http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ mirrored file
For complete access to all the files of this collection
see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php
==========================================================
#JREF Forum RSS Feed JREF Forum - Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and
Technology - RSS Feed
Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical
thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You
are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are
missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please
consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features
and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and
free! Click here to register today.
Old 23rd August 2009, 10:11 AM #321
solrey
New Blood
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 20
The aspect that I am most curious about, now, is why comets? I mean,
why do comets have comas (and tails), but other solar system bodies do
not?
Ah, the inner planets do have "comas" (magnetosphere's) and tails.
Go here for a diagram. The article describes some of the data
MESSENGER collected from Mercury, particularly the surface sputtering
and magnetic tornado's, but it's the diagram I'd like to direct your
attention to. The structure is very similar to the Earth's
magnetosphere, Venus too, even Mars, albeit very weak...and comets as
well. All of the inner planets also have "stringy tails" nearly
stretching all the way to the next planets orbital distance. The inner
planets aren't experiencing rapid changes in their electric
environment like comets do, but they receive a steady flow of charged
particles from the Sun nonetheless, so they just remain in a
non-luminescent state. Essentially they receive a, mostly, steady
discharge from the Sun.
nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/multimedia/magnetic_tornadoes.html
I only pointed out the magnetron glow discharge because that would be
the type of discharge mostly experienced, I was merely identifying the
specific type of discharge. The strength and enhancement of the
magnetic field doesn't really matter, that will fluctuate somewhat
anyway.
The glow doesn't have to be bright and blinding, it can be a soft,
neon-like glow as well. So the effect of the glow from discharge may
or may not be "washed out" by reflection.
tusenfem, I'm doing my best with the time I have, trying to describe a
very complicated, multifaceted process, sorry if it's not quite
adequate.
What the EM field data depicts is two "stacked" DL's with a ring
current just inside the inner DL. The outer DL at R1, the inner DL at
R2, the ring current is that 10,000 Km thick current layer 25,000 Km
downstream of R2. Multiple DL's and/or ring currents are not uncommon.
That data actually makes the case for the EC even stronger, imo.
The Earth has strong ring currents, the "radiation belts", comets ring
currents, are much weaker so they don't produce radiation like the
Earth's. I wouldn't be surprised, not saying there is for sure, if
there were also a third DL within a few hundred Km of the surface,
which wouldn't be detected anyways unless a probe passed within that
distance. The DL's dissipate and moderate the discharge current
impinging on the surface. There is still a voltage potential between
the surface and DL's. Even on Earth, there is a voltage potential of
100v/m @ sea level, even though the measured current of "flux transfer
events" into the magnetosphere are on the order of hundreds of
thousands of volts.
I think I should clear up the apparent confusion of what a discharge
is. It seems that some of you good folks are stuck on the dramatic
arc/spark type of discharge. That's what most are familiar with. But a
discharge can be slow and steady as well, typically considered an
electric current...as in a battery. A battery discharges slowly
producing a steady electric current. That's pretty much a comet, it's
essentially like those new capacitor batteries being developed,
discharging at a mostly steady rate, but capable of rapid discharge as
well.
solrey is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this post for
this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With
Quote Back to Top
solrey
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by solrey
Old 23rd August 2009, 12:14 PM #322
tusenfem
Critical Thinker
tusenfem's Avatar
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Graz, Austria
Posts: 356
Originally Posted by solrey View Post
tusenfem, I'm doing my best with the time I have, trying to describe a
very complicated, multifaceted process, sorry if it's not quite
adequate.
What the EM field data depicts is two "stacked" DL's with a ring
current just inside the inner DL. The outer DL at R1, the inner DL at
R2, the ring current is that 10,000 Km thick current layer 25,000 Km
downstream of R2. Multiple DL's and/or ring currents are not uncommon.
That data actually makes the case for the EC even stronger, imo.
The Earth has strong ring currents, the "radiation belts", comets ring
currents, are much weaker so they don't produce radiation like the
Earth's. I wouldn't be surprised, not saying there is for sure, if
there were also a third DL within a few hundred Km of the surface,
which wouldn't be detected anyways unless a probe passed within that
distance. The DL's dissipate and moderate the discharge current
impinging on the surface. There is still a voltage potential between
the surface and DL's. Even on Earth, there is a voltage potential of
100v/m @ sea level, even though the measured current of "flux transfer
events" into the magnetosphere are on the order of hundreds of
thousands of volts.
That does not make ANY sense at all in DL talk, stacked double layers
do not have a strong electric field gradient in between them, see e.g.
stairstep double layers, in which it is shown that strong voltage
drops in a plasma column split itself up into several DLs.
Why not make a picture to explain it. What kind of double layers are
there? the ones carrying a current or the one on the boundary of two
different plasmas?
You cannot use the clear sky electric field of the Earth, because the
atmosphere is a very good insulator, whereas at a comet there is a
plasma. Apples and oranges. Lots of word but nothing substantial.
__________________
善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng
chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open
to what is
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jing, 27)
tusenfem is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this post
for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply
With Quote Back to Top
tusenfem
View Public Profile
Visit tusenfem's homepage!
Find More Posts by tusenfem
Old 23rd August 2009, 01:01 PM #323
solrey
New Blood
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 20
Quote:
You cannot use the clear sky electric field of the Earth, because the
atmosphere is a very good insulator, whereas at a comet there is a
plasma. Apples and oranges. Lots of word but nothing substantial.
It's a valid comparison, actually, from the perspective of comparing
how that voltage potential is transferred to the surface in vastly
different environments. On Earth, the atmosphere provides enough
insulation to prevent surface sputtering, erosion and cratering, while
still holding a 100v/m potential. Mercury, with a much thinner,
atmosphere, does experience sputtering and "flux transfer events" on
the surface. The difference on a Comet, as you so astutely note, is
that the "atmosphere" is a conductive plasma which allows the
discharge current to focus, or impinge, on the surface, relatively
unhindered, other than the dissipation provided by the DL's. The
purpose of my comparisons is to demonstrate the same processes
manifesting in three different ways, one mostly at "rest" (Earth), one
in a non-luminous discharge state (Mercury), the last in the glow
discharge state (comet). Deirendopa had asked why planets don't act
like comets, and I was demonstrating that they do, just in a less
energetic manner, therefore it's not obvious.
Quote:
That does not make ANY sense at all in DL talk, stacked double layers
do not have a strong electric field gradient in between them, see e.g.
stairstep double layers, in which it is shown that strong voltage
drops in a plasma column split itself up into several DLs.
Get ready, here comes "check"...
Quote:
Nagendra Singh
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, and CSPAR,
University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, USA
Kalyan Arcot
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, and CSPAR,
University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, USA
B. E. Wells
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, and CSPAR,
University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, USA
Using a 2.5-D parallel particle-in-cell simulation of a plasma of long
length parallel to an ambient magnetic field Bo, we study the
processes involved in determining the distribution of an applied
electric potential drop parallel to Bo. The simulated plasma consists
of both hot and cold plasmas of the magnetospheric and ionospheric
origins, respectively. The former plasma is at a higher positive
potential with respect to the latter, and thus the simulation results
are relevant to the auroral downward current regions. The parallel
processing enables us to simulate a long system with the magnetic
field-aligned dimension L z ?1 8192 l do, where l do is the plasma
Debye length. We find that when the initially empty simulation box
accumulates sufficient plasma supplied from hot plasma from the top
and cold plasma from the bottom, a density cavity forms at the
interface between the hot and cold plasmas. A part of the applied
potential drop occurs in the cavity as a double layer (DL), while the
rest of it as ambipolar fields supported by the density gradient in
the hot plasma density on the high-potential side (HPS) of the DL. The
DL propagates upward. The HPS of the DL is rich in large-amplitude
electron holes. At later times in the evolution of plasma and fields
as the DL reaches the top boundary, we find that a major part of the
applied potential is distributed over long distances giving only a
weak ambipolar type of parallel electric fields. Then again the
distributed potential evolves into localized potential drops like in a
stack of multiple double layers. The double layers and associated
cavities emerge from low-frequency and long-wavelength oscillations in
the presence of very hot ions. Parallel currents in the plasma seem to
be the only source of free energy for driving the oscillations. We
report the evolution of the electron velocity distribution functions
as the potential distribution evolves.
Received 8 July 2008; accepted 8 December 2008; published 19 March
2009.
