The Electric Comet theory

[Sol88]

RC can you quantifiy this statement? Tusenfem??

STARDUST

First of all we found evidence that the standard astronomical predictions for the origin of dust in comets, or at least the ones in this comet, appear to be incorrect.

 

[Reality Check]

RC can you quantifiy this statement? Tusenfem??

STARDUST

Do you want the actual numbers?
Or is the conclusion that you are ignoring enough:

The comet particles returned by the Stardust mission have been a real bonanza. They do contain some stardust grains from other stars but the majority of solids are solar system materials that appear to have formed over a very broad range of solar distances and perhaps over an extended time range. Comet Wild 2 is a collection of materials that probably came from all regions of the young solar system and thus it has turned out to be wonderful "time capsule". Hundreds of scientists around the world have worked on these samples and the first results from these studies were presented in the December 15, 2006 issue of Science magazine. Having samples from the edge of the solar system has provided a fabulous way to explore the early solar system and test ideas for its origin. The samples will be explored for decades to come and we believe that they provide a wonderful new way to better understand our origins.

ETA:
You may be under the impression that the Stardust mission sampled the comet itself. Or maybe the comet tail.
Stardust actually collected dust samples from the comet coma (as well as other samples of interstellar dust).

 

[Sol88]

Do you want the actual numbers?
Or is the conclusion that you are ignoring enough:


ETA:
You may be under the impression that the Stardust mission sampled the comet itself. Or maybe the comet tail.
Stardust actually collected dust samples from the comet coma (as well as other samples of interstellar dust).

No, that's the problem! remember YOU are constrained by the sublimating "volatiles" hypothesis!

Comet coma was made by sublimating "volatiles"...from the comet!!!

 

[Reality Check]

No, that's the problem! remember YOU are constrained by the sublimating "volatiles" hypothesis!

Comet coma was made by sublimating "volatiles"...from the comet!!!

Comet coma includes dust.

 

[Sol88]

Comet coma includes dust.

....

 

[Reality Check]

....

Yes ....

 

[tusenfem]

So lets see from stardust

and you, RC can sit back and believe this crud they fees you??? You my friend are beyond hope I fear

Remember those PREDICTIONS from the king of thundercrap Wal Thornhill

The Electric Comet ' and its Impact on Cosmology
[/B]

And this has exactly what to do with QUANTITATIVE?
Again, just some descriptions, mined from various websites.

 

[Dancing David]

Thanks RC

Lets take your advice and read Tim Thompsons links again, specifically No EU X-rays, to parse



Dynamic Orbit modeling, like the probe changing paths slightly in relation to the comets mass? Using some fantastic looking maths regarding it's trajectory? to parse
from wiki Another nonuniform grivtational forcethe mainstream know squat about is the Pioneer anomaly!!

Excuse me, what is the factor in the measurement of the Pioneer anomaly, and how would that say anything about the ballistics of orbital objects.

Nice arm waving.

So yeah,I don't know just how good your guessatimation is using questionable constants as to determine the density of the nucleus, because using your second method of determining comet nucleus density, Direct observation, it "looks" like ROCK, specifically Chondrite

Nope, you are rather single minded, what says that a comet is solid chondrite?

from the stardust mission (the return smaple)

Yup the Stardust mission captured a comet sized piece of chondrite, must be why the re-entry failed!

as well as

Lets take 19P/Borrelly for a direct observation shall we? some details first from wiki

Nucleus parameters

* Dimensions: 8×4×4 km[1]
* Density: 0.3 g/cm³[2]
* Mass: 2 × 1013 kg[3]
* Albedo: 0.03[4]

But it has a hot and dry surface



and they also found by direct observation


so a Density: 0.3 g/cm³ for 19P/Borelly or more like 3-4g/cm³
One model PREDICTED one did not, simple

Where is that observation of the mass to volume ratio being 3g/cm³?

Argument by smilie again?

 

[tusenfem]

Comets and Xrays.

Naturally, Sol88 only gives the first press release about a new phenomenon, dating from 1996. In the mean time there have been developments in this area, for example by Neugebauer et al. where it is noted that:

Abstract
Both the Röntgen X-Ray Satellite (ROSAT) and the Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer (EUVE) have detected soft X-ray emission from comet C/Hyakutake 1996 B2. This emission varied by a factor of about 2 over a few hours and by a factor of 4 from day to day. One explanation for the excitation of cometary X rays is the charge transfer mechanism suggested by Cravens. This process involves charge exchange collisions between highly charged heavy ions in the solar wind and neutral gas in the cometary coma. Oxygen ion fluxes observed by the Charge, Element, and Isotope Analysis System (CELIAS) Mass Time-of-Flight (MTOF) instrument on the SOHO spacecraft and proton fluxes measured by near-Earth spacecraft are mapped to the location of the comet to demonstrate that the comet X-ray variability can be explained on the basis of variability in the solar wind. There is a good correlation between cometary X-ray emission and oxygen ion fluxes and a poorer correlation with proton flux. The correlation between the solar wind oxygen flux and cometary X rays degrades with increasing latitudinal separation of SOHO from the comet. Cometary X-ray emission is not sensitive to variations in solar X-ray fluxes and is unlikely to be caused by crossing of the heliospheric current sheet. The charge transfer mechanism appears to be supported by all the data examined to date. Cometary X rays have some shortcomings as remote sensors of the solar wind, however, because of variations in cometary gas production rates and in the charge states and abundances of heavy solar wind ions.

and it gets even more specific by Bingham et al. where we learn that:

Abstract
An explanation of recent observations of a strong X-ray emission from comet Hyakutake (Science Image , 194, 1996) is proposed. It is based on an idea that the interaction of the solar wind and photoionized cometary plasma produces strong plasma turbulence in the lower hybrid frequency range which is responsible for the acceleration of suprathermal electrons with energies in the range 100eV up to several keV. A nonlinear theory of the instability responsible for the generation of lower-hybrid electric field, typical energies and flux of suprathermal electrons are obtained. Two possible mechanisms of X-ray production by non-thermal energetic keV electrons are analyized; bremsstrahlung and cometary gas (mostly oxygen) K-shell line radiation. It is shown that for conditions under investigation line radiation is dominant resulting in total X-ray luminosity of 2.5 × 10¹⁵ erg/sec in excellent agreement with ROSAT observed emission of 3.0 × 10¹⁵ erg/sec.

So, these are only two papers about Hyakutaki and its Xray emission. But as far as I could see in these and other papers, there is no mention whatsoever of the possibility that the Xrays are created by discharges, like EDM.

Now, Sol88 please show where Thundercrap Thornhill shows his calculation of the spectrum of the Xrays created by the electric comet (I think you will have to search hard to get a numerical value for that, like in the mainstream papers). But I will not hold my breath until you give someting quantitative (that means with numbers and estimates and comparisons with observations, just to be clear, so you don't confuse it with qualitative).

 

[Dancing David]

emanating from bright, smooth patches on the surface

Note that is a descrition of an optical appearance from a distance. Nowehere does it say "from a solid rocky surface".

Really Sol 88, where is the evidence of a solid rocky surface or a density comparable to an asteroid?

Are you going to say that a lake has a solid rocky surface because it appears smooth?
Or that fog in a valley seen from a high altitude is rocky because it appears smooth?
Or that there is really water in the desert because you see a reflection of the sky in the layers of hot air?

Really?

 

[Ziggurat]

This range can be narrowed down to 180-300 kg m-3 by also requiring that the empirical changes (per orbital revolution) of the argument of perihelion and the longitude of the ascending node are reproduced.

Oh ohhhh Reality check!!!! 1.8-3.0g/cm³ No way!

Bwahahahaha! Evidently you can't do unit conversion correctly. Let's step through this slowly so you can see your mistake. First, our conversion factors:

1 kg = 10³ g
1 m = 10² cm
1 m³ = (10² cm)³ = 10⁶ cm³
So what happens if we convert that upper limit?
300 kg/m³ * 10³ g/kg * 1 m³/10⁶ cm³ = 300 * 10^-3 g/cm³ = 0.3 g/cm³
Math fail, Sol88. And if you can't follow my calculations, you can even do the conversion yourself online.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Non-Gravitational Comet Forces

Can someone tell me how they measure non-gravitational orbital changes anyway??

Easy. Since comets are not very dense (i.e., they are not "rocks"), they are easily pushed around by the jets that eventually form the coma & tail. The jets push the comet around like little rockets. Those are the non-gravitational forces that comet scientists have to deal with. The non-gravitational forces are enough to alter comet orbits from one apparition to the next. See figure 1.14 (page 38) in the book introduction to comets, Brandt & Chapman, Cambridge University Press, 2004 (2nd edition). Also see Sosa & Fernández, 2009 where comet masses are computed from non-gravitational forces. The densities derived are about or less than 0.8 gm/cm³ and average 0.4 gm/cm³.

 

[Dancing David]

Bwahahahaha! Evidently you can't do unit conversion correctly. Let's step through this slowly so you can see your mistake. First, our conversion factors:

1 kg = 10³ g
1 m = 10² cm
1 m³ = (10² cm)³ = 10⁶ cm³
So what happens if we convert that upper limit?
300 kg/m³ * 10³ g/kg * 1 m³/10⁶ cm³ = 300 * 10^-3 g/cm³ = 0.3 g/cm³
Math fail, Sol88. And if you can't follow my calculations, you can even do the conversion yourself online.

Thanks Zig!

 

[Sol88]

Thanks Zig!

Did I make a mistake? bugger my apologies!

The fact remains they, comets, are rock, not dirty snowbanks as calculated! And as a prediction they will be found to be so, rock!

Comets are "rocks" on eccentric orbits!

like

Résumé / Abstract
In 2007, the M-type binary Asteroid 22 Kalliope reached one of its annual equinoxes. As a consequence, the orbit plane of its small moon, Linus, was aligned closely to the Sun's line of sight, giving rise to a mutual eclipse season. A dedicated international campaign of photometric observations, based on amateur-professional collaboration, was organized and coordinated by the IMCCE in order to catch several of these events. The set of the compiled observations is released in this work. We developed a relevant model of these events, including a topographic shape model of Kalliope refined in the present work, the orbit solution of Linus as well as the photometric effect of the shadow of one component falling on the other. By fitting this model to the only two full recorded events, we derived a new estimation of the equivalent diameter of Kalliope of 166.2 ± 2.8 km, 8% smaller than its IRAS diameter. As to the diameter of Linus, considered as purely spherical, it is estimated to 28 ± 2 km. This substantial "shortening" of Kalliope, gives a bulk density of 3.35 ± 0.33 g/cm3, significantly higher than past determinations but more consistent with its taxonomic type. Some constraints can be inferred on the composition.

3.35g/cm3???

your are the brilliant mathematicians your work it out into any unit you like, facts are still the same, asteroids like comets are "rock"!!

also

The Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR) spacecraft flew within 3830 kilometers of asteroid 433 Eros on 23 December 1998. The gravitational perturbation on NEAR was evident in the spacecraft tracking data. Ground-based Doppler and range tracking of the spacecraft as well as spacecraft images of the asteroid's center of figure and surface features were used to determine the mass and rotation pole of Eros. The mass of Eros is (7.2 ± 1.8) × 1018 grams and, coupled with a volume estimate provided by the NEAR imaging team, this mass suggests a bulk density of 2.5 ± 0.8 grams per cubic centimeter. The rotation pole position is 15.6 (±3.7) degrees in right ascension and 16.4 (±1.8) degrees in declination, which is consistent with ground-based and NEAR imaging team observations.

So we still use the weakest most poorly understood force we know of to calculate the mass and density!!!

brillant!! tell me again how accurate these calculation can be when we ahve something like the pioneer anomaly??

The effect is seen in radio Doppler and ranging data, yielding information on the velocity and distance of the spacecraft. When all known forces acting on the spacecraft are taken into consideration, a very small but unexplained force remains. It appears to cause a constant sunward acceleration of (8.74 ± 1.33) × 10−10 m/s2 for both spacecraft. If the positions of the spacecraft are predicted one year in advance based on measured velocity and known forces (mostly gravity), they are actually found to be some 400 km closer to the sun at the end of the year. The magnitude of the Pioneer effect is numerically quite close to the product of the speed of light and the Hubble constant, but the significance of this, if any, is unknown. Gravitationally bound objects such as the solar system, or even the galaxy, do not partake of the expansion of the universe — this is known both from theory[1] and by direct measurement.[2]

Data from the Galileo and Ulysses spacecraft indicate a similar effect, although for various reasons (such as their relative proximity to the Sun) firm conclusions cannot be drawn from these sources. These spacecraft are all partially or fully spin-stabilised.

The effect is much harder to measure accurately with craft that use thrusters for attitude control. These spacecraft, such as the Voyagers, acquire small and unpredictable changes in speed as a side effect of the frequent attitude control firings. This 'noise' makes it impractical to measure small accelerations such as the Pioneer effect.

The Cassini mission has reaction wheels as well as thrusters for attitude control, and during cruise could rely for long periods on the reaction wheels alone, thus enabling precision measurements. However, it also had radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) mounted close to the spacecraft body, radiating kilowatts of heat in hard-to-predict directions. The measured value of unmodelled acceleration for Cassini is (26.7 ± 1.1) × 10−10 m/s2, roughly three times as large as the Pioneer acceleration. Unfortunately, the measured value is the sum of the uncertain thermal effects and the possible anomaly. Therefore the Cassini measurements neither conclusively confirm nor refute the existence of the anomaly.[3]

But we are sure about the 433 Eros data!

What did deep impact tell us again!!!

 

[Sol88]

Bwahahahaha! Evidently you can't do unit conversion correctly. Let's step through this slowly so you can see your mistake. First, our conversion factors:

1 kg = 10³ g
1 m = 10² cm
1 m³ = (10² cm)³ = 10⁶ cm³
So what happens if we convert that upper limit?
300 kg/m³ * 10³ g/kg * 1 m³/10⁶ cm³ = 300 * 10^-3 g/cm³ = 0.3 g/cm³
Math fail, Sol88. And if you can't follow my calculations, you can even do the conversion yourself online.

Just re read my post and whoops you are correct 300kg/m3 is .3 g/cm3 just like they guessed at for other comets, big fluffy snowbanks!!! with a bit of dust inside somewhere!

Now all they have to do is find the water and they are sorted!

Tho there may be a problem!

Deep Impact Was a Dust-up, Not a Gusher

"It's pretty clear that this event did not produce a gusher," said SWAS principal investigator Gary Melnick of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA). "The more optimistic predictions for water output from the impact haven't materialized, at least not yet."

Astronomer Charlie Qi (CfA) expressed surprise at these results. He explained that short-period comets like Tempel 1 have been baked repeatedly by the sun during their passages through the inner solar system. The effects of that heat are estimated to extend more than three feet beneath the surface of the nucleus. But the Deep Impact indicates that these effects could be much deeper.

"Theories about the volatile layers below the surface of short-period comets are going to have to be revised," Qi said.

Revised? to what dark water!!!!

'cos oops!

Deep Impact was intended to test these theories by excavating material from the comet's interior, giving scientists clues to its composition and structure. The mission succeeded admirably, pulverizing a section of the comet larger than a house and releasing tons of material into space.

SWAS operators were puzzled by the lack of increased water vapor from Tempel 1. Post-impact measurements showed the comet was releasing only about 550 pounds of water per second - an emission rate very similar to pre-impact values, and less than seen by SWAS during natural outbursts in the weeks before the impact.

why no increase in water vapor production?

why the double flash as PREDICTED by Wal Thorhill?

 

[Reality Check]

Did I make a mistake? bugger my apologies!

It is not just your mistake - it is the fact that you were stupid enough to persist in it after it was first pointed.

Now all you are doing is compounding it again by stating what everyone already knows . The density of asteroids is greater than the density of comets and so the electric comet idea is wrong.

This substantial "shortening" of Kalliope, gives a bulk density of 3.35 ± 0.33 g/cm3

Guess what Sol88: Kalliope is an asteroid!

EPIC FAIL once again Sol88

 

[Reality Check]

Just re read my post and whoops you are correct 300kg/m3 is .3 g/cm3 just like they guessed at for other comets, big fluffy snowbanks!!! with a bit of dust inside somewhere!

Not guessed - measured.
That is a difference between real science than the hand waving non-science you have been taken in by.

Now all they have to do is find the water and they are sorted!

They have found the water in 1000's of observations of comets.
And this water was not produced by your mythical electric arcs because the observation of the comets show that there are no X-ray bursts from these electrical arcs.

Tho there may be a problem!

Deep Impact Was a Dust-up, Not a Gusher

Because this is an example of a specific comet that does not have as much water as expected for a typical comet (e.g. a long term one).

Astronomer Charlie Qi (CfA) expressed surprise at these results. He explained that short-period comets like Tempel 1 have been baked repeatedly by the sun during their passages through the inner solar system. The effects of that heat are estimated to extend more than three feet beneath the surface of the nucleus. But the Deep Impact indicates that these effects could be much deeper.

why no increase in water vapor production?

That is a puzzler for this specific comet. I could make a few guesses, e.g. the impact looks like it was on the leading surface of the comet which is where the water is most likely to be removed by the solar wind.

why the double flash as PREDICTED by Wal Thorhill?

Because even crackpots get it right if they make enough guesses.

ETA:
And if they do not predict something other than "double flash", e.g. at what distance would the first flash be from the comet?, what would be the relative brightness of the flashes?

 

[tusenfem]

Did I make a mistake? bugger my apologies!

The fact remains they, comets, are rock, not dirty snowbanks as calculated! And as a prediction they will be found to be so, rock!

Comets are "rocks" on eccentric orbits!

3.35g/cm3???

your are the brilliant mathematicians your work it out into any unit you like, facts are still the same, asteroids like comets are "rock"!!

also

So we still use the weakest most poorly understood force we know of to calculate the mass and density!!!

brillant!! tell me again how accurate these calculation can be when we ahve something like the pioneer anomaly??

But we are sure about the 433 Eros data!

What did deep impact tell us again!!!

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh let's see, a comet has an average density of 0.3.
And now you use the data from asteroids, which have a density of about 10 times more, to claim they are the same?
Woe, not only are your mathematical skills abysmal, your logic also is defunct.

 

[Sol88]

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh let's see, a comet has an average density of 0.3.
And now you use the data from asteroids, which have a density of about 10 times more, to claim they are the same?
Woe, not only are your mathematical skills abysmal, your logic also is defunct.

No, I am saying i think the data on density and mass calculation is misleading causing them to underestimate a comets density.

I know what the papers say and I (along with a few other) say that a comets density is the same, more or less, than a asteroids!

We shall see who's correct!

 

[Sol88]

because even crackpots get it right if they make enough guesses.

ETA:
And if they do not predict something other than "double flash", e.g. at what distance would the first flash be from the comet?, what would be the relative brightness of the flashes?

yup that "crackpot" nailed it, who'd thunk eh?

Depends on the potentials involved of course! simple really