Study shows how Earth slows the solar wind to a gentle breeze

May 31, 2018, University of Maryland
A giant magnetic field (swirling blue lines) surrounds Earth. As Earth travels through solar wind (orange area), its magnetic field creates a bow shock in front of itself (pale blue area). Credit: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center

As Earth orbits the sun at supersonic speed, it cuts a path through the solar wind. This fast stream of charged particles, or plasma, launched from the sun's outer layers would bombard Earth's atmosphere if not for the protection of Earth's magnetic field.

Just as a motorboat creates a bow-shaped wave ahead of itself as the hull pushes through the water, Earth creates a similar effect—called a —as it pushes through the . Scientists have sought to explain how Earth's magnetic field can shove aside the powerful solar without unleashing calamity. They have known part of the answer for a long time: the bow converts energy from the solar wind to heat stored in electrons and ions. But now, researchers have important new clues about how this process occurs.

A University of Maryland-led study describes the first observations of the process of electron heating in Earth's bow shock. The researchers found that when the electrons in the solar wind encounter the bow shock, they momentarily accelerate to such a high speed that the electron stream becomes unstable and breaks down. This breakdown process robs the electrons of their high speed and converts the energy to heat.

The results add an important new dimension to scientists' understanding of Earth's magnetic field and its ability to protect the planet from harmful particles and radiation. The research paper was published in the journal Physical Review Letters on May 31, 2018.

"If you were to stand on a mountaintop, you might get knocked over by a fast wind," explained Li-Jen Chen, lead author of the study and an associate research scientist in the UMD Department of Astronomy. "Fortunately, as the solar wind crashes into Earth's magnetic field, the bow shock protects us by slowing down this wind and changing it to a nice, warm breeze. We now have a better idea how this happens."

The scientists obtained their data from NASA's Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) mission. The MMS mission consists of four identical satellites that carry instruments to study the physics of Earth's as it interacts with the solar wind. The satellites obtained three-dimensional measurements every 30 milliseconds, resulting in hundreds of measurements within the bow shock layer. These high-frequency, precise measurements from the MMS mission were critical to the study.

"The extremely fast measurements from MMS allowed us finally to see the electron heating process in the thin shock layer," said Thomas Moore, a senior project scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center and a co-author of the study. "This is groundbreaking because now we have the ability to identify the mechanism at work, instead of just observing its consequences."

Scientists have known for some time that the bow shock is somehow able to convert the energy in electrons to heat without any direct collisions between the electrons. This means that friction—a common way to generate heat here on Earth—is not responsible for electron heating in the bow shock.

"The new observations of electron acceleration at the bow shock rewrite the current understanding of electron heating," said Chen, who is also a research scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. "For example, researchers didn't expect that the bow shock could accelerate the solar wind electron stream to the speeds that we observed."

In an earlier phase of the MMS mission, the satellites typically orbited much closer to Earth, so they usually missed the bow shock. However, an unexpected outburst of solar wind pushed the bow shock closer to Earth, allowing the satellites to capture rare and informative data.

Seizing on this advantage, the researchers observed the solar wind's electron stream before, during and after meeting with the bow shock. The electron stream accelerated by the shock only took 90 milliseconds to destabilize and fully break down.

"The study of electron heating is important not just for understanding how the bow shock protects Earth, but potentially for satellites, space travel and maybe exploring other planets in the future," Chen said.

By giving the first clear picture of what electrons at the bow shock are doing, Chen and her collaborators hope to encourage other scientists to perform computer simulations, further space observations and laboratory experiments on electron heating. Chen also looks forward to delving further into the mechanisms by which the bow shock accelerates the electron stream.

"Typically, scientists have simulations or theories to predict what is happening and then they design experiments to measure it," Chen said. "This time it's the opposite: the measurement came first. The simulation and theory will have to catch up."

Explore further: Reconnection tames the turbulent magnetic fields around Earth

More information: "Electron bulk acceleration and thermalization at Earth's quasi-perpendicular bow shock," Li-Jen Chen et al., Physical Review Letters, May 31, 2018. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.225101

Related Stories

Cosmic bow shocks

March 7, 2018

Imagine an object moving at super-sonic speed. This object, as it moves through a medium, causes the material in the medium to pile up, compress, and heat up. The result is a type of shock wave, known as a bow shock.

Scientists help solve mystery of why comets emit X-rays

March 13, 2018

The mystery of why comets travelling through Space give off X-ray emissions has been solved thanks to new research undertaken by a team that included science staff from STFC's Central Laser Facility (CLF) and RAL Space.

NASA finds unusual origins of high-energy electrons

November 14, 2016

High above the surface, Earth's magnetic field constantly deflects incoming supersonic particles from the sun. These particles are disturbed in regions just outside of Earth's magnetic field - and some are reflected into ...

What will Voyager 1 discover at the bow of the solar system?

July 15, 2013

As the Voyager 1 spacecraft approaches the very edges of our solar system, space scientists await to see if it will discover the solar system's 'bow shock'; a theorized pile up of gas, dust, and cosmic rays, which accumulate ...

Recommended for you

Quantum computers tackle big data with machine learning

October 15, 2018

Every two seconds, sensors measuring the United States' electrical grid collect 3 petabytes of data – the equivalent of 3 million gigabytes. Data analysis on that scale is a challenge when crucial information is stored ...

Researchers report innovative optical tissue imaging method

October 15, 2018

A UK-wide research team, led by the University of St Andrews, has developed an innovative new way to optically image through tissue, which could allow for a more detailed understanding and diagnosis of the early stages of ...

166 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (10) May 31, 2018
A similar process slows solar wind ions at comets which enables the electrochemistry which occurs at comets to produce the observed water/ice.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) May 31, 2018
A similar process slows solar wind ions at comets which enables the electrochemistry which occurs at comets to produce the observed water/ice.


Double lol! Electrochemistry my arse! How does that work, woo boy? Given that the solar wind is getting nowhere near the comet when it is at its most active. Let's see the science.
Spacebaby2001
1 / 5 (2) May 31, 2018
A similar process slows solar wind ions at comets which enables the electrochemistry which occurs at comets to produce the observed water/ice.


Double lol! Electrochemistry my arse! How does that work, woo boy? Given that the solar wind is getting nowhere near the comet when it is at its most active. Let's see the science.


What is protecting the comets from SW? Are evaporation and sublimation enough to shroud it from the SW?
691Boat
5 / 5 (8) May 31, 2018
A similar process slows solar wind ions at comets which enables the electrochemistry which occurs at comets to produce the observed water/ice.

hahaha! that 7nT magnetic field at 67P does the same thing as our 'weak' 25-65uT field here on Earth? Good work, CD85.
https://www.esa.i...gnetised
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) May 31, 2018
A similar process slows solar wind ions at comets which enables the electrochemistry which occurs at comets to produce the observed water/ice.


Double lol! Electrochemistry my arse! How does that work, woo boy? Given that the solar wind is getting nowhere near the comet when it is at its most active. Let's see the science.


What is protecting the comets from SW? Are evaporation and sublimation enough to shroud it from the SW?


Yes, when it is at its more active stages. The solar wind at 67P went missing for about 9 months around perihelion. The Interplanetary Magnetic Field, carried by the solar wind, is also prevented from reaching the nucleus at this time. The only species within this bubble are of cometary origin. Mostly neutral H2O.
rrwillsj
1 / 5 (3) May 31, 2018
Downer time! Get ready to mash that 'ignore' button. Cause i promise you, siriusly scientific and gamboling woo-hoo alike are going to hate what I am asking!

Okay I can visualize, on my infinitesimal vision. The effect of a solar windstorm hitting the Earth's protective magnetic field. Ride Valkyrie! Ride in mezzo-soprano!

And that the Earth's bow shield is usually sufficient to deflect most of the energetic particles.

My question is the same I asked about having hundreds and thousands of vessels in orbit around the Earth.

"Where does the deflected mass of energy particles from our Sun go? Where do all those exhaust plumes go? Do we need to issue navigational hazard warnings?

With my psychotic powers. I envision the future:
"Orbital Traffic Control to Tesla Runabout.Go fly somewhere else!"

"Wheee!! I'm at ludicrous speed, Daddy-O. Tell the Sun to get the hell out my lane!"
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) May 31, 2018
hahaha! that 7nT magnetic field at 67P does the same thing as our 'weak' 25-65uT field here on Earth? Good work, CD85.

You're working hard to become the Grand Master of the Strawman Society aren't you?
This article is about the bow shock, which is a double layer. Comets share this feature, that is why it is similar. Good job misinterpreting again old boat.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) May 31, 2018
This article is about the bow shock, which is a double layer.


No, it isn't, and nobody has ever claimed that it is.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) May 31, 2018
No, it isn't, and nobody has ever claimed that it is.

It just has a potential drop, a strong electric field, a definitive series of layers. It shares all the characteristics of a plasma double layer, but it's not one...
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) May 31, 2018
No, it isn't, and nobody has ever claimed that it is.

It just has a potential drop, a strong electric field, a definitive series of layers. It shares all the characteristics of a plasma double layer, but it's not one...


Correct. Not a mention of DLs in the paper. Whistler-mode waves. All the data is likely available from NASA. Download it, write a paper. Or get a suitably qualified person from the EU cult to write it. Oh, forgot; you don't have any, do you?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) May 31, 2018
But yet, that is exactly what it is, regardless of hand wavy declarations.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) May 31, 2018
But yet, that is exactly what it is, regardless of hand wavy declarations.


Really? Says who? Which plasma physicist is claiming this?
691Boat
5 / 5 (6) Jun 01, 2018
hahaha! that 7nT magnetic field at 67P does the same thing as our 'weak' 25-65uT field here on Earth? Good work, CD85.

You're working hard to become the Grand Master of the Strawman Society aren't you?
This article is about the bow shock, which is a double layer. Comets share this feature, that is why it is similar. Good job misinterpreting again old boat.


Well here is the thing: Earth's bow shock is due to us having a magnetic field. This bow shock then interacts with the solar wind to "deflect" the solar wind around Earth, essentially protecting us.
67P has no magnetic field, but does have a bow shock. What is the bow shock due to? Well, it is due to sublimation of ice on the comet's surface by the sun. This water in the coma then gets ionized, which then interacts with the solar wind to create a bow shock.

cont...
691Boat
5 / 5 (6) Jun 01, 2018
You (CD85) claim this interaction with the bow shock of comets allows electrochemistry to occur, which you claim produces water. You also claim 67P is a rock. So, if it is not icy, no sublimation occurs. With no sublimation or melting of ice, no ionized water vapor occurs in the comet's coma. No vapor in coma means no ionized water vapor. No ionized water vapor means no bow shock.
AND, since there is no magnetic field, the only other known way to create a bow shock isn't possible.
This is why your argument is pointless. You are essentially claiming the previously non-existing bow shock is interacting with the solar wind to allow electrochemistry to happen on the comet which would liberate water vapor to produce a coma to produce the bow shock.
See the problem with your logic? No strawman needed.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2018
67P has no magnetic field, but does have a bow shock. What is the bow shock due to? Well, it is due to sublimation of ice on the comet's surface by the sun.

You're assuming there is a different reason for the two nearly identical processes, there is no good reason for your assumption. Plasmas naturally form barriers to protect themselves from the environment in which they are immersed. Hence the double layers and "shocks", as such your claims are unfounded.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2018
You (CD85) claim this interaction with the bow shock of comets allows electrochemistry to occur

No, not exactly. jonesdumb claims the SW travels at 400km/s so electrochemistry is impossible woo. The above article shows his assessment is false as the bow shock can slow the SW ions.
You also claim 67P is a rock. So, if it is not icy, no sublimation occurs. With no sublimation or melting of ice, no ionized water vapor occurs in the comet's coma.

That is a false/incorrect claim. The rock has plenty of oxygen available to release from the cathode erosion that occurs, just mix with SW H ions and a little electrochemistry and voila, H2O. Add some cold and you get ice. No dirty snowball pseudoscience needed.

As such, your argument is pointless and based on willful ignorance.
691Boat
5 / 5 (7) Jun 01, 2018
@CD85:
Here is how your magic works:
magic rock with really Oxygen rich rocks flying around space. Solar Wind plasma sees little rock, wants to protect itself from said rock by naturally forming a double layer, so that it has, as you said, "protected itself from the environment in which it is immersed." Now that it made a double layer to protect itself from interaction with the rock, it can safely interact with the rock by shooting lightning bolts at it to liberate Oxygen, and only Oxygen, from the rock. Now that there is free Oxygen floating around this rock, which is protected from interaction with the Solar Wind via the double layer, the Free H ions in the non-interacting solar wind can electrically combine with the free Oxygen. This produces water vapor, and since it is cold out there in space, it makes ice. This then creates the bow shock with the double layer (which is meant to prevent interaction between the Solar Wind and the rock). Very good logic.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 01, 2018
67P has no magnetic field, but does have a bow shock. What is the bow shock due to? Well, it is due to sublimation of ice on the comet's surface by the sun.

You're assuming there is a different reason for the two nearly identical processes, there is no good reason for your assumption. Plasmas naturally form barriers to protect themselves from the environment in which they are immersed. Hence the double layers and "shocks", as such your claims are unfounded.


Wrong. Why don't asteroids have bow shocks? Dummy, we have flown through them. It is down to H2O. Read the science instead of making crap up.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Jun 01, 2018
Very good logic

You have officially earned the Grand Master of the Strawman Society. When I have a minute I will show the error of your reason. Needless to say, you aren't even close and your willful ignorance is shining brightly.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 01, 2018
No, not exactly. jonesdumb claims the SW travels at 400km/s so electrochemistry is impossible woo. The above article shows his assessment is false as the bow shock can slow the SW ions.


Yes, it does, until it is slowed down by the H2O. Where are you getting H2O from, loony tunes? Where is your H+? How much do you need to make 1 litre per second? 1000 l/s? Idiot. Do the maths. Where is your O-? Do you think H and O are just going to combine? Electrochemistry! Lol.

'Cathode erosion'? WTF is that, woo boy? Where has it been seen? Or even described under the conditions at a comet? Pure woo, straight out of the scientifically illiterate mind of the idiot Thornhill.

jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 01, 2018
Very good logic

You have officially earned the Grand Master of the Strawman Society. When I have a minute I will show the error of your reason. Needless to say, you aren't even close and your willful ignorance is shining brightly.


No, you won't. You're clueless. Where is your double layer? Where is your O-? Where is your rock? Why is this not happening to asteroids on similar orbits to comets? It is pure woo, and could only have been dreamed up by cretins who believe Earth used to orbit Saturn! Among other woo. Why do you think nobody takes you seriously? Why do you think we just laugh at your nonsense?
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 01, 2018
And I'll repeat for the mentally challenged: the solar wind is getting nowhere near the comet when H2O production is at its highest. So, I'll ask again - how is this ludicrous 'electrochemistry' woo happening? No H+ and no O-. Idiots.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 01, 2018
.....just mix with SW H ions and a little electrochemistry and voila, H2O. Add some cold and you get ice.


This could only have been written by somebody who is completely ignorant of science, not to mention comets.

jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 01, 2018
Very good logic.


Haha. I don't think the people who made this crap up actually believe it themselves. They just need a percentage of scientifically challenged followers to buy into it. And buy books. And DVDs. And conference tickets. No scientist , or even reasonably scientifically literate layman, would be conned by such nonsense.
691Boat
5 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2018
Very good logic.


Haha. I don't think the people who made this crap up actually believe it themselves. They just need a percentage of scientifically challenged followers to buy into it. And buy books. And DVDs. And conference tickets. No scientist , or even reasonably scientifically literate layman, would be conned by such nonsense.


Science is super easy when you skip the initial requirements and boundary conditions. It is analogous to high school physics: "Assuming 2D geometry in a perfect vacuum where any resistance can be ignored..." CD85 never realized that there is no such thing as a 2D world in a perfect vacuum.
But I do find it amusing how my summary of his explanation is always a strawman, even though I am using his words.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 01, 2018
But I do find it amusing how my summary of his explanation is always a strawman, even though I am using his words.


Well, Thornhill's words, really, but I don't think CD has any more of a grasp of the relevant science than Thornhill. It's the blind leading the stupid.

There is an interesting paper (preprint, actually) describing very nicely the interaction and exclulsion of the solar wind from the vicinity of the comet here:

https://arxiv.org...6159.pdf

Lest we forget, this is all based on observations by a spacecraft full of various instruments, that spent two years around the comet. And failed to see any of the woo predicted by the EUists. As also has been the case at every other comet we've visited.

jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 01, 2018
Just for those interested, the cometopause (the region where the solar wind disappears) at Halley, was around 60 000 km. We've known that since 1986. At Borrelly, which had a similar outgassing rate to 67P, it was a minimum of ~ 9 000 km.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2018
magic rock with really Oxygen rich rocks flying around space

According to NASA, contrary to jonesdumb's beliefs;
"Comets are composed of rock, dust, ice and frozen gases"
Those rocks are silicates, and silicates are;
"a silicate is any member of a family of anions consisting of silicon and oxygen,"
There is no magic, just willful ignorance on your part.
Solar Wind plasma sees little rock, wants to protect itself from said rock by naturally forming a double layer, so that it has, as you said, "protected itself from the environment in which it is immersed."

I didn't say it, Langmuir did 90-years ago and won a Nobal for his work. And here is a plasma physicist that says exactly that;
https://phys.org/...sma.html
"In effect, the object insulates itself from all these electrons in the plasma that carry energy and heat and could cause the probe to melt,"
Although, as usual, you got it backwards.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2018
to liberate Oxygen, and only Oxygen, from the rockNow that there is free Oxygen floating around this rock, which is protected from interaction with the Solar Wind via the double layer, the Free H ions in the non-interacting solar wind can electrically combine with the free Oxygen.

Grand Master Strawman strikes again!
This produces water vapor, and since it is cold out there in space, it makes ice.

Hydrogen and oxygen combine to make water, and when cold, freezes into ice. You didn't know this?
This then creates the bow shock

Your combining your own beliefs with your own misrepresentations of what you think my beliefs are to arrive at a completely erroneous conclusion. You're backwards again, and displaying those Grand Master Strawman traits with prideful glee.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2018
Just for those interested, the cometopause (the region where the solar wind disappears) at Halley, was around 60 000 km. We've known that since 1986. At Borrelly, which had a similar outgassing rate to 67P, it was a minimum of ~ 9 000 km.

LOL, jonesdumb doesn't get it that this is the comet protecting itself from the surrounding plasma of the SW. That doesn't mean some of that plasma doesn't react the surface of the comet. Even this article indicates SW ions reach the nucleus of the comet;
"while the region closest to the nucleus was much quieter. The ions in this region had such low energies that they were only observed by IES thanks to a negative electric charge on the spacecraft drawing them into the instrument."
https://rosetta.j...d-comets
Basically Rosetta didn't have the resolution to detect the ions so to claim they absolutely are not there is quite disingenuous.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2018
magic rock with really Oxygen rich rocks flying around space

According to NASA, contrary to jonesdumb's beliefs;
"Comets are composed of rock, dust, ice and frozen gases"
Those rocks are silicates, and silicates are;
"a silicate is any member of a family of anions consisting of silicon and oxygen,"
There is no magic, just willful ignorance on your part.
Solar Wind plasma sees little rock, wants to protect itself from said rock by naturally forming a double layer, so that it has, as you said, "protected itself from the environment in which it is immersed."

I didn't say it, Langmuir did 90-years ago and won a Nobal for his work. And here is a plasma physicist that says exactly that;
"In effect, the object insulates itself from all these electrons in the plasma that carry energy and heat and could cause the probe to melt,"
.


Wrong. There is no rock. And no double layer. As (not) seen.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 02, 2018
Basically Rosetta didn't have the resolution to detect the ions so to claim they absolutely are not there is quite disingenuous.


Jesus, what an idiot. How are you combining hydrogen and oxygen to get water, you idiot? You need O- (and that only gets you OH). There is none. As measured. Christ you people are stupid. The solar wind was getting nowhere near the comet. End of story. Even if it were, it is many of orders of magnitude too diffuse to have enough H+ to account for even 1 litre of water/s. That is if you had any O- to combine with. You haven't. It is a fairy tale, invented by the idiot Thornhill, who is scientifically illiterate. Do the maths.
And yes, it does have enough resolution to see the ions, and the ions are going in the wrong frigging direction to be SW ions. Loon. Learn some science.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 02, 2018
Your combining your own beliefs with your own misrepresentations of what you think my beliefs are to arrive at a completely erroneous conclusion. You're backwards again, and displaying those Grand Master Strawman traits with prideful glee.


No, he is completely correct, and you are thick. Why would the comet 'protect' itself, idiot? Is it 'protecting' itself at 4.0 AU, thicko? No, it isn't. Does an asteroid 'protect' itself? No, it doesn't, dummy. Why not, loony tunes? Come on, internetz points are up for grabs here! Because there is not enough outgassing from the comet at that distance, and none from the bloody asteroid, to hold off the solar wind. Or is the SW intelligent? It knows when a comet is approaching, but not an asteroid, and goes into survival mode by avoiding it? Sorry, but this is just more of the scientifically illiterate crap we have come to expect from the EU woo brigade. Stick to misinterpreting mythology, because real science is beyond you.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2018
Even this article indicates SW ions reach the nucleus of the comet;
"while the region closest to the nucleus was much quieter. The ions in this region had such low energies that they were only observed by IES thanks to a negative electric charge on the spacecraft drawing them into the instrument."
https://rosetta.j...d-comets


See, this is another example of EU lies, obfuscation or inability to understand. Link to a press release, and ignore the papers. A reasonably cursory search would have shown that these low energy ions are water ions, newly formed, at a time when the solar wind was still reaching the comet. They are from a totally different direction than the SW H+ and He++. They are detected by the RPC-ICA instrument .

