Electric Comets - Page 4

PhantomWolf · #91 (**permalink**) 01-June-2006, 01:09 PM

To nail down the jet mechanism; it needs volatiles heated by solar irradiation, so inclusions of volatiles must be found in the larger grains somewhere, otherwise the dirty whateverball mechanism has "no legs" either.

That's not an answer. If I pick up a stone from the beach, it's likely to have sand on it, but if its the stone I'm interested in, then the sand is on no consequense, especially when I have already checked out the beach for sand previous.

You and sol88 seem to think that they should be checking for water again when they did that with Comet Halley 20 years ago.

So the question again, why bring back anything other then minerals. Why deliberately collect water vapour when you already know about that but are wanting to learn more about the mineral side of things?

Svemir · #92 (**permalink**) 01-June-2006, 01:10 PM

might be very interesting (in sufficient amount) in order to see if the comets water is the same as the earth's water as some theories suggest that the Earth got it's water from the comets during "massive" or "early" bombardment.
As an example: is the amount of deuterated water the same in both types of water?

PhantomWolf · #93 (**permalink**) 01-June-2006, 01:26 PM

might be very interesting (in sufficient amount) in order to see if the comets water is the same as the earth's water as some theories suggest that the Earth got it's water from the comets during "massive" or "early" bombardment.
As an example: is the amount of deuterated water the same in both types of water?

Might be I guess, but I think a landing and samaple retrieval would be better for that rather then trying to collect it from the tail. The fact remains that Stardust was interested in the dust and not the water.

sol88 · #94 (**permalink**) 01-June-2006, 02:23 PM

Fram wrote:

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by sol88
Water, the stuff we drink, H2O?? or have they just read Hydroxide ion's??

Sol

H2O and H2O+ and OH. See e.g. here for H2O+, and here for H2O, or this one to show that they do know the difference between H2O and OH.
All this can be easily found, so while it is good to be critical, it may be better to try to find the answers for yourself first.

Without paying the $30 required, a quote from the abstract:

Quote:

Emissions of 10 species are observed in the range 275−715 nm at approx4,000 km from the nucleus, and 6 of them are analysed in terms of production rates: Q OH = 2times1030, Q CH = 1029, Q C2 = 6times1027, Q C3 = 3times1027, Q CN = 1027 and Q NH = 2 times 1026, all in molecules s-1. The difference between the OH and H2O production rates is puzzling and needs further analysis. Ionic emissions, not discussed here, are prominent in the tailward part of the comet.

LINK

Also

Quote:

Broad absorption at 2.8-3.0 micrometers, as well as a narrow emission at 3.15 micrometers, which follow well the D-1 intensity variation, might be due to water ice. Emission at 2.8 micrometers is also possibly present, and might be due to OH created in vibrationally excited states after water photodissociation. The 6-12 micrometers spectrum does not show any molecular emission, nor emission in the 7.5-micrometers region. The spectrum is dominated by silicate emission showing a double structure with maxima at 9.0 and 11.2 micrometers, which suggests the presence of olivine.

LINK

and last :

Quote:

The observed peculiar H2O features can be explained by the stronger H2O+/dust contrast in the ion tail or by a possible mechanism of negative charging of the dust in the cometary coma.

My bold.

Like I said, without ponying up the dosh, still sounds a little vague to me and asks more questions than it answers.

My line of thinking, regarding the emissions, is that these are the manufactured in the procces of "jet"(=EDM) production, were the plasma streams interact.

I'd hazzard a guess that the mainstream has been right all along, regarding comets as the "seeds" for life, just thev'e put the cart before the horse.

Sol

Fram · #95 (**permalink**) 01-June-2006, 03:56 PM

So, Sol88, what can we conclude? Contrary to what you thought (and what e.g. Thunderbolts claim), scientists can detect the difference between OH and H2O, and have found both.
Furthermore, the find of e.g. olivine in the Stardust mission isn't so unexpected, as can be seen in your quote:

Quote:

The spectrum is dominated by silicate emission showing a double structure with maxima at 9.0 and 11.2 micrometers, which suggests the presence of olivine.

This sentence, and thus the part you highlighted (dominated by silicate emissions) only refers to the 6-12 micrometers spectrum from the previous sentence, and does not mean that the overall spectrum is dominated by it. The most is still H2O and OH.
That there are still more questions than answers is part of science (and the main attraction of it), but that does not mean that all the answers are wrong, as Thunderbolts seem to think, and even less that their alternative is right.

Tim Thompson · #96 (**permalink**) 01-June-2006, 04:24 PM

The astute reader will notice that there are no pro electric comet arguments being offered. It would appear that the proponents of the electric comet idea either have no arguments to offer, or don't know enough about their own "model" to invent any. Either way, it is simply one more indication that talking specifically about "electric comets" is something of a waste.

However, there have been many criticisms of mainstream science, and all of them increasingly wimpy as we go through them. For instance, it has been argued that comets have no water. So mainstream supporters have responded by multiple demonstrations of the observation of water, including neutral & ionized in the gas phase, as well as water ice. So electric comet proponents, or more accurately, "mainstream comet opponents", since the "proponents" seem to have no "pro", have been forced to fall back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sol88

Like I said, without ponying up the dosh, still sounds a little vague to me and asks more questions than it answers.

So, in other words, you give up. Unwilling to pay to read the papers, or perhaps seek them out in some library and read them, unable to make any counter argument, you simply have nothing to say. In science, all answers always raise new questions. That's the way science works, so that too is no criticism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanderL

To nail down the jet mechanism; it needs volatiles heated by solar irradiation, so inclusions of volatiles must be found in the larger grains somewhere, otherwise the dirty whateverball mechanism has "no legs" either.

See Introduction to Comets, Brandt & Chapman, Cambridge University Press, 2004 (2nd ed), table 5.3 (p. 168). The table lists 54 atomic & molecular species observed in comets by remote spectroscopy. The list includes H₂O, which is commonly observed in almost all comets. But the list also includes HCO, CH₃OH, NH₃, and even NH₂CHO. Geiss, et al., 1991, report the list of volatiles observed in situ by the Giotto mission to Comet Halley in 1986. I really don't see that there is any wiggle room at all for the argument that volatiles are somehow "unobserved" or "unconfirmed" in comets. It is simply a false assertion. The volatiles, the water, and the water ice are all observed.

I will finish by repeating what I said at the top. We should all realize by now that there are no arguments in favor of any "electric comet" model. The discussion is now entirely devoted to claims that the mainstream models are wrong. But the claims are weak, based on false or at best questionable assertions. The electric comet is now a dead issue.

Comixx · #97 (**permalink**) 01-June-2006, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

I will finish by repeating what I said at the top. We should all realize by now that there are no arguments in favor of any "electric comet" model. The discussion is now entirely devoted to claims that the mainstream models are wrong. But the claims are weak, based on false or at best questionable assertions. The electric comet is now a dead issue.

I have to agree.
Even a cursory search can lead you to thousands of pages of verfied equations, and mountains of observable data concerning the mainstream comet argument.

Based on this, the EC idea is the extraordinary claim...so where is their argument, their equations, their observable data?

So, for me too, this argument is closed until the EC supporters can give me anything besides criticism of the mainstream, and back up their extraordinary claim...

VanderL · #98 (**permalink**) 01-June-2006, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

The astute reader will notice that there are no pro electric comet arguments being offered. It would appear that the proponents of the electric comet idea either have no arguments to offer, or don't know enough about their own "model" to invent any. Either way, it is simply one more indication that talking specifically about "electric comets" is something of a waste.

However, there have been many criticisms of mainstream science, and all of them increasingly wimpy as we go through them. For instance, it has been argued that comets have no water. So mainstream supporters have responded by multiple demonstrations of the observation of water, including neutral & ionized in the gas phase, as well as water ice. So electric comet proponents, or more accurately, "mainstream comet opponents", since the "proponents" seem to have no "pro", have been forced to fall back.

So, in other words, you give up. Unwilling to pay to read the papers, or perhaps seek them out in some library and read them, unable to make any counter argument, you simply have nothing to say. In science, all answers always raise new questions. That's the way science works, so that too is no criticism.

See Introduction to Comets, Brandt & Chapman, Cambridge University Press, 2004 (2nd ed), table 5.3 (p. 168). The table lists 54 atomic & molecular species observed in comets by remote spectroscopy. The list includes H₂O, which is commonly observed in almost all comets. But the list also includes HCO, CH₃OH, NH₃, and even NH₂CHO. Geiss, et al., 1991, report the list of volatiles observed in situ by the Giotto mission to Comet Halley in 1986. I really don't see that there is any wiggle room at all for the argument that volatiles are somehow "unobserved" or "unconfirmed" in comets. It is simply a false assertion. The volatiles, the water, and the water ice are all observed.

I will finish by repeating what I said at the top. We should all realize by now that there are no arguments in favor of any "electric comet" model. The discussion is now entirely devoted to claims that the mainstream models are wrong. But the claims are weak, based on false or at best questionable assertions. The electric comet is now a dead issue.

You're assertion that it has been argued that "comets have no water" is not an EU assertion. It has been stated that the water (ice) that will be part of a comet, is insufficient to generate any jets, and that the volatiles/ices are not the reason that comets jet. Of course there is room for other interpretations of the data; ions recombining can give you many different molecules that apart from existing in the coma, were never part of a comet's "make-up".

Until the jet mechanism is actually reproduced, or imaged close-up, there is always the possibility that things are very different from what has been thought for many years. Who expected that comets would have "high temperature" minerals in large quantities? The mechanisms that make comets different from other objects (jets, comas and tails) has not been proven beyond doubt, imo and besides the already known asteroids/comets in orbit far from the Sun (where supposedly ices could have survived for a very long time) there are now also asteroids with periodic cometary behaviour that were thought to reside in "asteroid-only" territory.

To come back to the X-rays produced by charge-exchange, my objection is that the plot where the specific X-ray peak is shown hardly rises above the noise. Imo better data is needed, very probably found with the observations of the break-up of comet Schwassmann-Wachmann.

Cheers.

