The Electric Comet Theory /SAFIRE Part V

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet

You did read the paper, tusenfem?

Very easy to assume for sake of math that and using YOUR reasoning the to enable ions, electrons, neutrals and dust to be "blown" off the nucleus.

The real picture is somewhat different and is complicated again because the surface of the nucleus appear to be a consolidated meteoric matrix with less water than chondritic meteorites!

So, big trouble only if you keep compounding the past errors.

Just look at the modeling needed on the plasma side of things at comets in the last 6 months or so.

MHD fell flat on it's face ages ago. Don't see it mentioned much anymore except in quite old outdated papers.

We have a spatial separation of charges!

Wrong. Leave the science alone, it is beyond you. Stick to your impossible woo, yes?

[jonesdave116]

Sol trying to do science is like the Pope offering advice on contraception!

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by JeanTate

What does Chief Acolyte Talbott have to say?

This is, after all, the Electric Comet Theory thread ...

Well, we don't need to ask Talbott. He already told us what he expected over 5 years ago in this very forum. And hasn't been back since!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2441

And, as per my previous post, re Sol finding his discharge woo in association with pretty pics, Talbott says;

Quote:

visible electrical erosion of the surface in the fashion of electrical etching of surface materials and electric discharge machining (edm)

Not gone well, has it? I can't imagine why he hasn't been back

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet

You did read the paper, tusenfem?

probably better than you did.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Very easy to assume for sake of math that and using YOUR reasoning the to enable ions, electrons, neutrals and dust to be "blown" off the nucleus.

The Haser model describes the density of the neutral cloud. The production of the ions and electrons can be derived from that and their behaviour after creation is a whole different story.

But why bother explaining that to you, you know it all.

Originally Posted by Sol88

The real picture is somewhat different and is complicated again because the surface of the nucleus appear to be a consolidated meteoric matrix with less water than chondritic meteorites!

Nothing to do with the Haser model. You are wilfully obfuscating the discussion, to not achieve the answer that you do not like.

Originally Posted by Sol88

MHD fell flat on it's face ages ago. Don't see it mentioned much anymore except in quite old outdated papers.

We have a spatial separation of charges!

I won't bother anymore in explaining the applicability of MHD, that I have done already a zillion times in this thread and in all other "electric" threads. The notion is mind boggling that you still do not understand what tools need/can be used when.

[Sol88]

Ok, regardless of MHD and the Haser model, tusenfem, can a magnetic field aligned ambipolar electric field exist in a magnetically turbulent environment?

jonesdave116 and reality check reckon

If the field it is aligning too keeps chop'n and chang'n, is the electric field also following suite?

[Sol88]

Quote:

Cometary ions are accelerated (gray lines in Figure 1)
predominantly in the direction of the solar wind convective
electric field,Esw (corresponding to the −Z direction in Deca
et al. 2017, 2019).

Note that the cometary electrons are not coupled to the cometary ions and leave the source region along the magnetic field lines that intersect the population in the vicinity of the nucleus.

A spatial separation of the particles of cometary origin can be seen in the density profiles of ne,c (Figure 2(a)) and ni,c (Figure 2(b)) in the
y=0 plane. The convective electric field carried by the solar wind is nonnegligible close to nucleus (Deca et al. 2019) and picks up the cometary electrons on a spatial scale comparable to the electron Larmor radius.

After magnetization, they carry a velocity composed of anE×B drift component and a component parallel to their respective magnetic field line.
Such a localized cometary electron current explains the cometary electron density profile in Figure 1, i.e., the two channels of cometary electrons emanating from the high density part of the coma that move along the magnetic field lines in the solar wind frame.

A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet

That's an electric discharge straight up and down!

Where do these current come into play in your papers tusenfem (Volwerk)?

Electrons(DUST) and ions(DUST) going everywhere!

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

That's an electric discharge straight up and down!

You would not know a discharge if it hit you in the you know where.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

That's an electric discharge straight up and down!

Nope. And you don't need stuff going on in the coma, you need wandering arcs burning the surface black, and EDM (lol) zapping non-existent rock, to produce non-existent O^- ions, so that they can combine with solar wind H⁺, which is a few thousand kilometres away, to form OH. Which any number of instruments that cannot fail to detect the difference between OH and H₂O, can misinterpret as H₂O. Seen any of that? Nope. Hence the gish-galloping, and refusal to deal with the long since failed woo.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Ok, regardless of MHD and the Haser model, tusenfem, can a magnetic field aligned ambipolar electric field exist in a magnetically turbulent environment?

jonesdave116 and reality check reckon

If the field it is aligning too keeps chop'n and chang'n, is the electric field also following suite?

Is irrelevant. As explained umpteen times, the ambipolar field exists due to the need to maintain quasi-neutrality. The reason for this is the complicated interplay between the solar wind electrons and ions, and the cometary electrons and ions. All jolly complicated, and above my pay grade, and therefore totally out of reach of the understanding of the electric idiots.
However, this is a model for 67P when it is weakly outgassing at ~ 3.5-4.0 AU. By the time all the real action is happening, the solar wind is nowhere to be seen. Therefore, close to the comet, the only plasma in play is that of cometary origin. And the vast majority of the species in that area are neutrals.
So, my understanding of double layers, such as it is, tells me that you are going to need different plasmas interacting, with different densities and/ or temperatures. And you ain't getting that where all the action is happening, because all you have is cometary plasma tootling along on its way outward. Of course, all this gets complicated by the cavity boundary, and the ion pile-up region, but there is no reason to expect DLs to form in such a scenario. Which would be why nobody has ever suggested such a thing. Mendis tried to make a case for them prior to the Halley encounter, and possibly for a few years after. However, he seemed to then dump the idea. And his DLs were only suggested for the tail. Certainly not for the sunward coma.
And, at the end of the day, what the hell are DLs going to do to help the long since failed electric comet woo? The fact remains that there was no EDM (lol) and no discharges to (or from) the nucleus. There was no O^-. The solar wind was getting nowhere near the comet in the active period. There is no magnetic field in the cavity. As we have known since 1986 (well, 1984-5, if you count AMPTE).
Therefore, the whole discussion about electric fields and DLs is a complete irrelevance. There was no electric woo doing the stuff that the EC 'model' predicted. Which was a surprise to nobody. Except the electric idiots. And I'm not sure how many of them really believed it.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

You would not know a discharge if it hit you in the you know where.

Well, in this instance, it is a discharge.

It’s an electric current

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Well, in this instance, it is a discharge.

It’s an electric current

And is a complete irrelevance to your failed woo.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Nope. And you don't need stuff going on in the coma, you need wandering arcs burning the surface black, and EDM (lol) zapping non-existent rock, to produce non-existent O^- ions, so that they can combine with solar wind H⁺, which is a few thousand kilometres away, to form OH. Which any number of instruments that cannot fail to detect the difference between OH and H₂O, can misinterpret as H₂O. Seen any of that? Nope. Hence the gish-galloping, and refusal to deal with the long since failed woo.

Well, which as more water again, comets or asteroids?

Quote:

Therefore, comets and KBOs may have less water than CI-chondrites,

Gig was up at your beloved Tempel 1!

When it came as a GREAT surprise that the dust to ice ratio was >1

Like to pop back into your misinformed grasp of Tempel 1?

This is when A’Hearn made the obvious statement comets are mostly rock.

Quote:

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

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

And is a complete irrelevance to your failed woo.

Just glad mainstream are cottoning on!

Ahhh, the electrons. Poor neglected brother of the ion...

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Well, which as more water again, comets or asteroids?

Gig was up at your beloved Tempel 1!

When it came as a GREAT surprise that the dust to ice ratio was >1

Like to pop back into your misinformed grasp of Tempel 1?

This is when A’Hearn made the obvious statement comets are mostly rock.

More lies. How many times do I have to keep posting links to papers showing that you are a liar? It was known prior to Tempel 1 that the dust:ice ratio was likely to be > 1:1. And the amount of water is irrelevant. Your woo specifically says that it isn't there. Based on Thornhill's lies from 2006. When we had already known definitively that it was there for 20 years!
And I couldn't give a tuppeny **** what A'Hearn wrote - there is no rock at comets. If you think there is point to the detection. How many times do I have to ask before you quit with your pathetic lying?
Go have a look at the Tempel 1 papers, and explain to the boys and girls why you carried on believing in this impossible woo when thousands of tonnes of ice and water vapour were ejected from the impact? Leaving a crater far too big to have been made in rock? I can only think that you were conned by the lies and omissions of Thornhill, and didn't have the gumption to check the data for yourself.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Just glad mainstream are cottoning on!

Ahhh, the electrons. Poor neglected brother of the ion...

WTF are you on about? Your woo is dead. Deal with that. You haven't got a clue about the real science, so stick to your woo, yes?

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

Just glad mainstream are cottoning on!

Cottoning on to what? And by 'mainstream' I suppose you mean real scientists, with real qualifications, who know what they are talking about? As opposed to Velikovskian posers with zero qualifications and not a clue about any of the relevant science? Correct?

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

If the field it is aligning too keeps chop'n and chang'n, is the electric field also following suite?

If the which is doing what now????

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

More lies. How many times do I have to keep posting links to papers showing that you are a liar? It was known prior to Tempel 1 that the dust:ice ratio was likely to be > 1:1. And the amount of water is irrelevant. Your woo specifically says that it isn't there. Based on Thornhill's lies from 2006. When we had already known definitively that it was there for 20 years!
And I couldn't give a tuppeny **** what A'Hearn wrote - there is no rock at comets. If you think there is point to the detection. How many times do I have to ask before you quit with your pathetic lying?
Go have a look at the Tempel 1 papers, and explain to the boys and girls why you carried on believing in this impossible woo when thousands of tonnes of ice and water vapour were ejected from the impact? Leaving a crater far too big to have been made in rock? I can only think that you were conned by the lies and omissions of Thornhill, and didn't have the gumption to check the data for yourself.

Sol88, again points to one of the key findings, the detection of ROCK at Tempel 1.

Quote:

September 2005: Astronomers, using data from NASA's Sptizer Space Telescope and Deep Impact, come up with a list of compounds thought to be the recipe for planets, comets and other bodies in the solar system. Included are silicates, or sand, clay, carbonates, iron-bearing compounds and even aromatic hydrocarbons.

Yup, rock...

Would you like me to point it out again?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

If the which is doing what now????

Seems difficult for you, tusenfem?

Can a magnetic field aligned ambipolar electric field exists in a magnetically turbulent environment?

Too hard a question?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

More lies. How many times do I have to keep posting links to papers showing that you are a liar? It was known prior to Tempel 1 that the dust:ice ratio was likely to be > 1:1. And the amount of water is irrelevant. Your woo specifically says that it isn't there. Based on Thornhill's lies from 2006. When we had already known definitively that it was there for 20 years!
And I couldn't give a tuppeny **** what A'Hearn wrote - there is no rock at comets. If you think there is point to the detection. How many times do I have to ask before you quit with your pathetic lying?
Go have a look at the Tempel 1 papers, and explain to the boys and girls why you carried on believing in this impossible woo when thousands of tonnes of ice and water vapour were ejected from the impact? Leaving a crater far too big to have been made in rock? I can only think that you were conned by the lies and omissions of Thornhill, and didn't have the gumption to check the data for yourself.

Quote:

Ices are not required to drive the comet jets. Ices cannot explain the narrow jets nor the corkscrew shape they sometimes take. Comet Hale-Bopp emitted more dust than could be explained by subliming ices. Further evidence that a comet is a cathode and emits electrons came from the puzzling discovery of negatively charged atoms in the inner coma of comet Halley. The problem for the inert comet model is that these ions are easily destroyed by solar radiation and therefore require an efficient production mechanism that is not available from solar heating. In the electrical model there is a high density of emitted electrons and neutral atoms available near the nucleus to form negative ions. Negative ions may form the sunward “spike” seen occasionally from comets.

The low density calculated for some comets seems, at first glance, to support the dirty snowball model of comets. However, there is no difference between the appearance of a comet nucleus and an asteroid. One schizoid object, Chiron, has been called both an asteroid and a comet at different times. Yet asteroids are thought to be much more evolved bodies than comets. The ELECTRIC UNIVERSE® proposes that their origin is identical and that a cometary display is due entirely to highly eccentric motion of a charged body in the radial electric field of the Sun. And if gravity is a dipolar electrical effect in matter then G is not a constant and it is possible that the mass of a highly negatively charged body will measure less than that of the same body when uncharged. As a result the calculated density will be low and it will not reflect the true composition of the comet (or asteroid, moon, planet, etc).

LINK

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Nope. And you don't need stuff going on in the coma, you need wandering arcs burning the surface black, and EDM (lol) zapping non-existent rock, to produce non-existent O^- ions, so that they can combine with solar wind H⁺, which is a few thousand kilometres away, to form OH. Which any number of instruments that cannot fail to detect the difference between OH and H₂O, can misinterpret as H₂O. Seen any of that? Nope. Hence the gish-galloping, and refusal to deal with the long since failed woo.

Hard, isn't it jd116!

All this sciencey plasma stuff!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Is irrelevant. As explained umpteen times, the ambipolar field exists due to the need to maintain quasi-neutrality.


So, my understanding of double layers, such as it is, tells me that you are going to need different plasmas interacting, with different densities and/ or temperatures. And you ain't getting that where all the action is happening, because all you have is cometary plasma tootling along on its way outward.

Of course, all this gets complicated by the cavity boundary, and the ion pile-up region, but there is no reason to expect DLs to form in such a scenario. Which would be why nobody has ever suggested such a thing.

Mendis tried to make a case for them prior to the Halley encounter, and possibly for a few years after. However, he seemed to then dump the idea. And his DLs were only suggested for the tail. Certainly not for the sunward coma.

And, at the end of the day, what the hell are DLs going to do to help the long since failed electric comet woo? The fact remains that there was no EDM (lol) and no discharges to (or from) the nucleus. There was no O^-. The solar wind was getting nowhere near the comet in the active period. There is no magnetic field in the cavity. As we have known since 1986 (well, 1984-5, if you count AMPTE).
Therefore, the whole discussion about electric fields and DLs is a complete irrelevance. There was no electric woo doing the stuff that the EC 'model' predicted. Which was a surprise to nobody. Except the electric idiots. And I'm not sure how many of them really believed it.

Not talking about a Current-free double layers that need need different plasmas interacting, with different densities and/ or temperatures.

I'm talking about the grand poobah Current carrying double layers

Quote:

The electron density also has to be close to the ion density (quasineutrality), so there is also a dip in electron density. The electrons must therefore be accelerated into the density cavity, to maintain the same current density with a lower density of charge carriers. This implies that the density cavity is at a high electrical potential. As a consequence, the ions are accelerated out of the cavity, amplifying the density perturbation. Then there is the situation of a double-double layer, of which one side will most likely be convected away by the plasma, leaving a regular double layer. This is the process in which double layers are produced along planetary magnetic field lines in so-called Birkeland currents.

Which we see in the form of a magnetic field aligned ambipolar electric field, that ensures quasi-neutrality and traps warm electrons!

Quote:

Downstream of the nucleus, there is a region in which the excess of cometary electrons produces an ambipolar potential of the “wrong” sign (in contrast to the more usual excess of ions), visible at right in Figure 2(c) as a region reaching F ~ -7 eV.

Go on, your nearly there young padiwan.

[Sol88]

Tusenfem, may be able to help you out?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Not talking about a Current-free double layers that need need different plasmas interacting, with different densities and/ or temperatures.

I'm talking about the grand poobah Current carrying double layers



Which we see in the form of a magnetic field aligned ambipolar electric field, that ensures quasi-neutrality and traps warm electrons!



Go on, your nearly there young padiwan.

Why on Earth would I need lessons from an ignoramus like you? There are no double layers. Get it through your thick skull. Why don't you ask an expert? Oh, you did! I forgot. And he told you you were talking out of your arse. Like I said, stick to your failed woo, as science is not your strong point. And non-existent DLs are not explaining any of your failed woo. You need EDM (lol), and wandering discharges, and rock. And you have none of them. So, forget about DLs, because they are of no use to you. They are not saving your failed woo. Which is why you change the subject every time you are asked to explain the complete failure of your woo. It is rather pathetic.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Tusenfem, may be able to help you out?

I need to hear him tell you for the umpteenth time that there are no DLs? Why would that help?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Is irrelevant. As explained umpteen times, the ambipolar field exists due to the need to maintain quasi-neutrality. The reason for this is the complicated interplay between the solar wind electrons and ions, and the cometary electrons and ions. All jolly complicated, and above my pay grade, and therefore totally out of reach of the understanding of the electric idiots.

However, this is a model for 67P when it is weakly outgassing at ~ 3.5-4.0 AU. By the time all the real action is happening, the solar wind is nowhere to be seen. Therefore, close to the comet, the only plasma in play is that of cometary origin. And the vast majority of the species in that area are neutrals.

So, my understanding of double layers, such as it is, tells me that you are going to need different plasmas interacting, with different densities and/ or temperatures. And you ain't getting that where all the action is happening, because all you have is cometary plasma tootling along on its way outward.


Of course, all this gets complicated by the cavity boundary, and the ion pile-up region, but there is no reason to expect DLs to form in such a scenario. Which would be why nobody has ever suggested such a thing. Mendis tried to make a case for them prior to the Halley encounter, and possibly for a few years after. However, he seemed to then dump the idea. And his DLs were only suggested for the tail. Certainly not for the sunward coma.
And, at the end of the day, what the hell are DLs going to do to help the long since failed electric comet woo? The fact remains that there was no EDM (lol) and no discharges to (or from) the nucleus. There was no O^-. The solar wind was getting nowhere near the comet in the active period. There is no magnetic field in the cavity. As we have known since 1986 (well, 1984-5, if you count AMPTE).
Therefore, the whole discussion about electric fields and DLs is a complete irrelevance. There was no electric woo doing the stuff that the EC 'model' predicted. Which was a surprise to nobody. Except the electric idiots. And I'm not sure how many of them really believed it.

However, this is a model for 67P when it is weakly outgassing at ~ 3.5-4.0 AU. By the time all the real action is happening, the solar wind is nowhere to be seen. Therefore, close to the comet, the only plasma in play is that of cometary origin. And the vast majority of the species in that area are neutrals. - Bulls%#it called!

YOU DO NOT NEED THE SOLAR WIND EXCEPT TO DO THE FOLLOWING

Quote:

We have shown above that the production of suprathermal (solar wind) electrons is co-located with the region where the parallel electric field component dominates.

further

Quote:

Here the integration is performed along a field line starting
from a point x at y=0 up to the ambient solar wind, where E·B∼0. ΦP is a measure for the work performed by the electric field. Electrons that have a parallel kinetic energy greater than ΦP that pass through the region gain energy while traversing into the potential well, and lose it again on their way out. Those that enter the potential well with a parallel kinetic energy below the local ΦP remain trapped and bounce along the magnetic field line while their motion is simultaneously altered by the local E×B drift component.

in addition

Quote:

Understanding the suprathermal electron population is important, since increased fluxes of the latter have been shown to strongly affect also the cometary ionosphere via electron impact ionization (Galand et al. 2016), charge exchange (Wedlund et al. 2017; Heritier et al. 2018), and is thought to affect dust grain charging processes (Gombosi et al. 2015).

strongly affect also the cometary ionosphere via electron impact ionization, charging the dust, winch is removed via electrical forces! As observed, VISUALLY!

This is obliviously the location for most of the Electrochemistry of Comets to take place. Not just the "water" jonesdave116 seems fixated on but the whole raft of molecules measured and observed in situ at comets, including the surprising abundance of molecular oxygen!


So, my understanding of double layers, such as it is, tells me that you are going to need different plasmas interacting, with different densities and/ or temperatures. And you ain't getting that where all the action is happening, because all you have is cometary plasma tootling along on its way outward. - Of course this is observed!

You are still trying to make sense of the data

Quote:

As for the latter points it is stressed that the logarithmically decaying potential profile is not well constrained. Efforts are currently being made to determine electron temperatures within the diamagnetic cavity of 67P from both MIP and LAP measurements. The LAP observations indicate a mixture of cold and warm electrons (Eriksson et al. 2017; Engelhardt et al. 2018; Odelstad et al. 2018) and a recently developed technique for analyzing MIP data provides the opportunity to separate densities and temperatures of two different electron populations (Gilet et al. 2017).

theres two different plasmas of the same sign! Throw the ions into the mix, spatially separated of course and charge separation! The double layer does "work" trying to constantly maintain some sorta quasi-neutrality!

Hard isn't it jonesdave116!

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

Which we see in the form of a magnetic field aligned ambipolar electric field, that ensures quasi-neutrality and traps warm electrons!

Not when the comet is highly active. Shall I say it again? The only plasma near the comet when it is active is of cometary origin. Which shouldn't be there, according to your woo. The solar wind has gone bye-byes. It is nowhere to be seen. Go read the papers. Hell, go read the Halley papers. Remember those missions? Back in'86? That showed that your woo was dead in the water (!) 20 years before it was born? So, you have one plasma. For thousands of kms. No double layer woo.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Hard isn't it jonesdave116!

Nope. No double layers, and nobody on the planet expects them to be there. No electrochemistry woo. Just neutral water molecules sublimed from ice. As observed. So, when are you going to deal with your failed woo?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Why on Earth would I need lessons from an ignoramus like you? There are no double layers. Get it through your thick skull. Why don't you ask an expert? Oh, you did! I forgot. And he told you you were talking out of your arse. Like I said, stick to your failed woo, as science is not your strong point. And non-existent DLs are not explaining any of your failed woo. You need EDM (lol), and wandering discharges, and rock. And you have none of them. So, forget about DLs, because they are of no use to you. They are not saving your failed woo. Which is why you change the subject every time you are asked to explain the complete failure of your woo. It is rather pathetic.

for the slower learning, crayon users of among us:

Quote:

Understanding the suprathermal electron population is important, since increased fluxes of the latter have been shown to strongly affect also the cometary ionosphere via electronimpact ionization (Galand et al. 2016), charge exchange (Wedlund et al. 2017; Heritier et al. 2018), and is thought to affect dust grain charging processes (Gombosi et al. 2015).

Quote:

A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet

NO sublimation needed! NO SURFACE ICE seen. numptydumty dirtysnowballs REQUIRE this or the model is falsified!

67P is characterised by consolidated surfaces that reveal a clear dry rocky-type behaviour for cometary material.

This consolidated surface material is very similar to CI-chondrites, these have been shown to contain more WATER than comet and KBO"s according to Marco Fulle.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

strongly affect also the cometary ionosphere via electron impact ionization, charging the dust, winch is removed via electrical forces!

No it isn't. They are talking about the coma when the comet is weakly outgassing. It is not relevant when the comet is highly active. No electric woo in the DC, remember? Hell, we've only known that since the mid-80s! Do keep up.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

for the slower learning, crayon users of among us:

NO sublimation needed! NO SURFACE ICE seen. numptydumty dirtysnowballs REQUIRE this or the model is falsified!

67P is characterised by consolidated surfaces that reveal a clear dry rocky-type behaviour for cometary material.

This consolidated surface material is very similar to CI-chondrites, these have been shown to contain more WATER than comet and KBO"s according to Marco Fulle.

LIAR. Off you go again. lying to avoid your failed woo. You really are a pathetic piece of work.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

NO sublimation needed!

However, it is observed. So tough luck.

Quote:

NO SURFACE ICE seen

LIAR.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Not when the comet is highly active. Shall I say it again? The only plasma near the comet when it is active is of cometary origin. Which shouldn't be there, according to your woo. The solar wind has gone bye-byes. It is nowhere to be seen. Go read the papers. Hell, go read the Halley papers. Remember those missions? Back in'86? That showed that your woo was dead in the water (!) 20 years before it was born? So, you have one plasma. For thousands of kms. No double layer woo.

old 'gas light' physics! all yo really had was photoionization via solar insolation! too slow too inefficient! [B]7 THERMO-PHYSICAL MODELS FAIL[/b]

FAIL!

You, fortunately, have been left behind! focus jd116, focus. you are being shown the secrets of the electric comet. learn.

Quote:

Understanding the suprathermal electron population is important, since increased fluxes of the latter have been shown to strongly affect also the cometary ionosphere via electronimpact ionization (Galand et al. 2016), charge exchange (Wedlund et al. 2017; Heritier et al. 2018), and is thought to affect dust grain charging processes (Gombosi et al. 2015).

Where are the suprathermal electrons getting there energy from? your answer,

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

old 'gas light' physics!

You, fortunately, have been left behind! focus jd116, focus. you are being shown the secrets of the electric comet. learn.



Where are the suprathermal electrons getting there energy from? your answer,

Idiot. How many times? You do not understand the science, so stop posing, because you only make yourself look even more stupid. If that is possible. That is not happening when the comet is highly active.

[Sol88]

Yo champ, ya model FAILED!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Idiot. How many times? You do not understand the science, so stop posing, because you only make yourself look even more stupid. If that is possible. That is not happening when the comet is highly active.

Quote:

The presented simulation features a relatively weak outgassing rate, resulting in a peak magnetic field 2.6 times the solar wind magnetic field. We
expect that for a higher outgassing rate this number will become greater (Koenders et al. 2013; Rubin et al. 2014) and form more electrons with θ∼90°, eventually leading to a (infant) bow shock (Gunell et al. 2018).

Ouch, sorry sprog!

You assmue this happens from insolation/sublimation... the dirtysnowball!

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Yo champ, ya model FAILED!

No it didn't you clown. And you don't have one.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Ouch, sorry sprog!

You assmue this happens from insolation/sublimation... the dirtysnowball!

And where else would it come from, given that we see ice, we see outgassing, and we see the bow shock as predicted? There is no other scientifically valid explanation. Unscientific crap dreamed up by Velikovskians does not count as science. Just faith in non-science and woo. Go get an education. Your woo failed 20 years before it was born, and you can't deal with it.

[jonesdave116]

So, back to the non-existent rock, non-existent EDM (lol), and non-existent discharges to the nucleus. Any chance we are going to see the observations of this in the data? Which is publicly available? Of course not. It didn't happen. It can't happen. Which is why the only people that believe this crap are unqualified wooists. Science is a foreign country to them. Stick to mythology, yes?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

So, back to the non-existent rock, non-existent EDM (lol), and non-existent discharges to the nucleus. Any chance we are going to see the observations of this in the data? Which is publicly available? Of course not. It didn't happen. It can't happen. Which is why the only people that believe this crap are unqualified wooists. Science is a foreign country to them. Stick to mythology, yes?

Did!

September 2005: Astronomers, using data from NASA's Sptizer Space Telescope and Deep Impact, come up with a list of compounds thought to be the recipe for planets, comets and other bodies in the solar system. Included are silicates, or sand, clay, carbonates, iron-bearing compounds and even aromatic hydrocarbons.

Yup, rock!

you my trolley friend have FAILED, along with the dirtysnowball!