Citation: Singh, N., K. Arcot, and B. E. Wells (2009), Parallel
electric fields in mixing hot and cold plasmas in the auroral downward
current region: Double layers and ambipolar fields, J. Geophys. Res.,
114, A03209, doi:10.1029/2008JA013591.
Quote:
So, it would be nice if an EC proponent would come with a real model.
...and "mate".
Next?
solrey is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this post for
this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With
Quote Back to Top
solrey
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by solrey
Old 23rd August 2009, 02:15 PM #324
solrey
New Blood
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 20
RealityCheck...Howdy
Didn't want to forget your question.
Quote:
How does the EC idea explain that jets on the Tempel 1 nucleus are
correlated with "bright spots" on the nucleus that are measured to be
ice?
I think I mentioned previously, H[2]O is an expected electro-chemical
reaction by-product, CO2 as well, so when the discharge subsides, any
of those gases present at that time, would condense on the surface as
thin deposits of ice in the vicinity of discharge/reaction activity.
Otherwise, during discharge reactions, the H[2]O breaks down to OH in
another reaction. I believe all they detected were three small patches
of thin ice layers covering a mere .026% of the surface. That does fit
this scenario. The previous discharge activity reinforces local
crustal magnetic fields in those conductive areas of the surface so
the next time around the new discharge events are more likely to occur
in or around those same areas. It's pretty much expected that new
discharge activity would happen where previous discharge events
deposited thin layers of water and carbon dioxide ice.
It's electrostatic deposition, like powder coating or electroplating.
Etching and erosion are what we see as the most obvious aspect of
discharge on comets, and the most discussed, but deposition occurs at
times as well.
BTW, there are a number of alkaline, or base, minerals that will
produce H[2]O when reacting with an acid, the H^+, in the solar plasma
stream. The next reaction that would occur is when that water then
reacts with free electrons, liberated from the surface, within the
electric field of the discharge current. Mineral salts in the dust and
flakes etched from the surface are probably involved in this reaction.
The cathode reaction is:
2H[2]O + 2e^- -> 2OH^- + H[2]
The further from the nucleus, the OH^- ions pick up free electrons
producing more neutral OH molecules with distance from the surface. I
believe that is what has been detected.
solrey is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this post for
this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With
Quote Back to Top
solrey
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by solrey
Old 23rd August 2009, 02:45 PM #325
Reality Check
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 3,204
Question Some comets that should be asteroids according to EC
_________________________________________________________________
EC universe: Rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity
below a minimum value will be asteroids (not comets).
Real universe: There are bodies that have an orbit with an
eccentricity below a minimum value that are comets.
Star with the observed main-belt comets with a minimum eccentricity of
0.1644 (133P/Elst-Pizarro).
The JPL Small-Body Database Browser has a search engine. This shows
that there are 12 cataloged comets with an eccentricity < 0.17.
This is not as impressive a flaw in the EC idea as the 173,583
cataloged asteroids with an eccentricity > 0.17 that should be comets
according to EC. The list does include the rather interesting comet
29P/Schwassmann-Wachmann whose variation in brightness is in itself a
flaw in EC.
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another
observation)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
Reality Check is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this
post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post
Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reality Check
View Public Profile
Visit Reality Check's homepage!
Find More Posts by Reality Check
Old 23rd August 2009, 03:00 PM #326
Reality Check
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 3,204
Originally Posted by solrey View Post
RealityCheck...Howdy
Didn't want to forget your question.
...snip...
solrey...Howdy
Pretty much what I expected - assertions but not much science . Can
you give citations to the papers that show that the "discharges"
produce water from cometary rock?
The scenerio also fits the really simple science of water already
being present.
But let us accept that there is something (EDM/coronal discharges/DL
discharges/pixies?/etc.) creating water from rock. This leads to a
really easy to answer question - how can we detect this sometihng?
* Does it produce X-rays?
(Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays)
* Does it produce jets?
(The EC assumption of EDM machining does not produce jets)
* Where are the coomponents of the process?
(EDM in the EC idea needs a dielectric material which does not
exist!)
* Is this something visble?
(No EDM sparks are seen in images of comet nuclei.)
* How does this something work without heating up the surface?
(No EDM hot spots are seen in thermal maps of Tempel 1.)
So far we have a something that is invisible in the spectra that comet
nuclei have been observed in.
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another
observation)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
Reality Check is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this
post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post
Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reality Check
View Public Profile
Visit Reality Check's homepage!
Find More Posts by Reality Check
Old 23rd August 2009, 03:24 PM #327
Reality Check
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 3,204
Question Is there an EC explantion for the birghtness changes in
29P/Schwassmann-Wachmann
_________________________________________________________________
Another problem with EC's basically external mechanism for the
creation of the cometary coma and tail is that it means that it
probably cannot account for sudden changes in comet brightness.
I would be interested in citations to the actual theory that accounts
for this (even to a certain book advertisement site).
29P/Schwassmann-Wachmann
Quote:
The comet is unusual in that while normally hovering at around 16th
magnitude, it suddenly undergoes an outburst. This causes the comet to
brighten by 1 to 4 magnitudes.[3] This happens with a frequency of 7.3
outbursts per year,[3] fading within a week or two. The magnitude of
the comet has been known to vary from 19th magnitude to 9th magnitude,
a ten thousand-fold increase in brightness, during its brightest
outbursts. Highly changing surface processes are suspected to be
responsible for the observed behavior.[3]
And from reference 3
"A continuous follow-up of Centaurs, and dormant comets: looking for
cometary activity."
Quote:
Such value is almost twice than the previously thought. SW1 outbursts
are typically characterized by the sudden increase of 1 to 4
magnitudes in the brightness of the object. We have found no clear
periodicity in the outburst production. Highly changing surface
processes (perhaps associated with transition from amorphous to
crystalline water ice) are suspected to be responsible for the
observed behavior.
You may have access to this paper - Cometary outbursts - search of
probable mechanisms - case of 29P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 1
Quote:
Cometary outbursts, sudden increases in luminosity have not been
clearly explained so far and their source is still a mystery. Various
possible mechanisms as a source of cometary outbursts at large
distances from the Sun have been considered. It has been stated that
plausible mechanisms are the polymerization of HCN and the amorphous
water ice transformation combined with electrostatic destruction of
cometary grains in the head of the comet. The calculations have been
carried out for a large range of cometary parameters and it has been
shown that the proposed scenario of the outburst gives a jump in the
comet brightness which is consistent with the real jump observed
during the 29P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 1 outbursts.
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another
observation)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
Reality Check is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this
post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post
Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reality Check
View Public Profile
Visit Reality Check's homepage!
Find More Posts by Reality Check
Old 23rd August 2009, 03:39 PM #328
Reality Check
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 3,204
Originally Posted by solrey View Post
Hi all. First post here. What fun, mind if I jump in?
First...EDM. EDM is the erosion or etching of an electrode. It could
be a rapid, dramatic process, or a slow, steady process. Spark
machining is used on very hard materials in industrial manufacturing
processes. The slow erosion of the electrodes in a neon sign is a
slower, less obvious form of EDM. We could say coronal discharge
etching, but the electro-static potential may, at times, reach the
threshold for arcing. We say EDM because there are multiple discharge
levels occurring on comets, from electrostatic cleaning of dust,
coronal discharge erosion, "magnetic vortex" etching, and possibly,
infrequent arc machining.
I have to say that this is not made clear on a certain book
advertisement web site.
Are you stating that there is no EDM machining and so "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" is wrong?
If there is actual EDM machining then
* A dielectric material is needed so that sparks can form.
* The sparks will be visible.
* The sparks will produce X-rays in narrow bands and bursts.
* The surface of the comet nucleus will be heated by the machining
and this will be visible (especially at the sites of jets).
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another
observation)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
Reality Check is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this
post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post
Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reality Check
View Public Profile
Visit Reality Check's homepage!
Find More Posts by Reality Check
Old 23rd August 2009, 03:45 PM #329
Reality Check
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 3,204
Just noticed another "pretty pictures look alike and so the things in
them are the same" fallacy on that book advertisement web site (in
addition to comet nuclei look like asteroids) - Plasma Galaxies.
Someone should tell David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill that spiral
galaxies are not actually spirals with nothing in between their arms
(Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation).
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another
observation)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
Reality Check is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this
post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post
Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reality Check
View Public Profile
Visit Reality Check's homepage!
Find More Posts by Reality Check
Old 23rd August 2009, 05:09 PM #330
DeiRenDopa
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,348
There's a lot of stuff here solrey; so just a couple of points ...
Originally Posted by solrey View Post
[...]
Deirendopa had asked why planets don't act like comets, and I was
demonstrating that they do, just in a less energetic manner, therefore
it's not obvious.
Actually, I asked about other solar system bodies, which are far, far,
far more numerous than planets: the natural satellites of the planets,
asteroids, zodiacal dust, spaceprobes and rocket boosters (from
Earth), ...
Also, I haven't been able to check properly, but it seems that the
Earth's (and Jupiter's and Saturn's, and ...) magnetospheres are not
at all like comets' comas (+/- tails) - for starters, there is no
evidence of any DLs, as required by this EC idea - none of the
asteroids which have been studied 'up close and personal' by
spaceprobes (e.g. Ida, Eros, Mathilda, Steins) resemble comets, nor do
any asteroids which have come close to Earth (quite a list!), nor do
natural satellites such as the Moon, Deimos, and Phobos.
What quantitative studies have been done, to show that the data from
spaceprobes which have gone past (or landed on) other solar system
bodies is consistent with this EC idea?
Quote:
Get ready, here comes "check"...
...and "mate".
Next?
I think this part of your post has to do with one of tusenfem's, but I
can't see how it could possibly be considered as a real EC model;
could you explain please?
DeiRenDopa is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this post
for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply
With Quote Back to Top
DeiRenDopa
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by DeiRenDopa
Old 23rd August 2009, 05:29 PM #331
DeiRenDopa
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,348
Originally Posted by solrey View Post
deirendopa,
If you call nearly 40 hours of sanding with 10 to go fun, yeah, it's
reeeaaaallll fun.
Nah, I love it. Grandpa was a wood worker, it's in the blood.
Back OT. deirendopa said
Ah, the inner planets do have "comas" (magnetosphere's) and tails.
Go here for a diagram. The article describes some of the data
MESSENGER collected from Mercury, particularly the surface sputtering
and magnetic tornado's, but it's the diagram I'd like to direct your
attention to. The structure is very similar to the Earth's
magnetosphere, Venus too, even Mars, albeit very weak...and comets as
well. All of the inner planets also have "stringy tails" nearly
stretching all the way to the next planets orbital distance. The inner
planets aren't experiencing rapid changes in their electric
environment like comets do, but they receive a steady flow of charged
particles from the Sun nonetheless, so they just remain in a
non-luminescent state. Essentially they receive a, mostly, steady
discharge from the Sun.
nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/multimedia/magnetic_tornadoes.html
I only pointed out the magnetron glow discharge because that would be
the type of discharge mostly experienced, I was merely identifying the
specific type of discharge. The strength and enhancement of the
magnetic field doesn't really matter, that will fluctuate somewhat
anyway.
The glow doesn't have to be bright and blinding, it can be a soft,
neon-like glow as well. So the effect of the glow from discharge may
or may not be "washed out" by reflection.
tusenfem, I'm doing my best with the time I have, trying to describe a
very complicated, multifaceted process, sorry if it's not quite
adequate.
What the EM field data depicts is two "stacked" DL's with a ring
current just inside the inner DL. The outer DL at R1, the inner DL at
R2, the ring current is that 10,000 Km thick current layer 25,000 Km
downstream of R2. Multiple DL's and/or ring currents are not uncommon.
That data actually makes the case for the EC even stronger, imo.
The Earth has strong ring currents, the "radiation belts", comets ring
currents, are much weaker so they don't produce radiation like the
Earth's. I wouldn't be surprised, not saying there is for sure, if
there were also a third DL within a few hundred Km of the surface,
which wouldn't be detected anyways unless a probe passed within that
distance. The DL's dissipate and moderate the discharge current
impinging on the surface. There is still a voltage potential between
the surface and DL's. Even on Earth, there is a voltage potential of
100v/m @ sea level, even though the measured current of "flux transfer
events" into the magnetosphere are on the order of hundreds of
thousands of volts.
I think I should clear up the apparent confusion of what a discharge
is. It seems that some of you good folks are stuck on the dramatic
arc/spark type of discharge. That's what most are familiar with. But a
discharge can be slow and steady as well, typically considered an
electric current...as in a battery. A battery discharges slowly
producing a steady electric current. That's pretty much a comet, it's
essentially like those new capacitor batteries being developed,
discharging at a mostly steady rate, but capable of rapid discharge as
well.
(bold added)
My last post was in reply to the wrong one of yours solrey (sorry).
What does "The inner planets aren't experiencing rapid changes in
their electric environment like comets do" mean? What changes in
electric environment do comet experience (and how can one determine,
or estimate, what such changes are)?
Also, what does "Essentially they [comets] receive a, mostly, steady
discharge from the Sun" mean?
And it seems that you've removed (magnetron) glow discharge as a
possible means of testing this EC idea ... if it can vary, be
essentially undetectable (or not), is in any case not predictable,
etc, etc, etc (or did I miss something important?).
Finally, I cannot see anything but a vague morphological similarity
between comets' comas and planetary magnetospheres (i.e. they are both
approximately spherical, circular in projection, with an extension in
the anti-Sun direction). So can you please say more about the
similarities you seem to see in them?
OK, one more: why don't the CLUSTER satellites have comas and tails?
DeiRenDopa is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this post
for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply
With Quote Back to Top
DeiRenDopa
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by DeiRenDopa
Old 23rd August 2009, 05:39 PM #332
Reality Check
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 3,204
Originally Posted by solrey View Post
Get ready, here comes "check"...
...and "mate".
Next?
Get ready, here comes "something unrelated to electric comets"...
Quote:
Citation: Singh, N., K. Arcot, and B. E. Wells (2009), Parallel
electric fields in mixing hot and cold plasmas in the auroral downward
current region: Double layers and ambipolar fields, J. Geophys. Res.,
114, A03209, doi:10.1029/2008JA013591.
...and "there it is"!
Magnetospheres produce auroras and require a body with a magnetic
field. AFAIK comets do not have magnetic fields. They do not have
magnetospheres. They do not have auroras.
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another
observation)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
Reality Check is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this
post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post
Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reality Check
View Public Profile
Visit Reality Check's homepage!
Find More Posts by Reality Check
Old 23rd August 2009, 08:37 PM #333
solrey
New Blood
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 20
Been a long day so I'll be brief.
RealityCheck, I suggest you go over my previous posts regarding the
various types of discharge and why they are all considered an EDM
process.
Also, note my comments about eccentricity. What you said about
eccentricity relating to the EC model is absolutely incorrect. No one
in the EC camp, that I'm aware of, has ever made such statements.
The answer about the magnetic field is the interplanetary magnetic
field. The comet is immersed in it, it doesn't need to have it's own.
A word about magnetron glow discharge. The magnetic enhancement really
only becomes important if the magnetic field increases sufficiently to
initiate the discharge, while the voltage potential remains steady,
primarily applicable to Main Belt Comets.
The abstract relating to auroral discharge was in response to
tusenfem's statement that my description of the stacked DL's was
incorrect. I posted that to demonstrate that my description is
correct. The same plasma physics still apply, regardless of whether
we're talking about auroras or comets.
According to what you said about the discharge physics, as applied to
auroras, not having anything to do with comets, would be like saying
our quantification of gravity on Earth does not apply to Mars as well.
All objects in the solar system are immersed in the interplanetary EM
field. All of them have some level of voltage potential. Nearly all
are in a "rest" state until such time as the EM environment produces
an increased voltage potential that bumps the rest state up to the
discharge mode.
solrey is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this post for
this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With
Quote Back to Top
solrey
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by solrey
Old 23rd August 2009, 11:42 PM #334
Reality Check
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 3,204
Originally Posted by solrey View Post
RealityCheck, I suggest you go over my previous posts regarding the
various types of discharge and why they are all considered an EDM
process.
EDM has a specific meaning. i.e. electrical discharge machining.
The other types of discharge are not EDM.
Originally Posted by solrey View Post
Also, note my comments about eccentricity. What you said about
eccentricity relating to the EC model is absolutely incorrect. No one
in the EC camp, that I'm aware of, has ever made such statements.
What comments?
I am not claiming that anyone in the EC camp stated this. They are not
the only people in the world who can think. It is a logical
consequence of the fact that main-belt comets exist.
