The Electric Comet theory

[Reality Check]

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

There is no contradiction (just no assumption that J. Sunshine is ignorant ) as in my ETA:

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 !

Not enough surface ice to provide the water = there must be ice under the surface providing the extra water .

Citing an irrelevant paper that is not about water ice is just wrong, Sol88. What makes it worse is that it was not in the post where you are trying to bring up this imaginary contradiction.
Dust coma morphology in the Deep Impact images of Comet 9P/Tempel 1

We present an overview of the dust coma observations of Comet Tempel 1 that were obtained during the approach and encounter phases of the Deep Impact mission. We use these observations to set constraints on the pre-impact activity of the comet and discuss some preliminary results. The temporal and spatial changes that were observed during approach reveal three distinct jets rotating with a 1.7-day periodicity. The brightest jet produces an arcuate feature that expands outward with a projected velocity of about 12 m s−1, suggesting that the ambient dust coma is dominated by millimeter-sized dust grains. As the spatial resolution improves, more jets and fans are revealed. 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. We also provide a list of 10 outbursts of various sizes that were observed in the near-continuous monitoring during the approach phase.

You are obviously not understanding what you cite, Sol88: NASA - Deep Impact Team Reports First Evidence of Cometary Ice

Based on this spectral data, it appears that the surface ice used to be inside Tempel 1 but became exposed over time. The team reports that jets – occasional blasts of dust and vapor – may send this surface ice, as well as interior ice, to the coma, or tail, of Tempel 1.

(my emphasis added)
And
Ice Exists on Surface of Comet, But Most Lies Deeper

"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.

(my emphasis added)

 

[Cygnus_X1]

The ech proponents seem to share with 911 conspiracy nuts the ability to determine the composition of unknown materials just by viewing digital images of the objects. Just think of all the money being wasted by fancy-pants scientists on spectrometers! :roll eyes:

Haig, there are some areas of the comet that appear smooth bright white; by your "logic" I would be justified in concluding that those are water ice, would I not?

ferd

Isn't having spectroscopes in one's eyes considered a superpower?

Today in my area we had this beautiful snowfall of fine powder (which turned traffic into a mess).

As I was clearing it this morning under the illumination of a streetlight with the high contrast, I noticed how it glistened in the light in a way that gave it the look of that really fine white beach or desert sand.

If I wasn't wearing a heavy jacket and shoveling the stuff (it was very light), it would have been easy to mistake the snow for sand (more suited to a 'hot and dry' environment).

Later in the day, I had an opportunity to take a few pictures, but the stuff had been sufficiently disturbed and exposed to some above freezing temperature that it no longer had quite the 'fine sand' look.

I wonder how many of the Electric Universe supporters have ever actually seen snow? Or at least not looked at it closely. I've had the impression that many are retirees living in warmer climates so their experience is a bit more limited.

 

[Cygnus_X1]

Yes, I totally agree with you (never thought I'd say that to you )

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_3823654ac17d8e163c.jpg[/qimg]

Venus' Tail of the Unexpected

Science : Planet's tail of the unexpected

I rather recently came across papers indicating that planets without a strong internal magnetic field but with an ionosphere would form a comet-like plasma tail and this was understood at least back in the 1970s
Satellites and Magnetospheres of the Outer Planets
This was also in part due to Alfven's recognition that comets (the standard comet model) would form a 'magnetosphere' due to their interaction from their motion through the solar wind (1957).

The discoveries above are not so much that the plasma tail existed, but that it was detectable so far from Venus itself. Of course, that could just be a result of the fact that instruments on SOHO were newer, and more sensitive, than other instruments that would have passed through this tail of Venus.

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning, Sol88.

Good morning again, Sol88.

That may well be so.

But it's surely a subjective judgement, isn't it? Not an objective statement of fact? And when we do science, don't we try our best to avoid subjectivity?

Whatever. You didn't answer my question, did you?


Rather too narrow a question, wouldn't you say?

I mean, if I thought that, "on the whole the surfaces of comets are dry and dusty but with lots of surface ice (...)?", should I answer "no"?

Or "on the whole the surfaces of comets are dry but not dusty with little to no surface ice (...)?", also "no"?

Then there's "ice" ... do you mean solid water? 'dry ice'? a mixture? other 'ices'?

And so on.

Here, however, is one part: I think the evidence to date is consistent with a complete lack of liquids on the surfaces of comets; i.e. they are all 'dry'. All over.

So the jets issuing from the "ice" cliffs of Tempel 1 change your mind?

Comets, in particular Tempel 1 have enough surface ice to be able to produce jets?

Comparison of Deep Impact and Stardust photos of a smooth elevated feature on the surface of the nucleus showing recession of icy cliffs at the margins.

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

The current work focusses on simulating at high resolu-
tion the activity seen on a peculiar terrain of 9P/Tempel
1. From in-situ and ground based observations, Farnham
et al ([3]) and Vincent et al ([2]) have linked some the
coma structures to the edge of one of the smooth regions,
where a cliff has been seen to recede from 2005 to 2011.
We propose a 3D model of the jet starting from the cliff.
The simulated domain is a cube of 400x400x400 me-
ters size, with a 3D topographic model of the region at
the bottom, reconstructed from in situ images. The out-
gassing rate is modulated by the solar input, through a
thermal model of the surface. We allow the vertical cliff
to emit up to 10 times more gas molecules than its sur-
roundings, for the same solar flux received. We model
first the expansion of the gas until we reach a steady flow.
We inject dust particles with zero velocity in the gas flow
and follow their acceleration in the jet.

So now we have two different interpretations, the above mainstream version and the Electric Comet version below

Holger Sierks said, “Higher strength material that was a surprise to us.” “With this picture of dust falling back to the surface forming high porosity layers, we failed to explain the rebounds.” “It’s rocky-like stuff, but not rock.” “We also see this stuff shining through where the dust layer is wiped away or fallen off following the gravitational field and exposing a higher-strength material and this is something we could consider be the reason for the rebound.”

If it isn’t merely reflected light from a surface cleaned and etched by electric discharge then the “shining stuff” I expect to be active coronal discharges from the comet. If so, they will be featureless coronal discharge glows perhaps with unresolved bright points at active cathode spots.

LINK

Holger Sierks....he's the man!

So, just using my eyeballs the shiny stuff on Tempel 1 is either "icy cliff retreating" and producing jets or that's an image of electric discharge also producing jets.

Think what you may JT but one explanation is self consistent the other well cobbled together to save face.

You decide on the source of the jets in question remembering Holger Sierks has some pretty good pictures up his sleeve.

I think some of the formatting in your post has been changed, in my quoting of it, above, but I hope the content is unchanged (please let me know if this is not so).

I'll start by answering your specific questions.

Q: So the jets issuing from the "ice" cliffs of Tempel 1 change your mind?
A: About what? Sorry Sol88, I don't understand what you're asking; could you clarify please?

Q: Comets, in particular Tempel 1 have enough surface ice to be able to produce jets?
A: I don't really know, but the evidence seems consistent with that (poorly expressed) oneliner.

Now to your specific comments.

"So, just using my eyeballs the shiny stuff on Tempel 1 is either "icy cliff retreating" and producing jets or that's an image of electric discharge also producing jets." OK, if you say so. I cannot - obviously - disagree with your own, personal, subjective assessment. However, seeing as how this part of the ISF is Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology, I can say that your personal, subjective assessment isn't particularly helpful, in terms of doing science.

"Think what you may JT but one explanation is self consistent the other well cobbled together to save face." Um, what?

Sol88, you seem to consider that the only evidence which you need to use to test the ech* is JPEGs posted on the internet. And that the only way to judge this evidence is by using one's own, personal, subjective intuition. I hope I'm wrong, because this is not exactly what science is about, is it?

Have you ever tried to listen to a distant AM radio station when there's a thunderstorm about, Sol88? Did you find it was quite difficult, because of all the 'static'? How about doing so with your portable radio close to someone doing electric arc welding?

In the ech, "The observed jets of comets are electric arc discharges to the nucleus, producing “electrical discharge machining” (EDM) of the surface." (Thornhill & Talbott, 2006) As far as I know, "electric arc discharges" produce quite distinctive radio emissions, particularly electric arc discharges which produce EDM. And in the plasma environment of a comet's coma, very likely quite distinctive 'signatures' which the various plasma science instruments on the various space probes which have 'visited' several comets would easily have picked up (perhaps tusenfem or Tom could comment on this?)

Yet, as far as I know, no such radio emissions have been observed; no such "electric arc discharge" signatures detected.

And all this is - or would be, if it were actually observed/detected - objective, and independently verifiable. Even by you (simply go to the sites tusenfem has provided links to, download the data, and do your own analyses).

In discussing the evidence for the nature of comets' jets, in the ech, don't you think it would be preferable to examine the radio emission data? the data from the many plasma science instruments? And if 'visual' images are to be considered, how about doing so in an objective, independently verifiable way?

Finally, how about dropping the strong 'false dichotomy' undertone? How about focusing on the ech?

* at least in regard to comets' jets.

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning, tusenfem.

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"

I must say that I'm struck by how fiercely the "gaps in knowledge = toss out current cosmology for 'magic' theories" line of argument is used, in so many of the materials/documents/etc which Haig and Sol88 provide links to.

Basically, this discussion could not go any further south, with Haig now going full velikovskian.

Well, I found it quite entertaining at first; now, however, it's become really predictable and boring.

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.

Indeed.

What's odd is that Haig, having clearly shown he has no understanding of the actual science, destroyed what little remaining credibility he had (at least to me) by continuing to post the same nonsense, over and over again.

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.

Better, perhaps, that it be heavily moderated, with stuff that deals with magic and alleged scientific conspiracies moved to a different part of the ISF?

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning Tom.

The ech proponents seem to share with 911 conspiracy nuts the ability to determine the composition of unknown materials just by viewing digital images of the objects. Just think of all the money being wasted by fancy-pants scientists on spectrometers! :roll eyes:

Haig, there are some areas of the comet that appear smooth bright white; by your "logic" I would be justified in concluding that those are water ice, would I not?

ferd

Isn't having spectroscopes in one's eyes considered a superpower?

Today in my area we had this beautiful snowfall of fine powder (which turned traffic into a mess).

As I was clearing it this morning under the illumination of a streetlight with the high contrast, I noticed how it glistened in the light in a way that gave it the look of that really fine white beach or desert sand.

If I wasn't wearing a heavy jacket and shoveling the stuff (it was very light), it would have been easy to mistake the snow for sand (more suited to a 'hot and dry' environment).

Later in the day, I had an opportunity to take a few pictures, but the stuff had been sufficiently disturbed and exposed to some above freezing temperature that it no longer had quite the 'fine sand' look.

I wonder how many of the Electric Universe supporters have ever actually seen snow? Or at least not looked at it closely. I've had the impression that many are retirees living in warmer climates so their experience is a bit more limited.

(bold added)

This observation has been made before, by several other ISF members. And it's not just snow ... both Haig and Sol88 seem to think that (dirty, water) ice cannot look like 'rock' in black and white images. Perhaps a trip to an Alaskan glacier, or Greenland, in early spring, might help with their intuitions?

 

[Haig]

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?

Questions, questions, questions ... here are some answers below but I'm not sure what other forum you're taking about or care. btw Google search can be great as a source ... check this out ... Electric Comets

This is the image in question ...

Each planet acts as a small secondary cathode in this solar glow discharge and develops an invisible cometary plasma sheath, the tail of which stretches away from the Sun in the plane of the ecliptic. The cometary plasma sheath of Venus was found to stretch as far as the Earth during inferior conjunction. Researchers were puzzled by the coherent “stringy” nature of the Venusian plasma tail. [6] The stringiness is confirmation of Birkeland currents stretching between Venus and the Earth, which transfer charge between the planets. The same kind of electrical exchange takes place between Earth and Mars during opposition, giving rise to the ‘blue clearing’ of the Martian atmosphere and the electrically driven global dust storms on that planet. Many planetary plasma tails have been found to brush across the plasma sheath of the planet in the next outer orbit. This brushing constitutes an intermittent circuit for transferring charge between adjacent planets when they are aligned with the Sun.

--snip--

If the mass of an inner planet is reduced by charge exchange with the next outer planet, which changes the subatomic dipole distortion, the orbital radius of the inner planet must decrease proportionally to conserve energy. Similarly, the outer planet must gain mass and its orbit expands to conserve energy. The closer the encounter between two planets the more substantial the charge exchange and the greater the resultant orbital adjustments. It seems a highly effective means for collision avoidance and for quickly spacing the planetary orbits to minimize interactions—provided the inner planet diminishes its charge polarization (reduces its mass) in the exchange and the outer planet increases its polarization (increases its mass). Is this possible?

A substantial transfer of electrons from the inner planet to the outer planet along a (visible or invisible) cometary tail may produce the effect we require. Gravitationally induced charge polarization in neutral atoms forms a weak radial electric field inside celestial bodies. Planets behave like spherical electrets with a radial electric dipole polarization. If we remove some of the surface electrons the internal polarization is diminished causing a proportional diminution of the apparent mass and gravity of that body. Conversely, if electrons are added to a body its internal polarization increases, causing a proportional increase in mass.

--snip--

As a secondary cathode in the solar discharge, each planet normally supplies some electrons to the solar wind. In the case of an intense cometary discharge, like that memorialized for Venus, the continuous discharge can circularize and shrink the planet’s orbit. It is an effective capture mechanism that is unavailable under Newton’s gravitational law. Venus now has the most circular orbit of any planet. And as the plasma tail of an inner planet sweeps across the plasma sheath of an adjacent outer planet, electrons are transferred via Birkeland current filaments. The inner planet loses mass and its orbit shrinks toward the Sun. The outer planet gains mass and its orbit expands away from the Sun. Orbital eccentricity is damped by ‘cometary’ charge exchange with the solar wind, which varies with distance from the Sun. The eventual result is that all planets settle into low eccentricity orbits where they disturb each other the least.

This is an Electrically Modified Newtonian Dynamics (EMOND). It is distinct from MOND which merely twiddled Newton’s law to match the observations. MOND is NOT a theory. EMOND is a theory that requires no new physics.

SOURCE Newton’s Electric Clockwork Solar System 2009 by Wal Thornhill

In the above the "source" for the embedded image that caught your attention RC is given as " [6] Planet’s tail of the unexpected, New Scientist, 31 May 1997, p. 18. " and when you look that up (or read the last quote in this post) you will see it WAS the SOHO satellite.

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

Venus does not have a radius of millions of kilometers !

A Lie is not a joke RC !

Science : Planet's tail of the unexpected 31 May 1997 by Jeff Hecht Magazine issue 2084

ONE of our neighbouring planets can still pack a few surprises, it seems. Using satellite data, an international team of researchers has found that Venus sports a giant, ion-packed tail that stretches almost far enough to tickle the Earth when the two planets are in line with the Sun.

"I didn't expect to find it," says team member Marcia Neugebauer of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. "It's a really strong signal, and there's no doubt it's real."

NASA's Pioneer Venus Orbiter first found the tail in the late 1970s. Around 70 000 kilometres from the planet, the spacecraft detected bursts of hot, energetic ions, or plasma. The tail exists because ions in Venus's upper atmosphere are bombarded by the solar wind, a stream of plasma that blows out from the Sun.

But now Europe's Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO), a project partly sponsored by NASA, has shown ...

 

[Sol88]

Mmmmm.....seems we have a failure to communicate!

Let me try and summarise:

On comet Tempel 1 we have:

First on surface ice,

According to the new research in Science, the comet's surface features three pockets of thin ice. The area the ice covers is small. The surface area of Tempel 1 is roughly 45 square miles or 1.2 billion square feet. The ice, however, covers roughly 300,000 square feet. And only 6 percent of that area consists of pure water ice. The rest is dust.

LINK

and

We report the direct detection of solid water ice deposits exposed on the surface of comet 9P/Tempel 1, as observed by the Deep Impact mission. Three anomalously colored areas are shown to include water ice on the basis of their near-infrared spectra, which include diagnostic water ice absorptions at wavelengths of 1.5 and 2.0 micrometers. These absorptions are well modeled as a mixture of nearby non-ice regions and 3 to 6% water ice particles 10 to 50 micrometers in diameter. These particle sizes are larger than those ejected during the impact experiment, which suggests that the surface deposits are loose aggregates. The total area of exposed water ice is substantially less than that required to support the observed ambient outgassing from the comet, which likely has additional source regions below the surface.

LINK

So from these findings, I deduced exposed water ice is substantially less than that required to support the observed ambient outgassing from the comet and must be hidden subsurface.

but then in the same breath, mainstream say this

Comparison of Deep Impact and Stardust photos of a smooth elevated feature on the surface of the nucleus showing recession of icy cliffs at the margins.

So no surface ice BUT we have icy cliffs??? can you, JT, Tusenfem, Reality Check, see the contradiction here?

Not only icy cliffs but receding icy cliffs, with no ICE on the surface!!!

Then, because we know there is volatiles in the coma, there must be ice hidden subsurface so we smashed a copper projectile into the nucleus and found:

Spitzer's pre-impact spectrum reveals chemicals in comet Tempel 1's coma, or halo, of evaporating gas and trailing dust. The post-impact spectrum indicates the composition of the ejecta thrown out by Deep Impact's probe. The ejected material greatly outshines the faint coma.

Comparing the post-impact spectrum with that from Hale-Bopp demonstrates its richness and complexity. This complexity is a result of Deep Impact's excavation of Tempel 1's insides.

Though the post-impact spectrum is still being analyzed, it shows that Tempel 1's ejecta contain the following chemicals: smectite clay; iron-containing compounds; carbonates, the minerals in seashells; crystallized silicates, such as the green olivine minerals found on beaches and in the gemstone peridot; and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are carbon-containing compounds found in car exhaust and on burnt toast.

Astronomers were most surprised to see clay, carbonates, and crystallized silicates because these chemicals are thought have formed in warm environments, possibly near the Sun, but away from the chilly outer neighborhood of comets. How did these compounds get inside comets? One possibility is that materials in our early solar system mixed together before being sorted out into individual bodies.

LINK

So still not enough ice subsurface to account for the jet activity, BUT you found clay, carbonates, and crystallised silicates!! so rocky like but still not rock????

Abstract
Gemini-N observed the properties of dust ejected from the nucleus of comet 9P/Tempel 1 before and after its encounter with Deep Impact. Marked changes were seen in the 7.8- to 13-micrometer spectral energy distribution and derived grain properties of the inner coma. A strong, broad silicate feature dominated by emission from amorphous pyroxene, amorphous olivine, and magnesium-rich crystalline olivine had developed by 1 hour after impact. The ejected dust mass is congruent with 10(4) to 10(6) kilograms on the basis of our models. Twenty-six hours later the silicate feature had faded, leaving a smooth featureless spectrum, similar to that observed before the impact, suggesting that the impact did not produce a new active region releasing small particles on the nucleus.

LINK

Still rocky like but NOT rock...who should I believe???

Then onto

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.

So back again to ice on the surface????

And when they concentrate on just the patches of exposed ice on Temple 1 (as you can see, now i'm confused) we have from the same source as above

3.5 Surface Jets
Shortly before the flyby spacecraft entered shield mode, it obtained high-resolution images that show a number of small, well-defined jets whose bases are in contact with the nucleus. Four of these jets (denoted “a”–”d”) are shown in Fig. 9

(Movie of the sequence HERE)

For comparison, the bottom panel in Fig. 9 shows the exposed ice patches that were observed on the surface (Sunshine et al. 2006). It is clear that the surface jets are associated in some way with the ice patches, as the jets appear when the ice is crossing the horizon and the source regions map back to sites that are adjacent to the ice. It is less clear what relationship exists between the two phenomena. On one hand, the patches could be the sources of the jets, while on the other hand, the jets could emanate from sub-surface vents, with a portion of the gas recondensing on the surface to produce the ice patches. The latter explanation is preferred because it provides a mechanism for replenishing the exposed ice, which should have a relatively short lifetime, given the thermal conditions on the surface (Groussin et al. 2007). The correlation between the jets and ice patches suggests that there may be additional surface jets emanating from the other patches, and they remain unseen simply because the limb was not imaged when those ice patches were on the horizon. Indeed, an extension of jet 5 across the nucleus does cross one of the ice patches (inside the large circular depression), raising the possibility of another connection that will be explored in future work.

