Why I am disrespectful of you? Your very first action to me was to troll my article with the word's "Wow, you put a lot of work into this, too bad it is based entirely on antiquated theories that do not stand up to the observations." Do you understand now?
Kristian Birkeland died over a century ago and had no position on Electric Universe and the Standard model had not even been developed. Seriously, he passed in 1917.
Ah, well, I can give you that. I do admit I can come off a little over the top and for that, I do apologize. I wasn't meaning to "troll" as you perceived it, I should have been more tactful. Honestly, all I wanted to do is talk the science in a respectful manner and if my approach seemed not respectful to you, I am sorry. Thank you for finally sharing that with me thereby enabling me with the opportunity to make some amends.
But does that justify you flagging my post as spam? On your post, I have no issues per se with you shutting down the conversation, it is your post and in my opinion, as such you have that right. But to flag my post without reading and because you have a different opinion or because you were upset with me due to my insensitivity is not justified. Do you go about flagging as spam every post which contains opinions you do not agree with? I don't think you do, you have far better things to do. By flagging my post as spam you are in effect gagging me, denying my right to speak. That ain't right.
Kristian Birkeland did have plenty to say about the electric nature of comets and if you had read my post, you would know that to be so. Not only do I quote him and source the quotes but I show a graph correlating increased sunspot activity with increased brightness of comets that he published, thereby showing an electrical connection with comets via the solar wind and contesting the idea of the sublimating dirty snowball, while opening up the possibility of an electrochemical explanation of why H2o is observed via spectral analysis within the coma of a comet.
While the standard model had been set forth by Fred Whipple, he was not the first to propose ice/snow/water/volatiles on comets. Even Newton suggested something similar. And I never suggested Birkeland had anything to directly say about the Standard model, I said he was a proponent of the electric model and as such, in a backhanded way, is saying something about the standard model even though it wasn't developed in his time.
Again, I offer my sincere apologies if my initial comments upset you through my lack of tact. I only hope you can accept the apology and perhaps we can begin anew. As for the science of comets, I am far from done, as I feel the empirical observational data favours the electric model over the standard model. Rather than just flag my post, why don't you actually make an effort to read it and show me where, in your opinion, I am wrong? This I put to you as a friendly challenge.
To simplify it, I have three points of contention.
1-The dirty snowball model predicted the presence of snow/ice/water on comets. Can you show me a single photograph of a comet that shows the presence of snow/water/ice?
2-How can an alleged dirty snowball survive eight hours passing through the corona of the sun and then sublimate upon exiting the corona?(see gif in the above post)
3-Conversely, for a comet to sublimate and produce a coma, it must be within 3 AUs of the sun, yet 67P started producing a coma at 16AUs where it is not warm enough to initiate sublimation.
How is this possible in the standard model?
A hypothesis is only as good as its ability to predict and is either supported or falsified by the empirical observations. And as it stands, the dirty snowball hypothesis has not been supported by the empirical observations. How many times must a model's predictions fail before a model is dismissed?
2011 W3 was an unusual comet with very few volatiles, it only brightened when it got close to the sun. Similiar comets C/2012 E2 and C/2012 S1 in similiar sungrazing orbits appeared to be normal comets away from the sun and did not survive. I can pull up light curves for these comet's if you don't believe me. Btw how did you calculate your ablation rates?
as a photo it is not very convincing and hardly fulfils the prediction of the 'dirty snowball' hypothesis. As well, there is no reference to volume and based on how much space it occupies in the image frame it hardly seems to be enough to produce a coma. I also would prefer to see something that actually looks like ice.
What I also find interesting is how they backtracked a photographic timeline from a 'dust plume' to find this in the same locale. Notice they say dust plume and not a vapor plume. Are they trying to say water is stripped off as 'dust'? In my post, I do not deny the presence of h2o in the coma and this small volume could be the product of an electrochemical reaction(for which all the conditions necessary are present) that eventually was stripped away. You keep saying there is massive amounts of evidence, of that I do not doubt, but there does not seem to be massive amounts of actual h20 or any significant amount that one would imagine should be required to support the 'dirty snowball' hypothesis. Considering the length of a comet tail, should there not be much more significant volumes of h20?
2.it is the unusual phenomena that bring cause to question. What kind of volatile can resist the extreme temperatures of the corona to produce a coma upon exiting the corona? That is the real question. The last couple of frames in the gif reveal a coma bursting forth ahead of the comet. Based on the fact that 'normal comets' do not survive such close encounters with the sun, I suspect not all comets are made of the same material suggesting that they are not all formed in the same manner.
I was not aware, I will look into it.
In this graph published by Birkeland, he shows a correlation between sunspot activity and comet brightness. The lower curve represents the number of sunspots while the upper curve represents the brightness variations of comet Encke. This is highly indicative of an energetic relationship between the sun and comets. How does the dirty snowball hypothesis explain this?
Again I thank you for entertaining this conversation. It means a great deal to me to converse with someone who questions the model I favour for talking with other like minds feel like a group singalong rather than an intelligent critical conversation. My mind is open to opposing opinions, as well, it challenges me.
Water ice in comets: Infrared/Microwave spectroscopes on a number of the spacecraft sent to comets all show large amounts of CO2 and H2O in the vicinity of the nucleus. Look for results for the Microwave instrument aboard Rosetta, and the infrared spectrograph aboard EPOXI. Production rates of water byproducts like OH- have been monitored for decades in various parts of the spectrum (but you appear to be more interested in direct proof of a H2O parent, so for that we need to look at spacecraft observations).
Comet Encke and sunspots : I am a bit dubious of the graph and I'll tell you why (Birkland was brilliant, but not infallible). If that chart were the brightness of Comet Encke, it would show a very dramatic peak every 3.3 years coinciding with it's perihelion. During the 1800's Comet Encke was really only observed for a window of 2 months around perihelion, and any time outside it would be invisible. Since Birkland's time we have access to far more observations and more accurate observations and I haven't heard of any correlation. However, feel free to do your own data analysis, there is a good modern database of comet observations here. Keep in mind that comet brightness observations are notoriously difficult and there can be a lot of scatter, particularly between different observers.
Those readings in the vicinity of the nucleus could be the product of an electrochemical process which would be most active on the nose of the nucleus where solar wind(sheet current) is in greatest contact. Of the four comets that I am aware of that they have gotten close to there seems to be very little to no presence of water. The fact that there is this discrepancy between what we can see in the visual light range and what the sensors are reading suggest that there is something more to this. We agree that there is the presence of water, what we do not agree on is how that water is present. You insist on snow or ice, even though the images do not show any. Oh yes, it is subsurface, but even then from what I can ascertain, there was none observed by sensors or otherwise when they impacted a projectile and analyzed the ejecta. While I insist it is being produced via electrochemical process stripping atoms off the rock.
True enough about the brightness being difficult to measure and compare. Thanks for the link, I will check it out and given enough time may even link up a database on sunspots and graph the two together for comparison. A single comet clearly does not define all comets. But I do think Birkeland was on to something there.
How sad for you that this is how you respond. So, to be clear, seven-time Nobel nominee Kristian Birkeland is nonsense.
It is interesting to note that all I wanted to do was start a conversation with you and you, your response is to treat me disrespectfully. Am I a threat to you that this is how you act? Clearly, that is how you feel and I do not know why you feel so. Did you even read it? I doubt it which would make yours an entirely emotional response and not an intellectual one.
Why I am disrespectful of you? Your very first action to me was to troll my article with the word's "Wow, you put a lot of work into this, too bad it is based entirely on antiquated theories that do not stand up to the observations." Do you understand now?
Kristian Birkeland died over a century ago and had no position on Electric Universe and the Standard model had not even been developed. Seriously, he passed in 1917.
Ah, well, I can give you that. I do admit I can come off a little over the top and for that, I do apologize. I wasn't meaning to "troll" as you perceived it, I should have been more tactful. Honestly, all I wanted to do is talk the science in a respectful manner and if my approach seemed not respectful to you, I am sorry. Thank you for finally sharing that with me thereby enabling me with the opportunity to make some amends.
But does that justify you flagging my post as spam? On your post, I have no issues per se with you shutting down the conversation, it is your post and in my opinion, as such you have that right. But to flag my post without reading and because you have a different opinion or because you were upset with me due to my insensitivity is not justified. Do you go about flagging as spam every post which contains opinions you do not agree with? I don't think you do, you have far better things to do. By flagging my post as spam you are in effect gagging me, denying my right to speak. That ain't right.
Kristian Birkeland did have plenty to say about the electric nature of comets and if you had read my post, you would know that to be so. Not only do I quote him and source the quotes but I show a graph correlating increased sunspot activity with increased brightness of comets that he published, thereby showing an electrical connection with comets via the solar wind and contesting the idea of the sublimating dirty snowball, while opening up the possibility of an electrochemical explanation of why H2o is observed via spectral analysis within the coma of a comet.
While the standard model had been set forth by Fred Whipple, he was not the first to propose ice/snow/water/volatiles on comets. Even Newton suggested something similar. And I never suggested Birkeland had anything to directly say about the Standard model, I said he was a proponent of the electric model and as such, in a backhanded way, is saying something about the standard model even though it wasn't developed in his time.
Again, I offer my sincere apologies if my initial comments upset you through my lack of tact. I only hope you can accept the apology and perhaps we can begin anew. As for the science of comets, I am far from done, as I feel the empirical observational data favours the electric model over the standard model. Rather than just flag my post, why don't you actually make an effort to read it and show me where, in your opinion, I am wrong? This I put to you as a friendly challenge.
To simplify it, I have three points of contention.
1-The dirty snowball model predicted the presence of snow/ice/water on comets. Can you show me a single photograph of a comet that shows the presence of snow/water/ice?
2-How can an alleged dirty snowball survive eight hours passing through the corona of the sun and then sublimate upon exiting the corona?(see gif in the above post)
3-Conversely, for a comet to sublimate and produce a coma, it must be within 3 AUs of the sun, yet 67P started producing a coma at 16AUs where it is not warm enough to initiate sublimation.
How is this possible in the standard model?
A hypothesis is only as good as its ability to predict and is either supported or falsified by the empirical observations. And as it stands, the dirty snowball hypothesis has not been supported by the empirical observations. How many times must a model's predictions fail before a model is dismissed?
Respectfully yours
#daemon-nice
Ice in comets. Direct and indirect, massive amounts of evidence. But if you must have a photo. http://sci.esa.int/rosetta/59705-water-ice-in-imhotep-region/
2011 W3 was an unusual comet with very few volatiles, it only brightened when it got close to the sun. Similiar comets C/2012 E2 and C/2012 S1 in similiar sungrazing orbits appeared to be normal comets away from the sun and did not survive. I can pull up light curves for these comet's if you don't believe me. Btw how did you calculate your ablation rates?
No CO outgassing can drive activity out to 30AU
Thank you for your input.
What I also find interesting is how they backtracked a photographic timeline from a 'dust plume' to find this in the same locale. Notice they say dust plume and not a vapor plume. Are they trying to say water is stripped off as 'dust'? In my post, I do not deny the presence of h2o in the coma and this small volume could be the product of an electrochemical reaction(for which all the conditions necessary are present) that eventually was stripped away. You keep saying there is massive amounts of evidence, of that I do not doubt, but there does not seem to be massive amounts of actual h20 or any significant amount that one would imagine should be required to support the 'dirty snowball' hypothesis. Considering the length of a comet tail, should there not be much more significant volumes of h20?
2.it is the unusual phenomena that bring cause to question. What kind of volatile can resist the extreme temperatures of the corona to produce a coma upon exiting the corona? That is the real question. The last couple of frames in the gif reveal a coma bursting forth ahead of the comet. Based on the fact that 'normal comets' do not survive such close encounters with the sun, I suspect not all comets are made of the same material suggesting that they are not all formed in the same manner.
In this graph published by Birkeland, he shows a correlation between sunspot activity and comet brightness. The lower curve represents the number of sunspots while the upper curve represents the brightness variations of comet Encke. This is highly indicative of an energetic relationship between the sun and comets. How does the dirty snowball hypothesis explain this?
Again I thank you for entertaining this conversation. It means a great deal to me to converse with someone who questions the model I favour for talking with other like minds feel like a group singalong rather than an intelligent critical conversation. My mind is open to opposing opinions, as well, it challenges me.
Water ice in comets: Infrared/Microwave spectroscopes on a number of the spacecraft sent to comets all show large amounts of CO2 and H2O in the vicinity of the nucleus. Look for results for the Microwave instrument aboard Rosetta, and the infrared spectrograph aboard EPOXI. Production rates of water byproducts like OH- have been monitored for decades in various parts of the spectrum (but you appear to be more interested in direct proof of a H2O parent, so for that we need to look at spacecraft observations).
Comet Encke and sunspots : I am a bit dubious of the graph and I'll tell you why (Birkland was brilliant, but not infallible). If that chart were the brightness of Comet Encke, it would show a very dramatic peak every 3.3 years coinciding with it's perihelion. During the 1800's Comet Encke was really only observed for a window of 2 months around perihelion, and any time outside it would be invisible. Since Birkland's time we have access to far more observations and more accurate observations and I haven't heard of any correlation. However, feel free to do your own data analysis, there is a good modern database of comet observations here. Keep in mind that comet brightness observations are notoriously difficult and there can be a lot of scatter, particularly between different observers.
Those readings in the vicinity of the nucleus could be the product of an electrochemical process which would be most active on the nose of the nucleus where solar wind(sheet current) is in greatest contact. Of the four comets that I am aware of that they have gotten close to there seems to be very little to no presence of water. The fact that there is this discrepancy between what we can see in the visual light range and what the sensors are reading suggest that there is something more to this. We agree that there is the presence of water, what we do not agree on is how that water is present. You insist on snow or ice, even though the images do not show any. Oh yes, it is subsurface, but even then from what I can ascertain, there was none observed by sensors or otherwise when they impacted a projectile and analyzed the ejecta. While I insist it is being produced via electrochemical process stripping atoms off the rock.
True enough about the brightness being difficult to measure and compare. Thanks for the link, I will check it out and given enough time may even link up a database on sunspots and graph the two together for comparison. A single comet clearly does not define all comets. But I do think Birkeland was on to something there.
How sad for you that this is how you respond. So, to be clear, seven-time Nobel nominee Kristian Birkeland is nonsense.
It is interesting to note that all I wanted to do was start a conversation with you and you, your response is to treat me disrespectfully. Am I a threat to you that this is how you act? Clearly, that is how you feel and I do not know why you feel so. Did you even read it? I doubt it which would make yours an entirely emotional response and not an intellectual one.