The Electric Comet theory

[Dancing David]

Dancing David:

You still struggling with rock aquiring charge in a plasma "wind"???

TRY & THIS LUNAR ELECTRIC FIELDS, SURFACE
POTENTIAL AND ASSOCIATED PLASMA SHEATHS*
J. W. FREEMAN and M. IBRAHIM
Dept. of Space Physics and Astronomy, Rice University, Houston, Tex., U.S.A.
Intersting to note DD is the very first opening line!!!

I'll highlight it for you, please understand this is were the "charge" comes from,



So if the electric field centre on the Sun has a higher charge (is more positive) than the comet nucleus, there will be a charge difference.

And I think we can all agree on the fact charges like to equilize!

which brings me to the next point,

And again, what makes the coma?

You pretend to know where the charge comes from, but lets see it is being bathed in this plasma stream, what makes for a charge difference from the stream?

Are you saying that a comet charged by the polarity of the sun, will be a different polarity from the sun?

And you do know that the solar wind has both positive and negative charges?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

What electrical effects are you refering too?

Do you mean these:
one of the highest resolution image yet of these enigmatic solar flux tubes.
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1011/spicules_nso_big.jpg
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap101102.html

Or these effects in this picture of Enceladus
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0911/enceladus12_cassini_big.png

So many of the ANOMALIES OF COMETS leave NASA scratching their heads but the new data/evidence seems to favour the EU/PC team over at Thunderbolts
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/arch10/101105hartley.htm

I'm not RC, but Tom Bridgman has a website which includes detailed information on this topic, including many entries which very effectively demolish the basis of EU ideas.

For example:
Electric Universe: Plasma Modeling vs. 'Mystic Plasma'
Electric Universe: Everything I needed to know about science I learned from watching Star Trek?
Electric Universe: Lunar electric fields
"Electric Sun Verified"?? - In your dreams...
The REAL Electric Universe.

But let me ask you this, Haig: in the Electric Sun-based idea of comets, can a comet have a net charge greater than that of the electrons in a comparable volume of the interplanetary medium (at comparable distance from the Sun)?

 

[Haig]

I'm not RC, but Tom Bridgman has a website which includes detailed information on this topic, including many entries which very effectively demolish the basis of EU ideas.

Hi DRD, thanks for the links, I haven't heard of Tom Bridgeman before but I'll take some time to read his views as soon as I can.

But let me ask you this, Haig: in the Electric Sun-based idea of comets, can a comet have a net charge greater than that of the electrons in a comparable volume of the interplanetary medium (at comparable distance from the Sun)?

As a interested layman and just giving my take on what I've read. My answer is yes it can. This difference in charge sets up a Langmuir Sheath or plasma double layer and this forms the coma and tail. You would get a far better answer if you posed this question on the Thunderbolts forum but I'm sure you know that.

Let me ask you a couple of questions:
In 2005 Deep Impact’s 820-pound impactor collision with Comet Tempel 1 caused a flash/spark before actual contact. How was this possible?

Also, the actual impact produced a reaction that blinded the instruments of, Deep Impact, the mothership. Such was the scale of this second flash. Where did the energy come for this? Bearing in mind it wildly exceeded NASA predictions.

Thunderbolt answers to these questions make a lot of sense, particularly since they sucessfully predicted the first part, the flash before contact.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

As a interested layman and just giving my take on what I've read. My answer is yes it can. This difference in charge sets up a Langmuir Sheath or plasma double layer and this forms the coma and tail. You would get a far better answer if you posed this question on the Thunderbolts forum but I'm sure you know that.

When you've had a chance to read through Bridgman's many entries on EU/PC ideas, you'll understand why posting questions in the TB forum is, essentially, a waste of time; in a nutshell, despite the clearly posted aims, there is essentially nothing there that resembles modern science.

Let me ask you a couple of questions:
In 2005 Deep Impact’s 820-pound impactor collision with Comet Tempel 1 caused a flash/spark before actual contact. How was this possible?

You might like to check your sources for this claim ... it's been repeated a huge number of times by EU/Electric Sun proponents, but there is no basis for the claim, from analysis of the raw Deep Impact data (AFAIK). Worse, as the original source of the EU/ES claim seems to be Thornhill, and as he is a well-known academic fraud, the constant repetition speaks volumes for EU supporters' critical thinking capabilities.

Also, the actual impact produced a reaction that blinded the instruments of, Deep Impact, the mothership. Such was the scale of this second flash. Where did the energy come for this? Bearing in mind it wildly exceeded NASA predictions.

Again, you might like to check your sources for this claim.

Thunderbolt answers to these questions make a lot of sense, particularly since they sucessfully predicted the first part, the flash before contact.

Really?!?

Would you care to present the actual predictions (not post-dictions), in their entirety, here? FWIW, these so-called predictions have been ripped to shreds, several times, in several internet fora; strangely the complete lack of any meaningful rebuttals, by EU/ES proponents, has never made it to the TB forum, which is rather telling given their loudly proclaimed assertion of adherence to the scientific method.

 

[ben m]

TRY & THIS LUNAR ELECTRIC FIELDS, SURFACE
POTENTIAL AND ASSOCIATED PLASMA SHEATHS*
J. W. FREEMAN and M. IBRAHIM
Dept. of Space Physics and Astronomy, Rice University, Houston, Tex., U.S.A.
Intersting to note DD is the very first opening line!!!

Yes, this charge is (a) very small---a few hundred volts on the Moon--- (b) carries very little energy and (c) does not discharges. It's the stable quasiequilibrium configuration of charges when the Coulomb force is opposed by diffusion in a plasma---not some giant store of energy that's waiting for a plasma to show up and discharge it. The plasma created this charge.

(ETA) Note that an article saying "Solar wind plasma physics predicts a -100V plasma-induced electrostatic potential on the Moon" might as well say "Solar wind plasma physics does NOT charge the moon up to 10^12 gazillion volts", "Solar wind plasma does NOT behave one one hand like a magic high-voltage power supply, and at the same time like a screwdriver violently shorting out that power supply". "These interesting, true, and publishable results were obtained by professional physicists, by applying Maxwell's Equations and other standard physics techniques to modern data; not by exegesis of pre-space-age Alvfenic aphorisms."

 

[Reality Check]

What electrical effects are you refering too?

All of the electrcial effects mentioned in astrophysics papers.
You know - the ones "Uncle Wal" ignores.
But I suspect thatwhat Wally means by "electrical effects" is the claims of the various brands of pseudo-science called electrical universe/sun/comet/lets ignore the actual physics and observations and label it electrical.

Do you mean these:
one of the highest resolution image yet of these enigmatic solar flux tubes.
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1011/spicules_nso_big.jpg
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap101102.html

No.
Solar flux tubes are solar magnetic flux tubes.

Or these effects in this picture of Enceladus
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0911/enceladus12_cassini_big.png

Defintely not - these are jets.
You need to learn some astronomy.

 

[Reality Check]

Let me ask you a couple of questions:
In 2005 Deep Impact’s 820-pound impactor collision with Comet Tempel 1 caused a flash/spark before actual contact. How was this possible?
...
Thunderbolt answers to these questions make a lot of sense, particularly since they sucessfully predicted the first part, the flash before contact.

Thunderbolt is lying.

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).

Also, the actual impact produced a reaction that blinded the instruments of, Deep Impact, the mothership. Such was the scale of this second flash. Where did the energy come for this? Bearing in mind it wildly exceeded NASA predictions.

The instruments Deep Impact were not "blinded". Some pixels were momentarily saturated.
Let me ask you a couple of questions:
Have you heard of kinetic energy?
Do you know that the impactor was travelling really, really fast?

 

[Sol88]

Yes, this charge is (a) very small---a few hundred volts on the Moon--- (b) carries very little energy and (c) does not discharges. It's the stable quasiequilibrium configuration of charges when the Coulomb force is opposed by diffusion in a plasma---not some giant store of energy that's waiting for a plasma to show up and discharge it. The plasma created this charge.

(ETA) Note that an article saying "Solar wind plasma physics predicts a -100V plasma-induced electrostatic potential on the Moon" might as well say "Solar wind plasma physics does NOT charge the moon up to 10^12 gazillion volts", "Solar wind plasma does NOT behave one one hand like a magic high-voltage power supply, and at the same time like a screwdriver violently shorting out that power supply". "These interesting, true, and publishable results were obtained by professional physicists, by applying Maxwell's Equations and other standard physics techniques to modern data; not by exegesis of pre-space-age Alvfenic aphorisms."

Lets try -4000v

encountered
(e.g. Fig. 1).
In addition, surface electric fields also likely contribute
to dust charging and transport. There is substantial
observational support for dust levitation a few
meters above the surface [9], and some evidence for
dust transport to much greater altitudes [10] and highly
accelerated dust [11].

LINK

Oh and the Moon has water!!

So BenM lets try and read from the same page eh? Space is full of plasma 99.9 % actualy and yes I'm aware that it is quasi-nuteral but stick a rock in the way and bingo, CHARGE SEPERATION!!! now question is what happens when the charges wants to get back together, 'cos charges do that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity

You may like to read up about it

hint: you may also want to note that an electric current causes a magnetic field may help you understand just what the EU is all about!!

 

[Sol88]

Thunderbolt is lying.



The instruments Deep Impact were not "blinded". Some pixels were momentarily saturated.
Let me ask you a couple of questions:
Have you heard of kinetic energy?
Do you know that the impactor was travelling really, really fast?

the impactor was travelling really, really fast!! No it was travelling really, really, really fast!!!

In fact it was so fast it made two flashes!!! that's how fast it was going

Have you heard of kinetic energy?

Yeah and the MATHS boffins and very clever Physicists esimated 4.5t of TNT, it exceeded those expectation by quite some amount....why?? Don't they feed enough penuts to the monkeys?

Uncle Wal predicted the two flashes regardless of the mechanisim and that the impact would be more energetic than the boffins 4.5t of TNT.

So far not one prediction fromthe mainstream has help up, funny that!

 

[ben m]

Lets try -4000v LINK

-4000V? On the whole moon? Sol88, have you ever done anything with that number? I just did. Calculate how much energy is stored by the excess charge on a 4000V moon. It's about one kilojoule. It's not enough electrical energy to brew a cup of coffee. It's not enough energy to fire a camera flashbulb. It's about the energy you get from eating one Tic Tac.

So BenM lets try and read from the same page eh? Space is full of plasma 99.9 % actualy and yes I'm aware that it is quasi-nuteral but stick a rock in the way and bingo, CHARGE SEPERATION!!!

Yes, tiny static amount of charge separation, creating barely any voltage, storing practically no energy, and (listen carefully) NOT DISCHARGING. These are static conditions.

now question is what happens when the charges wants to get back together, 'cos charges do that.

Not if they're still in the diffusion situation that separated them to begin with. Anyway, if they DO "get back together", nothing happens. There's no energy there to do anything visible.

Now I remember why I had you on ignore for years, Sol88.

 

[Sol88]

BenM please place me on ignore again, after you show math you used to work out the moon has energy equivalent to one tic tak!

Remember it's only half the moon in sunlight (+ 100'sV) and the other half is in lunar night (- 1000'sV) your tic tak can launch dust into space!!

Where can I get one of your tic taks from?

 

[Reality Check]

the impactor was travelling really, really fast!! No it was travelling really, really, really fast!!!

In fact it was so fast it made two flashes!!! that's how fast it was going

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

Yeah and the MATHS boffins and very clever Physicists esimated 4.5t of TNT, it exceeded those expectation by quite some amount....why?? Don't they feed enough penuts to the monkeys?

Yeah and we only have your assertion

1. that was the prediction and
2. that it was wrong.

You though are so ignorant that you cannot grasp the simple fact that the measured density of comet nuclei is ~0.6 g/cc, the measured density of asteroids is ~3.0 g/cc and that 0.6 is less than 3.0 !

Don't they feed you enough penauts?

Uncle Wal predicted the two flashes regardless of the mechanisim and that the impact would be more energetic than the boffins 4.5t of TNT.

So far not one prediction fromthe mainstream has help up, funny that!

You remain persistently ignorant (i.e. delusional) what Uncle Wal Thornhill's prediction was and that he got it wrong.

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).

So now we have the beginning of a list of your delustions:

1. You think that 0.6 is less than 3.0 .
2. You think that "shorly before" is "on or after".

Any more ignorance that you want to permanently record for the world to view?

So far lots of predictions from the mainstream has held up, funny that!

 

[Reality Check]

The totally stupid electric comet idea debunked

Since Sol88 is back, lets expand the total debunking of the electric comet idea.
Thank Sol88 for continuing to point just how idiotic the EC idea is !

EC universe: Sol88 is of course just regurgitating the crackpot fantasies of the Thunderbolts web site. The authors of the site (and the books it is set up to sell to the gullible) are David Talbot and Wal Thornhill. How good is their physics?
They have a list of EC "predictions" for Tempel 1 and Deep Impact. The closest it gets to an actual quantitative prediction is "The most obvious would be a flash (lightning-like discharge) shortly before impact." (emphasis added). He was wrong and the web site continues to lie about this: there was a flash on or after the impact not "shortly before".
Real universe: Lightning like all electrical discharges requires a dielectric (insulating) medium to break down to from a conduction path for the discharge. But comets are surronded by plasma. Plasma is a conducting medium (about as consucting as a metal in general). Thus no electrical discharges are possible.

EC universe: They have a list of EC "predictions" for Tempel 1 and Deep Impact which include: "An abundance of water on or below the surface of the nucleus (the underlying assumption of the “dirty snowball” hypothesis) is unlikely."
Real universe: An "abundance" of water ice was found on the surface of Tempel 1.

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. Cometary dust as collected by the Stardust mission contain forms of carbon that are not in meteorites.
   Thus comets are not meteorites.
   Meteorites are rocky bodies (meteoroids and sometimes asteroids) that have reached the Earth's surface.
   Therefore comets are not meteoroids or asteriods.
   (or How Sol88 cannot stop shooting himself in the foot)

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.

Water, water everywhere (except in the EC idea)
EC universe: Comets are rocky bodies, comparable to asteroids and probably created in the same event as asteroids (according to Thunderbolts). Comet jets, coma and tails are created from material (e.g. water) that that is created from rock by electrical discharge machining. Like everything in the EC idea there are no numbers and so no prediction of the composition of the nucleus. We could say that means that the EC idea predicts no water (0%) but there should be some blowback from the physically impossible (on comets) EDM process.
Asteroids in general have very low amounts of water. So let's just throw in 1% water as an extremely generous guess - IMHO it should be something like 0.01%. Sol88 or solrey should provide a better number if they have it.

Real universe: Comets are bodies with a mixture of rock and ices of various compounds, e.g. CO and water. They are have been described as "dirty snowballs". The volatile material (ices) is heated by the Sun and sublimates to form jets, the coma and the tail.This is supported by actual physical evidence, i.e. the results of the Deep Impact mission where the impact ejected material from the nucleus that was composed of 20-50% water and 80-50% dust.

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). Total fail by Thornhill


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 recommended Introduction to Comets by Brandt & Chapman (Cambridge University Press, 2004, 2nd edition).

EC comets switch off at perihelion
EC universe: An EC prediction is that comets will switch off (or to be charitable to the EC idea they will be less bright) at perihelion.
Real universe: We observe that comets are brightest at perihelion .

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

EC Universe: Turn yourself into a crackpot by quoting press releases and news articles. This has the added advantage of revealing your ignorance of the scientific literature.
Real Universe: Real scientists cite published scientific papers and textbooks.

 

[Reality Check]

Where are the measurements of the Tempel 1 impact exceeding the expected energy

Yeah and the MATHS boffins and very clever Physicists esimated 4.5t of TNT, it exceeded those expectation by quite some amount....why?? Don't they feed enough penuts to the monkeys?

Yeah: You need to get your facts right.
The MATHS boffins and very clever Physicists esimated 19 Gigajoules (equivalent to 4.8 ton of TNT). Even Thunderbolts got that number right.
Sol88:
First asked 8 November 2010

Before I add this to the list of delusions that we expect from EC cranks:

• How much is "quite some amount"?
  • 0.00001%?
  • 0.1%?
  • 100%?
  • 1,000,000%?
• Where are the measurements of the Tempel 1 impact exceeding the expected energy?

The MATHS boffins and very clever Physicists then measured (as far as I can see) 17 Gigajoules.
Energy balance of the Deep Impact experiment

We present results on the energy balance of the Deep Impact experiment based on analysis of 180 infrared spectra of the ejecta obtained by the Deep Impact spacecraft. We derive an output energy of 16.5 (+9.1/−4.1) GJ. With an input energy of 19.7 GJ, the error bars are large enough so that there may or may not be a balance between the kinetic energy of the impact and that of outflowing materials. Although possible, no other source of energy other than the impactor or the Sun is needed to explain the observations.

You have not been able to understand that the measured density of comet nuclei is ~0.6 g/cc, the measured density of asteroids is ~3.0 g/cc and that 0.6 is less than 3.0.
So trust me: The number 17 is less then the number 19. It does not exceed 19.

 

[Dancing David]

BenM please place me on ignore again, after you show math you used to work out the moon has energy equivalent to one tic tak!

Remember it's only half the moon in sunlight (+ 100'sV) and the other half is in lunar night (- 1000'sV) your tic tak can launch dust into space!!

Where can I get one of your tic taks from?

Too bad , you don't understand math. And where does the statitc launch dust into space? And a Life Saver will giver you a bigger charge.

Um, so you think that the charge on the moon is concentrated in one point?

 

[ben m]

BenM please place me on ignore again, after you show math you used to work out the moon has energy equivalent to one tic tak!

Done and done.

Capacitance encountered when adding charge to a sphere of radius R:
C = 4 pi R epsilon_0

Energy stored by a capacitor C charged up to voltage V:
E = 1/2 C V^2

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Done and done.

Capacitance encountered when adding charge to a sphere of radius R:
C = 4 pi R epsilon_0

Energy stored by a capacitor C charged up to voltage V:
E = 1/2 C V^2

You realise, of course, that to Sol88 what you wrote is completely unintelligible?

I must say that one of the most amazing things about EU/PC proponents like Sol88 is not the profound ignorance of classical electromagnetism (much less even the plasma physics of the Godhead, Alfvén), but the evident pride in such gross ignorance!

 

[ben m]

You realise, of course, that to Sol88 what you wrote is completely unintelligible?

Yes, I do.

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Deep Impact

In 2005 Deep Impact’s 820-pound impactor collision with Comet Tempel 1 caused a flash/spark before actual contact. How was this possible?

No, there was no emission of any kind prior to the actual impact. There was an initial relatively faint flash, followed by a second bright flash 0.124 seconds later. The initial faint flash was in fact the actual impact, and not a flash prior to actual impact. That faint initial flash is consistent with pre-mission laboratory experiments and indicates impact at a grazing angle of about 30 degrees onto a low density target with a relatively dark surface. Here are 3 relevant papers from the Lunar and Planetary Science bulletin:

• Deep Impact: The First Second (March 2006)
• Photometric Evolution of the Deep Impact Flash (March 2006)
• Initial Stages of the Deep Impact Collision (March 2007)

The latter paper tells us that vaporization of organic rich surface materials will result initially in a relatively faint visible plume.

Also, the actual impact produced a reaction that blinded the instruments of, Deep Impact, the mothership. Such was the scale of this second flash. Where did the energy come for this?

The brightness comes from sunlight reflected off of highly reflective material underneath the relatively dark surface. That's why the initial plume is faint, the surface is dark. Once the bright material underneath is liberated, which takes about 0.1 seconds, reflected sunlight saturates the detector. Your assumption that some extraordinary "energy" is involved is a serious mis-interpretation of what is actually happening. The brightness is purely reflected sunlight and nothing more than that. The saturation is strictly a consequence of the sensitivity setting of the detector. The plume in reality may have not looked bright to a human eye at all, but will have looked very bright to a detector set to a very low threshold. Without knowing exactly how sensitive the detector was, there is no way to judge the true brightness of the flashes.

Bearing in mind it wildly exceeded NASA predictions.

Wrong on two counts. First, NASA did not make any predictions; scientists who publish predictions, even if funded by NASA, never speak for NASA. The organization, NASA, never made any predictions. Groups or individual scientists did, but all of their published predictions were fairly general, "order of magnitude" statements, and mostly explicitly model dependent. However, none of the actual Deep Impact results were in any way "wildly" inconsistent with the published predictions.

Thunderbolt answers to these questions make a lot of sense, particularly since they sucessfully predicted the first part, the flash before contact.

If they predicted a flash before contact then that prediction was a failure, as there was no flash before contact.

 

[dafydd]

the impactor was travelling really, really fast!! No it was travelling really, really, really fast!!!

In fact it was so fast it made two flashes!!! that's how fast it was going

Yeah and the MATHS boffins and very clever Physicists esimated 4.5t of TNT, it exceeded those expectation by quite some amount....why?? Don't they feed enough penuts to the monkeys?

Uncle Wal predicted the two flashes regardless of the mechanisim and that the impact would be more energetic than the boffins 4.5t of TNT.

So far not one prediction fromthe mainstream has help up, funny that!

Is English your first language?