The Electric Comet theory

[Zeuzzz]

how would you like your crow, RC, Tusenfem, Dancing David, Zeuss?

Medium rare please Though pheasant would be nicer.

 

[Sol88]

Medium rare please Though pheasant would be nicer.

Orders up!

one medium rare pheasant

 

[tusenfem]

how would you like your crow, RC, Tusenfem, Dancing David, Zeuss?

typical EU/EC/ES/PU/PC nonsense.

NOBODY, I repeat NOBODY ever claimed that the water production through interaction of the SW with the surface of moon/mercury/asteroids/comets... is not possible. Experiments have shown that indeed it is possible to create water group ions by that process. What you seem to forget, crowserver, is that you have to get the QUANTITY of water that is observed in cometary comas, in Enceladus' plumes, etc. etc.

If you would present some real calculations about how much water will be produced and whether or not it is compatible with the estimated and measured amounts in the various objects that you want to have this process working, THEN maybe we can talk.

So basically, PUT up or SHUT up, but I am sure you will do neither.

 

[Dancing David]

ETA RC


What's your take RC? comet or asteroid?

snip



Oh ohhh!!! let's spout the usual nonsense, in the same context as comets "water ice" replenishment, as follows

But wait there's more the electric universe says this is the most likely option, same as the moon, mercury, comets and now asteroids!



Booya!!!

There may be no need for NASA's "hidden" ices, they are made right out of the solar wind!

RC said

Oh and check out it's density!

how would you like your crow, RC, Tusenfem, Dancing David, Zeuss?

How about citing your source?

 

[Sol88]

How about citing your source?

Sorry http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/48174/title/Ice_confirmed_on_an_asteroid

 

[Dancing David]

You ignored this:

One possibility is that ice lies buried several meters below the surface of the roughly 160-kilometer-wide asteroid and makes its way to the top when the asteroid is pummeled by space debris. Norbert Schörghofer of the University of Hawaii at Manoa proposed last year that ice can persist for billions of years just below the surface of a dusty space rock if the asteroid’s surface temperature is less than about 145 kelvins. The temperature of 24 Themis lies in that range.

And then you are mixing quotes like this one:

without any other citation or reference:

Another option is that an action similar to the recent findings of water on the Moon, where solar wind interacts with a rocky body without an atmosphere to create H2O and OH molecules. Without an atmosphere, the body is exposed to solar wind, which includes hydrogen ions. The hydrogen is able to interact with oxygen in surface of the asteroid to create water molecules.

So it is more confusing than usual, maybe you should outline your posts before typing?

And check out the denisty?

is that just a random thought?

 

[Reality Check]

What's your take RC? comet or asteroid?

Ice confirmed on an asteroid.
It is an asteroid. Someone cannot read which is not a surprise since we now know that they cannot tell that 3 is greater thanb 0.6.

Are you so ignorant that you do not know that comets have tails?

how would you like your crow, Sol88

 

[Sol88]

Ice confirmed on an asteroid.
It is an asteroid. Someone cannot read which is not a surprise since we now know that they cannot tell that 3 is greater thanb 0.6.

Are you so ignorant that you do not know that comets have tails?

how would you like your crow, Sol88

Tell me RC, where is 24 Themis's tail, coma et cetera? 'Cos you know it should be sublimating at taht distance! as stated

At the asteroid’s average distance from the sun — 3.2 times Earth’s distance to the sun — frozen water on the surface would readily vaporize, noted Campins. That means the ice must be continually replenished, possibly by a reservoir of frozen water within the rock, he speculates.

Hidden reservoirs of ice? Like a comets hidden ices?

The presence of frozen water on 24 Themis also suggests that some asteroids resemble comets, becoming active suddenly and venting material into space when pockets of ice vaporize, Campins noted.

some asteroids resemble comets, some comets resemble asteroids???? But 24 Themis can not be a comet because of it's density, it's more like an asteroid's density! but it's got water ice on it's surface and has "hidden" water somewhere! If it sported a coma and tail it would be a comet! If not it's an asteroid!!

All seems very confusing eh?

 

[Reality Check]

Tell me RC, where is 24 Themis's tail, coma et cetera? 'Cos you know it should be sublimating at taht distance! as stated

The probable reason that 24 Themis does not have a tail is because it does not have enough ice to have a tail. The detection is of ice on the surface - I did not see any mention of amounts.

But since you are an expert on comets rolleyes: ) you should be able to tell us exactly how much ice was found on 24 Themis and a calculated size of it's coma and tail.

But a better question and actually relevant to this thread:
Tell me Sol88, Where is its tail?
According to EC it must have one - it is an rocky body after all!
The minimum eccentricity observed from comets is 0.0279.
The eccentricity is 24 Themis is 0.13.
Thus according to EC is has to be a comet (even if no water was detected on it).

In case you have forgotten to read yet again:

Real universe: There are at least 173,583 asteroids (rocky bodies) that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value that are not comets. This includes asteroids that have been observed for decades.
There are 459,893 asteroids with eccentricities greater than the minimum observed eccentricity of comets (0.0279).
EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets

All seems very confusing eh?

Only to you .

 

[Sol88]

The probable reason that 24 Themis does not have a tail is because it does not have enough ice to have a tail. The detection is of ice on the surface - I did not see any mention of amounts.

But since you are an expert on comets rolleyes: ) you should be able to tell us exactly how much ice was found on 24 Themis and a calculated size of it's coma and tail.

But a better question and actually relevant to this thread:
Tell me Sol88, Where is its tail?
According to EC it must have one - it is an rocky body after all!
The minimum eccentricity observed from comets is 0.0279.
The eccentricity is 24 Themis is 0.13.
Thus according to EC is has to be a comet (even if no water was detected on it).

In case you have forgotten to read yet again:



Only to you .

How much ice to form a tail RC? How much ice was found on the surface of 9p/Temple 1? that had a tail!

you therefore mean 24 Themis has less surface ice than Temple 1 and thats the reason there is no tail and coma?

whoo boy!

There was not even enough "surface ice" to form temple 1's tail and coma

The total area of exposed water ice is significantly less than that required to support the observed ambient outgassing from the comet, which likely has additional source regions below the surface.

LINK likely has additional source regions below the surface why would that be the most likely source??? because the dirtysnowball model would land flat on it's arse if "hidden" ice majik spell was not invoked!!!

try again sport!

How hidden is that water RC?

 

[Reality Check]

How much ice to form a tail RC? How much ice was found on the surface of 9p/Temple 1? that had a tail!

I do not know. How much ice to form a tail Sol88?

you therefore mean 24 Themis has less surface ice than Temple 1 and thats the reason there is no tail and coma?

No I do not mean that.

whoo boy!

There was not even enough "surface ice" to form temple 1's tail and coma

LINK likely has additional source regions below the surface why would that be the most likely source??? because the dirtysnowball model would land flat on it's arse if "hidden" ice majik spell was not invoked!!!

try again sport!

How hidden is that water RC?

We report the direct detection of solid water ice deposits exposed on the surface of comet 9P/Tempel 1, as observed by the Deep Impact mission. Three anomalously colored areas are shown to include water ice based on their near-infrared spectra, which include diagnostic water ice absorptions at 1.5 and 2.0 micrometers. These absorptions are well modeled as a mixture of nearby non-ice regions and 3 to 6% 10- to 50-micrometer-size water ice particles. These particle sizes are larger than those ejected during the impact experiment, suggesting that the surface deposits are loose aggregates. The total area of exposed water ice is significantly less than that required to support the observed ambient outgassing from the comet, which likely has additional source regions below the surface.

try again sport!
Because the EC idea is so dumb that only the truly gullible (or impaired - see below) could believe it.

Since your Alzheimer's seems to be acting up yet again :
Deep Impact showed that the % of water in Comet Tempel 1 was between 20% and 50%.
I hope that you can tell the difference between 0.1% and 20% !


Actually let us be serious Sol88.
I am getting quite worried about you. You display the following symptoms:

• An inability to tell the relative size of numbers, e.g. that 3 is greater 0.6.
• Either your memory is really short term (the measured amount of water on Comet Tempel 1 has been told to you many times before) or your reading comprehension has been destroyed.
• The inability to answer questions (this may be related to the previous 2 symptoms), e.g.
  Tell me Sol88, Where is its tail?
  According to EC it must have one - it is an rocky body after all!
  The minimum eccentricity observed from comets is 0.0279.
  The eccentricity is 24 Themis is 0.13.
  Thus according to EC is has to be a comet (even if no water was detected on it).

IMHO (as a non doctor) this looks like a major brain injury (a stroke?).
Have you mentioned these symptoms to your doctor?

 

[Reality Check]

Lets have a look at another interesting asteriod: Eros
We know a lot about this asteroid because we have actually landed a spacecraft on it!

An eccentricity of 0.223 is more then the main-belt comets and lots more then the minimum eccentricity of comets. According to EC it should be a comet. It is not. Yet another of the 100,000's of nails in EC's coffin.

 

[Sol88]

Lets have a look at another interesting asteriod: Eros
We know a lot about this asteroid because we have actually landed a spacecraft on it!

An eccentricity of 0.223 is more then the main-belt comets and lots more then the minimum eccentricity of comets. According to EC it should be a comet. It is not. Yet another of the 100,000's of nails in EC's coffin.

Any detection of water or ice? The asteroids electrical environment was measured as well I trust?

They did look didn't they?

In 2006, scientists reported that at least three bodies in the outer part of the main belt demonstrate classical cometary behavior, and defined a new class of bodies called the main belt comets. This followed the 2005 discovery that the largest main belt asteroid, Ceres, must contain a lot of water ice. All of these formed in the same places as the asteroids but have retained liquid water over the age of the solar system. Many main belt asteroids may in fact contain a lot of ice, especially in the outer part of the belt; the line separating asteroids and comets is growing increasingly fuzzy.

LINK

look out RC, there's a fuzzy line!

 

[Sol88]

try again sport!
Because the EC idea is so dumb that only the truly gullible (or impaired - see below) could believe it.

Since your Alzheimer's seems to be acting up yet again :
Deep Impact showed that the % of water in Comet Tempel 1 was between 20% and 50%.
I hope that you can tell the difference between 0.1% and 20% !

Tell me since my Alzheimer's seems to be acting up yet again, where did they find the 20% - 50% of water in comet Temple 1? On the surface? just under the surface? Really really deep under the surface?

Come on RC your smart rolleyes where was the bulk of the OH measured?

My Alzheimers is that bad I can only remember vanishingly small % surface ice was found on Temple 1 as stated in a post not long back

Quote:
The total area of exposed water ice is significantly less than that required to support the observed ambient outgassing from the comet, which likely has additional source regions below the surface.

So what can we ad hoc together so we don't look like fools? I know lets "hide" the water deep under the surface!!! brilliant science that

 

[Reality Check]

Tell me since my Alzheimer's seems to be acting up yet again, where did they find the 20% - 50% of water in comet Temple 1? On the surface? just under the surface? Really really deep under the surface?

Come on RC your smart rolleyes where was the bulk of the OH measured?

My Alzheimers is that bad I can only remember vanishingly small % surface ice was found on Temple 1 as stated in a post not long back

So what can we ad hoc together so we don't look like fools? I know lets "hide" the water deep under the surface!!! brilliant science that

As your Alzheimer's really seems to be acting up : Results of the Deep Impact mission.

Interesting little fact: Searching for "Deep Impact" in this thread gives 59 results. And you still do not understand the results .

 

[Reality Check]

More on Comet 9P/Tempel 1 from the Planetary Society.

ETA:
A reason for the small amount of surface ice on Tempel 1 and other comets

The temperature was up to 329 Kelvin (56 Celsius, 133 Fahrenheit) on the sunlit side, and was as cold as 260 Kelvin (–13 Celsius, 9 Fahrenheit) on the nighttime side. So, everywhere that Deep Impact could see, the comet was hotter than the temperature at which ices of water, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide would sublimate. In other words, any ice present at Tempel 1's surface would quickly turn into a gas. It's only at some depth below the surface that temperatures stay cold enough all the time that the Sun can't heat the comet enough to evaporate the ice.

This suggests to me that the observed patches of surface ice are there only because of their correlation with jets. They are debris from the jets.

 

[Reality Check]

Comet Tempel 1 has extremely low strength and low porousity

Another interesting paper about Tempel 1:
Why is the Deep Impact crater on Comet Tempel 1 so large?

The crater produced by the impact of the Deep Impact projectile on Comet 9P/Tempel 1 was not visible from the spacecraft due to ejection of optically thick dust. However, the crater size can be estimated from the total mass of the ejecta cloud of 107 - 108 kg as seen by remote observers. Assuming that all of the mass in the crater left the comet, the corresponding cratering efficiency (mass of the material in the crater divided by impactor mass) is 2.5 x 104 - 2.5 x 105, or 1 - 2 orders of magnitude higher than expected for the impact velocity of Deep Impact (10.2 km/s) from impact experiments into porous ice/dust mixtures (e.g. Koschny and Grün, Icarus 154, 391, 2001; Holsapple, Icarus 191, 586, 2007). Only impacts into materials of extremely low strength (< 100 Pa) and of low porousity can create such large crater ejecta masses. Since comets are expected to be more porous and of somewhat higher strength (at the spatial scale of the impact), we investigate alternative possibilities to explain the large amount of observed dust and gas. All the material was created in less than an hour after the impact; therefore the sublimation from the freshly created surface (impact crater) is negligible for the total mass. However, due to the low thermal inertia of the cometary surface layer, the impact suddenly exposed extremely cold material to the surface of the nucleus. We will discuss possible mechanisms of prompting a small cometary outburst immediately after the impact, caused by solar heating of that freshly exposed material.

(emphasis added)

This does not sound like a rocky body to me.

 

[Reality Check]

A collection of problems with the EC idea

(updated to add the "Comet Tempel 1 has extremely low strength and low porousity" post)

EC universe: Comets are rocky bodies, comparable to asteriods and probably created in the same event as asteriods (according to Thunderbolts).



Real universe:

1. Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).
2. Comets may not have the composition of asteriods
3. Deep Impact confirmed that comet nuclei are made of dust and ice not rock. There were a couple of surprises in that the dust was talcum powder rather than sand and the amount of ice was smaller than expected.
   "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[35] and between 10 and 25 million kilograms (22 and 55 million pounds) of dust were lost from the impact."^WPThus the water content of Comet Tempel 1 is 20% to 50%.
4. The nucleus of Comet Tempel 1 has extremely low strength and low porousity which rules out it being a rocky body.

EC universe: Comet jets, coma and tails are created from material that that is created from rock by electrical discharge machining.(but according to solrey EDM does not mean EDM in the EC universe!).

Real universe:

Start with Tim Thompson's posts about this

• Electric Comets I
• Electric Comets II: References
• Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (actually no EU X-ray bursts).

Then look at

• The EC assumption of EDM machining does not produce jets.
• EDM in the EC idea needs a dielectric material which does not exist!
• No EDM sparks are seen in images of comet nuclei.
• No EDM hot spots are seen in thermal maps of Tempel 1.
• Voltage potentials are many orders of magnitude too small.

EC universe: Rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value will be comets.N.B. Solar activity may cut tails in two but there have been no observations of comets turning off during low solar activity.(Sol88: I may be wrong - if so please provide the citations to these marvelous events.)

However this assertion has the fatal flaw of EC predictions - no mathematics or numbers.
But we can do their work for them can't we Sol88?

There are 4 observed main-belt comets with a minimum eccentricity of 0.1644 (133P/Elst-Pizarro). So the EC minimim must be this (or lower!).

Real universe: There are at least 173,583 asteroids (rocky bodies) that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value that are not comets. This includes asteroids that have been observed for decades.
There are 459,893 asteroids with eccentricities greater than the minimum observed eccentricity of comets (0.0279).
EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets


EC universe: solrey pointed out in this post that EC idea expects that the voltage potential a comet experiences would be orders of magnitude higher than that of the cloud to ground voltage potential in a thunderstorm (10⁹ volts).
"Several" is more than a couple so the EC idea expects a voltage drop around a comet of at least 10¹² volts.

Real universe: tusenfem pointed out that "Electric Fields and Cold Electrons in the Vicinity of Comet Halley" by Harri Laakso gave the measured potential drop between electrical layers around Comet Halley as 50 kV in this post. This is 10,000 times less than the thunderstorm potential and 10,000,000 times less that requires by the EC idea.


EC universe: Only give qualitative predictions.
Sol88 posted a list of EC "predictions" for Tempel 1 and Deep Impact. The closes it gets to an actual quantitative predictions is "The most obvious would be a flash (lightning-like discharge) shortly before impact." (emphasis added).

What actually happened was a flash on or after impact followed by a bigger one from deeper in the nucleus (according to NASA).

Real universe: Scientific theories model the data mathematically and produce both qualitative and quantitative predictions.




Someone could start with the papers of Whipple

1. Whipple, Fred L. (1950). "A Comet Model. I. The acceleration of Comet Encke". Astrophys. J. 111: 375–394.
2. Whipple, Fred L. (1951). "A Comet Model. II. Physical Relations for Comets and Meteors". Astrophys. J. 113: 464.
3. Whipple, Fred L. (1955). "A Comet Model. III. The Zodiacal Light". Astrophys. J. 121: 750.

and then go ointo the 1000's of scientific papers and many textbooks about comets. Tim Thompson recommened Introduction to Comets by Brandt & Chapman (Cambridge University Press, 2004, 2nd edition).


EC universe: Turn yourself into a crackpot idea by not publishing papers in peer reviewed journals.
Real universe: Take the risk being wrong and become part of the scientific process by publishing papers in peer reviewed journals, e.g. Fred L. Whipple.

 

[solrey]

Only impacts into materials of extremely low strength (< 100 Pa) and of low porousity can create such large crater ejecta masses. Since comets are expected to be more porous and of somewhat higher strength (at the spatial scale of the impact), we investigate alternative possibilities to explain the large amount of observed dust and gas.

(emphasis added)

RC wrote:
This does not sound like a rocky body to me.

ROFLMAO.

Low porosity equals high density. Low strength equals brittle.

As in a ROCKY BODY.

ROFLMAO

Debating this group of mental midgets is just a waste of time.

 

[Reality Check]

duplicate