Close comet flyby threw Mars' magnetic field into chaos

Close comet flyby threw Mars’ magnetic field into chaos
The close encounter between comet Siding Spring and Mars flooded the planet with an invisible tide of charged particles from the comet's coma. The dense inner coma reached the surface of the planet, or nearly so. The comet's powerful magnetic field temporarily merged with, and overwhelmed, the planet's weak field, as shown in this artist's depiction. Credit: NASA/Goddard

Just weeks before the historic encounter of comet C/2013 A1 (Siding Spring) with Mars in October 2014, NASA's Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution (MAVEN) spacecraft entered orbit around the Red Planet. To protect sensitive equipment aboard MAVEN from possible harm, some instruments were turned off during the flyby; the same was done for other Mars orbiters. But a few instruments, including MAVEN's magnetometer, remained on, conducting observations from a front-row seat during the comet's remarkably close flyby.

The one-of-a-kind opportunity gave scientists an intimate view of the havoc that the comet's passing wreaked on the magnetic environment, or magnetosphere, around Mars. The effect was temporary but profound.

"Comet Siding Spring plunged the magnetic field around Mars into chaos," said Jared Espley, a MAVEN science team member at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. "We think the encounter blew away part of Mars' , much like a strong solar storm would."

Unlike Earth, Mars isn't shielded by a strong magnetosphere generated within the planet. The atmosphere of Mars offers some protection, however, by redirecting the solar wind around the planet, like a rock diverting the flow of water in a creek. This happens because at very high altitudes Mars' atmosphere is made up of plasma – a layer of electrically charged particles and gas molecules. Charged particles in the solar wind interact with this plasma, and the mingling and moving around of all these charges produces currents. Just like currents in simple electrical circuits, these moving charges induce a magnetic field, which, in Mars' case, is quite weak.

Comet Siding Spring is also surrounded by a magnetic field. This results from the solar wind interacting with the plasma generated in the coma – the envelope of gas flowing from a comet's nucleus as it is heated by the sun. Comet Siding Spring's nucleus – a nugget of ice and rock measuring no more than half a kilometer (about 1/3 mile) – is small, but the coma is expansive, stretching out a million kilometers (more than 600,000 miles) in every direction. The densest part of the coma – the inner region near the nucleus – is the part of a comet that's visible to telescopes and cameras as a big fuzzy ball.

When comet Siding Spring passed Mars, the two bodies came within about 140,000 kilometers (roughly 87,000 miles) of each other. The comet's coma washed over the planet for several hours, with the dense inner coma reaching, or nearly reaching, the surface. Mars was flooded with an invisible tide of charged particles from the coma, and the powerful magnetic field around the comet temporarily merged with – and overwhelmed – the planet's own weak one.

"The main action took place during the comet's closest approach," said Espley, "but the planet's magnetosphere began to feel some effects as soon as it entered the outer edge of the comet's coma."

At first, the changes were subtle. As Mars' magnetosphere, which is normally draped neatly over the planet, started to react to the comet's approach, some regions began to realign to point in different directions. With the comet's advance, these effects built in intensity, almost making the planet's magnetic field flap like a curtain in the wind. By the time of closest approach – when the plasma from the comet was densest – Mars' was in complete chaos. Even hours after the comet's departure, some disruption continued to be measured.

Espley and colleagues think the effects of the plasma tide were similar to those of a strong but short-lived solar storm. And like a , the comet's close passage likely fueled a temporary surge in the amount of gas escaping from Mars' upper atmosphere. Over time, those storms took their toll on the atmosphere.

"With MAVEN, we're trying to understand how the sun and interact with Mars," said Bruce Jakosky, MAVEN's principal investigator from the University of Colorado's Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics in Boulder. "By looking at how the magnetospheres of the comet and of Mars interact with each other, we're getting a better understanding of the detailed processes that control each one."

This research was published in Geophysical Research Letters.


Explore further

Colliding atmospheres: Mars vs Comet Siding Spring

More information: For more information about MAVEN, visit www.nasa.gov/maven
Journal information: Geophysical Research Letters

Provided by NASA
Citation: Close comet flyby threw Mars' magnetic field into chaos (2016, March 10) retrieved 21 April 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-03-comet-flyby-threw-mars-magnetic.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1849 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Mar 10, 2016
Wow, 840 shares, 0 comments... I guess this confirms the 'Electric Comet' theories proposed by mainstream heretic Thornhill. This article clearly confirms comets aren't exclusively balls of sublimating water ice, but complex charged bodies with plasma tails in the Sun's electric circuit.

Mar 10, 2016
Yup not surprising, nobody wanted to consider the magnetic effect on Mars from this encounter when it happened. I made plenty of comments to that effect but, like you said, it's heresy.
http://phys.org/n...ace.html
I asked:
"I wonder if there will be any electrical interaction (arcing) between the comet and the martian atmosphere?"

So, was there some energetic discharge from the event?
https://www.youtu...SZce6pzM

Mar 10, 2016
I have often said - magnetic interaction 1st, electrical charge 2nd...

Mar 11, 2016
Wow, 840 shares, 0 comments... I guess this confirms the 'Electric Comet' theories proposed by mainstream heretic Thornhill. This article clearly confirms comets aren't exclusively balls of sublimating water ice, but complex charged bodies with plasma tails in the Sun's electric circuit.


Nope. That particular nonsense has long been put to bed. Nobody (scientifically literate) takes it seriously. According to the idiot Thornhill there was no ice. Just OH which silly scientists were mistaking for H2O. And if you read the paper, this has nothing to do with electric sun nonsense. The comet itself isn't magnetic. It has no magnetic field of its own. Just an induced one due to the pile up of the IMF caused by ion-neutral friction ahead of the comet: http://www.aanda....-15.pdf.
The same thing happened minus a comet with the AMPTE experiments in the 1980's: http://www.nature...0a0.html

Mar 11, 2016
^Actually, this may be a better link to the AMPTE experiments: http://www-pw.phy..._JGR.pdf
Which just shows that as far back as 1984-5 this electric comet nonsense was dead in the water before it had even started. Just a pity the the unqualified cranksters who dreamed it up didn't bother to do a bit of research.
Still not sure why asteroids on highly elliptical orbits don't behave like comets, as per the aforementioned fraudsters.

Mar 11, 2016
Nope. That particular nonsense has long been put to bed. Nobody (scientifically literate) takes it seriously.


jones you are illiterate or insane if you think comets are electrically neutral. Nothing's been debunked but the snow cone model of subliming comets.

You've just lost all credibility.

Mar 11, 2016
Nope. That particular nonsense has long been put to bed. Nobody (scientifically literate) takes it seriously.


jones you are illiterate or insane if you think comets are electrically neutral. Nothing's been debunked but the snow cone model of subliming comets.

You've just lost all credibility.

Lol.Like to cite some papers to back up your assertions?
There are well known and long ago modelled electrical effects in the coma. Nothing unusual about them. The nucleus, however, is non-magnetised and carries no magnetic field of its own. As I linked to above. The coma processes we see at comets were seen in the AMPTE experiments, where there was no comet, and the shell of gas was not moving relative to the Sun.
There has been no electric woo seen on the nucleus, but ice seen on and below it.
Totally cotradicting the electric comet buffoonery. No glows, no discharges. Nothing. The EC is dead, and has been for a long time to anyone remotely scientifically literate.

Mar 11, 2016
No glows, no discharges. Nothing.


You jones are blind and scientifically illiterate, it's call E&M , you don't have one without the other.
There's been several journeys to comets since 1980, and Philae landing on the freaking rock, and this MAVEN data, and your prove is 30 year old conjecture.

Mar 11, 2016
Yes you can have one without the other, as it happens. However, that has nothing to do with the comet being provably NOT ROCK. There have been plenty of measurements made of the density. It is not that of rock. There have been plenty of measurements made of the thermal inertia of the cometary surface. It is nowhere near that of rock: http://www.aanda....5.html.. And there is ice seen beneath it in some regions.
And the AMPTE experiments WERE NOT conjecture. They were measurements. As was the diamagnetic cavity at Halley, and the one at 67P. Still yet to see any evidence for this electric woo on the non-rocky comet. Could we have some, please?

Mar 11, 2016
"There's been several journeys to comets since 1980....."
Indeed there have. And not one of them has found the slightest bit of evidence to back up this electric comet nonsense. Including one to Tempel 1, which smashed an impactor into the comet. Now, what came out of the "rock" when they did this? Solid ice grains, dust and H2O vapour. And it left behind a crater that, once again, proves that it didn't hit a rock.

Mar 11, 2016
The comet itself isn't magnetic. It has no magnetic field of its own

Well that's a pretty silly comment considering the article you are commenting on. Since every comet we have observed has been within the heliosphere, they all have a magnetic field. The only way your statement could be proven is if we witness one outside of the heliosphere with no magnetic field. I'd guess that even outside of the heliosphere a comet would maintain a magnetic field, since intergalactic space is far from empty of charged particles (and a strong magnetic field of it's own).

Is a action or reaction? Who really cares, it still produces an effect...


Mar 11, 2016
No, the comet is not magnetic. Nor does it have its own magnetic field. Read the paper on the diamagnetic cavity above. And this one: http://science.sc....aaa5102
"Based on magnetic field measurements during the descent and subsequent multiple touchdown of the Rosetta lander Philae on the comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, we show that no global magnetic field was detected within the limitations of analysis."
The magnetic field is caused by the IMF being slowed by the neutrals from the comet. It piles up and essentially stops and flows around the comet. Within the created cavity there is no magnetic field.

Mar 11, 2016
Read your own article, from the abstract:
The ROMAP suite of sensors measured an upper magnetic field magnitude of less than 2 nT at the cometary surface at multiple locations

BTW, they're trying to disprove the theory that magnetism forms comets, not trying to disprove a comet's magnetism (which they can't).

Sure, it's a tiny magnetic field, but proves that they are magnetic in general. They are essentially electromagnets floating around in space. When they experience a strong external electric field the magnetic field rapidly strengthens.

Mar 11, 2016
Read your own article, from the abstract:
The ROMAP suite of sensors measured an upper magnetic field magnitude of less than 2 nT at the cometary surface at multiple locations

BTW, they're trying to disprove the theory that magnetism forms comets, not trying to disprove a comet's magnetism (which they can't).

Sure, it's a tiny magnetic field, but proves that they are magnetic in general.


No, that is an upper limit based on the resolution of the instruments. As they go on to say, "Therefore, much like Eros, we consider 67P a nonmagnetic object."
And it has no magnetic field of its own. i.e. caused by the nucleus.

Mar 11, 2016
"BTW, they're trying to disprove the theory that magnetism forms comets, not trying to disprove a comet's magnetism (which they can't)."

No, they weren't. They were interested because they wanted to know how much of a role magnetic forces played in the formation of planetary building blocks in the preplanetary nebula. A number of hypotheses had included this, and they'd have been happy to find it. They didn't, and therefore conclude that it wasn't a major contributor.


Mar 11, 2016
"They are essentially electromagnets floating around in space. When they experience a strong external electric field the magnetic field rapidly strengthens."

No they aren't, and no it doesn't. Only once the outgassing is high enough to cause the solar wind to slow, and therefore the magnetic field to pile up, do we see any high magnetic readings. These are due solely to the IMF. There is no contribution from the comet nucleus. As was shown in the AMPTE experiments. No comet, same magnetic pile-up region, same diamagnetic cavity. What caused that?

Mar 11, 2016
Only once the outgassing is high enough to cause the solar wind to slow

And where does that gas come from?

Whether it's a permanent magnet or induced magnet matters not to the effect that is produced

Mar 11, 2016
Only once the outgassing is high enough to cause the solar wind to slow

And where does that gas come from?

Whether it's a permanent magnet or induced magnet matters not to the effect that is produced


Where do you think the gas comes from? Ice, of course. Ice that has been seen on the surface, and ice that has been detected below the surface. I fail to see what that has got to do with the subject of comets having no magnetic field of their own. Nor even the necessity for one, as the AMPTE experiments showed.

Mar 11, 2016
"Whether it's a permanent magnet or induced magnet matters not to the effect that is produced"

That is the point. Somebody was claiming this as meaning Thornhill is some sort of genius. This effect (magnetic pile, diamagnetic cavity) was predicted and modelled decades ago without any recourse to electric comet nonsense. It is the IMF that is piled up due to sublimated gases slowing down the solar wind that carries the IMF. Why doesn't that happen to asteroids on elliptical orbits?

http://link.sprin...0#page-1 Biermann et al, "The interaction of the solar wind with a comet." 1967!!!

Mar 11, 2016
JD is obviously a moron who see the evidence through dogmatic blinders. Re: Tempel 1, far less water vapor than predicted, much, much smaller crater than expected from a dusty snowball. No legitimate explanation of pre-flash that was predicted by Thornhill. No explanation of dust particles that can only be created with high temps.
Why doesn't that happen to asteroids on elliptical orbits?

Dogmatic blinders in full effect!
http://phys.org/n...met.html
And of course no electrochemistry in spite of direct evidence.
Moron to be sure.

Mar 11, 2016
The ridiculous claims of "piling up" magnetic fields is just more pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo foisted upon the ignoramuses who actually believe astrophysicists know EM theory and real plasma physics. We know this is of course a false belief as it has been proven repeatedly they are ignorant of these processes on a fundamental level.

Mar 11, 2016
The ridiculous claims of "piling up" magnetic fields is just more pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo foisted upon the ignoramuses who actually believe astrophysicists know EM theory and real plasma physics. We know this is of course a false belief as it has been proven repeatedly they are ignorant of these processes on a fundamental level.


Unfortunately for you the evidence shows otherwise. Predicted, modelled, discovered. Something the EU can only dream of.

Mar 11, 2016
Only once the outgassing is high enough to cause the solar wind to slow

And where does that gas come from?

Whether it's a permanent magnet or induced magnet matters not to the effect that is produced

- scroofinator
As jones says: "There is no contribution from the comet nucleus."
However, the "pile-up" that he mentions may cause the ICE that is part of the comet to interact with the particles in front that flow around and behind said comet. It may be possible that the ICE itself is behaving as a conduit to produce an electrical field in addition to a magnetic field. The comet's magnetic field could be attracted TO the weak magnetic field of Mars as 2 magnets, one with a positive charge and another with a negative charge.
It might be similar to a person who steps into a puddle of water while holding a live wire.
I am still exploring the "Electric Universe" theory. It does have its merits and most of it appears to be logical and reasonable.

Mar 11, 2016
Even if the nucleus of the comet isn't itself ordinarily magnetized, depending on the metals within, it MIGHT form an attraction to the planet's weak magnetic field as well as its gravitational pull. This is out of my realm, but that is my opinion...whether correct or not.
:)

Mar 11, 2016
Your quote says that to a great accuracy the magnetic field is zero.

No, zero is zero. You could've said "effectively zero" and I would have agreed, but by confusing zero with a non zero number I now understand your level of understanding

Mar 11, 2016
JD is obviously a moron who see the evidence through dogmatic blinders. Re: Tempel 1, far less water vapor than predicted, much, much smaller crater than expected from a dusty snowball. No legitimate explanation of pre-flash that was predicted by Thornhill. No explanation of dust particles that can only be created with high temps.
Why doesn't that happen to asteroids on elliptical orbits?

Dogmatic blinders in full effect!
http://phys.org/n...met.html
And of course no electrochemistry in spite of direct evidence.
Moron to be sure.


Right so how was solid ice ejected from a rock, Einstein? How is the water vapour produced? And you can try any online impact cratering program you like; for rock you'll get a ~ 7m diameter crater. What we see is 50-100m.

Mar 11, 2016

http://phys.org/news/2014-05-asteroid-uq4-suddenly-dark-comet.html
And of course no electrochemistry in spite of direct evidence.
Moron to be sure.


No, you idiot, that was always a bloody comet! It was ASSUMED to be an asteroid until it started showing a coma.
I'm talking about something like this: https://en.wikipe...Toutatis
Why is that not behaving like a comet? After all, the idiot Thornhill tells us comets are just asterois on elliptical orbits.

Mar 11, 2016
For anyone interested... in just over 1 hour 20 min, WSH will be presenting:
"Dr. Sarah M. Milkovich, Planetary Geologist and current Science Systems Engineer at JPL working on Mars 2020 Rover. She has also worked on MRO (HiRISE), MSL, Cassini (UVIS), and Mars Phoenix Mission." - Fraser Cain

this is a live stream 1hour special and you can find it here: https://www.youtu...youtu.be


Mar 11, 2016
You stay classy phys1

Mar 11, 2016
No legitimate explanation of pre-flash that was predicted by Thornhill.


In fact it was predicted before Thornhill, by Pete Schultz: http://pds-smallb...ultz.pdf

'First light' is how he refers to it, and it nothing to do with electric woo. Perhaps you could tell us how an electric discharge would be seen across the electromagnetic spectrum? Then tell us why it wasn't seen by either the Chandra or SWIFT X-ray telescopes?
https://www.resea...0000.pdf

http://ftp.astro....2007.pdf

Mar 11, 2016
haha stealing my lines now huh? You must be a pretty stable person to insult an anonymous individual online.

It's funny to see such remarks coming from someone who hasn't proved me wrong on any discussion we have had.

Mar 11, 2016
It may be possible that the rocky part of the comet's ICE and rock mix is magnetic. Where does it say in the article that it isn't?

Mar 11, 2016
It may be possible that the rocky part of the comet's ICE and rock mix is magnetic. Where does it say in the article that it isn't?


There is no rock, as discussed. It would easily be seen due to its totally different thermal inertia values, as measured by MIRO. The comet is ice, dust and a bunch of organic gunk. It is the latter which makes it so dark. As also discussed, the comet has no magnetic field of its own, and the limit on how magnetised the nucleus is puts it at an upper value of 2 nT. That is very low.

EDIT: I see what you are referring to in the article. That is just sloppy reporting. Always best to read the primary sources, where available (i.e. the published paper).

Mar 11, 2016
And not one of them has found the slightest bit of evidence to back up this electric comet nonsense.


Plasma is an electrically conductive (as low as 1% ionization) gas. No one proposes the comet is self powered you dope.

Mar 11, 2016
You would have to explain this.

I said it to you sometime back, don't feel like searching for it.

You must have missed the electomagnet analogy, so I suppose I'll explain.

A comet is like an iron rod, on it's own an iron rod does not produce a magnetic field. Placed within an electric field (say a solenoid) it produces a strong magnetic field (hence electromagnet). A similar thing happens with comets, when placed within a strong enough electric field it becomes magnetic. Yes solar wind helps strip ions off the comet creating the coma that is essentially the magnetic field of the comet, but there would be no coma without a comet.

Mar 11, 2016
And not one of them has found the slightest bit of evidence to back up this electric comet nonsense.


Plasma is an electrically conductive (as low as 1% ionization) gas. No one proposes the comet is self powered you dope.

So what exactly ARE YOU SAYING. SPELL IT OUT!

Mar 11, 2016
^^^And include the evidence, while you're at it.

Mar 11, 2016
It may be possible that the rocky part of the comet's ICE and rock mix is magnetic. Where does it say in the article that it isn't?


There is no rock, as discussed. It would easily be seen due to its totally different thermal inertia values, as measured by MIRO. The comet is ice, dust and a bunch of organic gunk. It is the latter which makes it so dark. As also discussed, the comet has no magnetic field of its own, and the limit on how magnetised the nucleus is puts it at an upper value of 2 nT. That is very low.

- jones
I will read the published paper. However, if the comet nucleus is not magnetized, are you saying then that the magnetic field produced is only a result of particles flowing over the comet, resulting in a magnetic coma? And that the ice, dust and gunk within the nucleus have no bearing on the electric & magnetic field in the coma that has slightly damaged the magnetosphere of Mars?
Wouldn't that render the particles themselves, magnetic?

Mar 11, 2016
You would have to explain this.

I said it to you sometime back, don't feel like searching for it.

You must have missed the electomagnet analogy, so I suppose I'll explain.

A comet is like an iron rod, on it's own an iron rod does not produce a magnetic field. Placed within an electric field (say a solenoid) it produces a strong magnetic field (hence electromagnet). A similar thing happens with comets, when placed within a strong enough electric field it becomes magnetic. Yes solar wind helps strip ions off the comet creating the coma that is essentially the magnetic field of the comet, but there would be no coma without a comet.


Jesus, don't you read anything? The AMPTE experiments prove that you get EXACTLY the same magnetic pile-up region and diamagnetic cavity, without a bloody comet!!!! QED. The solar wind wasn't even reaching the comet surface for bloody months!

Mar 11, 2016
Read the article gravity boy:

By the time of closest approach – when the plasma from the comet was densest – Mars' magnetic field was in complete chaos.


Final thought, you can't argue with a sick mind.


Mar 11, 2016
You stole the line from Aaron Neville's "Tell it like it is" (1966)

Well I would've had to know of it to steal it, plus it's way before I was born.

It was an analogy, I never said comets have iron in them. Way to further establish your understanding, again regarding the use of the english language...

Mar 11, 2016

I will read the published paper. However, if the comet nucleus is not magnetized, are you saying then that the magnetic field produced is only a result of particles flowing over the comet, resulting in a magnetic coma? And that the ice, dust and gunk within the nucleus have no bearing on the electric & magnetic field in the coma that has slightly damaged the magnetosphere of Mars?
Wouldn't that render the particles themselves, magnetic?


In simple terms, the magnetic field from the sun is carried by the solar wind. It slows down and piles up due to encountering the outgassing neutrals and ions from the comet. This is the magnetic pile-up region. Beyond this region a diamagnetic cavity forms, that is totally magnetic field free. At Halley this was at ~ 4700 km from the nucleus. At 67P it is closer, as it is less active. Within the cavity there are only cometary neutrals and ions.

Mar 11, 2016
NASA discussing "electric woo" of asteroids...
http://www.nasa.g...cs5wrJaR

Only a moron the likes of JD would ignore this that was developed by APPLIED scientists.

'Hubble sees asteroid spouting six comet-like tails'

http://phys.org/n...ils.html

'Tail discovered on long-known asteroid'

http://phys.org/n...oid.html

Asteroid behaves like a comet

http://phys.org/n...ion.html

At least ten exception to your dogma;

http://phys.org/n...ail.html

Mar 11, 2016
You stole the line from Aaron Neville's "Tell it like it is" (1966)

well, it is a very common idiom - verb phrase who dates farther back than even that, take for instance...psychiatrists William H Grier and Price M Cobbs, who tell it like it is (1964) -[dictionary.com-tell]

so, it can't be attributed to ANYONE modern still alive, as it was already well known and used before the 50's

Mar 11, 2016
"At least ten exception to your dogma;"
Out of how many asteroids? Yes, some of them (an extremely small percentage) may have SOME ice. Some of these tails are due to collisions. All of them, from memory, are in circular orbits. So why is this not happening to asteroids on elliptical orbits? It should happen to them all, according to Wallace & Gromit.

Mar 11, 2016
well, it is a very common idiom

Haha right. Just to be clear I thought he was trying to use it "back at me", not trying to claim it as my own.

Mar 11, 2016
Phys1: Gravity boy, Astro boy, take your pick (it was a reference to 70's cartoons, genius). You have an inferiority complex.

Mar 11, 2016
NASA discussing "electric woo" of asteroids...
http://www.nasa.g...cs5wrJaR


Yes, that has been proposed for years, long before this NASA modelling. It has been cited as a possible explanation for the dust haze supposedly seen on the moon. Nothing electric universe about this. And you are talking about a whopping 3 V/m!

Mar 11, 2016
And now you claim I stole it from you.

Explained this one above.

Always write "English" with a capital young man.

Ya I know you're supposed to, even autocorrect told me change it. It's a stupid grammatical rule that makes no sense to me so i really don't care.

english

Mar 11, 2016
And all of the above gets us no closer to finding out the evidence for the electric comet woo! Still an evidence free zone, by the looks of it.

Mar 11, 2016
Apple's Steve Woz recently said he got into engineering because he liked the fact that it was an "honest" profession. Everything you do HAS TO WORK, you can't fake it.

I say unlike mainstream astronomers taking advice from useless advanced mathematicians (dark matter), who are always surprised at every new discovery, then fudge a solution from previous fudged solutions. In the end never predicting anything, unknowingly dishonest narrators.

Mar 11, 2016
Apple's Steve Woz recently said he got into engineering because he liked the fact that it was an "honest" profession. Everything you do HAS TO WORK, you can't fake it.

I say unlike mainstream astronomers taking advice from useless advanced mathematicians (dark matter), who are always surprised at every new discovery, then fudge a solution from previous fudged solutions. In the end never predicting anything, unknowingly dishonest narrators.

No, it's not like someone predicted and modelled the solar wind interaction with a comet, and then some other people devised an experiment whereby we could see what happens when a shell of gas encounters the SW. And then finding that what they saw was as predicted. And then further confirmed at Halley and 67P.
That would never happen.

Mar 11, 2016
"The problem is years spent learning about and regurgitating the standard model based on assumptions made almost 100 years ago. There is no room in some peoples brains for other possibilities because they have found the truth and faith is very powerful.
Many of you would be well advised to read Thomas Kuhn.
Rug, liquids, solids, gasses, equal 1% of our observable universe plasma makes up the other 99%. Plasma itself exists in three modes arc (lightning) glow (sun) dark (not visible). Voyager is passing out of the suns heliosphere. This whole region is not just an empty vacuum without charge. Within this vast area there are a few planets like the earth and we know from our measurements there is a permanent plasma fountain emanating from the polar regions of our magnetosphere interacting with the sun. A comet into deep space and back has picked up a different charge that is why a comet like Hale-Bopp can have an almost two million kilometer tail in an orbit farther out then Uranus."

Mar 11, 2016
That is a comment from Yep as of 2013 on a Phys.org article. Perhaps it is this "plasma" that is the mysterious Dark Matter that is being searched and "Dark Energy" might be that Force which holds the Universe together. I think I'll look into these possibilities.

Mar 11, 2016
"There is no room in some peoples brains for other possibilities because they have found the truth and faith is very powerful."

As Carl Sagan said, there is no harm in keeping an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out. That is the problem with EU. That, and a total lack of evidence.


Mar 11, 2016
And now you claim I stole it from you.

Explained this one above.

Always write "English" with a capital young man.

Ya I know you're supposed to, even autocorrect told me change it. It's a stupid grammatical rule that makes no sense to me so i really don't care.

english
- scroofinator
Watch out. That may be considered extreme radicalism by some in Phys.org
:)

Mar 11, 2016
Well, so far, I've learned that all comets have tails due to being bombarded by particles from the Sun via Solar Wind, but not from the comet's dust, ice or icky gunk. And that asteroids are big rocks that sometimes have tails when they contain ice.
My main concern is whether or not one of these big boys are going to slam into Earth at anytime in the future, especially if it hits a populated region, and what we can do to prepare for such an event.
My wife bought a DVD titled "Deep Impact". Anyone seen it? The premise is intriguing, mainly because I have never heard of any government on Earth planning for the possibility of such an event. We have already seen the effects of tsunami, but those were the result of earthquakes that moved tremendous volumes of ocean water. An incoming asteroid falling into the ocean would have the same results. An E.L.E.

Mar 11, 2016
That is a comment from Yep as of 2013 on a Phys.org article. Perhaps it is this "plasma" that is the mysterious Dark Matter that is being searched and "Dark Energy" might be that Force which holds the Universe together. I think I'll look into these possibilities.

I will contact Stockholm already.
If you fail you can always become a comedian.
Such a sharp sense of humour.
:)
- Piss1
That will be my next profession after I retire from this one. Seinfeld has nothing over me. ;)

Mar 11, 2016
Well, so far, I've learned..........

Not very much, judging by the rest of the comment. You'll fit in very well with the EU crowd.

For what little good it will do, I'll recommend some reading material: https://www.resea...0000.pdf


Mar 11, 2016
My main concern is whether or not one of these big boys are going to slam into Earth at anytime in the future, especially if it hits a populated region, and what we can do to prepare for such an event.
My wife bought a DVD titled "Deep Impact". Anyone seen it? The premise is intriguing, mainly because I have never heard of any government on Earth planning for the possibility of such an event. We have already seen the effects of tsunami, but those were the result of earthquakes that moved tremendous volumes of ocean water. An incoming asteroid falling into the ocean would have the same results. An E.L.E.

OS. You should also watch "Armageddon". Same premise, but with Bruce Willis in it, it has a lot more action...:-)

Mar 11, 2016
For what little good it will do, I'll recommend some reading material
@obuttski
here is a FREE site that will also help: http://ocw.mit.ed...ophysics

you should try it
I have never heard of any government on Earth planning for the possibility of such an event
then you ain't been payin' attention to PO, because they've talked about everything from NASA and how to redirect asteroids etc to future planning for said events

but then again, you also said
I am still exploring the "Electric Universe" theory. It does have its merits and most of it appears to be logical and reasonable
which makes as much sense as saying Westboro baptists appears to be logical and reasonable

Mar 11, 2016
That, and a total lack of evidence.


Mainstream comet theory:
A comet is a ball of ice subliming from solid to gas (see water phase diagram) due to HEATING from the distant Sun, creating a water vapor cone lit up by the Sun.

Read article:
A comet's cone is plasma (4th state of matter) and not water vapor (the 3rd state of matter). What other evidence do you need? Dark matter? Do'h!!!

Mar 11, 2016
That, and a total lack of evidence.


Mainstream comet theory:
A comet is a ball of ice subliming from solid to gas (see water phase diagram) due to HEATING from the distant Sun, creating a water vapor cone lit up by the Sun.

Read article:
A comet's cone is plasma (4th state of matter) and not water vapor (the 3rd state of matter). What other evidence do you need? Dark matter? Do'h!!!


Which just goes to show how little you know about comets. What do you think they found inside the diamagnetic cavity?

Mar 11, 2016
What other evidence do you need?
@oldF
well, unlike the eu, modern science requires something other than "hey, i said it, so it's true" or "look at this picture from 100yds away with petroleum jelly in your eyes... looks just like a crater on the moon, doesn't it? it MUST mean [insert claim here]"
So, you could turn to things like: PP-SESAME/Philae/Rosetta and RPC/MIP/Rosetta
or you could show a published paper... something more than "take my word for it"

and if you're going to simplify mainstream, you should consider linking something that is more expansive in it's definitions so that your bias doesn't show thru as vividly
just because it's on some random site on the net doesn't mean it's true... that is why primary sources are important, and the eu is considered pseudoscience

i suggest learning to use google scholar (or the below link) instead of simply accepting eu as correct
http://ocw.mit.ed...ophysics

Mar 11, 2016
Which just goes to show how little you know about comets.


I know comets have a plasma coma. You don't, for some psychological reasons.
A diamagnetic cavity is a plasma phenomenon! lol

Mar 11, 2016
I know comets have a plasma coma. You don't, for some psychological reasons.
@oldTROLL
apparently reading and comprehension isn't high on your list of things "to do"...
and you missed his first several posts above

instead of simply following your cult and spouting what you think things mean, try this: http://ocw.mit.ed...ophysics

it is FREE

being able to program doesn't mean you comprehend the physics any more than standing on a flower makes you a butterfly

Mar 11, 2016
Which just goes to show how little you know about comets.


I know comets have a plasma coma. You don't, for some psychological reasons.
A diamagnetic cavity is a plasma phenomenon! lol


No, if you are restricted to evidence only, then you'll find the coma is dominated to large distances by cometary neutrals and ions. The diamagnetic cavity forms due to ion-neutral friction with the incoming solar wind, and the magnetic field it carries. Inside the cavity are only neutrals and ions of cometary origin. So yes, in that the solar wind is a plasma, it is obviously a component of what happens at comets. However, this does not require any of the woo proposed by Wallace and Gromit. As I've pointed out countless times, the same effect is seen when there is only gas, as per the AMPTE experiments. No electric woo on the comet required, nor seen.

Mar 11, 2016
My main concern is whether or not one of these big boys are going to slam into Earth at anytime in the future, especially if it hits a populated region, and what we can do to prepare for such an event.
My wife bought a DVD titled "Deep Impact". Anyone seen it? The premise is intriguing, mainly because I have never heard of any government on Earth planning for the possibility of such an event. We have already seen the effects of tsunami, but those were the result of earthquakes that moved tremendous volumes of ocean water. An incoming asteroid falling into the ocean would have the same results. An E.L.E.

OS. You should also watch "Armageddon". Same premise, but with Bruce Willis in it, it has a lot more action...:-)
- WhydG
My wife is the one who chooses the movies to watch. I'll pass your suggestion on to her. Thanks

Mar 11, 2016

No, if you are restricted to evidence only, then you'll find the coma is dominated to large distances by cometary neutrals and ions. The diamagnetic cavity forms due to ion-neutral friction with the incoming solar wind, and the magnetic field it carries.


Huh? WTF did you just say? Sounds like you agree with Thornhill. Cometary neutrals? the O,H in the rock, interacting with the H+ solar wind forming some spectral water signature. But of course more banging rocks together from the gravity priests.

Mar 11, 2016
For what little good it will do, I'll recommend some reading material
@obuttski
here is a FREE site that.......
you should try it
I have never heard of any government on Earth planning for the possibility of such an event
then you ain't been payin' attention to PO, because they've talked about everything from NASA and how to redirect asteroids etc to future planning for said events

but then again, you also said
I am still exploring the "Electric Universe" theory. It does have its merits and most of it appears to be logical and reasonable
which makes as much sense as saying Westboro baptists appears to be logical and reasonable
- Stumpy Dumpy
Stump puts on his grumpy face to accuse me of saying what someone else had said. I don't preface my comments with "for what little good it will do..."
However, that little fact didn't register in Stump's mindless rant. That ain't the first time.

Mar 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Mar 11, 2016

No, if you are restricted to evidence only, then you'll find the coma is dominated to large distances by cometary neutrals and ions. The diamagnetic cavity forms due to ion-neutral friction with the incoming solar wind, and the magnetic field it carries.


Huh? WTF did you just say? Sounds like you agree with Thornhill. Cometary neutrals? the O,H in the rock, interacting with the H+ solar wind forming some spectral water signature. But of course more banging rocks together from the gravity priests.


There is no rock. There is no O- close to the nucleus even if it could somehow combine with H+ from the solar wind. The solar wind is getting nowhere near the comet surface for months on end. The H2O is obviously coming from the ice seen on and below the surface.
For all the above there is evidence. You have zero, just a blind faith in the teachings of an unqualified crank and his sidekick. I've asked enough times; show us the evidence.

Mar 11, 2016
Comets (and their pretty glow) are electric, regardless of the source of the composition of the coma (the big question). The evidence is this article.

DJ insists as often as possible they're not electric. Because of nanny nanny boo boo on Thornhill and the EU new age mythologists or something.

Mar 11, 2016
Stumpy Dumpy has been following me around to get my attention. What is it, Stump? You don't have a date tonight? The girls want nothing to do with you? Are you looking to suck my d*ck?
You have mistaken someone else's comment for mine, instead of rereading the comment to realize that you've made a mistake. This is so like you, and others have said that you do the same thing to them. Maybe we should all get in line so you can get down on your knees and do what you're best at doing?

Kinda found that one unnecessary, OS

Mar 11, 2016
Comets (and their pretty glow) are electric, regardless of the source of the composition of the coma (the big question). The evidence is this article.

DJ insists as often as possible they're not electric. Because of nanny nanny boo boo on Thornhill and the EU new age mythologists or something.


Nope. Where in that paper is there anything that confirms the EU comet fruitloop idea?

Mar 11, 2016
O_C_C...are you saying that there is an ELECTRIC FIELD emanating out of the comet, and surrounding it, whether or not there's an actual ROCKY composition? But then, what is causing the "electrification"? Is the electric field having to do with those long "filaments"?

Mar 11, 2016
O_C_C...are you saying that there is an ELECTRIC FIELD emanating out of the comet, and surrounding it, whether or not there's an actual ROCKY composition? But then, what is causing the "electrification"? Is the electric field having to do with those long "filaments"?


There is no electric field emanating out of the comet. It would have been detected. Not least by the lander.

Mar 11, 2016
Nope. That particular nonsense has long been put to bed. Nobody (scientifically literate) takes it seriously.


jones you are illiterate or insane if you think comets are electrically neutral. Nothing's been debunked but the snow cone model of subliming comets.

You've just lost all credibility.

Thank you! That was about the stupidest thing I have read all day - and you're going against some pretty spectacularly stupid comments!

Hey Lectic Acolyte - you are aware that we have landed on them right? And captured and returned to Earth bits of them?

Mar 11, 2016
Stumpy Dumpy has been following me around to get my attention. What is it, Stump? You don't have a date tonight? The girls want nothing to do with you? Are you looking to suck my d*ck?
You have mistaken someone else's comment for mine, instead of rereading the comment to realize that you've made a mistake. This is so like you, and others have said that you do the same thing to them. Maybe we should all get in line so you can get down on your knees and do what you're best at doing?

Kinda found that one unnecessary, OS
- Why'd
Ordinarily it wouldn't apply to someone that is NORMAL. But Stumpy is FAR from normal (see Dunning-Kruger Effect)...in which case it was necessary. That is AT LEAST the second time that Dumpy misread and then accused me of saying something that someone else said. That results in a lack of credibility when something is done multiple times.

Mar 11, 2016
O_C_C...are you saying that there is an ELECTRIC FIELD emanating out of the comet, and surrounding it, whether or not there's an actual ROCKY composition? But then, what is causing the "electrification"? Is the electric field having to do with those long "filaments"?


There is no electric field emanating out of the comet. It would have been detected. Not least by the lander.
- jones
Could you swear to that? And could the instrument(s) be not as sensitive as they're made out to be?

Mar 11, 2016
... This is out of my realm, ...
:)

Your "realm"
of piss, poo and d.ck jokes .
- Piss1
Why thank you, Pissy...you have just described yourself. And that ain't no joke.
lmao

Mar 11, 2016

Nope. Where in that paper is there anything that confirms the EU comet fruitloop idea?


