Merged The Electric Comet Theory Part III/SAFIRE

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sol88 said:
Whipple’s dirtysnowball model of comets composed of ice with some dust is one EVOLVING toward MAINLY ROCK.
Click to expand...

Nope, because that was NOT Whipple's model, as I have told you dozens of times already. To quote Whipple himself from the abstract of his paper:
Whipple, 1950, A COMET MODEL. I. THE ACCELERATION OF COMET ENCKE, Astrophysical Journal 111, 375.

Whipple 1950 said:
The nucleus is visualized as a conglomerate of ices, such as H2O, NH3, CH34, C02 or CO, (C2N2?), and other possible materials volatile at room temperature, combined in a conglomerate with meteoric materials, all initially at extremely low temperatures ( <50° K). Vaporization of the ices by externally applied solar radiation leaves an outer matrix of nonvolatile insulating meteoric material.
Click to expand...

Please explain how you read from this "ice with some dust"? You are not even familiar with the model which you want to "overthrow", for crying out loud!
 
Last edited:
steenkh said:
But you have to give him that: Real physics is dealing with electric fields, and that is all he needs to claim victory. He is prepared to jettison anything of the original "model", if only the word "electric", or perhaps "ambipolar" is mentioned.
Click to expand...

Thank you, I stand corrected! :-)
 
Sol88 said:
ELCTRIC FIELD from CHARGE SEPERATION where MHD is NOT VALID from a nucleus evolving toward MOSTLY ROCK!

The ELECTRIC COMET :thumbsup:


:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
I'll use this post of yours, Sol88, but many others would do.

You've been banging on like this for what, several years now?

And almost every time you do, you get pushback, almost always questioning the veracity of your claims, sometimes even calling you out for mis-quoting. Many ISF members respond, many include science-based explanations of why you're off in a world of your own.

In all that time, and with all those posts, it seems you have convinced precisely no one else of the scientific validity of the ELECTRIC COMET model (or theory)! :jaw-dropp

Do you, at least sometimes, wonder why this is?

How come you are so spectacularly unsuccessful?

Are you concerned, even a little bit, about being perceived as a spamming troll?
 
jonesdave116 said:
Total woo. No discharges, no rock, no mechanism, no evidence. You are flogging a dead horse.
Click to expand...

No mechanism?


You joker!

Complete muppet.

Evidence of Electrical Activity on Comet 67P: Towards an Electrochemical Framework for Cometary Phenomena Franklin Anariba, PhD

Very first paragraph

Episode 1 – Charge Separation in the Plasma Environment of Comet 67P
Click to expand...

Ya muppet.

:
 
Dancing David said:
I see that Sol88 still has no evidence, just the same old recycled myths and fairy tales.
Click to expand...

Evidence?

Or common sense?

If Whipple’s dirtysnowball model of comet nuclei has mostly ice with some dust and when one of the big players in the cometary community said OUR understanding is evolving toward MOSTLY ROCK... :thumbsup:


One wonders if there maybe be evidence?

Eyeball mkI was pretty accurate. :D
 
JeanTate said:
I'll use this post of yours, Sol88, but many others would do.

You've been banging on like this for what, several years now?

And almost every time you do, you get pushback, almost always questioning the veracity of your claims, sometimes even calling you out for mis-quoting. Many ISF members respond, many include science-based explanations of why you're off in a world of your own.

In all that time, and with all those posts, it seems you have convinced precisely no one else of the scientific validity of the ELECTRIC COMET model (or theory)! :jaw-dropp

Do you, at least sometimes, wonder why this is?

How come you are so spectacularly unsuccessful?

Are you concerned, even a little bit, about being perceived as a spamming troll?
Click to expand...

Meh, not really. ;)

See post above. Now toddle off and THINK.

Whipple dirtysnowball model is wrong...so now what?
 
tusenfem said:
Nope, because that was NOT Whipple's model, as I have told you dozens of times already. To quote Whipple himself from the abstract of his paper:
Whipple, 1950, A COMET MODEL. I. THE ACCELERATION OF COMET ENCKE, Astrophysical Journal 111, 375.

Originally Posted by Whipple 1950
The nucleus is visualized as a conglomerate of ices, such as H2O, NH3, CH34, C02 or CO, (C2N2?), and other possible materials volatile at room temperature, combined in a conglomerate with meteoric materials, all initially at extremely low temperatures ( <50° K). Vaporization of the ices by externally applied solar radiation leaves an outer matrix of nonvolatile insulating meteoric material.
Click to expand...


Please explain how you read from this "ice with some dust"? You are not even familiar with the model which you want to "overthrow", for crying out loud!
Click to expand...

Ha ha, another spinner( ‘carn spinner)! That’s the ‘deep fried ice cream” version of Whipple’s model tusenfem, fair dinkum champ!

Astronomers tinkering with ice and organics in the lab may have discovered why comets are encased in a hard, outer crust.
Click to expand...

Why Comets Are Like Deep Fried Ice Cream

But how can that be true if...

At the simplest level, a very basic question is whether comets are mostly ice or mostly rock/dirt/refractory material. Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the rst quantitative model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high as 6 have been cited
Click to expand...
Michael F A’Hearn

Is Whipple’s model in need of another revision, tusenfem?

So don’t you start confabulation as well sport! I understand whipple model plenty well, enough to agree it’s wrong!
 
Last edited:
Ooh ooh ooh, I predict DOUBLE LAYERS will be “discovered” by the ‘surprised” mainstream to be an important plasma procces in operation at comets.

See how we go ay?

October 2018
 
tusenfem said:
Nope, because that was NOT Whipple's model, as I have told you dozens of times already. To quote Whipple himself from the abstract of his paper:
Whipple, 1950, A COMET MODEL. I. THE ACCELERATION OF COMET ENCKE, Astrophysical Journal 111, 375.

Originally Posted by Whipple 1950

The nucleus is visualized as a conglomerate of ices, such as H2O, NH3, CH34, C02 or CO, (C2N2?), and other possible materials volatile at room temperature, combined in a conglomerate with meteoric materials, all initially at extremely low temperatures ( <50° K). Vaporization of the ices by externally applied solar radiation leaves an outer matrix of nonvolatile insulating meteoric material.
Click to expand...

Please explain how you read from this "ice with some dust"? You are not even familiar with the model which you want to "overthrow", for crying out loud!
Click to expand...
Measurement trumps "being able to visualize it"??
 
Measurement trumps "being able to visualize it"??
Click to expand...

And measurement tells us he was pretty much spot on. Measurement also tells us that you are completely wrong. No discharges, no rock, no EDM (lol). Still batting zero, aren't you?
 
Last edited:
Ooh ooh ooh, I predict DOUBLE LAYERS will be “discovered” by the ‘surprised” mainstream to be an important plasma procces in operation at comets
Click to expand...
.

Well, the data has been in for two years, and is publicly available. Get to it.
 
But how can that be true if...

At the simplest level, a very basic question is whether comets are mostly ice or mostly rock/dirt/refractory material. Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the rst quantitative model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high as 6 have been cited

Michael F A’Hearn
Click to expand...

It was a poor choice of wording by the late Michael A'Hearn. However, in the next sentence, which you failed to cherry-pick, he goes on to say;

Nevertheless, there is still considerable uncertainty about even this basic parameter, not least of which is that most measurements are subject to selection effects in removing refractories from the nucleus to the coma, where they are observed as dust.
Click to expand...

So, there is no question of slabs of basalt or granite or sandstone lying around. This is dust. Refractory dust in some cases, as opposed to the fluffy primordial grains. This is what Whipple meant by 'meteoritic material'.
He was right, the loons Thornhill & Talbott were wrong. Despite having access to an extra 56 years worth of data that Whipple didn't have.
What does that tell you about the scientific credentials of the aforementioned woo merchants?
 
Evidence of Electrical Activity on Comet 67P: Towards an Electrochemical Framework for Cometary Phenomena Franklin Anariba, PhD
Click to expand...

An unpublished, non-peer reviewed piece of junk by an unqualified (in any of the relevant sciences) wooist.

Instead, my intention is bring to everyone’s attention that there could be other mechanisms at work for the origin of water and other chemical species in the cometary coma. One mechanism is proton implantation, which has been recalled to explain water ice presence on craters in the moon....
Click to expand...

Complete nonsense. The numbers don't add up, as any consideration of the basic parameters will show, assuming a reasonable competence in basic maths. Not to mention that the solar wind protons aren't reaching the surface for long periods.
Not worthy of any serious consideration.

Another mechanism, mostly unknown to the astronomical community, is based on electrochemical principles which I have named electron-stripping. This mechanism can be dominant at larger heliocentric distances, away from perihelion, when the voltage differential between the comet and the surrounding plasma sheath of the sun can be largest.
Click to expand...

What voltage difference? There isn't one. Let's move on, shall we?
Interestingly, the authors add: “A simple scenario would be that the pick-up ions initially move along the undisturbed solar wind electric field, while the newly created electrons . . . drift, causing a charge separation [emphasis added]. The electric field of that charge separation would initially have a component opposite to the solar wind electric field and a component in the anti-sunward direction. This is consistent with both the flow of the water ions and the observed deflection of the solar wind.” The implications are three-fold:

a. Charge separation is due to an electric field, which is an indication of the presence of voltage differential.
b. If the accelerated water cations (H2O+) are traveling from the direction of the sun, electrons must be traveling in the direction towards the sun.
c. The high water cation flux production rate may be an indication that another process is at work besides the traditionally proposed photoionization due to ultraviolet radiation.
Click to expand...

Re the bolded; whaaaat? Plasma physics isn't his forte, is it? The effect of the ambipolar field is to slow down the electrons, and speed up the ions, so that they both move in the same direction at the same velocity. Again, this bloke is just showing his ignorance of the relevant science.

That is all from Episode 1. More to come.

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/20...trochemical-framework-for-cometary-phenomena/
 
Episode 2

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/20...trochemical-framework-for-cometary-phenomena/

In this episode Dr, Anariba ventures into the world of plasma physics. He misunderstands the paper he is referencing, namely;

Suprathermal electron environment of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko: Observations from the Rosetta Ion and Electron Sensor.
Clark, G. et al.
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2015/11/aa26351-15.pdf

His whole response to this paper? Zero calculations, nor equations. Just, "From an electrical perspective, electron acceleration is due to the point charged sitting on an electric field, which is an indication of the presence of a voltage differential."

Yep, very helpful.

In addition, this has been looked at further, in a later paper;

Suprathermal electrons near the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko at 3 AU: Model comparisons with Rosetta data
Madanian, H. et al.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2016JA022610
 
Last edited:
Episode 3

In this episode, Anariba looks at the following paper;

Solar wind sputtering of dust on the surface of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Wurz, P. et al.
https://www.aanda.org/component/article/?access=doi&doi=10.1051/0004-6361/201525980

He gets off on completely the wrong foot, by saying;

Solar wind sputtering can explain dust jets and water ice formation in less illuminated areas of the comet,
but not those areas facing the sun as the solar wind does not penetrate through the plasma sheath of the comet. These findings suggest another mechanism must be at work along solar wind sputtering to generate all of the dust found in the coma. A corollary of this study is that proton ion implantation is more likely to occur in areas of less illumination.
Click to expand...

That is not what the paper is about! The authors see a tiny amount of sputtering due to solar wind ion impacts. In no way is this related to the vast majority of dust in the coma, which is from outgassing. And nor can this mechanism explain the ice required for that outgassing. By many, many orders of magnitude.

He closes by repeating his impossible mechanism for the observed water vapour;

Taken together, it is reasonable to attribute the observed water ice formed in less illuminated areas to proton (H+) implantation into refractory silicates where they interact with oxygen atoms located in the refractory silicate lattice structures. This is not unusual as it has already been demonstrated to occur in laboratory experiments and thought to be the dominant mechanism for water ice found on crater rims on the moon.
Click to expand...

We can add mathematics to the list of things that Anariba is apparently crap at.
 
