Merged The Electric Comet Theory Part III/SAFIRE

[Reality Check]

Oh dear.

3 or maybe 4 lies packed into one rather short post is something you should not repeat. Not that will happen given 254 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 23 August 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)

 

[tusenfem]

Seems there may be enough grunt to do the "work" required.

The grunt is on Thunderdolts, as the obviously have not understood Ingo's paper. This comment:

The authors discard the classical pick up ion instabilities as the source of the magnetic oscillations and instead propose that photoionized ions move transverse to the magnetic field but along the solar wind, which flows in the direction of the electric field, in what is called a cross-field electric current density. In other words, the electric fields control cometary ion motion but in a different way from the known mass loading action.

makes no sense, as the mass loading IS happening exactly as in the "known mass loading action", but the gyro radius of the new ions is so large that in the neighbourhood of the comet the ions can be assumed to travel in a straight line, the same way you don't take into account the curvature of the Earth when you are working in your garden.

And electric fields, that is, the motional or convective electric fields, created by the moving magnetic field of the solar wind still work the same as they used to in the pick-up and mass-loading process.

No use to read any further.

 

[Sol88]

Shadowing due to the topography of the 67P nucleus may therefore be associated with strong electric fields on the order of ~100–1000 V/cm over centimeter scales. Such locally enhanced electric fields may lead to increased rates of electrostatic dust ejection and possibly also to motion of charged grains across shadow boundaries due to strong local electric field gradients.

Can this happen, Tusenfem?

 

[Sol88]

Any movement on your tail excursion paper?

Keen as to read it.

 

[tusenfem]

Can this happen, Tusenfem?

Tom's simulations and estimates by others seem to indicate the possibility of such fields here.

Whether or not they actually occur on the surface of 67P is another question.

 

[Sol88]

Devils advocate,

Say they do happen (small scale strong electric fields) what then for the interpretation of what dust 'jets' are and how they operate?

I.e is gas drag necessary?

 

[tusenfem]

Devils advocate,

Say they do happen (small scale strong electric fields) what then for the interpretation of what dust 'jets' are and how they operate?

I.e is gas drag necessary?

no, because it is observed that the dust is accelerated over 30 km, so strong fields over cms near the surface cannot lead to the observations

 

[Sol88]

Well there seems to be strong evidence of those same fields accelerating electrons to high energies...

Which processes account for the density (and ux) enhancements that IES observes are not obvious, but may involve the ambipolar electric eld and/or a local compression in the ow. The ambipolar electric eld is proportional to the electron pressure gradient and is required to maintain quasi-neutrality with signicant ion densities being produced by photoionization (e.g. Cravens, in prep.). Any mechanism (e.g., electrostatic elds) must have some degree of structure to account for the large variations in the energies and uxes seen on short time-scales. The observed VDFs show no evidence of a clear peak (a maximum with positive and negative slopes on either side) in phase space, either. This typically is a distribution that has a at top or broad shoulder and rolls off with increasing energy. If a well-structured electric eld were present, then a well-dened peak would be expected. Again, this points to ne structure in the plasma environment. It might likewise be important that comet 67P is dominated by kinetic processes.

Suprathermal electron environment of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko: Observations from the Rosetta Ion and Electron Sensor

Sorry but the board seems to cutting the fl out of the copy and paste


And that same plasma is coupled to the rest by, as you said,

11 And thus it ends The complex interaction between a time variable solar wind and an outgassing cometary nucleus gives rise to a whole zoo of interesting plasma phenomena. Unfortunately, a sizelimited review paper cannot discuss everything in full detail, but for the interested reader there is an extensive literature list in the references.

Currents in Cometary Comae

Whole zoo of interesting plasma phenomena? Please, do tell more to this ignorant sob.

Pretty much the ELECTRIC COMET right there, it's got it all!

 

[Sol88]

no, because it is observed that the dust is accelerated over 30 km, so strong fields over cms near the surface cannot lead to the observations

Maybe not but the fields are strong enough to get the process started!

And so there must be a large scale electric field as well , no?

 

[Sol88]

no, because it is observed that the dust is accelerated over 30 km, so strong fields over cms near the surface cannot lead to the observations

What could it lead to?

The paper seems pretty clear.

 

[Sol88]

Lest we forget (and I can't be bothered with refs, because they've been done soooo many times);
The comet isn't rock (MIRO, CONSERT, plus orbital measurements, plus the 9P impact).
There IS H₂O, as has been well known since 1985 (KAO), plus umpteen other detections.
There is no electric woo. As (not) measured. As per, for instance, the diamagnetic cavity at 1P and 67P. No magnetic field = (fill in as necessary).