VanderL · #99 (**permalink**) 01-June-2006, 09:27 PM

Forgot to mention that my University library doesn't have many astronomy/astrophysics journals, but I'll keep looking (I do have Science and Nature available on-line, though, so any references in there are ok).

Cheers.

VanderL · #**100** (**permalink**) 01-June-2006, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

What kind of measurement, made by what kind of instrument, would you consider as an "observation" of water ice?

How does the measurement which you propose constitute a direct observation of ice, as opposed to only an inference of the presence of ice?

What are the weaknesses in the inferences that you are aware of, such that you do not consider them to be reliable indicators of ice?

I would consider a piece of comet sliced into bits with clear amounts of ices/volatiles in situ (not in the coma) definitive proof that at least comets are "snowy dirtballs". If it is observed as molecules in the coma it could have been formed by recombining oxygen and hydrogen. Ice below surface is needed to create jets, ice crystals in the coma are, imo, unreliable indicators.

I think the Stardust mission will be able to answer that question partly. I guess the Rosetta mission will give us the best data as it will follow the comet during a large part of it's cycle and do measurements up close.

Cheers.

VanderL · #**101** (**permalink**) 01-June-2006, 09:45 PM

Btw, I think the "double-flash" prediction by Thornhill (which he predicted based on the pre-impact flash by comet Shoemaker-Levy 9's fragment G impacting Jupiter), is verified by observation, and thus should count in favor of the electric comet model.

Cheers.

sol88 · #**102** (**permalink**) 02-June-2006, 03:07 AM

Quote:

To nail down the jet mechanism; it needs volatiles heated by solar irradiation, so inclusions of volatiles must be found in the larger grains somewhere, otherwise the dirty whateverball mechanism has "no legs" either.

That's not an answer. If I pick up a stone from the beach, it's likely to have sand on it, but if its the stone I'm interested in, then the sand is on no consequense, especially when I have already checked out the beach for sand previous.

And that is????? When water (H20) is the main volatile under question? Why spend all that $$$ sending a probe thru the tail and not try and capture some water/volatiles

Nowhere have I read or seen that H2O and all the other volatiles have been definitively observed on the nucleus of a comet, plenty in the tail though we all agree on that.

So if they (volatiles) are not on/in the nucleus but are in the tail, how'd they get there??

Does the coma have a different elemental count and/or composition than the tail, both dust and ion??

I'd have to agree with VanderL

Quote:

I would consider a piece of comet sliced into bits with clear amounts of ices/volatiles in situ (not in the coma) definitive proof that at least comets are "snowy dirtballs". If it is observed as molecules in the coma it could have been formed by recombining oxygen and hydrogen. Ice below surface is needed to create jets, ice crystals in the coma are, imo, unreliable indicators.

until then the mainstream will keep refining and distilling the "accepted" view to better fit all those surprises!!!

Also

Quote:

So, in other words, you give up. Unwilling to pay to read the papers, or perhaps seek them out in some library and read them, unable to make any counter argument, you simply have nothing to say. In science, all answers always raise new questions. That's the way science works, so that too is no criticism.

mate, I struggle to keep the only library we have here, the internet, on line let alone fork out $$$ I don't have to read papers that must conform to the mainstream view. Nearest state or university library is over 850km away, I'm keen but not that keen.

Seems we could go round in circles, until the Rosetta mission is completed. I’d like to chuck in a prediction for reference later on, I’d be very surprised if the Lander doesn’t “malfunction” during the decent phase and if it makes it all the way to the surface it will find very limited/no water ice and the composition will be nearly identical to an asteroid. (see if this post resurfaces in 2015).

So until then I’ll try and stick to the mainstream view as well (as not to upset anyone too much) + Mar 13: Stardust Findings May Alter View of Comet Formation

Quote:

Scientists have found minerals formed near the sun or other stars in the samples returned to Earth by NASA's Stardust spacecraft in January. The findings suggest materials from the center of the solar system could have traveled to the outer reaches where comets formed. This may alter the way scientists view the formation and composition of comets.

but will keep posting in this thread (if it's not locked) with new evidence as it comes in, in support of my view of a universe dominated by the electricomagnetic forces.

So its still a wide open debate, with the EC gaining more ground with the holes and assumptions left by trying to shoehorn the "accepted" veiw into the curent paradigm.

Sol

PhantomWolf · #**103** (**permalink**) 02-June-2006, 03:59 AM

Hoooooo boy.

You really don't get it do you?

papers that must conform to the mainstream view.

No paper has to conform to the mainstream view, but it does have to provide the evidence to back it up. If you want to have a paper that isn't mainstream then you have to be 100% sure of yourself because you're going to have to prove why you are right and the scientists over the last 100 years are wrong. You will also have to account for all the data that has been gathered for the last 400+ years, especially if you want to overturn the fundamentals of physics. Going down the non-mainstream road is tough, tougher if you are opposing the mainstream and not expanding it like Einstein or Hawking did. If you haven't got the evidence for your position, you aren't getting published, mainstream or not.

Seems we could go round in circles, until the Rosetta mission is completed.

And if the Rosetta missions returns results consistant with the mainstream, will you conceed that you are wrong, or will you claim that the "mainstream" covered up the real results?

So its still a wide open debate, with the EC gaining more ground with the holes and assumptions left by trying to shoehorn the "accepted" veiw into the curent paradigm.

I think you are still totally igoring the evidence that's before you. Besides, that's not how science works. Science takes the theory that makes the most sense with the least assumptions. Shooting holes in the mainstream theory doesn't make your's win by default when your's still have bigger holes. If you want your thoery to be acceopted, you have to come up with the proof for it. As to assumptions. Which assumption is the least complex? Assuming that the water in the tail comes from water in the nucleus, or that its made by the actions of some strange new physics?

This may alter the way scientists view the formation and composition of comets.

True it might, but that doesn't mean that thery have to turn physics and the known universe on its head to do that. We had to change our view of how the moon was formed after the Apollo missions, but that doesn't mean we had to change the way physics worked. You're making the leap from changes in formation still based on the known laws of physics, to changing the entire way the universe works. Who's doing the shoehorning here?

Look at it this way. I have a rock. I believe that it's marble and thus metamorphic and was formed by the remains of coral that was buried and then heated. In studying it I discover that it has traces of gold and flakes of quartz in it. That makes me reveiw the way it was formed. I know now it wasn't coral that was the main formation, but instead that it had to come from a rivers alluvial deposits and thus is more likely to be formed from the remains of freshwater crusteans. I have changed my views on the compasition and formation of the rock, but my overall views of geology are still consistant with the way I know the world works. In the same way Astronomers can change their view on Comet formation and composition without having to throw away the rules the universe works by and we have known for hundreds of years, and it's not a case of discovering "hot made" compounds in comets that will over turn it. If you expect to overturn Gravity as the major large scale force in the Universe, then you have to plug all the holes in your own theories, in fact actually come up with a consistant and falsifiable theory before you can even start. Until then you're in exactly the same boat as the Conspiracy Thoerists pointing at Apollo photos and screaming there aren't any stars, or that the WTC buildings were blown up

Tim Thompson · #**104** (**permalink**) 02-June-2006, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanderL

... (which he predicted based on the pre-impact flash by comet Shoemaker-Levy 9's fragment G impacting Jupiter)...

What "pre impact flash"? There was no such thing that I am aware of. Do you have any reference to observations of such a pre impact flash?

Tim Thompson · #**105** (**permalink**) 02-June-2006, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sol88

And that is????? When water (H20) is the main volatile under question? Why spend all that $$$ sending a probe thru the tail and not try and capture some water/volatiles

Wrong question. You should ask, Why waste all that money trying to catch samples of something that you already know is there? But, of course, Stardust may well have brought back water ice samples. I don't know, but I do know that water ice grains can be found in comet tails.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sol88

Nowhere have I read or seen that H2O and all the other volatiles have been definitively observed on the nucleus of a comet, plenty in the tail though we all agree on that. So if they (volatiles) are not on/in the nucleus but are in the tail, how'd they get there??

I think this is an attitude that is too bizarre for me to comprehend at any level. It certainly slams the door shut on any hope of a rational discussion of anything related to science, or even just plain common sense. There are only two things to talk about, namely the comet, and the solar wind. We already know that the water is not in the solar wind. Therefore, the water came from the comet. There is no other possibility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sol88

Does the coma have a different elemental count and/or composition than the tail, both dust and ion??

It probably does. The dust & ion tails are selected by radiation & solar wind pressure, so not all of the dust in the coma will go into the dust tail, and not all of the ions will go into the ion tail. The differences between them should be instructive as to the physical processes at work in comets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sol88

I'd have to agree with VanderL until then the mainstream will keep refining and distilling the "accepted" view to better fit all those surprises!!!

This is pure nonsense. Clearly, you either do not know what the word science means, or you actively believe that science is useless. Either way, it should be obvious why so few people agree with you. The process you describe with derision is in fact the way it is supposed to be done. How silly is it to think that any theory should be cast in stone, and never modified! Of course we refine & distill the accepted view, that's what we are supposed to do. It proves that the theory in question is robust. If it were not refinable & distillable, now that would be big news, because it would prove that the theory was untenable. That's when you go shopping for a new theory, and never until then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sol88

So its still a wide open debate, with the EC gaining more ground with the holes and assumptions left by trying to shoehorn the "accepted" veiw into the curent paradigm.

I see nothing wide open, and nothing to debate. And the EC is not gaining ground, it is dead. Finished. Kaput. Pushing up daisies. There is neither evidence, nor argument for the EC.

Tim Thompson · #**106** (**permalink**) 02-June-2006, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanderL

I would consider a piece of comet sliced into bits with clear amounts of ices/volatiles in situ (not in the coma) definitive proof that at least comets are "snowy dirtballs". If it is observed as molecules in the coma it could have been formed by recombining oxygen and hydrogen. Ice below surface is needed to create jets, ice crystals in the coma are, imo, unreliable indicators.

The water in fact could not have come from recombining oxygen & hydrogen, we already know that, so long as we believe that physics works.

We know the composition of the solar wind, and we know that the abundance of oxygen in the solar wind is far short of that required to account for the large amount of water we see. Therefore, one way or another, the water came from the comet. There is no other possibility.

So, either the comet emits lots of H and O which recombine into H₂O, or the comet already has a store of H₂O available. If you are going to argue that the H₂O comes from recombination of cometary H & O, then you have to explain how all that H & O managed to sit around for who knows how long, without recombining in that favorable environment for recombination, rather than waiting for the highly unfavorable environment of the coma & tail. Not only are the coma & tail extremely low density environments, compared to the comet body, but in the gas phase the H & O are constantly bombarded by solar UV radiation, which keeps them too energetic to recombine. So that process makes no physical sense. The water could only have come from the comet, and in the form of water.

Now what form would water take in a comet? One might argue for a dissolved gas in the comet matrix, but that too makes little sense because the temperature is too low. In fact, the low temperature makes anything other than water ice quite problematic. And anywhere near the comet surface, we have to add the low pressure, which makes anything other than ice even more problematic.

So the only physically realistic option is that the comet carries water ice. This is also consistent with the spectroscopic observation of exposed water ice on comet nuclei, and the spectroscopic observation of water ice in comet coma & tails, and the in-situ observation of water by Giotto at comet Halley, all of which have already been reported in these discussions.

Tim Thompson · #**107** (**permalink**) 02-June-2006, 05:47 AM

So, we are still batting around weak arguments about the alleged weaknesses of mainstream comet science. But what about the Electric Comet? I thought this was an Electric Comet discussion? Shouldn't we at least mention Electric Comets now & then? It seems that the Electric Comet proponents have no pro Electric Comet arguments left.

sol88 · #**108** (**permalink**) 02-June-2006, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Why waste all that money trying to catch samples of something that you already know is there?

Because we do not know, we assume that is where the water is coming from

Do you have a link for

Quote:

Stardust may well have brought back water ice samples. I don't know, but I do know that water ice grains can be found in comet tails.

this statement?

Are there any other ways H2O can be made other than "burning" H gas and Co2 and CO and H0 and so on?

and

Quote:

I think this is an attitude that is too bizarre for me to comprehend at any level. It certainly slams the door shut on any hope of a rational discussion of anything related to science, or even just plain common sense. There are only two things to talk about, namely the comet, and the solar wind. We already know that the water is not in the solar wind. Therefore, the water came from the comet. There is no other possibility.

If it's not in the solar wind and we have yet to get direct observation/measurements, and not implied or assumed, water/ice on the comet nucleus but it is in the tail then it's still wide open

where is the water/ice coming from?

I asked the Question in the Q&A section with no joy, so, maybe you could throw me a line: What happens to those charged particles from the sun when they encounter particles of a different charge/density/magnetic field?

lastley

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by sol88
Does the coma have a different elemental count and/or composition than the tail, both dust and ion??
It probably does. The dust & ion tails are selected by radiation & solar wind pressure, so not all of the dust in the coma will go into the dust tail, and not all of the ions will go into the ion tail. The differences between them should be instructive as to the physical processes at work in comets.

Yes it should, and I would like to find out.

Sol

Ps can you define solar wind pressure please Tim?

sol88 · #**109** (**permalink**) 02-June-2006, 06:02 AM

"jets" can not be explained with using majik (the ice hides under the surface)

The comets dark albedo can not be explained (with out using majik)

The comets high relief surface features can not be explained (without using majik)

There formation can not be explained (without using majik)

The ion tail staying collminated over millions of miles can not be explained (with out using majik)

These are just some of the questions asked, and I've read both mainstream and EU explinations and while one keeps coming up with stranger ways to explain the observation the other is more than plausible IF we start from an electrical view point.

Lets turn it upside down (the theory) and see if we can "see" something different from the other prospective!

We could be in for a "suprise"!

And I'll give you a wager Tim, if the Rosetta mission is a succes, no malfunction and so on, and there is indeed the required amount of water to account for the tail, then I'll happily come over and eat my shorts.

It's awhile to wait though.

Sol

Gillianren · #**110** (**permalink**) 02-June-2006, 06:07 AM

So I'm confused, Sol88. You've admitted several times that you don't know much about science, but every time someone tries to enlighten you, you tell them they don't know what they're talking about. How much arrogance does that take?

sol88 · #**111** (**permalink**) 02-June-2006, 06:57 AM

It's because what they are telling me is implied or assumed knowledge.

We do not know there is ice/water on or under the surface of a comet, it is assumed or implied thru what we DO know is in the tails make up.

This is not ment to be taken as arrogance, just more inquisitive than the "leap of faith" that mainstream science "knows" something because...well...because the they say so!

And the scary thing is, if over the next few years this theory gains more ground, then the phyisics books may indeed need to be "rewritten".

Sol

Fram · #**112** (**permalink**) 02-June-2006, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanderL

Btw, I think the "double-flash" prediction by Thornhill (which he predicted based on the pre-impact flash by comet Shoemaker-Levy 9's fragment G impacting Jupiter), is verified by observation, and thus should count in favor of the electric comet model.

Cheers.

Care to give us a link to an observation that verifies that there was a pre-impact flash? That was an essential part of that prediction. The double flash on itself, while of course not evidence against the EC model at all, cannot be used as evidence in favour either.

Fram · #**113** (**permalink**) 02-June-2006, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sol88

It's because what they are telling me is implied or assumed knowledge.

We do not know there is ice/water on or under the surface of a comet, it is assumed or implied thru what we DO know is in the tails make up.

This is not ment to be taken as arrogance, just more inquisitive than the "leap of faith" that mainstream science "knows" something because...well...because the they say so!

Sol88, this has been reported many times before, probably in this thread as well: we do know that there is ice on the surface.
So there is ice on the surface (but not much, as that is the first that gets stripped away of course, being the most exposed. There is a lot of H2O in the tail. There is a lot of water released after the impact of Deep Impact.
To still try to somehow find evidence for the EC theory, when the very basics of that theory have been shown to be flawed, and when the current theory, while still in many aspects uncertain (as are most scientific theories), has loads of evidence for it, that is what requires a blind leap of faith.

PhantomWolf · #**114** (**permalink**) 02-June-2006, 09:37 AM

I know that parts of this post by Jay were posted eariler in this thread, but I want to post itin it's entirety because it is totally relevant here. While Jay wrote it abourt CT's, it applies just as aptly to ATM's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Except that, in this case, there IS proof beyond a shadow of a doubt.

No, but perhaps beyond reasonable doubt. Every inductive argument (of which any investigation after the fact is an example) allows for inductive skepticism and overcomes it with an inductive leap. The question in most of these cases then becomes just how wide the gulf of inductive skepticism is or should be. Thankfully in actual investigations there is a lot of past practice on which we can establish what "reasonable" means. This is why it is necessary to have some background in relevant investigational practice in order to engage in it or to criticize what others have done: you need to know when enough skepticism is enough.

Conspiracists who are inexperienced investigators will, for example, talk about the alleged inconsistency in eyewitness testimony. This implies they believe eyewitness testimony of a true even should always be consistent. This, of course, is laughed at by the professional investigator. But even then the question is still how much inconsistency should be allowed without legitimate question arising? And in practice that depends on quite a large number of factors. And that's where expertise comes in. "Expertise" in investigation encompasses (and forestalls the tedious enumeration of) the various ways in which eyewitness testimony is handled.

That some CTer's can't see that is simply willful blindness.

This still holds. Logicians still consider "denial of the inductive leap" to be a fallacy, but the principle is not quite as cut-and-dried as this.

Arguments of the form, "You say X happened, but you don't have evidence to show that Y didn't happen instead," deny the inductive leap. When a jury convicts someone, they acknowledge that it's possible that all the evidence against him could still be true, but that he is nevertheless innocent.

Most conspiracy theories taken the approach of trying to widen the inductive leap required in the prevalent theory. That is, they say, "There are so many anomalies and inconsistencies that you really have to stretch your imagination in order to believe that X happened." Or, as I sometimes call it, the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) approach. The goal is to so erode faith in X that any alternative Y, no matter how ludicrous, starts to look better by comparison. Often Y can explain individual anomalies with much greater facility, but that isn't sufficient as we discover below.

Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution. As long as conspiracy theories simply "call for more research" or assert that "it remains an open question," their proponents will continue to enjoy attention.

As we discover, the alleged "anomalies" and "inconsistencies" almost always turn out to be a failure to meet the ignorant and ill-founded expectations of the conspiracy theorists. And so it's tempting to spend a lot of time arguing whether those expectations are right or wrong. Hog-heaven for the conspiracist. By quibbling over just how wide that inductive leap is, the argument becomes endlessly subjective and fails to acknowledge that the absolute width of the leap is utterly irrelevant.

Whether one's inductive leap is trivial or strenuous is irrelevant if it's still the shortest one. That is, the theory to which we rationally subscribe is always the best theory, regardless of how objectively good it is. If the inductive leap for one theory is long, we can still hold to it if the leap in other theories is still longer.

The only meaningful challenge to one line of induction is another line of induction whose inductive leap is shorter. The question is thus not that X isn't proved sufficiently to remove the inductive leap altogether and thus reject Y categorically. It isn't that X's inductive leap is so long that you're just better off believing Y on general principles. The question -- the only proper question, that is -- is whether the inductive leap associated with Y is greater or lesser than X's leap.

That's why you never get a coherent Y out of conspiracists. That's why they'll have individual scenarios that explain individual anomalies (thermite on the steel, missiles at the Pentagon, etc.) but no coherent full-scale theory. Why? Because by giving you just bits and pieces, or by claiming they don't have or need a Y because they're only "raising issues", they don't give you anything whose inductive leap can be measured against X's.

It's blindness, for sure, but it's blindness in the sense that they don't understand why their approach will never be given equal consideration alongside a testable theory.

Here we're talking about where that inductive leap occurs. We know that the solar wind has no water, we know that the tail does, we know that the coma does, we know the surface does, we know that when you smack it with a whooping big bit of copper, it sprays out water. Where does it come from if not from the nucleus? If I take a bucket and invert it over your head soaking you, can I then claim that you only assume the water come from the bucket? That since you didn't see the water in the bucket you can't say it was in there? That's exactly what you are doing. You are critising the mainstream science for making a small leap of faith, that the water is from sublimation of ice in the nucleus and trying to replace it with a HUGE assumption of your own, that it comes from some unusual physics that creates it out of nothing. How is that in any way shape or form logical?

tusenfem · #**115** (**permalink**) 02-June-2006, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanderL

Btw, I think the "double-flash" prediction by Thornhill (which he predicted based on the pre-impact flash by comet Shoemaker-Levy 9's fragment G impacting Jupiter), is verified by observation, and thus should count in favor of the electric comet model.

Cheers.

I think I may have a very simple (simplistic??) method of creating the "double flash". In this I do have to take into account that the amount of water which was found is greater than what would reside on the surface of the comet.

I could envision it like this:
First the impactor hits the surface of the comet, and creates a "flash," i.e. is blows away the surface ice/dust/grains, like in any collision.
Then the impactor reaches the comet proper, and with all the kinetic energy it has, breaks through the surface and enters a region where there is water abundant. This will then be shot out of the hole that the impactor created in the comet proper surface. Thus creating the second flash. I think this could happen in the tenths of seconds time span.

But more clever people than I have probably already written papers about this "double flash" (if it actually exists).

tusenfem · #**116** (**permalink**) 02-June-2006, 10:50 AM

Maybe we should refrain from scientific words here, so we do not confuse sol88.
Most people seem to know the implications of the words "assume" and "approximate" and ... well go through the list. We should just write "we know that" or "we use" or whatever.

Svemir · #**117** (**permalink**) 02-June-2006, 12:27 PM

Tim T. says:

Quote:

Therefore, one way or another, the water came from the comet. There is no other possibility.

So, either the comet emits lots of H and O which recombine into H2O, or the comet already has a store of H2O available. If you are going to argue that the H2O comes from recombination of cometary H & O, then you have to explain how all that H & O managed to sit around for who knows how long, without recombining in that favorable environment for recombination, rather than waiting for the highly unfavorable environment of the coma & tail. Not only are the coma & tail extremely low density environments, compared to the comet body, but in the gas phase the H & O are constantly bombarded by solar UV radiation, which keeps them too energetic to recombine. So that process makes no physical sense. The water could only have come from the comet, and in the form of water.

here is what EU people claim:

Quote:

David Talbot
The evidence suggests that comets are highly negatively charged with respect to the Sun. (what evidence?)
As they rush toward the Sun, the voltage increases until at some point the comet nucleus begins to discharge. (Why would negatively charged comet swimming in the pool of positive ions build up a voltage? )
Electrons are stripped from a few points on the comet surface where the electric field is strongest. These “spark discharges” finely machine rocky material from the surface to form a “cathode jet” of negatively charged dust together with surface matter that has been torn apart to release ionized atoms and molecules, including oxygen.

First you get oxygen ions. Where do they come from?

Quote:

David Talbot
Such a discovery is most simply explained if the parents of OH were a combination of solar protons (hydrogen) and negative oxygen ions electrically removed from silicates and other minerals in the nucleus.
The greater abundance of OH would then be expected. It then becomes clear that the water we see is being produced through electrical exchange: Negatively charged oxygen from the comet nucleus combines with the positively charged hydrogen ions from the Sun, via the solar wind.

Further:

Quote:

David Talbot
A direct confirmation of the electric connection came unwittingly from the Chandra X-ray Observatory on July 14, 2000. At that time, the Chandra telescope viewed the comet Linear repeatedly over a 2-hour period, detecting unexpected X-rays from oxygen and nitrogen ions in the coma of the comet. The capture of electrons from the negatively charged comet by positively charged hydrogen ions in the solar wind is, of course, nothing else than an electric discharge, nature’s highly efficient means of X-ray production.

Why use the word hydrogen when explaining what happens to oxygen and nitrogen?
Shouldn't coma tail, after recombination (Sun's ions + comets electrons+ x-rays) became neutral? Remember, you can't reionise the tail because:

Quote:

David Talbot
Negative ions are difficult to produce by solar heating and are quickly destroyed by solar radiation.

(What's difference between the heating and radiation?)
How do you make coma tail plasma again?
Furthermore:

Quote:

David Talbot
Under the conventional model there is no reason for the high density of negative ions discovered near the comet nucleus.

Isn't just that that happens in charge exchange mechanism?

Quote:

David Talbot
There is reason to believe (what reason?) that the positively charged ions from the solar wind react preferentially (underlined by D.T.) with the negatively charged oxygen from the nucleus to generate the water observed surrounding comets.

Why believe? Don't we have a laboratory experiments that show "preferentiality"?
Finally:

Quote:

David Talbot
The probe Vega 2 found the H2O (water) production by comet Halley was one fifth of the OH production. But scientists had supposed that OH was formed by photo-dissociation of H2O at some distance from the nucleus. The report in Nature in May 1986 reads: "only indirect and sometimes ambiguous evidence in favor of water has been found; indeed, some facts appear to contradict this hypothesis." Thus, the authors suggest, "This problem requires further analysis and may indicate the existence of parents of OH other than H2O."

we have a mechanism:
Comets are building up a negative charge far away from the Sun. Electrons (galactic stream or so) settle in in the outer orbits of the atoms (alone and in molecules). The comet is fully charged, both nucleus and tail.
As it approaches the Sun things happen:
1) recombination: Hydrogen ions from Solar Wind capture electrons from coma tail making neutral hydrogen
2) hydrogen ions from Solar Wind react with other negative ions from coma tail (the product still might be charged)
3) although the comet is losing charge the voltage between comet^- and the Sun⁺ is increasing
Then, at some point, the discharge happens. It's invisible, only clue are white spots on the surface of the comet. The "cathode jet" is established.
It does several other things:
1)Electrons are removed from the comet's surface and interact with Solar Wind's ions producing:
a) x-rays
b) neutral atoms and molecules (f.ex. e^- + H⁺=H).
c) plasma (tail) is made of free electrons and negatively charged ions ripped of the comets surface in the same process of discharge, they are all oriented oposite to the Sun. These must be ions that didn't recombine with positive ions from Solar Wind, since the tail is in plasma state, or the neutral atoms/molecules are reionized again, which is unlikely.
2) jets, sometimes oriented towards the Sun
3) Negative ions, both atomic and molecular are removed from the surface of the comet (and constitute comets tail?)
4) Negative ions of oxygen O^-- are ripped of from parrent molecules. They preferentially react with H⁺ making in the first turn OH^- molecules and became a part of the comets tail
5) As the oxygen is removed from the surface composite molecules, parrent molecules being neutral now(?), are simply melted by discharge (electric machining). That's why we trace olivin. It's produced in high temperature conditions generated by "cathode jet"
6) Sometimes the voltage is extreme and discharges are very energetic. It causes the comet to desintegrate. ("exploding capacitor")
FINALLY:
OH^- molecules react, further away, once again (preferentially?) with H⁺ ions making water molecules (that's why there is 5 times more OH then H₂O in 1986 data)

Quite a story, wha'?

tusenfem · #**118** (**permalink**) 02-June-2006, 12:46 PM

Thanks for this story svemir, it clearly shows that David Talbot has no grasp of physics whatsoever. Especially the high abundance of negatively charged ions from the comet, created by machining??? Although negatively charged ions can be stable for a while (I found Cl- near Europa) the ionization energy is very low and the extra electron is quickly lost. Now, machining (on the earth with metals) is such an energetic process that IMHO negative ions can never be produced.

Svemir · #**119** (**permalink**) 02-June-2006, 01:15 PM

In EU proposal, negative ions are not created during electric machining, they are excavated from the surface (and interior) of the comet during the machining.
They are created somewhere beyond the planets orbits in the double layer regime of Sun's helipause. The comets build up their charge by being bombarded by stream of free electrons of galactic origin (which we have no evidence of).
Those are the same "missing electrons" in EU, that react with the Sun (because it's of positive charge) streaming into it's poles.
In his famous sentence D. T. says:
Negative ions are difficult to produce by solar heating and are quickly destroyed by solar radiation.
Let's take a look at this sentence.
By "solar heating" I understood any EM-radiation (but, my thoughts are led to infrared ) capable of putting extra electrons in atoms to get negative ions.
No wonder it's difficult.
And no mainstreamer claims that. They make no claims that comets are negatively charged at all.
Then, whom is he talking to? Himself?
I imagine something like:" If I can't charge the comets by solar heating, then they must be charged otherwise and elsewhere.Far away.Yes, in the outer part of the solar system. It must be that way!"

By "solar radiation" I understood positive ions from the solar wind.
They quickly destroy negative ions made by solar heating, but not negative ions made in outer part of the solar system.
WHY?
In order to voltage to increase and sudden discharge to happen?

VanderL · #**120** (**permalink**) 02-June-2006, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tusenfem

I think I may have a very simple (simplistic??) method of creating the "double flash". In this I do have to take into account that the amount of water which was found is greater than what would reside on the surface of the comet.

I could envision it like this:
First the impactor hits the surface of the comet, and creates a "flash," i.e. is blows away the surface ice/dust/grains, like in any collision.
Then the impactor reaches the comet proper, and with all the kinetic energy it has, breaks through the surface and enters a region where there is water abundant. This will then be shot out of the hole that the impactor created in the comet proper surface. Thus creating the second flash. I think this could happen in the tenths of seconds time span.

But more clever people than I have probably already written papers about this "double flash" (if it actually exists).

Possibly, but that doesn't mean your conjecture about what happens between the first and the second flash is true, what I don't understand is that it seems very hard to admit that Thornhill did predict a double flash as was observed, so he might be on to something. There is a possible test to make sure it was pre-impact, it al depends on the accuracy in the timing of the impact and the accuracy in the speed of the impactor vs Tempel 1.Another test is to repeat the experiment at slower speed. And this time make sure the comet does not get in the way of viewing the impact site.

I don't think you need more water for your model, the DI team supposes a very deep dust layer.

Cheers.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode