The Electric Comet theory

[Sol88]

No. X-rays are electromagnetic radiation.

caused by....?

 

[Sol88]

How about a number from the electric comet idea Sol88? This should be easy from such a worked out, complete scientific theory . I am sure that Thornhill has calculated this vital number. If you cannot find it on his book advertisement site then I suggest that contact him personally.

* How many electric discharges per second are there in a typical comet nucleus?

What kind of question is that? last time I understood the arcs on the surface were constant as we have seen when "jets" are interpreted as EDM arcing on the surface, defiantly not your millisecond variety arcs!

ETA why didn't astronomers, other than the crackpots, expect X-rays reality check?

 

[Dancing David]

Ummmm.....'cos it's common knowledge DD!

SWAS principal investigator Gary Melnick of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) said



he said

revised to a really dirty snowball???

as PREDICTED by those thunderpants crackpots!!! fancy that RC!

Could the dirtysnowball be wrong???

Go find out for yourself DD!

For more information, contact:

David A. Aguilar
Director of Public Affairs
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
617-495-7462
daguilar@cfa.harvard.edu

Christine Pulliam
Public Affairs Specialist
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
617-495-7463
cpulliam@cfa.harvard.edu

Primary mission goal, find the ice that must be below the surface= RC EPIC FAIL for the dirtysnowball model!

Nope, you have not sourced your quote and the data that supports it.

So you are not participating in the JREF by the mores or the JREF. It is also common knowledge that angels exist, that does not mean that they do.

Inote that you are still using the PR description of a comet. that is truly great science.

 

[Dancing David]

Fifty Year old theory Revised! Sol88 suggests the whole Theory is Wrong!
Yeah right that is some headline. Considering you can not substantiate the idea that comets are asteroids by density, your theory needs a lot more than revision.

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2005/pr200523.html

"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.

As seen from Earth, a comet typically displays a fuzzy round head and a glowing tail. Both the head and tail consist of gases and dust ejected from the comet's nucleus - a frozen chunk of rock and ice about half the size of Manhattan Island.

Five decades ago, Harvard astronomer Fred Whipple developed a model of comet nuclei as "dirty snowballs." He hypothesized that comets consist of mostly ice with some dirt and rock mixed in. Modern astronomers often refer to comets as "icy dirtballs" instead, reflecting the prevailing view that comets contain more dust and less ice than previously believed.

 

[Tubbythin]

caused by....?

Certainly not by "electric". Whatever you mean by that.

 

[plong]

Thanks

lots of heated debate across this site on EU. I have been looking for some explanations without having any scientific training myself. So far I get the impression EU sounds nice and cosy but it can't stand up to the evidence and mainstream physics appears to be winning the detailed arguments. I get that there are lots of questions for mainstream to answer but EU seems a bit like filling in the gaps by saying "God did it". I'll keep watching with interest but I appreciate the time you guys take to put the arguments up...
Thanks again

 

[Sol88]

Fifty Year old theory Revised! Sol88 suggests the whole Theory is Wrong!
Yeah right that is some headline. Considering you can not substantiate the idea that comets are asteroids by density, your theory needs a lot more than revision.

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2005/pr200523.html

Fifty Year old theory Revised! Sol88 suggests the whole Theory is Wrong!

wrong headline DD should be:

Scientist get comet theory wrong for 50 years!, electrical theorist hold key to the universe!

Scientist were surprised to find recent data that seems to indicate that the spectacular display comets put on around their trip through the inner solar system, is electrical in nature.

Some of the high energy events recently detected coming from comets and usually expect from such exotic objects such Black holes, Neutron stars and Supernovae confirms a common link between all objects, electricity!

Electricity you think, like the stuff that makes your lights work, is abundant throughout the universe, as scientist have discovered. but this electricity does not follow wire like here on Earth but magnetic field lines and accelerated in something called a double layer, a new class of astrophysical object, suggested by Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén 50 years ago when scientist were still guessing as to the reason comets put on their spectacular displays for all to see.


Or something along those lines!

 

[Sol88]

Though it should read


Scientist get comet theory wrong for 50 years!, electrical theorist hold key to the universe!

Scientist were surprised to find recent data that seems to indicate that the spectacular display comets put on around their trip through the inner solar system, is electrical in nature.But a bunch of "crackpot" plasma and electrical theorist PREDICTED much of the outcome, up to the instruments resolution, for the Deep impact mission to comet Temple1

Some of the high energy events recently detected coming from comets and usually expected from exotic high energy objects such Black holes, Neutron stars and Supernovae confirms a common link between all objects, electricity!

Electricity you think, like the stuff that makes your lights work, is abundant throughout the universe, as scientist have discovered. But this electricity does not follow wires like here on Earth but magnetic field lines and accelerated in something called a double layer, a new class of astrophysical object, suggested by Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén 50 years ago when scientist were still guessing as to the reason comets put on their spectacular displays for all to see.

This puts at odds the long held belief that comets are left over dusty iceballs but really "rock", on an eccentric orbit around and through the sun's weak electric field, when a large enough potential develops a sheath will form around the comet and it will glow in X-rays/UV. This is what we've called the coma.

As the comets surface acts as a cathode in a complex plasma interaction with the Sun (via solar "wind") enough electrons are accelerated of the comets surface that a lot of the ions and molecules are "synthesized" via electric current interaction between the solar "wind" and the "rock" of the comets surface. It's simple being etched away as the pictures of comet Temple1 and Wild2 show.

What other surprises will scientist find when they try orbit a comet with the Rosetta mission.

 

[Reality Check]

As any intellegent person can see the electric comet model fails totally on two fundamental predictions for all comets.

• It predicts that comets will have densities ~3 gm/cm3.
  The actual measured densities are ~0.6 gm/cm3.
  EPIC FAILURE.
• It predicts that comets will emit multiple X-ray bursts from the electrical discharges.
  These multiple X-ray bursts are not seen.
  A glow of X-rays is seen, e.g. the first observation of X-rays was in 1996 for Comet Hyakutake. These X-rays surround the nucleus.
  Comet C/1999 S4: Chandra Solves Mystery Of Cometary X-Rays.
  EPIC FAILURE.

Electric Comets I, Electric Comets II: References and Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays.


And the "press release" below has a couple of outright lies that betray your total ignorance of physics and inability to read or understand simple English.

• Comets are not rocks.
• There is no electtrical "etching" because there are no electrical discharges.
• The high energy events (X-rays and UV emission) are exactly what we expect from what we know of comets.

You do get one thing right: the coma and tail are "electrical" in nature - to be more exact standard plasma physics.

Though it should read
Scientist get comet theory wrong for 50 years!, electrical theorist hold key to the universe!

Scientist were surprised to find recent data that seems to indicate that the spectacular display comets put on around their trip through the inner solar system, is electrical in nature.But a bunch of "crackpot" plasma and electrical theorist PREDICTED much of the outcome, up to the instruments resolution, for the Deep impact mission to comet Temple1

Some of the high energy events recently detected coming from comets and usually expected from exotic high energy objects such Black holes, Neutron stars and Supernovae confirms a common link between all objects, electricity!

Electricity you think, like the stuff that makes your lights work, is abundant throughout the universe, as scientist have discovered. But this electricity does not follow wires like here on Earth but magnetic field lines and accelerated in something called a double layer, a new class of astrophysical object, suggested by Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén 50 years ago when scientist were still guessing as to the reason comets put on their spectacular displays for all to see.

This puts at odds the long held belief that comets are left over dusty iceballs but really "rock", on an eccentric orbit around and through the sun's weak electric field, when a large enough potential develops a sheath will form around the comet and it will glow in X-rays/UV. This is what we've called the coma.

As the comets surface acts as a cathode in a complex plasma interaction with the Sun (via solar "wind") enough electrons are accelerated of the comets surface that a lot of the ions and molecules are "synthesized" via electric current interaction between the solar "wind" and the "rock" of the comets surface. It's simple being etched away as the pictures of comet Temple1 and Wild2 show.

What other surprises will scientist find when they try orbit a comet with the Rosetta mission.

 

[Dancing David]

Fifty Year old theory Revised! Sol88 suggests the whole Theory is Wrong!

wrong headline DD should be:

Scientist get comet theory wrong for 50 years!, electrical theorist hold key to the universe!

Scientist were surprised to find recent data that seems to indicate that the spectacular display comets put on around their trip through the inner solar system, is electrical in nature.

Some of the high energy events recently detected coming from comets and usually expect from such exotic objects such Black holes, Neutron stars and Supernovae confirms a common link between all objects, electricity!

Electricity you think, like the stuff that makes your lights work, is abundant throughout the universe, as scientist have discovered. but this electricity does not follow wire like here on Earth but magnetic field lines and accelerated in something called a double layer, a new class of astrophysical object, suggested by Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén 50 years ago when scientist were still guessing as to the reason comets put on their spectacular displays for all to see.


Or something along those lines!

It is all angels and monkeys Sol88, and your angels and your monkeys can't explain or model.

So where is that data that shows a comet is mostly rock?

 

[Dancing David]

What other surprises will scientist find when they try orbit a comet with the Rosetta mission.

And if it shows that a comet has a density much less than an asteroid, you will do what?

I will post an apology if it shows the density to be 3g/cm^2.

 

[Sol88]

It is all angels and monkeys Sol88, and your angels and your monkeys can't explain or model.

So where is that data that shows a comet is mostly rock?

Unfortunatly, you gotta pony up some dough to read them, but even PR from scientist involved in the mission make comments like this and it makes you wonder!

Comet's dust clouds hit NASA spacecraft 'like thunderbolt'

Comet's dust clouds hit NASA spacecraft 'like thunderbolt'

Two swarms of microscopic cometary dust blasted NASA's Stardust spacecraft in short but intense bursts as it approached within 150 miles of Comet Wild 2 last January, data from a University of Chicago instrument flying aboard the spacecraft has revealed.'

"We believe that we see fragmentation of large dust lumps into swarms of small particles after they are coming out from the nucleus," Economou said.

Could we call "swarms of small particles", charged particles and "dust"? and they are not fragmenting they are being "machined" by our 'ol fav EDM and collimated into "beams" away from the nucleus.

In between the particle swarms, the impact of which lasted just a few seconds each, the dust monitor went for periods of several minutes before it detected another particle.The dust monitor detected its first impact when Stardust was 1,010 miles from the cometary nucleus. The last impact was recorded at a distance of 3,500 miles as the spacecraft sped away. During one intense event, the dust monitor detected more than 1,100 impacts in one second. The largest particle measured during the cometary flyby measured an estimated 500ths of an inch in diameter.

Any ice?

Two swarms of microscopic cometary dust blasted NASA's Stardust spacecraft in short but intense bursts as it approached within 150 miles of Comet Wild 2 last January, data from a University of Chicago instrument flying aboard the spacecraft has revealed.

"These things were like a thunderbolt," said Anthony Tuzzolino, a Senior Scientist at the University of Chicago's Enrico Fermi Institute. "I didn't anticipate running into this kind of show." Tuzzolino and Thanasis Economou, also a Senior Scientist at the Fermi Institute, will report their findings in the June 17 issue of the journal Science.

And the findings said

Finally, in January 2004, Stardust encountered comet Wild 2 at a relative velocity of about 6 kilometers per second and a breathlessly close distance of 236 kilometers. Besides capturing cometary particles, the Stardust spacecraft used its scientific payload to obtain highly spatially and temporally resolved data on this extremely slow encounter of a unique kind. As described by Brownlee et al. (p. 1764), the optical navigation camera took 72 images (one every 10 seconds) and found an oddly shaped nucleus, pockmarked with depressions and ridges. The feature-rich surface suggests that this comet has cohesive strength and is not a porous ball of ice that would fall apart at the slightest perturbation [see the Perspective by Weaver for more details (p. 1760)]

As described by Kissel et al. (p. 1774), the time-of-flight mass spectrometer recorded spectra and found organic-rich matter as well as nitrogen- and sulfur-rich species. The images also showed jets coming out in all directions, and Sekanina et al. (p. 1769) concluded that these jets are narrow sheets of particles that burst forth from small sources on the tumbling comet. Levasseur-Regourd (p. 1762) puts these jets and their sources into

But no water and and this could well be interpreted as an electrical phenomena The images also showed jets coming out in all directions, and Sekanina et al. (p. 1769) concluded that these jets are narrow sheets of particles that burst forth from small sources on the tumbling comet. Levasseur-Regourd (p. 1762) puts these jets and their sources into perspective.

Like these "bright spots"??? http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~idh/apod/image/0507/tempel1_its_mov.jpg

or these http://www.babilim.co.uk/blog/jpg/wild-2_comet_from_stardust_probe.jpg



And why I think they may be all "rock" as Harold A. Weaver said

Over the past decade, a consensus had started to emerge that comets are essentially blobs of rubble held together by gravity. In his Perspective, Weaver discusses reports in the same issue by teams from the Stardust mission to comet Wild 2 that throw that picture into doubt. Images of the comet's nucleus show cratering that indicates substantial strength of a solid body. This suggests a more diverse range of nucleus types than previously thought and is sure to fire up debates over cometary structure. Wild 2 also shows unusual dust jet activity and some puzzling chemistry. But the biggest surprises may be still to come, as Stardust heads back to Earth with its payload of captured cometary material.

And found to contain high temp minerals, brilliant!!!

http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/highres/wild2_asteroids.jpg credit //stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/highres/wild2_asteroids.jpg

Edited to remove hotlinks. Please don't use hotlinks. Not even warmlinks.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[Dancing David]

Unfortunatly, you gotta pony up some dough to read them, but even PR from scientist involved in the mission make comments like this and it makes you wonder!

Comet's dust clouds hit NASA spacecraft 'like thunderbolt'



Could we call "swarms of small particles", charged particles and "dust"? and they are not fragmenting they are being "machined" by our 'ol fav EDM and collimated into "beams" away from the nucleus.



Any ice?



And the findings said



But no water and and this could well be interpreted as an electrical phenomena The images also showed jets coming out in all directions, and Sekanina et al. (p. 1769) concluded that these jets are narrow sheets of particles that burst forth from small sources on the tumbling comet. Levasseur-Regourd (p. 1762) puts these jets and their sources into perspective.

Like these "bright spots"??? http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~idh/apod/image/0507/tempel1_its_mov.jpg

or these http://www.babilim.co.uk/blog/jpg/wild-2_comet_from_stardust_probe.jpg



And why I think they may be all "rock" as Harold A. Weaver said



And found to contain high temp minerals, brilliant!!!

http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/highres/wild2_asteroids.jpg credit //stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/highres/wild2_asteroids.jpg

Edited to remove hotlinks. Please don't use hotlinks. Not even warmlinks.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

I asked you speccifically where the data is that shows that comets have a density comparable to an asteroid?

What data suggests that a comet has a density of 3g/cm^3?

 

[Sol88]

I asked you speccifically where the data is that shows that comets have a density comparable to an asteroid?

What data suggests that a comet has a density of 3g/cm^3?

speccifically where the data is? There is none.

What data suggest a more dense object? we are soaking in it!

The existence of these main-belt comets suggests that asteroids and comets are much more closely related than previously thought and supports the idea that icy objects from the main asteroid belt could be a major source of Earth's present-day water. This work appears in the March 23 edition of Science Express (pdf) and will also appear in an April print edition of Science. "The main-belt comets are unique in that they have flat, circular, asteroid-like orbits, and not the elongated, often tilted orbits characteristic of all other comets," said Hsieh. "At the same time, their cometary appearance makes them unlike all other previously observed asteroids. They do not fit neatly in either category."

In both 1996 and 2002, the "original" main-belt comet, 133P/Elst-Pizarro (named after its two discoverers), was seen to exhibit a long dust tail typical of icy comets, despite having the flat, circular orbit typical of presumably dry, rocky asteroids. As the only main-belt object ever observed to take on a cometary appearance, however, 133P/Elst-Pizarro's true nature remained controversial. Until now.

Whats going on DD?

 

[Dancing David]

So I take that as a "No, I don't have any data."

 

[Dancing David]

Four bodies that are both cometary and asteroidy. Out of how many?

 

[Sol88]

Four bodies that are both cometary and asteroidy. Out of how many?

Somewhere between a couple and a few!

When Asteroids Become Comets

The surprising discovery of asteroids with comet tails supports the longstanding claim of the electrical theorists—that the essential difference between asteroids and comets is the shape of their orbits

Main-Belt Comets and Other Belts

Comets are simply big lumps of ice and dust moving through space. Heat from the sun causes the ice to evaporate, and a trail of gas and dust is left behind as the object moves through space -- that's why comets have tails. The orbit of a main-belt comet, however, is much different from that of a regular comet, which usually circles the sun in a tilted, highly elliptical fashion like a stretched-out rubber band. Instead, a main-belt comet travels a fairly circular, level orbit, much like an asteroid.

 

[Dancing David]

Somewhere between a couple and a few!

When Asteroids Become Comets






Main-Belt Comets and Other Belts

3 main belt comets? <4

 

[Tim Thompson]

Comets Are Not "Rocks"

What would really be going on is the comet (a rock) ...

Now, about those "rocky" comets ...

I asked you specifically where the data is that shows that comets have a density comparable to an asteroid? What data suggests that a comet has a density of 3g/cm^3?

specifically where the data is? There is none.

OK, so much for the "science" of the rocky electric comets. Even our old friend Sol88 admits there are no data to support the claim.

So we are left with ...

What data suggest a more dense object?

But as I have already said ...

Comets cannot be "rocks". While comet masses are hard to constrain, they are not so extremely uncertain as to confuse "ice" and "rock". Comet densities are constrained to the range of about 0.3 to 1.5 gm/cm³ in numerous different ways, from dynamic orbit modeling to direct observation. Compare this to the density of water ice, 1.0 gm/cm³, and light "rocks" which range from 2-3 gm/cm³ (coal is the lightest "rock" at 1.1-1.4 gm/cm³; do you propose that comets are made of coal?). The average density of Earth is about 5.5 gm/cm³ due to the presence of heavier elements like iron (7.9 gm/cm³). Nothing with a density as low as 1.5 gm/cm³ can be considered a "rock" in any reasonable sense of the word. Comets are already known not to be rocks. For comet density references, see for instance Sosa & Fernandez, 2009; Richardson, et al., 2007; Weissman & Lowry, 2006.

And where does that leave us in the "comets are rocks" question?
Data favoring "rock": none.
Data favoring "not rock": lots.
Case closed, comets are not rocks.

 

[Sol88]

Now, about those "rocky" comets ...


OK, so much for the "science" of the rocky electric comets. Even our old friend Sol88 admits there are no data to support the claim.

So we are left with ...

But as I have already said ...

And where does that leave us in the "comets are rocks" question?
Data favoring "rock": none.
Data favoring "not rock": lots.
Case closed, comets are not rocks.

Ok Tim thompson, paint us a mental picture of what a comet would look/feel like, if I had a 10cm³ piece of it in my hot little hands?

How strong would that 10cm3 chunk be?

Would it be strong enough to support the OBSERVED surface relief of all comets imaged so far?

How is the "dust" held together?

What difference in composition would there be between say a main belt comet and a short period comet and would there be a great difference between long period comets and the rest?

yada yada yada....

There are just to many holes in the "mainstream" model for comets and the data from past missions lends far more support to the EC model!