To finish, without writing 5000 words, the electric comet woo has been shown to be total woo, as expected, by numerous missions to comets, as well as distant observations of such. It is nonsense. It is cretinous nonsense, in fact. It has ceased to be. It is an ex-idiotic idea. It has gone to meet the choir invisible. It is an ex idea.
Goodnight Polly. Bye bye David. Tata Wal. Try better next time. Loons.

Seems you're wrong, again, according to the mainstream 'experts'!

The 'dirtysnowball' is dead and it's time for a new model

11 CONCLUSIONS The classical model of comets as dirty ice balls (Whipple 1950)has focused most models of comets on ices. The more we visit comets, the dustier they appear. With 67P’s dust-to-water ratio of 6 (and possibly larger), it is now necessary to spend much more time in modelling the non-volatile matrices with a modest content of ices inside.

Unexpected and significant findings in comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view

What will it be JD116?

 

[tusenfem]

Well there seems to be strong evidence of those same fields accelerating electrons to high energies...

those are hardly the same electric fields

 

[tusenfem]

The 'dirtysnowball' is dead and it's time for a new model Unexpected and significant findings in comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view

Whipple never saw a comet up close in the 50s of the last century.
Ofcourse, after the first picture of a cometary nucleus, it became clear that Whipple's model needed to be modified, and with every successful mission to comets we learn more, which is exactly what Fulle et al. are writing.

It is just YOU who is keeping on insisting that the mainstream model is Whipples dirty snowball. Yes, it keeps on being used in popular literature, it is hard to get rid of terms that have taken foothold but don't describe reality, just think about the term "big bang" which was used to ridicule the theory.

 

[Sol88]

but it's the only model available to the mainstream! And it's wrong. Trying to fit the data to that model (the dirty Snowball) has led to some pretty wild claims!

So where does that leave us?

 

[Sol88]

The larger the dust-to-water ratio, the larger the porosity required to fit the observed nucleus bulk density. The RSI (Pätzold et al. 2016) and the CONSERT (Kofman et al. 2015) experiments exclude macro-porosity at scales above 100 m. CONSERT experiment provides a micro-porosity between 75 per cent and 85 per cent (Kofman et al. 2015). Hapke models provide a surface porosity of 87 per cent (Fornasier et al. 2015)

There's the mainstreams BIGGEST Problem!

 

[Sol88]

Whipple never saw a comet up close in the 50s of the last century.
Ofcourse, after the first picture of a cometary nucleus, it became clear that Whipple's model needed to be modified, and with every successful mission to comets we learn more, which is exactly what Fulle et al. are writing.

It is just YOU who is keeping on insisting that the mainstream model is Whipples dirty snowball. Yes, it keeps on being used in popular literature, it is hard to get rid of terms that have taken foothold but don't describe reality, just think about the term "big bang" which was used to ridicule the theory.

Not just me 'Ol mate, most of your peers as well.

e.g

Comets are primitive objects with a composition that has barely changed in 4.6Gyr. As such, they likely hold important clues on the youth and evolution of the solar system.

Comets are among the oldest objects in our Solar system, and represent the remnant materials from which all the outer planets and moons were constructed. Analysing cometary materials in situ can reveal some of these events by constraining the origin of the solid protoplanetary materials and the processes by which all larger bodies grew.

All stated as FACT!

When in reality the mainstream had no idea

 

[tusenfem]

but it's the only model available to the mainstream! And it's wrong. Trying to fit the data to that model (the dirty Snowball) has led to some pretty wild claims!

So where does that leave us?

ONLY IN YOUR MIND!

Read up on some real papers, don't be stuck in the 1950s

 

[tusenfem]

Not just me 'Ol mate, most of your peers as well.
All stated as FACT!
When in reality the mainstream had no idea

AND NONE OF THESE QUOTES STATE THAT COMETS ARE DIRTY SNOWBALLS; OR ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF READING COMPREHENSIVELY?????????????

 

[ferd burfle]

but it's the only model available to the mainstream! And it's wrong. Trying to fit the data to that model (the dirty Snowball) has led to some pretty wild claims!

So where does that leave us?

Watching a very boring movie called The Neverending Strawman.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

AND NONE OF THESE QUOTES STATE THAT COMETS ARE DIRTY SNOWBALLS; OR ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF READING COMPREHENSIVELY?????????????

His most compelling arguments are composed of emoticons and he pushes a scientific view that, if correct, would mean > 90% of our electronic equipment would be unable to function. Using electronic equipment.

I'd say that answers that question right there.