ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Closed Thread
Old 16th January 2010, 09:10 PM   #561
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,873
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
I love this makes me laugh every time

The stardust team (mainstream) said

Comets are small, cold, primordial bodies that formed at the edge of the solar system, near Pluto, except they did'nt!
Your stupidity is showing again Sol88 - read the press kit.

The press release is dated January 2006 - before the analysis of the returned dust showed that some of the material that formed comets in the outer system, formed at high temperatures nearer to Sun.

Comets are small, cold, primordial bodies that formed at the edge of the solar system, near Pluto. Some of the material that formed comets formed at high temperatures nearer to Sun as shown by the results of the Stardust mission.

I love this, makes me laugh every time every time Sol88 shows his ignorance of the scientific literature and quotes from press releases.

But what else can you expect from someone who is so deluded that he thinks that comets with a measured density of ~0.6 g/cc are astoriods with a measured density of ~1.3 g/cc?

This deserves a
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th January 2010, 09:17 PM   #562
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,873
Exclamation The totally stupid electric comet idea debunked

EC universe: Comets are rocky bodies, comparable to asteriods and probably created in the same event as asteriods (according to Thunderbolts).


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
    Thus the water content of Comet Tempel 1 is 20% to 50%.
  4. Cometary dust as collected by the Stardust mission contain forms of carbon that are not in meteorites.
    Thus comets are not meteorites.
    Meteorites are rocky bodies (meteoroids and sometimes asteroids) that have reached the Earth's surface.
    Therefore comets are not meteoroids or asteriods.
    (or How Sol88 cannot stop shooting himself in the foot)
EC universe: Comet jets, coma and tails are created from material that that is created from rock by electrical discharge machining.(but according to solrey EDM does not mean EDM in the EC universe!).

Real universe:

Start with Tim Thompson's posts about thisThen look atEC 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.
There are 459,893 asteroids with eccentricities greater than the minimum observed eccentricity of comets (0.0279).
EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets

C universe: solrey pointed out in this post that EC idea expects that the voltage potential a comet experiences would be orders of magnitude higher than that of the cloud to ground voltage potential in a thunderstorm (109 volts).
"Several" is more than a couple so the EC idea expects a voltage drop around a comet of at least 1012 volts.

Real universe: tusenfem pointed out that "Electric Fields and Cold Electrons in the Vicinity of Comet Halley" by Harri Laakso gave the measured potential drop between electrical layers around Comet Halley as 50 kV in this post. This is 10,000 times less than the thunderstorm potential and 10,000,000 times less that requires by the EC idea.

Water, water everywhere (except in the EC idea)
EC universe: Comets are rocky bodies, comparable to asteroids and probably created in the same event as asteroids (according to Thunderbolts). Comet jets, coma and tails are created from material (e.g. water) that that is created from rock by electrical discharge machining. Like everything in the EC idea there are no numbers and so no prediction of the composition of the nucleus. We could say that means that the EC idea predicts no water (0%) but there should be some blowback from the physically impossible (on comets) EDM process.
Asteroids in general have very low amounts of water. So let's just throw in 1% water as an extremely generous guess - IMHO it should be something like 0.01%. Sol88 or solrey should provide a better number if they have it.

Real universe: Comets are bodies with a mixture of rock and ices of various compounds, e.g. CO and water. They are have been described as "dirty snowballs". The volatile material (ices) is heated by the Sun and sublimates to form jets, the coma and the tail.This is supported by actual physical evidence, i.e. the results of the Deep Impact mission where the impact ejected material from the nucleus that was composed of 20-50% water and 80-50% dust.

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 (according to NASA).

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.
  2. Whipple, Fred L. (1951). "A Comet Model. II. Physical Relations for Comets and Meteors". Astrophys. J. 113: 464.
  3. Whipple, Fred L. (1955). "A Comet Model. III. The Zodiacal Light". Astrophys. J. 121: 750.
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 of being wrong and become part of the scientific process by publishing papers in peer reviewed journals, e.g. Fred L. Whipple.

EC Universe: Turn yourself into a crackpot by quoting press releases and news articles. This has the added advantage of revealing your ignorance of the scientific literature.
Real Universe: Real scientists cite published scientific papers and textbooks.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th January 2010, 04:06 PM   #563
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,755
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Hi Sol88, I noticed that in the last post I assumed that the electric comet idea has comets with the same composition as asteriods. You have not disagreed with this so far. So here is the science (not as clear cut as the different densities of comets and asteroids).

Physical composition of asteroids

Meteorites also suggest that "Asteroids are believed to contain traces of amino-acids and other organic compounds".

Physical composition of comet nuclei


This suggests that the composition of comets and asteroids differ in that comets have the addition of frozen gases while asteroids generally do not have frozen gases (but may have icy crusts).

Quote:
Physical composition of comet nuclei

They are composed of rock, dust, water ice, and frozen gases such as carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane and ammonia.[9]
They are often popularly described as "dirty snowballs", though recent observations have revealed dry dusty or rocky surfaces, suggesting that the ices are hidden beneath the crust (see Debate over comet composition). Comets also contain a variety of organic compounds; in addition to the gases already mentioned, these may include methanol, hydrogen cyanide, formaldehyde, ethanol and ethane, and perhaps more complex molecules such as long-chain hydrocarbons and amino acids.[10][11][12]
This suggests that the composition of comets and asteroids differ in that comets have the addition of frozen gases while asteroids generally do not have frozen gases (but may have icy crusts).
So RC, though recent observations have revealed dry dusty or rocky surfaces

Where do they see the water (ices, gas)?
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th January 2010, 04:16 PM   #564
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,873
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So RC, though recent observations have revealed dry dusty or rocky surfaces

Where do they see the water (ices, gas)?
In the gas created by sublimation of the ices.
And of course:
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
P.S.
Are you still deluded enough to think that comets with a measured density of ~0.6 g/cc are asteroids with a measured density of ~1.3 g/cc?

Last edited by Reality Check; 18th January 2010 at 04:21 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th January 2010, 04:23 PM   #565
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,873
Exclamation The totally stupid electric comet idea debunked

Removed a couple of bad links:
EC universe: Comets are rocky bodies, comparable to asteriods and probably created in the same event as asteriods (according to Thunderbolts).

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
    Thus the water content of Comet Tempel 1 is 20% to 50%.
  4. Cometary dust as collected by the Stardust mission contain forms of carbon that are not in meteorites.
    Thus comets are not meteorites.
    Meteorites are rocky bodies (meteoroids and sometimes asteroids) that have reached the Earth's surface.
    Therefore comets are not meteoroids or asteriods.
    (or How Sol88 cannot stop shooting himself in the foot)
EC universe: Comet jets, coma and tails are created from material that that is created from rock by electrical discharge machining.(but according to solrey EDM does not mean EDM in the EC universe!).

Real universe:


Start with Tim Thompson's posts about thisThen look atEC 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.
There are 459,893 asteroids with eccentricities greater than the minimum observed eccentricity of comets (0.0279).
EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets

C universe: solrey pointed out in this post that EC idea expects that the voltage potential a comet experiences would be orders of magnitude higher than that of the cloud to ground voltage potential in a thunderstorm (109 volts).
"Several" is more than a couple so the EC idea expects a voltage drop around a comet of at least 1012 volts.

Real universe: tusenfem pointed out that "Electric Fields and Cold Electrons in the Vicinity of Comet Halley" by Harri Laakso gave the measured potential drop between electrical layers around Comet Halley as 50 kV in this post. This is 10,000 times less than the thunderstorm potential and 10,000,000 times less that requires by the EC idea.

Water, water everywhere (except in the EC idea)
EC universe: Comets are rocky bodies, comparable to asteroids and probably created in the same event as asteroids (according to Thunderbolts). Comet jets, coma and tails are created from material (e.g. water) that that is created from rock by electrical discharge machining. Like everything in the EC idea there are no numbers and so no prediction of the composition of the nucleus. We could say that means that the EC idea predicts no water (0%) but there should be some blowback from the physically impossible (on comets) EDM process.
Asteroids in general have very low amounts of water. So let's just throw in 1% water as an extremely generous guess - IMHO it should be something like 0.01%. Sol88 or solrey should provide a better number if they have it.

Real universe: Comets are bodies with a mixture of rock and ices of various compounds, e.g. CO and water. They are have been described as "dirty snowballs". The volatile material (ices) is heated by the Sun and sublimates to form jets, the coma and the tail.This is supported by actual physical evidence, i.e. the results of the Deep Impact mission where the impact ejected material from the nucleus that was composed of 20-50% water and 80-50% dust.

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 (according to NASA).

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.
  2. Whipple, Fred L. (1951). "A Comet Model. II. Physical Relations for Comets and Meteors". Astrophys. J. 113: 464.
  3. Whipple, Fred L. (1955). "A Comet Model. III. The Zodiacal Light". Astrophys. J. 121: 750.
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 of being wrong and become part of the scientific process by publishing papers in peer reviewed journals, e.g. Fred L. Whipple.

EC Universe: Turn yourself into a crackpot by quoting press releases and news articles. This has the added advantage of revealing your ignorance of the scientific literature.
Real Universe: Real scientists cite published scientific papers and textbooks.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th January 2010, 04:52 PM   #566
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,873
Question Do EC comets switch off at perihelion

Sol88, Yet another problem with the EC idea?
EC universe: Comet jets, coma and tails are created from material that that is created from rock by electrical discharge machining. This happens somehow because of some unspecified electrical potential difference caused by the orbit of the comet.
So consider a hypothetical situation where a comet stops moving closer to the Sun. That electrical potential difference will discharge. The time to discharge will be small. The time is impossible to calculate in the EC idea since it is just an idea with no model. But other processes discharge in timescales of seconds (should we mention lightning?).

But comets stop approaching the Sun at perihelion and spend days at the same distance from the Sun. Thus an EC prediction is that comets will switch off (or to be charitable to the EC idea their emissions would diminish) at perihelion.

Possible counter-argument: It is something to do with the solar wind.
Answer: The solar wind is neutrally charged (equal amounts of positively and negatively charged particles). Thus it will not create the electricl difference needed for the EDM. In addition if the solar wind could create jets in the EC rocks (comet nuclei) then it would also create jets from the surface of the Moon.

Real universe: Comet jets, coma and tails are created from the sublimation of ices (water, CO2, etc.) on and below the surface of the comet nucleus. The hotter the comet nucleus, the more sublimation.
The prediction is that comets will be brightest at perihelion.

We observe that comets are brightest at perihelion
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th February 2010, 01:11 AM   #567
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,755
http://www.universetoday.com/2010/02...oid-collision/

Mmmmm.... another comet/asteroid

Two comets smashing head on? unlikely

Two asteroids smashing head on? unlikely

An asteroid electricaly discharging? more than likely

RC, what do you think the bright spot at the 9 oclock postion maybe?

Close-up of Comet-like Asteroid P/2010 A2. Credit: NASA, ESA, and D. Jewitt (UCLA)
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th February 2010, 11:17 PM   #568
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,873
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
http://www.universetoday.com/2010/02...oid-collision/

Mmmmm.... another comet/asteroid

Two comets smashing head on? unlikely

Two asteroids smashing head on? unlikely

An asteroid electricaly discharging? more than likely

RC, what do you think the bright spot at the 9 oclock postion maybe?

http://www.universetoday.com/wp-cont...id-closeup.jpg Close-up of Comet-like Asteroid P/2010 A2. Credit: NASA, ESA, and D. Jewitt (UCLA)
Two asteroids smashing? Likely.
Your inability to understand what you read? Likely
Quote:
Astronomers have long thought the asteroid belt is being ground down through collisions, but such a smashup has never been seen before.

"This is quite different from the smooth dust envelopes of normal comets," said principal investigator David Jewitt of the University of California at Los Angeles. "The filaments are made of dust and gravel, presumably recently thrown out of the nucleus. Some are swept back by radiation pressure from sunlight to create straight dust streaks. Embedded in the filaments are co-moving blobs of dust that likely originated from tiny unseen parent bodies."
It is what astronomers expect from two asteroids colliding:
  • A tail of dust (no gas, no water, no idiotic EC comet water fro discharging.).
  • The remains of one of the asteroids (the bright spot at the 9 oclock postion)
Since you have no answer to my last suggested problem with the EC idea, I will add it as yet another flaw in the dumb EC idea.

Last edited by Reality Check; 5th February 2010 at 11:28 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th February 2010, 11:26 PM   #569
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,873
Exclamation The electric comet idea completely debunked

Added yet anothe flaw on the brightness of comets at perihelion !

EC universe: Comets are rocky bodies, comparable to asteriods and probably created in the same event as asteriods (according to Thunderbolts).


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
    Thus the water content of Comet Tempel 1 is 20% to 50%.
  4. Cometary dust as collected by the Stardust mission contain forms of carbon that are not in meteorites.
    Thus comets are not meteorites.
    Meteorites are rocky bodies (meteoroids and sometimes asteroids) that have reached the Earth's surface.
    Therefore comets are not meteoroids or asteriods.
    (or How Sol88 cannot stop shooting himself in the foot)
EC universe: Comet jets, coma and tails are created from material that that is created from rock by electrical discharge machining.(but according to solrey EDM does not mean EDM in the EC universe!).

Real universe: Start with Tim Thompson's posts about thisThen look atEC 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.
There are 459,893 asteroids with eccentricities greater than the minimum observed eccentricity of comets (0.0279).
EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets

EC universe: solrey pointed out in this post that EC idea expects that the voltage potential a comet experiences would be orders of magnitude higher than that of the cloud to ground voltage potential in a thunderstorm (109 volts).
"Several" is more than a couple so the EC idea expects a voltage drop around a comet of at least 1012 volts.

Real universe: tusenfem pointed out that "Electric Fields and Cold Electrons in the Vicinity of Comet Halley" by Harri Laakso gave the measured potential drop between electrical layers around Comet Halley as 50 kV in this post. This is 10,000 times less than the thunderstorm potential and 10,000,000 times less that requires by the EC idea.

Water, water everywhere (except in the EC idea)
EC universe: Comets are rocky bodies, comparable to asteroids and probably created in the same event as asteroids (according to Thunderbolts). Comet jets, coma and tails are created from material (e.g. water) that that is created from rock by electrical discharge machining. Like everything in the EC idea there are no numbers and so no prediction of the composition of the nucleus. We could say that means that the EC idea predicts no water (0%) but there should be some blowback from the physically impossible (on comets) EDM process.
Asteroids in general have very low amounts of water. So let's just throw in 1% water as an extremely generous guess - IMHO it should be something like 0.01%. Sol88 or solrey should provide a better number if they have it.

Real universe: Comets are bodies with a mixture of rock and ices of various compounds, e.g. CO and water. They are have been described as "dirty snowballs", some are better described as "icy dirtballs. The volatile material (ices) is heated by the Sun and sublimates to form jets, the coma and the tail.This is supported by actual physical evidence, i.e. the results of the Deep Impact mission where the impact ejected material from the nucleus that was composed of 20-50% water and 80-50% dust

EC comets switch off at perihelion
EC universe: An EC prediction is that comets will switch off (or to be charitable to the EC idea they will be less bright) at perihelion.

Real universe: We observe that comets are brightest at perihelion .

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 (according to NASA).

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.
  2. Whipple, Fred L. (1951). "A Comet Model. II. Physical Relations for Comets and Meteors". Astrophys. J. 113: 464.
  3. Whipple, Fred L. (1955). "A Comet Model. III. The Zodiacal Light". Astrophys. J. 121: 750.
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 of being wrong and become part of the scientific process by publishing papers in peer reviewed journals, e.g. Fred L. Whipple.

EC Universe: Turn yourself into a crackpot by quoting press releases and news articles. This has the added advantage of revealing your ignorance of the scientific literature.
Real Universe: Real scientists cite published scientific papers and textbooks.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th February 2010, 12:03 AM   #570
Zeuzzz
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
EC theory was good up until someone did the physics. Sure some evidence was compelling for a time (deep impact) but I think that the traditional highy charged electric comet theory is dead.

However net charges, voltage drops and plasma properties of its tail could certainly hold credence. The idea that static charge on entering a large bodies atmosphere could accumulate so quickly a large bolt of explosive lightning would hit the ground before the comet is still a very real possibility.
Zeuzzz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th February 2010, 02:27 AM   #571
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,873
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
EC theory was good up until someone did the physics. Sure some evidence was compelling for a time (deep impact) but I think that the traditional highy charged electric comet theory is dead.
...snipped normal physic. stuff...
The EC idea has always been an idea not a scientific theory. No physics has been done for it because it predicts nothing except in a general sense. What killed it was the physics done to test the existing scientific theories for comets. A side-effect was showing just how invalid the EC idea was.
Deep Impact was the final nail in the coffin but the basic fact that comets are much less dense than asteroids has been known for decades.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th February 2010, 02:51 AM   #572
Zeuzzz
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
The EC idea has always been an idea not a scientific theory. No physics has been done for it because it predicts nothing except in a general sense. What killed it was the physics done to test the existing scientific theories for comets. A side-effect was showing just how invalid the EC idea was.
Deep Impact was the final nail in the coffin but the basic fact that comets are much less dense than asteroids has been known for decades.

