Solar eruptions could electrify Martian moons

October 18, 2017 by Bill Steigerwald
Phobos, the larger of Mars' two moons. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona

Powerful solar eruptions could electrically charge areas of the Martian moon Phobos to hundreds of volts, presenting a complex electrical environment that could possibly affect sensitive electronics carried by future robotic explorers, according to a new NASA study. The study also considered electrical charges that could develop as astronauts transit the surface on potential human missions to Phobos.

Phobos has been considered as a possible initial base for human exploration of Mars because its weak gravity makes it easier to land spacecraft, and supplies. The idea would be to have the astronauts control robots on the Martian surface from the moons of Mars, without the considerable time delay faced by Earth-based operators. "We found that astronauts or rovers could accumulate significant electric charges when traversing the night side of Phobos - the side facing Mars during the Martian day," said William Farrell of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland. "While we don't expect these charges to be large enough to injure an astronaut, they are potentially large enough to affect sensitive equipment, so we would need to design spacesuits and equipment that minimizes any charging hazard." Farrell is lead author of a paper on this research published online Oct. 3 in Advances in Space Research.

Mars has two small moons, Phobos and Deimos. Although this study focused on Phobos, similar conditions are expected at Deimos, since both moons have no atmosphere and are directly exposed to the - a stream of electrically conducting gas, called a , that's constantly blowing off the surface of the Sun into space at around a million miles per hour.

The Martian moon Phobos is directly exposed to the solar wind, a stream of electrically charged particles constantly blowing off the surface of the Sun. According to a new simulation, the interaction of the solar wind with Phobos creates a complex electrical environment that statically charges the moon's night side. Credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center/CI Lab

The solar wind is responsible for these charging effects. When the solar wind strikes the day side of Phobos, the plasma is absorbed by the surface. This creates a void on the night side of Phobos that the plasma flow is obstructed from directly entering. However, the composition of the wind - made of two types of electrically charged particles, namely ions and electrons - affects the flow. The electrons are over a thousand times lighter than the ions. "The electrons act like fighter jets - they are able to turn quickly around an obstacle—and the ions are like big, heavy bombers - they change direction slowly," said Farrell. "This means the light electrons push in ahead of the heavy ions and the resulting electric field forces the ions into the plasma void behind Phobos, according to our models."

The study shows that this plasma void behind Phobos may create a situation where astronauts and rovers build up significant electric charges. For example, if astronauts were to walk across the night-side surface, friction could transfer charge from the dust and rock on the surface to their spacesuits. This dust and rock is a very poor conductor of electricity, so the charge can't flow back easily into the surface—and charge starts to build up on the spacesuits. On the day side, the electrically conducting solar wind and solar ultraviolet radiation can remove the excess charge on the suit. But, on the night side, the ion and electron densities in the trailing plasma void are so low they cannot compensate or 'dissipate' the charge build-up. The team's calculations revealed that this static charge can reach ten thousand volts in some materials, like the Teflon suits used in the Apollo lunar missions. If the astronaut then touches something conductive, like a piece of equipment, this could release the charge, possibly similar to the discharge you get when you shuffle across a carpet and touch a metal door handle.

The team modeled the flow of the solar wind around Phobos and calculated the buildup of charge on the night side, as well as in obstructed regions in shadow, like Stickney crater, the largest crater on Phobos. "We found that excess charge builds up in these regions during all solar wind conditions, but the charging effect was especially severe in the wake of solar eruptions like coronal mass ejections, which are dense, fast gusts of solar wind," said Farrell.

This study was a follow-up to earlier studies that revealed the charging effects of solar in shadowed craters on Earth's Moon and near-Earth asteroids. Some conditions on Phobos are different than those in the earlier studies. For example, Phobos gets immersed in the plasma flowing behind Mars because it orbits Mars much closer than the Moon orbits Earth. The plasma flow behind Mars' orbit was modeled as well.

This picture, captured on Jan. 8, 2002, by the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, shows an enormous eruption of solar material, called a coronal mass ejection, spreading out into space. Credit: ESA/NASA/SOHO

Explore further: Hubble sees martian moon orbiting the Red Planet

Related Stories

Hubble sees martian moon orbiting the Red Planet

July 20, 2017

The sharp eye of NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has captured the tiny moon Phobos during its orbital trek around Mars. Because the moon is so small, it appears star-like in the Hubble pictures.

Fantastic Phobos

August 21, 2012

(Phys.org) -- Some 135 years after its discovery, Mars’ largest moon Phobos is seen in fantastic detail – and in 3D – in an image taken by ESA’s Mars Express spacecraft as it passed just 100 km by.

Mars Express to rendezvous with Martian moon

July 16, 2008

(PhysOrg.com) -- Scientists and engineers are preparing ESA’s Mars Express for a pair of close fly-bys of the Martian moon Phobos. Passing within 100 km of the surface, Mars Express will conduct some of the most detailed ...

Recommended for you

Dawn of a galactic collision

December 14, 2017

A riot of colour and light dances through this peculiarly shaped galaxy, NGC 5256. Its smoke-like plumes are flung out in all directions and the bright core illuminates the chaotic regions of gas and dust swirling through ...

110 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rossim22
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 18, 2017
Simply another piece of evidence that the truth exists somewhere between plasma cosmology and the current dogma.
Solon
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 18, 2017
It is known that the lunar surface is charged. The glow in this image is from the ionisation of the gases being released by the astronauts passive cooling system.
http://www.hq.nas...6826.jpg

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2017
Perhaps another source of usable energy? The moons could act as power stations and could microwave it down to the surface?

Or they could provide power for laser propulsion for travel farther out?
https://en.wikipe...opulsion
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2017
Perhaps another source of usable energy? The moons could act as power stations and could microwave it down to the surface?

Or they could provide power for laser propulsion for travel farther out?
https://en.wikipe...opulsion

Good link, Otto...
ShotmanMaslo
4.3 / 5 (17) Oct 19, 2017
Simply another piece of evidence that the truth exists somewhere between plasma cosmology and the current dogma.


Simply another piece of evidence that plasma is taken into account as part of the current "dogma" and "plasma cosmology" has nothing to offer.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (10) Oct 19, 2017
The controversy of Phobos is not so much that the body can accumulate charge, but rather relates to the chains of craters on its surface. If you have a few free moments to think, take a look at the highest resolution imagery you can get your hands on for the object, like here ...

https://www.nasa....ng-apart

And ask yourself: does the following statement naturally follow from what you see?

"The long, shallow grooves lining the surface of Phobos are likely early signs of the structural failure that will ultimately destroy this moon of Mars ...

More recently, researchers have proposed that the grooves may instead be produced by many smaller impacts of material ejected from Mars. But new modeling by Hurford and colleagues supports the view that the grooves are more like 'stretch marks' that occur when Phobos gets deformed by tidal forces."

Notice how the craters are an aspect of the grooves. The two are plainly the same phenomenon.
Chris_Reeve
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 19, 2017
Here is the same phenomenon from the surface of Mars itself ...

http://www.esa.in...solution

There's really not much of an excuse to somehow not see this relationship, given the extreme clarity of the imagery in both cases. One way to create both of these observations which theorists currently refuse to engage is a Jacob's ladder-type phenomenon where the discharge between two bodies in space comes in bursts (like static electricity) as the two bodies experience a close encounter.

The fact that theorists now admit that static electricity is likely on Phobos only serves to bolster this alternative inference which the Thunderbolts Group has been talking about now for a number of years.

In fact, once a person gets this, then that realization can open the door to numerous other similar cases.
RogueParticle
4.5 / 5 (17) Oct 19, 2017
@CR
There's really not much of an excuse to somehow not see this relationship, given the extreme clarity of the imagery in both cases.
There's every reason not to do so. Just because something looks a bit like something else, doesn't necessarily mean that the two are somehow connected or related. No scientist worthy of the name would permit him/herself to make such a careless and opinionated statement.

If you actually bothered to take a good long look at a hi-res version (available on that page) of the image you link to, you would - assuming your eyes are up to the task - soon spot a fundamental difference between the depressions aligned in chains, and those craters dotted haphazardly on the nearby plains. The difference? - the craters have raised rims, characteristic of meteoric impacts, whereas the depressions display no such rims but instead show all the hallmarks of slump pits - areas where the surface above features of weakness has collapsed over time.
RogueParticle
4.5 / 5 (15) Oct 19, 2017
@RC
In fact, once a person gets this, then that realization can open the door to numerous other similar cases.
Here, let me correct this for you:
In fact, once a person has allowed him/herself to be bamboozled by the pitifully inept Electric Hooha nonsense, that WILL open a door to a dungeon of fantastical delusions
There you are!
RogueParticle
4.1 / 5 (13) Oct 19, 2017
OK, let's do this! I've got a big envelope here, which I'll use to jot down some rough calculations of the energy required to blast the contents completely into space of just one of the linearly-aligned depressions in the photograph in the page you link to. Why "completely into space"? - because there's no rim to the depression, and no visible ejecta on the surface anywhere. So we'll suppose - for the purposes of this exercise - that the "blast" supplies enough energy to accelerate ALL the ejected material to speeds >= the Martian escape velocity.

Referring to the hi-res TIFF listed in your link, let's take an average depression along one of the "valleys": how about the one centered at pixel position [4720, 2192] (the one second-left from the 3rd vertical track). This depression is some 72 pixels in diameter in the picture which, using the 20km scale-bar (750px wide) at the bottom RH corner of the image, translates to about 72*20/750 = 1.92km diameter.
[contd...]
RogueParticle
4.1 / 5 (14) Oct 19, 2017
Let's use a simple model for the shape of this depression: we'll say that it's a simple cone with a conservative slope angle of 30° from the horizontal, giving us a depth of about 0.55km. Hence, the volume of material removed from the surface (PI * D^2 * h / 12) is about 0.53 km^3, or 5.3e+8 m^3 of material. Taking an average density of Martian crust material to be 3100 kg/m^3, this gives us a total ejected mass of about 1.64e+12 kg, or about 1.64 billion metric tons.

This mass is then to be accelerated to >= 5 km/s, being the Martian escape velocity: this gives the ejecta a kinetic energy (m * v^2 / 2) (completely disregarding the thermal energy of the explosion) of about 2e+19 Joules. Which is about 3 times the total global nuclear arsenal of about 1460 megatons of TNT.

Not bad for a jolt of electricity resulting from a "discharge between two bodies in space [coming] in bursts (like static electricity) as the two bodies experience a close encounter".
[contd...]
RogueParticle
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 19, 2017
Remember, we're talking here of lower estimates of the energy required to create, in the manner described above, just an average depression among the dozens featured in the picture in the page you link to.

So, we'd need at least 100 times the global nuclear arsenal - supplied by friendly bodies in space just passing by on their way to Wal Thornhill's backyard and exchanging a few cordial blasts of electricity - to gouge all them critters out.

If, that is, what you say with such blind conviction were actually true; which it amn't my friend, since it passeth all bounds of scientific credibility and plain common sense
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 19, 2017
Simply another piece of evidence that the truth exists somewhere between plasma cosmology and the current dogma.


What dogma? This is nothing new. See, for instance:
Potentials of surfaces in space (1981)
E. C. Whipple
https://pdfs.sema...ad18.pdf

And also, direct from NASA:
https://sservi.na...teroids/
Chris_Reeve
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 19, 2017
@RogueParticle, what I think you are missing is that if we have conceptually misunderstood the cause for these observations -- as is claimed -- then that would also necessarily imply that your math is also in play.

The math of course comes with its own set of assumptions. The idea that you can take the math of one worldview and use it to somehow discredit a second, largely unrelated worldview, is probably a comforting idea.

But, reality is more complicated than this, because what is clearly being claimed is that there are mistakes at play. So, what are they?

Barreling through the math before you've studied the question and identified the most probable answers makes for lots of apparent activity. But it truthfully does not meaningfully advance the debate.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 19, 2017
@chris/hannes the idiot fanatic pseudoscience cultist
... the math of one worldview and use it to somehow discredit a second, largely unrelated worldview,
WTF?
you have yet to produce any evidence in any way, shape or form, that the "worldview" you're presenting is somehow not the same as the one presented by RogueP's maths ...
Barreling through the math before you've studied the question and identified the most probable answers makes for lots of apparent activity. But it truthfully does not meaningfully advance the debate
but somehow your barreling through with random faith based assumptions with no evidence or meaningful predictability from your cult is meaningful advancement of a (any) debate?

there is no debate here

there is science, based upon the evidence

and there is your belief
period
full stop

you have yet to produce anything that will refute any science at all whatsoever
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (13) Oct 19, 2017
The math of course comes with its own set of assumptions. The idea that you can take the math of one worldview and use it to somehow discredit a second, largely unrelated worldview, is probably a comforting idea.


Complete and utter nonsense. Maths does not have a worldview. It has been used by RP to show the size of electrical interaction needed for your weird worldview. I assume the maths in the weird world that you inhabit is precisely the same as in the real world.

RogueParticle
4.7 / 5 (12) Oct 19, 2017
The math of course comes with its own set of assumptions
The math - simple as it is - has only the assumptions I laid out - it's a back-of-an-envelope approximation to how much energy would be required to lift/fire/explode/whatever the material previously filling one of those depressions away from Mars.

That's it: a simple calculation of energy based on simple 7th or 8th grade school math and physics, nothing special, nothing complicated, but nonetheless giving a good handle on the amount of energy which would be required for one of your putative Close Encounters Of The EU/Velikovsky Turd Kind of hurling planetesimals around like charged pith balls.

It also does something that not one of the EU acolytes have had the courage or ability to do - to put numbers into equations to see just how likely it is that the EU blather about electric discharges from outer space being responsible for such things as craters or Martian fossae can possibly hold water.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 19, 2017
I've got a big envelope here, which I'll use to jot down some rough calculations of the energy required to blast the contents completely into space....

Here's the problem with your hypothetical maths exercise. Nobody is claiming 100% of this material is being ejected to space, other than you.
Mars has dunes;
https://www.nasa....1934.jpg
debris fields extending over huge areas of the planet;
https://www.nasa....full.jpg
Martian blueberries, trillions of them.
https://mars.nasa...es/6944/
Much of the material stay on Mars, although displaced. The likelihood is only the material trapped in the main discharge channels are going to achieve escape velocity. It is also likely there will be considerable transmutation occurring during the discharge and could render origin/source investigations futile.
Ultimately your equations are meaningless, based on irrelevant assumptions.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 19, 2017
^^^^And not one serious scientist has ever claimed that any of those features are due to any sort of electrical woo. The loons that do claim it have never given any sort of scientific explanation for their claims. It is all down to an unqualified crank's obsession with uber-crank Velikovsky. Whatever it is, it certainly isn't science.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 19, 2017
The controversy of Phobos is not so much that the body can accumulate charge, but rather relates to the chains of craters on its surface. If you have a few free moments to think, take a look at the highest resolution imagery you can get your hands on for the object, like here ...

https://www.nasa....ng-apart

Notice how the craters are an aspect of the grooves. The two are plainly the same phenomenon.

Since many of the craters appear to have obliterated portions of any given particular groove they coincide with - I think not..
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 19, 2017
An article here explains a possible scenario:
https://cosmosmag...n-debris
RogueParticle
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 20, 2017
@CD
Nobody is claiming 100% of this material is being ejected to space
and
Much of the material stay on Mars, although displaced.
OK, so let's say the stuff is displaced by your electric woo blasts - let's say it achieves only 1/10 of escape velocity, or 0.5 km/s - still sufficient to disperse the ejecta widely enough to have them NOT appear anywhere on the surface near to the depressions.

This means the energy required would be 1/100 of that calculated above, so the material in the example depression would still require some 2e+17 Joules to be blasted out, and which equates to 3 percent of the global nuclear arsenal. Still a metric shedload of energy which your "passing body" would have to supply in the form of an electrical discharge.

And we're still talking of just one of the many dozens of such depressions in that photo. How do you come up with a scenario with many passing bodies discharging such energetic blasts, or one such body doing it multiple times?
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 20, 2017
@RP,

And we're still talking of just one of the many dozens of such depressions in that photo. How do you come up with a scenario with many passing bodies discharging such energetic blasts, or one such body doing it multiple times?


Trust me, they will not have attempted to either explain that, or quantify it. There will be nothing more than 'it's due to (unspecified) electrical interactions.' Pure woo.

cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 20, 2017
For example, the Chelyabinsk meteor airburst was approx. 1.8x10^15J, one 20 meter bolide. What is being suggested by the EU is a planetary sized object, potentially with it's own magnetic field, interacted with Mars. In addition there are likely many, many more interactions with smaller objects to create the numerous craters, chains, canyons, etc. It should also be noted, even the primary folks at the EU accept that some portion of the craters are impact craters as well. Nobody, other than the detractors, are claiming that it is 100% this and zero percent that. It is a combination of phenomena, but it is possible to say this particular morphology is EDM and that particular morphology is impact and such.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Oct 20, 2017
For example, the Chelyabinsk meteor airburst was approx. 1.8x10^15J, one 20 meter bolide. What is being suggested by the EU is a planetary sized object, potentially with it's own magnetic field, interacted with Mars. In addition there are likely many, many more interactions with smaller objects to create the numerous craters, chains, canyons, etc. It should also be noted, even the primary folks at the EU accept that some portion of the craters are impact craters as well. Nobody, other than the detractors, are claiming that it is 100% this and zero percent that. It is a combination of phenomena, but it is possible to say this particular morphology is EDM and that particular morphology is impact and such.


And my contention, along with all of those real scientists who study impact craters, is that they are from impacts. Nobody has ever described, scientifically, within or without the scientific literature, any mechanism for this never before seen electrical cratering.
jonesdave
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 20, 2017
^^^^Simply saying that it is due to some passing object or other is pure woo. What passing object/s? When? Venus, perhaps? See what I mean about the appeal to the uber-crank Velikovsky? That is not science. What evidence is there that any passing object is going to cause EDM (https://en.wikipe...hining)? Quite frankly, it is a ludicrous suggestion.
As and when this nonsense is properly written up, then we can maybe assess it. As it stands it is just one more impossible, unevidenced piece of woo.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 20, 2017
What passing object/s?

Given human eyewitness testimony, it very well could have been Venus.
When?

Once again, given human eyewitness testimony, sometime in recent human history.
What evidence is there that any passing object is going to cause EDM?

You have never received a shock while grabbing a doorknob? Unawares of electric potential? Or I should say woo so you can understand.
As it stands it is just one more impossible, unevidenced piece of woo.

It certainly is impossible in your gravity only Universe, unless of course a large patch of dark matter were to interfere....
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 20, 2017
^^^^In other words, a shockingly poor misinterpretation of ancient myth. Told you all along. Velikovsky. Pure woo. Nice to see it confirmed. Nothing to do with science. Let's move along, nothing to see here.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 20, 2017
I know, you probably believe it was the Ancient Aliens who are responsible, just like Tabby's star must be aliens too, according to the astrophysicists.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 20, 2017
I know, you probably believe it was the Ancient Aliens who are responsible, just like Tabby's star must be aliens too, according to the astrophysicists.


??????????????????????? Lost it, methinks.
RogueParticle
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 21, 2017
@cd
For example, the Chelyabinsk meteor airburst was approx. 1.8x10^15J, one 20 meter bolide
That's nice, but we all know about meteors: you know, chunks of rock moving around the Solar system under the influence of gravity, and which cause impact craters when they crash into a planet or moon.

So, returning to the claims by @CR - an EU camp-follower - that the chains of depressions featured in the photo in the link provided by him were caused by
discharge between two bodies in space [which] comes in bursts (like static electricity) as the two bodies experience a close encounter
- we now have an estimate of the energy required of such a discharge to hollow out just one of those depressions, of which there are many dozens visible in the picture.

If the EU wishes to be accepted as a scientific enterprise, they need to explain exactly how (1) "passing bodies" can gather enough charge to make this possible, and (2) how chains of such depressions can be formed.
RogueParticle
4 / 5 (8) Oct 21, 2017
Let's also not forget that EDM in engineering is only possible through the very close control of movement and distance of the electrodes, plus efficient flushing from the area being machined of dielectric and machining debris.

In the case of Velikovskian woo "passing bodies in space", where such close control of distance would be impossible, if your putative discharges were to occur (and we still have no numerically predictive mechanism from your EU "theorists" as to how such stupendous events could actually occur) you'd end up basically with lightning strikes hitting the Martian surface at random.

What we actually see are chains of slump depressions perfectly aligned with weaknesses in the Martian crust. We also see evidence of such depressions growing and merging over time to form the deep linear trenches - just what would be expected to be observed in the highly fractured area found to the east of the shield of Olympus Mons. No need for exotic battery-powered fantasies.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 21, 2017
... end up basically with lightning strikes hitting the Martian surface at random.

What we actually see are chains of slump depressions perfectly aligned with weaknesses in the Martian crust. We also see evidence of such depressions growing and merging over time to form the deep linear trenches - just what would be expected to be observed in the highly fractured area found to the east of the shield of Olympus Mons. No need for exotic battery-powered fantasies.

Actually .... The article (and the features whereof being discussed) is about Phobos, not Mars...
RogueParticle
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 21, 2017
@WG - thanks for the heads-up! But there are a number of different sub-threads in this main thread, and I was commenting on one of those sub-threads. If you want to attach blame for that, feel free to heap indignation on @CR for bringing the sub-topic up...
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 21, 2017
That's nice, but we all know about meteors: you know, chunks of rock moving around the Solar system under the influence of gravity, and which cause impact craters when they crash into a planet or moon.

Interesting, where exactly is the impact crater from that bolide? It was in fact an airburst, it likely exploded due to the stress imposed upon the bolide by Earth's electric field. This would explain the energies involved as friction alone cannot do so at a 20mile altitude, it also explains the electrophonic sound associate with it.
explain exactly how (1) "passing bodies" can gather enough charge

Earth already has a charge, it's electric field is unequivocal proof of this fact. The presence of Mars' ionosphere suggests it too has an electric field. 67P has an electric field, it too must have an electric charge. All of these objects are immersed in the solar plasma, and as explained above, are subject to charge loading.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 21, 2017
67P has an electric field,....


Nope. Nor does it have an intrinsic magnetic field. Nor is the solar wind reaching its nucleus for many months. Nor were any electrical whatevers, carving out craters, observed. In fact, such things have never been observed. It's all Velikovskian woo.
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 21, 2017
When one is relying on Velikovskian nonsense to explain one's beliefs, featuring Venus doing handbrake turns around the solar system, then one is no longer talking science. Unless that science has completely different laws of physics than real science. Hence why none of the lightning bolt cult's ramblings are taken at all seriously, and why you will never see them written up in the scientific literature. Even outside of the scientific literature, you will never see them quantified, the way RP has done above. Just a bunch of word salad, based on Thornhill & Talbott's obsession with Velikovsky, and a bunch of erroneously interpreted mythology.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 21, 2017
Let's also not forget that EDM in engineering is only possible through the very close control of movement and distance of the electrodes, plus efficient flushing from the area being machined of dielectric and machining debris.

Don't get too caught up on the terminology, it is merely the action of the electric discharge displacing material. Besides, it would seem there are no qualms with astrophysicists loose usage of scientific terminology such as calling plasma "gas" and calling double layers "time domain structures"...
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 21, 2017
67P has an electric field,....


Nope.

Oops! It would seem as if jonesdumb is proclaiming lies as facts again.

https://www.duo.u...52/57782
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 21, 2017
Unless that science has completely different laws of physics than real science.

The question is whether to only apply gravity as the sole actor on these scales. The difference is applying electromagnetism to the dynamics, but leave it to you to jump to the ridiculous claim there is no science involved. BTW, how's that search for the 96% of your missing Universe?
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 21, 2017
Time domain structures describe more than just double layers, as that paper explained:

Time domain structures (TDS) (electrostatic or electromagnetic electron holes, solitary waves, double layers, etc.) are ≥1 ms pulses having significant parallel (to the background magnetic field) electric fields.


And you'll find that 'ionized gas' is often used in press releases, as many laymen associate plasma with blood!

It doesn't really matter what EU people call their nonsense, as it'll never be quantified or even explained properly, with diagrams, etc.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 21, 2017
67P has an electric field,....


Nope.

Oops! It would seem as if jonesdumb is proclaiming lies as facts again.

https://www.duo.u...52/57782


Whoops, looks like you didn't read the thesis. These are only seen once the diamagnetic cavity has been established. To cut a long story short, and as has been known for some time, the ions and electrons from the outgassing species (overwhelmingly neutral), interact with the piled-up boundary layer. This causes a current. Hence the electric field. It is not a field that is intrinsic to a comet nucleus. Once the boundary layer disappears, so does the field..
Quite what you think this field is going to do is beyond me. Given that we had a s/c there for >2 years, and saw none of the EUs electric woo shaping the comet.

I would suggest reading section 2.4.2 of the thesis, and references therein.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 21, 2017
It might be worth mentioning that the same electric field was detected within the diamagnetic cavity during the AMPTE artificial comet experiments, back in the early 80s. Now, is anyone prepared to tell me that that electric field was an intrinsic property of the exploded canisters of barium/ lithium?

http://onlinelibr...abstract
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 21, 2017
@WG - thanks for the heads-up! But there are a number of different sub-threads in this main thread, and I was commenting on one of those sub-threads. If you want to attach blame for that, feel free to heap indignation on @CR for bringing the sub-topic up...

You mean - I'd actually have to read thru all all the crap he posts...?!?!?
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 21, 2017
You mean - I'd actually have to read thru all all the crap he posts...?!?!?


Now I'm going to have nightmares!
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 22, 2017
And you'll find that 'ionized gas' is often used in press releases, as many laymen associate plasma with blood!

Yeah, that's a big problem when discussing cosmology, that people think when plasma is mentioned they confuse it with blood....Actually, the fact of the matter is that the plasma ignoramuses refer to it as an ionized gas, as Alfven mentioned;
"The other approach came from the highly developed kinetic theory of ordinary gases. It was thought that with a limited amount of work this field could be extended to include also ionized gases...However, these theories had initially very little contact with experimental plasma physics, and all the awkward and complicated phenomena which had been treated in the study of discharges in gases were simply neglected. It taught us that plasma physics is a very difficult field, which can only be developed by a close cooperation between theory and experiments."
Most of those phenomena are still neglected by the "elegant" MHD models.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 22, 2017
Whoops, looks like you didn't read the thesis. These are only seen once the diamagnetic cavity has been established.

You don't say, so a comet isn't subjected to the same physics as Phobos? Did you read the above article? Between the in situ data at 67P and observations such as above, it would be highly unlikely there would be any point at which a body moving through the solar plasma wouldn't have an electric field. Hell, even Rosetta develops an electric field, as described in the thesis.
Now, let us discuss the thesis. It seems to be an accurate account of the current mainstream theories on comet physics. And the inadequacies of the guesses are laid bare. It is explained how MHD is used exclusively. There is one simple fact that shows without a doubt all of the guesses based upon MHD maths are wrong, no plasma is a perfect conductor. Period. One simple fact, plasmas are not perfect conductors, as such magnetic fields cannot be frozen-in. There goes the edifice...
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Oct 22, 2017
I like how it is pointed out in the thesis there remains a "Mystery layer" apparently the official name for this layer. LOL. The "Mystery layer"... Note that the "Mystery layer" is a layer of electrons separated by a thin sheet from a layer of protons. Seems as if the "Mystery layer" has the physical attributes of an electric double layer (woo as you would call it) and was not predicted by any models prior to this data. Probably due to the fact that MHD models preclude these formations, it is entirely predictable these phenomena are unpredictable. Just one more example that comets are in fact subject to electric discharge phenomena. Electric comets so to speak.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 22, 2017
@idiot eu pseudoscience cult acolyte cd
people think when plasma is mentioned they confuse it with blood
people may, astrophysicists don't
Most of those phenomena are still neglected ...
still repeating this False claim?
no, they're not: http://www.pppl.gov/

obviously you did *not* read the link you yourself left, which jonesdave *did* read (along with everyone else)

worse still, you don't understand the link because you're thinking you can apply your pseudoscience understanding of the universe bullsh*t to it

otherwise your replies to RogueParticle would include something other than "nuh-uh!"

yet another demonstrated epic eu fail for the books

jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 22, 2017
I like how it is pointed out in the thesis there remains a "Mystery layer" apparently the official name for this layer. LOL. The "Mystery layer"... Note that the "Mystery layer" is a layer of electrons separated by a thin sheet from a layer of protons. Seems as if the "Mystery layer" has the physical attributes of an electric double layer (woo as you would call it) and was not predicted by any models prior to this data. Probably due to the fact that MHD models preclude these formations, it is entirely predictable these phenomena are unpredictable. Just one more example that comets are in fact subject to electric discharge phenomena. Electric comets so to speak.


Hey, shit for brains! What actually happened at the comet? Eejit. Please tell us.
What the idiot Thornhill predicted. And got wrong. Yet again. The bloke is a pillock. N'est-ce pas?
Prove me wrong. Scientifically illiterate loon.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 22, 2017
I seriously think that cantthink has a learning disability. Bless him/ her. Still, no excuse for being thick, eh?
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 23, 2017
Just to add that the 'mystery' boundary looks nothing like a double layer, as it includes both ions and electrons. It was observed at 5 million kilometers from Halley, but not seen at 67P. Perhaps the scientifically challenged cantthink could tell us what the spacecraft at Halley saw within 5 million km, that would indicate any of their electrical woo? One thing that was there was the H2O that Thornhill was telling these idiots, 20 years later, wasn't there! Anything else? Well, there was a diamagnetic cavity, of ~ 4500 km extent from the nucleus. Where, by definition, no electrical woo could possibly be happening.
Back to your Velikovskian religion CD, which has nothing whatever to do with science. Never has, never will.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2017
Just to add that the 'mystery' boundary looks nothing like a double layer, as it includes both ions and electrons.

Glad to see you proudly displaying your extensive plasma ignorance. LOL! Clearly you do not know what a DL is, what it does, nor what they look like or you would have stopped yourself from making such a moronic statement.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 23, 2017
Just to add that the 'mystery' boundary looks nothing like a double layer, as it includes both ions and electrons.

Glad to see you proudly displaying your extensive plasma ignorance. LOL! Clearly you do not know what a DL is, what it does, nor what they look like or you would have stopped yourself from making such a moronic statement.


Dipstick. There is a mixture of electrons and ions. There is no imbalance. There are no parallel layers. There is nothing remotely resembling a DL there. To have suggested such a thing only shows your complete ignorance of cometary environments. Along with Thornhill.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2017
Dipstick. There is a mixture of electrons and ions. There is no imbalance.

Let's actual read the entry;
"a "mystery" region was observed prior to the cometopause within the cometosheath (see e.g. Fuselier et al. (1988)). As the name suggests, the origin of this region is still unknown, and it is not predicted by any models (Coates and Jones, 2009). Fuselier et al. (1988) report on a clear ***bifurcation*** of the increased ion densities within the region during the inbound leg of the Giotto mission to comet 1P/H, whilst Coates (1997) describes the region as consisting of large densities of hot electrons and an enhancement of the solar wind velocity and density without any related signatures in the magnetic field."

This would be another case where jonedumb would prefer to use his own definitions so the observation agrees with his beliefs. Apparently, 'clear bifurcation' does not mean bifurcation, it means "bifurcation"...
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 23, 2017
And you might be interested to know that people, such as Mendis (and Ip, from memory), who had actually proposed the formation of brief DLs (only in the tail, mind) was very much involved in that mission. He was a PI on a number of instruments. Neither he, nor anybody else, was stupid enough to suggest that this boundary was a DL. Only you are stupid enough to do that. And you aren't qualified. And he is. As are the rest of the countless scientists who were involved in that mission, and others.
And, at the end of the day, your stupid electric comet idea was well and truly falsified by this and numerous other missions. So, it's all a bit irrelevant, isn't it?
Or do you think that this imaginary DL is causing the EDM (https://en.wikipe...chining) that was conspicuous by its absence closer to the comet?
Deary me.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 23, 2017
And you got nothing once again. Why do you think there is a separation of the ions/electrons? What "woo" could possibly do such a thing? Must be a dark matter effect. And instead of getting your panties in a wad about the word machining, just use your own M.O. and don't think of it as machining, instead think of it as "machining"...
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 23, 2017
In addition, are you claiming that this non-existent DL is a current carrying DL? If so, then that is obviously wrong. From your own quote: "........without any related signatures in the magnetic field."

So what, pray tell, is this imaginary DL doing? Don't forget that the spacecraft got a lot closer to the comet after this boundary encounter.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 23, 2017
And you got nothing once again. Why do you think there is a separation of the ions/electrons? What "woo" could possibly do such a thing? Must be a dark matter effect. And instead of getting your panties in a wad about the word machining, just use your own M.O. and don't think of it as machining, instead think of it as "machining"...


There is no separation of the ions and electrons.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 23, 2017
There is no separation of the ions and electrons.

I know jonesdumb;
Definition of bifurcation

1 a :the point or area at which something divides into two branches or parts

I mentioned bifurcation doesn't mean bifurcation, it means "bifurcation".
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 23, 2017
Well, there was a diamagnetic cavity, of ~ 4500 km extent from the nucleus. Where, by definition, no electrical woo could possibly be happening.

Except for the unexpected electric woo field and the ion acoustic woo waves.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 23, 2017
Well, there was a diamagnetic cavity, of ~ 4500 km extent from the nucleus. Where, by definition, no electrical woo could possibly be happening.

Except for the unexpected electric woo field and the ion acoustic woo waves.

Ion acoustic woo waves?!??
what are you on about with THAT one...?
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2017
As far as jonesdumb is concerned, anything electric is "woo". I'm just putting it in terms he can understand and get his head around.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2017
As far as jonesdumb is concerned, anything electric is "woo". I'm just putting it in terms he can understand and get his head around.


Hey, dicjkweed, let me spell this out for the terminally stupid; there is no charge separation, you idiot.
Far better intellects than your's have looked at this data; nobody thinks it is a DL. Idiot.
Get a frigging grip, you burke, you are an unqualified prawn on an internet site. Get over it. Nobody is listening to your unqualified ramblings. You are, in short, a complete idiot. Yes?
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2017
There is no separation of the ions and electrons.

I know jonesdumb;
Definition of bifurcation

1 a :the point or area at which something divides into two branches or parts

I mentioned bifurcation doesn't mean bifurcation, it means "bifurcation".


No, dickweed, there is a different density one side of the boundary from the other. Did you not follow the referenced papers? There is no charge separation, you loon. Jesus, how thick does one need to be? Read the papers, you idiot.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2017
Well, there was a diamagnetic cavity, of ~ 4500 km extent from the nucleus. Where, by definition, no electrical woo could possibly be happening.

Except for the unexpected electric woo field and the ion acoustic woo waves.


Hey, SFB, how about looking up thr definition of "diamagnetic". Jesus some people are thick.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2017
Has this ever been said before?: EU idiots have to be the biggest morons in cyberspace. Totally thick, the lot of them. Never, ever, published any of their woo in the scientific literature. Guess why? Because the lead loon is Thornhill; and he's as thick as pigsh*t. Correct?
rrwillsj
5 / 5 (2) Oct 23, 2017
My turn?

How about, the war between the venutianites and the marsupials, a kabillion years ago. Stripped Mars of it's atmosphere and overloaded the atmosphere of Venus?

Together with these commentarious as proof that it takes a hole lot of intelligence to produce catastrophiatic stupidity!
rrwillsj
5 / 5 (2) Oct 23, 2017

Whosit did whatzit to whomeverwasit? The room was dark and they had a large blanket covering them.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it!
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 24, 2017
let me spell this out for the terminally stupid; there is no charge separation,

Just when I think you have dug as deep as you can dig, you pull out a bigger shovel.
"Fuselier et al. (1988) report on a clear bifurcation of the increased ion densities within the region during the inbound leg of the Giotto mission to comet 1P/H, whilst Coates (1997) describes the region as consisting of large densities of hot electrons..."
Bifurcated (not "bifurcated") clouds of ions and electrons sounds a lot like charge separation, but hey, it's just what they wrote.
And you said;
there is a different density one side of the boundary from the other.

That's not insignificant in plasmas. We have known since the 1920's that two regions of plasma with different characteristics will develop a double layer, or sheath, or boundary or whatever you want to call. That fact nullifies the usage of MHD models, even at these densities.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 24, 2017
"As the rate of energy release in a double layer with voltage DeltaV is P corresponding to IDeltaV, a double layer must be treated part of a circuit which delivers the current I. As neither double layer nor circuit can be derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for treating energy transfer by means of double layers. They must be replaced by particle models and circuit theory."
Double Layers and Circuits in Astrophysics
Alfven
Lest we not forget, Kelvin-Helmholtz waves are a fluid dynamic, dicotron and other plasma instabilities must be co sidered instead due to the electromagnetic energy involved in the boundary energy transmission. Recall energy is niether create nor destroyed, it must go somewhere.
And these ion acoustic waves in the diamagnetic cavity are also significant. This is the electric energy being delivered to the comet from the Sun. And the cause of the electric discharges eroding the surface of the comet.
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 24, 2017
And I'll say this again: far more intelligent and qualified people than any of the loons involved with EU have looked at this boundary for 30 years. None, I repeat none of them has ever even considered it to be a DL. Now we are supposed to believe some unqualified woo merchant on a sci-news comment site who has quite obviously not even downloaded the publicly available data. Errr no. Write it up, loony tunes, and then send us a link when you publish it. I'll repeat this, for the hard of thinking:

In addition, are you claiming that this non-existent DL is a current carrying DL? If so, then that is obviously wrong. From your own quote: "........without any related signatures in the magnetic field."

So what, pray tell, is this imaginary DL doing? Don't forget that the spacecraft got a lot closer to the comet after this boundary encounter.


jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 24, 2017
And these ion acoustic waves in the diamagnetic cavity are also significant. This is the electric energy being delivered to the comet from the Sun. And the cause of the electric discharges eroding the surface of the comet.


Lol. The only species within the cavity are from the comet (i.e. neutrals and a small amount of ions from H2O) and heading out. There are no electric discharges, you idiot. What do you think 'diamagnetic' means? Where is the signature of this impossible EDM (https://en.wikipe...hining)?
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 24, 2017
Why, when Tempel 1 was impacted, did a shed load of solid ice spew out?: https://pdfs.sema...12a3.pdf
What do the electric idiots think that this is a picture of?: https://smd-prod....trip.jpg
Do they think all that ice was created by electrical woo? How exactly? Or, following the real science and observations, do they accept that it was entrained by jets of CO2?: https://ntrs.nasa...5409.pdf
Why was the idiot Thornhill lying to you numpties about the unambiguously detected H2O at comets actually being OH? Created, impossibly, by the solar wind. Which isn't even reaching the comet nucleus at peak outgassing.
I could go on. Suffice to say that the idiotic electric comet woo has been well and truly debunked. Not that it was ever scientifically possible in the first place. Lol.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Oct 24, 2017
We have known since the 1920's that two regions of plasma with different characteristics will develop a double layer, or sheath, or boundary or whatever you want to call. That fact nullifies the usage of MHD models, even at these densities.

No, it requires further variable inclusions into the MHD calculation.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Oct 24, 2017
WG, no matter the mathematical gymnastics one wishes to attempt, MHD cannot resolve the complexities that are observed at these bounbaries. This is a plain and simple fact, as Alfven pointed out;
"...a double layer must be treated as part of a circuit which delivers the current I. As neither double layer (or sheath, or single layer, or boundary) nor circuit can be derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for treating energy transfer by means of double layers. They must be replaced by particle models and circuit theory."

Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Oct 24, 2017
WG, no matter the mathematical gymnastics one wishes to attempt, MHD cannot resolve the complexities that are observed at these bounbaries. This is a plain and simple fact, as Alfven pointed out;
"...a double layer must be treated as part of a circuit which delivers the current I. As neither double layer (or sheath, or single layer, or boundary) nor circuit can be derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for treating energy transfer by means of double layers. They must be replaced by particle models and circuit theory."

The problem with that statement is it does not accept the reality of varying inputs combined with varying environments (that a current has to pass thru - resistance as just an example) that mean variable outputs at ANY particular point in that "completed" circuit.
What besides a fluid dynamics math, have you to offer to account for all those varying variables?
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Oct 24, 2017
Cantthink is under the bizarre impression tnat we've never been to a comet. Bad news, woo boy; we have, and none of the results match your woo. How come, dear? Care to explain? Of course not. Wal hasn't figured thst s*** out yet, has the cretin? Come on woo boy, let's hear the latest. Trust me, I will have a paper that shows you to be wrong. Go ahead anyway.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Oct 24, 2017
WG, no matter the mathematical gymnastics one wishes to attempt, MHD cannot resolve the complexities that are observed at these bounbaries. This is a plain and simple fact, as Alfven pointed out;
"...a double layer must be treated as part of a circuit which delivers the current I. As neither double layer (or sheath, or single layer, or boundary) nor circuit can be derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for treating energy transfer by means of double layers. They must be replaced by particle models and circuit theory."



Eejit. Not even Alfven suggested DLs to explain cometary behaviopur. Want some links, dear?
jonesdave
5 / 5 (3) Oct 24, 2017
Here';s a question for the scientifically illiterate amongst us: what does zero nT mean? Yes, go on eejits, figure it out. Google it if you have to. Which no doubt you will. Deary me.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 25, 2017
What besides a fluid dynamics math, have you to offer to account for all those varying variables?

The answer to your question is in the Alfven quote posted several times already, is there a problem reading here?
"...They must be replaced by particle models and circuit theory."

@jonesdumb,
You get so hung up on terminology but use it so carelessly when it doesn't match your beliefs. A double layer is a surface or boundary feature in plasmas, in other words a sheath. The idea here is that these series of concentric boundary layers at a comet must be cobsidered as part of a circuit. Whether it is a sheath, DL (current carrying or otherwise), SL, or "boundary", it has all of the charateristics of a plasma that violates the the frozen-in condition and the ability of MHD models to capture the phenomena occurring there. Different models need to be used.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2017
^^^And no DLs have ever been seen at a comet. Nor are they needed to explain anything that happens at a comet. So, pretty much an irrelevance really. On the other hand, we know that there is ice on and below cometary surfaces, and we see the vapour from that ice in the coma. And that includes within a magnetic field-free cavity, where, by definition, no electrical woo is happening.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2017
And no DLs have ever been seen at a comet.

There are a series of sheaths and boundaries, which behave very similarly to a DL. They are very much the same thing in which they are a boundary which separates two different plasmas.
It should also be mentioned, these structures are very difficult to detect. Keep in mind it was not until the MMS and it's multiple spacecraft flying in formation were DL's found in the Van Allen Belts, this after numerous missions were flown in these regions and nothing was detected. One must have the correct measurement devices and set-up to find these features.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Oct 25, 2017
What besides a fluid dynamics math, have you to offer to account for all those varying variables?

The answer to your question is in the Alfven quote posted several times already, ...
"...They must be replaced by particle models and circuit theory."

Particle models would require umpteen million EXTRA steps in order to capture all reference frames.
Circuit theory is a simplified version of fluid dynamics...
jonesdave
5 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2017
And no DLs have ever been seen at a comet.

There are a series of sheaths and boundaries, which behave very similarly to a DL. They are very much the same thing in which they are a boundary which separates two different plasmas.
It should also be mentioned, these structures are very difficult to detect. Keep in mind it was not until the MMS and it's multiple spacecraft flying in formation were DL's found in the Van Allen Belts, this after numerous missions were flown in these regions and nothing was detected. One must have the correct measurement devices and set-up to find these features.


No charge separation, woo boy. No DL. End of story.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2017
What besides a fluid dynamics math, have you to offer to account for all those varying variables?

The answer to your question is in the Alfven quote posted several times already, ...
"...They must be replaced by particle models and circuit theory."

Particle models would require umpteen million EXTRA steps in order to capture all reference frames.
Circuit theory is a simplified version of fluid dynamics...


And Alfven himself came up with the first model of the IMF draping around the comet in 1957. Never did he change that view. He also explicitly said that cometary comae could be modelled in MHD. Need me to post the proof again, CD? Wouldn't be the first time, eh?
jonesdave
5 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2017
Keep in mind it was not until the MMS and it's multiple spacecraft flying in formation were DL's found in the Van Allen Belts, this after numerous missions.....


Would this be the same MMS that has detected magnetic reconnection multiple times? As ascribed to by Falthammar?

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2017
Particle models would require umpteen million EXTRA steps in order to capture all reference frames

Plasmas and plasma phenomena are not well suited for mathematically 'elegant' theories, as Alfven had been saying decades. This from his Nobel lecture;
"...As you know, plasma physics has started along two parallel lines. The first one was the hundred years old investigations in what was called electrical discharges in gases. This approach was to a high degree experimental and phenomenological, and only very slowly reached some degree of theoretical sophistication. Most theoretical physicists looked down on this field, which was complicated and awkward. The plasma exhibited striations and double-layers, the electron distribution was non-Maxwellian, there were all sorts of oscillations and instabilities. In short, it was a field which was not at all suited for mathematically elegant theories."
TBC...
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2017
con't
"The other approach came from the highly developed kinetic theory of ordinary gases. It was thought that with a limited amount of work this field could be extended to include also ionized gases. The theories were mathematically elegant and when drawing the consequences of them it was found that it should be possible to produce a very hot plasma and confine it magnetically. This was the starting point of thermonuclear research.
However, these theories had initially very little contact with experimental plasma physics, and all the awkward and complicated phenomena which had been treated in the study of discharges in gases were simply neglected. The result of this was what has been called the thermonuclear crisis some 10 years ago. It taught us that plasma physics is a very difficult field, which can only be developed by a close cooperation between theory and experiments."

No one expects it to be easy, but there is no need to make it harder by heading down dead end roads.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Oct 25, 2017
I figured the EUdiots would post a hundred posts of woo-woo #physicscrankscantcount BS on this thread. Looking at it, this is exactly what happened, led by woomerchant @cantthink69.

Maybe if everyone ignores it it will go away, or at least not screw up so many #realscience threads. Maybe it will get electrified by solar eructations and fly off into interstellar space thus much improving the comments on this site.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Oct 25, 2017
...
No one expects it to be easy, but there is no need to make it harder by heading down dead end roads.

The paradox here is - how ya gonna know they're dead end, unless you go down 'em?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Oct 25, 2017
If ya wanna know ya gotta look. Simple as that.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Oct 26, 2017
We already have looked, for 60 years and we "know from experiment that they are wrong" but continue down the path of least resistance.

I wanna know about that magnetic monopole da schnied, how about it?
Da Schneib
not rated yet Oct 26, 2017
We already have looked, for 60 years
You cannot possibly be serious. Newton published his Laws of Motion over 300 years ago.

On Earth.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Oct 26, 2017
No charge separation, woo boy. No DL. End of story.

Apparently jonesdumb care little about observation and in situ data
"Ions will therefore penetrate deeper into the boundary than the electrons, leading to a charge separation within the boundary layer. This results in a polarization electric field, in addition to the DCBL current."
Now he will probably say something like, "well but we were talking about the diamagnetic cavity" (although the boundary layers were part of the conversation). It goes on to say;
"As mentioned, Gunell et al. (2017) report on observations of water ion acoustic waves near 200Hz during a diamagnetic cavity crossing at comet 67P on August 3, 2015. These are interpreted as being excited by the closure of the DCBL current picked up by the Rosetta spacecraft because it did not go sufficiently deep into the cavity to lose this signal."
TBC...
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Oct 26, 2017
"...The observed frequency is interpreted as a signature of ion acoustic waves with (cold) electrons moving relative to the ions using a set of dispersion relations valid in a magnetic field-free plasma environment. The differential movement of charged particles results in a current in the density range of 50−700nAm−2 inside the cavity (Gunell et al., 2017), which is close to the 103 nAm−2 DCBL current observed by Goetz et al. (2016b).
So there is no electric woo going on according to jonesdumb, despite the in situ data of an electric current due to the differential movement of electrons. Now everybody remember, differential does not mean differential, it means "differential". And current does not mean current, it means "current". Oh, and unpredicted means they knew this all along....
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Oct 26, 2017
You cannot possibly be serious. Newton published his Laws of Motion over 300 years ago.

On Earth.

And what the hell did Newton know about plasma 250yrs before it was acknowledged to exist? In space?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Oct 26, 2017

Maybe if everyone ignores it it will go away, or at least not screw up so many #realscience threads. Maybe it will get electrified by solar eructations and fly off into interstellar space thus much improving the comments on this site.

I've been on here for years pointing out the lies of folks like you and jonesdumb and the misinterpretation of facts held with religious condescension perpetrated without repent to protect your closely held beliefs in direct conflict of actual science. But what else would one expect from an acolyte of deception and lies? BTW, I don't intend on going anywhere. And if I change the opinion of one I will be satisfied with the progress against that which is opposed to real scientific achievement.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Oct 26, 2017
BTW da schnied, how's that Nobel magnetic monopole "open field line" thing going?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Oct 26, 2017
We already have looked, for 60 years and we "know from experiment that they are wrong" but continue down the path of least resistance.

I wanna know about that magnetic monopole da schnied, how about it?

I'll handle this one. No such thing...
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Oct 26, 2017
Thank you, now just explain it to da schnied there are no "open field lines".
jonesdave
5 / 5 (1) Oct 26, 2017

So there is no electric woo going on according to jonesdumb, despite the in situ data of an electric current due to the differential movement of electrons. Now everybody remember, differential does not mean differential, it means "differential". And current does not mean current, it means "current". Oh, and unpredicted means they knew this all along....


Dumbass, that is within the boundary layer. Where the IMF is piled up. 0 nT within the cavity itself.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (1) Oct 26, 2017
What CD seems to fail to grasp here is that the MF in the cavity is 0 nT. So there are obviously none of his imaginary discharges going on in there. They would be blindingly obvious. In 2+ years at 67P, none of the instruments that would notice such discharges have ever seen such a thing. And all of this nonsense is because the loon Thornhill thinks the cometary jets are electrical woo! Which we know not to be the case. He also needs the impossible EDM to release O- from the comet to combine with H+ from the solar wind to make OH. And then go on to presumably form the H2O that we see. Isn't going to happen. Complete gibberish.
Whereas the bleeding obvious explanation is that the H2O and other gases come from the ice that we know is there, due to sublimation. One of those explanations has a tonne of evidence to back it up. The other is scientifically impossible woo. I think we all know which is which.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Oct 26, 2017
Dumbass, that is within the boundary layer. Where the IMF is piled up. 0 nT within the cavity itself

Let's read the words again;
"The differential movement of charged particles results in a current in the density range of 50−700nAm−2 inside the ***cavity***..."
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Oct 26, 2017
So there are obviously none of his imaginary discharges going on in there. They would be blindingly obvious.

Oh, you mean it would be so obvious it might "sing"?
"Recently, magnetic field observations done on-board the Rosetta spacecraft showed puzzling low-frequency oscillations at about 40 mHz for a low-activity phase at a cometocentric distance of 30−100 km (Richter et al., 2015). These are now known as the singing comet feature of comet 67P at a low-activity state and were not predicted before the Rosetta mission (Deca et al., 2017).
As mentioned, Gunell et al. (2017) report on observations of water ion acoustic waves near 200Hz during a diamagnetic cavity crossing at comet 67P on August 3, 2015. These are interpreted as being excited by the closure of the DCBL current..."
This is your unpredicted signature of electric discharge at the comet.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (1) Oct 26, 2017
^^^Sorry,dear boy, but 0 nT is 0 nT. End of story. Care to address the ejection of solid ice from either Tempel 1, or Hartley 2? Now, let's see; run us through those lies that the idiot Thornhill told you again. Love to hear them. Why is he such a liar? And, more to the point, why are you taken in by such idiotic nonsense? Do please explain.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (2) Oct 26, 2017
[ These are interpreted as being excited by the closure of the DCBL current..."
This is your unpredicted signature of electric discharge at the comet.


Boundary layer, you eejit. Where the IMF is piled up. We have known from theory and modelling that that should happen. And was observed at Halley. In reality. Let me repeat this for the hard of thinking: zero nT within the cavity, woo boy. No electrical woo there, is there? Judas Priest.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Oct 26, 2017
The irony here is you call me hard of thinking but I have shown where the current was detected inside the cavity;
"As mentioned, Gunell et al. (2017) report on observations of water ion acoustic waves near 200Hz during a diamagnetic cavity crossing at comet 67P on August 3, 2015."
Seems as if your closely held religious like beliefs are preventing you from seeing the data.
Similar to that is your continuous claims against charge separation in direct conflict with the data.
You sure display a religous tendency in your belief of the falsified dirty snowball comet guesses.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (2) Oct 26, 2017
The irony here is you call me hard of thinking but I have shown where the current was detected inside the cavity;
"As mentioned, Gunell et al. (2017) report on observations of water ion acoustic waves near 200Hz during a diamagnetic cavity crossing at comet 67P on August 3, 2015."
Seems as if your closely held religious like beliefs are preventing you from seeing the data.
Similar to that is your continuous claims against charge separation in direct conflict with the data.
You sure display a religous tendency in your belief of the falsified dirty snowball comet guesses.


Ion acoustic waves are NOT a current. Holy Christ. If it was a current, then it would leave a magnetic signature. What is the magnetic field within the cavity? 0 nT. Not a bloody current. This is a cold, overwhelmingly neutral, dusty environment.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Oct 27, 2017
You cannot possibly be serious. Newton published his Laws of Motion over 300 years ago.

On Earth.

And what the hell did Newton know about plasma 250yrs before it was acknowledged to exist? In space?

I think Galileo might have even done it sooner....

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.