The Electric Comet Theory Part III/SAFIRE
In one of the Electric Comet threads, Haig introduced SAFIRE (or maybe it was Sol88?). In the Phys.org ("PO") comments on an article entitled A celestial butterfly emerges from its dusty cocoon, cantdrive85 ("cd") also introduced SAFIRE.
Here's how it stated: Quote:
The part in this blog post which apparently triggered his ire is this: Quote:
Here's his response: Quote:
From memory, the link in BK's blog post is the same as the one Haig (or Sol88) posted, repeatedly; it's an interesting read ;) |
I suspect the argument wouldn't get very far, tbh, JT. To quote from the latest (AFAIK) SAFIRE pdf: "Further refinements in Juregen’s theory have been put forth,(7) but the exact mechanism that could account for an electrically powered sun is still under question."
So the nonsense model proposed by Jurgens, has been added to! The reference in the text leads to Don Scott's equally silly Electric Sky, which was comprehensively taken apart by Tom Bridgman. And, no doubt, a number of high school physics students. So for them to say there is no exact mechanism, is double speak for "they haven't got a clue." It's all still dependent on an Electric God. Any amount of messing around in a lab, even if it were scalable, is pointless without telling us where the power source comes from, and why we don't detect it. And good luck to them scaling up the nuclear reactions they'll need to account for the neutrino flux! |
From the section entitled "Experimental", sub-section "Instrumentation" of the PDF:
Quote:
Despite what Anderson+ write, "this paper" seem to go rather beyond the stated scope. For example: Quote:
Should the authors seek to publish in a relevant peer-reviewed journal, they will likely be asked to fix the real bloopers in the PDF; for example: "Visible light emission arises from the atmosphere (photosphere and chromosphere) of the sun, not the core. This is known because the temperature of the layer below the chromosphere (the layer below the sunspots as in Figure 5) was measured using various spectrographic techniques, and is estimated to only be ~4000°K." |
Quote:
Quote:
Also, a perfectly legitimate question will be, as you say, what is the analog on the Sun for the wires in the pedestal, through which the current flows. Quote:
|
So it sounds like the plan is:
a) Build a big glow-discharge tube b) Run a bunch of basically uninteresting glow-discharge experiments c) Take photographs of the discharges to put next to photos of the Sun. d) Brag about how the photo-comparisons were obtained from "real laboratory experiments" e) Ignore everything else we know about the Sun. |
This is just a modern version of Birkeland's 1908 experiments with terrella ("little Earth"!) where he made bad analogies with solar activity using images of electrical discharges from metallic spheres containing magnets and in a high electric field.
They are already repeating this mistake in the small-scale experiment (JMP and SAFIRE: What makes the sun shine? (PDF)).
More mistakes in the "Spectroscopy" section.
|
Whoops, looks like Mozina may not be too happy! From the Thunderdolts forum;
Mozina: "I'm curious if the Safire experiments include any work with a *cathode* solar model, or if it's been primarily limited to studying the anode/Jergen's/Scott solar model?" The "cathode" model is his one Turns out they aren't looking at that one, only Scott's equally nutty model. There may be trouble ahead. |
As has been pointed out by RC,, the flaring mentioned by Talbott is (presumably) to do with an increase in the non-existent electrical woo that he believed (surely he can't still believe it?) causes the jets at comets. We already knew before Rosetta that the jets aren't any kind of electric woo. I point the interested reader to some of the papers on the Hartley 2 mission. CO2 gas and ice, was the outcome in that particular case. So, Sol discussing particular aspects of perfectly mainstream science, regarding what happens in a cometary coma during a CME, is a totally pointless discussion. Interesting, but totally unrelated to any of the woo dreamed up by T & T. For what it's worth, we know that solar wind heavy ions are responsible for the x-ray emission seen at comets. So, an increase in the solar wind flux should see an increase in x-ray production. Want to call that a flare? Fine, if you must, but it's a perfectly mainstream one. The whole of the sunward coma will be compressed. There has been a paper on this. Again, very interesting, but nothing to do with EU woo. Given how vague the predictions of Talbott were, it is hard to know exactly what he was on about. Which is the whole ethos of EU; keep it as vague as possible, so that you can later claim to be right. A bit like tabloid psychics. |
What Sol needs to concentrate on are the core claims of T & T, regarding their lunatic 'electric comet' idea. That is;
1) The jets are electrical discharges to (from?) the nucleus: Either way, that has been 100% debunked by observation and measurement. Or lack thereof. 2) The comet is a rock: Yet again, 100% disproven. By the impact at Tempel 1, and the results from MIRO and CONSERT at 67P. 3) The comet charges up due to a radial electric field around the Sun: Zero evidence of any such thing. 4) The H2O at comets is not H2O, but is OH, that stupid scientists mistake for H2O (I kid you not!): Well that was dead long before T & T wrote their horrific poster on electric comets. From 1985, in fact. And many observations since. Definitively, unarguably, 100% H2O. Solid and gaseous. 5) Said OH will be caused by solar wind H+ striking O- ions, which have been electrically machined from the non-existent rock of the comet (deary me): Not going to happen. SW H+ is far too energetic to combine with anything. There is naff all O- for it to combine with anyway, even if it were possible. And, when you do the sums, it turns out that even if every H+ ion was somehow involved in production of OH (or H2O, or magic fairy dust, whatever), then there ain't anywhere near enough of it to account for even 1 litre of water production. By many orders of magnitude. So, all in all, a really dumb idea. And very unscientific. Which is not at all surprising, given who dreamed it up. So, Sol, how do you think all that has gone? Not well, really, eh? Console yourself by having another look at all those pretty pictures from Hartley 2, back in 2010, of all that fluffy ice floating around the comet. And then ask yourself, "why are we still discussing this woo?" |
Quote:
Has absolutely noting to do with T's flaring electrically speaking. |
Sol88 : The persistent delusion that there are images of comets that are rocks
Quote:
ROLIS and CIVA were cameras on the Philae lander. During the decent they took images of a comet nucleus made up of ices and dust. Quote:
The CONSERT instrument in the Rosetta orbiter used the Philae lander to measure the density of the interior of 67P which was not the density of rock as in your delusion as you already know. We have been through EU abysmal ignorance of astronomical images leading to the delusion of "I see rocks in images of comes made of ices and dust" a few times before. for example, 16 February 2016 Sol88: a follower of the deluded Thunderbolts cult who has the insane idea that he can look at an image of a comet and tell what it is made of That composition is hard to establish from images is illustrated by Ziggurat's earlier post I've asked this of EU advocates before, I'm going to give it another shot. Here are two photographs. What kind of material are we looking at in each picture? I am surprised that we did not see that delusion applied to jonesdave116's image in this post a few days ago on of Tempel 1! Look at all of the "rocks" on the surface :p! We would see yet again denial that Deep Impact ejected water and dust. And ... Two years and counting of fear of doing basic physics: 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor. |
Sol88: Did the Stardust mission sample the subsurface composition of comet Wild 2
Quote:
The "Subsurface composition" paragraph is several lies, starting with the title :eek:! Let us see if Sol88 can understand this: 27 July 2017 Sol88: Did the Stardust mission sample the subsurface composition of comet Wild 2? |
Sol88: Where is the EU prediction of subsurface composition
27 July 2017 Sol88: Where is the EU prediction of subsurface composition in the "Subsurface composition" paragraph or linked web page?
|
Sol88: What does a deluded denial of Solar System formation have to do with comets
27 July 2017 Sol88: What does a deluded denial of the formation of the Solar System have to do with the EU subsurface composition of comets
Their delusion is that planets whizz around the Solar System to match their fantasies. We have had measurements of the subsurface composition of Tempel 1 since 2005 (the Deep Impact mission) and from 2017 there is 67P (Rosetta mission). The ages of the planets and Sun match, i.e. they formed together. Planets have not "remained in their present orbits ever since". The Moon was probably formed by a planet colliding with the Earth. The Nice model has Jupiter starting close to the Sun and migrating outward. |
From the @Rosetta_RPC tweet:
A paper on the expanding ionosphere of the comet Vertical struct of the near-surf expanding ionosphere of comet 67P probed by Rosetta by Heritier et al. in MNRAS without any EC woo :-) |
New Comet: C/2017 O1 ASAS-SN Takes Earth by Surprise
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
An interesting line from he EU conference woo:
Quote:
Strange that, eh? Few? So, they still think 'dirty snowballs' are possible? Wow. Mainstream gave that up a while ago. Shame that these people are still basing their unscientific nonsense on Whipple's model from the 1950's. Having said that, they still think it is possible. Weird. Wish they'd make their minds up. Come on Wal, what is it that you actually believe, you old charlatan? So how are you going to spin this? I've got an idea; given that all of the comets that have been visited, and all of the comets that have been spectroscopically investigated by instruments that can detect H2O have detected H2O, why not start your woo with comets that have never been visited, nor probed by IR or sub-mm? Good place to start for a conman, yes? |
To put that woo in more context :
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
[quote=jonesdave116;11939521]
Quote:
Thing is, we need the mathematics to get it right; otherwise we'd be still doing astrology. (Oh, wait, most people are :mad:). Seems to me that most of these people, if they can't understand the math, assume there's something wrong with the math, not them - even when their own skills are demonstrably lacking. |
Quote:
Quote:
So JD116, what is the mainstream model? |
Quote:
Seasonal Mass Transfer on the Nucleus of Comet 67P/Chuyumov-Gerasimenko Keller, H. U. et al. (Skorov is a co-author) https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1707/1707.06812.pdf What it will not involve is any of the nonsense I mentioned in the post further up: Quote:
What we don't do is to dream up scientifically impossible woo, based upon nothing more than mythology, and suggest that it is a viable, scientific model. |
Quote:
To me, it looks like philosophical talk. Was an EU-based comet model ever simulated on a computer, for example? What's the point of asking others about their models if there is not even an EU-based one to discuss? |
Quote:
And, yes, you've pretty much summed it up. There is no 'electric comet' model. Never has been. If you wish to read more of this scientifically illiterate nonsense, then I may be able to find a link; http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf Please try to keep your sanity as you read that garbage. Not easy, I know. Essentially, the things you need to bear in mind, are the facts that neither of the idiots that came up with this woo are scientifically qualified. Certainly not in the relevant subject area. They tend to make stuff up. One of them is a bloke called David Talbott: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/David_Talbott The other is a loon called Wallace Thornhill. Doesn't even rate a mention on Rational Wiki. Allegedly has a BSc in physics. Can't do maths. Can't do science. And they are both Velikovskian woo merchants. Bear that in mind, and you'll not go wrong :) |
Sol88: Confirms once again that he is arguing from a stance of abysmal ignorance
Quote:
2 August 2017 Sol88: Confirms once again that he is arguing from a stance of abysmal ignorance about comets! The mainstream model backed up by empirical evidence is that comets are made of ices and dust. There are a lot of other details. As new evidence is found the details change (this is called the scientific process) but the basics are not changed by the paper you cite. It is still deeply deluded to state that comets are rocks. You cannot even remember a week ago! Or this could be the idiocy that pops up sometimes of asking everyone in a thread the same question to waste their time. 27 July 2017 Sol88: The delusion that comets are rocks is not supported by the delusion that a paper is about comets being rocks. |
Quote:
There is whatever a Thunderbolts ("Electric Universe") person makes up when asked that question, web pages with vague and even incoherent assertions, crank books and even worse YouTube videos. They start with the debunked fantasies of Immanuel Velikovsky and add their delusions. My take on it: We will lie about comparing myths (plural) to find common stories on astronomical events witnessed by humans in the last few thousand or 10 thousand years.The last is where Thunderbolts is a bit cowardly - it seems to be vague "electrical discharges between planets" rather than naming the culprits. |
Quote:
Several special issues of Science (31 July 2015, 23 January 2015), Astronomy & Astrophysics (vol 583, 2015), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (Vol 462, Issue Suppl_1, 2016) give enough reading material, and that is only the surface of what is being published. |
So
The new model is...based upon observation and measurement from near and far.???? Ok let's ask the new poster here, welcome lauwenmark. What, at this time, is your understanding of the MAINSTREAM model of comets? hint, the experts say the Dirtysnowball is dead and buried and the new model is...based upon observation and measurement from near and far.???? and read the papers and that's the new model. Feel free to ask the "experts" ;) PS if you have not read the paper yet give Comets: looking ahead Michael F. A’Hearn a crack, see what ya reckon. |
Ha! I just noticed in the reservations that Yuri Skorov is coming to visit my institute!
I will let him give a seminar. |
Quote:
is it deep fried ice cream?? |
Quote:
Great, can you ask him please what he meant by the statement Quote:
JD1116 is confused on the statement. |
Quote:
What drives the dust activity of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko? Gundlach, B. et al. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.08545.pdf |
JD116, what are the most common model assumption employed by the cometary community they may need revision?
|
OK, let's have a look at what T & T have to say about the dust;....................er, nothing. Except the bit where they confuse the sunlight reflected from jets of such material, and claim that it's an electrical discharge. Oh dear.
|
Quote:
Model it still fluffy dust covered solid ice?? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Here, this didn't strain my research skills too much:
Quote:
Levasseur-Regourd, A. C. et al. https://hal-insu.archives-ouvertes.f...11564/document And: DENSITY AND CHARGE OF PRISTINE FLUFFY PARTICLES FROM COMET 67P/CHURYUMOV–GERASIMENKO Fulle, M. et al. http://oro.open.ac.uk/44289/1/apjl_802_1_L12o.pdf Lots of fluffy particles floating around. Apparently as unseen by electric comet advocates as the snowstorm of ice around Hartley 2. |
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:15 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-24, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.