Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reality Check said:
Not even a PhD!
Wal Thornhill

So he started in denial of science, learning physics did not change that and he has spent the last 40 years adding more irrational denial to his CV - try reading his rants at his web site , e.g. the denial of gravitational waves back in February 26, 2016. An honest person would amend that blog to reflect the two published detections of gravitational waves.
Click to expand...

Got his 15 minutes of minor notice and s t r e t c h e s it out, like any woo purveyor of note.
 
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4346306/?arnumber=4346306

I should note at this point, that my hypothesis on 'The Electrical nature of Comets' (2007), has actually been shown to be wrong. More than 20 comets had had H2O unambiguously identified in their comae when I wrote that. Furthermore, the Deep Impact projectile excavated solid ice, and created a crater whose size is unexplainable in terms of the comet being a rock. Unfortunately, I had used press releases to report on that mission, rather than waiting for the peer reviewed papers that described the mission results. I also misunderstood the 'forbidden' oxygen line observed at Comet Austin. And, furthermore, I hadn't read the papers that described the narrow line emission of cometary X-rays, which are now known to be due to solar wind heavy ions interacting with cometary neutrals.
I apologise for all of the above, and more, but one has to realise that I am not qualified in this area, and also have books and DVDs to sell to people who are even less qualified than myself.
Regards, Wal.
Click to expand...

Wonder when we will be seeing this on blunderbolts or hollow science? No time soon, I would guess.
 
Sol88 said:
Great! we should get back to the "jets". Talk about lack of sensible mechanism :blush:
Click to expand...

There have been a number of eminently sensible suggestions, some or all of which may actually occur. Of course, that does not include electric arc discharges, which I rather think might have been noticed.
 
jonesdave116 said:
There have been a number of eminently sensible suggestions, some or all of which may actually occur. Of course, that does not include electric arc discharges, which I rather think might have been noticed.
Click to expand...

No, never electric discharges
 
tusenfem said:
No, never electric discharges
Click to expand...

@Tusenfem, before I get started again and just for clarification, you're happy with the sublimation model and there are no double layers involved?

And you've already stated there are no electric discharges at play in the comet/solar wind interaction.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
@Tusenfem, before I get started again and just for clarification, you're happy with the sublimation model and there are no double layers involved?

And you've already stated there are no electric discharges at play in the comet/solar wind interaction.
Click to expand...

I am good with the real mainstream model.
If there are double layers then they will be small, because of all the turbulence and a potential drop of about 15 V (i.e. for plasma with 20000 K temperature).
And there are no electric discharges that you and your TB friends want to have.

Now, what are you going to present? Marina Galand et al.'s paper?
 
The thing is, Sol, that T & T proposed a very specific sort of electrical discharge to explain the jets seen at comets. Electric arc discharges. Now, that is a busted flush, from various lines of evidence. Some of it from before this mission even reached its target.
The latest cold water (literally) to be thrown onto the discharge woo, comes from the DPS-EPSC 2016 meeting abstract booklet:

110.03 – Icy outbursts from comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko as observed by the Alice FUV spectrograph

During such outbursts, the brightness of sunlight reflected from dust can increase by almost two orders of magnitude on timescales of a few tens of minutes. Typically, the reflectance spectrum of dust is very similar to that of the preperihelion nucleus: dark and relatively featureless with a blue spectral slope. However, a subset of the dust outbursts show a markedly different character with dust that is bright--in some cases brighter than the sunlit nucleus itself-- and displaying a strong absorption feature around 1700Å, characteristic of water ice. In such outbursts, the observed “dust” is likely to consist primarily of icy grains.
Click to expand...

So, if any more evidence were needed (it isn't) to put the tin hat on T & T's pareidolia, then that does it nicely.
 
jonesdave116 said:
The thing is, Sol, that T & T proposed a very specific sort of electrical discharge to explain the jets seen at comets. Electric arc discharges. Now, that is a busted flush, from various lines of evidence. Some of it from before this mission even reached its target.
The latest cold water (literally) to be thrown onto the discharge woo, comes from the DPS-EPSC 2016 meeting abstract booklet:

110.03 – Icy outbursts from comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko as observed by the Alice FUV spectrograph



So, if any more evidence were needed (it isn't) to put the tin hat on T & T's pareidolia, then that does it nicely.
Click to expand...


Dude, get out of the gas light era!
 
tusenfem said:
I am good with the real mainstream model.
If there are double layers then they will be small, because of all the turbulence and a potential drop of about 15 V (i.e. for plasma with 20000 K temperature).
And there are no electric discharges that you and your TB friends want to have.

Now, what are you going to present? Marina Galand et al.'s paper?
Click to expand...

Michael Clarage: SAFIRE as Astrophysical Laboratory | EU2016 In relation to double layers or "plasma boundaries"

Charged particle signatures of the diamagnetic cavity of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko

ABSTRACT One of the scientific objectives of the Rosetta mission is to investigate the diamagnetic cavity of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko. We employed combined data of several instruments of the Rosetta Plasma Consortium to identify and study diamagnetic cavity crossing events. Using electron data from the Ion Electron Sensor to complement the Magnetometer data enabled us to work out a search criterion for the cavity crossing events based on a unique signature we identified in the electron spectrum. Although this search criterion is insufficient to find all the cavity events, we were able to find an abundance of more than one hundred cavity crossings in the data obtained in the summer of 2015. This unexpectedly high number of events allowed us to study their common features, as well as the shape and extent of the diamagnetic cavity in the terminator plane. The results suggest that in the summer of 2015 there was a cavity around comet 67P, which had a highly variable outer boundary. We present the effects of the diamagnetic cavity on the thermal and suprathermal electron and suprathermal ion content of the plasma, and also the probable mechanisms responsible for these charged particle signatures.
Click to expand...

snip

There is a well-defined component of the electron energy spectrum around 150–200 eV, which drops abruptly when the spacecraft enters the cavity.
Click to expand...

snip

The intermittent in–out nature of the cavity encounters can be caused by either a breathing motion of the cavity boundary or rip- ples on it; a combination of the two is also possible. In extreme cases, instead of ripples an instability of the contact surface can even manifest itself in ‘magnetic rain’: drops of magnetized plasma detached from the outer region and moving inside the cavity.
Click to expand...

and oh my :jaw-dropp

CME impact on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko Turbulence???
We also observe unprecedentedly large magnetic field spikes at 800 km, reaching above 200 nT, which are interpreted as magnetic flux ropes. We suggest that these could possibly be formed by magnetic reconnection processes in the coma as the magnetic field across the CME changes polarity, or as a consequence of strong shears causing Kelvin–Helmholtz instabilities in the plasma flow.
Click to expand...

Kelvin–Helmholtz instabilities??? I think it would be proper to call them Diocotron instability's

and

Magnetic flux ropes are twisted bundles of electrical current and magnetic field which can exist in magnetized plasmas [1]

The bursty nature of the magnetic field spikes during the CME impact, makes them appear similar to what has been observed in the mag- netosphere of Mercury, where bursts of flux transfer events have been observed (Slavin et al. 2012). Particle-in-cell simulations have shown that magnetic reconnection could form such bursts of plasmoids as the tearing instability disrupts the initial current sheet (Markidis et al. 2013)
Click to expand...

Current Sheets?
Current sheets (which can be considered to be flux rope slabs), such as those observed in the Earth's magnetotail can become unstable and tear into a series of nearly linear ropes which can interact and braid with one another [5]. Under the right conditions individual ropes can be subject to the kink instability [6].
Click to expand...

@TUSENFEM, what is causing the unprecedentedly large magnetic field spikes????

Whoa, PLASMOIDS??? Cool :cool:


and mainstream are still surprised???? :blush: embarrassing
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Dude, get out of the gas light era!
Click to expand...

Dude, try reading the science and understanding it. NO ELECTRIC ARCS. How much more evidence do you need that the 'jets' are not any sort of electric woo? Why do you think Thornhill never did a follow up post on Hartley 2, on his hollowscience site? Because, along with the Tempel 1 findings (which he also conveniently ignored), they killed his electric arc nonsense stone dead. And the whole of this silly electric comet nonsense with it.
 
@TUSENFEM, what is causing the unprecedentedly large magnetic field spikes????
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not Tusenfem, and neither am I a plasma astrophysicist. However, I can read, and the final paragraph of the 'conclusions' in that paper seems to lay out the possible reasons:
Many of the magnetic field spikes are interpreted as magnetic flux ropes........The flux ropes could be formed at this distance from the nucleus either through strong shears in the plasma, or as an effect of magnetic reconnection.............
They subsequently become significantly more extended as the CME impacts, but also become more twisted such that the field amplitude in the rope core increases to the extreme values.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom