Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

[Sol88]

Followed by ignorance about basic science, Sol88.
G is a constant because G appears as a proportionality constant in Newton's law of gravitation.
That does not mean that its value is measured as the same in every experiment.
Strength of gravity shifts – and this time it's serious is scientists speculating on the value of G changing with time or that it s official value is incorrect. Note the total absence of the word comet

Snipped the delusion that comets are stars, Sol88. !

You end with a new delusion that "minerals" have been sampled and a lie about "more or less rock", Sol88 .
No "more or less rock" has been found on any comet. Ices and dust have been found on comets.
The minerals that have been found in comet dust are consistent with interplanetary dust.

Ummmm.....wrong(again) RC!

please explain:

Composition of a Comet Poses a Puzzle for Scientists

One of the observers was the Spitzer Space Telescope, a NASA mission that takes pictures in the infrared part of the spectrum. In the burst of light after the collision, Spitzer detected specific colors of infrared light that indicated that Tempel 1 contained clays and carbonates, the minerals of limestone and seashells.

Clays and carbonates both require liquid water to form.

"How do clays and carbonates form in frozen comets where there isn't liquid water?" said Carey M. Lisse, a research scientist at the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University who is presenting the Spitzer data today at a meeting of the Division for Planetary Sciences in Cambridge, England. "Nobody expected this."

Spitzer also detected minerals known as crystalline silicates. Astronomers had already known that comets contain silicates, but silicates line up in neat crystal structures only when they are warmed to 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit - temperatures reached at around the orbit of Mercury - and then cooled.

"How do you do that and then how do you put that stuff into a comet that forms out by Pluto?" Dr. Lisse said.

LIKE ROCK!!!


but I want to hear your explanation RC!

 

[Reality Check]

Orbital Correction Burns play no part at all?

Read the other posters, Sol88 - yes.
Whoops - the ignorance that a Van De Graaff generator is a rocket engine, Sol88 .
Flight to Mars: How Long? Along what Path? oddly enough is about flying to Mars. A pity they you did not read it and see the absence of G!

 

[Reality Check]

Composition of a Comet Poses a Puzzle for Scientists
LIKE ROCK!!!

Sticking with delusions again, Sol88: No mention of comets being rock there.
And more delusions:
* That newspaper reports are science.
* That science stopped in 2005!
* "Dr. Lisse said that the presence of the clays, carbonates and crystalline silicates indicated that material in the solar system's primordial cloud had somehow become well-mixed with dust from the inner solar system migrating outward, or that the minerals had formed through unexpected chemical reactions." is an answer!
That there are clays, carbonates and crystalline silicates in interplanetary dust is well established.

ETA: Shooting yourself in the foot, Sol88: Composition of a Comet Poses a Puzzle for Scientists

The collision tossed up thousands of tons of ice and dust from the comet that were observed by telescopes on Earth as well as small flotilla of spacecraft.
...
Observations of the Deep Impact collision confirmed that the comet is mostly empty space. The outer layers of Tempel 1 are "unbelievably fragile, less strong than a snow bank," said Michael A'Hearn, the mission's principal investigator, during a telephone news conference yesterday.

"There is no indication we got down to any solid ice."

The comet, about five miles long and three miles wide, is fluffy and porous, with about 75 percent of it just empty space, Dr. A'Hearn said.

"The ice is all in the form of tiny grains" from 0.00004 to 0.004 inches in diameter, he said.

Dr. Lisse described Tempel 1 as an object the size of a city "that has the strength of lemon meringue."

(my emphasis added)

ETA2: I am not sure why Dr. Lisse is puzzled by the clays and carbonates . The dust on comets does not form on comets - it is collected from the existing dust in the solar system. In the early solar system you have dust, meteoroids, etc. forming, colliding, disintegrating and heating. There should be liquid water to form clays and carbonates.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Sorry RC for being so dense

but why again is 67P not a rock?

Because it's a comet, not an asteroid.

 

[Reality Check]

Any answers for these questions, Sol88?

Not only did Rosetta get to 67P, it did several things on the way that Sol88 should think is impossible:

• March 4, 2005: Earth slingshot
• Feb. 25, 2007: Mars slingshot
• Nov. 13 2007: Earth slingshot
• Sept. 5, 2008: asteroid 2867 Šteins flyby
• Nov. 13 2009: Earth slingshot
• July 10, 2010: asteroid 21 Lutetia flyby

How is it possible that the Rosetta spacecraft got back to Earth three times or got close to Mars and 2 asteroids without people noticing the electric universe effects !
How it is possible that the Rosetta spacecraft did not turn into a comet during this travelling through the Suns electric field !

This misses out all of the other spacecraft that should be affected by the electric universe imaginary stuff but let us select a few that went from Earth to the outer reaches of the Solar System:
Sol88: Why did Voyager 1 not turn into a comet?
Sol88: Why did Voyager 2 not turn into a comet?
Sol88: Why did Pioneer 10 not turn into a comet?
Sol88: Why did Pioneer 11 not turn into a comet?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Sorry RC for being so dense

but why again is 67P not a rock?

Because it's density is less than half of that of water.
Whereas rock has a density of far greater than water.
In fact, given that there are minerals detected in the compostition means the rest of the rock needs to be even LESS dense to get to the general density.

And what I find interesting is that you keep harping about truly minor errors in measurement (which are inherent to any measurement done correctly), but keep ignoring that these errors are literally millions of times less than the errors that would be found if even part of the EU fantasy were correct.
The headlines still read. "Rosetta probe reaches target", not "Unexpected electromagnetic force in space makes Rosetta head off into deep space"

 

[jonesdave116]

So, after all this time, the sum total of the evidence in favour of the EC cranks is: "It looks like rock." An argument from pareidolia. Very scientific.
And for anybody that wants to see how "variable" gravity is, might I suggest an experiment? Jump out of a third story window a number of times, and get somebody else to time how long it takes to hit the ground. Report back when you have some results.

 

[Sol88]

Any answers for these questions, Sol88?

This misses out all of the other spacecraft that should be affected by the electric universe imaginary stuff but let us select a few that went from Earth to the outer reaches of the Solar System:
Sol88: Why did Voyager 1 not turn into a comet?
Sol88: Why did Voyager 2 not turn into a comet?
Sol88: Why did Pioneer 10 not turn into a comet?
Sol88: Why did Pioneer 11 not turn into a comet?

RC, RC, RC......but they do!!

The you mob call it spacecraft charging

What is spacecraft charging?
When a spacecraft has a net charge, positive or negative, the net charge generates an electric
field according to Gauss’s law. Space plasmas are assumed neutral. Although the plasma den
sities may fluctuate, their time scales (inverse of plasma frequencies) are much faster than
spacecraft potential variations. Spacecraft charging takes a longer time than the ambient
plasma fluctuations because it takes time to fill up capacitances. In the spacecraft charging
community, the potential, of the ambient space plasma is traditionally defined as zero:
(1.1)
Since potential is not absolute but relative, it is not surprising that in some other plasma sciences, the plasma potential is sometimes defined relative to that of a surface. In the field of spacecraft charging, the spacecraft potential is relative to the space plasma potential, which is defined as zero. The spacecraft potential is floating relative to the ambient plasma potential (figure 1.1). When a spacecraft potential, is nonzero relative to that of the ambient plasma, the spacecraft is charged:

and no RC, comets are NOT specifically mentioned but you do need to be able to piece it together.

so lets just do a crtl-f replace spacecraft with comet:

What is a comet charging?
When a comet has a net charge, positive or negative, the net charge generates an electric
field according to Gauss’s law.

Space plasmas are assumed neutral. Although the plasma densities may fluctuate, their time scales (inverse of plasma frequencies) are much faster than comets potential variations. Comet charging takes a longer time than the ambient plasma fluctuations because it takes time to fill up capacitances.

In the comet charging community, the potential, of the ambient space plasma is traditionally defined as zero. Since potential is not absolute but relative, it is not surprising that in some other plasma sciences, the plasma potential is sometimes defined relative to that of a surface. In the field of comet charging, the comets potential is relative to the space plasma potential, which is defined as zero. The comet potential is floating relative to the ambient plasma potential (figure 1.1). When a comets potential, is nonzero relative to that of the ambient plasma, the comet is charged:

Mmmmmmmm.........

 

[Sol88]

Because it's density is less than half of that of water.
Whereas rock has a density of far greater than water.
In fact, given that there are minerals detected in the compostition means the rest of the rock needs to be even LESS dense to get to the general density.

And what I find interesting is that you keep harping about truly minor errors in measurement (which are inherent to any measurement done correctly), but keep ignoring that these errors are literally millions of times less than the errors that would be found if even part of the EU fantasy were correct.
The headlines still read. "Rosetta probe reaches target", not "Unexpected electromagnetic force in space makes Rosetta head off into deep space"

BOOOYA you got it o'l mate Interesting indeed!!!!

Lets see how the science turns out

 

[Sol88]

The Rosetta mission only went over to 67P to cross the T's and dot the i's! You have been surprised by nearly everything you've found!

But... since the only other real option is the EC, which has huge implications for the whole range of sciences, it will be fought to the very end. Then mother nature will kick us in the cods and over goes the house of cards.

How's the spacecraft charging jet production coming on? Seems very quiet if they already know how they work.

 

[Sol88]

Because it's density is less than half of that of water.
Whereas rock has a density of far greater than water.
In fact, given that there are minerals detected in the compostition means the rest of the rock needs to be even LESS dense to get to the general density.

And what I find interesting is that you keep harping about truly minor errors in measurement (which are inherent to any measurement done correctly), but keep ignoring that these errors are literally millions of times less than the errors that would be found if even part of the EU fantasy were correct.
The headlines still read. "Rosetta probe reaches target", not "Unexpected electromagnetic force in space makes Rosetta head off into deep space"

Why would it?

What is spacecraft charging?
When a spacecraft has a net charge, positive or negative, the net charge generates an electric
field according to Gauss’s law. Space plasmas are assumed neutral. Although the plasma den
sities may fluctuate, their time scales (inverse of plasma frequencies) are much faster than
spacecraft potential variations. Spacecraft charging takes a longer time than the ambient
plasma fluctuations because it takes time to fill up capacitances. In the spacecraft charging
community, the potential, of the ambient space plasma is traditionally defined as zero:
(1.1)
Since potential is not absolute but relative, it is not surprising that in some other plasma sciences, the plasma potential is sometimes defined relative to that of a surface. In the field of spacecraft charging, the spacecraft potential is relative to the space plasma potential, which is defined as zero. The spacecraft potential is floating relative to the ambient plasma potential (figure 1.1). When a spacecraft potential, is nonzero relative to that of the ambient plasma, the spacecraft is charged

 

[Sol88]

That is a thing called science, Sol88:

1. Measure the mass of a comet with one method of several explained in the blog you linked to Determining the mass of comet 67P/C-G !
2. Measure the volume of a comet
3. Divide mass by volume to get the density of the comet!

For 67P: Comet vital statistics (as at 22/01/2015) has 0.47 g/cc.

Note that before 67P's strange shape was discovered, the mass was measured from 67P's orbit and its volume from its light curve (modeled as a ellipsoid) and was estimated as 0.1 g/cc.
ETA: Hopefully we will not see the delusion that a change from 0.1 to 0.47 means that a jump to 1.0 or greater is possible! 0.47 is a more accurate result than the previous 0.1. With more observations the mass and volume may change by a few % leading to a few % change in the density. We are not going to see the mass double or the volume halve!

Note that 67P is not the only comet that exists ! The densities of many comets have been measured and average out to ~0.6 g/cc as you have now n for 6 years now and continue to deny.

Dave Higgins question is reasonable and answered

What is the comets charge RC? or better still, its capacitance?

 

[Ziggurat]

What is the comets charge RC? or better still, its capacitance?

You can estimate the capacitance yourself, Sol.

Or, you could if you understood basic freshman-level physics, and could do simple algebra.

Which I guess means you can't. So I was wrong. Sorry.

 

[Sol88]

You can estimate the capacitance yourself, Sol.

Or, you could if you understood basic freshman-level physics, and could do simple algebra.

Which I guess means you can't. So I was wrong. Sorry.

So no one knows? or is it some kind of elite secret?

 

[Ziggurat]

The gravitational constant is a physical constant that is difficult to measure with high accuracy.[3] In SI units, the 2010 CODATA-recommended value of the gravitational constant (with standard uncertainty in parentheses) is:[4]
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/6/9/969b971f0034474cd0d4af8fc2da2f95.png[/qimg] with relative standard uncertainty 1.2×10−4.[4]

So if the relative uncertainty in G is 1.2×10⁻⁴, then what relative uncertainty does this create in the mass (and therefore density) of the comet? Why, 1.2×10⁻⁴.

Can this close the gap between the measured density of the comet and the measured density of asteroids?

No, Sol, it cannot. Not even close.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Still waiting for a list of mutually exclusive features of EU vs standard model behavior and characteristics, sol88.

 

[Sol88]

So if the relative uncertainty in G is 1.2×10⁻⁴, then what relative uncertainty does this create in the mass (and therefore density) of the comet? Why, 1.2×10⁻⁴.

Can this close the gap between the measured density of the comet and the measured density of asteroids?

No, Sol, it cannot. Not even close.

Relative to what?

Far as I know, this is the first comet we've orbited??

and you KNOW it's gravity down to nthdegree??

Well just cross those t's and dot those i's and job done, knock off and kickback with a measure of your poison to bask in the glory from confirming the long held cometary model.

Oh and grab some awesome pics!

 

[jonesdave116]

What is the comets charge RC? or better still, its capacitance?

I've already answered this, some pages back. Prof. Harvey Rutt, on the Rosetta blog did some calculations, and these were similar in nature to those done by Tom Bridgman some time earlier. Tom didn't know the voltage on Rosetta at that time, but could work out the charge in Coulombs required for electrostatic repulsion to occur, but not how this was shared between the spacecraft and comet. You can see Tom's workings here: http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Electric Comets
and Harvey's here: http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2015/04/09/giada-investigates-comets-fluffy-dust-grains/ towards the bottom of the page.

The capacitance for 67p, assuming a 2.5 km radius sphere, would be 0.3 uF. The charge on 67p would have to be > 10 000 Coulombs, and the voltage >100 GV, for it to produce an effect that cancelled out the expected gravity of a rock of >2000 kg m^3, ad make it appear to be 470 kg m^3.
I leave it electrical experts to assess what a voltage of >100 GV would actually imply for the comet.
And to quote Harvey's closing comments, "Also, despite this insane voltage, 67P only has a charge of 10^4 Coulombs.
So a pathetically weak 1A discharge (recall, my kettle takes 13A…) would discharge it completely in just under three hours; so not only would the ‘discharges’ stop, the electrostatic force would go away."

 

[Sol88]

Still waiting for a list of mutually exclusive features of EU vs standard model behavior and characteristics, sol88.

Jet production!

Look it up: Mainstream vs Electric Universe

sublimation vs electric discharge

OSIRIS "Meter sized bright spots" something...A slew of OSIRIS images shows fascinating landscapes on Rosetta's comet

or

Deep Impact—Where’s the Water? (3)

7. Surface erosion. In the electric model as formulated by Wallace Thornhill, “cathode sputtering” will disintegrate surface layers of the negatively charged object by bombarding it with energetic ions in an electric discharge. The discharge will be concentrated in small spots as arcs eat away a surface, giving rise to steep-walled craters and broad flat-floored valleys surrounded by sharply-defined mesas or terraces. That is the familiar look of electrical etching. A beautiful example is seen on the surface of Comet Tempel 1 above, but other examples are abundant on planets and moons. The electrically etched surface of Jupiter’s moon Io is the most striking example because the process is still underway in the electrified Jovian environment.

Significantly, a paper in the journal Science, in October 2005, noted that “shocks” caused by ion sputtering of a cathode or negatively charged surface sharpen steep surface features—a dramatic contrast to the way the evaporation of ices will attenuate surface relief. A steep “cliff” remains even as it is eaten away by an arc progressively expanding the dimensions of the valley floor.

As Thornhill has long contended, cathode arcs tend to impinge on sharp edges because of the higher electric field there—a point that reinforces the Science article. In contrast to prevailing ideas about Io’s “volcanoes”, Thornhill predicted that the electric-discharge plumes would move around the edges of the valley floors. And that is what the Galileo probe discovered—another surprise for astronomers and planetary scientists who had not expected to find “volcanoes” to be moving across the surface of Io.

Viewing the comet in similar electrical terms will allow us to answer one of the least noticed but most profound mysteries posed by Comet Tempel 1. In the best pictures of the nucleus taken from the spacecraft, numerous patches of whiteout appear, most frequently on the edges of mesa cliffs, crater walls, and other surface relief. It is clearly not a random glitch in photography. Somehow the camera, photographing a body as dark as copier toner, was selectively saturated by bright spots on the surface.

Have we ever seen such a thing before? Curiously, exactly the same thing occurred when the Galileo probe viewed the electric plumes moving across the surface of Io. The designers of the camera had not anticipated anything so bright. But that is the nature of the electric arc—it’s why arc welders wear those darkened masks!

What will it take, then, to convince NASA scientists to ask the question: Do the patches of whiteout in close-ups of Tempel 1 reveal electrical discharge activity—on a scale that would immediately invalidate the foundational assumptions of today’s cometary science?

GIADA investigates comet’s “fluffy” dust grains

8. Fine cometary dust. Cathode sputtering has an effect that is simply “beyond the reach” of evaporating volatiles. It can create an exceedingly fine dust down to 1 micrometer or even finer. (One micrometer is just 40 millionths of an inch). This unique capability of cathode sputtering is why the process is used in the manufacture of highly reflective mirrors for modern telescopes. So again, a comparison of practical electrical technology with the discoveries of Deep Impact is only reasonable.

This line of investigation introduces another surprise: Astronomers could not understand what occurred when the 800-pound projectile hit the comet nucleus. An enormous volume of an extraordinarily fine dust was thrown into space at high speed, creating an extremely bright cloud due to the dust’s remarkable reflectivity. NASA scientists estimated that the dust particles were only .5 to 1 micrometer in diameter.

But was the surprise justified? Almost twenty years earlier the visit to Halley had investigators wondering how “sublimating ices” could produce such fine comet dust. But that surprise, like so many others, seems to have been quickly forgotten.

Also from the report in Science, in its recent report on the Deep Impact explosion: "The brightness increase lasted at least an order of magnitude longer than the expected crater formation time of 3–6 minutes." And the "…kinetic energy of the impactor is insufficient to provide the energy required to sublimate the observed amounts of water."

Remembering that the water was estimated from OH molecules seen after the impact, we can see that another key prediction by Thornhill, made in October 2001 concerning the expected outcomes of the impact with Tempel 1, was satisfied: "the energetic effects of the encounter should exceed that of a simple physical impact, in the same way that was seen with comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 at Jupiter". In the electric view, the unexpected energies of the Deep Impact explosion, and the release of unexpectedly fine dust, are both the predictable consequence of plasma discharge.

PLEASE NOTE: In the presentation above we have combined a series of TPODs in order to present, on one “page”, a unified answer to the question of water-ice on comets. This Picture of the Day will remain posted here through February 26.

COMING FEBRUARY 27, 2006: “Comets and the Future of Science”

Food for thought?

 

[jonesdave116]

Relative to what?

Far as I know, this is the first comet we've orbited??

and you KNOW it's gravity down to nthdegree??

Well just cross those t's and dot those i's and job done, knock off and kickback with a measure of your poison to bask in the glory from confirming the long held cometary model.

Oh and grab some awesome pics!

That's just so wrong it's not even wrong, to quote somebody who escapes me at the moment.
They flew, unpowered towards the comet. The comet's gravity deflected them. It is easy from that to calculate the density. Whether it is a comet, asteroid, planet, Dyson sphere or whatever, is irrelevant. The gravitational constant remains the same. It comes down to mass, and given we have a good idea of the volume, you can work out the density from there. Ergo, 470 kg m^3. Nothing you can invoke that makes any scientific sense, can turn that into >2000 kg m^3, and you're just making yourself look desperate, not to mention silly in trying to do so.