'Welease Wosetta!'

[Frantic]

And Karl-Heinz Glassmeier, who works on Rosetta's magnetometer, added: "We feel that the magnetic fields in the early Solar System must have been much smaller than previously thought - because if they had been larger, we most probably would have seen a much larger magnetisation at the comet."

Orrrrrrrrr...... just maybe .... The comet did not form when you think it formed.

[viscount aero]

And Karl-Heinz Glassmeier, who works on Rosetta's magnetometer, added: "We feel that the magnetic fields in the early Solar System must have been much smaller than previously thought - because if they had been larger, we most probably would have seen a much larger magnetisation at the comet."

Orrrrrrrrr...... just maybe .... The comet did not form when you think it formed.

Yes agree. Glassmeir's comment reveals the static and unchanging nature of, or, rather, the literal "timeline in one direction" and linear mode of believed "evolution", of the establishment's thinking about cosmology. They think things evolved and progressed in linear fashion ONLY, from the perspective of a big bang cosmology. They also have no real idea about how EM and magnetism, ergo, radiation, may not progress in the fashion they believe.

[Rossim]

I'm curious what the Thunderbolts team has to say about the lack of magnetism in regards to the electric comet theory. I cannot recall any emphasis being placed on the magnetic properties of the nucleus, only that it is a negatively charged body. But would a rotating charged body (nucleus) produce a magnetic field which Philae or Rosetta should have detected?

[paladin17]

If the comet was born during some sort of violent process (like a thunderbolt hitting a planet), then the temperatures that arose there could have easily depleted the magnetic field (see Curie point). Roughly speaking, 1100 K would be enough to kill any residual magnetization.

[Frantic]

The Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (MPS) scientist continued: “Also, this jet looks like it’s on the night-side of the nucleus, which is very intriguing, and the easiest explanation is that there is a little cliff standing out, which is just being illuminated by the Sun but is not seen by the spacecraft.
“If that’s the case, then we just have to have normal warming activity. If that’s not the case, we have to find another mechanism.”

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32380793

Hmm, Dark-side, assuming here, but probably flowing in directions of solar wind?

Different mechanism or little cliff-edge? WHat do you guys think?

[viscount aero]

The Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (MPS) scientist continued: “Also, this jet looks like it’s on the night-side of the nucleus, which is very intriguing, and the easiest explanation is that there is a little cliff standing out, which is just being illuminated by the Sun but is not seen by the spacecraft.
“If that’s the case, then we just have to have normal warming activity. If that’s not the case, we have to find another mechanism.”

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32380793

Hmm, Dark-side, assuming here, but probably flowing in directions of solar wind?

Different mechanism or little cliff-edge? WHat do you guys think?

They're reaching to keep their theory intact--resorting to a "little cliff" in the sunlight in order to account for the massive jetting.

[querious]

The Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (MPS) scientist continued: “Also, this jet looks like it’s on the night-side of the nucleus, which is very intriguing, and the easiest explanation is that there is a little cliff standing out, which is just being illuminated by the Sun but is not seen by the spacecraft.
“If that’s the case, then we just have to have normal warming activity. If that’s not the case, we have to find another mechanism.”

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32380793

Hmm, Dark-side, assuming here, but probably flowing in directions of solar wind?

Different mechanism or little cliff-edge? WHat do you guys think?

That jet appearing on the dark side is exactly one of the 2 events I've been waiting for, the other, an inexplicable "bright spot" in a shadowed region.

I guess there's still some wiggle room for the jet to be coming from an exposed cliff we just couldn't see, but I doubt it. Regardless, we'll know soon enough if this was just a chance anomaly or something that becomes the norm.

[dodeca]

So activity in the dark side now....can a "standard model" person explain this to me?

A bright, diffuse spot in front of the dark underside of the comet’s large lobe, home to the Imhotep region, seems to be strongly suggestive of activity there, too.



http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2015/05/08 ... -28-april/

[querious]

So activity in the dark side now....can a "standard model" person explain this to me?

To play devil's advocate, it depends on if dust sitting in front of the dark area is just being illuminated from above. Hopefully it IS actual jetting from the dark side, but this is very inconclusive, especially considering how diffuse it appears.

[Zyxzevn]

Many (older?) images released.
http://imagearchives.esac.esa.int/index.php?/category/9

I wonder if there is any difference in the surface with new images.
By now, there should be some melting visible... if there is any.

[dodeca]

perhaps the most striking observation is the activity seen close to Hatmehit, the circular depression on the comet’s small lobe. There also appears to be activity associated with the Nut region, which lies below Serqet in this orientation. In both cases, the activity stands out against the shadowed portions of the comet in this area.

http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2015/05/29 ... ch-20-may/

[flyingcloud]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 153530.htm

A close-up of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko by NASA's ultraviolet instrument surprised scientists by revealing that electrons close to the comet's surface -- not photons from the sun as had been believed -- cause the rapid breakup of water and carbon dioxide molecules spewing from the surface.

[dodeca]

More jets from the darkside.

A fainter cloud of activity is also visible below the shadowed underside of the comet’s large lobe.

http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2015/06/03 ... ch-21-may/

[viscount aero]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 153530.htm

A close-up of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko by NASA's ultraviolet instrument surprised scientists by revealing that electrons close to the comet's surface -- not photons from the sun as had been believed -- cause the rapid breakup of water and carbon dioxide molecules spewing from the surface.

This only further strengthens the case for radiolysis.

[viscount aero]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 153530.htm

A close-up of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko by NASA's ultraviolet instrument surprised scientists by revealing that electrons close to the comet's surface -- not photons from the sun as had been believed -- cause the rapid breakup of water and carbon dioxide molecules spewing from the surface.

I'll revisit this because it raises another point about radiolysis at the surface: That they don't see photons at the surface 100% obliterates their dirty snowball theory even though many other things already do. This is yet another thing that renders their mainstream theory falsified.

But wait... they hold onto their mainstream theory using this part of the sentence: "...electrons...not photons from the sun as had been believed -- cause the rapid breakup of water and carbon dioxide molecules spewing from the surface."

Read it again and catch how they keep the dirty snowball theory in play by stating "...electrons......cause the rapid breakup of water and carbon dioxide molecules spewing from the surface." Even though this finding really does seriously nullify dirty snowball theory, it clearly doesn't for them. For them, the water must be "broken up" and "spewing" versus radiolsys where the water is being created at the surface--not broken up or spewing (with "spewing" implying the melting of subsurface ice which has already long been found to not exist anywhere).