The Electric Comet theory

[ben m]

OK ben m, How is this NOT science showing that catastrophes happened globally in the age of man ?

Earth in Upheaval

Because there is no science there. Talbott et. al. look at some rock art and make up a story about why the artists produced that particular art.

If it were science, i.e. if that were a scientific hypothesis, we should be able to produce multiple such stories and use the scientific method to run consistency-checks that reject the untrue stories.

The "Earth in Upheaval" story does not have this property. As far as I can tell it either already failed consistency checks or dodges them using known-unsound, pareidolia-based "methods". The story I told instead ("the art in question is attempting to depict humans and abstractions; near space was obeying the ordinary laws of physics") is a better story, it's more consistent with more data, and it's simpler.

The above is the REASON all ancient religions began as planet worship.

Cool story, bro.

So, to sum up your position ben m ... you dismiss ALL the above with a wave of the hand and a curt "nonsense"

Seriously, the idea I am dismissing is not as deep as you think it is. Talbott looked at a cherry-picked bit of of rock-art and thinks it looks like a certain unrepresentative plasma photograph that could not possibly happen in space. He says "if I pretend the space-physics looked like X, then I can further pretend that the rock-artists were depicting it." I have no trouble dismissing that the first time he does it.

Having rejected that (simple, dumb, nonsense) premise, it's no harder to reject it when he repeats the same claim 500 times.

Having rejected the (simple, dumb, nonsense) premised, it's no harder to dismiss an entire book's worth of storytelling about how important it is if the premise is true. (Don't care. Premise not true. Doesn't matter how "important" the resulting stories are.)

If I read you right, you think if it isn't happening NOW then it CAN'T have happened in the past... is that about right ?

No. Things that disobey the laws of physics cannot happen either now nor in the past. Talbott's ideas are not just "not happening anymore", but "never could have happened".

Imagine me and Talbott walking up to an empty parking spot.

• (Me) That parking spot is empty.
• (Talbott) (finds a chicken bone on the ground. It is blackened.) Yesterday I bet this parking spot held a DOG eating a NEUTRON STAR.
• (Me) No it didn't. Dogs can't eat neutron stars, and even if they could it would have destroyed the parking spot.
• (Talbott) If I read you right, you think if it isn't happening NOW then it CAN'T have happened in the past... is that about right ?

10,000 years ago, it was still true that F=ma, that F = qv x B + qE, that the neutron is unstable, that alpha = 1/137, etc..

So HOW much charge does the Earth, Mars or Venus have ? If we did know that we could predict the scale of the electrical interaction should a contact occur.

We CAN predict it. We HAVE predicted it. If you put too much charge on the Earth, the excess escapes quietly into space. It's simple physics. We have worked it out, on this board, a dozen times. IIRC the maximum is a few Coulombs.

Pay attention, Haig. You like to pretend that this works, but I can't make it work. Velikovsky's disciples have had 65 years to make it work and they can't make it work either. That's because it doesn't work.

How about considering a more recent electromagnetic event just a few months ago. A tiny comet Siding Spring with unknown charge in it's plasma sheath came in contact with the plasma sheath also of unknown charge of Mars. The reaction was SPECTACULAR

Visually spectacular. Plasma, even very diffuse plasma, is good at being visually spectacular. Plasma is really bad at exerting forces.

Now ben m, Why does this NOT impress you ? Care to do the "actual force-law-using calculation" for it ?

How many force-law calculations have you ignored, Haig? Do you want another one to ignore?

 

[Haig]

@ JamieK

That was discovered by NASA in 2007. How does that support ECH?

It is easily explained by ions in the upper atmosphere being captured by the solar wind.

Its not controversial or poorly understood. The extent of it was a surprise, as many things are. But those gaps in knowledge =/= toss out current cosmology for 'magic' theories.

