Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reality Check said:
Remain hiding behind the ignorance, delusions and lies that you are mindlessly supporting from the Thunderbolts crowd, Sol88 :eek
Remain hiding behind the delusion that I cannot explain comet science. 6 years of experience with your need to remain ignorant about comets tells me that it is useless to try to teach you, Sol88.

Sublimation from the ices on comets is very falsifiable. If we never detected the ices sublimating then they do not sublimate! We have detected the products of ices sublimating, thus they sublimate :jaw-dropp.

Nice of you to confirm that you are obsessed with your delusion that comets are rocks to the point that you will not learn about real comets! For example you have ignored for 6 years the basic physics that ices in the conditions found on comets will sublimate and have been observed to sublimate!

The reality remains:
Click to expand...

conditions found on comets will sublimate and have been observed to sublimate!
Click to expand...
Cool, link?
 
jonesdave116 said:
Like this:

[qimg]http://i61.tinypic.com/34hjfia.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Come on champ, humor me, how do the observed pits form "jets"?

Are you saying the pits are the nozzles? The "Upright walls" act as a nozzle?

or is HOLGER SIERKS holding back on us and just giving us a red herring?

Where's your "ice"?

Even the "blue stuff" (ICE) on the surface of Tempel 1 was not said to be sublimating and this is the only surface ice found on Nucleus... but we still have receding icy cliffs to deal with?

You mob can't even come up with a coherent explanation for that OBSERVED (not inferred) phenomena...weak as cat's urine!
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Come on champ, humor me, ...
Click to expand...
I have stopped humoring the mindless parroting of delusions, Sol88. Six years is enough: I know that you are too obsessed with your delusion that comets are rocks to ever accept any explanation for anything from anyone.

ETA: Make that over 6 years -the OP was 6th July 2009 and my first post was I would call him gullible since he is so easily taken in by obvious non-science web sites that are basically selling idiotic books (thundercrap).
That is over 6 years of But don't expect Sol88 to give you anything real. He never gives real answers, only links to pretty pictures and press releases. He is just a troll. (tusenfem)
That is over 6 years since you have known that no electrical discharges have ever been detected on comets: See my posts from the Electric Theories thread: Electric Comets I, Electric Comets II: References and Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays. (Tim Thompson)
That is over 6 years since you, Sol88, cited the density of a comet and the density of an asteroid and did not realize that the comet was less dense than water and the asteroid! Followed of course by ranting about Thunderbolts delusions instead of looking at the real world.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Not even for the lurkers eh?
Click to expand...
Not for you: I know that you are too obsessed with your delusion that comets are rocks to ever accept any explanation for anything from anyone.

If I had the time then I would explain it in a separate post to lurkers. But I suspect that they are smart enough to learn this stuff for themselves. They should not be ignorant enough to stick with the delusion that comets are rocks for over 6 years despite the evidence that comets are not rocks.

The lurkers already know how delusional the EC idea is (see my signature) and can read about the ignorance, delusions and lies of the Thunderbolts crowd that you are parroting.
 
Last edited:
So more avoidance Sol? I reiterate; where is YOUR evidence? As I said, you have absolutely zero, yet you still use your obvious lack of scientific knowledge to question real science, whilst believing in this faith based, evidence free delusion. No evidence = no hypothesis. Just a dumb idea that continues to milk money from gullible, scientifically illiterate loons.
And you wonder why real science has totally ignored it, and will no doubt continue to do so. In the meantime, whilst ignoring it, they're sending missions to Ceres, Pluto and 67P.
EU is a total irrelevance as far as the world of real science is concerned. Up there with astrology and homeopathy.
 
jonesdave116 said:
So more avoidance Sol? I reiterate; where is YOUR evidence? As I said, you have absolutely zero, yet you still use your obvious lack of scientific knowledge to question real science, whilst believing in this faith based, evidence free delusion. No evidence = no hypothesis. Just a dumb idea that continues to milk money from gullible, scientifically illiterate loons.
And you wonder why real science has totally ignored it, and will no doubt continue to do so. In the meantime, whilst ignoring it, they're sending missions to Ceres, Pluto and 67P.
EU is a total irrelevance as far as the world of real science is concerned. Up there with astrology and homeopathy.
Click to expand...

The EU has plenty of evidence and a coherent hypothesis which by the way can also explain the bright spots on Ceres and the structures found on Pluto unlike the mainstream who seem consistently surprised, surprisingly!
 
Reality Check said:
Not for you: I know that you are too obsessed with your delusion that comets are rocks to ever accept any explanation for anything from anyone.

If I had the time then I would explain it in a separate post to lurkers. But I suspect that they are smart enough to learn this stuff for themselves. They should not be ignorant enough to stick with the delusion that comets are rocks for over 6 years despite the evidence that comets are not rocks.

The lurkers already know how delusional the EC idea is (see my signature) and can read about the ignorance, delusions and lies of the Thunderbolts crowd that you are parroting.
Click to expand...


:whistling yeah thought so too, you have not the faintest idea how the "cliffs", "standing walls" and "Upright walls of pits" produce energetic jets!!!

Come on some "mainstreamers" here has to a least have some idea on how to reconcile the observation with the dirtysnowball theory.
 
Sol88 said:
The EU has plenty of evidence and a coherent hypothesis which by the way can also explain the bright spots on Ceres and the structures found on Pluto unlike the mainstream who seem consistently surprised, surprisingly!
Click to expand...

SO LET'S HEAR IT!!!!! (the evidence, that is, not the idiotic hypothesis; we've heard enough of that garbage)
 
Last edited:
How do we treat Sol88's statement that comets made up out of ices and dust need to be "reconciled" with observed features of comets such cliffs, pits and standing walls.

First by pointing out that it is yet another statement from ignorance from Sol88- it is a delusion by definition :p!
Secondly by pointing out the science that is explained in the literature that Sol88 has even cited!
* we expect pits (sublimating ices blowing off the layers above them). A suggestion for some highly collimated jets is that a tougher layer forms a nozzle over the pit: Formation of jets in Comet 19P/Borrelly by subsurface geysers (PDF)
* sublimating ices create all sorts of structures including standing walls and cliffs, e.g. the receding ice cliffs on Tempel 1 that Sol88 has mentioned several times.

So to anyone who knows about comets no reconciliation is not needed.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
How do we treat Sol88's statement that comets made up out of ices and dust need to be "reconciled" with observed features of comets such cliffs, pits and standing walls.

First by pointing out that it is yet another statement from ignorance from Sol88- it is a delusion by definition :p!
Secondly by pointing out the science that is explained in the literature that Sol88 has even cited!
* we expect pits (sublimating ices blowing off the layers above them). A suggestion for some highly collimated jets is that a tougher layer forms a nozzle over the pit: Formation of jets in Comet 19P/Borrelly by subsurface geysers (PDF)
* sublimating ices create all sorts of structures including standing walls and cliffs, e.g. the receding ice cliffs on Tempel 1 that Sol88 has mentioned several times.
Click to expand...


Great, thank you RC, much appreciated!


That's all I needed. :)
 
Sol88 said:
Great, thank you RC, much appreciated!
Click to expand...
Pits, standing walls and cliffs are all evidence of sublimating ices.
So I am glad to see that you have given up on the delusion that comets are rocks after 6 years, Sol88 :p. Except that I know that you will actually repeat that delusion very soon now ...
 
Should be mentioned as well that a velocity of 0.5-0.8 km/s for the observed H2O gas expansion is nothing to get one's knickers in a twist about either. Previous observations and, more importantly, modeling, suggest that is an expected expansion rate for H2O on a comet, where it is escaping into a vacuum. There are various processes that control the velocity, and it is all rather involved, and many of the papers that seem to be quoted regarding the modeling, no longer seem to be easily available.
Suffice to say, the velocity is not unexpected, and doesn't require "pressurised jets".
To quote from one paper I read online.........."This value of 0.5-0.6 km s^-1 is signifcantly below that predicted by thermo-hydrodynamical models. Those models show that the gas outflow velocity at the distance where H20 molecules dissociate is at least 0.7-0.8 km s^-1."
From http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/...=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES
So really just another argument borne of ignorance of the science. These models have been around for a long time. Predates the internet, which is probably why they are difficult to find.
 
jonesdave116 said:
Should be mentioned as well that a velocity of 0.5-0.8 km/s for the observed H2O gas expansion is nothing to get one's knickers in a twist about either. Previous observations and, more importantly, modeling, suggest that is an expected expansion rate for H2O on a comet, where it is escaping into a vacuum. There are various processes that control the velocity, and it is all rather involved, and many of the papers that seem to be quoted regarding the modeling, no longer seem to be easily available.
Suffice to say, the velocity is not unexpected, and doesn't require "pressurised jets".
To quote from one paper I read online.........."This value of 0.5-0.6 km s^-1 is signifcantly below that predicted by thermo-hydrodynamical models. Those models show that the gas outflow velocity at the distance where H20 molecules dissociate is at least 0.7-0.8 km s^-1."
From http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/...=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES
So really just another argument borne of ignorance of the science. These models have been around for a long time. Predates the internet, which is probably why they are difficult to find.
Click to expand...

and they are collimated how exactly?

I don't think anybody here is denying "ice" sublimates into a vacuum but you have to ask the question, why do some of the icy moons we have in our solar system not appear like comets?
 
Sol88 said:
and they are collimated how exactly?

I don't think anybody here is denying "ice" sublimates into a vacuum but you have to ask the question, why do some of the icy moons we have in our solar system not appear like comets?
Click to expand...

Well that would be quite clear if you would actually understand the electric comet model.
 
rwguinn said:
Show me an icy moon in the water sublimation zone...

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Well Hale-Bopp was still discharging (sorry outgassing) beyond the water sublimation zone...

Four years after Hale-Bopp left the inner solar system, it was still active. It displayed a coma, a fan-shaped dust tail, and an ion tail -- even though it was farther from the Sun than Jupiter, Saturn or even Uranus. The comet's tail was shrinking, but it was still about five times longer than the distance between the Earth and the Moon. At this distance, the Sun's heat will not melt ice. If it could, the icy moons of Saturn and Jupiter would be as dry as our own scorched Moon.
Click to expand...
 
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