The Electric Comet theory

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sol88 said:
Photoelectrons from the surface of the comet is also very interesting!
Click to expand...
Yes, Sol88.
P41C-3939Jets of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko as Observed by Rosetta/OSIRIS and "Photoelectrons from the surface of the comet" are also very interesting science and irrelevant to this thread about the debunked electric comet idea.

Unless you have given up on the debunked electric comet idea, Sol88, and want to convert this thread into a discussion of actual science about comets?
 
Very interesting insight to the MIDAS instrument:
P32B-03The structure of cometary dust - first results from the MIDAS Atomic Force Microscope onboard Rosetta
A decade after launch the European Space Agency’s Rosetta spacecraft has finally arrived at comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko. Unlike previous cometary missions, Rosetta is not a flyby, limited to taking a snapshot of the comet at a single heliocentric distance. Instead, Rosetta intercepted the comet prior to the onset of major activity and will chart its evolution during its perihelion passage and beyond.
Such a unique mission requires a unique payload; as well as the more typical remote sensing instruments, Rosetta also carries sensors to sample in situ the gas and dust environment. One of these instruments is MIDAS, an atomic force microscope designed to collect dust and image it in three dimensions with nanometre resolution. Equipped with an array of sharp tips, four of which are magnetised to allow magnetic force microscopy, MIDAS exposes targets to the incident flux after which they are moved to the microscope for analysis.

As well as extending coverage of the dust size distribution down to the finest particles, MIDAS has the unique capability to determine the shape of pristine particles - to determine, for example, if they are compact or fluffy, and to look for features which may be diagnostic of their formation environment or evolution. The magnetic mode lets MIDAS probe samples for magnetic material and to map its location if present.

Having been operating almost continuously after hibernation imaging empty targets before exposure, the first exposures were performed when Rosetta entered 30 km bound orbits. The first MIDAS images and analyses of collected dust grains are presented here.
Click to expand...
 
Matthew Cline said:
How widespread is that? As far as I can tell, not all EU proponents claim that gravity is an electromagnetic phenomena.
Click to expand...

I've occasionally encountered it as a fall-back position when EU supporters are cornered on other claims. By claiming gravitation is actually electromagnetic, they can claim even the standard cosmology actually supports an electric universe.

I suspect they could try to spin attempts beyond grand unification (Theories of Everything) - that the nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravitational forces, are manifestations of the same force, are actually tying all forces into electromagnetism, thereby validating their claims.
 
Reality Check said:
Yes, Sol88.
P41C-3939Jets of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko as Observed by Rosetta/OSIRIS and "Photoelectrons from the surface of the comet" are also very interesting science and irrelevant to this thread about the debunked electric comet idea.

Unless you have given up on the debunked electric comet idea, Sol88, and want to convert this thread into a discussion of actual science about comets?
Click to expand...

Because in the years since I started this thread the language is changing to a more electrical/Plasma style than the dirtysnowball still trumpeted by mainstream.

And you are correct Reality Check, soon the ELECTRIC COMET will be actual science and my interest in the mis information on comets will problem stop.

All I've heard from the AGU Fall meeting is comet models will have to revised, as unexpected data is forcing them too. Science in action I 'spose!

Any bets on which team will be the first to break the dogma of dusty, icy bodies left overs from the formation of the solar system??

As there the ones who will recieve all the glory. My bet, the OSIRIS team
The Rosetta spacecraft is investigating comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko since mid-July 2014. Jet structures have been identified in the coma indicating anisotropic outgassing activity from the nucleus surface. We will report on the physical characteristics of the gas and dust jets including their brightness and density enhancements, radial expansion, association with source regions and time evolution.
Click to expand...
They know :cool:
 
LSSBB said:
Why is it anytime there is a reference to electrons or charge with regards to comets, it's somehow "interesting" with regards to EC? Standard physics fully includes electrons and charge.:boggled:
Click to expand...

You mean to say they've know that all along?

And there still comfortable with sublimation, subsurface sublimation at that, to explain dust being lifted of the surface when it's been widely known this is how it happens on the other airless bodies with no intrinsic magnetic field?

such as the Moon, Mercury etc etc

I think the hang up has always been "yeah, we know about comets are charged objects but we don't understand how to mathematically model it, so we'll just tell the public some fairytale about water and being born a long time ago"
 
Sol88 said:
Because in the years since I started this thread the language is changing to a more electrical/Plasma style than the dirtysnowball still trumpeted by mainstream.
Click to expand...
Wrong, Sol88 - the science is still that comets are not rocks and so Electric comets still do not exist :jaw-dropp!

Sol88 said:
And you are correct Reality Check,
Click to expand...
Sol88: Yes I am correct in that the ELECTRIC COMET never was and will be actual as anyone who knows about comets in the real world can understand.

Any interest in the fantasy that there is "misinformation" about comets will never stop because that looks based on ignorance about comets in the real world.

All you have heard from the AGU Fall meeting is comet models will have to revised. - they will still be made of ice and dust. And no mention of the attendees being so ignorant about science as to support the electric comet idea :rolleyes:.

ETA: No one who knows about real comets would be dumb enough to bet on any team to break the science of dusty, icy bodies left overs from the formation of the solar system. The Rosetta teams are not as ignorant as you seem think that they are Sol88: They know basic arithmetic such as 0.6 is not 3.0. :eek:
Comets have measured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).
 
Last edited:
Given that the Electric Whatever theories explicitly reject the importance of gravity in the universe would it be reasonable to describe them variously as antigravitationalism?
 
Sol88 said:
...such as the Moon, Mercury etc etc
Click to expand...
Whoops Sol88:
The Moon is not a comet :eye-poppi!
Mercury is not a comet :eye-poppi!
Electrostatic movement of dust on comets has never been observed AFAIK.
Jets from subsurface sublimating ice have been observed.
I cannot think of a reason why surface ices should not also sublimate.
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
Why is it anytime there is a reference to electrons or charge with regards to comets, it's somehow "interesting" with regards to EC? Standard physics fully includes electrons and charge.:boggled:
Click to expand...

the flip side of that issue is, Mainstream come across as fully knowing plasma physics with the exception of crossing a few T's and doting a few I's, when clearly this is NOT the case.

Point in hand the TSS-R1 mission on STS-75
Numerous space physics and plasma theories are being revised or overturned by data gathered during the Tethered Satellite System Reflight (TSS-1R) experiments on Space Shuttle Columbia's STS-75 mission last March.

Models, accepted by scientists for more than 30 years, are incorrect and must be rewritten. This assessment follows analysis by a joint U.S.-Italian Tethered Satellite investigating team of the information gathered during the mission.
Click to expand...
I mean this is very telling about the mainstream understanding of space plasma and its effects

The tethered satellite researchers noted that, at that point, "a sudden jump" took place in the level of current flow, while the satellite's potential (voltage) dropped several hundred volts. They traced this effect to the small amount of gas, released from the thrusters, becoming ionized in the vicinity of the satellite. A greater, more efficient current flow was observed. "The effect of neutral-gas ionization is not taken into consideration by existing theoretical models of current collection in the ionosphere," Stone said.
Click to expand...

An electric arc has a non-linear relationship between current and voltage. Once the arc is established (either by progression from a glow discharge [7] or by momentarily touching the electrodes then separating them), increased current results in a lower voltage between the arc terminals.
Click to expand...
LINK

They arc'ed the tether out because they misunderstood the process, just like they have on a comet! :boggled:

Where are the terminals, cathode and anode and the return path in that set up? and before you all get on here and moan about that's got nothing to do with a comet, that's the interdisciplinary nature of the electric universe in action. just like Io, Enceldeus, Mars, Mercury they are not all individual cases of some rare and isolated phenomena, they are a part what the universe does, doing what it does....electrically!
 
Last edited:
And even if the Electric Whatever theories have any value, why do they require comets to explicitly not consist of stuff including water ice?

And when 67P starts getting some decent heat on it and starts sublimating water and other non-rock stuff, will the Electric Whateverists retract their contention that comets are made of solid rock? Or will they put fingers firmly in ears and keep blathering "where's the sublimation?"
 
Sol88 said:
Point in hand the TSS-R1 mission on STS-75
Click to expand...
Actual science in hand, Sol88 - a lie about the TSS-R1 where there was no electric arc mentioned :jaw-dropp!
As they state - this is gas from the thruster becoming ionized and currents flowing in it.
ETA: This is in fact the opposite of an electric arc. The current in the tether would have decreased given a constant resistance.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
paladin17 said:
Jean-Pierre Lebreton (the RPC guy) in his talk at the AGU says about a negative charge of the comet. (Sort of reminds me about that Cassini accident with Hyperion in 2005).
What he said (around 8:55) was that there is a constant flow of electrons from the comet with an energy of about 400 eV (if my eyes aren't lying). So there is a potential difference around 400 V between the comet and the probe, I guess? Or there is some other explanation to that?
Click to expand...

Is that enough ev to start ionizing "stuff" on a comet?
Click to expand...

Sol88 said:
What size dust particles would a random figure of 400ev levitate of the surface?
Click to expand...


One electron volt is 1.6×10-19 Joules, so 400 eV is 6.4×10-17 Joules. That's the amount of energy a 2.5-gram penny would acquire on earth if dropped from a height of 2.6×10-15 meters (2.6 femtometers). A dust particle might have a mass of about 5×10-5 grams (50 micrograms), so 400 eV is the amount of energy that dust particle would acquire if dropped in vacuo from a height of 1.3×10-10 meters (130 picometers).

The comet's gravity is a tiny fraction of earth's, so you can multiply 130 picometers by the ratio of earth's gravity to the comet's, which is about ten thousand. The result of that calculation, 1.3×10-6 (1.3 micrometers), is how far a dust particle would be levitated above the comet's surface if it were given 400 eV of kinetic energy directed away from the comet.

Bottom line: 400 eV is not enough energy to "levitate" a dust particle very far above the comet's surface.
 
Reality Check said:
Very interesting insight to the MIDAS instrument:
P32B-03The structure of cometary dust - first results from the MIDAS Atomic Force Microscope onboard Rosetta
Click to expand...

Mmmm... According to the COSIMA instrument team, “Cometary dust models need to be significantly adjusted” because the dust collection rate “much” exceeded expectations…again. Last time was Deep Impact
The huge cloud created by the impact was made up of very fine, powdery material. Due to the massive amounts of dust, the excavated crater was not visible to the spacecraft’s cameras. However, the Stardust spacecraft was given a new assignment by NASA and is now on its way to Tempel 1 as the Stardust-NExT mission. This unprecedented second flyby in February 2011 should reveal more about the effects of the Deep Impact experiment, and we may finally learn the crater’s size.
Click to expand...

Still struggling to find ICE on the surface though! J
 
Sol88 said:
You mean to say they've know that all along?

And there still comfortable with sublimation, subsurface sublimation at that, to explain dust being lifted of the surface when it's been widely known this is how it happens on the other airless bodies with no intrinsic magnetic field?

such as the Moon, Mercury etc etc

I think the hang up has always been "yeah, we know about comets are charged objects but we don't understand how to mathematically model it, so we'll just tell the public some fairytale about water and being born a long time ago"
Click to expand...

Are you trying to establish a rival theory, or just point out there are things modern science is still investigating? If it's the former, you will not get there by the latter. Scientists have research jobs for a reason, you know.:rolleyes:
 
LSSBB said:
What state is water at on the surface of a comet?
Click to expand...
Water is a broad statement, what kinda water are they talking about H2016? or H2018?, Heavy water?, or if it was "made" in the near surface and it becomes neutral, gravity should do it's thing a draw it to the surface. See an EU proponent saying Gravity does stuff....but compared the the EM force :eek:

[sarcasm]The ionized state??[/sarcasm] Ummm....sorry got my source from JPL, they implied no surface water/ice.

In the montage, a region of jet activity can be seen at the neck of the comet. These jets, originating from several discrete locations, are a product of ices sublimating and gases escaping from inside the nucleus.
Click to expand...
LINK

and none of the videos I've watched from the AGU Fall Meeting, NONE have stated Categorically they have found ICE of any sort on the surface of comet 67P and only trivial amounts of frost on Tempel 1.

This I would have EXPECTED from the mainstream interpretation of comets and would have expected it to be on the evening news by now......but nix.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom