Electric Comet numbers

[Reality Check]

RealityCheck
Jets produced from sublimation of gas produce the same force as jets produced by discharge machining of the surface!
Look up Newton’s laws some time.

Incorrect!
Electric discharge does not produce the same kind of "jet" as internal pressure forcing it's way through an orifice. Not even close. The material is eroded from the surface, is accelerated by the electric field in filaments constricted by the magnetic field.
Look up Maxwell's laws some time.

That is right.
But the force on the comet is F=ma where m is the mass of the ejected material and a is its acceleration. It does not matter whether the acceleration is caused by mechanical means or electromagnetic means.
Perhaps an example will help.
Consider a shell that is shot out of a device. The force on the device is the product of the mass of the shell and the acceleration imparted on the shell by whatever mechanism is used. It does not matter whether the device is actually a rail gun (electromagnetically powered) or whether the device is a artillery gun (mechanically powered).

RealityCheck
The coma is not “held” by a comet. It is continuously created by the creation of gas from the nucleus (see for example the EC theory). It then spreads out because the atoms have a slightly different velocity than the nucleus.

An object with a surface area of just a few hundred kilometers offgassing enough to sometimes producing a coma as big as the Sun...or even Jupiter? Ridiculous. If comets are allegedly low mass fluffy dirty snowballs with like 75% empty space, where does all that material come from to sustain a coma of that volume?

The EC idea then has the same issue (unless you are suggesting the creation of matter! ).

RealityCheck
The SWIFT observatory measured the spectrum of the ejected material. There was no EDM observed (this is rather obvious in the X-ray spectrum because of EMD emits X-rays in narrow bands).

When we say EDM, it's an easier way of saying "surface erosion of an electrode", it doesn't necessarily mean arc discharge, as in lightning.

Can you give a citation to a source that gives the emission spectrum of EDM or “"surface erosion of an electrode" that shows that there are no narrow band X-rays?

RealityCheck
For Tempel 1 the density has been measure in 3 different ways.

Our contention is that those methodologies are seriously flawed, indirect, and based on what EU contends are incorrect assumptions to begin with. Again, until we put a lander on the surface and "poke it with a stick", we really don't know for sure what the density is.

Can you give a citation to the paper/textbook/web page where the serious flaws of those methodologies and the evidence for them are listed? I would rather have a look at the actual science before derailing this topic.

[Reality Check]

Speaking of high temperatures... you know that article you linked, RC? That thing really did your argument way more harm than good. I remember following the predictions of what they'd find on comets (at least the ones made to mainstream media), about water ice, jets, the temperature of the thing, and etc.

This article says that the Sunward side of this comet is over 300 Kelvin! That's like 75 Fahrenheit, right? The article also said:

The coldest temperature is important because the temperature at which ices such as water, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide turn directly into gas is below 200 degrees Kelvin.

(Ok, carbon monoxide and dioxide I'll buy... but water?? Where's the editor?!)

Yes water – that is why freeze drying works.
Sublimation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_(chemistry))

So they think the jets on this comet are from frozen CO1 or CO2, right?

They do not. They think that the jets on this comet are from frozen water, CO or CO2 (mostly water I guess).

But there isn't that much of it there, because there's so much mineral content in the comet. The ice shouldn't be thick enough to keep it's temperature for long. So at room temperature, you should see the CO ice boiling off that comet! Not in it's coma or tail and don't quote spectographic whatzits at me- where are the dry ice clouds spewing off the surface like you would see with a chunk of dry ice in a bucket? Don't tell me it 'blows away', because the current hypothesis is that the coma is held intact around the nucleus by gravity, as weak as the gravity is from that body. If any ice were sublimating on the surface, you'd see fog being produced.

“Fog” is produced. It just happened to be produced in jets. My naïve understanding about how this happens is that the dark surface of the comet is broken, e.g. by an impact or a bubble of CO breaking through. This exposes a surface of mixed ices (water, CO, CO2 and others). These sublimate producing gas that is travelling at escape velocity due to the weak gravity of the comet. This would form a fan to start with. The surface of the sublimating material sinks as material escapes. A pit or crater forms. The walls cut off the sides of the fan and we have a jet.

RealityCheck, I got no beef with you. Not personally. But I'm a simple layman (with some brains in my head) that has never gotten over his love of Space from when he was a kid. I'm in my 40's now, and I have been watching all the goings-on of NASA since the last Apollo missions.

Ditto.

I've watched predictions be made over and over, and they always seem to be followed by "but we were <suprised/astounded/shocked> by the <unanticipated/unexpected/unforseen> results".

My attitude is that surprises are what science is all about.
That is why the observations of Tempel 1 are so great. They show that comets are much more varied than was previously thought.

RC, you came in here looking for 'mathematical proof' of the EU hypothesis, and found none. I suspect that you knew you would find none from the beginning. You denigrated the empirical approach almost immediately, by calling it observational as though that were derogatory. It almost sounds to me like you're more interested in proving that your beliefs and understanding are right than you are in actually understanding more or growing Science in any way.

I was not looking for 'mathematical proof'. I was looking for the normal mathematical models that I have seen from scientific theories. These are not proofs. They are tools used to compare the theory to observations.

Oh, I almost forgot about your question:

mharratsc wrote:
[…snipped pretty pictures look alike thing…]
Mike H.
I’m hoping that this is a joke!

Nope. It looks like an asteroid. No ice, all rock. Looks as solid as Mt. Everest to me. Put your calculator down and try using your eyes on it for once.

Mike H.

This is the problem with just comparing pictures – it is subjective.
I see white patches (ice?) on the comet that do not seem to be on the asteroid.
I see that the comet has a large plateau that looks almost like a glacier.
I see that there is what looks like impact craters with raised edges on the comet but the ones on the asteroid do not have raised edges.
I see that the texture of the comet looks different from the asteroid.
The similarities are the presence of impact craters and maybe the shape.
You of course do not see all of this or interpret it differently.

But the comparison moot. I think that other posters have made it clear that comets in the EC theory are not rocks, rocky bodies or even asteroids. They are just compared to them. They may be made of porous rocks similar to pumice.

[mharratsc]

I doubt RealityCheck is still around at this point, but I finally found the article where I believed comets were other than what I was always told they were:

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=6y3ehr7j

It doesn't have the precious mathematics that would make RealityCheck's day, but the analysis of produced data was good enough for me.

Additionally, this article would probably explain why EU proponents doubt the mass values assigned to comets:

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=q1q6sz2s

And explains a whole lot more, if you ask me! These analyses of observations means one hell of a lot more to me than a bunch of mathematical formula... expecially ones with 'universal constants' when we haven't had a chance to test those 'constant's in other parts of the Universe!

Mike H.

[jjohnson]

The mass of the comet is derived from its orbital parameters. The volume is derived from measurements of the visual image.

If a comet is a charged body moving through the local interplanetary medium (solar wind, call it) is its orbit actually going to comport with only its mass, or with its mass plus its differential charge as it traverses a changing local field strength? If the latter, that might lead to errors in its mass estimate, possibly severe. What is the mass of an electrostatically charged styrofoam flake if it is observed falling to the floor past a charged fabric wall hanging? Just how charged is the "average" comet relative to its plasma environment, anyway? Bet THAT hasn't been measured, either.

If its physical volume estimate comes from its visual dimensions, how do we know if the often pretty fuzzy image is actually representative of the size, Further, the irregularities in surface contouring found on rocky and metallic meteorites and asteroids tends to blur or irregularize the outline of the object, variable with its rotation. And finally, the porosity or tortuosity of its internal structure of a comet has yet to be investigated directly. We don't know if its talcum powder all the way through, or more like a large sponge, or shattered with gaps and crevices of varying complexity, or layered shells, or just what. We certainly have no idea of the probable scatter of these factors among various comets, either.

I conclude that for EU purposes at this time, we might as well admit that we have no directly observed,measured, reliable evidence that will give us a close estimate of comets' makeup, including their "typical" density. Nothing a rock pick and a FedEx package back to a good geo lab can't fix!

[mharratsc]

I think we're all in 100% agreement on that point, Jim

One thing that irked the hell outta me when I first heard it, then when RealityCheck popped off with it in this thread, was how they were flabbergasted that the surface of their (rather energetic) comet was black. Wal Thornhill had years earlier predicted that the surface would indeed be black from being constantly zapped by discharge machining.

Did that stand as a proof to theory for NASA? Nope.

They deduced that it must be some 'mystery crust' that all the ice is hiding under, and it cracks, and then the gas comes out of the cracks in the crust and makes the jets we see!

Even when they see it, they can't believe it.

I think Prof. Scott quoted Groucho Marx once:

"Who you gonna believe? Me? Or your lyin eyes?"

Mike H.

[neilwilkes]

No what Reality Check (Hi RC) wants is a web page with an equation on it that "proves" comets are rocks and electrical phenomenon.

Just like the proof he has that, There are at least 173,583 asteroids that should be comets according to EC.

Reality check ask the more knowledgeable than I about electrostatic discharges on a comet?

After all you did say,

I saild that there is evidence of electrostatic charges on the Moon.
IMO it is possible that it could happen on other dusty rocky bodies moving through plasma sheets in a strong magnetosphere.
Someone should actually read Strange Things Happen at Full Moon and New Research into Mysterious Moon Storms, learn about magnetospheres (magnetotails) and the fact that they are the cause of the ESD on the Moon. The Sun does not have a magnetail

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... ost5000228

There is a very strange statement in that thread. Well, more than one but at first glance what I see is this:

Yes - those are the observed facts. Cometary tails (from whatever sources, including the impossible EC idea) are blown away by the solar wind.

Yet I remember seeing a beautiful picture of a recent comet - with 2 tails in different directions.........
I will try to find it.

[solrey]

neilwilkes on Sat Sep 05, 2009 10:10 am
Yet I remember seeing a beautiful picture of a recent comet - with 2 tails in different directions.........
I will try to find it.

The most recent, Comet Lulin.

Comet Lulin, False Color.

Or Hyakutake in '96.

Here and, in some detail, on the JREF forum electric comet topic I've discussed electro-chemical reaction chains being responsible for the production of OH and H2O, among other's such as Na and CO2.
Data recently analyzed from the Chandrayaan-1 probe provides direct evidence for this process...
Yes, There's Water on the Moon.

The scientists were looking for a signature of water in the craters near the poles, but found evidence for water instead on the sunlit portions of the moon. This was certainly unexpected and the science team from M3 looked and re-looked at their data for several months.

Jessica Sunshine and colleagues with Deep Impact also found the presence of bound water or hydroxyl in trace amounts over much of the Moon’s surface. Their results suggest that the formation and retention of these molecules is an ongoing process on the lunar surface – and that solar wind could be responsible for forming them.

As the sun undergoes nuclear fusion, it constantly emits a stream of particles, mostly protons, which are positively charged hydrogen atoms. On Earth, the atmosphere and magnetism prevent us from being bombarded by these protons, but the moon lacks that protection, meaning the oxygen-rich minerals and glasses on the surface of the moon are constantly pounded by hydrogen in the form of protons, moving at velocities of one-third the speed of light.

When those protons hit the lunar surface with enough force, suspects Taylor, they break apart oxygen bonds in soil materials, and where free oxygen and hydrogen are together, there's a high chance that trace amounts of water will be formed. These traces are thought to be about a quart of water per ton of soil.

Like I told ya, what I said

Steal your face right off your head.

[solrey]

Some compelling comments in this article:

Water on the Moon: What Does it Mean?

"The Moon continues to surprise us," said Carle Pieters, principal investigator for the Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M cubed) at Thursdays press conference. "Widespread water has been detected on the surface of the Moon. You have to think outside of the box on this. This is not what any of us expected decades ago."

There appears to be a cycle of water being created and lost during a lunar day. Without an atmosphere, the moon is exposed to solar wind, which includes hydrogen ions. The hydrogen is able to interact with oxygen in lunar soil to create water molecules. The water appears to be created at night on the Moon, lost during the "hottest" parts of the two-week lunar day; then as it cools near evening, the cycle repeats itself. So, regardless of the type of terrain on the Moon, the entire surface of the moon will be hydrated at least for part of the day. The scientists said similar hydration effects may be present on any body in our solar system that doesn't have an atmosphere, including asteroids and Mercury.

Hey, what about comets?

[Reality Check]

I doubt RealityCheck is still around at this point, but I finally found the article where I believed comets were other than what I was always told they were:

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=6y3ehr7j

Stardust was a mission to collect some dust that the astromnomers expected to be emitted from a comet. And it detec ted the dust!

The notion that comets are asteroids is very ignorant, e.g. they have much lighter densities as asteroids .

Additionally, this article would probably explain why EU proponents doubt the mass values assigned to comets:

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=q1q6sz2sMike H.

An article full of unsupported assertions.
Actual scientists use multiple methods to measure the density of comet nuclei and get an average of ~0.6 g/cc, (the measured density of asteroids is ~3.0 g/cc):
* Orbital parameters and estimates of size.
* Changes in orbit caused by jets.
* Deep Impact

And what is missing from that web site you link to - citations to the actual science:
"Cometary masses derived from non-gravitational forces" by Sosa & Fernandez, 2009.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.393..192S
"A ballistics analysis of the Deep Impact ejecta plume: Determining Comet Tempel 1's gravity, mass, and density" by Richardson, et al., 2007.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007Icar..190..357R
A more general paper is "Size Distribution, Structure and Density of Cometary Nuclei" by Weissman & Lowry, 2006.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006LPICo1325...76W

[Reality Check]

Hey, what about comets?

Hey, what about the water in Saturn's rings?
Hey, what about the water in other moons?
Hey, what about the water in other planets?
Hey, what about the water in comets?

