ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Closed Thread
Old 14th December 2014, 03:32 PM   #2841
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,013
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
So your response to people presenting science at a conference is to insult them and the science, Sol88 !
Insult??? what your inteligence?? sorry mate, shall we speak slower and use little words?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2014, 03:36 PM   #2842
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,304
Haig, are you going to ever answer my straight questions ?
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2014, 03:38 PM   #2843
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,305
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
I have a feeling we are going to have lots to discuss by the end of the week.
I have a feeling that we are going to see lots of idiotic comments on the Thunderbolts web site from electric comet proponents after the end of the converafernce, Sol88. Which you and Haig will probably blindly parrot here. They will
  • take every mention of electromagnetism as support for the dumb idea that comets are rock.
  • think that any unknowns are support for the invalid electric comet idea, i.e. God of the gaps argument.
  • think that anything they do not understand is support for the invalid electric comet idea (argument from ignorance).
  • think that anything that the scientific model does not explain is support for the invalid electric comet idea (fallacy of false dichotomy).
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2014, 03:41 PM   #2844
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,013
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
I have a feeling that we are going to see lots of idiotic comments on the Thunderbolts web site from electric comet proponents after the end of the converafernce, Sol88. Which you and Haig will probably blindly parrot here. They will
  • take every mention of electromagnetism as support for the dumb idea that comets are rock.
  • think that any unknowns are support for the invalid electric comet idea, i.e. God of the gaps argument.
  • think that anything they do not understand is support for the invalid electric comet idea (argument from ignorance).
  • think that anything that the scientific model does not explain is support for the invalid electric comet idea (fallacy of false dichotomy).
Reality Check please answer the question after reading this paper

Quote:
Abstract

Although the Moon and asteroids are often thought of as having relatively dormant environments, in fact the Moon at least is very electrically active. The surfaces of airless bodies are directly exposed to solar UV and X-rays, as well as solar wind plasma and energetic particles. This bombardment creates a complex electric field and plasma environment, with the surface typically charging positive in sunlight and negative in shadow, and surface potentials varying over orders of magnitude in response to changing solar illumination and plasma conditions. We present the first efforts to derive the exact magnitude of the nightside lunar surface electric potential from orbit (which involves correcting for spacecraft charging effects), rather than the lower limits which have been derived before. We then compare these measurements to simple theoretical models and other predictions for lunar surface charging in shadow during quiet times. In addition, we present a complete survey of lunar surface charging (utilizing data from Apollo surface observations and Lunar Prospector orbital observations, in concert with theory and modeling) for all lunar locations and solar and plasma conditions, in order to demonstrate the wide range of charging conditions that can occur on airless bodies. By validating surface charging models for the Moon, we can gain confidence in the application of these models to other airless bodies such as asteroids, moons, and Mercury. It is important to have confidence in these theoretical tools, so we can apply them to problems such as dust levitation and transport - which may be of fundamental importance
and hows this applies to the standard mainstream theory of comets and in particular, sublimating subsurface ice??
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]

Last edited by Sol88; 14th December 2014 at 03:43 PM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2014, 03:45 PM   #2845
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,305
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Insult??? what your inteligence?? sorry mate, shall we speak slower and use little words?
And the response to my post is to question my intelligence, Sol88 !
Read what you wrote
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
[Will they say the mainstream model is DEAD or make up more male bovine excrement.
The insult to the scientists is "make up": Trusting a scientific theory such as the comet model without credible evidence is not what competent scientist (or rational people for that matter!) do.
The insult to the science is "male bovine excrement".
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2014, 03:46 PM   #2846
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,305
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...
Soll88, Please read what you quote:
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
I have a feeling that we are going to see lots of idiotic comments on the Thunderbolts web site from electric comet proponents after the end of the converafernce, Sol88. Which you and Haig will probably blindly parrot here. They will
  • take every mention of electromagnetism as support for the dumb idea that comets are rock.
  • think that any unknowns are support for the invalid electric comet idea, i.e. God of the gaps argument.
  • think that anything they do not understand is support for the invalid electric comet idea (argument from ignorance).
  • think that anything that the scientific model does not explain is support for the invalid electric comet idea (fallacy of false dichotomy).
Please read Surface Charging on Airless Bodies
Quote:
Although the Moon and asteroids are often thought of as having relatively dormant environments, in fact the Moon at least is very electrically active. The surfaces of airless bodies are directly exposed to solar UV and X-rays, as well as solar wind plasma and energetic particles. This bombardment creates a complex electric field and plasma environment, with the surface typically charging positive in sunlight and negative in shadow, and surface potentials varying over orders of magnitude in response to changing solar illumination and plasma conditions. We present the first efforts to derive the exact magnitude of the nightside lunar surface electric potential from orbit (which involves correcting for spacecraft charging effects), rather than the lower limits which have been derived before. We then compare these measurements to simple theoretical models and other predictions for lunar surface charging in shadow during quiet times. In addition, we present a complete survey of lunar surface charging (utilizing data from Apollo surface observations and Lunar Prospector orbital observations, in concert with theory and modeling) for all lunar locations and solar and plasma conditions, in order to demonstrate the wide range of charging conditions that can occur on airless bodies. By validating surface charging models for the Moon, we can gain confidence in the application of these models to other airless bodies such as asteroids, moons, and Mercury. It is important to have confidence in these theoretical tools, so we can apply them to problems such as dust levitation and transport - which may be of fundamental importance both at the Moon and on asteroids.
and how this applies to the standard mainstream theory of asteroids, moons, Mercury, and other airless, rocky objects !

