Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by VanderL
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
In which peer-reviewed journal may one read the details of this "electric comet model" (a reference please)?
|
Not yet.
|
Would you mind clarifying please?
Do you mean "there is no such peer-reviewed paper yet" (or similar)?
Or "I, VanderL, have not yet found such a paper" (or similar)?
Or something else?
|
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes, I expect such a paper will be published in the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
Would you mind clarifying please?
First, is the T&T PDF (see reference earlier in this thread) the primary (public) material presenting the "electric comet model"? If not, what is that primary source?
In terms of verification/falsification, by what method(s) could/will the Rosetta mission results contribute to any qualitative verification/falsification?
Specifically, what role(s) will hypothesis formation and testing play in such verification/falsification?
What role(s) will model building and testing play in such verification/falsification?
What role(s) will peer-review (or review in general) play in such verification/falsification?
Assuming that the ECM "can be understood qualitatively as described in the electric comet pdf" (my emphasis), what criteria could - in principle - be used to assess:
a) internal consistency (of the ECM)?
b) consistency between the ECM and results from the Rosetta mission?
|
Would you please try to limit your posts to only a few questions at a time (and not several posts in a row), that way we could actually have a useful exchange. This piling up of questions is something I don't have enough time for (another reason why I said "wow" earlier). This means I only want to get back to something I promised Fortis, and I won't respond to anything specific from your earlier posts.
I'll just try to address the question on how the Rosetta mission can give us answers:
1. The spacecraft will orbit the comet nucleus and be able to produce close-up images of the comet's surface. This will show us the surface characteristics and pinpoint the origins of the jets. This will either be small holes venting, or bright arcs (both point sources and interconnected "curtains" similar to Io's volcanoes) hovering close to the surface, preferentially on the highest elevations.
2. The lander will provide even better detail, but chances are the environment will prove too electrically active. If the lander survives it can show the surface composition, either subsurface ices, or minerals as deep as it can get (30 cm).
3. The plasma instruments will show either will show that nothing much is happening, neutral material that is only ionised by solar UV, away from the surface, or a very active plasma environment, getting stronger towards perihelion. Ionic species will either have higher concentrations away from the surface, or close to the jet source/surface (ionisation first, recobination to neautrals later).
4. The surface will either be changing because of the jets, or stay relatively intact (assuming subsurface chamber of ices volatiles are not disintegrating)
I'll think of more details if you want, but I think you get the idea; qualitative descriptions of events that can discriminate between the two models.
Cheers.