Electric Comets

[papageno]

Your reply gave me the impression that you thought that mainstream astrophysics attributes the sublimation of comet material to its interaction with the Solar Wind.
I pointed out that this is incorrect, because the sublimation is caused by the radiant heat from the Sun, and I gave a link to support this point.
The link was not meant to address the X-ray emission.

"radiant heat from the Sun" out near Jupiter? Sublimation? has this been confirmed? Comets are mostly Ice?

Seems the team over at JPL's Stardust mission think otherwise, and I dare to say they are the mainstream, check out thier " Stardust Findings May Alter View of Comet Formation" Mmmm... interesting.

The link does not work, but I found this

Comet from coldest spot in solar system has material from hottest places

Scientists analyzing recent samples of comet dust have discovered minerals that formed near the sun or other stars. That means materials from the innermost part of the solar system could have traveled to the outer reaches, where comets formed.

"The interesting thing is we are finding these high-temperature minerals in materials from the coldest place in the solar system," said Donald Brownlee, a University of Washington astronomer who is principal investigator, or lead scientist, for NASA's Stardust mission.

Among the finds in material brought back by Stardust is olivine, a mineral that is the primary component of the green sand found on some Hawaiian beaches. It is among the most common minerals in the universe, but finding it in comet Wild 2 could challenge a common view of how such crystalline materials form.

Etc.

Earth-shattering news! Astrophysicists need to revise their theories based on new experimental data... just as they have always done.

So, where is the EU-based theory that explains comet formation better than the mainstream theories?

Or do you really think, just like Intelligent Design proponents or Conspiracy Theorists, that because mainstream theories are not 100.00000000% confirmed and don't have every little detail worked out, that alternative "theories" composed of half-baked qualitative ideas with no self-consistent structure, unsupported or even disproven by experimental evidence, are then by default correct?
I called it in the closed EU thread the mors tua, vita mea fallacy.

My bold, this is were this layperson starts to see the duality of mainstream science and there Hypocrisy

At least real scientists can admit when they are wrong and then correct their mistakes. That is not something EU proponents seem willing to do.
Are you, sol88, prepared to face the fact that EU ideas are wrong and admit so?
Or are you going to run around in circles, tap dancing around the issues, moving goalposts and avoiding the questions, just so you won't have to admit that you were wrong?

Now, address my points:

What makes you think that fluorescence has nothing to do with Electromagnetism?

[...]

By the way, you have not explained what the Earth's magnetosphere has to do with the X-ray emission from comets.

[...]

First, what makes you think that the Earth needs to be in a circuit? Give us the details.

Second, what makes you think that comets display the same properties?
After all, the charge-exchange explanation for X-ray emission from comets does not require circuits.

[...]

We were talking about comets.
Can you distinguish cosmology from comets?

And again:

What is so EU about the idea that ions from the Solar Wind exchange electron with molecules from the comet?

[PhantomWolf]

Wonders if I'm actually going to get an answer from the EU crew.

[sol88]

Papageno wrote:

Earth-shattering news! Astrophysicists need to revise their theories based on new experimental data... just as they have always done.

So, where is the EU-based theory that explains comet formation better than the mainstream theories?

Or do you really think, just like Intelligent Design proponents or Conspiracy Theorists, that because mainstream theories are not 100.00000000% confirmed and don't have every little detail worked out, that alternative "theories" composed of half-baked qualitative ideas with no self-consistent structure, unsupported or even disproven by experimental evidence, are then by default correct?
I called it in the closed EU thread the mors tua, vita mea fallacy.

No I do not subscribe to ID or any or that this is a conspiracy, but when the evidence is so strongly against the current accepted "dirtysnow ball" model we must a least look at the options. The EC model has predicted nearly all observed phenomena.

Just so I'm clear, which model do you subscribe to Papageno?

At least real scientists can admit when they are wrong and then correct their mistakes. That is not something EU proponents seem willing to do.
Are you, sol88, prepared to face the fact that EU ideas are wrong and admit so?
Or are you going to run around in circles, tap dancing around the issues, moving goalposts and avoiding the questions, just so you won't have to admit that you were wrong?

My ego is not that big, I would gladly admit I'm wrong if that is the case, but remember it's not just my idea that comets are an electrical event and evidence from the mainstream seems to be so contradictory that the snowy, icy, dirt ball theory has been falsified

So now to the nitty gritty;

Originally Posted by papageno
What makes you think that fluorescence has nothing to do with Electromagnetism?

That’s not what I said, if you read carefully. I've read Wikipedia entry, quote:

"The Fluorescence occurs when a molecule or quantum dot relaxes to its ground state after being electronically excited." (LINK)

But forgive my ignorance but fluorescence is not the same as X-Rays is it?

By the way, you have not explained what the Earth's magnetosphere has to do with the X-ray emission from comets.

The Earth's magnetosphere has nothing to do with the X-ray emission from comets, I just remarked that with the new evidence in from the cluster satellites, the Earth appeared to "look" much like a comet, and that indeed comets give of X-Rays and so do most of the Planets

The research on X-ray emission from comets and planets is a very young field. Until 1996, the only planets which were known to emit X-rays were the Earth and Jupiter. Comets were not even generally considered as candidates for X-ray sources.

(LINK)

First, what makes you think that the Earth needs to be in a circuit? Give us the details.

Second, what makes you think that comets display the same properties?
After all, the charge-exchange explanation for X-ray emission from comets does not require circuits.

So then X-Ray production in Earths auroras is a charge exchange process independent of the auroral circuit?

Bright X-ray emission is shown in red. Energetic ions from the Sun cause aurora and energize electrons in the Earth's magnetosphere. These electrons move along the Earth's magnetic field and eventually strike the Earth's ionosphere, causing the X-ray emission

(LINK)

My bad again I understood auroras to be part of a circuit, our local solar circuit

Seems there a lot more going on than a melting ice cube.

Sol

[PhantomWolf]

But forgive my ignorance but fluorescence is not the same as X-Rays is it?

X-Rays are the result of Fluorescence.

[PhantomWolf]

My bad again I understood auroras to be part of a circuit, our local solar circuit

Auroras occur when the charges particles trapped by the Van Allen Belts enter our atmosphere at the poles. No circuit or current required at all, just a little understanding of the mechanics of charged particle motion inside a magnetic field.

[Fram]

No I do not subscribe to ID or any or that this is a conspiracy, but when the evidence is so strongly against the current accepted "dirtysnow ball" model we must a least look at the options. The EC model has predicted nearly all observed phenomena.

Do you mean the "predictions" page about Deep Impact on the thunderbolts website? I don't think you can make any vaguer predictions than those posted there (maybe, some, larger, ...), which of course increases the chances of being right enormously. Still, they weren't very accurate, and those that were more or less correct don't contradict the existing model.
If you know of any better predictions (you know, with some numbers in them or so) made by the EC model (whatever that may be, I don't think a true model has been shown yet, just a lot of loose statements), then please point me to them!

[sol88]

Auroras occur when the charges particles trapped by the Van Allen Belts enter our atmosphere at the poles. No circuit or current required at all, just a little understanding of the mechanics of charged particle motion inside a magnetic field.

Sounds contrdictary to this

Dynamo action with the solar wind flowing past Earth, possibly producing quiet auroral arcs ("directly driven" process). The circuit of the accelerating currents and their connection to the solar wind are uncertain.

LINK

So who do I believe??

Sol

[sol88]

Do you mean the "predictions" page about Deep Impact on the thunderbolts website? I don't think you can make any vaguer predictions

Really, vague? I love the accepted explination for the observed double flash

Seems mainstream is a little more vague.

Sol

BTW have'nt seen any maths or quantative estimate on the obsereved phenomena from the mainstream.

[tusenfem]

BTW have'nt seen any maths or quantative estimate on the obsereved phenomena from the mainstream.

If we would show you the math you would not understand anyway!
Search for a message by Tim Thompson, he listed a LOT of papers dealing with deep impact with lots of math.

[PhantomWolf]

Sounds contrdictary to this

And since when has Wikipedia been an authoritive scientific source? I expanded on NASA's quote.

