Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

[Reality Check]

electric gubbins

You remain deluded about the real world, Sol88, where the Moon is not a comet.

It's Official: Water Found on the Moon (September 23, 2009) You will probably also be deluded about 'Significant Amount' of Water Found on Moon!

A doubly delusional citation:

"The isotopes of oxygen that exist on the moon are the same as those that exist on Earth, so it was difficult if not impossible to tell the difference between water from the moon and water from Earth," said Larry Taylor of the University of Tennessee, Knoxville

and Sol88 has been touting the observation that 67P has water that is different from water on Earth

 

[Sol88]

You remain deluded about the real world, Sol88, where the Moon is not a comet.

It's Official: Water Found on the Moon (September 23, 2009) You will probably also be deluded about 'Significant Amount' of Water Found on Moon!

A doubly delusional citation:

and Sol88 has been touting the observation that 67P has water that is different from water on Earth

Geeeezzz your right RC Top of the class for observational skills, 'ol mate!


but the process is the same, more or less depending on energy levels

Again well done, RC. People will now be able to tell the difference.

 

[jonesdave116]

electric gubbins

No, this has nothing to do with electric gubbins, for which there isn't the slightest scrap of evidence. This is about solar wind interaction with surface material. And for the gazillion and second time, the solar wind proton flux is umpteen orders of magnitude too low to produce even 1 litre of water per second on a comet. As also noted from the sputtering data, the solar wind is barely even reaching the surface at the locations where H2O is being released. So, once again, a non-mechanism. Unless you can tell us how the ion flux increases by roughly 12 orders of magnitude without anyone noticing (and managing not to kill the spacecraft in the process)?

 

[jonesdave116]

Can we take it from that link that you've given up on electric gubbins as the producer of O, which then combines with solar wind H to form OH in the tail of the comet, which scientists are mistaking for H2O? You are now relying on an equally improbable gargantuan, but unobserved, increase in solar wind ion flux to create the observed H2O?
Just trying to clarify, so we know which particular non-existent process we are dealing with here.

ETA:
And if it is doing this to comets, why don't we see it doing it to asteroids? Nothing to do with electric gubbins and variable charges anymore. Just the solar wind. Why, as RC keeps asking, don't we see a huge haze of H2O and its dissociation products around the Moon? Or Phobos? Or Mercury? Et boring cetera.

 

[Dancing David]

electric gubbins

This is off topic, the water on the moon is not about Electric Comets, please stay on topic.

 

[jonesdave116]

Geeeezzz your right RC Top of the class for observational skills, 'ol mate!


but the process is the same, more or less depending on energy levels

Again well done, RC. People will now be able to tell the difference.

Just FYI Sol, Hale-Bopp was releasing roughly 300 000 litres per second when observed. Work out the solar wind flux that you would need to produce that from silicate rock.
Trust me, it won't go well.

 

[Sol88]

Can we take it from that link that you've given up on electric gubbins as the producer of O, which then combines with solar wind H to form OH in the tail of the comet, which scientists are mistaking for H2O? You are now relying on an equally improbable gargantuan, but unobserved, increase in solar wind ion flux to create the observed H2O?
Just trying to clarify, so we know which particular non-existent process we are dealing with here.

ETA:
And if it is doing this to comets, why don't we see it doing it to asteroids? Nothing to do with electric gubbins and variable charges anymore. Just the solar wind. Why, as RC keeps asking, don't we see a huge haze of H2O and its dissociation products around the Moon? Or Phobos? Or Mercury? Et boring cetera.

Asteroids

On 22 January 2014, ESA scientists reported the detection, for the first definitive time, of water vapor on Ceres, the largest object in the asteroid belt.[5] The detection was made by using the far-infrared abilities of the Herschel Space Observatory.[6] The finding is unexpected because comets, not asteroids, are typically considered to "sprout jets and plumes". According to one of the scientists, "The lines are becoming more and more blurred between comets and asteroids."[6]

 

[Sol88]

This is off topic, the water on the moon is not about Electric Comets, please stay on topic.

Dancing David.....

The process is ubiquitous on rocky bodies with no magnetic field...on comets and Asteroids...the Moon and Mercury.

This is on topic

 

[Sol88]

Strongly-consolidated regions represent the most common region type on both lobes. Most of these regions show variable degrees of fracturing, which include irregular
or regular systems as well as ,polygonal, conjugate,regularly intersecting or ortho-rombic networks. The ubiquitous presence of fractured materials on the surface of the comet is of paramount significance for a body that displays a very low bulk density of ~0.5 kg/m3

Ok then... long as it's not cracks in rocks we're looking at!

 

[Sol88]

bet if we looked hard enough, we'd see all sorts of double layers all interacting with each other and stuff....if we look for them eh, Tusenfem?

 

[Ziggurat]

bet if we looked hard enough, we'd see all sorts of*elves and fairies.

 

[jonesdave116]

Asteroids

Asteroids are demonstrably rocky in nature. Hence their densities, usually greater than 2.0g cm^3. Comets are demonstrably not rocky, hence their densities, generally < 0.6g cm^3. Some asteroids may have a component of ice, some may even be "former" comets that have exhausted their volatiles. However, to quote Thornhill, "comets are just asteroids on elliptical orbits". So why do none of the asteroids we see on elliptical orbits behave like comets? Like 4179 Toutatis, for instance? Why does it have a density that we would expect for rock? And 67P doesn't? Is this non-existent electric field round the Sun selective as to which objects it charges up? In the same way that the non-existent torrent of electrons that power it selectively avoid the spacecraft that would detect them?
Sorry, the whole thing is a fairy tale, with the same amount of evidence. Zero.

 

[jonesdave116]

bet if we looked hard enough, we'd see all sorts of double layers all interacting with each other and stuff....if we look for them eh, Tusenfem?

Nope. Unless you want to describe the instruments used by the RPC team, what they do, what they can detect, and how often they are looking at the comet. Not to mention that the spacecraft has been as close as ~8 km and noticed nothing.
The reason they haven't seen it (and nor did Giotto) is that it is yet another fantasy with zero evidence to back it up.

 

[jonesdave116]

Ok then... long as it's not cracks in rocks we're looking at!

It isn't. Rock typically has a density of 3.0 g cm^3, and isn't 75-85% porous, and doesn't release H20 and CO2 and CO in the quantities seen here and elsewhere, not to mention a shed load of other compounds.
So, just to clarify, it is most definitely not rock.

 

[jonesdave116]

Dancing David.....

The process is ubiquitous on rocky bodies with no magnetic field...on comets and Asteroids...the Moon and Mercury.

This is on topic

And for the quadrillion and twelfth time, that is caused by solar wind ion impacts. The solar wind is nowhere near dense enough to cause this on a comet, even if it were rock. Otherwise, like I say, we would see it on EVERY asteroid, as well. They are made of rock. They are subject to the very same solar wind. Why don't we see them with H2O comas around them? Or is the solar wind selective about which objects it hits?

 

[ferd burfle]

Is this non-existent electric field round the Sun selective as to which objects it charges up? In the same way that the non-existent torrent of electrons that power it selectively avoid the spacecraft that would detect them?

They're kind of like Bigfoot that way, really shy and really smart.

 

[tusenfem]

bet if we looked hard enough, we'd see all sorts of double layers all interacting with each other and stuff....if we look for them eh, Tusenfem?

why don't you show us?

 

[tusenfem]

And for the quadrillion and twelfth time, that is caused by solar wind ion impacts. The solar wind is nowhere near dense enough to cause this on a comet, even if it were rock. Otherwise, like I say, we would see it on EVERY asteroid, as well. They are made of rock. They are subject to the very same solar wind. Why don't we see them with H2O comas around them? Or is the solar wind selective about which objects it hits?

don't bite, sol gets off on that, it's his purpose in life on isf
let's just start to ignore him

 

[Dancing David]

Dancing David.....

The process is ubiquitous on rocky bodies with no magnetic field...on comets and Asteroids...the Moon and Mercury.

This is on topic

Except it isn't and it just shows how muddled the alleged ECT theory is

 

[jonesdave116]

Except it isn't and it just shows how muddled the alleged ECT theory is

Precisely. To clarify the position of head EU fantasists, Thornhill & Talbott, I quote from their poster presentation to the IEEE IN 2006:
"But a much different vantage point on the water question is possible. When astronomers view the comas of comets spectroscopically, what they actually see is the hydroxyl radical (OH), which they assume to be a residue of water (H2O) broken down by the ultraviolet light of the Sun (photolysis). This assumption is not only unwarranted, it requires a speed of “processing” by solar radiation beyond anything that can be demonstrated experimentally.
The mysteries find direct answers electrically—in the transaction between a negatively charged comet nucleus and the Sun. In the electric model, negative oxygen ions are accelerated away from the comet in energetic jets, then combine preferentially with protons from the solar wind to form the observed OH radical and the neutral hydrogen gathered around the coma in vast concentric bubbles. These abundances simply confirm the energetic charge exchange between the nucleus and the Sun."
My bold.

So he's saying that the O- (which is actually O+, but hey ho), is produced by electric gubbins, and then swept away from the comet, and THEN combines with H+ to form OH in the tail of the comet. Nothing about the H2O being formed on the surface by the solar wind. If that were the case, why the need for any electric gubbins at all? It'd be superfluous.
No need to mention that the H2O, OH+ and O+ are found predominantly on the Sun facing side of the comet.