Electric Comets

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: Philae Images

Unread postby viscount aero » Sat Nov 22, 2014 9:52 pm

seasmith wrote:
viscount aero wrote: »

Dotini wrote:
... Does water reside on or in the comet, and/or is water produced as an electrochemical reaction from silicates in the solar wind? There may be a certain amount of circular reasoning in density estimates. But I am unsure. Please help to nail down exactly how comet densities are estimated.

In my opinion it is a photochemical/electrochemical reaction as the comet enters a region of higher electrical potential. This can occur far away from the Sun, too, as has been recorded on other comets and asteroids.


Actually the "water" or hydroxyl ions, are not the prime components in a cometary Coma.

But that isn't what is taught ;) 90% is alleged.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Philae Images

Unread postby kiwi » Sun Nov 23, 2014 6:49 pm

Dotini wrote:
scowie wrote:It seems to me that the belief that 67P has a low density may have lead to the belief that there is water present. Lower density structures like foam have lower permittivities than solids of the same material. Water has high permittivity. They obviously measured a higher permittivity than what you'd get with foam-like/rubble-like rock with vacuum in the gaps. Hence they conclude that there must be some water present to raise up the permittivity.

So, since their density calculation is probably wrong, I'd recommend taking any claims of any amount of water having been detected with a pinch of salt too :)


I tried to find out how comet density is determined. I did not get very far, so maybe you guys can help me do some research. It seems density is an estimate based on mass and volume. But how is mass measured? My feeble efforts seemed to find that water production in the coma is a factor in estimates of mass. But water production depends on distance to the sun (perihelion) as well as where the water is coming from. Does water reside on or in the comet, and/or is water produced as an electrochemical reaction from silicates in the solar wind? There may be a certain amount of circular reasoning in density estimates. But I am unsure. Please help to nail down exactly how comet densities are estimated.


Dotini,

You dont get very far for a very good reason, the "Standard" Model is bested possibly only by the Bible as being the most imcomprehensible "shaggy-dog-tale" ever sold.They hev "nothing" from which to pin ANYTHING on in a fundamental and meaningful way..... "anchoring" (per PMR) the whole side-show of Physics on rickety false assumptions.

Good on you for the honest comment


Scowie
I'm sure that in the case of 67P, it will be from the orbit of the Rosetta probe around the comet. They assume that gravity alone is responsible for it's orbit and then infer a mass from that, and a density from it's volume. Of course, they'd need to have another method for comets/asteroids/dwarf planets that have not been visited. A bit of googling suggests that volatile retention models are one method of dong this (and they seem rather subjective)


Yes they seem to forget that "mass" (and by association their miraculous answer to everything,.. Gravity) is not in any way required when dedeucing orbitals
kiwi
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:58 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Philae Images

Unread postby seasmith » Sun Nov 23, 2014 7:07 pm

~

http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/imag ... _comet.gif


According to this ESA animation, the Axis of Rotation of P67 c-g seems to pass through the narrowed 'neck' of the comet,
(which is also the area with the most emission activity).


Its Spin Axis is also given a Right ascension: 69 degrees and Declination: 64 degrees.
Is that with respect to solar system ecliptic ?

How does this spin axis align with solar and Jovian spins, (or magnetic fields) ?

What precipitates the coma-producing emissions/discharges, when and if an asteroid becomes cometary ?
Composition, conductance/impedance, ES frictions, its circuit about the sun, something else,
all the above ??




Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Size of nucleus:
Small lobe
Large lobe
2.5 km x 2.5 km x 2.0 km
4.1 km x 3.2 km x 1.3 km
Mass 1013 kg
Volume 25 km3
Density 0.4 g/cm3
Rotation period 12.4043 ± 0.0007 * hours
Spin axis Right ascension: 69 degrees
Declination: 64 degrees
Orbital period 6.55 years
Perihelion distance from Sun 186 million km (1.243 AU)
Aphelion distance from Sun 849.7 million km (5.68 AU)
Orbital eccentricity 0.640
Orbital inclination 7.04 degrees
Water vapour production rate 300 ml/s (June 2014)
1-5 l/s (July-August 2014)
Surface temperature 2-5-230 K (July - August 2014)
Subsurface temperature 30-160 K (August 2014)
Gases detected water, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, ammonia, methane, methanol, sodium, magnesium
Dust grains A few tens of microns to a few hundreds of microns
Year of discovery 1969
Discoverers Klim Churyumov &

http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images ... l_of_comet

Wake-up Philae
seasmith
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Philae Images

Unread postby Metryq » Tue Nov 25, 2014 5:23 am

seasmith wrote:Wake-up Philae

And free Xenu! :mrgreen:
User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: Philae Images

Unread postby seasmith » Thu Nov 27, 2014 9:23 am

~

A color animation of 67P's Axis of Spin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CNGu7KbXzOs




compare with
Image

(see last post, previous page)
seasmith
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

"It looks like rock, but we're VERY sure that it isn't"

