The Electric Comet theory

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sol88 said:
Yeah it's nearly as bad as wasting billions of dollars chasing ICE on comets :mad:
Click to expand...
No, Sol88 - it is nearly as bad as denying basic science to blindly advocate the Thunderbolts delusion that comets are made of ROCK :p!

17 December 2014 Sol88: Do you understand how bad it is to change someone's quote to something that they would never say?
This is basically you changing a quote to make a scientist look stupid enough to think that comets are made of rock despite the evidence that they are made of ices and dust.
Thus a retraction seems in order, Sol88.
 
Haig said:
predictions confirmed
Click to expand...
Haig: The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.
Thunderbolts are ignorant about comets.
Thunderbolts are deluded about comets.
Thunderbolts lie to their readers about comets.
The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site and videos
Reality Check said:

Sol88: List of outstanding questions
Haig: List of outstanding questions

Electric comets still do not exist :eek:!
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
So where is the list of successful predictions for mainstreams comet model hypothesis ???? :p
Click to expand...
So where is the understanding of how irrelevant that question is, Haig, when this is the Electric Comet theory thread :jaw-dropp!
The inanity of that strikeout is obvious - there is a scientific model of comets than makes scientific predictions.

I see a delusion about an imaginary "EU / PC hypothesis" predicting gamma rays from lightning, Haig.
 
Last edited:
JeanTate said:
Good morning, Sol88.

Sure, that sounds like an interesting topic.


OK. I'll start by collecting everything in your post that is related to "jets" and the ech (that included, obviously, their location).


Hmm, not quite what I was expecting.

So, what was I expecting?

At least something like this:

In the ech, comets are composed of rock, and have a homogeneous structure. Ices - the solid forms of water, carbon dioxide, etc - form as a result of electrical discharges (including arcs) in which oxygen, carbon, sulfur, etc is liberated from rock minerals and combines with protons from the solar wind. Thus there will be "no ice at the source of jets, not even where the most energetic jets are active" (source)

Instead of something like this, what did you post?

Let's see ...


What does that have to do with the ech?

On the one hand, you explicitly stated it was (your summary of) "mainstreams [sic] explanation"; on the other, you presented nothing on the ech.

Sounds rather like this, eh? "you [...] seem to spend most of your words on asking/demanding/insisting on/etc "mainstream" explanations for comet phenomena apparently picked at random [...], or claiming/screaming/etc that some (cherry picked?) phenomenon/event/data is inconsistent with "mainstream" theory/models/explanations/etc." (source)


Well, yes, that's what I'm trying to do.

So, can we have a discussion of the ech, please?

You started this thread, explicitly on "The Electric Comet theory". Yet in this post of yours (the one I'm quoting) you said nothing about the ech at all.

Why is it apparently so hard for you to stay focused?
Click to expand...

No subsurface chambers venting thru an orifice = mainstream fail....but we still see jets...why JEAN TATE

even if the comets not an electrical discharge phenomena, mainstream are going to have to come up with another theory for jet production :jaw-dropp

but as stated in the ECH jets are an electrical discharge phenomena :D
 
Haig: the delusions in Newton’s Electric Clockwork Solar System by Wal Thornhil

Haig said:
...
Click to expand...
A couple rather stupid links are not science or evidence, Haig.
We have an idiotic Google search for charged + planet images on a crank web site.
We have a link to a page in the crank web site - Wal Thornhill has the delusion that the Grand Canyon was created by electrical discharges!

18 December 2014 Haig: Can you grasp the delusional nature of Newton’s Electric Clockwork Solar System by Wal Thornhill?

  • It starts with a lie: Scientists know that all forces "rule the cosmos" . However the basic fact the electromagnetic forces can be shielded means that gravitational forces dominate in cosmological scale.
  • Arguments from ignorance/incredibility/God of the gaps (filled with electromagnetism).
  • "We cannot explain the origin of the solar system." is ignorant - we have as good theory for the origin of the solar system - which has nothing to do with the stability of the solar system :eek:.
  • The idiocy of assuming "clockwork stability" when he has just stated that it does not exist!
    We know that the Earth's orbit has been stable enough for billions of years for life come into being and evolve. There is no evidence that other planets have done anything surprising.
  • A link to a page where Wal Thornhill goes off the deep end in supporting another cranks fantasy electrical theory of gravity. This is really bad because Wal Thornhill should know about QM and the insanity of "returning to a classical model of the atom".
  • A summary of that insanity of classical atoms and dipoles being gravity.
  • A rant about the dimensions of the gravitational constant.
    G is a proportionality constant and so has the dimensions that it needs!
  • G is is not "most inconstant of physical constants".
    G is the physical constant that is hardest to measure and has the widest range of values. It is the most inaccurate of physical constants.
  • A derail into the electric sun fantasy and more fantasies based on that.
  • Electric comet lies in an image.
Ending with a display of ignorance, fantasies and lies:
  • The AU is 149597870700 metres (exactly) - it does not change.
  • The fantasy that EMOND can explain the rate of precession of Mercury’s perihelion.
  • The lie of "Einstein’s theory does not explain gravity" - it matches the rate of precession of Mercury’s perihelion :eek:!
  • An unsupported assertion about Lunar Eccentricity and gibberish sbout electrogravitic ‘nudge’s.
  • The delusion that he solved the Pioneer Anomaly (which BTW has been solved!) - all he dis was write a web page with no numbers.
  • A lie about comet orbits not obeying Newton’s law of gravity. Astronomers have been using Newton’s law of gravity to predict the positions of comets for centuries. Outgassing of course does change the orbits over time.
 
We have not seen David Talbott for a while and there are a lot of questions outstanding.
8 December 2014 David Talbott: Citations that solar warming can't account for comet outbursts, etc.

8 December 2014 David Talbott: How about you quote the first statement of fact (with the scientific literature to back it up) in that video and we will start from there.
Could id be that that video contains no scientific evidence for the electric comet idea :eek:!

Questions about his "predictions":
8 December 2014 David Talbott: How hot is hot? How dry is dry?
8 December 2014 David Talbott: If instruments detect that above activity, how will astronomers tell the difference between standard comet physics and the electric comet physics?
8 December 2014 David Talbott: Why should scientists do the idiocy of comparing x-ray and ultraviolet emissions to predictions from 20 years ago when they have more current predictions?
8 December 2014 David Talbott: What are the electric comet predictions for x-ray and ultraviolet emissions?
8 December 2014 David Talbott: What "unexpected negative ions close to the nucleus"?
and
8 December 2014 David Talbott: What instruments will detect what you state can be detected in your predictions?

tusenfem's response to the "predictions" which seems to have been ignored except for Haig's fantasy about 67P looking like a chink of Mars in one image.

David Talbott's unsupported assertions about the scientific comet model made on 11 December 2014 (basically "mysteries" magically support the electric comet idea).

Questions about the origin of electric comets
 
Please list the planets and moons that were interacting to create comets

9 December 2014 David Talbott, Sol88 or Haig: Why are the orbits of comets not traced back to planets or moons?
Note that "wishful thinking about electricity" is not an answer!

9 December 2014 David Talbott, Sol88 or Haig: Why is the total mass of comets greater to or comparable to that of the rocky planets and moons (which still exist!)?

9 December 2014 David Talbott, Sol88 or Haig: What is the physical evidence of appreciable parts of the surfaces of planets and moons being removed in recent (say Neolithic or Early Bronze Age) times?

10 December 2014 David Talbott, Sol88 or Haig: What happened in "early human times" that stopped the creation of comets?

The electric comet origin is very vague in in the sources that I have seen. Unspecified planets and unspecified moons do unspecified electric stuff to each other in unspecified (but up to "early human times") time periods :p.
So a really simple question:
18 December 2014 David Talbott, Sol88 or Haig: Please list the planets and moons that were interacting to create comets.
For example, if comets were created from the Earth then the list will include Earth interacting with planet X or moon Y.
 
Sol88 said:
No subsurface chambers venting thru an orifice = mainstream fail....but we still see jets...why JEAN TATE
Click to expand...
Maybe because Sol88 cannot understand some logic :p!
We have a scientific mechanism for creating jets which is not your fantasy, Sol88. That mechanism is ices sublimating below the surface of the comet - no "subsurface chambers". The gases rise up through the ices and dust above them to escape. The ice and dust above the sublimating ices are blown away from the comet. That forms a funnel or orifice that creates jets out of the gas.
The observation that jets exist is evidence for the mechanism working.

No images of active jets coming out of a funnel or orifice yet is a lack of data, not failure.
Failure is basically everything about the electric comet idea: Electric comets still do not exist :eek:!
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
And even snow becomes very hard when it gets all the air squeezed out in an avalanche.

-200C Canada is much colder than I remember!

;)
Click to expand...

Yeah. :p I meant on other planets without atmosphere and far from the sun, or, you know, comets. The coldest I've seen in Canada was -60 with the wind factor. -45 on the meter. The air was so cold it burned our lungs. Ouch.
 
From one of Haig's links:

“why do we think that physicists know anything about gravity beyond mathematical descriptions of its observed effects?” All that modern physics has done is to obscure the need for serious investigation of an unsolved problem. Even some effects attributed to the action of gravity, like the bending of light, need not have anything to do with gravity.
Click to expand...

So we know more about electromagnetism than the mathematical description of its observed effects? What is the "more" we know about it, and how did we figure it out?
 
Reality Check said:
No, Sol88 - it is nearly as bad as denying basic science to blindly advocate the Thunderbolts delusion that comets are made of ROCK :p!

17 December 2014 Sol88: Do you understand how bad it is to change someone's quote to something that they would never say?
This is basically you changing a quote to make a scientist look stupid enough to think that comets are made of rock despite the evidence that they are made of ices and dust.
Thus a retraction seems in order, Sol88.
Click to expand...

NO, Comets are rock, or if you like, according to Osiris team leader, rocky like BUT not rock.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Yeah. :p I meant on other planets without atmosphere and far from the sun, or, you know, comets. The coldest I've seen in Canada was -60 with the wind factor. -45 on the meter. The air was so cold it burned our lungs. Ouch.
Click to expand...

Even at -100c ice is softer than the probe on MUPUS, so it should have been able to "chip" at the ice but not if it was hard like....ROCK :rolleyes:

Otherwise go get a hammer and chisel and have a go on the ahrdest ice you can find, then go find a rock and give that a go!

Which one will chip first??? MUPUS failed during its attempt :boxedin:

Maybe they should have designed it to go into rock...oh wait that was the ice screws job...how'd that go! :rolleyes:

all indications so far are that the surface was harder than expected...the expected but not found ICE :cool:
 
Reality Check said:
Maybe because Sol88 cannot understand some logic :p!
We have a scientific mechanism for creating jets which is not your fantasy, Sol88. That mechanism is ices sublimating below the surface of the comet - no "subsurface chambers". The gases rise up through the ices and dust above them to escape. The ice and dust above the sublimating ices are blown away from the comet. That forms a funnel or orifice that creates jets out of the gas.
The observation that jets exist is evidence for the mechanism working.

No images of active jets coming out of a funnel or orifice yet is a lack of data, not failure.
Failure is basically everything about the electric comet idea: Electric comets still do not exist :eek:!
Click to expand...

The data is there, RC. But they will not release it....why?

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2011/pdf/2439.pdf

Introduction:
Images obtained with the Deep Impact Flyby spacecraft's Medium-Resolution Instrument
(
MRI) and High-Resolution Instrument (HRI) during
the EPOXI mission's closest approach to comet
103P/Hartley
2 reveal the existence of numerous
highly collimated, active, filamentary structures eman
ating from the nucleus. Remarkably, several filaments
also exhibited strong activity on the night-side of the
nucleus. The resolution of larger jet-like features into
bundles of such filamentary structures was first recog-
nized on comet 1P/Halley with the Giotto
HMC camera [1, 2]. Although the past two decades have seen ex-
tensive analytical and numerical work to model the
physical processes controlling filament and/or jet out
gassing [4, 5, 6, 7, 8], new physical constraints im-
posed by the recent observations of Hartley 2’s surface.
Click to expand...
My bold...now where have I heard this before???? Stringy things...no that was NASA...Mmmmm....something to do with MAGNATISIM and ELECTRIC CURRENT "Filamentary Structures in plasma" LINK


The gases rise up through the ices and dust above them to escape. The ice and dust above the sublimating ices are blown away from the comet. That forms a funnel or orifice that creates jets out of the gas.
The observation that jets exist is evidence for the mechanism working.
Click to expand...
:redface1

So you, REALITY CHECK, do not agree with the mainstream view of jet production??? since you've just tweaked it a little toward the EC explination of jet production :bigclap

Icarus 167 (2004) 30–36
www.elsevier.com/locate/icarus
Formation of jets in Comet 19P/Borrelly by subsurface geysers

Abstract
Observations of the inner coma of Comet 19P/Borrelly with the camera on the Deep Space 1 spacecraft revealed several highly collimated
dust jets emanating from the nucleus. The observed jets can be produced by acceleration of evolved gas from a subsurface cavity through
a narrow orifice to the surface
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
Not that calculation ... the ONE between an encounter with Mars and Earth !!!
Click to expand...

Huh. Turns out that one of the claims of Worlds in Collision was that Mars made several flybys of Earth, after it had been displaced from its orbit by Venus. I must have stopped reading the book before I got to that part.
 
Sol88 said:
No subsurface chambers venting thru an orifice = mainstream fail....but we still see jets...why JEAN TATE

even if the comets not an electrical discharge phenomena, mainstream are going to have to come up with another theory for jet production :jaw-dropp

but as stated in the ECH jets are an electrical discharge phenomena :D
Click to expand...

How do you know there are no subsurface chambers?
Have you some secret access to the CONSERT data?
 
Matthew Cline said:
So we know more about electromagnetism than the mathematical description of its observed effects? What is the "more" we know about it, and how did we figure it out?
Click to expand...

That is one of the things that surprises me every time.
Why is it always that gravity is not understood? It is two masses attracting each other
Why do those that say that gravity is not understood claim that the electric force is understood? It is two charges attracting (repulsing) each other.
Basically, I see no difference between the two, and nobody of the unbelievers has ever explained to me why it is harder to believe in gravity than in electricity.
 
Sol88 said:
Even at -100c ice is softer than the probe on MUPUS, so it should have been able to "chip" at the ice but not if it was hard like....ROCK :rolleyes:

Otherwise go get a hammer and chisel and have a go on the ahrdest ice you can find, then go find a rock and give that a go!
Click to expand...

Again, at -200c, ice is about as hard as granite. Get a very good chisel.
 
tusenfem said:
How do you know there are no subsurface chambers?
Have you some secret access to the CONSERT data?
Click to expand...

because there are no orifices or vents ;) sigh

Is the CONCERT experiment a goer? I thought we had flat batteries on Philea??
 
tusenfem said:
That is one of the things that surprises me every time.
Why is it always that gravity is not understood? It is two masses attracting each other
Why do those that say that gravity is not understood claim that the electric force is understood? It is two charges attracting (repulsing) each other.
Basically, I see no difference between the two, and nobody of the unbelievers has ever explained to me why it is harder to believe in gravity than in electricity.
Click to expand...

Some crap about the EM force being 39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity, plus it is both long range attractive and short range repulsive.

Gravity the weakest force mainstream has to work with :boggled:


Can you make gravity in the lab, Tusenfem?

Plasma is exceptionaly easy to make, got some right here next to me!!!
 
Last edited:
tusenfem said:
In which universe does this sentence make any sense?
Click to expand...

The Universe Holger Sierks lives in! it's a quote from a press conferance held not long after the Philea probe crashed into 67P!

and I guess by extension YOU, Tusenfem :)
 
Last edited:
tusenfem said:
Don't know which data you are looking for but if you go to the Small Bodies Node you can find data from basically all missions except Rosetta.
Click to expand...

In the OSIRIS images????

Unfortunately for millions of space enthusiasts around the world, none of these exciting images were released to the public. In addition, much of the images taken of the comet over the past few months as Rosetta closed in on it have similarly not been released.
Click to expand...
LINK

I just want pictures of the jets and there source :confused: just like the whole world.
 
Belz... said:
Oh, so now they're not just wrong, they are actively covering up the truth ? Wy would they do that ? To spite you ? There is no advantage to doing that at all.
Click to expand...

Indeed Belz...why are they holding the pretty pictures??

But Rosetta’s operator, the European Space Agency (ESA), has released none of these images to the public. Nor have any of these images been presented in Darmstadt, Germany, where scientists at ESA’s mission control are preparing to drop the Philae lander to the comet surface on Wednesday. Project scientist Matt Taylor was reduced to learning about the new results at the Arizona conference by thumbing through Twitter feeds on his phone.
Click to expand...
LINK

So I've got Buckley's chance :(
 
Belz... said:
Again, at -200c, ice is about as hard as granite. Get a very good chisel.
Click to expand...


How cold was the comet again?

What an absolute howler!

Even me 'ol mate Reality Check can tell you hard ice is :eek:

but the MUPUS team didn't?
 
Explain to me again, slowly, how your craters and pits do this reality check? After you said
Quote:
But I can certainly make a guess for the source of jets that go in straightish lines. Look at the images of the surface of comets. Notice the craters and pits? A jet issuing from a crater or pit will be "collimated" by the walls of the crater or pit.
Click to expand...
post #167

So how's that panning out Reality Check?
 
Good morning, Sol88.
Sol88 said:
<stuff not on the ech snipped>

but as stated in the ECH jets are an electrical discharge phenomena :D
Click to expand...
Thanks for this.

A bit briefer than I was hoping for ...

Let me ask you about jets, electrical discharge phenomena, and the ECH, OK?

1) How do you get from:
* there is an electric field centered approximately on the Sun AND
* comets are homogeneous 'rock'
to:
* the observed comet jets are an electrical discharge phenomena?

Would you please walk me through the logical steps from premises to conclusion?

2) What primary source, or sources, can you cite, re "in the ECH jets are an electrical discharge phenomena"?

3) Per the ECH, what are the two (or more) 'ends' of the electrical discharge(s) that are comet jets? Or, what acts as electrodes?

I think that will do for now; I look forward to continuing to discuss comet jets in the ECH. :)
 
Sol88 said:
Some crap about the EM force being 39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity, plus it is both long range attractive and short range repulsive.

Gravity the weakest force mainstream has to work with :boggled:
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with how well or poorly gravity is understood?

Can you make gravity in the lab, Tusenfem?
Click to expand...

So since we can't do artificial gravity, it means that gravity is poorly understood?
 
Sorry Jean Tate, hard day at work...not much ice here today @43c so fairly knackered

Tomorrow ok?
 
Sol88 said:
because there are no orifices or vents
Click to expand...

That's what you claim.

Sol88 said:
Is the CONCERT experiment a goer? I thought we had flat batteries on Philea??
Click to expand...

Well, nice to know that you are keeping up with the stuff that you try to destroy.

Sol88 said:
Some crap about the EM force being 39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity, plus it is both long range attractive and short range repulsive.
Click to expand...

The force between to protons at 1 meter distance
electric 2E-28 N
gravity 2E-64 N
BUT as we all know, plasma tends to being neutral on scales larger than the DeBye sphere, so then your beloved EM force (well basically the electrostatic force) can no longer work so well. Just a small detail that the EU community loves to forget. So, yeah, it's your crap.

Still that does not answer my question about why people have problems with gravity and not with the electrostatic force. It is still both stuff attracting each other.

Sol88 said:
Gravity the weakest force mainstream has to work with
Can you make gravity in the lab, Tusenfem?
Click to expand...

Well yeah, if I add enough mass together, I influence gravity in the laboratory (e.g. using lead balls and a torsion spring, to determine G, it is a freshman's experiment in physics, at least at Utrecht University, but I don't know what is taught down-under).

Plasma is exceptionaly easy to make, got some right here next to me!!!
Click to expand...

did you slit your wrists?

Adding mass together is even more exceptionally (double l please!) easy to make. So that proves nothing.
Children are also easy to make, and I don't even know how to calculate that attractive force.

Sol88 said:
The Universe Holger Sierks lives in! it's a quote from a press conferance held not long after the Philea probe crashed into 67P!
Click to expand...

NO, Comets are rock, or if you like, according to Osiris team leader, rocky like BUT not rock.
Click to expand...

I guess the bold speaks for itself. I guess anyone but you can see.

Sol88 said:
In the OSIRIS images????

LINK

I just want pictures of the jets and there source just like the whole world.
Click to expand...

NO not the OSIRIS data, but from the deep impact mission, you were talking about the epoxi experiment when I made that comment.

After the discussion the images policy changes and more came out. But again, these images are scientific data, not just pretty pictures, and thus they are not released immediately.

And what you want is of no importance! I would like a hot date with Kili, but I am not getting it either.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Even at -100c ice is softer than the probe on MUPUS, ...
Click to expand...
Totally ignorant Sol88 :jaw-dropp
This is what you cited from the MUPUS team on 197 December 2014
The probe then started to hammer itself into the subsurface, but was unable to make more than a few millimetres of progress even at the highest power level of the hammer motor.

“If we compare the data with laboratory measurements, we think that the probe encountered a hard surface with strength comparable to that of solid ice,” says Tilman Spohn, principal investigator for MUPUS.
Click to expand...


I addressed this argument from ignorance with a post that you should have read on 17 November 2014 :p
Reality Check said:
The tensile strength of ice varies from 0.7–3.1 MPa so it is possible that the MUPUS team were unlucky enough to drill into hammer on surface ice.
Click to expand...
 
Sol88 said:
The data is there, RC. But they will not release it....why?
Click to expand...
Maybe because they are smart enough to expect some benefit from their 20 years of work on this mission , Sol88 :eek:!
Or maybe they can read, Sol88 :rolleyes:
tusenfem said:
No, they are not "just pictures" they are actually scientific data for which a large team worked for over 20 years (planning and flying there) to obtain these data.

Although it cannot be expected of you to understand that one can do actual science with these images (taken in different wavelenghts, with different resolution, etc.), this is a big thing for the OSIRIS team. It is their instrument, they have the right to work on the data first, albeit only 6 months. It has happened before, that images were released early and some other team grabbed them and made a first publication. That is not fair towards the Priciple Investigator (PI) team.

So just hold your horses and wait a bit, there will probably another press release and the most papers for the special Science issue have already been accepted for publication.

Talking about publications, though, I still have not seen anything quantitative from the EC bunch presented. Are the scared or something?
Click to expand...


Doubting up on your ignorance, of science and the electric comet idea, Sol88?
* jets of gas are not plasma.
* plasma is not the electrical discharges of the electric comet idea
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom