The Electric Comet theory

[Reality Check]

this mob says differnet!

You are forgetting to cite your sources and only quoting a small section.

Could "this mob" be
De Sanctis et al., Thermal Evolution Models of Tempel 1
and did you read their abstract?

Thermal evolution models of comet 9P/Tempel 1 have been developed to understand how thermal evolution models of comet nuclei can help to interpret the results of Deep Impact and vice versa, how the Deep Impact results can constrain the comet nuclei models. We found a general agreement between the models' outcomes and the mission results, without need of an ad hoc choice of initial parameters. We found that a "standard" model of a porous, low-density nucleus made of initially amorphous water ice, volatile ices, and dust can reproduce the general activity pattern of 9P/Tempel 1, if the dynamical characteristics of this comet are taken into account. The general aspect of the nucleus is well reproduced by the presence of a dust mantle on the nucleus that, even if very thin, quenches water production. The models foresee the natural formation of a dust mantle on the comet's surface, and the water flux source is mainly a subsurface diffuse source, in agreement with the observations. However, no simple correlation is found between production rates of different volatile gases and their relative abundances in the nucleus. From our models' results we can affirm that the coma abundances of volatile species do not match their abundances in the nucleus.

(emphasis added)

 

[Sol88]

Can you give a citaton to the paper or textbook that states that the standard comet model predicts jets only on the sunward side of comets?

Thanks.

IMHO it is fairly obvious that it is possible for jets to appear on the dark side of the a comet. The dark side is where CO is most likely to solidify. It would not take that much heating to penetrate the comet or flow along its surface to create a jet from the CO.

Your asking the wrong man RC, ask Tim Thompson 'cos that's what he said!

 

[Sol88]

JET ENERGIES AND VELOCITIES

On this issue the electrical theorists are emphatic: by proposing mechanical “jets” from comet nuclei, standard theory has descended into the preposterous. No analogy either in space or in experimental science supports the idea that sublimating ices 150 million miles and farther from the Sun could generate “jet chambers” or produce the sonic and supersonic jet velocities our instruments have measured.

The notion is inherently contradictory and violates the most obvious dynamic principles. Collimated, mechanically induced jets over the observed distances they travel would require, first, a finely machined nozzle, even more precise than those used on rocket engines, not a jagged opening in a “dirty snowball”. The idea requires a chamber that is insulated from the Sun, though anything even casting a shadow would lead to instant freezing.

The “model” also requires subsurface heating in the deep freeze of these remote regions. The “heating” would have to reach through an insulating crust roughly estimated to be ten feet deep, yet achieving things inconceivable for solar heating even in the absence of insulation. Pressure must build up to an extraordinary level. Then when the pressure erupts, something most mysterious must occur. Despite the instant release, equivalent pressures must be sustained for long periods to maintain the supersonic velocities—even to alter the orbits of comets in the way some astronomers now propose. We’ve said it before: “To save the theory astronomers now cling to the incredible”.

For the electrical theorists, the answer is all too obvious. Electrical discharge accelerates material into collimated jets along the self-confining Birkeland currents that constitute the discharge arcs.

Thunderbolts prediction

Explain to me again, slowly, how your craters and pits do this reality check? After you said

But I can certainly make a guess for the source of jets that go in straightish lines. Look at the images of the surface of comets. Notice the craters and pits? A jet issuing from a crater or pit will be "collimated" by the walls of the crater or pit.

 

[Reality Check]

LINK

Evolution of a Spiral Jet in the Inner Coma of Comet Hale-Bopp (1995 O1)
The paper is about how a jet behaves in the coma. This is little to do with the creation of the jet (sorry about misunderstanding you). My interpretation is that the jet travels through the coma until it is exposed to the solar wind and that bends the jet away from the Sun (the 90 degree turn).

ETA (again) whats the plasma model Reality check???

I do not know. From the paper it looks like a model that describes jets as plasma rather than dust.

ETA
I do hope that you are not confusing this with your earlier post that contains a link to a method of cutting rock with plasma streams.

1. The electric comet idea uses electrical discharges not plasma streams (they are different).
   As an expert on the electric comet theory and all of its many published papers rolleyes you know this.
2. The cometary plasma jets are directed outward. To be "cutting rock" they would be directed into the nucleus.

 

[Reality Check]

Thunderbolts prediction

Explain to me again, slowly, how your craters and pits do this reality check? After you said

As I said:

But I can certainly make a guess for the source of jets that go in straightish lines. Look at the images of the surface of comets. Notice the craters and pits? A jet issuing from a crater or pit will be "collimated" by the walls of the crater or pit.

A guess is just that. The answer obvious - the walls of the crater or pit would (I guess) guide the jet.

Another guess would be that the interaction with the coma collimates the jet.

 

[Reality Check]

Your asking the wrong man RC, ask Tim Thompson 'cos that's what he said!

Ohh ok so we can have jets anywhere? Ok, so it does not matter if they come from the dark side or sunlit side, though your theory said only from the sunlit side![/quote]

What you state Tim said is in red.
What you stated without citation is in blue.

Please supply the citation for your assertion. Thanks.

 

[Sol88]

What you state Tim said is in red.
What you stated without citation is in blue.

Please supply the citation for your assertion. Thanks.

I've got a better idea, you supply me with a link to the standard model?

we'll go from there!

 

[Sol88]

Better question, what is the standard model?

Is it a dirtyiceball? icydirtball, dirtysnowball, icedirtysnowball or what?



but my mate wiki said,

Debate over comet composition
Comet Borrelly exhibits jets, yet is hot and dry.

Debate continues about how much ice is in a comet. In 2001, NASA's Deep Space 1 team, working at NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab, obtained high-resolution images of the surface of Comet Borrelly. They announced that comet Borrelly exhibits distinct jets, yet has a hot, dry surface. The assumption that comets contain water and other ices led Dr. Laurence Soderblom of the U.S. Geological Survey to say, "The spectrum suggests that the surface is hot and dry. It is surprising that we saw no traces of water ice." However, he goes on to suggest that the ice is probably hidden below the crust as "either the surface has been dried out by solar heating and maturation or perhaps the very dark soot-like material that covers Borrelly's surface masks any trace of surface ice".[59]

The recent Deep Impact probe has also yielded results suggesting that the majority of a comet's water ice is below the surface, and that these reservoirs feed the jets of vaporised water that form the coma of Tempel 1.[60]

However, more recent data from the Stardust mission show that materials retrieved from the tail of comet Wild 2 were crystalline and could only have been "born in fire."[61][62] More recent still, the materials retrieved demonstrate that the "comet dust resembles asteroid materials."[63] These new results have forced scientists to rethink the nature of comets and their distinction from asteroids.[64]

LINK

How many times Reality check, Tim Thompson, how many times are you presented with data that is not compatible without MAJOR assumptions, ice below the surface, comet migration to explain the high temp minerals et cetera before the model is abandoned for a model that PREDICTED some of the major phenomena!

Charge separation is happening before your very eyes, so wake up and smell the roses!

 

[Reality Check]

I've got a better idea, you supply me with a link to the standard model?

we'll go from there!

I've got a better idea. You made the assertion about the standard model - you provide the link.

we'll go from there!

 

[Reality Check]

How many times Reality check, Tim Thompson, how many times are you presented with data that is not compatible without MAJOR assumptions, ice below the surface, comet migration to explain the high temp minerals et cetera before the model is abandoned for a model that PREDICTED some of the major phenomena!

Charge separation is happening before your very eyes, so wake up and smell the roses!

How many times Sol88, how many times are you presented with data that is not compatible without major assumptions, density, lack of actual electrical discahrges et cetera before the electric comet idea is abandoned for a model that has actually predicted many of the major phenomena since the 1950's!