Last edited:
Episode 4

Here, the intrepid Doctor turns his questionable abilities to this paper;

Negatively charged nano-grains at 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Gombosi, T. I. et al.
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2015/11/aa26316-15.pdf

He states;

The authors explained the observation via the folding umbrella pattern of dust nanograins. In this reasoning, water nanograins are dragged out by gas outflow, which are then pushed back in the direction of the nucleus by radiation pressure.

But this attribution is problematic and to some degree contradictory for the following reasons:
Click to expand...

His first item on the list is;

a. The folding umbrella pattern would indicate dust nanograins travel towards the nucleus, thus contradicting the observation that the negative-charged dust nanograins were moving from the direction of the nucleus when detected.
Click to expand...

This, despite the authors clearly stating;

Particles with a < 10 nm, due their diminishing β, travel for a long time and reach distances d apex > 105 km, and due to charging (discussed below) and the orbital motion of the comet, are unlikely to return to the vicinity of the nucleus.
Click to expand...

This is Anariba failing to read and/ or understand the paper properly. We can add comprehension skills to the list of things he isn't very good at.

He then gets back to more misunderstanding, and suggesting a voltage difference for the observations. Again, this is contra-indicated by the authors, as they say;

Ignoring cometary outgassing, the effects of surface electric fields can be quickly estimated to show that their contribution to the energization of negatively charged nano-dust grains is expected to remain negligible
Click to expand...

Clearly, Dr, Anariba is well out of his depth in this subject area.
 
Last edited:
Episode 5

And in this episode, the dopey doctor applies his complete lack of cometary knowledge to the following paper;

Abundant molecular oxygen in the coma of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko
Bieler, A. et al.
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01346075/file/O2_letter_v4.pdf

Yet again he is back to his voltage differential nonsense to explain the observations. And adds;

O2 and H2O formation by electrochemical means – In this method, O2, O2-, OH, -OH, and other chemical species are released into the coma by various mechanisms, such as “electron-stripping,” solar wind sputtering, and solar heating. In this context, O2 can absorb a negative charged through charge exchange due to demonstrated high electron densities in the vicinity of the nucleus, followed up by protonation via the solar wind. Subsequently, water can then be formed via at least two pathways linking O2 and H2O formation:
Click to expand...

This is obviously complete nonsense for numerous reasons. However, perhaps the main observation that shows it be nonsense, is the observations of H2O from 0 - 500m of the nucleus, as well as observations by Alice of O2 close to the nucleus.


WATER VAPOUR AND CARBON DIOXIDE IR EMISSIONS IN 67P/CG COMA: FIRST DETECTION BY ROSETTA/VIRTIS-M
Capaccioni, F. et al.
https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2015/pdf/2494.pdf

H2O and O2 absorption in the coma of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko measured by the Alice far-ultraviolet spectrograph on Rosetta
Keeney, B. A. et al.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/469/Suppl_2/S158/3865158

Not to mention Philae detecting it at the surface.

Summary of Dr. Anariba's proposals;

He hasn't got a bloody clue.
 
Some further things to note regarding Dr. Anariba's thoughts;

He is not advocating the EC model as proposed by Thornhill & Talbott. As he says;

As can be ascertained by reading most of the reports published on scientific journals on comet 67P, the main paradigm is the one proposed by Whipple some time ago which can be called the Condensation-Sublimation model. I am not here to refute this model, which I recognize to be of importance near perihelion distances if comets were to contain large amounts of volatiles ices on their surface or in their subsurface
Click to expand...

It should already have been known to him that the impact at Tempel 1 ejected ~ 8 - 18 000 tonnes of solid water ice. One wonders, had he known this, whether he would have written his ill informed nonsense on a crackpot website?
 
Sol88 said:
Meh, not really. ;)

See post above. Now toddle off and THINK.

Whipple dirtysnowball model is wrong...so now what?
Click to expand...
Ah yes, I'd forgotten the staggering, whole-hearted acceptance of a particularly simple logical fallacy (false dichotomy).

Try this:

"this animal is not a dog, therefore it is a cat!"

And that's not counting the strawman line of logic.

Of course, none of this is new; both logical errors have been pointed out, many times, over a period of several years.

So, spam-trolling it is then?
 
steenkh said:
But you have to give him that: Real physics is dealing with electric fields, and that is all he needs to claim victory. He is prepared to jettison anything of the original "model", if only the word "electric", or perhaps "ambipolar" is mentioned.
Click to expand...
Another key component: full-throated acceptance of the false dichotomy logical fallacy; anything which Sol88 thinks is inconsistent with the "Whipple dirty snowball model" is automatically proof of the ELECTRIC COMET model ... never mind that any such data may also be inconsistent with the ELECTRIC COMET model ... :rolleyes:
 
Sol88,

First, it's Little 10 Toes. Not ten toes.

Second, it appears you may have problems processing requests and producing answers.

I asked
Little 10 Toes said:
Sol88, please confirm that you believe comets are solid rock.
Click to expand...
You replied
Sol88 said:
Please ask Mr A’Hearn. Oh... RIP’ol mate.
How mostly does the rock have to evolve before we call it ROCK???
Click to expand...
You request that I ask a dead person about what you believe. Let that sink in for a bit. Instead of answering a simple question directed to you, you deflect it to someone who is dead, who probably didn't know and/or care about who you are or what you do, and avoid answering the question.

I asked a second question.
Little 10 Toes said:
Please confirm that the "electric universe" idea is based upon that comets are solid rock.
Click to expand...
You replied
So what’s turning the rock to dust, ten toes?

You tell me ten toes! :eye-poppi
Click to expand...
Thank you for confirming that the "electric universe" idea believes in solid rock comets.

Let's see if you can do better this time with smaller easier questions.

1) Do you believe that comets are solid rock?
 
Usual lying question to derail from his electric comet insanity

Sol88 said:
Whipple’s dirtysnowball model of comets composed of ice with some dust is one EVOLVING toward MAINLY ROCK.
Click to expand...
8 October 2018: Usual lying question to derail from his electric comet insanity.
He lies about Whipple's model, which is based on the empirical evidence for ices + dust comets, is evolving toward more dust than ice, e.g. 67P with 6 times more dust than ice.
He lies about the A’Hearn's quote supporting his electric comet insanity or comets being rock.

Add the stupidity of thinking that I will answer yet another lying question from him, especially when he will not answer questions himself:
4 October 2018: Is this insanity of debunking your delusions or a lie about A’Hearn's quote?

Comets: looking ahead Michael F. A’Hearn
c) What are comets made of? At the simplest level, a very basic question is whether comets are mostly ice or mostly rock/dirt/refractory material. Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the first quantitative model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high as 6 have been cited [3,4]. Nevertheless, there is still considerable uncertainty about even this basic parameter, not least of which is that most measurements are subject to selection effects in removing refractories from the nucleus to the coma, where they are observed as dust. With improvements in remote sensing over the last decade and particularly the wealth of measurements from Rosetta, we are making large strides in answering the question of which volatiles (ices) are near the surface of cometary nuclei, and the Deep Impact experiment implies that the near-surface volatiles are representative of the deeper interior [5,6]. The indications are that there is a large dispersion in relative abundances with only very limited correlations between relative abundances and any other parameters. On the other hand, we know very little about the abundance of the many possible refractory species. As noted above, there were great advances from the Stardust mission, particularly the clear demonstration that cometary silicate grains had been transported from near the Sun to the region of cometary formation, but the selection effects in collecting the returned samples make it almost impossible to say much quantitatively about the bulk abundances of refractories [7].
Click to expand...
A’Hearn's "rock" is the ices and dust material of comets as known by anyone who has learned about real comets.

Sol88's electric comet insanity:
Sol88's comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, a "hard shell of refractory +material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.
Totally inane delusions about charge separation doing magic. Stupidly thinks that a ambipolar electric field is a double layer.
Insanity of dust removal from the surface changing measured comet density
Electrical discharge machining insanity
 
Last edited:
An obvious "I was right" lie emphasizes his electric comet insanity

Sol88 said:
So I was right again!
Click to expand...
10 October 2018: An obvious "I was right again" lie emphasizes his electric comet insanity
He has been consistently wrong about comets fro 9 years now.
tusenfem's post is that there is no field aligned potential drops in Harri Laakso paper and that Laakso has doubts about the reported potential drops.

The real insanity is that we have known about potential drops around comets for decades and this has been stated in the thread before.
Electric comets still do not exist
 
Electric comets do not still exist

  1. Comets have measured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).
  2. Comets may not have the composition of asteroids
  3. Deep Impact confirmed that comet nuclei are made of dust and ice not rock. There were a couple of surprises in that the dust was talcum powder rather than sand and the amount of ice was smaller than expected.
    "Analysis of data from the Swift X-ray telescope showed that the comet continued outgassing from the impact for 13 days, with a peak five days after impact. A total of 5 million kilograms (11 million pounds) of water[35] and between 10 and 25 million kilograms (22 and 55 million pounds) of dust were lost from the impact.
    Thus the water content of Comet Tempel 1 is 20% to 50%.
  4. Cometary dust as collected by the Stardust mission contain forms of carbon that are not in meteorites.
  5. Electric Comets I
  6. Electric Comets II: References
  7. Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (actually no EU X-ray bursts).
  8. The EC assumption of EDM machining does not produce jets.
  9. EDM in the EC idea needs a dielectric material which does not exist!
  10. No EDM sparks are seen in images of comet nuclei.
  11. No EDM hot spots are seen in thermal maps of Tempel 1.
  12. Voltage potentials are many orders of magnitude too small.
  13. EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets
  14. Water, water everywhere (except in the EC idea)
  15. EC proponents have the delusion that argument by YouTube video is somehow scientific :eye-poppi!
  16. EC proponents may think that EC comets switch off at perihelion?
  17. EC proponents trust a web site that lies to its readers about "confirmed" predictions: The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.
  18. Rosetta shows that the water on comet comes from the comet, not the solar wind since the D/H ratio is not that of the solar wind (one of the electric comet fantasies is that the solar wind creates the observed water, another is that electrical discharges do this).
  19. A wide range of D/H ratios falsifies the electric comet delusion (so far) that comets are blasted from the surface of planets/moons!
  20. The Rosetta results are still no electric discharges observed :eye-poppi!
 
Little 10 Toes said:
Sol88,

First, it's Little 10 Toes. Not ten toes.

Second, it appears you may have problems processing requests and producing answers.

I asked

You replied
You request that I ask a dead person about what you believe. Let that sink in for a bit. Instead of answering a simple question directed to you, you deflect it to someone who is dead, who probably didn't know and/or care about who you are or what you do, and avoid answering the question.

I asked a second question.
You replied
Thank you for confirming that the "electric universe" idea believes in solid rock comets.

Let's see if you can do better this time with smaller easier questions.

1) Do you believe that comets are solid rock?
Click to expand...

YES i do ltt!!!

Mainstreams understanding of the nucleus is evolving along with...

How the seeds of planets take shape


Now, where do comets come from, reality check?

Dusty Plasma!
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
YES i do ltt!!!

Mainstreams understanding of the nucleus is evolving along with...

How the seeds of planets take shape


Now, where do comets come from, reality check?

Dusty Plasma!
Click to expand...

Complete nonsense. No rock. Anywhere. Not detected. Would have been. Game over. Goodnight.

p.s. Data doesn't evolve. It is what it is. All those measurements and observations since the impact at Tempel 1, 13 years ago, in conjunction with the results from CONSERT, MIRO, MUPUS, CASSE/ SESAME and others, totally rule out rock. Show us the observation of rock. Scientifically.
 
An insane lie that planets are comets or vice versa

Sol88 said:
YES i do ltt!!! ...
Click to expand...
Yes he does do it - writes:
11 October 2018: An insane lie that planets are comets or vice versa!
This is a planet. This is a comet. They are not the same.

Made more insane because his deluded Thunderbolts cult denies that planets are formed via the nebula hypothesis which the new research is about :eye-poppi!

How the seeds of planets take shape is real, rational, evidence-based science.
An ongoing area of research in the nebula hypothesis is the role of dust in the formation of planets from the gas and dust in the collapsing nebula. Specifically how dust clumps from in magnetized gas.
 
Usual lying to derail from his electric comet insanity

Sol88 said:
...Dusty Plasma!
Click to expand...
11 October 2018: Usual lying to derail from his electric comet insanity, e.g. that his electric comet insanity is about comets forming from dusty plasma.

Sol88's electric comet insanity:
Sol88's comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, a "hard shell of refractory +material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.
Totally inane delusions about charge separation doing magic. Stupidly thinks that a ambipolar electric field is a double layer.
Insanity of dust removal from the surface changing measured comet density
Electrical discharge machining insanity
 
An insanely stupid question to derail from his electric comet insanity

Sol88 said:
Now, where do comets come from, reality check?
Dusty Plasma!
Click to expand...
11 October 2018: An insanely stupid question and lie to derail from his electric comet insanity
He has been told for the last 9 years where comets come from and gives the answer: How did comets form?. He then lies about that answer being dusty plasma when the link states "gas and dust".

For others:
This looks like parroting of one of the delusions of the Thunderbolts cult. They think that because 99% of the visible matter in the universe is plasma then all gas must be plasma. Thus his delusion that "gas and dust" must be dusty plasma. They cannot understand that the 99% is mostly stars! The molecular clouds that collapse to form stellar systems are part of the 1% of not plasma. Plasma is not a large factor until the star ignites and theinterplanetary medium becomes a plasma. The formation of planets and comets starts when there is little or no plasma.

What makes the question insanely stupid is that he and his deluded Thunderbolts cult deny this textbook astronomy.

Sol88's electric comet insanity:
Sol88's comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, a "hard shell of refractory +material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.
Totally inane delusions about charge separation doing magic. Stupidly thinks that a ambipolar electric field is a double layer.
Insanity of dust removal from the surface changing measured comet density
Electrical discharge machining insanity
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
11 October 2018: An insanely stupid question and lie to derail from his electric comet insanity
He has been told for the last 9 years where comets come from and gives the answer: How did comets form?. He then lies about that answer being dusty plasma when the link states "gas and dust".

For others:
This looks like parroting of one of the delusions of the Thunderbolts cult. They think that because 99% of the visible matter in the universe is plasma then all gas must be plasma. Thus his delusion that "gas and dust" must be dusty plasma. They cannot understand that the 99% is mostly stars! The molecular clouds that collapse to form stellar systems are part of the 1% of not plasma. Plasma is not a large factor until the star ignites and theinterplanetary medium becomes a plasma. The formation of planets and comets starts when there is little or no plasma.

What makes the question insanely stupid is that he and his deluded Thunderbolts cult deny this textbook astronomy.

Sol88's electric comet insanity:
Sol88's comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, a "hard shell of refractory +material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.
Totally inane delusions about charge separation doing magic. Stupidly thinks that a ambipolar electric field is a double layer.
Insanity of dust removal from the surface changing measured comet density
Electrical discharge machining insanity
Click to expand...

Well, you better buckle up then buttercup, ‘cos here comes the pineapple...:jaw-dropp

THE ADMISION THAT SIGNIFICANT CHARGE SEPERATION NOW HAPPENS IN SPACE PLASMA (99.6% of the Universe) is going to hurt. :blush:

Magnetised Gas... :gasp:

Please tell me more, rc.


:eusa_whistle:
 
tusenfem said:
must be a hoax paper because they talk about gas and every eu proponent knows that a plasma is not a gas
Click to expand...

Plasma environment of an intermediately active comet Evolution and dynamics observed by ESA's Rosetta spacecraft at 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

ELIAS ODELSTAD

Read it yet champ?

Magnetised Gas??? Where would one learn more about this magnetised Gas, tusenfem?

