Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Last edited:
Haig said:
And the coincidences are ignored :eek:
Click to expand...
Not only wrong thread, Haig, but no science - just the delusions of the crank Ben Davidson in a video with lies :eek:!
Ben Davidson is lying to you Haig by cherry picking solar activity and earthquakes. You must have a basic education and so will know what high school children know - solar flares happen frequently, earthquakes happen frequently and so it is idiotic to think that just noting a coincidence between a flare and earthquake means that the flare caused the earthquake.
 
Haig said:
Actually, the mysterious dwarf planet Ceres is a great example for this thread.
Click to expand...
Yes Haig, that is a great example of the delusions that electric comet supporters can have - Ceres is not a comet :jaw-dropp!

Just consider that you have followed a link to one deluded video in a crank YouTube channel to an even more deluded video in another crank YouTube channel.
The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos etc.

How can we believe in the competence of the EU proponents (including you :p) when the speakers at their 2014 conference was a collection of cranks, actual deluded people and some electrical engineers?
(the deluded people were the Velikovsky believers: David Talbott, Daniel Jencka, Dwardu Cardona)

Followed by the delusion that Saturn has "hexagonal craters" :jaw-dropp!

Saturn does have hexagonal cloud formations explained by winds - just consider how idiotic someone (is it a Thunderbolts author?) would be to think that this means that comets are rocks, Haig?
 
Haig said:
How do you explain crater chains : hexagonal craters, such as those seen on Ceres, Mars, Mercury, and the Saturnian moon Mimas : the hexagonal clouds of Saturn's poles ?
Click to expand...
We have the scientific explanations for the shapes of craters and Saturn cloud formation, Haig.
We do not have to listen to the The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos etc. like you.
We do know that many years of being unable to understand that comets are not rocks precludes you from ever understanding scientific explanations and thus it is a waste of time to explain this (irrelevant to this thread) science to you. All we will get is more links to The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos etc.
 
Haig said:
This is how it relates to the Electric Universe ...
Click to expand...
And what do we see: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos etc. :jaw-dropp!

A stupid link to some actual but irrelevant science!
Diocotron instability also Diocotron instability in an annular sheath of a gas-discharge nonneutral electron plasma

Followed by argument from personal ignorance of irrelevant science and outright lies about the delusions of the Thunderbolts authors explaining anything!

Ending with the usual EU/PC ignorance about
Occam's Razor in science and a lie about the contents of that page:
Its scientific application is to select priority between developing theories of equal predictive power. The "simpler" theory with fewer (or less onerous) assumptions is probably the most appropriate one. For example, if you see hoof-prints on your local walking trail, think horses, not unicorns.
Click to expand...
(my emphasis added)
We do not apply Occam's Razor to distinguish between a scientific theory and a set of delusions :jaw-dropp.
 
Haig: The plasmacosmology.net ignorance, delusions and lies about EDM

Haig said:
This is NASA's explanation of crater chains on Ganymede.
Click to expand...
It is only unlikely, Haig, if someone had the delusion that only planets , moons and the Sun existed in the Solar System :jaw-dropp!
The fact that we have seen comets be pulled apart into multiple nuclei makes this a viable mechanism for Ganymede crater chains.
The fact that all Thunderbolts have is ignorance delusions and lies means that we can ignore their delusions.
The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos etc. :jaw-dropp!

Your delusions about EDM explaining crater chains is not science either, Haig.
But thanks for pointing out this Electric Universe page with its ignorance, delusions and lies, Haig.

  1. A lie: There is almost nothing on this page about Electrical Discharge Machining :eek:
    Of course if they had linked to Electrical Discharge Machining then their readers would have discovered that the entire page is a lie because EDM is done by electrodes separated by a dielectric liquid!
  2. A delusion: that crater formation is cosmology!
  3. A delusion: The Velikovsky delusion about worlds colliding pops its ugly head up!
  4. A delusion: that a neo-Velikovsky crank book is science.
  5. The usual EU ignorance about plasma! Plasma shields itself and thus not generally "scaleable over at least 14 scales of magnitude."
  6. A lie: Impacts often form circular craters.
  7. A lie: The effects of impact craters include "internal spiral patterns".
  8. A lie: Crater chains are explained by impacts.
  9. ...lots of non-cited probable nonsense abut channels...
  10. ...lots of non-cited probable nonsense abut rilles...
  11. The total idiocy that Olympus Mons on Mars (a volcano) is a "lightning blister" or fulgamite.
  12. Back to the crater chain delusion.
  13. A delusion: that non-cited "'wormlike' formations" in the Arrhenius Region of Mars are cuased by lightning.
  14. A lie: that scientific explanations for these formation can "safely be excluded".
  15. A delusion: that the "grooves and channels" on Europa are not the surface fractures that we would expect for an ice moon under the high tidal influence of Jupiter.
  16. A lie: The heating of Europa means that scientists expect its surface to be frequently remodeled thus wiping out craters and leaving only rare new craters.
  17. Delusions about the Tycho crater on the Moon. They have to go back to a 1903 book to try to support these delusions!
  18. Not cited "complex dendritic networks at the south pole of Mars" evoke the usual lightning delusion.
  19. The idiocy that dust devils cannot happen on Mars just as they happen on Earth!
  20. A delusion: that Io's plumes are "electric jets".
 
Last edited:
How to Make a Rubber Ducky Comet
Before we knew what comets and asteroids looked like up close, it was popular (at least in media) to imagine them as roughly spherical, maybe a bit lumpy. The reality was way stranger. The first comet seen up close, Halley’s, was actually more elongated, like a rock you might find in your back yard. As we sent space probes to more of these celestial flotsam, we found most were oddly shaped, and some downright bizarre: a double-lobed bowling pin shape kept popping up. Hartley 2, Wild 2, Kleopatra (which looks like a cartoon dog bone!), and now, most recently, 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, the new home of the Rosetta probe. The solid part of this comet looks like a rubber ducky, with a large, flattish lobe connected somewhat off-center to a smaller, more rounded chunk.

What gives?

I’ve written about this before. My original thinking was that these shapes are due to a slow collision by two bodies, which manage to stick together. 67P, however, has many features that look more like it was one object that has been eroding away in the middle, creating the double-lobed shape.

Now it looks like the former was more important than the latter. A new study has just been published showing that slow-speed collisions between two objects can create the shapes we see.
Click to expand...
 
And since Ceres popped up here: Ceres Close-Up
Oooo, I’ve been waiting for this: The Dawn spacecraft is now close enough to the asteroid Ceres to get nice close-ups of the battered surface!

That shot was taken on May 23, from a distance of about 5,100 kilometers. The moment I saw it, I thought, “Oh wow, those grooves aren’t grooves, they’re secondary craters!”

In the more distant shots from Dawn, long linear features can be seen across the surface. We see the same sort of thing on other bodies (most notably Mars’ moon Phobos and the asteroid Vesta) and I thought they might be stress fractures. That’s weird, since Ceres is way far away from any other large object, so it doesn’t get massaged by tides or gravity.
Click to expand...
This is another way you can get crater chains - from the plumes of large impacts.
 
New results from UV analysis available here: http://www.aanda.org/component/article/?access=doi&doi=10.1051/0004-6361/20152592 Free PDF download.

"For this study, the team focused on the nature of ‘plumes’ of water and carbon dioxide gas erupting from the comet’s surface, triggered by the warmth of the Sun. To do so, they looked at the emission from hydrogen and oxygen atoms resulting from broken water molecules, and similarly carbon atoms from carbon dioxide molecules, close to the comet nucleus.

They discovered that the molecules seem to be broken up in a two-step process.

First, an ultraviolet photon from the Sun hits a water molecule in the comet’s coma and ionises it, knocking out an energetic electron. This electron then hits another water molecule in the coma, breaking it apart into two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen, and energising them in the process. These atoms then emit ultraviolet light that is detected at characteristic wavelengths by Alice.

Similarly, it is the impact of an electron with a carbon dioxide molecule that results in its break-up into atoms and the observed carbon emissions."

Above from the Rosetta blog at: http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2015/06/02/ultraviolet-study-reveals-surprises-in-comet-coma/

All very strange. I didn't think there was any water :)
 
First, Welcome back to the thread JT :) Where have you been and why come back now ? Just slightly curious ;)

JeanTate said:
What, pray tell Haig, does this have to do with "The Electric Comet Theory"?

If you're so interested in this topic, why don't you start a new thread on it? That way we can focus, here, on the explicit topic of this thread ...
Click to expand...


You seem to have forgoten you've asked this question many times before and my answer is still the same ...

Electric Comets require an Electric Sun require an Electric Universe / Plasma Universe.

They are ALL linked ... so some reference to the ES and EU / PU is relevant to this thread IMHO ;)

JeanTate said:
"Now doesn't that explanation make more sense ? :D"

You're joking, right?

For this explanation to make sense (whether more or less), the existence of solar system electrical discharge machines is essential. What is the DIRECT EVIDENCE of such machines, Haig? :D And who built them?
Click to expand...


Again, you seem to have a short memory JT :)

The EDM is a reference to the process not a machine in Space :p

The Craters Are Electric

EDM - Electrical Discharge Machining


JeanTate said:
(source)

While many - most? - of these predictions are quite, um, loose, at least some are good enough to have been tested - by direct evidence (David's gold standard) - using the data so far made public, from the Rosetta mission.

Direct question to Haig: what is the DIRECT EVIDENCE from the Rosetta mission that is consistent with each of these predictions? Which predictions have zero DIRECT EVIDENCE (to date)?

Related: DT states that there are "moving electrified plumes of Jupiter's moon Io and Saturn's moon Enceladus"; what is the DIRECT EVIDENCE (in your words, "facts") for such things?
Click to expand...


Here you are JT :)

Evidence Confirms Electric Comet Model


'Welease Wosetta!'
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
EDM - Electrical Discharge Machining
Click to expand...

The stupid runs strong in that link. I'll give you just one example: the comparison of crater "domes". You know what causes those domes in the EDM examples? Surface tension. The process melts a bit of material, and surface tension pulls it together into a little ball.

Tell me, Haig, do surface tension effects work on large scales?
 
Haig said:
First, Welcome back to the thread JT :) Where have you been and why come back now ? Just slightly curious ;)
Click to expand...
Thank you Haig. I've never been away ... just haven't seen any reason to post.

You seem to have forgoten you've asked this question many times before and my answer is still the same ...

Electric Comets require an Electric Sun require an Electric Universe / Plasma Universe.

They are ALL linked ... so some reference to the ES and EU / PU is relevant to this thread IMHO ;)
Click to expand...
Thanks for re-confirming your position, and for also confirming your 'link spam' behavior.

As you say, nothing new.

Tell me Haig, does a strong, quantitative inconsistency - between facts/data and 'theory' - in any one part of this chain of "requires" knock out the others?

In particular, if "the Electric Sun theory" is inconsistent with some central facts/data, does that mean that 'the Electric Comet' idea (or 'electric comet hypothesis', as David Talbott puts it) is dead? In the Haig-("numpty")-world that is.

Again, you seem to have a short memory JT :)

The EDM is a reference to the process not a machine in Space :p

The Craters Are Electric

EDM - Electrical Discharge Machining
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification.

For the craters on 67P (the comet, that's what this thread is about, remember?), what is the anode? what is the cathode?

JeanTate said:
(source)

While many - most? - of these predictions are quite, um, loose, at least some are good enough to have been tested - by direct evidence (David's gold standard) - using the data so far made public, from the Rosetta mission.

Direct question to Haig: what is the DIRECT EVIDENCE from the Rosetta mission that is consistent with each of these predictions? Which predictions have zero DIRECT EVIDENCE (to date)?

Related: DT states that there are "moving electrified plumes of Jupiter's moon Io and Saturn's moon Enceladus"; what is the DIRECT EVIDENCE (in your words, "facts") for such things?
Click to expand...
Here you are JT :)

Evidence Confirms Electric Comet Model

'Welease Wosetta!'
Click to expand...
Sorry Haig, I could find zero DIRECT EVIDENCE of any of the David Talbott predictions! :eek: Nor any DIRECT EVIDENCE of "moving electrified plumes of Jupiter's moon Io and Saturn's moon Enceladus" (not that I am at all surprised).

But perhaps I missed it. Would you be kind enough to quote - from those two sources - at least one set of DIRECT EVIDENCE for at least one of David Talbott's predictions? This is a sincere request; I really don't care to wade through yet more material you provide links to, material which manifestly does NOT answer my questions. Oh, and while you're at it, would you mind explaining how your prolific link-spamming is different from the behavior of a spam-troll?
 
JeanTate said:
Thank you Haig. I've never been away ... just haven't seen any reason to post.


Thanks for re-confirming your position, and for also confirming your 'link spam' behavior.

As you say, nothing new.

Tell me Haig, does a strong, quantitative inconsistency - between facts/data and 'theory' - in any one part of this chain of "requires" knock out the others?

In particular, if "the Electric Sun theory" is inconsistent with some central facts/data, does that mean that 'the Electric Comet' idea (or 'electric comet hypothesis', as David Talbott puts it) is dead? In the Haig-("numpty")-world that is.


Thanks for the clarification.

For the craters on 67P (the comet, that's what this thread is about, remember?), what is the anode? what is the cathode?


Sorry Haig, I could find zero DIRECT EVIDENCE of any of the David Talbott predictions! :eek: Nor any DIRECT EVIDENCE of "moving electrified plumes of Jupiter's moon Io and Saturn's moon Enceladus" (not that I am at all surprised).

But perhaps I missed it. Would you be kind enough to quote - from those two sources - at least one set of DIRECT EVIDENCE for at least one of David Talbott's predictions? This is a sincere request; I really don't care to wade through yet more material you provide links to, material which manifestly does NOT answer my questions. Oh, and while you're at it, would you mind explaining how your prolific link-spamming is different from the behavior of a spam-troll?
Click to expand...


Gezz JT you are just wrong in just about everything you say in this post. Please think again !
 
Haig said:
Gezz JT you are just wrong in just about everything you say in this post. Please think again !
Click to expand...

Wait. So the act of asking a question can be considered equivalent to giving the wrong answer now?

...Honestly, this has just become a farce.
 
Nonpareil said:
Wait. So the act of asking a question can be considered equivalent to giving the wrong answer now?

...Honestly, this has just become a farce.
Click to expand...

This circus has been going on for a very very long time.
:)

BeAChooser could not even spell Perrat's name correctly, then there was Zeuzzz, who never understood scale, and Robinson and then Sol88 and Haig.

None has ever had more than just bunny pictures.
 
Haig said:
JeanTate said:
Thank you Haig. I've never been away ... just haven't seen any reason to post.


Thanks for re-confirming your position, and for also confirming your 'link spam' behavior.

As you say, nothing new.

Tell me Haig, does a strong, quantitative inconsistency - between facts/data and 'theory' - in any one part of this chain of "requires" knock out the others?

In particular, if "the Electric Sun theory" is inconsistent with some central facts/data, does that mean that 'the Electric Comet' idea (or 'electric comet hypothesis', as David Talbott puts it) is dead? In the Haig-("numpty")-world that is.


Thanks for the clarification.

For the craters on 67P (the comet, that's what this thread is about, remember?), what is the anode? what is the cathode?


Sorry Haig, I could find zero DIRECT EVIDENCE of any of the David Talbott predictions! Nor any DIRECT EVIDENCE of "moving electrified plumes of Jupiter's moon Io and Saturn's moon Enceladus" (not that I am at all surprised).

But perhaps I missed it. Would you be kind enough to quote - from those two sources - at least one set of DIRECT EVIDENCE for at least one of David Talbott's predictions? This is a sincere request; I really don't care to wade through yet more material you provide links to, material which manifestly does NOT answer my questions. Oh, and while you're at it, would you mind explaining how your prolific link-spamming is different from the behavior of a spam-troll?
Click to expand...
Gezz JT you are just wrong in just about everything you say in this post. Please think again !
Click to expand...
Hmm, let's see now ...

What is the essential core of my post (other than being polite to you)?

It's some questions.

And what are those questions, the ones of direct relevance to this thread?

Here they are:
  • Does a strong, quantitative inconsistency - between facts/data and 'theory' - in any one part of this [EC-ES-EU] chain of "requires" knock out the others?
  • In particular, if "the Electric Sun theory" is inconsistent with some central facts/data, does that mean that 'the Electric Comet' idea (or 'electric comet hypothesis', as David Talbott puts it) is dead?
  • For the craters on 67P (the comet, that's what this thread is about, remember?), what is the anode? what is the cathode?
  • Would you be kind enough to quote - from [the] two sources [which you cite] - at least one set of DIRECT EVIDENCE for at least one of David Talbott's predictions?

In your opinion, which of these *questions* is "wrong"?

Perhaps more pertinently, in your worldview, how can a question be "wrong"? Specifically, how can a question that is directly relevant to what you have posted, be "wrong"?

I'm always very happy to "think again" (thank you for your suggestion); however, unless you give me some guidance - on how a directly pertinent question can be "wrong" - I have no idea how to even begin ...

Can you help me, please?
 
Haig said:
Sure it does, our variable star is perfectly round through surface tension. What else could it be ? ;)
Click to expand...

Your defense of stupid is even more stupid.

The Sun's Almost Perfectly Round Shape Baffles Scientists
Click to expand...

Interesting... but not surface tension. And not relevant to EDM or craters.

Maybe you don't think our Sun is big enough ? Well our star is tiny compared the THESE and they are ALL perfectly round too :eek:
Click to expand...

We do not have accurate measurements of exactly how spherical any of those stars are. But they should be pretty spherical because of gravity, not because of surface tension.

Do you even know what surface tension is?
 
Nonpareil said:
Wait. So the act of asking a question can be considered equivalent to giving the wrong answer now?

...Honestly, this has just become a farce.
Click to expand...


Nope, that's not right.

You only have to scroll way back in the thread to understand JT has a "track record" :eek:

Look back and you'll soon see what I'm referring to in my obtuse way ;)

I do answer serious questions but it may only be a link and that upsets JT. ;)

He thinks if you can't post it in "your own words" it's not worth reading and even then :rolleyes:

Ask away and I may answer when I have time but only in my own way. :)
 
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