A free version of the paper is here:
https://spiral.im...d_CC.pdf

That doesn't include the figures. The relevant one is here:
http://www.imageb...83680004
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2018
There is no rock. And no double layer.

Well you should call NASA and set the cranks straight, because they claim comets are mostly rock and acknowledge that dead comets are now asteroids. You are standing alone in your claims, even Rosetta scientists have moved beyond your willful ignorance.

'Solar wind sputtering of dust on the surface of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko'
https://www.aanda...-15.html

Electric discharge sputtering of the surface, the evidence revealed in the cathode jets (as observed).

How are you combining hydrogen and oxygen to get water

LOL, H2O...Two hydrogen and one oxygen and a little energy jonesdumb
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2018
^^^^Jesus, what an idiot. There is no rock. End of story. Dust and ice. That is it. And the sputtering is mechanical, you loon, as has been pointed out to you countless times. You are just too thick to understand it. No Rosetta scientist has seen rock. Ever.
And it gets worse. H+ at 400 km/s is combining with non-existent O- to form what, loony tunes? Nothing is the answer in the real world, but perhaps you could explain your scientifically illiterate belief of what is happening. And all this while the H+ is getting nowhere near the comet. Brilliant. Maybe EU loons buy that crap, but nobody educated would.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2018
Why would the comet 'protect' itself,

Because it is an object of different potential immersed in plasma, it's as simple as that. Just as the plasma physicists from this article indicate;
https://phys.org/...sma.html
Plasma is plasma, the physics of which are relevant on Earth and in space.
Does an asteroid 'protect' itself?

Yes, when the charge differential is adequate, as shown above.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2018
he evidence revealed in the cathode jets (as observed).{/q}

Hahahahahaha. What 'cathode jets' you idiot? And when were they observed? Lol. What a bunch of cretins your little cult attracts. Tell me - what is the minimum level of scientific illiteracy required before you are allowed to join Thornhill's merry little Velikovskian cult?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2018
H+ at 400 km/s is combining with non-existent O-

jonesdumb ignores the article we are posting on which explains the mechanism to slow the solar wind. Willful ignorance and ad hominem attacks is all he has.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2018
Why would the comet 'protect' itself,

Because it is an object of different potential immersed in plasma, it's as simple as that. Just as the plasma physicists from this article indicate;
https://phys.org/...sma.html
Plasma is plasma, the physics of which are relevant on Earth and in space.
Does an asteroid 'protect' itself?

Yes, when the charge differential is adequate, as shown above.


Wrong loon. The article is nothing to do with comets and is irrelevant to them. There is no potential. Where is it measured? When does it arise? It isn't there at 3.6 AU is it? Because the solar wind is still reaching the comet. So it has no potential then, does it? Why does the SW need to be mass loaded by H2O before it disappears (as observed)? What is so different between asteroids and comets on similar orbits?
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2018
H+ at 400 km/s is combining with non-existent O-

jonesdumb ignores the article we are posting on which explains the mechanism to slow the solar wind. Willful ignorance and ad hominem attacks is all he has.


And the solar wind is getting nowhere near the comet, dumbass. So where is your H+ coming from? And where is your non-observed O- coming from? Do the maths. 0 + 0 = 0, thicko. Even if every H+ were reaching the comet, and found some non-existent O-, there are many, many orders of magnitude too few of them just to get 1 litre of water. How thick do you need to be to believe crap like this, when a two year mission has blown your stupid, unscientific nonsense out of the water? Just like every other comet mission? Talk about faith.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2018
Here is Thornhill and cantthink's 'scientific' scenario: H+, belting along at 400 km/s, bumps into O- (which isn't there), to form OH. What then? Well it needs to gain an electron to become OH-, and then bump into another H+ to form water. Having done that, it needs to multiply itself by at least 10 orders of magnitude, head to the comet surface, turn into ice at temperatures far too high to allow ice to form, and then sublimate to head back out again. Brilliant.
Want to slow the H+ down? Somehow becomes undetectable, fights its way through a far denser coma of outgoing neutrals and ions, and waltzes through a piled up magnetic field without deflection, to perform the same miracle as above. Fantastic. All because an idiot thinks comets were blasted off of planets by interplanetary lightning bolts, and still needs to sell books and DVDs.

And they all lived happily ever after. Lol.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2018
Somehow becomes undetectable,

As mentioned in the linked article, Rosetta was unable to measure ions below 1000eV. Except in the event of lucky proximity.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2018
Somehow becomes undetectable,

As mentioned in the linked article, Rosetta was unable to measure ions below 1000eV. Except in the event of lucky proximity.


Wrong, it says nothing of the sort. Try familiarising yourself with the instruments, dumbo. There were 5 in the RPC suite.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2018
Here is the RPC-ICA instrument;

The ion composition analyzer, part of the Rosetta Plasma Consortium (RPC‐ICA), is an ion spectrometer aimed to study the interaction between the solar wind and positive cometary ions at comet 67P/CG [Nilsson et al., 2007]. The instrument resolves energy and mass per charge of the incoming ions. The energy spans from 10 eV up to 40 keV


https://agupubs.o...GL067436

See, that didn't take long, did it? And not a press release in sight.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2018
^^^^^^And you still have a minor problem of multiplying these H+ by at least 10 orders of magnitude, and then finding a similar number of O- ions for them to join in harmony. And then they need to turn into ice, and burrow beneath the surface. Yep, likely story.
Steelwolf
1 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2018
JD, Solar wind goes clear out to the Heliopause, which goes well beyond the orbit of Pluto, so YES, there IS a Solar Wind way the heck out there, as our Voyager Probes have shown. So your little strawmen of your lack of hard data and trying to just shoot people down, has become so bad that around 80% of people here have you on Ignore. I only opened your messages to see what BS you are trying to push this time, and by golly, the first one was a real whopper and Really Easy to disprove. 67P is still within the solar wind.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2018
^^^^^^Another idiot. I didn't say it wasn't within the solar wind, you loon. I said the solar wind is not reaching the comet surface, or anywhere close to it, when activity is highest. As observed. Read the papers.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2018
For latecomers who are obviously incapable of understanding basic Engliish, not to mention science, here, again, is what I am saying:

The birth and growth of a solar wind cavity around a comet – Rosetta observations
Behar, E. et al
https://academic..../4036875
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2018
Wrong, it says nothing of the sort.


"The ions in this region had such low energies that they were only observed by IES thanks to a negative electric charge on the spacecraft drawing them into the instrument."

LOL, Rosetta had an electric potential difference, but somehow the comet did not.

H+, belting along at 400 km/s...

Then jonesdumb posts a paper which acknowledges what I previously said;
"The slowing down and heating of the solar wind can be followed and understood in terms of single particle motion."
As observed, the SW is slowed down which allows for the electrochemistry.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2018
"The ions in this region had such low energies that they were only observed by IES thanks to a negative electric charge on the spacecraft drawing them into the instrument.


Oh jeez, the stupid here is painful. That is the IES instrument. I posted a link to the ICA instrument, and its capabilities. 10ev - 40 KeV. Too difficult for you to understand?

LOL, Rosetta had an electric potential difference, but somehow the comet did not.


Why would it? The only things that will charge the comet are due to the solar wind and sunlight. Same as an asteroid. Same as the Moon. Etc.

As observed, the SW is slowed down which allows for the electrochemistry.


Electrochemistry. Lol. The observation is that the solar wind is not getting within 1500 km of the comet around perihelion. Where is the water being observed? Which way is it going? You don't have enough H+. You have no O-. You have no scientifically viable mechanism for accomplishing this woo.

jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2018
As observed, the SW is slowed down which allows for the electrochemistry.


And the thicko doesn't even read as far as Fig. 1. What speed is it slowed down to, before it completely disappears, woo boy? About 150 km/s, as far as I can see. Hardly walking pace, is it?
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2018
I would recommend the aforementioned paper for any of the EU dolts, who are well known for their inability to understand astro/ plasma physics. Take a look, as suggested, at Fig. 1. What are the measured velocities? Think H+ is combining with anything at those speeds? Wrong. Take a look at the deflection angles for the alphas. Have a look at Fig. 3. See how the SW is not only not reaching the comet, but is being sent back the other way? None of this is guesswork. It is based on actual observation and measurement. As opposed to Velikovskian woo dreamed up by idiots like Thornhill. Read the paper; I recommend it. I doubt it'll cure your scientific illiteracy, but you never know :)

The birth and growth of a solar wind cavity around a comet – Rosetta observations
Behar, E. et al.
https://academic..../4036875 (real science)
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2018
Amusingly, the first sentence of the paper agrees with what I have been saying, the quasi-neutral condition is misleading;
"Different collisionless plasma regions do not mix easily. When two plasma components meet, structures form, such as collisionless shocks and cavities in stellar and interstellar winds"
In other words, double layers/sheaths and cells. And that is the same explanation I gave a while back as to how collisionless plasmas behave to which jonesdumb seemed to then think I was incorrect. LOL!
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2018
There are a few other bullet points to the paper that should give jonesdumb paused, but alas...

From the paper;
"One thing is important to stress concerning these distributions...they are not meant to be representative of the complete solar wind dynamics and its details. In other words they don't give the whole story"

Yet, to jonesdumb, it's the whole story and nothing else. LOL!

They go on;
"But as soon as the distribution functions become much larger and more complex, one simply cannot say whether or not the solar wind signal is completely in the instrument field of view. In that sense, RPC-ICA together with Rosetta is not the ideal system for the observation of the solar wind at higher mass loading, and this limitation is for now not possible to overcome."

Not possible to overcome, except for jonesdumb jumping to conclusions and not understanding the limitations of the instruments.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2018
From the conclusion of the paper;
"As the nucleus gets closer to the Sun, the two plasma components – the solar wind and the ionized coma – tend to separate themselves.
Just as one would expect with two different plasma regions. The coma and the series of layers therein act as double layers separating the nucleus from the SW as the potential difference increases upon the approach to the Sun. The reason this happens is the comet spends much more time far away from the Sun and is why comets behave more like asteroids at these distances.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2018

Just as one would expect with two different plasma regions. The coma and the series of layers therein act as double layers separating the nucleus from the SW as the potential difference increases upon the approach to the Sun. The reason this happens is the comet spends much more time far away from the Sun and is why comets behave more like asteroids at these distances.


Yep, Dummy. Can't figure it out, can you? Idiot. Your problem, woo boy, along with the iidiot Thornhill, is that you have no understanding of plasma physics. Do you, dears? Come on, stop trying to kid people - nobody believes your crap, so what is the point?
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2018
From the conclusion of the paper;
"As the nucleus gets closer to the Sun, the two plasma components – the solar wind and the ionized coma – tend to separate themselves.
Just as one would expect with two different plasma regions. The coma and the series of layers therein act as double layers separating the nucleus from the SW as the potential difference increases upon the approach to the Sun. The reason this happens is the comet spends much more time far away from the Sun and is why comets behave more like asteroids at these distances.


Jeez, what a f***wit! How thick does one need to be to believe crap like Cantthink believes? Very, would be my answer.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2018

Just as one would expect with two different plasma regions. The coma and the series of layers therein act as double layers separating the nucleus from the SW as the potential difference increases upon the approach to the Sun. The reason this happens is the comet spends much more time far away from the Sun and is why comets behave more like asteroids at these distances


Lol. What a wan*er. Did the idiot Thornhill tell you that, little boy? W***er
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2018
From the conclusion of the paper;
"As the nucleus gets closer to the Sun, the two plasma components – the solar wind and the ionized coma – tend to separate themselves.
Just as one would expect with two different plasma regions. The coma and the series of layers therein act as double layers separating the nucleus from the SW as the potential difference increases upon the approach to the Sun. The reason this happens is the comet spends much more time far away from the Sun and is why comets behave more like asteroids at these distances.


Jeez, what a cretin. Which double layer would this be, dear? Lol. Did you get past primary school maths? Unlikely. Christ you people are thick.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2018
From the conclusion of the paper;
"As the nucleus gets closer to the Sun, the two plasma components – the solar wind and the ionized coma – tend to separate themselves.
Just as one would expect with two different plasma regions. The coma and the series of layers therein act as double layers separating the nucleus from the SW as the potential difference increases upon the approach to the Sun. The reason this happens is the comet spends much more time far away from the Sun and is why comets behave more like asteroids at these distances.


Jeez, what a f***wit. Sorry, eejit, but the evidence says you are wrong. Lol. Want me to get that in writing, woo boy?
Back up your crap, woo child. Let's see some science. Lol.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2018
Hey Wal, are you reading? Help this cretin out. He is out of his depth. Come to his rescue, you old fraud. On it woo boy.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2018
From the conclusion of the paper;...


The conclusion of the paper, shit for brains, is that the solar wind is getting nowhere near the comet. Loon. How thick do you need to be to not be able to figure that out? Thick enough to believe in EU woo, it seems. What is your IQ, dumbo? Less than 70 is my guess. Thornhill? 75 tops.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2018
Just as one would expect with two different plasma regions. The coma and the series of layers therein act as double layers separating the nucleus from the SW as the potential difference increases upon the approach to the Sun.


Oh dear. Did you have to email the cretin Thornhill to be able to post that sh**e? He is thick enough for a couple of continents, that tosser, isn't he? Lol. You hang out with some burkes, cantthink. Thornhill is a cretin. Did I mention that? Hasn't got the IQ of a dead wombat. Or maybe he has! Either way, he is thick as pigsh*t. Yes? Deary me.

jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2018
Let us ask the terminally thick loons of EU; how many molecules in a litre of water? Come on, thickos. Give us an answer. Too dumb to figure it out. Sad.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jun 03, 2018
Nice, nine consecutive posts of name calling, childish commentary, and ad hominem attacks after I point out the errors of jonesdumb's ways. It's quite pathetic and it's obvious jonesdumb sees the writing on the wall, his life's work is nothing more than pseudoscientific claptrap. The dirty snowball is as dead as dark matter.
The funniest thing is jonesdumb keeps posting these papers with the belief it somehow disparages the electric comet model, it doesn't. His willful ignorance of the proposed phenomena blinds his ability to make rational decisions. It's a sad state of affairs.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jun 03, 2018
None of this is guesswork. It is based on actual observation and measurement.

jonesdumb apparently doesn't realize that "actual observation and measurement" still requires interpretation. If the basis of said interpretation is faulty, so too will be the conclusions, as they are by the plasma ignoramuses.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Jun 03, 2018
Nice, nine consecutive posts of name calling, childish commentary, and ad hominem attacks after I point out the errors of jonesdumb's ways. It's quite pathetic and it's obvious jonesdumb sees the writing on the wall, his life's work is nothing more than pseudoscientific claptrap. The dirty snowball is as dead as dark matter.
The funniest thing is jonesdumb keeps posting these papers with the belief it somehow disparages the electric comet model, it doesn't. His willful ignorance of the proposed phenomena blinds his ability to make rational decisions. It's a sad state of affairs.


Hey thicko, where is your evidence? You know, that would have been seen by numerous spacecraft visiting these objects? No DLs, woo boy. No EDM (lol). No impossible turning of non-existent ions into water. Your whole belief system is based on the uneducated Velikovskian fantasies of an idiot called Thornhill. Zero science. That is called faith, woo boy. It is what your cult is built on.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2018
None of this is guesswork. It is based on actual observation and measurement.

jonesdumb apparently doesn't realize that "actual observation and measurement" still requires interpretation. If the basis of said interpretation is faulty, so too will be the conclusions, as they are by the plasma ignoramuses.


Really? And who is the plasma genius who has decided that they are wrong? Please link us to this genius, and his qualifications. No, woo boy, the only person who thinks this is wrong is the idiot Thornhill. And he is most certainly not qualified in anything to do with plasma or astrophysics. He is a Velikovskian nutjob. Along with the other nutjob, Talbott. These dummies think Earth used to orbit Saturn! Now, there is the definition of ignoramus! Thick, the lot of you. Bloody clueless.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2018
jonesdumb apparently doesn't realize that "actual observation and measurement" still requires interpretation.


So, thicko, didn't read the paper, eh? Or, more likely, didn't understand it. The observation and measurement, is that the solar wind is turned around by about 160 degrees before it disappears altogether. It is still doing at least 150 km/s. In the wrong direction. And then it's gone.
At which stage it goes into stealth mode, multiplies itself by at least 10 orders of magnitude, turns around, fails to get accelerated around the piled up magnetic field, locates an equally huge number of O- ions, also in stealth mode, and makes OH. Still in stealth mode. Which then becomes OH-, and finds more invisible H+ and forms water! Yep, what's not to believe! This from the plasma geniuses of EU! Tells you everything you need to know about the loons who dreamed this up, and the equally stupid nutjobs that believe it.
Lol, you really are thick.

jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2018
So, let us summarise this electric comet woo, based on the seminal work (unpublished) by the woo merchants Thornhill & Talbott, which apparently CD is too embarrassed to link to:
http://www.thunde...omet.pdf

Well, the idiots tell us that "They are simply asteroids on eccentric orbits." Lol. So, what about this particular list of asteroids on elliptical orbits which don't behave as comets?
https://physics.u...wtj.html

Pretty much kills that lunacy stone dead, straight away.

I've already mentioned the impossibility of their water making mechanism. However, we are told, "what they actually see is the hydroxyl radical (OH), which they assume to be a residue of water (H2O)."
Which completely goes against the findings from the 20 years previous to this work of fiction, where they most definitely had seen H2O, starting with the KAO observation of Halley in 1985. So, that is just a lie to con the gullible.

(cont.......)
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2018
(..........cont)
So, how are they getting this OH (not water)?
" In the electric model, negative oxygen ions are accelerated away from the comet in energetic jets, then combine preferentially with protons from the solar wind to form the observed OH radical ..."

Except that there is no O-. Or, if there is, it is in vanishingly small amounts. And it is not seen in the jets. As per Hartley 2, for example, where the jets were of CO2, with dust and ice entrained. So, that is more crap from these geniuses.
And, of course, their whole premise is built on the belief that comets are just rocks left over from the aftermath of Velikovskian interplanetary lightning bolts excavating bits of Earth or Mars. Problem is, there is no rock. Comets do not have the density of rock. The thermal inertia isn't that of rock. Sending a radio signal through the comet sees no rock. Smashing an impactor into a comet sees no rock. It does see ice, though. Not looking good this, is it?
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2018
................What more can these geniuses tell us?

"A comet on an elongated orbit spends most of its time far from the Sun and acquires a charge in balance with the voltage at that distance. But when a comet speeds inward for a quick spin around the Sun, the voltage of the comet becomes increasingly out of balance with that nearer the Sun— a situation leading to high-energy discharge."

Errrr, what voltage? Lol. And these high energy discharges can't be very high, because they are conspicuous by their absence in the instrumentation that would detect them. So, more unscientific crap. Followed by:

"Most of the voltage difference between the comet and the solar plasma is taken up in a double layer of charge, called a plasma sheath, that surrounds the comet."

Ummm, no, it doesn't. Rosetta has been from 0 - 1500 km from the nucleus. Not a double layer in sight.
People may now be starting to realise why CD was too embarrassed to link to this garbage.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 03, 2018
..............And:
"When the electrical stress is great enough, the sheath glows and appears as the typical cometary coma and tail. Diffuse electrical discharges occur in the sheath and at the nucleus, radiating a variety of frequencies, including x-rays. "

Oh, dear! It's hard not to laugh. Nothing is glowing, woosters, that is sunlight reflecting off dust! And, again, no electrical discharges either on the nucleus or in the coma. We might have noticed that! And the X-rays are from charge exchange between solar wind ions and cometary neutrals. The line emission even tells us what species are involved. So, O 6+ grabs an electron from a neutral and becomes O 5+, and relaxes to produce an X-ray at a specific frequency. No woo involved. The level of ignorance in this stuff is frightening.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2018
Heck, this stuff is a goldmine of unscientific woo! Quite how anyone can believe it is beyond me. So, what are the jets? Not gas and dust and ice, as observed, but........................

"The observed jets of comets are electric arc discharges to the nucleus, producing "electrical discharge machining" (EDM) of the surface. The excavated material is accelerated into space along the jets' observed filamentary arcs."

Oh, lordy! EDM! On a frigging comet! These guys must have been doing drugs when they wrote this crap! So, I guess it must be very cold, electromagnetically invisible and undetectable EDM! These people are off their heads.

"Intermittent and wandering arcs erode the surface and burn it black, leaving the distinctive scarring patterns of electric discharges."

Very intermittent. Never been seen! I'm beginning to think that these guys are not only scientifically illiterate, but that they may also be a few cans short of a six pack!
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2018
More woo.......

"The primary distinction between comet and asteroid surfaces is that electrical arcing and "electrostatic cleaning" of the comet nucleus will leave little or no dust or debris on the surface during the active phase...."

Wrong. Dust everywhere, active phase or otherwise.

And a bunch of lies, obfuscation and cherry-picking about the Tempel 1 findings. The biggest finding was that the impact produced a crater that was far too big to have been created in rock. And that it excavated tonnes of solid ice, as well as dust and water vapour. Which all killed this nonsense dead back then. And some lies about his failed prediction of an advanced electrical flash from the impactor. A two or three part plume was predicted by Pete Schultz prior to the mission. In the literature. No electrical woo was seen in x-ray by either SWIFT or Chandra at or before the moment of impact. More lying, I'm afraid.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2018
So, if you ever hear an EUist claiming that the electric comet nonsense is built on sound science, you will know that they are lying. No real scientist believes any of that rubbish. Alfven, one of their heroes, certainly didn't. The whole unscientific bag of poop is based on nothing more than two unqualified woo merchants' desire to believe in a bunch of physics defying Velikovskian crap, about Venus doing handbrake turns around the solar system, having been ejected from Jupiter. This then led (in their warped imaginations) to close passes with Earth and Mars, when giant lightning bolts blew off mountain sized pieces of these planets. These are their comets! That is the 'science' behind it!
As with everything EU, it all comes back to the loon Velikovsky. And anyone that takes that seriously needs committing.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2018
Of course, apart from the EU water creation mechanism being complete woo, it is easily testable. We know the D/H ratio of the H2O from 67P, as well as a number of other comets. We also have a pretty good idea of the D/H ratio in the solar wind. Were the water coming from solar wind H+, then we would expect to see a solar D/H ratio in cometary water. Do we see this? Not even close! 67P is ~ 5 x 10^-4. The solar wind value is somewhere around 2 x 10^-7.

67P: https://hal.archi...document
Solar: https://www.lpi.u...1709.pdf

The 67P value is also higher than the Earth's D/H ratio. So it didn't come from there, either. Nor Mars.
rrwillsj
1 / 5 (2) Jun 03, 2018
I am disappointed in you pundits going so far off the subject discussing this article. Which is bout the Earth's bow-wave and the protection it provides us squishies down here on the surface.

I guess none of you are comfortable with gainsaying the fictional entertainment you rely upon for your cherished beliefs of what living in space will be like?

So, just to piss you all off with a hefty dose of reality. In my opinion, the deflected Solar radiation will eventually be attracted back to Earth orbit. There to be absorbed into the Van Allen Belts.

The exhaust from maneuvering objects in LEO inside the VAB protection? Some will go Earthward. The owners of the satellites below your orbit will not thank you for fogging up their windshields.

Most will expand across the Earth's atmosphere. You can bet your britches, someone is going to bitch about you contaminating their air supply!

The VAB should gather the rest producing a very colorful torus.

"Look! Into the Sky!"
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2018
It goes without saying that H2O ice is not the only frozen material on comets. All sorts of other ices are present. CO and CO2 are the biggest contributors after H2O. And there is also a fair bit of NH3. Interestingly, one can also look at the 14N/15N ratios of nitrogen in the solar wind, and at comets. Nobody will be surprised to hear that these values are considerably different. Earthly values are also quite different to both solar and cometary values.
https://hal.archi...document

So where did the comets get their ices? Well it isn't the solar wind, and it isn't Earth or Mars. Perhaps the wooists would like another throw of the dice? Might pay to actually do some research this time, though. And that doesn't mean cherry picking parts of press releases.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2018
I am disappointed in you pundits going so far off the subject discussing this article. Which is bout the Earth's bow-wave and the protection it provides us squishies down here on the surface.


The bow wave isn't providing protection, per se. That would be the magnetic field. The bow wave is a consequence of that.

jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2018
So, just to piss you all off with a hefty dose of reality. In my opinion, the deflected Solar radiation will eventually be attracted back to Earth orbit. There to be absorbed into the Van Allen Belts.


Nope. Most of it will just suffer a disturbance, and carry on its way. Much like a stream flowing around a boulder. Some is channelled down toward the surface at the poles. Hence the aurorae.

jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Jun 03, 2018
Well, looks like CD can't deal with regular science. Probably emailed the cretin Thornhill. He can't figure this stuff out either. Not surprisingly. Due to not being qualified. Come on, CD, or the cretin Thornhill, if he's reading; sort this out. Shouldn't be difficult for somebody with the intellect of a brain damaged badger. Eh? Come on chaps, let's have an answer, woo boys.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 03, 2018
Did anybody know that the alleged reason that the lunatic Thornhill didn't do a PhD, was due to people being biased against his idiotic Velikovskian woo? The real reason was that he was just too thick to complete it! The bloke is a joke. And I'm a poet, and didn't know it!
Do not take any notice of this total plank. He has the IQ of a ferret. That is probably being unfair to ferrets, though.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2018
Silence is golden.................................................
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 03, 2018
Come on woo boys, I'm getting bored! Come up with some other woo that will take all of 5 minutes to disprove. Have none of you actually done a science degree?
Bored, bored, bored,........Would anyone like a link to the idiot David Talbott's predictions for 67P? Easily done. It is on ISF. Didn't go well, to be fair!
Come on, EU loons, let's hear it.
(chickens).
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 03, 2018
Well, we can watch this thread, and others, where the idiot cantthink calls real plasma physicists "ignoramuses", but doesn't actually understand plasma physics himself! And quotes cretins like Thornhill as back up to his idiocy. Let us see who, if anyone, within the clueless cult of the lightning bolts, is actually qualified in plasma physics.
Nobody, would be the answer to that. As they well know. However, having the IQ of a brain damaged trilobite kind of lets them off. Which I am prepared to do. So, just stop talking crap about stuff you don't understand in places like this. OK?
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2018
OK. Maybe I was unfair. Let's give the EU loons 24 hours to figure out what an isotope is. :)
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Jun 03, 2018
I can see the idiot Thornhill, working away, thinking "WTF is a D/H ratio"? Oh dear! Guess I'll have to make some more crap up, just to keep the idiots onside. Lol.
Come on, CD, you can't possibly take that cretin seriously. Can you?
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2018
OK, I should probably explain here that the difference between the IQ of a badger and a ferret is not huge. Indeed, it is well within the bounds of your average EU believer. Not a lot in it.
Yep. Trilobites is probably lower. However........
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Jun 03, 2018
..........if the cap fits! Come on you lot! Do some science. There is acres of data out there, freely available to the general public. Any loon with a PC can download and analyse this data. Piece of cake. Why do idiots like Thornhill have to rely on cherry-picking quotes from press releases? Do some science, woo boys. Yes?
"Errr, no. We are too stupid to be able to figure out what to do with such data." Correct?

In which case, STFU. Yes?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2018
jonesdumb clearly doesn't understand that none of his objections preclude the electric comet. His utter ignorance of plasma physics prevents him from understanding this fact.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2018
jonesdumb clearly doesn't understand that none of his objections preclude the electric comet. His utter ignorance of plasma physics prevents him from understanding this fact.


Yes, it does preclude it dummy. And my knowledge of plasma physics is at least the equal of anyone involved in this electric comet woo. And there are people with degrees, who do that stuff for a living, that will also tell you that it is complete crap.
Perhaps you could be more specific about what is not excluded? The water making woo? Have you found an extra umpteen orders of magnitude of solar wind H+? Have you found the elusive equal amount of O-? Have you figured out how the D/H ratio is altered from the solar value? And how the N isotope values are neither Earthly nor solar? Have you come up with EDM (lol) that is invisible and undetectable? Have you found rock in the CONSERT or MIRO or MUPUS data? And wandering arc discharges (lol) that are also invisible and undetectable?
Pure woo. Debunked.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2018
Let's do what the wooists should have done years ago;
67P has a surface area, facing the sun, of ~ 10 km^2. Solar wind at 1 AU = 400km/s and 7 ions cm^3. Let's be generous, and call it 10 cm^3. So, 4 x 10^7 cm/s 10 = 4 x 10^8 ions cm^2/s. 10 km^2 = 1 x 10^11 cm^2. So, number of H+ ions hitting 67P (they weren't; solar wind cavity; diamagnetic cavity) = 10^19/s.
So, how many molecules in 1 litre of water? 3.3 x 10^25. How much H2O was 67P emitting at perihelion? 1000 l/s, = 3.3 x 10^28 molecules/s.
Well, that is a mere 3.3 x 10^9 H+ too few! And what is the H+ going to combine with? Beats me.

It had been known for definite since 1986 that the solar wind was not reaching the comet when it was active. It had also been seen prior to that in artificial comet experiments in the solar wind (AMPTE).
20 years after this, the idiots Thornhill and Talbott came up with their unscientific woo. Thick, or what?
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2018
So, how much water could the EUs impossible mechanism create, if we suspend belief in normal science for a minute or two? Well, a litre = 3.3 x 10^25 molecules. Under the EU scenario, only 10^19 H+ are hitting the comet per sec. Let's assume in this science fantasy, that every H+ goes in to forming 1 H2O molecule (actually, you need two, but what the heck, this is only fantasy). Well, a millilitre (1 cm^3) of water = 3.3 x 10^22 molecules. Still too high. So, let's try a cubic millimetre. That is 3.3 x 10^19 molecules. Getting close! So the EU woo gets us 1/3 rd of a cubic millimetre of water! Yippee. Actually, it doesn't as it is impossible woo, but whatever.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2018
jonesdumb clearly doesn't understand that none of his objections preclude the electric comet. His utter ignorance of plasma physics prevents him from understanding this fact.


OK, so what sort of plasma genius are you employing to describe how the comet only has a density of ~ 535 kg/m^3? And describes how the thermal inertia of the material isn't that of rock? Or causes radio waves to return a signal that is not indicative of rock? Or changes the D/H ratio of H in water? Or the N isotope ratio? Or causes ice to fly out of a comet when you smack it with a projectile? Or sit around watching it spewing out from CO2 jets? Or causes bright spots to return a spectroscopic signature of water? Or allows EDM (lol) to happen undetectably? And creates invisible double layers? Or unmeasurable voltages? Or causes the comet to be totally non-magnetic?
That'll do for now :)
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2018
And describes how the thermal inertia of the material isn't that of rock? Or causes radio waves to return a signal that is not indicative of rock?


"What we call mass would seem to be nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of electromagnetic origin." Henri Poincaré, Science and Method

If the electrical properties of the comet aren't acknowledged the the entire basis of the analysis is likely flawed.
jonesdave
1 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2018
And describes how the thermal inertia of the material isn't that of rock? Or causes radio waves to return a signal that is not indicative of rock?


"What we call mass would seem to be nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of electromagnetic origin." Henri Poincaré, Science and Method

If the electrical properties of the comet aren't acknowledged the the entire basis of the analysis is likely flawed.


Lol. No it isn't. It is either frigging rock or it isn't. There is no chance of rock showing a non rocky signature. Cut all this word salad crap and actually do some science, woo boy.
And what electrical properties are you on about? Show me from Philae, on the surface. Show me from the instruments on Rosetta monitoring the surface. There are no bloody electrical properties. The comet is non-magnetic.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2018
Another way to determine what is under the surface of a comet is to smash an impactor into, and see what size crater is created, and what material is ejected. That also tells us it isn't rock. And we can measure the gravity of the object, and determine its density. Which also tells us it isn't rock. Et boring cetera.
All you have woo boy, is a bunch of unscientific word salad, from the loon Thornhill. And not a single jot of evidence from any comet mission to back up this electrical crap. By anybody's standards, it is an abject failure, as 'hypotheses' go. Dump it, it's junk.
jonesdave
1 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2018
Awaiting......."Gravity is an EM effect"......in 3-2-1.......

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2018
see what size crater is created

Yep, barely a scratch and the excuse given when the impact site was observed later that "the material filled the crater to obscure it"... LOL, convenient isn't it.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2018
see what size crater is created

Yep, barely a scratch and the excuse given when the impact site was observed later that "the material filled the crater to obscure it"... LOL, convenient isn't it.


Errr, 50-180m is hardly a scratch. What size would it have been in solid rock, woo boy? About 7m is the answer to that. Lol. And rock tends not to turn into ice when hit by things. Fact.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2018
"Gravity is an EM effect"...


"What we call mass would seem to be nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of electromagnetic origin." Henri Poincaré, Science and Method
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2018
What's tremendously amusing is the mainstream's utter failure to predict the outcome of Deep Impact, failure of theory on just about every level. Thornhill was pretty much spot on on numerous predictions though.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2018
"Gravity is an EM effect"...


"What we call mass would seem to be nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of electromagnetic origin." Henri Poincaré, Science and Method


Errr, so what? He was wrong. And it was over a 100 years ago.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2018
What's tremendously amusing is the mainstream's utter failure to predict the outcome of Deep Impact, failure of theory on just about every level. Thornhill was pretty much spot on on numerous predictions though.


Nope, he got it badly wrong. His tabloidesque, maths-free crap was pretty much just that. And then he lied about a pre-impact electric woo flash. Don't have a lot of time for liars.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2018
What's tremendously amusing is the mainstream's utter failure to predict the outcome of Deep Impact, failure of theory on just about every level.


Wrong. On what paper are you basing that erroneous statement? Thornhill said it would be rock. He was wrong. He totally failed to predict the large amount of solid ice ejected. Or the water vapour. Seems to me that he couldn't have been more wrong if he tried.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2018
He nailed the pre-flash that has been largely ignored by mainstreamers, he predicted there would be a much smaller crater than expected (correctly), he nailed the prediction of much greater dust quantities than were expected. There were more too, no need for the crater to be magically filled up with the ejecta either. LOL!
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2018
He nailed the pre-flash that has been largely ignored by mainstreamers, he predicted there would be a much smaller crater than expected (correctly), he nailed the prediction of much greater dust quantities than were expected. There were more too, no need for the crater to be magically filled up with the ejecta either. LOL!


Wrong, wrong, wrong & wrong. There was no pre-impact flash. Evidence? Where on the EM spectrum did he say we would see it? Sorry, that is just an out and out lie, that is contradicted by evidence. Smaller crater than what? What size was NASA expecting? Given that they couldn't be sure of the surface they were encountering? What size did Thornhill predict? Sorry, another lie. It doesn't really matter what he said about dust - he failed to predict the solid ice and H2O vapour. And what is magical about craters filling with ejecta? Ever studied impact cratering? So, as I said, his predictions were crap.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2018
Here is what a scientific investigation of possible crater size and plume morphology looks like:

EXPECTATIONS FOR CRATER SIZE AND PHOTOMETRIC EVOLUTION FROM THE DEEP IMPACT COLLISION
Schultz. P. H. et al.
https://pds-small...ultz.pdf

Based on actual science and experiment. As opposed to scientifically illiterate guesswork, born of Velikovskian woo.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2018
In fact, if you look at Thornhill's tabloidesque 'predictions' you will find that it is complete nonsense, and is never backed up by reference to the scientific literature. It is slick enough to fool the scientifically illiterate, but not people who do understand the science, and have access to said literature. It is pure woo. I very much doubt he actually believes this crap himself. It's all about keeping the books, DVDs and conference tickets selling. By definition, the people who buy such things are extremely gullible and/or as scientifically illiterate as he is.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2018
So, what did the aforementioned loon, Thornhill, predict about his electrical flash woo? Guess I'll have to dig it out myself, as CD seems reluctant. Here we go:

Copious X-rays will accompany discharges to the projectile, exceeding any reasonable model for X-ray production through the mechanics of impact. The intensity curve will be that of a lightning bolt (sudden onset, exponential decline) and may well include more than one peak.


Is that what was seen by Chandra and SWIFT in x-ray? I'll let the interested reader take a guess at that! An informed guess, after browsing the following:

SWIFT X-RAY TELESCOPE OBSERVATIONS OF THE DEEP IMPACT COLLISION
Willingale, R. et al.
https://swift.gsf...2006.pdf

Chandra observations of Comet 9P/Tempel 1 during the Deep Impact campaign
Lisse, C. M. et al.
http://ftp.astro....2007.pdf

Short answer? No. Long answer? No.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2018
I guess I should attribute the quote from Thornhill in the previous:
https://www.thund...ions.htm
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2018
So, as previously hinted at, Thornhill is simply lying about his pre-impact flash woo. And why would anyone take seriously somebody who needs to lie to bolster his woo? So, we can now change his title from "scientifically illiterate woo merchant", to "lying, scientifically illiterate woo merchant."

Anyone disagree?
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2018
Unfortunately, a lot of this electric comet nonsense is based on lies and obfuscation. It is the hallmark of people who have no real interest in science, but merely in monetizing their woo. To read the idiotic 'electric comet' pdf Iinked further up, for example, one would think that Halley was as dry as a bone. The fact is, the Kuiper Airborne Observatory detected H2O, definitively, prior to the arrival of a fleet of spacecraft. One of the Vega probes definitively detected H2O in the coma. Giotto detected tonnes of water ions. The fact that these people need to lie and obfuscate should tell you all you need to know about them. Be warned.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2018
Just to emphasise the lies told by Thornhill, and his merry band of nutjobs, let us refer to the previously mentioned work of fiction, here:
http://www.thunde...omet.pdf

Total lies about what proper scientists are actually seeing when they look at comets. "It's only OH", claims the liar Thornhill. Wrong. They wrote that crap in 2006. We'd had 20 years of definitive detections of H2O at comets before that garbage was written. So, why lie? Because they want your money. If you are too thick to understand real science, and have a chip on your shoulder about it, then Wal and the other idiot, Dave, will happily take your money, and sell you a fairy tale.
As I said previously - be very, very, careful about getting involved with these crooks.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2018
*Sigh*

@jonesdave and @cantdrive85.

When you two can spare a minute from your mutual downward spiral into equal irrelevance (due to your mutually one-eyed crank-dom and childishness in lieu of polite objective discourse for the sake of science if not for your own respective reputations; which are going downhill fast on both 'sides'), please consider obvious questions then discuss the likely effects expected in that impact scenario:-

1) What is dust/pebble/etc 'escape velocity' for that comet?

2) What could have kept debris at that location to 'fall into' the crater rather than ejection altogether 'at speed' to space?

PS: @cantdrive85. Please stop 'baiting' @jonesdave with your equally one-eyed insistence that no water/other 'ice' state material is present on cometary bodies. You KNOW that such ices exist in many cryogenically cool bodies throughout our solar system (including 'moons' of various masses) if conditions favourable for accumulation of 'ices'. Be fair. :)
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2018
your equally one-eyed insistence that no water/other 'ice' state material is present on cometary bodies.

Never said that, as a matter of fact I have acknowledged how ice collects on the surface from water created in the coma. And it's possible there are some ices (water and otherwise) but as observation shows, it ain't even close to a dirty snowball.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2018
your equally one-eyed insistence that no water/other 'ice' state material is present on cometary bodies.

Never said that, as a matter of fact I have acknowledged how ice collects on the surface from water created in the coma. And it's possible there are some ices (water and otherwise) but as observation shows, it ain't even close to a dirty snowball.


Water isn't created in the coma. idiot. As explained. What is it created from? And how? Still awaiting an explanation plus evidence. You have neither.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2018
What could have kept debris at that location to 'fall into' the crater rather than ejection altogether 'at speed' to space?


Why not read any of the papers by Pete Schultz, probably the world's leading authority on impact cratering? And then you wouldn't have to ask, would you?
http://www.planet...4621.pdf
https://pds-small...ultz.pdf
http://www.planet...3547.pdf

jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2018
your equally one-eyed insistence that no water/other 'ice' state material is present on cometary bodies.

Never said that, as a matter of fact I have acknowledged how ice collects on the surface from water created in the coma. And it's possible there are some ices (water and otherwise) but as observation shows, it ain't even close to a dirty snowball.


Sorry, but that is totally laughable, and again points to the scientific illiteracy of the proponents of this con. You are trying to make water form non-existent materials, which then heads towards the comet, against the flow of everything leaving it at speed, and then settles on a surface of 350K, and becomes ice, which then sublimates and heads back out again!
Have a listen to yourself, woo boy. Do you really think that is going to convince anyone with a modicum of scientific literacy?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jun 05, 2018
The Deep Impact crater on 9P/Tempel-1 from Stardust-NExT
LOL!
First point, he acknowledges the initial flash. Contrary to jonesdumb's lies claiming it didn't happen;
"This scenario also predicted an initially faint impact flash followed by a delayed brightening, as was observed"

Then he goes on for 13 more pages convincing everyone to not believe their lyin' eyes regarding the obviously small crater, which he even acknowledges;
"Although SdN images did not reveal a large, deep crater, there
are four explanations. First, the crater was small due to unique properties of the surface of the nucleus. Second, the crater collapsed soon after formation due to the deep penetration by the DI probe. Third, localized mass wasting (e.g., localized venting and wall collapse) destroyed the final crater after 5.5 years. Fourth, the crater is a nested crater, i.e., a small central crater surrounded by a broad but shallow-rimmed excavated zone."

Trust me, not what you see.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jun 05, 2018
Have a listen to yourself

That is your own willfully ignorant interpretation, it has nothing to do with what is being proposed, i e. you're building a strawman to tear it down. Pathetically, you are but the Cock Puppet of the Grand Master of the Strawman Society.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jun 05, 2018
It should also be pointed out, his model of the comet that fits his weak explanations is contrary to the dirty snowball nonsense. His guess requires a fluffy exterior over a hard subsurface. Yet the current explanation of comets is deep fried ice cream, a hardened exterior and fluffy interior. That's not at all contradictory. LOL!
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2018
Idiot. The crater is way bigger than could be formed in rock. Use an online crater calculator, if you don't believe me. ~7m in rock.

First point, he acknowledges the initial flash. Contrary to jonesdumb's lies claiming it didn't happen;


Fool. I didn't say it didn't happen. I said there was no PRE-IMPACT flash. That is what Thornhill is lying about. Read Schultz's words, as you bloody quoted: "This scenario also predicted an initially faint impact flash followed by a delayed brightening, as was observed."

They predicted an initial faint flash. As was seen. Thornhill wanted an very bright pre-impact flash, as wasn't seen. And please tell us who your world renowned crater specialist is, who has conducted experiments and analysed the data from this impact? Not the same liar, Thornhill, is it? Do remind us of his (lack of) qualifications in this area.

jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2018
It should also be pointed out, his model of the comet that fits his weak explanations is contrary to the dirty snowball nonsense. His guess requires a fluffy exterior over a hard subsurface. Yet the current explanation of comets is deep fried ice cream, a hardened exterior and fluffy interior. That's not at all contradictory. LOL!


Sorry? What was ejected from the impact? That would be tonnes of ice, woo boy. Sorry, but Thornhill got it completely wrong, saw his electric comet woo go up in smoke, and has been lying and obfuscating about it ever since.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2018
That is your own willfully ignorant interpretation, it has nothing to do with what is being proposed, i e. you're building a strawman to tear it down.


No, woo boy, you built your own strawman. It was a piece of cake to tear it down. Are you. or are you not, saying that water is created by H+ (nowhere near enough) and O- (totally missing) in the coma, which then tootles off to the surface to become ice? If not, then please tell us what you are saying, because it shouldn't be difficult to quote your own words back to you from further upthread.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jun 05, 2018
The crater is way bigger than could be formed in rock. Use an online crater calculator, if you don't believe me. ~7m in rock.

Because it is not a purely mechanical impact, there is an electric discharge involved. That's why all the dust was so fine, impact guesses require a multitude of grain sizes. All of the dust was far too fine to account for the observations

The logical phallacist strikes again, my "expert" is better than yours! Na, na, na, na, na, na!

I could really careless about your expert, a small amount of critical thinking is all that is needed to debunk his guesses. He at least has some humility and states the simplest explanation is a small crater, unlike you.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2018
Because it is not a purely mechanical impact, there is an electric discharge involved.


No, there isn't an electrical discharge, idiot. Where is your evidence for this particular lie?
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2018
I could really careless about your expert, a small amount of critical thinking is all that is needed to debunk his guesses. He at least has some humility and states the simplest explanation is a small crater, unlike you.


Critical thinking? From idiots that believe Earth used to orbit Saturn? And that can create water from non-existent ions? Do me a favour! And his simplest explanation is a minimum 50m crater, as seen. The amount of material excavated shows that to be unlikely. However, that is still 50 times the area of an impact into rock.

jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2018
my "expert" is better than yours! Na, na, na, na, na, na!


You don't have an expert. You have Thornhill, a scientifically illiterate, proven liar.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2018
Because it is not a purely mechanical impact, there is an electric discharge involved.


Seems some people have very short memories. This was debunked not far upthread. Remember what Thornhill said about all this electric woo being seen in x-ray? And remember what SWIFT and Chandra saw in x-ray? Zilch, would be the answer to that, other than a gentle increase, post-impact, as the liberated volatiles charge exchanged with the solar wind. As expected. No lightning flash. As I keep explaining, that is a lie by Thornhill, and is easily shown to be such.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2018
He at least has some humility and states the simplest explanation is a small crater, unlike you.


Humility? How about someone in your cult having the humility and good grace, not to mention honesty, to finally admit that you screwed up this electric comet woo? That you have zero evidence for it, despite numerous missions, including an extensive 2 year one by Rosetta? That your mechanisms are nothing more than the fantasies of ageing Velikovskian woo merchants, who refuse to drop their puerile, unscientific belief system based on the delusions of one of the biggest cranks of all time?
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2018
If the electrical properties of the comet aren't acknowledged the the entire basis of the analysis is likely flawed.


Forgot to link this. The 'electrical properties' of the comet were tested. As well as being non-magnetised, the permittivity was also measured:

Electrical properties and porosity of the first meter of the nucleus of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
As constrained by the Permittivity Probe SESAME-PP/Philae/Rosetta
Lethuillier, A. et al.
https://www.aanda...-16.html

Guess what? It isn't at all rock-like.

jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2018
I'm supposing that cantthink wants to let this thread die, because his idiot mate, Thornhill, has run out of answers. Guess what Wal? You are a complete nutjob, as is easily shown. Turn up wherever you like. You will still be talking the same crap that Tim Thompson, and others, pwned you with, years ago. Eh, woo boy?
Anybody ever wondered why this con artist only exists on the interweb? On such crank sites as hollow science? And Dunderdolts? And his only claim to scientific fame is 'publishing' a numskull paper on a supernova in the IEEE journal? Which was complete junk. And has never been referenced by anybody with an IQ over 70? There we go, people. That is the loon Thornhill for you. And cantthink follows this idiot. Happy days. Eh?
Bunch of .........
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2018
Now, shall we start on the loon Talbott? Actually, forget it. Anybody that thinks that Earth used to orbit Saturn is obviously at least a couple of cans short of a six-pack! N'est-ce pas? Lol.
These are cantthink's heroes! Total nutjobs. And he calls actual plasma physicists, with real degrees, from real universities, "ignoramuses"! This is the prawn who thinks a collisionless plasma is a bloody double layer!
I very much doubt that there is anyone within that cult with a relevant degree. Heard about the loon Scott's chromospheric nuclear reactions? If you have, they aren't happening. Otherwise you'd be dead!
Sorry, but they are such a sorry arsed bunch of cretins, that it is hard not to take the Michael!
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2018
OK, is there any sense to be made of this electric comet woo? Well, back in the day (19th century), I guess it was suggested, given the popularity of EM stuff back then, that it might be why comets 'glowed' in our skies. Dumb idea, but not totally stupid, at the time.
So, what have we learned since then, and what have the EU loons failed to catch up on? Well, there is no 'glow'. It is due to sunlight reflecting off of dust. A difficult concept, I accept, if one's IQ is below average.
So, why keep on with this woo? Well, that is down to the uber-loon Velikovsky. You see, a couple of uneducated woo merchants (Thornhill & Talbott), still believe that puerile nonsense. They are trying to sell books and DVDs promoting such woo. They don't believe it, any more than any intelligent person would. They just want your money. Con artists. Stay well away.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2018
A couple of bullet point from jonesdumb's linked electrical properties paper, which he clearly doesn't understand. Regarding his dirty snowball nonsense;

"As a matter of fact, while water ice was unambiguously detected in the coma of 67P (Biver et al. 2015), the Visible, InfraRed, and Thermal Imaging Spectrometer (VIRTIS) instrument (Coradini et al. 1998) onboard the Rosetta spacecraft has revealed that the surface of 67/C-G is covered by nonvolatile organic materials and that water ice is exposed at the surface only at a few locations, especially in the active regions around the so-called neck of the comet "

LOL, around the active regions where the discharge is occurring, where the water is being created and where it could condense on the surface. Just as is expected.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2018
And they continue;
"As shown in Fig. 9a, a drop in potential was observed throughout the night at the +Y foot, while the potential measured on –Y remained constant."

Hmmmm, potential drop...there's more;

"The most interesting feature shown in Fig. 9 is the significant potential difference measured between the two receiving electrodes: the potential of +Y is significantly larger than that of –Y with a ratio V12/V8 of 1.35 ± 0.03. In a homogeneous environment the potential of the two feet are expected to be nearly identical (i.e., a ratio V12/V8 of 1.08 would be expected owing to the slight asymmetry induced by the body rotation of 11.2° relative to the landing gear). The potential difference was observed both at 409 and 758 Hz. We estimate that this feature is genuine and not an effect of any hypothetical temperature gradient"

Regardless of the inane dementia driven rants of jonesdumb, comets are indeed electric.

https://youtu.be/2OgvFaDulbQ
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2018
A couple of bullet point from jonesdumb's linked electrical properties paper, which he clearly doesn't understand. Regarding his dirty snowball nonsense;

"As a matter of fact, while water ice was unambiguously detected in the coma of 67P (Biver et al. 2015), the Visible, InfraRed, and Thermal Imaging Spectrometer (VIRTIS) instrument (Coradini et al. 1998) onboard the Rosetta spacecraft has revealed that the surface of 67/C-G is covered by nonvolatile organic materials and that water ice is exposed at the surface only at a few locations, especially in the active regions around the so-called neck of the comet "
......where the discharge is occurring, where the water is being created and where it could condense on the surface. Just as is expected.


Wrong. You have no mechanism for making the water. Secondly, it is bleeding obvious that the ice is subsurface. That is why it was ejected from Tempel 1. That is why it was being excavated from Hartley 2.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2018
Regardless of the inane dementia driven rants of jonesdumb, comets are indeed electric.


Nope. No discharges, no EDM (lol), no wandering arc discharges (lol), no rock, no way of explaining the water, no way of explaining the ice at Tempel1, Hartley 2 or 67P, etc, etc.
In short, it is a completely evidence-free zone, and is scientifically impossible. Only idiots could have dreamed it up, and only idiots could believe it.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2018
.....around the active regions where the discharge is occurring


Which discharge would this be, woo boy? Show me the detection of this electric discharge, and I'll show you the detection of cold neutral gas and dust. As measured. No electric woo. Never seen.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2018
.....where the water is being created and where it could condense on the surface. Just as is expected.


There is no water being created, according to the idiot Thornhill. Only OH. Want me to quote him again?
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2018
As shown in Fig. 9a, a drop in potential was observed throughout the night at the +Y foot, while the potential measured on –Y remained constant


Yep, straight out of the Thornhill dishonestly cherry-picking play book. This is what I, and others, mean about the innately dishonest nature of EU woo. That is how it is so easy to show that it is all a con.

What CD (or whoever) failed to point out, was that the potential drop was then discussed in sect. 5.3. Where they say:
SESAME-PP current measurements suggest that the +X foot is not necessary resting on the surface (see Sect. 5.2); this is consistent with SESAME-CASSE first measurements on the +X accelerometer. Further, the ratio between the potentials measured on the +Y and –Y feet (i.e., V12/V8 = 1.35 ± 0.03) suggests that the +Y foot may be surrounded by and/or closer to a greater amount of cometary material than the –Y foot.


Guess what was found when they finally located Philae?

jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2018
^^^^^^^^^They further mention in the paper:

Second, the quality of the contact between SESAME-PP receiving electrodes and the surface controls the measured potentials. The better this contact is, the higher the received potential.


So, absolutely nothing to do with electric comet woo. The electrical signal is generated by the craft itself, in the +X foot. At the time of this paper, they didn't know the orientation of Philae, and had to surmise it's position due to these measurements. That is, it was likely tilted, with at least one of the feet not in contact with the surface. Good guess!
http://blogs.esa....e-found/

They can now put tighter constraints on the findings, which will still show, as did other instruments, that the comet isn't rocky. And EUists will still lie and obfuscate to con the gullible. On one side science, and on the other side con artists. Who would you trust?
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2018
Regardless of the inane dementia driven rants of jonesdumb, comets are indeed electric.


And then links to a video that fully proves my point, by being chock full of lies and an inability to understand some very basic science! Beneath which, you can buy another of their videos for a mere $29! Bloody crooks.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2018
Guess what was found when they finally located Philae?

I was actually going to point out the fortuitous arrangement that Philae was not firmly with all legs on the ground. What this shows is as was described in another recent article of how these electric charges build up at the surface, just as all solid objects immersed in plasmas do. jonesdumb clearly doesn't even get the basics.
jonesdave
1 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2018
Guess what was found when they finally located Philae?

I was actually going to point out the fortuitous arrangement that Philae was not firmly with all legs on the ground. What this shows is as was described in another recent article of how these electric charges build up at the surface, just as all solid objects immersed in plasmas do. jonesdumb clearly doesn't even get the basics.


What are you on about, dumbo? The electrical signal was manufactured by the spacecraft, idiot. It is clearly explained in the paper. This is nothing whatsoever to do with plasma, you loon.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2018
Here, a layman's guide to the SESAME/PP experiment, for the hard of thinking;

They want to test the permittivity of the comet nucleus material. This will tell a lot about what form it takes. The lander has 3 feet. It sends out an electrical current from one foot, and the other two feet act as receivers. One foot is on the ground, one is in the air. What do we think will happen? Jesus, the stupid here hurts, sometimes.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2018
I suppose I should make a start on that lunatic video CD linked to. I don't normally bother with them, because you just know it'll be full of lies, obfuscation and misunderstanding. So it was no surprise that this one was no different.

Early on they prattle on about Hale-Bopp being active at large heliocentric distances. The impression they want to give is that water ice can't sublimate at the temperatures out there, so it must be electrical woo. A quick look through the literature would have shown them that this was almost certainly CO outgassing. The same had been seen at 7 AU on its way in, where it is too cold for H2O sublimation. Spectroscopically resolved as being from CO. A further browse in the literature would show that the sublimation temperature of CO is ~25-30 K. The estimated temperature of the comet when it was still outgassing at 25 AU was ~ 45 K. That was the first piece of disinformation/ lying.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2018
They also show true ignorance in discussing the recent finding of some collimation in the jets at 67P. Whoever wrote the script is thick. They say that they can't believe that an area in shadow, that is suddenly in sunlight can heat up quickly enough to sublime water! In a vacuum! What do they think will happen? One second you are at, say 80 K, and a nanosecond later it is 350 K. Water ice sublimates at ~ 150 K. These people really are stupid. And the collimation is easy to explain due to the shape of the ground in the region. As is actually visible in the image they show in the idiotic video.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2018
Then they get into the real lying, rather than just ignorance/ obfuscation. Saying that the ice is "hypothetical, imaginary, invisible." The fraudsters are deliberately lying here to fool their loony followers. I guess everyone was tripping out when they saw solid ice around Hale-Bopp, 17P/ Holmes after an outburst, Tempel 1 after the impact, Hartley 2 in CO2 jets, and mountains of it observable in visible light in the kind of piccies that these nutjobs usually like. Or the ice on the surface of 67P, including CO2 ice. The ice left after cliff collapses, and in the debris therefrom. I guess we dreamed all that!
Err, no, it was real. This dishonest bunch of fraudsters are lying. Again.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2018
Oh, yeah. They talk about comets disintegrating. As if it were to do with some electrical woo! Lol. And they even mention comet 17P/ Holmes. Guess what they saw when they looked spectroscopically at that comet after the outburst? Yes, you guessed it; ice! Surprise, surprise.
How long can this fraudster get away with lying to people before they cotton on? Well, forever, if they are as seriously thick as cantthink.
Not a bad job, eh? Lying for a living?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2018
Six consecutive dementia induced posts, and continuously obfuscating reality. Way to go jonesdumb. Never mind the necessary quantities of water ice has never been observed on a comet, it's conveniently out of sight. Never mind direct observation of flying through an outburst which cannot be explained by sublimation. Never mind the measured potential difference on the surface of the comet. Never mind Deep Impact produced far more dust than expected (magnitudes), and far less water than expected (you guessed it, magnitudes). Never mind the tiny crater caused by Deep Impact. Never mind the proposed structure to explain the pre-impact flash and resulting impact is opposite of what is claimed to have been observed on 67P.
Your dirty, fluffy snowball deep fried ice cream sandwich is deader than a doornail, like you will by in a very short time old man.
A life wasted studying the pseudoscientific dirty snowball. LOL!
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2018
^^^^Oh dear, more lies. Nobody has ever said the ice is going to be lying around on the surface, idiot. And flying right through an outburst that included solid ice, and had no electrical signature. No measured potential difference on the surface. That was explained to you, but you are too thick to understand it. And Deep Impact excavated tonnes of solid ice. And dust. And vapour. And the crater was way too big to have been made in rock. Remember? I explained all this to your idiot self with links to actual science, as opposed to lies. And there was no pre-impact flash. As explained. The idiot Thornhill said it would be seen in x-ray. It wasn't. He lied.
In short, you are wedded to the idiotic lies of a Velikovskian nutjob, who makes crap up to fool the gullible. That is called faith, woo boy. Zero science, zero evidence.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2018
Six consecutive dementia induced posts, and continuously obfuscating reality.


Really? Want some links to the papers? Say the word, woo boy. Then let's have a look at what you've got. I think we all know that will amount to nothing more that the lies of a geriatric Australian woo merchant. Correct?
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 07, 2018
Comet 17P/Holmes in Outburst: The Near Infrared Spectrum
Yang, B. et al
https://arxiv.org...1317.pdf

Evidence for water ice and estimate of dust production rate in comet Hale-Bopp at 2.9 AU from the Sun
Lellouch, E. et al
http://adsabs.har...39L...9L

The Detection of water ice in comet Hale-Bopp
Davies, J. K. et al
https://www.scien...96956730

Detection of water ice grains after the DEEP IMPACT onto Comet 9P/Tempel 1
Schulz, R. et al
https://www.aanda...81.ps.gz

The distribution of water ice in the interior of Comet Tempel 1
Sunshine, J. M. et al, 2007
http://www.planet...3546.pdf

Water ice and dust in the innermost coma of comet 103P/Hartley 2
Protopapa, S., et al, 2014
https://arxiv.org...3382.pdf

EVIDENCE OF ICY GRAINS IN COMET C/2002 T7 (LINEAR) AT 3.52 AU
Kawakita, H. et al.
http://sasakitaka.../2006/08
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 07, 2018
Evidence of sub-surface energy storage in comet 67P from the outburst of 2016 July 03
Agarwal, J. et al.
https://academic..../4565550
(The outburst that Thornhill is lying about in his wacky video. Ice in the plume, and ice left on the surface. No electrical woo.)

Seasonal exposure of carbon dioxide ice on the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Filacchione, G. et al.
http://science.sc...319/1563
(Some ice that is actually just lying around on the surface.)

jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 07, 2018
Your dirty, fluffy snowball deep fried ice cream sandwich is deader than a doornail,...


Really? That's funny, there are loads of papers and articles on comets. I see none of them questioning the basics of cometary science. On the other hand, this electric comet woo, based purely on scientific illiteracy and lies, seems to be making not a dent in it. It is remarkable only in its complete absence from the scientific literature, and scientific press. How many years has the liar Thornhill been prattling on about this garbage? Do please tell us of its impact! Pretty much the same as the equally ludicrous electric sun woo. And electric cratering woo. And electric volcano woo. Etc.
In other words, it is a total irrelevance. Always has been, always will be.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 07, 2018
I wonder who said this about the Rosetta mission?

This ambitious mission has little chance of success because the electrical nature of comets has not been considered. There is a high probability of crippling plasma discharges to the spacecraft and the lander.


Lol.

http://www.holosc...xpected/
434a
5 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2018
@Jonesdave, do you ever get the feeling you're stuck in this scene wondering, "When will this idiot bleed to death?"

https://www.youtu...kth8FWno
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 07, 2018
@Jonesdave, do you ever get the feeling you're stuck in this scene wondering, "When will this idiot bleed to death?"

https://www.youtu...kth8FWno


Hahaha. Can't beat a bit of Python! "Tis but a flesh wound!"
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2018
This ambitious mission has little chance of success because the electrical nature of comets has not been considered. There is a high probability of crippling plasma discharges to the spacecraft and the lander.

This is a likely reason the "ice" harpoons didn't fire.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 07, 2018
This ambitious mission has little chance of success because the electrical nature of comets has not been considered. There is a high probability of crippling plasma discharges to the spacecraft and the lander.

This is a likely reason the "ice" harpoons didn't fire.


Hahaha. No, it isn't.

"It seems that the problem was either with the four 'bridge wires' taking current to ignite the explosive that triggers the harpoons, or the explosive itself, which may have degraded over time," explains Stephan Ulamec, Philae lander manager at the DLR German Aerospace Center.

https://www.esa.i..._a_comet

If the spacecraft had been zapped by some sort of electric woo, I'm sure they'd have noticed. And Rosetta's instruments had no problems when it 'landed' on the comet.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 07, 2018
Of course, we can all be grateful that neither Philae nor Rosetta got zapped by electric woo on their way to the surface. I'm sure that would have destroyed all their circuitry, including that required for the magnetometers. It is thanks to those magnetometers, and a whole shed load of other evidence, that we know that there is no electrical woo happening at the surface.

https://spiral.im...3201.pdf
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2018
@jonesdave. Apologies for not replying sooner; been very busy offline. :) Now...
What could have kept debris at that location to 'fall into' the crater rather than ejection altogether 'at speed' to space?


Why not read any of the papers by Pete Schultz, probably the world's leading authority on impact cratering? And then you wouldn't have to ask, would you?
http://www.planet...4621.pdf
Mate, I wasn't asking that question for myself, but for BOTH of you to consider/discuss; based on all the possibilities involved which could act to produce those observations. As a matter of fact, jd, as part of my many-pronged researches into all aspects of astronomy/cosmology physics, I read all the related papers re comet/asteroid missions/observations at the time, so your links are old news to me. :)

Anyhow, good luck to you both in your discussions. :)

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.