So the we have no ice on the surface but the jets come from on or near the ice patches BUT when we turn our attention the retreating icy cliffs mentioned earlier Sunshine at al make no mention of them????

But H.Sierks says jets emanate from this region???? In fact the cliffs of ice, not subsurface or surface patches, but cliffs of ICE

The cliff of 9P/Tempel 1
The current work focusses on simulating at high resolu- tion the activity seen on a peculiar terrain of 9P/Tempel 1. From in-situ and ground based observations, Farnham et al ([3]) and Vincent et al ([2]) have linked some the coma structures to the edge of one of the smooth regions, where a cliff has been seen to recede from 2005 to 2011. We propose a 3D model of the jet starting from the cliff.

LINK

Do these people even talk to each other???

I hope that clears up the confusion from my point of view!

Surface ice but no surface ice (or subsurface) and rocky like but with the signature of rock.

 

[tusenfem]

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?

Oh, it is possibly the electric connection of Jupiter with the Sun, modulated by Saturn and Venus.

 

[Haig]

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.

Gezz Ziggurat, Sure there is a reason and that reason is that the Ancients referred mainly to Saturn, Jupiter, Venus, Mars, Earth, Mercury and the Moon in their myths, stories, saga's and religious text's. It's quite telling that the seemingly "obvious" body that you might think would be there actually isn't or not in ANY important way ... The SUN played NO part for the Ancients in the "Battle of the Gods" they DIDN'T FEAR the Sun !!!

But Hey Ziggurat ! you add in whatever you like and as many moons from wherever

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?

Nope, it doesn't make sense in my understanding. Your problem is you believe comet formation happened billions of years ago. Then your problem is ... how can comets survive for billions of years in close approaches to the Sun ? Obviously they can't ... mainstream solution ... invent a place(s) to keep them safe in cold storage and non-active orbits. Then, when needed, invent a happening / bump / passing body to bring them to life !!!

Can't you see it's just one improbable event stacked one after another and quickly goes from possible to improbable to fantasy

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

It's a non-issue in the EU / PC understanding of comet formation.

That is indeed what we observe.

Indeed.

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.

I don't think they could survive orbiting the Sun for billions of years (see my comment above)

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.

Your fantasising Ziggurat.

Kuiper Belt & Oort Cloud: Overview my bold

The Kuiper Belt is a disc-shaped region of icy objects beyond the orbit of Neptune -- billions of kilometers from our sun. Pluto and Eris are the best known of these icy worlds. There may be hundreds more of these ice dwarfs out there. The Kuiper Belt and even more distant Oort Cloud are believed to be the home of comets that orbit our sun.

Dream on

 

[Sol88]

As a side note, I see the Rosetta blog is back up.

Rosetta Blog

and the first thing they post is

Comments including links to sites irrelevant to the post or to unpublished theories or non peer-reviewed papers will likely be trashed.

and in the comments section

"[C]onfirmation of features, processes, etc., will only be provided in peer-reviewed papers, a process that often takes several weeks or months" - well, AFAIK exactly one peer-reviewed paper on Rosetta data obtained after arrival (which was exactly 5 months ago) has been published so far, the ROSINA study of D/H in the coma. I was told last November that a Nature special issue with many more papers - including OSIRIS hi-res imagery so far held back from the public eye - would come out "soon": any hints when that will actually happen?

and very telling

top part snipped...

There is a general attitude in science in this era that we have all the answers to most things and we are just looking to tidy up a few loose ends, a rather arrogant and unjustified approach I am afraid and and not helpful in the quest for a true understanding of reality. The purpose of this Rosetta mission should not be to confirm existing beliefs. There have already been results at this early stage that should set a few alarm bells ringing and it will be interesting to see how things are dealt with as the journey of this comet progresses.

and people are not happy Jan...

DEAR SIR, I AM A SCIENTIFIC ITALIAN JOURNALIST. I RECEIVED MANY PROTESTS ABOUT NO OSIRIS'S IMAGES HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED. I THINK THAT NO SCIENTIST MUST FEEL AUTHORIZED TO KEEP SECRET MATERIAL THAT HAS RECEIVED THROUGH PUBLIC FUNDING. YOU CAN SEE DAY AFTER DAY ALL IMAGES OF CURIOSITY AND OPPORTUNITY. WHY CANNOT WE SEE THE IMAGES OF OSIRIS? WHY EVEN THE AGU PRESS CONFERENCE WAS OCCULTED IN INTERNET? WE, EUROPEANS, WANT ANSWERS AD ONCE! (SORRY FOR MY ENGLISH)

So why are they hiding the pretty pictures????


because it's been jammed down my throat in this thread pictures are not real science, I have used them to try and my interpretation of the jets source but you want maths.

What are they hiding?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Good morning Tom.
(bold added)

This observation has been made before, by several other ISF members. And it's not just snow ... both Haig and Sol88 seem to think that (dirty, water) ice cannot look like 'rock' in black and white images. Perhaps a trip to an Alaskan glacier, or Greenland, in early spring, might help with their intuitions?

I can take a picture of snow that fell just after Christmas that now looks like black basalt along the side of the road.

 

[Haig]

As a side note, I see the Rosetta blog is back up.

Rosetta Blog

and the first thing they post is

and in the comments section

and very telling



and people are not happy Jan...



So why are they hiding the pretty pictures????


because it's been jammed down my throat in this thread pictures are not real science, I have used them to try and my interpretation of the jets source but you want maths.

What are they hiding?

Your're right Sol88,

That is NOT a good sign at all.

Obviously, they have a lot to hid and don't want the "great unwashed" getting the WRONG idea. I hope we are too pessimistic here but it seems like a damage limitation strategy.

tusenfem can you defend your team here ?????

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning again, Sol88

Mmmmm.....seems we have a failure to communicate!

Let me try and summarise:

On comet Tempel 1 we have:

First on surface ice,

LINK

and

LINK

So from these findings, I deduced exposed water ice is substantially less than that required to support the observed ambient outgassing from the comet and must be hidden subsurface.

but then in the same breath, mainstream say this

So no surface ice BUT we have icy cliffs??? can you, JT, Tusenfem, Reality Check, see the contradiction here?

Not only icy cliffs but receding icy cliffs, with no ICE on the surface!!!

Then, because we know there is volatiles in the coma, there must be ice hidden subsurface so we smashed a copper projectile into the nucleus and found:

LINK

So still not enough ice subsurface to account for the jet activity, BUT you found clay, carbonates, and crystallised silicates!! so rocky like but still not rock???? LINK

Still rocky like but NOT rock...who should I believe???

Then onto So back again to ice on the surface????

And when they concentrate on just the patches of exposed ice on Temple 1 (as you can see, now i'm confused) we have from the same source as above (Movie of the sequence HERE)



So the we have no ice on the surface but the jets come from on or near the ice patches BUT when we turn our attention the retreating icy cliffs mentioned earlier Sunshine at al make no mention of them????

But H.Sierks says jets emanate from this region???? In fact the cliffs of ice, not subsurface or surface patches, but cliffs of ICE LINK

Do these people even talk to each other???

I hope that clears up the confusion from my point of view!

Surface ice but no surface ice (or subsurface) and rocky like but with the signature of rock.

Thank you for your lengthy post, and for your clarification.

I will go through this post of yours in more detail later, but for now I must say I'm rather puzzled.

You see, I'm not sure to what extent you are presenting anything to do with the ech.

On the one hand, you do seem do be trying to make a case that at least some parts of some comets' surfaces are not ice (presumably 'pure' water ice), and this is directly relevant to one of the key assumptions of the ech. On the other hand, you also seem to make some oblique references to jets, but you do not connect this with the ech.

 

[Ziggurat]

Gezz Ziggurat, Sure there is a reason and that reason is that the Ancients referred mainly to Saturn, Jupiter, Venus, Mars, Earth, Mercury and the Moon in their myths, stories, saga's and religious text's. It's quite telling that the seemingly "obvious" body that you might think would be there actually isn't or not in ANY important way ... The SUN played NO part for the Ancients in the "Battle of the Gods" they DIDN'T FEAR the Sun !!!

Oh, Haig, you poor dear. There is no group of people known as "the Ancients". And this isn't science, it's religion.

Nope, it doesn't make sense in my understanding. Your problem is you believe comet formation happened billions of years ago.

You're back to avoiding the question. You have already conceded that it's possible for icy comet-sized objects (note that I have NOT said comets) to have formed billions of years ago in the outer solar system.

Then your problem is ... how can comets survive for billions of years in close approaches to the Sun ? Obviously they can't ...

Again, you've jumped ahead and avoided the question I asked.

mainstream solution ... invent a place(s) to keep them safe in cold storage and non-active orbits. Then, when needed, invent a happening / bump / passing body to bring them to life !!!

You have just described my question, but strangely enough, you haven't actually answered it.

Can't you see it's just one improbable event stacked one after another and quickly goes from possible to improbable to fantasy

This statement drips with irony, but really, it's just argument from incredulity, which is a fallacy. You say these things are too improbable. But on what basis do you claim that? Do you know how many comet-sized icy objects are in the outer solar system? Do you know how many larger objects there are which might perturb their orbits? Do you know how often they should pass close to each other?

No, of course not.

You want a specific answer, you believe in a specific answer as a matter of faith, so that is the answer you give, even though you have no evidence for it.

It's a non-issue in the EU / PC understanding of comet formation.

In other words, contrary to your earlier claim that my question was answered, it was in fact simply ignored.

 

[Sol88]

Good morning again, Sol88

snipped

You see, I'm not sure to what extent you are presenting anything to do with the ech.

On the one hand, you do seem do be trying to make a case that at least some parts of some comets' surfaces are not ice (presumably 'pure' water ice), and this is directly relevant to one of the key assumptions of the ech. On the other hand, you also seem to make some oblique references to jets, but you do not connect this with the ech.

Ummm... the shiny stuff is NOT ice!!! And the "shiny" stuff seen at the base of the jets is the EDM we bang on about.

Any clearer, JeanTate??

Mainstream contradicted themselves on this occasion more than once to save face and the snowydirtball paradigm.

And now have gone into lock down mode with the OSIRIS images, Why?

 

[Ziggurat]

If the mass of an inner planet is reduced by charge exchange with the next outer planet, which changes the subatomic dipole distortion, the orbital radius of the inner planet must decrease proportionally to conserve energy. Similarly, the outer planet must gain mass and its orbit expands to conserve energy.

Oh my. This is really top-grade nonsense.

If two planets exchange mass, the process is certainly NOT going to keep the energy of each individual planet the same. Seriously, it makes no sense. The departing mass will not depart with zero energy. Why would it?

Plus, of course, the whole "charge polarization" concept of mass is utter nonsense.

 

[Ziggurat]

And now have gone into lock down mode with the OSIRIS images, Why?

Because they've discovered aliens. Obviously.

 

[Sol88]

Because they've discovered aliens. Obviously.

Obviously

you, Ziggurat, gunna have a crack at the jets seen on Tempel 1?

As described in my post above.

 

[JeanTate]

Hello again, Sol88.

Ummm... the shiny stuff is NOT ice!!! And the "shiny" stuff seen at the base of the jets is the EDM we bang on about.

Any clearer, JeanTate??

Yes, somewhat. Thank you.

One thing I'll be checking is the relevant ech primary sources. So far, there seems to be just Thornhill & Talbott (2006)*. If you know of any other primary sources - re the ech - which are directly relevant, please cite them.

Mainstream contradicted themselves on this occasion more than once to save face and the snowydirtball paradigm.

And now have gone into lock down mode with the OSIRIS images, Why?

This is, of course, not relevant.

Why, Sol88, do you find it so hard to stay focused?

* not counting Thornhill (2007), which is behind a paywall