Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sol88 said:
I think I'll add that to my signature...another corker from you old mate.
Click to expand...
Oh dear: lying (quote mining) and twisting of my basic English into the EU delusions is not good, Sol88 :p!
This is what I wrote about a delusion that Earth is a comet:
Reality Check said:
That is a couple of fantasies about the pillars of comet theory, Sol88.
Comet theory does not predict that Earths oceans were formed by comets. Earth is not a comet :jaw-dropp! The theory of the formation of Earth includes that its oceans were formed from comets and/or asteroids. We already knew that oceans coming only from comets was unlikely given the existing measurements of the D/H ratio of comets compared to what we calculate the D/H of the early oceans was. The measurement of the D/H ratio in 67P is essentially the nail in the coffin of that theory. That still leaves the physical fact that asteroids and comets must have impacted the Earth in its early history (we see that on moons). So the oceans were formed from asteroids + some comets.
Click to expand...
This is what I wrote about what looks like ignorance of astronomy from jeffreyw:
Reality Check said:
Wrong, jeffreyw.
EU has not even fantasies about how the Earth got oceans.
Science has scientific theories about how the Earth got oceans. Science has evidence against oceans being formed by just comet impacts. That leaves asteroid impacts with maybe some comet impacts.
Click to expand...


Neither post supports any of the EU delusions, Sol88 :jaw-dropp!
 
Sol88 said:
Of course black holes(division by zero) dark matter, dark energy, flavour changing neutrinos to name a few are fine inside the grand poobah of creation religions called the big bang!!

Nice story though, even if it ignores a large part of evidence out ancient forebears recorded for us, nice elegant maths to prove it as well! Pity it bears no relation to actual reality. But why spoil a good pay check!!
Click to expand...

Still waiting for an answer from you. But instead you vanish and fringe-reset and instead of discussion you're now playing some kind of fallacy salad.

You are doing a bang-up job representing the finest thinking ElectroWhateverIsm provides.
 
Sol88 said:
As predicted and show by observation....tick one more for the EU!!
Click to expand...
Tick one more for the delusion that the EU crowd know enough about electromagnetism to make predictions, Sol88 :jaw-dropp!
Connections between the jet activity and surface features on Comet 9P/Tempel 1[/B]
We present results from our study of the Stardust-NExT NAVCAM images of Comet 9P/Tempel 1, in which we analyze the dust coma and derive the locations and directions of 11 isolated jets detected around closest approach. Seven of the jets form a cluster that is associated with terraced terrain near the equator. Other jets arise from the nightside of the nucleus, having been in darkness for as long as 4 h, indicating that thermal lags continue to drive activity long after sunset. We compare the coma features observed here to those seen during the Deep Impact encounter on the previous apparition, and argue that much of the isolated jet activity is associated with steep slopes and the edges of smooth areas. We estimate that the cluster of jets produces 7-20% of the total dust in the coma, indicating that isolated sources play a significant role in the comet's activity. We measured an average dust production rate A(alpha)frho = 42 ± 6 cm at an approach phase angle of 79°, corresponding to a dust mass loss of approximately 264 kg s-1. Our analysis also indicates that the Stardust-NExT spacecraft did not pass through any dust jets during the flyby.
Click to expand...


The EU delusion is that jets are electrical discharges. Electrical discharges do not form on "steep slopes" or even "edges" of ice and dust surfaces, Sol88.
 
Sol88 said:
clays, olivine, forsterite, carbonates and silicates have been FOUND.
Click to expand...
The COMPLETE TRUTH is that clays, olivine, forsterite, carbonates and silicates have been found in comet dust. The half-lie is this being the detection of the EU delusion of comets being made of rock, Sol88.
 
Sol88 said:
Look at how wrong they've got the jet and dust mechanism completey wrong when not including charge on the dust particles!!
Click to expand...
Look at how this is a lie about getting the jet and dust mechanism completely wrong, Sol88 :eye-poppi!
Astronomers have got the jet mechanism completely right even when not including any charge on the dust particles!
Astronomers have got the dust mechanism completely right even when not including any charge on the dust particles!
ADS has 39 abstracts for comet jet dust charge dating from 1986!

Sol88 said:
That my friends is a dusty plasma,
Click to expand...
That my friend is not a dusty plasma - it is charged dust particles :p!
 
Sol88 said:
Density??? Explain the clays and carbonates and maybe we can talk!
Click to expand...
That is easy to explain, Sol88: An EU delusion that dust particles are solid rock does not mean that comets are solid rock :p!

Six years of supporting EU delusions about comet densities shows that it is useless talking to you about comet densities. So no we cannot talk, Sol88, because you will continue to believe in the EU delusions regardless of what the real world says about comets:
Comets have measured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).
The electric comet idea states that comets are rocky bodies like asteroids.
For some reason EC proponents cannot grasp that the measured density of comet nuclei is ~0.6 g/cc, the measured density of asteroids is ~3.0 g/cc and that 0.6 is less than 3.0 .
They tend to reply by asserting the methods used to calculate the density of comets are flawed in some unknown way. They make this into a wish fulfillment fantasy by having the unknown flaws reduce the real density when these unknown flaws could just as well increase the real density.
Click to expand...
 
Sol88 said:
Of course ...
Click to expand...
Of course confirming ignorance about other areas of physics does not help your argument from ignorance about comets, Sol88.
Black holes are a simple result of GR with plenty of observational evidence that they exist. The only thing really missing is direct observation of an event horizon.
Dark matter is the observation that there is matter that does not emit light.
Dark energy is the observation that the expansion of the universe is expanding.
Lepton flavor changing neutrinos is the observation that neutrinos change lepton flavor :eek:!


Paranoia about pay checks creating science is just paranoia.
 
Sol88: Are the Velikovskyian ideas correct

Sol88 said:
oh and just for your information, I never said I was a Velikovskyian. ...
Click to expand...
FYI, Sol88.
Blind support of the electric comet delusion that is based on the Velikovskyian delusion does mean that you are at least indirectly Velikovskyian.
If you do not believe in the Velikovskyian fantasies then you should state so.

Thinking that the 50 year old Velikovskyian delusion would be correct in any universe is bad. Even worse is thinking that the neo-Velikovskyian fantasies of the electric comet authors could be correct.
Davis Talbot had (and may still have) the delusion that Saturn and other planets moved around in recent times to satisfy cherry picked myths :eek:. He is not notable enough to even have a Wikipedia page any more!
Wal Thornhill is also a neo-Velikovskyian and has the delusion that the Grand Canyon was caused by electrical discharges(s) :eek:.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
anyone here willing to have a crack at mainstreams explanation for the observed clays, carbonates and crystalline silicates in the formation of comets from the solar nebula?
Click to expand...
Why should we address your ignorance (cosmic dust has clays, carbonates and crystalline silicates!), Sol88, when you have a track record of ignoring science (e.g. the measured density of comets)?
Or repeating the logical fallacy that your ignorance mans that the mainstream theory is wrong?
Or repeating the logical fallacy of false dichotomy (the mainstream theory being wrong does not mean that a complete delusion is right :eye-poppi!)


And making up fairy stories as in the rest of your post?
 
Last edited:
Why should we address your ignorance (cosmic dust has clays, carbonates and crystalline silicates!)
Click to expand...

Oh must have missed that. Do you have a source?
 
Reality Check said:
FYI, Sol88.
Blind support of the electric comet delusion that is based on the Velikovskyian delusion does mean that you are at least indirectly Velikovskyian.
If you do not believe in the Velikovskyian fantasies then you should state so.

Thinking that the 50 year old Velikovskyian delusion would be correct in any universe is bad. Even worse is thinking that the neo-Velikovskyian fantasies of the electric comet authors could be correct.
Davis Talbot had (and may still have) the delusion that Saturn and other planets moved around in recent times to satisfy cherry picked myths :eek:. He is not notable enough to even have a Wikipedia page any more!
Wal Thornhill is also a neo-Velikovskyian and has the delusion that the Grand Canyon was caused by electrical discharges(s) :eek:.
Click to expand...

Well then I must be a neo-Velikovskyian!

because i believe the land forms I've seen in the Kimberley Region of Australia LOOK very much like the landforms seen on rocky planets, moons AND comets in our solar system (and they look nothing like glaciers as has been harped on about here)

So it's not a far step to ask how the two are so similar, when as far as we've been told most of our planets, moons, asteroids and comets dont have the same proccess as Earth eg erosion, tectonics, vulcanism (except to save face by invoking the familiar(Io, Enceladeus...)....but PLASMA may a been a common cause and there you have your neo-Velikovskyian :mad:

Never read his work but should I spose if I'm labled a neo-Velikovskyian I'd better find out.

If an X2 class solar flare makes a direct hit on Earth do YOU think you would notice it?
 
jonesdave116 said:
470 kg/m^3. End of argument.
Click to expand...

well you still have to explain the observed clays, carbonates and crystalline silicates....

and not so sure about the set in stone (no pun intended) figure of 470 kg/m^3

I mean try and explain that (from the rosetta blog)
Dave Higgins says: 22/08/2014 at 09:11
Such a low density? (300kg/cubic meter)
Even a pile of course aggregate used as the base of road construction would have a far higher density than this, even though the pile would be full of air gaps.
Are there any thoughts as to how the structure of the comet could be so full of holes, it should look like a sponge.
When we look at large eroded areas like the striated side of the head, there is no clue to such a porous structure.
Its also difficult to imagine it being hollow, the erosion at the neck has been so extensive, it surely, by now, would have broken through to reveal a hollow core.
Also if the comet is built from interstellar dust, that is expected to be very fine, then you would expect it to pack very densely.
Baffled by these results ??
Click to expand...
and CONSERT confirmed no large voids did it not??

So whilst the old dirtysnowball theory maybe dead and buried nothing else except some deep fried ice cream analogy....:confused:
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
well you still have to explain the observed clays, carbonates and crystalline silicates....

and not so sure about the set in stone (no pun intended) figure of 470 kg/m^3

I mean try and explain that (from the rosetta blog) and CONSERT confirmed no large voids did it not??

So whilst the old dirtysnowball theory maybe dead and buried nothing else except some deep fried ice cream analogy....:confused:
Click to expand...

It's still 470 kg/m^3, however you spin it. They wouldn't be able to plan orbital maneuvers were it to be anything else. Everything would go wrong. So however perplexing EU might find this data, it stands. And they still can't explain it.
Whatever the reason for the clays and carbonates, and I've seen a few hypotheses, then they will be intrinsic to the cometary environment. That is they happened on, within or to the comet. They may have an origin on a planetary surface, but only if the comet has picked up material ejected from Earth or Mars which has been blasted off those planets by impacts. If two particular hypotheses are correct, then you had a Mars sized object hitting the Earth, and something very large impacting Mars, causing the hemispherical dichotomy. That would leave a lot of dust and rocks of planetary origin floating around out there, which originated from the surfaces of planets that had the conditions for forming such materials.
Not saying that is the explanation, but it is far more feasible than some electric woo magicking a large body of rock, with a density half that of water, out into space. To the best of my knowledge, the CONSERT data doesn't show anything regarding the interior structure yet, as they didn't have a lot of time to do all the necessary experiments, and will need more results. They will also need to know its precise location. Knowledge of its internal structure will not change the density. It is what it is.
 
jonesdave116 said:
470 kg/m^3. End of argument.
Click to expand...

Ohhh....I see where they've made the mistake now :eusa_doh: rookie mistake, well a couple actually.

from ESA

Determining the mass of comet 67P/C-G

As the spacecraft passes close to comet 67P/C-G, it is pulled slightly off course by the comet’s gravity, resulting in tiny changes to the spacecraft’s velocity.
Click to expand...
Do you assume the gravity is the same as on Earth??? :rolleyes:

and can subsequently be translated into measurements of the mass and density structure of the comet.
Click to expand...
and you assume mass and gravity are the same on Earth


So something so basics and mainstream can not explain gravity even with billions spent and 100's years of maths and ZIP...:rolleyes:


So to taking 470 kg/m^3 as gospel is your fatal error.

Looks like rock smells like rock feels like rock but is deep fried ice cream :boggled:
 
Sol88 said:
Do you assume the gravity is the same as on Earth??? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Let's see... our understanding of gravity can predict the motion of the planets and their moons with exquisite precision. It can guide the Rosetta probe to an accurate rendezvous with 67P. But once we get to 67P, suddenly our understanding of gravity is wrong.

How the hell did we even get there if we're wrong about gravity, Sol?
 
Mass is the same, regardless of where you are. Gravity acts the same regardless of where you are. Amazingly enough, that is exactly why we managed to put probes in the right.place so tha r the EU people could show their scientific illiteracy. ...
 
Hey Sol, how's your understanding of the difference between particle density and bulk density coming along? Any questions? Or are you still afraid understanding a little bit of science might create overwhelming cognitive dissonance?

Ignorance is understandable; willful ignorance not so much. If it takes any note of EU at all, history will note that it was but a fleeting pimple on the *** of scientific progress.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom