The Electric Comet theory

Status
Not open for further replies.
Belz... said:
Double the radius, double the mass, right ?



So why don't you think the sun is powered by it ?
Click to expand...

What's mass? couple Higgs Bosuns get'n together and ... oh wait, what's mass again?


Sun powered by a big H bomb???...I reserve my rite to at least entertain the idea the the Electric Comet is powered by the Electric Sun :)
 
Lateral thinking, Sol88? Good! :)
Sol88 said:
What about just OH?

"we" dont see water, H2O...we see OH, right?
Click to expand...
This is a very good question; what do Wal 'n his mates say about this? I think the answer's the same, right? The OH we see comes from H in the solar wind and O in the rocks. Now you're far more knowledgeable about the electric comet than I am, so perhaps you can flesh this out a bit?

What about the CO2 & CO production?

I mean the moons, our moon, has got a bit as well The elements sodium (Na) and potassium (K) have been detected in the moon's atmosphere using Earth-based spectroscopic methods, whereas the isotopes radon-222 and polonium-210 have been inferred from data obtained by the Lunar Prospector alpha particle spectrometer.[4] Argon-40, helium-4, oxygen and/or methane (CH4), nitrogen gas (N2) and/or carbon monoxide (CO), and carbon dioxide (CO2) were detected by in-situ detectors placed by the Apollo astronauts.[5] Mmmmm....
Click to expand...
Right.

But I'm sure you'd be the first to agree that the Sydney Opera House was not built in a day. And since they say H is by far the most common element in the universe, why not start with that? If this BOTE calculation of yours, Sol88, works out, you can always modify it to look at other elements and compounds, right? But if you never start doing any math(s), you'll never get anywhere, will you?

So, you'll do two BOTE calculations, in parallel; one for OH, and one for H2O. OK?
 
Sol88 said:
Tusenfem, you are a plasma physicist, yeah?

you have seen some of the data yeah?

anything, in your knowledgable opinion surprising in the data?

I mean as Jean Tate said, I am a "Citizen Scientist" but the only cutting edge data I have access to is pictures, like the latest from ...

Gas and dust stream from Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko in this mosaic from the Rosetta spacecraft taken Nov. 20, 2014. Credit: ESA/Rosetta/NAVCAM – CC BY-SA IGO 3.0

Wow!! could you imagine the images from Osiris!

Anyhooo, i've seen a lot of other images from 67P but none of where the "jets" seem to eminate from?

Except...from all over the surface!
Click to expand...

Of course there was something surprising and it was the singing comet.
Interestingly, this was actually predicted by a PhD student modeling the solar wind - comet interaction.

Actually you are a citizen, I would hardly call you a scientist, because you don't think, you just scream, and post smileys.

If you would actually read what is in the messages here, then you would know about that.

Strangely, the EC folks did not predict the singing comet.

And if you would keep up with the blog posts on Rosetta, you would know that in the coming time there will be low flybys of the comet to actually image the surface in detail.

But hey, why keep up with recent events when you can dally in the knowledge of the 1970s.
 
Sol88 said:
What about just OH?

"we" dont see water, H2O...we see OH, right?

What about the CO2 & CO production?

I mean the moons, our moon, has got a bit as well The elements sodium (Na) and potassium (K) have been detected in the moon's atmosphere using Earth-based spectroscopic methods, whereas the isotopes radon-222 and polonium-210 have been inferred from data obtained by the Lunar Prospector alpha particle spectrometer.[4] Argon-40, helium-4, oxygen and/or methane (CH4), nitrogen gas (N2) and/or carbon monoxide (CO), and carbon dioxide (CO2) were detected by in-situ detectors placed by the Apollo astronauts.[5] Mmmmm....
Click to expand...

No we see H2O in all its isotopes!!! Don't you read what is posted? Or do you actually savour remaining in the pre-data era of Whipple's dirty snowball?

