Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

[jonesdave116]

Thank you Holger Sierks!

COMET’S FIREWORK DISPLAY AHEAD OF PERIHELION





Hard to explain by sublimation alone, ay Tusenfem!

oh wait

Sunlight warming hidden frozen gases...again!

For the "jet" to look like it does we should be able to see an orifice/pit with a subsurface chamber, as per standard mainstream theory....should be fun!

PLUS

Now they have the exposure just about right look at all the "ICE", bright patches saturating the CCD!

Which part of this are you having trouble understanding? Energetic jets have been observed numerous times on comets. They even flew right over one at Hartley 2, and resolved its spectra, which showed it to be CO2, for the most part. Sunlight = heat. Heat penetrates beneath surface. Ices turn to gas. Gas pressure builds. Gas pressure overcomes surface strength = energetic jets. I suggest catching up on the last ~ 30 years worth of scientific papers on comets, as well as looking at the relative abundances of the species in this jet.
Unless you'd like to fill us in on the reason you think this is happening, and provide us with some sensible links to supporting material.
Mind you, the high H2S abundance narrows down the search for where this lump of pumice was miraculously blasted intact into space from. Possibly Yellowstone, or maybe NZ. Perhaps RC should take a field trip down to Wairakei, and start looking for 67P shaped holes in the ground.

 

[tusenfem]

and a lowly little jet did that!

are you going to tell the lurkers what a diamagnetic cavity is in relation to a comet?

Properties of a cusp diamagnetic cavity boundary

any relevance? can't find much on comets but the cluster space craft (you know them eh?) has some data that sound very much like a double layer...what's the difference, Tusenfem?

It does not sound anything like a double layer.

 

[Sol88]

Which part of this are you having trouble understanding? Energetic jets have been observed numerous times on comets. They even flew right over one at Hartley 2, and resolved its spectra, which showed it to be CO2, for the most part. Sunlight = heat. Heat penetrates beneath surface. Ices turn to gas. Gas pressure builds. Gas pressure overcomes surface strength = energetic jets. I suggest catching up on the last ~ 30 years worth of scientific papers on comets, as well as looking at the relative abundances of the species in this jet.
Unless you'd like to fill us in on the reason you think this is happening, and provide us with some sensible links to supporting material.
Mind you, the high H2S abundance narrows down the search for where this lump of pumice was miraculously blasted intact into space from. Possibly Yellowstone, or maybe NZ. Perhaps RC should take a field trip down to Wairakei, and start looking for 67P shaped holes in the ground.

Yawn, we've heard that fairytale before

Heat penetrates beneath surface.

but the comets surface is a very poor conductor of heat but magicaly it can do exactly that, get down into the "neck" region and into the shadow region like the "winter side of the comet"

but

Cometary Jets

Supersonic jets have been seen exploding from comets' nuclei. From the mainstream perspective, these jets are eruptions of subsurface gas and water from solar heating. But again and again, this theory has been refuted by observation. In the case of Comet Wild 2, some of its nearly two dozen jets emanated from the dark, unheated side of the comet. And as seems to be the case with most comet jets, they remained intact across great distances -- they did not disperse in the fashion of a gas in a vacuum (an anomaly left unresolved, and not even addressed by most mainstream theorists). Consider also the jets of comet Hale-Bopp, which began discharging (seven jets) while it was still too far from the Sun for a "snowball" to melt.

Amazingly, as far as back as the early 20th century, the Norwegian physicist Kristian Birkeland demonstrated experimental evidence for the electric comet theory. He was able to emulate cometary jets from a cathode in a vacuum tube -- Birkeland wrote: “From a cathode of graphite there came long, steady pencils of light, which greatly resembled the so-called eruptions or jets in comets.” (See Comets: Kristian Birkeland's Theory)

From the Electric Universe perspective, comet jets arise from the interaction between the electric charge of the comet and the solar discharge plasma. The comet spends most of its time far from the Sun, where the plasma charge density is low. The comet moves slowly and its charge easily comes into balance with that region. On the other hand, as the comet approaches the Sun, the nucleus moves at a furious speed through regions of increasing charge density and varying electrical characteristics. The comet's surface charge and internal polarization, developed in deep space, respond to the new environment by forming cathode jets and a visible plasma sheath, or coma. The jets flare up and move over the nucleus irregularly, and the comet may shed and grow anew several tails. Or the comet may explode like an overstressed capacitor (see below), breaking into separate fragments or simply giving up the ghost and disappearing.

Cometary discharging may also occur due to any disturbances of its electrical plasma sheath as it passes through regions of varying electric potential. This seems to have occurred in the recent "totally surprising" outburst of Comet Holmes 17P as it moved away from the Sun's domain.

Sorry, Jonesdave116 but your story is becoming more and more untenable as witnessed by the change in language used in the PR's!

Plasma is getting more and more of a mention like it's important or something!

 

[Sol88]

It does not sound anything like a double layer.

Sorry my bad,

Due to the local nature of the source, an energy dependent boundary also indicates a source with an acceleration mechanism that is active over a larger region or more efficient for low energy particles than it is for high energy particles.

LINK

A double layer is a structure in a plasma which consists of two parallel layers with opposite electrical charge. The sheets of charge cause a strong electric field and a correspondingly sharp change in voltage (electrical potential) across the double layer. Ions and electrons that enter the double layer are accelerated, decelerated, or reflected by the electric field. In general, double layers (which may be curved rather than flat) separate regions of plasma with quite different characteristics. Double layers are found in a wide variety of plasmas, from discharge tubes to space plasmas to the Birkeland currents supplying the Earth's aurora, and are especially common in current-carrying plasmas. Compared to the sizes of the plasmas that contain them, double layers are very thin (typically ten Debye lengths), with widths ranging from a few millimeters for laboratory plasmas to thousands of kilometres for astrophysical plasmas.

Current carrying double layers[edit]
Current carrying double layers may arise in plasmas carrying a current. Various instabilities can be responsible for the formation of these layers. One example is the Buneman instability which occurs when the streaming velocity of the electrons (basically the current density divided by the electron density) exceeds the electron thermal velocity of the plasma. Double layers (and other phase space structures) are often formed in the non-linear phase of the instability. One way of viewing the Buneman instability is to describe what happens when the current (in the form of a zero temperature electron beam) has to pass through a region of decreased ion density. In order to prevent charge from accumulating, the current in the system must be the same everywhere (in this 1D model). The electron density also has to be close to the ion density (quasineutrality), so there is also a dip in electron density. The electrons must therefore be accelerated into the density cavity, to maintain the same current density with a lower density of charge carriers. This implies that the density cavity is at a high electrical potential. As a consequence, the ions are accelerated out of the cavity, amplifying the density perturbation. Then there is the situation of a double-double layer, of which one side will most likely be convected away by the plasma, leaving a regular double layer. This is the process in which double layers are produced along planetary magnetic field lines in so-called Birkeland currents.

Current-free double layers[edit]
Current-free double layers occur at the boundary between plasma regions with different plasma properties. Consider a plasma divided into two regions by a plane, which has a higher electron temperature on one side than on the other (the same analysis can also be done for different densities). This means that the electrons on one side of the interface have a greater thermal velocity. The electrons may stream freely in either direction, and the flux of electrons from the hot plasma to the cold plasma will initially be greater than the flux of the electrons from the cold plasma to the hot plasma, because the electrons from the hot side have a greater average speed. Because many more electrons enter the cold plasma than exit it, part of the cold region becomes negatively charged. The hot plasma, conversely, becomes positively charged. Therefore, an electric field builds up, which starts to accelerate electrons towards the hot region, reducing the net flux. In the end, the electric field builds up until the fluxes of electrons in either direction are equal, and further charge build up in the two plasmas is prevented. The potential drop is in fact exactly equal to the difference in thermal energy between the two plasma regions in this case, so such a double layer is a marginally strong double layer.

Particle acceleration: The potential drop across the double layer will accelerate electrons and positive ions in opposite directions. The magnitude of the potential drop determines the acceleration of the charged particles. In strong double layers, this will result in beams or jets of charged particles.

LINK

Why, Tusenfem, would there not a least a Current-free double layer surrounding 67P? All the conditions are met

[imgw=500]http://i62.tinypic.com/2ue7dpx.png[/imgw]
Double Layer Formation Summary. Redrawn by Ian Tresman, based on the source: Singh, Nagendra; Thiemann, H.; Schunk, R. W., "Electric Fields and Double Layers in Plasmas (1987) Double Layers in Astrophysics, Proceedings of a Workshop held in Huntsville, Ala., 17-19 Mar. 1986. Edited by Alton C. Williams and Tauna W. Moorehead. NASA Conference Publication, #2469".

 

[tusenfem]

Plasma is getting more and more of a mention like it's important or something!

If you would actually be aware of mainstream space (plasma) physics you would not make such a stupid comment.

 

[Sol88]

If you would actually be aware of mainstream space (plasma) physics you would not make such a stupid comment.

Hey don't just tell me, tell the Lurkers. Otherwise they may think you've got something to hide and this illiterate scientific nincompoop nows what he's on about! and we can't have that, now can we.

YOU Tusenfem are the expert in this field here on this board, are you not?

Which condition/s are not met for the formation of a double layer?

 

[thedopefishlives]

In lurking through most of this thread (which is, as always, highly entertaining), I've noticed something that's been bothering me. Sol, you keep commenting to the effect of, "You silly mainstream scientists got 0.4 g/cm3 from a solid rock?" Here's the problem with that: You've got the entire thing backwards. You're starting with the assumption that what you're looking at is solid rock, and then working backwards to reason that a density of 0.4 g/cm3 must be wrong, and looking for excuses to dismiss this particular measurement of fact. This has led you to invent a specious argument about the inaccuracy of the gravitational constant, G, which is absurd on its face. The problem you seem to be having, Sol, is that facts don't change: We have measured the density of the comet at 0.4 g/cm3 within a reasonably small degree of error. If the gravitational constant was incorrect, we never would have gotten close enough to the comet to measure anything. But I have no doubt that, instead of correcting the directionality of your thinking and accepting that comets are less dense than rocks, you will instead scour the Interwebs for some obscure "research" that allows you to invalidate the density measurements yet again. Good luck with that.

 

[tusenfem]

Hey don't just tell me, tell the Lurkers. Otherwise they may think you've got something to hide and this illiterate scientific nincompoop nows what he's on about! and we can't have that, now can we.

YOU Tusenfem are the expert in this field here on this board, are you not?

Which condition/s are not met for the formation of a double layer?

That answer has been give several times already in various "electric" threads, so search the board on my name and double layer and you will have your answer.

However, as double layers are like THE EU/ES/EC favourite object in plasmas, it surprises me that you as the big apologist for the EU/ES/EC community here on ISF, don't even have a clue about these things. Then you come up with a paper about a diamagnetic cavity (which by the way it is easily explained in the Lakdawalla blog) and claim "this looks like a double layer."

Do you now understand why I am sick and tired of your silly wild-claims-and-guesses game, in which you never ever even try to understand the answer that you have been give, and then many pages/weeks later, just ask again the same question, and making wild claims again, just like a Dubya-imitator who thinks that if you repeat false claims again and again and again, it will finally be true. It does not work that way.

For your information, only at the Rosetta RPC project there are at least the following groups, who dedicate most of their research time on plasma physics:

1. Space Research Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Graz, Austria
2. Institute for Geophysics and Extraterrestrial Physics, Technical Universtiy of Braunschweig, Germany
3. California Institute of Technology, USA
4. Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, USA
5. Space and Atmospheric Physics Group, Imperial College, London
6. Swedisch Institute of Space Physics, Uppsala & Kiruna, Sweden
7. Laboratoire de Physique et Chimie de l'Environnement et de l'Espace, Orleans, France
8. Physikalisches Institute, University of Bern, Switzerland

and here I have only listed the institutes that are on my next paper, there are several more. So much for the popular, but idiotic, EU/ES/EC claim that mainstream is not interested in plasmas.

As said before, any lurker who wants to know more about plasma physics, I am glad to answer questions, just post or PM them.

 

[jonesdave116]

Yawn, we've heard that fairytale before but the comets surface is a very poor conductor of heat but magicaly it can do exactly that, get down into the "neck" region and into the shadow region like the "winter side of the comet"

but



Sorry, Jonesdave116 but your story is becoming more and more untenable as witnessed by the change in language used in the PR's!

Plasma is getting more and more of a mention like it's important or something!

Quoting psuedoscientific garbage to back up scientifically illiterate nonsense hardly counts as strong evidence!
You're still at square one, given that no electric currents, glows or discharges have ever been seen or measured on this or any other comet.

 

[ferd burfle]

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

In the double layer YOU know is there, not in the diamagnetic cavity.

Pseudoscience 101, DD. Obfuscate, handwave, divert, etc., etc., but never answer questions. Particularly where they can't be answered.

Yes, jonesdave, but don't forget the accusations of fraud and conspiracy, like above, when the measurements contradict their pseudoscience. That's when their JAQing off schtick becomes a lot less amusing to me.

 

[Dancing David]

and a lowly little jet did that!

are you going to tell the lurkers what a diamagnetic cavity is in relation to a comet?

Properties of a cusp diamagnetic cavity boundary

any relevance? can't find much on comets but the cluster space craft (you know them eh?) has some data that sound very much like a double layer...what's the difference, Tusenfem?

And how is that related to a comet?

 

[Dancing David]

Hey don't just tell me, tell the Lurkers. Otherwise they may think you've got something to hide and this illiterate scientific nincompoop nows what he's on about! and we can't have that, now can we.

YOU Tusenfem are the expert in this field here on this board, are you not?

Which condition/s are not met for the formation of a double layer?

Funny Sol88, why don't you explain the evidence that shows there is a double layer, it is YOUR idea, burden of proof is on you.

 

[tusenfem]

naturally thete is an "interface" of the outflowing mix of neutral gas, ions, electrons and dust with the inflowing solar wind magnetoplasma, which is quite big as the neutral gas is not impeded by the magnetic field. at this interface there are many interactions taking place. ion-neutral charge exchange is an important one, but also some chemistry, electron cooling by exciting rotational and vibrational states of neutral molecules, just regular ion-neutral collisions. these all transfer momentum of the solar wind to the outflow of the comet.

when there are enough of these phenomena then it is possible that the solar wind gets stopped, and thus the magnetic field of the solar wind cannot reach the nucleus. and as we know that the comet itself is non-magnetized, a magnetic field free region is created around the nucleus, the diamagnetic cavity.

on the interface so many prosesses are taking place, that the creation of a steady double is rather unlikely, especially in these cases just presented, because you can see that the boundary must move, as the cavity only lasts for about 20 min, in which rosetta hardly moves.

 

[Reality Check]

COMET’S FIREWORK DISPLAY AHEAD OF PERIHELION
...
Hard to explain by sublimation alone, ay Tusenfem!

Only in the deluded and ignorant brains of the Thunderbolts crowd that you are mindlessly parroting, Sol88.
This is what rational people expect from sublimation from ices that differ in composition. Some regions of the nucleus will have ices that have greater concentrations of volatile ices. Jets will vary in brightness.

We have your total ignorance of the real world yet again, Sol88.
* The sun's heat gets bigger as you get closer to the Sun!
* Sublimation increases as temperatures increase.

Not that you will accept any explanation about the real world of comets:
28 July 2015 Sol88: You are too obsessed with your delusion that comets are rocks to ever accept any explanation for anything from anyone.

48 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.

 

[Reality Check]

are you going to tell the lurkers what a diamagnetic cavity is in relation to a comet?

Lurkers:
This is Sol88's obsession with something that that has nothing to do with the EC delusion.
This is Sol88's stupidity of not reading what he quotes.
This is followed up in a later post by Sol88's stupidity of thinking that a diamagnetic cavity is a double layer. It looks as if Sol88 cannot even read English !
Comet's firework display ahead of perihelion

Perhaps the most striking result is that the outburst was so intense that it actually managed to push the solar wind away from the nucleus for a few minutes – a unique observation made by the Rosetta Plasma Consortium's magnetometer.

The solar wind is the constant stream of electrically charged particles that flows out from the Sun, carrying its magnetic field out into the Solar System. Earlier measurements made by Rosetta and Philae had already shown that the comet is not magnetised, so the only source for the magnetic field measured around it is the solar wind.

But it doesn't flow past unimpeded. Because the comet is spewing out gas, the incoming solar wind is slowed to a standstill where it encounters that gas and a pressure balance is reached.

"The solar wind magnetic field starts to pile up, like a traffic jam, and eventually stops moving towards the comet nucleus, creating a magnetic field-free region on the Sun-facing side of the comet called a 'diamagnetic cavity'," explains Charlotte Götz, magnetometer team member at the Institute for Geophysics and extraterrestrial Physics in Braunschweig, Germany.

Diamagnetic cavities provide fundamental information on how a comet interacts with the solar wind, but the only previous detection of one associated with a comet was made at about 4000 km from Comet Halley as ESA's Giotto flew past in 1986.

 

[Reality Check]

...You're starting with the assumption that what you're looking at is solid rock, and then working backwards to reason that a density of 0.4 g/cm3 must be wrong, and looking for excuses to dismiss this particular measurement of fact.

It is even worse than that thedopefishlives.
Sol88 is a believer of Velikovsky's delusion that planets zoomed around the Solar System to explain various myths in recent times. For example

• Venus erupted from Jupiter (Greek and Roman myths have Venus erupting from Jupiter)
• Venus stopped the Earth from spinning and then restored it with exactly the same spin (Bible myth).

This is via his unthinking belief in the Thunderbolts authors who have added their own layer of delusion to this delusion.

• Talbott wrote a book where Saturn used to be above the North Pole because Egyptian myths have Saturn in the north.
• Thornhill thinks that the Grand Canyon was created by electric discharges.

They wrote Thunderbolts of the Gods together with the fantasy that during these imaginary encounters there were electrical discharges between planets. It is these electrical discharges that magically blasted asteroids and comets from the surface of rocky planets. Thus the assumption that comet are rocks and the frantic squirming to deny the real measurements by various methods of the density of comets.

 

[Reality Check]

Let us add the stupidity of a supporter of the EC delusion debunking the EC delusion by citing the formation of a jet that is impossible in the EC delusion:
A sequence of images taken by Rosetta's scientific camera OSIRIS show the sudden onset of a well-defined jet-like feature emerging from the side of the comet's neck, in the Anuket region.
Not the top of a lobe as needed for an electrical discharge but from the neck - the lowest point!

 

[jonesdave116]

naturally thete is an "interface" of the outflowing mix of neutral gas, ions, electrons and dust with the inflowing solar wind magnetoplasma, which is quite big as the neutral gas is not impeded by the magnetic field. at this interface there are many interactions taking place. ion-neutral charge exchange is an important one, but also some chemistry, electron cooling by exciting rotational and vibrational states of neutral molecules, just regular ion-neutral collisions. these all transfer momentum of the solar wind to the outflow of the comet.

when there are enough of these phenomena then it is possible that the solar wind gets stopped, and thus the magnetic field of the solar wind cannot reach the nucleus. and as we know that the comet itself is non-magnetized, a magnetic field free region is created around the nucleus, the diamagnetic cavity.

on the interface so many prosesses are taking place, that the creation of a steady double is rather unlikely, especially in these cases just presented, because you can see that the boundary must move, as the cavity only lasts for about 20 min, in which rosetta hardly moves.

What he said.

Something else you might ponder, Sol, is that electric discharges create a magnetic field. Fleetingly, but extremely powerfully. I don't see anything in the data to suggest a massive outburst of electrical activity. Just at the time that Tus and his mates were looking for it. In fact, dear boy, what one sees is a massive DROP in the magnetic field at the time of the jet eruption. So we can rule out any electrical woo as the cause of this jet. At least we can if we actually understand science.
As for the diamagnetic cavity; why would there be one? Thornhill, and his equally uneducated sidekick, tell us that the comet is some sort of anode, or is it cathode, to the non-existent electric Sun. So how the hell would a non-magnetised region develop? Surely your idiotic idea calls for the surface of the comet to be receiving some sort of current from (who the ---- knows where). So where is it? Pretty much every damn electric current ever measured, anywhere, anytime, produces a magnetic field. How come the inner reaches of Halley, and, indeed, this comet, are shown to be magnetic field free? Where is your current, and why can't we see it?
I'll save you the bother of answering; there isn't one. Dead in the water. Which is where you started 6? years ago.
Once again, for the sake of the lurkers, you don't have a hypothesis. You don't have a clue.
It's faith based garbage, with no evidence to back it up.

 

[Matthew Cline]

You're starting with the assumption that what you're looking at is solid rock,

Hey, it looks like a rock, and that's what matters to Sol88.

 

[jonesdave116]

Hey, it looks like a rock, and that's what matters to Sol88.

You are obviously not paying attention. This is a piece of pumice blasted off of a planet (that probably orbited Saturn) within the last......10 000 years? What is the problem with that