Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
and on predictions

Discovery of minerals on the nucleus that are typical of planetary surfaces within the
Habitable zone of the Sun; characteristic concentration of plasma jet activity eating away at the cliffs of elevated terrain and the margins of well-defined depressions;
Click to expand...

Prediction confirmed...again! :)
 
jonesdave116 said:
Sorry, you're still talking complete garbage. There isn't one single bit of evidence for anything electrical happening on this comet. Nowt. How would electrical activity create water? From rock? Within a metre of the surface? Idiotic. What temperature would that require, just to produce O? Why are there no temperature anomalies?
There is almost certainly no solar wind interacting with the surface now, just as seen at Halley and other comets. So you can't even use Thornhill's brainless explanation that it is all happening in the tail to produce OH.
You still can't explain the density. You still can't explain the porosity. And you still can't explain where all the water is coming from, including, 10 years on, why it came out of the innards of Tempel 1.
And you still have not a jot of evidence to support the idiotic schoolboy notion that you believe in.
Click to expand...

YAWN

No subsurface ice for your water production just "we think" statement...which appears completely wrong :blush:
 
Sol88 said:
In the double layer YOU know is there, not in the diamagnetic cavity.
Click to expand...

I know there is????
Is there any reason for a double layer?
What are the requirements for a double layer? And are they met at 67P/CG?

Naturally, any electric field is considered a double layer in the EU/ES/EC community ...


Sol88 said:
and whilst you may not "play the game" you could answer, if you know, why is there no double layer around 67P and how would you detect it with the current suite of instruments onboard Rosetta?
Click to expand...

Still I have no idea why you want to have a double layer, probably because the EU/ES/EC community is usually calling the magnetosheath a double layer for very obscure reasons.
And yes, if they exist, we could measure the electric field of a double layer with the Langmuir probe.

Sol88 said:
Why go over it again, Haig posted numerous links in the subject but here it is again The Electric Comet (Full Nonsense)
Click to expand...

Really, a 1.5 hours long boobtoop? That is all you have to offer?

So sad, the EC community, and I guess many thunderdolders are falling from the bandwagon, as still there is no evidence of any real electriic comet phenomena.
 
Sol88 said:
Because the big G is a fib leading to believe 67P
Click to expand...
That is a new one Sol88 gravity disagree with what you want so you say gravity is a fib.
never mind all the evidence that the constant is correct. (As measured to some accuracy)
:)


I mean if it was off by a factor of four the Rosetta would have never gotten there.
 
Sol88 said:
Got me there Tusenfem, please tell me (and the lurkers) about the diamagnetic cavity surrounding a comet all I could find was this LINK

but please also tell me and the lurkers why there would not be a double layer surrounding the nucleus?
Click to expand...

So again you can't explain the ideas you use?
 
Sol88 said:
Whilst on the "jets" ...the usual stupid questions snipped....
Click to expand...
Repeating these questions about the stupidity of expecting eve news article to mention every other new article is bad, Sol88.
But then that is all you have since you are so afraid of science.
47 days and counting of being afraid of doing simple physics: 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.

28 July 2015 Sol88: You are too obsessed with your delusion that comets are rocks to ever accept any explanation for anything from anyone.
 
Last edited:
Haig: The lies and delusions in your 'Rosetta for a Water Universe' citation

Haig said:
Others are seeing the flaws in the mainstream dogma too RC
Click to expand...
That is a lie, Haig :eye-poppi!
Others are making up deluded fantasies about mainstream science being dogma and comets as in that web page you mindlessly linked to. If you read it then you would see lies and delusions:
  1. The surface of 67P is not "completely dry" - there are ices on it!
  2. The MUPUS hammer did not break on the hard layer of ice.
  3. The temperature on the surface of the nucleus is not "too high" - it is exactly what is measured!
  4. There is nothing mysterious abut ices and dust being less dense than water.
  5. The comet looks the dirty snowball model predicts - a "ball" (doubled in this case) of ices and dust.
  6. The neck is not "the shadiest, coldest part of the comet".
    The neck is not shaded - the comet spins!
    The neck is the thinnest part of the comet and so heats up faster than other parts. It may be hotter than the rest of the comet.
  7. The D/H ratio is evidence for the mainstream model.
    The formation of comets in various parts of the outer solar system means that we expect them to have different D/H ratios.
    The D/H ratio is evidence against the origin of Earth's oceans from comets like 67P.
    Then a rant about the electric universe delusion :eek:
  8. The delusion that comet jets are "electrical plasma discharges".
  9. The idiocy of citing the ignorant Thunderbolts authors Wal Thornhill and Dave Talbot.
  10. The delusion that "Comets, asteroids and meteorites" are ejected from rocky planets.
  11. The delusion that the low density of 67P is due to "electromagnetic stress" fantasies.
  12. The delusion that Halton Arp's debunked intrinsic redshift theory is still correct.
  13. The compete delusion that Hannes Alfvén "turned his back" on magnetohydrodynamics.

11 August 2015 Haig: The lies and delusions in your 'Rosetta for a Water Universe' citation

An electric universe crank that I do not recall seeing here before: Mae-Wan Ho (Pdf) is a biochemist ranting about comets in the online magazine ISIS - which she edits!
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
What is this idiotic obsession with cliffs about? are you calling Holger Sierks an idiot?
Click to expand...
No, Sol88 - we are saying that it is you who is making himself look like an idiot by repeatedly shooting yourself in the foot.

You idiotically link to Comet sinkholes generate jets which puts yet another nail in the coffin of the EC delusion that you have been obsessed with for 6 years.

You idiotically quote Holger Sierks confirming that nail in the coffin by noting that jets are seen from these pits s well as other locations:
We see them either at various places either as standing walls, big huge cliffs, often 200m up to 700m these big huge cliffs on back side of the head lobe but we also see many of these upright walls in the pits that have typical diameter of 200m. And so these are the source, the main source region…you can’t rule out flatlands - we also have a few indications of activity in flatlands - but the driving activity is cliffs.
Click to expand...
http://www.esa.int/esatv/content/download/342714/15476782/EbS97722.doc


The rest is addressed in 22nd July 2015 Sol88: A better question is why would someone be deluded about basic English?, i.e. that an news article abut one subject (recession of icy cliffs) need not include an irrelevant subject (observation of surface water ice).
 
Last edited:
Sol88: This is now 7 strikeouts of David Talbott's "predictions"

Sol88 said:
Prediction confirmed...again! :)
Click to expand...
That is a lie ... again, Sol88 :p.
* Discovery of minerals on the nucleus that are typical of planetary surfaces within the Habitable zone of the Sun
Minerals typical of planetary surfaces are granite, basalt, limestone (for Earth), etc. :jaw-dropp!
Only dust that is comparable to cosmic dust has been found on any comet including 67P.
* characteristic concentration of plasma jet activity eating away at the cliffs of elevated terrain and the margins of well-defined depressions;
No "plasma jets" have been detected.
We have seen jets of gas and dust from cliffs and pits.

20 July 2015 Sol88: This is still 5 strikeouts of David Talbott's "predictions" :eye-poppi!
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
YAWN

No subsurface ice for your water production just "we think" statement...which appears completely wrong :blush:
Click to expand...

Still talking garbage Sol? I'm not even watching Dupe Tube links. Link to actual science if you want anyone to take notice. Not wasting bandwidth.

"The spectral modeling above reveals that the water ice in the ejecta from Tempel 1 is dominated by 1 ± 1 µm diameter, pure particles. The combination of small particles and lack of impurities within the ice is consistent with the preservation of water ice grains on the order of an hour after ejection. The
dominance of pure, sub-micron particle sizes remains throughout our observations, from 3 s to 45 min after impact. Over this time period, the water ice originates from various depths and is ejected at a range of velocities."

And; "These lookback data were collected 45 min after impact. As with previous data, the brightness at ∼1.5 µm shows the ejected dust, while the 3 µm band depth image reveals the distribution of water ice."

From: http://www.planetary.brown.edu/pdfs/3546.pdf

Do note that this is OBSERVED H2O. Not as the liar and well known crank Thornhill, and his sidekick (who I'm not allowed to name; not in those terms, anyway) would have you believe. This was 10 bloody years ago, and yet you still believe this garbage! Doesn't say a lot about your powers of judgement me old thing.
Stick to Aboriginal petroglyphs. Good advice for another few Aussie conmen, as well. Just don't try to over interpret them. You aren't very good at it.
 
Dancing David said:
So again you can't explain the ideas you use?
Click to expand...

Pseudoscience 101, DD. Obfuscate, handwave, divert, etc., etc., but never answer questions. Particularly where they can't be answered. Such as; where's your evidence? How come we don't see any leccy? Why is the density not that of rock? How come it is 75-85% porous? How come Halley was still outgassing like a b--------- even when the solar wind was getting nowhere near it? Et boring cetera.
Clueless, mate. Just a rant against the world for spotty teenagers, and those with an inferiority complex due to being crap at science, and being shown up for it at school/ University. Probably accounts for Thornhill's madness, as well.
Best ignored, but I can't resist showing up people for the idiots that they are.
 
Thank you Holger Sierks!

COMET’S FIREWORK DISPLAY AHEAD OF PERIHELION

“Usually, the jets are quite faint compared to the nucleus and we need to stretch the contrast of the images to make them visible – but this one is brighter than the nucleus.”
Click to expand...

For example, compared to measurements made two days earlier, the amount of carbon dioxide increased by a factor of two, methane by four, and hydrogen sulphide by seven, while the amount of water stayed almost constant.
Click to expand...

“It was not only the abundance of the particles, but also their speeds measured by GIADA that told us something ‘different’ was happening: the average particle speed increased from 8 m/s to about 20 m/s, with peaks at 30 m/s – it was quite a dust party!” says Alessandra Rotundi, principal investigator at the ‘Parthenope’ University of Naples, Italy.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the most striking result is that the outburst was so intense that it actually managed to push the solar wind away from the nucleus for a few minutes – a unique observation made by the Rosetta Plasma Consortium’s magnetometer.
Click to expand...

Hard to explain by sublimation alone, ay Tusenfem!

oh wait
The comet reaches perihelion on Thursday, the moment in its 6.5-year orbit when it is closest to the Sun. In recent months, the increasing solar energy has been warming the comet’s frozen ices, turning them to gas, which pours out into space, dragging dust along with it.
Click to expand...

Sunlight warming hidden frozen gases...again!

For the "jet" to look like it does we should be able to see an orifice/pit with a subsurface chamber, as per standard mainstream theory....should be fun!

PLUS

Now they have the exposure just about right look at all the "ICE", bright patches saturating the CCD!
 
Sol88 said:
COMET’S FIREWORK DISPLAY AHEAD OF PERIHELION
Hard to explain by sublimation alone, ay Tusenfem!

Sunlight warming hidden frozen gases...again!
Click to expand...

No, not at all, if you actually understand comets and if you take into account that it is becoming summer now a side that has had little sun up to now.

Sol88 said:
For the "jet" to look like it does we should be able to see an orifice/pit with a subsurface chamber, as per standard mainstream theory....should be fun!

Now they have the exposure just about right look at all the "ICE", bright patches saturating the CCD!
Click to expand...

If you say so ...

Don't forget, we flew through the diamagnetic cavity!
 
Last edited:
tusenfem said:
No, not at all, if you actually understand comets and if you take into account that it is becoming summer now a side that has had little sun up to now.



If you say so ...

Don't forget, we flew through the diamagnetic cavity!
Click to expand...

and a lowly little jet did that!

are you going to tell the lurkers what a diamagnetic cavity is in relation to a comet?

Properties of a cusp diamagnetic cavity boundary

any relevance? can't find much on comets but the cluster space craft (you know them eh?) has some data that sound very much like a double layer...what's the difference, Tusenfem?
 
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