The Electric Comet theory

[Dancing David]

Just use your own vision ;-)

Does this look like a body made of dust, ice and space? as the mainstream scientists believe.

It's looking very rock like and with extremely fresh varied features for a body "claimed" to be as old as the solar system.

The actual science favours the electric comet theory suggesting rocky debris from fairly recent times as argued for in the electric comet video.

We should know more as this mission proceeds, very interesting times and eye opening to see the numerous add hoc changes to the failed dirty snowball theory of comets continue.

Ah yes, no data to prove the EC so a resort to 'that cloud looks like a bunny'.

 

[Dancing David]

I love how scientists have put a space probe bristling with electromagnetic and plasma instrumentation in orbit around a comet ... and the people calling themselves "Electric Comet theorists" can't be bothered in the slightest.

Haig must make saving throw vs. Reality

 

[thedopefishlives]

Wouldn't an electric comet zap the crap out of the probe lander and destroy it?

The Electric Comet people made a big to-do about some NASA paper or something that discussed the possibility of an electrically neutral astronaut getting shocked when approaching positively charged things in space. As if the "mainstream theory" didn't know about the solar wind and the tendency of objects exposed to such to accumulate a slight positive charge, while shielded objects would not. Solar wind protons have nothing to do with electric comets!

 

[tusenfem]

This just in

Interesting are the latest NavCam pictures. Rosetta is so nearby now that the comet is too big for the NavCam field of view, so we get mosaics now, as in the attached image.

Clearly visible is the outgassing that is taking place from the neck of the ducky. At the moment there are two theories about the shape of the comet, one is that it is a contact binary, the other is that the neck is created by a preferred outgassing region (from which we see the water come out).

But still our RPC instruments don't measure any EDM signatures, which should become evident at such close distances. However, they do show the signatures that are predicted from our numerical models. Some results will be presented next week at the EPSC in Lisbon.

 

[Reality Check]

Well RC the "facts" show the dirty snowball comet theory is looking feeble against the electric comet theory I understand that

The images are among the millions of stunning astronomical images that exist, Haig .

The idiocy of thinking that these specific stunning images show that the electric comet theory is correct is obvious (see below). The images of jets show just how pathetic the electric comet "theory" is - it has no predictions at all for the position and size of jets! The proponents though have the fantasy that the jets come from high spots as in electrical discharges. Here we have jets from the "lowest" point in the comet - the neck.

Compounding that idiocy with asserting that these specific stunning images are not of a "dirty snowball" is really dumb,Haig .
There are jets without the fantasy of electrical discharges.
These jets are from we would expect from the science.
The images give us the shape of the comet. The shape of the comet gives us a better estimate of the volume of the comet. We have measurements of the mass of the comet, e.g. from the trajectory of Rosetta as it approached. Density = mass/volume. Specific calculations are still to come but it looks like the current measurement of 102±9 kg/m³ from 2012 is in the ballpark. That is a tenth of the density of water or 1/30 of the density of a rock, Haig, Thus it is quite delusional to think that comets are asteroids.

This is what is hopefully going to happen in the real universe, Haig:
The three-legged lander will fire two harpoons and use ice screws to anchor itself to the 4 kilometer (2.5 mile) wide comet’s surface. Philae will collect stereo and panoramic images and also drill 23 centimeters into and sample its incredibly varied surface.
In your universe of imaginary solid rock, Philae's harpoons will bounce off, the ice screws will not screw and the mission will fail.

Haig (7th July 2014), is 3.0 different from 0.6?
Electric comets still do not exist! (26th August 2013).

 

[Reality Check]

Looks like rosetta will show that isn't right .... as the pictures do suggest ...

Once again with the fantasies, Haig: Everything that Rosetta has seen so far, including these pictures, has confirmed the standard comet theory.

 

[Reality Check]

Just use your own vision ;-).

Just use your own vision and two brain cells, Haig !
The delusion that you can tell the composition of a comet from an image should be obvious to you. The fact that the density of 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko is measured to be 102±9 kg/m³ should tell one or two of your brain cells that it is not solid rock (density of 30 times that of asteroids)!

A statement from ignorance based on the delusion that you can tell the composition of a comet from an image does not help :

It's looking very rock like and with extremely fresh varied features for a body "claimed" to be as old as the solar system.

Even asteroids are as old as the solar system !
Comets and asteroids did not form in the early history of the solar system and then do notihng.
We expect "extremely fresh varied features" on comets: They get hit by other bodies. They outgas.
We expect less "extremely fresh varied features" on asteroids since that only get hit by other bodies.
The "extremely fresh varied features" in the images hint that this is a standard comet made of ices and dust. The measured density tells use that it is a standard comet made of ices and dust.

 

[tusenfem]

Why did we use "ice screws".

Please note that our most involved scientist (at my instute) has been working on Rosetta for over 20 (TWENTY) years by now. The only "close up" we had from a cometary nucleus was the attached image from Giotto.

First there was the "dirty snowball" model proposed in the 50s of the last century. Only by the image from Giotto, this model had to be completely changed, and cometary scientists had to completely re-learn what comets are. That is what happens when you start to do "experiments" with comets. The old model was thrown out, first to a snowy dirtball, then even further.

However, any knowledge that we have gained about the surfaces of cometary nuclei after Giotto have all been obtain well after the design of Rosetta and often even after the launch (!) of Rosetta.

Of course they are called ice screws, which naturally does not mean they can only screw themselves into ice.

 

[Dancing David]

Interesting are the latest NavCam pictures. Rosetta is so nearby now that the comet is too big for the NavCam field of view, so we get mosaics now, as in the attached image.

Clearly visible is the outgassing that is taking place from the neck of the ducky. At the moment there are two theories about the shape of the comet, one is that it is a contact binary, the other is that the neck is created by a preferred outgassing region (from which we see the water come out).

But still our RPC instruments don't measure any EDM signatures, which should become evident at such close distances. However, they do show the signatures that are predicted from our numerical models. Some results will be presented next week at the EPSC in Lisbon.

Haig makes second saving throw vs. reality

 

[ferd burfle]

Just use your own vision ;-)

I am, Haig, I see it just fine, thank you.

Does this look like a body made of dust, ice and space? as the mainstream scientists believe.

Yes, it does. It also looks like a closeup of two potatoes coated and stuck together with lard and sprinkled with cracker crumbs. I could imagine it looks like a whole bunch of different things, including rocks.

It's looking very rock like and with extremely fresh varied features for a body "claimed" to be as old as the solar system.

Yes, I expect you very much need to see rock.Some parts of the "rock" look very very smooth to me.

The actual science favours the electric comet theory suggesting rocky debris from fairly recent times as argued for in the electric comet video

Yes, those pretty, pretty videos. Pretty pictures aren't evidence. Actual scientists make measurements with instruments to get real evidence.

We should know more as this mission proceeds, very interesting times and eye opening to see the numerous add hoc changes to the failed dirty snowball theory of comets continue.

Accusations of fraud without evidence are very poor form, Haig.

ferd

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

The actual space science of this mission is pretty awesome. I was a toddler when humans touched the moon and a kid when the Vikings landed on Mars. This mission may not be getting the mass cultural attention, but those of us who hope to someday kiss children or grandchildren goodbye as they leave the planet this is pretty freaking cool.

Thanks to everyone sharing pictures.

 

[Dancing David]

http://sci.esa.int/rosetta/35061-instruments/?fbodylongid=1644

"In order to realize these investigations extensive in-situ monitoring of the plasma electrons and ions, their composition, distribution, temperature, density, flow velocity, and the magnetic field will be necessary. These measurements will improve the understanding of the coupling processes of cometary dust, gas, and plasma as well as its interaction with the solar wind. The plasma and fields measurements thus provide complementary information to that of other Rosetta instruments for a deeper understanding of the overall physics and chemistry of an active comet."

Well Haig, where is the magic electrical comet data?

 

[Reality Check]

50 Kilometers From a Comet By Phil Plait
A partial self portrait of Rosetta (by Rosetta’s Philae lander) with the comet in the background.

 

[Dancing David]

Sweet

 

[Matthew Cline]

This is what is hopefully going to happen in the real universe, Haig:
The three-legged lander will fire two harpoons and use ice screws to anchor itself to the 4 kilometer (2.5 mile) wide comet’s surface. Philae will collect stereo and panoramic images and also drill 23 centimeters into and sample its incredibly varied surface.

In your universe of imaginary solid rock, Philae's harpoons will bounce off, the ice screws will not screw and the mission will fail.

Well, obviously the repeated EDM, being exposed to solar wind, and so on, has changed the physical properties of the rock so that it's similar enough to ice for the harpoons and drill to work. And also changed the physical properties so that samples will seem to be ice when analyzed. Really, it's amazing what electromagnetism can do!

 

[Andy_Ross]

Rosetta's Comet sprouts a Jet.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/09/12/rosetta_spacecraft_sees_jets_from_the_comet.html

 

[Dancing David]

Well, obviously the repeated EDM, being exposed to solar wind, and so on, has changed the physical properties of the rock so that it's similar enough to ice for the harpoons and drill to work. And also changed the physical properties so that samples will seem to be ice when analyzed. Really, it's amazing what electromagnetism can do!

Darn transient electrical effects.

 

[Sol88]

Have we found any ice yet on the surface?

Vesta must have heaps of "Ice" according to http://www.universetoday.com/114623/radiation-blast-delays-nasa-spacecrafts-arrival-at-dwarf-planet-ceres/

Among Dawn’s findings at Vesta is that the asteroid is full of hydrogen, and it contains the hydrated mineral hydroxyl. This likely came to the asteroid when smaller space rocks brought the volatiles to its surface through low-speed collisions.

So there also must be "ice" eh?

Likely from smaller space rocks???

"Comet" like bodies maybe? because we know they have water....somewhere

However, I want to add that the jet is very interesting. ALICE, an ultraviolet detector on board Rosetta, has been taking observations and found very little water ice on the surface of the comet. That’s a bit surprising, since we know comets tend to have lots of ice in them. However, ALICE did see oxygen and hydrogen surrounding the comet. That means there’s water ice under the surface, and it’s getting out. I have to say, that jet seems the likely source.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/09/12/rosetta_spacecraft_sees_jets_from_the_comet.html

 

[Sol88]

Open question to you, Reality Check.

At what point in the mission would YOU give up on volatiles on or just under the surface?

Because "Very little water ice is found on the SURFACE" (my bold).

If there is no surface "ice" then where is the -OH coming from?

 

[Reality Check]

Have we found any ice yet on the surface?

Well no, Sol88. Duh!

The ignorance in thinking that Vesta is a comet is obvious (this is a thread about comets, Sol88!).

We know that comets have ice under their surface because we (unlike you, Sol88) know what real comet properties are:
* 0.6 gm/cc (average density of comets) is less than 3.0 gm/cc (average density of asteroids). Thus ice.
* 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: "Mean density 102±9 kg/m³[3]". Thus ice.
* Water from Deep Impact. Thus ice.
* Jets of water in conditions where ice sublimes. Thus ice.
* Comets emit lots of water, etc. (too much for a surface layer). Thus ice.

We know that it is deluded o believe that comets are rocky bodies:
Electric comets still do not exist! (26th August 2013)

We know that it is deluded to believe that the Thunderbolts people have anything but an electric comet fantasy:
The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.