Comet Chury's late birth

March 6, 2018, University of Bern
Comet Chury formed by a catastrophic collision
The final stage of a simulation, carried out by the authors, of a catastrophic collision between comets, showing one of the objects formed by re-accretion of debris from the collision, with a shape identical to that of Chury. Credit: ESA/Rosetta/Navcam - CC BY-SA IGO 3.0

Comets which consist of two parts, like Chury, can form after a catastrophic collision of larger bodies. Such collisions may have taken place in a later phase of our solar system, which suggests that Chury can be much younger than previously assumed. This is shown through computer simulations by an international research group with the participation of the University of Bern.

In the computer simulations, the research team investigated what happened after two large comet nuclei violently collided together. "The calculations showed that a large part of the material accumulates in many smaller bodies," explains Martin Jutzi of the Center for Space and Habitability (CSH) at the University of Bern and member of the National Centre of Competence in Research PlanetS. The newly created objects have different sizes and shapes, among them are many elongated bodies, some of which consist of two parts, just like the comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, which the University of Bern studied in detail with the Bern mass spectrometer ROSINA on the Rosetta spacecraft.

"We were surprised that in such catastrophic collisions only a small part of the material is considerably compressed and heated," says Martin Jutzi. Moreover, this material is then ejected and hardly contributes to the formation of the smaller bodies that form a new generation of comet nuclei. On the side of the comet opposite the impact point, volatile substances can withstand even violent collisions. This is why the of comets still has a low density and is rich in volatile substances—properties which have also been found on the comet Chury. Therefore, the duck-shaped comet may well have emerged after a violent, late and did not necessarily have to originate from the early formation phase of the solar system, as has been claimed repeatedly. Such collisions could have taken place relatively late in the life of the solar system. This finding has been reported in the journal Nature Astronomy by the research group led by Stephen Schwartz from the University of Côte d' Azur and the University of Arizona.

Simulations of comet collions. Credit: Université Côte d’Azur/University of Bern
Impact with a velocity of several kilometers per second

In previous studies, Martin Jutzi and Willy Benz, astrophysicist at CSH of the University of Bern and PlanetS director, had already come to the conclusion that Chury did not receive its two-component structure when our solar system was formed 4.5 billion years ago. The researchers showed that the weak point between the two parts of the comet could not have lasted for several billion years and that Chury may have been created by a comparatively gentle impact. "We have now investigated catastrophic collisions involving a lot more energy," explains Martin Jutzi. The new calculations confirm the previous results and extend the possible formation scenarios.

The research team investigated what happens when different sized bodies collide at different angles at speeds ranging from 20 to 3,000 meters per second. The simulations showed that small fragments merge into many transient aggregates in the hours and days after the collision (see video). The final shape is often the result of two or more large bodies that collide at very low speeds to form a two-component structure.

Comet Chury taken by the Rosetta spacecraft. Credit: ESA/Rosetta/Navcam - CC BY-SA IGO 3.0
Possible explanation for "Chury's" mysterious structures

According to the simulations, during the days and weeks in which the comet received its shape, small aggregates in the vicinity continue to reaccumulate onto it. In reality, this material could be flattened when it hits the surface and thus lead to a layered . Moreover, if large blocks accumulate at this stage, cavities may be created which can develop into large pits. Such geological structures were discovered on Chury by the Rosetta mission – these observations were previously considered mysterious. "Our results not only confirm that the Chury may be much younger than previously assumed, but also provide a possible explanation for its striking structures," says Jutzi.

Explore further: Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko is much younger than previously thought

More information: Stephen R. Schwartz et al. Catastrophic disruptions as the origin of bilobate comets, Nature Astronomy (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41550-018-0395-2

Related Stories

How comets were assembled

May 29, 2015

Rosetta's target "Chury" and other comets observed by space missions show common evidence of layered structures and bi-lobed shapes. With 3D computer simulations Martin Jutzi of PlanetS at the University of Bern was able ...

Surprising dunes on comet Chury

February 22, 2017

Surprising images from the Rosetta spacecraft show the presence of dune-like patterns on the surface of comet Chury. Researchers at the Laboratoire de Physique et Mécanique des Milieux Hétérogènes (CNRS/ESPCI Paris/UPMC/Université ...

Recommended for you

See a passing comet this Sunday

December 14, 2018

On Sunday, Dec. 16, the comet known as 46P/Wirtanen will make one of the 10 closest comet flybys of Earth in 70 years, and you may even be able to see it without a telescope.

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 ...

157 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (9) Mar 06, 2018
The double lobe feature, which has been identified on several comets, is easily reproduced in the laboratory using electric discharge processes. No wildly unlikely faerie tale event as described above need be invoked to describe this relatively common feature.
http://ieeexplore...=4287017
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 07, 2018
The double lobe feature, which has been identified on several comets, is easily reproduced in the laboratory using electric discharge processes. No wildly unlikely faerie tale event as described above need be invoked to describe this relatively common feature.
http://ieeexplore...=4287017


And no such processes at comets have been observed. Nor are they possible.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2018
And no such processes at comets have been observed. Nor are they possible.

Only if you rely heavily on willful ignorance. BTW, the processes which create the dual-lobed objects requires far more enrgy the the electric discharge occurring on comets as we observe them .
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2018
And no such processes at comets have been observed. Nor are they possible.

Only if you rely heavily on willful ignorance. BTW, the processes which create the dual-lobed objects requires far more enrgy the the electric discharge occurring on comets as we observe them .


There are no electric discharges happening at comets. Full stop.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2018
There are no electric discharges happening at comets. Full stop.

Except this one...
http://www.syfy.c...om-below
Heaven forbid someone suggest a cloud of electrons that has accumulated in one of the known plasma layers in a comet's coma would discharge onto the likely charged cometary body. We can just pretend that known and observed plasma procosses just don't occur there because the plasma shouldn't behave as plasma...
That sounds so sciencey!
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2018
The "Cometary" discharge, a possible new type of DC electric discharge http://iopscience...1/012005
And no such processes at comets have been observed. Nor are they possible.

Only if you rely heavily on willful ignorance. BTW, the processes which create the dual-lobed objects requires far more enrgy the the electric discharge occurring on comets as we observe them .


There are no electric discharges happening at comets. Full stop.

jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 07, 2018
There are no electric discharges happening at comets. Full stop.

Except this one...
http://www.syfy.c...om-below


Lol. Jennifer Agarwal's paper? No electric woo there, woo boy. Dear me. Alice detected solid ice grains. Anything else you want to know about that particular paper? Thought not. Stick to Velikovsky, woo child, science is well beyond you. Yes?
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2018
The "Cometary" discharge, a possible new type of DC electric discharge http://iopscience...1/012005
And no such processes at comets have been observed. Nor are they possible.

Only if you rely heavily on willful ignorance. BTW, the processes which create the dual-lobed objects requires far more enrgy the the electric discharge occurring on comets as we observe them .


There are no electric discharges happening at comets. Full stop.



Huh? That has two things to do with comets; none and **** all. Read the damned paper, and stop intruding on stuff that you don't understand. Thanks.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2018
There are no electric discharges happening at comets. Full stop.

Except this one...
http://www.syfy.c...om-below
Heaven forbid someone suggest a cloud of electrons that has accumulated in one of the known plasma layers in a comet's coma would discharge onto the likely charged cometary body. We can just pretend that known and observed plasma procosses just don't occur there because the plasma shouldn't behave as plasma...
That sounds so sciencey!


Sorry, where has this been written up? Would love to see it. As far as I can tell, it doesn't exist. Please prove me wrong.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2018
Not to mention the complete absence of any lightning bolts in the picture where the gas is escaping from 67/P. Good article, @jones. Nice pictures and stuff for the thunderdolts to ponder.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2018
Sorry, where has this been written up? Would love to see it. As far as I can tell, it doesn't exist. Please prove me wrong.


https://physics.a...s/v10/53

So what now that I have proven you wrong?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2018
Not to mention the complete absence of any lightning bolts in the picture where the gas is escaping from 67/P.

Clearly an individual who hasn't a clue of plasmas and how the surrounding environment affects the appearance of the discharges.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2018
So what now that I have proven you wrong?
Nothing since you haven't. You didn't read the article. The plasmas are collisionless.

Duh. Typical thunderdolt.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2018
Nothing since you haven't. You didn't read the article. The plasmas are collisionless.

You clearly haven't a clue, that comment is on the level of that magnetic monopole stupidity you are trying to pass off. Did you read it? Charge separation, electromagnetic fields, plasmas, all the requirements of electric discharge. Time to remove the heads all y'all have buried deeply in your backsides.
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2018
Comets, their charged particles, and their cometary electrical discharge's.
Solar wind in Cometary interaction of comets charged particles in the solar wind where at termination shock, 8.4bbillion miles slow to 220 miles a second, the solar wind continuing its outward journey into the heliopaus forming the bow wave and the Suns solar Cometary tail "Heliotail " continuing its outward travel into the incoming galactic cosmic rays. At all times the solar systems comets are always subject to solar or galactic winds of charged particles whether in the Kuiper belt or the asteroid belt to a light year and beyond.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2018
Sorry, where has this been written up? Would love to see it. As far as I can tell, it doesn't exist. Please prove me wrong.


https://physics.a...s/v10/53

So what now that I have proven you wrong?


And that has precisely nothing to do with the electric comet nonsense. Where is the rock? Where are the electric discharges to (or is it from?) the nucleus? How would they happen? When did they happen? So far, you have linked to an article about a jet that was just gas and dust and ice grains, and another about perfectly mainstream plasma physics, and this is supposed to prove what, exactly?
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2018
Cometary Electrical discharge modelling in galactic cosmic rays

The Cometary lobes forming on comets are due to the interaction of the orbital motion in contact with the constituent particles interacting with the charged galactic and solar cosmic rays, where the particles tenuous electrical attraction on the comets surface in combination with the orbital motion modelling the distinctive double lobed appearance.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2018
Comets, their charged particles, and their cometary electrical discharge's.
Solar wind in Cometary interaction of comets charged particles in the solar wind where at termination shock, 8.4bbillion miles slow to 220 miles a second, the solar wind continuing its outward journey into the heliopaus forming the bow wave and the Suns solar Cometary tail "Heliotail " continuing its outward travel into the incoming galactic cosmic rays. At all times the solar systems comets are always subject to solar or galactic winds of charged particles whether in the Kuiper belt or the asteroid belt to a light year and beyond.


And? We've known for decades about such things. There are millions of papers about the solar wind interaction with comets. Go read some.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2018
Nothing since you haven't. You didn't read the article. The plasmas are collisionless.

You clearly haven't a clue, that comment is on the level of that magnetic monopole stupidity you are trying to pass off. Did you read it? Charge separation, electromagnetic fields, plasmas, all the requirements of electric discharge. Time to remove the heads all y'all have buried deeply in your backsides.


And how many of these non-existent, imopossible discharges were detected by instruments that would detect them? Point me to these detections please.
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2018
Thank you jonesdave, this is science as it known at IOP, it is not presently exactly known the lobes modelling, but it is a combination of electrical, gravitational and orbital effects

Sorry, where has this been written up? Would love to see it. As far as I can tell, it doesn't exist. Please prove me wrong.


https://physics.a...s/v10/53

So what now that I have proven you wrong?


And that has precisely nothing to do with the electric comet nonsense. Where is the rock? Where are the electric discharges to (or is it from?) the nucleus? How would they happen? When did they happen? So far, you have linked to an article about a jet that was just gas and dust and ice grains, and another about perfectly mainstream plasma physics, and this is supposed to prove what, exactly?

granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2018
Galactic charged particles wearing down the comets.
This modelling take place of billions of years, essential longer than the solar system existed, electrical modelling on comets over these time frames is the determining factor which is time, exactly as the tide laps on the shore wearing down the granite face, the electrical attraction of hydrogen and oxygen over the billions of years wearing down the granite is the galactic charged particles wearing down the comets.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2018
but it is a combination of electrical, gravitational and orbital effects


What electrical effects? Why on earth would you need electrical effects? What would they do? How would they do it?

granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2018
Cometary lobes are a result of harmonic motion
Comet Chury of its orbital period of 6.5 is constantly in orbital interaction in the solar electrical discharge as you pointed out is sublimates off an icy surface, this is like the shifting sands dunes on the desert, the comet is undergoing a regular orbital pattern and just like the sand dunes a pattern is emerging on the comets surface, each orbital pass reinforces the previous pass like an oscillation, the lobes are a result of harmonic motion
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2018
...............solar electrical discharge............


What 'solar electrical discharge'?
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2018
My preference is for my blood vessels
I have no preference for electrical effects, magnetic effects, gravitation, it is of no consequence if the Cometary lobes are a result of harmonic motion, electrical particle attraction, a combination of both or a completely unconnected cause all together, you won't me catch bursting a blood vessel on any of above listed because I have not got sufficient bloods vessels to accommodate all the different articles on this site.
granville583762
3.8 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2018
What 'solar electrical discharge'? Exactly what were talking about, this is why we are here, I get this image of you looking nonplussed at the statement "What 'solar electrical discharge'?" there is a electrical discharge that is fact! Whether it occurs in the quantum world, it occurs! The technique is applying it to cometary lobes and making it stick.
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2018
Johnsdave:- You are now seriously discussing 'solar electrical discharge' as this was on the table from the start, but now you have included it in the dynamics of Cometary lobe formation.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2018
Johnsdave:- You are now seriously discussing 'solar electrical discharge' as this was on the table from the start, but now you have included it in the dynamics of Cometary lobe formation.


No, it was not on the table. The article is about how a double lobed comet forms. This is due to the collision of two separate bodies. Nothing whatsoever to do with electrical anything.
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2018
Johnsdave:- and the statement its self, What 'solar electrical discharge - sometimes we do not take statements at face value, there is often an ambiguity in the interpretation of the wording of the statement with the result that the question is answered indirectly, the main tenets of physics almost invariably find using an indirect approach "Nothing whatsoever to do with electrical anything" your choice of words "with electrical anything" are telling, without the electrical attraction of the particulate nature of the comet, gravity would be unable to hold its structure together because it is the electrical attraction in the molecules which is holding the icy comet together, not gravity.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2018
^^^^This is nothing to do with how particles are held together. It is about how macroscopic objects behave. The electrical stuff that cd85 is talking about is ridiculous woo about the jets on comets being electrical discharges, rather than the observed gas, dust and ice. It has been shown to be complete idiocy. His weird belief is that the comet is made of rock, despite multiple observations to the contrary, and that electric discharge machining sculpts the surface. Which is idiocy squared, and for which there is no evidence nor viable mechanism.
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Mar 08, 2018
I was going to ask you about your phrase "ridiculous woo" in particular your choice off word "woo" because what is it doing here, I've never come across that phrase before, cantdrive85 is just winding every one up, he does not believe it himself, it is thrill of the chase he gets when everyone takes bait.
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Mar 08, 2018
I do not want to alarm you, but just like couples in long term relationships acquire each other's personalities, maybe it is the phrase "woo" but whatever it is, the barrage of insults are indistinguishable from each other, which is why I stand back when the crockery starts flying
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2018
I was not referring to a comet as a solid piece of rock! But as a loose assemblage of particles that under influence of electrical discharges, cosmic rays where microscopic interaction causing microscopic effects over billions of years, the age of the universe is the time scale needed to influence the shape of comets. Billions of years results in modelling in a regular harmonic series of collisions! Where as a haphazard collision will shatter the comet in to dust. And unless the comet is a loose assemblage of particles it cannot be modelled.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2018
I was not referring to a comet as a solid piece of rock! But as a loose assemblage of particles that under influence of electrical discharges, cosmic rays where microscopic interaction causing microscopic effects over billions of years, the age of the universe is the time scale needed to influence the shape of comets. Billions of years results in modelling in a regular harmonic series of collisions! Where as a haphazard collision will shatter the comet in to dust. And unless the comet is a loose assemblage of particles it can be modelled.


No, you are not claiming it is rock. Read what I wrote - cd85, and his cult, believe that. And no, a collision will not shatter the comet to pieces. That is precisely what the paper upon which the article is based, is saying.
As far as i can see, there are only 2 possibilities - a collision, and the preferential sublimation in the neck area, due to a pre-existing hollow or crater, with enhanced heating due reflection.
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2018
Yes, you cannot shatter a loose assemblage of particles, they behave differently. Each particle is in close attraction with adjoining particles behaving as a cloud. Once the lobes form there has to be some substantial heating in the neck area to hold the structure as a whole together, to enable the comet to withstand the collisions over the billions of years.
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2018
The immortal rock of ages
This was my original source "Each particle is in close attraction with adjoining particles behaving as a cloud" but melting the Cometary core creates a structure that is not very much different from the dreaded immortal rock of ages, which although a valid reason, feeds into the internal frenetic windup that emerges from the quantum fluctuations.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2018
And no, a collision will not shatter the comet to pieces. That is precisely what the paper upon which the article is based, is saying.
As far as i can see, there are only 2 possibilities - a collision, and the preferential sublimation in the neck area, due to a pre-existing hollow or crater,

In other words, magical woo...
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2018
And no, a collision will not shatter the comet to pieces. That is precisely what the paper upon which the article is based, is saying.
As far as i can see, there are only 2 possibilities - a collision, and the preferential sublimation in the neck area, due to a pre-existing hollow or crater,

In other words, magical woo...


Nope, nothing magical about it. Unlike Thornhill & Talbott's scientifically impossible, mythology-based fantasy.
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2018
Harmonic collisions
This is why there has to be regular series of collision in a harmonic manner, likes sand dunes in the desert, almost like a constant flow of sand blowing over the comet in its 6.5 yr orbits making the number of apparent random but regular revolutions about its centre of mass, as the cosmic winds blow over the comet, the chance of Cometary collision between comets is extremely small implying it is not simply Cometary collisions that are the cause of the lobes, but the result of billions of regular collisions over millions of years, which means some small particles of matter.
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Mar 08, 2018
Comets contain ice, rock and metal
This is the comet that made the landing, the rocky surface was too hard for Rosetta's grappling hooks, they underestimated how hard the comets surface was, comets consist of ice, dust, rock and fragments of meteorites in other words metal, no wonder they underestimated how hard the surface was. This was a comet literally degrees above degrees Kelvin. How could you under estimate its hardness; If think you think that is weird - the computers went into standby because of the hard landing to protect the computers which because they were in shade within minutes the batteries were flat and the computer froze in the fridge conditions because solar panels were inactive so Rosetta control could not use the last of the battery to take the last few photographs. What was the point in going in first place, the mind boggles at the health and safety computer regulations!
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2018
^^^^^^^^^Assuming this were a valid mechanism, why would it preferentially erode the neck area? And why wouldn't it occur on all comets? In addition to which, there was good evidence for a difference in density between the two lobes, which adds weight to a collisional origin of the bi-lobate shape.
https://www.scien...16301385
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2018
Comets contain ice, rock and metal


Nope, no rocks and no metal. And the strength of the surface layer was measured by timing the arrival times of sound waves from the hammer strokes from MUPUS. It was nowhere near rock, let alone metal!

the computers went into standby because of the hard landing to protect the computers which because they were in shade within minutes the batteries were flat and the computer froze in the fridge conditions because solar panels were inactive so Rosetta control could not use the last of the battery to take the last few photographs.


I have no idea where you got that from. It is trivially false. Rosetta didn't go into standby. The antenna was no longer pointed at Earth. It would then have entered safe mode, and shut down, as planned. The last photograph was taken 20m from the surface. Are you getting confused with Philae?
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2018
This puts a new perspective on things; we now have a comet as hard as steel.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2018
This puts a new perspective on things; we now have a comet as hard as steel.


Errr, no, we don't. Will somebody read the bloody literature before positing their half thought out nonsense on here? How big was the crater at Tempel 1? Trust me, it wouldn't be that big if it had hit rock or steel!
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Mar 08, 2018
what is the difference standby, safe mode, shut down just above Kelvin a computer in either of the mentioned modes will automatically freeze its a debatable point what is preventing you from starting the computer after a crash landing
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Mar 08, 2018
In the vacuum of space you literaly have one chance and that chance was used up in the crash landing,
the fact they uderestimated it hardness after all that time, hard work and money speaks volumes. based on your assesment that mistake should not have been made and roseta would landed safely.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2018
what is the difference standby, safe mode, shut down just above Kelvin a computer in either of the mentioned modes will automatically freeze its a debatable point what is preventing you from starting the computer after a crash landing


The difference is that this was planned and expected.
http://blogs.esa....-finale/

And it wasn't that cold - 80-160K below surface.
http://blogs.esa....a-comet/
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2018
In the vacuum of space you literaly have one chance and that chance was used up in the crash landing,
the fact they uderestimated it hardness after all that time, hard work and money speaks volumes. based on your assesment that mistake should not have been made and roseta would landed safely.


Rosetta was NOT meant to land safely! You are getting mixed up with Philae. Go read about it. It lasted about 60 hours on battery. The solar panels were indeed in shade, so that was it, apart from a brief wake-up, months later, when much valuable data was relayed to Rosetta.
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Mar 08, 2018
In point of fact this is contentions point boils down to the hardness of the comet and after all this hard work today I forgot all about the hard landing because they underestimated it hardness. 80-160K is cold you not want to enter a fridge at those temperature and we forgetting why the comet is hard because it is at 80K, we are sitting in a nice warm room with no conception at all. Roseta was meant to land safely, it could have landed safely and still ended up in the shade, it bounced once to many times.that was its mistake, it was to hard for its grappling hooks
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Mar 08, 2018
well this is splitting hairs or it mistakes, it is irrelevant because it does not change 80K and it does change the comets hardness, so were back to the begging again; only a little further on, as now were aware of the condition of the comets habitats.
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Mar 08, 2018
This is the slippery eel theory, when you think you're getting a handle on it, it slips though your fingers like a slippery eel, that's because now we're splitting mistakes the same as splitting hairs.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2018
Roseta was meant to land safely, it could have landed safely and still ended up in the shade, it bounced once to many times.that was its mistake, it was to hard for its grappling hooks


For the last time, that was not Rosetta! It was Philae. And I've told you that the surface was not as hard as you seem to think it was. These findings can be found in the literature. No need to make stuff up. The failure of the harpoons and thruster was not related to the consolidated surface. The failure of the ice screws was. Funnily enough, this was the first landing on a comet, and they got it a bit wrong, expecting it to be softer.
http://blogs.esa....a-comet/

granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2018
This is obfuscation down to fine art
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Mar 08, 2018
Exactly underestimating its hardness expecting it to be a little softer, the theory underestimated its hardness! there is subtleness in the point
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2018
This is obfuscation down to fine art


What is? Continually having to correct your erroneous claims?
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2018
Exactly underestimating its hardness expecting it to be a little softer, the theory underestimated its hardness! there is subtleness in the point


And this subtleness is? Make a point, because I haven't a clue what you're on about. Yes, they underestimated the hardness. It was the first landing on a comet. This hardness is not present all the way through the comet. It is a surface layer, and can be shown to form in lab experiments.
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Mar 08, 2018
i am not claiming anything the lobes could not be related to hardness or they could, its not a race to a prize there nothing to be gained, mistakes are things that happen on the way there are no points to scored;if the earth fell on these boards and they were no more, you we would not not be able to tell the difference.
so if in lab why not out in field
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Mar 08, 2018
Now not only is there a theory of hardness, there is laboratory evidence of hardnes, which the theory came from or did results have to match the theory becuase out in the field it was unexpectedly harder, now you can see why i appear to make mistakes because it takes effort to learn theories expecting them to right only having to discard them when there found wanting
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Mar 08, 2018
learning a theory taken at random
There are millions of theories each with their sub theories and you just picked one out at random on Cometary hardness and the actual lab results which matched the theory, did not match field conditions which is exactly why lab results are undertaken. This is an example of learning a theory taken at random which has to be discarded.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2018
learning a theory taken at random
There are millions of theories each with their sub theories and you just picked one out at random on Cometary hardness and the actual lab results which matched the theory, did not match field conditions which is exactly why lab results are undertaken. This is an example of learning a theory taken at random which has to be discarded.


No; in the case of comets, observation informs experiment. Experiment then informs design. However, when the data is limited, it is difficult to know how accurate those experimental outcomes are. There is a possibility of a sample return mission to 67P by NASA. In that case, the observations by Philae will inform the design of that mission's instruments. Prior to Rosetta, we had smashed an impactor into a comet at 10 km/s, which tells us little about the surface strength.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Mar 08, 2018
This is obfuscation down to fine art

Absolutely accurate statement.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2018
This is obfuscation down to fine art

Absolutely accurate statement.


Really? Please point out what I've obfuscated.
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2018
Theory - this comet is a ball of ice with a little dust. Fact - it is a ball of ice with a little dust, bits of rock and bits of meteorite. The theory was a loose assemblage of particles. Fact - it a ball of ice, rock and ion at -200 degrees centigrade, if this was Mount Everest Sherpa's would be climbing it with their grappling hooks and nails trying to hammer them in to get a grip. It is admittedly harder than the theory and the lab tests, out in the vastness of space all alone there is no experimental time which is why we pay large sums of money for specialists to get this right as it cost billions of $$$ to go to these comets. Suppose that was a mission to mars they underestimated the weight of all the astronauts, you cannot say O! It was a trial run because there is no next when you mistake in the vastness of space and theory of comet erosion was built on the fact of a soft comet when you knew it was a hard comet, harder than a loose assemblage of particles!
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2018
Obfuscation: down to fine art

"Quote:- The failure of the harpoons and thruster was not related to the consolidated surface. The failure of the ice screws was. Funnily enough, this was the first landing on a comet, and they got it a bit wrong, expecting it to be softer"

There is obfuscation in the way it is worded; failure of the harpoons and thruster was not related to the consolidated surface; you knew the surface was harder when you wrote this, that is the reason the hooks failed to grip, breaking the ice screws, the ices screws broke because they were designed for a softer surface, not because they were faulty; this obfuscation!

The wording of "The failure of the ice screws" in is self its self is Obfuscation: they did not fail they were designed for a softer surface; you have implied the ice screws were faulty!

jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2018
^^^^^^Are you incapable of reading? I said: "The failure of the harpoons and thruster was not related to the consolidated surface. The failure of the ice screws was." The ice screws failed to penetrate the surface. Understand? Because the surface was harder than expected. That is why they failed. Comprende? How is that obfuscating? I agreed that their failure was due to an underestimation of the surface hardness. And that is obfuscating? Learn to read.
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2018
Obfuscation; a way of life

Obfuscation on its own is part of the tapestry of life, you have got it down to such a fine art that you are now using "obfuscation" to prove a theory of Cometary erosion by the use of obfuscation regarding the fact of comet hardness. This comet has grown from a collection of water molecule to ball of ice to a loose assemblage of particles to rock hard sub zero lump of icy rock to a comet as hard as nails breaking ice screws!
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2018
Fact - it a ball of ice, rock and ion at


I assume you mean "iron", in which case you would be wrong. Please point out to me where iron or rock have been detected. If it is a "fact", then you shouldn't have any problems locating the relevant findings within the scientific literature.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2018
Obfuscation; a way of life

Obfuscation on its own is part of the tapestry of life, you have got it down to such a fine art that you are now using "obfuscation" to prove a theory of Cometary erosion by the use of obfuscation regarding the fact of comet hardness. This comet has grown from a collection of water molecule to ball of ice to a loose assemblage of particles to rock hard sub zero lump of icy rock to a comet as hard as nails breaking ice screws!


You are talking absolute drivel. Make your point. What am I saying about cometary erosion that you disagree with? Point me to where I've said it, and then make clear what you believe, and the proof for it. No word salad. Actual proof. Link to it, yes, because I haven't got a clue what you are prattling on about.
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2018
If I had remembered the ice hooks had not gripped the surface because it was too hard, I would not have entertained any of this, because what's the point, there isn't one, it broke.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2018
I would not have entertained any of this,......


Any of what?
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2018
Comets are more than their constituent ice

Which is why everyone thinks frozen water is softer than ice screws, which is where the theory came from, they did not break on the hardness of ice in the lab. What you have to ask your self is do we have a comet in the lab to practise on, and if not why not, the theories have shown their pointlessness in regards to comets as they are obviously more than a irregular shaped ball of ice.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2018
as they are obviously more than a irregular shaped ball of ice.


Yes, there is a lot of dust, too. No rock, no metal. The reason for the hardness of the surface layer is due to sintering. The ice sublimates as it reaches a certain temperature. It travels every which way through the porous matrix of the dust layers. It refreezes. It gets very hard. This has been seen in the lab. Google "KOSI experiments." More recent experiments have been done, given what we now know from 67P. Those papers are paywalled, but also show a hard layer developing. Poch & Pommerol were the authors, iirc.
The main thing to take away from this, is that comets are composed of dust and ice, with a large porosity. Nothing else needed to explain anything.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2018
What you have to ask your self is do we have a comet in the lab to practise on, and if not why not,..


Yep, lets clear out a building a couple of kilometers long, and a couple high. Freeze it down to ~150K, get rid of the gravity and atmosphere, and leave it for 4.5 billion years. Nah, cheaper and easier to send a spacecraft.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Mar 09, 2018
Really? Please point out what I've obfuscated

Not a difficult task.
When you say;

Sorry, where has this been written up? Would love to see it. As far as I can tell, it doesn't exist. Please prove me wrong.

And I do so by posting;
https://physics.a...s/v10/53
And they say;
"But the physics of the interaction between the solar wind and the comet material is surprisingly complex and hard to capture using conventional analysis or magnetohydrodynamic (fluid) simulations."
And they go on;
Both the solar wind and cometary halo material are collisionless,

Which means they are separated by sheaths and double layers and such. First principles of plasmas.
Nevertheless, all of the particles making up the solar wind and any comet tails within it affect one another via the large-scale electromagnetic field that the particle ensemble generates.

EM fields, not just magnetic. First principles includes electrical effects as well.

TBC...
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Mar 09, 2018
They continue;
The plasma is treated as a collection of individual noninteracting particles that each collectively modify a large-scale electromagnetic field defined at discrete cell locations.

Collective effects of EM field...
the mission revealed an expected cometary magnetosphere formed by "draped" magnetic field lines, which are carried by the solar wind as electric currents form in the ionized halo

Electric currents in the coma, despite your claims they are impossible.
Second, it detected the presence of surprising "singing comet" oscillations [8], which involve undulations in the magnetic field that produce a striated structure in the outflowing ion tail.

Further evidence of the electric currents and discharge, it's what sings, just like when welding.
Third, Rosetta made the unexpected discovery of two distinct populations of electrons

Charge separation, woo that you claim is "impossible".

More to come...
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Mar 09, 2018
They cont.
These observations indicated that the material is not in local thermal equilibrium and raised questions of how the suprathermal population, which is difficult to reproduce using conventional fluid simulations, is accelerated.

Observational evidence of double layers, first principles again.
But in contrast to the solar wind electrons, solar wind protons are only slightly deflected by the bent field lines. They penetrate deep into the halo and pass closer to the nucleus than do the solar wind electrons.

Recall again, in plasmas ions can also carry electric currents, those solar wind ions could potentially impinge on the nucleus.
This charge exchange, which also carries momentum from solar wind particles to the comet particles, may be fundamental to rapid pickup of the ion tail into the solar wind.

Charge exchange is another way to say electric discharge, more "woo" you claim to be impossible.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2018
Further, the authors speculate that it plays a role in the enigmatic singing comet oscillations observed by Rosetta

Funny, the authors agree the electric discharge is causing the "singing". LOL!
And the cherry!
each electron moves much faster than the remaining ion and therefore departs more quickly. Thus the nucleus and halo develop a slight positive potential,

A positively charged comet and coma? How dare they suggest such a thing? Don't they know this is impossible "woo"?
I could go on, but my break is over and I got to get back to work.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2018
Oh dear, so much stupid! I'm going to have to flag up the following on ISF; there is a plasma physicist on there who will wet himself at this:

Both the solar wind and cometary halo material are collisionless, Which means they are separated by sheaths and double layers and such. First principles of plasmas.


Haha. No......just no! Lol.
https://www.resea...s_plasma

EM fields, not just magnetic. First principles includes electrical effects as well.


We know all about them. Have done for decades. They were predicted, for the most part. No EDM (lol) as proposed by the buffoon Thornhill.

Electric currents in the coma, despite your claims they are impossible.


Wrong. I already explained that a current will form at the diamagnetic cavity boundary. Also known about for decades.

Further evidence of the electric currents and discharge, it's what sings, just like when welding.


Lol. Welding!

jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2018
Observational evidence of double layers, first principles again.


Nope. Two years and not a DL in sight.

Recall again, in plasmas ions can also carry electric currents, those solar wind ions could potentially impinge on the nucleus.


Oh, they do. It does 5/8ths of sod all. And they're getting nowhere near the nucleus (as measured) once the outgassing is at a high level.

Charge exchange is another way to say electric discharge, more "woo" you claim to be impossible


Lol. No it isn't. At least not in plasma physics! An O6+, for instance, from the SW tootles by and gets close to a cometary H2O. Nicks an electron, becomes O5+, and the H2O becomes H2O+. That's how you get X-rays at comets.

Funny, the authors agree the electric discharge is causing the "singing". LOL!


Yes, it possibly does; https://arxiv.org...6068.pdf
I know one of the co-authors on that paper, so if you want a further description........
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2018
A positively charged comet and coma? How dare they suggest such a thing? Don't they know this is impossible "woo"?


Huh? It is known that electrostatic charging can charge the surfaces of the moon, asteroids and possibly comets. No big deal. What do you think is going to happen? Certainly not EDM (lol). Do not forget; Rosetta was around this comet for 2+ years. None of the idiocy proposed by Thornhill was seen. Which isn't surprising, given that what he proposed is, for the most part, scientifically impossible.

jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2018
The plasma astrophysicist I mentioned earlier was lead author on a paper regarding current sheets at 67P. If anybody s interested in the real science behind what is going on in the coma, then have a read:

Current sheets in comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko's coma
Volwerk, M. et al.
https://hal-insu....document
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2018
Russian captains piloting their icebreakers read the ice flow hardness
The comet 6.5 year cycle of heating and freezing is the cause of the rock hard surface of the comet, this actual happens to lesser degree in polar ice, the Russian captains piloting their icebreakers read the ice flows by the transparency of the ice because it freezes and refreezes and gets to thick and hard for the ice breakers, they have techniques, they go backwards into the ice and the rear has a special ledge which smash's the ice backwards. This property of ice increasing its hardness is long known to Russian captains who have to navigate ice flows.
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2018
Comets laugh at ice screws.
The theory of Cometary modelling has to take into account the temperature difference, orbital period, freezing and refreezing, the comets emission when it has its tail, its orbital tumbling.. theres more to add. The comet model can only be solar activity when it forms its tail because as it rounds the sun it is definitely being modelled even if it laughs at "ice screws" in their vain hope of getting a grip before they break.
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2018
Cosmic wind in comet modelling
Comet modelling is a combination of solar heating and the solar wind where the charged particles responsible for the comets tail are removing gases issuing from the fissures in the comets surface and interior due to the comet being heated by solar radiation.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2018
^^^^^Yes, thank you. I've studied comets, formally and informally, on and off, for 30 years. Why don't you apply for a job at ESA, and share your knowledge with them?
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2018
Whoops, I should be more careful! CD85 said:

Funny, the authors agree the electric discharge is causing the "singing". LOL!


And I said:

Yes, it possibly does; https://arxiv.org...6068.pdf


Which of course is wrong - it isn't a discharge, it is a cross-field current.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Mar 10, 2018
So you agree that all the conditions are met to allow for electric discharge, but you say it's "woo"... Apparently the real woo is your reasoning and your religious beliefs of a failed comet theory. But as you say, you studied it for 30 years and nobody wants to admit their life was a waste of time, which yours was chasing pseudoscientific claptrap. LOL!
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2018
So you agree that all the conditions are met to allow for electric discharge, but you say it's "woo"... Apparently the real woo is your reasoning and your religious beliefs of a failed comet theory. But as you say, you studied it for 30 years and nobody wants to admit their life was a waste of time, which yours was chasing pseudoscientific claptrap. LOL!


Lol. Figured out what collisionless plasmas are yet? I suspect even Scott knows that!
And no - why would there be any "discharges"? And, no - there were no discharges. And the "comet theory" is very robust, and only strengthened by this latest mission, whilst the electric comet woo is still batting zero. Only one person here needs faith to keep believing in woo. The other side have mountains of evidence, and viable scientific theories - the other have nothing, other than fairy tales from mythology.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2018
And no - why would there be any "discharges"?

Charge separation, as shown by direct observation.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2018
And no - why would there be any "discharges"?

Charge separation, as shown by direct observation.


And..................? What will cause a discharge from that? Why did these discharges not happen? They would be extremely obvious. What are they capable of explainig even if they did happen? They aren't going to turn dust and ice into rock, which is what you lot believe the comet to be. They can't explain the cold gas and dust of the outgassing. In fact, as well as being invisible and undetectable, they aren't necessary for anything. So why are we even discussing such things?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2018
What will cause a discharge from that?

Your ignorance of plasma processes and EM theory is such that you cannot understand this basic phenomena? LOL!
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2018
What will cause a discharge from that?

Your ignorance of plasma processes and EM theory is such that you cannot understand this basic phenomena? LOL!


This from someone who doesn't understand what a collisionless plasma is! Lol. Why would a discharge happen from charge separation, assuming it were to occur? And where was it detected? And what are you wanting it to do? What relevance does it have to what is observed at comets?
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2018
This is something I really don't get with the handful of remaining electric comet woo believers; It has been shown to be spectacularly wrong from various missions. The claim is that comets are rock, just like asteroids. That is demonstrably false, based on numerous measurements. They claimed that the jets were some sort of electrical discharge woo. That is demonstrably false, again. They claimed that there was no water, it was actually OH. Demonstrably false. That there was no ice subsurface. Again, demonstrably false. Every single claim they have about comets is shown to be wrong. Including that they were ejected from rocky planets by some sort of electrical woo. So, why are we still discussing this Velikovsky inspired non-science? It is dead.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2018
The claim is that comets are rock, just like asteroids.

Weird...
Them lyin' eyes.
http://www.citize...gallery/
They claimed that the jets were some sort of electrical discharge woo.

They're collimated and remain perpendicular to the surface, it would seem as if electrical forces are in play.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2018
Weird...
Them lyin' eyes.


Wow, pareidolia from an EUist! How unusual.

They're collimated and remain perpendicular to the surface, it would seem as if electrical forces are in play.


It would seem otherwise, based on science, rather than pareidolia. What you are seeing (mostly) is dust reflecting sunlight. The gas that entrains the dust is invisible. Except in IR, for instance. Which clearly shows it to be cold, neutral gas. Sometimes these jets have ice grains within them, and they too can be detected. No electric woo anywhere to be seen. No electric woo needed.

jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2018
http://www.citize...mets.png

Actually, two of the asteroids in that image, Steins and Lutetia, were visited by Rosetta on its way to 67P. You might want to check out the density of those asteroids as compared to 67P. That will certainly give you a clue as to one of the differences between comets and asteroids.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2018
And the electrical stress the body is experiencing could in no way affect the interpretation of those measurements, at least it will never be acknowledged and likely derided as a suggestion.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2018
Pareidolia

Ooh, jonesdumb has a new word for the day!
Which clearly shows it to be cold, neutral gas. Sometimes these jets have ice grains within them, and they too can be detected.

None of which diminishes the evidence of electric discharges taking place. Only shows you ignorance of processes taking place.
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2018
Simply two comets stuck together

This comet is simply two comets in collision, the heat of collision melting and welding them together, the sun is just evaporating water molecules every 6.5 years to blow in the solar wind. this is haphazard erosion like icebergs in a flowing currant where the currant is solar wind.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2018
None of which diminishes the evidence of electric discharges taking place. Only shows you ignorance of processes taking place.


Yes it does. The idiot Thornhill claims these jets are EDM (lol)!!!!!! Such things would be bleeding obvious. The aren't. Nor is any electric woo needed to explain the jets. And there is zero evidence for any. Therefore, as well as being scientifically impossible, it is not required. So why carry on talking about it? And I know quite well what plasma processes are taking place regards these jets. Sod all. And at least I know what a collisionless plasma is!

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2018
Yes it does. The idiot Thornhill claims these jets are EDM

There you go spouting off about that which you don't understand. The electric discharge can occur at these temperatures (no problem there), can create the water which then freezes because it is cold (brrr), and the discharge will look very much different than discharge on Earth because there is no atmosphere.
67P most likely experienced corona discharges due to the lower potential of the short period comet whereas long period comets would gain a much higher potential and would likely experience the arcing Thornhill described. He discussed this before Rosetta arrived as he pointed out that there was disappointment among the EU folks that a less active short period comet was chosen as the target.
And I know quite well what plasma processes are taking place regards these jets.

Sadly no, if you did you wouldn't have the religious fear of discussing electric discharge, because that is what plasmas do.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2018
^^^^^^^^Hahahahahahahahaha,. What a load of cock! Show me who is the plasma genius that suggested this for comets. Deary me.
We don't need all that impossible crap. There is ice below the surface, on the surface and in the coma. No electric woo required.
What is a collisionless plasma again, woo boy?
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2018
Non-existent arcing that Thornhill described.


FTFY. Thornhill is an idiot. An unqualified Velikovskian woo merchant, with sod all scientific knowledge. He is a loon, and nobody, other than other loons, takes the ****wit seriously. He is a nobody.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2018
What have you published? Obviously you aren't worth much given you have studied this for 30-years and haven't produced anything. You are a nobody, only capable of logical fallacy abd name calling.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2018
We don't need all that impossible crap.


So now plasma discharge is impossible? After claiming you understood these things then say it's impossible. LOL!
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2018
What have you published? Obviously you aren't worth much given you have studied this for 30-years and haven't produced anything. You are a nobody, only capable of logical fallacy abd name calling.


And he has published nothing. Not in anything other than crap in IEEE or crank journals. He has contributed zero. Mainly due to being scientifically illiterate. Which is how he is capable of believing in Velikovskian garbage.

So now plasma discharge is impossible? After claiming you understood these things then say it's impossible. LOL!


Sorry, where were these discharges? The data is freely available. Time you cranks started doing some work instead of claiming impossible crap on places like this.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2018
Sorry, where were these discharges?

Already pointed to numerous instances, you conveniently ignore them.
https://phys.org/...rst.html
All of the evidence is present, you just don't understand real plasma physics. You are blinded by willful ignorance.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2018
BTW, what have you added in your 30-years of studying? Zero! Fuckle! Worthless! Thornhill has published real science of which you are incapable. All you have is pseudoscientific claptrap.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2018
Thornhill has published real science...


Hahahahahaha. Really? Where? Claiming that a supernova was a z-pinch? What a plank! I could write crap like that. And I'm afraid that what you believe is pseudoscience, by definition. What I KNOW is backed up by a tonne of evidence. You have nothing other than unevidenced, scientifically illiterate, mythology-based woo. That is why you post here, rather than on a physics forum.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2018
Claiming that a supernova was a z-pinch?

Who'da thunk actual known plasma phenomena would be relevant to plasma physics?

jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2018
Claiming that a supernova was a z-pinch?

Who'da thunk actual known plasma phenomena would be relevant to plasma physics?



Except that there was no z-pinch! As usual, his woo was based on pareidolia. Zero science. Nobody takes any notice of these cranks. They might fool you, but not the rest of us. Thornhill wouldn't know squat about plasma physics. Obviously.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2018
Except that there was no z-pinch!

Clearly you are incapable of even the most rudimentary aspects of plasma physics. A simple encyclopedia definition for you;
https://www.brita...h-effect
"Pinch effect, self-constriction of a cylinder of an electrically conducting plasma. When an electric current is passed through a gaseous plasma, a magnetic field is set up that tends to force the current-carrying particles together."
http://ieeexplore...=4287093
hhttp://www.holosc...coded-2/
It's plasma, why on Earth do you insist the physics should be different. It's not pareidolia, it is application of laboratory experiments to natural physical phenomena, the very definition of science you jackass. There is an empirical attachment to theory unlike your maths based faerie tales laced with reified mathematical entities attaining physical characteristics.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2018
Clearly you are incapable of even the most rudimentary aspects of plasma physics.


Neither are you, woo boy. What is a collisionless plasma? Answer the question without ****ing it up this time, ignoramus.

^^^^^And what is all that crap you've posted? What the hell has that got to do with a supernova? Please show me, in the scientific litersture, anybody, other than the idiot Thornhill, who has claimed that a supernova is a bloody z-pinch. The guy is an unqualified moron.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2018
And what is all that crap you've posted?

A simplistic definition of a z-pinch in plasma, which can be also seen here;
https://apod.nasa...612.html
Cylindrical plasma formation held together by toroidal magnetic fields. If you had read the definition of the z-pinch you would have seen the part about instabilities forming along the plasma cylinder (also known as a Birkeland current). You can even see the comparison to the model of the BC;
http://www.ptep-o...1-13.PDF

http://www.ptep-o...3-01.PDF
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2018
OK, I've said this before, but for the plasmically challenged; a z-pinch involves a current flowing form x to y. At some point the magnetic field, which spirals around the current, squeezes inward *pinches), and you get an hour glass shape. The point is that the central pinch has one lobe travelling toward it, and another away from it. If a supernova (Thornhill) or a planetary nebula (Scott), were a z-pinch, then doppler measurements should show the whole shebang moving in the same direction. Either all blue shifted, or all red shifted. That is not what we see. The lobes head out in diametrically opposite directions from the central star. It is therefore trivially wrong to claim a z-pinch. Which is why you won't find anyone that believes this to be the case, other than ignorant woo merchants.

http://atomictoas...2-15.png
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2018
And what is all that crap you've posted?

A simplistic definition of a z-pinch in plasma, which can be also seen here;
https://apod.nasa...612.html


See above. Doppler. Deal with it. Also, if the gas we detect is within a huge magnetic field, what would Zeeman say about this?
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2018
Volcanic sulphur dioxide detected
The reason the comet looks like rock is it appears grey to our eyes imaging shows the body to be covered by a porous layer of fine grains. Impact craters and the presence of frozen sulphur dioxide, is released naturally by volcanic activity or more probably from its encounters with Jupiter http://www.esa.in..._landing there's melting and ice flows round the neck http://sci.esa.in...018D.jpg there is a lunar landscape similarity with its impact craters
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2018
The point is that the central pinch has one lobe travelling toward it, and another away from it. If a supernova (Thornhill) or a planetary nebula (Scott), were a z-pinch, then doppler measurements should show the whole shebang moving in the same direction.

Your explanation describes just that, but who's paying attention. Regardless, just because you pontificate ignorantly about these phenomena doesn't mean your claims are accurate.
The lobes head out in diametrically opposite directions from the central star.

Yep, just like galactic jets, this is part of the stellar circuit and the circuit will return to the star.
See above. Doppler. Deal with it.

Not a problem, your preconceptions are irrelevant.
Also, if the gas we detect is within a huge magnetic field,

Not a problem here, observation shows the plasma to be polarized in the long direction of the Birkeland current, which agrees with theory, as well as the concentric tubes of said current.
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2018
The winds of Chury

You can actually see ripples in the comets dusty surface from the winds that blow on Chury. round the hills and craters. On the images, considering how these images portray Chury's rubble strewn surface it would be interesting to see the images of the ice flows onto the valley floors as it rounds the Sun
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2018
Yep, just like galactic jets, this is part of the stellar circuit and the circuit will return to the star.


Hahahahaha. So it isn't a z-pinch anymore, because the morphology is all wrong! It's part of some invisible circuit! Lol. You are so crap at this plasma stuff, aren't you? Show me a z-pinch that matches the morphology of a supernova or a planetary nebula, where the material is being expelled in opposite direction from the central object. Simple, get to it.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2018
The z-pinch is the cylindrical tube, the star is the instability that arise in said tubes, per the encyclopedia definition. BTW, Birkeland currents are most likely coaxial, as such they will have currents traveling in both directions.
Show me a z-pinch that matches the morphology of a supernova or a planetary nebula, where the material is being expelled in opposite direction from the central object.

That is your own fanciful pontification, I already did so in both examples above.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2018
The z-pinch is the cylindrical tube, the star is the instability that arise in said tubes, per the encyclopedia definition. BTW, Birkeland currents are most likely coaxial, as such they will have currents traveling in both directions.
Show me a z-pinch that matches the morphology of a supernova or a planetary nebula, where the material is being expelled in opposite direction from the central object.

That is your own fanciful pontification, I already did so in both examples above.


No you didn't. Here is a z-pinch:
http://atomictoas...2-15.png

Notice how everything is moving in one direction? That is precisely what supernovae and planetary nebulae don't do. As observed. As far as I can see, the only loons who think the above phenomena are anything to do with z-pinches are Thornhill and Scott. And they are clueless.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2018
Notice how everything is moving in one direction?

Are those the electrons or ions? You must be suggesting they "all flow in one direction". EM concepts are clearly beyond your grasp.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2018
Notice how everything is moving in one direction?

Are those the electrons or ions? You must be suggesting they "all flow in one direction". EM concepts are clearly beyond your grasp.


No, it is clearly beyond your grasp, woo boy. What is a collisionless plasma, again?
There is no, zero, nada, configuration of a z-pinch that could produce the Doppler observations from supernovae and planetary nebulae. Scott and Thorhill are idiots, and neither of them explains this.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2018
Yet, there it is right in front of your eyes. BTW, you keep conflating two different concepts and claiming proof of this or that. You're better off sticking to DM, BH's, dirty snowballs, and otger faerie tales because plasma concepts are well beyond your brain cell's capability.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2018
Yet, there it is right in front of your eyes. BTW, you keep conflating two different concepts and claiming proof of this or that. You're better off sticking to DM, BH's, dirty snowballs, and otger faerie tales because plasma concepts are well beyond your brain cell's capability.


Lol. WHAT IS A COLLISIONLESS PLASMA, WOO BOY? Want to try again? And, no, there is nothing in front of me, as a z-pinch cannot produce the Doppler observations. End of story. Find me a piccy of this centrally occurring, diametrically opposed z-pinch woo, and then we might have something to talk about.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2018
Your doppler observations are meaningless to this, it is a z-pinched plasma, end of story.
Find me a piccy of this centrally occurring

It's not "centrally occurring", that is your own inability to grasp a concept.
Explain how an explosion can reproduce the bipolar structure as shown. Find me a piccy of such an explosion then maybe we'll have....
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2018
Your doppler observations are meaningless to this, it is a z-pinched plasma, end of story.


No, it isn't, and nobody in their right mind is claiming that it is. And yes, it is centrally occurring. As per actual observation. The gas, plasma, whatever, is leaving one pole in one direction, and the other pole in the opposite direction. That is impossible in a z-pinch. Ask any plasma physicist. We know this, because one lobe is blue shifted, and the other is red shifted. It isn't rocket science. For a Birkeland current to be pinched, the current(s) have to be flowing in the same direction. Otherwise they won't pinch. If you have two parallel currents flowing in opposite directions they will repel. And still wouldn't create the signature seen in the Doppler observations.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2018
The gas, plasma, whatever, is leaving one pole in one direction, and the other pole in the opposite direction. That is impossible in a z-pinch.

No, the plasma is flowing away from the poles of the star. Once again you ar e conflating two different concepts. The z-pinch does not attempt to explain the star itself, the z-pinch only describes the "tubular Birkeland current". Once you insert the star, which is likely a plasmoid instability along the z-pinch, then those physics become relevant. When you get a grasp of the basics come back, we might have something to talk about.
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2018
Pluto when a comet is a dwarf planet

Meteorites can be composed of comet and asteroid material, it follows comets can be composed of meteorite material, which explains the rock strewn appearance of the comet of the material it picks up as it passes through the asteroid belt. The Kuiper belt home to the dwarf planet: Pluto, named dwarf because it is basically a comet but is Pluto a comet? It is a geothermely active planet made of comet material. Then there's the Oort cloud….
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2018
Icy Solar material in the Kuiper belt

The further out from the Sun, any material whatever it composition is going to be covered in ice, but the Sun formed from the cloud of material as the Oort cloud is a light year in radius, the sun formed from this Ly radius material. This condensed into star, blowing of its outer material. Some of which is in the outer reaches of the Kuiper belt covered in an ice as comet.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2018
The gas, plasma, whatever, is leaving one pole in one direction, and the other pole in the opposite direction. That is impossible in a z-pinch.

No, the plasma is flowing away from the poles of the star. Once again you ar e conflating two different concepts. The z-pinch does not attempt to explain the star itself, the z-pinch only describes the "tubular Birkeland current". Once you insert the star, which is likely a plasmoid instability along the z-pinch, then those physics become relevant. When you get a grasp of the basics come back, we might have something to talk about.


No i'm not, dickhead. There are no concepts to conflate, you prawn. There is not a z-pinch known to man that can do what the idiots Scott and Thornhill claim. They are absolutely clueless. Please show where anybody has shown planetary nebulae, or supernovae, to be anything to do with z-pinches, other than those two cretins. Not going to happen, is it?
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2018
Let's put it this way, for the hard of thinking; which way is the current travelling? Why are ions going both away and towards us in this non-existent current/ magnetic field? What sort of frigging z-pinch is this? How stupid does one need to be to even propose such crap? Who proposed it? Why on Earth would anybody take such people seriously? Velikovskian tosspots. Yes?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2018
Why are ions going both away and towards us in this non-existent current/ magnetic field?

I already pointed out that the Birkeland currents are coaxial.
What sort of frigging z-pinch is this?

One with a plasmoid at the central locus of the hourglass shape.
Why on Earth would anybody take such people seriously?

Because, the concepts are based on empirical laboratory research, known plasma physics, and the concepts are known ro be real unlike scary gravity monsters, imaginary faerie dust, or stars that defy the laws of nuclear physics.
BTW, you have never offered a legitimate explanation as to how an explosion would create the distinctive hourglass shapes that are so prevalent. Chirp, chirp....
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2018
Why are ions going both away and towards us in this non-existent current/ magnetic field?

I already pointed out that the Birkeland currents are coaxial.
What sort of frigging z-pinch is this?

One with a plasmoid at the central locus of the hourglass shape.
Why on Earth would anybody take such people seriously?

Because, the concepts are based on empirical laboratory research, known plasma physics, and the concepts are known ro be real unlike scary gravity monsters, imaginary faerie dust, or stars that defy the laws of nuclear physics.
BTW, you have never offered a legitimate explanation as to how an explosion would create the distinctive hourglass shapes that are so prevalent.


Currents are co-axial? And how would this produce one blue shifted lobe and one red shifted?
By definition, for a pinch to occur, the currents are traveling in one direction. If they aren't they don't pinch. Show me where these loons have modelled this.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Mar 13, 2018
BTW, you have never offered a legitimate explanation as to how an explosion would create the distinctive hourglass shapes that are so prevalent.

Crickets....
By definition, for a pinch to occur, the currents are traveling in one direction.

Still conflating, you are dense as dense can be, aren't you.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2018
BTW, you have never offered a legitimate explanation as to how an explosion would create the distinctive hourglass shapes that are so prevalent.

Crickets....
By definition, for a pinch to occur, the currents are traveling in one direction.

Still conflating, you are dense as dense can be, aren't you.


Nope. Elementary stuff. Dense is not knowing what a collisionless plasma is. For a pinch to occur, the parallel currents must flow in the same direction. If the parallel currents are flowing in opposite directions they will repel. Ergo, the Doppler data falsifies both Scott and Thornhill's woo. Unless they've dealt with this somewhere; in which case link to it.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Mar 13, 2018
Let's slow this train way down to accommodate jonesdumb. Take a looky at your diagram you posted of z-pinch. Where in that diagram does it show the pinch squeezing down to a point as the star does? .....I smell smoke, maybe a sign jonesdumb's brain cell is working.... Here is a hint jonesdumb, it doesn't. The presence of the star changes the physics immediately around the star. You're still conflating two concepts.
691Boat
5 / 5 (2) Mar 13, 2018
Let's slow this train way down to accommodate jonesdumb. Take a looky at your diagram you posted of z-pinch. Where in that diagram does it show the pinch squeezing down to a point as the star does? .....I smell smoke, maybe a sign jonesdumb's brain cell is working.... Here is a hint jonesdumb, it doesn't. The presence of the star changes the physics immediately around the star. You're still conflating two concepts.


@CD85:
So you are still claiming it is a Z-pinch, with all the current flowing in a single direction via the Birkeland currents, but with the star radiating out in all directions. Meaning a significant portion of the star's radiative energy is flowing against the current in the Z-pinch with enough current to override the signals we see from Earth that show it as having a net energy flow in all directions of approximately equal quantity, but no difference along the axis of your Birkeland currents?
that is neat stuff right there.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 13, 2018
Nope, you're getting as good as jonesdumb at the logical fallacy. Yours being the red-herring variety. Build it up in your own mind, then tear it down...
Neat stuff you are attempting.
granville583762
5 / 5 (1) Mar 13, 2018
What elements constitute dust? 74% silica which is a comet!

Solar material is in the Kuiper belt, even water is found in the sun, oxygen is formed in stars and the nickel in meteorites is formed in the solar outburst. As what is the dust everyone keeps talking about, it's not simply hydrogen it's another element, comets are not simply water freezing on a grain of dust. What elements constitute dust? Rock is a mineral, 74% silica SiO2, silica dioxide found in quartz and sand, a comet is made of planetary material.
691Boat
5 / 5 (2) Mar 13, 2018
@CD85:
Please, fully explain how you have currents travelling in a single direction, a z-pinch, a star in the middle, as well as observed blue and red shifted lobes in the same feature. I'm listening. Or alternatively, if you can't explain it well enough, provide a link describing it using actual science.
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Mar 13, 2018
An ice covered grain is a micro comet

Silica as a grain forms a layer of ice and billions of these ice covered silica are micro comets which stick together to form larger comets, a comet is billions of grains of silica and nickel and other elements.
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Mar 13, 2018
Back to our comet as hard as nails

The misconception a comet is a grain of dust the remainder frozen water

An ice covered grain is a micro comet

Silica as a grain forms a layer of ice and billions of these ice covered silica are micro comets which stick together to form larger comets, a comet is billions of grains of silica and nickel and other elements.

A comet is mainly planetary material stuck together with ice going through freezing and refreezing
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Mar 13, 2018
Please, fully explain how you have currents travelling in a single direction, a z-pinch, a star in the middle, as well as observed blue and red shifted lobes in the same feature. I'm listening. Or alternatively, if you can't explain it well enough, provide a link describing it using actual science.

Actual science, no fearie dust or any other imaginary conjurings...
http://electric-c...xies.pdf
691Boat
5 / 5 (2) Mar 13, 2018
Actual science, no fearie dust or any other imaginary conjurings...
http://electric-c...xies.pdf

Oh, good! So you have the data showing the multiple layers of the inozation potentials of the birkeland currents in these z-pinches? Or is it all just Hydrogen, so we don't actually see what Scott says?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Mar 13, 2018
So you have the data showing the multiple layers of the inozation potentials of the birkeland currents in these z-pinches? Or is it all just Hydrogen, so we don't actually see what Scott says?

Unlike DM, the answer to this question is relatively easy to find.

'Radio astronomers peer deep into the stellar nursery of the Orion Nebula'
https://phys.org/...lar.html
The ammonia (IE~10eV) they detected "deep in the cloud", right where Peratt described.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Mar 14, 2018
A Z-pinch is so-named because the current that acts to make the pinch acts along the Z-axis of the plasma, that is axially along its flow. There is no reverse flow. Thus, a Z-pinch being responsible for plasma flow from a comet would quickly charge the comet to such a high voltage that the current causing the Z-pinch would not flow.

And that's why it's stupid to claim comets are powered by Z-pinches. I'll leave the supernova and other cases to @jones and @691Boat, who seem to have this well in hand.

As far as I can see Z-pinches have nothing to do with Birkeland currents.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Mar 14, 2018
Nobody has claimed the z-pinch has anything to do with comets da schnied.
691Boat
5 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2018
@CD85:
so this ammonia is present, that's great. The article said it is only 50 ly in length, so the birkeland current starts and stops at either end of that ammonia cloud? Also, have they shown that the ammonia is actually in a plasma state?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Mar 14, 2018
so this ammonia is present, that's great. The article said it is only 50 ly in length,

Only...
so the birkeland current starts and stops at either end of that ammonia cloud?

Why would it? Ammonia is not a prerequisite, this example was used to confirm Peratt's predictions using a mainstream paper. You're getting pretty close to the red-herring type argument the way you are framing the question.
Also, have they shown that the ammonia is actually in a plasma state.

What processes would prevent free electrons, ions, or cosmic rays from entering the cloud? The ionosphere is ~1% ionized but behaves as a fully electrodynamic plasma, this belief these "gas" clouds are not plasma is erroneous to say the least.
691Boat
5 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2018
I'm not sure you understand what a red herring is. You send me a link, I ask you direct questions regarding that link...how is that a red herring?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2018
Nowhere in that link did they describe a Birkeland current, so it was not a "direct question regarding the link". Nowhere in the previous links regarding the Birkeland currents did it say the ammonia is a prerequisite for BC's. What you did do was not so cleverly frame an irrelevant question. Besides, the last post I said "you're getting *pretty close* to the red-herring type argument".
691Boat
5 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2018
When you use one source (link B) as a show of evidence for a previous source (link A), it seems perfectly logical that the info gathered from link B generates more questions pointing back to link A, since link B was used in defense of the information in Link A.
If we are only allowed to use direct quotes and zero interpretation of information, you have zero ground to stand on, since all the EU does is take other people's data and claim it is evidence for their beliefs. Nowhere in any EU written papers (blogs) have I seen any worthwhile mathematical proofs of anything they claim. It is all word salad!
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2018
When you use one source (link B) as a show of evidence for a previous source (link A)

The advantage of using observations from outside the paradigm that is being challenged is there cannot be any claims of confirmation bias. Also, you can investigate further as any real scientist would do. Your silly question shows you have no real interest in actually learning the science but instead to find ways to undermine the ideas, often times using logical fallacy instead of genuine curiosity.
If we are only allowed to use direct quotes and zero interpretation of information,

You aren't interpreting information, you're manipulating information to satisfy an agenda.
Nowhere in any EU written papers (blogs) have I seen any worthwhile mathematical proofs of anything they claim.

Wilful ignorance is no excuse, but that is the veil you chose to hide behind.
The EU is barely 20-years in, how developed was the standard theory in 1935? It takes time, resources, and people.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2018
since all the EU does is take other people's data

That has changed, and the research they are undertaking is based on the theories set forth by the EU.
https://youtu.be/keJAQIWEyzY
Papers forthcoming, no theory is unwrapped complete out of the box. If there were thousands of researchers worldwide vetting this there could be much progress, instead we are spending billions searching for faerie dust.
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2018
EU and Faerie dust!
There has only been one landing on a comet, but even so that comet was not faerie dust and no one discuses faerie dust in connections with comets because they exist, where as you seem make a big point in talking about the connections of EU and Faerie dust! What is connection?

since all the EU does is take other people's data

cantdrive85:- That has changed, and the research they are undertaking is based on the theories set forth by the EU.
https://youtu.be/keJAQIWEyzY
Papers forthcoming, no theory is unwrapped complete out of the box. If there were thousands of researchers worldwide vetting this there could be much progress, instead we are spending billions searching for faerie dust.

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.