Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

[tusenfem]

Hi,
How exactly do you scale from 3m to 150m, and what evidence is there for it being electrical ?

Even worse DD, scale from 3 mm to 150 m!

 

[Dancing David]

Even worse DD, scale from 3 mm to 150 m!

oops missed an m


3 mm to 150 m

 

[Reality Check]

It is surprising how the debunking of the proclamations of one crank can shed light on the delusion of another crank. Sol88 parrots the Thunderbolts crew whining about the darkness of comet surfaces and the fantasy of electrical discharges magically burning them. Chandra Wickramasinghe makes up a story that the soot is evidence of organic life. And we get actual science describing just how ices in space have to produce dark material !

Magic carbon layer not a sign of extraterrestrial life

Wacky claim from academic with a record of wacky claims should be ignored.
...
My day job is surface chemistry, though I'm not really a chemist, and we don't do the sort of chemistry that your average chemist would think of as real chemistry. Typically, we work in vacuum conditions and study how ionizing radiation initiates chemical processes on surfaces. One thing you very quickly learn when you do these experiments is that, unless you have relatively strongly oxidizing conditions—and that means having either a lot of water or oxygen around—then you always get a layer of carbon. Sometimes we study this, but mostly it is just a damn nuisance.
...
As it came in from the cold, 67P was in almost perfect condition for carbon growth: it has spent a lot of time sweeping through the Solar System, gathering organic molecules as it went (which it seems to have done)—its surface is so cold that most molecules will hit and stick. In other words, the comet has simply been gathering all the ingredients that it needs to start performing chemistry.

That first sentence could just as easily be replaced with "Wacky claim from ignorant cranks with a record of wacky claims should be ignored".

 

[Reality Check]

More than 2000 Rosetta NavCam images for your enjoyment

Last week, the European Space Agency released the first set of images from Rosetta's navigational camera, or NavCam, from the phase of the mission that followed the Philae landing. That makes more than 3500 NavCam images that have been released from the comet phase of the mission. I haven't seen many people playing with the data from these image releases; I hope that people will take a break from refreshing the New Horizons image website to go check out the Rosetta NavCam data, because there's a lot of it, and every comet image contains wonders.

I posted about the NavCam releases covering the approach to the comet back in April. Since then, they have also released images taken during its close mapping phase in October and the Philae landing in November. The latest release includes data taken while Rosetta was using its OSIRIS camera to search for the missing lander in December. As just one example of the kinds of images you can make from these data, here is an unusual view of the comet as a thin crescent taken while Rosetta was on its "night excursion" around the comet back in September.
...

 

[Sol88]

If you promise to read it and explain here on ISF what has been said without visual stimuli, I could send you a copy.

Any chance of getting a copy, please Tusenfem?

 

[Reality Check]

Any chance of getting a copy, please Tusenfem?

I think that you first need to state a "to promise to read it and explain here on ISF what has been said without visual stimuli", Sol88.

ETA:
Spatial distribution of low-energy plasma around comet 67P/CG from Rosetta measurements

We use measurements from the Rosetta plasma consortium Langmuir probe and mutual impedance probe to study the spatial distribution of low-energy plasma in the near-nucleus coma of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. The spatial distribution is highly structured with the highest density in the summer hemisphere and above the region connecting the two main lobes of the comet, i.e., the neck region. There is a clear correlation with the neutral density and the plasma to neutral density ratio is found to be ∼1–2·10−6, at a cometocentric distance of 10 km and at 3.1 AU from the Sun. A clear 6.2 h modulation of the plasma is seen as the neck is exposed twice per rotation. The electron density of the collisionless plasma within 260 km from the nucleus falls off with radial distance as ∼1/r. The spatial structure indicates that local ionization of neutral gas is the dominant source of low-energy plasma around the comet.

The Thunderbolts EC delusion with their obsession with electrical discharges should have no neutral gas at all being emitted by comets.
Thus the paper should debunk the Thunderbolts EC delusion with plasma being created from neutral gas close to the comet nucleus.

 

[tusenfem]

Any chance of getting a copy, please Tusenfem?

If you pm me your email, I can send it.
Same for others interested in the paper by Edberg et al. "Spatial distribution of low-energy plasma around comet 67P/CG fromRosetta measurements".

 

[jonesdave116]

If you pm me your email, I can send it.
Same for others interested in the paper by Edberg et al. "Spatial distribution of low-energy plasma around comet 67P/CG fromRosetta measurements".

Thanks for the paper Tus; nothing in there, so far as I understand it, for the EU mob to get their knickers in a twist about.
Still zero evidence of this nutty hypothesis. What a surprise.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited breach of rule 12

Instead, perhaps one could start with any lines of evidence that favour electric comets.
I'll save you the bother; there aren't any.
Should have got a science degree.

 

[Agatha]

Please avoid 'calling out' or otherwise attacking other forum members in your posts. Remember that rule 12 requires you to address your opponents' arguments, rather than attack those opponents.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[jonesdave116]

Please avoid 'calling out' or otherwise attacking other forum members in your posts. Remember that rule 12 requires you to address your opponents' arguments, rather than attack those opponents.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

Whoops. Best I apologise. Still, would be nice for anyone that believed (or made) those "predictions" to come on here and defend them. Not going too well, are they?

 

[Dancing David]

That has never been a requirement, now has it?
I have been through many incarnations of this thread, and no they don't happen to ever present evidence that the ECT is in any way related to reality.

Anthony Perrat, Alven and many have their names dragged through foolish contortions, but never has data been presented which matches alleged ECT.

 

[jonesdave116]

That has never been a requirement, now has it?
I have been through many incarnations of this thread, and no they don't happen to ever present evidence that the ECT is in any way related to reality.

Anthony Perrat, Alven and many have their names dragged through foolish contortions, but never has data been presented which matches alleged ECT.

You're not wrong there. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for this idiotic "hypothesis". And yet it still keeps rearing its ugly head.
Bit of real evidence would be handy, although extremely unlikely.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

You're not wrong there. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for this idiotic "hypothesis". And yet it still keeps rearing its ugly head.
Bit of real evidence would be handy, although extremely unlikely.

To be fair, the 'theory' only keeps cropping up on sites like this, youtube and crackpot science forums/websites.
It, and it's adherents, are never going to actually interfere with human scientific progress as they are incapable of actually understanding how science works, and therefore are stuck to trying to make free energy devices in their basements.
But it's not like they will ever be asked to participate in designing anything that can be used in any way.

 

[ben m]

To be fair, the 'theory' only keeps cropping up on sites like this, youtube and crackpot science forums/websites.

They also troll the (generally useless) comments sections of real science journalism.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Where, again, they have exactly 0 impact.
As a science teacher threads like these are gold though. By the time my pupils come to me with random internet theories like this I know:
A: Enough about them to explain why it is nonsense
B: Enough of the real science behind it out of my expertise (chemistry) to hopefully excite them about all the cool stuff actual science can do.

 

[tusenfem]

For those interested in other plasma physics results around our most favourite comet:
J. Burch et al.: Charge exchange in cometary coma: Discovery of H− ions in the solar wind close to comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko in Geophysical Research Letters (open access).

 

[Sol88]

For those interested in other plasma physics results around our most favourite comet:
J. Burch et al.: Charge exchange in cometary coma: Discovery of H− ions in the solar wind close to comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko in Geophysical Research Letters (open access).

Mmmm....I wonder if any hydrides may be produced? Makes one think about tholins and such as we'll as all that HO+ floating around.

 

[Sol88]

Is this an appropriate time to revisit Talbott's "predictions", from here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10359420&postcount=2441

Would it be fair to summise that, apart from the points that are irrelevant to ech and/or were already known from previous analysis, that he is so far batting zero?

Really???

How's unexpected negative ions close to the nucleus for a prediction?

See tusenfem's link to discovery of H- jonesdave116

 

[Sol88]

Totally batting zero. For example

• No "electric discharges" at all detected.
• No "unexplained rocky debris".
• No "electrical erosion".
• etc.

unexpected negative ions close to the nucleus

abundance of unexplained rocky debris on the surface, as seen on asteroids, including sharp edged boulders exhibiting no ices.

removal of “astonishing,” complex crystalline molecules from the surface, with comparisons to materials on planets and moons, likely including Mars or Earth, or both.

Now batting 3 probably more as the ice pits are bunk and surface/subsurface ice is a long bow to draw.

 

[tusenfem]

Really???

How's unexpected negative ions close to the nucleus for a prediction?

See tusenfem's link to discovery of H- jonesdave116

Indeed "really"??
Whatever makes you conclude there are "unexpected negative ions" when the abstract says

Using well-known cross sections and energy-loss data, it is determined that the fluxes and energies of the negative particles are consistent with the production of H- ions in the solar wind by double charge exchange with molecules in the coma.

This is a well known process, which we know can happen (otherwise section 3 could not have been written), a similar process creates the X-rays from heavier elements in the solar wind (e.g. iron). It is, however, possibly the first detection of these ions at solar wind energy (As Jim writes other observations of H- was in a thermal distribution). And that ruins your ideas about chemistry and all, because Jim writes in the conclusions:

Finally, it is reasonable to consider any coma ion chemistry effects that may result from the observed H− ions. Existing coma chemistry models focus on the dense inner comas of active comets where the plasma is rather cold, while the H− in the current study is quite energetic (i.e., ~1 keV) and, once formed, is not confined to the inner coma. Therefore, we expect the implications of the observed H− ions for existing cometary chemistry models to be minor.