and between adjacent craters. Below is an example of EDM scarring.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

That would be those pesky ESD's and the associated electrostatic noise as it's machined "off".

And what do these pesky impossible EDS's have to do with jets?

Originally Posted by Sol88

1 If the "jets" are not "little rockets" (pockets of sublimating ice) then how does the equation go figuring the density, if it's more like the surface eroding away?

Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).

Originally Posted by Sol88

2. I suggest next comet bound mission we look more closely, all conditions are satisfied for X-ray production, but it would be more likely to be observed remotely on the cometosphere boundry (double layer) these are know to be rather good at accelerating charged particles. Though we did see it in ultraviolet light.

There are several X-ray observatories that have observed comets, e.g. Chandra. The X-rays ahave a broad band spectrum and do not have bursts (Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays).

Originally Posted by Sol88

3. 173,583 asteroids that should be comets according to Reality check! Citation/s please.

Obviously you do not actually remamber what you read in this thread and are still ignorant of the JPL Small-Body Database Browser. So here is the post again:

Originally Posted by Reality Check

EC universe: Rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value will be comets.

N.B. Solar activity may cut tails in two but there have been no observations of comets turning off during low solar activity.
However this assertion has the fatal flaw of EC predictions - no mathematics or numbers.
But we can do their work for them can't we Sol88?

There are 4 observed main-belt comets with a minimum eccentricity of 0.1644 (133P/Elst-Pizarro). So the EC minimim must be this (or lower!).

Real universe: There are rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value that are not comets.
In fact there are asteroids in orbits that are get close to cometary orbits, e.g. 2005 VX3 with an eccentricity of 0.9955142)

The JPL Small-Body Database Browser has a search engine. This shows that there are 173,583 cataloged asteroids with an eccentricity > 0.17.

The EC excuse (according to Sol88) is that low solar activity is the reason that these 173,583 cataloged asteroids are not comets. What Sol88 has not realized is that each asteroid is observed a number of times over a period of days to years. These 173,583 cataloged asteroids were not clse to the the Sun at the same instant of time. These asteroids were observed during a range of solar activity. That range included times that comets were visible.

So how many of these should be comets?

EC has no actual physical model and so never gives numbers so we do not expect help there. Sol88 has not been able to cite any observations of comets turining off during low solar activity (or low "charged particle flux at that location"). Also just where is the citation to the EC analysis of the correlation of comet brightness with solar activity at set distances from the Sun?

Conclusion: EC predicts that 100% of the 173,583 asteroids should be comets.
We could be generous and assume that average solar activity is needed and so there are 86,791 asteroids that should be comets according to the EC idea. But that can wait until Sol88 comes up with actual observations related to EC !


Good examples of the asteriods that should be comets according to the EC idea are many of the named asteroids:

• Juno (e=0.2553, observed over a span of 67,610 days).
• Pallas (e=0.2309, observed over a span of 64,291 days)
• Astraea (e=0.1917, observed over a span of 59,759 days)
• ...More than 46 other named asteroids observed 1000's of times over decades.
• Vera (e=0.1939, observed over a span of 45,191 days)

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Yes lets, Wal Thornhill says:

Quote:

This is an ideal opportunity to examine the picture of Wild 2 from the perspective of the electric universe model of comets. Briefly, in that model a comet is a highly negatively charged body with respect to the Sun. Like all charged bodies in plasma, a comet will be enveloped in a plasma sheath (the coma) that limits the reach of the comet's electric field. A forbidden oxygen line was discovered in Comet Austin's coma. "Forbidden lines" are spectral signatures that are not expected in space because here on Earth they are found only within strong electric fields. To astronomers' surprise, forbidden lines are common in space, not only in comets, but in nebulae and galaxies. A cometary display is produced when the nucleus discharges at a rate sufficient to generate a visible tail. The dust and gases that form the comet''s tail are not evaporated by the heat of the sun, but instead are electrically 'machined' from the nucleus by cathode arcs. Laboratory examination of cathode arcs shows that they jump around on the cathode surface, removing surface material in jets to form small circular craters. The industrial process of Electric Discharge Machining (EDM) uses this feature to erode a surface to accurate depth. To the naked eye, the EDM surface looks remarkably smooth. However, when viewed at high magnification, the peculiarities of the machined surface become clear. The tendency for the cathode arc to erode one high point then move to the next high point tends to generate chains of flat-floored craters. The finished surface appears as if someone used a circular cookie cutter to produce extended depressions and channels with scalloped edges. Variations in arc current will produce a layered or terraced effect both within craters and between adjacent craters. Below is an example of EDM scarring.

The first thing wrong with what Wal Thornhill states is highlighted. Forbidden lines are not "only within strong electric fields". Astronomers are not surprised by them occurring in plasma. They have been observing them for decades. They expect and see the forbidden lines in cometary coma and tails since they are plasma.

The next thing wrong is with his pictures (yet another pictures look alike and so are of the same thing fallacy - there has to be a word for this!). He compares an picture of a "Scanning Electron Microscope image of a surface subjected to EDM." to the surface of Comet Wilde 2.

1. The EDM surface was created artificially and is probably of a flat surface.
2. The EDM surface image is a microscopic picture. If it were less magnified it would be flat! If it was more magnified it would be mountainous!
3. They do not even look alike!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

The Electric Comet idea has three established failures so far:

1. Predicts the wrong density for comets.
2. No observation of narrow band X-ray bursts from the EC electrical discharge machining.
3. There are at least 173,583 asteroids that should be comets according to EC.

So lets go onto the next topic: The jets that are observed from comet nuclei, e.g. the jets observed by Deep Impact from Tempel 1.

What is the EC idea's explanation for these?

You did not really answer the question so I will make a guess:
EC universe: Jets happen while the EDM "cathode arc" erodes a high point. They stop when the EDM "cathode arc" removes the high point and then moves to a new high point (and a new jet).

Does that mean that every jet must have an associated EDM "cathode arc"?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

You did not really answer the question so I will make a guess:
EC universe: Jets happen while the EDM "cathode arc" erodes a high point. They stop when the EDM "cathode arc" removes the high point and then moves to a new high point (and a new jet).

Does that mean that every jet must have an associated EDM "cathode arc"?

Well I'm shocked (scuse the pun ), Reality Check, but it would not be correct to assert every jet must have an associated "cathode arc" but my instead be the next step down, which is a coronal discharge. If the current/field threshold is reached electrical breakdown would occur and "cathode arcs" would form! any discharge would then become a dusty plasma and a flux transfer event would take place between the comet and the Sun!

It's interesting to note that coronal discharges, also called St Elmo's fire, has the same properties as the observed "bright" surface patches and preferentially "eating" the high points on Temple 1 and Wild 2!

Look at the surface it's leaving!

Quote:

Scientific explanation

Although referred to as "fire", St. Elmo's fire is, in fact, plasma. The electric field around the object in question causes ionization of the air molecules, producing a faint glow easily visible in low-light conditions. Approximately 1,000 - 30,000 volts per centimeter is required to induce St. Elmo's fire; however, this number is greatly dependent on the geometry of the object in question. Sharp points tend to require lower voltage levels to produce the same result because electric fields are more concentrated in areas of high curvature, thus discharges are more intense at the end of pointed objects

So that may explain that electrostatic noise they heard on comet Giacobini-Zinner

Quote:

(the plasma wave instrument detected broadband electrostatic noise and a changing pattern of weak electron plasma oscillations that yielded a density profile for the outer layers of the cold plasma tail. Near the tail axis the plasma wave instrument also detected a nonuniform flux of dust impacts)

Corona breakdown

Quote:

Corona also generates radio frequency noise that can also be heard as 'static' or buzzing on radio receivers. Corona can also occur naturally at high points (such as church spires, treetops, or ship masts) during thunderstorms as St. Elmo's Fire.

Electrical activities observed on Dust devils, which are are our Earthly counterparts to comets electrical dust machining

Quote:

Dust devils, even small ones (on Earth), can produce radio noise and electrical fields greater than 10,000 volts per meter.[10] A dust devil picks up small dirt and dust particles. As the particles whirl around, they bump and scrape into each other and become electrically charged. The whirling charged particles also create a magnetic field that fluctuates between 3 and 30 times each second.[11]
These electrical fields assist the vortices in lifting materials off the ground and into the atmosphere. Field experiments indicate that a dust devil can lift 1 gram of dust per second from each square meter (10 lb/s from each acre) of ground it passes over. A large dust devil measuring about 100 meters (330 ft) across at its base can lift about 15 metric tonnes (17 short tons) of dust into the air in 30 minutes. Giant dust storms that sweep across the world's deserts contribute 8% of the mineral dust in the atmosphere each year during the handful of storms that occur. In comparison, the significantly smaller dust devils that twist across the deserts during the summer lift about three times as much dust, thus having a greater combined impact on the dust content of the atmosphere. When this occurs, they are often called sand pillars.

Interesting Eh? RC.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

It's interesting to note that coronal discharges, also called St Elmo's fire, has the same properties as the observed "bright" surface patches and preferentially "eating" the high points on Temple 1 and Wild 2!

Deep Impact: Gallery: Images: Scarp Edge

Quote:

This is a region of particular interest. The lack of any features on the smooth region (lower left) implies a young surface. But is it advancing towards the right and covering up rougher, older surface regions? Or is it retreating to the left, eroding and uncovering those regions? The scarp edge marked by arrows is about 10-20 m above the lower and older terrain. It appears bright since it is catching direct sunlight.

Originally Posted by Sol88

So that may explain that electrostatic noise they heard on comet Giacobini-Zinner
Corona breakdown

So does standard plasma physics.

[Reality Check]

The Electric Comet idea has three established failures so far:

1. Predicts the wrong density for comets.
2. No observation of narrow band X-ray bursts from the EC electrical discharge machining.
3. There are at least 173,583 asteroids that should be comets according to EC.

So lets go onto the next topic: The jets that are observed from comet nuclei, e.g. the jets observed by Deep Impact from Tempel 1.

How does the EC idea generate jets from EDM machining of the surface of comets?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Deep Impact: Gallery: Images: Scarp Edge



So does standard plasma physics.

I see my work here is done!

Comets are an electrical phenomena or standard plasma physics according to Reality check.

[Dancing David]

You still have yet to do more than irrelevant fact attrition, sorry, your work hasn't even begun. Plasma exists, yes, but electric comets, uh huh sure, whatever.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

You still have yet to do more than irrelevant fact attrition, sorry, your work hasn't even begun. Plasma exists, yes, but electric comets, uh huh sure, whatever.

That's ok DD, you just call me when you have found your volatiles "somewhere" under to dirtysnowwballs dusty "rind"

You have a mathamatical equation somewhere that proves it!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

I see my work here is done!

Comets are an electrical phenomena or standard plasma physics according to Reality check.

I see that your work is hardly started!

Comets are an not electrical phenomena and not standard plasma physics according to Reality check.


Try reading my post and the actual image caption:
Deep Impact: Gallery: Images: Scarp Edge

Quote:

This is a region of particular interest. The lack of any features on the smooth region (lower left) implies a young surface. But is it advancing towards the right and covering up rougher, older surface regions? Or is it retreating to the left, eroding and uncovering those regions? The scarp edge marked by arrows is about 10-20 m above the lower and older terrain. It appears bright since it is catching direct sunlight.

There is no electrical phenomena shown in this image.

Are you still ignoring:
How does the EC idea generate jets from EDM machining of the surface of comets?

If so I will make a guess and add it to the list of things that EC gets wrong. Then we can go onto yet another EC topic.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

That's ok DD, you just call me when you have found your volatiles "somewhere" under to dirtysnowwballs dusty "rind"
You have a mathamatical equation somewhere that proves it!

No we have actual science like Deep Impact:

Quote:

In the post-impact briefing at 0100 Pacific Daylight Time (08:00 UTC) on July 4, 2005, the first processed images revealed existing craters on the comet. NASA scientists stated they could not see the new crater that had formed from the impactor, but it was later discovered to be about 100 meters (328 ft) wide and up to 30 meters (98 ft) deep.[33] Lucy McFadden, one of the co-investigators of the impact, stated "We didn't expect the success of one part of the mission [bright dust cloud] to affect a second part [seeing the resultant crater]. But that is part of the fun of science, to meet with the unexpected."[34] Analysis of data from the Swift X-ray telescope showed that the comet continued outgassing from the impact for 13 days, with a peak five days after impact. A total of 5 million kilograms (11 million pounds) of water[35] and between 10 and 25 million kilograms (22 and 55 million pounds) of dust were lost from the impact.[33]

This material came from below the surface of the comet.