Charge separation is happening before our very eyes in the comet plasma! That is what happens in plasmas - they are ionized gases. Wake up and learn the basic physics!

ETA
A small question for you - where were the electrical discharges for Comet Borrelly reported in the scientific journals?
After all they got a spacecraft up close to the comet (and other comets). There must be plenty of evidence for electrical discharges in the surface of comets nuclei. Show us some!

You really need to learn to cite things. The article is stating exactly what science is all about. Science is about the fitting of theories to data.
The electric comet idea is the other way around - create the theory and go looking for data to support it - long with ignoring actual data such as the density of comets !

Comet

Debate continues about how much ice is in a comet. In 2001, NASA's Deep Space 1 team, working at NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab, obtained high-resolution images of the surface of Comet Borrelly. They announced that comet Borrelly exhibits distinct jets, yet has a hot, dry surface. The assumption that comets contain water and other ices led Dr. Laurence Soderblom of the U.S. Geological Survey to say, "The spectrum suggests that the surface is hot and dry. It is surprising that we saw no traces of water ice." However, he goes on to suggest that the ice is probably hidden below the crust as "either the surface has been dried out by solar heating and maturation or perhaps the very dark soot-like material that covers Borrelly's surface masks any trace of surface ice".[59]
The recent Deep Impact probe has also yielded results suggesting that the majority of a comet's water ice is below the surface, and that these reservoirs feed the jets of vaporised water that form the coma of Tempel 1.[60]
However, more recent data from the Stardust mission show that materials retrieved from the tail of comet Wild 2 were crystalline and could only have been "born in fire."[61][62] More recent still, the materials retrieved demonstrate that the "comet dust resembles asteroid materials."[63] These new results have forced scientists to rethink the nature of comets and their distinction from asteroids.[64]

The first highlight just states that the surface of Comet Borrelly is hot and dry. That is what was observed.

The article is clear in your last highlight: "comet dust resembles asteroid materials" means that comet dust resembles asteroid materials.

The morphology and surface processes of Comet 19/P Borrelly

The flyby of the nucleus of the Comet 19P/Borrelly by the Deep Space 1 spacecraft produced the best views to date of the surface of these interesting objects. It transformed Borrelly from an astronomical object shrouded in coma of gas and dust into a geological object with complex surface processes and a rich history of erosion and landform evolution. Based on analysis of the highest resolution images, stereo images, photometry, and albedo we have mapped four major morphological units and four terrain features. The morphological units are named dark spots, mottled terrain, mesas, and smooth terrain. The features are named ridges, troughs, pits, and hills. In strong contrast to asteroids, unambiguous impact craters were not observed on Borrelly's surface. Because of the relatively short period of this comet, surface erosion by volatile sublimation is, in geologic terms, a very active process. The formation and the morphologies of units and features appear to be driven by differential rates of sublimation erosion. Erosional rates across the comet are probably controlled by solar energy input and the location of the subsolar point during perihelion. Differences in energy input may produce different varieties of sublimation erosional landforms. The terrains on Borrelly suggest that solar energy input could map directly into erosional processes and landforms.

19P/Borrelly

Nucleus parameters

• Dimensions: 8×4×4 km[1]
• Density: 0.3 g/cm³[2]
• Mass: 2 × 1013 kg[3]
• Albedo: 0.03[4]

(emphasis added)

 

[tusenfem]

Just throwing in a mainstream paper that should have measured many a property of the EC. Harri Laakso writes about Electric fields and cold electrons in the vicinity of Comet Halley.

 

[Tim Thompson]

No Evidence

How many times Reality check, Tim Thompson, how many times are you presented with data that is not compatible without MAJOR assumptions, ...

None. You have yet to present any "evidence" at all that is truly incompatible with standard theory. Good luck finding any.

... before the model is abandoned for a model that PREDICTED some of the major phenomena!