No, long before NASA in 2007 the plasma tail of Venus was discovered in the pre dawn of "human societies outside the mainstream of western science have long associated the morning or evening star with just such a conspicuous “rope” or “string”. Particularly explicit are some examples drawn from the near-contemporary cosmology of native Australian communities."

The Ancient peoples knew Venus as a comet ! The GREAT ELECTRIC COMET

Thats HOW it's relevant to the Electric Comet hypothesis JamieK

 

[Haig]

Because there is no science there. Talbott et. al. look at some rock art and make up a story about why the artists produced that particular art.

If it were science, i.e. if that were a scientific hypothesis, we should be able to produce multiple such stories and use the scientific method to run consistency-checks that reject the untrue stories.

The "Earth in Upheaval" story does not have this property. As far as I can tell it either already failed consistency checks or dodges them using known-unsound, pareidolia-based "methods". The story I told instead ("the art in question is attempting to depict humans and abstractions; near space was obeying the ordinary laws of physics") is a better story, it's more consistent with more data, and it's simpler.



Cool story, bro.



Seriously, the idea I am dismissing is not as deep as you think it is. Talbott looked at a cherry-picked bit of of rock-art and thinks it looks like a certain unrepresentative plasma photograph that could not possibly happen in space. He says "if I pretend the space-physics looked like X, then I can further pretend that the rock-artists were depicting it." I have no trouble dismissing that the first time he does it.

Having rejected that (simple, dumb, nonsense) premise, it's no harder to reject it when he repeats the same claim 500 times.

Having rejected the (simple, dumb, nonsense) premised, it's no harder to dismiss an entire book's worth of storytelling about how important it is if the premise is true. (Don't care. Premise not true. Doesn't matter how "important" the resulting stories are.)



No. Things that disobey the laws of physics cannot happen either now nor in the past. Talbott's ideas are not just "not happening anymore", but "never could have happened".

Imagine me and Talbott walking up to an empty parking spot.

• (Me) That parking spot is empty.
• (Talbott) (finds a chicken bone on the ground. It is blackened.) Yesterday I bet this parking spot held a DOG eating a NEUTRON STAR.
• (Me) No it didn't. Dogs can't eat neutron stars, and even if they could it would have destroyed the parking spot.
• (Talbott) If I read you right, you think if it isn't happening NOW then it CAN'T have happened in the past... is that about right ?

10,000 years ago, it was still true that F=ma, that F = qv x B + qE, that the neutron is unstable, that alpha = 1/137, etc..



We CAN predict it. We HAVE predicted it. If you put too much charge on the Earth, the excess escapes quietly into space. It's simple physics. We have worked it out, on this board, a dozen times. IIRC the maximum is a few Coulombs.

Pay attention, Haig. You like to pretend that this works, but I can't make it work. Velikovsky's disciples have had 65 years to make it work and they can't make it work either. That's because it doesn't work.



Visually spectacular. Plasma, even very diffuse plasma, is good at being visually spectacular. Plasma is really bad at exerting forces.



How many force-law calculations have you ignored, Haig? Do you want another one to ignore?

Oh dear ben m,

IF you had looked at Earth in Upheaval PDF you would have realised it was a collection of the science of Velikovsky's day NOT by him


The science sources are given ....... you just have to look at them and make your own mind up.

Every chapter has the science sources at the end and they can be checked !

Earth in Upheaval
Book contents

Preface
Acknowledgments
Chapter 1 In the North:

In Alaska
The Ivory Islands
Chapter 2 Revolution:

The Erratic Boulders
Sea And Land Changed Places
The Caves Of England
The Aquatic Graveyards
Chapter 3 Uniformity:

The Doctrine Of Uniformity
The Hippopotamus
Icebergs
Darwin In South America
Chapter 4 Ice:

The Birth Of The Ice Age Theory
On The Russian Plains
Ice Age In The Tropics
Greenland
Corals Of The Polar Regions
Whales In The Mountains
Chapter 5 Tidal Wave:

Fissures In The Rocks
The Norfolk Forest-bed
Cumberland Cavern
In Northern China
The Asphalt Pit Of La Brea
Agate Spring Quarry
Chapter 6 Mountains And Rifts:

Mountain Thrusts In The Alps And Elsewhere
The Himalayas
The Siwalik Hills
Tiahuanacu In The Andes
The Columbia Plateau
A Continent Torn Apart
Chapter 7 Deserts And Oceans:

The Sahara
Arabia
The Carolina Bays
The Bottom Of The Atlantic
The Floor Of The Seas
Chapter 8 Poles Displaced:

The Cause Of The Ice Ages
Shifting Poles
The Sliding Continents
The Changing Orbit
The Rotating Crust
Chapter 9 Axis Shifted:

Earth In A Vice
Evaporating Oceans
Condensation
A Working Hypothesis
Ice And Tide
Magnetic Poles Reversed
Volcanoes, Earthquakes, Comets
Chapter 10 Thirty-five Centuries Ago:

Clock Unwound
The Glacial Lake Agassiz
Niagara Falls
The Rhone Glacier
The Mississippi
Fossils In Florida
Lakes Of The Great Basin And The End Of The Ice Age
Chapter 11 Klimasturz:

Klimasturz
Tree Rings
Lake Dwellings
Dropped Ocean Level
The North Sea
Chapter 12 The Ruins Of The East:

Crete
Troy
The Ruins Of The East
Times And Dates
Chapter 13 Collapsing Schemes:

Geology And Archaeology
Collapsing Schemes
In Early Ages
Coal
Chapter 14 Extinction:

Fossils
Footprints
The Caverns
Extinction
Chapter 15 Cataclysmic Evolution:

Catastrophism And Evolution
The Geological Record And Changing Forms Of Life
The Mechanism Of Evolution
Mutations And New Species
Cataclysmic Evolution
Chapter 16 The End:

The End
Supplement:

1895 And 1950: The Time Was Ripe For A Heresy
Worlds In Collision And Recent Finds In Archaeology
Recent Finds In Geology
Worlds In Collision And Recent Finds In Astronomy


Earth in Upheaval PDF

It never ceases to amaze and disappoint me that people reject ideas without even checking them much or even a little.

I guess it could be a Psychological thing ?

 

[ferd burfle]

Venus' Tail of the Unexpected[/URL]

The logic is just overwhelming:

1 (Real) scientists discover Venus' magnetotail
2 Ancient Australians had a myth of 'ropes' extending from Venus to Earth over which Venusians traveled to Earth to get a drink of water
3 I'll quote the payoff in full:

It goes without saying that “traditional” societies can only have learned about Venus’ plasma tail if the latter has at one time been visible to the unaided human eye. Certainly, the modern scientific understanding of the tail allows for the possibility that it plasma discharged, attaining a visible glow mode, at a time when the sun produced an extremely enhanced outflow of ions.

Highlighting mine. Boy, I'm sure convinced. Reminds me of the old Eric Idle sketch:

"Did the dinosaurs build Stonehenge? We don't know. We just...don't...know."​

ferd

 

[ben m]

If it's true that the linked book is not about planet-altering sci-fi beams depicted in rock art, it's not relevant to a discussion of sci-fi beams depicted in rock art. (ETA: I didn't click through because I thought it was a link to "Worlds in Collision".)

Please respond to the contents of my quote, which is about why I think Velikovsky/Talbott/whoever's planet-altering sci-fi-beam hypotheses are stupid. Do not try to change the subject to (a) other changes to planets, (b) other things Velikovsky said, or (c) anything else.

 

[Dancing David]

That was discovered by NASA in 2007. How does that support ECH?

It is easily explained by ions in the upper atmosphere being captured by the solar wind.

Its not controversial or poorly understood. The extent of it was a surprise, as many things are. But those gaps in knowledge =/= toss out current cosmology for 'magic' theories.

Welcome to the Forum!

 

[Haig]

You're not an official spokesman, but you sure as hell are a vocal advocate.

If you compare me to RC I'm quite subdued

If Jupiter and Saturn are involved, how can their moons not be involved? That makes no sense.

Maybe, the little rocky planets where once "moons" of those two giants

But I'm not talking about planet formation. I'm talking about the formation of comet-sized icy objects. Can you provide any reason, any reason at all, for why such objects could not or should not have formed during the beginning stages of the solar system?

That depends on how YOU think comets where suposedly formed during the beginning stages of the solar system ? Can you say ?

I have, Haig. I've wasted more hours than I care to admit reading through those places. And none of them that I can find answer my question. If you have a specific page that you know contains the answer, I'll be happy to look at it, but I'm not going to go back to sifting through the entire site on what appears to be your hope that the answer might be lurking somewhere in one of several different websites.

Not relevant to my question. My question is not how ECH advocates think comets form. My question is whether and why they think that comet-sized icy bodies could not form. Either you have an answer, or you don't. And it's increasingly looking like you have no answer. Not that I'm surprised, you never do.

It's NOT an issue with the EU / PC crowd as far as I've read.

As I understand it water is common throughout the solar system. So large "comet size" chunks of ice may well be in orbit around the Sun but does that make them (if they exist) comets ? I don't think so. Why not ? I hear you say ... well ... Electric Comets need an out of balance charge and an ecentric orbit and they get that from birth from the Thunderbolt exchange.

Mainstream comets need a chamber for sublimation to take place, make up your own mind about that, it's wishful thinking imho.

So maybe you can have mainstream comets but NOT electric ones

 

[tusenfem]

That was discovered by NASA in 2007. How does that support ECH?

It is easily explained by ions in the upper atmosphere being captured by the solar wind.

Its not controversial or poorly understood. The extent of it was a surprise, as many things are. But those gaps in knowledge =/= toss out current cosmology for 'magic' theories.

The actual Neugebauer quote is from 1997 even, not 2007.

Venus has a "comet like" interaction with the solar wind.
Venus having a much denser atmosphere than any comet, means it has a better developed ionosphere, in which the magnetic field of the solar wind can hang up.
This leads to the same draping of the magnetic field as happens at a comet, thus creating the magnetotail of Venus.
It is all quite well understood. If the length of the tail is larger than expected, well so be it. Apparently, the weak structure of the tail can withstand the solar wind turbulence and retain its signature, which is very interesting.

But I agree "gaps in knowledge =/= toss out current cosmology for 'magic' theories"

Basically, this discussion could not go any further south, with Haig now going full velikovskian.
There can no longer be a scientific discussion here, good ole Haid did not even comment on my post where I showed him that Alfven's second approach is exactly what modern day (space)plasma(astro)physicists are doing.
Naturally the reason for that is that Haig (or Sol, or Talbot or any other thunder crank) have not even the basic knowledge of electrodynamics, they think they can do science by reading press releases and paper abstracts.
I think it would even be better if this idiotic thread would be closed for good.

 

[Reality Check]

Fantasies and ignorance from Thunderbolts on plasma sheaths

OK ben m, How is this NOT science showing that catastrophes happened globally in the age of man ?

Easily answered by anyone who can think about what ancient people knew, Haig: They had only knowledge about local conditions that they imagined applied globally so you get local floods becoming myths about global floods.

The Velikovsky's fairy stories are not science. They are his outdated and scientifically ignored delusions as listed in Earth in Upheaval, e.g. that the axis of the Earth has shifted suddenly.

Neolithic or Early Bronze Age carry patterns associated with high-current Z-pinches provides a possible insight into the origin and meaning of these ancient symbols produced by man.is a fantasy about petroglyphs recording imaginary high-current Z-pinches

So any reasonable person rejects these stories because they have no evidence to back them up. That makes them non-science.

If someone makes up stories about something happening in the past that is not happening now then they need to provide a scientifically valid reason why it is not happening now.
The Thunderbolts and Velikovsky fairy stories just use wishful thinking - something magic happened and we do not have planets whizzing around the solar system today !

More fantasies and ignorance from Thunderbolts: Plasma Sheaths, Cells, and Current-Free Double Layers is a basic description of some physics combined with fantasies and even lies!

• A plasma or Debye sheath is a plasma in contact with a solid surface that is several Debye lengths thick, i.e. a few meters (solar wind) or tens of meters (magnetosphere) thick.
  This only applies to airless bodies.
• The irrelevancy of images of aurora in a web page about plasma sheaths!
• Ignorance about what causes aurora - there are no polar “cusps” or “holes”.
• A lie about field aligned currents being flux tubes- Birkeland currents are not magnetic flux tubes.
• A lie about "enormous, long-lasting electrical discharges" in the Io-Jupiter flux tube.
• A lie about these discharges machining away Io's surface.
• A lie about the source of the ions and compounds being this machining.
• Applying the electrical discharges machining lie to Saturn and Enceladus.
• Ignorance about plasma physics (of course!).
  Magnetohydrodynamics is a valid theory of plasma. It has not been replaced by particle-in-cell (PIC). Both methods are used in the appropriate cases, e.g. MHD when treating a plasma as a fluid, PIC when looking at small scale details.
  Double layers are a fairly minor part of plasma physics because you need specific conditions to form them and they have small scale effects.

 

[Reality Check]

...It's on the Thunderbolts Project site as far as I recall.

Haig, that is as bad as giving a Google search as a source which you have also done lately !
Where on the Thunderbolts Project is that image?
What is their explanation of the image contents?
What is their scientific source for the contents of that image?
Why does the contents of the image look like gibberish? E.g. SOHO observes the Sun and the solar wind near L1, not Venus.

Why does the text you quote in association with that image only appear on Thunderbolts to be regurgitated here and in another forum?

What you quote seems to be a lie and thus the cartoon may also be a lie: When a planet behaves like a comet

“The teardrop-shaped ionosphere began forming within 30–60 minutes after the normal high pressure solar wind diminished. Over two Earth days, it had stretched to at least two Venus radii into space,” says Yong Wei of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, lead author of the new findings.

Venus does not have a radius of millions of kilometers !

 

[Ziggurat]

Maybe, the little rocky planets where once "moons" of those two giants

That's no more absurd than the rest of the Velikovskian insanity, but it doesn't address the specific issue that there is no reason to exclude the current Jovian and Saturnian moons from your consideration.

That depends on how YOU think comets where suposedly formed during the beginning stages of the solar system ? Can you say ?

Sure: small ice particles in the outer solar system slowly coalesced through mutual gravitational attraction.

What about the ECH precludes this? Again, do you believe that there were no such ice particles? Do you believe that they could not coalesce? Do you believe that they could not survive until the present? And why?

It's NOT an issue with the EU / PC crowd as far as I've read.

I can find nothing at all about the topic. It appears that they have simply ignored the issue completely.

As I understand it water is common throughout the solar system.

That is indeed what we observe.

So large "comet size" chunks of ice may well be in orbit around the Sun

So in other words, you know of nothing that would preclude the existence of icy comet-sized bodies orbiting the sun. OK, good. That's an answer we can work from.

but does that make them (if they exist) comets ? I don't think so. Why not ? I hear you say ... well ... Electric Comets need an out of balance charge and an ecentric orbit and they get that from birth from the Thunderbolt exchange.

Back up a second. You've jumped over quite a few steps, and those aren't trivial steps. We need to look at each in more detail.

First, let's posit that comet-sized icy bodies exist in the outer solar system. Note that I'm not calling them comets. But we've agreed that they may exist.

Next let's talk about their orbits. Let's assume that they start in a low-eccentricity orbit in the outer solar system. The next question is, can anything change that orbit from roughly circular to highly elliptical? For example, could a close pass by a massive body (such as Eris) disturb their orbit?

Remember, we're only taking this one step at a time. Now that we've agreed that comet-sized icy objects might exist, we're examining whether or not they might be perturbed into highly elliptical orbits. Other questions we'll look at in subsequent exchanges, but let's see if we can come to agreement on this step for now.

 

[Reality Check]

You don't even consider that the way "density" is measured / calculated on a CHARGED body could give erroneous results ?

We do not consider it because it is the job of the Thunderbolts people to consider it and provide the evidence about the effects.
This is a basic part of the scientific process, Haig - it is up to the proponents of an idea to defend that idea with evidence .

We do consider some basic electromagnetism that the Thunderbolts people seem to have forgot - EM forces can repel as well as attract. Thus a CHARGED body could be measured to be MORE dense than it is or LESS dense than it is.

And something you do have not yet grasped after 4 years, Haig: Comets have been found to not have the density of rocks by multiple methods. The magical thinking of evoking EM forces will have to address each of these methods.

1. Using the laws of physics that are used to calculate the masses of orbiting bodies - including planets, moons and asteroids!
2. Using the laws of physics (gravity and Newton's laws) to analyze the effects of jets on comet orbits.
3. Using the laws of physics to analyze the paths of ejecta in Deep Impact.
4. Using the laws of physics to analyze the paths of the Rosetta spacecraft

Electric comets still do not exist !

 

[Reality Check]

Thunderbolts delusion about the ionosphere tail of Venus

Science : Planet's tail of the unexpected

This sounds like the 1996 discovery that SOHO could detect plasma from Venus with the still unverified speculation that it could be from the occasional ionosphere tail that Venus has.
The tail of Venus (January 29, 2013)

It is also still unclear, whether the ionosphere of Venus can in principle expand far enough to reach Earth. In 1996 researchers from MPS were able to detect plasma from Venus close to our planet. They analysed data obtained by the spacecraft SoHO that circles the Sun in line with the Earth. Perhaps the processes now observed by their colleagues from MPS offer an explanation for such events. "Possibly phases with tenuous solar wind allow particles to travel from planets close to the Sun to those further away", says Wei.

Still no source for the Thunderbolts cartoon, Haig! The image captioned "The ion tail of Venus. Credit: Jeff Hecht, New Scientist Magazine May 31, 1997" is not that cartoon.

Venus' Tail of the Unexpected (2008) leaps from the still speculative science from 1997 to the delusion of thinking that this tail would be visible to the naked eye and even only visible to Australian Aboriginals !
Once again magical thinking means that modern people cannot see the "ropes" that Australian Aboriginals saw.

 

[Reality Check]

The above is the REASON all ancient religions began as planet worship.

Wrong, Haig: There are ancient religions that have major gods that are not associated with planets.
Shiva and maybe all of the major Hindu gods. N.B. there are Hindu gods of the planets, e.g. Surya is one of the Sun gods, but they look like lesser gods that were added as astrology began.

Rangi and Papa (the sky father and earth mother Maori gods).

Norse gods are nature gods not associated with planets.

 

[Reality Check]

Learn how to build an icy model of a comet, complete with shooting jets

Mainstream comets need a chamber for sublimation to take place, make up your own mind about that, it's wishful thinking imho.

Sorry, Haig, but it is a physical fact (not "wishful thinking") that ices can sublimate regardless of any chambers. Any one who has seen dry ice steaming away knows this (though I think what is actually seen is cold CO2 gas condensing water).

Any one who knows about physics has made up their own mind about the fact that ices sublimate.

The mainstream scientific cause of comet jets is that ices sublimate and pits or fissures shape the sublimating gases into jets. There is also another proposed mechanism (maybe not for all jets):
Formation of jets in Comet 19P/Borrelly by subsurface geysers
Sub-Surface Cavities as Sources of Cometary Jets

Since you really, really like YouTube videos, Haig: Create a Comet With Dry Ice

Learn how to build an icy model of a comet, complete with shooting jets. Safety precautions are required.

This points out the amazing ignorance of the Thunderbolts people who demanded that experiments showing sublimating ices producing jets be done!

 

[Sol88]

Sorry, Haig, but it is a physical fact (not "wishful thinking") that ices can sublimate regardless of any chambers. Any one who has seen dry ice steaming away knows this (though I think what is actually seen is cold CO2 gas condensing water).

Any one who knows about physics has made up their own mind about the fact that ices sublimate.

The mainstream scientific cause of comet jets is that ices sublimate and pits or fissures shape the sublimating gases into jets. There is also another proposed mechanism (maybe not for all jets):
Formation of jets in Comet 19P/Borrelly by subsurface geysers
Sub-Surface Cavities as Sources of Cometary Jets

Since you really, really like YouTube videos, Haig: Create a Comet With Dry Ice

This points out the amazing ignorance of the Thunderbolts people who demanded that experiments showing sublimating ices producing jets be done!

Hello Reality Check, long time, no hear.

considering the above post by yourself, what's your take on this paper by J.-B. Vincent1, H. Sierks1, M. Rose2.

Jet activity on the cliffs of comet 9P/Tempel 1

Taking into account Holger Sierks has, for some time now, had the best imagery of the source of the jets on comet 67P. Also taking into account the evidence gleaned from the MIDAS instrument.

Also the wiki entry describing them as icy cliff retreating, this is a topic we have over before.

Understanding how the activity of comets develops and how gas and dust flows are linked to the topography is one of the main challenges of cometary research. The dust coma is known for being anisotropic, displaying many jet-like structures, and in situ missions have re- vealed that these features can often be associated to spe- cific regions on the surface of the nucleus. A good model of these areas is necessary to understand not only the activity itself, but also how the morphological features of the surface are affecting the physical processes taking place, and inversely constrain the effects of the activity on the local surface

Or just in case that's a bit confusing for you Reality check, is the feature an "icy cliff" that has receded ? and are the bright patches around the impact site, ICE? please do not forget what Jessica Sunshine has already said HERE

Small bright patches (likely ice) occur prior to the impact (noted by A, B, C, D at right) have disappeared in the Stardust-NExT image (left).

SOURCE

 

[Reality Check]

Hello Reality Check, long time, no hear.

considering the above post by yourself, what's your take on this paper by J.-B. Vincent1, H. Sierks1, M. Rose2.

Jet activity on the cliffs of comet 9P/Tempel 1

My take is that it is a paper on jet activity on the cliffs of comet 9P/Tempel 1, Sol88 - Duh!
ETA: This is real science rather than the Thunderbolts non-science. The scientists extend a tool that simulates the gas and dust jets at all scales to include the outgassing from cliffs.

There is a Wiki article describing the cliffs as retreating exactly as we expect sublimating ices to do. In case this is confusing for you, Sol88: Tempel 1

Scientists were able to quickly spot locations where an elevated flow-like formation of icy material on the comet's surface receded due to sublimation between encounters.[9]

The answer to your question is that I am not deluded or ignorant enough to fall for the Thunderbolts delusion that comets are rock. Thus it is ICE that sublimated in the retreat of ice cliffs and vanishing of "bright patches around the impact site" is likely to be more ICE sublimating.
ETA: But "disappearing" in The Deep Impact Crater on 9P/Tempel-1 from Stardust-NExT may also mean covered up by ejecta.

Oddly enough, Sol88, The distribution of water ice in the interior of Comet Tempel 1 is the measurement of water ice in the interior of Comet Tempel 1 from Deep Impact ejecta.

The Deep Impact flyby spacecraft includes a 1.05 to 4.8 μm infrared (IR) spectrometer. Although ice was not observed on the surface in the impact region, strong absorptions near 3 μm due to water ice are detected in IR measurements of the ejecta from the impact event. Absorptions from water ice occur throughout the IR dataset beginning three seconds after impact through the end of observations, ∼45 min after impact. Spatially and temporally resolved IR spectra of the ejecta are analyzed in conjunction with laboratory impact experiments. The results imply an internal stratigraphy for Tempel 1 consisting of devolatilized materials transitioning to unaltered components at a depth of approximately one meter. At greater depths, which are thermally isolated from the surface, water ice is present. Up to depths of 10 to 20 m, the maximum depths excavated by the impact, these pristine materials consist of very fine grained (∼1±1 μm∼1±1 μm) water ice particles, which are free from refractory impurities.

ETA: What Jessica Sunshine said in Ice Exists on Surface of Comet, But Most Lies Deeper was

"These results show that there is ice on the surface, but not very much and definitely not enough to account for the water we see in the out-gassed material that is in the coma [the cloud of gas and dust that surrounds the comet]," said lead author Jessica Sunshine of Science Applications International Corporation.

"These new findings are significant because they show that our technique is effective in finding ice when it is on the surface and that we can therefore firmly conclude that most of the water vapor that escapes from comets is contained in ice particles found below the surface," said Deep Impact Principal Investigator Michael A'Hearn of the University of Maryland.

This is blindingly obvious, Sol88. No astronomer is ignorant enough to think that comets are rock. They know that comets are less dense than water. Theses authors measured water ices inside and on Tempel 1. Thus the only valid source for the water in outgassed material is on or under the surface. Not enough water ice on the surface means that there is a bigger supply under the surface !

 

[Cygnus_X1]

[ stuff deleted ]
and it's electromagnetic effect on earth is showing itself more and more ...

Curious: Electromagnetic waves linked to particle fallout in Earth’s atmosphere, new study finds

the actual paper ...

Investigation of EMIC wave scattering as the cause for the Barrel 17 January 2013 relativistic electron precipitation event: A quantitative comparison of simulation with observations

This work is all in the context of the standard geomagnetic fields and an electrically neutral (in the bulk) solar wind.

And they use something else we've not seen from Electric Universe supporters - a quantitative model that they're comparing to observations!.

I've worked with two of the authors on this paper and they are not EU supporters.

 

[Sol88]

My take is that it is a paper on jet activity on the cliffs of comet 9P/Tempel 1, Sol88 - Duh!

There is a Wiki article describing the cliffs as retreating exactly as we expect sublimating ices to do. In case this is confusing for you, Sol88:

Yeah, thought so.... I thought for a second there you'd see the contradiction between J.Sunshine's not enough surface ice to account for Tempels 1 activity and the jets activity in this PAPER and

We use stereo pairs of high-resolution images to put some crude constraints on the source locations of some of the brightest features. We also present a number of interesting coma features that were observed, including surface jets detected at the limb of the nucleus when the exposed ice patches are passing over the horizon, and features that appear to be jets emanating from unilluminated sources near the negative pole.

The three small areas of water ice on the surface of Tempel 1 appear in this image, taken by an instrument aboard NASA's Deep Impact spacecraft. Photo credit: NASA.

SOURCE

So were's the ICE for the jets source, Reality Check.

 

[Cygnus_X1]

Gee Tom, so you think you have sussed out our variable Electric Sun ?

So Why ? is there a 11 year sunspot cycle : a 22 year Hale (magnetic) cycle and Why is our star entering into a Grand Solar Minimum ? I think that's a 400 year cycle ( from memory ) ... Brrr Little Ice Age

Variation in the solar cycle actually appear in a number of the standard dynamo models.

EU wants to claim solar variations driven by some external current, but what makes the external current vary? Magic? Aliens? EU's 'Cosmic Electrician' diety?

And you wonder why we compare EU to creationism?

Magnetic Storm, Radio Blackout - Jan.4.2015

You just latch onto any old silliness, don't you?