Energetic ions from the Sun cause aurora and energize electrons in the Earth's magnetosphere. These electrons move along the Earth's magnetic field and eventually strike the Earth's ionosphere, causing the X-ray emission

The areas of electrons caught in the Earth's magnetic field are called the Van Allen Belts. When they hit the atmosphere they cause it to fluoresce in an aruroa.

So who do I believe??

Hmmmm, the choice of NASA or Wikipedia.....

By the way, are you going to answer my questions from page 1?

[tusenfem]

Just a little remark on auroras at the Earth.

One of the mechanisms of creating aurora is through reconnection in the Earth's magnetotail. The stretched magnetic field "snaps" and the field lines shoot back to the Earth, accelerating the plasma that is in the magnetotail. These accelerated particles follow the field lines to the auroral region of the Earth, where they interact with a.o. the oxygen (green) and nitrogen (red) in the atmosphere, creating the aurora. This is typically night-side aurora.

There can also be dayside aurora created through the cusp/cleft region of the Earth's magnetosphere. These can be driven "directly" by the solar wind particles.

I do not understand the dynamo action that is written there, unless they mean "dayside reconnection at the cusp". They say that the "dynamo process" is hampered, and that you need reconnection. So, I think instead of the listing of the origin of aurorae this should be put inthe listing of obsolete theories.

And indeed, the aurorae are often associated with Birkeland currents. Birkeland was the first to think about the fact that the aurorae could be caused by currents flowing (although I think he did not get the direction of the currents correctly. I am not sure here, but I think he thought they were the currents that we now call the electrojet. I need to read up on this before I can update the Birkeland current wiki page).

By the way, for those EU people who still complain about currents not being taken seriously in the mainstream, I would like to point them to the paper by Tony Lui in the latest Annales Geophysicae Time development of electric fields and currents in space plasmas.

I apologize to the moderator for this hijacking of the thread, and now back to the not-so-very-electric comets.

[Fram]

Really, vague? I love the accepted explination for the observed double flash

What evidence is there for a flash slightly before impact (the Thunderbolts prediction)? What evidence is there that the first, slight flash was not at impact?

Anyway, what about this prediction from the same Thunderbolts page:

Wallace Thornhill, whose inquiry into the electric attributes of comets goes back more than 30 years, sees a high probability that scientists will find less water ice and other volatiles than expected, both on the surface and beneath the surface of Tempel 1. In fact none of the electrical theorists will be surprised if the impactor exposes a subsurface with little or no ices.

Wrong, wasn't it?
Lots of water underneath the surface, and even water on the surface:

the first finding of water ice on the surface of a comet.

Or how about this one:

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

Sudden onset, exponential decline? Wrong again:

Scientists studying the Deep Impact collision using NASA's Swift satellite report that comet Tempel 1 is getting brighter and brighter in X-ray light with each passing day.

Still, Thunderbolts claimed more than a week later still that

So far there has been no indication that any instrument based near or on Earth had the temporal or spatial resolution to decide this issue.

[sol88]

I counter cliam with this Fram

The prediction said there would be two impact flashes: a small flash as the projectile penetrated the comet's electrified atmosphere, followed by a huge impact flash that would be "unexpectedly energetic."

And that's exactly what appeared to happen on July 4, in an impact that astonished NASA investigators.

"What you see is something really surprising," said mission co-investigator Peter Schultz. "First, there is a small flash, then there's a delay, then there's a big flash and the whole thing breaks loose."

Indeed, NASA investigators have conceded that Comet Tempel 1 appears to be something of an anomaly that does not conform to the dirty iceball model. The theory now is that the nuclei of different comets may have different compositions, according to Donald Yeomans, a mission scientist on Deep Impact.

LINK

sol

[Fram]

I did not argue that there were no two flashes, I argued that there is no evidence at all that the first flash happened before impact.

Scientists are looking for new explanations to fit all the observations. This is what the mission was for, as we didn't (and don't) know enough about comets. Hence the surprises, changes, ad-hoc explanations, and so on. This is normal.
Has the EU crowd or anyone at Thunderbolts put any part of the EU model in question after a lot of their predictions (vague as they were) didn't come true? I have certainly not seen any changes, retractions, ...

This to me is one of the main differences between scientists and ATM'ers of the far-out kind: scientists adjust theories and ideas when confronted with observations and counterevidence. ATM'ers like the people at Thunderbolts only see things that support their ideas and discard the rest.

[papageno]

Earth-shattering news! Astrophysicists need to revise their theories based on new experimental data... just as they have always done.

So, where is the EU-based theory that explains comet formation better than the mainstream theories?

Or do you really think, just like Intelligent Design proponents or Conspiracy Theorists, that because mainstream theories are not 100.00000000% confirmed and don't have every little detail worked out, that alternative "theories" composed of half-baked qualitative ideas with no self-consistent structure, unsupported or even disproven by experimental evidence, are then by default correct?
I called it in the closed EU thread the mors tua, vita mea fallacy.

No I do not subscribe to ID or any or that this is a conspiracy, but when the evidence is so strongly against the current accepted "dirtysnow ball" model we must a least look at the options. The EC model has predicted nearly all observed phenomena.

You do not subscribe to ID or conspiracy theories, but you use the same methods.

Show us this evidence so strongly against the mainstream model (hint: press releases containing just the words "electric" or "charged particle" are not evidence).
Show us this Electric Comet model that fits so well the observations.

You are behaving like CTs:

Most conspiracy theories taken the approach of trying to widen the inductive leap required in the prevalent theory. That is, they say, "There are so many anomalies and inconsistencies that you really have to stretch your imagination in order to believe that X happened." Or, as I sometimes call it, the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) approach. The goal is to so erode faith in X that any alternative Y, no matter how ludicrous, starts to look better by comparison. Often Y can explain individual anomalies with much greater facility, but that isn't sufficient as we discover below.

Just so I'm clear, which model do you subscribe to Papageno?

It is actually irrelevant: I am arguing against your method.
You started the thread claiming that mainstream scientists are drifting towards a EU-based theory for comets.
We are still waiting for you to support this claim with actual evidence (let me repeat: the words "electric" and "charged particle" in the press release are not such evidence).

At least real scientists can admit when they are wrong and then correct their mistakes. That is not something EU proponents seem willing to do.
Are you, sol88, prepared to face the fact that EU ideas are wrong and admit so?
Or are you going to run around in circles, tap dancing around the issues, moving goalposts and avoiding the questions, just so you won't have to admit that you were wrong?

My ego is not that big, I would gladly admit I'm wrong if that is the case, but remember it's not just my idea that comets are an electrical event and evidence from the mainstream seems to be so contradictory that the snowy, icy, dirt ball theory has been falsified

Yet you fail to present the evidence disproving the mainstream model and the evidence supporting the EC model.
Actually, you have not even presented the EC model: so how does this model work?

Your actions on this board contradict your words:

The theory to which we rationally subscribe is always the best theory, regardless of how objectively good it is. If the inductive leap for one theory is long, we can still hold to it if the leap in other theories is still longer.

The EC "theory" requires a larger leap than the mainstream one.

Therefore:

The question is thus not that X isn't proved sufficiently to remove the inductive leap altogether and thus reject Y categorically. It isn't that X's inductive leap is so long that you're just better off believing Y on general principles. The question -- the only proper question, that is -- is whether the inductive leap associated with Y is greater or lesser than X's leap.

You have the burden to prove that the EC "theory" requires a smaller inductive leap than the mainstream theory.

What makes you think that fluorescence has nothing to do with Electromagnetism?

That’s not what I said, if you read carefully. I've read Wikipedia entry, quote:

"The Fluorescence occurs when a molecule or quantum dot relaxes to its ground state after being electronically excited." (LINK)

I would not use Wikipedia as a reference for Physics.
Anyway, here is the context:

No where does it mention X-Rays, only that they "fluoresce"

Where you dig this up Papageno? "since over half of their material is ice", "evaporated molecules boil off" and "coma absorbs ultraviolet radiation and begins to fluoresce"

[...]

If you believe this version, then sorry, there is nothing I can do to "prove" to you that the primary reason for the observed phenomena is EM.

You gave the impression that fluorescence is not an electromagnetic effect for you.

But forgive my ignorance but fluorescence is not the same as X-Rays is it?