False premise, the model never made the predictions you claim it made. it's the same old trick stage illusionists play. You just make sure you predict everything, and you're going to get a lucky hit. But in fact, if you examine the physics in some detail, you find that the "theory" you present does not make the predictions you think it makes.

Charge separation is happening before your very eyes, so wake up and smell the roses!

No it isn't. So pull those roses out of your nose!

 

[Sol88]

None. You have yet to present any "evidence" at all that is truly incompatible with standard theory. Good luck finding any.


False premise, the model never made the predictions you claim it made. it's the same old trick stage illusionists play. You just make sure you predict everything, and you're going to get a lucky hit. But in fact, if you examine the physics in some detail, you find that the "theory" you present does not make the predictions you think it makes.


No it isn't. So pull those roses out of your nose!

Sounds very mainstream to me, do not predict anything, then nothing will contradict you and you can keep making the theory up as you go along!

You have yet to present any "evidence" at all that is truly incompatible with standard theory. Good luck finding any.

Tell me again Tim since it must of slipped your mind, about the whistler waves the electrostatic noise the charged and couple dust associated with bright surface patches that can be collimated into thin long beams and sheets ...et cetera!

If you are expecting me to pull a paper of the web that has it all layed out in B&W you might have to wait, but if you would like links to papers that cast Doubt on the standard model and lend support to the Electric comet model, well you can't have been reading many of those links I've given.

 

[Sol88]

I've got a better idea. You made the assertion about the standard model - you provide the link.

we'll go from there!

No I'm asking you, Mr mainstream (RC) what is the standard model!

Obviously it has to include plasma!

 

[Reality Check]

If you are expecting me to pull a paper of the web that has it all layed out in B&W you might have to wait, but if you would like links to papers that cast Doubt on the standard model and lend support to the Electric comet model, well you can't have been reading many of those links I've given.

This is of course your main problem.

You cannot find any published papers on the electric comet model.
You have no actual evidence for the electric comet model.
You have no answer to the fact that the predicted electrical discharges have never been detected.
You have no answer to the fact that measured comet densities show that they are not made of rock as stated by the electric comet idea.
You have not been able to find any quantitative predictions from the electric comet idea.

So you are deduced to a common logical fallacy (false dichotomy), i.e. invalidating the standard comet model will validate the electric comet idea.

Guess what Sol88:
Invalidating the standard comet model will ... invalidate the standard comet model!

You have not even got close to invalidating the standard comet model. You do not understand that the scientific method involves an iterative process of changing (or even creating new theories) theories to fit the data. For example Newtonian gravity was upgraded to General Relativity.

Thus the standard comet model of today is not the standard comet theory as stated by Whimple in the 1950's. Astronomers have collected a lot of data about comets in the last 50 years. That data has been used to fine-tune the comet model. Scientist can do this because the comet model makes quantitative predictions that can be compared to actual numeric data.

You are making the same mistake that creationists make. They keep trying to invalidate evolution and are silly enough to believe that their (failed) attempts are evidence for a creation.

 

[Reality Check]

No I'm asking you, Mr mainstream (RC) what is the standard model!

Obviously it has to include plasma!

No I'm asking you, Mr woo (Sol88) what is the standard model!

And yes it does include plasma - this is astronomer shorthand for the ionized gas and charged dust particles in the comet coma and tail (and of course the plasma of the solar wind).

 

[Sol88]

Tell me again Tim since it must of slipped your mind, about the whistler waves the electrostatic noise the charged and couple dust associated with bright surface patches that can be collimated into thin long beams and sheets ...et cetera!

No one then!!

Reality check??

Tim Thompson?

Tusenfem?

Dancing david??

'com people, your standard model must offer some sort of explanation!

 

[Reality Check]

No one then!!

Reality check??

Tim Thompson?

Tusenfem?

Dancing david??

'com people, your standard model must offer some sort of explanation!

