Comet Erosion?

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Comet Erosion?

Unread postby perpetual motion » Sat Mar 25, 2017 8:43 pm

Well, my guess would be that people read articles, but don't really care about how informative they
are unless they go with THEIR theory or THEIR thinking. One might as well be talking to a fence post.

Read the Boring Sun articles on this web site!
perpetual motion
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:04 pm

Re: Comet Erosion?

Unread postby comingfrom » Sat Mar 25, 2017 10:15 pm

You're right. Thank you. I definitely needed some help there.
comingfrom
 
Posts: 607
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm

Re: Comet Erosion?

Unread postby D_Archer » Mon Mar 27, 2017 1:45 am

Charge as heat as photons allows us to make sense of cometary asteroids.

Electric Universe tracks E/M, ions and electrons and Rosetta did measurements for this and proved there is electrical activity around the asteroid.

Mainstream uses UV light (which is photons) for interactions (also supposed interaction) in the coma.

Now we only have to track how photons interact with the asteroid, what is their main motion. Normally charge enters poles of matter (atoms, planets, stars etc), this would also happen with cometary asteroids, the greater charge movement would also direct the movement of ions and electrons. We can safely say that this action causes the erosion we see on cometary asteroids as the middle (neck) is clearly being eroded away. Anywhere charge enters or exits can become a point of discharge (dark discharges most likely) and the greater action is where the greater number enter/exit. This would be high points (cliff faces) and the aforementioned pole action.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1020
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Comet Erosion?

Unread postby LaSuisse1 » Sun Apr 02, 2017 4:15 pm

Oh dear. More non-science, and making stuff up again! All that is happening, just as it does on Earth, is that the ground is heated by the Sun. And then the Sun goes away, and it gets very cold. Very quickly. And then it comes back and it gets much warmer. Very quickly. That is thermal stress. No need to make up silly stuff. It happens on Earth.
And the comet isn't an 'asteroid'. That is silly also. We know the density, we know there is lots of ice, we know it is very porous. Rosetta also visited asteroids. Very different density. Made of rock. No rock on 67P. And there is no measured electrical activity on the nucleus. Philae landed on it, as did Rosetta. Very unelectrical. Not a smidgeon of a magnetic field to be seen. Remarkably non-magnetic.
Quite where you guys get these weird ideas is beyond me. It isn't anything to do with real science, though.
LaSuisse1
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:37 pm

Re: Comet Erosion?

Unread postby webolife » Sun Apr 02, 2017 7:53 pm

LaSuisse1,
Not sure what your interest is in TB forums, but if it involves exploring the possibility of other paradigms in cosmology and astronomy, formation of stars, and a better understanding of space weather and the interactions of interplanetary bodies, then this is the forum for you... welcome; or if you feel like you are an experienced astronomer with research-based insights that you are here to share with the rest of us in respectfully open dialogue... we are all ears, welcome! If however you are fixed in your own limited mainstream perspective, and unable to take a second look at processes occurring in space that are "anomalous" to the mainstream; or if the idea of "alternative" scientific paradigms is inherently odious to you, this is probably not the place for you...

But I get the feeling that something about the EU piqued your curiosity, and you'd really like to broaden your outlook a bit. That being the case, let me share a couple personal perspectives with you. I am trained in science and math, taught in public education for the last 4 decades, and am an amateur astronomer and geologist, with special interests in genetics and physics, particularly optics. I have been exploring catastrophic scenarios as a basis for understanding earth history, and the extended frame of catastrophic interplanetary science. I've done my share of criticizing some of the more extreme views shared on these forums, but I try to do so with open-minded questioning, challenging assertions with counterclaims, asking for clarification... I hope that by doing so, more "science" [as you often reference] will emerge, and consequentially greater understanding by all, including myself. More specifically to your post, one of the early predictions of the "electric comet" hypothesis was that comet nuclei and asteroids would be found to be of similar compositions, within a range of types. It has been understood for almost a century that not all asteroidal bodies are of the same composition, and this is believed to be true of comets as well. The basic claim of the "electric comet" is that asteroidal bodies, whether of KBO or inner asteroid belt or other origin, interact with the electrical solar environment [the "solar wind" if you prefer] in a significant way due to their changing positions within that environment. This is being studied by many comet and asteroid researchers, whose conclusions on this matter are a great deal less certain than the claims you are making. It is unknown why some comets seem to present a magnetic field while others do not. The low concentrations of hydroxyls/water actually found on comets is one pointer away from the "icy snowball" presumption and toward the "electric comet" idea; the similarity of "peanut" morphologies between many observed asteroids and comet nuclei is another; the recognition that comet nuclei "degenerate" into asteroids and asteroids may periodically "cometize" [eg. ] is another "anomaly" that EU predicts but the mainstream does not. I try to encourage various posters to use language of tentativity [a good science practice] rather than make dogmatic claims. Might I suggest the same for you?
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2367
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Comet Erosion?

Unread postby comingfrom » Tue Apr 04, 2017 3:25 pm

Thank you, LaSuisse1.

Oh dear. More non-science, and making stuff up again! All that is happening, just as it does on Earth, is that the ground is heated by the Sun. And then the Sun goes away, and it gets very cold. Very quickly. And then it comes back and it gets much warmer. Very quickly. That is thermal stress. No need to make up silly stuff. It happens on Earth.
This is non science too, since heat is not explained.

How does the Sun transfer heat to the comet?
By radiation, you will say.
What is being radiated?
Photons, you should say.
What are photons?
Massless point particles, is the scientific answer.
So, how do massless point particles create thermal stress?
The science is still out on that.

And the comet isn't an 'asteroid'.
What is the difference between a comet and asteroid?
Besides the orbit, I mean.

That is silly also.
Is that a scientific statement?

We know the density, we know there is lots of ice, we know it is very porous.
I know. I read it. The density is even less than the density of jets that come off the comet.

Could there possibly be another cause for the low density readings?
Like if it isn't in the same plane of the Sun's field, for example?
Or maybe the heat photons and the thermal stresses effect the trajectory, which throws the density equations.

I don't know what the answer is, but all I know is, many density readings don't seem right.
The moon is oft said to be hollow or porous too, due to the density (maybe it is a captured comet).
Mars' moons also, are far less dense than expected.
But without tails containing hydroxides, these are not said to be made of ice.

No rock on 67P.
67P is a rock, and rocks are clearly visible on the surface.
These visible rocks are very apparently not ice bergs.

And there is no measured electrical activity on the nucleus.
Did Philae use a multimeter?

Very unelectrical. Not a smidgeon of a magnetic field to be seen. Remarkably non-magnetic.
Water on it's own is a very electrical substance. Even when ice.

Are comet tails simply steam rising from thermally stressed ice, to you?

Quite where you guys get these weird ideas is beyond me. It isn't anything to do with real science, though.
You appear to forget that you are at the electric universe forum.
We here go with the concept that the whole Universe is electric.

We already know "real" science isn't electric, and that they leave out electricity where ever they suppose they can.
We here consider that unscientific.
~Paul
comingfrom
 
Posts: 607
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm

Previous

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest