Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

[jonesdave116]

/99.999%25_plasma"]The visible universe is 99.999% plasma[/URL]?????

None of which is getting within cooey of the frigging comet. So your point IS?

So what is this plasma supposed to be doing, Einstein? Why are we not seeing it? What does it need to do, that sunlight heating already observed surface and subsurface ice can't do? What exactly is it, and where is the EVIDENCE??????

 

[rwguinn]

And of course, Water, or H2O, is the ONLY material that forms ice...

 

[jonesdave116]

And of course, Water, or H2O, is the ONLY material that forms ice...

Noooooo.... electric woo forms ice. And makes it sublime. Regardless of whether it's CO2, H2O or CO.

 

[jonesdave116]

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.

Thought I'd post that again, in the vain hope that I might actually get a reply to the bolded bits.

 

[jonesdave116]

Plasma woo merchants (retd. elec. eng. & mytholgist): "Plasma can do anything. It can make ice. Honest. And make it sublime."

Actual Plasma Astrophysicist: (to paraphrase) "B*llocks."

Hmmm. Who does one believe?

(Apologies to any actual Plasma Astrophysicists who may be reading this, and may not have used the word b*llocks)

 

[Sol88]

Thought I'd post that again, in the vain hope that I might actually get a reply to the bolded bits.

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.

Absolutely NONE

but it's clear you BELIEVE (have faith in) along with well educated indoctrinated scientists in this bedtime story...





Solar System Formation

Scientists believe that the solar system was formed when a cloud of gas and dust in space was disturbed, maybe by the explosion of a nearby star (called a supernova). This explosion made waves in space which squeezed the cloud of gas and dust. Squeezing made the cloud start to collapse, as gravity pulled the gas and dust together, forming a solar nebula. Just like a dancer that spins faster as she pulls in her arms, the cloud began to spin as it collapsed. Eventually, the cloud grew hotter and denser in the center, with a disk of gas and dust surrounding it that was hot in the center but cool at the edges. As the disk got thinner and thinner, particles began to stick together and form clumps. Some clumps got bigger, as particles and small clumps stuck to them, eventually forming planets or moons . Near the center of the cloud, where planets like Earth formed, only rocky material could stand the great heat. Icy matter settled in the outer regions of the disk along with rocky material, where the giant planets like Jupiter formed. As the cloud continued to fall in, the center eventually got so hot that it became a star, the Sun, and blew most of the gas and dust of the new solar system with a strong stellar wind. By studying meteorites, which are thought to be left over from this early phase of the solar system, scientists have found that the solar system is about 4600 million years old!

Although it should start with "Once upon a time , long ago in a far away place"

BUT and this is the big Nicki Minaj but......

Rosetta sniffs oxygen around comet 67P

The presence of the gas could have implications for theories of the early Solar System

Damn that real sciency stuff mess'n up a perfectly good story! (See above)

This is the story you BELIEVE in JD116?

 

[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?

Well, your paper states

"upper limit for 1L can be found under the assumption of frozen in fields and a convection velocity of . 10 km s which would significantly decrease the current density by a factor . 10^ 4 "

but...

"The "frozen-in" picture of magnetic field lines differs from Maxwell's views. He defined a magnetic field line as a line which everywhere is parallel to the magnetic field. If the current system that produces the field changes, the magnetic field changes and field lines can merge or reconnect. However, if the current system is constant, the magnetic field is also constant. To speak of magnetic field lines moving perpendicular to the field makes no sense. They are not material." Alfven, Hannes, "Double Layers and Circuits in Astrophysics", IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Volume 14, Issue 6, Dec. 1986 Page(s):779 - 793

Alfvén continues:

I thought that the frozen-in concept was very good from a pedagogical point of view, and indeed it became very popular. In reality, however, it was not a good pedagogical concept but a dangerous "pseudopedagogical concept." By "pseudopedagogical" I mean a concept which makes you believe that you understand a phenomenon whereas in reality you have drastically misunderstood it."

even you said the same but then go on to use the ideal MHD anyway

and then you bang on about NO double layers... but you will not belive they are there unless Rosetta fly's thru them..

and a fair dinkum question that anybody would ask based on this statement

upper limit for 1L can be found under the assumption of frozen in fields and a convection velocity of . 10 km s which would significantly decrease the current density by a factor . 10^ 4

if the fields are not assumed to be frozen in, what are the consequences?

 

[Sol88]

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.

No qualifications just an inquiring mind...

take this for example

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Rosetta/How_Rosetta_s_comet_got_its_shape

By using high-resolution images taken between 6 August 2014 and 17 March 2015 to study the layers of material seen all over the nucleus, they have shown that the shape arose from a low-speed collision between two fully fledged, separately formed comets.

but

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.

So one would have to question why the contradiction?

 

[tusenfem]

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

So you'd be wrong on your assumptions

You really don't know what you are talking about, now, do you.
But I guess you also ask the plumber if he knows how to tighten the bolts and nuts, clock or anti-clockwise (and will probably give him the wrong direction as advise).

For those who want to know, every first year student of MHD and plasma physics is being taught is how the MHD approximation to plasma physics is done, and what the limitations are.
Also, the SW plasma is not a perfect conductor, but the conductivity is very very high, which means that the diffusion time of the magnetic field through the plasma is very very long, which means that for appropriately chosen time intervals, e.g. the interaction of the SW with a comet, the field can be assumed to be frozen in. And really Hannes Alfvén already did that in his paper on cometary tails in 1957 (On the Theory of Cornet Tails, By H. ALFVEN. The Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Tellus 9, 92 - 96, 1957)
I have explained this already several times, but Sol can just forget this again.

Also, with plasma physics being a very good theory, that does not mean that we have actually calculated everything already. As usual things are studied for situations that one encounters in experiments and or space missions. Never before was there a mission to a weakly outgassing comet in a weak magnetic field. Thus, any kind of wave generation in such a situation had not really been studied. However, pretty quickly after the surprise of finding such strong waves, the solution in plasma physics was found for the generation of these waves: a cross field current instability, which was already discussed in the literature, but never applied to a situation that had never been encountered.

 

[tusenfem]

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.

Wow, you are so good at buzz words dumping.

 

[tusenfem]

Induction ever heard of it???

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

You do realize, I hope (but I fear not) that the induced magnetosphere of a comet needs to be replenished constantly by the solar wind carrying the IMF. If that would not be the case, the induced magnetosphere would be gone quickly.

 

[tusenfem]

Let me start...
Happy to start here JD116?

Negative oxygen has not been observed by RPC.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Why are 'Caverns' so important all of a sudden?

 

[jonesdave116]

and then you bang on about NO double layers... but you will not belive they are there unless Rosetta fly's thru them..

How far would you like them to go? 1500 km is the furthest distance they have been since arriving in close orbit back in August 2014. That excursion hasn't been fully documented in published papers, but I'm willing to bet that these DLs haven't been seen out to that distance.
More importantly, what relevance would they have to ice sublimating from an icy dusty body? Particularly, once a diamagnetic cavity has formed?
Diamagnetic cavity = 0 nT (haven't seen the figures, but that will be as near as dammit).
That means no solar wind (and its associated IMF) reaching the nucleus.
And, as EU woosters are keen to tell us, electric currents = magnetic fields. Therefore none of them, either.

 

[jonesdave116]

Damn that real sciency stuff mess'n up a perfectly good story! (See above)

This is the story you BELIEVE in JD116?

Perhaps you'd care to explain? All the discovery of O2 does is constrain the temperatures, timing and conditions under which a comet could form. All of this still points to a period ~4.6 Ga, in an environment where the Sun was not in its present state. In other words, fusion hadn't yet started.
There have also been data on Nitrogen ratios, as well as all the COMs found on various comets, which are also very clear evidence that comets formed very early in the solar system's history. Current conditions rule a recent formation time out.

tl;dr? Comets were not blasted off of rocky planets by interplanetary thunderbolts when your Aunty Annie was a girl.

 

[Reality Check]

So one would have to question why the contradiction?

Actually one would want to ask why the abysmal lack of understanding of basic English, Sol88 !
How Rosetta’s comet got its shape does not say that 67P should have large caverns.

By using high-resolution images taken between 6 August 2014 and 17 March 2015 to study the layers of material seen all over the nucleus, they have shown that the shape arose from a low-speed collision between two fully fledged, separately formed comets.

We have 2 comets made of ices and dust slowly merging into 1.
Inside Rosetta’s comet

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.

Comets are the icy remnants left over from the formation of the planets 4.6 billion years ago. A total of eight comets have now been visited by spacecraft and, thanks to these missions, we have built up a picture of the basic properties of these cosmic time capsules. While some questions have been answered, others have been raised.

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.

But is the porosity because of huge empty caves in the comet’s interior or it is a more homogeneous low-density structure?
...
Whatever motion is left is due to the comet’s mass. For Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, this gives a mass slightly less than 10 billion tonnes. Images from the OSIRIS camera have been used to develop models of the comet’s shape and these give the volume as around 18.7 km3, meaning that the density is 533 kg/m3.

The answer is that comets are low-density structures made of ices and dust "fairly homogenous on spatial scales of a few tens of metres". 67P has a density of half that of water.

Unable to understand English is expected from someone deluded enough to think that comets were blasted from rocky planets and thus must have the density of rocks despite the overwhelming evidence that their density is less than water. Including the evidence that you have cited Sol88 which needs a:


The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 6 years of delusions from Sol88 and Haig!).
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc. mostly cited by Haig.
231 days and counting of fear of doing basic physics: 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.

 

[Reality Check]

Why are 'Caverns' so important all of a sudden?

Caverns are only another example of the delusions that Sol88 has about comets. So not important at all.

 

[Sol88]

Caverns are only another example of the delusions that Sol88 has about comets. So not important at all.

Are you suggesting, RC, that comets are "rubbery" to account for Philea's bouncy bouncy across the surface only to come to rest in the one spot that's HARD enough to stop the MUPUS hammer and since there are no large voids to account for the low density and the nucleus is more or less homogeneous mix of "Ice" and "Dust" with the dust on top as a crust overlying fluffy dust/ice mixture below that did not for due to the presence of Oxygen mixed in with olivine and forstorite "Dust" form as "leftovers" from the collapse of a molecular cloud???

Just so I understand where you are coming from, RC, is there anything in the data so far released that would make you question the dirtysnowball theory?

 

[jonesdave116]

Just so I understand where you are coming from, RC, is there anything in the data so far released that would make you question the dirtysnowball theory?

Can't speak for RC, but based on the evidence, my answer to that question would be no.

Perhaps we should turn the question around; is there anything in the evidence so far collected, that would make any rational human being still believe in Wallace & Gromit's electric comet silliness?

 

[Reality Check]

Are you suggesting, RC, that comets are "rubbery" ...

No, Sol88, I an stating that you are totally deluded about comets and are making up fairy stories about "caverns".

Caverns are only another example of the delusions that Sol88 has about comets. So not important at all.

So much ignorance and craziness in one small post, Sol88 !

1. Philae bounced a few times because of the low gravity and a hard subsurface.
2. Philae ended up at a fairy random location and measured a minimum tensile strength of the ice there using the MUPUS hammer.
   That means that it is likely that all of the ice below the surface dust is around that tensile strength.
3. There is no need of delusional "large voids" to account for the porosity of 67P.
   All you need is the fluffy grains that have been detected or space between grains.
4. We have measured that one node of 67P is a more or less homogeneous mix of ices and dust (without any crazy quotes).
5. The measurement of the porosity of that node has nothing to do with the surface structure which has been known for months before the CONSORT results.
6. First detection of molecular oxygen at a comet
   The presence of O2 is not accounted for in your delusions.

It would be extremely stupid to think that the results showing that comets including 67P are made of ices and dust ("dirtysnowball" for the simple minded) shows that comets are not made of ices and dust.

Just so I understand where you are coming from, Soll88, are you going to persist in the delusions that comets are rocks, etc. even when you know about the real world of comets. My guess is the answer is yes:
The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 6 years of delusions from Sol88 and Haig!).
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc. mostly cited by Haig.
236 days and counting of fear of doing basic physics: 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.