Unread postby CosmicLettuce » Thu Nov 27, 2014 7:56 pm

"Nothing is rich but the inexhaustible wealth of nature. She shows us only surfaces, but she is a million fathoms deep" - Emerson

http://astroandmusic.blogspot.com/
User avatar
CosmicLettuce
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 8:09 am

Re: "It looks like rock, but we're VERY sure that it isn't"

Unread postby Solar » Thu Nov 27, 2014 10:14 pm

Hmmm…

Maybe that explains my quandary.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Philae Images

Unread postby seasmith » Fri Nov 28, 2014 2:36 pm

˚
67P's Axis of Spin has been reported to be tilted ≈ 26˚, with respect to its orbital plane about the sun,
similar to that of Earth's, so its precessional seasons should be similar wrt latitude/irradiation ?
seasmith
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Philae Images

Unread postby viscount aero » Fri Nov 28, 2014 3:42 pm

S Freeman wrote:Well, it has to be said..
Were so sorry they equipped you so poorly for your mission. However, the few pictures you sent back have already changed the way mainstream science will forever picture the surface of a comet.
Your endeavors will not go wasted on us.

And now, a moment of silence.....
philea.jpg

Thank you Philae. Rest in peace.


Yes agree.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: "It looks like rock, but we're VERY sure that it isn't"

Unread postby viscount aero » Fri Nov 28, 2014 3:46 pm

CosmicLettuce wrote:http://www.planetary.org/multimedia/planetary-radio/show/2014/1125-2014-the-year-we-landed-on-a-comet.html

that quote is at 09:30

Peace, CL


That's utterly laughable.

Even with months or years in data analyses pending, the surface is clearly geologic. There's no ice there.

So what are they thinking? That all they're seeing is really dark, black soot, ice sculpturing that looks like rock? :roll: :lol: And the dirt and sand dunes and regolith are all ice, too? :lol: I'm losing any sympathy I had for them. I'm sorry the lander malfunctioned. I really am. But this is now a comedy. They're beginning to blatantly demonstrate that their theories are impervious to revision.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: "It looks like rock, but we're VERY sure that it isn't"

Unread postby CosmicLettuce » Fri Nov 28, 2014 6:43 pm

viscount aero wrote:
CosmicLettuce wrote:http://www.planetary.org/multimedia/planetary-radio/show/2014/1125-2014-the-year-we-landed-on-a-comet.html

that quote is at 09:30

Peace, CL


That's utterly laughable.

Even with months or years in data analyses pending, the surface is clearly geologic. There's no ice there.

So what are they thinking? That all they're seeing is really dark, black soot, ice sculpturing that looks like rock? :roll: :lol: And the dirt and sand dunes and regolith are all ice, too? :lol: I'm losing any sympathy I had for them. I'm sorry the lander malfunctioned. I really am. But this is now a comedy. They're beginning to blatantly demonstrate that their theories are impervious to revision.


What they're thinking (unconsciously) is that there MUST be water ice on comets or otherwise the entire story of the creation and evolution of our solar system (and also larger scales) has to be almost totally revised.

Until the paradigm shift happens, astronomers and scientists in general will not see what's right in front of them.

That's ok. Like me, the paradigm shift will happen to them, too. Plus, the ones that hold on will eventually die and then they won't be in the way anymore (Kuhn taught me that!). Patience.

Peace, CL
"Nothing is rich but the inexhaustible wealth of nature. She shows us only surfaces, but she is a million fathoms deep" - Emerson

http://astroandmusic.blogspot.com/
User avatar
CosmicLettuce
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 8:09 am

Re: "It looks like rock, but we're VERY sure that it isn't"

Unread postby Metryq » Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:13 am

viscount aero wrote:Even with months or years in data analyses pending, the surface is clearly geologic. There's no ice there.

C'mon, give them a break. They need the months or years to massage the data and go through the contortions needed to invent Magnetically Reconnecting Pan-Dimensional Dark Ice. It takes time to repeat something often enough to make it become truth.
User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: "It looks like rock, but we're VERY sure that it isn't"

Unread postby bdw000 » Sat Nov 29, 2014 11:56 am

Metryq wrote:
viscount aero wrote:Even with months or years in data analyses pending, the surface is clearly geologic. There's no ice there.

C'mon, give them a break. They need the months or years to massage the data and go through the contortions needed to invent Magnetically Reconnecting Pan-Dimensional Dark Ice. It takes time to repeat something often enough to make it become truth.


Ah yes, the argument between "The Scientific Method" and "how science is actually practiced."
bdw000
 
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:06 pm

Re: Philae Images

Unread postby seasmith » Sat Nov 29, 2014 9:40 pm

seasmith
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: "It looks like rock, but we're VERY sure that it isn't"

Unread postby +EyeOn-W-ANeed2Know » Sun Nov 30, 2014 11:13 pm

LOL! At roughly 17:00 "We have to keep reminding ourselves that isn't snow. We've cranked the gain on the images and that stuff is not white, it's black as coal."
+EyeOn-W-ANeed2Know
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 11:41 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests