The Electric Comet theory [Archive]

Sol88

6th July 2009, 01:07 AM

Split From The Iron sun Thread post 611 HERE (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4875998&postcount=611)

Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Well, well, well, up to now no working model for the electric universe has been presented.

* I have not obtained an answer from MM on where exactly Birkeland calculates the dragging of the ions by the electrons, and I did go through lots of math pages in the book and wrote it down here.
* I have not obtained an answer from either Sol88 or MM or Zeuzzz on how the water in a comet gets created from solar wind protons and nucleus oxygen ions
* I have not obtained an answer about how EDM works on an electric comet
* I have not obtained an answer on what "particle reconnection is
* I have not obtained an answer on how induction can change the topology of the magnetic field in the following way that is from anti-parallel field to this X-configuration
* I have not obtained even the smallest acknowledgement from PU/PC/EU/ES/EC proponents that mainstream does not abhor electric fields and elelctric currents
* I would love to be explained how Birkeland's fission of uranium in the Sun leads to electricity (whatever electricity is)
* I would love to know why a failed model like Peratt's is being deified, when all observational evidence is lacking
* How does the "stars are z-pinches" model work, and what evidence is there and what is driving the currents for these z-pinches (I realise that this is somehow a mini-version of Peratt's galaxy creation mechanism)
* I would like to know ... well, that is about enough questions

Basically, I have not received squad from the PU/PC/EU/ES/EC apart from things that are already in mainstream, but the PU/PC/EU/ES/EC proponents have not got the foggiest
Point 2

NASA IBEX Spacecraft Detects Neutral Hydrogen Bouncing Off Moon

The solar wind, the supersonic stream of charged particles that flows out from the sun, moves out into space in every direction at speeds of about a million mph. The Earth's strong magnetic field shields our planet from the solar wind. The moon, with its relatively weak magnetic field, has no such protection, causing the solar wind to slam onto the moon's sunward side.
Read asteroids, comet and moons without magnetosphere as well!!!

From its vantage point in high earth orbit, IBEX sees about half of the moon — one quarter of it is dark and faces the nightside (away from the sun), while the other quarter faces the dayside (toward the sun). Solar wind particles impact only the dayside, where most of them are embedded in the lunar surface, while some scatter off in different directions. The scattered ones mostly become neutral atoms in this reflection process by picking up electrons from the lunar surface.
This is only half right, which is typical of a mainstream press release, electrons "stick" to the nightside, ions "slam" into the dayside i.e The night side is negatively charged and the day side positively!!!

maybe you have seen this pic before

Quote:
The combined scattering and neutralization processes now observed at the moon have implications for interactions with objects across the solar system, such as asteroids, Kuiper Belt objects and other moons. The plasma-surface interactions occurring within protostellar nebula, the region of space that forms around planets and stars — as well as exoplanets, planets around other stars — also can be inferred.

And COMETS Tusenfem, do try and keep up sport!

Oh and I see it's all "mainstream" now we knew that all along

That is my friends is PURE ELECTRIC UNIVERSE!!!!!

As for point 3 see point 2! That is EDM a more energetic form of NASA/ESA's "sputtering"!!

And the BOOYA moment, from one of the comments on the UT page

Quote:
# Jon Hanford Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 1:59 pm

Ditto Astrofiend's and T Larsson OM's comments completely! These are entirely relevant questions in regards to quantitative measurements of these quantitative observations. No conspiracy theory needed here.The entire world wants to know, on an iPod, if possible!
!

tusenfem

6th July 2009, 03:28 AM

Just show me, Sol88 qualitative and quantitative how this is supposed to work. Not just tiny quotes from press releases, but the whole thingamajik.

Charging of the comet nucleus
EDM on a singly charged nucleus
Release of oxygen ions (most likely positively charged)
Reaction with the solar wind protons (also positively charged, possibly highly energetic)

Please show in detail that the amount of water group ions that is observed around a comet and in its tail can be produced by this mechanism.

Hoping to hear back from you soon with the math and chemical reactions to back yourself up.

Yours truly
Tusenfem

Aitch

6th July 2009, 03:59 AM

Hoping to hear back from you soon with the math and chemical reactions to back yourself up.

I do hope you are not holding your breath while you wait. ;)

Dancing David

6th July 2009, 06:54 PM

BAC didn't do so well with this one either.

Dancing David

6th July 2009, 08:14 PM

I know this is a favorite:
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/deepimpact/index.cfm

Sol88

7th July 2009, 03:50 AM

tusenfem

7th July 2009, 06:28 AM

Ask NASA!!!

Whoooooooooooooohahahahahahahahaha

You are so funny!

(not)

Tim Thompson

8th July 2009, 04:56 PM

Tim Thompson

8th July 2009, 05:14 PM

See my posts from the Electric Theories thread: Electric Comets I (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4827154#post4827154), Electric Comets II: References (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4830147#post4830147) and Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4832138#post4832138). That should provide enough to start the electric comet sparking.

tusenfem

9th July 2009, 02:43 AM

Reality Check

9th July 2009, 05:19 AM

Sol88

9th July 2009, 06:34 PM

I thought this was going to be the "electric comet" thread. So where's all the "electric comet" evidence? Are there no cometary lightning bolt pictures? So far this boring thread is not living up to the promise of its stirring title.

Sorry for the lack of excitement Tim Thompson :boggled:

I mean nothing has really changed in the Electric comet theory camp per say, but evidence for the electric comet model has become much stronger and the dirtysnowball (or whatever mainstreams "model" is :rolleyes:) position has become untenable! :D

Simple and unexciting, apologies again.

If your memory needs a little refreshing or you may just not be aware of the two opposing views, then Michael Suede (http://sites.google.com/site/cosmologyquest/the-editor-s-musings/comets) has a fairly succinct summery on the state of play!

I mean if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck...then it is most likely a DUCK!

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/history/art/1991/asteroid_gaspra.jpg NASA

http://spaceflightnow.com/stardust/images/040102cometwild2.jpg NASA

Mmmmm....

Sol88

9th July 2009, 06:43 PM

Identification of comet Hyakutake's extremely long ion tail from magnetic field signatures
Geraint H. Jones1, André Balogh1 & Timothy S. Horbury2

Observations of the varying orientations of comet tails led to the suggestion of the existence of the solar wind—a continuous outflow of ionized material from the Sun1. It is now well established that gas from comets is ionized by several processes and joins the solar wind2, forming an ion (plasma) tail that points away from the Sun. The plasma environments of three comets have been measured in situ, but only in the upstream direction or less than 8,000 km downstream of the nucleus. Here we report a fortuitous crossing by a spacecraft of the plasma tail of comet Hyakutake (C/1996 B2), at a distance of more than 3.8 astronomical units (550 million kilometres) from its nucleus. This surpasses the tail length of 2 au determined for the Great March Comet of 1843 (C/1843 D1)3. Our measurements reveal that, at this distance, the tail of comet Hyakutake was a structured entity at least 7 million kilometres in diameter.

wOw!! :eye-poppi

What implication would this paper have on the standard garden variety EC theory and the same "accepted" theory of the mainstream?

Like what do they mean several ionization processes??

Tim Thompson? Tusenfem? Reality check??

Reality Check

9th July 2009, 07:04 PM

Identification of comet Hyakutake's extremely long ion tail from magnetic field signatures
Geraint H. Jones1, André Balogh1 & Timothy S. Horbury2

What implication would this paper have on the standard garden variety EC theory and the same "accepted" theory of the mainstream?

Like what do they mean several ionization processes??

Tim Thompson? Tusenfem? Reality check??
No implication for the mainstream since they are talking about the ionization of the gas from the comet, i.e. the gas in the tail of the comet.

EU is really dumb since it ignores what happens in the tail. Where are the EU electrical discharges and arcs in the tail?

What they mean by several ionization processes is several processes that cause the material in the tail to ionize. That is fairly obvious

Dancing David

9th July 2009, 07:17 PM

Look comet wild bears a resemblance to gaspara, they are both in black and white!

Sol88 truly the lamest ever.

From Sol88's link

Comets are not made out of water and ice; they are made out of rock.

They discharge a plasma coma due to the rapidly changing electrical field they are moving through.

Since they spend most of their time in the outer solar system, they acquire a charge relative to that environment. As it approaches the Sun’s electrical field, it has to equalize its charge rapidly which causes the discharging we see as comet tails.

Sure which is why Hyakutake's tail was longer on the way out of the solar system! I mean it acquired more charge didn't it?

Sheesh.

Sol88

9th July 2009, 08:16 PM

No implication for the mainstream since they are talking about the ionization of the gas from the comet, i.e. the gas in the tail of the comet.

EU is really dumb since it ignores what happens in the tail. Where are the EU electrical discharges and arcs in the tail?

What they mean by several ionization processes is several processes that cause the material in the tail to ionize. That is fairly obvious

Care to name a couple of those several processes Reality check???

Namely what process ionizes your "ices"?

Is there enough "ice" on the comets nucleus to sustain the amount of OH observed?

Why just the finely divided dust?

The list goes on....

Sol88

9th July 2009, 08:38 PM

Nice pretty pictures for the visually obsessed who are ignorant about science (hi Sol88!).

Only a complete idiot would just compare the pictures.

Astronomers know that comets have surfaces that "look" like the surfaces of asteroids. So they do actual measurements. They see that comet surfaces that are vastly different from the surfaces of asteroids. Some differences:

Comets have a darkest surfaces of any objects in the Solar System - including asteroids.
Comets have a spectrum that include much more water than asteroids.
Comets form tails. Asteroids do not.
Comets are much less dense than asteriods.

The idiocy of thinking that comets are asteroids needs to be pointed out (yet again) since you know that comets are not asteroids from Tim Thompson.

(emphasis added)

Easy and consistent with EC

1 Are black from the arcs as well as the carbon produced!
2 Comets tail spectrum has more water than asteroids though not the comets nucleus
3 Shall we talk about Chiron (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060407cometasteroid.htm)
4 Comets are of a different charge than asteroids.

Reality Check

9th July 2009, 08:43 PM

Reality Check

9th July 2009, 08:53 PM

Sol88

9th July 2009, 09:00 PM

Lets see if we can get this thread on the non-science of the electric comet to the second page before it dies a death.

For those EU proponent who still cannot grasp the concept of magnetic reconnection - there is evidence for it in comets: Tail disconnection events (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet#Coma_and_tail).

Expected in an electric comet!

Did Enckes tail display the filamentary (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090505filaments.htm) form expected by an electric current in a plasma?

Reality Check

9th July 2009, 09:23 PM

Expected in an electric comet!

Did Enckes tail display the filamentary (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090505filaments.htm) form expected by an electric current in a plasma?
Not expected in electric comet!
Electric comet predicts narrow band X-ray emission: TOTAL FAIL :eye-poppi!
Electric comet predicts density like asteriod: TOTAL FAIL :eye-poppi!

Sol88 cannot read his sources :eye-poppi: The structure is in the coma not tail.

Comet coma are essentially plasma in a magnetic field (the solar magnetic field) so standard plasma science predicts ... filamentary structures from the magnetic fields!
Thus Enckes coma displayed the filamentary form expected by plasma in a magnetic field.

There are no large scale electric currents in a plasma so your ignornace of science is obvious once :jaw-dropp (Debye length (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debye_length))

Zeuzzz

9th July 2009, 09:52 PM

These might be relevant (not sure, haven't looked into electric comet ideas much, just googled quickly for references):

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4346306
The Electrical Nature of Comets
Thornhill, W.W.
Vemasat Australia, Chapman;

This paper appears in: Plasma Science, 2007. ICOPS 2007. IEEE 34th International Conference on
Publication Date: 17-22 June 2007
On page(s): 1000-1000
Location: Albuquerque, NM,
ISSN: 0730-9244
ISBN: 978-1-4244-0915-0
INSPEC Accession Number: 9784314
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/PPPS.2007.4346306
Current Version Published: 2007-10-15
Abstract
Comet displays are thought to be due to sublimation of volatile ices from an inert nucleus in the heat of the Sun. For example, the Stardust mission has shown that the origin of comets requires some high-temperature conditions. A 'cross-eye' stereo pair of comet Wild 2's nucleus showing typical EDM erosion. Comet flybys have shown phenomena of great complexity and higher energy than expected. Comet Hyakutake showed unsuspected high-energy processes taking place in the comet. A forbidden oxygen spectral line in the coma of Comet Austin pointed to an intense electric field. Activity is restricted to small areas on each comet nucleus and takes the form of collimated jets, which maintain their filamentary coherence across tens of millions of kilometers. The complex structure and high-energy behavior can be explained if the comet is a charged body moving in a radial electric field responsible for accelerating the solar-wind plasma, rather than an inert, heated body in a rarefied supersonic "wind." The jets and surface topography of comets are consistent with EDM erosion of a cathode surface. The fine dust particles may be the result of cathode sputtering. The presence of the OH radical may be due to combination of sputtered negative oxygen ions from the comet nucleus with solar 'wind' protons and is consistent with the lack of water ice observed on comet nuclei. On the basis of an electrical theory of comets, the author predicted that the Deep Impact mission would observe an electrical flash before impact with the copper projectile and that the outburst would be more energetic than expected.

http://thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf
POSTER PRESENTATION
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
33rd International Conference on Plasma Sciences (ICOPS)
Traverse City, Michigan
June 4-8, 2006

Possible Mechanism of Cometary Outbursts http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000mbos.work..177I

Reality Check

9th July 2009, 10:32 PM

These might be relevant (not sure, haven't looked into electric comet ideas much, just googled quickly for references):

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4346306

http://thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf
POSTER PRESENTATION
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
33rd International Conference on Plasma Sciences (ICOPS)
Traverse City, Michigan
June 4-8, 2006

Possible Mechanism of Cometary Outbursts http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000mbos.work..177I
A poster presentation of an idea that is easily proved wrong:
Electric comet predicts narrow band X-ray emission (from EDM), reality is broad band X-rays: TOTAL FAIL :eye-poppi!

Sol88

9th July 2009, 11:34 PM

A poster presentation of an idea that is easily proved wrong:
Electric comet predicts narrow band X-ray emission (from EDM), reality is broad band X-rays: TOTAL FAIL :eye-poppi!

Care to cite that RC?

Reality Check

9th July 2009, 11:44 PM

Care to cite that RC?
The citations are in this thread (Tim Thompson links). If you cannot read then you should really go back to school.
On second thoughts you are so lazy that you will not be able to scroll back on this page, so: Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4832138#post4832138).

Sol88

9th July 2009, 11:45 PM

Electric comet predicts density like asteriod: TOTAL FAIL :eye-poppi!

Estimating the nucleus density of Comet 19P/Borrelly (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WGF-4BH64M6-5&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=953328250&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3b32ca9c6b751b085dd7c1f219050587) 180–300 kg m−3

Bulk density of asteroid 243 Ida from the orbit of its satellite Dactyl (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v374/n6525/abs/374785a0.html) 2.6g plus minus 0.5 g cm-3

Reality Check

9th July 2009, 11:54 PM

Estimating the nucleus density of Comet 19P/Borrelly (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WGF-4BH64M6-5&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=953328250&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3b32ca9c6b751b085dd7c1f219050587) 180–300 kg m−3

Bulk density of asteroid 243 Ida from the orbit of its satellite Dactyl (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v374/n6525/abs/374785a0.html) 2.6g plus minus 0.5 g cm-3
What is 2.6 g per centimeter cubed in kilograms per metre cubed
Answer: 2600 kilograms per meter cubed

Electric comet predicts density like asteriod: TOTAL FAIL :eye-poppi!

Sol88 skills in mathematics ... EPIC FAIL:eye-poppi!

Sol88

10th July 2009, 12:15 AM

What is 2.6 g per centimeter cubed in kilograms per metre cubed
Answer: 2600 kilograms per meter cubed

Electric comet predicts density like asteriod: TOTAL FAIL :eye-poppi!

Sol88 skills in mathematics ... EPIC FAIL:eye-poppi!

Comet wild 2

Nucleus parameters

* Dimensions: 5.5×4.0×3.3 km[4]
* Density: 0.6 g/cm³[5]
* Mass: 2.3 × 1013 kg[6]

Oh I see it's lighter than water, so it must be made of ice right? :rolleyes:

but wait, my trollish friend, there is more!

What did we find coming off of a comet, Wild 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/81P/Wild#cite_note-Britt2006-4) to be exact, olivine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivine)! Density of 3.27–3.37 g/cm3, Diopside (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diopside) 3.278 g/cm3 and Anorthite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anorthite) 2.72 - 2.75 g/cm3

So how'd they get .6 g/cm3

Lets' look at the impact dynamics of deep impact, shall we!

Initial results were surprising as the material excavated by the impact contained more dust and less ice than had been expected. The only models of cometary structure astronomers could positively rule out were the very porous models which had comets as loose aggregates of material. In addition, the material was finer than expected; scientists compared it to talcum powder rather than sand.[36] Other materials found while studying the impact included clays, carbonates, sodium, and crystalline silicates which were found by studying the spectroscopy of the impact.[11] Clays and carbonates usually require liquid water to form and sodium is rare in space.[37] Observations also revealed that the comet was about 75% empty space, and one astronomer compared the outer layers of the comet to the same makeup of a snow bank.[11] Astronomers have expressed interest in more missions to different comets to determine if they share similar compositions or if there are different materials found deeper within comets that were produced at the time of the solar system's formation

75% Empty space eh!

Samples of Comet Wild 2 suggest it is made of rocky material, like an asteroid, rather than the fluffy dust expected of a comet. The object may be a refugee that formed in the asteroid belt before getting kicked to the chilly fringes of the solar system, or it might have formed in that frigid realm from material thrown out of the inner solar system, scientists say.

Now, scientists have been surprised again as further study suggests Wild 2 is made mostly of material from the inner solar system, and that the object has a composition more like that of an asteroid than what was expected of a comet. The conclusion comes from a study led by Hope Ishii of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in Livermore, California, US.

The team compared particles from Wild 2 with dust grains collected by experiments in Earth's upper atmosphere, whose trajectories suggest they come from comets. LINK (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13224)

They smashed into a rock, you know, like an asteroid! :)

Like uncle Wal said (http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=6y3ehr7j) The Comet — Asteroid Link in the Electric Universe

I first wrote on this subject in a paper for the UK Society for Interdisciplinary Studies Chronology and Catastrophism Review 1988, Vol. X, titled, "Formation of Chondritic Meteorites and the Solar System":

“According to [the Electric Universe] scenario, comets, asteroids and meteorites have a common origin. It is not assumed that these bodies have anything to do with a highly problematical primordial solar nebula. Therefore, for example, the 'Oort Shell' hypothesis of comets surrounding the Solar System is considered an unnecessary fiction. Indeed, Professor Ray Lyttleton described the Oort Shell theory as 'a piece of trash.’

On box RC!

Reality Check

10th July 2009, 12:26 AM

Comet wild 2

Nucleus parameters

* Dimensions: 5.5×4.0×3.3 km[4]
* Density: 0.6 g/cm³[5]
* Mass: 2.3 × 1013 kg[6]

Oh I see it's lighter than water, so it must be made of ice right? :rolleyes:
It cannot be made of solid rock (obvious to a child) and so is not an asteroid.
It is lighter than water and so it is not a solid mass of ice.
What is left oh great genius Sol88 :rolleyes: ?

Your fails are getting more epic so: EPIC FAIL :jaw-dropp!

ETA: Hint: Read the citation [5] and porosity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porosity).
Hint 2: What is the density of snow?

Sol88

10th July 2009, 12:57 AM

Tell me about 2060 Chiron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2060_Chiron), Reality check?

The visible and near-infrared spectrum of Chiron is neutral,[10] and is similar to that of C-type asteroids and the nucleus of Halley's comet.[11]

snip

Cometary behaviour

In February 1988, at 12 AU from the Sun, Chiron brightened by 75 percent.[12] This is behaviour typical of comets but not asteroids. Further observations in April 1989 showed that Chiron had developed a cometary coma,[12] and a tail was detected in 1993.[10] Chiron differs from other comets in that water is not a major component of its coma, because it is too far from the sun for water to sublimate.[11]

At the time of its discovery, Chiron was close to aphelion, whereas the observations showing a coma were done closer to perihelion, perhaps explaining why no cometary behavior had been seen earlier. The fact that Chiron is still active likely means it has not been in this orbit that long.[8]

Chiron is officially designated as both a comet and an asteroid, an indication of the sometimes fuzzy dividing line between the two classes of object. The term proto-comet has also been used. Being at least 130 km in diameter, it is unusually large for a comet nucleus.

Since the discovery of Chiron, other centaurs have been discovered, and nearly all are currently classified as asteroids but are being observed for possible cometary behavior. 60558 Echeclus has displayed a cometary coma and now also has the cometary designation 174P/Echeclus. After passing perihelion in early 2008, centaur 52872 Okyrhoe significantly brightened.[13]

RCworte It cannot be made of solid rock (obvious to a child) and so is not an asteroid. NASA must be children then RC?

Reality Check

10th July 2009, 01:13 AM

Tell me about 2060 Chiron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2060_Chiron), Reality check?
snip

RCworte NASA must be children then RC?
You really cannot read Sol88 so here is my reply in answer to your posting about the density (not visible and near-infrared spectrums) of a totally different comet (Wild 2 is not 2060 Chiron) again:
It cannot be made of solid rock (obvious to a child) and so is not an asteroid.
It is lighter than water and so it is not a solid mass of ice.
What is left oh great genius Sol88 :rolleyes: ?

Your fails are getting more epic so: EPIC FAIL :jaw-dropp!

ETA: Hint: Read the citation [5] and porosity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porosity).
Hint 2: What is the density of snow?
Yet another EPIC FAIL :jaw-dropp!

Sol88

10th July 2009, 01:38 AM

You really cannot read Sol88 so here is my reply in answer to your posting about the density (not visible and near-infrared spectrums) of a totally different comet (Wild 2 is not 2060 Chiron) again:

Yet another EPIC FAIL :jaw-dropp!

Explain Chiron's cometary behavior then RC?

Easy under EC, if Chiron like ALL comets, are more or less the same make up as asteroids!

Sol88

10th July 2009, 01:45 AM

Ah well, Tim Thompson, we have been there done that (here and on BAUT). We just get the handwaving and "predictions" from thundercrap, the magical EDM, the even more magical creation of water, etc. etc.

But don't expect Sol88 to give you anything real. He never gives real answers, only links to pretty pictures and press releases. He is just a troll.

Prediction? what like Wal's?

ANOMALOUS X-RAYS
(http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=hcabb8zj)
The comet is rushing toward the copper projectile at almost 23,000 mph, which will not give time for the copper projectile in the exceedingly thin cometary plasma to balance its electrical potential with that of the more negative comet nucleus.

If (and it's the biggest "if") Tempel 1 is sufficiently electrically active before impact, we may see the usual non-linear behavior of plasma when subjected to increasing electrical stress. That is, there will be a sudden electric discharge, or arc. An electric discharge between the comet cathode and the copper projectile anode will result in X-ray emission, just as in any X-ray machine on Earth. Such X-rays are easily identifiable and in large amounts would be anomalous for a mere impact.

So, before physical impact occurs, we may expect a sudden discharge between the comet nucleus and the copper projectile. It will have the characteristic light-curve of lightning, with rapid onset and exponential decay. The question is, will it be a mere spark or a powerful arc?

Whether due to impact or electric arc, positively charged copper ions may be expected to produce radiation by recombination with free electrons. A small proportion of that radiation may be in the x-ray region. But the spectrum and intensity curve for radiation from an impact should be quite different from the flash of an electric arc impinging on a copper anode.

The arc should also give a restricted, almost point, source for the radiation from the target sites on the impactor and the comet nucleus. This is quite different from anything expected from distributed explosion products.

Predicted TWO flashes! :)

Which is confirmed, though the origins differ, one from a prediction, one from a guess!

FLASHES AND THE PLUME (http://deepimpact.umd.edu/results/excavating.html)

As the impactor entered the nucleus, or shortly thereafter, a brilliant flash, lasting less than two tenths of a second, appeared probably as the impactor and part of Tempel 1 vaporized. The first flash was followed by a second presumably originating deeper within the comet. The second flash was brighter still and it momentarily saturated some pixels in the instruments on the flyby spacecraft. Deeper than 200m? Vaporized the probe? into a snowbank? There was much more material in the curtain than expected indicating that the strength of the material lying within tens of meters of the comet's surface is very weak and powdery. Therefore the ejecting gas and dust are able to tear an unexpectedly great amount of material from the crater as it forms.

Rc, Rc RC! <shakes head> (Gullible (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gullible))

RC any links on that claim for narrow band X-Ray production!

Reality Check

10th July 2009, 01:55 AM

RC any links on that claim for narrow band X-Ray production!
Yes and you totally missed it :jaw-dropp!

ETA:
In fact no citations are needed for anyone who can think.
Hint 1: What is an electrical discharge?

tusenfem

10th July 2009, 02:22 AM

Care to name a couple of those several processes Reality check???
Namely what process ionizes your "ices"?

Well, not being RC, but just to edumacate you a bit:

Absorption of (UV) radiation of the Sun: X + ν*-> X+ + e-
Collisions between particles: X + Y -> X+ + e- + Y, and various other possibilities
Charge exchange with solar wind ions: SW+ + X -> SW + X+

Is there enough "ice" on the comets nucleus to sustain the amount of OH observed?

Yes

Why just the finely divided dust?
The list goes on....

Why just the finely divided dust what? What is finely divided dust anyway?

tusenfem

10th July 2009, 02:32 AM

Easy and consistent with EC

1 Are black from the arcs as well as the carbon produced!
2 Comets tail spectrum has more water than asteroids though not the comets nucleus
3 Shall we talk about Chiron (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060407cometasteroid.htm)
4 Comets are of a different charge than asteroids.

1. Please show us evidence of this arcing and the EDM. Why did none of the experiments that flew through the region of interest for this process measure any of the "side effects" of this discharging? I have mentioned [rul=http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/1991/90JA02459.shtml]this paper by Laakso[/url] before, that there are indeed electric fields near the comet and such stuff. There is loads of interesting stuff happening in the coma, howerver, if there had been EDM they would most definitely measured it with their experiments.

2. This is not even a sentence! You mean to say that comet's nuclei have no water, however, why are there jets observed coming from the nucleus? Are those jets produced by EDM or something? Please show us that that can happen.

3. Okay, why don't you start explaining it, how it works exactly and no links to thundercrap please, because he does not know an explanation from an excrement.

4. Really, and how did you decide that, did you measure it?

tusenfem

10th July 2009, 02:38 AM

Lets see if we can get this thread on the non-science of the electric comet to the second page before it dies a death.

For those EU proponent who still cannot grasp the concept of magnetic reconnection - there is evidence for it in comets: Tail disconnection events (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet#Coma_and_tail).

And for those who want the gory details, they can read the paper by Vourlidas et al. (2007) (http://esoads.eso.org/abs/2007ApJ...668L..79V).

Methinks that the EC gang does not really keep up with literature, I am sure they have never read the paper by Laakso (see above) which is highly relevant.

tusenfem

10th July 2009, 02:49 AM

These might be relevant (not sure, haven't looked into electric comet ideas much, just googled quickly for references):

http://thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf
POSTER PRESENTATION
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
33rd International Conference on Plasma Sciences (ICOPS)
Traverse City, Michigan
June 4-8, 2006

Possible Mechanism of Cometary Outbursts http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000mbos.work..177I

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaRRGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Who want so search JREF for the discussion of this "poster" (with NO references whatsoever). This document has been pulled to shreds already, maybe DeiRenDopa knows where to find it. I might try to find it too later.

tusenfem

10th July 2009, 04:14 AM

So how'd they get .6 g/cm3

Ever heard of porous material?

tusenfem

10th July 2009, 04:19 AM

Now, I am puzzled!

Apparently, the only way that the EC can "explain" the electric nature of a comet is by misinterpreting and badmouthing the mainstream model. It is the old fallacy of letting mainstream defend all their claims, making no claims themselves and then if one little thingy does not fit, EC says "yeah! our model is correct." But ... there is no EC model! Nothing has been presented apart from handwaving arguments etc.

So, what I expect to get now, which I also asked in the 2nd message in this thread:

Just show me, Sol88 qualitative and quantitative how this is supposed to work. Not just tiny quotes from press releases, but the whole thingamajik.

Charging of the comet nucleus
EDM on a singly charged nucleus
Release of oxygen ions (most likely positively charged)
Reaction with the solar wind protons (also positively charged, possibly highly energetic)

Please show in detail that the amount of water group ions that is observed around a comet and in its tail can be produced by this mechanism.

Show us the money, Sol88 and Zeuzzz, and don't forget that that "poster" by thundercrap is not a valid model. I want a detailed model presented here, and I want it now.

tusenfem

10th July 2009, 05:59 AM

For those interested, at BAUT the poster was introduced by P.Ashma, and one would have to go through the thread to find all the comments on it. Basically the whole "electric comet poster" is totally unsubstantiated, with lots of claims, no math and no references.
(I think it would be best to copy that whole BAUT thread here because then Sol88 does not have to write all his ridiculous claims again)

Zeuzzz

10th July 2009, 11:57 AM

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaRRGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Take a chill pill man :cool:

Dancing David

10th July 2009, 01:10 PM

Sol88

10th July 2009, 03:59 PM

Um, there are a lot of reasons to think that comets are not solid rocks. But even so, there is no reason to assume that comets are homogenous either.

As too comets being black, what are aromatic carbons?

Sol88, I asked you before and I ask you again.

1. If comets are rocky and they are solely showing the coma and tail as a result of a dissipation of an accumulated electrical charge, why is the tail longer in many cases after the comet approaches the sun. (Any charge should be dissipated by then and decreasing, not increasing.)

Pick a comet and show me where in the orbit you'd think this would be the case.

And you say dissipation of an accumulated electrical charge, but the only place it would be after it passes that point in its outbound orbit, in which it reaches equilibrium with it's plasma surrounds.

On the inbound leg though it has the same charge as it had "lost" while out near aphelion, closing to the positively charged Sun just sets up a charge differential, an electrical potential difference,a voltage and if it's one thing nature abhors more than a vacum, it's a electrical potential difference!

But 'cos it's immersed in a plasma as well, some interesting things happen! it forms a double layer/s (coma), tail and ANTI tail, loads/slows the solar wind enough for recombination to happen, forms filamentary structures close to where the famous EDM is happening(think not massive lightening bolts, but a "gentle" St Elmos fire(like your $20 buck plasma globe)) Makes water along with a string of other organic "stuff" including Carbon(this fact alone should blow open a whole range of disciplines eg. where did Earths water come from again?) and a whole lot more plasma phenomena that we are only JUST starting to learn and understand!

And the length of the tail should do more with how far it has to go to complete the circuit! In the case of Hale-Bopp and Hyakutake and McNuaght is was a fair way! Short period comet tails should be shorter and discharge less, especially when the Sun is quite, like now.

Sol88

10th July 2009, 04:04 PM

Sol88

10th July 2009, 04:12 PM

Now, I am puzzled!

Show us the money, Sol88 and Zeuzzz, and don't forget that that "poster" by thundercrap is not a valid model. I want a detailed model presented here, and I want it now.

See post 25 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4890494#post4890494)

Dancing David

10th July 2009, 04:49 PM

Pick a comet and show me where in the orbit you'd think this would be the case.

And you say dissipation of an accumulated electrical charge, but the only place it would be after it passes that point in its outbound orbit, in which it reaches equilibrium with it's plasma surrounds.

On the inbound leg though it has the same charge as it had "lost" while out near aphelion, closing to the positively charged Sun just sets up a charge differential, an electrical potential difference,a voltage and if it's one thing nature abhors more than a vacum, it's a electrical potential difference!

But 'cos it's immersed in a plasma as well, some interesting things happen! it forms a double layer/s (coma), tail and ANTI tail, loads/slows the solar wind enough for recombination to happen, forms filamentary structures close to where the famous EDM is happening(think not massive lightening bolts, but a "gentle" St Elmos fire(like your $20 buck plasma globe)) Makes water along with a string of other organic "stuff" including Carbon(this fact alone should blow open a whole range of disciplines eg. where did Earths water come from again?) and a whole lot more plasma phenomena that we are only JUST starting to learn and understand!

And the length of the tail should do more with how far it has to go to complete the circuit! In the case of Hale-Bopp and Hyakutake and McNuaght is was a fair way! Short period comet tails should be shorter and discharge less, especially when the Sun is quite, like now.

In comets that have not visited the inner system too often it is almost always the case that the tail is much longer on the trip out.

So you have this tail that is the result of electrical charge, right?

So you are saying that it has more of a charge after it goes around the sun.

Or what are you saying?

if it is immersed in plasma then it would discharge more quickly.

Reality Check

11th July 2009, 02:10 AM

Reality Check

11th July 2009, 02:19 AM

The model as presented is valid!

The model as presented is a bunch of hand waving ideas.
A scientific model uses physics and mathematics to produce predictions that can be tested against actual observations (i.e. numbers to compare against measurements).

For example: What is the X-ray spectrum from an electric comet?

The electric comet "model" you have presented is a couple of invalid ideas:

Comets are rocks.
Comets are lighter than rocks as shown by their measured densities.
Comet tails are formed from water vaporized from rock by electrical arcs.
There are no flashes of X-rays from these electrical arcs.
I repeat tusenfem's request:
Show us the money, Sol88 and Zeuzzz, and don't forget that that "poster" by thundercrap is not a valid model. I want a detailed model presented here, and I want it now.

tusenfem

11th July 2009, 02:49 AM

See post 25 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4890494#post4890494)

That is the abstract of the poster if I am not mistaken.
In the poster there is only handwaving, with no quantitative estimates whatsoever.
It is rather easy to write a handwaving paper, that might sound a bit convincing to the general public, but when one then puts some real science and real numbers in it, then it is found that it does not work.

I would love to be proved false, by a quantitative phyisical discussion of that model, but I doubt that we will ever see that presented by either Soll88 or Zeuzzz on this board.

(because we have been there, done that here on JREF and on BAUT and never such a quantitative model was presented)

tusenfem

11th July 2009, 03:01 AM

Possible Mechanism of Cometary Outbursts http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000mbos.work..177I

I missed that one. From this abstract:

The possibility of transformation of the kinetic energy of high-energy (more than 1 MeV) protons ejected during solar flares into the electrical energy of macroscopic electric double layer in the subsurface region of a cometary nucleus is considered.

I guess this is then a solid state double layer?

Unfortunately, Ibadov only seems to publish in Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions, a journal that I don't know and don't have access to. There is a paper by Ibadov and Ibadov (http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1998A%26AT...15..235I&data_type=PDF _HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf) that is available for free. (don't have time to read it now but will save it).

Sol88

12th July 2009, 06:20 PM

The obvious errors in the electric comet idea are best explained in Tim Thompson's posts:
Electric Comets I (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4827154#post4827154), Electric Comets II: References (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4830147#post4830147) and Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4832138#post4832138).

Thanks RC :)

Lets take your advice and read Tim Thompsons links again, specifically No EU X-rays, to parse

If that's what you think, then the EU is toast already. Comets cannot be "rocks". While comet masses are hard to constrain, they are not so extremely uncertain as to confuse "ice" and "rock". Comet densities are constrained to the range of about 0.3 to 1.5 gm/cm3 in numerous different ways, from dynamic orbit modeling to direct observation. Compare this to the density of water ice, 1.0 gm/cm3, and light "rocks" which range from 2-3 gm/cm3 (coal is the lightest "rock" at 1.1-1.4 gm/cm3; do you propose that comets are made of coal?). The average density of Earth is about 5.5 gm/cm3 due to the presence of heavier elements like iron (7.9 gm/cm3). Nothing with a density as low as 1.5 gm/cm3 can be considered a "rock" in any reasonable sense of the word. Comets are already known not to be rocks. For comet density references, see for instance Sosa & Fernandez, 2009; Richardson, et al., 2007; Weissman & Lowry, 2006.

Dynamic Orbit modeling, like the probe changing paths slightly in relation to the comets mass? Using some fantastic looking maths regarding it's trajectory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajectory)? to parse
from wiki A familiar example of a trajectory is the path of a projectile such as a thrown ball or rock. In a greatly simplified model the object moves only under the influence of a uniform homogenous gravitational force field. This can be a good approximation for a rock that is thrown for short distances for example, at the surface of the moon. In this simple approximation the trajectory takes the shape of a parabola. Generally, when determining trajectories it may be necessary to account for nonuniform gravitational forces, air resistance (drag and aerodynamics). This is the focus of the discipline of ballistics. Another nonuniform grivtational forcethe mainstream know squat about is the Pioneer anomaly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly)!!

So yeah,I don't know just how good your guessatimation is using questionable constants as to determine the density of the nucleus, because using your second method of determining comet nucleus density, Direct observation, it "looks" like ROCK, specifically Chondrite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chondrite)

Chondrites are stony meteorites that have not been modified due to melting or differentiation of the parent body. They formed when various types of dust and small grains that were present in the early solar system accreted to form primitive asteroids. Prominent among the components present in chondrites are the enigmatic chondrules, millimeter-sized objects that originated as freely floating, molten or partially molten droplets in space; most chondrules are rich in the silicate minerals olivine and pyroxene. Chondrites also contain refractory inclusions (including Ca-Al Inclusions), which are among the oldest objects to form in the solar system, particles rich in metallic Fe-Ni and sulfides, and isolated grains of silicate minerals. from the stardust mission (the return smaple) CAI Particle Found in the Stardust Collection

One of the most remarkable particles found in the Stardust collection (http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news113.html) is a particle named after the Inca Sun God Inti. Inti is collection of rock fragments that are all related in mineralogical, isotopic and chemical composition to rare components in meteorites called "Calcium Aluminum Inclusions" or CAI's for short. CAI's are the oldest materials that formed in the solar system and they contain a remarkable set of minerals that form at extremely high temperature. In addition to these same minerals, Inti also has tiny inclusions that may have been the first generation of solids to condense from hot gas in the early solar system. These include compounds of titanium, vanadium and nitrogen (TiN and VN) as well as tiny nuggets of platinum, osmium, ruthenium, tungsten and molybdenum. In certain chemical environments and at high enough temperature in the early solar system these exotic materials were the only solid materials that could survive without being vaporized. as well as The comet samples collected by Stardust contain abundant crystalline minerals and in most cases it is clear that they did not form by the predicted mild heating of interstellar dust. Many are too large, and have complex mineralogical and chemical compositions that could not have formed by this process. Instead of the mild heating that astronomers envisioned the comet samples were heated during their formation to severe temperatures, temperatures high enough to melt or vaporize them. The temperatures above 1300 ¼C and the samples were white hot. This is quite remarkable because the some of the ice components of comets appear to have formed only 30 degrees above absolute zero.

Lets take 19P/Borrelly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19P/Borrelly) for a direct observation shall we? some details first from wiki

Nucleus parameters

* Dimensions: 8×4×4 km[1]
* Density: 0.3 g/cm³[2]
* Mass: 2 × 1013 kg[3]
* Albedo: 0.03[4]

But it has a hot and dry (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/comet-02f.html) surface "We know the ice is there," he said. "It's just well- hidden. Either the surface has been dried out by solar heating and maturation or perhaps the very dark soot-like material that covers Borrelly's surface masks any trace of surface ice."
The Deep Space 1 science team released pictures and other initial findings days after the spacecraft flew within 2,171 kilometers (1,349 miles) of the comet's solid nucleus on September 22, 2001. This week's report provides additional details about the nucleus and the surrounding coma of gases and dust coming off of the comet as measured by one of Deep Space 1's scientific instruments.

"Comet Borrelly is in the inner solar system right now, and it's hot, between 26 and 71 degrees Celsius (80 and 161 degrees Fahrenheit), so any water ice on the surface would change quickly to a gas, " said Dr. Bonnie Buratti, JPL planetary scientist and co-author of the paper. "As the components evaporate, they leave behind a crust, like the crust left behind by dirty snow."

and they also found by direct observation (http://cometography.com/pcomets/019p.html)
# An especially important note about the 2001 apparition is that this comet became only the second comet to be photographed up close by a space probe, when Deep Space 1 flew about 1350 miles from the nucleus on September 22. Pictures of the nucleus revealed it measured 5 miles long and about 2.5 miles wide. As the probe approached the comet a sharply defined jet about 60km long was detected extending toward the sun. As the probe moved closer this jet was resolved into three columns or jets, and at its closest, the probe revealed the jets were emanating from bright, smooth patches on the surface. The primary jet appears to emanate from the rotation axis. It was mentioned that there were signs that the jets were eroding away at the surface and creating basins. It was suggested that since the erosion is occuring along the rotation axis, this might eventually cause the comet to split.

so a Density: 0.3 g/cm³ for 19P/Borelly or more like 3-4g/cm3
(http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/39730/asteroid/258993/Mass-and-density)
One model PREDICTED one did not, simple :rolleyes:

Reality Check

12th July 2009, 06:40 PM

...snipped...

Lets take 19P/Borrelly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19P/Borrelly) for a direct observation shall we? some details first from wiki

Nucleus parameters

* Dimensions: 8×4×4 km[1]
* Density: 0.3 g/cm³[2]
* Mass: 2 × 1013 kg[3]
* Albedo: 0.03[4]

But it has a hot and dry (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/comet-02f.html) surface

and they also found by [b]direct observation (http://cometography.com/pcomets/019p.html)

so a Density: 0.3 g/cm³ for 19P/Borelly or more like 3-4g/cm3

One model PREDICTED one did not, simple :rolleyes:
Are you that dumb Sol88?
The model predicts that comets will have densities less than water and much less than rock.
The observations are that comets do have densities less than water and much less than rock.

In this case you state the density foe 19P/Borrellyyourself: Density: 0.3 g/cm³[2]
The rest is just your usual derail into things you do not understand.

You have disproved the electric comet idea :jaw-dropp!

Sol88

12th July 2009, 06:53 PM

Are you that dumb Sol88?
The model predicts that comets will have densities less than water and much less than rock.
The observations are that comets do have densities less than water and much less than rock.

In this case you state the density foe 19P/Borrellyyourself: Density: 0.3 g/cm³[2]
The rest is just your usual derail into things you do not understand.

You have disproved the electric comet idea :jaw-dropp!

You grow tiresome RC <yawn> I state the density of .3g/cm3 :jaw-dropp is wrong I stated it would be closer to 3-4g/cm3!

Learn to read RC, then I know you and I can read from the same page! :mad:

Reality Check

12th July 2009, 07:11 PM

You grow tiresome RC <yawn> I state the density of .3g/cm3 :jaw-dropp is wrong I stated it would be closer to 3-4g/cm3!

Learn to read RC, then I know you and I can read from the same page! :mad:
You grow tiresome Sol88 <yawn>.
What part of "density less than water" states that the density should be 3-4 times greater than the density of water :jaw-dropp?
This has already been expained to you - porosity.

Learn to read Sol88, then I know you and I can read from the same page! :mad:

And from the article citation (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2006/pdf/2214.pdf) that you obviously ignored

Continuing work on comets has produced some indication of their bulk density. Analysis of ejecta trajectories observed during the Deep Impact encounter with Comet 9P/Tempel 1 indicates a bulk density of 0.62 +0.47/-0.33 g/cm3 [4]. Davidsson and Gutierez [5.6] estimated densities for comets 19P/Borrelley and 81P/Wild 2 by analyzing non-gravitational orbital changes. Wild 2 is estimated at between 0.38-0.6 g/cm3 and Borrelly comes in be-tween 0.18-0.3 g/cm3.

Sol88

12th July 2009, 07:28 PM

I would love to be proved false, by a quantitative phyisical discussion of that model, but I doubt that we will ever see that presented by either Soll88 or Zeuzzz on this board.

(because we have been there, done that here on JREF and on BAUT and never such a quantitative model was presented)

So lets see from stardust The hypothesis that tiny stardust grains would dominate comet dust came from the knowledge that comets formed in the coldest, most distant region of the young solar system. In this cold place the initial building blocks of the solar system, interstellar dust and gas, might survive without modification.

snip

Some of the bigger particles found at the ends of the carrot- shaped tracks are a million times more massive than typical stardust grains.

When we started pulling these particles out and examining them in electron microscopes and other instruments, we found even more surprises. First of all we found evidence that the standard astronomical predictions for the origin of dust in comets, or at least the ones in this comet, appear to be incorrect

Like in meteorites most of the components from the comet have isotopic compositions similar to Earth and are of solar system origin.

and you, RC can sit back and believe this crud they fees you??? You my friend are beyond hope I fear :eye-poppi

Remember those PREDICTIONS from the king of thundercrap Wal Thornhill

The Electric Comet ' and its Impact on Cosmology

Comets are important, they are the key to the universe! (http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=uf4ty065)

If comets are essentially an electrical phenomenon then the implications for cosmology are profound. It means that everything we believe about the Sun, and therefore all stars, is wrong. Rather than assuming the universe is electrically dead, it raises the possibility that Nature is at least as smart as we are and finds electrical energy extremely useful in creating and energizing the structures we see in space

Reality Check

12th July 2009, 07:37 PM

So lets see from stardust

snip

and you, RC can sit back and believe this crud they fees you??? You my friend are beyond hope I fear :eye-poppi

Remember those PREDICTIONS from the king of thundercrap Wal Thornhill

The Electric Comet ' and its Impact on Cosmology

Comets are important, they are the key to the universe! (http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=uf4ty065)

and you, Sol88 can sit back and believe this crud these crackpot web sites feed you??? You my friend are beyond hope I fear :eye-poppi

Why don't you learn some actual science rather relying on web sites that are set up to sell you nonsensical books from the king of thundercrap Wal Thornhill?

Comets are important. They are not the key to the universe.
They do demonstrate that the king of thundercrap Wal Thornhill is full of the afore mentioned c**p.

Sol88

13th July 2009, 01:36 AM

and you, Sol88 can sit back and believe this crud these crackpot web sites feed you??? You my friend are beyond hope I fear :eye-poppi

Why don't you learn some actual science rather relying on web sites that are set up to sell you nonsensical books from the king of thundercrap Wal Thornhill?

Comets are important. They are not the key to the universe.
They do demonstrate that the king of thundercrap Wal Thornhill is full of the afore mentioned c**p.

Jeez ya pretty witty there RC :cool:

Learn real science??? :eye-poppi like plasma "science"?

Case 1: I think that comets are an electrical phenomena n line, more or less, with Thornhill's word salad, hand waving, crackpot, thundercr%£p theory, as shown numerous times in the thread both here and over on BAUT.

So what evidence would I expect and look for if I thought this was the case?

:confused:

Case 2: I'm a mission specialist with NASA/ESA and I think comets are "balls" of sublimating "volatiles" under the heat of the Sun.

:confused:

So what evidence would I expect and look for if I thought this was the case?

RC? :D

Sol88

13th July 2009, 01:39 AM

Comets are important. They are not the key to the universe.

Means the Sun's electric! Means ALL stars are electric...Means the Universe is Electric et cetera :rolleyes:

Reality Check

13th July 2009, 01:47 AM

Means the Sun's electric! Means ALL stars are electric...Means the Universe is Electric et cetera :rolleyes:
Comets are not electric except in your head and some other less deluded people like Thornhill (after all they are selling you the delusion :D!).

Sol88

13th July 2009, 01:53 AM

RC can you quantifiy this statement? Tusenfem??

STARDUST (http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news113.html)

First of all we found evidence that the standard astronomical predictions for the origin of dust in comets, or at least the ones in this comet, appear to be incorrect.

Reality Check

13th July 2009, 01:59 AM

RC can you quantifiy this statement? Tusenfem??

STARDUST (http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news113.html)
Do you want the actual numbers?
Or is the conclusion that you are ignoring enough:

The comet particles returned by the Stardust mission have been a real bonanza. They do contain some stardust grains from other stars but the majority of solids are solar system materials that appear to have formed over a very broad range of solar distances and perhaps over an extended time range. Comet Wild 2 is a collection of materials that probably came from all regions of the young solar system and thus it has turned out to be wonderful "time capsule". Hundreds of scientists around the world have worked on these samples and the first results from these studies were presented in the December 15, 2006 issue of Science magazine. Having samples from the edge of the solar system has provided a fabulous way to explore the early solar system and test ideas for its origin. The samples will be explored for decades to come and we believe that they provide a wonderful new way to better understand our origins.

ETA:
You may be under the impression that the Stardust mission sampled the comet itself. Or maybe the comet tail.
Stardust actually collected dust samples from the comet coma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coma_(cometary)) (as well as other samples of interstellar dust).

Sol88

13th July 2009, 02:24 AM

Do you want the actual numbers?
Or is the conclusion that you are ignoring enough:

ETA:
You may be under the impression that the Stardust mission sampled the comet itself. Or maybe the comet tail.
Stardust actually collected dust samples from the comet coma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coma_(cometary)) (as well as other samples of interstellar dust).

No, that's the problem! remember YOU are constrained by the sublimating "volatiles" hypothesis!

Comet coma was made by sublimating "volatiles"...from the comet!!!

Reality Check

13th July 2009, 02:32 AM

No, that's the problem! remember YOU are constrained by the sublimating "volatiles" hypothesis!

Comet coma was made by sublimating "volatiles"...from the comet!!!
Comet coma includes dust.

Sol88

13th July 2009, 02:41 AM

Comet coma includes dust.

:book:.... :clap:

Reality Check

13th July 2009, 02:42 AM

:book:.... :clap:
Yes :book:.... :clap:

tusenfem

13th July 2009, 06:36 AM

So lets see from stardust

and you, RC can sit back and believe this crud they fees you??? You my friend are beyond hope I fear :eye-poppi

Remember those PREDICTIONS from the king of thundercrap Wal Thornhill

The Electric Comet ' and its Impact on Cosmology
[/B]

And this has exactly what to do with QUANTITATIVE?
Again, just some descriptions, mined from various websites.

Dancing David

13th July 2009, 06:45 AM

Thanks RC :)

Lets take your advice and read Tim Thompsons links again, specifically No EU X-rays, to parse

Dynamic Orbit modeling, like the probe changing paths slightly in relation to the comets mass? Using some fantastic looking maths regarding it's trajectory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajectory)? to parse
from wiki Another nonuniform grivtational forcethe mainstream know squat about is the Pioneer anomaly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly)!!

Excuse me, what is the factor in the measurement of the Pioneer anomaly, and how would that say anything about the ballistics of orbital objects.

Nice arm waving. :)

So yeah,I don't know just how good your guessatimation is using questionable constants as to determine the density of the nucleus, because using your second method of determining comet nucleus density, Direct observation, it "looks" like ROCK, specifically Chondrite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chondrite)

Nope, you are rather single minded, what says that a comet is solid chondrite?

from the stardust mission (the return smaple)

Yup the Stardust mission captured a comet sized piece of chondrite, must be why the re-entry failed!
:D

as well as

Lets take 19P/Borrelly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19P/Borrelly) for a direct observation shall we? some details first from wiki

Nucleus parameters

* Dimensions: 8×4×4 km[1]
* Density: 0.3 g/cm³[2]
* Mass: 2 × 1013 kg[3]
* Albedo: 0.03[4]

But it has a hot and dry (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/comet-02f.html) surface

and they also found by [B]direct observation (http://cometography.com/pcomets/019p.html)

so a Density: 0.3 g/cm³ for 19P/Borelly or more like 3-4g/cm3
(http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/39730/asteroid/258993/Mass-and-density)
One model PREDICTED one did not, simple :rolleyes:

Where is that observation of the mass to volume ratio being 3g/cm3?

Argument by smilie again?

tusenfem

13th July 2009, 06:52 AM

Comets and Xrays.

Naturally, Sol88 only gives the first press release about a new phenomenon, dating from 1996. In the mean time there have been developments in this area, for example by Neugebauer et al. (http://esoads.eso.org/abs/2000JGR...10520949N) where it is noted that:

Abstract
Both the Röntgen X-Ray Satellite (ROSAT) and the Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer (EUVE) have detected soft X-ray emission from comet C/Hyakutake 1996 B2. This emission varied by a factor of about 2 over a few hours and by a factor of 4 from day to day. One explanation for the excitation of cometary X rays is the charge transfer mechanism suggested by Cravens. This process involves charge exchange collisions between highly charged heavy ions in the solar wind and neutral gas in the cometary coma. Oxygen ion fluxes observed by the Charge, Element, and Isotope Analysis System (CELIAS) Mass Time-of-Flight (MTOF) instrument on the SOHO spacecraft and proton fluxes measured by near-Earth spacecraft are mapped to the location of the comet to demonstrate that the comet X-ray variability can be explained on the basis of variability in the solar wind. There is a good correlation between cometary X-ray emission and oxygen ion fluxes and a poorer correlation with proton flux. The correlation between the solar wind oxygen flux and cometary X rays degrades with increasing latitudinal separation of SOHO from the comet. Cometary X-ray emission is not sensitive to variations in solar X-ray fluxes and is unlikely to be caused by crossing of the heliospheric current sheet. The charge transfer mechanism appears to be supported by all the data examined to date. Cometary X rays have some shortcomings as remote sensors of the solar wind, however, because of variations in cometary gas production rates and in the charge states and abundances of heavy solar wind ions.

and it gets even more specific by Bingham et al. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V3S-3X8G9H0-R&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5d2b5ea47ca5b5ae753a6812ae5a912f) where we learn that:

Abstract
An explanation of recent observations of a strong X-ray emission from comet Hyakutake (Science Image , 194, 1996) is proposed. It is based on an idea that the interaction of the solar wind and photoionized cometary plasma produces strong plasma turbulence in the lower hybrid frequency range which is responsible for the acceleration of suprathermal electrons with energies in the range 100eV up to several keV. A nonlinear theory of the instability responsible for the generation of lower-hybrid electric field, typical energies and flux of suprathermal electrons are obtained. Two possible mechanisms of X-ray production by non-thermal energetic keV electrons are analyized; bremsstrahlung and cometary gas (mostly oxygen) K-shell line radiation. It is shown that for conditions under investigation line radiation is dominant resulting in total X-ray luminosity of 2.5 × 1015 erg/sec in excellent agreement with ROSAT observed emission of 3.0 × 1015 erg/sec.

So, these are only two papers about Hyakutaki and its Xray emission. But as far as I could see in these and other papers, there is no mention whatsoever of the possibility that the Xrays are created by discharges, like EDM.

Now, Sol88 please show where Thundercrap Thornhill shows his calculation of the spectrum of the Xrays created by the electric comet (I think you will have to search hard to get a numerical value for that, like in the mainstream papers). But I will not hold my breath until you give someting quantitative (that means with numbers and estimates and comparisons with observations, just to be clear, so you don't confuse it with qualitative).

Dancing David

13th July 2009, 06:53 AM

emanating from bright, smooth patches on the surface

Note that is a descrition of an optical appearance from a distance. Nowehere does it say "from a solid rocky surface".

Really Sol 88, where is the evidence of a solid rocky surface or a density comparable to an asteroid?

Are you going to say that a lake has a solid rocky surface because it appears smooth?
Or that fog in a valley seen from a high altitude is rocky because it appears smooth?
Or that there is really water in the desert because you see a reflection of the sky in the layers of hot air?

Really?

Ziggurat

18th July 2009, 06:55 PM

This range can be narrowed down to 180-300 kg m-3 by also requiring that the empirical changes (per orbital revolution) of the argument of perihelion and the longitude of the ascending node are reproduced.
Oh ohhhh Reality check!!!! 1.8-3.0g/cm3 No way!

Bwahahahaha! Evidently you can't do unit conversion correctly. Let's step through this slowly so you can see your mistake. First, our conversion factors:

1 kg = 103 g
1 m = 102 cm
1 m3 = (102 cm)3 = 106 cm3

So what happens if we convert that upper limit?
300 kg/m3 * 103 g/kg * 1 m3/106 cm3 = 300 * 10-3 g/cm3 = 0.3 g/cm3

Math fail, Sol88. And if you can't follow my calculations, you can even do the conversion yourself online (http://www.gordonengland.co.uk/conversion/density.htm).

Tim Thompson

18th July 2009, 07:02 PM

Can someone tell me how they measure non-gravitational orbital changes anyway??
Easy. Since comets are not very dense (i.e., they are not "rocks"), they are easily pushed around by the jets that eventually form the coma & tail. The jets push the comet around like little rockets. Those are the non-gravitational forces that comet scientists have to deal with. The non-gravitational forces are enough to alter comet orbits from one apparition to the next. See figure 1.14 (page 38) in the book introduction to comets, Brandt & Chapman, Cambridge University Press, 2004 (2nd edition). Also see Sosa & Fernández, 2009 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.393..192S) where comet masses are computed from non-gravitational forces. The densities derived are about or less than 0.8 gm/cm3 and average 0.4 gm/cm3.

Dancing David

19th July 2009, 06:41 AM

Sol88

19th July 2009, 05:57 PM

Thanks Zig!
:dl:

Did I make a mistake? bugger my apologies!

The fact remains they, comets, are rock, not dirty snowbanks as calculated! And as a prediction they will be found to be so, rock!

Comets are "rocks" on eccentric orbits!

like (http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=20561560)

Résumé / Abstract
In 2007, the M-type binary Asteroid 22 Kalliope reached one of its annual equinoxes. As a consequence, the orbit plane of its small moon, Linus, was aligned closely to the Sun's line of sight, giving rise to a mutual eclipse season. A dedicated international campaign of photometric observations, based on amateur-professional collaboration, was organized and coordinated by the IMCCE in order to catch several of these events. The set of the compiled observations is released in this work. We developed a relevant model of these events, including a topographic shape model of Kalliope refined in the present work, the orbit solution of Linus as well as the photometric effect of the shadow of one component falling on the other. By fitting this model to the only two full recorded events, we derived a new estimation of the equivalent diameter of Kalliope of 166.2 ± 2.8 km, 8% smaller than its IRAS diameter. As to the diameter of Linus, considered as purely spherical, it is estimated to 28 ± 2 km. This substantial "shortening" of Kalliope, gives a bulk density of 3.35 ± 0.33 g/cm3, significantly higher than past determinations but more consistent with its taxonomic type. Some constraints can be inferred on the composition.

3.35g/cm3???

your are the brilliant mathematicians your work it out into any unit you like, facts are still the same, asteroids like comets are "rock"!!

also

The Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR) spacecraft flew within 3830 kilometers of asteroid 433 Eros on 23 December 1998. The gravitational perturbation on NEAR was evident in the spacecraft tracking data. Ground-based Doppler and range tracking of the spacecraft as well as spacecraft images of the asteroid's center of figure and surface features were used to determine the mass and rotation pole of Eros. The mass of Eros is (7.2 ± 1.8) × 1018 grams and, coupled with a volume estimate provided by the NEAR imaging team, this mass suggests a bulk density of 2.5 ± 0.8 grams per cubic centimeter. The rotation pole position is 15.6 (±3.7) degrees in right ascension and 16.4 (±1.8) degrees in declination, which is consistent with ground-based and NEAR imaging team observations.

So we still use the weakest most poorly understood force we know of to calculate the mass and density!!!

brillant!! tell me again how accurate these calculation can be when we ahve something like the pioneer anomaly?? The effect is seen in radio Doppler and ranging data, yielding information on the velocity and distance of the spacecraft. When all known forces acting on the spacecraft are taken into consideration, a very small but unexplained force remains. It appears to cause a constant sunward acceleration of (8.74 ± 1.33) × 10−10 m/s2 for both spacecraft. If the positions of the spacecraft are predicted one year in advance based on measured velocity and known forces (mostly gravity), they are actually found to be some 400 km closer to the sun at the end of the year. The magnitude of the Pioneer effect is numerically quite close to the product of the speed of light and the Hubble constant, but the significance of this, if any, is unknown. Gravitationally bound objects such as the solar system, or even the galaxy, do not partake of the expansion of the universe — this is known both from theory[1] and by direct measurement.[2]

Data from the Galileo and Ulysses spacecraft indicate a similar effect, although for various reasons (such as their relative proximity to the Sun) firm conclusions cannot be drawn from these sources. These spacecraft are all partially or fully spin-stabilised.

The effect is much harder to measure accurately with craft that use thrusters for attitude control. These spacecraft, such as the Voyagers, acquire small and unpredictable changes in speed as a side effect of the frequent attitude control firings. This 'noise' makes it impractical to measure small accelerations such as the Pioneer effect.

The Cassini mission has reaction wheels as well as thrusters for attitude control, and during cruise could rely for long periods on the reaction wheels alone, thus enabling precision measurements. However, it also had radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) mounted close to the spacecraft body, radiating kilowatts of heat in hard-to-predict directions. The measured value of unmodelled acceleration for Cassini is (26.7 ± 1.1) × 10−10 m/s2, roughly three times as large as the Pioneer acceleration. Unfortunately, the measured value is the sum of the uncertain thermal effects and the possible anomaly. Therefore the Cassini measurements neither conclusively confirm nor refute the existence of the anomaly.[3]

But we are sure about the 433 Eros data! :rolleyes:

What did deep impact tell us again!!! :D

Sol88

19th July 2009, 06:07 PM

Bwahahahaha! Evidently you can't do unit conversion correctly. Let's step through this slowly so you can see your mistake. First, our conversion factors:

1 kg = 103 g
1 m = 102 cm
1 m3 = (102 cm)3 = 106 cm3

So what happens if we convert that upper limit?
300 kg/m3 * 103 g/kg * 1 m3/106 cm3 = 300 * 10-3 g/cm3 = 0.3 g/cm3

Math fail, Sol88. And if you can't follow my calculations, you can even do the conversion yourself online (http://www.gordonengland.co.uk/conversion/density.htm).

Just re read my post and whoops you are correct 300kg/m3 is .3 g/cm3 just like they guessed at for other comets, big fluffy snowbanks!!! with a bit of dust inside somewhere!

Now all they have to do is find the water and they are sorted!

Tho there may be a problem!

Deep Impact Was a Dust-up, Not a Gusher (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17385)

"It's pretty clear that this event did not produce a gusher," said SWAS principal investigator Gary Melnick of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA). "The more optimistic predictions for water output from the impact haven't materialized, at least not yet."

Astronomer Charlie Qi (CfA) expressed surprise at these results. He explained that short-period comets like Tempel 1 have been baked repeatedly by the sun during their passages through the inner solar system. The effects of that heat are estimated to extend more than three feet beneath the surface of the nucleus. But the Deep Impact indicates that these effects could be much deeper.

"Theories about the volatile layers below the surface of short-period comets are going to have to be revised," Qi said.

Revised? to what dark water!!!! :p:D;) :rolleyes:

'cos oops!

Deep Impact was intended to test these theories by excavating material from the comet's interior, giving scientists clues to its composition and structure. The mission succeeded admirably, pulverizing a section of the comet larger than a house and releasing tons of material into space.

SWAS operators were puzzled by the lack of increased water vapor from Tempel 1. Post-impact measurements showed the comet was releasing only about 550 pounds of water per second - an emission rate very similar to pre-impact values, and less than seen by SWAS during natural outbursts in the weeks before the impact.

why no increase in water vapor production?

why the double flash as PREDICTED by Wal Thorhill?

Reality Check

19th July 2009, 06:13 PM

Did I make a mistake? bugger my apologies!

It is not just your mistake - it is the fact that you were stupid enough to persist in it after it was first pointed.

Now all you are doing is compounding it again by stating what everyone already knows . The density of asteroids is greater than the density of comets and so the electric comet idea is wrong.

This substantial "shortening" of Kalliope, gives a bulk density of 3.35 ± 0.33 g/cm3

Guess what Sol88: Kalliope is an asteroid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalliope_(asteroid))!

EPIC FAIL once again Sol88
:dl:

Reality Check

19th July 2009, 06:27 PM

Just re read my post and whoops you are correct 300kg/m3 is .3 g/cm3 just like they guessed at for other comets, big fluffy snowbanks!!! with a bit of dust inside somewhere!

Not guessed - measured.
That is a difference between real science than the hand waving non-science you have been taken in by.

Now all they have to do is find the water and they are sorted!

They have found the water in 1000's of observations of comets.
And this water was not produced by your mythical electric arcs because the observation of the comets show that there are no X-ray bursts from these electrical arcs.

Tho there may be a problem!

Deep Impact Was a Dust-up, Not a Gusher (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17385)

Because this is an example of a specific comet that does not have as much water as expected for a typical comet (e.g. a long term one).
Astronomer Charlie Qi (CfA) expressed surprise at these results. He explained that short-period comets like Tempel 1 have been baked repeatedly by the sun during their passages through the inner solar system. The effects of that heat are estimated to extend more than three feet beneath the surface of the nucleus. But the Deep Impact indicates that these effects could be much deeper.

why no increase in water vapor production?

That is a puzzler for this specific comet. I could make a few guesses, e.g. the impact looks like it was on the leading surface of the comet which is where the water is most likely to be removed by the solar wind.

why the double flash as PREDICTED by Wal Thorhill?
Because even crackpots get it right if they make enough guesses.

ETA:
And if they do not predict something other than "double flash", e.g. at what distance would the first flash be from the comet?, what would be the relative brightness of the flashes?

tusenfem

20th July 2009, 04:09 AM

Did I make a mistake? bugger my apologies!

The fact remains they, comets, are rock, not dirty snowbanks as calculated! And as a prediction they will be found to be so, rock!

Comets are "rocks" on eccentric orbits!

3.35g/cm3???

your are the brilliant mathematicians your work it out into any unit you like, facts are still the same, asteroids like comets are "rock"!!

also

So we still use the weakest most poorly understood force we know of to calculate the mass and density!!!

brillant!! tell me again how accurate these calculation can be when we ahve something like the pioneer anomaly??

But we are sure about the 433 Eros data!

What did deep impact tell us again!!!

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh let's see, a comet has an average density of 0.3.
And now you use the data from asteroids, which have a density of about 10 times more, to claim they are the same?
Woe, not only are your mathematical skills abysmal, your logic also is defunct.

Sol88

23rd July 2009, 06:17 AM

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh let's see, a comet has an average density of 0.3.
And now you use the data from asteroids, which have a density of about 10 times more, to claim they are the same?
Woe, not only are your mathematical skills abysmal, your logic also is defunct.

:rolleyes:

No, I am saying i think the data on density and mass calculation is misleading causing them to underestimate a comets density.

I know what the papers say and I (along with a few other) say that a comets density is the same, more or less, than a asteroids!

We shall see who's correct!

Sol88

23rd July 2009, 06:19 AM

because even crackpots get it right if they make enough guesses.

ETA:
And if they do not predict something other than "double flash", e.g. at what distance would the first flash be from the comet?, what would be the relative brightness of the flashes?

yup that "crackpot" nailed it, who'd thunk eh?

Depends on the potentials involved of course! simple really :rolleyes:

Sol88

23rd July 2009, 06:31 AM

Electric comet (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040805electric-comet.htm)

The Electric Universe researchers are ready to turn the tide of comet theory back toward electrical phenomena. Electricity, not heat, is at work on the surface of Wild 2. If this is true, then a second problem is solved. We don't have to wait for the rare impact to form the cratered landscape. The craters we see are being carved by electric arcs. These arcs also cause the (surprising) dark color of every comet we've seen up close. They produce the (surprising) x- rays that the ROSAT x-ray observatory discovered. And they create the (surprising) streams of rocky particles that pummeled the spacecraft, Stardust.

METHOD OF ROCK CUTTING EMPLOYING PLASMA STREAM (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3788703.html)

A method especially useful for cutting and breaking hard rock such as granite from the face of a tunnel is disclosed. A pattern of slots are cut into the rock face by directing a high velocity plasma jet on the rock face to melt a portion of the rock face and produce a molten film and applying electrical power to the plasma-jet and a cooperating electrode to flow electric current through the molten film to further heat the molten film and melt additional rock to form a slot. After the pattern of slots are formed, spaced plasma streams are introduced into the slots and electrical power of a frequency effective to produce dielectric heating in the rock is applied through the plasma streams to produce a heated region within the rock mass which thermally stresses and severs that rock mass portion into fragments.

When Comets Break Apart (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060119comets.htm)

The unexpected breakup of comets, some at considerable distances from the Sun, has long baffled comet researchers. But there is no mystery if comets are solid bodies discharging electrically as they move into regions of different charge in the Sun’s electric field.

Thus, according to Sagan and Druyan, “the problem is left unsolved”. But the authors appear to have found a clue without recognizing its significance. “Splitting and jetting may be connected … At the moment Comet West split, the individual fragments brightened noticeably, and propelled large quantities of dust into space in the first of some dozen bursts”. The same could be said for the more recent Comet Linear breakup.

Why would intense, high-velocity jets and explosions of dust, traveling at supersonic speeds, precede the fragmentation of a comet nucleus? In the electrical model of comets, the answer is obvious. The behavior of comets will never be understood in simple mechanical terms because they are electrified bodies orbiting within the plasma environment of an electrified Sun. The solar plasma behaves like a very good conductor in the Sun's electrical connection with the galaxy. And just like any good conductor, the electric field within the plasma is very low. But unlike good metal conductors, the solar plasma is of extremely low density and therefore its current-carrying ability is limited.

Sol88

23rd July 2009, 06:37 AM

When Asteroids Become Comets (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060407cometasteroid.htm)

But now, “the locales of comets and asteroids may not be such a key distinction”, states Dan Vergano, reporting on the work of two University of Hawaii astronomers, Henry Hsieh and David Jewitt. In a survey of 300 asteroids lurking in the asteroid belt, the astronomers detected three objects that “look a lot like comets … ejecting little comet tails at times from their surfaces”. The three red circles in the illustration above describe the orbits of these bodies

Of course, this is not the first instance of an 'asteroid' sporting a cometary tail. The asteroid Chiron, orbiting between Saturn and Uranus, was seen to develop a coma and tail between 1988 and 1989. It is now officially classified as both an asteroid and a comet. Chiron belongs to a class of objects called 'Centaurs' crossing the orbits of various gas giants. Though they move on minimally eccentric orbits through a relatively remote and weak region of the Sun’s electric field, Wallace Thornhill and other electrical theorists believe these bodies should all be watched carefully for telltale signs of minor cometary activity. And in fact the asteroid 60558 Echeclus, discovered in 2000, did display a cometary coma detected in 2005, and it too is now classified as both an asteroid and a comet.

In the electric view, there is no fundamental distinction between a comet and an asteroid, apart from their orbits. Comets are not primordial objects formed by impact accretion – an improbable and unfalsifiable model (“it happened long, long ago and far, far away”). Asteroids, comets and meteorites are all 'born' in interplanetary electrical events. Their distinctive orbital groupings and spectral features simply point to separate catastrophic events and to different planetary bodies involved in different phases of solar system history.

A comet is simply an electrical display and was recognized as such by scientists in the 19th century. So an 'asteroid' on a sufficiently elliptical orbit will do precisely what a comet does—it will discharge electrically. What distinguishes the cometary 'asteroids', observed by the University of Hawaii astronomers, are the paths they follow, moving them through the radial electric field of the Sun to a greater extent than is typical of other bodies in the 'asteroid belt' (See chart above). Cometary effects may also be expected from an asteroid if it passes through the huge electric comet tail [called the magnetosphere] of a giant planet.

The astronomers’ recent investigation only reinforces the argument of the electrical theorists: The electric model is eminently testable, with highly specific and unique predictions; and it has so far met every test provided by the space age.

Sol88

23rd July 2009, 06:44 AM

So what where the PREDICTIONS and how'd they go!

ELECTRIC MODEL PREDICTIONS FOR DEEP IMPACT: (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050704predictions.htm)

* An abundance of water on or below the surface of the nucleus (the underlying assumption of the “dirty snowball” hypothesis) is unlikely.
* Tempel 1 has a low-eccentricity orbit. Therefore its charge imbalance with respect to its environment at perihelion is low. (It is a “low-voltage” comet.) Electrical interactions with Deep Impact may be slight, but they should be measurable if NASA will look for them. They would likely be similar to those of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 prior to striking Jupiter’s atmosphere: The most obvious would be a flash (lightning-like discharge) shortly before impact.
* The impactor may form a sheath around it as it enters the coma, becoming a “comet within a comet”.
* Electrical stress may short out the electronics on board the impactor before impact.
* More energy will be released than expected because of the electrical contributions of the comet. (The discharge could be similar to the “megalightning” bolt that, evidence suggests, struck the shuttle Columbia).
* Copious X-rays will accompany discharges to the projectile, exceeding any reasonable model for X-ray production through the mechanics of impact. The intensity curve will be that of a lightning bolt (sudden onset, exponential decline) and may well include more than one peak.
* If the energy is distributed over several flashes, more than one crater on the comet nucleus could result—in addition to any impact crater.
* Any arcs generated will be hotter than can be explained by mechanical impact. If temperature measurements are made with sufficient resolution, they will be much higher than expected from impact heating.
* The discharge and/or impact may initiate a new jet on the nucleus (which will be collimated—filamentary—not sprayed out) and could even abruptly change the positions and intensities of other jets due to the sudden change in charge distribution on the comet nucleus.
* The impact/electrical discharge will not reveal “primordial dirty ice,” but the same composition as the surface.
* The impact/electrical discharge will be into rock, not loosely consolidated ice and dust. The impact crater will be smaller than expected.

Not bad for a "crackpot" :)

Sol88

23rd July 2009, 07:16 AM

Easy. Since comets are not very dense (i.e., they are not "rocks"), they are easily pushed around by the jets that eventually form the coma & tail. The jets push the comet around like little rockets. Those are the non-gravitational forces that comet scientists have to deal with. The non-gravitational forces are enough to alter comet orbits from one apparition to the next. See figure 1.14 (page 38) in the book introduction to comets, Brandt & Chapman, Cambridge University Press, 2004 (2nd edition). Also see Sosa & Fernández, 2009 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.393..192S) where comet masses are computed from non-gravitational forces. The densities derived are about or less than 0.8 gm/cm3 and average 0.4 gm/cm3.

well the probes masses MUST have changed right?

Those same non gravitational forces are also acting on the probes, but they do not know what is causing them!

In a previous Picture of the Day article we noted that NASA scientists have determined that both of the Pioneer spacecraft are off course by more than a hundred thousand kilometers. At the time, investigative team members remarked that they had no explanation for the navigational deviation, so many speculations were offered about what “mysterious” forces could be acting on the most distant of artificial objects. Multidimensional space, dark energy, dark matter "friction," and other ironic theories such as “gravity affecting antimatter differently” were offered to the scientific press as "explanations" for the deceleration.

In September 1998 the same inexplicable "tug" seemed be acting on the now defunct Ulysses spacecraft as it swung through the Solar System in a high orbit over the Sun's poles. Ulysses exhibited an anomalous acceleration toward the Sun when radio signals from Earth were returned from an onboard transponder. A Doppler shift in the frequency of the return transmission indicated a variance greater than could be accounted for by known mechanisms—as of today, no one in the conventional science community can provide a solid explanation for it.

and you use the same data to calculate the density of a charged object!

Well done, you've discovered natures version of Aerogel!!!

Reality Check

23rd July 2009, 07:33 AM

yup that "crackpot" nailed it, who'd thunk eh?

Depends on the potentials involved of course! simple really :rolleyes:
The crackpot did not nail it. The crackpot made a guess made a general prediction ("two flashes") and got two flashes.
But...
The crackpot theory predicts a flash above the surface and then another on impact with the surface. The observation as far as I can see is that there was a flash at the surface and then a later bigger flash.

Reality Check

23rd July 2009, 07:38 AM

No, I am saying i think the data on density and mass calculation is misleading causing them to underestimate a comets density.

I know what the papers say and I (along with a few other) say that a comets density is the same, more or less, than a asteroids!

We shall see who's correct!
What published papers calculate that comets have a density similar to asteroids using the data that is available to any astronomer?

How are the existing calculations of comet densities that get values a 10th of asteriod densities (e.g. the ones you have been citing) wrong?

We have seen who's correct!
The data states that comet densities are << asteriod densities.

EPIC FAIL for the electric comet :eye-poppi idea!

Reality Check

23rd July 2009, 07:58 AM

So what where the PREDICTIONS and how'd they go!
Not bad for a "crackpot" :)
Not bad for the typical crackpot hand waving predictions.
As any idiot can see there are numbers missing from these "predictions".

IMHO At least one is what astronomers would expect - a "sheath" (or more exactly a shock-wave) around the impactor as it goes through the coma.

So I could reply for example:

An "abundance" of water on or below the surface of the nucleus was found.
The prediction failed.
The flash was "very shortly" before impact not "shortly" before impact.
The prediction failed.
etc.
But this is moot.

The electric comet model already fails totally on two fundamental predictions for all comets (not just Tempel 1).

It predicts that comets will have densities ~3 gm/cm3.
The actual measured densities are < 1 3 gm/cm3.
FAILURE.
It predicts that comets will emit X-ray bursts from the electrical discharges.
These are not seen.
FAILURE.

Reality Check

23rd July 2009, 08:14 AM

well the probes masses MUST have changed right?

Those same non gravitational forces are also acting on the probes, but they do not know what is causing them!

and you use the same data to calculate the density of a charged object!

Well done, you've discovered natures version of Aerogel!!!
Tim Thompson replied to a question on the non-gravitational forces on comets from jets that eventually form the coma & tail.
That has little to do with the tiny anomalies for the Pioneer or Ulysses spacecraft unless you think that they are caused by out gassing.
The Pioneer anomaly appears to cause a constant acceleration of (8.74 ± 1.33) × 10−10 m/s2 toward the Sun for both spacecraft with smiliar values for the Ulysses (and Galileo) spacecraft.
Perhaps Tim can look up what a typical acceleration of a comet from its jets is. My guess - a couple of OOM larger.

tusenfem

23rd July 2009, 12:49 PM

tusenfem

23rd July 2009, 12:56 PM

Tim Thompson replied to a question on the non-gravitational forces on comets from jets that eventually form the coma & tail.
That has little to do with the tiny anomalies for the Pioneer or Ulysses spacecraft unless you think that they are caused by out gassing.
The Pioneer anomaly appears to cause a constant acceleration of (8.74 ± 1.33) × 10−10 m/s2 toward the Sun for both spacecraft with smiliar values for the Ulysses (and Galileo) spacecraft.
Perhaps Tim can look up what a typical acceleration of a comet from its jets is. My guess - a couple of OOM larger.

Ah a couple of OOM does not really matter to the EC Oompaloompas.

EC/EU/ES are handwaving theories, with the proponents hiding behind long dead heros of whom they misinterpret the ideas and theories.

It would be laughable if it were not so pathetic.

Sol88

24th July 2009, 02:15 AM

on a side note

wOw!!!:cool:

NGC 1097
http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/spitzer20090723-640.jpg credit Spitzer's eye in the sky.

Sol88

24th July 2009, 06:32 AM

Ooooooowww touchy touchy there Sol88!
Why are you trying to derail this thread about the electric comet non-science? :confused:

All you need to know is that the electric comet model fails totally on two fundamental predictions for all comets (not just Tempel 1).

It predicts that comets will have densities ~3 gm/cm3.
The actual measured densities are < 1 3 gm/cm3.
FAILURE.
It predicts that comets will emit X-ray bursts from the electrical discharges.
These are not seen.
FAILURE.
ETA: Since you are too lazy to even look at the NASA site for the Deep Impact mission, here is yet another failed prediction of the electric comet idea :eye-poppi.
Prediction: Two flashes, the first before hitting the surface.
Mission Results: Excavating Comet Tempel 1 (http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/deepimpact/results/excavating.cfm)

Electric comet FAILURE.

Wow are you really that gullible RC?

You can't see the contradiction in statements here???

Your "snowbank" vaporized copper?

< .3 gm/cm3. vaporized the 8.94 g·cm−3 copper projectile? How hot does the "snowbank" have to get if copper vaporizes at 300.4 kJ·mol−1??

Thornhill PREDICTED two flashes and there they where! fancy that RC :rolleyes:

X-rays???? Tripper, this stuff is cutting edge?

Scientists think that X-rays are produced through a process called charge exchange, in which highly (and positively) charged particles from the sun that lack electrons steal electrons from chemicals in the comet. Typical comet material includes water, methane and carbon dioxide. Charge exchange is analogous to the tiny spark seen in static electricity, only at a far greater energy. LINK (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/swift/bursts/swift_comet.html)

Also

Comet 73P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 3 is the brightest comet ever detected in the X-ray band. This NASA Swift image shows the comet in X-rays as it moves closer to the Earth on its orbit around the sun (at a safe distance millions of miles away). The white speck is the near the comet core; the yellow and bright red areas show the comet's halo and tail. Scientists hope to learn about the composition of the comet and of the solar wind, which interacts with the comet to make X-rays. This is a rare opportunity because certain key information about the comet and solar wind is seen only via spectral lines in X-ray energies. As the comet moves closer to the Earth and sun, other X-ray satellites will observe the comet in detail. Note that the X-rays are to the left of the nucleus (towards the sun) because they are produced by interactions with the solar wind.

Swift is the first observatory to simultaneously observe the comet in both ultraviolet light and X-rays. This cross comparison is crucial for testing theories about comets.

Energetic solar wind ions impact the coma, capturing electrons from neutral atoms. As the electrons become attached to their new parent nuclei (the solar wind ion), energy is released in the form of X-rays. As the coma can measure several thousand miles in diameter, the comet atmosphere has a huge cross section, allowing a vast number of these charge exchange events to occur. Comets suddenly become significant X-ray generators as they get blasted by solar wind ions. The total power output from the coma can top a billion Watts.

Charge exchange can occur in any system where a hot stream of ions interact with a cooler neutral gas. Using missions such as Swift to study the interaction of comets with the solar wind can provide a valuable laboratory for scientists to understand otherwise confusing X-ray emissions from other systems. LINK (http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/03/swift-detects-x-ray-emissions-from-comets/)

And mainstream did not "predict" this charge exchange?

Have a look at Bad Astronomer himself!

It’s a bit funny: we usually associate X-rays with incredibly violent events like exploding stars, black holes gobbling down matter, and über-dense neutron stars with terrifyingly strong magnetic fields. Yet comets are frozen snowballs. You might not think they can emit such high-energy light.

But I guess that’s a failing of our language. When a subatomic particle from the solar wind hits the comet’s coma, the impact speeds are huge, and the event really is pretty extreme. It’s just really really tiny. It’s not enough to significantly heat up the comet, but it’s certainly enough to make it glow in X-rays.

Failing of our language??? Or mainstream Phill??

Dancing David

24th July 2009, 09:19 AM

Wow are you really that gullible RC?

You can't see the contradiction in statements here???

Your "snowbank" vaporized copper?

< .3 gm/cm3. vaporized the 8.94 g·cm−3 copper projectile? How hot does the "snowbank" have to get if copper vaporizes at 300.4 kJ·mol−1??

Hi Sol88,

Do you live in a place that has really snowy winters?

I ask because there is a phenomena that is well know to us who do, it is called various names and comes in many forms. There is the 'hard pack' snow that occurs on roadways or sidewalks when a large snowfall is driven over or walked upon, this becomes 'glare ice' or 'ice on the sidewalk' after just a little warming a refreezing. It is not fluffy happy snow, it is rock hard and very painful to fall upon.

Then there are other phenomena as well, such as the 'plow wall', thrown up by the snow plows as they run down the street, this stuff like the snow in avalanches has most of the air pockets compacted out of it in the toss, movement and settling. It becomes rock hard even without warming and remelting.

Then there are the other forms of more icey snow and outright ice itslef, all of which can be very tough and hard substance. So perhaps there is an issue here , that you think of 'snow' of 'dirty snowball' as something other than an 'icey mess' and as those of us who do live in snowy climes know, and icy mess is often very hard, and very durable stuff, you can easily break all sorts of tools trying to remove snow and ice that is frozen.

Then there is the whole impact momentum issue, the energy from impact comes from the momentum of the collision, not nessecarily the density of the objects. So if the velocities are high you can melt things in impacts with not so dense objects.

But seriously if a comet is made out of water ice, aromomatic polycarbons and chondrites it could be very hard stuuf. Seriously a plow wall will set up within a half hour if the temps are below zero F and become just as hard as a stone wall. Although the density is 10% of stone.

ben m

24th July 2009, 02:20 PM

Your "snowbank" vaporized copper?

The Deep Impact collision occurred at 23,000 miles per hour. At those speeds, a sheet of tissue paper could vaporize copper.

You may have noticed how much the Space Shuttle heats up on entering the atmosphere, a substance much less dense than snow.

Sol88

26th July 2009, 06:46 AM

Thornhill PREDICTED a flash before the impact. The flashes actually happened at and after the impact.

Can you tell the difference Sol88?

The electric comet model fails totally on two fundamental predictions for all comets (not just Tempel 1).

* It predicts that comets will have densities ~3 gm/cm3.
The actual measured densities are < 1 3 gm/cm3.
FAILURE.
* It predicts that comets will emit X-ray bursts from the electrical discharges.
These are not seen.
FAILURE.

Here is yet another failed prediction of the electric comet idea .

Prediction: Two flashes, the first before hitting the surface.
Mission Results: Excavating Comet Tempel 1
Result: Two flashes, the first as the impactor entered the nucleus, or shortly thereafter.

Electric comet FAILURE.

:rolleyes:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/121520main_HRI-Movie.gif

Predicted two flashes, saw two flashes!!! the first tiny little flash overloaded the main mission cameras and the subsequent frames show the highly energetic "bang"!

ETA RC, quantify "shortly thereafter". Remember it's moving at 10,281 meters per second

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/image08/081022filaments.jpgInfrared image of Holmes 17P. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0610/swan_rheman.jpgCredit & Copyright: Michael Jäger & Gerald Rhemann

The European Space Agency's Giotto probe met Halley's Comet on March 16, 1996. Among several discoveries, the comet was found to be covered with a black crust. Bright jets of ionized gas, or plasma, blasted out from its surface in three highly localized areas. Water was present in Halley's coma, but according to Horst Uwe Keller of the Max Planck Institut für Aeronomie: "We discovered that a comet is not really a 'dirty snowball' since dirt is dominant, not ice. Instead of being spherical like a warm snowball, a comet nucleus is elongated. The physical structure of a comet's interior is defined by its dust content rather than its ice content."

??? What are those twisty things RC?

On 14 March 2006, I wrote in Stardust Comet Fragments Solar System Theory, “NASA researchers announced on March 13 another in the long procession of surprises about comets. The grains from comet Wild 2, trapped in aerogel and returned to Earth, were much larger than expected and made from the same high-temperature minerals as found in the most abundant meteorites. This discovery was so unexpected that an early sample was thought to be contamination from the spacecraft.

Once again, rather than revisiting the assumptions about the origin of comets, NASA scientists introduced another ad hoc addition to comet theory. Now the Sun must somehow eject material from inside Mercury's orbit into the far reaches beyond Pluto's orbit where it somehow accretes to form comets. The word 'somehow' is overworked to death in comet theory.

So the stuff we actually got from comets was much harder and denser than a fluffy snowball should be! More like an asteroid or meteorite!

'Cos in Science magazine of 25 January 2008, comes the following report (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/319/5862/401a.pdf)from Richard A. Kerr:

Where Has All the Stardust Gone?

Surprise has followed surprise for cosmochemists analyzing the dust sample that the Stardust spacecraft returned from comet Wild 2 in January 2006. First, they found tiny flecks of once molten minerals—material very different from the raw, primordial dust they expected to see. Such unaltered, so-called presolar material was the prime ingredient of the rocky planets and was thought to abound in icy comets. But researchers report that they have failed to find a single speck of it.
“For those of us who study presolar materials, it’s turned out to be a bit of a bust,” says cosmochemist Larry R. Nittler of the Carnegie Institution of Washington’s Department of Terrestrial Magnetism in Washington, D.C. “Wild 2 seems more related to asteroids than comets,” because all asteroids were altered from the solar system’s primitive starting materials. Still, “the mission’s been a huge success,” says John Bradley of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in California, a co-author of the Science paper. “It’s changing the way we think about comets.”

All in all, “it’s looking as if Wild 2 is more like an asteroid than a primitive comet,” says Ishii. Brownlee agrees. Rather than preserving the original ingredients of planets, comets—or at least Wild 2—seem to be loaded with materials first altered by the great heat near the young sun, he says. Then those altered materials must have been carried outward to the outer reaches of the nebula, where comets incorporated them. “I would say a large fraction of the [outermost] nebular materials were probably transported there” from much nearer the sun, Brownlee says, “which is pretty amazing.” Now, no one is at all sure where the solar system’s lingering primitive materials might reside.

You know just hand waving! :p

should not the red flags have gone up? Something is not right with the Mainstream model!!

'Cos this was there goal! (http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:XfbSJyEuX7IJ:www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press_kits/deep-impact-encounter.pdf+23000+mph+to+meters+per+second&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au)

Science Objectives
The primary goal of the Deep Impact mission is to explore the interior of Comet Tempel
1 by using an impactor to excavate a crater in the comet's surface, after which the
flyby spacecraft will take data on the newly exposed cometary interior and the comet
material ejected from the crater. Scientists believe in-depth analysis of this new view
of Tempel 1 will reveal a great deal not only about this comet but also the role of
comets in the earliest history of the solar system.

In particular, the mission's scientific objectives are to:
Dramatically improve the knowledge of key properties of a cometary nucleus
and, for the first time, directly assess the interior of a cometary nucleus by
means of a massive impactor hitting the surface of the nucleus at high velocity.
Determine properties of the comet's surface layers such as density, strength,
composition and how porous it is.

Study the relationship between the surface layers of the comet's nucleus and
the possibly pristine materials of the interior by comparing the interior of the
crater with the pre-impact surface.
Improve our understanding of the evolution of cometary nuclei by comparing
the interior and surface.

The main scientific investigation is to understand the differences between the interior of
a cometary nucleus and its surface. Some of the questions that will be addressed are:
If the crater depth reaches 20 meters (about 60 feet), do the ices suddenly
become carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide ice instead of water ice?

Or, is the ice still predominantly water (H2O)? If water ice, is its structure
crystalline or amorphous?

Is the mantle devoid of volatile materials? To what depth?

Is the comet's structure homogeneous from side to side on various scales?

How does the ratio of ice to refractory (non-melting) material change?
How old is the surface?

Does the mantle seal off vaporization from certain areas? Or are certain
areas just more devoid of volatile materials than others?

Where will future missions have to go to really sample primordial material?

:rolleyes:

Sol88

26th July 2009, 09:43 AM

RC wrote Predicted two flashes at specific points in the impact, saw the wrong two flashes!!!

And the right two flashes, according to the mainstreams PREDICTIONS are...?

:rolleyes:

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Impact_(space_mission))

Initial results were surprising as the material excavated by the impact contained more dust and less ice than had been expected. The only models of cometary structure astronomers could positively rule out were the very porous models which had comets as loose aggregates of material. In addition, the material was finer than expected; scientists compared it to talcum powder rather than sand.[36] Other materials found while studying the impact included clays, carbonates, sodium, and crystalline silicates which were found by studying the spectroscopy of the impact.[11] Clays and carbonates usually require liquid water to form and sodium is rare in space.[37] Observations also revealed that the comet was about 75% empty space, and one astronomer compared the outer layers of the comet to the same makeup of a snow bank.[11] Astronomers have expressed interest in more missions to different comets to determine if they share similar compositions or if there are different materials found deeper within comets that were produced at the time of the solar system's formation.

What?

also Dr. Michael A'Hearn said

The compression stage of crater formation is over so fast for the Deep Impact collision that it is very unlikely that there will be any data gathered, although the brightness of the flash may provide information about surface materials on the comet nucleus.

He also said Since Tempel 1 is a relatively inactive comet, it provides a good opportunity to study this issue.

Thornhill said the same thing, so the first flash (electrical) would most probably happen just before impact! The fact they lost the last of the pictures before impact lends weight to this PREDICTION!!

Deep Impact's Crater

The cratering process will help reveal what type of material makes up the nucleus (or at least the outer layer), and therefore how the comet formed and evolved. If the crater turns out to be gravity-dominated, this lends evidence to the theory that the comet's nucleus consists of porous, pristine, unprocessed material, and that the comet formed by accretion

What did wiki say again?

Mainstream theory wrt "dirtysnowballs" EPIC FAILURE (along with most modern understanding of plasma in space)

Seems all comets generate X rays as well RC, why did mainstream not predict this??

'cos this is your model RC DIRTY SNOWBALL MODEL:

• Comets are composed of undifferentiated “protoplanetary debris”—dust and ices left over from the formation of the solar system billions of years ago.
• Radiant heat from the Sun sublimates the ices. The vapor expands around the nucleus to form the coma and is swept back by the solar wind to form the tail.
• Over repeated passages around the Sun, solar heat vaporizes surface ice and leaves a “rind” of dust.
• Where heat penetrates the surface of a blackened, shallow crust, pockets of gas form. Where the pressure breaks through the surface, energetic jets form.

And this is ours

ELECTRIC COMET MODEL:

• Comets are debris produced during violent electrical interactions of planets and moons in an earlier phase of solar system history. Comets are similar to asteroids, and their composition varies. Most comets should be homogeneous—their interiors will have the same composition as their surfaces. They are simply “asteroids on eccentric orbits.”
• Comets follow their elongated paths within a weak electrical field centered on the Sun. In approaching the Sun, a charge imbalance develops between the nucleus and the higher voltage and charge density near the Sun. Growing electrical stresses initiate discharges and the formation of a glowing plasma sheath, appearing as the coma and tail.
• The observed jets of comets are electric arc discharges to the nucleus, producing “electrical discharge machining” (EDM) of the surface. The excavated material is accelerated into space along the jets’ observed filamentary arcs.
• Intermittent and wandering arcs erode the surface and burn it black, leaving the distinctive scarring patterns of electric discharges.
• The jets’ explode from cometary nuclei at supersonic speeds and retain their coherent structure for hundreds of thousands of miles. The collimation of such jets is a well-documented attribute of plasma discharge.
• The tails of comets reveal well-defined filaments extending up to tens of millions of miles without dissipating in the vacuum of space. This “violation” of neutral gas behavior in a vacuum is to be expected of a plasma discharge within the ambient electric field of the Sun.
• It is the electric force that holds the spherical cometary coma in place as the comet races around the Sun. The diameter of the visible coma will often reach millions of miles. And the visible coma is surrounded by an even larger and more “improbable” spherical envelope of fluorescing hydrogen visible in ultraviolet light.
• The primary distinction between comet and asteroid surfaces is that electrical arcing and “electrostatic cleaning” of the comet nucleus will leave little or no dust or debris on the surface during the active phase, even if a shallow layer of dust may be attracted back to the nucleus electrostatically as the comet becomes dormant in its retreat to more remote regions.

Also Thornhill offered up these as well

Advanced Predictions on “DeepImpact”
(http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/electric_universe/esp_electricuniverse17.htm)
• Considerably greater energies will be released than expected because of the electrical contributions of the comet.
• An electric discharge in advance of impact is likely. We also expect an interruption of impactor transmission before it reaches the surface.

• Scientists will find considerably less water ice and other volatiles than expected, both on the surface and beneath the surface of Tempel 1. A completely “dry” nucleus should not be surprising.
• The discharge and/or impact may initiate a new jet on the nucleus (which will be collimated—filamentary—not sprayed out) and could even abruptly change the positions and intensities of other jets due to the sudden change in charge distribution on the comet nucleus.
• The cameras will reveal sharply defined craters, valleys, mesas, and ridges—the opposite of the softened relief expected of a sublimating “dirty snowball”. (A chunk of ice melting in the Sun loses its sharp relief, just like a scoop of melting ice cream.)
• Electrostatic cleaning will have cleared the surface of dust and debris.

Bloody crackpots "guessing" chit and getting it WRIGHT :mad:

The following is a partial summary of correct predictions for “Deep Impact” based on the electric comet model:

*

ENERGY OF EXPLOSION
It is now well documented that every scientist associated with the project was stunned by the scale of the energetic outburst. These scientists understood the kinetics of impact, and they all agreed that the explosion would be equivalent to 4.8 tons of TNT. That’s a good-sized bomb, but not even close to what occurred.

*

ADVANCED FLASH
Electrical theorist Wallace Thornhill predicted at least one flash from electric discharge prior to impact. From the standard viewpoint, that is an absurd prediction when considering an impactor being hit by a body at 23,000 miles per hour in “empty” space. But here is NASA investigator Peter Schultz’s description of the event:
o

“What you see is something really surprising. First, there is a small flash, then there’s a delay, then there’s a big flash and the whole thing breaks loose.”

*

MISSING WATER
o

“It’s pretty clear that this event did not produce a gusher,” said SWAS principal investigator Gary Melnick of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA). “The more optimistic predictions for water output from the impact haven’t materialized…”

*

SHARP SURFACE RELIEF
We not only predicted the sharply defined relief, but the specific features.
o

“The model predicts a sculpted surface, distinguished by sharply defined craters, valleys, mesas, and ridges.”

All of the expected features are present, and astronomers cannot agree on the cause, though all agree that Tempel 1 does not look like a melting “snowball.”

*

SURFACE ARCING
The highest resolution photographs of Tempel 1, taken by the impactor, show numerous featureless patches of whiteout, most located where the electrical hypothesis would put them—on the rims of craters and on the wall of cliffs rising above flat valley floors. Electrical etching continually expands valley floors by eating away at the sharp edges of surrounding cliffs.

*

NEW JETS
Electrical theorist Wallace Thornhill was the only one to have anticipated a shift in the arrangement, number, and the intensities of the jets away from the impact site. The 2.5 meter NOT telescope of the El Roque de los Muchachos observatory at La Palma, Spain, released images just before impact and 15 hours after impact. The observatory report states, “New jets appeared after the impact.” No explanation has ever been given.

*

ELECTRICAL DISRUPTION
In the final seconds before impact, the video transmissions from the impactor showed considerable interference, then stopped moments before it struck the nucleus of Tempel 1. The interference pattern appeared to be electrical.

*

ELECTROSTATIC CLEANING
The surface of Tempel 1 contrasts with the surface of the asteroid Itokawa (right). The asteroid appears to have attracted considerable surface debris electrostatically. We suggested an active comet will do the reverse

How dare they cast incertitude on our correct dirtysnowball model!

Sol88

26th July 2009, 09:56 AM

And RC's 'ol fave no x-rays!

Cometary X-rays

A comet is claimed to be an icy body slowly wasting away in the heat of the Sun. But this ROSAT image from March 27, 1996 reveals a comet radiating x-rays as intense as those from the x-ray stars that are ROSAT’s usual target.

The Sun’s radial electric field is weak but constant with distance in interplanetary space. In a constant radial electric field, the voltage decreases linearly with distance. A comet on an elongated orbit spends most of its time far from the Sun and acquires a charge in balance with the voltage at that distance. But when a comet speeds inward for a quick spin around the Sun, the voltage of the comet becomes increasingly out of balance with that nearer the Sun—a situation leading to high-energy discharge.

Most of the voltage difference between the comet and the solar plasma is taken up in a double layer of charge, called a plasma sheath, that surrounds the comet. When the electrical stress is great enough, the sheath glows and appears as the typical cometary coma and tail. Diffuse electrical discharges occur in the sheath and at the nucleus, radiating a variety of frequencies, including x-rays.

The highest voltage differences occur at the comet nucleus and across the plasma sheath. So where the sheath is most compressed, in the sunward direction, the electric field is strong enough to accelerate charged particles to x-ray energies. That may explain recent crescent-shaped x-ray images in relation to the comet nucleus and the Sun. Flickering and occasional flare-ups are also expected, because plasma discharges behave in a non-linear manner.
LINK (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/electric_universe/esp_electricuniverse17.htm)

From NASA (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/news/15apr96.html) X-rays were never found from a comet before, and scientists had optimistically predicted an intensity that turned out to be about 100 times weaker than the radiation actually detected by ROSAT. Strong changes in the brightness of the X-rays were another surprise. There were pronounced increases and decreases in the X-ray brightness from one ROSAT observation to another, typically over a time difference of a few hours.

Or charge exchange?

The research on X-ray emission from comets and planets is a very young field. Until 1996, the only planets which were known to emit X-rays were the Earth and Jupiter. Comets were not even generally considered as candidates for X-ray sources.

Thus, the discovery of X-rays from comet Hyakutake with ROSAT in March 1996 came as a big surprise to many scientists. The surprise increased even more, when additional comets were detected in archival X-ray data obtained during the ROSAT all-sky survey, establishing comets as a new class of X-ray sources.
The process which causes the X-ray emission of comets is now understood as the result of charge exchange interactions between heavy, highly ionized atoms in the solar wind with cometary gas. This process reproduces the observed X-ray luminosity and X-ray morphology very well, explains the temporal variability of the X-ray flux, and predicts characteristic signatures in the X-ray spectrum, which can now be tested with the spectroscopic capabilities of Chandra and XMM-Newton. All the observed X-ray properties are consistent with the charge exchange process.
Comets can thus be used as natural spacecrafts to probe the heavy ion content of the solar wind at various heliographic latitudes and at different phases in the solar cycle, which is otherwise only accessible by in-situ measurements. Furthermore, X-ray observations of comets provide insights into the physics of the charge exchange process itself, complementing laboratory experiments and theoretical studies.

:

Back to you Reality Check :dqueen and your :deadhorse

Sol88

26th July 2009, 10:25 AM

[QUOTE=Reality Check;4941183

ETA:
Sol88: Quantify how far away Thornhill predicted the first flash to occur from the surface. Remember the impactor's moving at 10,281 meters per second.[/QUOTE]

'bout two tenths of a second away :)

Reality Check

26th July 2009, 01:43 PM

'bout two tenths of a second away :)
Citation please.
Thank you for confirming Thornhill's failed prediction.

Sol88

26th July 2009, 06:23 PM

You really cannot read Sol88 so I will make add the links to the posts that you are ignoring in your gullibility for the electric comet stupidity. You will of course ignore them for the dozenth time.

The electric comet model fails totally on two fundamental predictions for all comets (not just Tempel 1).

It predicts that comets will have densities ~3 gm/cm3.
The actual measured densities are < 1 3 gm/cm3.
FAILURE.
It predicts that comets will emit many X-ray bursts from the electrical discharges.
These many X-ray bursts are not seen.
FAILURE.
Electric Comets I (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4827154#post4827154), Electric Comets II: References (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4830147#post4830147) and Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4832138#post4832138).

Here is yet another failed prediction of the electric comet idea.

Prediction: Two flashes, the first before hitting the surface.
Mission Results: Excavating Comet Tempel 1 (http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/deepimpact/results/excavating.cfm)
Result: Two flashes, the first as the impactor entered the nucleus, or shortly thereafter.

Electric comet FAILURE.

EPIC FAIL Sol88 as usual you have demonstrated your inability to read and understand simple science.
:dl:

RC :rolleyes: lets expand on that quote abit, shall we?

FLASHES AND THE PLUME

As the impactor entered the nucleus, or shortly thereafter, a brilliant flash, lasting less than two tenths of a second, appeared probably as the impactor and part of Tempel 1 vaporized. The first flash was followed by a second presumably originating deeper within the comet. The second flash was brighter still and it momentarily saturated some pixels in the instruments on the flyby spacecraft.

One theory presumes something they can NEVER falsify! :nope:

The other PREDICTED a double flash! :whistling

One model contradicts itself consistently :eek:

The others strength is it's consistency :cool:

18 October 2001
Comet Borrelly rocks core scientific beliefs (http://www.holoscience.com/news/comet_borrelly.html)

"Deep Space 1 plunged into the heart of Comet Borrelly and has lived to tell every detail of its spine-tingling adventure," said project manager Dr Marc Rayman. "The images are even better than the impressive images of Comet Halley taken by Europe's Giotto spacecraft in 1986." "Up to Saturday night, we had only one example of a comet's nucleus. Now, we have another one, and with it a much better understanding of comets," said Dr Don Yeomans, of the American space agency's (NASA) Jet Propulsion Laboratory, at a press conference to unveil the images. "It's mind-boggling and stupendous," said Dr Laurence Soderblom, the leader of DS1's imaging team. "These pictures have told us that comet nuclei are far more complex than we ever imagined. They have rugged terrain, smooth rolling plains, deep fractures and very, very dark material." Quite unexpected from a pile of 0.3 g/cm snow!!! Hey RC? Perhaps you could tell me about some impact crater seen on Wild2 or even Temple 1?

http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/deepimpact/images/results-figC-med.jpg

Also that crackpot Thornhill said in 2001 In future: There is a plan for a comet mission called Deep Impact. Scheduled for July 2005, Deep Impact's spacecraft will arrive at comet Tempel 1 and become the first mission to impact the surface of a comet. A 350-kg (770-lb) copper mass impactor will create a spectacular football field-sized crater, seven stories deep on a comet 6-km (approximately 4 miles) in diameter. This is the first attempt to peer beneath the surface of a comet to its freshly exposed material for clues to the early formation of the solar system.

Given the erroneous standard model of comets it is an interesting exercise to imagine what surprises are in store for astronomers if the plan is successful. The electrical model suggests the likelihood of an electrical discharge between the comet nucleus and the copper projectile, particularly if the comet is actively flaring at the time. The projectile will approach too quickly for a slow electrical discharge to occur. So the energetic effects of the encounter should exceed that of a simple physical impact, in the same way that was seen with comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 at Jupiter. Changes to the appearance of the jets may be seen before impact. The signature of an electrical discharge would be a high-energy burst of electrical noise across a wide spectrum, a "flash" from infra-red to ultraviolet and the enhanced emission of x-rays from the vicinity of the projectile. The energy of a mechanical impact is not sufficient to generate x-rays.

If the arc vaporizes the copper projectile before impact the comet will not form the crater expected. On the other hand, any copper metal reaching the surface of the comet will act as a focus for an arc. And copper can sustain a much higher current density than rock or ice. There would then be the likelihood of an intense arc, with possibly a single jet, until the copper is electrically "machined" from the comet's surface. Copper atoms ionized to a surprisingly high degree should be detectable from Earth-based telescopes. Electrical discharges through the body of a poor conductor can be disruptive and are probably responsible for the breakup of comets. It is not necessary for them to be poorly consolidated dust and ice and to simply fall apart. So there is some small chance that astronomers will be surprised to see the comet split apart, if the projectile reaches the surface of the comet and results in an intense arc.

The Deep Impact mission seems rather pointless when the cathode arcs are doing the job of exposing the comet's subsurface. However, if comets are an electrical phenomenon and have nothing to do with the formation of the solar system then astronomers are bound to be baffled once more. And that could be worth every dollar NASA spends on Deep Impact.

Sweet! :D:alc:

Sol88

26th July 2009, 07:25 PM

The "dirty snowball model" (unlike the electric comet idea) is a scientific theory. The "dirty snowball model" fitted the existing data (e.g. the measured ~0.3 g/cm3 density of comets). What the missions to the various comets have shown is that this scientific theory will have to be updated to the "dirtier snowball model".

Update to the "dirtier snowball model"??? :dig::whistling

You mob are aren't half a laugh!

It is presumed that the second case is right because the low density of the comet (less than that of water and ~10 times less than that of an asteroid) means that the solid impactor would penetrate into the nucleus (not lodge in the surface)

How far RC?

Read what Thornhill actually said. He did not just predict two flashes. He assigned positions to those flashes.
Read what you quoted.
Thornhill predicted a flash before impact in addition to the expected flash on impact.
What was observed was a flash at impact followed by another flash later.

What was observed was a flash at impact followed by another flash later. The first lasting 2/10ths of a second, the second much brighter and energetic than expected from the 4.5t of TNT equivalent bang!

Surprised twice them mainstream mob, shame!

To me rind implies a relatively tough outer layer. That looks like something to cause an initial flash as it is penetrated and the impactor loses some material. Then there is a bigger flash as the impactor vaporizes completely while it gets deeper into the nucleus.

A tough outer layer over the "hidden volatiles" that were not present in the amounts necessary to validate even the dirtysnowball model! Now you mob have to Update to the "dirtier snowball model" :dig:

How tough was the "rind" Reality check?

Dancing David

26th July 2009, 07:50 PM

Sol88, where is the data that shows the first flash happened prior to impact with the surface.

What was observed was a flash at impact followed by another flash later.

And the timing is crucial to Thornhills statement and theory, so show the data. Or retract your prior statement.

You really look bad when you keep attacking the word 'snow', it makes it seem that you don't understand that snow can be rather hard and 'ice' may be a better term than 'snow' and that impact momentum is rather energetic.

But please by all means show us that you are here to preach and not show critical skills. It does not help your case at all. Attacking press release language is a sure sign that you lack a theory with any merit.

Reality Check

26th July 2009, 10:46 PM

Sol88

27th July 2009, 12:02 AM

A little tidbit for Sol88 to ignore:
Photometric Evolution Of The Deep Impact Flash (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2006/pdf/2192.pdf) analyses the first faint flash on impact and the bigger flash that happened about 124 milliseconds later. A couple of quotes from the paper:

(an oblique collision)
Reality check maybe you should do some reading from your own links :confused::rolleyes:

Figure 2. The migration of the impact flash. The letters
correspond to the frame letters from Figure 1: A represents the
location of the first light, C the beginning of the delayed second
flash (100-200 m downrange), and D the center of brightness of the
first saturated image, likely due to the emergence of the hot
vapor/gas. The background image is a subset of the comet surface
observed before impact.

From crackpot Thornhills PREDICTIONS :cool:

# If the energy is distributed over several flashes, more than one crater on the comet nucleus could result—in addition to any impact crater.

# Any arcs generated will be hotter than can be explained by mechanical impact. If temperature measurements are made with sufficient resolution, they will be much higher than expected from impact heating.

Have a look at Figure 2 from Lunar and Planetary Science XXXVII (2006) (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2006/pdf/2192.pdf)

Positions C and D are quite telling from an electrical discharge point of view, as is the saturation of the instruments and disruption to transmission (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050719deepinterim.htm)!

System Failure. Our prediction was: “Electrical stress may short out the electronics on board the impactor before impact.” The system did indeed fail a few seconds before impact, and data should be reviewed to look for indications of electrical breakdown.

Multiple craters. We said, “If the energy is distributed over several flashes, more than one crater on the comet nucleus could result—in addition to any impact crater”. Unfortunately, NASA did not anticipate the volume of dust removed by the explosion, which may have made it impossible for even the best enhancement technology to see though the ejecta. However, by tracing rays back to their source we noted the appearance of two ejecta centers immediately after the impact.

Advance Flash. Thornhill predicted that a visible discharge between the nucleus and impactor would be likely prior to the impactor’s contact with the surface. At least two flashes are now known to have occurred, though (for the obvious reasons) no one on NASA’s investigative team had anticipated this.

Explosion Radiance. Within minutes of the impact, the coma of Tempel 1 was overtaken by a blast of light so great that it saturated the camera’s detectors. NASA spokesmen called this “one of the great surprises” of Deep Impact. The radiance was not expected under the model in use. (See “Fine Dust” below).

Wham, bam thank you 'mam :jaw-dropp

So you tell me Reality check, why the need for more complicated answers to your own model riddles?

The EC model predicted and confirmed those prediction, in line with the scientific method! :rolleyes:

Guess what RC, ALL PREDICTED!!!

:whistling

Sol88

27th July 2009, 05:48 AM

In our Picture of the Day posted prior to Deep Impact we registered the most detailed predictions of any group in anticipation of the event. For their part, NASA investigators made no predictions. Nor can we find in NASA’s subsequent comments any acknowledgement that an independent group had successfully anticipated the greatest surprises of the encounter.

In view of this situation, we consider it essential that the remaining data analysis by NASA not be permitted to lag so far behind the event that no one will notice what has occurred. Nor will it be helpful if the data find their way into the public domain as isolated fragments of technical minutiae.

Therefore, to maintain the integrity of the most fundamental questions we offer the following status report.

Thunderbolts Team= PREDICTIONS!
(http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050704predictions.htm)
NASA= Surprises (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Impact_(space_mission))! Initial results were surprising as the material excavated by the impact contained more dust and less ice than had been expected. The only models of cometary structure astronomers could positively rule out were the very porous models which had comets as loose aggregates of material

See below

Missing Water. Proponents of the electric model predicted that Deep Impact would reveal insufficient water to support the popular ideas about comets. Now we know the ejected material was largely—perhaps entirely—dust and vaporized rock

Subsurface Composition. We said that the “impact/electrical discharge will not reveal ‘primordial dirty ice,’ but the same composition as the surface.” It is now known that the presence of volatiles in the coma immediately after impact did not change, with the exception of changes relating to charge exchange between the coma and the solar wind (see below).

Dancing David

27th July 2009, 06:08 AM

Thunderbolts Team= PREDICTIONS!
(http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050704predictions.htm)
NASA= Surprises (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Impact_(space_mission))!

See below

You quote uncited references from Thunderblots, how about citing some research to support such statements as

-"Now we know the ejected material was largely—perhaps entirely—dust and vaporized rock "

Sol88

27th July 2009, 08:11 AM

the prediction was there would be more dusr than water/gas, guess what?

Why not next time you send a probe to a comet you look for electrical/plasma phenomena?

-"Now we know the ejected material was largely—perhaps entirely—dust and vaporized rock "

as was predicted, next time look for more dust than ice!

Dancing David

27th July 2009, 09:55 AM

the prediction was there would be more dusr than water/gas, guess what?

Why not next time you send a probe to a comet you look for electrical/plasma phenomena?

as was predicted, next time look for more dust than ice!

Why not cite the source of your quotes?

Sol88

27th July 2009, 04:46 PM

Why not cite the source of your quotes?

Ummmm.....'cos it's common knowledge DD!

SWAS principal investigator Gary Melnick of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) said

"It's pretty clear that this event did not produce a gusher, the more optimistic predictions for water output from the impact haven't materialized, at least not yet."

Astronomer Charlie Qi (CfA) expressed surprise at these results. he said "Theories about the volatile layers below the surface of short-period comets are going to have to be revised,"

revised to a really dirty snowball???

SWAS operators were puzzled by the lack of increased water vapor from Tempel 1. as PREDICTED by those thunderpants crackpots!!! fancy that RC!

SMA astronomers saw little increase in production of gases following the impact. Gas production rates remained so low that they could set only an upper limit on the total. Could the dirtysnowball be wrong???

Go find out for yourself DD!

For more information, contact: (http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2005/pr200523.html)

David A. Aguilar
Director of Public Affairs
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
617-495-7462
daguilar@cfa.harvard.edu

Christine Pulliam
Public Affairs Specialist
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
617-495-7463
cpulliam@cfa.harvard.edu

Primary mission goal, find the ice that must be below the surface= RC EPIC FAIL for the dirtysnowball model!

Sol88

27th July 2009, 07:52 PM

Yes it is wrong in the case of Tempel 1.
That is why the model is being updated to fit the data. That is the scientific method. Scientific theories are driven by observations of the real universe. If the universe says that the theory is wrong then the theory is changed or even discarded in favor of a new theory.

IMHO: A "dusty iceball" model is more appropriate for Tempel 1 and possibly all short-period comets. Long-period comets may still be described by the "dirty snowball" model since they should retain more volatiles like water.

I wonder:
Has Thornhill updated the electric comet model to fit the observed densities of comets (much less than that of astoroids and even less than that of water)?
Has Thornhill updated the electric comet model to fit the missing observations of the X-ray bursts from each of his electrical discharges creating the comet tails?

Or has he proved himself to be a crackpot by ignoring the real universe?

Citations please for the primary mission goal and the report that the impact did not detect any ice at all.

As far as I can see they did find the ice that is below the surface - just not as much as they thought they would see. That is great science. Finding what you expect is nice. Finding the unexpected though is exciting and a primary mission goal of any space mission (or for that matter any science experiment).

EPIC SUCCESS FOR SCIENCE :jaw-dropp !

This is the same non existent ice that they use to calculate comet densities!!! No wonder you don't now up from down or rock from ice!!

as in Cometary Orbit Determination and Nongravitational Forces (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/books/CometsII/7009.pdf)

The nucleus masses were estimated by comparing
nongravitational parameters with the rocket-like
forces expected from the gas-production curves.

Rocket like forces???? com on :rolleyes:

4. INFERRING MASSES AND BULK
DENSITIES OF THE NUCLEUS USING
NONGRAVITATIONAL EFFECTS

It is important to note that there are no direct determinations
for the mass or density of any comet and this is
likely to remain the situation until a spacecraft rendezvous
mission is carried out. Nevertheless, there have been many
studies suggesting that comets are rather low-density and
porous structures.

6. SUMMARY
Cometary orbit-determination problems are dominated
by the proper modeling of the so-called nongravitational
perturbations that are due to the rocket-like thrusting of the
outgassing cometary nucleus. Modern astrometric positions,
particularly those that are referenced to Hipparcos-based
star catalogs and where the brightest pixel is employed as
the true position of the cometary nucleus, are usually accurate
to the subarcsecond level. Yet multiple apparition
orbital solutions for active short-period comets cannot often
provide a root mean square (rms) residual (observed minus
computed observational position) that is subarcsecond. It
is the improper modeling of the nongravitational effects that
is the largest problem by far.

Yep they can nail comets densities down using this method :confused: :rolleyes:

At best it's a guess, and at worst totally wrong if they assume rocket like forces from sublimating ice!! They can't even find the ice necessary to explain the OH in the coma!

Yay scientific method!!!

Sol88

27th July 2009, 07:56 PM

Sol88

27th July 2009, 08:11 PM

Those crackpots made PREDICTIONS and according to your scientific theory the dirtyiceball model should be kicked to the side!

Hypothesis: Comets are electrical phenomena!

PREDICTIONS (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050704predictions.htm) for a comet being an electrical phenomena.

Predictions from the hypothesis

Any useful hypothesis will enable predictions, by reasoning including deductive reasoning. It might predict the outcome of an experiment in a laboratory setting or the observation of a phenomenon in nature. The prediction can also be statistical and only talk about probabilities.

It is essential that the outcome be currently unknown. Only in this case does the eventuation increase the probability that the hypothesis be true. If the outcome is already known, it's called a consequence and should have already been considered while formulating the hypothesis.

If the predictions are not accessible by observation or experience, the hypothesis is not yet useful for the method, and must wait for others who might come afterward, and perhaps rekindle its line of reasoning. For example, a new technology or theory might make the necessary experiments feasible.

let us read that bit again Only in this case does the eventuation increase the probability that the hypothesis be true.

Shall we go over the PREDICTIONS again realty check? :rolleyes:

We can start with the prediction there would be two flashes, if you like? Or maybe lack of water or ......

forgot to add :whistling

Sol88

27th July 2009, 08:39 PM

Sol88

27th July 2009, 08:42 PM

You are just getting dumber Sol88.
Comets emit jets. Jets act like rockets.

And your "jets" on the dark side of a comets nucleus? How bout the anti tail?

They have grossly underestimated the mass of comets!

shall we talk about comet Holmes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Holmes)!

ETA RC

Show me a comet jet outgassing, please.

Sol88

27th July 2009, 10:36 PM

The cause of the outburst is not definitely known. The huge cloud of gas and dust may have resulted from a collision with a meteoroid, or, more probably, from a build-up of gas inside the comet's nucleus which eventually broke through the surface.[12] However, researchers at the Max Planck Institute suggest in a paper published in Astronomy and Astrophysics state that the brightening can be explained by a thick, air-tight dust cover and the effects of H2O sublimation, with the comet's porous structure providing more surface area for sublimation, up to one order of magnitude greater. Energy from the Sun -- insolation - was stored in the dust cover and the nucleus within the months before the outburst. [13]

:confused::confused:

There is nothing wrong with our mainstream model :eusa_snooty:

Energy from the Sun -- insolation - was stored in the dust cover and the nucleus within the months before the outburst. citations/papers to show this effect?

That comets shine in xrays and UV (http://www.spaceinfo.com.au/swift20081208.html) should be the death knell for the dirtyice ball model.

Sol88

27th July 2009, 11:45 PM

:confused::confused:

There is nothing wrong with our mainstream model :eusa_snooty:

Energy from the Sun -- insolation - was stored in the dust cover and the nucleus within the months before the outburst. citations/papers to show this effect?

That comets shine in xrays and UV (http://www.spaceinfo.com.au/swift20081208.html) should be the death knell for the dirtyice ball model.

Why no mention of the solar wind charge exchange mechanism (electrical connection to the sun) for any possible explanation the "flareup"?

If the comets busy nicking protons from the solar "wind" for charge exchange, then whats happening to the electrons? Doesn't that violate quasi-neutrality? Wouldn't that form a double layer around the nucleus?

What were the estimated space "weather" condition at the time and location of 17P/Holmes? Was it on a special kind of orbit?

How powerful is the insolation during those months? how well does a porous snowbank with a think "rind" store enough ooomph to "outgas" in that fashion?

Sol88

27th July 2009, 11:58 PM

ETA: Holmes was observed by Chandra (I have only found a blog post so far). No enormous ball of X-rays but a small X-ray emission consistent with an impact event or small explosion.
What is missing are the many X-ray bursts that the electric comet idea predicts for all comets:

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/295252main_ringcomet_226.jpg NASA's Swift.

Well we have had a squiz at 73P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 3 (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/swift/bursts/cool_comet.html) in UV, though the PR did not mention if they look in X Ray as well, though why wouldn't you?? :confused: oh a see too bright in UV, so of course you'd be unsure as to whether we would see it in X-rays. :rolleyes:

When Comet 17P/Holmes underwent a surprising outburst in October 2007, Bodewits tasked both Swift and NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory to observe it. "The comet was too bright to observe with the UVOT. We were afraid we'd damage the instrument," Bodewits says. "Despite this, we're still not sure whether we detected Holmes with the XRT or Chandra." :confused: Still??

At the time of the outburst, Holmes was about 19 degrees above the ecliptic, the plane in which the planets orbit the sun. At that elevation, the comet was probably experiencing a cooler, steadier flow from the solar wind. "The source of this cooler flow wasn't hot enough to produce the ions Holmes needed to make X-rays," Bodewits notes. What was the weather like up there?? :)

Sol88

28th July 2009, 01:08 AM

As any intellegent person can see the electric comet model fails totally on two fundamental predictions for all comets.

It predicts that comets will have densities ~3 gm/cm3.
The actual measured densities are ~0.6 gm/cm3.
EPIC FAILURE.
It predicts that comets will emit multiple X-ray bursts from the electrical discharges.
These multiple X-ray bursts are not seen.
A glow of X-rays is seen, e.g. the first observation of X-rays was in 1996 for Comet Hyakutake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Hyakutake#X-ray_emission). These X-rays surround the nucleus.
Comet C/1999 S4: Chandra Solves Mystery Of Cometary X-Rays. (http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2000/c1999s4/)
EPIC FAILURE.
Electric Comets I (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4827154#post4827154), Electric Comets II: References (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4830147#post4830147) and Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4832138#post4832138).

Ok since you are so lazy (or not smart enough to use Google :rolleyes:), I will look. Of course the results will become part of my standard debunk of the electric comet idea. Thank you for the suggestion Sol88.

Glanz, J (1996). "Comet Hyakutake Blazes in X-rays (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1996Sci...272..194G)". Science 272: 194. doi (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1126/science.272.5259.194 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.272.5259.194). http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1996Sci...272..194G (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1996Sci...272..194G).
Comet C/1999 S4: Chandra Solves Mystery Of Cometary X-Rays. (http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2000/c1999s4/)

They pinpoint the origin of the X-rays as outside of the nucleus (just where does the electric comet idea say the X-ray bursts will come from?).
X-rays from solar system objects (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2007P&SS...55.1135B)
X-ray tomography of a cometary bow shock (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005A&A...430L..33W)

:eek: :jaw-dropp

Are we starting to read from the same page RC?

Is that your revised estimate for your garden variety comet ~0.6 gm/cm3? instead of the previous 0.3g/cm3?

And now we can see the X rays RC,can we, were you just piss'n in me pocket before :confused:

What's the best resolution we can achieve wrt gamma? X-rays, UV and so on now?

Sol88

28th July 2009, 01:13 AM

Did you just post a link to an EU paper?

During the last few years our knowledge about the X-ray emission from bodies within the solar system has significantly improved. Several new solar system objects are now known to shine in X-rays at energies below 2 keV. Apart from the Sun, the known X-ray emitters now include planets (Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn), planetary satellites (Moon, Io, Europa, and Ganymede), all active comets, the Io plasma torus (IPT), the rings of Saturn, the coronae (exospheres) of Earth and Mars, and the heliosphere. The advent of higher-resolution X-ray spectroscopy with the Chandra and XMM-Newton X-ray observatories has been of great benefit in advancing the field of planetary X-ray astronomy.

Everything is electric, fancy that :cool:

Tubbythin

28th July 2009, 01:27 AM

Everything is electric, fancy that :cool:

No. X-rays are electromagnetic radiation.

Sol88

28th July 2009, 02:11 AM

No. X-rays are electromagnetic radiation.

caused by....?

Sol88

28th July 2009, 02:14 AM

How about a number from the electric comet idea Sol88? This should be easy from such a worked out, complete scientific theory . I am sure that Thornhill has calculated this vital number. If you cannot find it on his book advertisement site then I suggest that contact him personally.

* How many electric discharges per second are there in a typical comet nucleus?

What kind of question is that? last time I understood the arcs on the surface were constant as we have seen when "jets" are interpreted as EDM arcing on the surface, defiantly not your millisecond variety arcs!

ETA why didn't astronomers, other than the crackpots, expect X-rays reality check?

Dancing David

28th July 2009, 07:59 AM

Ummmm.....'cos it's common knowledge DD!

SWAS principal investigator Gary Melnick of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) said

he said

revised to a really dirty snowball???

as PREDICTED by those thunderpants crackpots!!! fancy that RC!

Could the dirtysnowball be wrong???

Go find out for yourself DD!

For more information, contact: (http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2005/pr200523.html)

David A. Aguilar
Director of Public Affairs
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
617-495-7462
daguilar@cfa.harvard.edu

Christine Pulliam
Public Affairs Specialist
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
617-495-7463
cpulliam@cfa.harvard.edu

Primary mission goal, find the ice that must be below the surface= RC EPIC FAIL for the dirtysnowball model!

Nope, you have not sourced your quote and the data that supports it.

So you are not participating in the JREF by the mores or the JREF. It is also common knowledge that angels exist, that does not mean that they do.

Inote that you are still using the PR description of a comet. that is truly great science.

Dancing David

28th July 2009, 08:04 AM

Fifty Year old theory Revised! Sol88 suggests the whole Theory is Wrong!
Yeah right that is some headline. Considering you can not substantiate the idea that comets are asteroids by density, your theory needs a lot more than revision.

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2005/pr200523.html

"It's pretty clear that this event did not produce a gusher," said SWAS principal investigator Gary Melnick of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA). "The more optimistic predictions for water output from the impact haven't materialized, at least not yet."

Astronomer Charlie Qi (CfA) expressed surprise at these results. He explained that short-period comets like Tempel 1 have been baked repeatedly by the sun during their passages through the inner solar system. The effects of that heat are estimated to extend more than three feet beneath the surface of the nucleus. But the Deep Impact indicates that these effects could be much deeper.

"Theories about the volatile layers below the surface of short-period comets are going to have to be revised," Qi said.

As seen from Earth, a comet typically displays a fuzzy round head and a glowing tail. Both the head and tail consist of gases and dust ejected from the comet's nucleus - a frozen chunk of rock and ice about half the size of Manhattan Island.

Five decades ago, Harvard astronomer Fred Whipple developed a model of comet nuclei as "dirty snowballs." He hypothesized that comets consist of mostly ice with some dirt and rock mixed in. Modern astronomers often refer to comets as "icy dirtballs" instead, reflecting the prevailing view that comets contain more dust and less ice than previously believed.

Tubbythin

28th July 2009, 11:15 AM

caused by....?

Certainly not by "electric". Whatever you mean by that.

plong

28th July 2009, 11:28 AM

lots of heated debate across this site on EU. I have been looking for some explanations without having any scientific training myself. So far I get the impression EU sounds nice and cosy but it can't stand up to the evidence and mainstream physics appears to be winning the detailed arguments. I get that there are lots of questions for mainstream to answer but EU seems a bit like filling in the gaps by saying "God did it". I'll keep watching with interest but I appreciate the time you guys take to put the arguments up...
Thanks again

Sol88

28th July 2009, 05:06 PM

Fifty Year old theory Revised! Sol88 suggests the whole Theory is Wrong!
Yeah right that is some headline. Considering you can not substantiate the idea that comets are asteroids by density, your theory needs a lot more than revision.

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2005/pr200523.html

Fifty Year old theory Revised! Sol88 suggests the whole Theory is Wrong!

wrong headline DD should be:

Scientist get comet theory wrong for 50 years!, electrical theorist hold key to the universe!

Scientist were surprised to find recent data that seems to indicate that the spectacular display comets put on around their trip through the inner solar system, is electrical in nature.

Some of the high energy events recently detected coming from comets and usually expect from such exotic objects such Black holes, Neutron stars and Supernovae confirms a common link between all objects, electricity!

Electricity you think, like the stuff that makes your lights work, is abundant throughout the universe, as scientist have discovered. but this electricity does not follow wire like here on Earth but magnetic field lines and accelerated in something called a double layer, a new class of astrophysical object, suggested by Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén 50 years ago when scientist were still guessing as to the reason comets put on their spectacular displays for all to see.

Or something along those lines!:)

Sol88

28th July 2009, 08:12 PM

Though it should read

Scientist get comet theory wrong for 50 years!, electrical theorist hold key to the universe!

Scientist were surprised to find recent data that seems to indicate that the spectacular display comets put on around their trip through the inner solar system, is electrical in nature.But a bunch of "crackpot" plasma and electrical theorist PREDICTED much of the outcome, up to the instruments resolution, for the Deep impact mission to comet Temple1

Some of the high energy events recently detected coming from comets and usually expected from exotic high energy objects such Black holes, Neutron stars and Supernovae confirms a common link between all objects, electricity!

Electricity you think, like the stuff that makes your lights work, is abundant throughout the universe, as scientist have discovered. But this electricity does not follow wires like here on Earth but magnetic field lines and accelerated in something called a double layer, a new class of astrophysical object, suggested by Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén 50 years ago when scientist were still guessing as to the reason comets put on their spectacular displays for all to see.

This puts at odds the long held belief that comets are left over dusty iceballs but really "rock", on an eccentric orbit around and through the sun's weak electric field, when a large enough potential develops a sheath will form around the comet and it will glow in X-rays/UV. This is what we've called the coma.

As the comets surface acts as a cathode in a complex plasma interaction with the Sun (via solar "wind") enough electrons are accelerated of the comets surface that a lot of the ions and molecules are "synthesized" via electric current interaction between the solar "wind" and the "rock" of the comets surface. It's simple being etched away as the pictures of comet Temple1 and Wild2 show.

What other surprises will scientist find when they try orbit a comet with the Rosetta mission.

Reality Check

28th July 2009, 09:58 PM

As any intellegent person can see the electric comet model fails totally on two fundamental predictions for all comets.

It predicts that comets will have densities ~3 gm/cm3.
The actual measured densities are ~0.6 gm/cm3.
EPIC FAILURE.
It predicts that comets will emit multiple X-ray bursts from the electrical discharges.
These multiple X-ray bursts are not seen.
A glow of X-rays is seen, e.g. the first observation of X-rays was in 1996 for Comet Hyakutake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Hyakutake#X-ray_emission). These X-rays surround the nucleus.
Comet C/1999 S4: Chandra Solves Mystery Of Cometary X-Rays. (http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2000/c1999s4/)
EPIC FAILURE.
Electric Comets I (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4827154#post4827154), Electric Comets II: References (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4830147#post4830147) and Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4832138#post4832138).

And the "press release" below has a couple of outright lies that betray your total ignorance of physics and inability to read or understand simple English.

Comets are not rocks.
There is no electtrical "etching" because there are no electrical discharges.
The high energy events (X-rays and UV emission) are exactly what we expect from what we know of comets.
You do get one thing right: the coma and tail are "electrical" in nature - to be more exact standard plasma physics.

Though it should read
Scientist get comet theory wrong for 50 years!, electrical theorist hold key to the universe!

Scientist were surprised to find recent data that seems to indicate that the spectacular display comets put on around their trip through the inner solar system, is electrical in nature.But a bunch of "crackpot" plasma and electrical theorist PREDICTED much of the outcome, up to the instruments resolution, for the Deep impact mission to comet Temple1

Some of the high energy events recently detected coming from comets and usually expected from exotic high energy objects such Black holes, Neutron stars and Supernovae confirms a common link between all objects, electricity!

Electricity you think, like the stuff that makes your lights work, is abundant throughout the universe, as scientist have discovered. But this electricity does not follow wires like here on Earth but magnetic field lines and accelerated in something called a double layer, a new class of astrophysical object, suggested by Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén 50 years ago when scientist were still guessing as to the reason comets put on their spectacular displays for all to see.

This puts at odds the long held belief that comets are left over dusty iceballs but really "rock", on an eccentric orbit around and through the sun's weak electric field, when a large enough potential develops a sheath will form around the comet and it will glow in X-rays/UV. This is what we've called the coma.

As the comets surface acts as a cathode in a complex plasma interaction with the Sun (via solar "wind") enough electrons are accelerated of the comets surface that a lot of the ions and molecules are "synthesized" via electric current interaction between the solar "wind" and the "rock" of the comets surface. It's simple being etched away as the pictures of comet Temple1 and Wild2 show.

What other surprises will scientist find when they try orbit a comet with the Rosetta mission.

Dancing David

29th July 2009, 07:14 AM

Fifty Year old theory Revised! Sol88 suggests the whole Theory is Wrong!

wrong headline DD should be:

Scientist get comet theory wrong for 50 years!, electrical theorist hold key to the universe!

Scientist were surprised to find recent data that seems to indicate that the spectacular display comets put on around their trip through the inner solar system, is electrical in nature.

Some of the high energy events recently detected coming from comets and usually expect from such exotic objects such Black holes, Neutron stars and Supernovae confirms a common link between all objects, electricity!

Electricity you think, like the stuff that makes your lights work, is abundant throughout the universe, as scientist have discovered. but this electricity does not follow wire like here on Earth but magnetic field lines and accelerated in something called a double layer, a new class of astrophysical object, suggested by Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén 50 years ago when scientist were still guessing as to the reason comets put on their spectacular displays for all to see.

Or something along those lines!:)

It is all angels and monkeys Sol88, and your angels and your monkeys can't explain or model.

So where is that data that shows a comet is mostly rock?

Dancing David

29th July 2009, 07:16 AM

What other surprises will scientist find when they try orbit a comet with the Rosetta mission.

And if it shows that a comet has a density much less than an asteroid, you will do what?

I will post an apology if it shows the density to be 3g/cm^2.

Sol88

29th July 2009, 08:06 PM

It is all angels and monkeys Sol88, and your angels and your monkeys can't explain or model.

So where is that data that shows a comet is mostly rock?

Unfortunatly, you gotta pony up some dough to read them, but even PR from scientist involved in the mission make comments like this and it makes you wonder!

Comet's dust clouds hit NASA spacecraft 'like thunderbolt' (http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/3038)

Comet's dust clouds hit NASA spacecraft 'like thunderbolt'

Two swarms of microscopic cometary dust blasted NASA's Stardust spacecraft in short but intense bursts as it approached within 150 miles of Comet Wild 2 last January, data from a University of Chicago instrument flying aboard the spacecraft has revealed.'

"We believe that we see fragmentation of large dust lumps into swarms of small particles after they are coming out from the nucleus," Economou said. Could we call "swarms of small particles", charged particles and "dust"? and they are not fragmenting they are being "machined" by our 'ol fav EDM and collimated into "beams" away from the nucleus.

In between the particle swarms, the impact of which lasted just a few seconds each, the dust monitor went for periods of several minutes before it detected another particle.The dust monitor detected its first impact when Stardust was 1,010 miles from the cometary nucleus. The last impact was recorded at a distance of 3,500 miles as the spacecraft sped away. During one intense event, the dust monitor detected more than 1,100 impacts in one second. The largest particle measured during the cometary flyby measured an estimated 500ths of an inch in diameter.

Any ice?

Two swarms of microscopic cometary dust blasted NASA's Stardust spacecraft in short but intense bursts as it approached within 150 miles of Comet Wild 2 last January, data from a University of Chicago instrument flying aboard the spacecraft has revealed.

"These things were like a thunderbolt," said Anthony Tuzzolino, a Senior Scientist at the University of Chicago's Enrico Fermi Institute. "I didn't anticipate running into this kind of show." Tuzzolino and Thanasis Economou, also a Senior Scientist at the Fermi Institute, will report their findings in the June 17 issue of the journal Science.

And the findings said Finally, in January 2004, Stardust encountered comet Wild 2 at a relative velocity of about 6 kilometers per second and a breathlessly close distance of 236 kilometers. Besides capturing cometary particles, the Stardust spacecraft used its scientific payload to obtain highly spatially and temporally resolved data on this extremely slow encounter of a unique kind. As described by Brownlee et al. (p. 1764), the optical navigation camera took 72 images (one every 10 seconds) and found an oddly shaped nucleus, pockmarked with depressions and ridges. The feature-rich surface suggests that this comet has cohesive strength and is not a porous ball of ice that would fall apart at the slightest perturbation [see the Perspective by Weaver for more details (p. 1760)]

As described by Kissel et al. (p. 1774), the time-of-flight mass spectrometer recorded spectra and found organic-rich matter as well as nitrogen- and sulfur-rich species. The images also showed jets coming out in all directions, and Sekanina et al. (p. 1769) concluded that these jets are narrow sheets of particles that burst forth from small sources on the tumbling comet. Levasseur-Regourd (p. 1762) puts these jets and their sources into

But no water and and this could well be interpreted as an electrical phenomena The images also showed jets coming out in all directions, and Sekanina et al. (p. 1769) concluded that these jets are narrow sheets of particles that burst forth from small sources on the tumbling comet. Levasseur-Regourd (p. 1762) puts these jets and their sources into perspective.

Like these "bright spots"??? http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~idh/apod/image/0507/tempel1_its_mov.jpg

or these http://www.babilim.co.uk/blog/jpg/wild-2_comet_from_stardust_probe.jpg

And why I think they may be all "rock" as Harold A. Weaver (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/304/5678/1760b) said

Over the past decade, a consensus had started to emerge that comets are essentially blobs of rubble held together by gravity. In his Perspective, Weaver discusses reports in the same issue by teams from the Stardust mission to comet Wild 2 that throw that picture into doubt. Images of the comet's nucleus show cratering that indicates substantial strength of a solid body. This suggests a more diverse range of nucleus types than previously thought and is sure to fire up debates over cometary structure. Wild 2 also shows unusual dust jet activity and some puzzling chemistry. But the biggest surprises may be still to come, as Stardust heads back to Earth with its payload of captured cometary material.

And found to contain high temp minerals, brilliant!!! :D

http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/highres/wild2_asteroids.jpg credit //stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/highres/wild2_asteroids.jpg
Edited to remove hotlinks. Please don't use hotlinks. Not even warmlinks.

Dancing David

30th July 2009, 06:23 AM

Unfortunatly, you gotta pony up some dough to read them, but even PR from scientist involved in the mission make comments like this and it makes you wonder!

Comet's dust clouds hit NASA spacecraft 'like thunderbolt' (http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/3038)

Could we call "swarms of small particles", charged particles and "dust"? and they are not fragmenting they are being "machined" by our 'ol fav EDM and collimated into "beams" away from the nucleus.

Any ice?

And the findings said

But no water and and this could well be interpreted as an electrical phenomena The images also showed jets coming out in all directions, and Sekanina et al. (p. 1769) concluded that these jets are narrow sheets of particles that burst forth from small sources on the tumbling comet. Levasseur-Regourd (p. 1762) puts these jets and their sources into perspective.

Like these "bright spots"??? http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~idh/apod/image/0507/tempel1_its_mov.jpg

or these http://www.babilim.co.uk/blog/jpg/wild-2_comet_from_stardust_probe.jpg

And why I think they may be all "rock" as Harold A. Weaver (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/304/5678/1760b) said

And found to contain high temp minerals, brilliant!!! :D

http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/highres/wild2_asteroids.jpg credit //stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/highres/wild2_asteroids.jpg
Edited to remove hotlinks. Please don't use hotlinks. Not even warmlinks.

I asked you speccifically where the data is that shows that comets have a density comparable to an asteroid?

What data suggests that a comet has a density of 3g/cm^3?

Sol88

30th July 2009, 05:03 PM

I asked you speccifically where the data is that shows that comets have a density comparable to an asteroid?

What data suggests that a comet has a density of 3g/cm^3?

speccifically where the data is? There is none.

What data suggest a more dense object? we are soaking in it (http://www.universetoday.com/2006/03/24/comets-may-be-the-source-of-earths-water/)!

The existence of these main-belt comets suggests that asteroids and comets are much more closely related than previously thought and supports the idea that icy objects from the main asteroid belt could be a major source of Earth's present-day water. This work appears in the March 23 edition of Science Express (pdf) and will also appear in an April print edition of Science. "The main-belt comets are unique in that they have flat, circular, asteroid-like orbits, and not the elongated, often tilted orbits characteristic of all other comets," said Hsieh. "At the same time, their cometary appearance makes them unlike all other previously observed asteroids. They do not fit neatly in either category."

In both 1996 and 2002, the "original" main-belt comet, 133P/Elst-Pizarro (named after its two discoverers), was seen to exhibit a long dust tail typical of icy comets, despite having the flat, circular orbit typical of presumably dry, rocky asteroids. As the only main-belt object ever observed to take on a cometary appearance, however, 133P/Elst-Pizarro's true nature remained controversial. Until now.

Whats going on DD?

Dancing David

30th July 2009, 05:35 PM

So I take that as a "No, I don't have any data."

Dancing David

31st July 2009, 05:29 AM

Four bodies that are both cometary and asteroidy. Out of how many?

Sol88

31st July 2009, 06:32 AM

Four bodies that are both cometary and asteroidy. Out of how many?

Somewhere between a couple and a few!

When Asteroids Become Comets

(http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060407cometasteroid.htm)

The surprising discovery of asteroids with comet tails supports the longstanding claim of the electrical theorists—that the essential difference between asteroids and comets is the shape of their orbits

Main-Belt Comets and Other Belts (http://science.howstuffworks.com/asteroid-belt4.htm)

Comets are simply big lumps of ice and dust moving through space. Heat from the sun causes the ice to evaporate, and a trail of gas and dust is left behind as the object moves through space -- that's why comets have tails. The orbit of a main-belt comet, however, is much different from that of a regular comet, which usually circles the sun in a tilted, highly elliptical fashion like a stretched-out rubber band. Instead, a main-belt comet travels a fairly circular, level orbit, much like an asteroid.

Dancing David

1st August 2009, 06:29 AM

Somewhere between a couple and a few!

When Asteroids Become Comets

(http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060407cometasteroid.htm)

Main-Belt Comets and Other Belts (http://science.howstuffworks.com/asteroid-belt4.htm)

3 main belt comets? <4

Tim Thompson

1st August 2009, 01:40 PM

What would really be going on is the comet (a rock) ...
Now, about those "rocky" comets ...
I asked you specifically where the data is that shows that comets have a density comparable to an asteroid? What data suggests that a comet has a density of 3g/cm^3?
specifically where the data is? There is none.
OK, so much for the "science" of the rocky electric comets. Even our old friend Sol88 admits there are no data to support the claim.

So we are left with ...
What data suggest a more dense object?
But as I have already said ...
Comets cannot be "rocks". While comet masses are hard to constrain, they are not so extremely uncertain as to confuse "ice" and "rock". Comet densities are constrained to the range of about 0.3 to 1.5 gm/cm3 in numerous different ways, from dynamic orbit modeling to direct observation. Compare this to the density of water ice, 1.0 gm/cm3, and light "rocks" which range from 2-3 gm/cm3 (coal is the lightest "rock" at 1.1-1.4 gm/cm3; do you propose that comets are made of coal?). The average density of Earth is about 5.5 gm/cm3 due to the presence of heavier elements like iron (7.9 gm/cm3). Nothing with a density as low as 1.5 gm/cm3 can be considered a "rock" in any reasonable sense of the word. Comets are already known not to be rocks. For comet density references, see for instance Sosa & Fernandez, 2009 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.393..192S); Richardson, et al., 2007 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007Icar..190..357R); Weissman & Lowry, 2006 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006LPICo1325...76W).
And where does that leave us in the "comets are rocks" question?
Data favoring "rock": none.
Data favoring "not rock": lots.
Case closed, comets are not rocks.

Sol88

2nd August 2009, 04:39 AM

Sol88

2nd August 2009, 05:14 AM

Now, about those "rocky" comets ...

OK, so much for the "science" of the rocky electric comets. Even our old friend Sol88 admits there are no data to support the claim.

So we are left with ...

But as I have already said ...

And where does that leave us in the "comets are rocks" question?
Data favoring "rock": none.
Data favoring "not rock": lots.
Case closed, comets are not rocks.

Because the way they measure density for both asteroid and comets is about as trusty as Bernie Madoff, I mean this is how you work out an average asteroids density;

there are approximately 1 million asteroids of diameter 1 km or larger, and that together their mass is approximately 2% of the mass of the Moon. If we assume that the "average" asteroid is a sphere with diameter 10 km, then what is the average density of the "average" asteroid? Express your answer in km/m3 so you can compare it to densities you know. Based on this result, what do you think most asteroids are made of?
Hint: Pretend that 1) all asteroids are exactly the same size and density, 2) that there are 1 million of them, and 3) together they account for the quoted mass.

Solution: This is an example of the kind of estimating (Estimate usually implies a subjective and somewhat inexact judgment) astronomers do all of the time. In this case, we'll estimate the typical density of asteroids from knowledge of the mass of all of them, and a guess as to the size of a typical asteroid. We could instead measure the size and mass of each asteroid individually (though both measurements are really hard!), and then calculate a density for each one, but in most cases, we're more interested in an average value for the group than in each individual density.

So of course you

For density, we need to know that mass and volume, so let's start by calculating the mass of the "average" asteroid. We're told that the mass of all of the asteroids together is about 2% of the mass of the Moon, which you can look up in your book:

* Mass of all asteroids = 0.02 x MMoon
* = 0.02 x (734.9 x 10 kg )
* = 0.02 x 0.0123 x 5.97 x 1024 kg
* = 1.47 x 1021 kg

But we're still not done with the mass calculation, though, since we want the mass of the "average" asteroid. The value above is the total mass of all the asteroids, but if that total is made up of one million "average" asteroids, then the mass of each average asteroid must be

* mass of "average" asteroid = mass of all asteroids / 1 million
* = 1.47 x 1021 kg / 1 x 106
* = 1.47 x 1015 kg

Now let's calculate the volume of an "average" asteroid. We're told that the diameter is 10 km, which is 10,000 m. We want the radius, which is half of the diameter, or 5,000 m. So the volume is:

* volume = 4/3 x pi x radius3
* = 4/3 x pi x (5 x 103 m)3
* = 5.2 x 1011 m3

Now, the density is simply

* density = mass / volume
* = 1.47 x 1015 kg / 5.2 x 1011 m3
* = 2800 kg/m3.

This density is higher than that of water (1000 kg/m3) and less than that of iron (8000 kg/m3), and is pretty similar to that of normal everyday rock. Thus, we can conclude that asteroids are probably made of regular old rock.

So that is obviously a very accurate way for determining mass and density of asteroids but what if there where actual 4,000,000 asteroids?

How dense are they then?

Then we can move on to how they estimate (Estimate usually implies a subjective and somewhat inexact judgment) of a comets mass and density (http://www.oca.eu/tanga/GaiaEarthBased/NGCometes-Colas-Jorda.pdf):rolleyes:

and that's PROOF that comets and asteroids do not have the same density!

Seems the more asteroids and the more uncertain of a comets position the more or less dense they can be :rolleyes:

The main difference between the two is the eccentricity of their respective orbits!! :D

Like the crackpots said :cool:

Dancing David

2nd August 2009, 05:25 AM

So, no data. Okay.

Davidlpf

3rd August 2009, 12:13 AM

So, no data. Okay.

You didn't expect any did you?:D

Tim Thompson

3rd August 2009, 01:15 AM

Because the way they measure density for both asteroid and comets is about as trusty as Bernie Madoff, ...
Scientists use Kepler's third law + shape to measure the densities of comets + non gravitational effects (jets)
So, according to you, the mass & density estimates for comets and asteroids are all unreliable, because they rely on Kepler's Laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion)?

Under the EC there is no out gassing or "jets" ... As the crackpots said jets are not gas escaping under pressure.
So how do you explain ejection velocities of about 1 km/sec? Seems pretty "jetty" to me. Dust production rates can run 10,000 to 50,000 kg/sec as long as the comet is close to the sun. Does not sound like "sputtering" to me; sounds like jets & outgassing. In fact, just look at the images of Halley's Comet nucleus (http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/images/halley.html) from the Giotto spacecraft. You can see the jets that aren't supposed to be there (according to the crackpots), "plain as day". No sign of any "machining" or "sputtering". Just jets.

You're all blown Away!

Lets talk jets, first I'll let you embarrass yourself when you try and explain to me and my simple mind what a cometary jet is?
Your mind may well be too simple, but let's give it a try.

First, the sublimation of ics produces a porous dust mantle. This mantle insulates the ices beneath the surface and (perhaps) regulates the rate of sublimation. The sublimation is believed to take place a few centimeters below the surface and the gases percolate through the porous dust layer to escape. Energy for the sublimation is transported down to the ices. This scenario is compatible with the surface temperature of around 320 K and a temperature near 215 K for the sublimating ices.

Second, the sublimation does not take place uniformly over the surface. From the example of comet Halley, it is clear that sublimation takes place only in specific areas. The observation that the jets in comet Halley are active only on the sunward side implies a thin dust crust in the active areas. The concentration of activity into specific areas provides a natural explanation for surface features and can also contribute to the development of an irregular nuclear shape. The fraction of the surface that is actively sublimating probably ranges from 100% for a new comet to about 10% for an older comet like Halley to close to zero for an extinct comet.

This passage is quoted from the book Introduction to Comets; John C. Brandt & Robert D. Chapman, Cambridge University Press 2004 (2nd ed.), pages 252-253.

So we see that jets make perfectly good physical sense, while "sputtering" is not consistent with observations. It is especially noteworthy that jets are active only on the sunward side, to be expected if caused by solar heating & sublimation, but hard to explain by electrical sputtering, which should be active over the whole surface.

Sol88

3rd August 2009, 01:21 AM

Data?

For the electrical explanations for jets?

FIELD-ALIGNED CURRENT GENERATION AT PLASMA
CLOUDS OR BODIES WITH PLASMA SHELLS MOVING IN
MAGNETIC FIELDS
B.G. GAVRILOV, I.M. PODGORNY and J.I. ZETZER
Institute for Dynamics of Geospheres of RAS, Moscow, 117334, Russia (http://www.springerlink.com/content/mm4733362m49671n/fulltext.pdf?page=1)

FAC generation should
occur also in induced magnetospheres of celestial bodies without intrinsic
magnetic field (Venus, comets). Magnetic field lines of induced magnetospheres are connected with the interplanetary magnetic field. The electric field E = -V x B/c produced by the solar wind can be projected along magneticfield lines inside the magnetosphere. Between the magnetic field lines,which penetrate deeply into the plasma shell, the Pedersen current should close the oppositely directed FAC. The solar wind electric field can reach N 10 mV/m. The magnetic field of the induced magnetosphere can be of several tens of the interplanetary magnetic field.

What like a plasma "jet"?

EVOLUTION OF A SPIRAL JET IN THE INNER COMA OF COMET HALE-BOPP (1995 O1) (http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-4357/461/2/L119/5610.pdf?request-id=147d32b3-518f-4a00-9077-20eac3fd3e5a)
MARK R. KIDGER, MIQUEL SERRA-RICART, LUIS R. BELLOT-RUBIO, AND RICARD CASAS

We find that the jet observed in comet Hale-Bopp (1995
O1) between 1995 August 25 and September 7 shows a highly
characteristic morphology and evolution. Some aspects of this
morphology and evolution are challenging to dust-ejection
models and may be more consistent with a plasma model.

Plasma model???

Plasma Wave Observations at Comet Giacobini-Zinner (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/232/4748/377?ck=nck)FREDERICK L. SCARF 1, FERDINAND V. CORONITI 1, CHARLES F. KENNEL 1, DONALD A. GURNETT 2, WING-HUEN IP 3, and EDWARD J. SMITH 4

Electromagnetic whistlers and low-level electron plasma oscillations were also observed in this vast region that appears to be associated with heavy ion pickup.

snip

Near closest approach, the plasma wave instrument detected broadband electrostatic noise and a changing pattern of weak electron plasma oscillations that yielded a density profile for the outer layers of the cold plasma tail. Near the tail axis the plasma wave instrument also detected a nonuniform flux of dust impacts, and a preliminary profile of the Giacobini-Zinner dust distribution for micrometer-sized particles is presented.

broadband electrostatic noise?? Like a sparkgap transmitter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spark-gap_transmitter)??

Whistlers waves? Like lightning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistler_(radio)), an arc?

But yeah no DATA, so a melting snowball would be a good model! :blush:

Sol88

3rd August 2009, 01:51 AM

So, according to you, the mass & density estimates for comets and asteroids are all unreliable, because they rely on Kepler's Laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion)?

So how do you explain ejection velocities of about 1 km/sec? Seems pretty "jetty" to me. Dust production rates can run 10,000 to 50,000 kg/sec as long as the comet is close to the sun. Does not sound like "sputtering" to me; sounds like jets & outgassing. In fact, just look at the images of Halley's Comet nucleus (http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/images/halley.html) from the Giotto spacecraft. You can see the jets that aren't supposed to be there (according to the crackpots), "plain as day". No sign of any "machining" or "sputtering". Just jets.

You're all blown Away!

Your mind may well be too simple, but let's give it a try.

First, the sublimation of ics produces a porous dust mantle. This mantle insulates the ices beneath the surface and (perhaps) regulates the rate of sublimation. The sublimation is believed to take place a few centimeters below the surface and the gases percolate through the porous dust layer to escape. Energy for the sublimation is transported down to the ices. This scenario is compatible with the surface temperature of around 320 K and a temperature near 215 K for the sublimating ices.

Second, the sublimation does not take place uniformly over the surface. From the example of comet Halley, it is clear that sublimation takes place only in specific areas. The observation that the jets in comet Halley are active only on the sunward side implies a thin dust crust in the active areas. The concentration of activity into specific areas provides a natural explanation for surface features and can also contribute to the development of an irregular nuclear shape. The fraction of the surface that is actively sublimating probably ranges from 100% for a new comet to about 10% for an older comet like Halley to close to zero for an extinct comet.

This passage is quoted from the book Introduction to Comets; John C. Brandt & Robert D. Chapman, Cambridge University Press 2004 (2nd ed.), pages 252-253.

So we see that jets make perfectly good physical sense, while "sputtering" is not consistent with observations. It is especially noteworthy that jets are active only on the sunward side, to be expected if caused by solar heating & sublimation, but hard to explain by electrical sputtering, which should be active over the whole surface.

Ummmm........Comet Wild 2 exhibits jets on light side and dark side, stark relief, and is dry. LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet)

and how does the sun sublimate ice when the comet is 7.2 astronomical units (AU) from the Sun? LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hale_Bopp)

and http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v380/n6570/abs/380137a0.html

Nice try Tim thompson! :(

Sol88

3rd August 2009, 03:52 AM

easy, electric discharge!

Tricky

3rd August 2009, 08:46 AM

I've moved about half the thread to AAH for bickering and flooding (repeating the same parts of a post again and again). Against my better judgement, I'm leaving the thread open and giving you a chance to discuss without bickering. Sol88 and Reality Check, if you cannot post without insulting each other, then I suggest you simply don't post, because further bickering and flooding is likely to result in infractions.

Thank you
Tricky

Tim Thompson

3rd August 2009, 01:35 PM

Ummmm........Comet Wild 2 exhibits jets on light side and dark side, stark relief, and is dry. LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet)
Ah, yes. Wikipedia, the ultimate source of science scholarship. You should try broadening your reading horizons.

Modeling the Nucleus and Jets of Comet 81P/Wild 2 Based on the Stardust Encounter Data (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004Sci...304.1769S); Sekanina, et al., Science 304(5678): 1769-1774, June 2004.
Abstract:
We interpret the nucleus properties and jet activity from the Stardust spacecraft imaging and the onboard dust monitoring system data. Triangulation of 20 jets shows that 2 emanate from the nucleus dark side and 16 emanate from sources that are on slopes where the Sun's elevation is greater than predicted from the fitted triaxial ellipsoid. Seven sources, including five in the Mayo depression, coincide with relatively bright surface spots. Fitting the imaged jets, the spikelike temporal distribution of dust impacts indicates that the spacecraft crossed thin, densely populated sheets of particulate ejecta extending from small sources on the rotating nucleus, consistent with an emission cone model.

Yes, Wild 2 has jets on the dark side, but only 2 out of 20. That's quite sufficient asymmetry to show that solar heating is the primary driver. Simple thermal inertia in the nucleus easily explains the dark side jets as being the ones which still have enough energy to continue outgassing. And note that 16 out of 20 emanate from areas where insolation is maximized, once again showing that solar power dominates jet activity, not "sputtering".

Water Production of Comets 2P/Encke and 81P/Wild 2 Derived from SWAN Observations during the 1997 Apparition (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001Icar..152..268M); Mäkinen, et al., Icarus 152(2): 268-274, August 2001
Abstract:
The water production rates of comets 2P/Encke and 81P/Wild 2 during their 1997 apparitions have been estimated from Lyman-α observations of the SWAN instrument and compared to previously published values. 2P/Encke was detected 28 times from few days preperihelion to 1.4 AU postperihelion with a perihelion water production rate QH2O of 2×1028 s-1. This is the first observation of perihelion QH2O of comet Encke. 81P/Wild 2 was detected 56 times from 1.64 AU preperihelion to 1.74 AU postperihelion with a perihelion QH2O of 1.3×1028 s-1.

The production rate numbers given here are in molecules/second. So "dry" has to be seen in context; it does not mean "no water", it means only "less water" than other comets, lime 2P/Encke. But even still, this is not a major point. There are plenty of ices around besides water, and all of them are far less dense than rocks, and all of them sublimate and form jets. Smaller amounts of water could indicate an older comet which has already outgassed a substantial fraction of its water, or it could indicate that the comet formed in a dryer environment.

Meanwhile, we still have the question of mass, density and non-gravitational forcing to talk about. So, since you bring up comet Wild 2 ...

Non-gravitational force modeling of Comet 81P/Wild 2. I. A nucleus bulk density estimate (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006Icar..180..224D); Davidsson & Gutiérrez, Icarus 180(1): 224-242, January 2006.
Abstract:
The nucleus of Comet 81P/Wild 2 is modeled by assuming various smooth triaxial ellipsoidal or irregular body shapes, having different rotational periods, spin axis orientations, and thermophysical properties. For these model nuclei, a large number of surface activity patterns (e.g., maps of active and inactive areas) are studied, and in each case the resulting water production rate and non-gravitational force vector versus time are calculated. By requiring that the model nuclei simultaneously reproduce certain properties of the empirical water production curve and non-gravitational changes of the orbit (focusing on changes of the orbital period and in the longitude of perihelion), constraints are placed on several properties of the nucleus. The simulations suggest that the mass of Comet 81P/Wild 2 is M≲2.3×1013 kg, resulting in a rather low bulk density, ρbulk≲600-800 kg/m3 (depending on the assumed nucleus volume), and that the nucleus rotation is prograde rather than retrograde. The active area fraction is difficult to constrain, but at most 60% of the nucleus is likely to have near-surface ice.

The mass is determined dynamically (you did not tell us why you think Kepler's Laws are unreliable), and last I heard, density was still mass/volume. The bulk density of Wild 2 is 0.6 to 0.8 gm/cm3, less than the density of water ice. Whatever the nucleus is, it certainly is not "rock", so if we have to choose between "ice" and "rock", "ice" wins every time.

Non-gravitational force modeling of Comet 81P/Wild 2. II. Rotational evolution (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007Icar..191..651G); Gutiérrez & Davidsson, Icarus 191(2): 651-664, November 2007
Abstract:
In this paper, we have studied both the dynamical and the rotational evolution of an 81P/Wild 2-like comet under the effects of the outgassing-induced force and torque. The main aim is to study if it is possible to reproduce the non-gravitational orbital changes observed in this comet, and to establish the likely evolution of both orbital and rotational parameters. To perform this study, a simple thermophysical model has been used to estimate the torque acting on the nucleus. Once the torque is calculated, Euler equations are solved numerically considering a nucleus mass directly estimated from the changes in the orbital elements (as determined from astrometry). According to these simulations, when the water production rate and changes in orbital parameters for 1997, as well as observational rotational parameters for 2004 are imposed as constraints, the change in the orbital period of 81P/Wild 2, ΔP=P˙, will decrease so that P¨=‑5 to ‑1 min/orbit2, which is similar to the actual tendency observed from 1988 up to 1997. This nearly constant decreasing can be explained as due to a slight drift of the spin axis orientation towards larger ecliptic longitudes. After studying the possible spin axis orientations proposed for 1997, simulations suggest that the spin obliquity and argument (I,Φ)=(56°,167°) is the most likely. As for rotational evolution, changes per orbit smaller than 10% of the actual spin velocity are probable, while the most likely value corresponds to a change between 2 and 7% of the spin velocity. Equally, net changes in the spin axis orientation of 4° 8° per orbit are highly expected.

This is significant because sputtering does not push, but jets do. If we were seeing sputtering or "machining", we would not see a significant dynamic reaction from the nucleus. But in fact we do see the nucleus pushed & torqued. And that is exactly what we expect from jets; they act like little rockets and push the nucleus. We see here that the observed jets and the observed pushing are mutually compatible.

In all cases the standard model works very well, but the alternate "electric" explanation is not compatible with the observed behavior of the comets.

and how does the sun sublimate ice when the comet is 7.2 astronomical units (AU) from the Sun?
Is that the best you can do, 7.2 AU. I can beat that ...

Cometary Activity at 25.7 AU: Hale-Bopp 11 Years after Perihelion (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...677L.121S); Szabó, Kiss & Sárneczky, Astrophysical Journal 677(2): L121-L124, April 2008
Abstract:
Eleven years after its perihelion, comet C/1995 O1 (Hale-Bopp) is still active. Between 2007 October 20 and 22, we detected a diffuse coma of 180 × 103 km in diameter with a slight elongation toward the north-south direction. The integrated brightness was 20.04 mag in RC, implying Afρ=300 m and albedo × dust surface aRC=4300 km2. The coma was relatively red at V-R=0.66 mag, which is consistent with that of the dust in other comets. The observed properties and the overall fading in brightness between 10 and 26 AU follow the predicted behavior of CO-driven activity. This is the most distant cometary activity ever observed.

Note from above: The observed properties and the overall fading in brightness between 10 and 26 AU follow the predicted behavior of CO-driven activity. As explained in the paper, cometary activity at large distances from the sun is dominated by sublimation of CO ice, as opposed to water ice (which stops sublimating at about 3 AU). As also explained in the paper, the observed activity of Hale-Bopp at 25.7 AU from the Sun is completely consistent with model based predictions published in 2002 for CO driven activity.

So what we see is that none of the issues raised so far are critical problems for the standard model of comets; the answers might not be perfect, but the physical picture is completely self consistent and completely consistent with observation. On the other hand, the "electric" explanation has major problems, and is easily inferior to the standard. The "electric" model cannot explain the forces applied to cometary nuclei by jets, and the "electric" model makes predictions for jet distribution over the surface of the comet which are contradicted by observation (jets are strongly correlated with insolation). The "electric" model cannot explain any of the narrow line X-ray emission from comets, whereas the standard model not only explains, but in fact requires such emission. And of course, the "electric" model is not even self consistent to begin with, as there is no energy source available to drive it in the first place.

Standard model wins big, electric model loses big. Nice try, Sol88 :(

Reality Check

3rd August 2009, 01:56 PM

Another interesting paper on comets (since we seem to have abandoned the electric comet idea):
Cometary masses derived from non-gravitational forces (http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.0745)

We compute masses and densities for ten periodic comets with known sizes: 1P/Halley, 2P/Encke, 6P/d'Arrest, 9P/Tempel 1, 10P/Tempel 2, 19P/Borrelly, 22P/Kopff, 46P/Wirtanen, 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko and 81P/Wild 2. The method follows the one developed by Rickman and colleagues (Rickman 1986, 1989; Rickman et al. 1987), which is based on the gas production curve and on the change in the orbital period due to the non-gravitational force. The gas production curve is inferred from the visual lightcurve. We found that the computed masses cover more than three orders of magnitude: ~(0.3 - 400)*10^12 kg. The computed densities are in all cases very low (<= 0.8 g cm^-3), with an average value of 0.4 g cm^-3, in agreement with previous results and models of the cometary nucleus depicting it as a very porous object. The computed comet densities turn out to be the lowest among the different populations of solar system minor bodies, in particular as compared to those of near-Earth asteroids (NEAs). We conclude that the model applied in this work, in spite of its simplicity (as compared to more sophisticated thermophysical models applied to very few comets), is useful for a statistical approach to the mean density of the cometary nuclei. However, we cannot assess from this simple model if there is a real dispersion among the bulk densities of comets that could tell us about differences in physical structure (porosity) and/or chemical composition.

(emphasis added)

and a nice set of lecture notes: Six Hot Topics in Planetary Astronomy (http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.2265)

Six hot topics in modern planetary astronomy are described: 1) lightcurves and densities of small bodies 2) colors of Kuiper belt objects and the distribution of the ultrared matter 3) spectroscopy and the crystallinity of ice in the outer Solar system 4) irregular satellites of the giant planets 5) the Main Belt Comets and 6) comets and meteor stream parents.

Sol88

3rd August 2009, 04:46 PM

Great explanation Tim Thompson!

Now perhaps you could clear up my misconception on why there was electrostatic noise and whistlers observed by ICE?

Sol88

3rd August 2009, 04:52 PM

Yes, Wild 2 has jets on the dark side, but only 2 out of 20. That's quite sufficient asymmetry to show that solar heating is the primary driver. Simple thermal inertia in the nucleus easily explains the dark side jets as being the ones which still have enough energy to continue outgassing. And note that 16 out of 20 emanate from areas where insolation is maximized, once again showing that solar power dominates jet activity, not "sputtering".

Ohh ok so we can have jets anywhere? Ok, so it does not matter if they come from the dark side or sunlit side, though your theory said only from the sunlit side!

Second, the sublimation does not take place uniformly over the surface. From the example of comet Halley, it is clear that sublimation takes place only in specific areas. The observation that the jets in comet Halley are active only on the sunward side implies a thin dust crust in the active areas. The concentration of activity into specific areas provides a natural explanation for surface features and can also contribute to the development of an irregular nuclear shape. The fraction of the surface that is actively sublimating probably ranges from 100% for a new comet to about 10% for an older comet like Halley to close to zero for an extinct comet.

we'll do the CO2 thing next! but can you please provide a link to the paper on CO2 sublimation at 25 AU.

Thanks

Sol88

3rd August 2009, 06:08 PM

Sol88
Have you noticed that some idiot () started a thread on the electric comet idea, is now ignoring the actual electric comet idea and displaying their ignorance of the standard comet model by asking off-topic questions?

What this means is that this ignorant person has abandoned the electric comet idea since they can not produce any real evidence for it, e.g. measured comet densities that are comparable to rocks or an actual X-ray spectrum for the "electric discharges".

Instead this person is reduced to asking questions about non-electric comet concepts. They are obviously deluded into thnking that by displaying their ignoroance of standard comet theory that they will impress lurkers. They are wrong. They are just making a laughing stock of themselves and the electric comet idea.

EPIC FAIL Sol88 YET AGAIN

When are you going to get back to the electric comet model - or have you abandoned it as the non-science woo that it is?

No I have not, please explain the standard mainstream explanation for the observed highly collimated jets!

I ask not thru my lack of understanding the standard model, but so you and Tim stop moving the goal posts!

Remember consistency!

Sol88

3rd August 2009, 06:13 PM

First, the sublimation of ics produces a porous dust mantle. This mantle insulates the ices beneath the surface and (perhaps) regulates the rate of sublimation. The sublimation is believed to take place a few centimeters below the surface and the gases percolate through the porous dust layer to escape. Energy for the sublimation is transported down to the ices. This scenario is compatible with the surface temperature of around 320 K and a temperature near 215 K for the sublimating ices.

That's not what Deep impact found was it Tim? How far below the surface did they find your ice?

Moreover, it is significant that the extent
of this ice on Tempel 1’s surface is not sufficient to produce
the abundance of water flux observed in the comet’s coma. The
Deep Impact team concludes that ‘‘there are sources of water
from beneath the comet’s surface that supply the cometary coma
as well.’’ LINK (http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-3881/133/4/1836/205439.web.pdf?request-id=7debb399-8cb7-4d3c-b250-9b2d9f04462e)

And your highly porous dust layer should be one of the greatest insulators we know of bar maybe aerogel!

And if that is the case then how is the heat "transported" down?

The passage of thermal energy through an insulating material occurs via three mechanisms: solid conductivity, gaseous convection, and radiative (infrared) transmission. The sum of these three components gives the total thermal conductivity of the material. Solid conductivity is an intrinsic property of a specific material.

Highly porous bulk or solid materials such as Aerogels (and comets) are remarkable thermal insulators because they almost nullify the three methods of heat transfer (convection, conduction, and radiation). For dense silica, solid conductivity is relatively high. However, silica aerogels and other highly porous silica based materials possess a very small fraction of solid silica. The solids that are present consist of very small particles linked in a three-dimensional network. Therefore, thermal transport through the solid portion of silica aerogel and these types of materials occurs through a very tortuous path and is not particularly effective Added comets.

also

Tim said

Yes, Wild 2 has jets on the dark side, but only 2 out of 20. That's quite sufficient asymmetry to show that solar heating is the primary driver. Simple thermal inertia in the nucleus easily explains the dark side jets as being the ones which still have enough energy to continue outgassing. And note that 16 out of 20 emanate from areas where insolation is maximized, once again showing that solar power dominates jet activity, not "sputtering".

Thermal inertia, sounds like a big word does'nt it Tim, had me impressed!
but......wait

this mob says differnet! The temperature map matches the
topography of the nucleus, with the hottest areas close to the
subsolar point. This is an indication that the thermal inertia is low
(Groussin et al. 2006), probably lower than 100 J m2 K1 s1/2
( hereafter these units are referred to as ‘‘MKS’’). maybe it's just high enough (thermal inertia) to save your model, after all Yes, Wild 2 has jets on the dark side wich you do concede after stating The observation that the jets in comet Halley are active only on the sunward side implies a thin dust crust in the active areas!

and

Tim said The fraction of the surface that is actively sublimating probably ranges from 100% for a new comet to about 10% for an older comet like Halley to close to zero for an extinct comet. but A’Hearn et al These regions cover
a small fraction of the surface, only 0.5% (A’Hearn et al. 2005;
Sunshine et al. 2006). and space. Moreover, it is significant that the extent
of this ice on Tempel 1’s surface is not sufficient to produce
the abundance of water flux observed in the comet’s coma.

So that narrows it down eh Tim? your model can now cover from A'Hearns quess of 0.5% to your 100%!!!! great science that.

Reality Check

3rd August 2009, 06:34 PM

No I have not, please explain the standard mainstream explanation for the observed highly collimated jets!

I ask not thru my lack of understanding the standard model, but so you and Tim stop moving the goal posts!

Remember consistency!
Please cite your source for "observed highly collimated jets".

But I can certainly make a guess for the source of jets that go in straightish lines. Look at the images of the surface of comets. Notice the craters and pits? A jet issuing from a crater or pit will be "collimated" by the walls of the crater or pit.

There is no moving of the goal posts. This is a thread about the electric comet idea. You should know this since you started it. We already know that the electric comet idea is invalid since 2 basic predictions have failed (density and X-rays bursts from electrical discharges). You have ignored this and are just asking questions about the standard comet model.

You have not yet been able to give any citation to papers that calculate any properties for these electrical discharges, e.g. the spectrum of the discharges or even the rate of discharges.
However I do have another thought - can you give a citation to the paper that calculates the emission of the electrical dicharges in visible light?
If these electrical discharges emit any light in the visible range then they would have been seen during the impact phase of the Deep Impact mission, especially by the camera on the impactor. As far as I can determine there are no discharges seen in the images before the impact (you may be able to correct me).

Reality Check

3rd August 2009, 06:41 PM

That's not what Deep impact found was it Tim? How far below the surface did they find your ice?

Deep Impact found ice on the surface of Tempel 1. (http://deepimpact.umd.edu/mission/updates/update-200602.html)
In a paper appearing in Science Express on Feb. 2, 2006, an article by Sunshine et al. reports on the Deep Impact science team's finding of a small area of water ice on the surface of Tempel 1. This is the first time that water ice has been observed on the surface of a comet. Past efforts with the near-IR spectrometer on Deep Space 1 mission flying past comet Borrelly and from the ground of comets far from the sun and not enshrouded with coma, have yielded no evidence of water ice on their surface.

And your highly porous dust layer should be one of the greatest insulators we know of bar maybe aerogel!

And if that is the case then how is the heat "transported" down?

Added bolding
Please cite the source for your quote.
What do they actually calculate for the thermal properties of a dusty surface for a comet?

Sol88

3rd August 2009, 06:43 PM

RC re read post 154

Reality Check

3rd August 2009, 06:46 PM

Ohh ok so we can have jets anywhere? Ok, so it does not matter if they come from the dark side or sunlit side, though your theory said only from the sunlit side!

Can you give a citaton to the paper or textbook that states that the standard comet model predicts jets only on the sunward side of comets?

Thanks.

IMHO it is fairly obvious that it is possible for jets to appear on the dark side of the a comet. The dark side is where CO is most likely to solidify. It would not take that much heating to penetrate the comet or flow along its surface to create a jet from the CO.

Reality Check

3rd August 2009, 06:59 PM

...snip...
Added comets.

In other words you just assume cometary dust is as insulating as Aerogels.
Give us a number.
ETA: Remember that insulation does not stop insulated material from heating up. It merely delays the heating. If there is an oportunity for cooling then the insulation will reduce the average temperature of the insulated material.
Comets are heated for periods of years. There is plenty of time for the heat to penetrate the dusty surface.

Tim said

Thermal inertia, sounds like a big word does'nt it Tim, had me impressed!
but......wait

this mob says differnet! maybe it's just high enough (thermal inertia) to save your model, after all Yes, Wild 2 has jets on the dark side wich you do concede after stating The observation that the jets in comet Halley are active only on the sunward side implies a thin dust crust in the active areas!

That is right. Tim stated that there was thermal interia and that mob gave stated that it was low and give a number (actual science!)

Tim said but A’Hearn et al and

So that narrows it down eh Tim? your model can now cover from A'Hearns quess of 0.5% to your 100%!!!! great science that.
Yes great science!
Comets have different ages and so they have different amounts of volitile materials.

Tim stated a range for all comets:
The fraction of the surface that is actively sublimating probably ranges from 100% for a new comet to about 10% for an older comet like Halley to close to zero for an extinct comet.
A’Hearn et al stated a value for a specific comet:
These regions cover a small fraction of the surface, only 0.5% (A’Hearn et al. 2005; Sunshine et al. 2006.

The results of A’Hearn et al suggest that Tempel 1 is a very old comet.

Sol88

3rd August 2009, 07:09 PM

Please cite your source for "observed highly collimated jets".

But I can certainly make a guess for the source of jets that go in straightish lines. Look at the images of the surface of comets. Notice the craters and pits? A jet issuing from a crater or pit will be "collimated" by the walls of the crater or pit.

There is no moving of the goal posts. This is a thread about the electric comet idea. You should know this since you started it.

You have not yet been able to give any citation to papers that calculate any properties for these electrical discharges, e.g. the spectrum of the discharges or even the rate of discharges.
However I do have another thought - can you give a citation to the paper that calculates the emission of the electrical dicharges in visible light?
If these electrical discharges emit any light in the visible range then they would have been seen during the impact phase of the Deep Impact mission, especially by the camera on the impactor. As far as I can determine there are no discharges seen in the images before the impact (you may be able to correct me).

The jet is seen to have a three-part structure: there is an initial narrow straight jet of material ∼7&arcsec; long and gradually increasing with date, leaving the nucleus in P.A. ∼ 280°. This straight section appears to be highly collimated and has negligible curvature. This we refer to as “the collimated jet.” This section abruptly changes direction by 90° and opens out at a comparatively narrow opening angle before starting to sweep round to the east and opening out further. Similar behavior was reported by West (1995), who also observed the jet on several nights, confirming the position angle of the collimated jet and its constancy. LINK (http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-4357/461/2/L119/5610.text.html)

RC said jets that go in straightish lines. maybe you missed the highly collimated and has negligible curvature, and not straightish lines!!! Then they turn thru a right angle??? how do your craters do that!

We already know that the electric comet idea is invalid since 2 basic predictions have failed (density and X-rays bursts from electrical discharges). You have ignored this and are just asking questions about the standard comet model. One of those queses (density) relies on outgassing which is fictitious!

'cos from the same link

We have been struck by the peculiar morphology of the August jet event, some aspects of which appear more consistent with a plasma event than with pure dust emission. The jet shows a very narrow, highly collimated section that expands away from the nucleus. This shows a 90° break at a projected distance initially of 23,000 km, at which point the material directs itself very precisely in the antisolar direction. This could be due to a chance alignment, and it is also consistent with a plasma-jet model. The ejected material proceeds outward until it reaches the contact surface and is open to the influence of the solar wind. At this point, solar wind pickup occurs and the position angle is abruptly changed as it sweeps round the contact surface until it reaches a position angle corresponding to the antisolar direction. The fact that the end of the jet was very closely aligned with the antisolar direction 2 favors a plasma model.

ETA (again) whats the plasma model Reality check???

Reality Check

3rd August 2009, 07:18 PM

this mob says differnet!
You are forgetting to cite your sources and only quoting a small section.

Could "this mob" be
De Sanctis et al., Thermal Evolution Models of Tempel 1 (http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-3881/133/4/1836/205439.text.html)
and did you read their abstract?
Thermal evolution models of comet 9P/Tempel 1 have been developed to understand how thermal evolution models of comet nuclei can help to interpret the results of Deep Impact and vice versa, how the Deep Impact results can constrain the comet nuclei models. We found a general agreement between the models' outcomes and the mission results, without need of an ad hoc choice of initial parameters. We found that a "standard" model of a porous, low-density nucleus made of initially amorphous water ice, volatile ices, and dust can reproduce the general activity pattern of 9P/Tempel 1, if the dynamical characteristics of this comet are taken into account. The general aspect of the nucleus is well reproduced by the presence of a dust mantle on the nucleus that, even if very thin, quenches water production. The models foresee the natural formation of a dust mantle on the comet's surface, and the water flux source is mainly a subsurface diffuse source, in agreement with the observations. However, no simple correlation is found between production rates of different volatile gases and their relative abundances in the nucleus. From our models' results we can affirm that the coma abundances of volatile species do not match their abundances in the nucleus.
(emphasis added)

Sol88

3rd August 2009, 07:20 PM

Can you give a citaton to the paper or textbook that states that the standard comet model predicts jets only on the sunward side of comets?

Thanks.

IMHO it is fairly obvious that it is possible for jets to appear on the dark side of the a comet. The dark side is where CO is most likely to solidify. It would not take that much heating to penetrate the comet or flow along its surface to create a jet from the CO.

Your asking the wrong man RC, ask Tim Thompson 'cos that's what he said!

Sol88

3rd August 2009, 07:26 PM

JET ENERGIES AND VELOCITIES

On this issue the electrical theorists are emphatic: by proposing mechanical “jets” from comet nuclei, standard theory has descended into the preposterous. No analogy either in space or in experimental science supports the idea that sublimating ices 150 million miles and farther from the Sun could generate “jet chambers” or produce the sonic and supersonic jet velocities our instruments have measured.

The notion is inherently contradictory and violates the most obvious dynamic principles. Collimated, mechanically induced jets over the observed distances they travel would require, first, a finely machined nozzle, even more precise than those used on rocket engines, not a jagged opening in a “dirty snowball”. The idea requires a chamber that is insulated from the Sun, though anything even casting a shadow would lead to instant freezing.

The “model” also requires subsurface heating in the deep freeze of these remote regions. The “heating” would have to reach through an insulating crust roughly estimated to be ten feet deep, yet achieving things inconceivable for solar heating even in the absence of insulation. Pressure must build up to an extraordinary level. Then when the pressure erupts, something most mysterious must occur. Despite the instant release, equivalent pressures must be sustained for long periods to maintain the supersonic velocities—even to alter the orbits of comets in the way some astronomers now propose. We’ve said it before: “To save the theory astronomers now cling to the incredible”.

For the electrical theorists, the answer is all too obvious. Electrical discharge accelerates material into collimated jets along the self-confining Birkeland currents that constitute the discharge arcs. Thunderbolts prediction (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050704predictions.htm)

Explain to me again, slowly, how your craters and pits do this reality check? After you said But I can certainly make a guess for the source of jets that go in straightish lines. Look at the images of the surface of comets. Notice the craters and pits? A jet issuing from a crater or pit will be "collimated" by the walls of the crater or pit.

Reality Check

3rd August 2009, 07:34 PM

LINK (http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-4357/461/2/L119/5610.text.html)

Evolution of a Spiral Jet in the Inner Coma of Comet Hale-Bopp (1995 O1) (http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-4357/461/2/L119/5610.text.html)
The paper is about how a jet behaves in the coma. This is little to do with the creation of the jet (sorry about misunderstanding you). My interpretation is that the jet travels through the coma until it is exposed to the solar wind and that bends the jet away from the Sun (the 90 degree turn).

ETA (again) whats the plasma model Reality check???
I do not know. From the paper it looks like a model that describes jets as plasma rather than dust.

ETA
I do hope that you are not confusing this with your earlier post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4932323&postcount=81) that contains a link to a method of cutting rock with plasma streams.

The electric comet idea uses electrical discharges not plasma streams (they are different).
As an expert on the electric comet theory and all of its many published papers (:rolleyes:) you know this.
The cometary plasma jets are directed outward. To be "cutting rock" they would be directed into the nucleus.

Reality Check

3rd August 2009, 07:39 PM

Thunderbolts prediction (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050704predictions.htm)

Explain to me again, slowly, how your craters and pits do this reality check? After you said
As I said:
But I can certainly make a guess for the source of jets that go in straightish lines. Look at the images of the surface of comets. Notice the craters and pits? A jet issuing from a crater or pit will be "collimated" by the walls of the crater or pit.
A guess is just that. The answer obvious - the walls of the crater or pit would (I guess) guide the jet.

Another guess would be that the interaction with the coma collimates the jet.

Reality Check

3rd August 2009, 07:44 PM

Your asking the wrong man RC, ask Tim Thompson 'cos that's what he said!
Ohh ok so we can have jets anywhere? Ok, so it does not matter if they come from the dark side or sunlit side, though your theory said only from the sunlit side![/quote]
What you state Tim said is in red.
What you stated without citation is in blue.

Please supply the citation for your assertion. Thanks.

Sol88

3rd August 2009, 11:07 PM

What you state Tim said is in red.
What you stated without citation is in blue.

Please supply the citation for your assertion. Thanks.

I've got a better idea, you supply me with a link to the standard model?

we'll go from there!

Sol88

4th August 2009, 12:29 AM

Better question, what is the standard model?

Is it a dirtyiceball? icydirtball, dirtysnowball, icedirtysnowball or what?

:confused:

but my mate wiki said,

Debate over comet composition
Comet Borrelly exhibits jets, yet is hot and dry.

Debate continues about how much ice is in a comet. In 2001, NASA's Deep Space 1 team, working at NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab, obtained high-resolution images of the surface of Comet Borrelly. They announced that comet Borrelly exhibits distinct jets, yet has a hot, dry surface. The assumption that comets contain water and other ices led Dr. Laurence Soderblom of the U.S. Geological Survey to say, "The spectrum suggests that the surface is hot and dry. It is surprising that we saw no traces of water ice." However, he goes on to suggest that the ice is probably hidden below the crust as "either the surface has been dried out by solar heating and maturation or perhaps the very dark soot-like material that covers Borrelly's surface masks any trace of surface ice".[59]

The recent Deep Impact probe has also yielded results suggesting that the majority of a comet's water ice is below the surface, and that these reservoirs feed the jets of vaporised water that form the coma of Tempel 1.[60]

However, more recent data from the Stardust mission show that materials retrieved from the tail of comet Wild 2 were crystalline and could only have been "born in fire."[61][62] More recent still, the materials retrieved demonstrate that the "comet dust resembles asteroid materials."[63] These new results have forced scientists to rethink the nature of comets and their distinction from asteroids.[64] LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet#Debate_over_comet_composition)

How many times Reality check, Tim Thompson, how many times are you presented with data that is not compatible without MAJOR assumptions, ice below the surface, comet migration to explain the high temp minerals et cetera before the model is abandoned for a model that PREDICTED some of the major phenomena!

Charge separation is happening before your very eyes, so wake up and smell the roses!

Reality Check

4th August 2009, 02:19 AM

I've got a better idea, you supply me with a link to the standard model?

we'll go from there!
I've got a better idea. You made the assertion about the standard model - you provide the link.

we'll go from there!

Reality Check

4th August 2009, 02:25 AM

How many times Reality check, Tim Thompson, how many times are you presented with data that is not compatible without MAJOR assumptions, ice below the surface, comet migration to explain the high temp minerals et cetera before the model is abandoned for a model that PREDICTED some of the major phenomena!

Charge separation is happening before your very eyes, so wake up and smell the roses!
How many times Sol88, how many times are you presented with data that is not compatible without major assumptions, density, lack of actual electrical discahrges et cetera before the electric comet idea is abandoned for a model that has actually predicted many of the major phenomena since the 1950's!

Charge separation is happening before our very eyes in the comet plasma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics))! That is what happens in plasmas - they are ionized gases. Wake up and learn the basic physics!

ETA
A small question for you - where were the electrical discharges for Comet Borrelly (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/19P/Borrelly) reported in the scientific journals?
After all they got a spacecraft up close to the comet (and other comets). There must be plenty of evidence for electrical discharges in the surface of comets nuclei. Show us some!

You really need to learn to cite things. The article is stating exactly what science is all about. Science is about the fitting of theories to data.
The electric comet idea is the other way around - create the theory and go looking for data to support it - long with ignoring actual data such as the density of comets :eye-poppi !

Comet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet)

Debate continues about how much ice is in a comet. In 2001, NASA's Deep Space 1 (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Deep_Space_1) team, working at NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab, obtained high-resolution images of the surface of Comet Borrelly (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/19P/Borrelly). They announced that comet Borrelly exhibits distinct jets, yet has a hot, dry surface. The assumption that comets contain water and other ices led Dr. Laurence Soderblom of the U.S. Geological Survey to say, "The spectrum suggests that the surface is hot and dry. It is surprising that we saw no traces of water ice." However, he goes on to suggest that the ice is probably hidden below the crust as "either the surface has been dried out by solar heating and maturation or perhaps the very dark soot-like material that covers Borrelly's surface masks any trace of surface ice".[59] (http://forums.randi.org/#cite_note-58)
The recent Deep Impact (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Deep_Impact_(space_mission)) probe has also yielded results suggesting that the majority of a comet's water ice is below the surface, and that these reservoirs feed the jets of vaporised water that form the coma of Tempel 1.[60] (http://forums.randi.org/#cite_note-59)
However, more recent data from the Stardust (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Stardust_(spacecraft)) mission show that materials retrieved from the tail of comet Wild 2 (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/81P/Wild) were crystalline and could only have been "born in fire."[61] (http://forums.randi.org/#cite_note-60)[62] (http://forums.randi.org/#cite_note-61) More recent still, the materials retrieved demonstrate that the "comet dust resembles asteroid materials."[63] (http://forums.randi.org/#cite_note-62) These new results have forced scientists to rethink the nature of comets and their distinction from asteroids.[64] (http://forums.randi.org/#cite_note-63)
The first highlight just states that the surface of Comet Borrelly (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/19P/Borrelly) is hot and dry. That is what was observed.

The article is clear in your last highlight: "comet dust resembles asteroid materials" means that comet dust resembles asteroid materials.

The morphology and surface processes of Comet 19/P Borrelly (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2003.09.004)

The flyby of the nucleus of the Comet 19P/Borrelly by the Deep Space 1 spacecraft produced the best views to date of the surface of these interesting objects. It transformed Borrelly from an astronomical object shrouded in coma of gas and dust into a geological object with complex surface processes and a rich history of erosion and landform evolution. Based on analysis of the highest resolution images, stereo images, photometry, and albedo we have mapped four major morphological units and four terrain features. The morphological units are named dark spots, mottled terrain, mesas, and smooth terrain. The features are named ridges, troughs, pits, and hills. In strong contrast to asteroids, unambiguous impact craters were not observed on Borrelly's surface. Because of the relatively short period of this comet, surface erosion by volatile sublimation is, in geologic terms, a very active process. The formation and the morphologies of units and features appear to be driven by differential rates of sublimation erosion. Erosional rates across the comet are probably controlled by solar energy input and the location of the subsolar point during perihelion. Differences in energy input may produce different varieties of sublimation erosional landforms. The terrains on Borrelly suggest that solar energy input could map directly into erosional processes and landforms.

19P/Borrelly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19P/Borrelly)

Nucleus parameters

Dimensions: 8×4×4 km[1] (http://forums.randi.org/#cite_note-Weaver2003-0)
Density: 0.3 g (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Gram)/cm³ (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Cubic_centimeter)[2] (http://forums.randi.org/#cite_note-Britt2006-1)
Mass: 2 × 1013 kg (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Kilogram)[3] (http://forums.randi.org/#cite_note-2)
Albedo: 0.03[4] (http://forums.randi.org/#cite_note-dark-3)

(emphasis added)

tusenfem

4th August 2009, 03:21 AM

Just throwing in a mainstream paper that should have measured many a property of the EC. Harri Laakso (http://esoads.eso.org/abs/1991JGR....96.7731L) writes about Electric fields and cold electrons in the vicinity of Comet Halley.

Tim Thompson

4th August 2009, 10:22 AM

How many times Reality check, Tim Thompson, how many times are you presented with data that is not compatible without MAJOR assumptions, ...
None. You have yet to present any "evidence" at all that is truly incompatible with standard theory. Good luck finding any.

... before the model is abandoned for a model that PREDICTED some of the major phenomena!
False premise, the model never made the predictions you claim it made. it's the same old trick stage illusionists play. You just make sure you predict everything, and you're going to get a lucky hit. But in fact, if you examine the physics in some detail, you find that the "theory" you present does not make the predictions you think it makes.

Charge separation is happening before your very eyes, so wake up and smell the roses!
No it isn't. So pull those roses out of your nose! :jaw-dropp

Sol88

4th August 2009, 06:04 PM

None. You have yet to present any "evidence" at all that is truly incompatible with standard theory. Good luck finding any.

False premise, the model never made the predictions you claim it made. it's the same old trick stage illusionists play. You just make sure you predict everything, and you're going to get a lucky hit. But in fact, if you examine the physics in some detail, you find that the "theory" you present does not make the predictions you think it makes.

No it isn't. So pull those roses out of your nose! :jaw-dropp

Sounds very mainstream to me, do not predict anything, then nothing will contradict you and you can keep making the theory up as you go along!

You have yet to present any "evidence" at all that is truly incompatible with standard theory. Good luck finding any.

Tell me again Tim since it must of slipped your mind, about the whistler waves the electrostatic noise the charged and couple dust associated with bright surface patches that can be collimated into thin long beams and sheets ...et cetera!

If you are expecting me to pull a paper of the web that has it all layed out in B&W you might have to wait, but if you would like links to papers that cast Doubt on the standard model and lend support to the Electric comet model, well you can't have been reading many of those links I've given.

Sol88

4th August 2009, 06:13 PM

I've got a better idea. You made the assertion about the standard model - you provide the link.

we'll go from there!

No I'm asking you, Mr mainstream (RC) what is the standard model!

Obviously it has to include plasma!

Reality Check

4th August 2009, 06:31 PM

If you are expecting me to pull a paper of the web that has it all layed out in B&W you might have to wait, but if you would like links to papers that cast Doubt on the standard model and lend support to the Electric comet model, well you can't have been reading many of those links I've given.
This is of course your main problem.

You cannot find any published papers on the electric comet model.
You have no actual evidence for the electric comet model.
You have no answer to the fact that the predicted electrical discharges have never been detected.
You have no answer to the fact that measured comet densities show that they are not made of rock as stated by the electric comet idea.
You have not been able to find any quantitative predictions from the electric comet idea.

So you are deduced to a common logical fallacy (false dichotomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy)), i.e. invalidating the standard comet model will validate the electric comet idea.

Guess what Sol88:
Invalidating the standard comet model will ... invalidate the standard comet model!

You have not even got close to invalidating the standard comet model. You do not understand that the scientific method involves an iterative process of changing (or even creating new theories) theories to fit the data. For example Newtonian gravity was upgraded to General Relativity.

Thus the standard comet model of today is not the standard comet theory as stated by Whimple in the 1950's. Astronomers have collected a lot of data about comets in the last 50 years. That data has been used to fine-tune the comet model. Scientist can do this because the comet model makes quantitative predictions that can be compared to actual numeric data.

You are making the same mistake that creationists make. They keep trying to invalidate evolution and are silly enough to believe that their (failed) attempts are evidence for a creation.

Reality Check

4th August 2009, 06:35 PM

No I'm asking you, Mr mainstream (RC) what is the standard model!

Obviously it has to include plasma!
No I'm asking you, Mr woo (Sol88) what is the standard model!

And yes it does include plasma - this is astronomer shorthand for the ionized gas and charged dust particles in the comet coma and tail (and of course the plasma of the solar wind).

Sol88

4th August 2009, 07:03 PM

Tell me again Tim since it must of slipped your mind, about the whistler waves the electrostatic noise the charged and couple dust associated with bright surface patches that can be collimated into thin long beams and sheets ...et cetera!

No one then!!

Reality check??

Tim Thompson?

Tusenfem?

Dancing david??

'com people, your standard model must offer some sort of explanation!

Reality Check

4th August 2009, 07:07 PM

No one then!!

Reality check??

Tim Thompson?

Tusenfem?

Dancing david??

'com people, your standard model must offer some sort of explanation!
My guess:
Electrostatic noise = heavy ion pickup (standard electromagnetism)
Whistler waves = plasma interactions (standard plasma physics).

ETA
If someone knew how to use Google they would find:
Whistler wave cascades in solar wind plasma (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/mnr/2009/00000395/00000004/art00045)
A Wave-Wave Interaction in Whistler Frequency Range in Space Plasma (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1993/93JA01640.shtml)

Sol88

4th August 2009, 07:10 PM

No I'm asking you, Mr woo (Sol88) what is the standard model!

And yes it does include plasma - this is astronomer shorthand for the ionized gas and charged dust particles in the comet coma and tail (and of course the plasma of the solar wind).

Can't find it, Reality Check! It's been ad hoc'd and changed so many times I can't keep up with it, so I'm asking you, what do you think the standard model is?

And Jim does a lovely job of showing up all the talking heads in his web page (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_maccanney05.htm)

It happened in an instant... it was 1986 and the Giotto space craft (the only satellite going to comet Halley that had an onboard camera - image right) was approaching that famous comet's nucleus through the clouds of dust and gas that surrounded it.

As the light faded due to the dense clouds eclipsing the solar light the only light came from the comet nucleus still buried deep in the cloud,

*

clue#1... why is the comet nucleus illuminated when the sunlight is blocked by the dense comet coma?. Hmmmm, could this be a "self luminous" object with an energy source other than sunlight... e.g. the plasma discharge current striking the comet nucleus? ... and
*

clue#2... how can the comet continue to form a tail from "solar radiation - sublimating ices off the comet nucleus" when the sunlight is so completely blocked by the dense comet coma?

No one at NASA or ESO or Harvard or Yale or Cornell or JPL or anywhere else... not even the news media... thinks to ask such difficult questions as they are all beaming with "the right stuff".

On with our story... an aging Fred Whipple has been invited to witness the "confirmation" of the dirty snow ball comet model. All the calculations had been done... all the journal articles had been refereed and all the PhDs had been given to the bright new crop of cometary scientists at all the best universities after years of hard study. Book sales were brisk and the public had purchased and read and applauded.

A comet was said to be a sparkling white snowy ball with some dust that was released as the sun's heat burned off the outer layers. 'Artists' full color art work dramatically reproduced the scientists' "predictions". The Giotto space craft moved closer to the comet nucleus sending back picture after picture... each one better defining the pure white potato shaped "snow ball".

The excitement rose to fever pitch as small jets could now be seen and the pure white nucleus became better defined with each returning photo. At last as the pure white nucleus that Whipple knew had to lie in the center of all the dust and gas became clearly defined - Whipple screams out on international television... 'it's the nucleus... there it is... it's the nucleus!!!!'. Just then the Giotto space craft broke through the final layers of gas and dust to reveal what is now known to be the darkest, blackest object ever photographed by any space craft in the history of the space program. Silence and shock filled the direct feed television and Giotto's picture broke up. Something terrible had gone wrong. There was no snowy nucleus. What was it? and how could all the journal articles have been wrong?.

The nucleus was not a loosely packed dirty snow ball but was a pitted burnt carbonaceous chondrite (rock). Dead silence filled the room. Seconds later the Giotto space craft started to gyrate wildly and the last signals received from it were with the electron particle counter off scale, circuits in overload and the magnetic sensors off the scale. Surely the space craft had been designed to exceed all expected criteria by the comet specialists at ESO and NASA.

Giotto had been hit by an electron beam. Giotto was temporarily rendered inoperable it as it passed directly to the sun ward side of comet Halley's nucleus. But from where could such an electron beam come from??. The dirty snow ball theory never said anything about anything like that.

Electron beam? along with the whistler waves the electrostatic noise the charged and couple dust associated with bright surface patches that can be collimated into thin long beams and sheets ...et cetera!

Sol88

4th August 2009, 07:18 PM

Best I can find RC,

A comet is a lump of loosely packed dust with some ice and gas, somewhere below the surface is more ice and gas, the sun heats up the comet till the gas sublimates and forms a coma and tail.

Correct? Reality check?

Sol88

4th August 2009, 07:24 PM

Reality Check

4th August 2009, 07:25 PM

Can't find it, Reality Check! It's been ad hoc'd and changed so many times I can't keep up with it, so I'm asking you, what do you think the standard model is?

Start with reading the textbook that Tim Tompson has quoted to you and learn something.

What I think the standard model is does not matter. This thread is about the electric comet idea and its failures to match the actual universe.

Now cite the papers about the electron beam rather than a blog entry.
Now cite the papers that state that Halley's comet is made of rock.

Jim is wrong in any case.
[quote]The nucleus was not a loosely packed dirty snow ball but was a pitted burnt carbonaceous chondrite (rock).
He obviously cannot tell the difference between the dusty surface of the nucleus and the actual measured density of Halley's comet.

Halley's Comet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halley%27s_Comet)

The Giotto mission (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Giotto_mission) gave planetary scientists their first view of Halley's surface and structure. Although its coma (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Coma_(cometary)) may extend about 100 million kilometres into space,[26] (http://forums.randi.org/#cite_note-isbn0-85229-961-3-25) Halley's nucleus (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Comet_nucleus) is relatively small (barely 15 kilometres long, 8 kilometres wide and perhaps 8 kilometres thick; JPL lists its average diameter as only 11 km)[1] (http://forums.randi.org/#cite_note-jpldata-0)[3] (http://forums.randi.org/#cite_note-Learn-2) and roughly peanut (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Peanut)-shaped. Its mass is extremely low; roughly 2.2×1014 kg.[4] (http://forums.randi.org/#cite_note-mass-3) Its average density is about 0.6 g/cm³, indicating that it is very loosely constructed.[6] (http://forums.randi.org/#cite_note-density-5) Its albedo (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Albedo) is about 4 percent, meaning that only 4 percent of the sunlight hitting it is reflected; about what one would expect for coal.[27] (http://forums.randi.org/#cite_note-26) Thus, despite appearing brilliant white to observers on Earth, Halley's comet is in fact pitch black. As it approaches the inner Solar System, the Sun warms it, causing its surface to sublimate (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Sublimation_(chemistry)) (change directly from a solid to a gas), and jets of volatile material to burst from its black surface. The nucleus rotates every 52 hours,[8] (http://forums.randi.org/#cite_note-Peale1989-7) and its day side is far more active than its night side. The gases ejected from the nucleus are 80 percent water vapour, 17 percent carbon monoxide (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide) and 3–4 percent carbon dioxide (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide)[28] (http://forums.randi.org/#cite_note-27) with traces of hydrocarbons.[29] (http://forums.randi.org/#cite_note-28)
The nucleus is covered with a layer of dust, which retains heat. Each large dust grain is thought to consist of many tiny particles with spaces in between. Some of these spaces are filled with ice, and others are empty. When Halley's comet is closest to the Sun, temperatures can rise to about 77 °C. Near the Sun, several tons of gas and dust are emitted each second in the jets. Halley has several shallow craters which are about 1 km in diameter.

Note that the citation above is to a paper published after the Giotto mission (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Giotto_mission).
RZ Sagdeev; PE Elyasberg; VI Moroz. (1988). "Is the nucleus of Comet Halley a low density body? (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988Natur.331..240S)". http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988Natur.331..240S (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988Natur.331..240S).

Sol88

4th August 2009, 07:30 PM

My guess:
Electrostatic noise = heavy ion pickup (standard electromagnetism)
Whistler waves = plasma interactions (standard plasma physics).

ETA
If someone knew how to use Google they would find:
Whistler wave cascades in solar wind plasma (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/mnr/2009/00000395/00000004/art00045)
A Wave-Wave Interaction in Whistler Frequency Range in Space Plasma (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1993/93JA01640.shtml)

Wow there are electrical, who'd thunk it RC!!!

A Whistler is a very low frequency electromagnetic (radio) wave which can be generated, for example, by lightning. Frequencies of whistlers are 1 to 30 kHz, with maximum usually at 3 to 5 kHz. Although they are electromagnetic waves, they occur at audio frequencies, and can be converted to audio using a suitable receiver. They are produced by lightning strikes (mostly intracloud and return-path) where the impulse travels away from the earth and returns to the earth traveling along magnetic field lines. They undergo dispersion of several thousand kHz due to the slower velocity of the lower frequencies through the plasma environments of the ionosphere and magnetosphere. Thus they are perceived as a descending tone which can last for a few seconds. The study of whistlers allows categorization into Pure Note Whistlers, Diffuse, 2-hop, and Echo Train types.

In addition, they have been received from Jupiter showing the presence of lightning there. WIKI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistler_(radio))

And from comets!!! which of course we all know to be melting icydirtballs, no wait they are dirtyiceballs or was that a fluffysnowbank or was it...,who care they all incorrect!

Reality Check

4th August 2009, 07:31 PM

Great guess RC, but how does that fit with your melting dirtyiceball?

The sorce of the coma and tail is the melting dirtyiceball so it fits really well.

The electric comet theory can easily accommodate and in fact expects this STANDARD plasma physics, unfortunately a dirtysnowball melting in the Sun can't.

Wrong. The standard comet theory can easily accommodate and in fact expects this STANDARD plasma physics.

and this pearler from Reality check

The standard model has been falsified and made invalid, what are your options RC?
The options are to ignore your delusion.

You have not falsified or made invalid the standard model. The best that you have done is point out the observations that astronomers know about and are using to update the standard model. That is how science works.

Reality Check

4th August 2009, 07:35 PM

Wow there are electrical, who'd thunk it RC!!!

Yes there are electrical things in plasma. who'd thunk it Sol88!!!

WIKI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistler_(radio))

And from comets!!! which of course we all know to be melting icydirtballs, no wait they are dirtyiceballs or was that a fluffysnowbank or was it...,who care they all incorrect!
Not from comet nuclei.
You need to learn the basics about comets. They are more than their nuclei. They also have coma and tails. Coma and tails are ionized gas and charged dust particles that are interacting with the solar wind. The interaction causes electrostatic noise and whistler waves (and other intersting stuff).

ETA
Whistlers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistlers)
A Whistler is a very low frequency (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Very_low_frequency) electromagnetic (radio) wave (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation) which can be generated, for example, by lightning (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Lightning). Frequencies of whistlers are 1 to 30 kHz, with maximum usually at 3 to 5 kHz. Although they are electromagnetic waves, they occur at audio frequencies (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Audio_frequency), and can be converted to audio using a suitable receiver. They are produced by lightning strikes (mostly intracloud and return-path) where the impulse travels away from the earth and returns to the earth traveling along magnetic field lines. They undergo dispersion (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Dispersion) of several thousand kHz due to the slower velocity of the lower frequencies through the plasma (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)) environments of the ionosphere (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Ionosphere) and magnetosphere (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Magnetosphere). Thus they are perceived as a descending tone which can last for a few seconds. The study of whistlers allows categorization into Pure Note Whistlers, Diffuse, 2-hop, and Echo Train types.

You do know that "for example" does not mean exclusively?

Can you give a reference to the paper on the electric comet idea that shows that whistler waves will be detected in the coma and tails of comets?

Sol88

4th August 2009, 09:34 PM

Yes there are electrical things in plasma. who'd thunk it Sol88!!!

Not from comet nuclei.
You need to learn the basics about comets. They are more than their nuclei. They also have coma and tails. Coma and tails are ionized gas and charged dust particles that are interacting with the solar wind. The interaction causes electrostatic noise and whistler waves (and other intersting stuff).

ETA
Whistlers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistlers)

You do know that "for example" does not mean exclusively?

Can you give a reference to the paper on the electric comet idea that shows that whistler waves will be detected in the coma and tails of comets?

Coma and tails and nucleus!

Plasma clouds associated with Comet P/Borrelly dust impacts : DS1/Comet Borrelly (http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15630644)

Résumé / Abstract
The NASA DS1 spacecraft encountered Comet P/Borrelly on September 22, 2001 at a distance of ∼ 2171 km on the sunward side of the comet. The flyby speed was ∼ 16.5 km s-1. Using high temporal resolution (50 μs) absolute electric field amplitude measurements from a ∼ 1 m dipole antenna, new features of plasma clouds created by cometary dust impacts have been detected. The pulses have 1/e exponential decays of ∼ 650 Its duration, exponentially shaped overshoots with rise times of ∼ 2 ms, and exponential-shaped overshoot decay times of ∼ 10 ms. Assuming a plasma temperature of 104 K, these pulse features have been explained as plasma cloud space charge effects from the electron, proton and heavy ion portions of the clouds passing the antenna. Complex pulse shapes were also detected. These are believed to be due to either plasma cloud scattering off of the spacecraft, or to secondary impacts. Small electric pulses of duration 10-15 ms of cometary origin were detected but are presently unexplained. The electric component of the plasma wave spectra at closest approach had an f-2.4 power law shape from 10 Hz to 1 kHz. The electron cyclotron frequency was approximately 1 kHz. One possible explanation of the wave spectrum is that whistler mode waves associated with phase steepened cometary plasma waves are dispersed, leading to the broad spectrum. Finally, based on the present results, a new type of low-cost, large-area dust detector is proposed.

Presently unexplained by a snowball melting in the Sun's heat! :rolleyes:

Therefore comets are not melting snowballs but rock electrical discharging!

simple really!

The ONLY thing I've heard from the standard model wrt the solar "wind" is it "pushes" the dust away from the the comet forming the tail, but then they discovered the anti tail and well they made things hard for the meltingsnowball model no matter how high the dust to ice ratio is!

Comet Lulin (http://www.universetoday.com/2009/02/01/comet-c2007-n3-lulin-a-twist-in-the-tail/) is a good example

While imaging N3 Lulin for UT Readers, Dr. Joe Brimacombe used a negative luminance frame to take a closer look at what's going on and discovered something quite out of the ordinary. First off, you'll notice an anti-tail – quite rare in itself – but if you take a look about halfway down the ion/dust tail, you'll see a very definite twist in the structure. It it rotating? Exactly what's causing it? Torsional stress? Is it possible that the kink in the tail is an instability resulting from currents flowing along the tail axis? Right now there's absolutely no information available about what's going on in the tail – because what you're seeing is perhaps one of the most current pictures of the comet that can be found!

Your turn RC!

Reality Check

4th August 2009, 10:26 PM

Coma and tails and nucleus!

Plasma clouds associated with Comet P/Borrelly dust impacts : DS1/Comet Borrelly (http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15630644)

Presently unexplained by a snowball melting in the Sun's heat! :rolleyes:

Small electric pulses of duration 10-15 ms of cometary origin were detected but are presently unexplained.Unexplaned by the plasma physics of comet coma and tails.

Now where in the many published papers on the electric comet idea is the prediction that the electrical discharges are of duration 10-15 ms?

Therefore comets are not melting snowballs but rock electrical discharging!

simple really!

Comet densities are ~0.6 g/cc.
Asteroid densities are ~3.0 g/cc.
0.6 is less than 3.0.
No electrical discharges are observed on cometary nuclei in any wavelength (X-rays or visible).
Therefore comets are not rock electrical discharging but melting snowballs!

simple really!

The ONLY thing I've heard from the standard model wrt the solar "wind" is it "pushes" the dust away from the the comet forming the tail, but then they discovered the anti tail and well they made things hard for the meltingsnowball model no matter how high the dust to ice ratio is!

Comet Lulin (http://www.universetoday.com/2009/02/01/comet-c2007-n3-lulin-a-twist-in-the-tail/) is a good example
Your turn RC!
Actually antitails (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitail) are interesting. They do not make anything hard for the standard comet model.

Can the electric comet idea explain both tails that are visible when an antitail is present?
Can the electric comet idea explain why the tail is made of gas (plasma) while the antitail is made of dust?
(I think that it actually can using its non-existent electrical discharges but then you would have to admit that the standard model explains the tail and antitail just as well and includes numbers!)

ETA
Another example from 1957: Comet Arend-Roland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Arend-Roland)

Sol88

4th August 2009, 10:48 PM

Now where in the many published papers on the electric comet idea is the prediction that the electrical discharges are of duration 10-15 ms?

Where in the standard model does it say anything about electric discharges???

Booya!

Sol88

4th August 2009, 10:52 PM

Can the electric comet idea explain both tails that are visible when an antitail is present?
Can the electric comet idea explain why the tail is made of gas (plasma) while the antitail is made of dust?
(I think that it actually can using its non-existent electrical discharges but then you would have to admit that the standard model explains the tail and antitail just as well and includes numbers!)

What a hypocrite, you tell me how does the standard model explain the antitail?

Sol88

4th August 2009, 11:16 PM

Sol88

4th August 2009, 11:26 PM

Is this true Tim Thompson?

how can the comet continue to form a tail from "solar radiation - sublimating ices off the comet nucleus" when the sunlight is so completely blocked by the dense comet coma?

How does your sunlight penetrate deep into the nucleus, where the ice is obviously, thru and optical thick cloud 25 AU from Sol and the pressurize and sustain a supersonic "jet?

Majik or what?

Reality Check

4th August 2009, 11:46 PM

Where in the standard model does it say anything about electric discharges???

Booya!
Nowhere - that is an idocy of the electric comet idea.

You stated (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4971665&postcount=186) that "electric pulses of duration 10-15 ms of cometary origin were detected but are presently unexplained." are evidence for the electric comet idea . This means that you heva a paper or textbook that predicted that the NASA DS1 spacecraft on encountering Comet P/Borrelly would see these pulses.

Now where in the many published papers on the electric comet idea is the prediction that the electrical discharges are of duration 10-15 ms?

Booya!

Reality Check

4th August 2009, 11:52 PM

What a hypocrite, you tell me how does the standard model explain the antitail?
What a hypocrite, you cannot even click on a link or do your own research?
Since you are so lazy here is the link again: Antitail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitail).

And once you have seen that astronomy has an explanation for the antitail, maybe you can answer the questions:

Can the electric comet idea explain both tails that are visible when an antitail is present?
Can the electric comet idea explain why the tail is made of gas (plasma) while the antitail is made of dust?
I think that it actually can using its non-existent electrical discharges but then you would have to admit that the standard model explains the tail and antitail just as well and includes actual numbers!
The reason is that all it needs for the tail and antitail to form is that gas and dust be propelled from the comet nucleus by any means.

Reality Check

5th August 2009, 12:18 AM

Lets talk about your X-rays RC, the last leg you have to stand on in your EPIC fail series of comet density and x ray production.

Jets, are not your little rockets, they are plasma discharges, so any density calculations that use your little rockets is bound to be wrong (which it is).

If you knew how the density of comets and asteroids were calculated then you would not ask such a simple question.

It does not matter what causes the material to leave the comet. A jet is a "little rocket" whether caused by "plasma discharges" or electrical discharges or by sublimation. Newtons laws means that the orbit of the comet will be changed by this in the same way.

You are ignoring the fact that using non-gravitational forces to calculate the density is used to get a accurate values than the standard method of calculating the density of both comets and asteroids.

And your lack of Xray argument, you really mean lack of X-ray resolution on the comet nucleus don't you?

The problem with the electrical discharges is that they will produce a bursts of X-rays that will be detectable by any X-ray observatory that is looking at a comet.
For example: Comet C/1999 S4: Chandra Solves Mystery Of Cometary X-Rays (http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2000/c1999s4/).

Have we had an X Ray camera on board any of the probes that have imaged the nucleus directly? Stardust? Giotto? any?

What do you mean "directly".
Comet nuclei have been imaged directly from Earth for decades.

If you mean closely then you are wrong. Radiation radiates. All you need is a sensitive enough detector, e.g. Chandra can detect X-rays from billions of light years away. Astronomers have been looking at stars for a few years now. They do not have to be close to them to detect their radiation.

And you still did not answer why Whipples model did not include X ray production after all it should be standard plasma physics.

It was thought that there were no high energy events around comets. You need high energy events to produce X-rays. Thus Whimple and other astronomers did not go looking for them.
It turns out that the coma and tail are quite energetic in their interaction with the solar wind and that X-rays were detected for the first observation of X-rays was in 1996 for Comet Hyakutake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Hyakutake#X-ray_emission).

Reality Check

5th August 2009, 12:37 AM

Scientists Measure How Deep "Deep Impact" Was, With X-rays (http://www.science.psu.edu/alert/swift-deep-impact.htm)
Actually this link is a bit of a death knell for the electric comet idea.
The EC idea has electrical discharges. These should produce X-ray bursts. Let's ignore the fact that these X-ray bursts have never been detected. You have yet to actually produce a paper that states the rate of the electrical discharges or how they vary.
It is a reasonable assumption that the rate will be constant or only vary with the distance from the Sun (i.e. not on timescales of days). If this is not reasonable then please point out the EC paper that states otherwise.

For Tempel 1, astronomers see a comet that was dim in X-rays until the impact. After the impact the X-ray emission increases very day for several days. This is interpreted as material reaching the coma and producing more X-rays.

But EC states that the X-rays are produced by elecrical discharges! So according to EC somehow the impact produced more electrical discharges.

Where did these extra electrical discharges extending over days come from, Sol88?

Reality Check

5th August 2009, 01:01 AM

Is this true Tim Thompson?
How does your sunlight penetrate deep into the nucleus, where the ice is obviously, thru and optical thick cloud 25 AU from Sol and the pressurize and sustain a supersonic "jet?

Majik or what?
You need to cite this quote.

However:
"Sunlight" does not "penetrate deep into the nucleus". Sunlight heats the surface of the nucleus and the heat penetrates deep into the nucleus. This heat then creates the jets. FYI: Comets have very weak gravitational fields (low mass) and so it is easy for gas to be get to high (supersonic) speeds). You are probably unaware that when astronomers refer to cometary ice they mean all kinds of ice (not only water), e.g CO, CO2, CH4, NH3 and other frozen gases.

Give us a number for how "optical thick" the coma is and why you think that this will block all sunlight.

I suspect that you got this from your new favourite crackpot Jim (James McCanney (http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/cometary/fluff.htm)).

Sol88

5th August 2009, 01:11 AM

Nowhere - that is an idocy of the electric comet idea.

You stated (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4971665&postcount=186) that "electric pulses of duration 10-15 ms of cometary origin were detected but are presently unexplained." are evidence for the electric comet idea . This means that you heva a paper or textbook that predicted that the NASA DS1 spacecraft on encountering Comet P/Borrelly would see these pulses.

Now where in the many published papers on the electric comet idea is the prediction that the electrical discharges are of duration 10-15 ms?

Booya!

Ummm.. cart before the horse 'ol mate.

Electric discharges on a snowball? How RC?

Does not matter how long they last, but there they are non the less :rolleyes:

And X rays?? There they are! :rolleyes:

Sol88

5th August 2009, 01:26 AM

You need to cite this quote.

However:
"Sunlight" does not "penetrate deep into the nucleus". Sunlight heats the surface of the nucleus and the heat penetrates deep into the nucleus. This heat then creates the jets. FYI: Comets have very weak gravitational fields (low mass) and so it is easy for gas to be get to high (supersonic) speeds). You are probably unaware that when astronomers refer to cometary ice they mean all kinds of ice (not only water), e.g CO, CO2, CH4, NH3 and other frozen gases.

Give us a number for how "optical thick" the coma is and why you think that this will block all sunlight.

I suspect that you got this from your new favourite crackpot Jim (James McCanney (http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/cometary/fluff.htm)).

Why then can we not point our telescopes at a comet nucleus and take a few happy snaps? why cant we usually see the nucleus?

How does it sustain the jet for any length of time? instead of just a pressure build up and explosive release?

Sunlight bounces off the particles in the coma and in a comet's tail, giving the objects their popular bright appearance that on occasion grace the night sky. But inside those bright halos, the story is altogether different.

So wouldn't the dust shade the surface of the comet? but still retains enough oomph to cause the bright patches from where the jets originate!

Sol88

5th August 2009, 01:32 AM

Actually this link is a bit of a death knell for the electric comet idea.
The EC idea has electrical discharges. These should produce X-ray bursts. Let's ignore the fact that these X-ray bursts have never been detected. You have yet to actually produce a paper that states the rate of the electrical discharges or how they vary.
It is a reasonable assumption that the rate will be constant or only vary with the distance from the Sun (i.e. not on timescales of days). If this is not reasonable then please point out the EC paper that states otherwise.

For Tempel 1, astronomers see a comet that was dim in X-rays until the impact. After the impact the X-ray emission increases very day for several days. This is interpreted as material reaching the coma and producing more X-rays.

But EC states that the X-rays are produced by elecrical discharges! So according to EC somehow the impact produced more electrical discharges.

Where did these extra electrical discharges extending over days come from, Sol88?

If there where electric discharges that were not powerful enough to emit x rays then they should still be observable in the radio spectrum like white noise with crackles and pops and if they got powerful enough radiate into the x ray end of the spectrum.

Have we observed and electrostatic noise? Whistlers? any electric discharge of any duration?

Reality Check

5th August 2009, 02:15 AM

Sol88 is fond of stating that comets are rocks.
He has been presented many times with the evidence that the density of comets. For some reason he cannot grasp that the measured density of comet nuclei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_nucleus#Size) 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 best that he has done is state that he does not trust the methods used to calculate the density.

So here is one method that is used for both comets and asteriods or any planetary body:
Firstly calculate the mass of the body:

Measure the orbit of the body around the Sun to determine its semimajor axis (a) and period (P).
Plug this into Kepler's third law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion#Deriving_Keple r.27s_third_law) to get the mass (usually as a ratio to a known mass).
Next calculate the volume of the body. For closer bodies you can just look in a telescope. For further bodies you can meaure radii as the body occludes stars.
Divide the mass by the volume to get the density.

A method for comets:
Jets issued by comets alter their orbits. This can be used to calculate their masses, e.g. Cometary masses derived from non-gravitational forces (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.393..192S)
We compute masses and densities for 10 periodic comets with known sizes: 1P/Halley, 2P/Encke, 6P/d'Arrest, 9P/Tempel 1, 10P/Tempel 2, 19P/Borrelly, 22P/Kopff, 46P/Wirtanen, 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko and 81P/Wild 2. ...

For the Tempel 1 comet:
The Deep Impact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Impact_(space_mission)) mission crashed an impactor into the nuecleus of Tempel 1. The ejecta from this impact was used to calculate the mass of Tempel 1.

Reality Check

5th August 2009, 02:25 AM

If there where electric discharges that were not powerful enough to emit x rays then they should still be observable in the radio spectrum like white noise with crackles and pops and if they got powerful enough radiate into the x ray end of the spectrum.

No - unless you specify what the parameters of the electric discharges are and how they produce the "radio spectrum like white noise with crackles and pops".

Perhaps you can cite the EC paper that does this?

Have we observed and electrostatic noise? Whistlers? any electric discharge of any duration?
We have explained electrostatic noise and whistlers without unspecified electrical discharges.
I am unaware of any evidence for any "electric discharge of any duration" on or around comets.
Please cite the paper or textbook stating this.

Reality Check

5th August 2009, 02:35 AM

Why then can we not point our telescopes at a comet nucleus and take a few happy snaps? why cant we usually see the nucleus?

Beacuse comets do not emit much light. Nothing to to with the light hat they absorb.

How does it sustain the jet for any length of time? instead of just a pressure build up and explosive release?

Because there is sustained heat - the Sun is quite constant.

So wouldn't the dust shade the surface of the comet? but still retains enough oomph to cause the bright patches from where the jets originate!
The dust is not an umbrella so it does not "shade the surface of the comet". Sunlight heats up the dust which as you know is so dark that it is very good at absorbing sunlight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_nucleus#Albedo). The heat then travels through the dust and heats the interior. All the dust does is slow down the heat transfer and not by much as you quoted
The temperature map matches the topography of the nucleus, with the hottest areas close to the subsolar point. This is an indication that the thermal inertia is low (Groussin et al. 2006), probably lower than 100 J m2 K1 s1/2 ( hereafter these units are referred to as ‘‘MKS’’).

Reality Check

5th August 2009, 03:01 AM

tusenfem

5th August 2009, 03:28 AM

Sol88

5th August 2009, 03:31 AM

I think the paper by Laakso explains a lot, maybe our solly boy should read it.

Can you PM me a copy?

Sol88

5th August 2009, 03:32 AM

Sol88,

How does the electric comet idea explain main-belt comets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main-belt_comet)?

Note that if you give the answer that I expect then you will invalidate the EC idea (hint: consider asteroids, where they are and their movements).

You mean this one?

When Asteroids Become Comets (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060407cometasteroid.htm)

The surprising discovery of asteroids with comet tails supports the longstanding claim of the electrical theorists—that the essential difference between asteroids and comets is the shape of their orbits.

:confused:

MBC (http://star.pst.qub.ac.uk/~hhh/mbcs.shtml)

MBCs must have only "turned on" recently. Once they enter the inner solar system and begin outgassing for the first time, comets from the outer solar system typically only remain active for about 10,000 years before having most of their ice sublimated away and going dormant, or losing so much mass that they simply disintegrate. All indications are that the MBCs have occupied their current orbits in the inner solar system since the solar system's formation, 4.6 billion years ago. Had they been outgassing since then, they would have exhausted their ice supplies long ago and could not possibly be active now. Instead, they must have been dormant until very recently. or else what could it be?

Sol88

5th August 2009, 03:34 AM

Comet Wild 2 (http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=ayxpdjcb)

This is an ideal opportunity to examine the picture of Wild 2 from the perspective of the electric universe model of comets. Briefly, in that model a comet is a highly negatively charged body with respect to the Sun. Like all charged bodies in plasma, a comet will be enveloped in a plasma sheath (the coma) that limits the reach of the comet's electric field. A forbidden oxygen line was discovered in Comet Austin's coma. "Forbidden lines" are spectral signatures that are not expected in space because here on Earth they are found only within strong electric fields. To astronomers' surprise, forbidden lines are common in space, not only in comets, but in nebulae and galaxies. A cometary display is produced when the nucleus discharges at a rate sufficient to generate a visible tail. The dust and gases that form the comet''s tail are not evaporated by the heat of the sun, but instead are electrically 'machined' from the nucleus by cathode arcs. Laboratory examination of cathode arcs shows that they jump around on the cathode surface, removing surface material in jets to form small circular craters. The industrial process of Electric Discharge Machining (EDM) uses this feature to erode a surface to accurate depth

Google it

tusenfem

5th August 2009, 03:49 AM

Can you PM me a copy?

probably not, because one cannot put attachments in pms.

tusenfem

5th August 2009, 03:56 AM

"Forbidden lines" are spectral signatures that are not expected in space because here on Earth they are found only within strong electric fields. To astronomers' surprise, forbidden lines are common in space, not only in comets, but in nebulae and galaxies.

I guess Mr. Holocrap does not really know what "forbidden lines" are. And no, on the Earth they are not "only within strong electric fields." Forbidden lines are just lines created by energy level changes with a very low probability. (so actually it should be "semi-forbidden") Astronomers are hardly surprised to see them, actually, they are used very often in astronomy. For a fuller definition:

forbidden line An emission line in a spectrum that is emitted only by a low-density gas, as in interstellar regions and nebulae. Such a line is said to be forbidden because it does not occur under normal conditions on Earth, where gases are denser. A forbidden line is produced when an electron jumps from an upper energy level, where it can remain for a long time, to a lower level; such a jump, or transition, is said to have a very low transition probability. In the Earth's atmosphere, the excited atom would collide with other atoms or free electrons and lose energy in the collision (without producing a photon) long before it could radiate the energy away. However, in the low densities of interstellar space and the regions around hot stars, collisions are extremely rare and there is time for the spontaneous decay to occur. Forbidden lines are denoted by square brackets, such as the [O III] lines of doubly ionized oxygen. Forbidden lines disappear above a certain critical density (typically about 108 atoms/cm3), and so their existence is an indicator of density in interstellar gas. A semi-forbidden line, designated with a single square bracket, such as C III], occurs where the transition probability is about a thousand times higher than for a forbidden line.

Sheesh the crap that comes from holo.

Reality Check

5th August 2009, 04:46 AM

You mean this one?

When Asteroids Become Comets (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060407cometasteroid.htm)

MBC (http://star.pst.qub.ac.uk/~hhh/mbcs.shtml)

or else what could it be?
I want you to be totally sure of this.
You seem to be stating that EC claims comets and asteroids are exactly the same. The only difference between them is their orbit. They have exactly the same density (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4972221&postcount=200) and composition.
Thus main-belt comets ony differ from main-belt asteroids because of their orbit. They do not have icy crusts that sublimate (like comets) when they are closer to the Sun.

If you are sure of this then
What is the difference in orbit that makes a main-belt asteroid into a main-belt comet?

Can you guess what I am leading up to yet?

Sol88

5th August 2009, 10:32 PM

I want you to be totally sure of this.
You seem to be stating that EC claims comets and asteroids are exactly the same. The only difference between them is their orbit. They have exactly the same density (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4972221&postcount=200) and composition.
Thus main-belt comets ony differ from main-belt asteroids because of their orbit. They do not have icy crusts that sublimate (like comets) when they are closer to the Sun.

If you are sure of this then
What is the difference in orbit that makes a main-belt asteroid into a main-belt comet?

Can you guess what I am leading up to yet?

No please tell me!

Is eccentricity that you are alluding to?

Reality Check

6th August 2009, 12:13 AM

No please tell me!

Is eccentricity that you are alluding to?
I think that I will keep what I am leading up to as a surprise.
But it should be obvious to anyone who has any knowledge of astronomy.

I will make the question a bit more clear:

I want you to be totally sure of this.
You seem to be stating that EC claims comets and asteroids are exactly the same. The only difference between them is their orbit. They have exactly the same density (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4972221&postcount=200) and composition.
Thus main-belt comets ony differ from main-belt asteroids because of their orbit. They do not have icy crusts that sublimate (like comets) when they are closer to the Sun.

If you are sure of this then
What is the numeric difference in orbit parameters (e.g. eccentricity) that turns a main-belt asteroid into a main-belt comet?

Reality Check

6th August 2009, 12:42 AM

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 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4972221&postcount=200)).

Physical composition of asteroids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteriod#Characteristics)

The physical composition of asteroids is varied and in most cases poorly understood. Ceres appears to be composed of a rocky core covered by an icy mantle, whereas Vesta is thought to have a nickel-iron core, olivine (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Olivine) mantle, and basaltic crust,[15] (http://forums.randi.org/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=147374#cite_note-15) and 10 Hygiea (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/10_Hygiea) appears to have a primitive composition of undifferentiated carbonaceous (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Carbonaceous) chondrite (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Chondrite). Many, perhaps most, of the smaller asteroids are piles of rubble held together loosely by gravity.
Meteorites also suggest that "Asteroids are believed to contain traces of amino-acids and other organic compounds".

Physical composition of comet nuclei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet#Nucleus)

They are composed of rock (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Rock_(geology)), dust (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Dust), water ice (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Ice), and frozen gases such as carbon monoxide (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide), carbon dioxide (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide), methane (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Methane) and ammonia (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Ammonia).[9] (http://forums.randi.org/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=147374#cite_note-Yeoman-8)
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 (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Crust) (see Debate over comet composition (http://forums.randi.org/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=147374#Debate_over_comet_composition)). Comets also contain a variety of organic compounds (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Organic_compound); in addition to the gases already mentioned, these may include methanol (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Methanol), hydrogen cyanide (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Hydrogen_cyanide), formaldehyde (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Formaldehyde), ethanol (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Ethanol) and ethane (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Ethane), and perhaps more complex molecules such as long-chain hydrocarbons (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Hydrocarbons) and amino acids (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Amino_acids).[10] (http://forums.randi.org/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=147374#cite_note-9)[11] (http://forums.randi.org/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=147374#cite_note-cnnlife-10)[12] (http://forums.randi.org/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=147374#cite_note-11)

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).

Sol88

6th August 2009, 01:21 AM

Don't forget the space charge it's moving thru!

Also what cycle the Sun is in!

Reality Check

6th August 2009, 01:59 AM

Don't forget the space charge it's moving thru!

Also what cycle the Sun is in!
What is the equation that the electric comet idea uses to determine the effect of "space charge it's moving thru" and "what cycle the Sun is in" on a rocky body?

For a first go we can neglect the effects.

Have you found the orbit parameters yet?
I would have thought that someone who was an expert in the electric comet idea would have found it sooner (you did research it throughly before becoming such a fan?).

Or is the electric comet idea useless?

Sol88

6th August 2009, 03:25 AM

What is the equation that the electric comet idea uses to determine the effect of "space charge it's moving thru" and "what cycle the Sun is in" on a rocky body?

For a first go we can neglect the effects.

Have you found the orbit parameters yet?
I would have thought that someone who was an expert in the electric comet idea would have found it sooner (you did research it throughly before becoming such a fan?).

Or is the electric comet idea useless?

Well, we'll start with Mercury (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/multimedia/magnetic_tornadoes.html) and our Moon (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/30mar_moonfountains.htm) if you'd like!

Mainstream call them magnetic tornadoes or "flux transfer events" and "sputtering" and these happen on those rocky bodies! :rolleyes:

Yes the orbital parameters are all on wiki if you'd like to look!

Also there are only four MBC's discovered so far!

The fact that three MBCs have now been discovered from relatively limited observational data indicates that there are probably many more waiting to be discovered.
LINK (http://star.pst.qub.ac.uk/~hhh/mbcs.shtml)

Be interesting to see what else they find amongst the asteroids/comet :)

Reality Check

6th August 2009, 03:51 AM

...snipped nonsense...
Are you acknowledging that the electric idea is useless with this nonsense?

Or do you want to answer the question:
I want you to be totally sure of this.
You seem to be stating that EC claims comets and asteroids are exactly the same. The only difference between them is their orbit. They have exactly the same density (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4972221&postcount=200) and composition.
Thus main-belt comets ony differ from main-belt asteroids because of their orbit. They do not have icy crusts that sublimate (like comets) when they are closer to the Sun.

If you are sure of this then
What is the numeric difference in orbit parameters (e.g. eccentricity) that turns a main-belt asteroid into a main-belt comet?

Sol88

6th August 2009, 04:26 AM

Are you acknowledging that the electric idea is useless with this nonsense?

Or do you want to answer the question:
I want you to be totally sure of this.
You seem to be stating that EC claims comets and asteroids are exactly the same. The only difference between them is their orbit. They have exactly the same density (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4972221&postcount=200) and composition.
Thus main-belt comets ony differ from main-belt asteroids because of their orbit. They do not have icy crusts that sublimate (like comets) when they are closer to the Sun.

If you are sure of this then
What is the numeric difference in orbit parameters (e.g. eccentricity) that turns a main-belt asteroid into a main-belt comet?

Yep you are correct!

On March 22, 2006, astronomers (including David Jewitt and Henry Hsieh) announced that the near circular orbits of some icy asteroids in the outer reaches of the Main Asteroid Belt suggest that they are part of a population of "main belt comets." Three objects have been found with near circular, flat orbits in the main belt occasionally stream volatile materials, producing an observable tail for weeks and months at a time as their orbits bring them closer to the Sun. The astronomers speculate that past impacts on Earth from such inner comets may have been an important source of the water now found in Earth's oceans (IFA press release and web site on main-belt comets; and Jewitt et al, 2006).

More will be found, when they look for them as David Jewitt and Henry Hsieh said. It's interesting to note that like all comets they start to display on their inward journey and according to standard EC theory these MBC would be low voltage comets as they spend most of their time in the same area of the Sun's radial electric field.

Sol88

6th August 2009, 05:21 AM

have a look at these comets(asteroids)

THE ACTIVE CENTAURS (http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/faculty/jewitt/papers/2009/J09.pdf)

We observed a sample of 23 Centaurs and found nine to be active,
with mass-loss rates measured from several kg s−1 to several tonnes s−1. Considered as a group, we find that the
“active Centaurs” in our sample have perihelia smaller than the inactive Centaurs (median 5.9 AU versus 8.7 AU),
and smaller than the median perihelion distance computed for all known Centaurs (12.4 AU).

Reality Check

6th August 2009, 05:26 AM

Yep you are correct!

You missed:
What is the numeric difference in orbit parameters (e.g. eccentricity) that turns a main-belt asteroid into a main-belt comet?

More will be found, when they look for them as David Jewitt and Henry Hsieh said. It's interesting to note that like all comets they start to display on their inward journey and according to standard EC theory these MBC would be low voltage comets as they spend most of their time in the same area of the Sun's radial electric field.
Yep you are correct - more MBC will be found. We may find 100 times more so that they will be much as 0.04% of asteroids.

And thank for confirming that MBC are actual EC comets.
Can you cite the "standard EC" source for your information?

This gives a hint for the answer to the first question. MBC are comets and so their eccentricity is the minimum eccentricity needed for a rocky body to be a comet.
Does your "standard EC" source give a value of ~0.16 for this minimum eccentricity?

Sol88

6th August 2009, 07:35 PM

You missed:
What is the numeric difference in orbit parameters (e.g. eccentricity) that turns a main-belt asteroid into a main-belt comet?

Yep you are correct - more MBC will be found. We may find 100 times more so that they will be much as 0.04% of asteroids.

And thank for confirming that MBC are actual EC comets.
Can you cite the "standard EC" source for your information?

This gives a hint for the answer to the first question. MBC are comets and so their eccentricity is the minimum eccentricity needed for a rocky body to be a comet.
Does your "standard EC" source give a value of ~0.16 for this minimum eccentricity?

I'd like to add it's just not eccentricity that plays a part in the rocky bodies being able to discharge into the suns plasma atmosphere but the charge density of the space they are moving thru at that time. This is a good animation (http://space.moonagewebdream.com/2007/10/02/comet-encke-loses-its-tail/)of what I mean, have a look when the CME moves past and the "reconnection" event on Earth at the end of the video! And space is electrically neutral and charge separation can not happen! :mad: :rolleyes:

eg. Hale-Bopp flaring out 26 AU, If some of these ROCKS which would have the same mechanisms for charging as the our Moon (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/news/releases/2005/05-144.html) here (http://focus.aps.org/story/v5/st29)and here (www.physorg.com/pdf8349.pdf) and Mercury (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/multimedia/magnetic_tornadoes.html), were to have their orbit intersect or parallel a Birkeland currents (FAC's) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_aligned_current) from a previous comet (http://mynasa1.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/ulysses-20071019_prt.htm), then the local (to that rock) charge density would be higher than the surrounding space weather, same as if it passes thru a planets extended magnetosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere) (The planets comet tail (http://www.spaceimages.com/earplastail.html))!

So any rock (comet/asteroid) that moves any area of space in which the charges can not equalize fast enough, will cause that "rock" to discharge, the rate of which would be dependent on the charges involves, the fluxes of charged particles, and just how "square" the "rock" cuts the magnetic field lines!

Usually comets on an eccentric orbit will be rapidly closing in on the Sun increasing electric field, but there are times when the "rock" will cross or pass thru or indeed get "run over" (http://starrymirror.com/cometholmesnov10.htm) by and local space "storm" (increases solar wind density et xetera)

So asteroid that sometimes show cometary activity may just be passing thru an increased charge density causing them to display, after passing the area they return to being asteroids!

You really do have no idea what the EC/EU is on about, do you reality check!

read the the links I've given and try and think, just for second, that the universe (and our solar system) is not electrical neutral!

Eureka!!! :rolleyes:

Reality Check

6th August 2009, 07:49 PM

I'd like to add it's just not eccentricity that plays a part in the rocky bodies being able to discharge into the suns plasma atmosphere but the charge density of the space they are moving thru at that time. This is a good animation (http://space.moonagewebdream.com/2007/10/02/comet-encke-loses-its-tail/)of what I mean, have a look when the CME moves past and the "reconnection" event on Earth at the end of the video! And space is electrically neutral and charge separation can not happen! :mad: :rolleyes:

Yes space is electrically neutral and charge separation can not happen! :mad: :rolleyes:

Plasma though is in space and it is quasineutral. Charge separation can happen! The scale of that charge separation is (as Alfven stated) some 10's of Debye lengths or a few hundred meters in the solar wind.

...snipped EU stupp (this is the EC thread...
You really do have no idea what the EC/EU is on about, do you reality check!

read the the links I've given and try and think, just for second, that the universe (and our solar system) is not electrical neutral!

Eureka!!! :rolleyes:
read the the links I've given and try and think, just for second, that the universe (and our solar system) is actually measured by astronomers!

Eureka!!! :rolleyes:

You have ignored:
You missed:
What is the numeric difference in orbit parameters (e.g. eccentricity) that turns a main-belt asteroid into a main-belt comet?

Yep you are correct - more MBC will be found. We may find 100 times more so that they will be much as 0.04% of asteroids.

And thank for confirming that MBC are actual EC comets.
Can you cite the "standard EC" source for your information?

This gives a hint for the answer to the first question. MBC are comets and so their eccentricity is the minimum eccentricity needed for a rocky body to be a comet.
Does your "standard EC" source give a value of ~0.16 for this minimum eccentricity?

Sol88

6th August 2009, 09:34 PM

Plasma though is in space and it is quasineutral. Charge separation can happen! :whistling

As the Electric universe mandates! :yahoo

Well done 'ol boy!

Sol88

6th August 2009, 09:41 PM

You have ignored:
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
You missed:
What is the numeric difference in orbit parameters (e.g. eccentricity) that turns a main-belt asteroid into a main-belt comet?

Yep you are correct - more MBC will be found. We may find 100 times more so that they will be much as 0.04% of asteroids.

And thank for confirming that MBC are actual EC comets.
Can you cite the "standard EC" source for your information?

This gives a hint for the answer to the first question. MBC are comets and so their eccentricity is the minimum eccentricity needed for a rocky body to be a comet.
Does your "standard EC" source give a value of ~0.16 for this minimum eccentricity?

the numeric difference in orbit parameters is irrelevant unless the local charged particle flux is also taking into consideration! What was the space weather in the MBC's locale when they "outgassed" reality check?

Reality Check

6th August 2009, 09:52 PM

the numeric difference in orbit parameters is irrelevant unless the local charged particle flux is also taking into consideration! What was the space weather in the MBC's locale when they "outgassed" reality check?
Look it up.

What is the equation that EC uses to cater for both the numeric difference in orbit parameters and the numeric value of local charged particle flux?

Reality Check

6th August 2009, 09:55 PM

As the Electric universe mandates!
:whistling
As the physics of plasmas mandates! :yahoo

You know the known physics of plasmas (ever hear of the Debye length, Sol88?)that the Electric universe actually ignores :jaw-dropp !

Sol88

6th August 2009, 11:21 PM

:whistling
As the physics of plasmas mandates! :yahoo

You know the known physics of plasmas (ever hear of the Debye length, Sol88?)that the Electric universe actually ignores :jaw-dropp !

Are you saying the DeBye length maybe in error??

What did Ulysses pass thru again?

The interaction between comets' tails and the solar wind has been studied for decades. A comet's ion tail always points away from the sun, whether the body is traveling toward or away from the sun along the comet's elliptical orbit. It was this finding that eventually led in 1958 to the discovery of solar wind. The magnetism and velocity of the solar wind are so strong, the effect pushes the comet's tail forward. A paper on Ulysses' latest crossing of a comet tail was published in the Oct. 1 issue of Astrophysical Journal.

"I recall saying a few years back that the odds that Ulysses' flight path would intersect that of a comet tail were probably less likely than finding a needle in a haystack," said Smith. "Now that we have encountered three, I cannot help wondering when nature will have another one in store for us."

Smith is part of an international science team that has been working Ulysses data since its 1990 launch from the payload bay of Space Shuttle Discovery. Ulysses scans the sun's magnetic field, solar plasmas, solar radio noise, energetic particles, galactic cosmic rays and cosmic dust between the poles and the equator - imparting a more complete perspective of the sun's atmosphere. Understanding Earth's nearest star and its processes is of paramount importance, as the space weather created by the sun has a huge effect on the third rock from it and its inhabitants. The sun's gaseous outer atmosphere can create huge space storms. This violent space weather, in turn, can affect Earth's electrical grid, cell phone communications, satellite functioning, and the operation of astronauts in orbit.

Sublimating ice carrying dust can form those tails??? NO!

Can electric current thru a plasma form those tails?? Yes!

What happened to Ulysses as it passed thru those tails? what did it's instrumentation package tell us?

Ulysses Science Results (http://ulysses-ops.jpl.esa.int/ulysses/science_archivehighlight.html)

Ulysses has added comet spotter to its list of talents. Two papers published in Nature today report that on 1 May 1996, the spacecraft flew through the tail of comet Hyakutake whose nucleus was more than 3.5AU (one AU equals the Sun-Earth distance) away at the time. "This makes it the longest comet tail ever recorded", says Geraint Jones from Imperial College, London who is a member of one of the two instrument teams that made the discovery. "Ulysses's prime task is to map the solar wind above the Sun's poles: it had not been looking for Hyakutake, which happened to be at its closest approach to the Sun on 1 May 1996, or any other comet," says Richard Marsden, ESA's Ulysses Project Scientist. George Gloeckler from the University of Maryland who is a member of the other instrument team, says: "The discovery was made quite by accident. It was a bit like finding a needle in a haystack when you weren't even looking for a needle in the first place". Jones, Gloeckler and their colleagues stumbled across the telltale signature of a comet quite independently when poring over old Ulysses data.

"I was looking for changes in the ionisation levels of the solar wind that would tell me about unusual solar activity," says Gloeckler who is Principal Investigator of the SWICS (Solar Wind Ion Composition Spectrometer) instrument. "The solar wind normally consists of multiply charged ions. The signature stood out because the number of singly charged ions jumped to several thousand times the background level. I thought this might be due to strange solar eruptions. But when I looked at the composition of the ions, I knew immediately that they were cometary in origin." Cometary tails are rich in oxygen and carbon ions compared with the solar wind, but depleted in nitrogen and neon. Jones and colleagues found their evidence in data from the Ulysses magnetometer.

"The magnetic field lines were draped in a way that you'd expect in a comet's tail. The solar wind is slowed down at the centre of the tail compared with the edge, which gives the magnetic field associated with the travelling ions a characteristic hairpin shape," says Jones. The findings from both teams corroborate an earlier Ulysses discovery, reported in 1998 by Pete Riley and colleagues at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, of a drop in the proton density in the solar wind on 1 May 1996. "They wondered whether the drop could have been due to a comet, but went no further," says Jones. With the evidence now mounting, the Imperial College team decided to look for a comet that would have been in the right place at the right time to account for the Ulysses data. "Hyakutake was the first comet we looked at. When I compared the orbit of Ulysses with the orbit of the comet, I found that Ulysses was extremely close to Hyakutake's orbital plane at the time," says Jones. On 1 May 1996, Ulysses was aligned with the Sun and the position Hyakutake had occupied eight days earlier. Jones calculated that eight days was the time needed for material leaving the comet's nucleus to travel the 3.5AU distance to Ulysses. One of the most surprising aspects of the discovery is the length of Hyakutake's tail, which must have been at least 3.8AU as the nucleus had moved further away from Ulysses during the eight-day travel time. Cometary experts had thought that the molecules and ions that make up a comet's tail would mingle with the solar wind and eventually become indistinguishable.

"We found that the whole thing is preserved as an entity and doesn't spread out very much," says Gloeckler. "The comet is like a point source. It emits neutral atoms and molecules which become ionised by the solar wind as they move away from the nucleus. After several million kilometres, they are all ionised. But instead of then mingling with the surroundings, this ionised sample gets picked up by the solar wind which shoots it out," he explains. By comparing the Ulysses findings with those of the Giotto spacecraft for comets Halley and Grigg-Skellerup, Gloeckler and his team have even been able to determine where the material that they detected originated - in Hyakutake's coma, the diffuse shell of gas surrounding the comet's nucleus. One reason for the tail's survival is probably that it was travelling in the fast solar wind, a steady stream of charged particles flowing out from near the Sun's poles. Comet tails flowing through the more variable slow solar wind, which emanates from near the Sun's equator, are more likely to be disrupted.

"The fast solar wind helped to maintain the magnetic field signature over such a large distance. If it can persist as far as Ulysses, there's no reason to presume that it wouldn't continue to the edge of the heliosphere (the boundary about 100AU from the Sun between the solar wind and the interstellar medium)," says Jones. "This discovery makes us wonder whether Ulysses or other spacecraft have crossed a comet tail before. So we're going back to look again for other signatures. But it's probably a rare event," says Jones. The comet nucleus has to be in exactly the right position with respect to the Sun and the spacecraft for the tail to pass over the spacecraft at the right time - and the chances of that happening very often are probably small. to the termination shock?? :boggled:

Cometary experts had thought that the molecules and ions that make up a comet's tail would mingle with the solar wind and eventually become indistinguishable. So why dos it not mingle and disperse like gas in vacuum should, instead of remaining coherent or collimated over distance of 100AU?

Sol88

6th August 2009, 11:24 PM

And what bearing does the mystery force have on measuring comet densities?

If all negatively charged objects accelerate toward the Sun?

Reality Check

7th August 2009, 01:08 AM

Are you saying the DeBye length maybe in error??

No. I am saying DeBye length correct and rules out EU/EC theories.

What did Ulysses pass thru again?
Sublimating ice carrying dust can form those tails??? NO!

Sublimating ice carrying dust can form the material of those tails??? YES!

Can electric current thru a plasma form those tails?? Yes!

Can electric current thru a plasma form those tails?? No!

What happened to Ulysses as it passed thru those tails? what did it's instrumentation package tell us?

Ulysses Science Results (http://ulysses-ops.jpl.esa.int/ulysses/science_archivehighlight.html)
to the termination shock?? :boggled:

As you hiighlighted:
The fast solar wind helped to maintain the magnetic field signature over such a large distance. If it can persist as far as Ulysses, there's no reason to presume that it wouldn't continue to the edge of the heliosphere (the boundary about 100AU from the Sun between the solar wind and the interstellar medium)," says Jones.
Magnetic field signature maybe to the termination shock!! :eye-poppi

Cometary experts had thought that the molecules and ions that make up a comet's tail would mingle with the solar wind and eventually become indistinguishable. So why dos it not mingle and disperse like gas in vacuum should, instead of remaining coherent or collimated over distance of 100AU?
Read your quote again.
The tail was detected 3.5AU from the comet.
"We found that the whole thing is preserved as an entity and doesn't spread out very much," says Gloeckler. "The comet is like a point source. It emits neutral atoms and molecules which become ionised by the solar wind as they move away from the nucleus. After several million kilometres, they are all ionised. But instead of then mingling with the surroundings, this ionised sample gets picked up by the solar wind which shoots it out," he explains. By comparing the Ulysses findings with those of the Giotto spacecraft for comets Halley and Grigg-Skellerup, Gloeckler and his team have even been able to determine where the material that they detected originated - in Hyakutake's coma, the diffuse shell of gas surrounding the comet's nucleus. One reason for the tail's survival is probably that it was travelling in the fast solar wind, a steady stream of charged particles flowing out from near the Sun's poles. Comet tails flowing through the more variable slow solar wind, which emanates from near the Sun's equator, are more likely to be disrupted.

Reality Check

7th August 2009, 01:13 AM

And what bearing does the mystery force have on measuring comet densities?

http://forums.randi.org/images/icons/icon4.gif Comets are not rocks (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4972221&postcount=200)

If all negatively charged objects accelerate toward the Sun?
Citation please.

Reality Check

7th August 2009, 01:59 AM

The electric comet idea states that comets are rocky bodies like asteroids.
For some reason EC proponents cannot grasp that the measured density of comet nuclei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_nucleus#Size) 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 tend to reply by asserting the methods used to calculate the density of comets are flawed in some unknown way.

So here is one method that is used for both comets and asteroids or any planetary body.

Firstly calculate the mass of the body:
Measure the orbit of the body around the Sun to determine its semi-major axis (a) and period (P).
Plug this into Kepler's third law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion#Deriving_Keple r.27s_third_law) to get the mass (usually as a ratio to a known mass).
Next calculate the volume of the body. For closer bodies you can just look in a telescope. For further bodies you can measure radii as the body occludes stars.
Divide the mass by the volume to get the density.

A method for comets:
Jets observed to come from comets alter their orbits. This is the same physics used in rockets - throw mass away and the reaction will push the comet the other way.
This can be used to calculate their masses, e.g. see "Cometary masses derived from non-gravitational forces" by Sosa & Fernandez, 2009 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.393..192S).

For the Tempel 1 comet:
The Deep Impact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Impact_(space_mission)) mission crashed an impactor into the nucleus of Tempel 1. The ejecta from this impact was used to calculate the mass of Tempel 1.
See "A ballistics analysis of the Deep Impact ejecta plume: Determining Comet Tempel 1's gravity, mass, and density" by Richardson, et al., 2007 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007Icar..190..357R).

For a more general paper: "Size Distribution, Structure and Density of Cometary Nuclei" by Weissman & Lowry, 2006 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006LPICo1325...76W).

(added some more links and better language)

Reality Check

7th August 2009, 02:01 AM

Hi Sol88
Judging by your last post you cannot remember the post about comet density so I will start collecting the evidence against the electric comet idea in one post. This will be updated as we discuss the many problems with the EC idea.

EC assertion: Comets are rocks.

Real universe:
Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids). (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4980000&postcount=231)
Comets may not have the composition of asteriods (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4976036&postcount=213)
EC assertion: Comet coma and tails are created from material that that is created from rock by electrical discharge machining (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_discharge_machining).
Real universe:

Start with Tim Thompson's posts about this

Electric Comets I (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4827154#post4827154)
Electric Comets II: References (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4830147#post4830147)
Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4832138#post4832138) (actually no EU X-ray bursts).
EC assertion: 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 tuunring 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main-belt_comet) with a minimum eccentricity of 0.1644 (133P/Elst-Pizarro (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/133P/Elst-Pizarro)). So the EC minimim must be this (or lower!).

Real universe:
Watch this space!

Dancing David

7th August 2009, 04:35 AM

the numeric difference in orbit parameters is irrelevant unless the local charged particle flux is also taking into consideration! What was the space weather in the MBC's locale when they "outgassed" reality check?

Yeah sure, that is why all asteroids show coma's and tails, right?

It isn't that the asteroid belt to part of the Jupiter capture mechanism and that some comets end up there.

So, why then do the cometetary asteroids continue to discharge after they are in the asteroid belt, I mean they have been there, where do they store the charge?

Sol88

7th August 2009, 05:15 AM

Yeah sure, that is why all asteroids show coma's and tails, right?

It isn't that the asteroid belt to part of the Jupiter capture mechanism and that some comets end up there.

So, why then do the cometetary asteroids continue to discharge after they are in the asteroid belt, I mean they have been there, where do they store the charge?

Then why do they turn on and off, depending on where in there orbit they are?

Dancing David

7th August 2009, 11:46 AM

You mean all how many of them, why don't the other atsreoids do that? Why just the four or so?

Dancing David

7th August 2009, 11:49 AM

Then why do they turn on and off, depending on where in there orbit they are?

Because they have a large amount of frozen stuff?

Sol88

7th August 2009, 08:03 PM

Because they have a large amount of frozen stuff?

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

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

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

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

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

Sol88

7th August 2009, 08:22 PM

Or we could take all the data we have collected so far about "rocks" hanging out in the solar wind and work from there instead!

Lets take what we do know;

Any object not protected by an atmosphere or magnetosphere and in the solar wind stream will charge positive and the sunward facing side and negative on the nightside. This is a fact.

this charging of space bodies is achieved in part by the fact the proton (+) has a mass of 1.672621637(83)×10−27 kg and the electron (-) is 9.10938215(45)×10−31 kg.

Charged particles will follow magnetic field lines, we call these Birkeland currents after the man that discovered them 100 or so years ago. Today "real" scientist call them field aligned currents so as not to get to embarrassed by being beat'n to the punch by some crackpot! (again)

So once we have achieved charge separation and have a means for charge to accumulate well the rest is basic primary school physics! :)

Which bit do you NOT comprehend DD,RC?

Sol88

7th August 2009, 08:57 PM

Lets take a rock very close to us that we have walked on and sent numerous probes around, we call her Luna.

LINK (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/051207_moon_storms.html)

Every lunar morning, when the sun first peeks over the dusty soil of the moon after two weeks of frigid lunar night, a strange storm stirs the surface.

The next time you see the moon, trace your finger along the terminator, the dividing line between lunar night and day. That's where the storm is. It's a long and skinny dust storm, stretching all the way from the north pole to the south pole, swirling across the surface, following the terminator as sunrise ceaselessly sweeps around the moon.

Never heard of it? Few have. But scientists are increasingly confident that the storm is real. So now you have heard of it.

snip

What could cause this? Stubbs has an idea: "The dayside of the moon is positively charged; the nightside is negatively charged." At the interface between night and day, he explains, "electrostatically charged dust would be pushed across the terminator sideways," by horizontal electric fields.

Even more surprising, Olhoeft continues, a few hours after every lunar sunrise, the experiment's temperature rocketed so high--near that of boiling water--that "LEAM had to be turned off because it was overheating." Brilliant idea the moon is electric!!

But what happens when this rock passes thru the Earths comet tail or magnetotail?

The effect on the moon was first noticed in 1968, when NASA's Surveyor 7 lander photographed a strange glow on the horizon after dark. Nobody knew what it was. Now scientists think it was sunlight scattered by electrically charged moon dust floating just above the surface. That fits with data from NASA's Lunar Prospector, which orbited the moon in 1998-99. During some crossings of the magnetotail, the spacecraft recorded big changes in the lunar night-side voltage.

really? hows that work LINK (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080418-strange-moon.html)

How it works

Our entire planet is enveloped in a bubble of magnetism generated by the rotating core. The solar wind, a stream of charged particles, pushes the bubble away from the sun and creates a long tail of magnetized material downstream.

"Earth's magnetotail extends well beyond the orbit of the moon and, once a month [at full moon] the moon orbits through it," said Tim Stubbs, a University of Maryland scientist working at the Goddard Space Flight Center. "This can have consequences ranging from lunar 'dust storms' to electrostatic discharges."

Here's what Stubbs and colleagues now think is happening:

At full moon, the moon passes through a huge "plasma sheet" — hot charged particles trapped in the tail. The lightest and most mobile of these particles, electrons, pepper the moon's surface and give the moon a negative charge, the researchers explained.

On the moon's dayside this effect is counteracted somewhat by sunlight: Photons knock electrons back off the surface, lessening the negative charge. But on the night side, electrons accumulate and the charge can climb to thousands of volts. That is charges from the quasi-neutral plasma stream (solar wind) are separated!

Here is a little video (http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2008/1007-preparing_for_a_walk_on_the_moon.htm).

If the charges become strong enough the dust will "leave" the rock and become a dusty plasma forming an atmosphere and tail!

This is all very alien to the mainstream view (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/061007_moon_dust.html) that space is electrically neutral!

Electrically active

Although the lunar environment is often considered to be essentially static, Halekas and his fellow researchers reported at the workshop that, in fact, it is very electrically active.

The surface of the Moon charges in response to currents incident on its surface, and is exposed to a variety of different charging environments during its orbit around the Earth. Those charging currents span several orders of magnitude, he said.

Dust adhesion is likely increased by the angular barbed shapes of lunar dust, found to quickly and effectively coat all surfaces it comes into contact with. Additionally, that clinging is possibly due to electrostatic charging, Halekas explained.

"I think it would behoove us to understand the lunar dust plasma environment as well as possible before we try to come up with detailed dust mitigation strategies," Halekas told SPACE.com. "This would mean characterizing the dust, electric fields and plasma around the Moon and understanding how they interact."

Halekas said that he advocates science experiments either in lunar orbit or on the Moon's surface—preferably both—in order to gauge the problem.

"At this point, we know so little about the near-surface electrodynamic environment and its effect on dust that we can't do much more than conjecture and try to predict the most likely scenario," Halekas said.

Just knowing that the dust is there, Halekas added, tells us that we need to deal with it. "But without more detailed knowledge than we currently have, I think we're handicapped in coming up with effective mitigation strategies."

Oh and LOOK (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/14apr_Moonwater.htm) the moon has water ice as well or a least the Hydrogen from it!

And as we look towards the Moon with thoughts of setting up a permanent home there, one new question is paramount: does the Moon have water? Although none has been definitely detected, recent evidence suggests that it's there.

That makes sense. If there is water on the Moon, it's probably hiding in the permanent shadows of deep, cold craters, safe from vaporizing sunlight, frozen solid.

So far so good, but... the Clementine data were not conclusive, and when astronomers tried to find ice in the same craters using the giant Arecibo radar in Puerto Rico, they couldn't. Maybe Clementine was somehow wrong.

In 1998, NASA sent another spacecraft, Lunar Prospector, to check. Using a device called a neutron spectrometer, Lunar Prospector scanned the Moon's surface for hydrogen-rich minerals. Once again, polar craters yielded an intriguing signal: neutron ratios indicated hydrogen. Could it be the "H" in H2O? Many researchers think so.

Lunar Prospector eventually sacrificed itself to the search. When the spacecraft's primary mission was finished, NASA decided to crash Prospector near the Moon's south pole, hoping to liberate a bit of its meager layer of water. Earth's satellite might briefly become a comet as amounts of water vapor were released.

Like deep impact!! and like deep impact this is what they found Lunar Prospector crashed, as planned, and several teams of researchers tried to detect that cloud, but without success. Either there was no water, or there was not enough water to be detected by Earth-based telescopes, or the telescopes were not looking in precisely the right place. In any event, no water was found from Prospector's impact.

Can the moon and comets make "water" by the same process?

why not? they are both rocky objects in flying in the solar wind!!

Reality Check

8th August 2009, 02:56 AM

First asked 6 August 2009
You are still ignoring:
You missed:
What is the numeric difference in orbit parameters (e.g. eccentricity) that turns a main-belt asteroid into a main-belt comet?

Yep you are correct - more MBC will be found. We may find 100 times more so that they will be much as 0.04% of asteroids.

And thank for confirming that MBC are actual EC comets.
Can you cite the "standard EC" source for your information?

This gives a hint for the answer to the first question. MBC are comets and so their eccentricity is the minimum eccentricity needed for a rocky body to be a comet.
Does your "standard EC" source give a value of ~0.16 for this minimum eccentricity?
other than your derail into solar activity cutting comet tails in two.
Solar activity may cut tails in two but there have been no observations of comets tuunring off during low solar activity.
Sol88: I may be wrong - if so please provide the citations to these marvelous events.
Obviously the EC idea is just that (an idea) since you cannot provide any "standard EC" source.

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

This is a really obvious consequence of the EC idea.

Sol88

8th August 2009, 03:44 AM

First asked 6 August 2009
You are still ignoring:

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

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

This is a really obvious consequence of the EC idea.

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

Reality Check

8th August 2009, 04:26 AM

Unfortunately not with out knowing the charged particle flux at that location, so no, MBC will not give you a minimum eccentricity for a rock to electrically discharge.
MBC will give you amd me a minimum eccentricity for a rock to electrically discharge because the "charged particle flux at that location" has nothing to do with EC.

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

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

Sol88

8th August 2009, 11:13 AM

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

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

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

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

As found on our Moon(and others)?

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

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

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

:confused:

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

Dancing David

8th August 2009, 12:54 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Make a show.

Reality Check

8th August 2009, 11:39 PM

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

As found on our Moon(and others)?

The Moon can gain change voltage from the interaction between the solar wind and the Earth's magnetosphere as is well known. Your links explain this clearly (Strange Things Happen at Full Moon (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080418-strange-moon.html) and New Research into Mysterious Moon Storms (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/051207_moon_storms.html)).

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

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

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

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

Reality Check

9th August 2009, 12:19 AM

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

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

EC universe: Comets are rocks.
Real universe:

Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids). (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4980000&postcount=231)
Comets may not have the composition of asteriods (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4976036&postcount=213)
Deep Impact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Impact_(space_mission)#Results) 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 (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Swift_Gamma-Ray_Burst_Mission) 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] (http://forums.randi.org/#cite_note-BBC_News-34) and between 10 and 25 million kilograms (22 and 55 million pounds) of dust were lost from the impact."WP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Impact_(space_mission)#Results)
EC universe: Comet coma and tails are created from material that that is created from rock by electrical discharge machining (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_discharge_machining).
Real universe:
Start with Tim Thompson's posts about this

Electric Comets I (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4827154#post4827154)
Electric Comets II: References (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4830147#post4830147)
Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4832138#post4832138) (actually no EU X-ray bursts).
EC universe: Rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value will be comets.
N.B. Solar activity may cut tails in two but there have been no observations of comets turning off during low solar activity.
(Sol88: I may be wrong - if so please provide the citations to these marvelous events.)
However this assertion has the fatal flaw of EC predictions - no mathematics or numbers.
But we can do their work for them can't we Sol88?

There are 4 observed main-belt comets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main-belt_comet) with a minimum eccentricity of 0.1644 (133P/Elst-Pizarro (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/133P/Elst-Pizarro)). So the EC minimim must be this (or lower!).

Real universe: There are rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value that are not comets.
In fact there are asteroids in orbits that are get close to cometary orbits, e.g. 2005 VX3 (http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=2005 VX3) with an eccentricity of 0.9955142)

The JPL Small-Body Database Browser (http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi) has a search engine (http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb_query.cgi). This shows that there are 173,583 cataloged asteroids with an eccentricity > 0.17.

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

Sol88 posted a list of EC "predictions" (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4932367&postcount=83) 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.