I remember some guy saying "I'm not going to post any videos or ramble about EU going forward here." If you want to talk about electrickery, keep it relevant to Rosetta and comet 67P. This is not a general electrickery thread.
K
Quoting: K Hall And certain asteroids can become live comets as was discovered last year with the 6-tailed asteroid/comet.
Yes, I have posted somewhere before about Iwan Williams and the safari park.
[
link to astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org]
At least the vid I posted was only 13 minutes long. There is an 80 minute one that goes into great detail about EDM and Mars ... if you're interested. It's referenced in the 13 min vid I posted.
Quoting: BG-Fan Lol, thanks but no thanks. I have a whole series of vids on tensor calculus and Riemann surfaces if you are having trouble sleeping.
[
link to www.youtube.com (secure)]
From a standard theory standpoint how exactly does a comet with a fuzzy watery coma cause auroras??
Quoting: BG-Fan BG-Fan, are you seriously telling me that you don't think the electrical and magnetic properties of comets have been studied over the last 150 years. I think you need the kids book of comets or something. 1852 William Swan produced diatomic carbon spectra that matched William Huggin's comet coma spectra, so we have know for at least 152 years that outer comas contain ionised material, please catch up. As to under what circumstances this could or could not cause auroras that is beyond the ability of anyone here to calculate. This McCanney guy is picking up on what JPL were saying over a year and a half ago, RE auroras.
[
link to www.fromquarkstoquasars.com]
[
link to www.gizmag.com]
And yes according to standard theory they rely a great deal on magnetism while almost completely ignoring electrical conditions all together.
Quoting: BG-Fan Wow, you really need to catch up on your 19th century science.
[
link to www.boundless.com (secure)]
So given that Mars basically has no magnetosphere, it makes the Martian aurora claim all the more fantastical from standard theory, doesn't it?
Quoting: BG-Fan No, what you need for aurora is collisions of differing gasses ( ionised and donors ) in a low gas pressure environment with ionised gasses that have de-excitation spectra in the visible range. No need for a magnetosphere. Why would it be fantastical when it is scientists using their knowledge and skills that are predicting this.
Last week Nasa announced that Siding Spring........and on and on
Quoting: BG-Fan Seriously why didn't you post this in Dr Astro's Siding Spring thread or better yet one of your own. I have already asked you to keep on topic, you are a regular poster so you know what is going on here, I am fine about you posting about Rosetta and 67P eletrickery stuff as I have already said. We had something like 3,400 threads on crappy comet ISON that did nothing then fell apart. Is it too much to ask to have one active thread on the most exciting and interesting space mission of the century so far, that is going to revolutionise our understanding of comets, is it really ???
K
