The Electric Comet theory

[Ziggurat]

I have to imagine that people would think twice about ridiculing the electric comet idea in light of any CONSERT data that indicates that 67P is a rock throughout. Does the ESA already have this information in hand?

If 67P is rock throughout, that will indeed throw a major monkey wrench in our understanding of solar system physics, no question.

But you're wrong about that making people think twice about electric comet ideas, at least as formulated by Thornhill et al. Why? Because their ideas are transparently nonsense, we already know that they don't work and are contradicted by the evidence. When you have to throw out an established theory because you find out it doesn't work, you don't replace it with one you already know doesn't work, you have to go find a new one.

 

[pln2bz]

If 67P is rock throughout, that will indeed throw a major monkey wrench in our understanding of solar system physics, no question.

But you're wrong about that making people think twice about electric comet ideas, at least as formulated by Thornhill et al. Why? Because their ideas are transparently nonsense, we already know that they don't work and are contradicted by the evidence. When you have to throw out an established theory because you find out it doesn't work, you don't replace it with one you already know doesn't work, you have to go find a new one.

That's a curious response to anybody who scrolls through the thread, as tusenfem has repeatedly pointed to 67P's apparent density relative to rock as the primary reason for casting away the electric comet idea. I appreciate your taking the time to respond, but I'd prefer to hear from tusenfem directly.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's a curious response to anybody who scrolls through the thread, as tusenfem has repeatedly pointed to 67P's apparent density relative to rock as the primary reason for casting away the electric comet idea.

I don't think that correctly characterizes his position. People have focused on the density issue because it's a single parameter which is easy to understand, which simplifies the debate for others who don't understand much physics (like Haig). It's sufficient to disprove Haig's claims, but it's not the only way. When there are multiple fatal flaws with a theory, it's hard to call any one of them the "primary" reason for its failure.

 

[Dancing David]

Hi, I am new here. I've been looking at the first science sequence infographic which states that the CONSERT instrument, whose purpose is to study the internal structure of the comet nucleus, was scheduled to have run by now.

Is there any information available on whether it has already returned data, and what it returned?

I am hearing that the lander rebound was an indication of higher strength material at the surface, which some mission engineers have described as a surprise.

I understand that this electric comet idea elicits a lot of emotion, as I've seen a lot of these debates online. I am mildly familiar with Wal Thornhill's classical hypothesis for gravity, and this question of whether or not 67P is a rock on the inside would appear to be critically important not just to the notion of electric comets, but also to physics, more generally.

I have to imagine that people would think twice about ridiculing the electric comet idea in light of any CONSERT data that indicates that 67P is a rock throughout. Does the ESA already have this information in hand?

bolding and underlining are mine

Welcome to the forum.

Hi ,
I think of greater concern would be the lack of any electrical charge difference sufficient to make a comet glow.

Please provide an data which would support the EC theory, and then there is a host of other questions to answer.

Seriously, we have discussed this for many pages in many threads, any ridicule is fully earned by a theory with out data, whose sole evidence is bunny pictures, mischaracterizations and outright fantasy.

Apollo objects show no coma, only six bodies in the asteroids show comas, despite hundreds being in the same spaces for the same duration and times, never has an EC proponent explained when exactly an asteroid crossed a magic magnetosphere and then burst into full glow.

 

[Dancing David]

That's a curious response to anybody who scrolls through the thread, as tusenfem has repeatedly pointed to 67P's apparent density relative to rock as the primary reason for casting away the electric comet idea. I appreciate your taking the time to respond, but I'd prefer to hear from tusenfem directly.

It seems that perhaps you are not actually aware of Tusenfem's position, the lack of any charge sufficient to cause the comet to glow would be the main one, although I should not speak for them.

 

[pln2bz]

I don't think that correctly characterizes his position. People have focused on the density issue because it's a single parameter which is easy to understand, which simplifies the debate for others who don't understand much physics (like Haig). It's sufficient to disprove Haig's claims, but it's not the only way. When there are multiple fatal flaws with a theory, it's hard to call any one of them the "primary" reason for its failure.

But, I think you might be simply confusing matters even more, for tusenfem previously disclosed that theorists have already had to re-invent conventional cometary theory. Can you please explain why revisions to theory, in light of observations, should only be available to one particular hypothesis? In the event that there was a failure to observe surface ice, which is then subsequently followed by a failure to observe subsurface ice, how would this not be a "fatal flaw" for the idea of sublimating ices? I'm now extremely confused about what this idea might morph into ...

 

[tusenfem]

i have never said that the comet has the density of rock (not that i know), ah i read wrong and you mean reality check, not me about comparing the comet density to asteroid density.

consert is operating and has e.g. indicated the location diamond (in the press conference) where philae should be found. (see www.esa.int for a replay of todays press conference) it mainly depends on the permittivity that you use for the inversion of the signal.

further scans are underway.

lots of data from romap (magnetic field and plasma) are being returned. that is going to give me a lot of work.

 

[tusenfem]

But, I think you might be simply confusing matters even more, for tusenfem previously disclosed that theorists have already had to re-invent conventional cometary theory. Can you please explain why revisions to theory, in light of observations, should only be available to one particular hypothesis? In the event that there was a failure to observe surface ice, which is then subsequently followed by a failure to observe subsurface ice, how would this not be a "fatal flaw" for the idea of sublimating ices? I'm now extremely confused about what this idea might morph into ...

ther was a change from "dirty snowball" from whipple in the 1950s before any nearby observatins were made.
then we flew by halley and for the first time saw a nucleus "up close" (600 km) and saw that the surface looked more (dare i say it) "rocky", which led to the understanding that it is more a "snowy dirtball".
a short orbit comet is not expected to have much ice (if any) on the surface, when it passes by the sun every 6 years like 67P/CG.
we see the water come from the surface in the pictures, in beams which means it needs to come from under the surface and is ejected under pressure.
also, the deep impact mission showed that a lot of water ice was ejected after impact (see the book i posted a page or two back.
altough we say that every comet we visit is completely different and expect the unexpected, some basic properties are wellnunderstood, see the krishns swamie book
and it is always the water that iscommented on, but how do the criticasters explain the almostvequal amounts of CO which are also emitted?

 

[Ziggurat]

But, I think you might be simply confusing matters even more, for tusenfem previously disclosed that theorists have already had to re-invent conventional cometary theory. Can you please explain why revisions to theory, in light of observations, should only be available to one particular hypothesis?

First off, at a certain point you're no longer revising a theory, you're replacing it. Surface to subsurface is a revision: the critical fact (ice is sublimating to form the comet tail) remains.

If comets do not contain ice, then we cannot revise our current comet theories, we have to discard them.

But here's the thing: electric comet ideas are inextricably linked to so-called "electric universe" theories. And we know that these electric universe theories are wrong. They contradict many, many observations. The entire foundation for electric comet theories is simply false. If electricity has anything important to do with comets (and there's no evidence it does, and significant evidence it does not), it will be very different from what current electric comet proponents believe, because they have constructed their entire theory on a falsehood. They will not be coincidentally right about this peripheral phenomenon when the heart of their theory is completely wrong.

 

[Reality Check]

That's a curious response to anybody who scrolls through the thread, as tusenfem has repeatedly pointed to 67P's apparent density relative to rock as the primary reason for casting away the electric comet idea.

As already pointed out, the measured densities for comets and rocks being different is an easy point to grasp which is why there is so much emphasis on it, pln2bz.
The electric comet proponents are not just ignoring solar physics here - they are denying basic physics that has been known and tested over centuries (from Kepler onwards).
Comets have measured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids) (7th August 2009!)

So here is one method that is used for both comets and asteroids or any planetary body.

Firstly calculate the mass of the body:
Measure the orbit of the body around the Sun to determine its semi-major axis (a) and period (P).
Plug this into Kepler's third law to get the mass (usually as a ratio to a known mass).
Next calculate the volume of the body. For closer bodies you can just look in a telescope. For further bodies you can measure radii as the body occludes stars.
Divide the mass by the volume to get the density.

A method for comets:
Jets observed to come from comets alter their orbits. This is the same physics used in rockets - throw mass away and the reaction will push the comet the other way.
This can be used to calculate their masses, e.g. see "Cometary masses derived from non-gravitational forces" by Sosa & Fernandez, 2009.

For the Tempel 1 comet:
The Deep Impact mission crashed an impactor into the nucleus of Tempel 1. The ejecta from this impact was used to calculate the mass of Tempel 1.
See "A ballistics analysis of the Deep Impact ejecta plume: Determining Comet Tempel 1's gravity, mass, and density" by Richardson, et al., 2007.

For a more general paper: "Size Distribution, Structure and Density of Cometary Nuclei" by Weissman & Lowry, 2006.

 

[Reality Check]

Can you please explain why revisions to theory, in light of observations, should only be available to one particular hypothesis?

This is not the situation, pln2bz.
One property of science is that theories are revised as new observations as collected. Another property is that if the observations contradict the theory enough then scientists go looking for a replacement for the theory.
The observations of comets throughout the years have always been that they are made of ice and dust. The revision is about the proportions and locations of that ice and dust. This does not contradict the theory thus there is no need for a replacement theory.

Now look at the electric comet idea. It was proposed at least a decade ago (before Tempel 1 and Deep Impact). It has not been revised because of new observations. This is not science. The treatment of this idea as almost dogma is not that much of a surprise - David Talbott , a founder of the electric universe, is a comparative mythologist

David N. Talbott (born 1942) is an American author and long-time promoter of neo-Velikovskian ideas. Inspired by Immanuel Velikovsky, he proposes a "Polar Configuration"[1] involving the five planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, Mars, Earth, in order, which formerly orbited the Sun as a linear assembly while it rotated about its barycenter and influenced human mythology.[2]

 

[Dancing David]

But, I think you might be simply confusing matters even more, for tusenfem previously disclosed that theorists have already had to re-invent conventional cometary theory. Can you please explain why revisions to theory, in light of observations, should only be available to one particular hypothesis? In the event that there was a failure to observe surface ice, which is then subsequently followed by a failure to observe subsurface ice, how would this not be a "fatal flaw" for the idea of sublimating ices? I'm now extremely confused about what this idea might morph into ...

You do know that the ice is not just H₂)?

BTW do you live some place that has snowy winters, are you familiar with plow wall and snow piles?

I can assure you that a plow wall can be quite hard and non-elastic.

Seems you are counting your conspiracy theory before it hatches and poisoning the well, I wonder how many revisions happen to most scientific theories?

 

[Reality Check]

Philae status, a day later

 

[Haig]

Interesting to note Philae recorded three touch down times, ie it bounced twice.

Still unsure if the harpoons fired or not?

15:33, 17:26 and 17:33 means 113min and 7 min bounces. Dougbouncestimates = 0.285m/sec to 455m and 0.019m/sec to 3m

His colleague explains a bit more: “The rebound of the lander is an indication of a higher strength material, and that was a surprise to us. … So we have seen a variety of surfaces, a snow field of soft stuff, and this rocky field of rock stuff, which could be a [stronger material], and we also see this shiny stuff,” which he says could also be a stronger material.

Maybe the harpoons and Philae bounced off this rock stuff they talk about. So both the thruster failed and harpoons failed to anchor.

Still a brilliant achievement and fascinating science.

 

[Sol88]

I see the mainstreamer's getting a little antsy

pln2bz, welcome aboard!

As you've picked up Reality Check thinks comets are NOT rock and Dancing David is under the wrong impression the comet nucleus glows. So I'm not 100% sure they actually understand the Electric comet theory and it's funny (if it was not so serious) to see them squirm and act "surprised"

 

[Sol88]

Lets again have a discussion about fluffy bunnies (Looking at pictures)

lets look at this beauty http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Philae-Nov13-huge.jpg Credit: ESA/Rosetta/Philae/CIVA

Mmmm.....looks like rock....melted rock!!!

 

[Sol88]

You do know that the ice is not just H₂)?

BTW do you live some place that has snowy winters, are you familiar with plow wall and snow piles?

I can assure you that a plow wall can be quite hard and non-elastic.

Seems you are counting your conspiracy theory before it hatches and poisoning the well, I wonder how many revisions happen to most scientific theories?

but we have no substantial ice's AT ALL

So now revise the dirtysnowall model DD!!!

Whats a comet now then??

 

[Reality Check]

but we have no substantial ice's AT ALL

A state of ignorance and belief in delusions will make anyone confused, Sol88 !
Sol88's denial of science, basic arithmetic and lack of reading comprehension.

We have substantial ices observed on comets.
We have substantial H2O, CO, CO2, CH4, etc. from comets which is those ices sublimating.
We have substantial surface ices observed on Tempel 1.
We have a lack of surface ices observed on 69P.
Wow - comets vary! Who except those cranks at Thunderbolts would be ignorant of this basic fact.

 

[Sol88]

A state of ignorance and belief in delusions will make anyone confused, Sol88 !
Sol88's denial of science, basic arithmetic and lack of reading comprehension.

We have substantial ices observed on comets.
We have substantial H2O, CO, CO2, CH4, etc. from comets which is those ices sublimating.
We have substantial surface ices observed on Tempel 1.
We have a lack of surface ices observed on 69P.
Wow - comets vary! Who except those cranks at Thunderbolts would be ignorant of this basic fact.

My bolding, we did??? Reality Check your a tripper

We report the direct detection of solid water ice deposits exposed on the surface of comet 9P/Tempel 1, as observed by the Deep Impact mission. Three anomalously colored areas are shown to include water ice on the basis of their near-infrared spectra, which include diagnostic water ice absorptions at wavelengths of 1.5 and 2.0 micrometers. These absorptions are well modeled as a mixture of nearby non-ice regions and 3 to 6% water ice particles 10 to 50 micrometers in diameter. These particle sizes are larger than those ejected during the impact experiment, which suggests that the surface deposits are loose aggregates. The total area of exposed water ice is substantially less than that required to support the observed ambient outgassing from the comet, which likely has additional source regions below the surface.

Exposed Water Ice Deposits on the Surface of Comet 9P/Tempel 1

A state of ignorance and belief in delusions will make anyone confused, Sol88 !
Sol88's denial of science, basic arithmetic and lack of reading comprehension.

You say we did find substantial water ice on the surface, the peer reviewed paper says we didn't....who's right Reality Check???

Seems the shoe is on the other foot, eh Reality Check!

 

[Sol88]

But, I think you might be simply confusing matters even more, for tusenfem previously disclosed that theorists have already had to re-invent conventional cometary theory. Can you please explain why revisions to theory, in light of observations, should only be available to one particular hypothesis? In the event that there was a failure to observe surface ice, which is then subsequently followed by a failure to observe subsurface ice, how would this not be a "fatal flaw" for the idea of sublimating ices? I'm now extremely confused about what this idea might morph into ...

We report the direct detection of solid water ice deposits exposed on the surface of comet 9P/Tempel 1, as observed by the Deep Impact mission. Three anomalously colored areas are shown to include water ice on the basis of their near-infrared spectra, which include diagnostic water ice absorptions at wavelengths of 1.5 and 2.0 micrometers. These absorptions are well modeled as a mixture of nearby non-ice regions and 3 to 6% water ice particles 10 to 50 micrometers in diameter. These particle sizes are larger than those ejected during the impact experiment, which suggests that the surface deposits are loose aggregates. The total area of exposed water ice is substantially less than that required to support the observed ambient outgassing from the comet, which likely has additional source regions below the surface.

So no ice on top (all comets visited) and no ice below(Temple 1) so where could the ice be???? as Reality check pointed out we can see the gases so where's the ice???