Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

[jonesdave116]

Some interesting posters from the ESLAB abstracts, available here: http://www.congrexprojects.com/docs...ocs/16a07_abstract-book_20160203.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Just a few of the many:

The Plasma Interaction of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko With The Solar Wind
Karl-Heinz Glassmeier et al.
"Details of the pick-up process and subsequent acceleration of charged particles of cometary origin, the deflection of the solar wind, new wave generation processes, indications of bow shock dynamics, magnetic cavity formation, the impact of CMEs on the inner most coma and further cometary plasma processes could be studied........." Page 84-85

Infrared Detection of Exposed Water Ice on 67P/CG Surface
Gianrico Filacchione et al.
"After the identification of two water ice patches in the Imhotep region by means of VIRTIS-M (Filacchione et al., Nature, in press), we report about the detection of further deposits observed in the Khepry and Anhur regions." Page 50.

Properties of the Diamagnetic Cavity at Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Charlotte Goetz et al
"However in July 2015, the signatures of a cavity were detected at distances of up to 330 km kilometers. Up until November 2015 a total of 480 intervals when Rosetta was situated in the diamagnetic cavity have been detected." Page 28.

Evolution and Structure of a Comet Magnetosphere - Rosetta Observations
Hans Nilsson et al.
"In mid to late April the solar wind started to disappear from the observation region.
This was associated with the solar wind deflection reaching 90°, indicating that the solar
wind free region formed due to severe mass loading and associated solar wind deflection."
Page 87.

 

[tusenfem]

Which is a fairly good summary of...

So the difference is...

The difference is that you cannot read comprehensively and have zero knowledge of physics, because the comet is not "negatively charged" as you should have known from the Moon and the paper on the charging of 67P.

 

[tusenfem]

Some interesting posters from the ESLAB abstracts, available here: http://www.congrexprojects.com/docs...ocs/16a07_abstract-book_20160203.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Just a few of the many:

The Plasma Interaction of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko With The Solar Wind
Karl-Heinz Glassmeier et al.
"Details of the pick-up process and subsequent acceleration of charged particles of cometary origin, the deflection of the solar wind, new wave generation processes, indications of bow shock dynamics, magnetic cavity formation, the impact of CMEs on the inner most coma and further cometary plasma processes could be studied........." Page 84-85

Infrared Detection of Exposed Water Ice on 67P/CG Surface
Gianrico Filacchione et al.
"After the identification of two water ice patches in the Imhotep region by means of VIRTIS-M (Filacchione et al., Nature, in press), we report about the detection of further deposits observed in the Khepry and Anhur regions." Page 50.

Properties of the Diamagnetic Cavity at Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Charlotte Goetz et al
"However in July 2015, the signatures of a cavity were detected at distances of up to 330 km kilometers. Up until November 2015 a total of 480 intervals when Rosetta was situated in the diamagnetic cavity have been detected." Page 28.

Evolution and Structure of a Comet Magnetosphere - Rosetta Observations
Hans Nilsson et al.
"In mid to late April the solar wind started to disappear from the observation region.
This was associated with the solar wind deflection reaching 90°, indicating that the solar
wind free region formed due to severe mass loading and associated solar wind deflection."
Page 87.

Sounds like a meeting I should go to ... oh I am!
Karl-Heinz's poster will be withdrawn as it was going to be an overview poster of RPC. But then it turned out that there are so many RPC presentations, it does not pay for the effort of trying to condense it all on one small poster.
If I counted correctely there are
at least 5 RPC talks
at least 9 RPC posters

 

[Sol88]

The difference is that there is no electric woo impinging on the surface of the comet. It would be very noticeable.
There is no observed radial electric field from the Sun. That would also be noticed. Just the solar wind, which is quasi-neutral.
No electric woo is needed, as ice has been seen/ detected subsurface and on the surface (also now at Khepry and Anhur according to the ESLAB abstracts), and its sublimation products are seen in the coma at temperatures one would expect from sublimation. So all we need for sublimation is for the temperature to be sufficient for it to happen. Let me check........yep.
The solar wind has been missing since April until quite recently, and therefore cannot be invoked for any woo processes.
The diamagnetic cavity is just that. Electric discharges would create noticeable magnetic fields. As it happens, Philae found the comet to be remarkably non-magnetic.
And you are still quoting the paper about electrostatic forces, which are irrelevant when the solar wind is not even reaching the surface. The same applies to anything else that relies on the solar wind.

You've got ice, and you've got sunlight. Work it out. It's not rocket science.

Maybe for simpletons but plasma does not always obey the maths demanded by the mainstream.

Such your wrong assumption of the solar wind, which is quasi-neutral. So not always and if double layers are involved...

 

[Sol88]

It might be quite a current, but total current is meaningless in space plasma physics.

If you would read you would have read that the current is driven by the oppositely directed magnetic field. The magnetic field, frozen in the solar wind, is transported towards the comet and hangs-up in its ionosphere [Hannes Alfvén, 1959, and still valid]. As the interplanetary magnetic field changes direction, the draped field also changes direction, is however compressed by the dynamic pressure of the solar wind.

As very well known in plasma physics since Maxwell, when oppositely directed magnetic fields are close to each other they will have a current sheet in between, with a current density given by Maxwell-Ampère's Law as in my first post.

There is no need for an electric field, let alone the non-existent "solar radial electric field."

Magnetospheric plasma boundaries: a test of the frozen-in magnetic
field theorem

Almost like mathematicians dividing by zero to arrive at a singularity!!

Spose makes the maths easier, so...

 

[tusenfem]

Magnetospheric plasma boundaries: a test of the frozen-in magnetic
field theorem

Almost like mathematicians dividing by zero to arrive at a singularity!!

Spose makes the maths easier, so...

What exactly are you trying to say here, Sol?

I guess you want to make a statement about this part of the abstract?

Our test suggests that ideal MHD
applies in a macroscopic sense in major parts of the outer
magnetosphere, for instance, in the external cusp and in the
high-latitude magnetosheath. However, we also find significant
departures from ideal MHD, as expected on smaller
scales, but also on larger scales, near the cusp and in the
magnetosphere-boundary layer. We discuss the importance
of these findings.

And I guess you still adhere to the EU lie about frozen in fields not existing, and that being claimed by Alfvén?

Modern space plasma physicists are being taught from the beginning what exactly the MHD approximation is, and when it does and does not apply. The above paper by Rikkard Lundin shows how modern space physics actually checks when and where the MHD approximation is valid. There is another such paper by Tony Lui.

The solar wind is pretty close to ideal MHD, and thus the assumption that the field lines are frozen in is just fine for the interaction with the comet. Also, do not forget that the high conductivity of the plasma around the comet actually "freezes" the field near the comet, causing the draping of the magnetic field as explained by Alfvén in 1956.

So, what exactly are you claiming Sol? Or are you just trying to sound intelligent, and failing completely?

 

[tusenfem]

Maybe for simpletons but plasma does not always obey the maths demanded by the mainstream.

Plasma is one of the best mathematically described theories there are, but maybe not for simpletons.

Such your wrong assumption of the solar wind, which is quasi-neutral. So not always and if double layers are involved...

Can you please write understandable sentences?

 

[Dancing David]

Can you please write understandable sentences?

The smarf vector is dependent upon the congluawasamoot

 

[Sol88]

What exactly are you trying to say here, Sol?

I guess you want to make a statement about this part of the abstract?



And I guess you still adhere to the EU lie about frozen in fields not existing, and that being claimed by Alfvén?

Modern space plasma physicists are being taught from the beginning what exactly the MHD approximation is, and when it does and does not apply. The above paper by Rikkard Lundin shows how modern space physics actually checks when and where the MHD approximation is valid. There is another such paper by Tony Lui.

The solar wind is pretty close to ideal MHD, and thus the assumption that the field lines are frozen in is just fine for the interaction with the comet. Also, do not forget that the high conductivity of the plasma around the comet actually "freezes" the field near the comet, causing the draping of the magnetic field as explained by Alfvén in 1956.

So, what exactly are you claiming Sol? Or are you just trying to sound intelligent, and failing completely?

Yeah, plasmas pretty close but NOT a perfect conductor and the solar wind can have charge separation so....

(Reminder: Plasma is the fourth state of matter, an electrically conductive gas that can carry magnetic fields and electrical currents.)

Importance of kinetic effects

Another limitation of MHD (and fluid theories in general) is that they depend on the assumption that the plasma is strongly collisional (this is the first criterion listed above), so that the time scale of collisions is shorter than the other characteristic times in the system, and the particle distributions are Maxwellian. This is usually not the case in fusion, space and astrophysical plasmas. When this is not the case, or the interest is in smaller spatial scales, it may be necessary to use a kinetic model which properly accounts for the non-Maxwellian shape of the distribution function. However, because MHD is relatively simple and captures many of the important properties of plasma dynamics it is often qualitatively accurate and is therefore often the first model tried.

Effects which are essentially kinetic and not captured by fluid models include double layers, Landau damping, a wide range of instabilities, chemical separation in space plasmas and electron runaway. In the case of ultra-high intensity laser interactions, the incredibly short timescales of energy deposition mean that hydrodynamic codes fail to capture the essential physics.

But one observation has taken the RPC scientists somewhat by surprise. The comet seems to be emitting a ‘song’ in the form of oscillations

instabilities

in the magnetic field in the comet’s environment.

So you'd be wrong on your assumptions

 

[Sol88]

There are no large caverns inside Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. ESA’s Rosetta mission has made measurements that clearly demonstrate this, solving a long-standing mystery.

Whoops, tap tap tap bang another nail into the coffin of standard mainstream

Comets are the icy remnants left over from the formation of the planets 4.6 billion years ago

Comets are known to be a mixture of dust and ice, and if fully compact, they would be heavier than water. However, previous measurements have shown that some of them have extremely low densities, much lower than that of water ice. The low density implies that comets must be highly porous.

...

So how did the MUPUS experiment not penetrate a

The low density implies that comets must be highly porous.

 

[Sol88]

Plasma is one of the best mathematically described theories there are, but maybe not for simpletons.



Can you please write understandable sentences?

Directed at JD116, sorry Tusenfem.

@JD116, why would you say the solar wind is quasi neutral???

There is no observed radial electric field from the Sun. That would also be noticed. Just the solar wind, which is quasi-neutral.

Charge separation can and does happen in space plasmas so who cares if over all it's neutral??

Are you saying there are only magnetic fields and no electric fields at the Sun and indeed a comet?

Strange those charged particles accelerating AWAY from the Sun, along with charged DUSTY PLASMA electrostaticly accelerated at
the nucleus of comet 67P

Tusenfem's ideal MHD falls apart when DUSTY PLASMA's are involved, such as those at comet 67P and comets in general.

 

[jonesdave116]

Sol, what the hell are you on about? It's game over! Haven't you noticed? Nobody is paying any attention to the loonies. No point sticking your face up against the glass; it's all over. Gone. The electric comet is dead. R.I.P. Perhaps you'd like to spell out, in scientific terms, why the OBSERVED ice shouldn't sublimate? Is it the lack of appropriate temperature? The lack of ice? What exactly is your problem?
You lost. Hard luck. That's what happens when you come up against people who understand science better than you do. Live with it.

 

[jonesdave116]

Directed at JD116, sorry Tusenfem.

@JD116, why would you say the solar wind is quasi neutral???

Charge separation can and does happen in space plasmas so who cares if over all it's neutral??

Are you saying there are only magnetic fields and no electric fields at the Sun and indeed a comet?

Strange those charged particles accelerating AWAY from the Sun, along with charged DUSTY PLASMA electrostaticly accelerated at
the nucleus of comet 67P

Tusenfem's ideal MHD falls apart when DUSTY PLASMA's are involved, such as those at comet 67P and comets in general.

Do you not read? The solar wind has been getting nowhere near the comet since April. Which part of that don't you understand? How much woo do you need to hear before it dawns on you that you've been taken in?

 

[jonesdave116]

And just as an addendum; I would trust an actual Plasma Astrophysicist to describe the plasma environment around a comet, particularly when he has access to the data, rather than some eejit who thinks he knows what's going on, due to believing all sorts of BS. Generally from people who wouldn't know the back end of a cow from the other. Know what I mean?
Still zero evidence. How does it feel?

Perhaps I should bring up Talbott's predictions again. That'd be funny.

 

[jonesdave116]

Plasma, plasma, plasma, it's magic, it can do anything, it really can, even when it isn't getting anywhere near the comet. Trust me, believe me. It's true. I beg you.......

 

[jonesdave116]

Tusenfem's ideal MHD falls apart when DUSTY PLASMA's are involved, such as those at comet 67P and comets in general.

Then perhaps you ought to spell out just what your qualifications are. Because I know who I believe. And it isn't the silly side of the street. Which particular degree did you take, Sol? Must have been good, when you can tell a qualified Plasma Astrophysicist that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Love to hear about it.

tl;dr? shut up; you lost.

 

[Sol88]

Do you not read? The solar wind has been getting nowhere near the comet since April. Which part of that don't you understand? How much woo do you need to hear before it dawns on you that you've been taken in?

Induction ever heard of it???

No Solar wind needed at a comets surface once an induced magnetosphere forms...yawn

 

[Sol88]

And just as an addendum; I would trust an actual Plasma Astrophysicist to describe the plasma environment around a comet, particularly when he has access to the data, rather than some eejit who thinks he knows what's going on, due to believing all sorts of BS. Generally from people who wouldn't know the back end of a cow from the other. Know what I mean?
Still zero evidence. How does it feel?

Perhaps I should bring up Talbott's predictions again. That'd be funny.

Lets

Pick one and lets get tuck into it, eh?

You up for it?

 

[Sol88]

Let me start...

In the electric model, negative oxygen ions are accelerated away from the comet in energetic jets, then combine preferentially with protons from the solar wind to form the observed
OH radical

Happy to start here JD116?

 

[jonesdave116]

Induction ever heard of it???

No Solar wind needed at a comets surface once an induced magnetosphere forms...yawn

Sorry???? But WTF are you on about? As I've told the eejit on the Rosetta blog, the "induced" magnetosphere" is due to the outgassing neutrals. It reacts with the SW. Ask Tus. It's pretty easy ◊◊◊◊. The solar wind is getting nowhere near the nucleus from April through December/ January. End of story. You're just wasting everybody's time harping on about stuff that is already proven beyond any doubt.
What is your definition of a diamagnetic cavity? How would a magnetic nucleus ◊◊◊◊ with that? Physics 101. What, in your mind, does 0 nt mean?

It's dead. Gone. Nobody believes this garbage about electric comets. Hell, they've even given up on Dunderdolts. There's only you and Haig left.