Originally Posted by solrey View Post
The answer about the magnetic field is the interplanetary magnetic
field. The comet is immersed in it, it doesn't need to have it's own.
Ditto for every body in the solar system, e.g. asteroids, and we are
back to the question of why every asteroid is not a comet.
Originally Posted by solrey View Post
The abstract relating to auroral discharge was in response to
tusenfem's statement that my description of the stacked DL's was
incorrect. I posted that to demonstrate that my description is
correct. The same plasma physics still apply, regardless of whether
we're talking about auroras or comets.
What you posted is that evidence that your description is correct for
the auroral downward current region.
Now post your evidence that cometary coma are the same as the auroral
downward current region.
I can think of a couple of differences:
* The Interplanetary Magnetic Field is 10^-9 tesla at the Earth - a
factor of 10^6 less than the Earth's magnetic field.
* The simulated plasma consists of both hot and cold plasmas of the
magnetospheric and ionospheric origins, respectively.
Originally Posted by solrey View Post
All objects in the solar system are immersed in the interplanetary EM
field. All of them have some level of voltage potential.
How big is this voltage potential?
I would say that eveything in the universe has "some level of voltage
potential". The real question is that effect that has.
Originally Posted by solrey View Post
Nearly all are in a "rest" state until such time as the EM environment
produces an increased voltage potential that bumps the rest state up
to the discharge mode.
What is the amount of increase in voltage potential that bumps the
"rest" state up to the discharge mode?
Citations?
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another
observation)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
Reality Check is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this
post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post
Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reality Check
View Public Profile
Visit Reality Check's homepage!
Find More Posts by Reality Check
Old 24th August 2009, 08:13 AM #335
solrey
New Blood
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 20
Spark machining is a specific, controlled manufacturing process that
utilizes the physics of electrode erosion to machine hard materials
and is just one type of discharge within the category of EDM.
cadm.zut.edu.pl/pub/prawie%20wszystko%20o%20edm%20(ang).pdf
Quote:
Four main types of steady or quasi-steady processes exist:
the Townsends dark discharge, characterized by a very weak current (?1
10 -8 A);
the glow discharge, widely used in many industrial processes,
operating at low current (?1 10 -2 A), fairly high voltage (?1 1 kV)
and low pressure (?1 mbar). The glow plasma is weakly ionized and in a
non-equilibrium state, and is visible as a uniform glowing column. As
in the Townsends discharge, electrons are emitted by ion impacts on
the cold cathode;
the corona discharge, also at low current (?1 10 -6 A) but at
atmospheric pressure. Corona discharges develop locally (typically
around sharp ends of wires) in strongly non-uniform electric field;
the arc discharge, characterized by high current (?1 100 A), low
voltage (?1 10 V) and a bright light emission. The arc discharge
differs from the glow discharge in the electron emission mechanism. In
arcs, electrons are emitted by thermionic processes, due to the
heating of the cathode. The plasma of high pressure arcs can be
considered to be in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium.
The physics of the multiple stacked double layers are not limited to
the downward auroral current. The proof that this applies to comets is
in the following data.
Quote:
Based upon the behavior of the electric fields and the cold electrons,
three regions can be identified in the cometosheath (in particular
during the Vega 1 approach): transition layers are passed through at
?1780,000 km (R 1) and ?1360,000 km (R 2). The outer cometosheath
(near and beyond R 1) is characterized by large-scale variations in
the cold electron density and the electric field, peaking at ?11 mHz.
The R 2 crossing is detected in the plasma wave data as enhanced
fluctuations at ?115 mHz. About 25,000 km downstream of R 2, the
spacecraft traverses a current layer (thickness ?110,000 km) indicated
by a sharp gradient in the dc electric field and the cold electron
density.
Quote:
* The Interplanetary Magnetic Field is 10-9 tesla at the Earth - a
factor of 106 less than the Earth's magnetic field.
* The simulated plasma consists of both hot and cold plasmas of the
magnetospheric and ionospheric origins, respectively.
I don't recall them saying anything about magnetic field strength
affecting the development of multiple double layers. That being said,
I haven't seen the full paper with the equations to determine what
effect changes in B would have. I believe the magnetic field merely
acts to guide the direction of charged particle flow resulting in
field aligned currents. The physics apply whether within Earth's
magnetic field and magnetosphere/ionosphere ( stacked DL's also, btw )
, or a comets coma and the interplanetary magnetic field. Hot and cold
plasmas apply to comets as well. The hot plasma is the solar plasma
stream and the cold plasma is the ionized gas within the coma.
Quote:
What is the amount of increase in voltage potential that bumps the
"rest" state up to the discharge mode?
There are too many variables to be able to say, oh X-volts is all it
takes. I won't even get into amperage right now, we'll just consider
that it remains constant. Just to give you an idea, it could require
an increase of, as low as <1v, or as high as >10,000v.
solrey is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this post for
this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With
Quote Back to Top
solrey
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by solrey
Old 24th August 2009, 10:03 AM #336
tusenfem
Critical Thinker
tusenfem's Avatar
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Graz, Austria
Posts: 356
Originally Posted by solrey View Post
Get ready, here comes "check"...
...and "mate".
Next?
Not really:
Then again the distributed potential evolves into localized potential
drops like in a stack of multiple double layers.
__________________
善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng
chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open
to what is
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jing, 27)
tusenfem is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this post
for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply
With Quote Back to Top
tusenfem
View Public Profile
Visit tusenfem's homepage!
Find More Posts by tusenfem
Old 24th August 2009, 12:16 PM #337
solrey
New Blood
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 20
tusenfem, wassup?
OK, I'm a friendly guy so I'll concede to your position that my
previous example of stacked double layers applies only to Earth's
aurora as the abstract implies.
That's alright, I have backup.
While it doesn't mention comets, there is a list of literature on
double layers, even a list on multiple double layers, at the end of
the following presentation.
Multiple Double Layers in Laboratory Experiments Relevant for Space
Plasma Phenomena.
phys.uit.no/IPELS05/Talks&posters/Monday/SchrittwieserIPELS%208%20InvL
ect.pps
Generation and Dynamics of Multiple Double Layers in Plasma.
epsppd.epfl.ch/Roma/pdf/P4_011.pdf
Whether you think they apply to comets or not, this has all been in
reply to the following statement:
Quote:
That does not make ANY sense at all in DL talk, stacked double layers
do not have a strong electric field gradient in between them, see e.g.
stairstep double layers, in which it is shown that strong voltage
drops in a plasma column split itself up into several DLs.
Okeydokey:
Quote:
Under certain experimental conditions, a more complex structure in
form of two or more subsequent DLs was observed, called a multiple
double layer (MDL). It appears as several bright and concentric plasma
shells attached to the anode of a glow discharge or to a positively
biased electrode immersed in plasma. The successive DLs are precisely
located at the abrupt changes of luminosity between two adjacent
plasma shells. The axial profile of the plasma potential has a stair
step shape, with each potential drop being close to the ionization
potential of the gas atoms. This kind of structure was recently called
concentric multiple double layer.
solrey is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this post for
this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With
Quote Back to Top
solrey
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by solrey
Old 24th August 2009, 01:38 PM #338
solrey
New Blood
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 20
I realize that my description of the stretched coma and tail, as well
as the ionization sequence of OH^- was awkward, to say the least.
I'll try again.
First, the shells of the electro-magnetic environment are not to be
confused with the visible dust shells which are the result of the
off-gassing and dust from erosion being accelerated away from the
points of discharge on the surface. Rotation of the comet swirls the
stream around the nucleus as the outbound neg. ions in the coma mix
with pos. ions moving towards the surface. The neg. ions give up
electrons neutralizing the charge and decreasing the pos. potential of
the highly ionized H^+ ions that receive those electrons, on their way
to electro-chemical reactions on, and near, the surface.
The solar plasma stream flows from the pos. potential at the Sun
outward to the relatively neg. potential at the heliopause. The high
velocity flow of strong pos. ionized particles drags the neg. and
neutral atoms and molecules from the coma with them, while the voltage
potential stretches the DL shells out to a teardrop configuration. The
filaments and fans are field aligned currents in a dusty plasma.
solrey is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this post for
this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With
Quote Back to Top
solrey
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by solrey
Old 24th August 2009, 04:14 PM #339
Reality Check
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 3,204
Exclamation EC predicts that 173,583 asteroids should be comets
_________________________________________________________________
EC universe: Rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity
above a minimum value will be comets.
There may be other factors involved but since there is no actual EC
model there is no list available.
There are 4 observed main-belt comets with a minimum eccentricity of
0.1644 (133P/Elst-Pizarro). So the EC minimim must be this (or
lower!).
Real universe: There are rocky bodies that have an orbit with an
eccentricity above a minimum value that are not comets.
In fact there are asteroids in orbits that are get close to cometary
orbits, e.g. 2005 VX3 with an eccentricity of 0.9955142)
The JPL Small-Body Database Browser has a search engine. This shows
that there are 173,583 cataloged asteroids with an eccentricity >
0.17.
The EC excuse (according to Sol88) is that low solar activity is the
reason that these 173,583 cataloged asteroids are not comets. What
Sol88 has not realized is that each asteroid is observed a number of
times over a period of days to years. These 173,583 cataloged
asteroids were not clse to the the Sun at the same instant of time.
These asteroids were observed during a range of solar activity. That
range included times that comets were visible.
So how many of these should be comets?
EC has no actual physical model and so never gives numbers so we do
not expect help there.
Conclusion: EC currently predicts that 100% of the 173,583 asteroids
should be comets.
We could be generous and assume that average solar activity is needed
and so there are 86,791 asteroids that should be comets according to
the EC idea. But that can wait until an EC proponent comes up with
actual observations related to EC !
Good examples of the asteriods that should be comets according to the
EC idea are many of the named asteroids:
* Juno (e=0.2553, observed over a span of 67,610 days).
* Pallas (e=0.2309, observed over a span of 64,291 days)
* Astraea (e=0.1917, observed over a span of 59,759 days)
* ...More than 46 other named asteroids observed 1000's of times
over decades.
* Vera (e=0.1939, observed over a span of 45,191 days)
This analysis is in fact being generous to the EC idea. A stricter
analysis would be to look at the orbital parameters of all comets (not
just main-belt comets). This shows that the comet 158P/Kowal-LINEAR
has an eccentricity of 0.0279 and a perihelion distance of 4.594 AU.
There are 459,893 asteroids with eccentricities greater than 0.0279.
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another
observation)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
Reality Check is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this
post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post
Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reality Check
View Public Profile
Visit Reality Check's homepage!
Find More Posts by Reality Check
Old 24th August 2009, 06:41 PM #340
Sol88
Muse
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 585
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
EC universe: Rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity
above a minimum value will be comets.
There may be other factors involved but since there is no actual EC
model there is no list available.
There are 4 observed main-belt comets with a minimum eccentricity of
0.1644 (133P/Elst-Pizarro). So the EC minimim must be this (or
lower!).
Real universe: There are rocky bodies that have an orbit with an
eccentricity above a minimum value that are not comets.
In fact there are asteroids in orbits that are get close to cometary
orbits, e.g. 2005 VX3 with an eccentricity of 0.9955142)
The JPL Small-Body Database Browser has a search engine. This shows
that there are 173,583 cataloged asteroids with an eccentricity >
0.17.
The EC excuse (according to Sol88) is that low solar activity is the
reason that these 173,583 cataloged asteroids are not comets. What
Sol88 has not realized is that each asteroid is observed a number of
times over a period of days to years. These 173,583 cataloged
asteroids were not clse to the the Sun at the same instant of time.
These asteroids were observed during a range of solar activity. That
range included times that comets were visible.
So how many of these should be comets?
EC has no actual physical model and so never gives numbers so we do
not expect help there.
Conclusion: EC currently predicts that 100% of the 173,583 asteroids
should be comets.
We could be generous and assume that average solar activity is needed
and so there are 86,791 asteroids that should be comets according to
the EC idea. But that can wait until an EC proponent comes up with
actual observations related to EC !
Good examples of the asteriods that should be comets according to the
EC idea are many of the named asteroids:
* Juno (e=0.2553, observed over a span of 67,610 days).
* Pallas (e=0.2309, observed over a span of 64,291 days)
* Astraea (e=0.1917, observed over a span of 59,759 days)
* ...More than 46 other named asteroids observed 1000's of times
over decades.
* Vera (e=0.1939, observed over a span of 45,191 days)
This analysis is in fact being generous to the EC idea. A stricter
analysis would be to look at the orbital parameters of all comets (not
just main-belt comets). This shows that the comet 158P/Kowal-LINEAR
has an eccentricity of 0.0279 and a perihelion distance of 4.594 AU.
There are 459,893 asteroids with eccentricities greater than 0.0279.
ETA RC
What is 2005 VX3's orbital period?
__________________
I see that tusenfem become the third person to have a go at your list,
while I was posting; of course that will change my two lists somewhat
... (DeiRenDopa)
I'm always in the plasma, it's just the density that varies! (Sol88)
Children are the living messages we send to a time we will not see.
Sol88 is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this post for
this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With
Quote Back to Top
Sol88
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Sol88
Old 24th August 2009, 07:26 PM #341
Reality Check
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 3,204
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
ETA RC
What is 2005 VX3's orbital period?
If you click on the link then you will see that it is 27,756.30 years.
ETA
While you are there click on the "show orbit diagram" link - it is
kind of neat!
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another
observation)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
_________________________________________________________________
Last edited by Reality Check; 24th August 2009 at 07:33 PM.
Reality Check is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this
post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post
Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reality Check
View Public Profile
Visit Reality Check's homepage!
Find More Posts by Reality Check
Old Yesterday, 05:48 AM #342
DeiRenDopa
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,348
Good to read that you're trying to clarify things solrey.
I'm puzzled about a few things though, perhaps you could explain?
Originally Posted by solrey View Post
I realize that my description of the stretched coma and tail, as well
as the ionization sequence of OH^- was awkward, to say the least.
I'll try again.
First, the shells of the electro-magnetic environment
What does this mean?
Quote:
are not to be confused with the visible dust shells which are the
result of the off-gassing and dust from erosion being accelerated away
from the points of discharge on the surface.
Is there any evidence that dust accelerates away from the surface of a
comet?
Quote:
Rotation of the comet swirls the stream around the nucleus as the
outbound neg. ions in the coma mix with pos. ions moving towards the
surface.
This seems another way of saying that there is a current between the
nucleus and ... well, it's not clear what the other end of the current
is, nor what drives it (the circuit must close somewhere) ...
Quote:
The neg. ions give up electrons neutralizing the charge and decreasing
the pos. potential of the highly ionized H^+ ions that receive those
electrons, on their way to electro-chemical reactions on, and near,
the surface.
What are the electrons in the solar wind doing?
Also, an H^+ ion is a proton; once it combines with an electron it
becomes neutral; there is only one charge a proton can have, unlike
the ionised form of other atoms (which have more than one electron to
lose), so what do you mean by "highly ionized"?
Quote:
The solar plasma stream flows from the pos. potential at the Sun
outward to the relatively neg. potential at the heliopause.
Now I'm getting quite confused.
What evidence is there that the Sun is at a different potential than
the heliopause?
Quote:
The high velocity flow of strong pos. ionized particles drags the neg.
and neutral atoms and molecules from the coma with them, while the
voltage potential stretches the DL shells out to a teardrop
configuration. The filaments and fans are field aligned currents in a
dusty plasma.
Isn't the solar wind a plasma? If so, how can any charged particle in
it respond to a non-zero charge more than a Debye length or so from
it?
Is there any evidence that the kind of particle transport you describe
can happen, a lab experiment say?
DeiRenDopa is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this post
for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply
With Quote Back to Top
DeiRenDopa
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by DeiRenDopa
Old Yesterday, 05:59 AM #343
tusenfem
Critical Thinker
tusenfem's Avatar
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Graz, Austria
Posts: 356
Originally Posted by solrey View Post
While it doesn't mention comets, there is a list of literature on
double layers, even a list on multiple double layers, at the end of
the following presentation.
Multiple Double Layers in Laboratory Experiments Relevant for Space
Plasma Phenomena.
phys.uit.no/IPELS05/Talks&posters/Monday/SchrittwieserIPELS%208%20InvL
ect.pps
Generation and Dynamics of Multiple Double Layers in Plasma.
epsppd.epfl.ch/Roma/pdf/P4_011.pdf
Whether you think they apply to comets or not, this has all been in
reply to the following statement:
What you seem to forget is that this "double layer" would be
perpendicular to the piled up magnetic field. That is rather hard to
achieve.
__________________
善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng
chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open
to what is
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jing, 27)
tusenfem is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this post
for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply
With Quote Back to Top
tusenfem
View Public Profile
Visit tusenfem's homepage!
Find More Posts by tusenfem
Old Yesterday, 04:00 PM #344
solrey
New Blood
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 20
RealityCheck, your statements on eccentricity are simply your
interpretation of a theory that you seem to know little about, and
believe in even less.
No one involved with EC theory has ever set limits on eccentricity.
Consistently bringing up your interpretation of density and
eccentricity issues are merely red-herrings that in no way falsify the
EC theory, sorry.
Tusenfem, It's my understanding that the DL sheaths are perpendicular
to the direction of particle flow. Introducing a magnetic field
affects the direction of particle flow, thus the orientation of the
sheaths. In the case of the comet, the particle flow is perpendicular
to the surface therefore the sheaths will be perpendicular to this
flow, thus parallel to the surface.
deirendopa, you're right about H^+ ions, I know, one electron, and
there are more than just hydrogen ions in the solar plasma stream. I
should have said as a whole, the bulk ionization is slightly
neutralized as the particles flow to the surface.
Interesting discoveries about ion drag and Debye length:
arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0411021
Quote:
At the moment there is a controversy about the ion drag force: the
model by Barnes et al. assumes that ... no ion interaction with the
particles occurs outside of a Debye length according to the standard
Coulomb scattering theory. However, in complex plasmas the range of
the ion-microparticle interaction is usually larger than the Debye
screening length. Hence standard Coluomb scattering theory is not
applicable.
As shown by Khrapak et al. this fact can lead to a strong enhancement
of the ion drag force compared to the model by Barnes. Investigating
the trajectories of particles falling through a rf discharge plasma,
Zafiu et al. concluded that the ion drag force is given by Barnes
formula if the electron Debye length is used there. However, in a bulk
plasma with a subthermal ion drift velocity the Debye length is
usually given by the ion Debye length leading to a significantly
smaller ion drag force using Barnes formula.
So basically Barnes formula is accurate vs. experiment if the electron
Debye length is plugged into the formula, as opposed to the, commonly
expressed, ion Debye length, which yields a solution of < vs.
experiment. Interesting that ion drag would have an electron Debye
length component, which makes sense considering that a ^+ ion wants to
have it's vacant electron shell(s) repopulated.
Considering the heliosphere as a quasi-neutral dusty plasma, the
plasma near the sun has a greater ^+ charge density, which decreases
with distance as particles collide and neutralize, thus producing a
voltage potential between the sun and heliosheath. Full blown EU
theory expands on this and says that the heliosheath is also a plasma
Double Layer, the inner layer (sun side) of ^- charge, the outer layer
(galaxy side) of ^+ charge providing a voltage potential between the
Sun and inner layer of the heliosheath.
I think Alfven was spot-on when he said that DL's should be treated as
their own cosmological phenomena, and that we should see them
everywhere.
solrey is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this post for
this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With
Quote Back to Top
solrey
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by solrey
Old Yesterday, 06:12 PM #345
Reality Check
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 3,204
Originally Posted by solrey View Post
RealityCheck, your statements on eccentricity are simply your
interpretation of a theory that you seem to know little about, and
believe in even less.
No one involved with EC theory has ever set limits on eccentricity.
Then correct me.
What is the actual EC critera that distinguishes between a rock and a
comet (aside from the obvious coma and tail!).
If the EC idea is so primitive that it cannot distinguish between a
rock and a comet then it is fairly useless.
Just using eccentricity is a bit simplistic. I should also add in
perihelion distance (maybe within Jupiter's orbit).
* There are 459,893 asteroids with eccentricities greater than
0.0279.
* They have a variety of perihelion distances.
* They have a variety of other properties (mass, composition,
inclination, etc.).
* Thus many of them should be comets according to the EC idea.
* But they are not.
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another
observation)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
_________________________________________________________________
Last edited by Reality Check; Yesterday at 06:15 PM.
Reality Check is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this
post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post
Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reality Check
View Public Profile
Visit Reality Check's homepage!
Find More Posts by Reality Check
Old Yesterday, 06:24 PM #346
DeiRenDopa
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,348
Originally Posted by solrey View Post
RealityCheck, your statements on eccentricity are simply your
interpretation of a theory that you seem to know little about, and
believe in even less.
No one involved with EC theory has ever set limits on eccentricity.
Consistently bringing up your interpretation of density and
eccentricity issues are merely red-herrings that in no way falsify the
EC theory, sorry.
[...]
(bold added)
solrey, are you using "theory" to mean a scientific theory (as in, for
example, special theory of relativity)? If not, then what do you mean;
perhaps something like a common synonym for "guess" or "speculation"?
If, perchance, you do mean scientific theory, may I ask where this
theory has been published?
Quote:
[...]
Considering the heliosphere as a quasi-neutral dusty plasma, the
plasma near the sun has a greater + charge density, which decreases
with distance as particles collide and neutralize, thus producing a
voltage potential between the sun and heliosheath.
I have no idea what this means; can you clarify please?
Specifically, what does "the plasma near the sun has a greater +
charge density" mean?
And after you've explained what it means, would you please say a few
words about why?
Quote:
Full blown EU theory expands on this and says that the heliosheath is
also a plasma Double Layer, the inner layer (sun side) of - charge,
the outer layer (galaxy side) of + charge providing a voltage
potential between the Sun and inner layer of the heliosheath.
[...]
(bold added)
As JREF Forum members have learned, there is no such thing as an "EU
theory", in the scientific sense (would you like some material on
that?), so I guess this is just wild speculation, right?
Thanks for the other material, I'll take a careful look at it later.
DeiRenDopa is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this post
for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply
With Quote Back to Top
DeiRenDopa
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by DeiRenDopa
Old Yesterday, 06:33 PM #347
Reality Check
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 3,204
Originally Posted by solrey View Post
I think Alfven was spot-on when he said that DL's should be treated as
their own cosmological phenomena, and that we should see them
everywhere.
Thanks for the reminder.
Debye Length
Quote:
Hannes Alfven pointed out that: "In a low density plasma, localized
space charge regions may build up large potential drops over distances
of the order of some tens of the Debye lengths. Such regions have been
called electric double layers. An electric double layer is the
simplest space charge distribution that gives a potential drop in the
layer and a vanishing electric field on each side of the layer. In the
laboratory, double layers have been studied for half a century, but
their importance in cosmic plasmas has not been generally
recognized.".
(emphasis added)
The Debye length of the solar wind is about 10 metres. Some tens of
the Debye lengths in the solar wind is at most 1000 metres. This
suggests that the transition layers mentioned in tusenfem's post about
Comet Halley comet are unlikely to be DLs.
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another
observation)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
Reality Check is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this
post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post
Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reality Check
View Public Profile
Visit Reality Check's homepage!
Find More Posts by Reality Check
Old Today, 12:38 AM #348
solrey
New Blood
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 20
OK, hypothesis.
RealityCheck, I was talking previously about ion-drag, of which Debye
length of the solar plasma stream is a function, yes.
Debye length as related to DL's, however, is affected by a number of
variables. The paper referenced below, in particular, is applicable to
the EC hypothesis, in regards to the comet being an electrode
(cathode), in a complex, dusty plasma with a DC bias (the sun). The RF
modulation in the experiment is analogous to the RF band of EM waves
that permeate the solar system. Note how increases in DC bias
(voltage), result in corresponding increases in sheath thickness, and
distance from electrode (radius of DL from surface). Take into
consideration that just cloud to ground voltage potential in a
thunderstorm is on the order of 10^9V and the fact that the voltage
potential a comet experiences, would be orders of magnitude higher.
Relationship Between the DC Bias and Debye Length in a Complex Plasma.
arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0701063
This next paper illustrates some interesting diversions from
Child-Langmuir law that could be applicable if we consider the comet
to be in a similar condition as that described in a weakly collisional
plasma (solar wind stream of <10 protons/cm^3
Sheath Thickness Evaluation for Collisionless or Weakly Collisional
Bounded Plasmas
minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/handle/1793/10932/file_1.pdf?sequence=1
solrey is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this post for
this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With
Quote Back to Top
solrey
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by solrey
Old Today, 04:03 AM #349
Reality Check
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 3,204
Originally Posted by solrey View Post
Take into consideration that just cloud to ground voltage potential in
a thunderstorm is on the order of 10^9V and the fact that the voltage
potential a comet experiences, would be orders of magnitude higher.
Can you give a citation for "the fact that the voltage potential a
comet experiences, would be orders of magnitude higher"?
Since it is a fact you must have actual measurements of the voltage
potential between a comet and something else acting as a cloud (the
coma?).
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another
observation)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
Reality Check is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this
post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post
Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reality Check
View Public Profile
Visit Reality Check's homepage!
Find More Posts by Reality Check
Old Today, 05:42 AM #350
Sol88
Muse
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 585
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Hints:
What is a "rock" in the EC universe?
What does comparing a comet to an asteroid really mean in the EC
universe?
Rock is what "we" all call rock, rock
Quote:
In geology, rock is a naturally occurring solid aggregate of minerals
and/or mineraloids.
LINK
And as solrey said , hi solrey , density is not as important in EU as
it is under the current mainstream understanding!
e.g. they are not fluffysnowballs, or highly porous dirtyiceballs
__________________
I see that tusenfem become the third person to have a go at your list,
while I was posting; of course that will change my two lists somewhat
... (DeiRenDopa)
I'm always in the plasma, it's just the density that varies! (Sol88)
Children are the living messages we send to a time we will not see.
Sol88 is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this post for
this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With
Quote Back to Top
Sol88
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Sol88
Old Today, 06:04 AM #351
Reality Check
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 3,204
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Rock is what "we" all call rock, rock LINK
And as solrey said , hi solrey , density is not as important in EU as
it is under the current mainstream understanding!
e.g. they are not fluffysnowballs, or highly porous dirtyiceballs
Quote:
In geology, rock is a naturally occurring solid aggregate of minerals
and/or mineraloids
(emphasis added)
The defect in the density point is that you do know know what the the
EC authors actually state. Read a certain book advertisement site
sometime.
Asteroid Itokawa
Quote:
In the electric model comets, asteroids, and meteorites originated in
either the same or similar events. The model thus predicts that, as we
come to learn more about comets and asteroids, we will see that their
compositional types match those of meteorites, a class of objects that
has been well studied.
Predictions on Deep Impact
Quote:
Intermittent and wandering arcs erode the surface and burn it black,
leaving the distinctive scarring patterns of electric discharge. The
primary distinction between a comet and an asteroid is that, due to
its elliptical orbit, electrical arcing and electrostatic cleaning
will clean the nucleus surface, leaving little or no dust or debris on
it.
(Google +site:thunderbolts.info +comet +rock +asteroid to get 554
results)
Comets have measured densities that are much less than that of rocks
(asteroids)
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
The electric comet idea states that comets are rocky bodies like
asteroids.
For some reason EC proponents cannot grasp that the measured density
of comet nuclei is ~0.6 g/cc, the measured density of asteroids is
~3.0 g/cc and that 0.6 is less than 3.0 .
They tend to reply by asserting the methods used to calculate the
density of comets are flawed in some unknown way.
So here is one method that is used for both comets and asteroids or
any planetary body.
Firstly calculate the mass of the body:
1. Measure the orbit of the body around the Sun to determine its
semi-major axis (a) and period (P).
2. Plug this into Kepler's third law to get the mass (usually as a
ratio to a known mass).
Next calculate the volume of the body. For closer bodies you can just
look in a telescope. For further bodies you can measure radii as the
body occludes stars.
Divide the mass by the volume to get the density.
A method for comets:
Jets observed to come from comets alter their orbits. This is the same
physics used in rockets - throw mass away and the reaction will push
the comet the other way.
This can be used to calculate their masses, e.g. see "Cometary masses
derived from non-gravitational forces" by Sosa & Fernandez, 2009.
For the Tempel 1 comet:
The Deep Impact mission crashed an impactor into the nucleus of Tempel
1. The ejecta from this impact was used to calculate the mass of
Tempel 1.
See "A ballistics analysis of the Deep Impact ejecta plume:
Determining Comet Tempel 1's gravity, mass, and density" by
Richardson, et al., 2007.
For a more general paper: "Size Distribution, Structure and Density of
Cometary Nuclei" by Weissman & Lowry, 2006.
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another
observation)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
Reality Check is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this
post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post
Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reality Check
View Public Profile
Visit Reality Check's homepage!
Find More Posts by Reality Check
Old Today, 06:07 AM #352
DeiRenDopa
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,348
Originally Posted by solrey View Post
OK, hypothesis.
[...]
No, it's not one of those either.
At least, not in the sense that "hypothesis" is used in science today
(and this is, after all, the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and
Technology part of the JREF Forum).
Perhaps idea?
DeiRenDopa is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this post
for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply
With Quote Back to Top
DeiRenDopa
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by DeiRenDopa
Old Today, 08:10 AM #353
solrey
New Blood
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 20
Quote:
Since it is a fact you must have actual measurements of the voltage
potential between a comet and something else acting as a cloud (the
coma?).
My original statement was thus:
Quote:
Take into consideration that just cloud to ground voltage potential in
a thunderstorm is on the order of 109V and the fact that the voltage
potential a comet experiences, would be orders of magnitude higher.
Note the qualifier, would, which I used intentionally. Not IS.
Regardless, the answer is that a DC electric field has been measured,
as related below, but I don't have numbers on the exact strength of
that field.
Quote:
Based upon the behavior of the electric fields and the cold electrons,
three regions can be identified in the cometosheath (in particular
during the Vega 1 approach): transition layers are passed through at
?1780,000 km (R 1) and ?1360,000 km (R 2). The outer cometosheath
(near and beyond R 1) is characterized by large-scale variations in
the cold electron density and the electric field, peaking at ?11 mHz.
The R 2 crossing is detected in the plasma wave data as enhanced
fluctuations at ?115 mHz. About 25,000 km downstream of R 2, the
spacecraft traverses a current layer (thickness ?110,000 km) indicated
by a sharp gradient in the dc electric field and the cold electron
density.
RealityCheck, any random group of rocky bodies can have a wide range
of densities. You keep coming back to the same red herrings, which
seems to be a result of a very simplistic view of the EC hypothesis
specifically, and of the related geology/chemistry/physics in general.
Yeah, EC is at least a hypothesis, deirendopa.
From the American Heritage Science Dictionary, 2005 ed.
Quote:
A theory is a set of statements, including laws and hypotheses, that
explains a group of observations or phenomena in terms of those laws
and hypotheses. A theory thus accounts for a wider variety of events
than a law does. Broad acceptance of a theory comes when it has been
tested repeatedly on new data and been used to make accurate
predictions. Although a theory generally contains hypotheses that are
still open to revision, sometimes it is hard to know where the
hypothesis ends and the law or theory begins.
From Collins Essential English:
Quote:
Hypothesis
A suggested explanation for a group of facts, accepted either as a
basis for further verification or as likely to be true
Now we're down to debating symantics? Hmmmmmmm.
HI sol88.
solrey is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this post for
this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With
Quote Back to Top
solrey
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by solrey
Old Today, 08:55 AM #354
DeiRenDopa
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,348
Originally Posted by solrey View Post
[...]
Yeah, EC is at least a hypothesis, deirendopa.
From the American Heritage Science Dictionary, 2005 ed.
From Collins Essential English:
Now we're down to debating symantics? Hmmmmmmm.
[...]
Perhaps ...
... perhaps not.
In terms of how the speech community which is comprised of scientists
(or at least physical science professioinals), "hypothesis" has a
clear meaning, and from what you have presented so far in this thread,
the EC idea most definitely is NOT a hypothesis! Among other things,
AFAIK, there are no papers describing it (as in, published in relevant
peer-reviewed journals); absent such papers, whatever it is, it CANNOT
be a hypothesis (or a theory, or ...).
BTW, dictionaries and the like are fine at a coarse level, but as
linguists have known for decades, specific speech communities make
much finer distinctions, and within those communities, the fine
distinctions matter a great deal!
Of course, here in the SMM&T section of the JREF Forum, the question
of whether to use "hypothesis" or "idea" basically comes down to how
effective you want to be at communicating your thoughts to readers
here. I suggest to you that deliberately choosing a word which is
manifestly inappropriate (to your intended audience) is
counterproductive, in terms of being effective in communication.
Just my 0.02's worth ...
DeiRenDopa is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this post
for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply
With Quote Back to Top
DeiRenDopa
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by DeiRenDopa
Old Today, 10:10 AM #355
solrey
New Blood
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 20
Hey deirendopa. Yes, I'm aware that broad definitions are narrowed
down more specifically within a given discipline, or body of
knowledge.
I define the EC as a hypothesis because it entails numerous individual
processes that when combined, explain a particular complex system, or
phenomena. It is testable, has a body of supporting evidence (some of
which I have elucidated here), observations that fit the model
(regardless if other explanations already exist), requires further
investigation, both in the form of lab work and detailed, in-situ
confirmation, and there is room for modification of various aspects
within the model, if new evidence requires it, while remaining within
the constraints, or reasonable margin of error, of the original
hypothesis.
I feel that just calling EC an idea is an attempt to; demean and
discredit as simplistic, a complex hypothesis and those who believe in
it's validity.
If you choose to call a model that involves complex details in
geology, chemistry, electro-magnetism and magnetohydrodynamics, merely
an idea, then I suppose that's your choice.
I'm not saying symantics and proper terminology aren't important or
necessary in science, of course they are.
solrey is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this post for
this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With
Quote Back to Top
solrey
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by solrey
Old Today, 10:38 AM #356
DeiRenDopa
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,348
Originally Posted by solrey View Post
Hey deirendopa. Yes, I'm aware that broad definitions are narrowed
down more specifically within a given discipline, or body of
knowledge.
I define the EC as a hypothesis because it entails numerous individual
processes that when combined, explain a particular complex system, or
phenomena.
OK
Quote:
It is testable, has a body of supporting evidence (some of which I
have elucidated here), observations that fit the model (regardless if
other explanations already exist),
That may be so, however, AFAIK, none of this has been written up in
the form of a paper, and published.
For example, the plausibility of a motley collection of stuff, strung
together by nothing more than words (i.e. no apparent attempts at
back-of-the-envelope consistency checks) is, I'm sure you'll agree,
quite low in the eyes of regulars of an avowedly pro-critical thinking
forum; a single paper would change that perception quickly.
Quote:
requires further investigation, both in the form of lab work and
detailed, in-situ confirmation, and there is room for modification of
various aspects within the model, if new evidence requires it, while
remaining within the constraints, or reasonable margin of error, of
the original hypothesis.
Little, if any, of which has been presented here (AFAIK).
For example, within a few years' time, we will likely have some high
quality, in situ, quantitative data from the Rosetta mission. Yet,
AFAIK, little if any of that data could be used to test any EC ideas
... if only because virtually none of those ideas have been written up
as testable hypotheses (again, apart from anything else, there's
nothing quantitative about any EC ideas).
Quote:
I feel that just calling EC an idea is an attempt to; demean and
discredit as simplistic, a complex hypothesis and those who believe in
it's validity.
I can't say what your feelings might, or might be; however, I can
point out a likely, common, reaction that regulars here will have to
"hypothesis" vs "idea".
For example, in an earlier post you directly linked "EC theory" to
"full-blown EU theory" (or something like that). A more certain way to
declare that "EC theory" is pure crackpottery would be hard to
imagine, given the contents of several threads here ... and it matters
not a jot how unfair, unreasonable, unjust, etc you may feel such a
response would be.
Quote:
If you choose to call a model that involves complex details in
geology, chemistry, electro-magnetism and magnetohydrodynamics, merely
an idea, then I suppose that's your choice.
It ain't a model neither!
As I have said, at least once now, there are no numbers ... goodness,
there aren't even outlines of possible (electro-)chemical reactions
(and "electro-magnetism" may be another red flag; you used this word
before - "the shells of the electromagnetic environment" - to refer to
something which only you seem to know about).
Quote:
I'm not saying symantics and proper terminology aren't important or
necessary in science, of course they are.
And I'm not saying there's nothing to this EC idea, of course there
may be.
However, I'm trying to suggest (nothing more) that you may be making
presentation of your ideas more difficult to follow (let alone accept)
by using standard words (as used by your target audience) in
non-standard ways.
DeiRenDopa is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this post
for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply
With Quote Back to Top
DeiRenDopa
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by DeiRenDopa
Old Today, 12:31 PM #357
solrey
New Blood
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 20
Quote:
In an acid-base neutralization reaction,
H+ from acid reacts with the OH from base -> water, H2O
The cation (M+) from base combines with anion from acid (X) -> the
salt
HX(aq) + BOH(aq) -> H2O(l) + BX(aq)
acid base water salt
Note: -An acid will always react with a base to produce water and a
salt.
It does not matter if the salt produced is soluble or insoluble since
water always forming means a reaction always occurs.
Hmmmmm, could I just maybe know what I'm talking about here?
seattlecentral.edu/faculty/mvillarba/CHEM139/Chapter08.pdf
pg. 9
In the case of the comet, we're dealing with a gaseous solution
instead of an aqueous one, but the chemistry remains the same as it's
only H^+ and OH^- (from the mineral base) that are involved in the
reaction.
The next reaction in the chain is the electro-chemical reaction
between the mineral salts and H[2]O
Quote:
The next reaction that would occur is when that water then reacts with
free electrons, liberated from the surface, within the electric field
of the discharge current. Mineral salts in the dust and flakes etched
from the surface are probably involved in this reaction. The cathode
reaction is:
2H2O + 2e- -> 2OH- + H2
That's one key reaction chain. I see several others that could apply
to comets as well, in the above pdf., primarily the H[2]O produced by
a Hydrogen - Oxygen reaction either thermally induced (burning in the
heat of the discharge on the surface) or catalytically (analogous to
the catalytic reaction in a hydrogen fuel cell).
I have confirmed the proposed composition of a semi-conducting rock
via comparison with the material analyzed in the stardust mission and
all of the necessary materials are present.
I have analyzed and presented citations confirming the
chemical/electro-chemical reaction chains.
I have reviewed the measured EM environment ( of one comet at least )
and compared it to laboratory research involving multiple double
layers, ion-drag effects, as well as radius and thickness of the DL
sheaths.
I'll hopefully get around to doing the math as applies to comets, but
I'm afraid that insufficient data is available for some critical
variables so I'm going to have to make some educated guesses, I
suppose.
But hey, it's just an "idea"...right?
solrey is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this post for
this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With
Quote Back to Top
solrey
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by solrey
Old Today, 12:34 PM #358
solrey
New Blood
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 20
deirendopa, thank you for the friendly suggestions and advice.
I take it as valuable, constructive feedback.
solrey is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this post for
this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With
Quote Back to Top
solrey
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by solrey
Old Today, 12:55 PM #359
Reality Check
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 3,204
Originally Posted by solrey View Post
RealityCheck, any random group of rocky bodies can have a wide range
of densities. You keep coming back to the same red herrings, which
seems to be a result of a very simplistic view of the EC hypothesis
specifically, and of the related geology/chemistry/physics in general.
solrey, I keep on returning to the physical facts.
Comets have a range of measured densities centered around ~0.6 g/cc.
Asteroids have a range of measured densities centered around ~3 g/cc.
Any random group of comets have a different density from any random
group of asteroids.
Thus comets are not asteroids.
This is a result of the many simplistic assertions on the EC web site
that state that the EC "model" includes comets are asteroids.
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another
observation)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
Reality Check is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this
post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post
Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reality Check
View Public Profile
Visit Reality Check's homepage!
Find More Posts by Reality Check
Old Today, 01:18 PM #360
solrey
New Blood
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 20
realitycheck, have you reviewed my comments regarding Main Belt Comets
and localized perturbations to their EM/chemical environment
initiating a cometary phase or display? Or remember that I've been
saying that all densities are valid within the EC?
Just for the sake of discussion, to consider a comet of ~ 0.6 g/cm^3,
of similar material as revealed in Stardust, fits easily within EC, as
a factor of porosity.
It's that simple.
It's not worth dwelling on, really.
Tomaytow, tomahhtow...whaddya do?
solrey is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this post for
this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With
Quote Back to Top
solrey
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by solrey
Reply
Page 9 of 10 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >
JREF Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and
Technology
Bookmarks
* Submit Thread to Digg Digg
* Submit Thread to del.icio.us del.icio.us
* Submit Thread to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon
* Submit Thread to Google Google
* Submit Thread to Reddit Reddit
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
_________________________________________________________________
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump
[ Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology.............] Go
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:41 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2009, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of
their authors.
[-- JREF.........]
Contact Us - James Randi Educational Foundation - Archive - Privacy
Statement - Top