Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

[Sol88]

So, tell us again about gravity. How is it appearing to be different at this comet than any other celestial body we've ever visited? What is the mechanism? You obviously have only the very vaguest (if any) idea about science, so this should be fun.
Did you bother to look at the sputtering yields in the paper? Did you see how much H20 is being detected in comparison? Did you bother to take any notice of the solar wind densities in any number of papers about this comet?
Did you bother to notice, or understand, the significance of the fact that the location of the sputtered material is totally anti-correlated to the volatile component?
What any of that has to do with electric woo is beyond me anyway. Where is it?
You're ignorance and misunderstanding of science does not a theory make. Just makes you look ignorant and misunderstanding.

The Controversy over Newton's Gravitational Constant

The fact that this famous fundamental constant is still so uncertain testifies to the difficulty of gravitational measurements. The recent flurry of new ideas for measuring G would surely have pleased Isaac Newton (quite a clever experimenter himself) who started this whole enterprise over 300 years ago.

and you got 0.4g/cm3 from solid rock?

 

[jonesdave116]

The Controversy over Newton's Gravitational Constant



and you got 0.4g/cm3 from solid rock?

Yet again you fail to read/ understand what you linked. From the article (which took me all of 20s to find): "Based on their measurement, the Committee on Data For Science and Technology, which gathers and critically analyzes data on the fundamental constants, assigned an uncertainty of 0.0128% to G."

So, now you can do some maths Sol. What is 470kg m^3 x 0.000128?
(notice that 0.0128 is a percentage figure, so 1% would be 1/100th, 0.1% would be 1/1000th etc).
My maths says you get an extra 60 grams. Wow.
So that is how they can reliably give an estimate of the gravity and, therefore, the density. Because the uncertainty is around 1/10 000th!

ETA:
Had it said the uncertainty was around 700%, then I would have been impressed.

EETA:
That uncertainty can work both ways. + or -. Could be 60 grams m^3 less dense!

 

[Sol88]

Mmmmmm, eh

still leaves you with

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

how come those fracture are not outgassing but the cliffs and standing walls are?

 

[jonesdave116]

Mmmmmm, eh

still leaves you with


how come those fracture are not outgassing but the cliffs and standing walls are?

Where does it say they aren't outgassing? And, as has already been explained, "strongly consolidated" does not = rock!

Is this the sum total of "evidence" for the EC delusion, so far?
Pareidolia and arguments from ignorance/ incredulity? Going well, isn't it?

 

[Sol88]

Yet again you fail to read/ understand what you linked. From the article (which took me all of 20s to find): "Based on their measurement, the Committee on Data For Science and Technology, which gathers and critically analyzes data on the fundamental constants, assigned an uncertainty of 0.0128% to G."

So, now you can do some maths Sol. What is 470kg m^3 x 0.000128?
(notice that 0.0128 is a percentage figure, so 1% would be 1/100th, 0.1% would be 1/1000th etc).
My maths says you get an extra 60 grams. Wow.
So that is how they can reliably give an estimate of the gravity and, therefore, the density. Because the uncertainty is around 1/10 000th!

ETA:
Had it said the uncertainty was around 700%, then I would have been impressed.

EETA:
That uncertainty can work both ways. + or -. Could be 60 grams m^3 less dense!

Estimating nuclei masses is considerably more difficult. Cometary nuclei are too small to appreciably perturb other bodies in the solar system. Even close spacecraft flybys have been unsuccessful to date because of the low cometary masses and the high flyby speeds. The gravitational pertur- bation by a comet or asteroid on a passing spacecraft can be estimated by the impulse approximation
∆V = 2GMc/DV∞ (2)
where ∆V is the change in velocity of the spacecraft, di- rected along a line connecting the cometary nucleus and the point of closest approach of the spacecraft, G is the gravi- tational constant, Mc is the mass of the nucleus, D is the closest approach distance, and V∞ is the flyby velocity at infinity. If we take a typical 5-km-radius nucleus with a den- sity of 1 g cm–3, and a spacecraft flying by at 100 km dis- tance at a velocity of 30 km s–1, the velocity perturbation is 2.3 × 10–3 cm s–1, about an order of magnitude less than the current detection capability of spacecraft radio track- ing systems.

LINK


but hey you nailed it! 0.5 kg/m3!

except

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

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

LINK


but hey you nailed it! 0.5 kg/m3!

except

The thing you consistently keep ignoring is that if EU were right not a single spacecraft ever launched would get anywhere near it's target.
This G thing you are obsessing about now is the same. If G were not a true constant rosetta would not have even reached the comet as all of it's orbital manoeuvring was based upon that constant.

What I find interesting that to you a measuring uncertainty of 1*10^-5 is proof a theory must be wrong, whereas in the EU there is a measuring discrepancy of 1*10⁹ between needed and measured electrical fields in space, but that is something you handwave away.

 

[Sol88]

The thing you consistently keep ignoring is that if EU were right not a single spacecraft ever launched would get anywhere near it's target.
This G thing you are obsessing about now is the same. If G were not a true constant rosetta would not have even reached the comet as all of it's orbital manoeuvring was based upon that constant.

What I find interesting that to you a measuring uncertainty of 1*10^-5 is proof a theory must be wrong, whereas in the EU there is a measuring discrepancy of 1*10⁹ between needed and measured electrical fields in space, but that is something you handwave away.

How strongly are electrons/proton accelerated in the comets diamagnetic cavity?

Has that yet even been measured?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

How strongly are electrons/proton accelerated in the comets diamagnetic cavity?

Has that yet even been measured?

Why don't you start with actually showing any shred of evidence for the electric currents needed for the EU / EC theories first before going nit-picking on details?

Hint: Such currents have never been shown. Ever. Anywhere in the solar system.

 

[tusenfem]

How strongly are electrons/proton accelerated in the comets diamagnetic cavity?

Has that yet even been measured?

please explain in your own words what a diamagnetic cavity is, and why it would accelerate ion and/or electrons (or is this another fañcy word tnat you just learned?).

 

[jonesdave116]

"Estimating nuclei masses is considerably more difficult. Cometary nuclei are too small to appreciably perturb other bodies in the solar system. Even close spacecraft flybys have been unsuccessful to date because of the low cometary masses and the high flyby speeds. The gravitational pertur- bation by a comet or asteroid on a passing spacecraft can be estimated by the impulse approximation
∆V = 2GMc/DV∞ (2)
where ∆V is the change in velocity of the spacecraft, di- rected along a line connecting the cometary nucleus and the point of closest approach of the spacecraft, G is the gravi- tational constant, Mc is the mass of the nucleus, D is the closest approach distance, and V∞ is the flyby velocity at infinity. If we take a typical 5-km-radius nucleus with a den- sity of 1 g cm–3, and a spacecraft flying by at 100 km dis- tance at a velocity of 30 km s–1, the velocity perturbation is 2.3 × 10–3 cm s–1, about an order of magnitude less than the current detection capability of spacecraft radio track- ing systems."

Yes, that's right. They could only put large error bar estimates on the gravity/ density. None of those error bars even approach that of rock though.
However, how close, at what speeds, and for how long has Rosetta been orbiting this comet? Never has there been any reported instance of the spacecraft having to alter its trajectory due to the gravity suddenly increasing by a factor of 4 or 5!
Try using your brain. It's a non-argument. At least to the scientifically literate, which, I'll concede, excludes EC believers, so you may be forgiven.

ETA:
They also sent a lander down to the surface at this comet. That is the equivalent of dropping an apple out of a window, and seeing how long it takes to hit the ground. The rest is just maths.

 

[jonesdave116]

How strongly are electrons/proton accelerated in the comets diamagnetic cavity?

Has that yet even been measured?

Which protons would these be? Trust me, within the distance at which the diamagnetic cavity forms, they will not be solar wind protons. They don't get that close.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...9sKHbKcA6I#v=onepage&q=plasma; comets&f=false

Page 1231.

 

[Reality Check]

Because the big G is a fib leading to believe 67P

That is an ignorant rant, Sol88 - but what else can we expect from someone who is afraid of science
46 days and counting of being afraid of doing simple physics: 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.

That PDF is more lies and delusions from the deluded and lying Wal Thornhill.
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.

Followed by a deluded rant about your magical powers of knowing that images of comets made of ices and dust are of rocks.

 

[Reality Check]

Wal Thornhill's "Toward a Real Cosmology in the 21st Century" lies and delusions

So just how deluded is Wal Thornhill's "Toward a Real Cosmology in the 21st Century (2011)" PDF?
It starts with lie that the Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) "recognizes plasma cosmology". The IEEE has had papers published on Plasma Cosmology (Alfven's invalid cosmology). There is an web site published by the IEEE about the Plasma Universe

The Plasma Universe and Plasma Cosmology have no ties to the anti-
science blogsites of the holoscience 'electric universe'.

This is Wal Thornhill's web site where he shares his delusions, e.g. that the Grand Canyon was created by electrical discharges.

1. The PDF section 1 is ranting about observations of the real world contradicting Thornhill's delusions, e.g. he does not like dark matter thus it does not exist
2. This follows the pattern of rants rather than science.
   Some examples of lies and delusions:
   1. The idiocy of thinking that space-time has to be a physical material in order that there be gravitational waves.
   2. A lie about "Matter is an electromagnetic phenomenon,...".
      Matter is a gravitational, electromagnetic, string interaction and weak interaction phenomenon.
      All neutral particles do not interact electromagnetically and are in a sense dark matter but the only particles that act exactly like dark matter are neutrinos. There are not enough neutrinos to explain the observations of dark matter so we need other neutrino-like or non-baryonic particles.
   3. A lie about Eddington's (and other) calculation of the average temperature of space due to starlight being the CMBR!
      [*}A lie: "It [the CMBR] remains to be established whether that radiation is cosmic or local."
      The perfect black bogy spectrums of the CMBR means that the radiation from one side of the sky was in contact with the radiation from the other side. That can only happen in a Big Bang.
      We see the Sachs–Wolfe effect on the CMBR from it travelling through supervoids and superclusters.
   4. He lies about Pierre-Marie Robitaille being an expert
      Robitaille is a crank radiologist with delusions about astronomy, e.g. that the Earth's oceans emit a perfect black body radiation at a temperature of 2.73 K to make the CMBR and that the Sun is made of metallic hydrogen (the Sun is > 5000 K hot which is above where metallic H exists in the phase diagram of H)
   5. Thornhill has the delusion that neutron stars are part of Big Band cosmology.
   6. Thornhill has the delusion that neutron stars do not exist.
3. The idiocy of Halton Arp's invalid "physical associations of highly redshifted quasars with low redshift galaxies".
   The stupid "‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ that so many cranks and non-cosmologists signed. Which lead to the crank "Crisis in Cosmology" conferences.
4. The delusion that the CMNBR "represents the natural microwave radiation from electric current filaments in interstellar plasma local to the Sun.".
   He supports this by citing a 1995 Eric Lerner paper about the COBE satellite as if WMAP never existed .
   Some real idiocy - astronomers know that "filamentary plasmas" emit microwaves. That is basically the source of the microwave foreground from the Milky way (including the interstellar plasma local to the Sun!) that was removed from the WMAP data.
5. Back to the lie of the IEEE "recognizing" plasma cosmology.
   Anthony Perrats's fatally flawed model of galaxy formation is not cosmology .
6. This is about his and Talbott's delusional electric universe "cosmology" that the IEEE label as "anti-science"!
   1. A lie about "repeated experiments show that it [G] is not even constant on Earth". It is the value of that constant that is hard to measure and varies between experiments.
   2. Ignorance of electromagnetism (the electric universe!): "there must be a material medium, the æther, to carry the electromagnetic energy of light at its characteristic speed, c.". That is not what Maxwell's equations state. That is not what dozens of Michelson-Morley experiments display.
   3. The delusion that the neutral neutrinos are polarizable.
   4. The delusion that the æther is these imaginary polarizable neutrinos.
   5. A lie that "Subsequent more accurate experiments confirm the presence of an æther".
   6. A lie of a "near-instantaneous speed of gravity" (citing the crank Van Flandern's invalid calculations in his book).
      There are disputed measurements that put the speed of gravity close to the speed of light as expected in GR.
   7. Lying about quantum mechanics with "it has never been explained why electrons do not simply radiate their orbital energy away and join with the nucleus of an atom."
7. The delusion that stars are cosmology and that the electric universe has stellar models!
   1. The idiocy that a can crushed by an electromagnetic pinch has something to do with cherry picked images of planetary nebula and supernova.
   2. The usual Birkeland filaments fantasies that we see from EU cranks.
   3. The delusion that Type Ia supernovae intrinsic luminosity depends on "the power available from their host galaxy".
8. Onto the electric sun delusion starting with with the lie that "Kristian Birkeland published an electrical theory of the Sun in 1913". Birkeland noted an analogy between his experiments about Earth with the Sun and was wrong. He was also wrong with his analogies with the rings of Saturn, galaxies, what teh solar wind is (it is not electrons alone), calculations of the speed of the solar wind (it is much less than the speed of light!), etc. What he got right was the cause of aurora and later he got the solar wind correct by adding positive ions.
9. More on electric stars delusion. The first sentence is "Electric lights come in a wide variety."
10. Extends the electric stars delusion to white dwarf stars.
11. Extends the electric stars delusion to red giant stars.

 

[Reality Check]

and you got 0.4g/cm3 from solid rock?

No, Sol88 -it is your 6 year old delusion (and counting ) the comets are solid rock.
Rational people who read and understand science
* know that the measured density of comets rules out them being rocks
* look at the eject from Deep Impact and see that it was ices and dust - not rock.
* read about radio waves being passed through 67P and that the smaller lobe is porous (~70% empty space) and made of ices and dust.
* are not afraid of science.
46 days and counting of being afraid of doing simple physics: 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.

28 July 2015 Sol88: You are too obsessed with your delusion that comets are rocks to ever accept any explanation for anything from anyone.

Otherwise I would explain this basic science to you yet again.

 

[Reality Check]

How strongly are electrons/proton accelerated in the comets diamagnetic cavity?

Looks like yet another demand to fill that pit of ignorance that has lead to you to the delusion that comets are made of rock, Sol88. Given that you are quite happy digging yourselfer deeper into that pit by denying and lying about the real world results from Rosetta and 67P, there is no point in anyone answering this irrelevant question.
46 days and counting of being afraid of doing simple physics: 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.

28 July 2015 Sol88: You are too obsessed with your delusion that comets are rocks to ever accept any explanation for anything from anyone.

 

[jonesdave116]

Looks like yet another demand to fill that pit of ignorance that has lead to you to the delusion that comets are made of rock, Sol88. Given that you are quite happy digging yourselfer deeper into that pit by denying and lying about the real world results from Rosetta and 67P, there is no point in anyone answering this irrelevant question.

I think I did, but that is assuming dear old Sol can actually understand a) english and b) science. Chances of that happening are not huge, to be fair.

To reiterate; the solar wind (bless it) gets nowhere near the comet at perihelion.
This is more Tusenfem's teritory, to be honest. I'm sure they have all sorts of stuff that they are not allowed to release. Just yet.
Thing is, when they do, what are the electric cretins going to do? Commit mass suicide?
Here's hoping.

 

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post

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

but we have me 'ol mate!...but

But one observation has taken the RPC scientists somewhat by surprise. The comet seems to be emitting a ‘song’ in the form of oscillations in the magnetic field in the comet’s environment

You, Tusenfem, and your team are somewhat surprised that a sublimating dirtysnowball could produce oscillations in a non magnetised comet, why's that?

Wouldn't a double layer be EXPECTED (page 5, Section B to "sing"?

you have the data on the double layer/s that surround 67P why would you hide it?

What do you think makes the oscillations then, Tusenfem?


and your the man to goto LINK, any papers coming out in the singing comet soon?

 

[Sol88]

please explain in your own words what a diamagnetic cavity is, and why it would accelerate ion and/or electrons (or is this another fañcy word tnat you just learned?).

What are the diamagnetic properties for the nucleus of 67P?

 

[Ziggurat]

What are the diamagnetic properties for the nucleus of 67P?

Insignificant, unless you believe it superconducts.

 

[Reality Check]

Wouldn't a double layer be EXPECTED (page 5, Section B to "sing"?

Maybe only in the delusions of the Thunderbolts crowd, Sol88 - double layer explode so they would "scream" !

We have the stupidity of linking to the 1986 Double Layers in Astrophysics Symposium.

We do not have any data about your delusion that there are double layer/s that surround 67P, Sol88, except you repeating that delusion.
Times stating the delusion that there are double layers around 67 P = 2 (from memory).