Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

[jonesdave116]

and mainstream are still surprised???? embarrassing

Embarrassed about what? The only people who should be embarrassed are those who, despite all previous evidence to the contrary, still promoted and/ or believed in this thoroughly debunked electric comet woo.

And as far as flux ropes go, I can find a reference to them as a possibility in the tail of Giacobini-Zinner as early as 1986:
Giacobini-Zinner magnetotail: ICE magnetic field observations
Slavin, J. A. et al
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/GL013i003p00283/full

 

[Sol88]

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:

CME impact on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

4 CONCLUSIONS

We have observed how a CME impacts on comet 67P when the comet was at 1.41 au from the Sun (past perihelion). Rosetta was at this time on its inbound leg from the dayside excursion located at about 800 km from the nucleus. The plasma environment is significantly disturbed during the impact. The cold plasma density increases by as much as a factor of 10, to reach a maximum of 600 cm−3, the suprathermal electron flux (10–200 eV) increases by a factor of 5–10, and the background magnetic field increases by a factor of ∼2.5, from about 40 to 100 nT, while individual magnetic spikes reach above 200 nT.

Sun Storm May Have Caused Flare-Up of Rosetta's Comet

Material from the sun may have caused Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko to flare up nearly 100 times brighter than average in some parts of the visual spectrum, new research reports.

snip

Charged particles from the CME may have excited cometary material, causing it to release photons, he added. Some of the observed changes could be created only by interacting electrons, causing what Noonan called "unique fingerprints" that let the scientists know electrons were impacting the material. Of special importance was the transition of oxygen line in the spectra, a change that can only be caused by electrons.

snip

"Prior to Rosetta, these electron impact emissions had never been observed around a comet, and it was these emissions that gave away that the CME might be a factor in causing them," Noonan said.

He cautioned that it isn't a given that the influx of charged particles caused the bizarre brightening, which still could be caused by the jets of material.

"At this point, we are still working to understand exactly what was the cause to see if it was the CME, and outburst, or both, that caused the emission," Noonan said.

Given the timing of the impact, however, it is unlikely that the flare-up was the result of gas released by jets alone.

"There are more forces at play than just a higher density of gas," Noonan said.

:

 

[Sol88]

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

Electric current from the Sun????? Nooooooooooo.........

 

[Sol88]

Researchers Confirm that Water Exists On The Sun

WATERLOO, Ont. -- An international team of scientists, including a University of Waterloo chemistry professor, has conclusively demonstrated that water (actually steam) does exist on the sun, confirming a breakthrough finding made two years ago.

Nooooooooo..........

But that's ok the "Ice" must be hidden just out of sight below the crust,


wOw and on comets, asteroids, moons, planets and Stars!!!!! :eye-poppa

So...

Embarrassed about what? The only people who should be embarrassed are those who, despite all previous evidence to the contrary, still promoted and/ or believed in this thoroughly debunked electric comet woo.

And as far as flux ropes go, I can find a reference to them as a possibility in the tail of Giacobini-Zinner as early as 1986:
Giacobini-Zinner magnetotail: ICE magnetic field observations
Slavin, J. A. et al
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...003p00283/full

Meh

 

[Sol88]

Oh and still no viable mechanism from the mainstream on the formation of "jets"

 

[tusenfem]

So, yes, mainstream is surprised to find something now and then, and that's a good thing, because if we would know everything already, what fun would science be? To boldly go where no one has gone before. One of the unexpected things was the location of the diamagnetic cavity (DC), or rather how far out it was from the comet. That was not expected from the simulations, but ... after the data from Rosetta had been analysed, it was found that the outgassing rate was higher than assumed in the simulations (which were done before arrival at the comet. Hansen correcte Koenders, and the DC moved further out, but still not to the location of Rosetta, and thus a mechanism must be at work that takes the DC boundary even further out. A surface instability, the Kelvin-Helmholtz or the flute instability can do that. The remarkable constant shape of the boundary, determined from a superposed epoch analysis shows that an instability is the most likely candidate to bring out the DC to Rosetta.

So what have we now to discuss?

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

boobtube "physics", let them write a peer reviewed paper.

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

Then Zoltan's paper. The 150 - 200 eV electrons disappear and the 100 eV electrons are attenuated, with "quite" plasma it seems to be an interesting way of finding the DCs. Of course the DC is the boundary between two different (partionally ionised)*plasmas, one magnetized and one unmagnetized, it is it not unexpected that the electron populations will differ.

Althoug, as usual, Sol88 is not saying anything, as a true post-truth person, he is well versed in quote mining, putting some words together, so as to infer something, but not claim it himself. I am sure he wants to claim that the disappearance of the "high"-energy electrons is caused by his imagined double layer in the DC.

Zoltan writes:

We observed an energetic electron population, which drops sharply
when the spacecraft enters the cavity. The drop is quite significant,
and the count rates decrease at least by a factor of 2 on the boundary.
This suggests an electron population bound to the field lines, which
is not inherent to the cavity region but reaches the vicinity of the
cavity together with the field lines. As the field lines are expelled
from the cavity, so is this field line bound electron population.

As to the origin of the field line bound high-energy electrons they cannot tell, but

The energy region is appropriate for strahl electrons, but
the count rates are much higher than that of the electron strahl in
the solar wind. Their abundance suggests that this is a population
accelerated in the vicinity of the comet from a lower energy abun-
dant seed population, such as the electrons born in the ionization
processes of the coma, and picked up by the solar wind there.

and oh my

CME impact on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko Turbulence???

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

Ehh what is to jawdrop here? Apparently Sol88 was not expecting that CMEs would impact comets? It is a well known phenomenon, and my CME colleagues at my institute were waiting in anticipation to see this and improve their expansion models. so ... turbulence?

Turbulence is the natural state of a plasma, there is continuous cascade of energy from large scales to small scales. But searching the paper I do not find the word "turbulence", so again we are left hanging at what Sol88 actually wants to claim here. Let's move on.

Yes, we call it the Kelvin-Helmholz instability and not the diocotron instability, because the latter deals with non-neutral plasmas, which is not the case at our comet. It is not, as claimed in that Wiki, the "plasma version" of KH, because KH is generalized for magnetised plasmas (see Melrose: Instabilities in space and laboratory plasmas). If Sol88 would have taken up the book by the TB Guru Peratt (where apart from the simulations the plasma physics is quite good) he would have read:

The instability leading to the tiilamentati οη of the beam is known as the "slipping steam" or "diοcοtron" and occurs when charge neutrality is not loca lly maintained, for example, when electrons and ions separate.

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

Current Sheets?

Yes, current sheet, what a suprise ... no not really. It is time my review paper is accepted, so that Sol88 can also read about the history of Currents in cometary comae, maybe for this one time I should upload it to arXiv.

What does surprise me is that I use a recipy for 18 mini gugelhupfs, and in the end I only have 10 (and not I did not eat 8! oh ye of little faith!)

Flux ropes are abundant in the solar wind, and can be formed in various mechanisms, mostly including magnetic reconnection, or they can be created at the Sun and propagated by the solar wind, like a CME.

Now the solar wind does not have a steady direction of the magnetic field, and thus there are bordering regions of (almost) oppositely directed magnetic field, and Ampere's law tells us that that has to be accompanied with a current sheet. I already discussed this a two or three pages back.

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

If Sol88 would actually read the paper by Niklas, he would have found section 3.3 and figure 7, where it is explained where the spikes come from. But to quote one sentece:

From the results of the MVA, which we will show next, we find
that at least 40 spikes appear to be magnetic flux ropes in this two
day interval.
...
Even though we have interpreted the large magnetic field spikes to be magnetic flux ropes, we do emphasize that there could be other possible explanations for these signatures, such as waves that have grown considerably in size.

But looking at Figs. 7 and 8, it seems that the flux rope conclusion is the best one.

Whoa, PLASMOIDS???

whatever ...

and mainstream are still surprised???? embarrassing

I will leave this to the good reader who is embarrasing here.

 

[LSSBB]

No sublimation.

No lightning bolts. Your theory is a dud.

 

[tusenfem]

snip



snip



:

Yeah, god forbid we should actually investigate something.
Better to stay in the EU womb where everything is known, no surprises.

 

[Sol88]

Yeah, god forbid we should actually investigate something.
Better to stay in the EU womb where everything is known, no surprises.

The problem is statements like this

1 INTRODUCTION

Comets are thought to represent a link between the interstellar dense cloud from which the solar nebula and then the Sun and planets formed, and today's Solar system. Cometary material is thought to contain material from the interstellar dense cloud, which has been reprocessed during Solar system formation.

1 INTRODUCTION

Comets are usually considered as the best preserved objects in the Solar system since its formation 4.6 billion years ago. Their study could bring us valuable information regarding the composition of the primitive solar nebula.

1 INTRODUCTION

One of the major challenges in planetary science is to understand the context and the mechanisms of the formation of the Solar system, 4.5 billion years ago. Small bodies such as asteroids and comets have escaped planetary formation and therefore still hold crucial information on the formation and early evolution of the Solar system.

Challenge is correct, if your using a theory that's a several hundred years old

1 INTRODUCTION

Comets are among the most primitive bodies in our Solar system, likely to have preserved material from the growth processes in the protoplanetary disc. In particular, the investigation of the morphology of cometary dust particles is expected to provide insight into dust agglomeration in the early solar nebula.

Um primitive solar nebula??? Nebular hypothesis from 1755? Where are the magnetic and electric fields???

You do not know how the solar system formed, so therefore you do not know comets are the left overs form the formation of the solar system!

I could go on and on and on.....but you get the point I think!

So yeah, go actually investigate something.

PS It's my sneaking suspicion that Philae failed it's primary mission because YOU assumed/knew comets are icydustballs or snowydirtballs but there not ay, there bloody HARD like ROCK, they LOOK like ROCK the stuff that is sputtered off them is dustified ROCK because Occams razor say's they ARE ROCK!!

The southern hemisphere is dominated by rocky-like, almost dust-free stratified terrains supporting a primordial aspect of this hemisphere in comparison to more dusty northern hemisphere

 

[Sol88]

Oh and Tusenfem you are doing a great job!

thank you.

 

[jonesdave116]

PS It's my sneaking suspicion that Philae failed it's primary mission because YOU assumed/knew comets are icydustballs or snowydirtballs but there not ay, there bloody HARD like ROCK, they LOOK like ROCK the stuff that is sputtered off them is dustified ROCK because Occams razor say's they ARE ROCK!!

Wrong. How many times do we need to keep quoting the same things before you get it through your head that the evidence says you are wrong? It was only one page back, where I quoted the part of the paper that shows that it isn't rock:

this velocity translates into a shear modulus of the comet material of at least 3.2 MPa. Shear modulus scales with velocity squared, so when taking into account the formal uncertainties arising from the arrival time inversion, the shear modulus may easily be as large as 10 MPa. This is still low compared to solid rock or monocrystalline ice, but is compatible with highly porous materials.

The CONSERT results say it isn't rock. The MIRO results say it isn't rock. The above MUPUS result says it isn't rock. The crater at Tempel 1 says it isn't rock. Therefore, your suspicion is provably wrong, and is nothing more than a faith based belief.
Science deals with evidence, not faith.

 

[jonesdave116]

Challenge is correct, if your using a theory that's a several hundred years old

As opposed to which other hypotheses? And what is the evidence for them?
I could have sworn meteoritic material has been dated to ~ 4.6 Ga.
And where are you getting all the dust and ice to form comets and asteroids in the present day solar system? Try to stick to science, rather than impossible Velikovskian woo.
Also, try to keep in mind that images of protoplanetary disks around young stars seem to bear out the basic assumption of the model:
http://www.almaobservatory.org/pres...almas-best-image-yet-of-a-protoplanetary-disk

 

[jonesdave116]

Where are the magnetic and electric fields???

As they say in:
The nonmagnetic nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Auster, H.-U. et al
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6247/aaa5102

We conclude that on the meter scale, magnetic alignment in the preplanetary nebula is of minor importance.

That was after finding that 67P, just like asteroid 433 Eros, was 'remarkably' non-magnetic.

 

[tusenfem]

Um primitive solar nebula??? Nebular hypothesis from 1755? Where are the magnetic and electric fields???

Maybe you should read some real recent text books about solar system formation, instead of lurking at wiki.

 

[tusenfem]

PS It's my sneaking suspicion that Philae failed it's primary mission because YOU assumed/knew comets are icydustballs or snowydirtballs but there not ay, there bloody HARD like ROCK, they LOOK like ROCK the stuff that is sputtered off them is dustified ROCK because Occams razor say's they ARE ROCK!!

Philae failed because the harpoons did not fire and because the gas thruster which was supposed to push down the lander did also not work.
Next to that, Philae was designed to land on comet 46P/Wirtanen, a much smaller object than 67P.

 

[Sol88]

As opposed to which other hypotheses? And what is the evidence for them?
I could have sworn meteoritic material has been dated to ~ 4.6 Ga.
And where are you getting all the dust and ice to form comets and asteroids in the present day solar system? Try to stick to science, rather than impossible Velikovskian woo.
Also, try to keep in mind that images of protoplanetary disks around young stars seem to bear out the basic assumption of the model:
http://www.almaobservatory.org/pres...almas-best-image-yet-of-a-protoplanetary-disk

tusenfem
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Um primitive solar nebula??? Nebular hypothesis from 1755? Where are the magnetic and electric fields???
Maybe you should read some real recent text books about solar system formation, instead of lurking at wiki.

Still, it's all YOU'VE got!

Is there a new hypothesis for the formation of the solar system, Tusenfem/JD116?

 

[Sol88]

Well let's have a crack at an easy one then, shall we?

Acceleration of individual, decimetre-sized aggregates in the lower coma of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko

Abstract

We present observations of decimetre-sized, likely ice-containing aggregates ejected from a confined region on the surface of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko. The images were obtained with the narrow angle camera of the Optical, Spectroscopic, and Infrared Remote Imaging System on board the Rosetta spacecraft in 2016 January when the comet was at 2 au from the Sun outbound from perihelion. We measure the acceleration of individual aggregates through a 2 h image series. Approximately 50 per cent of the aggregates are accelerated away from the nucleus, and 50 per cent towards it, and likewise towards either horizontal direction. The accelerations are up to one order of magnitude stronger than local gravity, and are most simply explained by the combined effect of gas drag accelerating all aggregates upwards, and the recoil force from asymmetric outgassing, either from rotating aggregates with randomly oriented spin axes and sufficient thermal inertia to shift the temperature maximum away from an aggregate's subsolar region, or from aggregates with variable ice content. At least 10 per cent of the aggregates will escape the gravity field of the nucleus and feed the comet's debris trail, while others may fall back to the surface and contribute to the deposits covering parts of the Northern hemisphere. The rocket force plays a crucial role in pushing these aggregates back towards the surface. Our observations show the future back fall material in the process of ejection, and provide the first direct measurement of the acceleration of aggregates in the innermost coma (<2 km) of a comet, where gas drag is still significant.

snip

We observe a correlation between the acceleration and velocity for both the horizontal and the vertical component (Fig. 7). This indicates a causal relationship between the on-going acceleration and the observed velocities, i.e. that similar accelerating forces have been acting in the past and that they had a significant influence on the motion of the aggregates. This makes an impulsive scenario unlikely where the aggregates received initial velocities due to e.g. an explosion and subsequently were subject only to gravity. Forces that would exert a continuous acceleration include gas drag and rocket force due to the sublimation of ice embedded in the aggregates.

snip

Fig. 9 does not show an obvious correlation between the relative change in flux with time and the change in apparent velocity. We conclude that the measured accelerations are real and not due to the distance dependence of the conversion from angular to physical pixel size.

snip

The spatial distribution of the modelled gas activity did not significantly change between 7:25 and 7:55 UT, such that this would not explain a displacement of the source region. Fig. 11 shows that both reconstructed source areas are situated on the edges of the region with a high gas production. The Khonsu source region is located near the morning terminator, such that the ejection of our observed aggregates may relate to the local sunrise.

Electrostatic charging and motion of dust near the surface of an asteroid

Abstract

The electrostatic charging and motion of dust near the surface of an asteroid is analyzed. It is shown that, despite the weak gravity, strong electric fields are needed to lift charged dust particles from the surface. The mechanism of generation of such fields, and the results of calculations of the motion of particles with various diameters in the electric fields near the dark side of the asteroid surface, is discussed. It is noted that the dust particle motion should be the most pronounced, as happens in the case of the Moon, in a certain neighborhood of the terminator.

snip

Part of the observed initial velocity is therefore due to the surface rotation, but in both cases, an additional acceleration during the first half hour of the aggregates’ flight is required to explain the observed velocities. This can be either an increased acceleration at distances <1 km above the surface, or an initial ‘kick’ the aggregates received during the process of decoupling from the surface, or both.

About 10 per cent of the aggregates have projected velocities exceeding vesc and are subject to a positive vertical acceleration. These have a high chance of escaping from the gravity field of the nucleus and joining the comet's debris trail. Since we cannot measure the third velocity component perpendicular to the image plane, we cannot predict the future of the other 90 per cent of the aggregates. These have projected velocities below the local escape speed, and 50 per cent of them experience in addition a projected downward acceleration. It is possible that a fraction of these aggregates will eventually fall back to the surface as suggested by Fig. 6.

4 ACCELERATING FORCES

In the following, we discuss the contribution to the aggregate acceleration of gravity, gas drag, and rocket force due to the sublimation of ice embedded in the aggregates.

The horizontal accelerations can be due both to drag from a laterally expanding gas flow and to the rocket force. In the latter case, aggregates travelling to the left of the source region would rotate in the opposite sense as those travelling to the right. From our present data, we cannot infer the relative strength of the two effects.

5 CONCLUSIONS

We summarize our results, discuss their significance for understanding the activity of comet 67P, and outline open questions and future work.

1.
On 2016 January 6, we observed a fountain of aggregates having equivalent radii between 10 and 20 cm (assuming albedo and phase function of the nucleus) emerging from a localized area on the surface.

2.
The likely source region is on the big nucleus lobe, either in Khonsu in the Southern hemisphere (at the time of ejection close to the morning terminator) or in Seth in the Northern hemisphere, close to local noon.

3.
The projected velocities of the aggregates are of order 1 m s−1, comparable to the local escape speed from the nucleus.

4.
The aggregates are subject to a constant acceleration over the 2 h interval of our observations. 50 per cent of the aggregates are accelerated towards the projected nucleus direction, and 50 per cent away from it, towards the solar direction. The aggregates also receive a lateral acceleration to either side.

5.
The measured accelerations are up to a factor 10 larger than gravity.

6.
Correlation between horizontal velocity and acceleration suggests that the acceleration at work during our observations has been causal for the observed velocities. Candidate forces are (1) rocket force due to asymmetric sublimation of ice embedded in the aggregates, and (2) gas drag. Only gas drag can explain the upward acceleration, while the rocket force could explain the downward acceleration.

7.
We observe a temporal brightness decrease in at least 1/3 of the aggregates, possibly indicative of the on-going sublimation of embedded ice.

8.
Before the start of our observations, the aggregates must have either experienced a stronger upward acceleration (e.g. due to higher gas pressure close to the surface), or left the surface with an initial kick, or a combination of both.

Ahhhh....ummmm DUSTY PLASMA

Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity

Acceleration of ions and nano dust at a comet in the solar wind

A DYNAMIC FOUNTAIN MODEL FOR LUNAR DUST.

and for you RC a more simplified description

Day side: positive. Night side: negative. What, then, happens at the Moon's terminator--the moving line of sunrise or sunset between day and night?


There could be "significant horizontal electric fields forming between the day and night areas, so there might be horizontal dust transport," Stubbs speculates. "Dust would get sucked across the terminator sideways." Because the biggest flows would involve microscopic particles too small to see with the naked eye, an astronaut would not notice dust speeding past. Still, if he or she were on the Moon's dark side alert for lunar sunrise, the astronaut "might see a weird, shifting glow extending along the horizon, almost like a dancing curtain of light." Such a display might resemble pale auroras on Earth.

As Holger Sierks has seen but will not release the pictures!! but can be seen HERE

So nice try

 

[Sol88]

So why Jonedave116 would Jessica Agarwal1,★, M. F. A'Hearn2, J.-B. Vincent1, C. Güttler1, S. Höfner1, H. Sierks1, et al NOT mention electric fields and dusty plasma???

Rocket forces!!!

Talk about

 

[jonesdave116]

Still, it's all YOU'VE got!

Is there a new hypothesis for the formation of the solar system, Tusenfem/JD116?

Well, EU sure as hell don't have one, do they?
And every protoplanetary disk that we see is confirming the fundamentals of that hypothesis. Of course the smaller details are difficult to pin down, because a) we can't see them at great enough resolution, and b) we can't sit around for a few million years watching what happens, even if a) were possible. Hence it has to be modelled. I don't know of any scientifically serious alternatives to the above model that are under consideration - but plenty of possibilities for the solutions to some of the unknowns within that general model.

 

[jonesdave116]

So why Jonedave116 would Jessica Agarwal1,★, M. F. A'Hearn2, J.-B. Vincent1, C. Güttler1, S. Höfner1, H. Sierks1, et al NOT mention electric fields and dusty plasma???

Rocket forces!!!

Talk about

And what the hell have electric fields and dusty plasmas got to do with dirty great lumps of dust and ice being ejected from a comet???????
The large aggregations have ice in them. It sublimates. Their is sod all gravity. That sublimation will create a force. Which is why they go all over the place after ejection. Remember that bit about "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"? Well, that is what is happening. Why on Earth would dusty plasmas or electric fields affect lumps of dust and ice??????