My guess:
Electrostatic noise = heavy ion pickup (standard electromagnetism)
Whistler waves = plasma interactions (standard plasma physics).

ETA
If someone knew how to use Google they would find:
Whistler wave cascades in solar wind plasma
A Wave-Wave Interaction in Whistler Frequency Range in Space Plasma

 

[Sol88]

No I'm asking you, Mr woo (Sol88) what is the standard model!

And yes it does include plasma - this is astronomer shorthand for the ionized gas and charged dust particles in the comet coma and tail (and of course the plasma of the solar wind).

Can't find it, Reality Check! It's been ad hoc'd and changed so many times I can't keep up with it, so I'm asking you, what do you think the standard model is?

And Jim does a lovely job of showing up all the talking heads in his web page

It happened in an instant... it was 1986 and the Giotto space craft (the only satellite going to comet Halley that had an onboard camera - image right) was approaching that famous comet's nucleus through the clouds of dust and gas that surrounded it.



As the light faded due to the dense clouds eclipsing the solar light the only light came from the comet nucleus still buried deep in the cloud,

*

clue#1... why is the comet nucleus illuminated when the sunlight is blocked by the dense comet coma?. Hmmmm, could this be a "self luminous" object with an energy source other than sunlight... e.g. the plasma discharge current striking the comet nucleus? ... and
*

clue#2... how can the comet continue to form a tail from "solar radiation - sublimating ices off the comet nucleus" when the sunlight is so completely blocked by the dense comet coma?

No one at NASA or ESO or Harvard or Yale or Cornell or JPL or anywhere else... not even the news media... thinks to ask such difficult questions as they are all beaming with "the right stuff".

On with our story... an aging Fred Whipple has been invited to witness the "confirmation" of the dirty snow ball comet model. All the calculations had been done... all the journal articles had been refereed and all the PhDs had been given to the bright new crop of cometary scientists at all the best universities after years of hard study. Book sales were brisk and the public had purchased and read and applauded.



A comet was said to be a sparkling white snowy ball with some dust that was released as the sun's heat burned off the outer layers. 'Artists' full color art work dramatically reproduced the scientists' "predictions". The Giotto space craft moved closer to the comet nucleus sending back picture after picture... each one better defining the pure white potato shaped "snow ball".



The excitement rose to fever pitch as small jets could now be seen and the pure white nucleus became better defined with each returning photo. At last as the pure white nucleus that Whipple knew had to lie in the center of all the dust and gas became clearly defined - Whipple screams out on international television... 'it's the nucleus... there it is... it's the nucleus!!!!'. Just then the Giotto space craft broke through the final layers of gas and dust to reveal what is now known to be the darkest, blackest object ever photographed by any space craft in the history of the space program. Silence and shock filled the direct feed television and Giotto's picture broke up. Something terrible had gone wrong. There was no snowy nucleus. What was it? and how could all the journal articles have been wrong?.



The nucleus was not a loosely packed dirty snow ball but was a pitted burnt carbonaceous chondrite (rock). Dead silence filled the room. Seconds later the Giotto space craft started to gyrate wildly and the last signals received from it were with the electron particle counter off scale, circuits in overload and the magnetic sensors off the scale. Surely the space craft had been designed to exceed all expected criteria by the comet specialists at ESO and NASA.



Giotto had been hit by an electron beam. Giotto was temporarily rendered inoperable it as it passed directly to the sun ward side of comet Halley's nucleus. But from where could such an electron beam come from??. The dirty snow ball theory never said anything about anything like that.

Electron beam? along with the whistler waves the electrostatic noise the charged and couple dust associated with bright surface patches that can be collimated into thin long beams and sheets ...et cetera!

 

[Sol88]

Best I can find RC,

A comet is a lump of loosely packed dust with some ice and gas, somewhere below the surface is more ice and gas, the sun heats up the comet till the gas sublimates and forms a coma and tail.

Correct? Reality check?