And with that I realize I actually have no idea to what EC theory you refer. All I remember was a sketchy idea from Thornhill and Talbot.
Zeuzzz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th February 2010, 03:24 AM   #573
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,873
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
And with that I realize I actually have no idea to what EC theory you refer. All I remember was a sketchy idea from Thornhill and Talbot.
That is it.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2010, 05:08 PM   #574
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,755
RC Wrote
Quote:
EC universe: Comets are rocky bodies, comparable to asteriods and probably created in the same event as asteriods (according to Thunderbolts).


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
Thus the water content of Comet Tempel 1 is 20% to 50%.
4. Cometary dust as collected by the Stardust mission contain forms of carbon that are not in meteorites.
Thus comets are not meteorites.
Meteorites are rocky bodies (meteoroids and sometimes asteroids) that have reached the Earth's surface.
Therefore comets are not meteoroids or asteriods.
(or How Sol88 cannot stop shooting himself in the foot)


Comets are rocks!!!


Quote:
"Many people imagined that comets formed in total isolation from the rest of the solar system. We have shown that's not true," said Donald Brownlee back in 2006, principal investigator for Stardust.
Like my narrow minded friend, Reality check, who is still under the impression that comets are primordial left overs!!

but....

Quote:
"The mission was expected to provide a unique window into the early solar system," the team, led by Jennifer Matzel wrote in their paper, "by returning a mix of solar system condensates, amorphous grains from the interstellar medium, and true stardust – crystalline grains originating in distant stars. Initial results, however, indicate that comet Wild 2 instead contains an abundance of high-temperature silicate and oxide minerals analogous to minerals in carbonaceous chondrites."

so the theory of a dirtysnowball falls flat on it's arse!

Quote:
“These findings also raise key questions regarding the timescale of the formation of comets and the relationship between Wild 2 and other primitive solar nebula objects.”
Key questions? like the mainstream model is wrong!!!

New Results from Stardust Mission Paint Chaotic Picture of Early Solar System


Tap tap tap, another nail!
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2010, 08:00 PM   #575
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,873
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Comets are rocks!!!
Sol88 still cannot understand that Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).
Quote:
For some reason EC proponents cannot grasp that the measured density of comet nuclei is ~0.6 g/cc, the measured density of asteroids is ~3.0 g/cc and that 0.6 is less than 3.0.
The lack of basic math skills is astounding!!!

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Like my narrow minded friend, Reality check, who is still under the impression that comets are primordial left overs!!
Unlike my narrow minded friend, Sol88, who is still under the impression that 0.6 is greater than 3.0, I can read and understand the science in science articles.

New Results from Stardust Mission Paint Chaotic Picture of Early Solar System
Quote:
The mission was expected to provide a unique window into the early solar system," the team, led by Jennifer Matzel wrote in their paper, "by returning a mix of solar system condensates, amorphous grains from the interstellar medium, and true stardust – crystalline grains originating in distant stars. Initial results, however, indicate that comet Wild 2 instead contains an abundance of high-temperature silicate and oxide minerals analogous to minerals in carbonaceous chondrites.
The Stardust mission was designed to study the composition of dust from comet Wild 2. It did not collect anything else except dust. It did not measure the composition of Wild 2 except by taking pictures of its icy nucleus. Thus the paper is not about the composotion of Wild 2. It is about the composition of the dust in Wild 2. In fact it is about the composition of one specific dust particle called Coki.

The collected dust contains an abundance of high-temperature silicate and oxide minerals analogous to minerals in carbonaceous chondrites.

Bury the electric comet idea: it is dead and stinking up the place !
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2010, 08:02 PM   #576
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,873
Question Do EC comets switch off at perihelion

First asked 19th January 2010
Sol88, Yet another problem with the EC idea?
EC universe: Comet jets, coma and tails are created from material that that is created from rock by electrical discharge machining. This happens somehow because of some unspecified electrical potential difference caused by the orbit of the comet.
So consider a hypothetical situation where a comet stops moving closer to the Sun. That electrical potential difference will discharge. The time to discharge will be small. The time is impossible to calculate in the EC idea since it is just an idea with no model. But other processes discharge in timescales of seconds (should we mention lightning?).

But comets stop approaching the Sun at perihelion and spend days at the same distance from the Sun. Thus an EC prediction is that comets will switch off (or to be charitable to the EC idea their emissions would diminish) at perihelion.

Possible counter-argument: It is something to do with the solar wind.
Answer: The solar wind is neutrally charged (equal amounts of positively and negatively charged particles). Thus it will not create the electrical difference needed for the EDM. In addition if the solar wind could create jets in the EC rocks (comet nuclei) then it would also create jets from the surface of the Moon.

Real universe: Comet jets, coma and tails are created from the sublimation of ices (water, CO2, etc.) on and below the surface of the comet nucleus. The hotter the comet nucleus, the more sublimation.
The prediction is that comets will be brightest at perihelion.

We observe that comets are brightest at perihelion
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th February 2010, 01:51 AM   #577
Aitch
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,723
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Unlike my narrow minded friend, Sol88, who is still under the impression that 0.6 is greater than 3.0, I can read and understand the science in science articles.
Maybe you should introduce him to the 'leading thinkers' in this ad:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Aitch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2010, 12:12 AM   #578
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,755
another nail!!!!


http://www.nasa.gov/topics/moonmars/...c-craters.html

Why dosn't all rock (i.e comets) behave like the moon in the solar "wind" (electric current)?

Seems it happens on Enceladus as well!!

enceladus-is-blowing-bubbles

Quote:
Measurements from the Cassini Plasma Spectrometer (CAPS) and the Magnetospheric IMaging Instrument (MIMI) show that both the moon and its plume are continuously soaking up the plasma, which rushes past at around 30 kilometers per second, leaving a cavity downstream. In addition, the most energetic particles which zoom up and down Saturn’s magnetic field lines are swept up, leaving a much larger void in the high energy plasma. Material from Enceladus, both dust and gas, is also being charged and forming new plasma.
How exactly?

Quote:
“Enceladus is the source of most of the plasma in Saturn’s magnetosphere, with ionised water and oxygen originating from the vents forming a big torus of plasma that surrounds Saturn. We may see these spiky features in the wake of Saturn’s other moons as they interact with the plasma but, to date, we have only studied Enceladus in sufficient detail,” said Kanani.
Again what causes the ionisation to happen? RC?

What about our Moon when it passes thru the Earths magnetotail?
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2010, 02:43 AM   #579
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,873
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
another nail!!!!
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/moonmars/...c-craters.html

Why dosn't all rock (i.e comets) behave like the moon in the solar "wind" (electric current)?
another nail!!!!
First asked 19 April 2010
Sol88
Why dosn't all rock (i.e asteriods) behave like the moon in the solar "wind" (electric current)?

But then there is this idotic prediction from the EC fantasy: EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Seems it happens on Enceladus as well!!
enceladus-is-blowing-bubbles
How exactly?
The physical facts about Saturn that you are ignorant of?
Your inability to read the first paragraph?
Seems it does not happens on Enceladus at all!!
Quote:
Observations from two instruments on the Cassini spacecraft shows the moon Enceladus leaves a complex pattern of ripples and bubbles in its wake as it orbit Saturn. The ringed planet's magnetosphere is filled with electrically charged particles (plasma) originating from both the planet and its moons, and as Enceladus plows through the plasma "spiky" features form that represent bubbles of low energy particles, said Sheila Kanani who led a team of scientists from University College, London who discovered the phenomenon.
[quote=Sol88;5842468]
Again what causes the ionisation to happen? RC?
[/quoye]
Again: l

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
What about our Moon when it passes thru the Earths magnetotail?
Exactly what is described in the article and the paper it is based on.

What aout Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids). , Sol88?
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2010, 02:48 AM   #580
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,873
Exclamation The electric comet fantasy completely debunked

It looks like Sol88 is admitting that the EC fantasy cannot explain EC comets switch off at perihelion.

EC universe: Comets are rocky bodies, comparable to asteriods and probably created in the same event as asteriods (according to Thunderbolts).


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
    Thus the water content of Comet Tempel 1 is 20% to 50%.
  4. Cometary dust as collected by the Stardust mission contain forms of carbon that are not in meteorites.
    Thus comets are not meteorites.
    Meteorites are rocky bodies (meteoroids and sometimes asteroids) that have reached the Earth's surface.
    Therefore comets are not meteoroids or asteriods.
    (or How Sol88 cannot stop shooting himself in the foot)
EC universe: Comet jets, coma and tails are created from material that that is created from rock by electrical discharge machining.(but according to solrey EDM does not mean EDM in the EC universe!).


Real universe: Start with Tim Thompson's posts about thisThen look atEC 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.
There are 459,893 asteroids with eccentricities greater than the minimum observed eccentricity of comets (0.0279).
EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets

EC universe: solrey pointed out in this post that EC idea expects that the voltage potential a comet experiences would be orders of magnitude higher than that of the cloud to ground voltage potential in a thunderstorm (109 volts).
"Several" is more than a couple so the EC idea expects a voltage drop around a comet of at least 1012 volts.

Real universe: tusenfem pointed out that "Electric Fields and Cold Electrons in the Vicinity of Comet Halley" by Harri Laakso gave the measured potential drop between electrical layers around Comet Halley as 50 kV in this post. This is 10,000 times less than the thunderstorm potential and 10,000,000 times less that requires by the EC idea.

Water, water everywhere (except in the EC idea)
EC universe: Comets are rocky bodies, comparable to asteroids and probably created in the same event as asteroids (according to Thunderbolts). Comet jets, coma and tails are created from material (e.g. water) that that is created from rock by electrical discharge machining. Like everything in the EC idea there are no numbers and so no prediction of the composition of the nucleus. We could say that means that the EC idea predicts no water (0%) but there should be some blowback from the physically impossible (on comets) EDM process.
Asteroids in general have very low amounts of water. So let's just throw in 1% water as an extremely generous guess - IMHO it should be something like 0.01%. Sol88 or solrey should provide a better number if they have it.

Real universe: Comets are bodies with a mixture of rock and ices of various compounds, e.g. CO and water. They are have been described as "dirty snowballs", some are better described as "icy dirtballs. The volatile material (ices) is heated by the Sun and sublimates to form jets, the coma and the tail.This is supported by actual physical evidence, i.e. the results of the Deep Impact mission where the impact ejected material from the nucleus that was composed of 20-50% water and 80-50% dust

EC comets switch off at perihelion
EC universe: An EC prediction is that comets will switch off (or to be charitable to the EC idea they will be less bright) at perihelion.

Real universe: We observe that comets are brightest at perihelion .

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 (according to NASA).


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.
  2. Whipple, Fred L. (1951). "A Comet Model. II. Physical Relations for Comets and Meteors". Astrophys. J. 113: 464.
  3. Whipple, Fred L. (1955). "A Comet Model. III. The Zodiacal Light". Astrophys. J. 121: 750.
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 of being wrong and become part of the scientific process by publishing papers in peer reviewed journals, e.g. Fred L. Whipple.

EC Universe: Turn yourself into a crackpot by quoting press releases and news articles. This has the added advantage of revealing your ignorance of the scientific literature.
Real Universe: Real scientists cite published scientific papers and textbooks.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2010, 04:28 AM   #581
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,759
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Why dosn't all rock (i.e comets) behave like the moon in the solar "wind" (electric current)?

Seems it happens on Enceladus as well!!

Again what causes the ionisation to happen? RC?

What about our Moon when it passes thru the Earths magnetotail?
Typically another misunderstanding by Sol88 (who is surprised?) And quote mining, leaving out the important part from the link:

Quote:
Heated vents at the south pole of the moon release a plume of material, consisting mainly of icy grains and water vapour, into space.
This is neutral (not-ionized) icy and water, thank you very much.
Which interacts with the plasma in the Kronian magnetosphere

Quote:
Measurements from the Cassini Plasma Spectrometer (CAPS) and the Magnetospheric IMaging Instrument (MIMI) show that both the moon and its plume are continuously soaking up the plasma, which rushes past at around 30 kilometers per second, leaving a cavity downstream. In addition, the most energetic particles which zoom up and down Saturn’s magnetic field lines are swept up, leaving a much larger void in the high energy plasma. Material from Enceladus, both dust and gas, is also being charged and forming new plasma.
The interaction of the magnetospheric plasma and the neutral plumes will ionize the particles in the plumes.

They do write that

Quote:
“Enceladus is the source of most of the plasma in Saturn’s magnetosphere, with ionised water and oxygen originating from the vents forming a big torus of plasma that surrounds Saturn.
which is shorthand for what I wrote above.

Just another nail to Sol88's credability in reading even the most simple of news stories.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC

Last edited by tusenfem; 19th April 2010 at 04:30 AM.
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2010, 09:56 PM   #582
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,755
So the only hang up between the EU perspective and "mainstreams" is the source of the heating and how far down
Quote:
The interaction of the magnetospheric plasma and the neutral plumes will ionize the particles in the plumes.
100km? 10km? 1km? all the way to the surface?


ouble layer formation because of different plasma properties? could be a source for the heat!

But yeah basically we can agree that what is happening on this moon is some "new and misunderstood" electromagnetic phenomenon, hell even ours is doing some funky EM (crazy electrons being so much lighter than protons and stuff, (and NASA does not want to go back) is ???!!!

crazy bastards

Hows the wording though? in the PR
Quote:
Enceladus plows through the plasma "spiky" features form that represent bubbles of low energy particles
Spiky features, Bubbles??

And did they forget all the other "hot" poles of planets and Moons? [quote]Heated vents at the south pole of the moon release a plume of material, consisting mainly of icy grains and water vapour, into space./QUOTE] Outside earth
Quote:
Other astronomical bodies are also known to have polar vortices, including Venus (double vortex - that is, two polar vortices at a pole [1]), Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and Saturn's moon Titan.
double-eyed vortex at Venus south pole

Quote:
The brighter the colour, the more radiation is reaching out from the hot layers below. The brightest spot correspond to the centre of the vortex, where radiation from the deeper layers become clearly visible , like looking through a hole.
So maybe the heating is NOT caused by "Tidal heating" , but something EM in nature? Induction? Pinching?
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2010, 12:29 AM   #583
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,759
Oh my goodness, how should one reply to so much idiocy?

The plasma of the magnetosphere interacts with the neutral plumes, and the interaction is that the particles of both collide and either ionize the neutral by just kicking out an electron from the neutral, or they have a charge exchange interaction in which an electron from a neutral goes to the ion. Naturally, there can also be radiation the ionizes the neutrals.

And this process goes on all the way to the surface yes, why should it not? Enceladus is not protected by any magnetosphere or someting. Note, however, that this has NOTHING to do with any heating. It is mind boggling that you come up with heating here.

ouble layer, I guess you mean double layer. It is basically impossible to get a double layer because there is no steady state there, the plasma of the Kronian magnetosphere is moving at high speed past Enceladus. There is, thus, no boundary between two different plasmas. Also, such a double layer would not produce any heat, so it is stupefying how you come to such conclusions. Apparently you know jack about plasma physics.

And no we DO NOT agree at all that there is a "misunderstood EM process" because it is all pretty standard. Maybe you should read REAL papers instead of dumbified press releases?

However as the link writes (you forgot a word, so the sentence does not make any sense)

Quote:
as Enceladus plows through the plasma "spiky" features form that represent bubbles of low energy particles
Enceladus sweeps away particles from the Kronian magnetosphere. When a spacecraft flys through the magnetosphere it will measure sudden (spiky) drops in density in the data (spiky because the signatures are short).

There are clear vents on the south pole of Enceladus that are either open or closed, depending where the moon is in the Kronian system. They are opened and closed by the flexing of the moon by the tidal forces. You may not like it, but that is how it works.

The vortices at poles are something completely different and happen to solar system objects that have an atmosphere.

Could you just stop spouting this uttern nonsense. First come up with a real model using your EU pinches and induction and double layers, maybe then we can discuss any further.

But knowing you, you are only here to bitch about the mainstream, so I don't expect anything from you or your team (Zeuzzz, Michael Mozina, Brantc) that even comes close to a quantitative solution to the problems. It's bunnies all the way down.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2010, 08:57 PM   #584
Tim Thompson
Muse
 
Tim Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
Lightbulb Lunar Surface Charging & Enceladus Geysers

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Why dosn't all rock (i.e comets) behave like the moon in the solar "wind" (electric current)?
I assume you have not been following this thread, so maybe you have not noticed that fact that comets are not rocks. Asteroids, on the other hand, probably behave much like the moon, and may have a surface potential as high as about 5 Volts under normal circumstances.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Seems it happens on Enceladus as well!! How exactly? Again what causes the ionisation to happen? RC?
The south pole of enceladus sports a number of "ice geysers" (image of geysers; geyser source model) which emit high speed neutral gas that is only later ionized in the usual way (e.g., solar ultraviolet, solar wind charge exchange & etc.). Terribly mysterious no doubt.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
But yeah basically we can agree that what is happening on this moon is some "new and misunderstood" electromagnetic phenomenon, ...
No, we can't agree on that. The fact that the lunar surface should be electrically charged has been on the table since at least Singer & Walker, 1962, and in Whipple, 1977 it is shown that the exposed surface will charge to a potential that minimizes the incident current (see Stubbs, et al., 2007). The existence of a potential in a shadowed crater is only a natural side effect of the charging of the surface, and has itself been anticipated in the past (see, e.g., Farrell, et al, 2010; Stubbs, et al., 2010; Halekas, et al., 2002; Reiff, 1976).
__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell
Tim Thompson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2010, 07:18 AM   #585
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,755
Enceladus is a conductor? The plasma moving past this conductor is an electric current?

Quote:
Joule heating, also known as ohmic heating and resistive heating, is the process by which the passage of an electric current through a conductor releases heat
LINK

And that amazes you?
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2010, 07:31 AM   #586
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Nothing you say amazes me anymore Sol88
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2010, 09:23 PM   #587
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,873
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Enceladus is a conductor?
No

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
The plasma moving past this conductor is an electric current?
No

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
LINK

And that amazes you?
No
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th November 2010, 10:37 PM   #588
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,755
Science does it again!!

http://www.dailyrumors.net/473-first...ptured-by-nasa

Quote:
"We're learning a lot because this nucleus appears to be quite different from the other four we already know," said a Nasa Tv Mike A'Hearn, University of Maryland, who is leading this part of the project.
This nucleus appears to be quite different from the other four we already know? Like we are %100 sure of the others???

How do you think these jets work?
Quote:
The body would consist of "a mixture of silicate dust and water ice", although the possibility has emerged that in Hartley 2 is also "carbon and nitrogen."
Where the water ice?? (again!!)

Are you, RC, prepared to concede that the primary effects on a comets surface are plasma/electrical in nature?
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th November 2010, 10:42 PM   #589
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,755
Allowing electrical effects into astronomy, astrophysics and planetary science will be the greatest scientific revolution in history.


Uncle Wal does it again!
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th November 2010, 11:59 PM   #590
Humanzee
Muse
 
Humanzee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 530
can you elaborate on why what you posted changes how anyone thinks about how the primary effects on a comet are plasma/electrical by nature?
Humanzee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th November 2010, 03:38 AM   #591
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
So Sol88, how does hartley2 aquire and maintain this electrical charge?
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th November 2010, 09:53 AM   #592
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Science does it again!!
If you imagine that Comet Hartley was electrically charged a millisecond before this photo was taken, and you imagine that those jets consist of charged particles accelerated by the resulting electric fields:

Well, Comet Hartley is no longer charged. That's what a discharge means. It means you take the separated charges and let them come back together, leaving something closer to neutral.

What a stroke of luck, then EPOXI flew by Hartley at the one single moment that its hugely-unstable "electric charge" decided to move around! A five year long mission and it happens to arrive---by pure luck--- within a millisecond of Hartley's electrical discharge! (Note: dis + charge = removal of charge = not charged any more)

What high-voltage current source is going to charge it up again? I sure don't see a big Van de Graaff belt in the NASA photo. How long will it take before Hartley is charged up strongly enough for another discharge?
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th November 2010, 05:00 PM   #593
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,755
Dancing David:
Quote:
So Sol88, how does hartley2 aquire and maintain this electrical charge?
You still struggling with rock aquiring charge in a plasma "wind"???

TRY & THIS LUNAR ELECTRIC FIELDS, SURFACE
POTENTIAL AND ASSOCIATED PLASMA SHEATHS*
J. W. FREEMAN and M. IBRAHIM
Dept. of Space Physics and Astronomy, Rice University, Houston, Tex., U.S.A.
Intersting to note DD is the very first opening line!!!

I'll highlight it for you, please understand this is were the "charge" comes from,

Quote:
Any body immersed in a plasma acquires a net negative charge.
So if the electric field centre on the Sun has a higher charge (is more positive) than the comet nucleus, there will be a charge difference.

And I think we can all agree on the fact charges like to equilize!

which brings me to the next point,
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th November 2010, 05:17 PM   #594
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,755
Quote:
What high-voltage current source is going to charge it up again? I sure don't see a big Van de Graaff belt in the NASA photo. How long will it take before Hartley is charged up strongly enough for another discharge?
Orbital motion!!

I think you believe it becomes charge nuetral after a millisecond of dis-charging

How long does it take for the charge contained deeper under the surface to equilize? Milliseconds??

If that were to happen, we would see comets explode and come apart!!! like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj1pkyCL75E&NR=1 and we don't see that, well we do but thats because we KNOW comets are NOT very dense, like RC said "comets with a measured density of ~0.6 g/cc" but with composition made of high temp minerals that at the mesured density of 0.6g/cc comets must be loose piles of dust (oh and ice) except they look like and feel ROCK!

So what in fact EPOXI is watching is the gradule dis-discharge of a rocky body that is more negitive than the plasma it is moving thru and increasing in net + charge!

What do you think the jets are?? Water ice and other volitiles escaping from the nozzels which mey or may not be the bright spots on the surface or something like that??

Or are the effects we have observed on a few comets now mainly electric??
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator

Last edited by Sol88; 6th November 2010 at 05:21 PM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th November 2010, 06:07 PM   #595
Haig
Graduate Poster
 
Haig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,635
EPOXI Mission Captures Jets in Action

This movie, taken by the spacecraft's High-Resolution Instrument, shows jets spraying out of comet Hartley 2 as the comet tumbles through space.
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/video...ia_id=26383601

Does this look, in anyway, like an electrical discharge?
Haig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th November 2010, 06:20 PM   #596
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Orbital motion!!

I think you believe it becomes charge nuetral after a millisecond of dis-charging
No, I think it was charge neutral to begin with.

Quote:
How long does it take for the charge contained deeper under the surface to equilize? Milliseconds??
So you think the surface will discharge in one millisecond, then charge migrates up from below a millisecond later and makes the *next* discharge, etc.? Complete nonsense. First: after you're done inventing a surface charging mechanism, you're going to invent a bulk-charging mechanism? Have you ever seen a bulk-charging mechanism? I have, they don't happen by accident. Second: you think the bulk charge stays in the bulk except when the surface is cleared? You're wrong, please visit your local high school physics teacher and ask how charged solids behave.

Quote:
So what in fact EPOXI is watching is the gradule dis-discharge of a rocky body that is more negitive than the plasma it is moving thru and increasing in net + charge!
Nonsense. An initially-negative body moving through a + or neutral plasma does not "increase net + charge", it becomes less negative, i.e. closer to neutral. This does not happen via a sudden discharge; the plasma has been there all along and will trickle-discharge any initial charge you care to imagine. This isn't an ultracapacitor that you suddenly poke a screwdriver into---THAT will discharge. This is a body that spends decades slowly moving from a slightly-thinner plasma into a slightly-denser plasma.

Quote:
What do you think the jets are?? Water ice and other volitiles escaping from the nozzels which mey or may not be the bright spots on the surface or something like that??
I would defer to actual comet experts on this point. http://www.brown.edu/Administration/...06/05-072.html So: yes, water ice, volatiles, and entrained dust escaping in pressure-driven jets.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th November 2010, 09:18 PM   #597
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
So you think the surface will discharge in one millisecond, then charge migrates up from below a millisecond later and makes the *next* discharge, etc.? Complete nonsense. First: after you're done inventing a surface charging mechanism, you're going to invent a bulk-charging mechanism? Have you ever seen a bulk-charging mechanism? I have, they don't happen by accident. Second: you think the bulk charge stays in the bulk except when the surface is cleared? You're wrong, please visit your local high school physics teacher and ask how charged solids behave.
(There was something I wanted to add to this before but couldn't quite put my finger on.)

Also: a bulk-charged solid, exposed to a bath of neutralizing charge, neutralizes completely. Neutralizing the whole object does not need to "wait" for bound internal charges to migrate to the surface. Bulk charge sets up an external field just as well as "exposed" charge does, and is just as good at attracting opposite charges from the environment. So: yes, a bulk-charged object, immersed in a plasma, will neutralize completely no matter where the internal charge is and how fast it moves around.

The solid would appear neutral on the outside and therefore does not interact electromagnetically with the plasma any more. However, it would have an excess surface charge, equal in amount but of opposite sign to the excess bulk charge. Any further interaction/cancellation of these two charges is by conduction inside the solid, since the only nonzero fields are inside the rock. No external discharges.

(What about those fields inside the solid? How fast will they neutralize by conduction? Depends on what the rock is made of. Carbons, ices, iron, PAHs? Very good conductors, they'll quietly conduct away any bulk charge. Let's go all the way and pick a bad conductor, like basalt. The highest field you can imagine in a bulk-charged basalt block is about 3MV/m. The energy density of this field---hence (by conservation of energy) the amount of "bang" you can get in the worst imaginable discharge---just once---is about 40 Joules per cubic meter.

By comparison: 40 Joules is enough to boil 20 milligrams of water. 40 Joules per m^3 is enough to heat up basalt by about 10 milliKelvin. 40 Joules per m^3, stored in the entirety of Comet Hartley II, adds up to about 30 gigaJoules total---equivalent to burning a few barrels of oil, or crashing a large jet plane. It's It's NOT MUCH ENERGY. It's a pitifully tiny amount of energy. It's as much thermal energy as the comet absorbs from sunlight every minute.

Sol88, your idea is complete nonsense. Electrostatics does not work the way you think it does. "Excess charge" doesn't involve that much power. Discharges don't go in the directions you think they do. "bulk charge" doesn't contribute what you think it does. It's complete and utter nonsense.

Pick up your own electricity-and-magnetism textbook and tell me, with numbers derived from actual E&M laws, what you think the charge configuration in Comet Hartley 2 could be such that your discharges make sense. Can you do so?

Last edited by ben m; 6th November 2010 at 09:22 PM.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th November 2010, 11:05 PM   #598
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,873
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Science does it again!!
http://www.dailyrumors.net/473-first...ptured-by-nasa

This nucleus appears to be quite different from the other four we already know? Like we are %100 sure of the others???
Like he did not say that. Read what he said.
No one is 100% sure of what the other comets look like.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
How do you think these jets work?
Physics.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Where the water ice?? (again!!)
There is the water ice (again!!)
Quote:
The body would consist of "a mixture of silicate dust and water ice", although the possibility has emerged that in Hartley 2 is also "carbon and nitrogen."
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Are you, RC, prepared to concede that the primary effects on a comets surface are plasma/electrical in nature?
That is idiotic, Sol88.
Even from someone who cannot grasp the simple fact that the measured density of comet nuclei is ~0.6 g/cc, the measured density of asteroids is ~3.0 g/cc and that 0.6 is less than 3.0 !

They are obviously jets, not your fantasy of physically impossible electrical discharges, e.g. see ben m's posts.
The electric comet fantasy completely debunked!
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th November 2010, 11:08 PM   #599
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,873
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Right: Uncle Wal displays his ignorance of basic physics and commitment to being a crank yet again!
He is completely deluded if he thinks that elecrical effects are not already included in astronomy, astrophysics and planetary science.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th November 2010, 04:38 AM   #600
Haig
Graduate Poster
 
Haig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,635
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
He is completely deluded if he thinks that elecrical effects are not already included in astronomy, astrophysics and planetary science.
What electrical effects are you refering too?

Do you mean these:
one of the highest resolution image yet of these enigmatic solar flux tubes.
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1011...es_nso_big.jpg
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap101102.html

Or these effects in this picture of Enceladus
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0911...assini_big.png

So many of the ANOMALIES OF COMETS leave NASA scratching their heads but the new data/evidence seems to favour the EU/PC team over at Thunderbolts
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/a...105hartley.htm
Haig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:59 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.