X-rays can be absorbed and emitted in the process of fluorescence.
Fluorescence usually refers to the process of an atom or molecule being excited by electromagnetic radiation and then emitting EM radiation when it relaxes back to the ground-state.
In the charge-exchange reaction, the excitation occurs when the ion acquires an electron.
Both processes can emit X-rays and UV light.

By the way, you have not explained what the Earth's magnetosphere has to do with the X-ray emission from comets.

The Earth's magnetosphere has nothing to do with the X-ray emission from comets, I just remarked that with the new evidence in from the cluster satellites, the Earth appeared to "look" much like a comet, and that indeed comets give of X-Rays and so do most of the Planets

The research on X-ray emission from comets and planets is a very young field. Until 1996, the only planets which were known to emit X-rays were the Earth and Jupiter. Comets were not even generally considered as candidates for X-ray sources.

So you did not refer to it because it is relevant to the topic:

So what about the interaction between Earth and the solar wind? there is a story today on UT, with the cluster satellites moving thru the Earths magnetosphere, were the graphic looks uncannily like a comet.

So for the Earth to have these properties (electrical/magnetic) then it must be completing a circuit, if a comet also displays these properties then must it not also be connected to a circuit?

"the graphic looks uncannily like a comet"
Remember what I said in the "Electric Sun" thread:

the old "my personal and unexperienced interpretation of a picture trumps all known and established physics" method.

The more we go on, the more you fit JayUtah's description of CTs:

Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution. As long as conspiracy theories simply "call for more research" or assert that "it remains an open question," their proponents will continue to enjoy attention.

First, what makes you think that the Earth needs to be in a circuit? Give us the details.

Second, what makes you think that comets display the same properties?
After all, the charge-exchange explanation for X-ray emission from comets does not require circuits.

So then X-Ray production in Earths auroras is a charge exchange process independent of the auroral circuit?

No answer my questions:

Or are you going to run around in circles, tap dancing around the issues, moving goalposts and avoiding the questions, just so you won't have to admit that you were wrong?

Why do you try to identify X-rays with one of the possible processes that can produce them?

Bright X-ray emission is shown in red. Energetic ions from the Sun cause aurora and energize electrons in the Earth's magnetosphere. These electrons move along the Earth's magnetic field and eventually strike the Earth's ionosphere, causing the X-ray emission

My bad again I understood auroras to be part of a circuit, our local solar circuit

What circuit?

Seems there a lot more going on than a melting ice cube.

There is so much more going on in Physics and Astronomy that you are not aware of.
And you will never be as long as you use EU websites, Wikipedia and press releases as your sources.

[tusenfem]

Okay, let's put aside the discussion that has nothing to do with the electric comet. I still have a question about Deep Impact that I posted before, but which was nicely ignored. But as the topic arises again, I like to pose it again.

From what I gathered from a deep impact site is that the camera on the impactor was the same as the MRI on the spacecraft. The last expected picture is said to be from ~20 km from the comet, with a velocity of ~10 km/s it would take 2 sec to impact. Note that these are estimates. The camera would take images at a rate of 1 per 1.7 seconds. So, I think it is spurious reasoning that the impactor shorted out a few seconds before impact, because there is no closer image.
But feel free to correct me if I got some details wrong here.

I think this is an important question. Like I said, I am not up to date with everything that was send down by Deep Impact, but this camera thingy is not something to be looked over.

Maybe I will get an answer this time :-)
(You see, even this mainstreamer is trying to learn something)

[VanderL]

Okay, let's put aside the discussion that has nothing to do with the electric comet. I still have a question about Deep Impact that I posted before, but which was nicely ignored. But as the topic arises again, I like to pose it again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tusenfem
From what I gathered from a deep impact site is that the camera on the impactor was the same as the MRI on the spacecraft. The last expected picture is said to be from ~20 km from the comet, with a velocity of ~10 km/s it would take 2 sec to impact. Note that these are estimates. The camera would take images at a rate of 1 per 1.7 seconds. So, I think it is spurious reasoning that the impactor shorted out a few seconds before impact, because there is no closer image.
But feel free to correct me if I got some details wrong here.

I think this is an important question. Like I said, I am not up to date with everything that was send down by Deep Impact, but this camera thingy is not something to be looked over.

Maybe I will get an answer this time :-)
(You see, even this mainstreamer is trying to learn something)

I think you should try to make it sound like a question first; what exactly are you trying to find out here?

Cheers.

[Metricyard]

I think this is an important question. Like I said, I am not up to date with everything that was send down by Deep Impact, but this camera thingy is not something to be looked over.

My guess the camera thingy stopped working becase it just got ran over by a huge comet.

From space.com article

Cheers rose up as crash images from Impactor's Flyby mothership showed a fantastic plume from the comet collision. a cheer went up when the first images from Impactor were sent back to Earth "That picture says it all," a NASA spokesperson said. "Oh yeah...oh yeah!" the flight controllers yelled as the images were displayed. Impactor's camera snapped images right up until impact, which was confirmed at 1:57 a.m. EDT (0557 GMT).

Here's a quicktime video of the compactors point of view. Looks like it took pictures right into the gorund to me.

I'd love to know where this information that the camera mysteriously stopped working before impact came from. I googled it, and found no reference for a failing camera befroe impact, except on Thunderbolts site.

[VanderL]

I'd love to know where this information that the camera mysteriously stopped working before impact came from. I googled it, and found no reference for a failing camera befroe impact, except on Thunderbolts site.

From A'Hearn himself:

At a press conference held the morning of July 4, Deep Impact team members displayed a movie depicting the final moments of the impactor’s life. The final image from the impactor was transmitted from the short-lived probe for all of three seconds before it met its fiery end.
“The final image was taken from a distance of 18.6 miles from the comet’s surface,” said A’Hearn. “From that close distance we can resolve features on the surface that are less than 4 meters across.”

Careful before you suggest people are fabricating evidence. I don't have info on the impactor's camera speed, but if it is comparable to the flyby camera it would be 50 msec per frame.

Tusenfem, what exactly are you trying to establish?

Cheers.

[TravisM]

Probably that the impactor relative to the comet was traveling at about 20kps? Even if it did snap "one more shot" it wouldn't have had time to transmit it. 50 msec per frame? Where is the link for that?

[VanderL]

Probably that the impactor relative to the comet was traveling at about 20kps? Even if it did snap "one more shot" it wouldn't have had time to transmit it. 50 msec per frame? Where is the link for that?

The impactor's specs and details can be found here (download SSEC_SC3_doc.pdf), and it has a maximum frame rate of 0.1Hz, apparently is was set for 1Hz which would have meant 3 more images (as it stopped at 3.7 sec before impact). There was also evidence that the impactor was disturbed, the team concluded this was from comet dust particles.

The Science Team and Instrument Engineering Team are currently investigating a noticeable change in the ITS camera characteristics in the last 30 sec. That fact, combined with at least two observed attitude upsets in the last 30 sec seem to indicate ITS degradation due to particle (dust) impacts within 300 km of the surface.

About the pre-impact flash, here is the relevant quote:

In fact, Schultz explained, those experiments had contributed to the design of the image sequence for the impact; because of the possibility of an impact flare, the flyby spacecraft was instructed to take images at a high frame rate, once every 50 milliseconds (or a rate of 20 frames per second). The flare is visible in only one of those frames, meaning that the flash lasted for less than 50 milliseconds after the impact.
Following the flare, Schultz said, there was a delay of a few frames before a plume of material can be seen to exit the impact point.

So, Thornhill's predictions were on the money.

Cheers.

[tusenfem]

What I was trying to get at, was the prediction or statement of Thornhill on the Thunderbolts website, where he says that the impact probe got electrically shorted out by an arc from the comet.
As I understood, the camera on the impactor was snapping shots at a rate of 1 per 1.7 seconds. (This I got from the page I linked to, and trying to understand the snapshot rate of the impactor camera) If this is correct, then the reason that there was no "closeR up" is because the impact had already taken place before the next shot was due. This in contrast to Thorny's theory of electric shorting out.
The question (sort of) was if I was correct that the camera worked at that rate. If so, another nail on the coffin of Thornhill.

[Fram]

Probably that the impactor relative to the comet was traveling at about 20kps? Even if it did snap "one more shot" it wouldn't have had time to transmit it. 50 msec per frame? Where is the link for that?

The impactor's specs and details can be found here (download SSEC_SC3_doc.pdf), and it has a maximum frame rate of 0.1Hz, apparently is was set for 1Hz which would have meant 3 more images (as it stopped at 3.7 sec before impact). There was also evidence that the impactor was disturbed, the team concluded this was from comet dust particles.

The Science Team and Instrument Engineering Team are currently investigating a noticeable change in the ITS camera characteristics in the last 30 sec. That fact, combined with at least two observed attitude upsets in the last 30 sec seem to indicate ITS degradation due to particle (dust) impacts within 300 km of the surface.

About the pre-impact flash, here is the relevant quote:

In fact, Schultz explained, those experiments had contributed to the design of the image sequence for the impact; because of the possibility of an impact flare, the flyby spacecraft was instructed to take images at a high frame rate, once every 50 milliseconds (or a rate of 20 frames per second). The flare is visible in only one of those frames, meaning that the flash lasted for less than 50 milliseconds after the impact.
Following the flare, Schultz said, there was a delay of a few frames before a plume of material can be seen to exit the impact point.

So, Thornhill's predictions were on the money.

Cheers.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your post. Look at your last quote: it confirms that there was a double flash, but not that the flash came before the impact. You have a flash, and a few frames (i.e. one fifth to one tenth of a second) later, the material released by the impact can be seen. How does this tell us that the flash came before the impact?

And that is only one prediction which is claimed to be correct without any actual evidence for it (oh yes, I remember an earlier discussion on this forum (with P.Asmah, amongst others), directly after the Deep Impact mission, where it was even claimed that the flash was 'microseconds' before the impact, as if that could somehow be determined...
I just reference this to show that this has been discussed before, and that the Thunderbolts people seem to have a hard time doing even the most basic calculations before making predictions or drawing conclusions.

Basically, there was a double flash, but there is no indication at all that it happened before the impact, and the official explanation, while no certainty, seems very reasonable, and fits the dirty snowball theory as well.

As has been said in this thread, some of the other predictions (those that can be verified) were wrong as well.

[Nereid]

[snip] but EM radiation is expected by EU theories.

Would you be kind enough to provide references to EU materials which present the quantitative details of these theories (as they relate to comets)?

In particular, please provide links to materials which show the derivation of 'expected EM radiation' (from comets) from the theory? (I am sure, since you have called it a theory, that these details will include the relevant plasma physics equations).

In which publications were the 'EM radiation' (from comets) expectations quantified? Where can one read the expected distribution of EM energy (from comets), by wavelength (or frequency)? What expectations were published, concerning the total (EM) energy (expected to be) radiated (from comets)?

When can we expect your answer to these direct, pertinent questions concerning the ATM idea that you presented in your post, P.Asmah?

[Nereid]

[snip]

So, Thornhill's predictions were on the money.

Cheers.

Where can one read how Thornhill derived his "preditions"?

Where is the science behind those "predictions" published? The chains of logic and the calculations which take (took Thornhill from) the underlying science to the specific "predicitions"?

To what extent can anyone (independently) reproduce those "predictions"?

[VanderL]

What I was trying to get at, was the prediction or statement of Thornhill on the Thunderbolts website, where he says that the impact probe got electrically shorted out by an arc from the comet.
As I understood, the camera on the impactor was snapping shots at a rate of 1 per 1.7 seconds. (This I got from the page I linked to, and trying to understand the snapshot rate of the impactor camera) If this is correct, then the reason that there was no "closeR up" is because the impact had already taken place before the next shot was due. This in contrast to Thorny's theory of electric shorting out.
The question (sort of) was if I was correct that the camera worked at that rate. If so, another nail on the coffin of Thornhill.

Did you even read my post? As I understand it, the impact camera stopped 3.7 seconds before impact, acting with a frame rate of 1 per sec. I don't know if the impactor intrument shorted out (the team apparently thinks of dust particles), but it did stop 18.6 miles away from comet Tempel 1.

So I don't see any nails in Thornhill's coffin.

Cheers.

[VanderL]

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your post. Look at your last quote: it confirms that there was a double flash, but not that the flash came before the impact. You have a flash, and a few frames (i.e. one fifth to one tenth of a second) later, the material released by the impact can be seen. How does this tell us that the flash came before the impact?

Did you try and calculate what this delay would mean in travelled distance? The DI team has great difficulty explaining the double flash and needs exotic material that doesn't fit observations (high relief and several researchers claiming a hard surface was hit). While a double flash is not proof of anything electric, it fits Thornhill's prediction.

And that is only one prediction which is claimed to be correct without any actual evidence for it (oh yes, I remember an earlier discussion on this forum (with P.Asmah, amongst others), directly after the Deep Impact mission, where it was even claimed that the flash was 'microseconds' before the impact, as if that could somehow be determined...
I just reference this to show that this has been discussed before, and that the Thunderbolts people seem to have a hard time doing even the most basic calculations before making predictions or drawing conclusions.

I can't find any "microseconds" reference other than the one you provided, is it from the Thunderbolts site?

2 frames between the flashes could mean roughly between 0.1 and 0.2 seconds, that is a very long time.

Basically, there was a double flash, but there is no indication at all that it happened before the impact, and the official explanation, while no certainty, seems very reasonable, and fits the dirty snowball theory as well.

It doesn't seem reasonable to me, and the snowball needs a lot of ice (btw it's officially a snowy dirtball now), which wasn't at the surface, and until the X-ray data also wasn't in the plume (it didn't change by the impact). I don't think the X-ray data are conclusive, the plots are really noisy. I think the Wild 2 dust will tell us some more about the volatile content and also about the fluffiness.

As has been said in this thread, some of the other predictions (those that can be verified) were wrong as well.

Not "as well".

Cheers.

[VanderL]

Where can one read how Thornhill derived his "preditions"?

Maybe his website has the information you need, he has a lot of pages about comets.

Where is the science behind those "predictions" published? The chains of logic and the calculations which take (took Thornhill from) the underlying science to the specific "predicitions"?

Don't know, but I could try to find some references for you.

To what extent can anyone (independently) reproduce those "predictions"?

I think it would be possible to recreate both the mainstream and the electric model in the lab. Is there any experimental data available?

Cheers.

[Nereid]

Where can one read how Thornhill derived his "preditions"?

Maybe his website has the information you need, he has a lot of pages about comets.

I've looked (several times); I found nothing of any substance (just handwaving and word salad).

Where is the science behind those "predictions" published? The chains of logic and the calculations which take (took Thornhill from) the underlying science to the specific "predicitions"?

Don't know, but I could try to find some references for you.

I am curious - please see if you can find any.

To what extent can anyone (independently) reproduce those "predictions"?

I think it would be possible to recreate both the mainstream and the electric model in the lab. Is there any experimental data available?

Cheers.

Sorry, it seems I wasn't sufficiently clear.

From the Thornhill prediction page (I assume this is what you referred to earlier "So, Thornhill's predictions were on the money."):

So, before physical impact occurs, we may expect a sudden discharge between the comet nucleus and the copper projectile.

How did Thornhill determine that more than one flash ("discharge") could be detected, by the camera on the mothership, given that camera's time resolution?

How did Thornhill determine that any flash other than the impact itself would generate enough (light) photons to be unambiguously detected by the camera? That there would be too few photons to (permanently) disable the camera?

Because electric arcing causes the craters seen on comets

This seems to be a critical aspect to the making the Thornhill's "predictions", yet I could find nothing in the Thornhill material that would enable me to link "electric arcing causes the craters seen on comets" to "we may expect a sudden discharge between the comet nucleus and the copper projectile", in any way other than handwaving.

Can you walk us through the link please?

[sol88]

VanderL wrote

I think it would be possible to recreate both the mainstream and the electric model in the lab. Is there any experimental data available?

Say if we had a "solar wind" tunnel and moved a charged object with in it which also had an increasing wind "pressure" at one end of the tunnel or a quarter of a torroid, then scaled up to match the observations, would that now a least see if we are on the right track?

Love to give it a go

Sol