The Recurring Odd Shape Of Comets

originally posted by: Hijinx
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Because a lobed object is necessary to prove the EU theory, how ever the EU theory is not necessary to explain a lobed object.

There are a number of reasons these objects could become shaped this way. If the EU theory was correct, all the objects would be shaped this way and this is simply not true.

Perhaps you glossed over the part where I said round objects were also produced.

The two most common shapes were round and lobed objects, which happen to be the two most common comet shapes.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: Hijinx
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Because a lobed object is necessary to prove the EU theory, how ever the EU theory is not necessary to explain a lobed object.

There are a number of reasons these objects could become shaped this way. If the EU theory was correct, all the objects would be shaped this way and this is simply not true.

Perhaps you glossed over the part where I said round objects were also produced.

The two most common shapes were round and lobed objects, which happen to be the two most common comet shapes.

Do you deny that it's possible for an object's shape to be determined by the centrifugal force of it's spin, based upon the elasticity of the material while it is very warm or hot? That uneven distribution of denser materials that have more mass during this time period can result in shapes that are oblong, irregular or lobed?

That more evenly distributed material that is denser in nature than the other material will result in a more round object?

This can be demonstrated quite well with a chunk of dough. Throwing the dough in the air with a certain axial spin and result in the above shapes.

As the material cools, the shape is retained as the more solid materials become rigid and are no longer as elastic as they were while warm.

No plasma or EU theory needed. Only centrifugal force and for the material to be elastic for a period of time before it becomes much more rigid.

a reply to: eriktheawful

So let's go over the points of your hypothesis starting from square one.

First, molten comet material, having elastic properties, would have to be formed out in deep space. How exactly does this come about again?

Next, this formed material would have to spin itself into comets with lobes 50% of the time according to the sample of comets we have observed so far.

Next, somehow water ice would have to be put back into the center of these hollowed out lobed orbiting mountains after the material finished cooling off.

Finally, the orbit of this material would have to be altered to put it on an oblong path around the Sun.

It should be noted that NASA thinks Chury was formed by two comets colliding with each other. Think of a bullet hitting a bullet, each being randomly fired in any direction. Basically the odds of that happening are virtually zero, but that's what they claim. Not only did these two bullets manage to hit each other, but they did so in a way that didn't result in both of them being vaporized. It's a fairy tale.

Most of a rough outline for the video. I'll put together something shorter and more to the point (ie an abstract) tomorrow. This rough outline takes you to about twenty minutes remaining. Worked on this from 0800 to approximately 1600. Like I said before, the baby takes priority. Have other things to attend to this afternoon, so this is all that's getting done today.

ETA: Typed in notepad with the video playing next. Watching the video, not my typing. So I apologize for any spelling errors.

Symbols of an Alien Sky - The Electric Comet
Presented by Thunderbolts Project

Comet - a wonder to behold
Mystified humanity
Current science filled with unreseolved mysteries
People still think of "mere chunks of dirty ice warming in the sun"
Core theoritical assumptions must be reconsidered
New facts about comets ignore electrical behavior of sun, changes pictures of comets all together
Charged particles erupting from sun to exchange charge between coma and nucleus of comet, not erupting ice and rising surface temperatures
Comets are the residue of shattering planetary catastrophe

Whipple Vs Electric
Standard View of Comets
Mid-20th Century scientific consensus with "dirty snowball hypothesis"
Conglomerates of water, CO, CO2, and primordial dust
Dilema caused - comets lose considerable mass each orbit, comets we see cannot have been around that long
Oort envisioned Oort clouds, after billions of years comets could be deflected to inner solar system to creat comets
By 1990s it became evident that more evident that more bodies in closer orbits than Oort cloud, with short term comets origintaing from Kuiper Belt
KB objects are too stable to be short term comets in compuyter models
Despite changes in origin, the composition of comets has never changed
Eletric Model of Comets
Comets are "debris left by intense electrical activity in an earlier phase of solar system evolution, not billions of years ago, but a much more recent epoch of planetary instability and violence. One that reached even into early human times." (never explains this phase of recent solar system evolution)
Combines historical facts with recent discoveries about comets (what historical facts? never stated)
Comets, asteroids, and meteors born from electrical arcs that blasted material from surfaces of planets and moons
Creates fused objects that are identitical in appearance to fused material in lab experiments
Comets move on elliptical path through sun's eletrical field ("exceedingly weak field, but immensely powerful across the great distances of interplanetary space."
Charge imbalance creates coma and long tail
Tails caused by arc discharges along jets
Arcs caused comets to be burnt black
This should not occur in the vacuum of space
Tails are proof of electric component
Coma is held together by electric field against solar wind

