Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

[Jrrarglblarg]

Food for thought?

Nope, just more copypasta. Can you tell me in your own words what defining characteristics of "jets" are mutually exclusive details, please?

 

[Sol88]

Nope, just more copypasta. Can you tell me in your own words what defining characteristics of "jets" are mutually exclusive details, please?

Ummmm...really?

One, I am lead to believe, is sublimation. Which does not appear to be happening on the surface but under a very good insulating dust layer into some of the shadowed areas of the 67P's surface mainly around the neck but becoming more prevalent over the whole surface?

the other

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?

and

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 ti

Also, importantly, most of the fluffy particles were detected hitting GIADA at less than 1 m/s. 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.

The individual compact particles have a bulk density of 800–3000 kg/m3, consistent with a variety of minerals or mixtures of minerals. On the other hand, the larger aggregates are made up of many sub-micron sized grains with void spaces in between, resulting in fluffy, highly porous structures that are mostly empty space. These aggregates are associated with the fluffy particles seen by Rosetta’s COSIMA instrument.

and Philae bounced??

Should be easy

What's the maths for the mass of Philea impacting a 0.4 g/cm^3 at delta V what 1m/s something??

 

[Ziggurat]

Relative to what?

Wow. Just... wow. You're appealing to the large relative error of G (compared to other fundamental constants), and you don't know what the term "relative error" even means. That's not a smart approach to winning arguments.

A relative error is always relative to the thing in question. The number given indicates the fraction of the measurement. So for example, if the length of a board is 10 feet, with a relative error of 0.1, then that means the absolute error is 1 foot (10 feet x 0.1). If a road is 10 miles long, with a relative error of 0.1, then that means the absolute error is 1 mile. Get it? Or is the math too complex?

A relative error in G of 1.2×10⁻⁴ means that density measurements which depend on G will also have a relative error of 1.2×10⁻⁴ (since mass measurements are directly proportional to G). For a measured density of 470 kg/m³, that translates to an absolute error of 0.0564 kg/m³.

In other words, it simply doesn't matter here.

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

Yes.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's just so wrong it's not even wrong, to quote somebody who escapes me at the moment.

You're misquoting Wolfgang Pauli.

 

[jonesdave116]

You're misquoting Wolfgang Pauli.

That's the fella. Should have looked it up, but I was laughing too much.

 

[Sol88]

Wow. Just... wow. You're appealing to the large relative error of G (compared to other fundamental constants), and you don't know what the term "relative error" even means. That's not a smart approach to winning arguments.

A relative error is always relative to the thing in question. The number given indicates the fraction of the measurement. So for example, if the length of a board is 10 feet, with a relative error of 0.1, then that means the absolute error is 1 foot (10 feet x 0.1). If a road is 10 miles long, with a relative error of 0.1, then that means the absolute error is 1 mile. Get it? Or is the math too complex?

A relative error in G of 1.2×10⁻⁴ means that density measurements which depend on G will also have a relative error of 1.2×10⁻⁴ (since mass measurements are directly proportional to G). For a measured density of 470 kg/m³, that translates to an absolute error of 0.0564 kg/m³.

In other words, it simply doesn't matter here.



Yes.

Well, then we have a conundrum! Your not very dense comet is made of bloody hard, fine, dry, dust!

 

[Belz...]

Yeah well done!!


but Rosetta's orbit to 67P was a catch up one and why would they not use the Go-Onto-Target system using off the shelf military system, the Target tracker (67P) Missile tracker (Rosetta Probe) Guidance computer( using the star tracker)

Get the probe to near enough the the target, 67P, then let the tracking computer make adjustments in real time. No radio lag from earth to probe return comms, just one way to let u know how it went, for instance jonesdave116,

Lukraak_Sisser Or are you implying they did (the flight planners) one calculation and sent it on its way??? No OCM's

The joke is that even if the EU theory is correct, it seems to behave exactly like the mainstream theory predicts anyway, so the mainstream theory can be prefered.

 

[Belz...]

The fact that the value for g is not perfectly known does not imply that it's variable.

It's a common trait of woo believers to project their ignorance onto reality.

 

[phunk]

Well, then we have a conundrum! Your not very dense comet is made of bloody hard, fine, dry dust!

That density is average, it's not uniform throughout the comet.

 

[Sol88]

That density is average, it's not uniform throughout the comet.

Just lucky then I guess!

The three (3) "landings" and the final resting place was the "dense" bit

 

[Belz...]

That density is average, it's not uniform throughout the comet.

Don't introduce subtleties, Phunk. You'll confuse him.

 

[Ziggurat]

Just lucky then I guess!

The three (3) "landings" and the final resting place was the "dense" bit

Indeed. Quite the coincidence that the lander touched down on the surface, not the interior. I mean, there's so much more volume in the interior, you'd think that probability would dictate it should land somewhere inside. It just doesn't make sense that we'd get so "lucky" and land on the tiny fraction of the comet that makes up the exterior. What are the odds?

 

[Ziggurat]

That's the fella. Should have looked it up, but I was laughing too much.

Laughing is an appropriate and healthy response.

 

[Sol88]

Indeed. Quite the coincidence that the lander touched down on the surface, not the interior. I mean, there's so much more volume in the interior, you'd think that probability would dictate it should land somewhere inside. It just doesn't make sense that we'd get so "lucky" and land on the tiny fraction of the comet that makes up the exterior. What are the odds?

Sorry Ziggurrat, forgot the Deep Fried Ice Cream

Comets Are Like Deep Fried Ice Cream, Scientists Say

NASA researchers think they understand why comets have a hard, crispy outside and a cold but soft inside — just like fried ice cream.

Brilliant!!!


Cirikey! Hang on

Scientists know that comets are made of a mixture of rock and ice, but up until now they could not fully explain this change in texture from the inside to the outside

Where's the dust gone?

 

[Dancing David]

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"

Ta Da volume divided by accurate mass gives 1/2 the density of water.

 

[Dancing David]

Sorry Ziggurrat, forgot the Deep Fried Ice Cream

Comets Are Like Deep Fried Ice Cream, Scientists Say




Brilliant!!!


Cirikey! Hang on

Where's the dust gone?

So are snow banks and plow walls, you still have zero evidence of the EC.

 

[jonesdave116]

So are snow banks and plow walls, you still have zero evidence of the EC.

Zero evidence? Looks like rock = rock. Irrefutable mathematical logic!

 

[ferd burfle]

Food for thought?

No, just more empty calories

 

[Reality Check]

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

Sorry, Sol88, but the idea that spacecraft are comets because they are known to charge up is just totally ignorant about what comets are. But then we already know that you are that ignorant about comets, e.g. the 6 years of denial of the multiple techniques of measuring their density.

 

[Reality Check]

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

What are irrelevant questions got to do with my post, Sol88?
It is about the measurement of the mass, volume and density of 67P.

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.