Maybe you and me ‘ol mate rc should spend some time together? You can take turns with the pineapple.
 
jonesdave116 said:
Complete nonsense. No rock. Anywhere. Not detected. Would have been. Game over. Goodnight.

p.s. Data doesn't evolve. It is what it is. All those measurements and observations since the impact at Tempel 1, 13 years ago, in conjunction with the results from CONSERT, MIRO, MUPUS, CASSE/ SESAME and others, totally rule out rock. Show us the observation of rock. Scientifically.
Click to expand...

Ha ha ha ha

What a NooB

Old_C_Code 3 / 5 (10)Aug 20, 2018
Current is "how many" free electrons pass at point in time. To say the solar wind isn't a current is silly.


Joe’s Dave: “Idiot. Look up 'quasi-neutral'. If you think otherwise, tell us what is the measured current in the solar wind? There isn't one, dope.”


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-magnetized-inflow-accreting-center-milky.html#jCp
Click to expand...

I think I see your problem.

No use arguing with the faithful.

Once upon a time long long long time ago there was nothing... :blush:
 
tusenfem said:
must be a hoax paper because they talk about gas and every eu proponent knows that a plasma is not a gas
Click to expand...

Did you happen to talk to the kiddies the other day about plasma, the fundamentalsal state of matter and it’s importance to comets, specifically 67P?

Or did you have them on “farting” comets? :confused:
 
Repeated stupidity of lying about his electric comet insanity

Sol88 said:
Magnetised Gas... :gasp:
Click to expand...
11 October 2018: Repeated stupidity of lying about his electric comet insanity which has no "Magnetised Gas" :gasp:!

Sol88's electric comet insanity:
Sol88's comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, a "hard shell of refractory +material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.
Totally inane delusions about charge separation doing magic. Stupidly thinks that a ambipolar electric field is a double layer.
Insanity of dust removal from the surface changing measured comet density
Electrical discharge machining insanity
 
Usual charge separation in plasma lies to derail from his electric comet insanity

Sol88 said:
THE ADMISION THAT SIGNIFICANT CHARGE SEPERATION NOW HAPPENS IN SPACE PLASMA (99.6% of the Universe) is going to hurt. :blush:
Click to expand...
11 October 2018: Usual charge separation in plasma lies and delusions to derail from his electric comet insanity.

Plasma is less than 5% of the universe. The rest is dark matter and dark energy. Plasma is almost all of the visible matter in the universe, e.g. stars and hot gas.
Repeated insanity that people do not know that plasma is partially ionized gas, i.e. has separated charges.
The delusion that the properties of plasmas known about for decades (quasi-neutrality, Debye length, etc.) has anything to do with his electric comet insanity.

Sol88's electric comet insanity:
Sol88's comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, a "hard shell of refractory +material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.
Totally inane delusions about charge separation doing magic. Stupidly thinks that a ambipolar electric field is a double layer.
Insanity of dust removal from the surface changing measured comet density
Electrical discharge machining insanity
 
Last edited:
Usual idiocy of an irrelevant plasma paper to derail from his electric comet insanity

Sol88 said:
Plasma environment of an intermediately active comet Evolution and dynamics observed by ESA's Rosetta spacecraft at 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Click to expand...
11 October 2018: Usual idiocy of an irrelevant plasma paper to derail from his electric comet insanity.

Sol88's electric comet insanity:
Sol88's comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, a "hard shell of refractory +material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.
Totally inane delusions about charge separation doing magic. Stupidly thinks that a ambipolar electric field is a double layer.
Insanity of dust removal from the surface changing measured comet density
Electrical discharge machining insanity
 
Stupidity about "Magnetised Gas" to derail from his electric comet insanity

Sol88 said:
Magnetised Gas??? Where would one learn more about this magnetised Gas, tusenfem?
Click to expand...
11 October 2018: Stupidity about "Magnetised Gas" to derail from his electric comet insanity.

Sol88's electric comet insanity:
Sol88's comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, a "hard shell of refractory +material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.
Totally inane delusions about charge separation doing magic. Stupidly thinks that a ambipolar electric field is a double layer.
Insanity of dust removal from the surface changing measured comet density
Electrical discharge machining insanity
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom