The Electric Comet theory

[ben m]

Do you have any evidence of the measured surface charge density?
Please share, it will be most helpful.

You worked it out yourself, didn't you? You had the "400V" number, apparently reported by Rosetta at least preliminarily, and from the basic laws of E&M which allow one to understand the voltage-on-an-isolated-object in terms of surface charge densities. Unless you made a basic algebra mistake, I agree with your method and your conclusion in obtaining a number; the "simplifications" involved (the difference between a sphere and "400V on a comet translates to 10pCi per m^2 charge density" is the sort of intro-E&M calculation that EC advocates have been begging off, and EC critics have been doing for them, for as long as EC has been around.

My current hypothesis is that the protons are being gathered by an electrostatic field of the comet nucleus itself. And they interact with the negatively charged surface minerals.

The only electrostatic field that "gathers" protons is one that includes a strong negative potential.

You only get a strong negative potential if you have an excess of negative charge.

If you start with excess negative charge, and then start gathering protons, you rapidly cease to have excess negative charge.

 

[paladin17]

You worked it out yourself, didn't you? You had the "400V" number, apparently reported by Rosetta at least preliminarily, and from the basic laws of E&M which allow one to understand the voltage-on-an-isolated-object in terms of surface charge densities.

Well, I guess your bread and circuses approach wouldn't be of any real use for any kind of comet theory, so excuse me if I will ignore your later unrelated comments as well as those of the rich abundance of other local similar-mooded authors.

The only electrostatic field that "gathers" protons is one that includes a strong negative potential.

You only get a strong negative potential if you have an excess of negative charge.

If you start with excess negative charge, and then start gathering protons, you rapidly cease to have excess negative charge.

The excess negative charge of the comet nucleus is no secret.
The means of keeping this charge is another question, but given the observed persistant charge they obviously should exist.

 

[Haig]

Oh whoops, you seem to be actually addressing the Electric Comet theory, some thing that Sol and Haig have a problem with.

Really ? after ALL the correct predictions

In science one of the best markers for the accuracy of a model or theory is how well it predicts outcomes. This applies not only to future events but can also be applied to existing data. Below is a collection of predictions based on Electric Universe principles, which have been confirmed by observations and data.

Electric Comets require an Electric Sun .... so here is some food for thought, my Hilite:-

Historic discovery: huge electric field occurs spontaneously in laughing gas

The electric field can reach more than 100 million volts per metre – i.e. enormous strength.
Professor Field and his colleagues have now examined more than 12 different materials and established that similar enormous electric fields occur spontaneously in common or garden materials such as carbon monoxide, propane, toluene and methyl formate.
All materials are frozen to extremely low temperatures in the form of a microscopically thin layer.

Field is particularly interested in finding out whether the phenomenon plays a role when new stars are born.

Stars are created in huge clouds of dust and gas. In the middle of the clouds it is so cold that spontelectric carbon monoxide could potentially form. This would change the chemistry inside the cloud of dust and the way in which it would collapse to form a star.

"Spontelectrics may prove to have a big impact on our understanding of how stars are born," says Field.

The Electric Comet -Pt 1 "When Planets Gave Birth to Comets"

 

[ben m]

Well, I guess your bread and circuses approach wouldn't be of any real use for any kind of comet theory,

I have literally no idea what you are talking about. None. It sounds oppositional but I can't tell to what or why. What?

The excess negative charge of the comet nucleus is no secret.
The means of keeping this charge is another question, but given the observed persistant charge they obviously should exist.

Sure, a small excess negative charge is not a problem. Keeping it is not a problem either; standard physics mechanisms (differing mobilities of electrons vs. ions) predict such charges. The problem is keeping such a charge while also positing that they source or sink net currents, which is what you appear to be positing.

If, in fact, your theory fails to do what you want it to do ... wouldn't you rather find out?

 

[The Man]

You can climb a mountain and jump right down and it wouldn't decrease the [gravitational] potential difference between the mountain peak and its foot. The same is true here.

Actually after your lemming leap cycle the potential difference is reduced, though by only a miniscule amount. Scenarios such as this can be complicated and confusing but there are ways around it. First some of the things that can complicate or confuse such a scenario is the equivalence of rest mass and potential energy. That rest mass represents potential energy including chemical (that drives your muscles), gravitational and even electrical. Second, gravitational potential energy is negative, this trips up people sometimes. Also the numbers involved in typical day to day scenarios (the mass of the Earth, the minimal energy used, the small value of the gravitational constant) can tend to obscure differences and changes. Some ways around these are to use different but similar scenarios, say a ballistic rocket that consumes all of the fuel it carries or numbers that better show the differences as in the mass of the gravitating body or the energy used. Also constants can be set to 1, as they are constant they won’t affect the changes that result from the values that do change but they can often obscure small changes. Finally a good way to help a particular scenario is to break it down and that may simplify the examination to the relevant aspects.

So what happens in the scenario given? Well, as you are at the bottom of the mountain your mass is equivalent to your total potential energy. Your mass along with the mass of the Earth is what determines the acceleration due to gravity from the top of the mountain to the foot and thus the potential difference. As you climb the mountain you expend energy (losing chemical potential energy) while gaining gravitational potential energy (your gravitational potential becomes less negative). At the top of the mountain your mass hasn’t changed you have simply exchanged chemical potential energy for gravitational potential energy. However the mass at the bottom of the mountain has change, it is now less one, well, “you”. So the acceleration due to gravity and thus the gravitational potential difference between the top and the bottom has changed. When you then fall you lose that gravitational potential energy and having expended chemical energy you end up at the bottom with less potential energy than when you started and thus less mass. So in the end the combination of the mass of the Earth and your mass is less (by the energy you expended climbing the mountain) reducing the acceleration due to gravity and thus the difference in potential from the top to the bottom.

Just as it takes energy to separate masses, it takes energy to separate charges. As charges tend to equalize by redistribution and coming together it takes more energy to separate them again or maintain the same potential during the transfer of charges. Long story short, your leap off a mountain doesn’t help you.

That's exactly what we observe. Solar wind protons are attracted to the nucleus and the cometary electrons - to the positively charged (at least relatively) stuff like the probe itself.

This doesn’t help you either. The probe gaining electrons will increase its negative charge. The comet gaining protons will decrease its negative charge. As a result your potential difference is reduced. Again what is your energy source for maintaining your potential difference with the exchange of charges?

It's very cool, but this is a multi-photon process, which is kind of extremely rare for most of the natural radiation sources. You can relax and neglect it, unless you're dealing with some very powerful laser.
And as you can see the spectrum is still continuous, not monoenergetic.

I thought it was cool to and the only reason I referred to it were the charts that show the discrete nature of the electrons even from ATI. The only reason I referred back to it is that you asked…

Photoionization at the energies of 400 eV?

100 eV to 100 keV is an X-ray radiation. And the maximum power of the solar spectrum is around 2-3 eV. This is still not enough even to kick an electron out of the atom (even with a zero kinetic energy). You need to have at least 5 eV, or so. And having the Planck's formula you can calculate how much 400 eV photons are out there (go ahead and do it if you can).

I have no idea how it ended up with Doppler shift. Nor do I have a desire to think possible misunderstandings through.

Again, you asked

Why not take gamma-rays at, say, 1 MeV?

So I told you. Sorry if answering your questions confuses you

As the misunderstanding are yours, you should either think about them more, to correct them, or think about them less so they don’t confuse you. The choice is yours.

My words about 1 MeV were meant to cast a doubt (in an exaggerated way) on the idea of the equivalence between continuous solar spectrum and the monoenergetic spectrum with the energy of 400 eV. If I have failed in this attempt, then I'm sorry.

That “equivalence” was only your idea so do what you want with it.

So the comet has a single absorption line at 400 eV, I guess? That would be one hell of a discovery.

Another idea of your own making, do with that what you want as well.

Cool, thanks.

Again, no problem

So the modeled field is 10 times stronger than I've calculated given the 400 eV electrons.
And as some educated people above stated, the eV is just the energy unit, so the temperature of 200 eV is OK.

Well, not OK, but around 10⁶K.

But see, here is part of your problem a homogenous field of 0.04 V/m means that only electrons coming from the surface will get 400 eV of energy. Closer electrons will gain less energy. Also if your surface is losing electrons and gaining protons that means your potential difference changes even more rapidly.

 

[The Man]

For a simple answer in a complex environment, I'm wonder if this 400 eV electron spike is a result of changes in, problems with or just general spacecraft charging?


http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s9500.pdf

Any thoughts?


http://descanso.jpl.nasa.gov/SciTechBook/series3/ChgingBook--110629-RibbonC.pdf

 

[Cygnus_X1]

So good you said it twice

THE PLASMA ENVIRONMENT OF COMET 67P/CHURYUMOV-GERASIMENKO THROUGHOUT THE ROSETTA MAIN MISSION PDF


So the mainstream comet hypothesis morphs towards the Electric Comet hypothesis is even more obvious and needed.

However as Hannes Alfvén said HERE PDF you need to take account of electric currents and double layers and the rest of the Second Approach criteria

Once the mainstream comet hypothesis adds electric currents and double layers it will be hard to tell it apart from the original Electric Comet hypothesis.

You really don't understand that paper do you? Do you just assume any mention of electric fields is automagically evidence for your claims?

Do you know the difference between an MHD and kinetic plasma model?

From the text: "Although this paper concentrates on only the plasma environment of the comet, the models we present are being coupled together with nucleus, Knudsen-layer, dust and gas models as part of an International Space Science Institute (ISSI) project."

The model inputs are the standard comet model: neutral gas flowing out from the nucleus ionized by solar ultraviolet light or impact by solar wind electrons combining with the plasma flow of the solar wind.

From the text: "Freshly born ions are accelerated by the motional electric field of the high-speed solar wind."

Do you know what is meant by a 'motional electric field'?

It's actually relativity in action. Riding on a particle moving through a magnetic field, you will measure an electric field and the simulation must be run in the reference frame of the comet nucleus.

These models take the input conditions and use physics to determine what happens. It's already well understood that currents can form under these conditions, and it shows in the model.

Want to add 'double layers'? How? Is there a magic 'double layer' object to install? Double layers don't just magically appear. They have causes. These models take the starting conditions and use physics to find where (and if) 'double layers' form. The problem is a 'double layer' is easier to define in a laboratory environment than 'in the wild'.

"Electric Comet" supporters have been unable to demonstrate even BASIC competence in electromagnetism.

Haig still has not addressed my earlier queries:

* How much of a voltage difference is needed to accelerate a proton or electron from zero to 1,000,000 miles per hour? This is a question that a competent high-school physics student can answer, yet I've not received an answer from any EU 'theorist'. 1e6 miles/hour is about 4e5 meters/second, so:

0.5 *m*v^2 = qV
0.5* (1.67e-27 kg)* (400e3 m/s)^2 = (1.6e-19 coulombs)* volts

comes out to about 840 volts for protons - about the magnitude found in the mainstream models. It's even lower for electrons. But it doesn't even need to be that large as collisional dynamics are important closer to the photosphere to give an initial push. In the mainstream models, this voltage is not applied by some mysterious external source, but is created by the expansion of the plasma from the photosphere into space, and the fact that the lighter electrons will tend to move faster than the heavier protons.

Rather inconsistent with EU claims, isn't it. Why?

At voltages this low, claims of an externally-powered 'electric sun' become a joke. What is the energy flux of the outflowing solar wind?

* What's the electric charge on the comet and the Sun?

* How does the presence of the electrostatic force between the comet and Sun affect the comet's motion?

* The problem of all the positive ions detected in the comet tail moving away from the nucleus which I noted in post #3221. CH+, CO+, CO2+, N2+, OH+, H2O+, Ca+

Yet without including any of these 'electric sun' or 'electric comet' features, the Rosetta team managed to navigate their spacecraft for 10 years to a precision rendezvous.

* If the mainstream model is so wrong, how did they manage that when they didn't include all the charges and electric fields in this environment advocated by EU?

These are the types of questions that anyone building a spacecraft for these types of missions must be able to answer. Failure to answer them doesn't bode well for EU's competence in space science. So far, any space mission design by EU supporters will be held back by these questions they can't answer.

The simplest explanation is that the 'electric Sun' and 'electric comet' are just so much wishful thinking.

Alfvén and the Thunderbolts team will be "laughing" as each step brings mainstream inevitability towards the realisation of how important the electric "gas" is in the mix.

Huge electric field found in ice-cold laughing gas

Of course, Haig fails to explain how this report has any relevance to Electric Universe or Electric comet claims. Perhaps he regards it as evidence that electric fields can magically happen at unexpected places?

Note that the effect was happening at the interface between two materials in a SOLID state in a very thin layer. The field drops off radically just outside that layer.

What's the average electric field inside an atom? Let's estimate:

The binding energy of a hydrogen atom is -13.6 electron volts which is also roughly the voltage difference between the nucleus and electron cloud. It varies substantially atom-to-atom, but we're just interested in a ball-park estimate. An atom has a radius of roughly one Angstrom or 1e-10 meters. That means the average electric field in the atom is roughly 13.6 volts/1e-10 meters ~ 1e11 volts/meter or 100 million volts/meter. Not so different from what these researchers found when measuring a field on the scale of interatomic distances.

It's probably more interesting that the researchers actually managed to measure this field on near atomic scales, NOT that it's there or has such a large magnitude.

This sounds similar to the molecular Stark effect, where a plasma which has a NEUTRAL average charge, can have very strong electric fields, say 1 million volts/m, on the very small distances between individual ions and electrons. This is the field that an individual ion 'senses' from the plasma surrounding it. These small-scale intense fields can cause broadening of spectral lines due to the electric field. It was hypothesized by Johannes Stark in 1906, and explored by astronomer Otto Struve in the late 1920s as an explanation for the broad spectral lines in O & B stars.

O. Struve. The Stark Effect in Stellar Spectra. Astrophysical Journal, 69:173–195, April 1929. doi: 10.1086/143174.

This field is also covered in modern astronomy texts such as Mihilas' "Stellar Atmospheres".

Yet more evidence astronomers have been studying electric fields in space for decades, contrary to EU theology.

By the way, where's Dave Talbott? Last he posted was just after I joined the discussion. If EU's acolytes on this board can't answer these questions, certainly an EU 'expert' like him should be able to present an 'official' response to the questions I've posed above. Or is EU now hiding behind the "it's just a hypothesis and too soon to expect it to produce numerical predictions."?

"Dave's not here, man!" ;^)

 

[Cygnus_X1]

For a simple answer in a complex environment, I'm wonder if this 400 eV electron spike is a result of changes in, problems with or just general spacecraft charging?


http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s9500.pdf

Any thoughts?


http://descanso.jpl.nasa.gov/SciTechBook/series3/ChgingBook--110629-RibbonC.pdf

While not impossible that it is due to spacecraft charging, I think there are ways to remove those effects from the data with other sensors that measure the near-spacecraft environment.

However, day-night potentials have been estimated as high as a couple of thousand volts and that's in simple cases of a spherical object. Not sure what might happen in sunlight/shadow transitions on smaller scales with irregular terrain.

It's entertaining that everyone other than Electric Universe supporters seem to be able to compute these electric fields in space sufficient to protect spacecraft from their effects.

All the while Electric Universe supporters want to claim that everyone else is incompetent in the study of electromagnetism while not producing any results themselves.

 

[The Man]

While not impossible that it is due to spacecraft charging, I think there are ways to remove those effects from the data with other sensors that measure the near-spacecraft environment.

That would be my thinking, but whenever I see or hear a constant background signal my first thought is always "ground loop".

I was reading about the operational modes of the Rosetta Langmuir probes.

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:405851/FULLTEXT01.pdf

However, day-night potentials have been estimated as high as a couple of thousand volts and that's in simple cases of a spherical object. Not sure what might happen in sunlight/shadow transitions on smaller scales with irregular terrain.

It's entertaining that everyone other than Electric Universe supporters seem to be able to compute these electric fields in space sufficient to protect spacecraft from their effects.

All the while Electric Universe supporters want to claim that everyone else is incompetent in the study of electromagnetism while not producing any results themselves.

No need for calculations, just mainstream money (though I don't know how project cost estimates, time lines, environmental and equipment modeling would work).

 

[Matthew Cline]

It's entertaining that everyone other than Electric Universe supporters seem to be able to compute these electric fields in space sufficient to protect spacecraft from their effects.

All the while Electric Universe supporters want to claim that everyone else is incompetent in the study of electromagnetism while not producing any results themselves.

Perhaps the EU proponents see themselves as "idea men" who "look at the big picture", and thus don't need to concern themselves with such minutiae.

 

[Cygnus_X1]

No need for calculations, just mainstream money (though I don't know how project cost estimates, time lines, environmental and equipment modeling would work).

Nonsense.

We understood the issues of orbits and even interplanetary trajectories mathematically for years before we launched spacecraft into orbit. We knew the energy requirements to do it, and that it was within the realm of engineering possibility. Most of the money was used to solve the engineering problems of building equipment sufficiently robust to survive the trip.

Even some details we discovered after making it into orbit, such as the existence of the radiation belts, were rather quickly understood sufficient for space-flight safety due to all the mathematical work 50 years earlier by Carl Stormer and others on particle motion in magnetic fields trying to understand the aurora.

Even before we sent spacecraft to Jupiter and the outer planets, we had models sufficient to estimate aspects of the environment so the spacecraft had a chance to survive. Solar Probe Plus will travel closer to the Sun than any previous mission. How do you think they determine how to build a spacecraft to survive the environment? They don't just slap a bunch of lead plates on it and hope for the best, a spacecraft that heavy would never make to launch (and it would melt before reaching perihelion).

If you want to define budgets, timelines, etc., you darn well better have a good understanding of the problems needed to be solved.

Even the basic claims made by Electric Sun supporters imply space flight would be nigh impossible due to the radiation problem. If you want to know the cost of your spacecraft shielding, you first need to know the amount of radiation in the environment:

Death by Electric Universe. I. EU's Unsolvable Problem

Death by Electric Universe. II. The Solar Capacitor Model

Death by Electric Universe. III. EU Excuses

Death by Electric Universe. IV. The Z-Pinch (Solar Resistor) Model

Death by Electric Universe. Radiation Exposure Revisited

Death by Electric Universe: Current vs. Voltage

When someone says they need large amounts of money just to START examining the problems, AND they can't answer BASIC questions, my SCAMMER
warning sign lights up.

We have more than sufficient understanding of electromagnetism and plasmas to evaluate Electric Universe claims.

 

[Cygnus_X1]

Perhaps the EU proponents see themselves as "idea men" who "look at the big picture", and thus don't need to concern themselves with such minutiae.

I've long thought that. They just want to claim credit for the actual work of others.

There's a number of posts on the Thunderbolts forum where the users claim some astronomy paper that mentions electric fields is actually based on Electric Universe ideas, in spite of the long history of electric fields in astronomy.

 

[Sol88]

and a slightly better paper on it HERE

3. Scientific Context
The most fundamental scientific result from the mission to
date is that the various theoretical current collection models
developed over the past 70 years [e.g., Langmuir and Blodgett,
1923, 1924; Beard and Johnson, 1961; Parker and Murphy,
1967] do not include the full range of processes by which an
electrically biased, mesosonic satellite (supersonic with re-
spect to the ion sound speed but subsonic with respect to that
of the electrons) interacts with its environmental space
plasma. The predicted relation between satellite potential and
charge collection (the current-voltage characteristic) is, corre-
spondingly, incorrect. Second, a variety of specific physical
effects, including the creation of suprathermal charged particle
populations, plasma waves, and magnetic perturbations were
observed. These effects may be related to the unexpected nature
of the current-voltage relationship. Third, a sharp transition
in the interaction process was found to occur at the relatively
low spacecraft potential of +5 V--the ram energy of the domi-
nant atomic oxygen ions. The reflection of ionospheric ions by the satellite when its potential exceeded the ion ram energy
was expected. However, a transition in the basic physical
processes involved was a complete surprise.
The disagreement observed between the measured TSS-1R
current-voltage characteristic and the predictions of the theo-
retical models may provide for the most significant improve-
ment to our understanding of the physics of current collection
in space.

The meat of the post disappeared but we seem to be hung up on the maths again.

Do we need maths to see the source of the jets? or maybe maths to tell us our eyes a lying on the look of the comet, looks like rock, hard like rock but not rock.

so the assertion of the Electric comet cannot work because the maths doesn't is work is well....a cop out.

Look at the mainstream paradigm of the short movie AMBITION... whoops!

 

[Sol88]

can't put it better than uncle Wal

We are taught that comets are ‘leftover’ primordial bodies of interstellar dust and water ice from which the Sun and planets were born. A bizarre ESA publicity video for the Rosetta mission argues that the Earth’s oceans were filled early on by comet impacts. Incongruously, ESA released a report on 10th December titled, “ROSETTA FUELS DEBATE ON ORIGIN OF EARTH’S OCEANS,” that discredits that notion. It has been found that the D/H ratio of deuterium (D, proton plus a neutron) to hydrogen (H, proton) from comet 67 P is three times that found in our oceans. So now attention is turning to asteroids as the source of Earth’s water because meteorites are considered to be fragments of rocky asteroids and meteorites generally have a D/H ratio similar to the Earth. This is a typical response to contrary evidence in astronomy. The myth must be maintained even though asteroids and comets show so little evidence of surface water. However, using deuterium as a marker relies on assumptions about its origin in the hypothetical big bang and destruction in stellar nucleosynthesis, which are both unverifiable.

LINK

 

[Belz...]

Perhaps the EU proponents see themselves as "idea men" who "look at the big picture", and thus don't need to concern themselves with such minutiae.

It's the same thing with conspiracy theorists: Look at the big picture, but never bother to do the science.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

can't put it better than uncle Wal LINK

Yes. So the mainstream sciences need to adjust their models taking this into account.
Yet the EC model(s) also did not predict this ratio, nor can they explain it.
Apart from all the other imposibillities in Haig's model his comets should have the exact H/D ratio as the planets they come from, and they don't.
And the formation from solar wind model you seem to favour would give a ratio similar to what is found in the solar wind and again, that is not the case.

So all three models were incorrect. Yet which of the models put a spacecraft in the exact same position of the comet? And which models would suggest that is impossible as the electromagnetic currents would affect it's orbit?

 

[The Man]

Nonsense.

Yep, that was the point.

We understood the issues of orbits and even interplanetary trajectories mathematically for years before we launched spacecraft into orbit. We knew the energy requirements to do it, and that it was within the realm of engineering possibility. Most of the money was used to solve the engineering problems of building equipment sufficiently robust to survive the trip.

Even some details we discovered after making it into orbit, such as the existence of the radiation belts, were rather quickly understood sufficient for space-flight safety due to all the mathematical work 50 years earlier by Carl Stormer and others on particle motion in magnetic fields trying to understand the aurora.

Even before we sent spacecraft to Jupiter and the outer planets, we had models sufficient to estimate aspects of the environment so the spacecraft had a chance to survive. Solar Probe Plus will travel closer to the Sun than any previous mission. How do you think they determine how to build a spacecraft to survive the environment? They don't just slap a bunch of lead plates on it and hope for the best, a spacecraft that heavy would never make to launch (and it would melt before reaching perihelion).

If you want to define budgets, timelines, etc., you darn well better have a good understanding of the problems needed to be solved.

Even the basic claims made by Electric Sun supporters imply space flight would be nigh impossible due to the radiation problem. If you want to know the cost of your spacecraft shielding, you first need to know the amount of radiation in the environment:

Death by Electric Universe. I. EU's Unsolvable Problem

Death by Electric Universe. II. The Solar Capacitor Model

Death by Electric Universe. III. EU Excuses

Death by Electric Universe. IV. The Z-Pinch (Solar Resistor) Model

Death by Electric Universe. Radiation Exposure Revisited

Death by Electric Universe: Current vs. Voltage

When someone says they need large amounts of money just to START examining the problems, AND they can't answer BASIC questions, my SCAMMER
warning sign lights up.

We have more than sufficient understanding of electromagnetism and plasmas to evaluate Electric Universe claims.

Exactly, as Matthew Cline said up thread…

Perhaps the EU proponents see themselves as "idea men" who "look at the big picture", and thus don't need to concern themselves with such minutiae.

And we have seen here assertions about boarding the field of examination somehow by apparently limiting it more to electrical interactions. That the very heart of the perspective, that mainstream doesn’t consider electrical interactions or consider them sufficiently, is demonstrably false, is damning in and of itself. I’ve linked documents not only demonstrating the inclusion of such interactions in modeling but also guidelines showing the criticality of designing spacecraft to mitigate these interactions. The acctual information ain't hard to find. Heck, if they could just say what was actually missing (other than just money for them and/or their particular conjectures and speculation) then we might get somewhere.

 

[Matthew Cline]

Do we need maths to see the source of the jets? or maybe maths to tell us our eyes a lying on the look of the comet, looks like rock, hard like rock but not rock.

If you go with "it looks like a rock, therefore it is a rock", then implicit in that is "a kilometers distant, black and white, digitally enhanced image of a dust-and-ice comet would look different than a rock". Two things about that:

1) What would the comet's substance look like in color, at a distance of a meter, under human-standard lighting conditions? I assume that no such images have been released yet, and I don't know if the probe has the equipment to take such images.

2) Given the conditions that a dust-and-ice comet formed under, and the conditions it's gone through over the ages since, what would we expect it to look like in the image that we do have so far? I would say that we can't use our intuition or common sense to come to answer that, since we humans don't have any experience with the conditions the comet was formed under or the conditions it's been through. And since we can't use intuition or common sense to figure out what it would like, we also can't use them to figure out what it wouldn't look like.

 

[Dancing David]

The excess negative charge of the comet nucleus is no secret.
The means of keeping this charge is another question, but given the observed persistant charge they obviously should exist.

Actually it is sort of a rub paladin17, once you have a charge equal and opposite on teh surface, you have a net neutral charge and no more action.
If the comet conducts in any way then the positive charges cancel the negative.

That is why I asked you and now Ben has as well

 

[Sol88]

Yes. So the mainstream sciences need to adjust their models taking this into account.
Yet the EC model(s) also did not predict this ratio, nor can they explain it.
Apart from all the other imposibillities in Haig's model his comets should have the exact H/D ratio as the planets they come from, and they don't.
And the formation from solar wind model you seem to favour would give a ratio similar to what is found in the solar wind and again, that is not the case.

So all three models were incorrect. Yet which of the models put a spacecraft in the exact same position of the comet? And which models would suggest that is impossible as the electromagnetic currents would affect it's orbit?

Yes, that's the fun part, watching mainstream "adjust" their models!

Seems you know the hows and whys of the observed H/D ratios but funnily enough there is an electrical explanation.

remembering the EC mob do not subscribe to the formation of comets in any particular region but mainstream will continue to be dumbfounded by the new discoveries coming in from Rosetta.


Some findings, no doubt, will be a surprise for both the mainstream and the EU mob the difference is the amount of "adjustments" needed.