The Electric Comet theory

[Haig]

I'm impressed by the depth of interpretation haig and sol88 have presented of a single black and white photograph. I've studied more than my share of geology and I'm unable to identify the substances and materials pictured other than "lander " and "not the lander." Maybe one of you could outline the criteria used so the rest of us can join you in reaching premature certainty with insufficient data, because I for one don't know how to do that.

Well AG, what certainty and data did Whipple have for the "dirty snowball" idea in the first place? or what certainty and data did Oort have for the source of comets in the postulated "Oort cloud" ?

Any? None? just a guess?

Already in the 1950s Harvard astronomer Fred Whipple had theorized that they were "icy conglomerates" composed mostly of ice with a mixture of dust, a model the press dubbed "dirty snowball." At about the same time astronomer Jan Oort postulated they came from a cloud of comets surrounding the solar system.

NASA says this about one comet

Other data indicates that the nucleus is extremely porous, a fluffy structure weaker than powdered snow.

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/whyweexplore/Why_We_17.html

ESA says this about comets

Oort demonstrated that as the Sun moves across the Galaxy, stars passing near the outer boundaries of this cloud may perturb the motion of some of these sleeping comets just enough to modify their orbits and kick them into the inner Solar System. Closer to the Sun's heat, ices in the comet nuclei sublimate, creating the spectacular tails that give these objects their distinctive appearance. Although the Oort cloud has never been directly observed, astronomers are quite certain of its existence.

http://sci.esa.int/rosetta/54200-on-the-origin-of-comets/

So who is actually the one you claim is reaching premature certainty with insufficient data ?

Since the arrival of the space age the data and facts actually support the Electric Comet theory.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Oh...I see why everyones gone quite now!

So. In that quiet.

Why don't you calculate the energy needed to create a single lighting bolt between the comet and the sun visible from earth?
Then the Wattage needed to sustain this for months on end?
And then give a detailed explanation as to where this energy comes from?

Oh and while you are at it, explain how this lightning moves AWAY from the sun into deep space without arcing into any other object in space?

 

[Sol88]

Lightning bolt from the sun???? Where did you get that from??

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Lightning bolt from the sun???? Where did you get that from??

You. As you are the one claiming/defending the theory that cometary tails are an electric phenomenon.

As I've pointed out, their relation to proximity to the sun would indicate they then would have to arc TO the sun to make even the slightest consitency in the theory.

 

[Sol88]

You. As you are the one claiming/defending the theory that cometary tails are an electric phenomenon.

As I've pointed out, their relation to proximity to the sun would indicate they then would have to arc TO the sun to make even the slightest consitency in the theory.

Mmm....go read up a bit on the theory first champ, then get back to us, eh.

 

[Sol88]

Let's just talk about the science I.e the facts as presented and not some misunderstood interpretation of the the Electric comet theory.

 

[rwguinn]

Let's just talk about the science I.e the facts as presented and not some misunderstood interpretation of the the Electric comet theory.

As soon as some science is presented in support of the hypothesis, we will be glad to discuss it.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Let's just talk about the science I.e the facts as presented and not some misunderstood interpretation of the the Electric comet theory.

Then show us the actual science behind the theory. Because all I see from random websites is "It must be electricity because ... X"

Where X usually is "I don't understand actual physics"

Why is it so hard to put up some of the calculations underpinning the theory and explanations as to why space lightning behaves differently from normal electricity AND why it seems to selective (ie, it affects comets, but not the various metal spacecraft in orbit, nor astroids, nor planets).

 

[Reality Check]

My bolding, we did??? :

Can you read English, Sol88
Exposed Water Ice Deposits on the Surface of Comet 9P/Tempel 1

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.

That is the detection of water ice deposits exposed on the surface of comet 9P/Tempel 1. That is enough to be detected. i.e. "substantial".

There was also Deep Impact which gave us (but not the ignorant Thunderbolts cracks): The distribution of water ice in the interior of Comet Tempel 1

 

[Reality Check]

get with thr program NO SUFFCIENT ICE's OBSERVED ON AND BELOW THE COMET NEUCLEUS TO ACCOUNT FOR THE OBSERVED OUT GASSING.

GET WITH THE SCIENCE AND LEARN TO READ, Sol88.
What Exposed Water Ice Deposits on the Surface of Comet 9P/Tempel 1 says is that there is not enough surface water ice to explain the outgassing and thus there must be subsurface sources. This is trivially true - the water has to come from either the surface or below the surface of the nucleus !
This paper does not say that there is insufficient water inside the comet nucleus to explain the outgassing. The scientists are smart enough to know comets have a large percentage of water because of their density.

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

 

[Reality Check]

Nope, not ignore but just inquiring if it is known "why" the anchoring system failed to do it's job.

Yes it is known why the anchoring system failed to do it's job.

1. The thruster to counter the harpoon recoil failed.
2. The harpoon did not fire.

No one knows exactly why these systems failed as far as I know.

 

[Reality Check]

i am sure i saw some fossils in the rock next to Philae...

Speaking of which, I wander if Haig or Sol88 saw the gigantic fossilized bunny in the upper left of the image

 

[Reality Check]

Oh...I see why everyones gone quite now!

No we have not - we are just flabbergasted by the repeated denial of the real world that Sol88 and Haig are displaying (including the concept of different time zones and weekends !)

 

[Reality Check]

Well AG, what certainty and data did Whipple have for the "dirty snowball" idea in the first place? or what certainty and data did Oort have for the source of comets in the postulated "Oort cloud" ....

Well, Haig, are you determined to display your ignorance about science again and comets?
Uncertainties in the mainstream comet theory does not mean that the electric comet is a not a delusion.

The electric comet idea remains an bad idea from some quite delusional and ignorant people: Electric comets still do not exist!

Whipple had the data on the density of comets and knew that they were no asteroids or rocky bodies.
Kuiper had the orbital data for comets - thus the origin of short period comets.
Oort had the orbital data for comets - thus the origin of long period comets.

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the density of comets

Let's just talk about the science I.e the facts as presented and not some misunderstood interpretation of the the Electric comet theory.

There is no "Electric comet theory", Sol88.
There is an electric comet fantasy stated by and believed in by deluded and ignorant people.
But if you think that it is a scientific theory than there are some simple questions that you can use this "theory" for. Start with:
Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the density of comets.

Electric comets still do not exist!

No answer to the simple facts:

1. Comets have measured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).
2. Comets may not have the composition of asteroids
3. Deep Impact confirmed that comet nuclei are made of dust and ice not rock. There were a couple of surprises in that the dust was talcum powder rather than sand and the amount of ice was smaller than expected.
   "Analysis of data from the Swift X-ray telescope showed that the comet continued outgassing from the impact for 13 days, with a peak five days after impact. A total of 5 million kilograms (11 million pounds) of water[35] and between 10 and 25 million kilograms (22 and 55 million pounds) of dust were lost from the impact."WP
   Thus the water content of Comet Tempel 1 is 20% to 50%.
4. Cometary dust as collected by the Stardust mission contain forms of carbon that are not in meteorites.
5. Electric Comets I
6. Electric Comets II: References
7. Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (actually no EU X-ray bursts).
8. The EC assumption of EDM machining does not produce jets.
9. EDM in the EC idea needs a dielectric material which does not exist!
10. No EDM sparks are seen in images of comet nuclei.
11. No EDM hot spots are seen in thermal maps of Tempel 1.
12. Voltage potentials are many orders of magnitude too small.
13. EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets
14. Water, water everywhere (except in the EC idea)
15. EC proponents have the delusion that argument by YouTube video is somehow scientific !
16. EC proponents may think that EC comets switch off at perihelion?

Wow - try learning to read, Haig !
The Thunderbolts team are just repeating the same ignorance of science and even English: They think that "before he impact" means "at the impact" :
The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.

 

[Sol88]

@Reality Check

The electric comet idea states that comets are rocky bodies like asteroids.
For some reason EC proponents cannot grasp that the measured density of comet nuclei is ~0.6 g/cc, the measured density of asteroids is ~3.0 g/cc and that 0.6 is less than 3.0 .
They tend to reply by asserting the methods used to calculate the density of comets are flawed in some unknown way.

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.

(added some more links and better language)

So you found the strength of the surface of 67/P to be >2MPA and a density of 0.6 g/cc???

Results (15) Surface must be >2 MPa hard! The comet remains surprising bizarre and uncooperative

MUPUS on Philae @Philae_MUPUS · Nov 15

Results (12) This means that the stuff is really hard! A very interesting finding, not visible from orbit!

So what terrestrial analogues do we have for rock that is >2MPa and only 0.6g/cc, Reality Check? or have we found a new substance?

You found rock, hard rock (not fluffy "stuff") congratulations! Well done science team.

PS have you found any ice on the 67/P's nucleus yet?

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88 Please cite the announcement of the discovery of hard rock on comet 67P

@Reality Check
..skipped irrelevant stuff...

@Sol88: 17 November 2012 Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the density of comets

Sol88: Please cite the announcement of the discovery of hard rock (not "rock stuff" but the solid rock your theory demands) on comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko.

ETA: This will be a scientific announcement, not a comment by an astronomer quoted in a news article Rosetta mission: Esa weighs options for moving Philae lander – as it happened

Earlier today Dr Bibring was asked about the surface of the comet and whether Esa can tell what sort of material makes up the area where Philae landed and now perches precariously.

The reporter asks whether the surface is low density fluffy stuff, as Esa sugested earlier. Bibring reminds him that we don’t know much at all about the comet yet:

“[The area near Philae] has some resonance in our head that it’s a cliff, but we don’t think it’s that sort of cliff because the material is very low density anywhere. The density is less than 0.5 … So the idea of having a very porous material at the top came from that [and from] from the very first images [of the comet] … We’re not saying that that’s not still the case, that might still be the case. We have not demonstrated that we don’t have a crust, we have not demonstrated that we have a crust.

“Are you satisfied? I’m very happy if you’re not satisfied.”

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.

Some unknown colleague talks about snow + no "rock" but "rock stuff" + shiny stuff.

ETA: Does this look like that colleague Sol88?
Comet Lander Working, But Not Optimal

Dr. Holger Sierks, manager of the OSIRIS (remote imaging) camera expressed surprise at bouncing off hard ground:

The rebound of the lander is an indication of a higher strength material that was a surprise to us. So with this picture of dust falling back to the surface in high porosity layers, I would think we failed to explain the rebounds. But we have seen the variety of surfaces there—this snowfield of soft stuff—and we have seen this rocky-like (but no rock) stuff, which is perhaps higher-strength material. We also see stuff shining through the dust layer, where the dust is wiped away, following the gravity field, and exposing the higher strength material, and this is something that we could consider be the reason for the rebound.

This is a creationist web site but Christians are supposed to be honest so the quote may be more exact !

 

[Haig]

After bouncing a kilometre off of 67P it seems it's really hard to drill into a "Dirty Snowball" comet too.

Some telling posts on Thunderbolts ...

I don't understand how they have not admitted at least this :

Their theory was a loose collection of dust, ice, and small rock granules. They now know it is solid hard rock. I have heard some talk of a rock shell surrounding an ice core, but they never state their theory was wrong. Now they should start over assuming it is hard rock and think of what the core would be, instead they just assume it is ice. They keep continuing as if nothing happened.

Also there are already models for rocks with ice cores like some asteroids. Serpentinite reactions release heat while hydrating rock, and ultimately the bodies lose most of their water content. I guess we will just wait and see how they spin it all.

On Pg.11 in this thread I elaborated the thing with the expected vs. the possible hardness of the surface of 67P:

Insofar as this:
"As the mechanical properties of the material are not known, it is difficult to predict the final depth of the anchor with any great certainty, but it may well be greater than that reached by any other of the lander's instruments. The instrumented anchor will be part of the MUPUS experiment, selected to form part of the Rosetta Lander payload. We report on results of laboratory simulations of anchor penetration performed at the Institut für Weltraumforschung, Graz, and compare these with models of projectile penetration. The value of the results expected from the penetrometry experiment in the context of an improved understanding of cometary processes is discussed."

What were the results discussed?

If you read the summary from 2014 at Determining the penetration resistance of a cometary surface by using data from the Philae anchoring harpoon it gives you some clues:

...the spacecraft will be anchored to the surface by a harpoon-type device. In addition to the anchoring function the projectile shot into the surface contains two sensors, which will be used to obtain information on the thermo-physical properties of the cometary ice: a shock accelerometer and a temperature sensor. The former will record the deceleration history of the anchoring projectile during the penetration phase. From these data information on mechanical strength of the near surface cometary material and its variation with depth can be retrieved...

In fact it was never put into question that ice wouldn't be found there! Hypothized in mythical caverns under the "fluffy" surface. The anchor has been tested up to 14MPa, with an initial velocity of 90m/sec. They "tested" it in that before mentioned lightweight aerated concrete (YTONG) where they achieved a penetration depth of about 6 - 7 cms.

Any harder material would be a problem, Huston! But as that water is constantly ouflowing, outgassing, ot-whatsoever - there must be ice under the surface! After all we can see it all the time, can't we?

It's simple! After one skilled seller of snake-oil (camouflaging as a "scientist") arrives at a certain position in the academic food chain (often close to brotherly, political echolons) all those little weasels dependent on his oppinion will be competing with each other in the usual rectal race for his attention.

After all, what's one Billion if you can have months or even years of fun for it?

:mrgreen:
FS3

Isn't it lovely that there was another PHILAE-failure we didn't hear from in the media but had to search it from various twitters ourselves? Read the following desaster:

The mission control finally decided to start the MUPUS-experiment. In other words they tried to drill and hammer a kinda hole into the comet. The following reads like a script from the four stoogies:

1. Starting at their "lowest level" (for a "fluffy" surface) :mrgreen: it reads:

Results (9) Hammering started as intended in the lowest of 3 power settings (expecting a fluffy soft surface)

2. No result, no penetration moment, disappointment. They try harder... They try harder... :lol: it reads:

Results (10) The depth sensor shows some up and down but no progress. The control loop increased to power setting 2

3. Denada! Damn is that thing hard! So they waste even more energy and it reads:

Results (11) depth sensor still shows no progress. Control loop goes to power setting 3. Still no progress!

4. Finally they give up. No hole possible! (They should have studied EU) Beginning of excuses: "We couldn't see...", "Too far away...", "The cat ate it...", etc. :? it reads:

Results (12) This means that the stuff is really hard! A very interesting finding, not visible from orbit!

...and finally:

5. Finally they dared to switch over to the "Death-Star-Modus" MANUAL: "About the 'desperate mode' The truly genius designer of the hammer, Jerzy Grygorczuk, always said "be careful with power mode 4. And..." ... it reads:

Results (14) Still no progress. The hammer gave up and failed after 7 minutes. Jerzy was right. We were desperate, activated, were punished

They have ruined the eqipment ...

6. Tataaa! Now comes the usual excuse. Something with surprising if not bizarre or unusual (Where do they get their selfconfidence?)! (But not for those who learned about electric comets) :shock: it reads:

Results (15) Surface must be >2 MPa hard! The comet remains surprising bizarre and uncooperative

Isn't life wonderfull?
P67 decided to remain "uncooperative".
At least for those who didn't learn....

FS3

They will still feel pressured to continue the dirty snowball narrative

 

[Reality Check]

After bouncing a kilometre off of 67P it seems it's really hard to drill into a "Dirty Snowball" comet too.

Wrong Haig: Rosetta Spots Site of Philae’s First Bounce

Update (Nov. 14, 2014 at 23:00 UTC): Contact with Philae has been re-established! Data taken from the surface (including drill samples) have been sent back to Earth. Not only that, a command was sent to rotate the lander, and that worked as well! It rotated by 35°, enough to point a bigger solar panel up to the Sun. Reports indicate power is flowing, so the life of the mission has at the very least been extended somewhat. This is incredible work by the ESA team!

Now Philae down to sleep (2014/11/15 23:13 UTC)

On Twitter, the SD2 drill team confirmed that their drill extended its entire distance out and then in again — a hopeful sign — though there is no way of knowing until results are analyzed whether it actually managed to reach the surface and grab a sample.

But the tweet is more optimistic: "RT @Philae2014: I confirm that my @RosettaSD2 went all the way DOWN and UP again!! First comet drilling is a fact! 2:43 PM - 14 Nov 2014"

Some telling posts on Thunderbolts ...

No Haig, a bunch of posts from a Thunderbolts forum from random people who cannot tell the difference between 0.6 gm/cc (average density of comets) and 3.0 gm/cc ( average density of asteroids) is not very telling !

I will emphasize the ignorance of these posts for your education, Haig. The tensile strength of ice varies from 0.7–3.1 MPa so it is possible that the MUPUS team were unlucky enough to drill into hammer on surface ice.

ETA: What looks like some more ignorance in those posts - it looks like the MUPUS instrument is not supposed to actually drill any holes in the surface. Its hammer tried to determine the hardness of the surface. Thus the >2 MPa hard result is success for the instrument (but not for its design!).
It is SD2 that drills

SD2 (Sample and Distribution Device) drills more than 20 cm into the surface, collects samples and delivers them to different ovens or for microscope inspection.

 

[rwguinn]

At the temperatures the comet is presently at, water ice is a very hard mineral.