The fact that there is water on the Moon has nothing to do with with the water detected in comets unless you can show that the processes that created the water are the same.

[MGmirkin]

They ARE just rocks in space.

Wish they'd put a lander 'feet on the ground' on a comet and settle the issue once and for all... Assuming it survives the debris / coma / ion tail intact and functional. But as you say, hard to get missions funded to research non-mainstream ideas.

Actually landing on a comet to do research is a very mainstream idea.
The Deep Impact mission is essentially the “lander 'feet on the ground' on a comet” that you want.

You're funning me, right?

More like "bombing an enemy asteroid/comet from space." Hardly "feet on the ground," when your instruments are all still up in orbit. I'm talking something more like Opportunity/Spirit rovers to actually get up-close and personal in situ. Not just bomb from space and then look at the explosive cloud of debris and make wild speculations about where the OH / H2O came from (was it water ice or recombination from sputtered materials interacting with the solar wind?)...

Anywho...

[MGmirkin]

I conclude that for EU purposes at this time, we might as well admit that we have no directly observed,measured, reliable evidence that will give us a close estimate of comets' makeup, including their "typical" density. Nothing a rock pick and a FedEx package back to a good geo lab can't fix!

I think that was precisely the point I was trying to make early on in this thread WRT "on the ground" (NOT bombing from orbit) observations. 'Til we do that, it's all educated guesswork...

Best,
~MG

[MGmirkin]

RealityCheck
The coma is not “held” by a comet. It is continuously created by the creation of gas from the nucleus (see for example the EC theory). It then spreads out because the atoms have a slightly different velocity than the nucleus.

An object with a surface area of just a few hundred kilometers offgassing enough to sometimes producing a coma as big as the Sun...or even Jupiter? Ridiculous. If comets are allegedly low mass fluffy dirty snowballs with like 75% empty space, where does all that material come from to sustain a coma of that volume?

The EC idea then has the same issue (unless you are suggesting the creation of matter! ).

Can't be bothered to pay attention much, can you? Or are you intentionally this dense? Pun only slightly intended.

If comets are not "fluffy," with 75% "empty space" (just using Solrey's off-the-cuff, probably-slightly-exaggerated figure) as existing theory claims, but are just big hunks of rock (without said empty space) but with electrically-variable mass, yes that's a big if that depends on whether you think Wal's assertions about the nature of mass, gravitation, et al are correct, then that 75% that's supposedly "missing" isn't so "missing" after all. If it's not "missing" then does that not mean there is in fact "more matter there" to sustain such a coma, per your inquiry? Methinks it does...

I agree, there are lots of big ifs there requiring resolution.

But, if (yep, might as well throw another one on there) the ifs come out in our favor and mass is an electrical variable, then it would seem the comet's nucleus not being fluffy but a giant hunk of rock would come out in the EU's favor on that one in terms of being able to account for why there was such a large coma & where "so much" material came from. If so, then I submit that the EC model DOES NOT suffer from the "exact same issue" as you assert. Assuming I've understood your assertion correctly...?

There's no need to assert "matter creation" if the matter was there to begin with (wasn't "missing"). No creation ex nihilo required nor desired.

& if the issue is simply the volume of "outgassing" per unit of time, the EU doesn't rely on "cracks" to reservoirs of magically "hidden" water and other volatiles. If it's being machined, potentially (pun only slightly intended) it could be electrically machined / material sputtered off over its entire surface and not merely at the site of a few haphazard cracks...

But, I'm no expert, so open to being corrected...

~MG

[MGmirkin]

RealityCheck
Jets produced from sublimation of gas produce the same force as jets produced by discharge machining of the surface!
Look up Newton’s laws some time.

Incorrect!
Electric discharge does not produce the same kind of "jet" as internal pressure forcing it's way through an orifice. Not even close. The material is eroded from the surface, is accelerated by the electric field in filaments constricted by the magnetic field.
Look up Maxwell's laws some time.

That is right.
But the force on the comet is F=ma where m is the mass of the ejected material and a is its acceleration. It does not matter whether the acceleration is caused by mechanical means or electromagnetic means.
Perhaps an example will help.
Consider a shell that is shot out of a device. The force on the device is the product of the mass of the shell and the acceleration imparted on the shell by whatever mechanism is used. It does not matter whether the device is actually a rail gun (electromagnetically powered) or whether the device is a artillery gun (mechanically powered).

Neutral gases and such tend to spread out & form "clouds" in the near-vaccum of space. Filamentary jets that maintain their filamentary shape over large distances need that extra kick of the pinch effect, methinks. Ballistic trajectories are nice and all, but collisions and such tend to disperse materials eventually unless something else is going on to maintain an orderly structure over time. Yeah?

Cheers,
~MG