It's not subliming ice to water vapor, but generating a glowing plasma.
WTF does EU have to do with this article proving an electric circuit between: Siding Spring, Mars, and the Sun? Did you stick your tongue in an electric socket as a kid? or just fail circuit analysis?

Mar 11, 2016
O_C_C...are you saying that there is an ELECTRIC FIELD emanating out of the comet, and surrounding it, whether or not there's an actual ROCKY composition? But then, what is causing the "electrification"? Is the electric field having to do with those long "filaments"?


There is no electric field emanating out of the comet. It would have been detected. Not least by the lander.
- jones
Could you swear to that? And could the instrument(s) be not as sensitive as they're made out to be?


Yes. If you don't trust me on that, then just contact a member of the Rosetta Plasma Cosortium team.
There are contact details on the numerous papers they've produced. You could try i.richter@tu-braunschweig.de.
Of course, if you follow EU teaching, he is a mainstream scientist, and will therefore lie just to keep himself in a job, and retain funding.

Mar 11, 2016

Nope. Where in that paper is there anything that confirms the EU comet fruitloop idea?


It's not subliming ice to water vapor, but generating a glowing plasma.
WTF does EU have to do with this article proving an electric circuit between: Siding Spring, Mars, and the Sun? Did you stick your tongue in an electric socket as a kid? or just fail circuit analysis?


Where is this electric circuit? Have you even read the paper?
And yes it is sublimating ice. And there is no plasma to be seen near the nucleus as it is being sublimated. Just heat from the Sun causing H2O to sublimate. All at low temperatures.

Like I said, you have zero evidence after 18 months alongside 67P, despite all the claims beforehand.

Mar 11, 2016
@brain_socks
...could .... ?

Could ancient aliens have installed electricity on our comets? Yes.
- Piss1
LOL
On now you're talking about ancient aliens. Do you have evidence of them?

Mar 11, 2016
O_C_C...are you saying that there is an ELECTRIC FIELD emanating out of the comet, and surrounding it, whether or not there's an actual ROCKY composition? But then, what is causing the "electrification"? Is the electric field having to do with those long "filaments"?


There is no electric field emanating out of the comet. It would have been detected. Not least by the lander.
- jones
Could you swear to that? And could the instrument(s) be not as sensitive as they're made out to be?


Yes. If you don't trust me on that, then just contact a member of the Rosetta Plasma Cosortium team.
There are contact details on the numerous papers they've produced. You could try i.richter@tu-braunschweig.de.
Of course, if you follow EU teaching, he is a mainstream scientist, and will therefore lie just to keep himself in a job, and retain funding.
- jones
I might do just that. Thanks for the info. I am interested in both EU and mainstream science.

Mar 11, 2016
Don't want to get in between the insult wars being waged by both 'sides'. Just want to ask a question on the topic. So, briefly....

The solar radiation in space is not attenuated by atmospheres such as it would be on earth; so the high flux of Ultra-Violet, X-Ray, Gamma-ray and blue light IONIZING radiation would be responsible for MOLECULE SPLITTING and PHOTO-ELECTRIC IONIZING of comet's leading edge surface AND near-sub-surface layer material to produce a PLASMA cloud/sheath-----wouldn't it?

That's all I wanted to ask. If the answer is in the affirmative, then maybe the discussion should go from that mutually accepted scientific factor, to consider what flows and streams would arise and amplify when such plasma sheat reacts with the nearby ions slipstreams of the solar wind 'bypassing' near comet....and how all that 'dynamical feature' would then affect Mar's own plasma sheath/field/flows etc.

Good luck, good thinking, good discussion (less insults) between you guys! :)

Mar 11, 2016
Where is this electric circuit?


Between: you, the toilet water, and the lightning bolt in your front yard?


Mar 11, 2016
"Don't want to get in between the insult wars being waged by both 'sides'. Just want to ask a question on the topic. So, briefly....

The solar radiation in space is not attenuated by atmospheres such as it would be on earth; so the high flux of Ultra-Violet, X-Ray, Gamma-ray and blue light IONIZING radiation would be responsible for MOLECULE SPLITTING and PHOTO-ELECTRIC IONIZING of comet's leading edge surface AND near-sub-surface layer material to produce a PLASMA cloud/sheath-----wouldn't it?"

No. Cosmic rays will impact the comet, as will the solar wind ions at times. These will mainly just implant themselves. A bit of sputtering, but nothing on a large scale. Otherwise we'd see plasma sheaths around all airless bodies, such as asteroids, the moon etc. Apart from anything else, the instruments would see it.

Mar 11, 2016
Where is this electric circuit?


Between: you, the toilet water, and the lightning bolt in your front yard?


Right, so still an evidence free zone then? Come on, anything will do. Just make something up, that's the usual EU tactic, isn't it?

Mar 11, 2016
@jd
Perhaps you should not point this lunatic towards an actual scientist.
- Piss1
Perhaps you need to see a psychiatrist to help you with your persecution complex.
There are many actual scientists who already use this site, so you're too late. They read the comments of people like YOU just for laughs. I know many of them, and I also know that they don't think much of some of the writers of the articles when they transgress by making errors in text and overlooking those errors by sloppy proofreading.

Mar 11, 2016
Hi jonesdavid. :)
The solar radiation in space is not attenuated by atmospheres such as it would be on earth; so the high flux of Ultra-Violet, X-Ray, Gamma-ray and blue light IONIZING radiation would be responsible for MOLECULE SPLITTING and PHOTO-ELECTRIC IONIZING of comet's leading edge surface AND near-sub-surface layer material to produce a PLASMA cloud/sheath-----wouldn't it?
Cosmic rays will impact the comet, as will the solar wind ions at times. These will mainly just implant themselves. A bit of sputtering, but nothing on a large scale. Otherwise we'd see plasma sheaths around all airless bodies, such as asteroids, the moon etc. Apart from anything else, the instruments would see it.
Forget Cosmic-rays. Flux from sun is persistent; impact cross-sectional ion-density high per unit surface area of comet, not sporadic/occasional. Persistent/High flux density similar to flux striking Mars' even allowing for (weak) field/atmosphere. Can't stay. Cheers. :)

Mar 11, 2016
PS: @ jonesdavid. Consider further the effect of such ionizing solar flux on Moon's surface material which (as US Astronauts observed) gets in everywhere and 'sticks' to everything because of static electricity due to ionized state of fine dust. Imagine the material being water/other ions instead of moon dust. The former would be a 'fluidic plasma' while the latter is a 'static electrically charged dust material' layer stuck to the surface by gravity and charge effects. BTW, thanks for your ontopic and courteous reply, mate. Much appreciated. Cheers. Bye. :)

Mar 11, 2016
Tnanks RC...I guess the moon-walks were all but forgotten. Time to look up "regolith". Bye

Mar 11, 2016
Forget Cosmic-rays. Flux from sun is persistent; impact cross-sectional ion-density high per unit surface area of comet, not sporadic/occasional. Persistent/High flux density similar to flux striking Mars' even allowing for (weak) field/atmosphere. Can't stay. Cheers. :)


If you're talking about the solar wind proton flux, then you have to factor in that it isn't reaching the comet surface for months on end. And this is at the time of highest gas production. The spacecraft stopped seeing the solar wind in late April, and it didn't start seeing it again until about January. I've seen one paper discussing possible electrostatic dust transportation at the comet, but this only applies, if at all, when the comet is at large distances.

Mar 11, 2016
https://www.nasa....4075.pdf

ABSTRACT
All astronauts who walked on the Moon reported difficulties with lunar dust. These problems were likely worsened by the fact that the dust was electrically charged, which enhanced its adhesive properties. In order to develop strategies to tackle these issues it will be necessary to advance our theoretical understanding of the lunar dust-plasma environment, as well as comprehensively characterize it with in-situ measurements. Summarized here are the relevant properties of lunar dust and its impact on astronauts, together with a discussion of the three main problem areas: (1) Dust Adhesion and Abrasion, (2) Surface Electric Fields and (3) Dust Transport.

Mar 11, 2016
(cont'd)
We shall briefly describe the properties of lunar dust and its impact on the Apollo astronauts, followed by descriptions of the three main problems areas relating to electrically-charged dust: (1) Dust Adhesion and Abrasion, (2) Surface Electric Fields, and (3) Dust Transport. A summary is given in Table 1 of the impacts on exploration with relevant connections to existing scientific expertise.

Mar 11, 2016
cont'd
5. SURFACE ELECTRIC FIELDS
Charged dust adhesion and transport on the Moon are strongly linked to the environmental electric fields. The lunar surface electrostatic potential can be calculated by balancing the incident electric currents to the Moon's surface (i.e., in equilibrium the net current is zero) [7]. Using this approach it can be shown that the lunar dayside charges positive, as photoelectron currents caused by solar UV and X-rays dominate; and the lunar
nightside charges negative, since plasma electron currents dominate, as illustrated in Fig. 2. It is also possible for the global-scale transition from positive to negative surface potential to occur dayside of the terminator [8,9].
A wake or "void" forms downstream of the Moon when it is immersed in the solar wind flow, as indicated by the dashed lines behind the Moon in Fig. 2. This complicated interaction creates large electric fields at the terminator [10], amongst other phenomena.

Mar 11, 2016
(cont'd)
It is also important to realize that the Moon spends about a quarter of its orbit traversing the magnetosheath and the tail of the magnetosphere when it passes nightside of the Earth [9]. Within the magnetosphere the plasma environment is typically much hotter and more tenuous than in the solar wind flow, so surface charging differs significantly [9].

Oh my!! Whatever can this mean?

Mar 11, 2016
...to accuse me of saying what someone else had said
@obuttski
actually, retard, i was piggy-backing on jonesdave's post, which is why i specifically said "will also help"
LOL
but then again, reading and comprehension is not your strong suit, is it?
You don't have a date tonight?...Are you looking to suck my
sorry, i am str8, and i would never pick up diseased illiterate trash from the net, unlike you, apparently
nice try though, but that is called solicitation and is a "misdemeanor offense [that] can include a range of punishment from probation up to a year or two in a county or parish jail. Some court systems have been concerned about the connection between prostitution and drug use and have since created diversion courts for those individuals charged with prostitution"
[criminal-law.com]
(considering your post, it appears you are a frequent flyer WRT solicitation, so i suspect you will get a harsher sentence)


Mar 11, 2016
@obutt-solicitor cont'd
and I was talking about GOVERNMENTS, you dimwit...NOT what was said on Phys.org
so, you think seinfeld has nothing on gov't's? or your career that you lie about?LMFAO
And by the way, there is no way that is YOU in front of that fire truck...you lying phony POS
LOL - and you can prove that ... right? ROTFLMFAO

you would say that regardless of what pic was posted, so it is not relevant now, is it?
LMFAO

you really need to learn how to read... as well as perhaps talk to a lawyer about your proclivities which are bound to get you arrested.
met chris hansen yet, obutt-begging boy?LMFAO
That is AT LEAST the second time that Dumpy misread and then accused me
go back and read that again, perv...
LMFAO


Mar 11, 2016
Hi jonesdavid. :)
If you're talking about the solar wind proton flux, then you have to factor in that it isn't reaching the comet surface for months on end. And this is at the time of highest gas production.
I see where cross-purpose misunderstanding arising. In respect to surface of comet: I spoke of the Ionizing Radiation only getting through. The mention of ion flows are as 'slipstream' closely BY-passing the comet. Two different aspects and factors. Both are part of that moving cometary 'dynamical feature' once the ionization starts off the further cascade of feedback loops which amplify the dynamics. Again, consider all active/effective dynamical elements of the system: initial radiation ionization of comet material itself; further interaction with nearby slipstream flows of solar ions; amplified interaction with Mars' own Ionosphere/fields/flows. NB: Once comet's material is gasified/ionized, it has 'atmosphere/ionosphere' properties/dynamics of its own. Bye. :)

Mar 11, 2016

If you're talking about the solar wind proton flux, then you have to factor in that it isn't reaching the comet surface for months on end.


The solar wind flows continuously, it's not intermittent. You are a logic enigma.

Mar 11, 2016
@obutt-perv last
That results in a lack of credibility when something is done multiple times
you mean like lying without admitting to your lies, being proven wrong, then trying to distract away from it? http://phys.org/n...ich.html

like maybe saying you have no socks when proven wrong? http://phys.org/n...ers.html]http://phys.org/n...ers.html[/url]

or maybe it is lying about talking to me in PM's and getting to know me and know that im not otto: http://phys.org/n...ers.html]http://phys.org/n...ers.html[/url]

or what about... well, we get the point, don't we?

you're a chronic liar

.

