Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

[Reality Check]

Sol88: Ignorance, delusions and lies about a Deep Impact report

more problems than answers where raised with the deep impact dust up!!

Is this more lies about Deep Impact or just fear of physics, Sol88?
12 October 2015 Sol88: You are lying about "not much to very little ice" produced by Deep impact.

112 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.

How much WATER ICE to dust ratio and was it the amount PREDICTED by mainsteam???

No it is the usual argument from delusions about comets !
Or the idiocy that astronomers in 2005 had already measured composition of the surface of Tempel 1 to the depth of the proposed impact (or any comet for that matter).

Any prediction of the WATER ICE to dust ratio in the impact from the top ~50 meters of Tempel 1 would be based on the known average composition of comets.

Deep Impact: Observations from a World-Wide Earth-Based Campaign is science about real comets, not your delusions about imaginary comets, Sol88.

You lied about the contents of the PDF, Sol88:

For the first time we now have adequate observations to understand the detailed composition of dust in a Jupiter-family comet. Furthermore this dust comes from deeper subsurface layers than normal and so is less processed than cometary dust we normally see. The dust to gas ratio in the ejecta was larger than what was measured before impact, suggesting that the volatile content of the nucleus’s material is depleted even several meters below the surface.

No surprise there.
No prediction there.

22 October 2014 Sol88: Ignorance, delusions and lies about a Deep Impact: Observations from a World-Wide Earth-Based Campaign PDF.

Not unexpected from a follower of the Thunderbolts cult: 10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.

 

[Reality Check]

So the comet seems to more about PLASMA interactions than the unobserved sublimating ices!

Still lying about ices on comets, Sol88, because sublimating ices have been observed as you know, e.g. there is at least 1 image of a jet issuing from the side of a pit made of ices and dust on 67P.

And then an idiotic question !
The "absolute zoo of molecules and elements we see in the spectra" from 67P produced from sublimating ices tells us that what ices are sublimating inside the subsurface of 67P.

Lets start with your delusion of CARBON, Sol88. CARBON is an element. No CARBON atoms are produced by sublimating ices because there are no CARBON ices (graphite? or are you expecting diamonds?) on comets.
CO ices sublimate to CO gas.
CO2 ices sublimate to CO2 gas.
Methanol ices sublimate to methanol gas.
Formaldehyde ices sublimate to formaldehyde gas.
Ethanol ices sublimate to ethanol gas.
Ethane ices sublimate to ethane gas.
Sunlight and the solar wind then disassociate these molecules.

 

[Reality Check]

The Philae probe was a failure due to expectations of what a comet is thought to be!!!

That is a totally ignorant statement, Sol88, because most of Philae's instruments have worked beyond expectations given that the failure of the harpoon and thruster lead to an bad landing.

The failure of the harpoon and thruster have nothing to do with any delusions you have about "expectations of what a comet is thought to be".

 

[Reality Check]

How does the suns thermal energy get several meters below a well insulated fluffy (AND HARD (MUPUS)) layer to the pristine ICE's below, to release the energy in a well collimated high energy JET???

Sol88: Have you ever cooked anything or even seen someone cooking anything, e.g. a steak?
How does the ovens thermal energy get below well insulated, sometimes fluffy (AND SOMETIMES HARD) layers to the pristine layers below?
This total ignorance of the real world needs a !

 

[Matthew Cline]

This brave little probe could of killed this thread dead but it failed smashing into the nucleus and bouncing uncontrolled across the comet.

This sentence does not make any sense, but I guess you know that.

I think he means "if the comet was actually made of porous, low-density ice then the probe would not have bounced".

 

[jonesdave116]

I think he means "if the comet was actually made of porous, low-density ice then the probe would not have bounced".

Probably. Last time I checked freshly fallen snow was quite porous, ice tends not to be!
Anyway, I think he'll soon be put out of his misery. There was a paper regarding MIRO data collected about a year ago, but published recently; http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/forth/aa26181-15.pdf.
In it they hinted that the results for the southern hemisphere of the comet showed it was transparent to the instrument at shallow depths, suggesting ice below the surface. They couldn't be definite, as at that time they didn't have a well constrained shape model for that area of the comet. Well, it seems they may have now, as the abstract for a presentation at the AGU fall meeting says: "We see temperature variations due to diurnal and seasonal changes in insolation, and also see evidence for subsurface ice in some regions.
https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm15/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/85998

 

[ferd burfle]

.. and also see evidence for subsurface ice in some regions.

Probably just a trace of subsurface frost, eh Sol?

 

[Dancing David]

I think he means "if the comet was actually made of porous, low-density ice then the probe would not have bounced".

Despite the fact that the hardness of super cold ice has been discussed fro a long time with Sol88, long ago dirty plow walls weer discussed with Sol88 in the context of many silly statements by Sol88

 

[Sol88]

So we have an

induced cometary magnetosphere. In other words, even though the nucleus of 67P/C-G has no magnetic field of its own (as announced at this year’s EGU General Assembly), the comet’s atmosphere or coma is magnetised.

LINK

We have

It has also been suggested that surface charging of the nucleus may lead to electrostatic levitation of small dust particles (Flammer et al., 1986, Juhász and Szegő, 1998 and Mendis et al., 1981) and that electrostatic dust blow-off may explain sudden changes in the observed brightness of comet Halley at large heliocentric distances (Flammer et al., 1986). As suggested in the recent review given by Mendis and Horányi (2013), the nucleus of comet 67P may exhibit surface charging and dust levitation during the initial part of the Rosetta escort phase when the comet is expected to be only weakly outgassing.

(Even if it's only during low activity) LINK

We then have

Electrically charged lunar dust near shadowed craters can get lofted above the surface and jump over the shadowed region, bouncing back and forth between sunlit areas on opposite sides, according to new calculations by NASA scientists.

LINK

Then there's

On November 13, 2009 NASA reported that after analysis of the data obtained from the ejecta plume, the spectral signature of water had been confirmed.[10][50] However, what was actually detected was the chemical group hydroxyl ( · OH), which is suspected to be from water,[3] but could also be hydrates, which are inorganic salts containing chemically-bound water molecules. The nature, concentration and distribution of this material requires further analysis;[10] chief mission scientist Anthony Colaprete has stated that the ejecta appears to include a range of fine-grained particulates of near pure crystalline water-ice.[12]

LINK just like TEMPEL 1, ice ice baby, everywhere ice!

as well as

The Jovian magnetic field lines that do get past Io’s ionosphere also induce an electric current, which is believed to be able to generate as much as 400,000 volts across itself, as well as an electric current of 3 million ampere.

LINK

So

After ionization the new- born ions are moving transverse to the ambient magnetic field, B, and the solar wind flow in the direction of the elec- tric field, constituting a cross-field electric current density. The cometary ion motion is controlled by the electric field. Lorentz forces are not yet important in this innermost coma region. The ratio of the electric force to the Lorentz force is of the order of the ratio of the gyro-period TG to the life- time τ of the newborn ions: | E | / | v×B |≈ TG/τ.

LINK

BUT we

Observing the comet’s southern polar regions, Choukroun and colleagues found significant differences between the data collected with MIRO’s millimetre and sub-millimetre wavelength channels. These differences might point to the presence of large amounts of ice within the first few tens of centimetres below the surface of these regions.



“Surprisingly, the thermal and electrical properties around the comet’s south pole are quite different to what is found elsewhere on the nucleus. It appears that either the surface material or the material that lies down to a few tens of centimetres below it is extremely transparent at the MIRO wavelengths of 0.5 and 1.6 mm, and could consist mostly of water ice or carbon-dioxide ice,” he adds.

LINK

So ummmm..... just saying

 

[jonesdave116]

So ummmm..... just saying

Wrong. On every count, this has nothing to do with comets. What they saw at Tempel 1, AND Hartley 2 was WATER ICE GRAINS. Not OH vapour. There is a difference. Look it up.

Induced cometary magnetospheres have nothing to do with electric woo. Look it up.

As explained, the POSSIBLE surface charging has nothing to do with EU woo, and only works at times of low activity, and cannot account for the grain sizes seen at comets. Look it up.

Jupiter isn't a comet. Look it up.

The MIRO paper was from observations in October 2014. The paper was submitted in March 2015. The abstract for the presentation at the AGU fall meeting is recent. It says "and also see evidence for subsurface ice in some regions." No longer "could be" or "may be". They've had time to look at the shape model while that region is in sunlight. Presumably hence the change in language. Rock, by the way, isn't transparent to MIRO.

EU still batting zero on this. Not surprisingly.

 

[Sol88]

Jonesdave116

Wrong. On every count, this has nothing to do with comets. What they saw at Tempel 1, AND Hartley 2 was WATER ICE GRAINS. Not OH vapour. There is a difference. Look it up.

Are you saying, from your convoluted reasoning, that the Moon (ours, Lunar) is a comet???

'cos maybe you missed

The nature, concentration and distribution of this material requires further analysis;[10] chief mission scientist Anthony Colaprete has stated that the ejecta appears to include a range of fine-grained particulates of near pure crystalline water-ice.[12]

Lunar water

Does, by your reasoning JD116, the moon contain SUBSURFACE water ice? mean they have seen

Water molecules are also detected in the thin layer of gases above the lunar surface.[1][2]

as well as

In November 2009, NASA reported that its LCROSS space probe had detected a significant amount of hydroxyl group in the material thrown up from a south polar crater by an impactor;[10] this may be attributed to water-bearing materials[11] – what appears to be "near pure crystalline water-ice".[12]

Hey, JUST LIKE ON A COMET!!! Hey Jonedave116?

'cos

Water may have been delivered to the Moon over geological timescales by the regular bombardment of water-bearing comets, asteroids and meteoroids [14] or continuously produced in situ by the hydrogen ions (protons) of the solar wind impacting oxygen-bearing minerals.[15]

Water bearing comets????? There is none

 

[Sol88]

just in case you still are a little confused JD116,

LUNAR SURFACE CHARGING:
A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE USING LUNAR PROSPECTOR DATA

Lunar surface charging can vary significantly with
changes in solar wind ne,Te, i and Vsw, as shown
in Fig. 2, with variations in ne and Te being particularly important

Ho hum.....

 

[Sol88]

Wrong. On every count, this has nothing to do with comets. What they saw at Tempel 1, AND Hartley 2 was WATER ICE GRAINS. Not OH vapour. There is a difference. Look it up.

Induced cometary magnetospheres have nothing to do with electric woo. Look it up.

As explained, the POSSIBLE surface charging has nothing to do with EU woo, and only works at times of low activity, and cannot account for the grain sizes seen at comets. Look it up.

Jupiter isn't a comet. Look it up.

The MIRO paper was from observations in October 2014. The paper was submitted in March 2015. The abstract for the presentation at the AGU fall meeting is recent. It says "and also see evidence for subsurface ice in some regions." No longer "could be" or "may be". They've had time to look at the shape model while that region is in sunlight. Presumably hence the change in language. Rock, by the way, isn't transparent to MIRO.


EU still batting zero on this. Not surprisingly.

As explained, the POSSIBLE surface charging has nothing to do with EU woo, and only works at times of low activity, and cannot account for the grain sizes seen at comets. Look it up.

So I did...

However, modeling the behavior of these levitated grains is more complex as they will also interact with their respective photoelectron/Debye sheaths. In the event that these larger grains attain additional charge within the sheath, they too may be capable of escaping the nucleus.

What say ye me 'ol mate?

 

[jonesdave116]

So I did...

What say ye me 'ol mate?

What I say is you are still talking absolute garbage. Any effects of the same nature as seen on the moon can only happen on a comet at times of LOW ACTIVITY!!!!!!

Therefore this is a non-mechanism for comets. The moon has tiny amounts of water per unit area compared to a comet. The mechanism isn't at all constrained.
And we are not only talking about H2O ice on comets. There are a large number of ices which give rise to various gases in a cometary coma.

The moon isn't a comet. It doesn't have the density of a comet. If this process were the reason for the huge amount of H2O and various other gases seen at comets, then why isn't it happening to asteroids? What is the difference between comets and asteroids? One is rock, one isn't. Why don't we see the same processes happening on asteroids? There is one due for a close fly by soon. Reckon we'll see large amounts of H2O and CO2 and other gases spewing from it?
No, because it's rock, and comets aren't.

It has already been explained to you countless times that the solar wind is nowhere near dense enough to account for the amount of gases we see coming off of comets. Not even close.

It's a non-hypothesis, dreamed up by a bunch of scientifically illiterate cranksters. Nobody takes it seriously. It's laughably silly.

 

[Sol88]

The moon isn't a comet. It doesn't have the density of a comet. If this process were the reason for the huge amount of H2O and various other gases seen at comets, then why isn't it happening to asteroids? What is the difference between comets and asteroids? One is rock, one isn't. Why don't we see the same processes happening on asteroids? There is one due for a close fly by soon. Reckon we'll see large amounts of H2O and CO2 and other gases spewing from it?
No, because it's rock, and comets aren't.

What is the difference between comets and asteroids?

Atmosphere

There are indications that Ceres may have a tenuous water vapor atmosphere outgassing from water ice on the surface.[75][76][77]

Surface water ice is unstable at distances less than 5 AU from the Sun,[78] so it is expected to sublime if it is exposed directly to solar radiation. Water ice can migrate from the deep layers of Ceres to the surface, but escapes in a very short time. As a result, it is difficult to detect water vaporization. Water escaping from polar regions of Ceres was possibly observed in the early 1990s but this has not been unambiguously demonstrated. It may be possible to detect escaping water from the surroundings of a fresh impact crater or from cracks in the subsurface layers of Ceres.[63] Ultraviolet observations by the IUE spacecraft detected statistically significant amounts of hydroxide ions near Ceres' north pole, which is a product of water vapor dissociation by ultraviolet solar radiation.[75]

In early 2014, using data from the Herschel Space Observatory, it was discovered that there are several localized (not more than 60 km in diameter) mid-latitude sources of water vapor on Ceres, which each give off approximately 1026 molecules (or 3 kg) of water per second.[79][80][c] Two potential source regions, designated Piazzi (123°E, 21°N) and Region A (231°E, 23°N), have been visualized in the near infrared as dark areas (Region A also has a bright center) by the W. M. Keck Observatory. Possible mechanisms for the vapor release are sublimation from approximately 0.6 km2 of exposed surface ice, or cryovolcanic eruptions resulting from radiogenic internal heat[79] or from pressurization of a subsurface ocean due to growth of an overlying layer of ice.[19] Surface sublimation would be expected to be lower when Ceres is farther from the Sun in its orbit, whereas internally powered emissions should not be affected by its orbital position. The limited data available are more consistent with cometary-style sublimation.[79]

LINK


Is Ceres a comet?

 

[jonesdave116]

What is the difference between comets and asteroids? LINK


Is Ceres a comet?

Give it up.
What has Ceres to do with the vast number of asteroids we see? It is a dwarf planet that has undergone differentiation, and probably has an icy mantle. It has a density of ~ 2000 kg/m^3.
Is it outgassing like crazy, like a comet? Is the Moon? Are other asteroids? In fact any planetary body where the solar wind has access to the surface? No. Why not? Because the solar wind cannot create the amount of H2O and other gases seen at comets. Nor can any sort of electric woo.
It is a non-mechanism. Do the maths.

 

[tusenfem]

So ummmm..... just saying

you're not saying anything actually

 

[jonesdave116]

Wow, comet Lovejoy sounds like a fun place. Spewing out alcohol and sugar!
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/1/9/e1500863.full.pdf

 

[Sol88]

Still lying about ices on comets, Sol88, because sublimating ices have been observed as you know, e.g. there is at least 1 image of a jet issuing from the side of a pit made of ices and dust on 67P.

And then an idiotic question !
The "absolute zoo of molecules and elements we see in the spectra" from 67P produced from sublimating ices tells us that what ices are sublimating inside the subsurface of 67P.

Lets start with your delusion of CARBON, Sol88. CARBON is an element. No CARBON atoms are produced by sublimating ices because there are no CARBON ices (graphite? or are you expecting diamonds?) on comets.
CO ices sublimate to CO gas.
CO2 ices sublimate to CO2 gas.
Methanol ices sublimate to methanol gas.
Formaldehyde ices sublimate to formaldehyde gas.
Ethanol ices sublimate to ethanol gas.
Ethane ices sublimate to ethane gas.
Sunlight and the solar wind then disassociate these molecules.

And I 'spose we can add

Wow, comet Lovejoy sounds like a fun place. Spewing out alcohol and sugar!
http://advances.sciencemag.org/conte...00863.full.pdf

Sugar ice sublimate to colaldehyde gas
Ethanol ice sublimates to ethanol gas

Bloody amazing stuff

 

[jonesdave116]

And I 'spose we can add

Sugar ice sublimate to colaldehyde gas
Ethanol ice sublimates to ethanol gas

Bloody amazing stuff

Amazing only because you don't understand it. These molecules have been seen around newly born stars. No reason they shouldn't be incorporated into comets, which form around newly born stars. Damn sight harder to explain how they got there from some electric discharge hitting a planet. Maybe the discharge that formed this comet hit a brewery, or an orchard? I'm sure Wal is working on it as we speak.