Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

[jonesdave116]

For those interested in real RPC science, Andrew Coates and coworkers wrote a paper on "Ion pickup observed at comet 67P with the Rosetta Plasma Consortium (RPC) particle sensors: similarities with previous observations and AMPTE releases, and effects of increasing activity"
(Methinks the title is too short)

Interesting article. Hope they do/did find the bowshock region. I thought the title was rather snappy!

 

[Reality Check]

sigh, again?
...

Oh dear, Sol88: That is a lie about your parroting of the Thunderbolts delusion that comets are rocks, comet jets are electrical discharges and these imaginary electrical discharges produce the comet coma. That delusion is not about the solar wind creating OH/H2O or dust being electrostatically levitated.

You really are in denial of the real world of comets because other posters have told you serial time about the fact that the solar wind stops reaching the surface of the comet nucleus soon after activity begins.
This is even explained in a paper you have cited many times but 13 October 2015 Sol88: Cannot comprehend the contents of a comet paper, e.g. its citations !

1. 6th July 2009 Sol88: tusenfem asks for the qualitative and quantitative mechanism by which EDM produces the amount of water group ions that is observed around a comet and in its tail and you cite a paper that is not about EDM or water group ions on 29 September 2015 (your post about the electrostatic levitation of dust paper)
2. Still cannot see that he is being lied to, especially about comets: 10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.
3. 12 June 2015 Sol88: Is Velikovsky's Venus explaining Joshua 10:13 a delusion or mainstream physics?
4. 11 August 2015 Sol88: This is now 7 strikeouts of David Talbott's "predictions"
5. 12 August 2015 Sol88: The formation of a jet in the side of the neck of 67P that is impossible in the EC delusion!
6. 6 October 2015 Sol88: Please cite the observations that Deep Impact ejecta contained no water or other ices (i.e. where is the ejected rock as expected from hitting a rock!).
7. 7 October 2015 Sol88: Confirms ignorance of physics by asking what happens to dust escaping comets.
8. 12 October 2015 Sol88: You are lying about "not much to very little ice" produced by Deep impact.
9. 12 October 2015 Sol88: Do you really think that a comet tail is a comet jet?
10. 12 October 2015 Sol88: Please explain by why you are lying again about no surface water ice?
11. 14 October 2015 Sol88: Cannot acknowledge the stupidity of an image of Earth's atmospheric phenomena, including what looks like a meteor in a comet thread!
12. 14 October 2015 Sol88: Thumbs up an astronomer stating that water and other (CO2, Co, methane, ethane) ices have been detected on comets thus debunking the EC delusion yet again!
13. 14 October 2015 Sol88: But follows with implied paranoia and lie (even with the smile icon) that the astronomer(s) faked the ice data to get funding.

110 days and counting of fear of 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.

 

[Sol88]

110 days and counting of fear of 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.

Are you gunna make me a cake when we reach 365 days?

 

[Sol88]

Yes, until you finally produce something real



Link does not seem to work but this one does, but is it really appropriate?

No, not really, because the solar wind keV protons, that are discussed in that paper, have not been seen by the Rosetta plasma instruments for months now. There are keV ions (water ions!!!) observed now and then, but they move away from the comet.

So, before you come up with some other process which may or may not occur on the moon, you would do best to inform yourself about what is actually going on near 67P.

So, sigh, no it is NOT an explanation, especially not if you start to do the numbers, but I guess you don't do numbers.



Again, this may or may not work at the moon, but the solar wind has long had no access anymore to the surface of 67P!



And again, Tom's paper is for during periods of low activity
I thought to make this last part of the title a bit more legible for you, in case you lost your glasses or so. That stage has been left behind months and months ago!

So, again, no EC model, not even a hint of an EC model. Are you sure your friends on thunderdolts are really interested in explaining the electric comet, or are they only there to bitch about how "only mainstream is getting all the money" or "mainstream is stuck in its orthodoxy and does not allow real electrodynamics and plasma physics to be discussed" and other nonsense.

during periods of low activity correct, after that the dominate mode for the surface to charge is electromagnetic induction!

Same as on the moon/s

Global electromagnetic induction in the Moon and planets

So the solar wind DOES NOT need direct access to the surface.

 

[Reality Check]

Are you gunna make me a cake when we reach 365 days?

We did not celebrate

• One year of your delusion that comets are rocks or
• 2 years of your delusion that comets are rocks or
• 3 years of your delusion that comets are rocks or
• 4 years of your delusion that comets are rocks or
• 5 years of your delusion that comets are rocks or
• 6 years of your delusion that comets are rocks or
• and will not celebrate the 7, 8, 9, etc.. years of your delusion that comets are rocks.

So no.

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88: Electromagnetic induction is not an electrical discharge or production of H2O

during periods of low activity correct, ...

Followed by yet more ignorance about science, Sol88.
16 October 2015 Sol88: Electromagnetic induction is not an electrical discharge or production of H2O :eek!

Electromagnetic induction is not an electrical discharge!
Electromagnetic induction is not H20 production from dust!

Global electromagnetic induction in the Moon and planets is about the electromagnetic induction caused by the magnetic field of the Moon. It is idiotic to think that it is about the production of H20 on the Moon. The paper mentions the measurement and modelling of the solar wind which compresses the Moon's magnetic field. So I am guessing you googled for something like 'moon solar wind electromagnetic' and ignorantly picked this link.

16 October 2015 Sol88: Do you know what the measured magnetic field of 67P is?

16 October 2015 Sol88: Given the electromagnetic induction of 67P calculate the production of H20 by whatever fantasies you believe in!

 

[tusenfem]

after that the dominate mode for the surface to charge is electromagnetic induction!

Same as on the moon/s

Global electromagnetic induction in the Moon and planets

So the solar wind DOES NOT need direct access to the surface.

Right, because electromagnetic induction creates strong electric fields I guess?
Did you even read the paper or understand what electromagnetic induction is?
Do you know what they mean with "poloidal field" etc.?
You can actually find the paper online in pdf, you don't have to work with an abstract alone.

 

[Sol88]

I pop in on this thread every few months to marvel at it. This is hilarious.

EU GUY: "The comet is so hyper-charged it generates super-lightning bolts that mill out craters! The Rosetta team ignores this because they're not trained in plasma ideas!"

PEOPLE WHO KNOW E&M: "Everything you have said is wrong."

ACTUAL ROSETTA PLASMA SCIENTIST: "We've been studying the *weak* electrostatic phenomena on comets for 25 years. They're weak, we will see them with our sensitive instruments, and we definitely do not see giant electric arcs"

EU GUY: "Show me the evidence!"

ACTUAL ROSETTA PAPER: "Rosetta has observed weak electrostatic phenomena with our sensitive instruments and definitely not giant electric arcs."

EU GUY: "OMG it's a rosetta paper with ELECTRO in the title! EU wins again!"

No my issue is with this statement Click image to watch Ambition
Read Rosetta: the ambition to turn science fiction into science fact

and their (mainstream) are still trying to turn science fiction into fact

as stated by

“In time we turned to comets. One trillion celestial balls of dust, ice, complex molecules, left over from the birth of our Solar System. Once thought of as messengers of doom and destruction, and yet so enchanting.

Fact or fiction?

but if their ambition is to turn science fiction into science fact then all you have to do is repeat, repeat, repeat and violla fiction turns to fact!

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Oh, is it time to fringe reset again? Back to the Ambition thing that has zero to do with the actual science produced? So is that a red herring? Or would it be considered some kinda strawman?

Help me, Obi Wan!

 

[jonesdave116]

Fact or fiction?

but if their ambition is to turn science fiction into science fact then all you have to do is repeat, repeat, repeat and violla fiction turns to fact!

And which facts do you think they lack? Specifically, please, and then I'll be happy to link to the data that shows it not to be lacking.

Conversely, perhaps you'd like to link to the evidence for the EU rocky comet garbage. As we all know that it is non-existent, that should be fun.

 

[Reality Check]

No my issue is with this statement...

No your issue is with your delusion that comets are rocks while in the real worlds comets are made of ices and dust, Sol88 !

In the real world, honest people do not lie about blog articles. Rosetta is not really turning science fiction into fact despite the title.Rosetta: the ambition to turn science fiction into science fact

Imagine: with a wasteland as their canvas,...
Science fiction? No – science fact.

As Tomek Bagiński’s short film Ambition makes clear, it is the essence of what it means to be human, to attempt difficult things, to reach for seemingly impossible goals, to learn, adapt and evolve.

And at the heart of this film is Rosetta, ESA’s real mission to rendezvous with, escort and land on a comet. A mission that began as a dream, but that after decades of planning, construction and flight through the Solar System, has arrived at its goal.

Its aim? To unlock the secrets hidden within the icy treasure chest for 4.6 billion years. To study its make-up and its history. To search for clues as to our own origins.

There is a link to science fiction though - several SF novels are about comets. Alastair Reynolds is the author of Pushing Ice which gas people mining cometary ice.

P.S.

1. 6th July 2009 Sol88: tusenfem asks for the qualitative and quantitative mechanism by which EDM produces the amount of water group ions that is observed around a comet and in its tail and you cite a paper that is not about EDM or water group ions on 29 September 2015 (your post about the electrostatic levitation of dust paper)
2. Still cannot see that he is being lied to, especially about comets: 10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.
3. 12 June 2015 Sol88: Is Velikovsky's Venus explaining Joshua 10:13 a delusion or mainstream physics?
4. 11 August 2015 Sol88: This is now 7 strikeouts of David Talbott's "predictions"
5. 12 August 2015 Sol88: The formation of a jet in the side of the neck of 67P that is impossible in the EC delusion!
6. 6 October 2015 Sol88: Please cite the observations that Deep Impact ejecta contained no water or other ices (i.e. where is the ejected rock as expected from hitting a rock!).
7. 7 October 2015 Sol88: Confirms ignorance of physics by asking what happens to dust escaping comets.
8. 12 October 2015 Sol88: You are lying about "not much to very little ice" produced by Deep impact.
9. 12 October 2015 Sol88: Do you really think that a comet tail is a comet jet?
10. 12 October 2015 Sol88: Please explain by why you are lying again about no surface water ice?
11. 14 October 2015 Sol88: Cannot acknowledge the stupidity of an image of Earth's atmospheric phenomena, including what looks like a meteor in a comet thread!
12. 14 October 2015 Sol88: Thumbs up an astronomer stating that water and other (CO2, Co, methane, ethane) ices have been detected on comets thus debunking the EC delusion yet again!
13. 14 October 2015 Sol88: But follows with implied paranoia and lie (even with the smile icon) that the astronomer(s) faked the ice data to get funding.
14. 16 October 2015 Sol88: Electromagnetic induction is not an electrical discharge or production of H2O :eek!

110 days and counting of fear of 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.

 

[ben m]

No my issue is with this statement

Um. No it isn't. I quoted you talking about something else entirely.

The reason I check this thread occasionally, rather than regularly, is that I have no interest in tracking a neverending game of chase-the-changing-subject.

 

[tusenfem]

Yay! finally (last friday) submitted my paper "Mass-loading, pile-up, and mirror-mode waves at comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko". (waiting on co-authors can be a pain in the backside now and then)

 

[Sol88]

Oh, is it time to fringe reset again? Back to the Ambition thing that has zero to do with the actual science produced? So is that a red herring? Or would it be considered some kinda strawman?

Help me, Obi Wan!

Why not? That I thought was the primary mission, to you know turn the sublimation science fiction into science fact?

There's not all that much fatal data for either crazy theory to be falsified, even after the mainstreams tireless efforts to prove sublimating dust and "ice/s" (along with a zoo of other stuff, Tholins, Hydrocarbons, Argon, Nitrogen....etc etc) left over from the formation of the solar system. Even after a year.

on the other hand...

There have been a host of confirmation and surprises in the PLASMA, ELECTRICAL and MAGNETIC Environment of an very weakly active comet which has me as an EU eejit, excited

 

[jonesdave116]

Why not? That I thought was the primary mission, to you know turn the sublimation science fiction into science fact?

There's not all that much fatal data for either crazy theory to be falsified, even after the mainstreams tireless efforts to prove sublimating dust and "ice/s" (along with a zoo of other stuff, Tholins, Hydrocarbons, Argon, Nitrogen....etc etc) left over from the formation of the solar system. Even after a year.

on the other hand...

There have been a host of confirmation and surprises in the PLASMA, ELECTRICAL and MAGNETIC Environment of an very weakly active comet which has me as an EU eejit, excited

And again, SPECIFICALLY, what is missing from the sublimation FACT (NOT THEORY)? Specify, and I'll link to the data that shows it.
And what plasma data have been released that cannot/ have not been shown to be in line with expectations, and need EU nonsense to explain them?

As I've said lots of times, after 14 months at this comet, the evidence for this comet being as the "mainstream" have known for decades is overwhelming. On the other hand, the EU nonsense is still just an evidence-free delusion. Not a single piece of evidence. Nothing. It died at Tempel 1. A couple of cranksters are keeping it going, probably for financial reasons, and the fact that their acolytes are scientifically illiterate and/ or ignorant of real science.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

The reason I check this thread occasionally, rather than regularly, is that I have no interest in tracking a neverending game of chase-the-changing-subject.

Many of us at this forum share your exact sentiments.

 

[Sol88]

And again, SPECIFICALLY, what is missing from the sublimation FACT (NOT THEORY)? Specify, and I'll link to the data that shows it.
And what plasma data have been released that cannot/ have not been shown to be in line with expectations, and need EU nonsense to explain them?

As I've said lots of times, after 14 months at this comet, the evidence for this comet being as the "mainstream" have known for decades is overwhelming. On the other hand, the EU nonsense is still just an evidence-free delusion. Not a single piece of evidence. Nothing. It died at Tempel 1. A couple of cranksters are keeping it going, probably for financial reasons, and the fact that their acolytes are scientifically illiterate and/ or ignorant of real science.

In the sublimating snowball theory the levitation and acceleration off dust of the surface of a comet by surface charging was never mentioned.

So it obvious the "jets" are not from sublimating ice but we have a paper stating as fact electric fields moving dust around, levitating and accelerating it off the surface.

and we can rule that out as the jets origin because...?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

In the sublimating snowball theory the levitation and acceleration off dust of the surface of a comet by surface charging was never mentioned.

So it obvious the "jets" are not from sublimating ice but we have a paper stating as fact electric fields moving dust around, levitating and accelerating it off the surface.

and we can rule that out as the jets origin because...?

Because they are different things?

 

[jonesdave116]

In the sublimating snowball theory the levitation and acceleration off dust of the surface of a comet by surface charging was never mentioned.

So it obvious the "jets" are not from sublimating ice but we have a paper stating as fact electric fields moving dust around, levitating and accelerating it off the surface.

and we can rule that out as the jets origin because...?

What???? The paper is mentioning nothing as FACT, merely a possibility, (previously hypothesised for many bodies), of small scale electrical effects, and only then at PERIODS OF LOW ACTIVITY!!!!!!

You can rule it out of being the major cause of the jet activity because most of it happens at times of high activity (obviously), and we see H2O sublimating from the near surface associated with the dust. The vapour is invisible in visible light!!!!!! We are given a clue where to look for the H2O (or CO2 etc) because it is entraining the dust!! If we look at those dust jets and see no ice sublimation products, then that would be interesting. That isn't the case.
Where were the early jets seen at 67P? The neck, right? And what did they find when they looked at the neck with MIRO? H2O.
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/forth/aa26094-15.pdf

Why do you think they knew where to look at Hartley 2? Because the dust and ice entrained by the CO2 jets made them visible, so that they could then resolve them spectroscopically.

You might not need sublimation in your very strange view of comets, but the fact is it has been seen, repeatedly. Unambiguously.

The mechanism you are proposing a) is only a possibility, b) doesn't match observation (see the MIRO data), and c) has nothing to do with EU nonsense anyway.

ETA:
Having just read the surface charging paper again, another fairly obvious reason shows up as to why this is not the major driving force for the dust we see (not that the authors claim it to be; only Sol). That is the size constraints they place on the grains that can be ejected; <50 nm. The dust seen in this and other missions is considerably larger than that; 100's of nm up to mm size. You should read these things properly Sol.
See: http://authors.library.caltech.edu/25200/1/Meech2011p15630Astrophys_J_Lett.pdf

 

[The Man]

Yay! finally (last friday) submitted my paper "Mass-loading, pile-up, and mirror-mode waves at comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko". (waiting on co-authors can be a pain in the backside now and then)

Nice job tusenfem (and co-authors), can't wait till the movie comes out.