No one knows whether this relatively new analysis (2007) may or may not apply to comets. There are hints - the ice and dust "dunes" on 67P suggest some form of ice and dust movement.

Last edited by Reality Check; 14th December 2014 at 03:54 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2014, 04:52 PM   #2847
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,013
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
And the response to my post is to question my intelligence, Sol88 !
Read what you wrote

The insult to the scientists is "make up": Trusting a scientific theory such as the comet model without credible evidence is not what competent scientist (or rational people for that matter!) do.
The insult to the science is "male bovine excrement".
Trusting a scientific theory such as the comet model without credible evidence is not what competent scientist (or rational people for that matter!) do, so mainstream just make it up to save prior theory...whooboy!

Oort Cloud, Dusty rind over an icy core, sublimating ice, leftovers from the formation of the solar system...etc etc and you want to talk about made up, ok.
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2014, 04:59 PM   #2848
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,013
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Soll88, Please read what you quote:


Please read Surface Charging on Airless Bodies

and how this applies to the standard mainstream theory of asteroids, moons, Mercury, and other airless, rocky objects !

No one knows whether this relatively new analysis (2007) may or may not apply to comets. There are hints - the ice and dust "dunes" on 67P suggest some form of ice and dust movement.
and how this applies to the standard mainstream theory of asteroids, moons, Mercury, and other airless, rocky objects !

but not comets, Reality Check? Why not?

Is it because you have trouble formulating your own ideas? You need to have them presented to you in full by "mainstream" scientists?

I fail to understand your thinking as much as I fail to understand why mainstream are so reluctant to embrace EM as the dominate force in the Universe...
Quote:
"Gravitational systems are the 'ashes' of prior electrical systems." Hannes Alfven
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2014, 05:12 PM   #2849
Haig
Graduate Poster
 
Haig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,635
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Haig, are you going to ever answer my straight questions ?
Gezz Belz, what straight question? This thread has gone nuts with RC spamming the board !

Maybe you should ask him?

Lots of answers here about the Electric Comet hypothesis

It's ALL about evidence ... and here ...
Rosetta Mission Update | The Rocky Comet
Quote:
This is first in a series of Rosetta Mission Updates with Wal Thornhill and Dave Talbott. In this brief video, Wal offers a preliminary assessment of the Rosetta Mission to Comet 67P
more to come shortly
Haig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2014, 05:15 PM   #2850
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,305
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
and how this applies to the standard mainstream thery of asteroids, moons, Mercury, and other airless, rocky objects !
Wow - way still not to understand what you read Sol88 !
Of course Surface Charging on Airless Bodies applies to asteroids, moons, Mercury, and other airless, rocky objects that is what the abstract states.
But comets are not asteroids, moons or Mercury - they are not rocks !

Thus no one knows whether this relatively new analysis (2007) may or may not apply to comets. There are hints - the ice and dust "dunes" on 67P suggest some form of ice and dust movement. But that could be as simple as ice and dust falling "downhill" in the gravity of the comet.

Last edited by Reality Check; 14th December 2014 at 05:17 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2014, 05:16 PM   #2851
Haig
Graduate Poster
 
Haig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,635
A puzzle for mainstream

Rosetta Reignites Debate on Earth's Oceans
Quote:
For them, water must always be "carried" or "brought"--but this is a perpetual loop conundrum for them: What brought the water to the comets and asteroids?

Therefore the theory is not believable. It is further not believable when considering that myriad celestial bodies have known water on them such as Enceladus and Europa, others. So, again, what brought their water? And how can tiny rocks magically seed every planet and icy moon?

Where is the mechanism for this and where is the evidence for this massive bombardment activity? But there is a deeper conundrum: Why did the trillions of comets and asteroids discriminate with Europa, missing Ganymede? Did they have a group meeting and decide to not visit Io either? Why did the rock swarm gang up on poor Enceladus but not want to visit Iapetus?
Haig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2014, 05:22 PM   #2852
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,305
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
Gezz Belz, what straight question? ...snipped usual Thunderbolts delusions...
Gezz, Haig:
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I'm sorry: what do rock comets have to do with the electric universe model ? Your quote does not answer that question.
Rock comets are asteroids within the orbit of Mercury having dust blown off of them.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2014, 05:44 PM   #2854
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,305
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Ice dunes?
There only ice and dust on comets and so any dunes have to be made up of ice and dust, Sol88 .

Of course as anyone who has ever been in show and seen similar patterns knows, this is "wind blown" ice particles and dust particles that have formed dunes.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2014, 05:44 PM   #2855
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,304
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
Gezz Belz, what straight question?
How do rocky comets relate to the EU theory ? And don't like to a paper or someone else's work this time : explain it in your own words.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2014, 05:48 PM   #2856
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,305
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
It's ALL about evidence ... and here ...
Rosetta Mission Update | The Rocky Comet
It turns out to be a web page pointing to fantasies, delusions and lies in a Thunderbolts video, Haig.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2014, 05:52 PM   #2857
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,305
Exclamation Sol88: List of outstanding questions

Which reminds me. Sol88: List of outstanding questions
  1. 5th August 2009 Sol88: Now where in the many published papers on the electric comet idea is the prediction that the electrical discharges are of duration 10-15 ms (your claim)?
  2. 5th August 2009 Sol88, How does the electric comet idea explain main-belt comets?
  3. 17 November 2014 Sol88: Please cite the announcement of the discovery of hard rock (not "rock stuff" but the solid rock your theory demands) on comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko.
  4. 17 November 2014 Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the density of comets
  5. 18 November 2014 Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the amount of surface ice on 67P (no detected surface ice).
  6. 18 November 2014 Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the amount of surface ice on Tempel 1 where surface ice was found
  7. 18 November 2014 Sol88: Please present the electric comet calculation for the electric charge differential around comets and show that it matches the measurements.
  8. 20 November 2014 Sol88: Can you understand that the Thunderbolts authors even lie about predictions
  9. 20 November 2014 Sol88: Can you understand the significant delusions on that Thunderbolts web page on 67P "predictions"?
  10. 24 November 2014 Sol88: Please cite the electric comet predictions for the albedo of comet nuclei (actual numbers not fantasies!)
  11. 1 December 2014: A rather pathetic attempt to answer the above questions (mostly repeats of ignorance and fantasies).
  12. 2 December 2014: Sol88 does not notice that Wal Thornhill narrates an ignorant and deluded video about 67P!
  13. 3 December 2014 Sol88: What about the jets is specifically predicted by the electric comet fantasy to be confirmed by the OSIRIS instrument?
  14. 3 December 2014 Sol88: What does the electric comet fantasy predict about jet locations, especially on 67P?
  15. 4 December 2014 Sol88: how much water/water ice on/in 67P to account for the observed OH, does the electric comet fantasy come up with?
  16. 5 December 2014 Sol88: Is "ice at the jet source" how we know comets produce jets and OH-?

Last edited by Reality Check; 14th December 2014 at 05:54 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2014, 07:10 PM   #2859
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,013
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
There only ice and dust on comets and so any dunes have to be made up of ice and dust, Sol88 .

Of course as anyone who has ever been in show and seen similar patterns knows, this is "wind blown" ice particles and dust particles that have formed dunes.
Ahh you are a tricky bugger RC, when you said wind I thought as the wind here on good 'ol Earth but you meant the ELECTRIC COMET's ION WIND
Quote:
on wind, ionic wind, coronal wind or electric wind are expressions formerly used to describe the resulting localized neutral flow induced by electrostatic forces linked to corona discharge arising at the tips of some sharp conductors (such as points or blades) submitted to high-voltages relative to ground. Modern implementations belong to the family of electrohydrodynamic (EHD) devices.
So the INOIC WIND on a comet can blow ice into dunes...really, what ice?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]

Last edited by Sol88; 14th December 2014 at 07:13 PM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2014, 07:39 PM   #2860
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,013
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
That dog must be laughing at your lack of cursory research skills.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_dune
Ice dunes on a comet LSSBB?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2014, 07:47 PM   #2861
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,305
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Ahh ...snipped fantasy...
That is a fantasy about the ELECTRIC COMET and ignorance about ion winds, Sol88 .
Ion wind is science. They are induced from "corona discharge arising at the tips of some sharp conductors" and what have we not detected at 67P, discharge - any electrical discharges from anywhere

The invalid electric comet idea is based on fantasy, delusions and a few lies, not science. Electric comets still do not exist ! . Which reminds me to add the latest evidence against the electric comet idea (thank you Haig )

Sol88: List of outstanding questions

Last edited by Reality Check; 14th December 2014 at 07:54 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2014, 07:59 PM   #2862
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,305
Exclamation Electric comets still do not exist

Updated the observations of D/H ratios, especially for 67P.
  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."WP
    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 !
  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!
If the Rosetta results are still no electric discharges observed then that will be added as yet another nail in the electric comet coffin.

Last edited by Reality Check; 14th December 2014 at 08:02 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2014, 08:25 PM   #2863
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 15,323
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Ice dunes on a comet LSSBB?
Why not, specifically?



Please note, your inability to imagine why they are there does not count as proof.

Also note, YOU were laughing at the notion of ICE DUNES. Now you have moved the goal posts.
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2014, 11:29 PM   #2864
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,013
Now LSSBB this is what "Ice Dunes" were originally used
Quote:
and how this applies to the standard mainstream theory of asteroids, moons, Mercury, and other airless, rocky objects !

No one knows whether this relatively new analysis (2007) may or may not apply to comets. There are hints - the ice and dust "dunes" on 67P suggest some form of ice and dust movement.
statement by Reality Check.

My question was not whether ice dunes form anywhere in the universe but specifically on comets!

On Earth they are caused by wind, but on a comet???????

Before you start slinging turds like a chimp, get your facts straight!

LSSBB, are there "Ice Dunes" on any comet? not on Earth or elsewhere in the universe but on a comet, specifically 67P?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]

Last edited by Sol88; 14th December 2014 at 11:31 PM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2014, 11:32 PM   #2865
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,013
ice ice ice, but none to be found

but comets have icy cliffs and ice dunes!
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2014, 11:36 PM   #2866
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,013
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Why not, specifically?



Please note, your inability to imagine why they are there does not count as proof.

Also note, YOU were laughing at the notion of ICE DUNES. Now you have moved the goal posts.
I imagine pink unicorns having a dance party on a comet but kind find any evidence for them does that mean their not there?

Sounds like mainstream imagining ice on/in a comet, they imagined so hard they can't believe the data coming back saying no ICE.

so your saying mainstream uses their imagination? Seems that's all they've got.
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2014, 11:39 PM   #2867
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,013
Are the mods closing this thread??

Oh I see, people getn bit touchy.

Righto I guess me be ad homed is ok.

No worries people always get a bit touchy when hittn close to a nerve.

So I guess no more posts until AGU papers are released.
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]

Last edited by Sol88; 14th December 2014 at 11:43 PM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2014, 01:59 AM   #2868
Haig
Graduate Poster
 
Haig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,635
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
How do rocky comets relate to the EU theory ? And don't like to a paper or someone else's work this time : explain it in your own words.
In my own words ??? now don't you go all JT on me . I'll use any words or papers/articles I choose to get the idea or point across.

So ... How do rocky comets relate to the EU theory ?

First the words of the NASA article where it started ...

Embers from a Rock Comet
Quote:
Everyone has heard of "comets"--icy visitors from the outer solar system that sprout long tails of gas and dust when they come close to the sun. But what is a rock comet?

A "rock comet" is a new kind of object being discussed by astronomers. It is, essentially, an asteroid that comes very close to the sun--so close that solar heating scorches dusty debris right off its rocky surface. Rock comets could thus grow comet-like tails that produce meteor showers on Earth.
Quote:
3200 Phaethon has an unusual orbit that brings it deep inside the orbit of Mercury. When this happens, it brightens and sprouts a little tail in mimicry of a comet. A team of astronomers led by Dave Jewitt of UCLA have been monitoring 3200 Phaethon using NASA's twin STEREO probes. They think that intense solar heating blasts the asteroid's rocky surface, causing 3200 Phaethon to shed meteoroids like embers spitting off a log in a roaring campfire.
So, according to NASA ... Rock comets could thus grow comet-like tails / has an unusual orbit / it brightens and sprouts a little tail in mimicry of a comet.

So THEY compare it to a regular comet RIGHT?

However, there is a problem ...

Rock Comet Meteor Shower
Quote:
So, according to the STEREO observations, 3200 Phaethon does behave like a rock comet.

The “rock comet” hypothesis is compelling, but Jewett and Li point out a problem: The amount of dust 3200 Phaethon ejected during its sun-encounter added a paltry 0.01% to the mass of the Geminid debris stream, not enough to keep the debris stream stocked up with meteoroids for the annual display of shooting stars. 3200 Phaethon is not spewing enough dust to account for the Geminids.

Could the rock comet have been more active in the past....? "We just don't know," says Cooke.
So, according to NASA ... The “rock comet” hypothesis is compelling but they need the thing to be more active maybe in the past.

Given the above the Thunderbolts guys are entitled (imho) to say ...

Originally Posted by Thunderbolts
Well, I don't know about you, but that is just ... amazing. A rocky asteroid decides it had enough, takes the plunge, gets its rocky dust 'blown' off its rocky surface by scorching heat (!), and like the little rocky caterpillar that it was transforms in a tailed mimicry of an cometary butterfly, sprinkling fairy fireballs and magical meteors over Earth.

My hats of to the astronomers. ***stands up and gives a one-man-ovation***

ps. Its probably just the way this article is popularised, the paper about such things must be far more intricate...it must be.
Quote:
Obviously you just don't understand all the careful research, the horrendous number-crunching and rigorous scientific reasoning it took to come up with the meticulously worded explanation that it: "sprouts a little tail in mimicry of a comet", because "solar heating scorches dusty debris right off" ...

Haven't you ever burnt your toast, and thrown it across the room ?
Quote:
This is an example of paradigm creep. Moving toward the EC model without any acknowledgement. When the EC model is finally accepted, of course no credit will be given and they will say "we knew that for quite some time."
That is enough for me to confirm "How do rocky comets relate to the EU theory ?" but, I guess, NOT you Belz

Given that the mainstream on this thread has denied that Electric Comets can be ROCK I think it's hilarious to consider Rock comets from NASA

You see the Electric Comets hypothesis , briefly as I understand it, says that the comets nucleus is a charged object moving in a eccentric path around the Electric Sun ploughing though it's weak electric field. Sure the Sun has an electric field ... what else could be accelerating the solar wind to over a million miles and hour out past the planets? eh? Tom / tusenfem ???

The only thing I know can hurl vast quantities of charged matter AWAY from the STRONGEST gravity source in our solar system IS an electric field. eh? Tom / tusenfem ??? What ELSE could do it ?? explosive force doesn't cut it ! the stuff is ACCELERATING away ... it doesn't slow down !!!

So this charged comet nucleus moving through the electrified dusty real plasma that is the Suns solar wind forms a plasma sheath, as do ALL the planets being charged bodies too. But the electrical stress can't be dealt with quickly enough as the electric field of the Sun gets stronger the closer it approaches and the plasma sheath enters glow mode making the Electric Comets so called "coma and tail" unlike the charged planets dark mode plasma sheaths.

BTW did you know Venus plasma sheath (in dark mode) is over 45 million kilometres long and almost touches the Earths plasma sheath (mainstream call it the Magnetosphere)

So bringing this back to "How do rocky comets relate to the EU theory ?" it should be fairly obvious by now

How much of a charge does the Rock comet or Electric comet have in relation to the Suns electrical environment at the time determines the size and intensity of the coma and tail (plasma sheath) and as we have seen from Electric Comet Holmes 17P this electric environment of the Sun can change even as the charged bodies move away from the strongest electric field due to a large spike in the density of the solar wind on October 22 two days before the amazing reaction by Electric Comet Holmes 17P.

Thornhill suggested that:
Quote:
Quote:
"Outbursts from comets at great distances from the Sun seem to be correlated with a sudden change in the solar 'wind' plasma environment due to a solar storm. The point about sudden comet outbursts is that we are dealing with a sudden, discontinuous process of plasma discharge - a switch from dark current mode to normal glow mode. It is a complex surface phenomenon that cannot be predicted. The best we can do is to say that the passage of a sudden change in the solar wind is the most likely time to see a flareup."
Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderbolts
The sun had been electrically active in the days before the "explosion". Upon investigation of data from the ACE satellite, see this movie or this graph, Michael Mozina noticed that there was a large spike in the density of the solar wind on October 22 at 19:45, two days before the infamous flareup. This spike likely switched the comet into normal glow mode and allowed it to grow. Once in normal glow mode, the plasma coma does not require a sustained voltage to maintain that mode.


How these Rock comets and Electric Comets become charged is less important imho. Electric Comets spend most of their time far far away from the stronger electric field closer to our variable star the Sun (here and here) and in a much much weaker electrical environment and acquire the charge difference there. There are other mechanisms known for bodies to become charged ...

- Charging by Electrostatic Induction

- On The Electrostatic Charging Of The Cometary Nucleus PDF

- Surface Charging on Airless Bodies

I could go on but I'd better not bore you any further and I suspect you don't accept my view ... I can live with that

But you should be in NO doubt WHY ........ rock comets relate to the EU theory
Haig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2014, 02:22 AM   #2869
Haig
Graduate Poster
 
Haig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,635
Rosetta Mission Update | Comets May Not Be What We Thought
Quote:
Published on 14 Dec 2014
The Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. Perhaps the strangest solar system object ever observed up close in the course of the space age. It was the target of the Rosetta probe, whose 10-year journey began in March 2004, under the sponsorship of the European Space Agency. The probe is now orbiting the nucleus of 67P, and investigators hope to confirm the comet’s link to the very origins of our solar system. In this brief overview of the Rosetta Mission, David Talbott begins a series of reports on the continuing surprises facing comet theorists.
Haig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2014, 02:23 AM   #2870
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,990
So, where does this bring us now?
I think it might be a good idea to actually start a thread which discusses the actual mainstream model of comets, with all the "geo"logical and plasma physical processes that can take place.

The fact that we may not understand everything in the mainstream model is only to be expected, because we have only in-situ data from a few comets (Halley. Giacobini-Zinner, Grigg-Skjellerup, Wild, Churyumov-Gerasimenko). However, our models are developing constantly, especially now that we are "in orbit" around a comet and we get to see the development from very weakly active at arrival, to highly active as it comes closer and closer to the sun.

However, the fallacy of the EC proponent that "if mainstream cannot explain X then X is proof for the EC hypothesis" is clear, X can only be proof, if there is an actual model behind the hypothesis that can actually show how X is a proof.

Up to now, I would say, the EC proponents have not shown any model, only seem to use pictures in order to show their model. haig was very taken with the reddit (appropriate name) produced "real colour picture" of CG, however, now the experts of the OSIRIS cam have done the job without stretching colours etc.

Now, the EC seems to claim the production of water through EDM, or through implantation of protons in the surface, or .. or ... It depends on which EC proponent you ask what model is given. However, many of these can easily be described and quantified, but nobody seems to take the effort to do that, and when a mainstreamer then does the calculations (e.g. water production or electric sun powering) the comments fly around about what is supposedly wrong, but no alternative is presented in a qualitative let alone quantitative way.

Plasma physics is a very well developed area of physics, based on Maxwell's theories, learning from "renegades" like Birkeland and Alfven, learning from laboratory experiments, from spaceborne experiments etc. All observations show that plasma physics is very very good at describing all kinds of plasmas. However, plasma physics is not easy and is full of "paradoxes", for example a charged particle in a perpendicular magnetic and electric field will move ... perpendicular to both the magnetic and the electric field.

This means that quoting an old speech by Alfven where he "rejects" the idea of frozen in fields or the "first and second" approach (about 30 years ago) does not bring us anything, unless we know what is being done today, but that was already addressed earlier.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2014, 02:47 AM   #2871
Haig
Graduate Poster
 
Haig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,635
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
So, where does this bring us now?
I think it might be a good idea to actually start a thread which discusses the actual mainstream model of comets, with all the "geo"logical and plasma physical processes that can take place.

The fact that we may not understand everything in the mainstream model is only to be expected, because we have only in-situ data from a few comets (Halley. Giacobini-Zinner, Grigg-Skjellerup, Wild, Churyumov-Gerasimenko). However, our models are developing constantly, especially now that we are "in orbit" around a comet and we get to see the development from very weakly active at arrival, to highly active as it comes closer and closer to the sun.
I asked you to state or give links to the mainstream model of comets and you couldn't / wouldn't do it .... only hand waving ... WHY ? because it's a moving concept heading in the direction of the ELECTRIC COMET hypothesis.

ALL you cited were books (fair enough) but on-line in the 21st centuriy NASA has these as Comet Models ... HERE and HERE

I see mainstream are beginning to get the EU / PC idea ...

... apart that is the Supermassive Black Hole's nonsense

Extragalactic circuits, transmission lines, and CR particle acceleration
Quote:
A non-negligible fraction of a Supermassive Black Hole's (SMBH) rest mass energy gets transported into extragalactic space by a remarkable process in jets which are incompletely understood. What are the physical processes which transport this energy? It is likely that the energy flows electromagnetically, rather than via a particle beam flux. The deduced electromagnetic fields may produce particles of energy as high as ∼1020 eV. The energetics of SMBH accretion disk models and the electromagnetic energy transfer imply that a SMBH should generate a 1018−1019 Amp\`eres current close to the black hole and its accretion disk. We describe the so far best observation-based estimate of the magnitude of the current flow along the axis of the jet extending from the nucleus of the active galaxy in 3C303. The current is measured to be I∼1018 Amp\`eres at ∼40 kpc away from the AGN. This indicates that organized current flow remains intact over multi-kpc distances. The electric current I transports electromagnetic power into free space, P=I2Z, where Z∼30 Ohms is related to the impedance of free space, and this points to the existence of cosmic electric circuit. The associated electric potential drop, V=IZ, is of the order of that required to generate Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays (UHECR). We describe the analogy of electromagnetically dominated jets with transmission lines. High powered jets {\it in vacuo} can be understood by approximate analogy with a waveguide. The importance of inductance, impedance, and other laboratory electrical concepts are discussed in this context. To appear in Proc. 18th International Symposium on Very High Energy Cosmic Ray Interactions (ISVHECR2014), CERN,


That is much more CURRENT that this recent creation video from mainstream ( and you dare to poke fun at EC ES EU / PC hypothesis ) that really makes the point

Ambition the film European Space Agency, ESA

Last edited by Haig; 15th December 2014 at 03:07 AM.
Haig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2014, 03:56 AM   #2872
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,304
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
In my own words ??? now don't you go all JT on me . I'll use any words or papers/articles I choose to get the idea or point across.
It would've been faster for you to just type "I can't" or "I don't understand it enough to put it into my own words."

Quote:
That is enough for me to confirm "How do rocky comets relate to the EU theory ?" but, I guess, NOT you Belz
None of what you've posted up to that point even mentions electricity, Haig. That's why I'm asking for an explanation by you.

Your efforts are pathetic.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2014, 04:25 AM   #2873
Haig
Graduate Poster
 
Haig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,635
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
It would've been faster for you to just type "I can't" or "I don't understand it enough to put it into my own words."
How about ...

You cant understand what I write / copy / paste ! does that about say it ?


Quote:
None of what you've posted up to that point even mentions electricity, Haig. That's why I'm asking for an explanation by you.
Sure it does Belz ... you just have to read it again ... to the end ... and think about it

Quote:
Your efforts are pathetic.
That's a matter of opinion Belz I just knew you would't be happy

It's like this ...

Electric Comets & Rock Comets ..... needs an ..... Electric Sun ..... needs an ..... Electric Universe / Plasma Cosmology
Haig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2014, 04:37 AM   #2874
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,990
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
I asked you to state or give links to the mainstream model of comets and you couldn't / wouldn't do it

ALL you cited were books (fair enough) but on-line in the 21st centuriy NASA has these as Comet Models ... HERE and HERE
Sorry haig you are lying, I did point you to where you can find almost everything about the mainstream comet model. Yes "ALL" I did was point out books to you, that is where science can be found, in books and journals: the book by Krishna Swamy "the physics of comets" and the book by Festou, Keller & Weaver "Comets II".

The fact that you cannot be bothered to look at books and rather have youtube vids is not my problem, but do not say that I did not deliver.

The fact that you think that the mainstream model is a children's outreach to make their own paper-and-string model from NASA shows the disdain you have for real science.

And if you would have paid attention to what I write, you would know that I would not be surprised about circuit theory and currents (although your link has absolutely nothing to do with comets) because I wrote a paper like that myself about flares at black holes.

Up to now nothing substantial has come from the EC, not even a clear model on how the EC envisions that water is produced.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2014, 05:09 AM   #2875
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 12,754
Remember if your can't Google it then it doesn't exist.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2014, 06:23 AM   #2876
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,304
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
Sure it does Belz ... you just have to read it again ... to the end ... and think about it
No, that's your out, there. You can't explain what the hell it means, think it's super-deep and stuff, and expect everyone to agree with you without having to actually make any sense out of it. Explain how they are related, or admit that you have no clue.

Quote:
That's a matter of opinion Belz
It really isn't.

Quote:
Electric Comets & Rock Comets ..... needs an ..... Electric Sun ..... needs an ..... Electric Universe / Plasma Cosmology
So ?
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2014, 06:43 AM   #2877
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,417
Good morning, Sol88. I have a two-part response to your post; this is part one.
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Originally Posted by JeanTate
Good morning, Sol88.

Quite recently, I wrote:


Seems appropriate; perhaps I should repeat it?

Can we return to discussion of the ech, please?

You started this thread, explicitly on "The Electric Comet theory". Yet you seem to spend much - perhaps most - of your time (as measured in words in your posts) on topics other than the ech.

Why is it apparently so hard for you to stay focused?
So no bearing on the Electric Comet then Jean Tate??? Mmmm.....you come across as though most EC proponents have got two heads.
I'm not really sure what you mean, but yes, there does seem to be two fairly distinct approaches used in the posts by you, Haig, David Talbott, and paladin17. In very approximate terms:

* you and Haig seem unwilling or unable to answer questions about the ech, other than by posting links

* you, and to some extent Haig, seem to spend most of your words on asking/demanding/insisting on/etc "mainstream" explanations for comet phenomena apparently picked at random (to some extent both paladin17 and David Talbott have written similar things), or claiming/screaming/etc that some (cherry picked?) phenomenon/event/data is inconsistent with "mainstream" theory/models/explanations/etc.

* paladin17 and (to some extent) David Talbott have directly addressed many of the questions asked of them, about the ech (or in paladin17's case, peci), though David Talbott has also ignored many such questions

* in particular, both paladin17 and David Talbott have been willing to discuss the content of the ech/peci, on its own merits (again, at least to some extent).

As has been repeated said, by almost everyone (including both paladin17 and David Talbott, at times), "disproving" the 'mainstream' model of comets does NOT "prove" the ech!! The ech must stand on its own; it must 'explain' all the relevant data. And that set of explanations is one of two key parts of this thread (the other is explaining what the ech/electric comet model/theory/etc actually is).

Quote:
and while the mainstream acknowledge Dusty Plasmas why would they not take the next logical step??
Perhaps "they" should/could/would/must/etc; perhaps "they" could care less about what Sol88 thinks.

But what has that got to do with the ech?

Quote:
and

Everytime someone from the EC side brings up something relevent to the EC idea, we are accused of not staying focused...
When paladin17 and David Talbott did that, in many cases they were thanked, and the discussion continued on the ech.

In the (very) few cases where you or Haig did that, you were thanked, and the discussion also continued, on the ech.

However, if you (or anyone else) "brings up something" which you claim is "relevent" [sic], and which no one else understands how it is, then it's quite legitimate to ask you to either explain the relevance (something you seem unwilling or unable to do, rather often) or to ask you to stay focused, right?

Quote:
My prediction....this weeks AGU meeting is gunna cause a stir and we'll have so much more "New" material to play some forum tennis with, it's goning to be fun.

I also predict, the standard mainstream model for comets and solar system formation are going to called into question.
Your predictions are duly noted. And I myself hope that this week's AGU meeting will have a great deal of new material to discuss, and that it will be fun.

But what does that have to do with the ech?

Can we return to discussion of the ech, please?

You started this thread, explicitly on "The Electric Comet theory". Yet you seem to spend much - perhaps most - of your time (as measured in words in your posts) on topics other than the ech.

Why is it apparently so hard for you to stay focused?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2014, 06:47 AM   #2878
Haig
Graduate Poster
 
Haig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,635
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Sorry haig you are lying, I did point you to where you can find almost everything about the mainstream comet model. Yes "ALL" I did was point out books to you, that is where science can be found, in books and journals: the book by Krishna Swamy "the physics of comets" and the book by Festou, Keller & Weaver "Comets II".
You need to do more than be SORRY ! How was I lying tusenfem ? I said :
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
I asked you to state or give links to the mainstream model of comets and you couldn't / wouldn't do it .... only hand waving ... WHY ? because it's a moving concept heading in the direction of the ELECTRIC COMET hypothesis.

ALL you cited were books (fair enough) but on-line in the 21st centuriy NASA has these as Comet Models ... HERE and HERE
I gave you credit for the books link it was and still is the fact that you don't STATE or GIVE LINKS to the mainstream model of comets. And STILL don't

You contradict yourself in the first two sentences of your post. You should apologise ! I never lied and to say so is abuse.

Originally Posted by tusenfem
The fact that you cannot be bothered to look at books and rather have youtube vids is not my problem, but do not say that I did not deliver.
This stuff might be your full time job but it isn't mine. I read books when I have time but having the time for that is rare these days. So, skim reading links and posting here on the run between my real work ... is it for now.

This is just a bit of fun for me, does it show ?

Originally Posted by tusenfem
The fact that you think that the mainstream model is a children's outreach to make their own paper-and-string model from NASA shows the disdain you have for real science.
It's a bit of fun tuenfem. Show us a link to the latest mainstream comet model hypothesis or haven't they cobbled it together yet ?

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Remember if your can't Google it then it doesn't exist.
Wrong !

You can Google : black holes, dark matter, dark energy and the big bang and NONE of them exist.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
No, that's your out, there. You can't explain what the hell it means, think it's super-deep and stuff, and expect everyone to agree with you without having to actually make any sense out of it. Explain how they are related, or admit that you have no clue.

It really isn't.

So ?
It seems I've wasted my time with you Belz but it was fun ... does that make me a bad person

Calm down put your feet up and enjoy a video about Electric Comets

Wal Thornhill: Breaking News | EU Workshop
Haig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2014, 07:49 AM   #2879
paladin17
Student
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 47
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
The scientific argument is that the D/H ratio should vary in the Kuiper belt and Oort cloud and that would be reflected in comet D/H ratios. I can guess why - maybe radiation pressure would push lighter H atoms further away than heavier D atoms.
Then why all the other planets have different D/H ratios? The 67P's deuterium content is very high (look at the picture), so in this case its orbit should be somewhere around Venus, I suppose?

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
the current due to the solar wind alone is zero. The solar wind is neutral. There are plenty of sources for this if you want to look them up.
My sources (like the mentioned data from ACE) tell that there is an electric current.

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
The solar wind is electrically neutral and so is not an electric current.
Actual measurements suggest otherwise.

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
paladin17, it looks like you should learn a basic fact about comets - their measured densities are ~5 times less than that of rock .
This means that the basic premise of comets being rock is wrong. Anything based on comets being rock is not science - it is fantasy.
Take a rock that is hollow inside and you can get almost any density value you want. That doesn't prove or disprove anything.

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
The Solar System may have little or no bow shock. The bow shock is many AU outside of the region where comets start outgassing.
I cannot agree with you. All the data suggest otherwise (see this, for example).
I understand that it is far away from the comets, but please take a look first at why I've mentioned it in the first place, and maybe it will be more clear to you.
paladin17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2014, 08:19 AM   #2880
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,990
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
You need to do more than be SORRY ! How was I lying tusenfem ? I said :

I gave you credit for the books link it was and still is the fact that you don't STATE or GIVE LINKS to the mainstream model of comets. And STILL don't
Well sorry, but mainstream physics is not done by youtube (unlike in the EC world).
Here is an "old" review paper on cometary magnetospheres
here is a paper about cometary physics and chemistry based on Hyakutake and Hale-Bopp.
here a paper by Nick Thomas about Jupiter family comets
A paper about dormant comets and their braking up into meteor showers
[url=http://esoads.eso.org/abs/1999EP%26S...51.1155G]a review on comets and asteroid statistics
Invited Review: Laboratory simulation of the physical processes occurring on and near the surfaces of comet nuclei
Review, based on particles and fields observations made aboard the Giotto spacecraft, concerning the nature of the solar wind interaction with comets P/Halley and P/Grigg Skjellerup

The "problem" is that the mainstream knowledge about comets is so vast, that it cannot be published in a simple paper, you need loads of papers, better yet, you just take a book in which a knowledgeable scientist summarizes it all or a book in which many authors publish papers on the latest state of their field of specialization (the former would be Krishna Swami, the latter would be Festou et al.) You have not got the foggiest what mainstream physics knows.

Originally Posted by Haig View Post
You contradict yourself in the first two sentences of your post. You should apologise ! I never lied and to say so is abuse.

This stuff might be your full time job but it isn't mine. I read books when I have time but having the time for that is rare these days. So, skim reading links and posting here on the run between my real work ... is it for now.
Well, skim reading links just does not work.
And above I explained why there is not just one link to the mainstream model.

Originally Posted by Haig View Post
This is just a bit of fun for me, does it show ?
Well, if that is fun ?

Originally Posted by Haig View Post
It's a bit of fun tuenfem. Show us a link to the latest mainstream comet model hypothesis or haven't they cobbled it together yet ?
I gave you a lot of links up there, so have your fun.

Now you are going to show us some real EC stuff? with real links? and real explanations? without youtube?
No, I thought not, you cannot deliver what you ask from others.

So no this is not fun, it is insulting.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:37 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.