.

flows continuously, it's not intermittent
@geriatric programmer
"The solar wind varies in density, temperature and speed over time and over solar longitude." https://en.wikipe...lar_wind

"the solar wind is not uniform"
http://solarscien...nd.shtml

Mar 11, 2016
Old_C_Code. :)

If you're talking about the solar wind proton flux, then you have to factor in that it isn't reaching the comet surface for months on end.


The solar wind flows continuously, it's not intermittent. You are a logic enigma.
I think jonesdavid means that the ion wind is intercepted by the 'stagnation layer'/ionized layer' which stops the ions themselves reaching the surface with any significant velocity if at all. While the Radiation I mentioned does reach the surface. The nearby streamline' of nearby ion flows also don't hit the comet, but do interact with the charged comet's layers once the stagnation layer/ionized layer become persistent. It's a little confused unless one gets the separate factors sorted out. Cheers, OCC, jonesdavid, all; thanks for the more polite discourse. :)

Mar 11, 2016
...So, briefly....
The solar radiation in space is not attenuated by atmospheres such as it would be on earth; so the high flux of Ultra-Violet, X-Ray, Gamma-ray and blue light IONIZING radiation would be responsible for MOLECULE SPLITTING and PHOTO-ELECTRIC IONIZING of comet's leading edge surface AND near-sub-surface layer material to produce a PLASMA cloud/sheath-----wouldn't it?

Not bad, RC...
That's all I wanted to ask. If the answer is in the affirmative, then maybe the discussion should go from that mutually accepted scientific factor, to consider what flows and streams would arise and amplify when such plasma sheath reacts with the nearby ions slipstreams of the solar wind 'bypassing' near comet....and how all that 'dynamical feature' would then affect Mar's own plasma sheath/field/flows etc.

Also not bad...:-)

Mar 11, 2016
Hi Whyde. :)
Not bad, RC...

Also not bad...:-)
Thanks, mate. Coming from you, "not bad" is high praise indeed; and to receive two such "not bad" from you in the same post is very gratifying indeed. Stay well. :)

yep
Mar 12, 2016
Considering just about every suprise to the standard comet theory conforms to EU it might be time to falsify and re-evaluate those old beliefs.
Some of you need to chew on this paper for awhile.

http://www.hou.us...2199.pdf

Mar 12, 2016
Considering just about every suprise to the standard comet theory conforms to EU
@yep
yeah.;.. in the exact same way that every post about evolution conforms to the creationist dogma...

just because you say it's true doesn't mean it is

i will quote you
That's almost like the Jesus crispies saying God only made life on earth and it does not happen anywhere else. Hard to believe
IOW - it's called a false claim
http://www.auburn...ion.html

the reason eu fails is simple: your engineer cult leaders don't understand astrophysics...
however, astrophysicists actually DO understand plasma physics
http://ocw.mit.ed...ophysics

http://www.pppl.gov/


yep
Mar 12, 2016
Well you would know about false claims. How's that dirty snowball with jets of water shooting out holes from the cavities as they melt going by the sun?
You might read that, just because you say it's true doesn't mean it is, over a few times.
Maybe engineers may have a better handle on how stuff works then theoretical speculation from astrophyzilsists who denied charge seperation in space or even charge in space for the better part of a century.

Mar 12, 2016
Well you would know about false claims
@yep-d-eu-TROLL
that is true... i see them all the time from the eu crowd, so i am very familiar with their form
i even set some basic rules you tend to follow.. . you can see them here: http://phys.org/n...ges.html

How's that dirty snowball
not a nice way to talk about your mom, & it sure aint MS astrophysics
Maybe engineers may have a better handle on how stuff works then theoretical speculation from astrophyzilsists
if we were talking about computer boards or your broken ford... i might agree (depending on the engineer)
but were talking specifically about astrophysics (well, at least I AM... i don't know WTF you are talking about)
in that case, your idiot engineers suckered you out of time, money and run a cult with no evidence

which is why you post here instead of publishing to a Journal with peer review, isn't it?
LMFAO

Mar 12, 2016

If you're talking about the solar wind proton flux, then you have to factor in that it isn't reaching the comet surface for months on end.


The solar wind flows continuously, it's not intermittent. You are a logic enigma.


And is measured, in situ, by a spacecraft. It was not reaching the spacecraft from mid to late April until around January. These are actual measurements, not some evidence free EU word salad.
And you still can't answer the question I have put many times; why, when a shell of gas is exploded in front of a spacecraft (without a comet in sight) do we see the same magnetic pile-up region and diamagnetic cavity as we see at Halley and 67P? Simple question, really.

Mar 12, 2016
Well you would know about false claims. How's that dirty snowball with jets of water shooting out holes from the cavities as they melt going by the sun?
You might read that, just because you say it's true doesn't mean it is, over a few times.
Maybe engineers may have a better handle on how stuff works then theoretical speculation from astrophyzilsists who denied charge seperation in space or even charge in space for the better part of a century.


It's going very well, thank you. Seen ice (including large ~1500m^2 patches) on the surface, and have also detected it below the surface. And obviously see the vapour from its sublimation in the coma. How is the search for the electric woo going on? Seen any EDM yet? Any glow discharges? Any rock?
Still batting zero, methinks.

Mar 12, 2016
(cont'd)
...... traversing the magnetosheath and the tail of the magnetosphere when it passes nightside of the Earth [9]. Within the magnetosphere the plasma environment is typically much hotter and more tenuous than in the solar wind flow, so surface charging differs significantly [9].

Oh my!! Whatever can this mean?


That this has been known about, and modelled, for many years, Firstly, the comet doesn't pass through Earth's magnetosheath, and secondly, there has been a paper on this regarding its possible minor effects on dust transportation at 67P. However, as the authors state, for 67P this only applies at large heliocentric distances, as the solar wind is prevented from reaching the surface as outgassing increases.
http://www.scienc...1500238X
And couldn't reach parts of the surface to cause sputtering as far out as 3 AU:
http://www.aanda....ml/2015S

Mar 12, 2016
ld_C_Code 1.8 / 5 (5) 16 hours ago
Apple's Steve Woz recently said he got into engineering because he liked the fact that it was an "honest" profession. Everything you do HAS TO WORK, you can't fake it.


Honest? Honest??? You have got to be kidding. This is coming from a guy whose start-up ripped off Xerox Palo Alto's windowing interface research, said nothing when Microshaft ripped them off for 15 years...and then decided to file suit. This is an industry where the leading OS can't manage memory, can't multitask and wastes 50% of your hardware trying to prevent attacks because it was written so crappily. This is a profession that has brought "Blank cheque Information Technology" to every corporation and governmental entity, running up huge costs, commiting outright fraud and writing their own cheque.

And why would you like "honest", anyway? Anyone "honest" that knew you would find a dark alley and eliminate you from the gene pool. Fucking piece of troll shit.

Mar 12, 2016
And my old C code is better than his too. Reads like god damned poetry.

The idiot cranks like yip, cantthink, old sea cod and o'sucks obviously can't process quantitative data and reach a veridical conclusion. If they could they'd look at the stars and realize they're LOSERS.

Agreed, CA, that software engineering is right up there with used car salesmen, white van guys, movers and house painters and "professional" chefs (and anyone with a goatee, of course) for pure, unbridled sociopathy.

Mar 12, 2016
Old_C_Code 1.6 /5 (7) 12 hours ago

Where is this electric circuit?

Between: you, the toilet water, and the lightning bolt in your front yard?


Heaven knows there's none detectible between your ears.

Mar 12, 2016
Where is this electric circuit?


It's discussed here, where the currents, E fields, and circuits are required to create the diamagnetic cavity you erroneously seem to be hanging your hat.
http://www-person...2003.pdf

And there is one other fact you so egregiously prefer to overlook, many plasma processes are filamentary. If the data is not collected from directly inside these filaments much of the phenomena that would reveal the complimentary findings will be totally missed, cometary comas are not homogeneous "clouds", they are heterogeneous and filamentary. The ESA went to great lengths to avoid active regions on the comet when the sent Philea.

Your surface water is merely from condensation of water created in the glow mode coma, via electrochemistry.

The interactions are far more complex than your elementary level of understand of electric plasma processes.

Mar 12, 2016
Seen any EDM yet?

Sputtering is EDM, so yes.
http://www.aanda....-15.html

Any glow discharges?

The coma is glowing, that's your glow discharge.

Any rock?

Only someone blinded by dogma and ignorance cannot see rocks, large and small.
http://sci.esa.in...1106.jpg

Oh, and wavy dunes as well with the only explanation of creation by an ionic wind being there is no atmosphere dense enough to explain otherwise.

Anyway, it looks absolutely nothing like the "theory" suggests it should;
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/09/17/10/2C6A94F800000578-3238186-Comets_are_composed_of_frozen_gases_mixed_with_dust_giving_the_n-a-32_1442483569166.jpg

Still batting zero, methinks.

Therein lies the problem, you trying to thinks. Oh well, keep trying, you might get a spark sooner or later....

Mar 12, 2016
Where is this electric circuit?


It's discussed here, where the currents, E fields,....blah, blah, blah.


So why does this also happen when there isn't a comet around? As per the AMPTE experiment? Just a shell of gas, same magnetic pile up region, same diamagnetic cavity. No comet required. And there is no glow mode or any other electric woo happening on the comet. There are instruments that would detect that. There is nothing. No temperature anomalies. No unexpected detections in frequencies where this would be seen. Zilch. It's you who obviously don't understand the first thing about comets, or what has been discovered at them.
Oh, and the water is both on and below the surface, contrary to EU predictions. And rock doesn't have a thermal inertia of ~0 - ~60 J m^−2 K^−1 s^−0.5, which is what has been measured at the comet.
In short, it is still evidence free pseudoscience.

Mar 12, 2016
Oh, and the sputtering is not from EDM, FFS, it is from solar wind protons impacting the surface. And was at a miniscule level compared to the amount of water molecules they were seeing even at large distances from the Sun. EDM!!!! smh.

Mar 12, 2016
Here we go, from the abstract: "When the activity is very low because the total cross section of the comet against the Sun is small, the solar wind has access to the surface of the comet and causes ion-induced sputtering of surface material, which we wish to observe."

http://www.aanda....-15.html

Mar 12, 2016
So why does this also happen when there isn't a comet around? As per the AMPTE experiment?

This is an expected result we have been aware of since the days of Langmuir in the 1920's, a plasma will protect itself from the surrounding environment via plasma sheaths and double layers.
Oh, and the sputtering is not from EDM, FFS, it is from solar wind protons impacting the surface

Ion sputtering is a form of electrical discharge, "FFS" there idget.

Mar 12, 2016
"obama_socks" has sunk to the level of pariah, so here is the update.
___
There is absolutely no point in feeding the following
pariahs: obama_socks bschott
psychos: Benni philstacy9 ichisan rodkeh
delusionists: viko_mx DavidW BartV FredJose LifeBasedLogic BEGINNING
trolls: promile plasmasrevenge cantdrive45 liquidspacetime kaiserderden antigoracle Seeker2 swordsman bluehigh baudrunner Solon hyperfuzzy julianpenrod emaalouf theprocessionist wduckss Old_C_Code Bigbangcon katesisco jimbraumcos indio007 Reg Mundy vidyunmaya Osiris1 mememine69 betterexists SHREEKANT rodkeh
This list is updated continuously.
- Piss1

Why, thank you, Pissy. I consider that a Badge of Honor.
LMAO

Mar 12, 2016
So why does this also happen when there isn't a comet around? As per the AMPTE experiment?

This is an expected result we have been aware of since the days of Langmuir in the 1920's, a plasma will protect itself from the surrounding environment via plasma sheaths and double layers.
Oh, and the sputtering is not from EDM, FFS, it is from solar wind protons impacting the surface

Ion sputtering is a form of electrical discharge, "FFS" there idget.
- cantdrive85

Precisely.

Mar 12, 2016
Engineers use discharge to achieve sputtering.
This requires a return current.
The whole thing is driven by a voltage source.
In the case of a comet, the return current is formed by accompanying electrons in the same solar wind and there is no voltage source.
This sputtering is not driven by electric discharge.

The voltage source is the Sun, but the issue at hand is a voltage differential between the comet and the surrounding plasma.

Although we can take your claims and just blame it on magic. Or is it DM? Regardless your position is bollocks as usual.


Mar 12, 2016
The pervert is down voting all my posts.
@Phys1
if a trolling idiot like obutt-perv, liar-beni-kam, cant-think, zeph etc downvote your post, then you must be doing something correct

that is a true badge of honour as well as proof that you're right
What you will also see is a sock army... as though creating socks and uprating your own posts while downrating the others will somehow make the evidence less viable
is it logical? no
but it IS typical of a troll who can't actually validate a claim with evidence... or who can't understand the evidence (see alche/profit, zeph, any eu cult member)


Mar 12, 2016
Regardless your position is bollocks as usual.
@cd
so... his position is actually substantiated by evidence ... but since you can't actually provide evidence of CDM or supporting your electric universe, we must be wrong for believing in the evidence and mainstream physics?

did you learn logic from Monty Python?
https://www.youtu...l5ntikaU

the priests at the beginning remind me of the eu cult!
why?
- repeat everything ad nauseum, then slam head into hard object because that is the only way you can be a true believer
(by knocking sense and logic out of your head)

Mar 12, 2016
So why does this also happen when there isn't a comet around? As per the AMPTE experiment?

This is an expected result we have been aware of since the days of Langmuir in the 1920's, a plasma will protect itself from the surrounding environment via plasma sheaths and double layers.
Oh, and the sputtering is not from EDM, FFS, it is from solar wind protons impacting the surface

Ion sputtering is a form of electrical discharge, "FFS" there idget.


There was no double layer. Just a magnetic pile up region with a diamagnetic cavity within. And ion sputtering is nothing to do with electric woo. For the hard of thinking; solar wind contains protons, heavier ions and electrons. Some of the ions, on impacting the surface collide with the surface material in such a way that they liberate one of the atoms of the surface material. Nothing electrical about it. Solar wind hits dust, atom liberated. See, no electricity.

Mar 12, 2016
So, to sum up the electric comet "evidence" so far, after more than 18 months of having a spacecraft alongside a comet:

1) It looks like rock, and therefore (despite the evidence against it) it IS rock!

2) In a bunch of overexposed images it looks bright, so that means it is a glow discharge (despite a well equipped spacecraft not observing any evidence for it, and not being fried by it). It just IS!

Think that about sums it up.

Mar 12, 2016
"obama_socks" has sunk to the level of pariah, so here is the update.
___
There is absolutely no point in feeding the following
pariahs: obama_socks bschott
psychos: Benni philstacy9 ichisan rodkeh
delusionists: viko_mx DavidW BartV FredJose LifeBasedLogic BEGINNING
trolls: promile plasmasrevenge cantdrive45 liquidspacetime kaiserderden antigoracle Seeker2 swordsman bluehigh baudrunner Solon hyperfuzzy julianpenrod emaalouf theprocessionist wduckss Old_C_Code Bigbangcon katesisco jimbraumcos indio007 Reg Mundy vidyunmaya Osiris1 mememine69 betterexists SHREEKANT rodkeh
This list is updated continuously.
- Piss1

Why, thank you, Pissy. I consider that a Badge of Honor.
LMAO

Congratulations with your successes in social suicide, pervert.
- Piss1
Oh boy...SOCIAL suicide is it? I'm SO scared. woooooooohoooo

Mar 12, 2016
Oh yes, almost forgot the unobservable voltage from the non-electric Sun! Strange how the spacecraft that is flying alongside the comet has not experienced any of this solar voltage. Remained pretty constant from about -5 - -10V, from what I believe.

Mar 12, 2016
And ion sputtering is nothing to do with electric woo
To piggy-back on Jonesdave's posts - not that he needs it
Sputtering is a process whereby particles are ejected from a solid target material due to bombardment of the target by energetic particles,[1] particularly, in the laboratory, gas ions.

Physical sputtering is driven by momentum exchange between the ions and atoms in the target materials, due to collisions
https://en.wikipe...uttering

R. Behrisch (ed.) (1981). Sputtering by Particle bombardment

P. Sigmund, Nucl. Instr. Meth. Phys. Res. B (1987). "Mechanisms and theory of physical sputtering by particle impact". Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms

R. Behrisch and W. Eckstein (eds.) (2007). Sputtering by Particle bombardment: Experiments and Computer Calculations from Threshold to Mev Energies

Mar 12, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

Mate, it's not cool to 'label' downvoting trolls as "perverts". I don't think Captain Stumpy, Vietvet and Uncle Ira are "perverts" just because they mindlessly bot-vote me '1' even for correct science posts. Rethink that 'label', mate. :)

Mar 12, 2016
Hi all. Some up-to-date information which may be relevant to your discussion; especially regarding the electronic filamentary/ribbonlike flow features evolving in plasma dynamics.
In fact, far from being eliminated by the larger-scale turbulence, the tiny swirls produced by electrons continue to be clearly visible in the results, stretched out into long ribbons that wind around the donut-shaped vacuum chamber that characterizes a tokamak reactor.


From an article here at PO which informs of previously unexpected important dynamical factors determining the behavior and energy-transfer/flows within and between and from-to plasma features; read it at:

http://phys.org/n...ery.html

A very good discussion, guys. Tone down the insults etc, though; it spoils an otherwise informative and interesting on-topic discussion. Cheers. :)

Mar 12, 2016
Rethink that 'label', mate.
@still-can't-read-sam
uhm... try actually reading the above exchanges where obutt-head actually tries to solicit sexual favors before you start denigrating Phys for defending himself, you idiot! like here
Are you looking to suck my d*ck?
this is a bad habit of yours - putting your nose in to the wrong conversation while advocating for the pseudoscience or the PERV troll who was soliciting on the net...
this aint the first time you've done this, earthling-boy

so.. "mate"... LEARN TO READ

Mar 12, 2016
CapS. That was obviously verbal reaction to trolling/insulting provocations. No-one is 'innocent' in that. Labeling others "perverts" only increases the provocation and perpetuates ill will and clutter-up slanging match posts from both 'sides'. Haven't you used similar language to others in the past? Let it be, CapS. This is a NEW YEAR of discovery and reconciliation. Why help perpetuate the old years' silliness, from all 'sides'? Lighten up and live in this NEW YEAR not the past, mate. :)

Mar 12, 2016
@pseudoscience sam
LABEL:
-a short word or phrase descriptive of a person, group, intellectual movement, etc.
-a word or phrase indicating that what follows belongs in a particular category or classification

we use it all the time in science for purposes of classification and for communication to insure that a reader has the ability to instantly understand that a labeled product is classifiable under certain standards and stands out as a clearly defined object

as such, you've demonstrated, through your words, choices, support and refusals to actually provide evidence that, By definition, you're a trolling pseudoscience religious acolyte, therefore we can truthfully label you as such

this isn't being mean, it is being factual... and i can support the claims with evidence

what can you do besides keep repeating your lies, misread a post and thread, or get OT with regurgitated pseudoscience from your ToE's?


Mar 12, 2016
PS: CapS. Do you realize that by immediately bot-voting me '1' as usual you effectively self-confirmed your inclusion under that particularly uncool 'label' which I asked Phys1 to rethink, don't you? Curb your anger; watch your blood pressure; be less hasty and ego-driven to feuds and aggression. Relax, mate. Chill. :)

Mar 12, 2016
@still-can't-provide-evidence-sammie cont'd
Haven't you used similar language to others in the past?
and i will continue so long as they demonstrate the label still fits
but it isn't about MY use... try READING the f*cking thread, moron... it is obutthead who started getting perv-ed out soliciting sex...

Oh wait... that's right! it's hard to actually read a whole lot when you're riding that high horse!
you aren't into "details" or "facts" that can be proven... just your self perceived moral superiority

wanna shout at someone - shout at obama_socks
Why help perpetuate the old years' silliness
why is it "old years' [sic] silliness" to require evidence for a claim?
why is it that you think everyone should believe you or some other geriatric who can't actually validate a claim?
why is it silliness to require someone to actually use the scientific method or authentication/validation?
is that critical thinking in penguin head?
or just in your head?

let me know

Mar 12, 2016
Ok. Back to the on-topic science discussion.

Phys1, CapS. Did you read that PO article I referenced above? Did you note the electronic 'ribbon' features evolved in the plasma dynamics?

Mar 12, 2016
Do you realize that by immediately bot-voting me '1' as usual
@liarPOSsammie
1- i didn't bot vote you... didn't even vote on the "information" you posted, moron
2- i don't agree with your STUPIDITY which you post, you idiot
before you make a claim, try doing some research - it's not like you can't see who is voting on you, pseudoscience boy
Curb your anger
not angry... i think you are funny. STUPID... but funny
be less hasty
you do realise that i can substantiate my claims, right?

that means it isn't "haste"... it's "homework" (AKA - research... you know, that stuff you refuse to do before commenting? LMFAO)

wanna try again, pseudoscience-sam?

or are you gonna sick your "earthling club" on me?
LOL
CapS. Did you read that PO article I referenced above?
YES

did you read ANY of the links in the above argument from ANYONE else?

NO, you didn't

you didn't read the posts either

Mar 12, 2016
@ Captain-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good, thanks,

PS: CapS. Do you realize that by immediately bot-voting me '1' as usual you effectively clean up the place so that the scientists and humans don't have to look at my silly Earthling Club stuffs if they leave the "Don't-Show-Me-This-Crankpots-Stuffs" slider set to 2.5.


And you should get the award for your service to scientists and humans for taking time out of your day to do that.

Mar 12, 2016
CapS. It was my last post to you that you bot-voted '1' as usual. Your name was against that post (as listed on the ratings page) almost immediately. Get a grip, mate. Stop taking threads off-topic and cluttering otherwise interesting on-topic science discussions. Thanks. :)

NOW ON-TOPIC:

Caps, Phys1, did you read that PO article I referenced above? It had to do with the unexpectedness of greatly extended electronic 'ribbon' features which evolve in plasma dynamics. Here is the link again:

http://phys.org/n...ery.html

Any on-topic comments on that? Thanks.


Mar 12, 2016
While I'm skeptical of EU theory, I don't really have a horse in this race. It seems to me (and I'll admit I didn't read all the comments after this degenerated into a flame war) you're arguing whether an electromagnet is really a magnet. There's no doubt that when the electricity is turned off it is not a magnet. When the juice is on, no one can disagree that it acts as one. To extend the analogy to the comet, when it's outgassing, the interaction of the coma with the solar wind produces a magnetic field--there's no doubt about that based on this evidence. When it's not outgassing--when the juice is turned off--there is no evidence I've seen that comets are inherently magnetic. Is there any evidence that dead comets near perihelion exhibit these properties? Not that I see. Instead of this incessant name calling, why can't you all agree that comets aren't inherently magnetic on one hand (or produce some evidence that they are), but that the coma/solar wind interaction is?

Mar 12, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
CapS. That was obviously verbal reaction to trolling/insulting provocations.

You looked the other way at that moment. Why?
No-one is 'innocent' in that.

That is an unwarranted, serious accusation.
o_pervert has gone way too far.
He is a disgrace to this blog.
I noted it all, from all 'sides'. That is why I have tried to calm everyone down and ask everyone to concentrate on polite discourse on-topic and on science. Your lists/insults are gratuitous provocations just as much as your opponents insults/provocations are. No-one is 'innocent'. Time all 'sides' grew up and just concentrated on science discussion. Everyone should drop the personal stuff. On all 'sides'. Science and science discussion too important to allow individual ego-games to derail it like this. It's a new year, not the 'good old bad days' of years past. Get better, not worse. Good luck all. :)

Mar 12, 2016
Instead of this incessant name calling, why can't you all agree
@PhotonX
that isn't how the eu clan works
this is a long-running fight that has lasted over 3 years where the eu continues to repeat lies knowing full well they're wrong, but thinks repetition will give it traction (like a religious cult)

hence the above degeneration

.

It was my last post ...bot-voted '1'
@pseudoscienceSAM
because it was your attempt to distract away from your failures and not apologize (like you want everyone else to do)
Your name
so? read what i just wrote, moron
Stop taking threads off-topic and cluttering otherwise interesting on-topic science
you mean like you always do & just did by whining about my voting?
or like you did with the bulk of your past 200 posts? most of which are personal and without merit... as well as refusals to actually produce ANY viable evidence supporting your claim?

quit starting sh*t and i'll quit proving you a liar

Mar 12, 2016
CapS, concentrate on the on-topic science discussion. Did you read that linked PO article I referenced re electronic 'ribbon' features evolving in plasma dynamics? Any on-topic science comments in the context of the discussion on same? Thanks.

Mar 12, 2016
While I'm skeptical of EU theory,......................


No problem with what you say, essentially. The comet nucleus itself is non-magnetic, or at least has an upper bound of 2nT. It possesses no magnetic field of its own, as measured. The magnetic field which forms is due to the Interplanetary Magnetic Field, carried by the solar wind, piling up as the solar wind is slowed, and eventually stopped by the outgassing neutrals. It is forced to flow around this barrier, which forms a diamagnetic cavity, within which the SW doesn't penetrate, there is no magnetic field measured, and only cometary neutrals and ions are found.
This has nothing to do with the comet being electric. You could take the comet away, leave the gas, and the same thing will happen. This was shown by the AMPTE experiments in 1984-5. So the comet is not inherently magnetic. It is due purely to the outgassing neutrals and the IMF.

All of the above, of course, is backed up by evidence.

Mar 12, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
Ok. Back to the on-topic science discussion.

Phys1, CapS. Did you read that PO article I referenced above? Did you note the electronic 'ribbon' features evolved in the plasma dynamics?

I read that on March 7. What about it?
Yes, what about it. It's your discussion with cantdrive and others. The 'filamentary' nature of electronic features in plasma dynamics was raised in discussion. I provided a link to a very recent PO article mentioning the mainstream discovery that such 'ribbon' like electronic streams/features were unexpectedly found to exist and play an important part in the overall plasma feature/dynamics. Maybe you and others can discuss what ramifications (or not) that new discovery in the lab plasma dynamics may have for your overall on-topic discussion here. Good luck and good discussing, all. :)

Mar 12, 2016
The statement from the physics side in the argument is that the magnetic field is _not_ produced by the outgassing but by the solar wind.
Okay; don't let me put words in your mouth, but I think you're asserting that if we could induce a body in interstellar space to outgas by whatever means, it would not produce the magnetic field seen in the presence of the solar wind, and the electromagnet analogy fails at this point. I still can't think of a better one, though, and it seems to me (I'm not a physicist) the fact that electromagnets create magnetic fields when energized doesn't prove the EU, and by extension I don't see how comets do either.
.
If EU adherents can demonstrate that comets have the same magnetic properties at aphelion as they do at perihelion, that would be one thing, but Rosetta shows us that 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko doesn't have a magnetic field right now. http://www.scienc...c-field. Where's the beef?
.
.

Mar 12, 2016
"Okay; don't let me put words in your mouth, but I think you're asserting that if we could induce a body in interstellar space to outgas by whatever means, it would not produce the magnetic field seen in the presence of the solar wind........"

If any body in the solar system is outgassing, or if you merely explode a canister of gas in the presence of the interplanetary magnetic field (carried by the solar wind), then it will have a magnetic field. The "field" is merely a pile up region. The IMF was measured at ~2nT at 67P before significant gas interaction with the IMF/SW. Once the SW starts to slow down and pile up, so does the IMF, and therefore increases in strength. In the latest reports the strength just outside the cavity is ~60-70 nT.
So essentially, an enormous space tanker, with a very long hosepipe, could pump gas into a region of solar system space, and the gas would cause the SW/IMF to pile up and create the same effect as we see at a comet.
.
.

yep
Mar 13, 2016
Back to the on-topic science discussion.

Phys1, CapS. Did you read that PO article I referenced above? Did you note the electronic 'ribbon' features evolved in the plasma dynamics?
What about it? Yes, what about it. It's your discussion with cantdrive and others. The 'filamentary' nature of electronic features in plasma dynamics was raised in discussion. I provided a link to a very recent PO article mentioning the mainstream discovery that such 'ribbon' like electronic streams/features were unexpectedly found to exist and play an important part in the overall plasma feature/dynamics. Maybe you and others can discuss what ramifications (or not) that new discovery in the lab plasma dynamics may have for your overall on-topic discussion here. Good luck and good discussing, all. :)

Their brains are incapable of understanding the ramifications because the are religiously tied to their belief system and busy peacocking their great intelligence.

Mar 13, 2016

Their brains are incapable of understanding the ramifications because the are religiously tied to their belief system and busy peacocking their great intelligence.


That's a bit rich coming from a supporter of a fruitloop idea that has zero evidence, whose supporters continue to invent ever more impossible and unseen nonsense to explain something for which there is already abundant evidence.
And all this to rescue a bit of mythology based woo, invented by a couple of cranks.
Now if that doesn't define a slave-like religious devotion to doctrine, I don't know what does!!
How about actually addressing the evidence (and giving us your own), instead of coming out with one of T & T's prayer book homilies?

Mar 13, 2016
Dark matter = crank science

It's why few working in engineering and science believe astronomers and astrophysicists know what they're talking about anymore.

Dark matter, the invisible straw that broke the invisible camel's back.

Mar 13, 2016
MEMO to geniuses: You can't have magnetism without electricity, that's why it's called E&M, not E|M (see Physics 102).

Mar 13, 2016
Usually magnetism is not accompanied by an electric field.
What is your point?


Usually not? lol

Mar 13, 2016
MEMO to geniuses: You can't have magnetism without electricity, that's why it's called E&M, not E|M (see Physics 102).


Which has nothing to do with the fact that the IMF will pile up ahead of a shell of gas in just the same way as it will pile up ahead of the sublimating gas from a comet. Comet not required. Electric comet most definitely not required.
So to go back to the point I originally addressed at the start of this thread; no, Thornhill hasn't got a clue what he's talking about, and what happened at Mars has nothing to do with his electric fairy tales. A shell of gas of the same density and composition as that at Siding Spring would have had EXACTLY the same effect.
And yes, a small electric current is caused by this piled up IMF at the boundary of the diamagnetic cavity. This is not news. It has been known about for decades, and predicted even longer ago. By 'mainstream' scientists.

Mar 13, 2016
@cd
The voltage source is the Sun

Wow, a voltage source with only 1 terminal.

The Sun completes it's circuit via it's EM field, and as the data suggests it looks something like this;
http://electric-c...2012.pdf

The Sun is, of course, just part of an even larger circuit in the LIC, the LIC to the Gould Belt, then the Orion Arm, etc....

If you want to keep changing the subject, go for it, it's typical.

Mar 13, 2016
If EU adherents can demonstrate that comets have the same magnetic properties at aphelion as they do at perihelion,

That's silly and has never been a claim of the EU, purely a red herring of zero purpose.

Mar 13, 2016
@OCC
Usually magnetism is not accompanied by an electric field.
What is your point?

Only in astrophysics, and the reason they can't find 96% of their Universe!

Mar 13, 2016
If EU adherents can demonstrate that comets have the same magnetic properties at aphelion as they do at perihelion,

That's silly and has never been a claim of the EU, purely a red herring of zero purpose.


Doesn't really matter. None of their claims about comets have any evidence to back them up.

Mar 13, 2016
Which has nothing to do with the fact that the IMF will pile up ahead of a shell of gas in just the same way as it will pile up ahead of the sublimating gas from a comet. Comet not required. Electric comet most definitely not required.

This discussion is becoming like a discussion with Cap'n Stoopid, circular and mind bendingly asinine. You must have a difficult time putting your pants on, hopefully you do it in the morning before you leave your cardboard box.
As stated previously, your statement regarding the "gas cloud" is not unexpected, from the following paper;
http://www.iaea.o...0222.pdf
"Since the time of Langmuir, we know that a double layer is a plasma formation by which a plasma - in the physical meaning of this word - protects itself from the environment. It is analogous to a cell wall by which a plasma - in the biological meaning of this word - protects itself from the environment."
cnt'd

Mar 13, 2016

""As stated previously, your statement regarding the "gas cloud" is not unexpected, from the following paper;
http://www.iaea.o...0222.pdf
"Since the time of Langmuir, we know that a double layer is a plasma formation by which a plasma - in the physical meaning of this word - protects itself from the environment. It is analogous to a cell wall by which a plasma - in the biological meaning of this word - protects itself from the environment."
cnt'd


And therefore you can point to the part in the AMPTE paper, or the Halley papers, or the Rosetta paper, where it says they found a double layer? Yes? Because I know of at least one plasma astrophysicist who will tell you that you are talking absolute bollocks. They have never found a double layer at a comet, or in the AMPTE experiment. Please show where they have.

Mar 13, 2016
Double layers is how this process takes place, it is the object or gas protecting itself from the surround plasma. This is well founded in PC/EU, it's a process only partially understood by the mainstream.

And yes, a small electric current is caused

An admission of convenience and being shown wrong. By admitting this, then you must also concede there is an electric circuit as well, basic fact! I think your comment was "Where's the Circuit?". Well, there is part of it! I like how you try to change history with your false statements as well, you're very adept to lying.

Regardless of your feeble attempts of avoiding any attempt to refer to anything as electric, it is a plain and simple fact the ion sputtering is an electric discharge, doesn't matter if it is in a engineers lab or on a comet. Your pathetic attempts at changing semantics is as feeble as your understanding of plasma physics.

Mar 13, 2016

This is not news.


The news is: comets are not subliming ice to form a water vapor coma lit by the sun's light, but an electrically charged plasma coma in glow mode. Which is a completely different assumption than made for the past 200 years.

Mar 13, 2016
where it says they found a double layer? Yes? Because I know of at least one plasma astrophysicist who will tell you that you are talking absolute bollocks.

When the one "plasma astrophysicist" lobbies the engineers to include the correct measuring tools on the spacecraft or a fleet of them, they will find what they are looking for. The following article shows just how difficult it is to actually find these phenomena, they went undetected for decades right above our heads.
http://physics.ap...s/v6/131
If the search for the DL's was as exhaustive as the search for DM, they would have found them decades ago. This is one way the current flock of pseudoscientific astrophysicists can keep their theoretical stranglehold on discovery, they base their instrumentation of their failed views of the real plasma physics.

Mar 13, 2016
Because I know of at least one plasma astrophysicist who will tell you that you are talking absolute bollocks.

You also know at least one astrophysicist who will tell you to ignore over 100 years of direct laboratory and in situ evidence in favor of his cherished dogmatic beliefs. DL's are known by real plasma physicists to be ubiquitous in heterogeneous plasmas, his claim that is bollocks just shows his extreme ignorance of the matter in which he is charged to study.

Mar 13, 2016

Regardless of your feeble attempts of avoiding any attempt to refer to anything as electric, it is a plain and simple fact the ion sputtering is an electric discharge, doesn't matter if it is in a engineers lab or on a comet. Your pathetic attempts at changing semantics is as feeble as your understanding of plasma physics.


Sorry, you are talking rubbish. Again. As I've said, the fact that an electric current would be created in that situation is well known and has been modelled, and observed, for decades. The solar wind is, however, quasi-neutral.
And you are clueless about the sputtering. As has been shown. Read the paper: "Solar wind sputtering of dust on the surface of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko." (clue is in the title):
http://www.aanda....-15.html

Mar 13, 2016
Oh, and BTW
The diamagnetic cavity forms due to ion-neutral friction with the incoming solar wind, and the magnetic field it carries. Inside the cavity are only neutrals and ions of cometary origin.

The neutrals and ions in the cavity, that's plasma as well.

Mar 13, 2016
Because I know of at least one plasma astrophysicist who will tell you that you are talking absolute bollocks.

You also know at least one astrophysicist who will tell you to ignore over 100 years of direct laboratory and in situ evidence in favor of his cherished dogmatic beliefs. DL's are known by real plasma physicists to be ubiquitous in heterogeneous plasmas, his claim that is bollocks just shows his extreme ignorance of the matter in which he is charged to study.


https://www.resea...0000.pdf

So tell him that.

Mar 13, 2016
Again. As I've said, the fact that an electric current would be created in that situation is well known and has been modelled, and observed, for decades.

What is not known however, is that electric current must be part of a larger circuit which includes the comet as well. The same models of the isolated global circuit being used to model that current is from the same failed models used by Chapman to describe the aurora. The correct physics to describe this phenomena is based in plasma physics, a small charged object immersed in a larger plasma. All interactions are then electrical by definition.

Mar 13, 2016
Again. As I've said, the fact that an electric current would be created in that situation is well known and has been modelled, and observed, for decades.

What is not known however, is that electric current must be part of a larger circuit which includes the comet as well. The same models of the isolated global circuit being used to model that current is from the same failed models used by Chapman to describe the aurora. The correct physics to describe this phenomena is based in plasma physics, a small charged object immersed in a larger plasma. All interactions are then electrical by definition.


And there is no circuit at the comet. Can you not get it through your head, that the EXACT same phenomena (you can call it what you like) is seen regardless of whether or not a comet is present? Including the electric field. No comet required.
The ions and neutrals within the cavity are not a plasma. It is vastly doninated by neutrals, mostly H2O, with some H2O+ and H3O+.

Mar 13, 2016
Because I know of at least one plasma astrophysicist who will tell you that you are talking absolute bollocks.

You also know at least one astrophysicist who will tell you to ignore over 100 years of direct laboratory and in situ evidence in favor of his cherished dogmatic beliefs. DL's are known by real plasma physicists to be ubiquitous in heterogeneous plasmas,


https://www.resea...profile/

So tell him that.

You'll have to expound, the paper you linked does not disagree with what I state, as with the following;
"The spectra show that double-layer- related emission exists next to global plasma phenomena."
The main difference being, of course, that you must include the equipment to measure the applicable data. You must also understand that there may be thousands upon thousands of very weak DL's in parallel which will not reveal themselves in the normally expected ways, as was shown in the paper I linked.

Mar 13, 2016
Dark matter = crank science

It's why few working in engineering and science believe astronomers and astrophysicists know what they're talking about anymore.

Dark matter, the invisible straw that broke the invisible camel's back.


You are right on the money.

Every asinine & cockamamie thing Zwicky ever proposed was found to be wacko when scrutinized years later through improvements in instrumentation in the collection of data. It's the reason DM Enthusaists avoid quoting anything Zwicky ever wrote & the reason his name almost never comes up in discussions of his Cosmic Fairy Dust.

Einstein warned Zwicky back in the 1930's to keep his cosmic fairy dust away from our solar system or risk running up against the GR calculations for Photon Deflection based on Einstein's field equations for calculating the mass of the Sun. Poor Zwicky, had to keep everything just beyond a point where we can never actually measure any gravity.

Mar 13, 2016
And then, of course, somebody might explain why the formation of a double layer causes the magnetic field strength to drop to 0 nT?

Mar 13, 2016
And there is no circuit at the comet.

But you admit an electric current? Well then, it must be magic, or DM, or charged particles falling down a "gravity well"... JA!
The ions and neutrals within the cavity are not a plasma. It is vastly doninated by neutrals, mostly H2O, with some H2O+ and H3O+.

LMAO! When you can't even grasp a basic fact such as the definition of an "ionized gas" (plasma), is there really any hope that you can truly understand more complex ideas? Not a chance! Rube!

Mar 13, 2016


You'll have to expound, the paper you linked does not disagree with what I state, as with the following;
"The spectra show that double-layer- related emission exists next to global plasma phenomena."
The main difference being, of course, that you must include the equipment to measure the applicable data. You must also understand that there may be thousands upon thousands of very weak DL's in parallel which will not reveal themselves in the normally expected ways, as was shown in the paper I linked.

He is a scientist on this mission, is a co-author of the diamagnetic cavity paper: http://www.aanda....8-15.pdf
And also posts at ISF, where we had another eejit proposing this double layer bollocks.

Mar 13, 2016
And there is no circuit at the comet.

But you admit an electric current? Well then, it must be magic, or DM, or charged particles falling down a "gravity well"... JA!
The ions and neutrals within the cavity are not a plasma. It is vastly doninated by neutrals, mostly H2O, with some H2O+ and H3O+.

LMAO! When you can't even grasp a basic fact such as the definition of an "ionized gas" (plasma), is there really any hope that you can truly understand more complex ideas? Not a chance! Rube!


Sure, if you also stay consistent and call Earth's atmosphere a plasma. None of which alters the fact that the electric comet is still an evidence free zone..

Mar 13, 2016
[q [But you admit an electric current? Well then, it must be magic, or DM, or charged particles falling down a "gravity well"... JA!

Yep. You can read all about it here: http://www-pw.phy..._JGR.pdf

"Waves and Electric Fields Associated With the First AMPTE Artificial Comet"

Please take note that there was no actual comet involved here.

And also here: https://www.resea...07cf.pdf

Mar 13, 2016
http://electric-c...2012.pdf
@cd
1- this site is a pseudoscience site making more than a few *false claims*
http://www.auburn...ion.html

before you post opinion as evidence for what you want to protray as fact, you should learn a few things: like the scientific method and what constitutes Scientific evidence
https://en.wikipe...c_method

https://en.wikipe...evidence

2- the PDF is opinion (which makes false claims), not a study, therefore has all the same credibility as linking a bible as proof of intelligent design
When you can't even grasp a basic fact such as the definition of an "ionized gas" (plasma)...
this coming from a person who can't tell the difference from his pseudoscience cult and what a peer reviewed journal is?

Mar 13, 2016
Oops, also forgot here: http://onlinelibr...628/full where we can then see it at a real comet. Same thing. Comet or no comet.

Mar 13, 2016
Just a few more facts for the hard of thinking; time against ionisation for H2O at 1 AU ~10^6 s. Outward velocity of H2O molecule upon sublimation ~0.7 km/s.
Size of cavity at Halley ~ 4700 km. At 67P - up to ~300 km.

I'll let the electric geniuses do the maths, and report back as to how ionised this plasma is.

Mar 13, 2016
And then, of course, somebody might explain why the formation of a double layer causes the magnetic field strength to drop to 0 nT?

As you said, the weak magnetic field detected at the comet is created by the solar wind. The DL protects the nucleus from said SW current, therefore the drift current of the plasma inside the cavity is too weak to create a magnetic field of any substance. The SW current is held at bay, as such no magnetic field.

Mar 13, 2016
And then, of course, somebody might explain why the formation of a double layer causes the magnetic field strength to drop to 0 nT?

As you said, the weak magnetic field detected at the comet is created by the solar wind. The DL protects the nucleus from said SW current, therefore the drift current of the plasma inside the cavity is too weak to create a magnetic field of any substance. The SW current is held at bay, as such no magnetic field.


Well the whole of the plasma astrophysics community would disagree. Including people who used to work in Alfven's lab, and have written on double layers. So I guess we'll just have to see who has the evidence come the end of this mission.
As it stands, the electric comet is still batting zero.

Mar 13, 2016
Well the whole of the plasma astrophysics community would disagree. Including people who used to work in Alfven's lab...
@Jonesdave
here is some more reading you may enjoy
http://www.intern...10371174

i think you already linked this: The nonmagnetic nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
http://science.sc...102.full

regardless, it's relevant to your argument and thought you would appreciate it
If you can't read the full study, you can contact me at SciForums or Sapo's Joint under Truck Captain Stumpy

i can get you the full if you need it
PEACE

Mar 13, 2016
^^^ Cheers CS. Yes well aware of the ISF thread. Have taken a bit of a break for a while, as it was like discussing neurosurgery with chimpanzees!
I tend not to have any problem with accessing papers, without going into detail. My academic days are over, but there are other ways and means, if you know what I mean ;)

Mar 13, 2016

As it stands, the electric comet is still batting zero.


A plasma coma in glow mode indicates it's electric. You are insane.

Mar 13, 2016
Their brains are incapable of understanding...
@yep
1- i am not discounting the potential of plasma, just the eu evidence and their claims/delusions of grandeur sans evidence

2- the only demonstrations of being "religiously tied to their belief system and busy peacocking their great intelligence" comes straight from the eu cult

science follows the evidence
eu states what they believe sans evidence

the eu cult makes proclamations about how everything fits the eu beliefs despite the evidence like here:
http://science.sc...102.full

you can see this in the following threads
http://phys.org/n...oon.html

http://phys.org/n...oon.html

http://phys.org/n...ume.html

what happens when they're wrong?
they simply repeat the lie like the proof against them doesn't exist

IOW- they act like a religious cult

Mar 13, 2016
Even permanent magnets require an electrical current to continuously generate the magnetic field, in that case the electric current is ELECTRONS (who'd figure) orbiting in one direction more than the other.

E & M you dope.

Mar 13, 2016

As it stands, the electric comet is still batting zero.


A plasma coma in glow mode indicates it's electric. You are insane.


Which glow would this be, and where is the instrumental evidence for it? There are many plasma instruments onboard Rosetta, which one of them detected this "glow"? Where can I read about it? I thought I had every paper the plasma team had produced.
Unless you are getting confused with sunlight reflecting from dust particles in images that have been hugely altered in contrast to allow us to see it? Have a look at the images again, compare this "glow" to the "brightness"of the nucleus, and then report back. Remember, the albedo of the nucleus is ~ 4%. That is about the same as coal, or a charcoal briquette.
Sorry, but pareidolia does not = evidence. A glow discharge would not only be detected by the craft, it would most likely fry it. And the craft is continually within the coma, from ~6 - ~1500 km. For 18 months.

Mar 13, 2016

As it stands, the electric comet is still batting zero.


A plasma coma in glow mode indicates it's electric. You are insane.


Perhaps you are talking about this sort of thing?: https://upload.wi...ey_2.jpg

From Hartley 2. Active little bugger, was that one. Just look at that 'glow'. Massively overexposed, of course, but it was still brightish, I'll give you that.
Know what was in those 'glows'? Neutral CO2 gas, which was entraining solid H2O ice grains.
Very cold then. Temperature maps of the region were also compiled. Very cold, too.
Strange sort of glow discharge then.

http://arxiv.org/...3382.pdf

Mar 13, 2016
the eu cult makes proclamations about how everything fits the eu beliefs despite the evidence


......just as do the DM Enthusiasts who without a shred of evidence led by their godfather Zwicky, a wacko person who never got much of anything right either. His favorite past time was jumping onto a stage in the middle of somebody else's symposium & going off on half baked rants like just like you do.

Mar 13, 2016
Just for what it's worth, the only jets that have been brighter than the nucleus were a couple or 3 spectacular ones around perihelion. Everything else has been as bright, or less so, than the nucleus. Which is as black as coal.

Mar 13, 2016
It's a freaking ELECTRON you A**.

Mar 13, 2016
Hi everyone. :)

Just a reminder to all. It's called the ElectroMagnetic field for a reason. Neither E component nor M component oscillations are independent of that same EM field. All EM perturbations/features of that field also have 'evolutionary' and 'observational' aspects which manifest as one or other 'stage' at one or other 'scale' of the same dynamics/phenomena being observed. While experiments may 'separate' the E and M components in controlled conditions for observing the behavior/properties/effects of each separately, the ubiquitous universal EM field is still ONE system overall, but merely perturbed enough to highlight each component 'oscillation' nature/effect under those controlled conditions. Not taking 'sides'; just reminding everyone for the sake of the discussion. Good luck in your polite on-topic discussions, all. :)

Mar 13, 2016
The M is caused by the E. Though it's called Electricity & Magnetism, not Electron & Magnetic field. And even at that level it's still charge in motion q/t, electric current.

Mar 13, 2016

Which glow would this be, and where is the instrumental evidence for it?


How about the PLASMA coma mentioned in THIS ARTICLE causing the mag field chaos at CPA???!!! lol

Mar 13, 2016
Hi cantdrive, jonesdavid, all. :)

@ cantdrive etc, please make your points/responses without the personal insults, as latter detracts from the communication value. Thanks.

@ jonesdavid etc: Recall my reminder that there are TWO factors active in the cometary EM dynamics.

@ Everyone. The ionization process occurs while comet still far distant from sun but surface bombarded by IONIZING RADIATION (UV, Gamma, X-rays etc). So while no 'outgassing' produced due to low temps, it still PHOTO-IONIZES SURFACE layers.

That IRRADIATION 'initiates' the ENERGY-driven electron-flow/field dynamics of comet. Transient fluctuations in said dynamics allows solar Proton IONS to hit surface, adding to the IONIZed layer and FREED electron flux around comet. Closer to sun, both these factors increase dramatically, creating significant effects on/around comet; and between it and other bodies (Mars/Sun) even if not easily detected.

Also consider 'Homopolar Generator' principles/currents. :)


Mar 13, 2016

Which glow would this be, and where is the instrumental evidence for it?


How about the PLASMA coma mentioned in THIS ARTICLE causing the mag field chaos at CPA???!!! lol


What has that got to do with a glow discharge? The coma of a comet is composed of neutrals. It will also have solar wind ions. Cometary neutrals become ionised by photoionisation and some charge exchange with the solar wind. The further away from the coma you go, the more ionised the coma becomes. Siding Spring passed Mars at 141 000 km. At this distance a reasonable percentage of the material interacting with the Martian atmosphere will be a 'plasma' (i.e. ions). These ions are considerably heavier than solar wind H+. The upshot is that this is calculated to have been ~ 100 x the energy density of the normal solar wind. Part of the disturbance, having read the paper, was due to the arrival of the comet's draped magnetic field interacting with the Martian atmosphere.

Mar 13, 2016

If you call any phenomenon in which electrons are involved electric

We were discussing E & M, how you can't have one without the other, right down to the atomic level.
You are a fraud who's never taken a single EE class.

Mar 13, 2016
@RC

"@ jonesdavid etc: Recall my reminder that there are TWO factors active in the cometary EM dynamics."

And I think it has now been finally realised that the said EM effects will arise regardless of whether or not there is a comet in the centre of the gas. AMPTE proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Over 30 years ago. All the things seen at comets, such as the magnetic field pile-up region, the diamagnetic cavity and yes, the electric currents caused by the enhanced magnetic region, will happen with just a shell of gas.

Mar 13, 2016
P.S. No glow mode semantics mentioned in this article, just plasma, my bad.

Mar 13, 2016
P.S. No glow mode semantics mentioned in this article, just plasma, my bad.


No problem.

Some bits from the article: "Given the timing of the orbit (near when the relatively ordered portions of the outer cometary magnetosphere would be moving over the planet), we interpret this reorientation as being driven by the arrival of the magnetic field associated with the comet and its draping over the planet."

"Therefore, combining an ion density that is a few percent of the gas density with the fact the comet ions are generally 18 times more massive than the solar wind ions gives an expected energy density for the cometary plasma of order 100 times the normal solar wind energy density. This is comparable to a very significant solar weather event."