The Electric Comet theory

[Reality Check]

Open question to you, Reality Check.

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

What a dumb question - we both know that Rosetta has found very little surface ice ! So the answer is now for finding more than "a very little" on the surface and probably on landing for your vague "just under the surface?".
We see jets from volatiles subliming from within the comet.

Open question for you, Sol88: is 0.1 less than 3.0?

67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: "Mean density 102±9 kg/m³[3]"
Standard asteroid physical characteristics: "Krasinsky et al. gives calculations for the mean densities of C, S, and M class asteroids as 1.38, 2.71, and 5.32 g/cm3.[10]"

 

[ben m]

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

It's venting from the big lithium battery under the surface. When these batteries are old, damaged, or overcharged they vent hydrogen, causing a very serious space-fire hazard which Rosetta was sent to prevent. Also, if the battery voltage drops below 100 MV, the arc welder will turn off, possibly sending Jupiter spiraling into the Moon.

Remember, kids, if *your* comet's battery is bulging, overheating, or worse, venting hydroxyl radicals, please unplug it and take it to your nearest Apple authorized reseller. Replacing your own comet's battery requires a T15 Torx driver but will void your warranty.

This has been another helpful tip from ASK AN ELECTRIC COMET THEORIST

 

[Dancing David]

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/



So there also must be "ice" eh?

Likely from smaller space rocks???

"Comet" like bodies maybe? because we know they have water....somewhere http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/09/12/rosetta_spacecraft_sees_jets_from_the_comet.html

Funny thing about those water jets yesterday
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ages-reveal-hidden-plumes-shooting-space.html

Now Sol** any chance you have any data to show teh EM fields around teh comet are enough to make it glow.

No of course not, you will ignore that question as you do all direct questions.

 

[Dancing David]

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?

At what point do you show evidence of teh EM fields around teh comet. I mean that probe is just crawling with them, but teh data and your arguments, sadly lacking.

Pastabot!

 

[Matthew Cline]

At what point do you show evidence of teh EM fields around teh comet. I mean that probe is just crawling with them, but teh data and your arguments, sadly lacking.

IIRC correctly, in an Electric Sun thread one supporter said that some probe couldn't see the vast interstellar current because something was shielding the probe from the current. A plasma double-layer, I think. So, the predicted Electric Comet EM fields are there, but the probe is lacking the right sort of equipment to detect them.

 

[Dancing David]

Oooh, magic detectors!

 

[Reality Check]

...So, the predicted Electric Comet EM fields are there, but the probe is lacking the right sort of equipment to detect them.

Which is doubly delusional of that EC proponent because
* there are no predictions of Electric Comet EM fields - just the statement that they exist, do magical things and guesses about their magnitude.
'* there are probes that have detected comet EM fields!
The study of the EM fields of comet coma is a standard part of astrophysics.

As an example solrey guessed:

Take into consideration that just cloud to ground voltage potential in a thunderstorm is on the order of 10⁹V and the fact that the voltage potential a comet experiences, would be orders of magnitude higher.

tusenfem pointed out that "Electric Fields and Cold Electrons in the Vicinity of Comet Halley" by Harri Laakso gave the measured potential drop between electrical layers around Comet Halley. This was 50 kV (orders of magnitude lower than the guess).
Voltage potentials are many orders of magnitude too small!

 

[Sol88]

So no ice then eh?

 

[Sol88]

Dancing David from the PR

One thing that is not known however is why the jets are actually appearing as ‘jets’.

As a comet nears the sun its surface sublimates, which means the solid ice turns to gas, creating a ‘coma’ of material around the comet.

Why Rosetta’s comet is only spewing material at specific points in jets, rather than across the whole surface, remains a mystery.

'That is one of the as yet unanswered questions about comets that Rosetta's scientific data will hopefully address,' added Ms Lakdawalla.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...dden-plumes-shooting-space.html#ixzz3E2dHqL9S
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

It's a mystery

No surface ice and confined to jets???? Mmmmm....

 

[Vermonter]

You want to make an Avatar bet? If the mission is successful you get to have an obnoxiously happy My Little Pony avatar.

 

[Dancing David]

So no ice then eh?

Thanks for playing, so there are different kinds of ice, yes.

Oh my, that fact that there are AHC on the surface does not mean there isn't frozen water underneath.

Where do those jets of water come from ?

 

[Dancing David]

Dancing David from the PR

It's a mystery

No surface ice and confined to jets???? Mmmmm....

More made up straw on your part, let me guess, you have never seen a snow plow wall at the end of winter and you would conclude that only water ice on the surface is prove that there is ice in it?

That is like saying there are no aquifers underground because you can't see them.

 

[Wolrab]

Open question to you, Reality Check.

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

There is ice, you even bolded it in your own post.

 

[Reality Check]

So no ice then eh?

So a complete inability to read English, eh?
Ice was detected - just less than expected ("very little").

Do you know the arithmetic that is taught to 5 year olds, Sol88?
Open question for you, Sol88 (18th September 2014): is 0.1 less than 3.0?

It is quite likely that you been so totally taken in by the Thunderbolts delusion that you are in denial of basic arithmetic, especially since you are in denial of the science and facts for over a year now:
Electric comets still do not exist! (26th August 2013)

The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.

 

[Sol88]

So very little ice on the surface, we can at least all agree on that, Tusenfem? DD?

So therefore in standard mainstream thinking it must(or else it's the death of the insert theory here be HIDDEN never to be seen under the surface.

So as long as we can not "see" under the surface the standard model will never be falsified....sweet more $$$$ because we can see the -OH in the tail, so there MUST be H2O somewhere ay!

Because if your detection of OH in the tail is NOT coming from UV bust'n up H2O then why are we detecting -OH down the tail somewhat?

 

[Reality Check]

So very little ice on the surface, we can at least all agree on that, Tusenfem? DD?

Everyone can agree on basic English, Sol88.

We cannot agree with the implied idiocy that comets never have surface ice or even "very little" surface ice because we have detected surface ice on comets (Tempel 1 and this comet), Sol88.

We cannot agree with the ignorance of "never to be seen under the surface" because there was a scientific experiment called Deep Impact that exposed water from below the surface of Tempel 1.

We can agree that the presence of -OH means that there has to be water from somewhere to disassociate and create -OH. The delusion that this water is produced from rock is obvious:
Electric comets still do not exist! (26th August 2013)

The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.

We are detecting "-OH down the tail somewhat" because it is down the tail somewhat!

Open question for you, Sol88 (18th September 2014): is 0.1 less than 3.0?

 

[tusenfem]

So very little ice on the surface, we can at least all agree on that, Tusenfem?

I do not know why we would expect lots of ice on the surface of a comet which passes close by the Sun every 6 year.
So, therefore I cannot understand the "surprise" of the spokes person surface mapping team of ALICE (neither about the low albedo, which has been known for ages). It is this kind of bad public outreach which fuels the ridiculous electric comet claims.

So therefore in standard mainstream thinking it must(or else it's the death of the insert theory here be HIDDEN never to be seen under the surface.

Yes, it is under the surface, because if it would be on the surface it would not come out as jets. Sublimation of surface volatiles does not happen in a specific direction.

So as long as we can not "see" under the surface the standard model will never be falsified....sweet more $$$$ because we can see the -OH in the tail, so there MUST be H2O somewhere ay!

No, you are wrong there, if we see the collimated jets come from the surface, then it comes from under the surface, there is no other way.

Because if your detection of OH in the tail is NOT coming from UV bust'n up H2O then why are we detecting -OH down the tail somewhat?

First of all we are NOT in the tail, and probably never will be in the tail of 67P/CG, we are circling on the day side of the comet, just a tiny detail that you seem to forget. The only times we flew actually through the tail was with ICE at comet 1P/Halley and comet Giacobini-Zinner, all other visits of comets have always been on the front side.

And why would we not have dissociation of H2O through UV or electron impact or other processes working around the comet?

Now, it would be nice to see an actual EC model of how they would generate the OH that they are so fond off. Apparently by working the surface minerals with solar wind protons. However, a quick back of the envelope calculation can easily show that the number of protons impacting the comet is orders of magnitude too small even for the original 2 glasses of water per second emission as measured by MIRO.

 

[Dancing David]

So very little ice on the surface, we can at least all agree on that, Tusenfem? DD?

So therefore in standard mainstream thinking it must(or else it's the death of the insert theory here be HIDDEN never to be seen under the surface.

So as long as we can not "see" under the surface the standard model will never be falsified....sweet more $$$$ because we can see the -OH in the tail, so there MUST be H2O somewhere ay!

Because if your detection of OH in the tail is NOT coming from UV bust'n up H2O then why are we detecting -OH down the tail somewhat?

Just keep making it up Sol88, the density is wrong to be an asteroid, there are no electric fields around it strong enough to make it glow, so a glacier with trees on top can't be made of water.

BTW you keep focusing on water ice, there sure are plenty of other frozen volatile in a comet that make up the 'ice'. You and your crazy strawman.

So where the **** is the data to prove your theory is in any way true?

 

[Reality Check]

The latest image from 67P resulted in A Tour of 67P...
Of course the EC proponents will obsess about the word rock used a lot in the text . They will ignore the fact that there are no electrical discharges seen from the peaks, spires and cliffs in the image.

 

[Belz...]

What is it with these people and electricity ? Electric sun, universe, comets... Are they Tesla worshippers who also think that the Tunguska event was caused by one of his experiments ?