The "Laws" of Compositional Zoning
Stardust Mission aerogel data contradicts
Dust grains larger, stronger, with far more complex structure and chemistry than theory allowed
Found crystaline structures, which cannot form in near absolute zero temperatures
Silicates found in Halley, but data ignored
No water ice or traces found in aerogel
Iron and sulfur minerals found that can only be found in presence of liquid water, not in vacuum or cold of space
Commonly found olivine, which breaks down in water, caused by vulcanism
Proof of failure of compositional zoning when theory applied to comets
Created various minerals by "selective heating"

Is a coherent explanation possible?
Stardust findings invalidate Oort cloud theory
Created from Mars (not explained how, when)
(exceedingly short segment, approx two mins)

Where's the Water?
No water or ice found in aerogel
Shoemaker Levy 9, LINEAR (not stated which) Elenin all showed no water or volitile gasses when broken up
Borrelly observed to be hot and dry
Scientists covered this up by saying ice was hidden deep within the comet and unobservable
Scientists state that water is found in coma of comets, however OH- and H+ are what is seen. This is not water, so water cannot be present
Greater concentration of H+ than OH- that is not understood by scientists
Simple and direct ways to produce OH- without water - silicates, when bombarded by protons, will produce OH- without water. This has been ignored by cometary scientists.
This eveidence points to charged particles of sun interacting with negatively charged surfaces of comets, not light enegy
Comets pick up negative charge when far from the sun (not stated how this happens), as they move into sun's positively charged environment (not stated why it is charged as such) the electrical dischage is expected
Negative oxygen ions from coma combine with solar wind protons to form OH-

High Energy Emissions
Modern science downplays high energy emissions in UV and x-Ray from comets
UV means an electrical event, such as in mercury vapor lamps and electrical arcs
UV explained by coma reflecting UV light from sun by sun

Surprising Energies of Comet X-Rays
Large X-Ray emissions shown in stellar objects, which should be impossible in the electrically neutral space
1996 comet discovered via ROSAT to have more x-rays than expected
2000 LINEAR emitted x-rays on disintegration
These x-ray emissions are caused by strong electric field along the comet's plasma sheath, the sheath surrounds and isolates the negatively charged nucleus from the positively charged environment of the sun. Where sheath is compressed in the direction of the sun, charged particles are accelerated to x-ray energies.
Emissions occur from interaction of negatively charged coma and positively charged solar wind
Electric model predicts that all active comets will produce x-ray emissions

Deep Impact
Single, most critical test of EU theory in DI probe
Thunderbolt group gave "predictions" not in a scientific manner, but in a prophetic one. Predictions not stated in video, though alluded to be omenous to current theories (predictions are given in quotes, eventually)
First prediction - "Electrical stress may short out the electronics on board the impactor before impact." This was proven as the signal became disrupted seconds before impact
Second prediction - "The most obvious would be a flash (lightning like discharge) shortly before impact." This is exactly what occurred, which left NASA perplexed
Third prediction - "More energy will be released han expected because of the electrical contributions of the comet." Scientists expected to peer into a deep hole in an icy snowball, but the explosion was so large and the silicate dust was too thick to allow this. This was predicted by EU theorists.
Fourth prediction - "The impact/electrical discharge will be into rock, not loosely consolidated ice and dust." SWIFT provided view of explosion in visible and UV, which proved this to be correct. Without solid rock impact, no UV would have been possible

CONTINUED...

The rest of the rough outline. As I said, this takes you to about twenty minutes remaining in the video.

Still Looking for Water
DI was supposed to excavate surface material and show ice below.
Absense of water and other volatile chemicals shows that cometary theory is fundamentally flawed.
Jets of water and gas of Tempel 1 previously imaged were not actually observed and were never found.
Locations of jets actually shift as the charge distribution is relocated along the surface of the nucleus.
Proven by Nordic telescope which two pictures. One July 3 and one 15 hours after impact, which shows the jets in different positions (because the nucleus was not rotating, apparently?)

Surface Features
Thundebolts group predicted that the surface of the nucleus would be "the opposite of the softened relief expected of a sublimating 'dirty snowball'."
This was proven to be the case, debate still rages to this day

Arrival of Stardust/NExT
Old mysteries became deeper. EU theory only further confirmed in ridges and impact craters observed.
Craters not by impacts, which are nearly impossible according to EU theory
Craters created by electric discharges.

Surface Arcing
Seen on Io, producing blotches of "white out" that were misidentified as lava lakes and flows
Seen on Wild 2 with small saturations, but insignficant resolution for definitive case
Seen on Tempel 1 all over, which were presented where EU model states - eroding crater walls and cliffs
These have been largely ignored by scientists
Tempel 1 very active during DI mission due to active sun and increase in proton, not active during Stardust/NExT due to inactive sun and decrease in protons.
NASA theoriized that mass loss generalized across the surface of a comet, EU states that excavation is local and selective. This could have only been caused by electrical erosion
Nothing could be seen in DI impact crater in Stardust/NExT images

Energetic Coma Activity
Water and OH- production in coma, not found significantly on surface
Nothing could account for energies of jets and water and OH- in coma
EU model shows how this occurs - "Negative oxygen ions from cathodic etching of rock minerals in the nucleus will combine with protons from the solar wind to form water in the coma and tail."

The Message of Deep Impact
Remarkedly consistent with EU theories, despite baffling most other scientists
DI proves larger electrical environment of the sun - this will forever change space science

Comet Hartley 2
EPOXI visited in 2010. Double lobed shape made no sense to scientists and was not in alignment with theories of accretion and formation of bodies
Two lobes are of radically different compositions, eliminating the possibility of the Oort cloud. Primary outgassing from smaller lobe. Proposed that two lobes formed seperately in different regions of the solar system.
Collision of this sort to form this body would be extremely unlikely

Hartley 2: Enigmatic "Waist"
Gravity could not cause the waist, as proposed by scientists. This was caused by electric disposition.

High-Energy Jets
Jets in both sun and shade, all with equal force.
Surface exposure is not enough to drive jets. Dust and CO2 are jetted in equal proportions, driven primarily by CO2.
Jets do not show openings of subsurface chambers

The Cyanide Anomaly
CN amount changed, while dust amount did not.
CN increase was not shown in cometary jets.
CN originated from electro-chemical activity in coma - Plasma generation in the coma, H gas cloud surrounding the coma, dust tail formation, ionized plasma tails, gas production within the coma.
NASA states that CN anomaly was caused by instrument failure, which was to cover up the real data set

The Mystery of Exploding Comets
Comet Elenin will intersect the orbit of Earth. Most expected the comet to be mundane and unexceptional. Crossing of earth's orbit lead to several doomsday theories, despite scientists pointing out contradictory evidence.
The Surpise
In 2011 Elenin grew brighter than expected, but that changed with CME striking comet. CME flaired brightly, then dimmed, before vanushing in glare of the sun.
Later faint and diffuse cloud of dust were all that was found after rounding the sun.
Only explanation for this was CME being overcharged with electricity and exploded. This could not have happened under gentle solar heating.
Example is Comet Halley exploding near Uranus, which could not have been caused by thermal stresses. Cuased by charged particles from CME preceeding event.
No explanation of increase in size of coma of Comet Holmes in 2007. Two days prior there was a sharp increase in solar wind. This caused comet to break up and increase in brightness.

LOTS of quotes from NASA, other govt orgs, university scientists and scientifici publications (no author or article given) intersparsed, but rarely sourced. Unable to find associated quotes to read/hear them in context. Quotes by Thunderbolt group and EU theoriests are typically dated and sourced.

Comets pick up negative charge when far from the sun (not stated how this happens), as they move into sun's positively charged environment (not stated why it is charged as such)

Now I know why they would not elaborate on the mechanism in which a comet acquires a negative charge or the charge related to the sun. It's not in the video!

originally posted by: BGTM90

Comets pick up negative charge when far from the sun (not stated how this happens), as they move into sun's positively charged environment (not stated why it is charged as such)

Now I know why they would not elaborate on the mechanism in which a comet acquires a negative charge or the charge related to the sun. It's not in the video!

I don't know how many times I have to say this or link the Wiki article, but comets acquire their charge simply by orbiting in the electric field of the Sun.

If you put an object in an electric field, it will acquire a charge.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

That isn't what the video says. It just says that the outer reaches of the solar system are negatively charged, while the inner reaches are positively charged. It does not give an explanation of how or why this is the case. No mention of surface charge.

I posted a very thorough outline of the video before. I suggest reading through it, because it seems you haven't watched it yourself.

originally posted by: cmdrkeenkid
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

That isn't what the video says. It just says that the outer reaches of the solar system are negatively charged, while the inner reaches are positively charged. It does not give an explanation of how or why this is the case. No mention of surface charge.

I posted a very thorough outline of the video before. I suggest reading through it, because it seems you haven't watched it yourself.

The video says a weak electric field pervades the solar system. This is the core of EU theory. EU theory assumes the Sun is externally powered by an electric current that flows into and away from the Sun by way of galactic currents. The specifics of this theory are not covered in the video because it is focused on comets.

If you want to know more about the specifics of the solar theory, and why EU theory believes the an electric field surrounds the Sun, look here:

Plasma Physics' Answers to the New Cosmological Questions by Dr. Donald E. Scott
www.youtube.com...

The Electric Sun by Dr. Donald E. Scott
www.youtube.com...

Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille: Sun on Trial
www.youtube.com...

WAL THORNHILL: From Cosmic Currents to the Electric Sun
www.youtube.com...

Papers:

Electric Discharge as the Source of Solar Radiant Energy (Part I)
Juergens R. E. ,Kronos Vol. VIII No. 1, Fall 1982
www.kronos-press.com...

Electric Discharge as the Source of Solar Radiant Energy (Part 2)
Juergens R. E. ,Kronos Vol. VIII No. 2, Winter 1983
www.kronos-press.com...

A Solar Junction Transistor Mechanism
Scott D. E. ,ICOPS 2007. IEEE 34th International Conference on Plasma Science, 2007
ieeexplore.ieee.org...

The Z-Pinch Morphology of Supernova 1987A and Electric Stars
Th ornhill W. ,IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. 35, N.4, pp.832-844, August 2007

An electrically powered binary star?
Wu K. ,et al. ,Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 331 (2002) 221
arxiv.org...

Radiation Properties of Pulsar Magnetospheres: Observation, Theory, and Experiment
Healy, K. R. & Peratt, A. L. Ap&SS, Vol. 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 229-253


Cosmic Plasma
Hannes Alfven, academic book

Responses to criticisms about the theory:
sites.google.com...

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

What can you tell someone who knows everything? Nothing.

I'm out.

Good luck everyone else who has the moxie to stick this one through.

originally posted by: cmdrkeenkid
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

What can you tell someone who knows everything? Nothing.

I'm out.

Good luck everyone else who has the moxie to stick this one through.

LOL

I don't know everything, but I do know the dirty snowball model of comets is a joke.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Wow. Now there is something.

You fully embrace EU......and yet, you can't even say how standard models work.

Really? You've really embraced something (especially something that fell out of favor many decades ago as we learned more and more about the universe and the microverse).....without understanding how the standard models work?

How can you even intelligently debate something if you do not have a good understanding of what it is you are debating against?

Material in the outer system (we'll start with Jupiter, especially since you like to use Temple 1 as a example, and it is considered a Jupiter area comet, unlike deep space long period comets), conglomerate together and end up with micro gravity, because the small clump has slightly more mass than the surrounding material.

As the clumps get bigger, they end up with more and more mass, attracting more material that is around it.

Over time as the object get's larger and larger, it will suffer impacts with other objects (generates heat), will compress the material inside it (generates heat), will have small voids that can move together, which generates friction (which is heat). If it gets near any very large object with enough gravity, it will experience tidal forces which can, you guessed it, generate heat.

The formation of solid objects from clouds of material ends up generating quite a bit of heat. Place said material under spin, and you can end up with very unusual shapes unless there is enough material to hold a spherical shape (around 400 miles wide or more).

Anyone that has ever studied space will have read about this, and learned this. Even if they are deciding that they want to learn about EU, and ESPECIALLY if they want to debate it, they SHOULD understand the Standard Models.

How can you intelligently debate this if you don't understand what it is that you are debating against? Your post that these objects are forming at cold temps is.......ludicrous and very, very ignorant.

It's like debating with someone that Oranges are better than the Apple the other person likes.....only you have NO idea WHAT an Apple is......

:shaking my head in disbelief:

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: cmdrkeenkid
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

What can you tell someone who knows everything? Nothing.

I'm out.

Good luck everyone else who has the moxie to stick this one through.

LOL

I don't know everything, but I do know the dirty snowball model of comets is a joke.

See?

You don't even know that scientist do NOT call comets "dirty snowballs"

Your ignorance is the joke here.

No wonder you come off as someone that has no idea what it is they are talking about.

Instead, you try to use something like that as a talking or debating point.....when all you are doing is showing over and over and over that you have no clue at all......

originally posted by: eriktheawful
You don't even know that scientist do NOT call comets "dirty snowballs"

Well that's strange.

I guess the ESO didn't get the memo:

www.eso.org...

When this comet passed near the Sun in early 1986, it was a bright, naked-eye object with a spectacular tail. Now, 5 years later, it has moved more than 2140 million kilometres away from the Sun and the sunlight reflected from the 15-kilometre "dirty snowball" nucleus has become so faint that it can hardly be seen, even with large, modern telescopes.

I ran "dirty snowball" through a Google Scholar search and got nearly a 1000 results:

scholar.google.com...

Try it for yourself.

Oh, and what were you saying about me?

Your ignorance is the joke here.

No wonder you come off as someone that has no idea what it is they are talking about.

People in glass houses....

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

:clap - clap - clap:

Wow. You found that it's commonly used as a ....wait for it....because you've been told for the ...oh I've lost count now.....

Layman's Term

Take a look at your links.

Now, if you really, REALLY want to prove your point that the words "Dirty Snowball" are actually used by scientists who publish their findings......

Let's see it in some published scientific journals over the last few decades.....

You still have not shown me where you even understand the standard model enough to even debate this at all in a correct manner.

Instead: you're debating in the same way that people on here debate politics....you try to use talking points.

Ho hum.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
Let's see it in some published scientific journals over the last few decades.....

scholar.google.com...


I like how this 2013 paper describes it:

In order to compute the expected cosmogenic isotope production on a comet, we make assumptions about its composition, which varies greatly depending on the origin and history of the comet. The comet nucleus (often called a “dirty snowball” or “icy dust ball” depending upon composition) contains rock, frozen gases, and a large amount of water ice combined with ices of other volatiles. The densities of most short-period comet nuclei vary from 0.3 to 0.6 g/cm3 (Britt et al. 2006), whereas the density of long-period comets are probably lower, but largely unknown due to limited measurement opportunities.

This is fun.

I'm enjoying our conversation together.

Regarding the appearance and activity of Rosetta's comet, as posted at the Comets and Asteroids Facebook page:



Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.imaged August 8, 2014 from ROSETTA space craft at a distance of 81 km. The comet is approximately 1 year before perihelion. Neck region and much of the surface is blanketed in dust from many perihelion passages. The upper layers of the nucleus are volatile depleted, and are called a "mantle" consisting of dust refractory material. The eroded surface is covered with numerous depressions and outcroppings, each awaiting analysis and explanation by the ROSETTA science team.

Only a small fraction (1.4%) of the surface is active according to the paper Beginning of activity in 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko and predictions for 2014-2015 by C. Snodgrass, C. Tubiana, D. M. Bramich, K. Meech, H. Boehnhardt, L. Barrera. This small active surface area limits sublimation and gas production. Gas production is required to lift refractory material or dust by drag forces. With low gas production only small particles can be lifted with sufficient speed to escape the small gravity of the nucleus. Those particles that are lifted but do not escape simply loop around and fall back toward the center of gravity.

~~~

By the way, looking at this excellent photo, it's even clearer to me that I'm not looking at a solid rocky body. The comet's surface has very similar appearance to the icy surfaces of moons like Mimas or Enceladus, with their sharp crags and cliffs on an otherwise very smooth surface.
lightsinthedark.files.wordpress.com...

a reply to: wildespace

By the way, looking at this excellent photo, it's even clearer to me that I'm not looking at a solid rocky body.

And it can't be anything conventional if the 'experts' are correct about it's density. From Wikipedia:

Comet 67P/C-G
102±9 kg/m³

Silica
2648 kg/m3

Water
999.9720 kg/m3

Ice is about 90% the density of water. So what the heck is it made of? Or is it hollow?

a reply to: GaryN

Hi GaryN look a picture taken in deep space !!!

Comet

a reply to: wmd_2008

Deep space? It's close to an object that will generate UV and IR from bombardment of it's surface by the Suns invisible, x-ray and EUV, and UV energy. What wavelenngths are these pictures taken at? Most are still being imaged with the NavCam, which is a Star Tracker, which nobody knows how it works or what wavelengths it detects, but because of its design, can only be used on very dim objects. If you were where Rosetta was, do you think your eyes would detect anything? It will be very close to pitch black out there.