You can forget about the water being generated by EDM. This was measured by the Swift X-ray telescope (remember Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays ?)

Swift X-Ray Telescope Observations of the Deep Impact Collision

Quote:

Comet 9P/Tempel 1 was observed by the Swift X-Ray Telescope (XRT) for a total of 250,024 s. Soft X-ray emission, 0.2-1.0 keV, was seen as a diffuse extended halo with an FWHM of 1.03×105 km centered on the comet's nucleus. The X-ray light curve indicates that the comet exhibited a prolonged soft X-ray outburst just after impact of the NASA Deep Impact (DI) spacecraft and enhanced X-ray activity lasted for 12 days. The radial brightness distribution and X-ray spectrum are in excellent agreement with a model of X-ray production in which highly charged minor heavy ion species in the solar wind undergo charge exchange reactions with water group or carbon dioxide group molecules in the neutral coma of the comet. Using this model, we derive a simple expression for the X-ray emission and show that the X-ray flare is, in part, due to an increase in solar wind flux at the comet but is largely due to an enhanced molecule production rate. Assuming that the main outgassing constituent was water, the comet produced (2.9+/-0.4)×108 kg over the 12 day period postimpact. The quiescent water production was expected to inject ~1.0×108 kg into the coma over the same period so the observed X-ray flux indicates that an additional (1.9+/-0.4)×108 kg of water or, alternatively, (3.9+/-0.5)×108 kg of carbon dioxide were liberated by the DI impact.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Sol88

That's ok DD, you just call me when you have found your volatiles "somewhere" under to dirtysnowwballs dusty "rind"

You have a mathamatical equation somewhere that proves it!

You still have some big holes in your theory, density and other mechanisms, like how the atypical comet/asteroid gets a charge or how a comet has a higher charge after it passes the sun. The equation I make reference to are your problem, you have no data.

You obviously know as much about frozen things as you do comets, or you wouldn't be so silly. I wonder how you can have a frozen surface on a moon and something not as frozen underneath.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

You still have some big holes in your theory, density and other mechanisms, like how the atypical comet/asteroid gets a charge or how a comet has a higher charge after it passes the sun. The equation I make reference to are your problem, you have no data.

You obviously know as much about frozen things as you do comets, or you wouldn't be so silly. I wonder how you can have a frozen surface on a moon and something not as frozen underneath.

DD my trollish friend, you need to do a little more studying before you can grasp what this thread is about, your complete lack of understanding here is blindingly obvious.

please re read this post


Then come back and write an intelligent comment on what you understand the EC theory as.

[Sol88]

DD make sure you read and understand what Reality check wrote in this POST this will stop a lot of going round in circles!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

DD make sure you read and understand what Reality check wrote in this POST this will stop a lot of going round in circles!

As I wrote in that post:

Quote:

This is not electric discarge machining.
The Moon/solar wind/Earth's magnetosphere interaction leads to electrostatic discharges not EDM.

In other words: your post is a red herring.
The electrostatic discharges caused by the Moon passing through plasma sheets in the Earth's magnetosphere is nothing to do with EDM caused by some sort of unspecified potential difference between a comet nucleus and its environment.

There is the heliospheric current sheet:

Quote:

The heliospheric current sheet (HCS) is the surface within the Solar System where the polarity of the Sun's magnetic field changes from north to south. This field extends throughout the Sun's equatorial plane in the heliosphere.[1][2] The shape of the current sheet results from the influence of the Sun's rotating magnetic field on the plasma in the interplanetary medium (Solar Wind).[3] A small electrical current flows within the sheet, about 10−10 A/m². The thickness of the current sheet is about 10,000 km.

The problem with this as a cause of the EDM is that comets would turn off when they were out of the sheet.

Are you still ignoring:
How does the EC idea generate jets from EDM machining of the surface of comets?

If so I will assume that there is no answer in EC and add it to the list of things that EC cannot explain. Then we can go onto yet another EC topic.