The Electric Comet theory

[Sol88]

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

Update to the "dirtier snowball model"???

You mob are aren't half a laugh!

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

How far RC?

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

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

Surprised twice them mainstream mob, shame!

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

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

How tough was the "rind" Reality check?

 

[Dancing David]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Reality Check]

A little tidbit for Sol88 to ignore:
Photometric Evolution Of The Deep Impact Flash analyses the first faint flash on impact and the bigger flash that happened about 124 milliseconds later. A couple of quotes from the paper:

Observations: The impact with Tempel 1 occurred at an angle of 20º-40º from the horizontal [1].

(an oblique collision)

The faint flash followed by the delayed saturated flash farther downrange can be explained by an oblique impact into a low-density (0.3 g/cc) target as documented in laboratory experiments [2-4].

 

[Sol88]

A little tidbit for Sol88 to ignore:
Photometric Evolution Of The Deep Impact Flash analyses the first faint flash on impact and the bigger flash that happened about 124 milliseconds later. A couple of quotes from the paper:

(an oblique collision)

Reality check maybe you should do some reading from your own links

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

From crackpot Thornhills PREDICTIONS

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

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

Have a look at Figure 2 from Lunar and Planetary Science XXXVII (2006)

Positions C and D are quite telling from an electrical discharge point of view, as is the saturation of the instruments and disruption to transmission!

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

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

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

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

Wham, bam thank you 'mam

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

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

Guess what RC, ALL PREDICTED!!!

 

[Sol88]

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

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

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

Thunderbolts Team= PREDICTIONS!

NASA= Surprises!

Initial results were surprising as the material excavated by the impact contained more dust and less ice than had been expected. The only models of cometary structure astronomers could positively rule out were the very porous models which had comets as loose aggregates of material

See below

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

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

 

[Dancing David]

Thunderbolts Team= PREDICTIONS!

NASA= Surprises!

See below

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

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

 

[Sol88]

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

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

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

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

 

[Dancing David]

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

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



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

Why not cite the source of your quotes?

 

[Sol88]

Why not cite the source of your quotes?

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

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

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

Astronomer Charlie Qi (CfA) expressed surprise at these results.

he said

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

revised to a really dirty snowball???

SWAS operators were puzzled by the lack of increased water vapor from Tempel 1.

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

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

Could the dirtysnowball be wrong???

Go find out for yourself DD!

For more information, contact:

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

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

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

 

[Sol88]

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

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

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

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



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

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

EPIC SUCCESS FOR SCIENCE !

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

as in Cometary Orbit Determination and Nongravitational Forces

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

Rocket like forces???? com on

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

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

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

Yep they can nail comets densities down using this method

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

Yay scientific method!!!

 

[Sol88]

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

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

Update your dirtysnowball to a dirtiersnowball to just a dirtball? Like those crackpots have said all along???

You are good for a laugh RC!

 

[Sol88]

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

Hypothesis: Comets are electrical phenomena!

PREDICTIONS for a comet being an electrical phenomena.

Predictions from the hypothesis

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

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

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

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


Shall we go over the PREDICTIONS again realty check?

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

forgot to add

 

[Sol88]

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

Hypothesis: Comets are electrical phenomena!

PREDICTIONS for a comet being an electrical phenomena.



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


Shall we go over the PREDICTIONS again realty check?

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

forgot to add

Maybe you missed this post RC

again for the benefit of Reality check

 

[Sol88]

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

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

They have grossly underestimated the mass of comets!

shall we talk about comet Holmes!

ETA RC

Show me a comet jet outgassing, please.

 

[Sol88]

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

There is nothing wrong with our mainstream model

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

That comets shine in xrays and UV should be the death knell for the dirtyice ball model.

 

[Sol88]

There is nothing wrong with our mainstream model

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

That comets shine in xrays and UV should be the death knell for the dirtyice ball model.

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

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

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

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

 

[Sol88]

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

NASA's Swift.

Well we have had a squiz at 73P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 3 in UV, though the PR did not mention if they look in X Ray as well, though why wouldn't you?? oh a see too bright in UV, so of course you'd be unsure as to whether we would see it in X-rays.

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

Still??

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

What was the weather like up there??

 

[Sol88]

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

• It predicts that comets will have densities ~3 gm/cm3.
  The actual measured densities are ~0.6 gm/cm3.
  EPIC FAILURE.
• It predicts that comets will emit multiple X-ray bursts from the electrical discharges.
  These multiple X-ray bursts are not seen.
  A glow of X-rays is seen, e.g. the first observation of X-rays was in 1996 for Comet Hyakutake. These X-rays surround the nucleus.
  Comet C/1999 S4: Chandra Solves Mystery Of Cometary X-Rays.
  EPIC FAILURE.

Electric Comets I, Electric Comets II: References and Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays.


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

• Glanz, J (1996). "Comet Hyakutake Blazes in X-rays". Science 272: 194. doi:10.1126/science.272.5259.194. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1996Sci...272..194G.
• Comet C/1999 S4: Chandra Solves Mystery Of Cometary X-Rays.
  
  They pinpoint the origin of the X-rays as outside of the nucleus (just where does the electric comet idea say the X-ray bursts will come from?).
• X-rays from solar system objects
• X-ray tomography of a cometary bow shock

Are we starting to read from the same page RC?

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

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

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

 

[Sol88]

Did you just post a link to an EU paper?

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

Everything is electric, fancy that

 

[Tubbythin]

Everything is electric, fancy that

No. X-rays are electromagnetic radiation.