The Electric Comet theory

[Reality Check]

Ummm... the shiny stuff is NOT ice!!! And the "shiny" stuff seen at the base of the jets is the EDM we bang on about.

No, Sol88: repeating Thunderbolts delusions about "shiny stuff" being EDM does not make anything clearer.
Adding paranoia or ignorance about the usage of scientific images is not good.

 

[Reality Check]

Ah! so you want the math ???

Wow, Haig - you cite the crank / performance artist Miles Mathis as if you were ignorant enough to think that he has any valid ideas !

ETA: Not only a crank / performance artist but a conspiracy theorist!
Conspiracy Theories

When Mathis isn’t busy writing pseudoscience articles, he’s usually hard at work concocting far-fetched conspiracies. Here is a sample of his disturbed thinking:

 

[Reality Check]

I mean
...

Rather you mean to expose ignorance about what you cite again, Sol88 .
On the one hand there is the detection of water ice on and below the surface of Tempel 1.
On the other hand there is a paper about jet activity on ice cliffs. You cannot understand that this paper
* is missing a very specific word - water!
* explicitly mentions "the presence of several different ices species"!

 

[Reality Check]

This is on topic

Which includes the ELECTRIC COMET HYPOTHESIS

Wrong, Sol88: The actual ELECTRIC COMET HYPOTHESIS including comet origins is a delusion and so off topic for a science blog.

Any comments on the Rosetta Blog about the Thunderbolts ELECTRIC COMET HYPOTHESIS (excluding the Thunderbolts delusions) which is backed up by
* unpublished papers (in the scientific literature given the context) or
* non peer reviewed papers or
* not even a paper (like a web page)!
is likely be trashed.

 

[Reality Check]

How can peer reviewed paper be accepted if the peers don't know Jack.Sheite?

Wow Sol88 - the ignorance in that statement actually hurts my brain !
The point about peers is that they are experts about the subject of the paper. So a paper on comets is peer reviewed by experts on comets.

What you are citing is the lowest tier of scientific publication - a poster presentation at a conference in 2006. This is a board on a wall with pages posted on it. They are done as a first step in publishing a paper (basically staking a claim to an idea to prevent duplication). What is worse is that this is a IEEE conference on plasma science - no experts on comets are likely to be there.
What is even worse is that there is basically nothing in the electric comet fantasy that is based on plasma science - it is essentially fantasies about electrostatics - no MHD or PIC analysis!
And the electric comet theory has not been published in the 8 years since that conference!

The poster itself merely repeats the usual delusions about comets starting with their origins.

 

[Matthew Cline]

To say it in the simplest possible way, the masses we have been measuring up to now have been unified field masses, coming out of Newton's unified field. But because we did not know Newton's field was a unified field, we did not know our masses were unified field masses. Because the unified field contains the sub-field of E/M, and because the sub-field of E/M is in vector opposition to the total field (causing it to be subtracted from the total), our current masses are deceiving.

This would not only require that all objects in the universe have the same signed charge (plus or minus), but also that all objects in the universe have the same mass/charge ratio.

Once you have fully absorbed that, you will have understood that calculating the true mass in this way must vastly increase the total mass of the universe.

If the gravitational attraction of all objects in the universe were all proportionally opposed by electric repulsion, then it wouldn't matter that the total mass of the universe was underestimated, since both gravity and electrostatics are inverse-square laws. The results would look exactly the same as if there had been less than the actual mass but no electrostatic repulsion.

 

[Reality Check]

Access to Rosetta data (16/07/2014!)

However, it is important to know that such an "open data" policy is not the norm for most ESA and NASA missions. Data from the Hubble Space Telescope, the Chandra X-Ray observatory, the MESSENGER mission to Mercury, or for that matter, some NASA Mars orbiters, are all subject to a so-called "proprietary period", as are the data from ESA's Mars Express, XMM-Newton, and Rosetta, for example.

This period, typically 6-12 months, gives exclusive access to the data to the scientists who built the instruments or to scientists who made a winning proposal to make certain observations. In ESA's case, the length of the period is decided by our Member States when a mission is selected, although in some cases, the period is made shorter when a mission has been in operation for some time.
...
With Rosetta, all data from its 21 instruments (11 on the orbiter, 10 on the Philae lander) are subject to a 6 month proprietary period. Thus any release of images and scientific results that we are making now, as we approach rendezvous with 67P/C-G on 6 August, is being done with direct involvement of the instrument science teams, who are agreeing to waive the proprietary period for those items.

So it is dumb to demand data from even the start of the encounter back August 2014 given that the data will not be released until at least February 2015 (aside from the images that teams released e.g. for publicity and conferences) !

 

[Reality Check]

Rosetta in 2015
has the first images for 2015 (expect more delusions about these showing rocks ) and a Valentines Day present is on its way:

Rosetta will continue in its 30 km orbit until 3 February, before building up to its closest flyby yet. On 4 February, Rosetta will start to move some 140 km from the comet, before swooping down to just 6 km from the surface on 14 February.

 

[LSSBB]

Wow, Haig - you cite the crank / performance artist Miles Mathis as if you were ignorant enough to think that he has any valid ideas !

ETA: Not only a crank / performance artist but a conspiracy theorist!
Conspiracy Theories

My fav: "Proof From NASA That Pi is 4"

 

[Sol88]

Sol88, you keep saying that there is no surface ice on comet Tempel 1, and you claim that scientists are saying there is no surface ice on Tempel 1, yet the links you provide are of scientists describing observed surface ice on Tempel 1. It is amusing, but you don't come off looking great. Icy cliffs are expected if you have subsurface ice. The walls of the cliffs are exposed subsurface ice, just like cliffs on earth are exposed subsurface strata. If you cut yourself a piece of cake, you will create a cake with icing on the top and an exposed subsurface cake.

Yeah funny ah!

Not my claim, it is their statement

Not enough surface ice to count for the outgassing but plenty of surface ice to produce the outgassing...

So then they said it must be subsurface, so they smashed a projectile into and found not ICE but rock...??????

but hey let's keep calling it ice!

This is all mainstream codswallop

 

[Reality Check]

So then they said it must be subsurface, so they smashed a projectile into and found not ICE but rock...??????

That is a delusion abut rock being found on Tempel 1, Sol88.
The Deep Impact projectile went into "talcum powder" not rock.
The ejecta from Deep Impact was dust and ice.
The outgassing from Deep Impact included water and dust.

 

[jmckaskle]

Yeah funny ah!

Not my claim, it is their statement

Not enough surface ice to count for the outgassing but plenty of surface ice to produce the outgassing...

So then they said it must be subsurface, so they smashed a projectile into and found not ICE but rock...??????

but hey let's keep calling it ice!

This is all mainstream codswallop

Observed outgassing of H20 and dust:

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[40] and between 10 and 25 million kilograms (22 and 55 million pounds) of dust were lost from the impact.[38]

Evidence of presence of liquid water in the formation of some of the comet's constituents:

Other materials found while studying the impact included clays, carbonates, sodium, and crystalline silicates which were found by studying the spectroscopy of the impact.[15] Clays and carbonates usually require liquid water to form and sodium is rare in space.[42]

Evidence of it's low density consistent with a powdery ice interior:

Observations also revealed that the comet was about 75% empty space, and one astronomer compared the outer layers of the comet to the same makeup of a snow bank.[15]

Porous comet ruled out:

The only models of cometary structure astronomers could positively rule out were the very porous ones which had comets as loose aggregates of material. In addition, the material was finer than expected; scientists compared it to talcum powder rather than sand.[41]

Temple 1 is an icy and dusty comet. No rock observed.

And as a bonus:

A prediction by NASA that there will be a bright flash upon impact with Tempel 1

spaceflightnow.com/delta/d311/050109mission.html

A mini-compact disc bearing the names of more than half a million space enthusiasts is onboard Deep Impact. The mini-CD will melt, vaporize and essentially be obliterated -- along with everything else aboard the impactor -- when it collides with comet Tempel 1.

I believe that prediction came true.

 

[Sol88]

Rather you mean to expose ignorance about what you cite again, Sol88 .
On the one hand there is the detection of water ice on and below the surface of Tempel 1.
On the other hand there is a paper about jet activity on ice cliffs. You cannot understand that this paper
* is missing a very specific word - water!
* explicitly mentions "the presence of several different ices species"!

Please tell me about the clay, carbonates, and crystallised silicates found in the deep impact mission, reality check.

Really please do.

 

[Sol88]

Observed outgassing of H20 and dust:




Evidence of presence of liquid water in the formation of some of the comet's constituents:




Evidence of it's low density consistent with a powdery ice interior:




Porous comet ruled out:




Temple 1 is an icy and dusty comet. No rock observed.

And as a bonus:

A prediction by NASA that there will be a bright flash upon impact with Tempel 1

spaceflightnow.com/delta/d311/050109mission.html




I believe that prediction came true.

Then we bounced Philea onto a harder than expected comet! and found no ICE

 

[Sol88]

And then we get back to that old chestnut on H2O production.

No doubt we saw OH in the tail and coma but we saw no ice, except for the trivial amount on the surface as reported.

So they believed it to be hidden just under the rind of dust but still found none!

 

[Sol88]

No, Sol88: repeating Thunderbolts delusions about "shiny stuff" being EDM does not make anything clearer.
Adding paranoia or ignorance about the usage of scientific images is not good.

Sorry you are right, the original quote was

Holger Sierks said, “Higher strength material that was a surprise to us.” “With this picture of dust falling back to the surface forming high porosity layers, we failed to explain the rebounds.” “It’s rocky-like stuff, but not rock.” “We also see this stuff shining through where the dust layer is wiped away or fallen off following the gravitational field and exposing a higher-strength material and this is something we could consider be the reason for the rebound.”

which of course is ICE but they have found NONE yet

the same stuff shining on from the source of the jets on Tempel 1!

 

[Sol88]

That is a delusion abut rock being found on Tempel 1, Sol88.
The Deep Impact projectile went into "talcum powder" not rock.
The ejecta from Deep Impact was dust and ice.
The outgassing from Deep Impact included water and dust.

ICE was implied via water produced in the dust cloud which included Other materials found while studying the impact included clays, carbonates, sodium, and crystalline silicates which were found by studying the spectroscopy of the impact.[15] Clays and carbonates usually require liquid water to form and sodium is rare in space.

Mmmm....hard to reconcile comets forming at the formation of the solar system when they contain clays and carbonates.

but easy to reconcile with parts of already formed planets, say Mars!

 

[Sol88]

and the campers are not happy Jan.

José Ignacio Cimadevilla says:
18/07/2014 at 10:08
Dear Fred Jansen, Matt Taylor, Mark McCaughrean, the entire Rosseta team and ESA,
The Rosetta mission is an inspiring one for the public, is the first time a space probe will orbit and land on a comet, this historical event have the potential to capture the interest of the world and inspire a young generation. I personally feel an incredible amount of gratitude and admiration for you and the entire Rosetta team, what you have achieved so far is amazing and deserves the highest praise. Doing Science (with a big S) at this level is one of the few things that lifts the human spirit and make us better persons.
I'm sure everybody understand that you have dedicated a big part of your lives to this mission, and nobody is claiming that all pictures and scientific data should be released in real time, that would be nuts. But also I'm sure you know the importance of the people support. We want to be part of the Rosetta mission with you. We want to experience this amazing ride along you. We want to land on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko and experience the wonder and awe with you. But this would not be possible with a pixelated jpeg every two weeks. I'm sure we can find a common ground that makes both the scientific team and the public opinion confortable. Please, let us be part of the exploration and discovery you are leading.
We live in an information society and this means that some information should flow in real time, or as close as real time as possible in order to create and keep interest. If few pictures are published months after they were taken nobody will care about it and ESA will lose a precious opportunity to grow and nurture this interest. Support for scientific projects could be much bigger if information is open and accessible, making easy for the people to understand what is going on and why and how this amazing missions are done. Be close to the people and the people will be close to you.
Also don't forget that the money you are using is coming from everybody's taxes, and we have the right to ask for the knowledge and discoveries that will be unfolded using your expertise.
I have always thought that knowledge, this kind of knowledge must be free, shared and understood by the society. This is the way the people will support you and ESA. This is the way to increase funding in this missions. Exploration, research and discoveries are the best things we can do as human beings. So please don't take this precious journey of discovery away from us.
Thank you.

Plenty more here


Every one including NON ELECTRIC UNIVERSE nuts are asking the same question, why?


So why hold the pictures back even from the AGU conference???

The public are not going to write a peer reviewed paper and get the credit for the discovery but the ESA are going to look like complete knobs when everything they designed the mission for is contradicted by the data coming in.

That's my conspiracy take on the lock down on OSIRIS images!

 

[tusenfem]

As a side note, I see the Rosetta blog is back up.
Rosetta Blog

Yes, welcome back

and the first thing they post is

because they have good sense, otherwise you get discussions like this thread with over 90 pages and almost 4000 posts, which lead to full blown velikovskian idiocy.

and in the comments section

Wow, who would have thought that doing science actually takes time.
People are so being fed idiotic ideas that doing science is exactly like the CSI TV series where they have the correct results within an afternoon. That is NOT how science works.

A Science (not Nature, Nature had no interests in Rosetta) special issue is coming out soon, I know of a few papers which have been accepted for publication. I have not heard what the publication date is from my lead-author.

and very telling

Ah yeah, throw out peer-review, just publish what you want, give the data to thunderdolts and let them show the world how it works, blah blah blah

and people are not happy Jan...

This italian gets the nav cam images, which are great.
The OSIRIS data are actual scientific data. The people from OSIRIS have been waiting for 10 years of flight, and at least another 10 years of development before flight, on this data. Then it is only understandable that this scientific data is propriatory for a certain amount of time after they are obtained, in order for the PI team to write the first results about them. Add to that the embargo policy of Science (and Nature) about what is allowed to be shown from submitted papers, and then yes, you just have to wait.

So why are they hiding the pretty pictures????

because it's been jammed down my throat in this thread pictures are not real science, I have used them to try and my interpretation of the jets source but you want maths.

What are they hiding?

No, the way you interpret pretty pictures, is not science. The way the OSIRIS team will interpret the pretty pictures has nothing to do with your "bright spot must be discharge ice fountain" resoning.

 

[Sol88]

Well we can see inside the nucleus where the cliffs have been exposed on 67P, no ice visible BUT we have jets!!

"bright spot must be discharge ice fountain"

NO ICE needed, Tusenfem.

I thought you'd would have understood that by now. The ECH does not need ICE to cause the observed jets, that by the way issue from bright spots that the mainstream keep calling ICE but none seen...