Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

[jonesdave116]

Ah yes. And the voltage on the comet is how much? Oh, the article does mention it. Let's see, it's here somewhere. Right! 5 to 10 volts. Can you say 9 volt battery? I knew you could.

TBF, I think the article mentioned the 5-10 volts as being on the spacecraft itself. However, the EU mathematical geniuses now have some figures to work from; if the charge on the craft is 5-10 V, and the density of the comet is measured as ~ 470 kg/m^3, but is, according to them, let's say 2000 kg/m^3, then what must be the charge on the comet to account for the discrepancy?
This shouldn't be too difficult to work out for people who are steeped in an "hypothesis" that is based around electricity. Having worked it out, then they can tell us what implications that has for such things as what happens when the charge inevitably discharges, as it must. Or if it doesn't discharge, then why? What is the mechanism keeping it in place?
These questions, and more, will be studiously ignored by the EU woo merchants, just as sure as ice is ice.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

How are the EUtards coming along with their numbers? Oh, that's right, they don't do numbers.

To the average "EUtard", numbers are unimportant; basically just meaningless symbols. What matters most to the "Thunderdolts" is first-rate storytelling.

David Novak will be the Master of Ceremony for Electric Universe 2015 Conference: Paths of Discovery. He is a performance storyteller and arts educator and creator of The Storytellers’ Compass, a method of narrative wayfinding. He has spoken at numerous theatres and festivals all over the country… In 1995/96, David Novak was Master Storyteller for the Disney Institute in Orlando, Florida.

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2015/01/31/eu2015-speakers/

 

[jonesdave116]

To the average "EUtard", numbers are unimportant; basically just meaningless symbols. What matters most to the "Thunderdolts" is first-rate storytelling.

Quite so. Your post reminded me of a post I'd seen somewhere on the Rosetta blog some months ago. Managed to find it. From a Prof. Harvey Rutt, FREng, FInstP, FOSA, FIEE, SMIEEE, CEng, CPhys, University of Southampton, U.K. Post is too long too quote in full, but the final paragraph pretty much sums EU up for me;

"Another thing one might look at is the qualifications of the 'leading lights'. None of them has a substantial academic pedigree in this field in terms of qualifications, publications, Fellow of major Societies etc. So either they are brilliant Mavericks, bravely carving out a new route - or those who couldn't make it in real science, living in a fantasy world, running content free, incestuous conferences where no one ever asks difficult questions, with a distinctly commercial look to them.

I'll stick with real science."

Sums it up far more eloquently than I could.

From hxxp://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2015/01/22/watching-the-birth-of-a-comet-magnetosphere/

 

[Matthew Cline]

Here's a link to the above blog post.

What I find interesting about the blog post is that it's an example of mainstream astrophysics talking about electrical and magnetic fields in relation to comets, showing that it's not something mainstream astrophysics ignores.

 

[tusenfem]

Here's a link to the above blog post.

What I find interesting about the blog post is that it's an example of mainstream astrophysics talking about electrical and magnetic fields in relation to comets, showing that it's not something mainstream astrophysics ignores.

Indeed we are not ignoring it.
Here is a paper on magnetic fields and plasma physics at comet 1P/Halley
Here is a paper predicting waves created by ions from comet 67P/CG.

On Monday the general assembly of the European Geosciences Union (EGU) starts, with on Monday afternoon and Tuesday the whole day talks about Rosetta.
Here is a list of all the talks in that session, with a quick count there are 5 talks from the Rosetta Plasma Consortium (including mine).
Here is a list of all the posters in that session, with a quick count there are 13 posters from the Rosetta Plasma Consortium.

 

[Sol88]

Jets and sources of activity on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

Bring it on!

Oh, and good luck Tusenfem!

 

[Sol88]

Here's a link to the above blog post.

What I find interesting about the blog post is that it's an example of mainstream astrophysics talking about electrical and magnetic fields in relation to comets, showing that it's not something mainstream astrophysics ignores.

Yeah, they are now being forced to, bit of a change from ... never mentioning it before

let's take wiki's comet entry ... search for "Electric field".

Wiki does mention "Electric"

The observation of antitails contributed significantly to the discovery of solar wind.[54] The ion tail is formed as a result of the ionisation by solar ultra-violet radiation of particles in the coma. Once the particles have been ionized, they attain a net positive electrical charge, which in turn gives rise to an "induced magnetosphere" around the comet.

but

GIADA says different

Because the escape speed of both types of dust particles from the surface of Comet 67P/C-G should be the same, the fluffy aggregates must be decelerated somehow. The scientists believe that this is happening due to Rosetta itself. Measurements made by Rosetta’s RPC-LAP instrument show that the spacecraft is negatively charged at between –5 and –10 volts due to a variety of effects associated with the plasma environment of the comet and with solar UV photons hitting the spacecraft. This negative potential acts to decelerate approaching dust particles, which are also negatively charged.
Marco explains: “Both the spacecraft and the dust particles are negatively charged, so there is a repulsive force between them. The amount of deceleration experienced by any particle is related to its charge and mass, with the maximum amount of charge held by the dust particle determined by its geometry.

Low and behold THE COMET ELECTRIC

 

[Sol88]

Metre-size bright spots at the surface of comet
67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko: Interpretation of OSIRIS data using
laboratory experiments


Interesting how the bright spots correlate with the "Dust Jets"

Since the beginning of Rosetta’s orbital observations, over a hundred small bright spots have been identified in
images returned by its OSIRIS NAC camera, in all types of morphological regions on the nucleus. Bright spots are
found as clusters of several tens of individuals in the vicinity of cliffs, or isolated without clear structural relation to
the surrounding terrain. They are however mostly observed in the areas of the nucleus currently receiving the lowest
amount of insolation and some of the best examples appear completely surrounded by shadows. Their typical sizes
are of the order of a few metres and they are often observed at the surfaces of boulders of larger dimension. The
brightness of these spots is up to ten times the average brightness of the surrounding terrain and multi-spectral
analyses show a significantly bluer spectrum over the 0.3-1
m range.

 

[jonesdave116]

Interesting how the bright spots correlate with the "Dust Jets"

And you could have gone on to mention the following passage from the abstract:
"In particular, recent sublimation experiments conducted
at the University of Bern reproduce the spectro-photometric variability observed at the surface of the nucleus by
sequences of formation and ejection of a mantle of refractory organic-rich dust at the surface of the icy material.
The formation of hardened layers of ice by sintering/re-condensation below the uppermost dust layer can also
have strong implications for both the photometric and mechanical properties of the subsurface layer. Based on
the comparison between OSIRIS observations and laboratory results, our favoured interpretation of the observed
features is that the bright spots are exposures of water ice, resulting from the removal of the uppermost layer of
refractory dust that covers the rest of the nucleus."

So, matches what they expect from SUBLIMATION. Expectation of hardened subsurface layer, which matches Philae's findings. Bright spots are exposures of WATER ICE.
Not sure why you'd link to an abstract that totally bears out the mainstream theory you appear to dislike. It's not often people hammer nails into their own coffins. Thanks for the link.

 

[tusenfem]

Yeah, they are now being forced to, bit of a change from ... never mentioning it before

Sorry, Sol88, apparently you have never read real scientific papers, otherwise you would not spout this nonsense, but then, we don't expect anything else from you.

Searching on ADS on "title: comet" and "abstract: electric field" gives you a list of at least 83 papers.

One of them is even called "Electric fields and cold electrons in the vicinity of Comet Halley", or "Simultaneous observations of quasistatic electric fields and large dust particles during the Vega-2 flyby of comet Halley".

I am trying to ignore most of the nonsens that Sol88 is writing, but blatant lies I need to correct.

And by the way,
the wiki on anti-tails is talking about IONS, whereas the GIADA quote is talking about CHARGED DUST, the two species are NOT the same and definitely do not behave the same for obvious reasons.

 

[BazBear]

Yeah, they are now being forced to, bit of a change from ... never mentioning it before

It seems to me to be far more likely that you simply missed them mentioning such things while you were madly scanning for things to cherry pick.

 

[Reality Check]

GIADA investigates comet’s “fluffy” dust grains
800–3000 kg/m3.....OUCH!

Has your ignorance about comets actually increased, Sol88 !
The bulk density of comets is an average of ~600 kg/m3 because they are made up of dust and ices, not dust alone.

The answer to the 13th July 2009 question about whether you were capable enough to know the difference between density of rock and comets seems to be still a resounding no !

The model predicts that comets will have densities less than water and much less than rock.
The observations are that comets do have densities less than water and much less than rock.

In this case you state the density foe 19P/Borrellyyourself: Density: 0.3 g/cm³[2]
The rest is just your usual derail into things you do not understand.

You have disproved the electric comet idea !

That is unthinking adherence to the delusions of the Thunderbolts cranks for almost 6 years, Sol88!

 

[Reality Check]

Low and behold THE COMET ELECTRIC

Wrong, Sol88: Low and behold THE COMET ELECTRIC delusion from the Thunderbolts cranks that you cannot understand is a delusion for some reason.


Real science is that astronomers know that electromagnetism exists and how it works. We have a negatively charged spacecraft and dust particles because of standard plasma physics:

Measurements made by Rosetta’s RPC-LAP instrument show that the spacecraft is negatively charged at between –5 and –10 volts due to a variety of effects associated with the plasma environment of the comet and with solar UV photons hitting the spacecraft. This negative potential acts to decelerate approaching dust particles, which are also negatively charged.

This is not the delusions that that Earth used to orbit Saturn, planets collided or that comets were blasted off planets (all in recent history ) that you are supporting, Sol88.

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88: Many outstanding questions

Metre-size bright spots at the surface of comet
67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko: Interpretation of OSIRIS data using
laboratory experiments


Interesting how the bright spots correlate with the "Dust Jets"

Interesting how that looks like a lie about the bright spots correlating with dust jets, Sol88
This PDF Metre-size bright spots at the surface of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko: Interpretation of OSIRIS data using laboratory experiments by Antoine Pommerol et al. has no mention of jets. No jets in your quote.

Sol88: Please give the correct citation(s) for your assertion that bright spots correlate with "Dust Jets" (not that anyone expects an answer!)
For example: 19th January 2010 Sol88: Do EC comets switch off at perihelion?
or 22nd December 2014: Questions about the origin of electric comets
or From August 2009 Sol88: List of 19! outstanding questions

 

[Dancing David]

Not just misinterpreting, but obfuscating by omission. He failed to mention that the fluffy particles have a density of ~1 kg/m^3. And that there were only 193 detections of the compact particles, but 853 of the fluffy ones.
Add all that up, allowing for far more fluffies than compacts, not to mention the H2O being sublimated at 1000 kg/m^3, plus likely voids, then I don't see anything that would indicate that the density is anything other than that already measured for the comet, i.e. ~470kg/m^3.
No story here, move on.

What are you saying Sol88 doesn't actually read the articles that they link too?
Or try to understand them?

 

[Dancing David]

And you could have gone on to mention the following passage from the abstract:
"In particular, recent sublimation experiments conducted
at the University of Bern reproduce the spectro-photometric variability observed at the surface of the nucleus by
sequences of formation and ejection of a mantle of refractory organic-rich dust at the surface of the icy material.
The formation of hardened layers of ice by sintering/re-condensation below the uppermost dust layer can also
have strong implications for both the photometric and mechanical properties of the subsurface layer. Based on
the comparison between OSIRIS observations and laboratory results, our favoured interpretation of the observed
features is that the bright spots are exposures of water ice, resulting from the removal of the uppermost layer of
refractory dust that covers the rest of the nucleus."

So, matches what they expect from SUBLIMATION. Expectation of hardened subsurface layer, which matches Philae's findings. Bright spots are exposures of WATER ICE.
Not sure why you'd link to an abstract that totally bears out the mainstream theory you appear to dislike. It's not often people hammer nails into their own coffins. Thanks for the link.

Again, further proof that Sol88 might as well be a robot that just links material without reading it.

Why is that Sol88?

 

[phunk]

800–3000 kg/m3.....OUCH!

That's the density of an individual dust grain, not the density of the comet, which includes ices and empty space between the grains.

 

[Sol88]

So how's the hunt for "ice" and confirmation of the sublimation theory going??

Not so good from what I can see.

 

[Sol88]

Indeed we are not ignoring it.
Here is a paper on magnetic fields and plasma physics at comet 1P/Halley
Here is a paper predicting waves created by ions from comet 67P/CG.

On Monday the general assembly of the European Geosciences Union (EGU) starts, with on Monday afternoon and Tuesday the whole day talks about Rosetta.
Here is a list of all the talks in that session, with a quick count there are 5 talks from the Rosetta Plasma Consortium (including mine).
Here is a list of all the posters in that session, with a quick count there are 13 posters from the Rosetta Plasma Consortium.

Tusenfem, how do us mere mortals get in on the action?

Do they do webcast's? Release papers?

or all sit behind closed doors stroking each others beards nodding in agreeance with sublimation theory?

Solar Wind sputtering from the surface of Comet
Churyumov-Gerasimenko

n addition to the volatile material we detected atoms of Na, K, Si, S, and some more, which cannot or onlypartially be set free via sublimation.

Whoops, that's electric and on the moon it produces OH! but not a comet

 

[Ziggurat]

So how's the hunt for "ice" and confirmation of the sublimation theory going??

Not so good from what I can see.

You need new glasses.