The Electric Comet theory

[Reality Check]

If there where electric discharges that were not powerful enough to emit x rays then they should still be observable in the radio spectrum like white noise with crackles and pops and if they got powerful enough radiate into the x ray end of the spectrum.

No - unless you specify what the parameters of the electric discharges are and how they produce the "radio spectrum like white noise with crackles and pops".

Perhaps you can cite the EC paper that does this?

Have we observed and electrostatic noise? Whistlers? any electric discharge of any duration?

We have explained electrostatic noise and whistlers without unspecified electrical discharges.
I am unaware of any evidence for any "electric discharge of any duration" on or around comets.
Please cite the paper or textbook stating this.

 

[Reality Check]

Why then can we not point our telescopes at a comet nucleus and take a few happy snaps? why cant we usually see the nucleus?

Beacuse comets do not emit much light. Nothing to to with the light hat they absorb.

How does it sustain the jet for any length of time? instead of just a pressure build up and explosive release?

Because there is sustained heat - the Sun is quite constant.

So wouldn't the dust shade the surface of the comet? but still retains enough oomph to cause the bright patches from where the jets originate!

The dust is not an umbrella so it does not "shade the surface of the comet". Sunlight heats up the dust which as you know is so dark that it is very good at absorbing sunlight. The heat then travels through the dust and heats the interior. All the dust does is slow down the heat transfer and not by much as you quoted

The temperature map matches the topography of the nucleus, with the hottest areas close to the subsolar point. This is an indication that the thermal inertia is low (Groussin et al. 2006), probably lower than 100 J m
2 K
1 s
1/2 ( hereafter these units are referred to as ‘‘MKS’’).

 

[Reality Check]

How does the electric comet idea explain main-belt comets

Sol88,

How does the electric comet idea explain main-belt comets?

Note that if you give the answer that I expect then you will invalidate the EC idea (hint: consider asteroids, where they are and their movements).

 

[tusenfem]

My guess:
Electrostatic noise = heavy ion pickup (standard electromagnetism)
Whistler waves = plasma interactions (standard plasma physics).

ETA
If someone knew how to use Google they would find:
Whistler wave cascades in solar wind plasma
A Wave-Wave Interaction in Whistler Frequency Range in Space Plasma

I think the paper by Laakso explains a lot, maybe our solly boy should read it.

 

[Sol88]

I think the paper by Laakso explains a lot, maybe our solly boy should read it.

Can you PM me a copy?

 

[Sol88]

Sol88,

How does the electric comet idea explain main-belt comets?

Note that if you give the answer that I expect then you will invalidate the EC idea (hint: consider asteroids, where they are and their movements).

You mean this one?

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.

MBC

MBCs must have only "turned on" recently. Once they enter the inner solar system and begin outgassing for the first time, comets from the outer solar system typically only remain active for about 10,000 years before having most of their ice sublimated away and going dormant, or losing so much mass that they simply disintegrate. All indications are that the MBCs have occupied their current orbits in the inner solar system since the solar system's formation, 4.6 billion years ago. Had they been outgassing since then, they would have exhausted their ice supplies long ago and could not possibly be active now. Instead, they must have been dormant until very recently.

or else what could it be?

 

[Sol88]

Comet Wild 2

This is an ideal opportunity to examine the picture of Wild 2 from the perspective of the electric universe model of comets. Briefly, in that model a comet is a highly negatively charged body with respect to the Sun. Like all charged bodies in plasma, a comet will be enveloped in a plasma sheath (the coma) that limits the reach of the comet's electric field. A forbidden oxygen line was discovered in Comet Austin's coma. "Forbidden lines" are spectral signatures that are not expected in space because here on Earth they are found only within strong electric fields. To astronomers' surprise, forbidden lines are common in space, not only in comets, but in nebulae and galaxies. A cometary display is produced when the nucleus discharges at a rate sufficient to generate a visible tail. The dust and gases that form the comet''s tail are not evaporated by the heat of the sun, but instead are electrically 'machined' from the nucleus by cathode arcs. Laboratory examination of cathode arcs shows that they jump around on the cathode surface, removing surface material in jets to form small circular craters. The industrial process of Electric Discharge Machining (EDM) uses this feature to erode a surface to accurate depth

Google it

 

[tusenfem]

Can you PM me a copy?

probably not, because one cannot put attachments in pms.

 

[tusenfem]

"Forbidden lines" are spectral signatures that are not expected in space because here on Earth they are found only within strong electric fields. To astronomers' surprise, forbidden lines are common in space, not only in comets, but in nebulae and galaxies.

I guess Mr. Holocrap does not really know what "forbidden lines" are. And no, on the Earth they are not "only within strong electric fields." Forbidden lines are just lines created by energy level changes with a very low probability. (so actually it should be "semi-forbidden") Astronomers are hardly surprised to see them, actually, they are used very often in astronomy. For a fuller definition:

forbidden line An emission line in a spectrum that is emitted only by a low-density gas, as in interstellar regions and nebulae. Such a line is said to be forbidden because it does not occur under normal conditions on Earth, where gases are denser. A forbidden line is produced when an electron jumps from an upper energy level, where it can remain for a long time, to a lower level; such a jump, or transition, is said to have a very low transition probability. In the Earth's atmosphere, the excited atom would collide with other atoms or free electrons and lose energy in the collision (without producing a photon) long before it could radiate the energy away. However, in the low densities of interstellar space and the regions around hot stars, collisions are extremely rare and there is time for the spontaneous decay to occur. Forbidden lines are denoted by square brackets, such as the [O III] lines of doubly ionized oxygen. Forbidden lines disappear above a certain critical density (typically about 108 atoms/cm3), and so their existence is an indicator of density in interstellar gas. A semi-forbidden line, designated with a single square bracket, such as C III], occurs where the transition probability is about a thousand times higher than for a forbidden line.

Sheesh the crap that comes from holo.

 

[Reality Check]

You mean this one?

When Asteroids Become Comets

MBC

or else what could it be?

I want you to be totally sure of this.
You seem to be stating that EC claims comets and asteroids are exactly the same. The only difference between them is their orbit. They have exactly the same density and composition.
Thus main-belt comets ony differ from main-belt asteroids because of their orbit. They do not have icy crusts that sublimate (like comets) when they are closer to the Sun.

If you are sure of this then
What is the difference in orbit that makes a main-belt asteroid into a main-belt comet?

Can you guess what I am leading up to yet?

 

[Sol88]

I want you to be totally sure of this.
You seem to be stating that EC claims comets and asteroids are exactly the same. The only difference between them is their orbit. They have exactly the same density and composition.
Thus main-belt comets ony differ from main-belt asteroids because of their orbit. They do not have icy crusts that sublimate (like comets) when they are closer to the Sun.

If you are sure of this then
What is the difference in orbit that makes a main-belt asteroid into a main-belt comet?

Can you guess what I am leading up to yet?

No please tell me!

Is eccentricity that you are alluding to?

 

[Reality Check]

No please tell me!

Is eccentricity that you are alluding to?

I think that I will keep what I am leading up to as a surprise.
But it should be obvious to anyone who has any knowledge of astronomy.

I will make the question a bit more clear:

I want you to be totally sure of this.
You seem to be stating that EC claims comets and asteroids are exactly the same. The only difference between them is their orbit. They have exactly the same density and composition.
Thus main-belt comets ony differ from main-belt asteroids because of their orbit. They do not have icy crusts that sublimate (like comets) when they are closer to the Sun.

If you are sure of this then
What is the numeric difference in orbit parameters (e.g. eccentricity) that turns a main-belt asteroid into a main-belt comet?

 

[Reality Check]

Comets may not have the composition of asteriods

Hi Sol88, I noticed that in the last post I assumed that the electric comet idea has comets with the same composition as asteriods. You have not disagreed with this so far. So here is the science (not as clear cut as the different densities of comets and asteroids).

Physical composition of asteroids

The physical composition of asteroids is varied and in most cases poorly understood. Ceres appears to be composed of a rocky core covered by an icy mantle, whereas Vesta is thought to have a nickel-iron core, olivine mantle, and basaltic crust,[15] and 10 Hygiea appears to have a primitive composition of undifferentiated carbonaceous chondrite. Many, perhaps most, of the smaller asteroids are piles of rubble held together loosely by gravity.

Meteorites also suggest that "Asteroids are believed to contain traces of amino-acids and other organic compounds".

Physical composition of comet nuclei

They are composed of rock, dust, water ice, and frozen gases such as carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane and ammonia.[9]
They are often popularly described as "dirty snowballs", though recent observations have revealed dry dusty or rocky surfaces, suggesting that the ices are hidden beneath the crust (see Debate over comet composition). Comets also contain a variety of organic compounds; in addition to the gases already mentioned, these may include methanol, hydrogen cyanide, formaldehyde, ethanol and ethane, and perhaps more complex molecules such as long-chain hydrocarbons and amino acids.[10][11][12]

This suggests that the composition of comets and asteroids differ in that comets have the addition of frozen gases while asteroids generally do not have frozen gases (but may have icy crusts).

 

[Sol88]

Don't forget the space charge it's moving thru!

Also what cycle the Sun is in!

 

[Reality Check]

Don't forget the space charge it's moving thru!

Also what cycle the Sun is in!

What is the equation that the electric comet idea uses to determine the effect of "space charge it's moving thru" and "what cycle the Sun is in" on a rocky body?

For a first go we can neglect the effects.

Have you found the orbit parameters yet?
I would have thought that someone who was an expert in the electric comet idea would have found it sooner (you did research it throughly before becoming such a fan?).

Or is the electric comet idea useless?

 

[Sol88]

What is the equation that the electric comet idea uses to determine the effect of "space charge it's moving thru" and "what cycle the Sun is in" on a rocky body?

For a first go we can neglect the effects.

Have you found the orbit parameters yet?
I would have thought that someone who was an expert in the electric comet idea would have found it sooner (you did research it throughly before becoming such a fan?).

Or is the electric comet idea useless?

Well, we'll start with Mercury and our Moon if you'd like!

Mainstream call them magnetic tornadoes or "flux transfer events" and "sputtering" and these happen on those rocky bodies!

Yes the orbital parameters are all on wiki if you'd like to look!

Also there are only four MBC's discovered so far!

The fact that three MBCs have now been discovered from relatively limited observational data indicates that there are probably many more waiting to be discovered.

LINK

Be interesting to see what else they find amongst the asteroids/comet

 

[Reality Check]

...snipped nonsense...

Are you acknowledging that the electric idea is useless with this nonsense?

Or do you want to answer the question:
I want you to be totally sure of this.
You seem to be stating that EC claims comets and asteroids are exactly the same. The only difference between them is their orbit. They have exactly the same density and composition.
Thus main-belt comets ony differ from main-belt asteroids because of their orbit. They do not have icy crusts that sublimate (like comets) when they are closer to the Sun.

If you are sure of this then
What is the numeric difference in orbit parameters (e.g. eccentricity) that turns a main-belt asteroid into a main-belt comet?

 

[Sol88]

Are you acknowledging that the electric idea is useless with this nonsense?

Or do you want to answer the question:
I want you to be totally sure of this.
You seem to be stating that EC claims comets and asteroids are exactly the same. The only difference between them is their orbit. They have exactly the same density and composition.
Thus main-belt comets ony differ from main-belt asteroids because of their orbit. They do not have icy crusts that sublimate (like comets) when they are closer to the Sun.

If you are sure of this then
What is the numeric difference in orbit parameters (e.g. eccentricity) that turns a main-belt asteroid into a main-belt comet?

Yep you are correct!

On March 22, 2006, astronomers (including David Jewitt and Henry Hsieh) announced that the near circular orbits of some icy asteroids in the outer reaches of the Main Asteroid Belt suggest that they are part of a population of "main belt comets." Three objects have been found with near circular, flat orbits in the main belt occasionally stream volatile materials, producing an observable tail for weeks and months at a time as their orbits bring them closer to the Sun. The astronomers speculate that past impacts on Earth from such inner comets may have been an important source of the water now found in Earth's oceans (IFA press release and web site on main-belt comets; and Jewitt et al, 2006).

More will be found, when they look for them as David Jewitt and Henry Hsieh said. It's interesting to note that like all comets they start to display on their inward journey and according to standard EC theory these MBC would be low voltage comets as they spend most of their time in the same area of the Sun's radial electric field.

 

[Sol88]

have a look at these comets(asteroids)

THE ACTIVE CENTAURS

We observed a sample of 23 Centaurs and found nine to be active,
with mass-loss rates measured from several kg s−1 to several tonnes s−1. Considered as a group, we find that the
“active Centaurs” in our sample have perihelia smaller than the inactive Centaurs (median 5.9 AU versus 8.7 AU),
and smaller than the median perihelion distance computed for all known Centaurs (12.4 AU).

 

[Reality Check]

Yep you are correct!

You missed:
What is the numeric difference in orbit parameters (e.g. eccentricity) that turns a main-belt asteroid into a main-belt comet?

More will be found, when they look for them as David Jewitt and Henry Hsieh said. It's interesting to note that like all comets they start to display on their inward journey and according to standard EC theory these MBC would be low voltage comets as they spend most of their time in the same area of the Sun's radial electric field.

Yep you are correct - more MBC will be found. We may find 100 times more so that they will be much as 0.04% of asteroids.

And thank for confirming that MBC are actual EC comets.
Can you cite the "standard EC" source for your information?

This gives a hint for the answer to the first question. MBC are comets and so their eccentricity is the minimum eccentricity needed for a rocky body to be a comet.
Does your "standard EC" source give a value of ~0.16 for this minimum eccentricity?