Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
ben m said:
Missed this before.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I thought one of the professional scientists in the crowd would have jumped on that like a hobo on a ham sandwich.:p A quick back of the evelope calculation says that the fusion in the sun's center produces the equivalent of about 6.7 billion with a "b" Castle Bravo detonations per second. So yeah, nothing much.:rolleyes:
 
Sol88 said:
How hot RC?
Click to expand...
How dumb a question, Sol88, since it is obvious that jets of sublimated gases and dust have a temperature similar to the tempterure of the comet nucleus that they were part of :eek: !
Except in the EC delusion where they have the temperatures of imaginary electrical discharges!
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
I've been trying to reconcile the two competing models, sublimation vs the ECH but just can't find a coherent explanation of the sublimation model.
Click to expand...
That is a lie, Sol88
* There is no "ECH model" just the delusions of Thunderbolts.
* There are many online sources for the simple fact that ices sublimate :eye-poppi!
If you want the complex stuff then read a textbook or look up the papers.

You have been parroting the Thunderbolts delusion for almost 6 years with little sign of trying to understand the science that debunks it. You expect us to think that you have had a rush of rationally now and are not just wasting our time? If you want us to trust that you are treating this subject rationally then you need to go back to basics, e.g. either acknowledge that comets are not rocks or show how the several methods of measuring their density are wrong (no "electricity does it" fantasies).

Then there is:
* This sounds like the idiocy of "I do not know about comet science so any delusions I see written on the Internet are right"!
* You have held the delusion that comets are rocks since July 2009 (almost 6 years) and have just admitted that you know little about comets!
 
Last edited:
Haig: Is that a lie about Alfvén showing that flares and CME are not caused by MR

Haig said:
Not according to Hannes Alfvén ! :p
Click to expand...
Whoops - missed this lie from you Haig a couple of days ago.
That link has no mention of flare or CME:

10 June 2015 Haig: Is that a lie about Alfvén showing that flares and CME are not caused by magnetic reconnection?

Please cite his paper that shows that flares and CME are not caused by MR.
N.B. electric universe cranks obsess about a paper where Alfvén models solar flares as an electric circuit with resistors, a double layer, etc. But even they are not stupid enough to assert that flares contain the resistors in that circuit :D!
 
Reality Check said:
For those that like science rather than fantasy - 67P is getting hot enough that we now see jets from the "night" side:
Rosetta’s Comet Keeps On Jetting Even After the Sun Goes Down
The nice thing is that we can visually trace the jets back to their source in this image.
Click to expand...

Nice pictures. Shouldn't be too much trouble now to pinpoint areas to investigate spectrally, and also use the VIRTIS instrument to look at the temperature of those regions.
If I did the maths correctly, then Teff of a dark body at 270m km, or 1.8 AU, should be about 295K, or 22C.
 
Last edited:
If you want a closer look at a probable jet actually issuing from a pit then there is Active pit in the Seth region: enhanced
Enhanced contrast image of an active pit detected in Seth region of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. The enhanced image reveals fine structures in the shadow of the pit, interpreted as jet-like features rising from the pit. This OSIRIS narrow-angle camera image was acquired on 28 August 2014 at a distance of 60 km from the comet. The image resolution is 1 m/pixel.
Click to expand...
 
Reality Check said:
That is a lie, Sol88
* There is no "ECH model" just the delusions of Thunderbolts.
* There are many online sources for the simple fact that ices sublimate :eye-poppi!
If you want the complex stuff then read a textbook or look up the papers.

You have been parroting the Thunderbolts delusion for almost 6 years with little sign of trying to understand the science that debunks it. You expect us to think that you have had a rush of rationally now and are not just wasting our time? If you want us to trust that you are treating this subject rationally then you need to go back to basics, e.g. either acknowledge that comets are not rocks or show how the several methods of measuring their density are wrong (no "electricity does it" fantasies).

Then there is:
* This sounds like the idiocy of "I do not know about comet science so any delusions I see written on the Internet are right"!
* You have held the delusion that comets are rocks since July 2009 (almost 6 years) and have just admitted that you know little about comets!
Click to expand...

Classic beginner mistake RC, classic beginners mistake :D

Out of this paper why are the mainstream surprised??

How much energy do these incoming photons have? Why do the electrons they knock out have more energy than the incoming photons? Why aren't the photons doing all the work? Why do you need to invoke magic electrons?

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.
Click to expand...
LINK

What happens the O and H after they've been released?

and

“The discovery we’re reporting is quite unexpected,” says Alice Principal Investigator Alan Stern, an associate vice president in the Space Science and Engineering Division of the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI).
Click to expand...
Why was it unexpected considering RPC know everything to know about the plasma environment of 67P

Shouldn't it be EXPECTED?

Oh.....and WHERE'S THE ICE????
 
Reality Check said:
If you want a closer look at a probable jet actually issuing from a pit then there is Active pit in the Seth region: enhanced
Click to expand...

:dl:

Oh! it's not an impact crater?? It's the long sought after nozzle/orifice that jets emanate from?

Are these jets glowing?

ESA_Rosetta_OSIRIS_20150425_closeup.jpg


Look very much like cathode rays, don't they?
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
:dl:

Oh! it's not an impact crater?? It's the long sought after nozzle/orifice that jets emanate from?

Are these jets glowing?

[qimg]http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/files/2015/06/ESA_Rosetta_OSIRIS_20150425_closeup.jpg[/qimg]

Look very much like cathode rays, don't they?
Click to expand...

They're not "glowing", they are illuminated by direct sunlight and the picture is massively overexposed to make them visible. You probably wouldn't even see them with the naked eye.

If they were glowing, the dark parts of the crater would be illuminated, especially in this overexposed picture, because they would be brightest at the source if they were discharges.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Why are these jets glowing?
Click to expand...

They're not, they're in bright sunlight.

Look very much like cathode rays, don't they?
Click to expand...

Serious question Sol: have you ever *seen* a cathode ray? I have.

These look nothing like cathode rays. You seem to be going on "they're sort of fuzzy lines" and nothing else whatsoever. Wrong spectrum, wrong directions, everything.
 
Sol88 said:
it's not an impact crater??
Click to expand...
If you bothered to read what I quoted Sol88 you would see the word pit in the caption :jaw-dropp!

To me it looks like a pit eroded by a jet but I am rational enough to know that I might be wrong. It could be a new crater that exposed ice that sublimated and created the jet. It could be the remains of a pit created in the last approach to the Sun. It could be all of these :eek:!

It is idiotic to think that comet jets are cathode rays, Sol88. Anyone with a high school education knows that cathode rays are electrons and comet jets are gas and dust. On the other hand holding onto the delusion that comets are rocks since July 2009 suggests that may not you!
:dl:

ETA: as ben m points out cathode rays do not look like that. From memory, the ones I saw in my labs were green or blue and pencil-like until they hit a magnetic field. They could not be confused with jets. Mind you that was 30 years ago when I was a TA showing PHYS 101 students electrons curving in a magnetic field. If I remember right the next step was them calculating the mass of the electrons.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Classic beginner mistake RC, classic beginners mistake :D

Out of this paper why are the mainstream surprised??
Click to expand...

It was a surprise because it was unexpected that the photo-electrons played a much bigger role in dissociating H2O and CO2. Yes, sometimes something interesting and new is discovered when one goes to a place which has never been visited before.

It is a classical beginner mistake to think the nothing new can be discovered. Most definitely because we have never been at a comet before at the start of its activity. Halley, Giacobini-Zinner and Grigg-Skjellerup were all highly active when the flybys happened, this in strong contrast with Churyumov-Gerasimenko. This gives the possibility of looking at different kinds of processes that can happen.

Sol88 said:
How much energy do these incoming photons have? Why do the electrons they knock out have more energy than the incoming photons? Why aren't the photons doing all the work? Why do you need to invoke magic electrons?

LINK
Click to expand...

It's UV photons, 10 to 400 nm wavelength, or 3 to 120 eV, something you can google.
The electrons cannot have more energy than the photons, whatever gave you that silly idea. The energy of the electrons is the photon energy minus the binding energy of the electron of about 12 eV.
The H-OH binding energy is about 5 eV, so there will be enough energy in the electrons to collide with water and create H and OH.
There is absolutely no "magic" about the electrons. Electron impact ionization and dissociation are well known phenomena, the new thing about this discovery is that it seems to be more important than assumed before.

Sol88 said:
What happens the O and H after they've been released?
Click to expand...

They will be ionized and will be transported away from the comet by the solar wind magnetic field, along the plasma tail.
and

Sol88 said:
Why was it unexpected considering RPC know everything to know about the plasma environment of 67P
Click to expand...

As I said above.
Also, RPC cannot measure this process, that can only be done by ALICE, but rest assured that this process is included in numerical modeling of the interaction of the solar radiation and wind with the outgassing cometary nucleus.
 
Sol88 said:
Look very much like cathode rays, don't they?
Click to expand...

And what would the EU crowd predict the temperature of the discharge region to be at if it were? And the temperatures of the observed water and CO2 that is being discharged? But it can't be water and CO2 can it? Not allowed in EU "theory" (insofar as they've got one). According to Professor Wal, it would have to be producing negative oxygen ions which then combine with the H+ ions in the solar wind further downstream in the tail to produce OH, which is somehow confusing umpteen dozen scientists who've studied these things into thinking they've detected water. Not sure about his take on CO and CO2.
 
Sol88 said:
Classic beginner mistake RC,..
Oh.....and WHERE'S THE ICE????
Click to expand...
Oh ... missed this bunch of classic Sol88 ignorance ending up with the repeated "where is the ice" lie!
Most of this was replied to by tusenfem.

The original delusion was that no surface ice has been found on any comet but 4th August 2009 Sol88: Deep Impact found ice on the surface of Tempel 1.
Here Sol88 is repeating a lie that no ice has been found on 67P - it has been found, e.g. a layer of surface ices under a layer of dust.
16th April 2015, Sol88: Do not repeat a lie about no ice being found (ice found on Tempel 1 and 67P - including surface ice!

Not a surprise given Sol88's denial of science since July 2009, e.g. the measured density of comets, and ignorance of what the electric comet idea is, e.g. 28th April 2015 Sol88: Are the Velikovskyian ideas that are the basis of the electric comet correct?
 
Last edited:
^^^^Yep, it's a show stopper for them that there has been water found, as they have no mechanism to explain it, unless you count Thornhill's lunacy about O- being somehow stripped from a silicate rock surface and combining with H+ in the tail of the comet, and this is somehow fooling the (real) scientists.
That of course ignores the fact that a) any anomalous high temperature readings from the electric woo required to liberate oxygen atoms from silicate rock would be noticed like a shot, and b) as has been explained numerous times, there aren't enough protons in the solar wind, by at least 7 orders of magnitude, to account for the water observed.
And c) the observations by the MIRO instrument were designed around the wavelengths to specifically find H2O, not OH. Which they did. H216O & H218O.
So, as others have asked, if not ice, where is the water coming from on this lump of silicate rock with half the density of water?
 
I hadn't seen this before, although it may well have been linked to back in 2010. From the EPOXI mission to Hartley 2: http://phys.org/news/2010-11-primordial-ice-fuels-comet-jets.html

"Images from the flyby show spectacular jets of gas and particles bursting from many distinct spots on the surface of the comet. This is the first time images of a comet have been sharp enough to allow scientists to link jets of dust and gas with specific surface features. Analysis of the spectral signatures of the materials coming from the jets shows primarily CO2 gas (carbon dioxide) and particles of dust and ice."

"We now have unambiguous evidence that solar heating of subsurface frozen carbon dioxide (dry ice), directly to a gas, a process known as sublimation, is powering the many jets of material coming from the comet. This is a finding that only could have been made by traveling to a comet, because ground based telescopes can't detect CO2 and current space telescopes aren't tuned to look for this gas."
 
It is hard to tell what denial of science Haig and Sol88 have persisted in over the last 5 or 6 years. I think it is safe to say that any scientific evidence that comets are not rocks will be denied by them!
P.S. 33 posts with Hartley 2 in the previous thread.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
It is hard to tell what denial of science Haig and Sol88 have persisted in over the last 5 or 6 years. I think it is safe to say that any scientific evidence that comets are not rocks will be denied by them!
P.S. 33 posts with Hartley 2 in the previous thread.
Click to expand...

That's not true RC

Comets can be something other than rock such as a frozen dirt-ball or even an ice-ball from what I've read on EU/PC theory. It's just that it's far more likely to be rock. :)

Rosetta comet 67P is rock – no water or ice

'Electric Comet' Could Burn The House Of Science
 
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