Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I've been waiting for somebody to do some number crunching on the observed and measured density of 67P, and what the EU woo merchants claim it should be, given that it is made out of rock. And how their "electrostatic repulsion" relates to this to give a false gravity reading, and how much charge there would need to be on the comet to account for it.
It's beyond me I'm afraid, but the Prof. Harvey Rutt I referenced in posts #263 & #295, posted something on the Rosetta blog on the 15th, which I've only just seen.
I won't copy the whole thing here, but he uses G m1m2/r^2 = ke q1q2/r^2 to do the estimate.
Guess what? We've been swindled! Rosetta has totally failed to notice that there must be a charge of 175 GV on the comet! Astonishing. I want my money back! Unless EU is all just a pile of horse manure, of course. On reconsideration, the latter is more likely the case.
Third post from the end (currently): http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2015/04/09/giada-investigates-comets-fluffy-dust-grains/
 
tusenfem said:
Actually, I am not really sure what Harvey wants to calculate there.
Click to expand...

As I said, it's beyond me, regarding the electrical calculations, but I believe is based on the fact that ESA reported that Rosetta had a charge of -5 - -10 V. I think the intention was then to calculate from that what the charge on the comet would need to be, assuming it to be rock, to produce a density measurement that was 4-5 times lower than one would expect from rock. Electrostatic repulsion is the spurious claim made by the EU woo merchants as the reason why the density is showing as being so low. Complete bobbins of course, but a verified density of ~ 470 kg/m^3 kind of blows their nutty hypothesis out of the water at a very early stage.
As I say, electrical equations, and which ones are relevant, are not my bag, so don't know if he's used the right ones, or plugged in the right figures.
I do remember Tom Bridgman did some calcs on his blog a while back, but didn't have any figures to plug in at that stage. Plus it was in Coulombs from memory, and I wouldn't have a scooby how to start messing around with Volts and Coulombs.
Given that we now have three of the variables, that is the mass of Rosetta and the charge on Rosetta, as well as the mass(es) of 67P, I'm assuming there must be some way of calculating the missing variable, i.e. the charge on the comet.

EDIT: This is the link to the Tom Bridgman article I mentioned: http://dealingwithcreationisminastr...14/12/electric-comets-iii-mass-vs-charge.html
 
Last edited:
It's interesting to watch an actual EUer attempt an actual argument in those comments. Around here we're down to "driveby EU trolls" and no one even attempts the arguments "THOMAS" is posting there any more. I'd half forgotten what it looked like.

The argument style seems to be:
  • ESA professional: <presents some result from a standard dusty plasma model>
  • EUer: I'm not convinced. Lookit how complicated that was. Epicycles everywhere probably. Therefore I will ignore your conclusion.
  • ESA professional: <uses Maxwell's Equations to show some orders of magnitude>
  • EUer: I'm not convinced, we all know electricity is extremely complicated and that calculation looked simple. Therefore I will ignore your conclusion.
  • ESA professional: <uses basic law of physics>
  • EUer: That law of physics is probably wrong, EUers ignore it all the time and look how well it works.
 
Last edited:
Sublimation in action!

Surprisingly, the new-born jet arises from a shadowed area on the underside of the comet, close to the centre of the Imhotep region. So far cometary activity has only been observed on the comet’s day-side.
Click to expand...


Imhotep is covered in "Ice" because we see jets! Oh wait...
The onset of activity could also be the result of a different type of more explosive activity. That is, the outburst could have been triggered by a wave of heat reaching ices trapped in a deeper layer beneath the surface.
Click to expand...

......what?

Sounds like, according to the above posts, mainstreams maths is in serious trouble...again!

The maths is leading you down the garden path...again. :)
 
Sol88 said:
Sublimation in action!
Click to expand...
Sublimation in action, Sol88, despite your continued ignorance of comets and physics leading to the delusion about this is the mainstream in trouble :jaw-dropp!
You lied (quote mined) by not quoting both scientific explanations for the jets appearing from shadows, Sol88, so:
OSIRIS catches activity in the act (20/04/2015)
Rosetta’s scientific imaging system OSIRIS has witnessed a new jet of dust emerging from the surface of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. The image was presented during the European Geosciences Union General Assembly, EGU, in Vienna last week.
...
Surprisingly, the new-born jet arises from a shadowed area on the underside of the comet, close to the centre of the Imhotep region. So far cometary activity has only been observed on the comet’s day-side.

“In these images we see Imhotep on the brink of dawn,” OSIRIS scientist Jean-Baptiste Vincent from the MPS explains. “It is possible that the first rays of sunlight hit some cliffs or outcrops that remained hidden to Rosetta due to the orbital position at the time.”

The onset of activity could also be the result of a different type of more explosive activity. That is, the outburst could have been triggered by a wave of heat reaching ices trapped in a deeper layer beneath the surface.

OSIRIS could not continue to observe the new feature after 07:17 CET because Imhotep was soon fully illuminated, making it impossible to discern individual jets in the overexposed coma. It is therefore not clear whether Rosetta witnessed the birth of a continuous jet or a short-lived outburst.
Click to expand...
(my emphasis added)
So we have either direct heating (sunlight on cliffs or outcrops) or indirect heating (the heating of the body of 67P reaching ices).

ETA: More ignorance - no one thinks that Imhotep is covered in ice for the simple reason that the Philae lander found that 67P where the lander ended up is covered in a layer of dust and then ice. There is no reason to think that Imhotep is any different. On the other hand that is in the process of changing. The dust jets are blowing at least some of the dust away and will get more active with the more heating as 67P approaches the Sun..


Ignorance and blind belief in the electric comet delusion has lead you down the garden path again :D!
 
Last edited:
ben m said:
It's interesting to watch an actual EUer attempt an actual argument in those comments. Around here we're down to "driveby EU trolls" and no one even attempts the arguments "THOMAS" is posting there any more. I'd half forgotten what it looked like.

The argument style seems to be:
  • ESA professional: <presents some result from a standard dusty plasma model>
  • EUer: I'm not convinced. Lookit how complicated that was. Epicycles everywhere probably. Therefore I will ignore your conclusion.
  • ESA professional: <uses Maxwell's Equations to show some orders of magnitude>
  • EUer: I'm not convinced, we all know electricity is extremely complicated and that calculation looked simple. Therefore I will ignore your conclusion.
  • ESA professional: <uses basic law of physics>
  • EUer: That law of physics is probably wrong, EUers ignore it all the time and look how well it works.
Click to expand...

It is the same-old-same-old, the solar wind is positively charged (what happened to the electrons?) and thus is a current, there are discharges (from what to what? and don't discharges go to the extremities and not to the low-lying areas?) etc. etc. too tiresome to try to teach people real (plasma) physics.
 
Reality Check said:
Sublimation in action, Sol88, despite your continued ignorance of comets and physics leading to the delusion about this is the mainstream in trouble :jaw-dropp!
You lied (quote mined) by not quoting both scientific explanations for the jets appearing from shadows, Sol88, so:
OSIRIS catches activity in the act (20/04/2015)

(my emphasis added)
So we have either direct heating (sunlight on cliffs or outcrops) or indirect heating (the heating of the body of 67P reaching ices).

ETA: More ignorance - no one thinks that Imhotep is covered in ice for the simple reason that the Philae lander found that 67P where the lander ended up is covered in a layer of dust and then ice. There is no reason to think that Imhotep is any different. On the other hand that is in the process of changing. The dust jets are blowing at least some of the dust away and will get more active with the more heating as 67P approaches the Sun..


Ignorance and blind belief in the electric comet delusion has lead you down the garden path again :D!
Click to expand...



So we have either direct heating (sunlight on cliffs or outcrops) or indirect heating (the heating of the body of 67P reaching ices).
Click to expand...

Ha ha ha....show me the maths on how this works!!! How the proverbial does the heat penetrate the well insulated dust layer to heat the imaginary "ice" to sublimation temperature to be expelled in a highly collimated jets through no existent "nozzles/orifices"????


Yeah I believe that!!! :sdl:


Seems you've believe in fairedust :pixie2


No ice on the surface of comet 67P or any comet yet visited (except for the trivial frosty dusting on Tempel 1, as noted) but don't let that stop a good yarn(story)
 
Sol88's absurd notions wear thin and fail to amuse me. So how is the real science going, tusenfem? Any juicy hints of upcoming papers you can reveal?
 
Jrrarglblarg said:
Sol88's absurd notions wear thin and fail to amuse me. So how is the real science going, tusenfem? Any juicy hints of upcoming papers you can reveal?
Click to expand...

Apologies.

but what is good for the goose....show me the equation that PROVES heat transfer into the coldest shadowed region would have enough energy to make ice sublimate...not sure if it's even possible.

but when you only have square holes to work with...mainstream will keep bashing those round pegs till they fit! :D

Tusenfem is only confirming what mainstream already know, me old mate Holger Sierks on the other hand...well he's got the keys!


so again sorry to bore you but the actual peer reviewed science on 67P is well, tiresome and the sublimation theory has worn so thin you can now see straight thru it.

Remember the dirtysnowyballofdust is DEAD. So where does that leave the mainstream? Comets did not seed Earth's water and they're not dirty snowballs..there goes two large pillars prior theory were resting on! :jaw-dropp

Now something contrived in the lab to explain "bright spots" when the thunderbolts mob PREDICTED them....along with copious amounts of dust and NO ICE .... as observed on ALL comets :D
 
Jrrarglblarg said:
Sol88's absurd notions wear thin and fail to amuse me. So how is the real science going, tusenfem? Any juicy hints of upcoming papers you can reveal?
Click to expand...

Sol88 asking for math, priceless

As for the real science - Papers I am on:
  • The singing comet paper has been revised and resubmitted
  • A paper on the spatial distribution of low energy plasma has been submitted

Then there are a few papers from the IES instrument that have been submitted, but I don't know the titles. I think about charge exchange of He++ to He+ and something with H-.

Erik Vigren published a simulation paper on "ON THE POSSIBILITY OF SIGNIFICANT ELECTRON DEPLETION DUE TO NANOGRAIN CHARGING IN THE COMA OF COMET 67P/CHURYUMOV-GERASIMENKO NEAR PERIHELION" in the Astrophysical Journal (ApJ 798, 130, 2015, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/798/2/130)

And there was the Hans Nilsson paper in Science: "Birth of a comet magnetosphere: A spring of water ions" (Science, 347, 6220 (2015))

And there is the Ulli Auster paper on "The non-magnetic nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko" which is in preview format online at Science (but not freely available).

For the rest look at the EGU session on Rosetta
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2015/orals/17358
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2015/posters/17358

Maybe more later, the peeps from MAG, MIP, ICA, IES and LAP are working hard to get their data analysed.
 
Still have not seen any papers from the EU bunch, nor even a hint of a quantitative prediction. But with so many sheeple at thunderdolts they have many many hands they can wave with.
 
Sol88 said:
but what is good for the goose....show me the equation that PROVES heat transfer into the coldest shadowed region would have enough energy to make ice sublimate...not sure if it's even possible.
Click to expand...
I've done enough heat flow equations to satisfy my own curiosity. I suggest doing your own to actually prove the energy is insufficient rather than waving the Magical Incredulity Wand.
Remember the dirtysnowyballofdust is DEAD.
Click to expand...
An unsupported assertion in the absence of data is a sloppy speculation. An unsupported assertion that contradicts verifiable data is a lie.
 
Sol88: Repeated delusions about comets do not reflect well on you

Sol88 said:
Ha ha ha......
Click to expand...
That ignorance actually hurts my brain, Sol88 :jaw-dropp!
Apparently you have never been in the real world where heat transfers. You have never cooked anything to see heat from an oven element transfer itself to the food! You have never seen a melting ice cube!

Repeated delusions about comets are even worse, Sol88. You need to try to learn some science rather then blindly believing in the Thunderbolts delusions and adding your own:

Of course the problem is that in that last 6 years you have not bothered to learn anything about the science of comets. So all you have left is spamming us with posts containing expressions of incredulity based on ignorance.
 
Last edited:
Sol88: The fantasy that Earth is a comet + "dirty snowballs" fanatsy

Sol88 said:
Comets did not seed Earth's water and they're not dirty snowballs..there goes two large pillars prior theory were resting on! :jaw-dropp
Click to expand...
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.

There is no theory that says that comets are "dirty snowballs". Dirty snowballs is a description of comets. Comet theory states that given enormous evidence for it, comets are ices and dust.
 
Sol88: The delusion that Thunderbolts predicted the 67P bright spots

Sol88 said:
...when the thunderbolts mob PREDICTED them
Click to expand...
Wrong Sol88 - they have fantasies based on their ignorance of electromagnetism and other science.
They start with the delusion about planets colliding. They add a delusion about comets being blasted by lightning bolts from planet surfaces. From that delusion they conclude that comets are rocks - denying the actual density of comets and measure composition! They add the delusion about lightning bolts to their imaginary comets. You then add the delusion that they predict bright spots based on their delusions.

Here is actual science where observations are compared to experiments, Sol88 :jaw-dropp!
Metre-size bright spots at the surface of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko: Interpretation of OSIRIS data using laboratory experiments (PDF)
The observations that there are bight spots that
  • have typical sizes are of the order of a few metres
  • often observed at the surfaces of boulders of larger dimension
  • have clusters in the vicinity of cliffs
  • have isolated members "without clear structural relation to
    the surrounding terrain"
  • have no significant change over a period of months
There is no Thunderbolts predictions that match the actual observations. Their fantasy would be electrical discharges that are meters wide, have been in place from the same points for months and magically cannot be seen!
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Rosetta update: Two close flybys of an increasingly active comet Posted By Emily Lakdawalla
Click to expand...

From the blog referred to in that article:

Tracking variations in brightness along the jet, the researchers estimated the velocity of the dust grains to be at least eight metres per second. This is compatible with measurements made with Rosetta’s GIADA instrument on other occasions, for dust particles emitted from the comet’s surface.
Click to expand...

Say, Sol88, what velocity in variations of the jet does EC predict?
 
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