Space scientists observe Io's atmospheric collapse during eclipse

August 2, 2016, Southwest Research Institute
An artist’s rendering depicts the atmosphere on Io, Jupiter’s volcanic moon, as it collapses during daily eclipses. Credit: Southwest Research Institute

A Southwest Research Institute-led team has documented atmospheric changes on Io, Jupiter's volcanically active satellite, as the giant planet casts its shadow over the moon's surface during daily eclipses.

A study led by SwRI's Constantine Tsang concluded that Io's thin , which consists primarily of sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas emitted from volcanoes, collapses as the SO2 freezes onto the surface as ice when Io is shaded by Jupiter. When the moon moves out of eclipse and ice warms, the atmosphere reforms through sublimation, where ice converts directly to gas.

"This research is the first time scientists have observed this phenomenon directly, improving our understanding of this geologically active moon," said Tsang, a senior research scientist in SwRI's Space Science and Engineering Division.

The findings were published in a study titled "The Collapse of Io's Primary Atmosphere in Jupiter Eclipse" in the Journal of Geophysical Research. The team used the eight-meter Gemini North telescope in Hawaii and the Texas Echelon Cross Echelle Spectrograph (TEXES) for this research.

Data showed that Io's atmosphere begins to "deflate" when the temperatures drop from -235 degrees Fahrenheit in sunlight to -270 degrees Fahrenheit during eclipse. Eclipse occurs 2 hours of every Io day (1.7 Earth days). In full eclipse, the atmosphere effectively collapses as most of the SO2 gas settles as frost on the moon's surface. The atmosphere redevelops as the surface warms once the moon returns to full sunlight.

An artist’s rendering depicts the atmosphere on Io, Jupiter’s volcanic moon, as it collapses during daily eclipses. Credit: Southwest Research Institute
"This confirms that Io's atmosphere is in a constant state of collapse and repair, and shows that a large fraction of the atmosphere is supported by sublimation of SO2 ice," said John Spencer, an SwRI scientist who also participated in the study. "Though Io's hyperactive volcanoes are the ultimate source of the SO2, sunlight controls the atmospheric pressure on a daily basis by controlling the temperature of the ice on the surface. We've long suspected this, but can finally watch it happen."

Prior to the study, no direct observations of Io's atmosphere in eclipse had been possible because Io's atmosphere is difficult to observe in the darkness of Jupiter's shadow. This breakthrough was possible because TEXES measures the atmosphere using heat radiation, not sunlight, and the giant Gemini telescope can sense the faint heat signature of Io's collapsing atmosphere.

Tsang and Spencer's observations occurred over two nights in November 2013, when Io was more than 420 million miles from Earth. On both occasions, Io was observed moving in and out of Jupiter's shadow, for a period about 40 minutes before and after eclipse.

Io is the most volcanically active object in the solar system. Tidal heating, the result of Io's gravitational interaction with Jupiter, drives the moon's volcanic activity. Io's volcanoes emit umbrella-like plumes of SO2 gas extending up to 300 miles above the moon's surface and produce extensive basaltic lava fields that can flow for hundreds of miles.

This study is also timely given that NASA's Juno spacecraft entered Jupiter orbit on July 4. "Io spews out gases that eventually fill the Jupiter system, ultimately seeding some of the auroral features seen at Jupiter's poles," Tsang said. "Understanding how these emissions from Io are controlled will help paint a better picture of the Jupiter system."

Explore further: Hubble captures vivid auroras in Jupiter's atmosphere

More information: The collapse of Io's primary atmosphere in Jupiter eclipse, DOI: 10.1002/2016JE005025 , http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016JE005025/abstract

Related Stories

Hubble captures vivid auroras in Jupiter's atmosphere

June 30, 2016

Astronomers are using the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope to study auroras—stunning light shows in a planet's atmosphere—on the poles of the largest planet in the Solar System, Jupiter. This observation programme is supported ...

Image: Juno captures Jovian approach

June 28, 2016

NASA's Juno spacecraft obtained this color view on June 21, 2016, at a distance of 6.8 million miles (10.9 million kilometers) from Jupiter. Juno will arrive at Jupiter on July 4.

3-2-1: A look at NASA's Jupiter mission by the numbers

July 3, 2016

Since launching in 2011, NASA's Juno spacecraft has been cruising toward the biggest planet in the solar system. On Monday, Juno is scheduled to perform a nail-biting move designed to enter orbit around Jupiter to explore ...

Recommended for you

A new neptune-size exoplanet

December 16, 2018

The remarkable exoplanet discoveries made by the Kepler and K2 missions have enabled astronomers to begin to piece together the history of the Earth and to understand how and why it differs from its diverse exoplanetary cousins. ...

Mars InSight lander seen in first images from space

December 14, 2018

On Nov. 26, NASA's InSight mission knew the spacecraft touched down within an 81-mile-long (130-kilometer-long) landing ellipse on Mars. Now, the team has pinpointed InSight's exact location using images from HiRISE, a powerful ...

Video: Enjoying the Geminids from above and below

December 14, 2018

On the night of December 13, into the morning of December 14, 2018, tune into the night sky for a dazzling display of fireballs. Thanks to the International Space Station, this sky show – the Geminids meteor shower—will ...

117 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

wduckss
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 02, 2016
First data: Io temperature; min. 90; max. 130 ° Kelvin.
SO2; melting point or freezing 201 ° Kelvin.

Temperatures on Io do not allow the formation of the atmosphere of SO2, because he freezes immediately after its broadcast.
It is not clear intention of the author of the article, why lead the readers into error a fictional "hypothesis"?
IMP-9
4.4 / 5 (21) Aug 02, 2016
SO2; melting point or freezing 201 ° Kelvin.


Why are you assuming 1 atmosphere of pressure?
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (27) Aug 02, 2016
SO2; melting point or freezing 201 ° Kelvin.


Why are you assuming 1 atmosphere of pressure?


Because he always does. This is at least the third time he's made the same mistake. He obviously doesn't learn from experience. Water boils at 100 C on Earth at sea level, therefore it does the same anywhere in this universe or any other :)
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (13) Aug 02, 2016
So this raises many questions, a couple of which of which would be; Are atmospheres held in place by gravity? Or are the atmospheres a physical response to that particular bodies surrounding environment? This finding would suggest the later is the case for Io. This finding would also agree with the interpretation that a comet's atmospheres (comas) is a response to it's environment. Obviously the above authors refer to the outgassing, but there are other interpretations for this response.

I'd also like to know if/how this atmospheric collapse affects;
A) Activity levels of the active plumes on Io
2) The morphology of said plumes (i.e., does the plume's vortex umbrella shape change with/without an atmosphere?)
Y) Does Io's auroral imprint on Jupiter change or the powerful electric currents flowing between them change during these events?
*) Io's ionosphere reaction, or not, to this atmospheric collapse.

jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (22) Aug 02, 2016
@cd,
Io would have very little, if any atmosphere based on its feeble gravity. Callisto is larger, for instance. Io has an atmosphere (10^-7 atm) which is solely due to volcanic outgassing. As the paper states, much of that atmosphere freezes out during eclipses, and then sublimates back to the atmosphere once the temperature rises. The SO2 ice which sublimates is from volcanic outgassing due to tidal heating.
The atmosphere is nothing to do with its "environment", other than it having an elliptical orbit around a massive planet to which it is tidally locked.

The same goes for comets. Their "environment" is an elliptical orbit around the Sun. Their coma is due mainly to sublimation of volatiles, as the sublimation temperatures of certain ices are exceeded as it moves closer to the Sun (ice phase changes due to temperature could also play a part).

None of the other points you raise are covered in this paper. However, to the first 3 points; why would it? To the 4th, who knows?
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (21) Aug 02, 2016
I'm assuming that this process occurs not just during eclipses. For instance, when Io is between the Sun and Jupiter, the Jupiter facing side (which always faces Jupiter) will be in darkness, and the same process ought to occur. As it reaches the opposite side of its orbit, the Jupiter facing hemisphere will be in sunlight (except when eclipsed), and the other hemisphere will experience darkness. During an eclipse the whole of the moon will be in darkness, but with such a tenuous atmosphere, I'd have thought some freezing out must be occurring on whichever hemisphere is in darkness.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (21) Aug 03, 2016
So this raises many questions, a couple of which of which would be; Are atmospheres held in place by gravity? Or are the atmospheres a physical response to that particular bodies surrounding environment?


The atmosphere is, shall we say, temporarily held by gravity. It could only hold onto it for so long, though. If the volcanism were to shut down tomorrow, then Io would quickly find itself without an atmosphere. The reason it retains one is due to it continually being 'topped up' by volcanic outgassing. As mentioned, it has nothing to do with its "environment", whatever that means.
wduckss
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 03, 2016
This debate I went with CH4 related to Titan.
http: //www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/295090-what-are-the-lakes-on-titan-made-of/

I can not go again from beginning. Contrary to your comments pressure should be increased (significantly higher atmosphere of the Earth) in order to a melting point or freezing was different.

If you like to bother you look for how much the pressure difference is required for 71 ° to 140 ° Kelvin (90-130 / 201).
jonesdave
2.9 / 5 (21) Aug 03, 2016
This debate I went with CH4 related to Titan.
http: //www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/295090-what-are-the-lakes-on-titan-made-of/

I can not go again from beginning. Contrary to your comments pressure should be increased (significantly higher atmosphere of the Earth) in order to a melting point or freezing was different.

If you like to bother you look for how much the pressure difference is required for 71 ° to 140 ° Kelvin (90-130 / 201).


Yes, and as on here, you lost that debate. Conditions on Titan are very close to the triple point of methane. Find the figures for the appropriate temperatures at 1.5 atmospheres. And then try to find a phase diagram for SO2, for the temperatures at Io, at 10^-7 atmospheres. These places are NOT Earth. Different values apply. Scientists are not stupid. Unless you think that every single one of them who have written on this subject are wrong?
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (20) Aug 03, 2016
http://www.imageb...98166934

Phase diagram for CH4, on which I've marked the position that would pertain to Titan's surface conditions.
wduckss
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 03, 2016
@jonesdave
Or you translate the difference is less than one atmosphere. You are not offered any argument for your claim (ah yes, the triple point is 197.69 ° K W.)
The first comment you could rewrite of the offered discussion, the easier it is.
It does not matter what the authors suggest, but what is true. They earn money, us should be interested only truth.
If you do not have the evidence does not dial the side, where you will believe. If you comment on always attach proof, nowhere more so does not pass my grandmother she said.
Mark Thomas
2.4 / 5 (16) Aug 03, 2016
Here's a nice little question. In our solar system, which moon in has the highest gravity?

Answer: Io. Not only does Io have the highest gravity of any moon, although it is just a little more than our moon (which takes second place), Io comes in 10th for all known bodies in the solar system, above all the dwarf planets too.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Aug 03, 2016
Are atmospheres held in place by gravity?
@cd
do you have any evidence? (nope)

ah... imagine that

*so*- since we know the strength of our magnetosphere, plus the strength of most in our solar system:
show the math & model where Mars (and all other studied planets, moons etc with atmosphere's etc in our solar system) has [x] atmosphere proportionally based upon field strength vrs Gravity, show how the magnetosphere holds said atmosphere, and then falsify gravity and the known theories associated with it

Then publish your hypothesis in a peer reviewed journal with an impact in astrophysics (not engineering with no peer review like the eu is prone to do), get it validated (like GR) and collect all your accolades, your Nobel and the fame of being the first uneducated eu idiot to actually do something other than lie about known laws of physics

but i can predict you wont:
that is hard
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (19) Aug 03, 2016

Except when that is not what causes it:
http://www.wbtv.c...aked-eye
Yeah, there's only 129,000 hits when you google unexpected comet brightening. Which means brightening at a time when it shouldn't according to the theory of comet brightening that was regurgitated above.

[cont...]

But we can just ignore that right?



So, what caused the brightening? Volcanic eruption? Electric woo? Or the sublimation of gases due to warming? And yes, I obviously include heat from sunlight as being part of the "environment" at both comet, planets and moons. I think you'll find cd was about to go off on one about all sorts of electric woo. The point remains, no woo is required to explain what is happening at either Io or on comets.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (19) Aug 03, 2016
[....cont]
You'll see, if you check the literature, that the sublimation temperatures of various ices considerably differ from one another (CO is ~ 30 K, from memory). There are also phase changes of ice that can likely cause outbursts.
"Water-ice sublimation begins near 180K. Low albedo (e.g. a few percent)
objects can reach this equilibrium temperature near r=5{6AU, thus most
comet observations have concentrated on nuclei when they were inside
this distance, and active. However, the activity driven by trapped gases
in the amorphous ice, by the presence of highly volatile ices, or caused by
the amorphous-to-crystalline ice phase transition will occur at much lower
temperatures, and much larger distances."
https://www.resea...1dc4.pdf
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (19) Aug 03, 2016
@jonesdave
Or you translate the difference is less than one atmosphere. You are not offered any argument for your claim (ah yes, the triple point is 197.69 ° K W.)
The first comment you could rewrite of the offered discussion, the easier it is.
It does not matter what the authors suggest, but what is true. They earn money, us should be interested only truth.
If you do not have the evidence does not dial the side, where you will believe. If you comment on always attach proof, nowhere more so does not pass my grandmother she said.


Sorry, you are making no sense whatsoever. Why not publish your "beliefs" and get them peer reviewed, if you are so confident. Every scientist who has ever studied Titan would say you are wrong. But, hey, what do they know or care, as long as they are picking up six figure salaries every year. Not.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (19) Aug 03, 2016
@bs
Sublimation temperatures do not fall as the comet travels away.

The temperature at the surface of the comet decreases due to decreased radiation as the comet travels away from the source of the radiation, the mechanism for sublimation which is the absorption of radiation by the comet is less profound, therefore the comet brightening is not due to increased sublimation when the comet is travelling away, but I do agree 100% the cause is still the sun, just not radiation. Instead of "sublimation temperatures" I should have said "the temperatures responsible for sublimation"....don't get excited.


Which also has to take into account the previous mechanisms I mentioned. In addition, as seen at 67P, bits of cliffs and scarps are prone to falling away due to thermal stress. If these leave dust free exposures of ice, then that will sublimate. Quite energetically, if it is a supervolatile, such as CO or CO2.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (18) Aug 03, 2016
Or the comet enters an area that has an increased density of charged solar particles which react with it causing it to brighten


And what is the mechanism for that? Where has it been observed? 67P has travelled through areas of "increased density of charged solar particles." Nothing of note happened, other than its detection by the Rosetta instruments. Certainly no increase in production rate. How would an increased solar wind flux increase the production rate? Even if it reached the surface? (http://link.sprin...-9479-5: paywalled)
Plenty of people have done the maths on this; the SW cannot account, at normal levels, for even 1 10 millionth of a litre of H2O (generous figure; in reality, far, far less). How much would you like to increase the flux by?
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (19) Aug 03, 2016
YAnd what is the mechanism for that? Where has it been observed?

You do get that comets have a magnetic field right? (there was a neat article back in march about how Siding-Spring threw Mars magnetic field into complete disarray due to the interaction between the 2, or any of the papers about Halleys cometary field) The same mechanism which causes earth aurorae is all that is required. You do know that when the earth experiences an increase in particle flux from the solar wind we have aurorae (brightening)...


Comets have an INDUCED magnetosphere. This will only form as outgassing reaches a certain level and interacts with the SW. At low outgassing rates it doesn't exist. So you're 'aurora hypothesis', will have to account for comet brightenings seen at various distances. With and without a magnetosphere. On the few occasions where telescopes have been turned on comets after such events, they have seen increased dust and/ or ice.
http://arxiv.org/...1317.pdf
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (18) Aug 03, 2016
There are measurements and observation from 67P! You know, the one that has had a spacecraft alongside it for the last 2 years?

"Birth of a comet magnetosphere: A spring of water ions."
http://science.sc...571.full

"The nonmagnetic nucleus of comet 67P/C-G"
http://science.sc.../aaa5102

So, in all honesty, it doesn't matter whether or not you disagree. Observation and measurement by an in-situ craft say you're wrong.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (18) Aug 03, 2016
I should have added the following: "This pile-up then abruptly stops at the contact surface where the magnetic field strength drops to zero because the comet does not have a magnetic field of its own (Auster et al. 2015)."
http://www.aanda....8-15.pdf

Auster et al refers to the 2nd paper linked in the previous post.

jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (18) Aug 03, 2016
So, in all honesty, it doesn't matter whether or not you disagree. Observation and measurement by an in-situ craft say you're wrong.

Firstly,The observations you linked actually listed the field strength that the lander (which bounced a kilometer off of the surface upon first attempt) measured before the lander went into hibernation. Secondly, interactions with the SW can also induce the field we are speaking of.


Interactions with the SW is exactly what I said in the first place!!!!! That is the ONLY way it can happen. If the comet had its own, intrinsic magnetic field, it would have been measured; by Philae as it approached and touched down on the comet; and within the diamagnetic cavity, once it formed.
So, after all that all you've done is end up agreeing with me that it is an INDUCED magnetic field. From the IN-SITU measurements you asked for. Which gets us back to increased SW flux being extremely unlikely to cause brightening.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (18) Aug 03, 2016
From the paper you linked about the birth of a cometary magnetosphere

"The RPC-ICA instrument onboard Rosetta has been watching the early stages of how a magnetosphere forms around Comet 67P Churyumov-Gerasimenko as it moves closer to the Sun along its orbit and begins to interact with the solar wind."

You just linked a paper which observationally proves comet activity increases when it interacts with the solar wind....thanks.


WHICH IS WHAT I SAID. READ MY POSTS AGAIN. JESUS.

For clarity, I said: "Comets have an INDUCED magnetosphere. This will only form as outgassing reaches a certain level and interacts with the SW. At low outgassing rates it doesn't exist..."

jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (18) Aug 03, 2016
Me: "This will only form as outgassing reaches a certain level and interacts with the SW. At low outgassing rates it doesn't exist."

bschott: "I DISAGREE. And you are stating theory as fact unless you have in situ measurments of cometary magnetic fields in both states from one comet....."

(my emphasis)

Provide in-situ measurements to show I'm right;

bschott: (to paraphrase): "See, I was right all along."

STREWTH!

jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (18) Aug 03, 2016
WHICH IS WHAT I SAID. READ MY POSTS AGAIN. JESUS.


Actually, you WERE originally arguing from the standpoint that cometary interaction with the solar wind did not cause them to brighten, I said it did. So if interaction with the solar wind can cause increased out gassing which causes comets to brighten, and this has been observed to happen while comets travel away from the sun which can be explained by the comet encountering increased particle density, as I said....what exactly is your point again?

Thanks for the talk, I knew you'd see it my way....didn't think I could get you to prove it though.


Jesus wept. How does the SW cause outgassing? You are going in circles and making yourself look like a right prat! Care to provide a link to back any of this nonsense up?
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (18) Aug 03, 2016
For the very hard of thinking, here is what happens: the comet has no magnetic field of its own. As shown. Outgassing, DUE TO SUBLIMATION. provides the coma with which the SW then interacts. This forms an INDUCED and temporary magnetosphere. When the outgassing drops again, the magnetosphere disappears. Nothing for the SW to interact with. So what causes the brightening, that leaves behind evidence of dust and ice?
Aurorae, according to bschott. Brilliant. I'd get that published, if I were you. But only if I were you. If I was myself, I wouldn't embarrass myself.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (18) Aug 03, 2016
Jesus wept. How does the SW cause outgassing? You are going in circles and making yourself look like a right prat! Care to provide a link to back any of this nonsense up?


Hey, it was your link....I assumed you knew the content....the quote I pulled from it was in the second paragraph so I didn't need to go any further to support my point.


Yes, I know the content very well. So what are you on about now? Your point has already been shown to be wrong!!!! The SW does not cause outgassing. Please explain where in that paper that it says that it does. Your comprehension skills cannot be that poor, surely.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (18) Aug 03, 2016
Actually, you WERE originally arguing from the standpoint that cometary interaction with the solar wind did not cause them to brighten,....


It doesn't.

I said it did. So if interaction with the solar wind can cause increased out gassing.....


It can't. Please provide a link to a paper that says it can.

what exactly is your point again?


That you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (20) Aug 03, 2016
Here is the quote that bschott thinks says outgassing is caused by the SW:

"The RPC-ICA instrument onboard Rosetta has been watching the early stages of how a magnetosphere forms around Comet 67P Churyumov-Gerasimenko as it moves closer to the Sun along its orbit and begins to interact with the solar wind."


Anybody else see it????!!!!!!

jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (19) Aug 03, 2016
Conclusion: bschott leaves the thread, and decides that finishing the second year of Primary School science might be a good idea.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (12) Aug 04, 2016
Anybody else see it????!!!!!!
@jonesdave
i saw it
this is typical of bschitt

you should talk to her about Mars
This is yet another aspect of the mars dream that people overlook. The Martian soil will need to be brought back to earth for study, to determine what colonists will have to add to it in order to make it fertile
http://phys.org/news/2015-10-farming-mars-martian-soil.html

as though we could never know what martian soil is made of from a probe with a GCMS & other devices

notice she does the same thing to just about anyone who actually brings evidence against her argument?

it's a defense mechanism
she actually believes she is always right/infallible

she also believes anecdote is equivalent to scientific studies & in magic magnetic machines that cure everything because the site says so
http://phys.org/n...ant.html

http://phys.org/n...apy.html
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (20) Aug 04, 2016
@CS,
Quite. It's not hard to see why a lot of these trolls do their posting on here, rather than an actual physics or other science forum, such as ISF. Then again, when, in the case of the EU trolls, you are learning your "science" from people like T & T, whose scientific literacy is scarcely better, it's not all that surprising.
I was re-reading T & T's 'Electric Comet' poster to the IEEE conference in 2006 (allegedly). It is very difficult to find a single paragraph in that that doesn't make use of either obfuscation, misinterpretation, misunderstanding, omission or just outright lies, to make their case.
Strange that none of these geniuses have ever picked up on it, and asked a few pointed questions!
Such as: "Hey Wal, how are you getting OH from the v3 asymmetric stretch of H2O?"
I guess when you're preaching to the scientifically challenged, then such egregious errors are not going to be noticed. As long as the books and DVDs keep selling, then who cares?
jonesdave
2.9 / 5 (21) Aug 04, 2016
@bs,
You really are stupid, aren't you? Which part of the solar wind doesn't cause outgassing do you not understand? How in hell are you claiming it does, based on a quote from a paper that states explicitly that the magnetosphere is due to outgassed species, from SUBLIMATION, interacting with the SW? How is this brightening caused? What is the mechanism, when it often occurs at distances where the comet will not have a magnetosphere? When ice and/ or dust are seen when they turn a telescope on it?
As I've already said, the SW cannot account for more than (generously) 1/ 10 millionth of a litre of H2O? What is your mechanism? Spell it out, and back it up with links.The paper I linked, which you have obviously misunderstood, does nothing to help you.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (19) Aug 04, 2016
[...cont]

Here, let me quote another part of the paper for you, just to see if it can penetrate the impermeable barrier that is your brain.......

"Initially, the solar wind permeates the thin comet atmosphere *formed from sublimation*, until the size and plasma pressure of the ionized atmosphere define its boundaries: A magnetosphere is born."
My emphasis.

The Martian atmosphere acts in a similar way. It has no magnetic field to protect itself. A magnetosphere is created by the SW interactions with species high in the atmosphere. Unsurprisingly, Mars does not brighten during CMEs.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 04, 2016
irrelevant personal opinions in support of someone
@bschit
it was perfectly relevant to the conversation & it also demonstrated your historical use of the same tactics when confronted with empirical evidence refuting your claim
delusional idiots find other ones to back them
you mean like your attempts to support the eu cult while knowing absolutely nothing about a well known topic (like plasma, physics or lightning? http://phys.org/n...ing.html )

.

you claim he is the worst, yet he has provided empirical evidence supporting his argument

.

.

important addendum:
just because *you* don't understand it doesn't mean others don't
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (18) Aug 04, 2016
........who appears to be the worst debater about science since Phys1 got here. ( taking a stance and then providing evidence contrary to it, evidence which supports the stance of the party with whom you are debating....hilarious, but pretty stupid)


Lol. Talk about stupid.

Me: "This (*i.e. the magnetosphere*) will only form as outgassing reaches a certain level and interacts with the SW. At low outgassing rates it doesn't exist."
(*my addition, to put it in context what 'This' refers to)

bschott's reply: "I disagree. And you are stating theory as fact unless you have in situ measurments of cometary magnetic fields in both states from one comet....."

So, I supply evidence that the magnetosphere doesn't exist at low outgassing rates, and only forms due to the SW interaction with the coma (which is only there due to sublimation).

bschott claims that this is what he said in the first place! Cranks, you've got to love them! Or maybe execute them.

jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (20) Aug 04, 2016
Lol. More idiocy from the pillock who has managed to contradict himself repeatedly. I invite anyone to read the thread and come to a different conclusion.

Perhaps, for the sake of clarity, you'd like to spell out how you think the magnetosphere forms?
And then point out where you stated this. And where you didn't say "I disagree" when I explained it, and later provided evidence for what I was saying.

Then provide a link to show us how much the brightness of Mars increased due to an aurora, as seen from Earth. Given that comets are much smaller, and are generally further than Mars when seen to brighten. Then suggest where the dust and/or ice is coming from, when we viewed one after one such brightening.
What is the SW doing when a comet brightens, and yet is too far from the Sun to actually have a magnetosphere? Due to not enough sublimation to provide a sufficient coma for it to interact with?
How about some actual science to explain this crankery?
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (20) Aug 04, 2016
For the 3rd time, did this exchange take place, or are the posts on my laptop showing up differently from everybody else's?

Me: "This (*i.e. the magnetosphere*) will only form as outgassing reaches a certain level and interacts with the SW. At low outgassing rates it doesn't exist."
(*my addition, to put it in context what 'This' refers to)

bschott's reply: "I disagree. And you are stating theory as fact unless you have in situ measurments of cometary magnetic fields in both states from one comet....."



So, what were you disagreeing with?
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Aug 04, 2016

So, what were you disagreeing with?
@Jonesdave
you

oh, and anything mainstream because it doesn't comply with his delusional D-K, narcissism and religious beliefs

did you read the whole exchange he gave over his "super awesome magneto-cancer killer" device that can't get FDA approval, but, per his claims, all the anecdotal evidence that he can't prove is actually other people is somehow able to trump the minimal requirements of the FDA as linked and noted in my posts?
http://phys.org/n...ant.html

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

according to bschit, if it is mainstream, it's wrong and has no evidence
only the astrologers and pseudoscience eu can save us now... even though he doesn't know crap about basics
http://phys.org/n...ing.html
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 04, 2016
@Stump, way to pick a winner, but par for your course
@bschitt
funny thing: follow the evidence and you don't pick "winners", you simply follow the evidence

i don't care who believes in what

as for you: to date, you've supported nothing but pseudoscience
now, everyone can change, but you've also argued for your own beliefs without evidence in the face of refuting evidence that debunks or falsified your belief (cancer machine, Martian soil, etc)

now, history is the best evidence when predicting human behaviour, so in your case, i'm immediately skeptical of what you post until it's verified

usually it's easy (like above) as you ignore evidence for your belief
mostly, i just ignore you though
Protoplasmix
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 04, 2016
=-=-=
"Comets remain dark without sunshine" by bschott

Abstract: Physically, there is no way for a comet NOT to brighten when interacting with the solar wind. The three main causes of brightening are photons, photons, and photons.
=-=-=

Brilliant, bschott, simply brilliant.
Protoplasmix
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 04, 2016
Thank you.
With the physics, as with the sarcasm, bschott, the finer points are lost on you, but thanks for being a good sport. And many thanks (again) to jonesdave for his efforts, sweet jeebus.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 05, 2016
So it was your complete lack of scientific understanding that led you down the wrong path in this section...gotcha
@bschitt
to quote Proto above: "With the physics, as with the sarcasm, bschott, the finer points are lost on you"
if you truly didn't care you would not respond to anything that was posted which went against your own belief structure
first off: i am a staunch advocate for the scientific method
as in Science in general (not pseudoscience, not bullsh*t magic cancer machines)

secondly: if people are going to learn how to think critically and learn scientific literacy, there *must* be someone speaking out against idiocy like yours

advocating or ignoring your pseudoscience is the same as promoting it or allowing it to flourish

perhaps one day you will learn, but considering your delusional belief structure, this is highly unlikely

i would ask you to pull your own head out, but it seems you enjoy the lack of sunlight and feces
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (19) Aug 05, 2016
=-=-=
"Comets remain dark without sunshine" by bschott

Abstract: Physically, there is no way for a comet NOT to brighten when interacting with the solar wind. The three main causes of brightening are photons, photons, and photons.
=-=-=

Brilliant, bschott, simply brilliant.


Yep. Photons are due to the solar wind. Brilliant. Are you sure you aren't getting confused with pRotons, bs? A word of advice; if you don't want to keep making a fool of yourself, stick to a subject that you do know something about. Whatever that may be.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (18) Aug 05, 2016
@bschott,
I said comets brighten when they interact with the solar wind, Idiot jones said they don't.


And as I have repeatedly asked, HOW do they brighten? What is the mechanism? Spell it out. Because there isn't the tiniest bit of evidence to back it up. These brightenings often occur at distances where the comet will not have a magnetosphere, due to the coma being insufficient to support it. So the SW is reaching the surface. What is happening in bschott's world of crankery when that happens? Step by step. With supporting evidence (and maths). Please.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (19) Aug 05, 2016
Lol. More idiocy from the pillock who has managed to contradict himself repeatedly.

You said that to the mirror right?
Well dipshit (and lackeys), got a lot of work to do this afternoon so I'll sum this up quickly:
I said comets brighten when they interact with the solar wind, Idiot jones said they don't. The basic science of photon production from charged particles states that any charged particle interacting with anything (matter or a field) will produce a photon. Photons, are light, light makes things appear brighter. So from ionization (as in jones linked paper), to charge exchange (as in Jones linked paper) to the formation of a magnetic field which then deflects the solar wind (as in Jones linked paper)...all of these produce photons.


So the Rosetta scientists, and everybody else that has ever studied comets, is wrong? It's not due to sunlight reflecting from dust and sometimes ice? Despite having a craft alongside a comet for 2 years?
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (19) Aug 05, 2016
I find it amazing that the worldwide coterie of stupid scientists have overlooked bschott's mechanism, which would be the perfect way of studying the SW at distance, and away from the ecliptic. Amazing that they have to look at comets in x-ray to judge what the SW is doing, when this has been staring them in the face ever since bschott invented it.
Who'd have thought, eh?

p.s. promise to send us some photos of Stockholm.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (19) Aug 05, 2016
By the way, bschott came up with this first, so don't any of you start getting any ideas for the next generation of lightbulbs. Why use sodium and neon when we can use H2O or CO2? Somebody is going to make themselves a rich man/ woman.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (19) Aug 05, 2016
Photons, are light, light makes things appear brighter. So from ionization (as in jones linked paper), to charge exchange (as in Jones linked paper) to the formation of a magnetic field which then deflects the solar wind (as in Jones linked paper)...all of these produce photons.


And at what sort of energies are they emitting, Einstein? Is it at wavelengths that fall within the visible spectrum? I think you'll find that it isn't. We might have noticed that, and saved a whole lot of trouble and expense from having to use x-ray telescopes to track the solar wind interaction with comets.
Still, I guess you know better.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (12) Aug 05, 2016
you are pathetic...entertaining and fun, but pathetic
@bschitt
lets see... lets review your scientific discourse and level of education:
asked of you re: comets: "HOW do they brighten? What is the mechanism? Spell it out"
your answer
DUUUHHHHHH
DUUUHHHHHH.......
maybe that's just a fluke... so lets re-check
Jonesdave - "This (*i.e. the magnetosphere*) will only form as outgassing reaches a certain level and interacts with the SW. At low outgassing rates it doesn't exist."
(*my addition, to put it in context what 'This' refers to)

bschott's reply:
I disagree. And you are stating theory as fact unless you have in situ measurments of cometary magnetic fields in both states from one comet.....
plus, you believe in magic and anecdote over evidence:http://phys.org/n...ant.html

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

not entertaining or fun... just pathetic
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (18) Aug 05, 2016
@bs,
Listen you idiot, are these photons in the visible spectrum? Yes or no (no)? Please provide evidence. Yes, they use x-ray telescopes to track the SW interaction with a comet's coma. When it actually has one, that is. Why do they do this? Might it be because the interactions cannot actually be seen in visible light (yes)? Can you detect x-rays using only your eyes (no)? Will these x-rays produce visible brightening, as seen at comets? Yes or no (no)? What happens when there is no magnetosphere to interact with (nothing)?
You are not only stupid, but you are too stupid to realise that you are stupid!
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (18) Aug 05, 2016
sorry for those of you hooked on the visual spectrum).....


Jesus. And what wavelength is the comet brightening in, when astronomers actually look through a regular telescope and notice that it is brightening? To save you looking this up, the answer = VISIBLE.
Idiot.
Enthusiastic Fool
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 05, 2016
re:unexpected brightening on outbound comets

One thing I haven't seen mentioned in this chat would be the tidal stress on the comet as its direction changes. Perhaps it leads to protruding structures collapsing since comets aren't large enough to round themselves. This might also lead to a large coma of volatiles for a time.

If it was caused strictly by the solar wind I would expect the tail to face away from the sun rather than trail behind the comet.

One other thing irked me about Bschott's ideas and that was the the outbound comet enters an area of the solar wind that is more energetic. This seems to imply that the comet is traveling faster than the solar wind and can catch up(enter) when in reality the more energetic solar wind is enveloping the comet from "behind". The solar wind travels an order of magnitude faster on average.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (19) Aug 05, 2016
@EF,
Splitting of comets has been suggested as a mechanism in some cometary brightenings. Whether this is due to spin induced stresses or some other mechanism (impact; unlikely but not impossible. eruption of a large reservoir of a supervolatile; more likely) is hard to determine.
However, bschott's solar wind nonsense is just that. We can see when the SW changes in flux due to the emission of x-rays from SW heavy ions (O7+, etc) as they CX with cometary species. This is not accompanied by a change in the visible spectrum, which is how we know that comets have brightened.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 05, 2016
I see you picked the words from my reply
@bschitt
let me finish that for you
[from your reply] that you last posted in request for more information which you seemed to not be able to provide

I would suggest reading Jones/Enthusiastic for comprehension while referencing the known validated physics in my link below instead of applying your known pseudoscience and making the ASSumption that you are correct and 10K thousand scientists educated in the subject are wrong (often referred to as your D-K problem)

ignorance isn't bad if you're willing to actually learn and educate yourself in areas you don't know anything about: like your demonstrations of physics, astrophysics, medicine, etc

perhaps you should consider the following as a starter?
http://ocw.mit.ed...=physics

don't fear change: it is the one true constant in life along with death
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (20) Aug 05, 2016
Ahh, yes. Messrs Dunning & Kruger could find a lifetime's work on these pages!
Protoplasmix
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 05, 2016
"This (*i.e. the magnetosphere*) will only form as outgassing reaches a certain level and interacts with the SW. At low outgassing rates it doesn't exist."
With respect to magnetohydrodynamics this seems like a terrific example of what is meant by magnetic field lines being "frozen into the fluid," and having to move along with it (Alfven's frozen in theorem, which the thunderdolts will have none of). Certainly a fantastic opportunity to observe and measure the process it as it happens...
jonesdave
2.9 / 5 (19) Aug 06, 2016
@Proto,
Yes, this has been a boon for the plasma team on this mission. Having so much time in-situ has allowed them to follow developments for a long time, inbound and outbound, as well as excursions to look for the bow shock, and a trip down the tail. Generally, things have worked out pretty much as expected, with a few minor surprises along the way.
Alfven, despite his misgivings about the 'frozen in' concept under certain circumstances, always thought it was valid for modelling the coma of a comet. He was basically mainstream when it came to comets. He figured they were icy, and sublimating due to heat from the Sun. And also that the magnetic field would arise due to SW interaction.
He had a bit of a strange idea that the meteor streams from comets might also lead to their formation!
And, along with colleague Asoka Mendis, he also thought double layers might form. I've heard that that is possible, but has never been seen. He was certainly a long way from Thornhill's fiction!
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (13) Aug 06, 2016
With respect to magnetohydrodynamics this seems like a terrific example of what is meant by magnetic field lines being "frozen into the fluid," and having to move along with it (Alfven's frozen in theorem, which the thunderdolts will have none of). Certainly a fantastic opportunity to observe and measure the process it as it happens...

Comically, yet unsurprisingly, you demonstrate such eagerness to rely on pseudoscience to explain away your "mysteries". And I'm a crank, laughable to say the least.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 06, 2016
It's also quite comical how jonesdumb slips in that bit about the predictions of double layers while supporting Tonto's MHD comment. Alfvén was quite clear that if you rely on MHD you are denying the possibility of the DL by implication. Such is the confusion among the pseudoscientists.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 06, 2016
Comically, yet unsurprisingly, you demonstrate such eagerness to rely on pseudoscience to explain away your "mysteries".
And you demonstrate, yet again, how easily you allow yourself to wallow in ignorance. You should read what he said again - he is, after all, quoting one of those you have elevated to Lord High Prophet.

I think it hilarious that you do not understand how the frozen in field lines are used!

And I'm a crank, laughable to say the least.
Yes you are, and laughable is the least that can be said! We have agreement!
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 06, 2016
It's also quite comical how jonesdumb slips in that bit about the predictions of double layers while supporting Tonto's MHD comment. Alfvén was quite clear that if you rely on MHD you are denying the possibility of the DL by implication. Such is the confusion among the pseudoscientists.
Once again, you ignore observations and in situ measurements because they give lie to the crank ideas and pseudo-science you so desperately parrot on behalf of your cult.

You then go on to ignore and misrepresent 30 years of experimental and theoretical evidence, again only to try and seek support for a failed pseudo-theoretical construction based on the imaginative musings of a science fiction writer.

Your Priests will be most displeased with your failings Acolyte.
ThunderDolts
Aug 06, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
AlbertPierrepointOBE
2 / 5 (12) Aug 06, 2016
jonesdave 5 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2016
Ahh, yes. Messrs Dunning & Kruger could find a lifetime's work on these pages!


So could I! Benji would look good with a necktie.
AlbertPierrepointOBE
2.8 / 5 (16) Aug 06, 2016
bschott 1 /5 (6) Aug 05, 2016

LMAO....We use x-ray telescopes to track comets interacting with the solar wind...because x-ray telescopes can "see" comets interacting with the solarwind. What are x-rays again?


Home schooling seems to have been remiss again.

1996. 1996 was the FIRST time anyone ever tried to do that. We've been looking at comets how long again?

Someone flush the commode.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 06, 2016
And you demonstrate, yet again, how easily you allow yourself to wallow in ignorance. You should read what he said again - he is, after all, quoting one of those you have elevated to Lord High Prophet.

I think it hilarious that you do not understand how the frozen in field lines are used!

What's really hilarious is how he mocked those who awarded him a Nobel Prize for his work on MHD, and told them how wrong it was at the very award ceremony. And 45 years later they still don't get the hint. It would be comical if it weren't so sad.
jonesdave
2.4 / 5 (17) Aug 06, 2016
It's also quite comical how jonesdumb slips in that bit about the predictions of double layers while supporting Tonto's MHD comment. Alfvén was quite clear that if you rely on MHD you are denying the possibility of the DL...


So I guess you are saying that Alfven didn't predict double layers for comets? Given that, as late as 1987, he is still saying that the frozen-in concept is applicable to a cometary coma.

I refer you to this paper: http://www.iaea.o...2728.pdf

H. Alfven, 1987.

Does the table in Fig, 2, "Properties of Magnetized Plasmas", contain, or not contain the following?

Column 2, headed "Fluid Plasma (Magneto-hydrodynamic)".

4th row, headed "Exists in"; and then lists, among others, "Comet coma" in column 2.

7th row, headed "Frozen-in magnetic field"; Comments "Yes" in column 2.

Care to explain? Or did his disavow this before his death?
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (15) Aug 06, 2016
To put the above into context; some months ago s/he and I were discussing the formation of the diamagnetic cavity at 67P, Halley and in the AMPTE artificial comet experiments. And how the SW and the associated interplanetary magnetic field were prevented from penetrating this barrier. Hence its name. Nope, had to be something intrinsic to the comet nucleus itself, said cd. How did it happen with AMPTE then, where there was no comet involved, said I. Ahh, it's a double layer said cd (no, it really isn't!!!) forming as the gas 'protects' itself from the SW.

But Alfven (as per the link above) says MHD, and the frozen-in concept, are fine for cometary comas. "But if you rely on MHD you are denying the possibility of a DL..." according to cd.

So whence comes this imagined DL conjured up by cd?

So much confusion and contradiction. Unsurprisingly.

jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (16) Aug 06, 2016
For anyone interested, here is the link to Alfven's 1957 paper on comet tails, which he never refuted, as shown by the 1987 paper I linked to: http://onlinelibr...55.x/pdf
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (16) Aug 07, 2016
@Phys1,
I think bschott has long since given up on this thread. Fell into far too many hefferlump traps! As, it appears, has cd. Seems his/her knowledge of Alfven isn't as great as s/he would have us think.

Something else to consider: 1974, Alfven & Mendis, http://www.nature...6a0.html

In that, they appear to accept, and reference, Biermann's theory (1967) of the formation of a 'contact surface'. The contact surface is the outer boundary of the diamagnetic cavity. Biermann used MHD to derive his results. And was proven correct by AMPTE and at Halley. And 67P.
As A & M say: "It is, however, not at all clear how the IMF could mix with the cometary plasma in the tail because the SW and the *ASSOCIATED* IMF is separated from the cometary plasma by a contact surface."

So they seem to accept it more than a decade before it was seen. Having been derived from MHD. Strange that.

Biermann: http://adsabs.har...oPh....1
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (16) Aug 07, 2016
Damn. Stupid adsabs links never seem to work. They need to sort that stuff out.
Biermann's 1967 paper, "The Interaction of the Solar Wind with a Comet": http://link.sprin...00150860 (paywalled after 40 years, but available for free on adsabs! Cheeky t*ats.)

Protoplasmix
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2016
For anyone interested, here is the link to Alfven's 1957 paper on comet tails, which he never refuted, as shown by the 1987 paper I linked to: http://onlinelibr...55.x/pdf
Wow, cool to see how our knowledge of the physics has evolved.

Interesting to note that for the example given in §4. Properties of the tail (page 5), the value for the "beam" [of matter] velocity, v_b = 10^8 cm/sec (1000 km/sec) is well within the range listed for coronal mass ejections (20 to 3200 km/s) in Wiki: https://en.wikipe...operties

cont'd >
Protoplasmix
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2016
> cont'd

Had to check on the "fountain" theory mentioned, and it looks like it was known that there were problems with it as far back as 1928. Also cool to see that "mathematical theory for cometary forms" began with Newton and his observation of the first comet discovered using a telescope, the Great Comet of 1680. See "The Present State of the Theory of Comets" (Bobrovnikoff, 1928).
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2016
So I guess you are saying that Alfven didn't predict double layers for comets? Given that, as late as 1987, he is still saying that the frozen-in concept is applicable to a cometary coma.

You like to twist and lie don't you.The coma is a very specific place, Alfven points out that MHD may be valid there. Whether or not there are DL's in the coma has no bering as to whether or not there are DL's associated with comets. The point that needs to be emphasized is MHD is not valid in the treatment of the solar wind or how the comet interacts with it, only the coma.

Care to explain?

What I'd like to understand is how MHD is so eagerly applied to all astrophysical plasmas and you have no problem with that despite linked paper.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (16) Aug 07, 2016
@Proto,
Yes, it's amazing how much we didn't know about comets, even into the 60s and 70s! Despite Whipple's model, there was nothing concrete until later to show that he was essentially right. Alfven himself thought it worth considering that comets may still be forming, and that the meteor streams they were associated with might actually be forming them! Despite criticism, it has to be said, including from Whipple, who couldn't see how that would be possible in the solar system as it currently is: http://www.nature...0a0.html
If you type "On the Relation Between Comets and Meteoroids" into Google Scholar, you can see an adsabs version of that paper, with criticism from various authors, including Whipple.

Still, absolutely no excuse for the much later scientific illiteracy of Thornhill & Talbott's mythology based nonsense, though. Or for the people who are conned by it.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (16) Aug 07, 2016
You like to twist and lie don't you.The coma is a very specific place, Alfven points out that MHD may be valid there. Whether or not there are DL's in the coma has no bering as to whether or not there are DL's associated with comets. The point that needs to be emphasized is MHD is not valid in the treatment of the solar wind or how the comet interacts with it, only the coma.


So what is interacting with the coma? The SW and its *associated* IMF. As agreed by Alfven in the 1974 Nature paper. Nor was he or Mendis daft enough to confuse the diamagnetic cavities observed at Halley and the AMPTE experiments, with DLs.

jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (16) Aug 07, 2016
What I'd like to understand is how MHD is so eagerly applied to all astrophysical plasmas and you have no problem with that despite linked paper.


Because if you ask modern day plasma astrophysicists about applying MHD to scenarios where Alfven warned against it, you'll find that they still find it to be a very good approximation to the observations. Despite your slavish devotion to everything he wrote, modern PAs will also tell you that he got some things right, and he got others wrong. Just like Einstein, and every other scientist who has produced a large body of work. From what I understand, it is very difficult to break down the frozen-in scenario for most applications of MHD.

jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (16) Aug 07, 2016
To add to the above, here is an actual plasma astrophysicist replying to an EU crank on the Rosetta blog:

EU crank:
http://blogs.esa....t-599559

Martin's reply:
http://blogs.esa....t-599586

He knows far more about it than I (or, I suspect cd) do.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2016
Nor was he or Mendis daft enough to confuse the diamagnetic cavities observed at Halley and the AMPTE experiments, with DLs.

Diamagnetic cavities are not DL's, it is only you that is confusing the two.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2016
What I'd like to understand is how MHD is so eagerly applied to all astrophysical plasmas and you have no problem with that despite linked paper
@cd-PsuedoscienceTROLL
for that you would have to know more than just how to worship alfven and your current cult leaders

start with learning the scientific method here: https://en.wikipe...c_method

then move to evidence:
http://www.pppl.gov/

we're talking actual empirical evidence (vrs your belief) with more than 100,000 experiments to validate the claim: http://www.pppl.gov/sites/pppl/files/publication/file/MRX_FACTSHEET.pdf

you also have to learn that EE's don't know sh*t about astrophysics, so you need to educate yourself in ASTRO and stop being a f*cking moron following con men because you're a conspiracist nutjob
http://ocw.mit.ed...ophysics

cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2016
Because if you ask modern day plasma astrophysicists about applying MHD to scenarios where Alfven warned against it, you'll find that they still find it to be a very good approximation to the observations.

And this is where they are wrong, as shown by an endless parade of experiment, including AMPTE.

cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2016
To add to the above, here is an actual plasma astrophysicist replying to an EU crank on the Rosetta blog:

Well, now we know where your copy/paste source is...
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2016
And this is where they are wrong
@cd-PsuedoscienceTROLL
if you could prove the modern astro's were wrong, you would be the next hero of the eu cult, and there would be bronzed statues made in your honour (literally)

where is your studies and demonstrations, you know... like the link above where i showed you 100,000 experiments run by engineers and astro's alike, proving you're not only wrong, but that you don't understand plasma physics, let alone basic physics or anything about the EM spectrum?

where is your evidence at all?

did bigfoot steal it?

or was it on the mother-ship hiding behind D/1993 F2, and you forgot to hitch your ride?

(do you, perchance, own purple shoes to match your purple robe?)
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (15) Aug 07, 2016
Nor was he or Mendis daft enough to confuse the diamagnetic cavities observed at Halley and the AMPTE experiments, with DLs.

Diamagnetic cavities are not DL's, it is only you that is confusing the two.


Wrong. Go back and look at the thread where you were arguing that they were DLs. As per the AMPTE experiments and the observations at Halley and 67p. None of those remotely resemble a DL!
You will find that a DL has never been observed either at a comet or during any of the AMPTE experiments.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (15) Aug 07, 2016
To add to the above, here is an actual plasma astrophysicist replying to an EU crank on the Rosetta blog:

Well, now we know where your copy/paste source is...


Nope, I just do a bit of research when I see scientifically illiterate people posting rubbish. Not hard. I quoted Martin as he was an example of an actual plasma astrophysicist, who I happen to know posted on that blog, and was making the point that Alfven isn't God. If you'd like to take your scant knowledge, and debate plasma astrophysics with him, I would suggest heading over to International Skeptics Forum, and PMing the poster known as Tusenfem!
Good luck with that.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (15) Aug 07, 2016
Because if you ask modern day plasma astrophysicists about applying MHD to scenarios where Alfven warned against it, you'll find that they still find it to be a very good approximation to the observations.

And this is where they are wrong, as shown by an endless parade of experiment, including AMPTE.



Like to show us where there were DLs during the AMPTE experiments? Anybody else (including Alfven or Mendis) who went into print to say they were? I'm sure that if they thought they were, they'd have been all over it like a cheap suit. Why are those experiments NEVER quoted as examples of DLs? Except by you?
Answer: because they weren't. If you think they are, perhaps you should write it up; you'll be the first. Albeit 30 years late.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2016
Wrong. Go back and look at the thread where you were arguing that they were DLs. As per the AMPTE experiments and the observations at Halley and 67p.

No, you are resorting to lying again. A DL is only a few debye lengths in width and the AMPTE experiments were incapable of measuring such a phenomena. And if you'll re-read the tread, I said it is likely to be the result of the DL due to extensive laboratory research since "the time of Langmuir". Since then, we have found DL's in the plasmas surrounding the Earth as measured by the "cluster" type missions recently. When the applicable measuring devices are employed I agree with Alfven's predictions that there will be DL's. Until then, it is an open question as is claimed by DM apologists.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (15) Aug 07, 2016

No, you are resorting to lying again. A DL is only a few debye lengths in width and the AMPTE experiments were incapable of measuring such a phenomena. And if you'll re-read the tread, I said it is likely to be the result of the DL due to extensive laboratory research since "the time of Langmuir". Since then, we have found DL's in the plasmas surrounding the Earth as measured by the "cluster" type missions recently. When the applicable measuring devices are employed I agree with Alfven's predictions that there will be DL's. Until then, it is an open question as is claimed by DM apologists.


So provide a link to the thread. Buggered if I remember which one it was. Kind of irrelevant, given that according to you, the use of MHD precludes the formation of DLs. Alfven states, explicitly, in '57 & '87, that it is fine to use it for cometary comas. There is NOTHING at comets that needs DLs to explain it.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2016
And this is where they are wrong, as shown by an endless parade of experiment, including AMPTE.

"ENDLESS PARADE OF EXPERIMENTS"? And yet, you seem unable to cite any. I wonder, can you link to the AMPTE data and show exactly where "they are wrong"?

Here, let me start you out. Here is a link to the AMPTE gateway site: http://www-pw.phy...u/ampte/

Now, lets see you back up you words Acolyte. Please show us, specifically, where they say that Dave's comment "you'll find that they still find it to be a very good approximation to the observations" is wrong.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2016
To add to the above, here is an actual plasma astrophysicist replying to an EU crank on the Rosetta blog:

Well, now we know where your copy/paste source is...

At least he is linking to a discussion involving a real scientist, and not a cite like you use, wherein the imaginary musings of con men are presented as having any footing in reality. The Church of the Giant Never Seen Imaginary Lightning Bolts is a religious site Acolyte, as you well know.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2016
There is NOTHING at comets that needs DLs to explain it.

But you included this just a few posts back;
"It is, however, not at all clear how the IMF could mix with the cometary plasma in the tail because the SW and the *ASSOCIATED* IMF is separated from the cometary plasma by a contact surface."

What other mechanism could this "contact surface" be associated with other than the surface phenomena such as a DL?
Kind of irrelevant, given that according to you, the use of MHD precludes the formation of DLs. Alfven states, explicitly that it is fine to use it for cometary comas.

Getting dizzy from the circle running...
The coma is a distinct region, just as the ionosphere. While it may work within the coma, it does not apply as to how the coma interacts with anything else.
And Alfven's comments regarding MHD/DL's, you can read about it here;
http://www.iaea.o...0222.pdf
See the first paragraph...
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2016
At least he is linking to a discussion involving a real scientist, and not a cite like you use, wherein the imaginary musings of con men are presented as having any footing in reality. The Church of the Giant Never Seen Imaginary Lightning Bolts is a religious site Acolyte, as you well know.

So Alfven is a con man? You're dispicable.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (16) Aug 07, 2016
Oh FFS. The 'contact surface' is NOT a double layer. This is what I have been saying!!!! The CS is a part of the diamagnetic cavity. It has NOTHING to do with surface processes. How bloody hard is it for you to understand??? There was a CS in the AMPTE experiments. There was NO COMET. What 'surface processes' are you invoking for its formation in a cloud of sodding gas?
Without the CS there is no diamagnetic cavity. Without a diamagnetic cavity, there is no CS! How hard can it be?
I gave you a link to the Alfven-Mendis '74 paper. Where in that do they say that the CS is due to a DL? Where in Biermann's model does he invoke a bloody DL to account for it?
There is no DL. End of story. Nobody has EVER said it was one. Except you!
I would seriously suggest reading this: 'The physics of the cometary contact surface' http://adsabs.har...50a.241C
'Surface' does not refer to the surface of the bloody comet.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2016
At least he is linking to a discussion involving a real scientist, and not a cite like you use, wherein the imaginary musings of con men are presented as having any footing in reality. The Church of the Giant Never Seen Imaginary Lightning Bolts is a religious site Acolyte, as you well know.

So Alfven is a con man? You're dispicable.

Cute, trying to put words in my mouth! Despicable indeed (you should get spell check Acolyte).

Not that any following the conversation need it explained, but because you seem to want it spelled out, I state with impunity that the clowns who you worship as High Priests of the Electric Cult use imaginary musings and bastardized studies of real scientists to try and ensnare the gullible who "cantthink" for themselves.

There Acolyte, does that make you feel better?

Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2016
And Alfven's comments regarding MHD/DL's, you can read about it here;
http://www.iaea.o...0222.pdf
I wonder how many times it has been pointed out to you Acolyte, that we have gathered an incredible amount of data in the last 3 DECADES from multiple spacecraft, whose data was not available to Mr Alfven when he wrote that LECTURE in 1986? Canthink indeed.

jonesdave
2.4 / 5 (17) Aug 07, 2016
@Maggnus,
Regarding http://www.iaea.o...0222.pdf ;
Irrelevant anyway, seeing as Alfven had no problem with the use of MHD at comets. As shown.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (16) Aug 07, 2016
I'll propose a little thought experiment; what is a 'cavity'? To be a cavity, does it need boundaries cutting it off from whatever surrounds it? Such as rock, etc? Think about that. And then realise that that is what the contact surface is. If it wasn't there, there would be nothing to prevent the SW and its associated magnetic field from propagating toward the comet. Hence, there wouldn't be a cavity. You cannot have one without the other. To have had a diamagnetic cavity during the AMPTE artificial comet experiments, which they did, there had to be a CS. There was no cometary surface to do anything to create it. Just a cloud of gas.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (16) Aug 07, 2016
The coma is a distinct region, just as the ionosphere. While it may work within the coma, it does not apply as to how the coma interacts with anything else.


So, did Alfven invoke a frozen-in magnetic field for the SW in his 1957 paper, or not?

Did he reaffirm this concept in 1987 paper I linked, or not?

What do you think the 'frozen-in' part refers to in the table from the 1987 paper? The comet has no magnetic field of its own.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2016
@Maggnus,
Regarding http://www.iaea.o...0222.pdf ;
Irrelevant anyway, seeing as Alfven had no problem with the use of MHD at comets. As shown.

I understand, I just find it telling that he continues to link to 30 year old lectures (not peer reviewed papers mind you, actual lectures) and acts like the science has stood still since. Even if Alfven had indicated he had a problem with MHD at comets (or elsewhere), which he doesn't say anyway, his comments were based on the best information that was available to him 30 years ago. We have come a very long way since then.
jonesdave
2.4 / 5 (17) Aug 07, 2016
@Maggnus,
Regarding http://www.iaea.o...0222.pdf ;
Irrelevant anyway, seeing as Alfven had no problem with the use of MHD at comets. As shown.

I understand, I just find it telling that he continues to link to 30 year old lectures (not peer reviewed papers mind you, actual lectures) and acts like the science has stood still since. Even if Alfven had indicated he had a problem with MHD at comets (or elsewhere), which he doesn't say anyway, his comments were based on the best information that was available to him 30 years ago. We have come a very long way since then.


Sorry, the terseness wasn't aimed at you :) I agree totally, and it is essentially what Martin said to the EU crank on the Rosetta blog.
The 'irrelevant' comment was aimed at cd, who still seems to think that ALL MHD was forbidden by Alfven, as if it was one of the 10 commandments! Rather, he said it was justified in some circumstances; comets being one. Given that he used it himself.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2016
Sorry, the terseness wasn't aimed at you :) I agree totally, and it is essentially what Martin said to the EU crank on the Rosetta blog.
No terseness noted :)
The 'irrelevant' comment was aimed at cd, who still seems to think that ALL MHD was forbidden by Alfven, as if it was one of the 10 commandments! Rather, he said it was justified in some circumstances; comets being one. Given that he used it himself.
And the very next time there is an article about a comet, he will say it again. Like the rest of the Cult of Incredible Lightnings, he figures that repeating everything over and over will somehow magically make it accepted as science.

Keep in mind, this is the same cult that thinks Venus once passed so close to Earth 3600 years ago that lightning bolts could pass between the two planets, and the Saturn was once the centre of the solar system. There is no speaking logic with these Cultists.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2016
The 'contact surface' is NOT a double layer. This is what I have been saying!!!! The CS is a part of the diamagnetic cavity. It has NOTHING to do with surface processes. How bloody hard is it for you to understand???

Face meet palm...whoosh is the sound you as it flies over your head.
The "contact surface" to which I am referring is the interface between the SW and the coma, the AMPTE gas cloud and magnetospheric plasma, the ion tail and the SW or any two or more adjacent regions of plasma with different properties. A sheath, DL, or other surface features in plasmas doesn't require an object for the phenomena to arise, just different plasmas.

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2016
@cantthink
Face meet palm...whoosh is the sound you as it flies over your head.

pointing to a singular piece of any evidence that you don't understand or comprehend as evidence for your point while ignoring the overwhelming evidence from everywhere else
...is like pointing to the tip of the tusk on a male elephant and saying it is proof of unicorns and everyone will be happy and safe while ignoring the charging male elephant pissed off at you

just because you believe something doesn't mean it's true... that is why we have the scientific method and require things like evidence and reproducible experiments

have any refute for those 100,000 experiments proving you wrong yet?

jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (16) Aug 07, 2016
The 'contact surface' is NOT a double layer. This is what I have been saying!!!! The CS is a part of the diamagnetic cavity. It has NOTHING to do with surface processes. How bloody hard is it for you to understand???

Face meet palm...whoosh is the sound you as it flies over your head.
The "contact surface" to which I am referring is the interface between the SW and the coma, the AMPTE gas cloud and magnetospheric plasma, the ion tail and the SW or any two or more adjacent regions of plasma with different properties. A sheath, DL, or other surface features in plasmas doesn't require an object for the phenomena to arise, just different plasmas.



And, as I keep telling you, it is not a DL!!!! Ask any plasma physicist. Why has nobody, in the 30 years since these experiments, ever claimed it was? Including Alfven & Mendis? Only you? Answer that, please. Seriously, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2016
Oopsie for cant-think!

LOL

hey @cd!
Why has nobody, in the 30 years since these experiments, ever claimed it was? Including Alfven & Mendis? Only you? Answer that, please
seriously... this is cogent

why are YOU (or perhaps a small few of your acolytes and delusional idiots in the eu cult) the only one making the claim?

Face meet palm...whoosh is the sound you as it flies over your head [sic]
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (15) Aug 07, 2016
@cd,
And this 'double layer' somehow prevents the IMF from penetrating beyond it? How's that work?
I'll tell you. The SW with its frozen-in magnetic field is slowed to half rat power. The magnetic field piles up and forms a magnetic barrier. The inward force of the magnetic pressure is balanced by outward pressure from ion-neutral friction (outward flowing ions pile up on the inner 'surface'). Nothing gets past this barrier, except neutrals flowing outward. It in no way resembles a DL. Remember, this was predicted, and has been seen by two spacecraft at comets, as well as observations at artificial comets. Nobody detected a DL. Nobody (scientifically literate) has ever suggested there was one.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (15) Aug 07, 2016
A sheath, DL, or other surface features in plasmas doesn't require an object for the phenomena to arise, just different plasmas.


And as a qualified plasma astrophysicist said to the EU crank on the Rosetta blog........
".....I did my PhD on double layers. But just having a boundary between two different plasmas does not mean that there will be a DL....."

Given that hundreds of plasma physicists will have looked at the AMPTE, Halley and Rosetta papers, including your God Alfven, and none of them have come to the same conclusion as you, ought to tell you something. i.e. you're talking b*llocks.

abecedarian
5 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2016
And all this time I thought Comet only brightened around the holidays, when Rudolph looked his direction.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (16) Aug 07, 2016
And all this time I thought Comet only brightened around the holidays, when Rudolph looked his direction.


It's as good a hypothesis as anything the EU lot have ever come up with!
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (16) Aug 07, 2016
From Alfven, Cosmic Plasma, 1981:
"In the present epoch magnetohydrodynamic effects are not important for the motion of the big celestial bodies (planets, satellites and also asteroids) but are still influencing the evolution of comets and, of course, the state of the magnetospheres (including the heliosphere) and ionospheres."

Just thought I'd leave that here. I'm sure cd will be along to tell us what Alfven meant, rather than what he seemed to keep saying!
jonesdave
1.9 / 5 (14) Aug 07, 2016
The coma is a distinct region, just as the ionosphere. While it may work within the coma, it does not apply as to how the coma interacts with anything else.


So, did Alfven invoke a frozen-in magnetic field for the SW in his 1957 paper, or not?

Did he reaffirm this concept in 1987 paper I linked, or not?

What do you think the 'frozen-in' part refers to in the table from the 1987 paper? The comet has no magnetic field of its own.


Still haven't answered this one. So Alfven thinks we can use 'frozen-in' *what* to model cometary comas? Ice? Mammoths in permafrost? Or the frozen-in magnetic field of the solar wind?
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (15) Aug 07, 2016
Aaaaand found another. Same paper as previous:
"The concept of 'frozen-in magnetic field lines' has played a central role in plasma physics due to the fact that *in several situations*, but far from all, *it is legitimate to use it*. (my emphases)
Guess that includes comets. As previously shown.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (15) Aug 08, 2016
I think it should be clear by now that cd not only doesn't have a clue about science in general, but that s/he also hasn't got a clue about what his/ her One True God, Alfven, was actually saying.
If cd would like to look at the page on the Rosetta blog from which I linked Martin's comment, he/ she will find that the comment above it is mine (under a different nick). Been there, done the research, got the papers. I've been cruelly playing with him/ her. Eventually, however, the cat has to put the mouse out of its misery. It is perfectly obvious to anyone with half a brain that Alfven thought the use of the frozen-in concept for the SW, and MHD modelling, was fine in some circumstances. One of those circumstances was its use at comets. He used the same concept himself in his 1957 paper, and reiterates it later by his table of magnetized plasmas in the 1987 paper I linked, and others.
So, whenever he / she comes on here spouting about "Alfven said....", we know what to do.
jonesdave
1.9 / 5 (14) Aug 08, 2016
Another thing.....I cannot find anywhere the quote from Alfven, as related by cd just after he/ she joined the thread, that says, "Alfvén was quite clear that if you rely on MHD you are denying the possibility of the DL by implication." Just for completeness of my Alfven collection, I'd be interested to know what paper this came from.
I can find, "anyone who uses the merging concepts states by implication that no double layers exist."
However, this is to do with magnetic reconnection, not MHD.

That quote was from 'Double layers and circuits in astrophysics', 1986.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2016
I think it should be clear by now that cd not only doesn't have a clue about science in general, but that s/he also hasn't got a clue about what his/ her One True God, Alfven, was actually saying
@Jonesdave
well, you definitely made that clear to everyone except the eu cult!
LMFAO

great job!

just remember: they really can't see reality because their religious dogma and delusion (and conspiracist ideation) block it from them
http://journals.p....0075637
jonesdave
1.9 / 5 (14) Aug 08, 2016
@ CS,
Indeed. I doubt it will make any difference to the EUs quasi-religious cult.
It is very easy to show, for instance, how Wallace & Gromit's 2006 electric comet 'presentation' is full of scientific illiteracy, lies, obfuscation and omission. However, they never research the evidence presented to show it as such, I suspect.
Ditto with Alfven. I wonder how many have actually read and UNDERSTOOD it? I suspect they are relying on something prepared by Thunderdolts, which takes various quotes, out of context, and they simply learn it by rote.
Reminds me of a Father Ted episode, where Ted coaches Father Jack to say, "That would be an ecumenical matter", to any questions asked by the bishop!
https://www.youtu..._h0dF7NE
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2016
Reminds me of a Father Ted episode
@jonesdave
rather liked that show... LMFAO

it's actually a great example too

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.