The Electric Comet theory

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

But Sol88 seems to have a kind of simple minded idea about how thing can/are working in such missions.

You've identified yet another example of Sol88's pride in his ignorance, albeit this time the pride seems somewhat muted.

Among the many responses to Sol88's posts, going back quite a long time, are some which explain the strengths and limitations of instruments on spaceprobes such as Deep Impact (well, at least some of the more obvious strengths and limitations); presumably Sol88 at least read these responses.

Sadly, rather than understanding and later using this free knowledge, Sol88 seems to have completely ignored it! Perhaps he didn't understand it? But then why not ask questions until he did?

Then, months' later, Sol88 repeats the same mistakes he's made earlier, thus providing clear evidence of not only ignorance but also pride in that ignorance.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Bright spots are ... what?

How much information can we pull from the whiteout areas?

In the absence of information about the imaging instrument we can pull no information at all about the relatively bright or dark features in any image, period. What would those bright spots look like if you were standing there and looking at them with your eyes (ignoring for a moment the problem of death by vacuum)? Are the bright spots bright because the instrument is saturated? Or perhaps because the contrast has been stretched in post processing? If we had multi channel photometry, we might be able to say something about what materials or compounds the spots are made of, but we have no such information.

So, in short, you ask us (and me in particular) what the bright spots in the various images are. My answer is that the data you present (press release images only) is very much insufficient to give any answer to the question at all.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Flux Rope & CME

Anyone read this paper in full? In the abstract magnetic energy stored in the corona via reconnection is dismissed. Seems like EU/PC concepts are coming more into the mainstream and this, indirectly, supports the electric comet idea – discuss please.

First, there is no paper to read, only an abstract. Unless you were there to hear the talk, this abstract is all there is. Second, these are not EU/PC ideas, but have in fact been mainstream ideas in solar physics for decades. Indeed, even the statement in the abstract ("In this talk, I will present a new concept ... ") is clearly not true as stated, since the sole author of the abstract, James Chen, has already delivered several talks & papers on this very topic over the last several years (e.g., Kunkel & Chen, 2010; Chen, 2008; Chen & Kunkel, 2008; Kunkel & Chen, 2008; Kunkel, et al., 2007; Krall, et al., 2006; Krall, St. Cyr & Chen, 2005 & etc.)

Now the abstract Haig posted ...
Physics of Solar Coronal Mass Ejections
"The traditional models, which envision releasing magnetic energy stored in the corona via reconnection (accomplished by specified and/or numerical dissipation in these models), have not produced quantitative agreement with the observed CME acceleration and propagation to 1 AU. In this talk, I will present a new concept that does not require reconnection and yields model CME dynamics in good quantitative agreement with data. The underlying magnetic structure is a flux rope, and the basic driving force is the toroidal Lorentz hoop force acting on a flux rope with two legs anchored in the Sun. The force equations were originally derived for axisymmetric toroidal tokamak equilibria by Shafranov, but the basic physics can be adapted to the dynamics of nonaxisymmetric solar flux ropes. The initial flux rope is driven out of equilibrium by increasing its poloidal flux. The calculated acceleration and subsequent propagation of model CMEs have been shown to correctly replicate the observed CME dynamics from the Sun to 1 AU, with the computed plasma and magnetic field parameters at 1 AU in close agreement with the in situ SW data. The increasing poloidal flux produces an electromotive force (EMF) that is sufficient to accelerate particles to X-ray energies. The predicted temporal profile of the EMF given by the best-fit solution to the observed CME trajectory is found to closely coincide with that of the observed associated solar flare X-ray intensity."

Now, since the abstract itself is all we have, no supporting paper to read, we must guard against over-interpreting what the author has to say. As I have already noted, it is quite wrong to interpret this as some kind of move for EU/PC ideas into the mainstream. Also pay attention to this from the abstract: "... magnetic energy stored in the corona via reconnection ...". It is wrong to interpret this as a repudiation of magnetic reconnection altogether by the author, only a claim that magnetic reconnection as an energy transfer mechanism in the corona. See, for instance, Krall, et al., 2006, wherein we find this (emphasis mine)...

