Dirty Snowball Model V Plasma - Comets - Page 2

KenGee (Kenith Gee) · #21 12-02-2010, 11:13 PM

Alex read your tag line mate.
Point 1 this is why nasa is keen to go it comets to findout exactly what makes them tick. Here is the Whipple paper from 1949 you keep talking about. http://adsabs.harvard.edu//full/seri...00375.000.html read it
Now what the new data is doing is filling this detail and answering some of the questions raised by Whipple in not completly trashing the hypothesis.
Point 2 try low gravity.
Point 3 the plasma model as you have explained it would have the tails pointing in radome directions, but this isn't what we see.

The Whipple model needs refinement the fact that it was defined before space flight I'd say it was an example of first class science based on the know facts at the time. The fact that new facts mean it needs to be adjusted, well that's called science.

See you on the dance floor Alex.

Jarvamundo (Alex) · #22 13-02-2010, 12:07 PM

Point 1: Did that link to Whipple come from my Post #7? I've read that well written paper.
Point 2: The electric model does not dismiss gravity? You are misinformed, see link below.
Point 3: False and misleading assumptions. see link below

In the interest of clearing up conceptions about the proposed Electric Model of the comet... A good description of features is http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf

Taking nothing away from the brilliance of Science's great pioneers... some answers to the puzzles we are finding with comets might come from alternative models that many professionals have been collaborating on for sometime now.

I had wished this thread to explore some of these details, as the electrical nature of the features we are finding is striking to me... These electrical features have been clearly understood on this planet for sometime, and these electrical scientists might be able to aid the astronomical community without re-inventing any wheels...

I think we are doing a bit more than refining a model, or filling in detail when the leading experts say...

Quote:

"The consensus model of a comet leading up to the Deep Impact experiment is no longer valid, says Don Yeomans at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, US, a member of the mission science team. "It's certainly not a dirty iceball or an icy dirtball," he told New Scientist. "It's a very, very weak, dusty structure with interior ices."

It's a brave thing for mainstream come out with, and good science. I applaud it.

It would seem obvious some fundamental assumptions are being re-examined.

Outbackmanyep · #23 09-03-2010, 10:01 AM

Have a read.....

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc...ney/index.html

Jarvamundo (Alex) · #24 09-03-2010, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Have a read.....

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc...ney/index.html

Never heard of that guy? I think you are straying from the theory I originally presented, and going down the predictable Ad Hominem path of unrelated sources.

Have a read: IEEE paper http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freea...number=4346306 of the actual theory i discussed

but then you'll say something like "IEEE (the largest professional organisation on the planet) isn't about astronomy"...

but then i'll say hey look recently 2009 NASA (astronomy mainstream) invites them to talk to them... about problems they are having.

have a watch: http://mediaman.gsfc.nasa.gov/colloq...NG20090316.asx

If it's alright with NASA to explore these concepts, surely you guys can come along too. cmon, its fun and wont hurt... i promise...

Outbackmanyep · #25 09-03-2010, 04:15 PM

Alex, you refer to this passage

"The consensus model of a comet leading up to the Deep Impact experiment is no longer valid, says Don Yeomans at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, US, a member of the mission science team. "It's certainly not a dirty iceball or an icy dirtball," he told New Scientist. "It's a very, very weak, dusty structure with interior ices."

If you went back and read the entire article in its context, Don Yeomans was NOT inferring that the "Dirty Snowball" model is dead, and it certainly does NOT suggest an "Electric Comet"..........
What i believe is being suggested is that the "dirty snowball" is being misconceived and that comets are more complex than we realise!
So in reality the article isn't telling me anything new! This is the reason why we explore.......we still don't fully understand!

Jarvamundo (Alex) · #26 09-03-2010, 04:47 PM

I agree, Correct Don Yeomans did not suggest the Electric Comet... never said he did.

Wallace Thornhill has developed this theory based on plasma/solar wind interaction.... of which i originally presented #1, and IEEE paper above

Quote:

The presence of the OH radical may be due to combination of sputtered negative oxygen ions from the comet nucleus with solar 'wind' protons and is consistent with the lack of water ice observed on comet nuclei

This is a distinctly different model... this says the OH does not come from the comet-water-ice-sublimation, but from a solar wind / plasma ion interaction with oxygen from the comet.

In a nutshell this means... we've detected OH in the spectrograph of cometary tails... so we think "wow i think thats water there"... but then the plot thickens... because we find 99.95% absence of surface water, and a range of other features not consistent with consensus.... another word for this is "surprising"

Wallace's theory explains why when we visit a comets surface, or slam a 400kg projectile into the surface we see no increase in that OH spectrum, or any visible water ice subsurface, or a even smooth sublimated object (as Don's expert associate mentioned is required by sublimating mainstream).

Wallace's theory is also consistent with the double flash, the blinding of cameras, the large puff of "surprizingly" fine dust, the discharge of filaments from the non-sun-facing side, filaments themselves (birkeland currents), large spikes and uneven surface features, comet brightening beyond 4AU (whipple's limit).

It's a theory that made distinct, published predictions well before observations.

As mentioned the electrical (plasma) solutions to cosmological questions are now being examined at NASA, and to swiftly label them as "crack pot" is misleading and irresponsible, especially since none of the links or people you mention are part of Wallace Thornhill's specific theory. You've just merely pointed out some unrelated theory, to try and detract from this specific one.

This is what warranted the clarification.

Outbackmanyep · #27 09-03-2010, 05:01 PM

When you say "discharge of filaments from the non-sunward facing side" are you talking about jets?
Comet nuclei do rotate!

As for the uneven surface features how does plasma physics explain these features?
The surface could be just erosion of soft material from harder packed material due to sublimation processes.

What large spikes are you referring to?

This just gets more interesting doesn't it!?

ngcles · #28 09-03-2010, 05:11 PM

Hi Jarvamundo & All,

The way science basically works is that someone comes up with a theory that best explains a set of facts. They go away and find ways of experimentally testing the theory, perform the experiments and see if the results further support the theory. In this way the theory becomes the "standard model" -- that's not to say it's absolute fact but it is the best theory that passes the Occham's Razor test. For example the Big-Bang theory is the "standard model".

Why is it the standard model? Put simply, it explains all the observed facts in the simplest way and makes the fewest number of unsupported assumptions. If evidence comes to light that disproves a model, then the model is either modified or discarded. If over time a theory has withstood everything thrown at it, it tends to harden into "fact". Fred Whipple's theory has undergone some slight modifications but has stood the test of time well.

The Dirty Snowball model is at present, and by some distance, the best model that explains cometary behaviour. The theory of which you have spoken has little to no supporting evidence, is contradicted by a considerable body of observational evidence and (much less importantly) no-one of any standing in the field is supporting it.

When the proponents start to accuse NASA of certain conspiracies and cover-ups, their credibility takes a big hit in my and most people's eyes and ...

... when Immanuel Velikovski gets a mention (even a passing mention), I'm sorry, but my fingers go straight into my ears and I go La-La-La-La-La-La

Does this "plasma" idea pass Occham's Razor -- not by any stretch of the imagination.

Best,

Les D

Jarvamundo (Alex) · #29 09-03-2010, 05:31 PM

Quote:

As for the uneven surface features how does plasma physics explain these features? (1)
The surface could be just erosion of soft material from harder packed material due to sublimation processes. (2)

What large spikes are you referring to? (3)

Cool i like it... now we are discussing things... heres the fun bit.

I've put some numbers in your quote to help explore this...

1) Thornhill explains that the surface features are due to electric discharge machining EDM of rock.

Quote:

The single most dramatic prediction of the electric comet model is this: onclose inspection a comet nucleus will reveal the well-defined effects of theelectrical arcs that progressively etch away the surface and accelerate materialinto space.

From the electrical vantage point, comets Wild 2 and Tempel 1 are“low voltage comets,” but even in these cases the etching process has beenmore than sufficient to make our case.On viewing the close-ups of Wild 2, several scientists initially declared thatthe craters were the result of impacts.

But a small rock will not attract impac-tors, and it is inconceivable that such a small body could have been subjectedto enough projectiles to cover it, end to end, with craters. And even if the in-conceivable actually occurred, all surface relief would be quickly degraded bysublimation of the ices that are assumed to be responsible for the cometarydisplay.

The nucleus of Wild 2 was, in the words of team members, “covered withspires, pits and craters,” features that are more likely for a solid rock than amelting chunk of ice.

(2) The surface could be just erosion of soft material from harder packed material due to sublimation processes.

Yeah it could be... but it's a BIG BIG stretch to suggest these surface features are erosion from sublimation

From Deep Impact Team http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news116.html

Quote:

But the biggest surprise discovered during the flyby came with the comet images (72 taken during the pass). The camera team, led by JPL's longtime comet expert, Ray Newburn, had expected that the comet would be a rather bland object looking somewhat like a black potato. What we saw, even in the very first picture sent back, was quite dramatic. We saw kilometer-sized deep holes bounded by vertical and even overhanging cliffs; flat topped hills surrounded by cliffs; spiky pinnacles hundreds of meters tall, pointed skyward:

If you still think sublimating erosion causes those.... hey go for it... I'm sliding over to the rock side on that one...

(3) What large spikes are you referring to?
from above: "spiky pinnacles hundreds of meters tall, pointed skyward"

again... sublimating ice erosion? hmmm .... again go for it.... i'm rock on that one too..

Thornhill's Electrical model predicted these features.... and with EDM you can get the same features in a lab experiment.

And another thing that fits is... the electrostatic even scattering of dust... (why we found big puffs of dust).... ironically some here would know that this is the EXACT method we use to coat telescope mirrors.

In response to Lez... have a read of this post... if you can tell me how whipple's model matches those VASTLY SURPRIZING facts... please tell me and NASA's expert Ray Newburn........ hmm... maybe this is how science works... maybe not... but hey.. come along and explore it'll be fun.... and i promise, we can all make our own minds up... I'll even let you bring that nifty razor of yours ;-)

Quote:

This just gets more interesting doesn't it!?

you betcha! ;-)

Surely it doesn't hurt to do a little amatuer science, in the amatuer science forum?

MuntiNZ (Daz) · #30 09-03-2010, 06:44 PM

Haha ha this is classic cult stuff gotta luv it!!!!!

When I was a kid when the internet was new I joined some mail group for astronomy but it got taken over by these freaks in holland or some where that dribbled on about how space men were coming to save us and they was going to set up a school to teach kids that the aliens were on the way!!!
This thread brings back those memorys!!!!!

Jarvamundo (Alex) · #31 09-03-2010, 07:12 PM

Not my theory champ, just an IEEE published paper. IEEE's the biggest cult of them all.

davesmith_au (Dave) · #32 10-03-2010, 03:12 AM

Hi guys, I'm new to this forum, but would like to make a few points with regard to where this thread came from and where it seems to be going.

I am involved with the Thunderbolts.info site (and, by association, with Wal Thornhill's holoscience site), and can and sometimes do make statements about Electric Universe theory as proposed by Thornhill, Talbott, Scott et al when appropriate.

Alex, like many interested and well-meaning folk, posted in the first post a link to a youtube video which is NOT endorsed by nor does it constitute any part of the Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology published data. Whilst it may contain some valid information, the "NASA cover up" and other "conspiracy" type claims should not be regarded as any part of Electric Universe theory. Taking it as anything but the personal opinion of a supporter of EU is erroneous, just as would be the quoting of a forum post here as the "Official Word" of some astronomy theory instead of the opinion of an adherent.

If people want to seriously consider the scientific issues raised by Alex, they would do well to read information published by the Electric Universe crowd themselves. Whilst the proponents have published several books for sale (as well as peer-reviewed papers as noted by Alex), they do make an enormous amount of information available on their sites. At present large portions of one of those books, The Electric Universe by Wal Thronhill and David Talbott, are being published in a series of "Special Edition" Thunderblogs, presented by yours truly. Coincidentally I began with Chapter 4, "Electric Comets" and it is information from this which should be discussed in this thread, rather than the personal opinions of an adherent.

Well done Alex for having a go, and don't be discouraged by the ad hom nature of some of the respondents. Stick with the science and you won't go wrong.

Cheers, Dave Smith.

MuntiNZ (Daz) · #33 10-03-2010, 06:32 AM

Even tho I am not a brainbox and didnt do uni my little brother did and I watched the stuff he was into when he did a geology degree.
Like how he read every thing about the stuff he was working on and not just the stuff which agreed with what he was saying.
So he knew every sides of the argument.
Coz if he didnt some one would trip him up with facts he didnt no about.
And the other thing was the experiments they did.
Not only to find out if there ideas were right but also to see if they were WRONG.
Its like he says the guys who support the ideas like this one above never want to read about the opposing ideas they always just memorize all of the arguments which support there fav ideas and go blahblahblah really loudly to drown out the opposition.
And where are the experimental results to support the ideas?
Dont you reckon some one would kill to win the Noble prize by proving all the current ideas are wrong?
These out there ideas are always with out any support by experiments and hard evidence.
Its always just saying 'I luv this cool idea better than the boring ones of people who went to uni and did experiments so I am gonna repeat these freak claims over and over until people stop arguing and agree that Im the greatest genius ever and didnt need to get a degree!!!!'

Jarvamundo (Alex) · #34 10-03-2010, 10:26 AM

It's you again champ... nobel your after? EU's already got a couple 2nd

The 2nd guy "langmuir" invented this thing called a Langmuir Probe... (in a nutshell it's a way to measure electrostatic charge seperation in plasma)....

Relevance...? Well it's EXACTLY what NASA straps onto spacecraft to take measurements on comets, asteroids, space! (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2003/pdf/1906.pdf).

It's a big paper... just open it up... pdf search for "langmuir".... come along.. lets go measure some plasma ;-)

Quote:

Does this "plasma" idea pass Occham's Razor -- not by any stretch of the imagination.

Les, you list that you are a contributing editor of Australian Sky and Telescope Magazine. If you are going to place that on your public profile, and make a comment like above, you have a responsibility to contribute some specific sources that are clear to this topic, and mentioned IEEE peer reviewed paper, as i have. I am sincerely interested if you have access to knowledge or information that i, or this audience, do not. </honest respectful request>

Rob_K · #35 10-03-2010, 11:19 AM

For pity’s sake, hasn’t this thread gone on long enough? I can understand that you and your mate Dave are filled with the certainty, smugness and missionary zeal of the credulous and ill-informed, but do you have to inflict it on the rest of us? Take it somewhere else, please.

Cheers -

Outbackmanyep · #36 10-03-2010, 01:01 PM

According to David H Levy "comets are like cats, they have tails and do exactly what they want...."

Jarvamundo (Alex) · #37 10-03-2010, 01:29 PM

Levy was onto something... as you would be if you discovered as many comets as he did.

Birkeland currents behave in this very manner

we are now finding stars that are doing the same thing (mira) notice the intensity brightening at the poles of this star.

I'm not saying any theory (or idea or hypothesis or insert whatever word you feel would fit) is 100% right... i'm just saying, hey, everyone take their own look.... if you don't want to... thats fine... if you can't be bothered... thats fine too... i just wish someone told me about this earlier.

The best to you all,
Cheers

MuntiNZ (Daz) · #38 10-03-2010, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

I'm not saying any theory is 100% right... i'm just saying, hey, everyone take their own look....

I showed this stuff to my brother and he says you need to get a dictionary out and look up 'theory' coz it doesnt mean what you think it does.

adman (Adam) · #39 10-03-2010, 09:59 PM

Normally I am happy to let eveyone have their own opinions / thoughts / theories etc, but there is something about this thread that makes me very wary.

It has taken me a while to put my finger on it, but this is what I think it is....

Alex - I am very suspicious of your motives in this thread for the simple reason that you are trying too hard to get people to listen to you. It makes me think that you have some personal investment or incentive to push these ideas. The tone of your posts is almost evangelical (for want of a better word), and on occasion more than a little condescending.

That combination always makes me cautious.

Just to be clear - I am not making any comment on the merits of any of the theories or ideas that have been put forth, just the way they have been delivered.

snas (Stuart) · #40 11-03-2010, 08:51 AM

Adam
I have to agree with you. In the Australian Veterinary Association we have a group of homeopaths. Very righteous, almost evangelical. And any evidence based science that reputable scientists can come with to debunk their theories is always shot down with more crazy theories.
Like yourself, I am not debunking the claims that have been made here, because, after all, what do i know, I'm just a biologist with an interest in astronomy. It's the way this is presented that concerns me.
Stuart....living not far from you Adam at 27.5S 153.25E