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

[Rossim]

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

Daniel you are, respectfully, wrong. Water has been directly observed, that it a statement of fact.

What you said is true, 'they' were inferring the presence of water via hydrogen Lyman spectral lines... which of course are in the UV band... and read by Rosetta using the ALICE instrument. This tool allowed scientists to see that photodissociation of water (previous assumption) wasn't occurring at the surface of 67P after all.

Now, in post #13 of the first page, I already have stated that the direct observation of water was committed by MIRO... which makes measurements using preprogrammed sub-millimeter wave frequencies in the microwave band. No Lyman spectra necessary.

While nothing is contrary to the EU's expected electrochemistry occurring in the coma, the presence of water (H20) molecules is a fact.

That is an example of the damage to the EU cause I'm referring to. No efforts should be exhausted deciding if water is in the coma or not, there's no need. The fact that H2O did not increase following the recent July 29 outburst, yet every other measured gas did increase, is evidence enough that jet activity does not equate to water-ice sublimation.

[D_Archer]

That is an example of the damage to the EU cause I'm referring to. No efforts should be exhausted deciding if water is in the coma or not, there's no need. The fact that H2O did not increase following the recent July 29 outburst, yet every other measured gas did increase, is evidence enough that jet activity does not equate to water-ice sublimation.

Yes, that is the finding, now to prove that it is an electrical discharge...

I have been hit over the head with the MIRO results and i do not trust them either. I could never find a good research report or honest analysis of the data or even just the actual data, the press reports shout water, but the actual science behind it? It is vague and unintelligible, like Fourier transform spectroscopy. I do research everything, i am not denying water, i am just not sure scientifically speaking that the mainstream is correct about their water finding. So i doubt it, in my view there is nothing wrong with doubting.

Regards,
Daniel

[Rossim]

That is an example of the damage to the EU cause I'm referring to. No efforts should be exhausted deciding if water is in the coma or not, there's no need. The fact that H2O did not increase following the recent July 29 outburst, yet every other measured gas did increase, is evidence enough that jet activity does not equate to water-ice sublimation.

Yes, that is the finding, now to prove that it is an electrical discharge...

I have been hit over the head with the MIRO results and i do not trust them either. I could never find a good research report or honest analysis of the data or even just the actual data, the press reports shout water, but the actual science behind it? It is vague and unintelligible, like Fourier transform spectroscopy. I do research everything, i am not denying water, i am just not sure scientifically speaking that the mainstream is correct about their water finding. So i doubt it, in my view there is nothing wrong with doubting.

Regards,
Daniel

When you doubt facts, there is absolutely something wrong with it, unless you never speak of it to anyone else. You don't "trust" the MIRO results like a child who doesn't trust a doctor giving him a shot, it's immature and helps nobody. Of course press releases are full of junk and bias, the journal articles are not. The actual science behind it is not "vague and unintelligible" it is quite specific and directly measured. Go fight another battle Daniel, there is most certainly water vapor in the coma of 67P.

[comingfrom]

From the article which MM linked.

The amount of water streaming off 67P has increased a thousand times since Rosetta’s arrival last year, said Holger Sierks, who oversees Rosetta’s main camera. “Every day you could fill ten Olympic swimming pools,” he says.

Followed immediately by,

These outbursts take cometary material along for the ride – on 30 July the team saw a chunk, possibly 1 metre in size, flying off the comet – something that had never been observed before. “It’s great to see this for the first time ever,” said Sierks.

A chunk of dirty ice?

[Robertus Maximus]

Has Rosetta captured EDM crater formation in action?

'...exposed ice near the rims of the expanding features eating into surrounding material in the Imhotep region, but the markings grow much faster than scientists would expect if the changes were driven only solar heating.'

Does exposed ice 'eat' into the surrounding terrain?

See: http://astronomynow.com/2015/09/20/the- ... -changing/

[IgorTesla]

Some people here seem to need to do more study on comets themselves and learn to NOT use an assumption as a fact.
Quoting science that has it's origins based on a single assumption is like walking into a trap.
Pity some people seem not to be able to control themselves when confronted with criticism (either right or wrong).
In my point of view science should be about working together by constructive reasoning.

And for Rosetta i say we just wait for the proper telemetry to be published since any statement of what it is made of (incl. water)is at best an assumption but surely not a fact (yet!)

I just think the detected water is being created on the spot (as Wal Thornhill explained in one of his documentaties)
But i do not state that as a fact (yet).
Would be nice if MIRO was pointed towards Earth, just to see what it will detect .... (i can imagine it won't detect any water then ;p)

[AltClut]

thought this might be of interest to some

THE CHANGING COMET – CALL FOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Do you enjoy poring over images of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko? Have you spotted any changes in its surface features since Rosetta first arrived at the comet in August 2014? We are keen to hear from you!

Between NAVCAM and OSIRIS, and not forgetting the regular “OSIRIS image of the day” images and our NAVCAM CometWatch entries, there are over 20 000 images publicly available to browse covering the 667 days Rosetta has to date spent at the comet.

Indeed, 780 new images have been added to our NAVCAM Archive Image Browser this week, covering the period 6 April – 3 May 2016. Thanks to the hard work of the Rosetta downlink and archive group, this means that from now on, every month you will be able to access the full set of NAVCAM images taken during the previous month, and be able to keep even more up to date with the comet’s appearance than ever before.

Furthermore, with plentiful images available both before and after perihelion (Rosetta’s closest approach to the Sun along its orbit, when the comet’s activity was at its peak), including those captured from as close as 5-10 km from the comet’s surface at various times during the course of the mission, it is becoming easier to spot changes in surface patterns – as some of you have already pointed out in the comments section of this blog.

We’d therefore like to make this a dedicated blog thread to invite you to submit your observations on possible changes that you may have noticed.

[Zyxzevn]

Interesting image of Rosetta.
The picture shows a white landscape with lines that look as if it is snowing.

The larger version is here

It looks as if it is "snowing". But it gives a false impression.

The particle is taken from orbit, far away.
Zoomed out we get this image.
The original is in the top-right. This part is zoomed in.
And now we see it. It is an image from far away, where the view is obstructed
by lots of small particles.
The lines are dust particles floating around due to electrostatic forces.

The way the images are treated, is similar to the way the scientists think about the comet.
They want to see snow, they pick examples that seems to have snow.
But in reality, it is all electric.

[Cargo]

Also important to note the exposure time, 12.5 Seconds. Which makes we think the ion sparks are barely moving in this charged vacuum close to the comet.

[castrogiovanni]

Also important to note the exposure time, 12.5 Seconds. Which makes we think the ion sparks are barely moving in this charged vacuum close to the comet.

Have you ever thought that the so called "ion sparks" are actually ice? I don't want to tax anybody's intellect here, but it has been known for definite since 1986 that there is H2O on comets (KAO & Vega). This mission (among others) has just proved that what we are seeing is, in fact, ice. Despite what rubbish you may have been told that led you to believe alternative nonsense, by people who obviously don't understand comets very well. Why do you carry on believing it?
Has anyone seen this picture from Hartley 2 http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content ... -close.png ?
Guess what they saw when they looked at that "ion storm" in IR: Yes, H2O. Strange that one W.Thornhill was still claiming until quite recently that it couldn't possibly be ice. Eh? When we knew bloody decades ago that it was ice.

[castrogiovanni]

Further to the above: what do we think was blasting that H2O off of that comet? Again, from IR, it was CO2. At what temperature do we think this was happening? Well, there were almost contemporaneous papers, with IR temperature readings. It was cold. Very cold. So I fail to see why so many people have fallen for what is an obvious con/ failure to understand science (to be kind). Wake up and smell the roses people; you are being conned.

[castrogiovanni]

For those that can get access to scientific papers, here is one that Wal wouldn't have wanted you to see:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 3513001966
I assume somebody here is at an institution that has access to such papers?

[Zyxzevn]

Have you ever thought that the so called "ion sparks" are actually ice?

The scientists involved are saying that it is dust, not ice.
That is exactly the point I am making. They make it look like ice, but it isn't.

The only ice that has been found was a very small patch, which might have come from anywhere.
The most likely place where ice comes from, is the water produced by the electrochemical processes.

The idea is that comets come from an Oort cloud filled with the lighter elements, like hydrogen and oxygen.
So according to the mainstream, they may not contain any heavy materials.
Instead we do not see any Oort cloud. Nor do we it see from the spectral analyses of the comets.

The Rosetta mission was designed to study the snow on the comet. They did not find it.
They could not land on it, because the ground was to hard. Because it was not snow.
Near the sun, the comet should become vapor, causing a tail, leaving only a small nucleus.
But even after visiting the sun, the comet still looks roughly the same.
There are no real geysers either. Geysers come from small holes in the ground.
We don't see them either.

But it looks like a rock, it behaves like a rock.
It seems to cause a tail due to the electrochemical processes.
So maybe it really is a rock?

[castrogiovanni]

Another one here, for those that have access, and can be bothered: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/232/4757/1523
30 years, and still paywalled; maybe that's why nobody here actually read it. Including Wal and David.

[castrogiovanni]

Have you ever thought that the so called "ion sparks" are actually ice?

The scientists involved are saying that it is dust, not ice.
That is exactly the point I am making. They make it look like ice, but it isn't.

The only ice that has been found was a very small patch, which might have come from anywhere.
The most likely place where ice comes from, is the water produced by the electrochemical processes.

The idea is that comets come from an Oort cloud filled with the lighter elements, like hydrogen and oxygen.
So according to the mainstream, they may not contain any heavy materials.
Instead we do not see any Oort cloud. Nor do we it see from the spectral analyses of the comets.

The Rosetta mission was designed to study the snow on the comet. They did not find it.
They could not land on it, because the ground was to hard. Because it was not snow.
Near the sun, the comet should become vapor, causing a tail, leaving only a small nucleus.
But even after visiting the sun, the comet still looks roughly the same.
There are no real geysers either. Geysers come from small holes in the ground.
We don't see them either.

But it looks like a rock, it behaves like a rock.
It seems to cause a tail due to the electrochemical processes.
So maybe it really is a rock?

Yep. Remind me what the usual density of rock is. And then have a look at what the measured density of comets is.
Is it likely? Errrr, no.