And yes, that has been my question all along, HOW DOES THE EC MODEL CREATE CO AND CO2? I guess you missed that question, can happen, I only asked it like 5 times already.
 
tusenfem said:
Of course there was something surprising and it was the singing comet.
Interestingly, this was actually predicted by a PhD student modeling the solar wind - comet interaction.

Actually you are a citizen, I would hardly call you a scientist, because you don't think, you just scream, and post smileys.

If you would actually read what is in the messages here, then you would know about that.

Strangely, the EC folks did not predict the singing comet.

And if you would keep up with the blog posts on Rosetta, you would know that in the coming time there will be low flybys of the comet to actually image the surface in detail.

But hey, why keep up with recent events when you can dally in the knowledge of the 1970s.
Click to expand...

Singing comet you say Tusenfem, please tell me more, no need for any math.

and sorry no smileys...:eusa_eh:
 
Sol88 said:
So my point with the whole MATH thing ApolloGnomon, you did not have to do one single sum to understand the theory, did you?
Click to expand...

Actually, I do need to do math to understand the theory, but I'm not there yet. Easy enough to understand that standing in the shower gets you wet but you need math if you need to know how many gallons per minute at what psi a firefighter used to shoot a stream of water into a third story window.

You appear to still be standing in the shower amazed that you're getting wet.
 
tusenfem said:
No we see H2O in all its isotopes!!! Don't you read what is posted? Or do you actually savour remaining in the pre-data era of Whipple's dirty snowball?

And yes, that has been my question all along, HOW DOES THE EC MODEL CREATE CO AND CO2? I guess you missed that question, can happen, I only asked it like 5 times already.
Click to expand...

I'd guess same place as the OH!

Maybe Carbonate salts from the rock?
 
Rosetta Mysteries

Concerning Rosetta, I’ve wondered about the startling rubble field on the surface of 67P, since it doesn’t appear that any comet investigator anticipated such a thing. What is the significance of this debris for our understanding of comets? And is anyone speculating on a connection to the formative process?
 
David Talbott said:
Concerning Rosetta, I’ve wondered about the startling rubble field on the surface of 67P, since it doesn’t appear that any comet investigator anticipated such a thing. What is the significance of this debris for our understanding of comets? And is anyone speculating on a connection to the formative process?
Click to expand...

my bold
if they were not they, the Rosetta team, would hardly be scientists, now would they?
 
tusenfem said:
my bold
if they were not they, the Rosetta team, would hardly be scientists, now would they?
Click to expand...

Agreed. Do you have a pointer to any speculations released? All I've seen is a conjectured passage through the Jovian main ring, though that speculation related more to the effects of impacting dust at 30km/sec. As far as I can tell, the scale of the rubble field remains quite a mystery.
 
David Talbott said:
Agreed. Do you have a pointer to any speculations released? All I've seen is a conjectured passage through the Jovian main ring, though that speculation related more to the effects of impacting dust at 30km/sec. As far as I can tell, the scale of the rubble field remains quite a mystery.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of rocks floating in our solar system.

http://astronomy.sierracollege.edu/Courses/Astronomy10/Astro10_Lecture10.ppt

Sometimes they run into each other. The big ones make smaller ones then.

If a comet has been zooming around the sun for quite some time, it will pick up a few here and there.
 
David Talbott said:
Agreed. Do you have a pointer to any speculations released? All I've seen is a conjectured passage through the Jovian main ring, though that speculation related more to the effects of impacting dust at 30km/sec. As far as I can tell, the scale of the rubble field remains quite a mystery.
Click to expand...

There is a good chance that it will be discussed next week in ESOC Darmstadt, where the SWT (Science Working Team) of Rosetta takes place, which I unfortunately cannot attend due to other duties.

I think I have seen a post on the Rosetta blog positing a very close pass by Jupiter in order to explain the sulfur. I have not seen it discussed any further, but then it is also not my specialization field.

I guess there can be all kinds of explanations for a rubble field, pick rubble up from somewhere, or outgassing breaking "rocks" off the surrounding surface, but that is just my speculation.

This week we have a 8 km flyby (give or take a km) who knows what we will see.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom