The Electric Comet theory

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reality Check said:
You are getting it, Sol88: The EU proponents are nutters because they display ignorance about astronomy and still make up fantasies about astronomy :jaw-dropp!

Here is a paper about comet jets: Geologic control of jet formation on Comet 103P/Hartley 2
You state a fantasy about it applying to the electric comet delusion.
You go on to make that fantasy into a delusion through ignorance about comets (a link to a web page about comet tails).
Click to expand...

Says you need
Our numerical simulations suggest that the collimation mecha-
nism requires a relatively narrow vent or hole. Emission from a
flat patch of ice on the nucleus surface results in only diffuse
activity.
Click to expand...

are you agreeing that this is the mechanism that collimates jets from the surface out to over 3 AU??
 
Sol88 said:
So you have no idea?
Click to expand...
Wrong, Sol88.
tusenfem is saying that your repeated inability to learn the simplest things about comets such as their density and composition means that it is useless to try to explain anything else about comets to you.

tusenfem works in astrophysics and on comets. tusenfem knows why comet jets are "collimated".

I know why comet jets are "collimated". But I am not going to waste my time telling a person ignorant enough to believe in the electric comet delusion despite the evidence against it that they have known about for 5 years now.
 
Sol88 said:
are you agreeing that this is the mechanism that collimates jets from the surface out to over 3 AU??
Click to expand...
I agree that you are repeating your ignorance about comets yet again, Sol88 :jaw-dropp:
Reality Check said:
You are getting it, Sol88: The EU proponents are nutters because they display ignorance about astronomy and still make up fantasies about astronomy :jaw-dropp!

Here is a paper about comet jets: Geologic control of jet formation on Comet 103P/Hartley 2
You state a fantasy about it applying to the electric comet delusion.
You go on to make that fantasy into a delusion through ignorance about comets (a link to a web page about comet tails).
Click to expand...

ETA: Added a title to that post: Sol88 does not know the difference between comet jets and tails!
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
So where is the data that supports electrical fields sufficient to make comets glow?
Click to expand...

Not sure where you are coming from DD?

Do comets glow? have never seen a image espescialy fromm the Rosetta mission that shows a comet glowing unless you think ground based images of the coma glowing is causing you some confusion.

In that case I think you better start from page one of this thread.

otherwise it's a case of
Originally Posted by Dancing David
Blather, rinse, repeat
Click to expand...
'ol mate except you're on the wrong horse ...again
 
Reality Check said:
I agree that you are repeating your ignorance about comets yet again, Sol88 :jaw-dropp:
Click to expand...

Dodge the question much RC?


This is your only mechanism for the jets becoming collimated, otherwise you have to accept EM as the force that does the job at hand....we then have an ELECTRIC COMET!!!
 
Reality Check said:
No - Sol88: totally like you confirming ignorance about science and comets :p !!!
Science is not dogma.
Subsurface ice chambers is a reasonable source of highly collimated dust jets: Formation of jets in Comet 19P/Borrelly by subsurface geysers
Geologic control of jet formation on Comet 103P/Hartley 2 though uses the more common model of vents for comet jets in general.
Click to expand...

Now...just need the ice and subsurface chambers!!!


Looking forward to the announcement that they have been found! :D

until then both papers are just like the thunderbolts links.
 
Sol88 does not know the difference between subsurface geyser and vent models

Sol88 said:
Now...just need the ice and subsurface chambers!!!
Click to expand...
Just ignoring the contents of my post and expanding your ignorance of comets, Sol88!
Sol88 does not know the difference between comet jets and tails :jaw-dropp!

A lie about not finding ice - ice has been found on comets.

And now: Sol88 does not know the difference between
* highly collimated dust jets modeled as subsurface geysers
* General jets modeled as gas escaping from vents.
The difference is that the second model models all jets while the first model models specific jets.
 
Last edited:
absolute solid gold in today's SCIENCE special issue.

lots to discuss! Where shall we start?

How about

On the nucleus structure and activity of
comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

Nope non committal wish-wash from Holger's team, although they have run into thermal inertia problems for subsurface ice sublimation at distances beyond 3AU.

With this range of values, large (up to ~50 K)
differences between the
MIRO measured dayside
subsurface temperatures and the temperature at
the surface can be inferre
d, highlighting the key
insulating role played by the dusty surface: It
largely restricts the amount of heat transferred
to the interior, including ices within. This certain-
ly contributes greatly to the longevity of 67P and,
probably, of comets in general. The importance
of measuring the temperatures below the surface
of a comet
—
and particularly below its diurnal
layer
—
is illustrated by these data
Click to expand...

How about

Subsurface properties and
early activity of comet
67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
 
Last edited:
Dogmatists

Yes, the dogmatists are having a hard time believing that comets are not dirty snowballs, when it is clear as day they are not dirty snowballs.

The cognitive dissonance is very great here!
 
Sol88 said:
Bit the same as mainstreams dogma of subsurface ice chambers!!!

No evidence just hand waving word salad :D

So bit like the pot calling the kettle black.
Click to expand...

Read this, and look at the pretty pictures
"Looks" like Ice to me. One of those pictures looks like the South Col Rout on Everest. Lots of water there...
And water and stuff (Jets) coming from pits! Typical Electrical behavior?
 
jeffreyw said:
Yes, the dogmatists...snipped dogma rant...
Click to expand...
Wrong jeffreyw: You are ignoring (like Sol88 and Haig) the tiny fact that the electric comet (the subject of this thread) is a fantasy based on a delusion of worlds colliding.

The science that comets are made of ices and dust is overwhelming evidence (not dogma) that includes:
* multiple methods place the density of comets less than that of water (~0.6 g/cc)
* dust and gases (from sublimating ices) are seen jetting out from comets to form the coma and tail.
* Surface water ice was detected on Tempel 1.
* Deep Impact ejected dust and ices from Tempel 1
* Rosetta has detected dust and gases from 67P.
* The lander found dust on the surface of 67P and indirectly found ice.
 
Sol88 said:
absolute solid gold in today's SCIENCE special issue.

lots to discuss! Where shall we start?

How about

On the nucleus structure and activity of
comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

Nope non committal wish-wash from Holger's team, although they have run into thermal inertia problems for subsurface ice sublimation at distances beyond 3AU.



How about

Subsurface properties and
early activity of comet
67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Click to expand...

Why do I have the feeling you didn't actually read what you quoted?
 
Rosetta begins its Comet Tale

So a complete break from fantasies, delusions and dogma rants to actual science: The 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko Special Issue of Science has actual science about 67P in it!
Sol88 wants to look at this entire issue so start with the first article:
Rosetta begins its Comet Tale
Comets are the best sample of primitive solar nebula material presently available to us, dating back 4.57 billion years to the origin of our planetary system. Past missions to comets have all been “fast flybys”: They provided only a snapshot view of the dust and ice nucleus, the nebulous coma surrounding it, and how the solar wind interacts with both of these components. Such space-based investigations of comets began in the 1980s with a flotilla of spacecraft: the European Space Agency's (ESA's) first deep space mission, Giotto, which pursued comet 1P/Halley; Deep Space 1 at 19P/Borrelly; Stardust at 81P/Wild 2; Deep Impact and Stardust NeXT at 9P/Tempel; and EPOXI at 103P/Hartley 2.
Click to expand...
A description of real science in the real world.
 
Last edited:
Time variability and heterogeneity in the coma of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

Time variability and heterogeneity in the coma of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Comets contain the best-preserved material from the beginning of our planetary system. Their nuclei and comae composition reveal clues about physical and chemical conditions during the early solar system when comets formed. ROSINA (Rosetta Orbiter Spectrometer for Ion and Neutral Analysis) onboard the Rosetta spacecraft has measured the coma composition of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko with well-sampled time resolution per rotation. Measurements were made over many comet rotation periods and a wide range of latitudes. These measurements show large fluctuations in composition in a heterogeneous coma that has diurnal and possibly seasonal variations in the major outgassing species: water, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide. These results indicate a complex coma-nucleus relationship where seasonal variations may be driven by temperature differences just below the comet surface.
Click to expand...
This includes diurnal variations in outgassing as expected from solar heating causing ices to sublimate.
 
Birth of a comet magnetosphere: A spring of water ions

Birth of a comet magnetosphere: A spring of water ions
The Rosetta mission shall accompany comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko from a heliocentric distance of >3.6 astronomical units through perihelion passage at 1.25 astronomical units, spanning low and maximum activity levels. Initially, the solar wind permeates the thin comet atmosphere formed from sublimation, until the size and plasma pressure of the ionized atmosphere define its boundaries: A magnetosphere is born. Using the Rosetta Plasma Consortium ion composition analyzer, we trace the evolution from the first detection of water ions to when the atmosphere begins repelling the solar wind (~3.3 astronomical units), and we report the spatial structure of this early interaction. The near-comet water population comprises accelerated ions (<800 electron volts), produced upstream of Rosetta, and lower energy locally produced ions; we estimate the fluxes of both ion species and energetic neutral atoms.
Click to expand...
Lots of water ions but no rock mentioned!
 
The organic-rich surface of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko as seen by VIRTIS/Rosetta

The organic-rich surface of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko as seen by VIRTIS/Rosetta
The VIRTIS (Visible, Infrared and Thermal Imaging Spectrometer) instrument on board the Rosetta spacecraft has provided evidence of carbon-bearing compounds on the nucleus of the comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. The very low reflectance of the nucleus (normal albedo of 0.060 ± 0.003 at 0.55 micrometers), the spectral slopes in visible and infrared ranges (5 to 25 and 1.5 to 5% kÅ−1), and the broad absorption feature in the 2.9-to-3.6–micrometer range present across the entire illuminated surface are compatible with opaque minerals associated with nonvolatile organic macromolecular materials: a complex mixture of various types of carbon-hydrogen and/or oxygen-hydrogen chemical groups, with little contribution of nitrogen-hydrogen groups. In active areas, the changes in spectral slope and absorption feature width may suggest small amounts of water-ice. However, no ice-rich patches are observed, indicating a generally dehydrated nature for the surface currently illuminated by the Sun.
Click to expand...
Organic rich but not mineral rich - once again no rock found on the surface of 67P :p.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom