Why Hasn't Rosetta Made the Electric Comet Obvious Yet?

[Bomb20]

Are you talking with me, Rossim?

I did never claim there is no water!

Please, try to read correct before you are making any false statements about my opinions. In fact already the 18 months old video reports water and you are still missing Anaribas last lecture.

[orrery]

Don't know what you're talking about, it has made it obvious.

[Rossim]

Are you talking with me, Rossim?

I did never claim there is no water!

Please, try to read correct before you are making any false statements about my opinions. In fact already the 18 months old video reports water and you are still missing Anaribas last lecture.

Your statements are incredibly vague, so misunderstanding is certainly possible. You began by saying my "claim is simply untrue and unfair" and my only claim was that if EU proponents deny the presence of water in the coma of 67P then it falsely presents that the scientists of the EU deny the presence of water. Maybe you need to try to read correct [sic] before resorting to insults.

Recap:

Knomegnome, whom I directly addressed, made a comment concerning "water"/hydroxyl, implying that water is not observed in the coma and is inferred from the presence of hydroxyl. This is true in many accounts, such as Tempel1's release of "water" following the Deep Impact mission.

You cannot continue with this implication in 67P's coma, as both hydroxyl and water have been directly observed. This fact does not harm the EU theory whatsoever, as the electrochemical formation of hydroxyl and water was the idea in the first place (again... I HAVE watched both of Dr.Anariba 's available videos). I've seen many people, on this forum and other sites, whom still refuse to accept the fact that water is present, instead bringing up the hydroxyl/water assumption which has no place here and only hurts its insertion elsewhere.

I am well aware that the Thunderbolts team acknowledges water in the coma of 67P and am only trying to emphasize that to prevent supporters from relaying misinformation. Apparently you, Bomb20, missed that bit the first time around.

Don't know what you're talking about, it has made it obvious.

Maybe NASA agrees with you and is conspiring with all the world's nations to reserve their thoughts. Or maybe it's not obvious.

[querious]

Don't you think that the side of the comet facing the source of the electric field would do that?

If that were the case then this picture shouldn't exist...
http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2015/07/22 ... h-14-july/
...notice how the jets are at 90deg from each other. If the direction of the sun's electric field were guiding/generating the jets, then the jets should all head roughly in the same direction, no matter where the jet's base happens to be located on the comet.

What is your theory as to why the jet origins are almost exclusively in sunlight, given that the electric field is supposed to be the cause?

I mean, thats generally how EDM works (and electrical interaction in general). Most of the discharge occurs facing the source of the electrical field/current. You don't see much EDM happening on the back sides of a piece of metal being sputtered (or any, really, since the E Field is so constrained).

With EMD, the workpiece is grounded, and all the electrical stress is between the "top" of the workpiece and the tooling/electrode. That isn't the case with comets. I would expect the coma to be charged and pull jets from all around the comet, not JUST the sunlit portions.

[Rossim]

Thanks querious for the thoughtful response, that's exactly the discussion I was looking for. Not opposition to the electric comet theory, just a useful criticism of our own beliefs. The comet is one of the most apparent electrical phenomena in our solar system so I'm hoping that the cause of the more prominent craters on 67P is revealed very soon.

I am also wondering why the jets seem localized in the sunlit regions. I have noticed that the structure of the jets seem very sprite-like, where they branch slightly near the surface then merge and diffuse in a cloud towards the coma.
Compare this sprite: http://people.ee.duke.edu/~cummer/TLEs_ ... forweb.png
With this: http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/imag ... NavCam.jpg
And most recent pic shows a stretched out form: http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/imag ... NavCam.jpg

[Bomb20]

Rossim, again you should start to read and to understand your own lines! I will give a reminder - you started to insult people with claiming:

The EU does not dismiss this fact, only several of its foolish followers.

A serious and well mannered human being would write „in error“ or „misinformed“. However, you are preferring to insult people. One day you must learn that insults are not a good foundation for a discussion.

[Zyxzevn]

Rossim and querius.
I love the images.
Clearly some kind of substance is spreading in rays around the comet.
These rays seem only visible on the lighter side of the comet. That could be, because
the reflected light from comet only illuminates a part of the substance around the comet.

We still need to identify it.
If it were only gas, I would expect a cloudlike structure. Any gas will expand.
If it is expelled dust or frozen water particles, I would expect them to follow less linear
and less perpendicular stuctures. Neutral particles, when expelled from the surface will go any direction
that they are sent to. Their paths would spread immediately.

Some rays can be interpreted as fountains/geisers. A geiser-model assumes
that all rays have a certain opening from which this substance comes. Pressure from gas might send these away.
Yet on the surface we do not see such openings, we see erosion patterns instead.
Gas-pressure that is built up inside the "geisers" of the comet would have different pressures,
because for each geiser the temperature and the opening is different. That means that we should
see very different rays. While in the images the rays are often very similar.
For the geiser-model it would it not be possible for each geiser-opening to be perpendicular
to the surface each time. The variation in direction would be much larger.

My hypothesis is that some erosion is going on due to solar wind. This causes the particles to be extracted on the sun side, due to electrochemistry. The solar wind hits certain places more than others, which causes a bundling of the particles. Because the particles are charged and the whole surface is charged, they follow a path perpendicular from the surface. They expand when they are far enough from the surface and when two rays hit each other, as we can see in the images.
Having explained all characteristics already, I only need to identify the exact matter that is
eroded/expelled from the surface.

[querious]

Rossim and querius.
I love the images.
Clearly some kind of substance is spreading in rays around the comet.
These rays seem only visible on the lighter side of the comet. That could be, because
the reflected light from comet only illuminates a part of the substance around the comet.

We still need to identify it.
If it were only gas, I would expect a cloudlike structure. Any gas will expand.
If it is expelled dust or frozen water particles, I would expect them to follow less linear
and less perpendicular stuctures. Neutral particles, when expelled from the surface will go any direction
that they are sent to. Their paths would spread immediately.

Some rays can be interpreted as fountains/geisers. A geiser-model assumes
that all rays have a certain opening from which this substance comes. Pressure from gas might send these away.
Yet on the surface we do not see such openings, we see erosion patterns instead.
Gas-pressure that is built up inside the "geisers" of the comet would have different pressures,
because for each geiser the temperature and the opening is different. That means that we should
see very different rays. While in the images the rays are often very similar.
For the geiser-model it would it not be possible for each geiser-opening to be perpendicular
to the surface each time. The variation in direction would be much larger.

My hypothesis is that some erosion is going on due to solar wind. This causes the particles to be extracted on the sun side, due to electrochemistry. The solar wind hits certain places more than others, which causes a bundling of the particles. Because the particles are charged and the whole surface is charged, they follow a path perpendicular from the surface. They expand when they are far enough from the surface and when two rays hit each other, as we can see in the images.
Having explained all characteristics already, I only need to identify the exact matter that is
eroded/expelled from the surface.

Another thing... the base of the jets seem too diffuse to be coming from little openings.

[comingfrom]

To Rossim. I hear you.
There is water in the tail, I think that is an established fact.
But I think it is also quite clear now, that the comets are not the "dirty snowballs" that were surmised.

So we have to look for the explanation, where the water might be coming from.
If the rock silicates are being eroded, as they appear to be, that may well be releasing oxygen atoms.
If the released oxygen atoms combine with protons from the Solar wind, then they will become water.
This will be a natural tendency, especially if the oxygen atoms are negatively charged.
And this is just one possible explanation for the water, which proponents of the Electric Universe theory offer.
IMO, they (W. Thornhill, D. Scott, etc) don't speak as if the question is resolved yet.

But the rest of us, trying to catch up, definitely still hold some false conceptions.
So keep offering correction.

[Oliver Lightside]

Best view yet of a 'jet' contact point: http://www.universetoday.com/121824/dra ... ore-121824

[Frantic]

In that above link, it mentions, that the H2O abundance remained the same, while CO2, H2S and many others increased dramatically.

Why do they make no comment on this, are these expected findings from the comet jet for the mainstream theory?

[D_Archer]

In that above link, it mentions, that the H2O abundance remained the same, while CO2, H2S and many others increased dramatically.

Why do they make no comment on this, are these expected findings from the comet jet for the mainstream theory?

Of course not.

And to Rossim and others, when you say > "water have been directly observed".

That seems like a statement of fact. But water is not a fact of comets. They read Hydrogen lyman spectral lines as water, it is just measured energy, the actual line is from Hydrogen only. After that observation they infer that the source of this line is water being broken down by electrons. They assume the water is there.

So Electric Universe proponents have not made a final statement on this, it is still up in the air.

What EU should do is look at the interaction with the comet, the electrochemistry in detail and predict what will (or can) be in the coma.

Regards,
Daniel

[comingfrom]

Great links. Thanks.
At the page showing the best jet ever, I read this comment...

Jets carry along dust that helps create a comet’s fuzzy coma or temporary atmosphere, which are further modified into tails by the solar wind and the pressure of sunlight. When conditions and circumstances are right, these physical processes can build comets, the sight of which can fill the human heart with both terror and wonder.

What is he talking about here?
I was of the understanding that comets tend to disintegrate.

And then there is this bit: if this isn't the electric comet made obvious...

This is the first time a ‘diamagnetic cavity’ has been detected at Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko ...

Though I think I might prefer an explanation from Wal or Don for this observed phenomena, over what is given there.

~~`
I was studying another image of the comet here.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/det ... d=pia18899
If you look at this image, you can see some real interesting mountains in the far right in this image.
And one which looks like the Matterhorn (just left of the main range), but with the peak curved.
I can't help but wonder how these mountains were formed. Certainly looks like they have been built up, to me.
And they appear to be as big as mountains upon earth, I can't be sure precisely how big,
but were we expecting planet sized mountains on comets?

But for most of the rest of it, the comet appears to be eroding away.

Other interesting features are the huge boulders strewn upon the surface,
and that thin tall spire on the foothills of the mountain range.

I think cometary geology is going to be a fascinating area of study.

[nick c]

Just for clarification purposes...
the EU does not deny that water is present in the comas of comets or that there may not be water/ice on or inside of comets. A comet is defined by its' electrical condition, not the material composition.
In the EU comets are not composed of any specific type of material, most comets are the remnants of the electrical excavation of planets and moons during a recent catastrophic period in solar system history. As such, one would expect them to be composed of the same materials that are found on the various celestial bodies that are in the solar system. Of course much of this could be described as "rock." But certainly, many of the celestial bodies found in the solar system contain H2O in some form. That being said, it seems likely that much of the water, whether hydroxyl or actual H2O, is formed through electrical interaction between the solar wind and the rocky surface of the comet.

Evidently NASA does not always act in solidarity with the consensus comet (dirty ice ball) theory. This is shown by this NASA publication, where they actually describe and give consideration to the mechanism that the EU has been promoting for years:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-345/ch14.htm

These observations, although not negating the possible occurrence of water ice in cometary nuclei, point also to refractory sources of the actually observed hydrogen and hydroxyl. Solar protons as well as the products of their reaction with silicate oxygen would interact with any solid carbon and nitrogen compounds characteristic of carbonaceous chondrites to yield volatile carbon and nitrogen radicals such as observed in comets. Phenomena such as "flares," "breakups," "high-velocity jets," and nongravitational [236] acceleration are all phenomena that fit well into a theory ascribing them to the evaporation of frozen volatiles. However, with different semantic labels the underlying observations would also seem to be interpretable as manifestations of the focusing and dispersion processes in the cometary region of the meteor stream, accompanied by solar wind interaction.

highlight added


The difference in the EU is that cometary features (such as the jets, coma, and tails) are electrical phenomena and not the result of the sublimation of ices heated by the Sun. Pointing to evidence of H2O in cometary comas is not falsification of the EU model. (It is conceivable within the context of the EU model that there may be some cometary bodies that are composed entirely of H2O, water in some form or another is common in the solar system. Nothing like that has been observed but we cannot, in the context of the EU comet model, deny the possibility.) Whatever the material composition the important EU concept at work is the mechanism that is characteristic of comets. That is the electrical interaction between the comet and the solar wind (electrical current from the Sun) due to the orbital characteristics of the comet carrying it into changing electrical environments.

[Michael Mozina]

I am an avid supporter of most EU ideas and certainly those pertaining to the electric comet. I'm aware of the EU predictions, such as a dry, hard surface with little to no visible ice. However, these observations are 'easily' explained away as a product of sublimation from previous orbits. So, are there any possible 'smoking guns' or phenomena that could make the electric comet quite obvious to everyone? 67P is only about a week from perihelion and I'm worried we're running out of time... unless the comet inexplicably explodes post-perihelion with no water or porous structures revealed.

I think the operative issue was 'yet'. Apparently the sparks have started to fly.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... ch-to-sun/