"To drive the flux rope out of equilibrium, an increase in the flux rope helicity is specified, which, in this case, increases the poloidal flux from its initial value of 1.5 × 10²² G cm² to a final value of 7.4 × 10²² G cm². This occurs very rapidly, over a period of 18 minutes. The interpretation of this helicity increase has been discussed at length elsewhere (Krall et al. 2001; Chen & Krall 2003). Here we say only that the origin of the helicity increase is not specified in the model and that it might be due to either macroscopic reconnection, as in the arcade–to–flux rope models (Miki & Linker 1994; Antiochos et al. 1999; Chen & Shibata 2000; Amari et al. 2000; Linker et al. 2001; Cheng et al. 2003), or to an unknown subphotospheric process that drives current along the length of the flux rope (Chen 1996)."​

Chen is a co-author of this paper, and they are clearly not dropping magnetic reconnection, since they rely on it as one possible way to generate the helicity of the flux rope.

So, all that said, one must ask the obvious question: What now is the actual point of citing this abstract? First, despite claims to the contrary, this has absolutely nothing at all to do with the topic of electric comets. Second, it has nothing at all to do with EU/PC ideas entering the mainstream. And thirdly, there is nothing in this abstract that is not perfectly consistent with the long term expression of mainstream physics in flares & CME's.

Finally, let me conclude with a comment. As a general rule, EU/PC ideas do not come into the mainstream. Rather, the adherents of EU/PC distort mainstream ideas and adopt them into the EU/PC ideas, for the sole & single purpose of confusing the unwary. They put up ideas that "sound good" or 'look good" to people with no experience in the relevant science, but fail the test of consistency whenever they are subject to the real tests of real physics.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Magnetic Reconnection Redux XIV

As a interested layman and just giving my take on what I've read.

As for overgeneralization ….. Well what do you expect from a layman ;-)

Yes, I know but it's a big step away from the dead end of magnetic reconnection theory.

If you are, as you say, a layman, then how do you know that magnetic reconnection theory is a "dead end"? What personal knowledge of your own tells you this? Or perhaps it is enough for you to simply parrot something that someone else tells you to say? How many plasma physics courses have you taken? How many plasma physics texts have you read?

Here are examples from my own posts on magnetic reconnection:

• Magnetic Reconnection Redux XIII
• Magnetic Reconnection Redux XII
• Comments on Magnetic Reconnection III

These messages also link to several earlier messages, forming a small network discussing the mainstream science (both theory and observation) of magnetic reconnection physics. Can you tell me for yourself, based on your own personal knowledge, where I have made mistakes? After all, if you actually know that magnetic reconnection is a "dead end", then you must certainly know where the mistakes are in my earlier posts.

 

[Reality Check]

"ice" it is then!

No: could be ice !

I know what they are not - anything contained in The totally stupid electric comet idea that has been debunked!
Thank you once again Sol88 for pointing out how utterly insane the electric comment idea is.


As for the bright spots, I would guess:

• Sunlight reflecting from reflective surfaces like water ice.
• Some look like whiter material revealed by the jets.
• Others could be internal material deposited by the jets.
• or something else that I do not know about.

And of course all of the stuff that you do not know about since you are too lazy to do the research..

 

[Reality Check]

Yes you are correct RC, they site does indeed say exactly what the bright spot are....they're bright spots and we dont know why they are there!!!

But the jets seem to issue from bright "spots"

You really cannot understand what you read but that is not a surprise from someone ignorant enough to believe in the EC idea (see The totally stupid electric comet idea that has been debunked!)

What I said was

• I do not know what the bright spts are.
• There are probably various causes for the bright spots.

I am not every person in th eworld. I am (thankfully) not you.
So in words of Tonto: Tonto's reply, "Who do you mean we, pale-face?"

 

[John Hewitt]

Yes, the bright spots in mainstream think are "ice" are they???

I recall seeing comets discussed recently on "Sky at Night" - it may have been this month's and still available on iPlayer. The suggested cause of those bright spots, and it is just my recollection, was dry ice, solid CO2, subliming of from the surface at it approached closer to the sun.

Information not guaranteed - purely recollection.

 

[Reality Check]

I recall seeing comets discussed recently on "Sky at Night" - it may have been this month's and still available on iPlayer. The suggested cause of those bright spots, and it is just my recollection, was dry ice, solid CO2, subliming of from the surface at it approached closer to the sun.

Information not guaranteed - purely recollection.

Unfortunately that is not what Sol88 is asking.
He is demanding that we explain all of (possibly each individually!) the bright spots observed on comet nuclei. The answer is obvious: lots of causes (including sublimation of ices from the surface).

I suspect that he has the typical crank delusion: That if we cannot explain something then it must be caused by his favorite theory, i.e. the totally debunked electric comet idea.
There are two fundamental flaws in this

1. If the theory is already physically impossible then it cannot explain anything.
   For example, the idea of electrical discharges between the surface of a comet nuclei and some vague spot out in space is physically impossible. Electrical discharges happen when a dielectric (insulating) medium between 2 surfaces with different potentials breaks down allowing current to flow between the surfaces. But comet nuclei are not surrounded by a dielectric medium. They are surrounded by their coma which is a plasma and plasmas are highly conductive.
2. He commits the fallacy of false dichotomy.

 

[John Hewitt]

Unfortunately that is not what Sol88 is asking.
He is demanding that we explain all of (possibly each individually!) the bright spots observed on comet nuclei. The answer is obvious: lots of causes (including sublimation of ices from the surface).

I suspect that he has the typical crank delusion: That if we cannot explain something then it must be caused by his favorite theory, i.e. the totally debunked electric comet idea.
There are two fundamental flaws in this

1. If the theory is already physically impossible then it cannot explain anything.
   For example, the idea of electrical discharges between the surface of a comet nuclei and some vague spot out in space is physically impossible. Electrical discharges happen when a dielectric (insulating) medium between 2 surfaces with different potentials breaks down allowing current to flow between the surfaces. But comet nuclei are not surrounded by a dielectric medium. They are surrounded by their coma which is a plasma and plasmas are highly conductive.
2. He commits the fallacy of false dichotomy.

My only point in saying this was from the context in which I have previously seen those photos.

I hope Sol88 does not get the impression that I support whatever point you might be making. In fact, I cannot discern any point in your posts. If there is one, it is probably swamped by their pointlessly inflammatory tone.

 

[Reality Check]

My only point in saying this was from the context in which I have previously seen those photos.

I hope Sol88 does not get the impression that I support whatever point you might be making. In fact, I cannot discern any point in your posts. If there is one, it is probably swamped by their pointlessly inflammatory tone.

The point of my posts is to point out that the electric comet idea has been totally debunked. That seems fairly obvious.

There is no inflammatory tone.
Sol88 is supporting an idea that has been thoroughly debunked. His continued support of a debunked idea by definition makes him a crank. His tactics in this thread confirm that he is a crank, e.g. his continued inability to understand the simple reasons why the idea is invalid and his latest question asking that we supply him with explanations of all of the "bright spots" in images of comet nuclei.
It is not inflammatory to state how Sol88 is presenting himself in this forum.

I hope that you have read The totally stupid electric comet idea that has been debunked! and understood just how debunked the idea is. The "stupid" part of the title comes from the basic mathematical incompetence of the idea: It starts with the assumption that comets are rocks. But rocks such as asteriods have average densities of ~3.0 g/cc. The minimum density of any rock is 1.0 g/cc (otherwise you have a lump of ice). The measured density of comemts is ~0.6 g/cc.
The rest of that post basically goes through the physics that the electric comet idea violates or ignores. There is some emphasis that the Thunderbolts web site is a crank web site that is essentially there to sell some books.

 

[Sol88]

I hope Sol88 does not get the impression that I support whatever point you might be making. In fact, I cannot discern any point in your posts. If there is one, it is probably swamped by their pointlessly inflammatory tone

Not at all, I'm just pointing out the inconsistency in the "standard' Model and then weighing up the options for what's left. Seems the what's left bit is plasma, which we can study in the lab!

 

[Sol88]

Reality Checks reality extends to

As for the bright spots, I would guess:

* Sunlight reflecting from reflective surfaces like water ice.
* Some look like whiter material revealed by the jets.
* Others could be internal material deposited by the jets.
* or something else that I do not know about.

And of course all of the stuff that you do not know about since you are too lazy to do the research..

Now take comet 17P/Holmes This "shiny" comet had an outburst of dust and gas as wiki quotes

Although normally a very faint object, Holmes became notable during its October 2007 return when it temporarily brightened by a factor of about half a million, in what was the largest known outburst by a comet, and became visible to the naked eye. It also briefly became the largest object in the solar system, as its coma (the thin dissipating dust ball around the comet) expanded to a diameter greater than that of the Sun (although its mass remained minuscule).[2]

And even though this little comet held onto it's enormous coma the sunlight was still able to penetrate all the way to the nucleus and all the way back out and still show the nucleus?? How did a comet with next to no mass hold onto an extended atmosphere of dust and gas against a stiff solar wind?

Credit: University of Hawaii/CFHT (comet); NASA/Voyager (Saturn); NASA/ESA/SOHO (sun)

EU says the coma is a double layer or plasma sheath around am object of different charge to the local plasma electrical environment. The rest we can study in a lab here on Earth.

One of the signs to look out for if the coma is indeed a double layer is to look for X-Rays.

Ohh

Or the interruption to the flow of the solar wind

Deep Space 1 took measurements with its plasma instruments between 90,000 kilometers (56,000 miles) and 2,000 kilometers (1,200 miles) away. These data show that the flow of ions around the comet's rocky, icy nucleus is not centered on the comet's nucleus as scientists expected before the Borrelly flyby. Ions in the turbulent flow are heated to about 1 million Kelvin (2 million degrees Fahrenheit).

LINK


It's fairly straight forward I would have thought!

 

[tusenfem]

Now take comet 17P/Holmes This "shiny" comet had an outburst of dust and gas as wiki quotes

And even though this little comet held onto it's enormous coma the sunlight was still able to penetrate all the way to the nucleus and all the way back out and still show the nucleus?? How did a comet with next to no mass hold onto an extended atmosphere of dust and gas against a stiff solar wind?

But that is not true, now, is it? A comet is constantly losing mass, it is not holding on to anything, if it were it would not have a dust and an ion tail, and the dust and ions are constantly created by the interaction with the solar radiation and the solar wind.

Sunlight can very easily get to the surface of the comet's nucleus, because the density of the coma around a comet is small. For example the derived column density of H₂ is 3E13 cm^-2 for comet Borelly. Now on Earth, the atmospheric depth at the surface is 1E3 g/cm², which I will leave for Sol88 to convert to a number column density (N² has atomic mass 2*14 and m^p = 1.7E-24 g), so it is a wonder acutally, that the Earth's surface get so much sunlight according to Sol88.

EU says the coma is a double layer or plasma sheath around am object of different charge to the local plasma electrical environment. The rest we can study in a lab here on Earth.

And what does the excellent paper by Laakso say?
And where are the studies of comets in a laboratory?

One of the signs to look out for if the coma is indeed a double layer is to look for X-Rays.

How strong does a DL have to be to make it emit X-rays? Can you please show a paper that discusses this?

Or the interruption to the flow of the solar wind LINK

It's fairly straight forward I would have thought!

Ahhhhh, ions heated to 1 million Kelvin!!! wow that would be like 100 eV, sounds a lot in temperature, but in real units is shows that it is zilch, protons would be moving at 0.129 T^1/2 = 129 km/s, much LESS than the solar wind speed. I guess it is really impressive for holoscience, but rather pathetic in real science.

Sol88, why not start stamp collecting as a hobby instead of EU "physics," looks to me it would be more suited.

 

[Aitch]

Sol88, why not start stamp collecting as a hobby instead of EU "physics," looks to me it would be more suited.

Oi! Don't diss the stamp collectors.

I have quite a nice (but small) collection of George VI Rhodesian (and other African countries) stamps. And an almost complete collection of Edward VIII (including middle east overprints). My thematic collection (motorcycles) is coming on, too,

 

[Reality Check]

ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Lying about flashes

Sol88 has brought up the crank ThunderBolts web site again and the list of EC "predictions". I mentioned a couple of these in The totally stupid electric comet idea that has been debunked!
So let's look at some of these predictions individually and in detail to show just how incompetent the authors of the EC idea are. That way I can reduce the above post in size as Sol88 is insisting in supplying even more material to debunk the EC idea.

All Thunderbolt quotes are from their Predictions Confirmed page.

Ignorance and lying about the impact flashes
Thunderbolt prediction:

They would likely be similar to those of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 prior to striking Jupiter’s atmosphere: The most obvious would be a flash (lightning-like discharge) shortly before impact.

The ignorance is obvious: Electrical discharges (like lightning) require a dielectric (insulating) medium to break down to form a conduction path for the discharge between the surfaces with a voltage difference. But comets are surrounded by plasma. Plasma is a conducting medium (about as conducting as a metal in general). Thus no electrical discharges are possible.

So the prediction is physically impossible.

N.B. The prediction does not state that there will be a flash on or after impact. However this is what was expected.

The result was a flash on or after impact followed by a bigger one from deeper in the nucleus according to NASA.
See the papers cited in Tim Thompson's Deep Impact post.

ThunderBolts "confirmed" result:

First, there is a small flash, then there's a delay, then there's a big flash and the whole thing breaks loose.

They are lying because their prediction (a flash shortly before impact) failed. They do not state what was actually seen, i.e. a flash on or after impact.

 

[Dancing David]

Not at all, I'm just pointing out the inconsistency in the "standard' Model and then weighing up the options for what's left. Seems the what's left bit is plasma, which we can study in the lab!

Seems you have a hard time actually describing the inconsistencies. And so you suggest something impossible.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Electric Comets & X-rays Redux

How did a comet with next to no mass hold onto an extended atmosphere of dust and gas against a stiff solar wind?

As our friend tusenfem has pointed out, the question is based on a false premise: In fact, the comet did not hold on to any extended atmosphere at all, nor does any comet. In the case of 17P/Holmes, we can consult for instance Hsieh, et al., 2010, which presents an interesting & relevant abstract.

We present wide-field imaging of the 2007 outburst of Comet 17P/Holmes obtained serendipitously by SuperWASP-North on 17 nights over a 42-night period beginning on the night (2007 October 22-23) immediately prior to the outburst. Photometry of 17P's unresolved coma in SuperWASP data taken on the first night of the outburst is consistent with exponential brightening, suggesting that the rapid increase in the scattering cross-section of the coma could be largely due to the progressive fragmentation of ejected material produced on a very short time-scale at the time of the initial outburst, with fragmentation time-scales decreasing from t_frag ~ 2 × 10³ to ~1 × 10³ s over our observing period. Analysis of the expansion of 17P's coma reveals a velocity gradient suggesting that the outer coma was dominated by material ejected in an instantaneous, explosive manner. We find an expansion velocity at the edge of the dust coma of v_exp = 0.55 +/- 0.02 km s^-1 and a likely outburst date of t₀ = 2007 October 23.3 +/- 0.3, consistent with our finding that the comet remained below SuperWASP's detection limit of m_V ~ 15mag until at least 2007 October 23.3. Modeling of 17P's gas coma indicates that its outer edge, which was observed to extend past the outer dust coma, is best explained with a single pulse of gas production, consistent with our conclusions concerning the production of the outer dust coma.
​

The coma brightens because of increased reflective surface area as ejected particles fragment, the measured expansion velocity shows that the comet is not holding on to any extended atmosphere, and the expansion of the coma is consistent with a single pulse of gas production, or in other words a single outburst. In short, there is nothing about the observed behavior of the comet that is contrary to the standard models of comets, certainly nothing about the observed behavior of the comet that will differentiate between a standard model versus an EU model, and likely nothing consistent with an EU model in any case. There are numerous additional papers to be found on comet 17P/Holmes, and as tusenfem has also already pointed out, the coma of the comet is very tenuous, easily allowing sunlight to penetrate all the way to the nucleus.

One of the signs to look out for if the coma is indeed a double layer is to look for X-Rays.

Actually, that too is wrong. X-rays demonstrate either charged particles under very high acceleration (for continuum or bremsstrahlung emission) or charge exchange in highly ionized species or relaxation of excited nuclei (in the case of line emission, the former being more important around comets while the latter is more likely seen at the sun). While an exploding double layer might accelerate electrons to X-ray energies (I will leave that to tusenfem), it is certainly not the only way to generate X-rays. Therefore, the mere presence of X-rays in fact says nothing at ll definitive about double layers. Rather, one must come up with some other means of distinguishing double layers as the source for cometary X-rays.

Meanwhile, let us consult Christian, et al., 2010, which describes the observation of comet 17P/Holmes with the venerable Chandra X-ray Observatory. They find that 90% of the X-ray emission is in the energy range 300-400 eV, which is really quite wimpy as X-rays go. In the paper, analysis shows that the bulk of the X-ray emission from 17P/Holmes can be attributed to solar wind charge exchange involving C⁺⁴ and C⁺⁵ ions. This is a good fit to the observed SED and also accounts for the lack of higher energy X-rays that would be due to charge exchange with more massive and more highly ionized species (comet 8P/Tuttle showed strong charge exchange X-rays from O⁺⁶ and moderate charge exchange X-rays from Ne⁺⁸ and Ne⁺⁹ ions, amongst others). So in fact, an actual physical analysis of the X-rays seen in both comets 17P/Holmes & 8P/Tuttle rule out double layers as a source for the X-rays observed.

We have been over all of this before, so it is worth noting that Sol88 and the electric comet crowd have nothing new to offer. All we see is a re-hash of ideas already debunked, falsified & otherwise intellectually laid to rest. See, for instance, my own Electric Comets III: No Eu X-rays (21 June 2009), Electric Comets II: References (20 June 2009, with more comet X-ray reference papers & physics) or Electric Comets I, where I point out that the energetics of comet X-rays as observed are not consistent with the energetics of comet X-rays as predicted by EU hypotheses.

Or the interruption to the flow of the solar wind

Deep Space 1 took measurements with its plasma instruments between 90,000 kilometers (56,000 miles) and 2,000 kilometers (1,200 miles) away. These data show that the flow of ions around the comet's rocky, icy nucleus is not centered on the comet's nucleus as scientists expected before the Borrelly flyby. Ions in the turbulent flow are heated to about 1 million Kelvin (2 million degrees Fahrenheit).

LINK

The reference is to comet Hyakutake and goes along with the Hyakutake X-ray image posted by Sol88. It is well known that the magnetic field that is carried along in the solar wind will drape over a comet coma (not the nucleus) as the magnetic field encounters the plasma of ions & free electrons in the comet nucleus. The draped magnetic field shapes the coma and near tail of the comet, and is a site of charged particle acceleration and therefore bremsstrahlung X-rays. The flow of ions around the comet will be controlled by the shape of the coma & draped magnetic field and not by the shape or location of the comet nucleus. And asymmetric outgassing of the comet will create an asymmetric coma and easily explain the "off center" flow, where "center" is presumed to be the comet nucleus. This is no problem for a standard model of comets.

Does anyone in the electric comet crowd have any new ideas? Are we eternally doomed to re-debunk and re-falsify the same ideas already debunked & falsified before?

 

[Haig]

Not sure if what I’ve posted below is new to you or not but it is new to me. Maybe mainsteam theory on comets will come back to what is was over a hundred years ago – Comets are electrical phenomena.

NASA are now saying CO2 (carbon dioxide) power the jets on comets. No water ice has been found on any other comets surface. See comet Borrelly and comet Wild 2

The nucleus of a comet is a ball of ice and rocky dust particles that resembles a dirty snowball. The ice consists mainly of frozen water but may include other frozen substances, such as ammonia, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and methane
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/comet_worldbook.html

"Previously it was thought that water vapor from water ice was the propulsive force behind jets of material coming off of the body, or nucleus, of the comet," said University of Maryland Astronomy Professor Jessica Sunshine, who is deputy principal investigator for the EPOXI mission. "We now have unambiguous evidence that solar heating of subsurface frozen carbon dioxide (dry ice), directly to a gas, a process known as sublimation,
http://epoxi.umd.edu/7press/news/20101110.shtml

Comets: The Loose Thread
Comets are giving accepted comet theory a hard time. Close-up images of comet nuclei from spacecraft have contradicted about every expectation of theory. (“Expectation” is a euphemism for “prediction”; a disappointed expectation is practically the same thing as a failed prediction, except with the former you don’t expect you’ll have to discard the theory.) “If astronomy were a science,” as one astronomer put it, theoreticians would admit that the theory had been falsified, and they would start over with an eye to the evidence. Instead, they hang on to the theory with ever more stubbornness and hope a little tinkering and adjusting will bring the facts into line.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050923comets.htm

From English Mechanic & World of Science, 11 Aug 1882, pp. 516-7.

COMET'S TAILS"...There seems to be a rapidly growing feeling amongst physicists that both the self-light of comets and the phenomena of their tails belong to the order of electrical phenomena."

From Nature, No. 1370, Vol. 53, Jan 30, 1896, p. 306.

Theory of Comet's Tails "It has long been imagined that the phenomenon of comet's tails are in some way due to a solar electrical repulsion, and additional light is thrown on this subject by recent physical researches.
... Prof. Fessenden suggests that negatively charged particles are emitted from that side of a comet which is turned towards the sun..." (Astrophysical Journal, vol. iii. No. 1)

Science at the end of the 19th century was closer to the truth about comets than we are now!
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=uf4ty065

Movies taken by Deep Impact's flyby spacecraft shows the flash that occurred when comet Tempel 1 ran over the spacecraft's probe
http://www.nasa.gov/mov/121520main_HRI-Movie.mov
http://www.nasa.gov/mov/121527main_MRI_impact.mov

http://deepimpact.umd.edu/gallery/animation.html#pre-enc

Comets - Remember, debating facts is a thought crime.

Comets are not made out of water and ice; they are made out of rock.

They discharge a plasma coma due to the rapidly changing electrical field they are moving through.

Since they spend most of their time in the outer solar system, they acquire a charge relative to that environment. As it approaches the Sun’s electrical field, it has to equalize its charge rapidly which causes the discharging we see as comet tails.

(my video covering the facts presented on this page)

The deep impact mission, which sent a probe out to impact comet Tempel 1, found the following:

1. The copper impactor generated such an energetic explosion that the primary mission sensors were swamped and the primary mission of photographing the crater was unable to be carried out. (Such a flash would be expected with a metal object approaching a highly charged object)
"We didn't expect the success of one part of the mission (bright dust cloud) to affect a second part (seeing the resultant crater). But that is part of the fun of science, to meet with the unexpected. "

Physicist Wal Thornhill commenting:
"It is now well documented that every scientist associated with the project was stunned by the scale of the energetic outburst. These scientists understood the kinetics of impact, and they all agreed that the explosion would be equivalent to 4.8 tons of TNT. That’s a good-sized bomb, but not even close to what occurred."
http://sites.google.com/site/cosmologyquest/the-editor-s-musings/comets

 

[Haig]

Comets - an introduction
From this wealth of new information, it is becoming apparent that there is no clear boundary between asteroids and comets. Indeed, the outermost asteroids show similarities with the cometary nuclei observed far from the Sun.
http://www.esa.int/export/SPECIALS/Rosetta/SEMMXZ374OD_0.html

 

[Dancing David]

NASA are now saying CO2 (carbon dioxide) power the jets on comets. No water ice has been found on any other comets surface.

Yeah? So what is frozen CO₂ Hmmm?

"Previously it was thought that water vapor from water ice was the propulsive force behind jets of material coming off of the body, or nucleus, of the comet," said University of Maryland Astronomy Professor Jessica Sunshine, who is deputy principal investigator for the EPOXI mission. "We now have unambiguous evidence that solar heating of subsurface frozen carbon dioxide (dry ice), directly to a gas, a process known as sublimation,
http://epoxi.umd.edu/7press/news/20101110.shtml

Oh look at that, they eevn say it is sublimation of dry ice!


Comets: The Loose Thread
Comets are giving accepted comet theory a hard time. Close-up images of comet nuclei from spacecraft have contradicted about every expectation of theory. (“Expectation” is a euphemism for “prediction”; a disappointed expectation is practically the same thing as a failed prediction, except with the former you don’t expect you’ll have to discard the theory.) “If astronomy were a science,” as one astronomer put it, theoreticians would admit that the theory had been falsified, and they would start over with an eye to the evidence. Instead, they hang on to the theory with ever more stubbornness and hope a little tinkering and adjusting will bring the facts into line.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050923comets.htm

Quoting Thunderbolts means nothing, who said this and where, worse tahn wikipedia, Thunderbolts generally has no citations.


So what is this hard time Haig, can you actually explain it or just copy and paste?

From English Mechanic & World of Science, 11 Aug 1882, pp. 516-7.

COMET'S TAILS"...There seems to be a rapidly growing feeling amongst physicists that both the self-light of comets and the phenomena of their tails belong to the order of electrical phenomena."

From Nature, No. 1370, Vol. 53, Jan 30, 1896, p. 306.

Oh great are you going to call it phlogiston now?
Where is the data of these electrical fields and discharges Haig?

Comets are not made out of water and ice; they are made out of rock.

Oh sure, so where is that density study haig?