Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sol88 said:
Oh, I thought they were glow discharges!
Click to expand...
Thoughtless delusions are not thoughts, Sol88.
Scientists think. Thus
Example of a cluster of bright spots on Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko found in the Khepry region (top) and an individual boulder with bright patches on its surface in the Hatmehit region (bottom). The bright patches are thought to be exposures of water-ice.
Click to expand...
 
Sol88 said:
Really??? Do try and keep up with us. :cool:

Spacecraft Charging
Click to expand...
Try to keep delusions that comets are (alien?) spacecraft to yourself otherwise you are just embarrassing yourself, Sol88 :p!

Or is this a fantasy that all spacecraft are actually rocks?

Spacecraft are metallic not rocky.

But if we were to take this citation seriously:
17 August 2015 Sol88: The fact that Rosetta has not become a comet while travelling with 67P debunks the electric comet delusion once again!
Thanks Sol88.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Take Holger Sierks new statement that the "jets" now come, SURPRISINGLY, from flatlands and he's having trouble reconciling the heat transport thru to the imaginary "ice" to form explosive jets through a surface that supposedly 75%-80% porous and strongly consolidated. 1:37:01
Click to expand...
Take the idiocy of relying on the statements in a Google Hangout while denying science for years, Sol88, and then lying about them.
Take the obsession with a specific astronomer and the denial of astronomy, Sol88.
Take the stupidity of debunking the EC delusion again with imaginary "electrical discharges" from flatlands when you know that electrical discharges are emitted from high points, Sol88 :eek:!
17 August 2015 Sol88: The fact that Rosetta has not become a comet while travelling with 67P debunks the electric comet delusion once again!
17 August 2015 Sol88: Another debunking of the EC delusion with imaginary "electrical discharges" from flatlands!
The lies are
  • Holger Sierks is not deluded - he knows the there is no imaginary ice. He knows that there is real ice.
  • Comet jets exist!
  • "A lot of the jet structures" (not the jets) can be traced back to the flatlands is a surprise.
  • "trouble reconciling".
    They thought that the dust coverage of flatlands would make it hard for heat to get through and sublimate ices to form jets. Thus flatlands were consisted "dead" as far as jets were concerned. The evidence has now changed astronomers minds.
 
Last edited:
Sol88: Citaion for "variable spin rate of the nucleus"

tusenfem said:
how that exactly?
Click to expand...
Whoops, I forgot about Sol88's habit of making up fairy stories!
17 August 2015 Sol88: Please show that "variable spin rate of the nucleus" is not a lie with a citation to the scientific literature.
 
Sol88 said:
my bold to emphasis the new findings...
Click to expand...
Wrong, Sol88 - your bold to emphasize many years of ignorance about comets leading to a lie about "new findings".
Anatomy of a Comet is a primer written before any Rosetta results.
Astronomers have been modeling the interactions of comets with the solar wind and magnetic field for decades. They have known for decades that analogies to features found in in Earth’s own upper atmosphere and magnetosphere will exist.

This is standard astrophysics has nothing to do the totally deluded ELECTRIC UNIVERSE mob who mindlessly beilieve in Velikovsky's delusion that planets zoomed around the Solar System to explain various myths in recent times and the extra layer of delusion added by the Thunderbolts authors..
 
Sol88 said:
Please explain to the lurkers what you think is going on ...snipped rant...
Click to expand...
Lurkers know that this is an yet another demand to waste our time, derail the thread from the actual topic (the EC delusion) and avoid the fact that you are supporting the delusions about comets for 5 years now, Sol88.
28 July 2015 Sol88: You are too obsessed with your delusion that comets are rocks to ever accept any explanation for anything from anyone.

If a lurker wants to know about comet science rather then your delusions about comets then they can ask in The Rosetta probe has woken up ... thread or start another one for to actual astronomy, not delusions.
 
Sol88: Please cite your evidence for stretched the picture of the jet

Sol88 said:
Yeah absolutely stunning!! Pity they stretched the picture of the bright pencil thin jet...again.
Click to expand...
Let us see if this is a fantasy or not:
17 August 2015 Sol88: Please cite your evidence for "stretched the picture of the bright pencil thin jet"

Sol88 said:
Gunna be another hard one to explain away again with sublimation.
Click to expand...
Is already another delusion, Sol88- it is explained by sublimation :jaw-dropp!
 
The thing that worries me, is that I read about this diamagnetic cavity decades ago. I didn't even remember it until some EU prat questioned the bow shock on the Rosetta blog a week or so ago.
Which proves; I've forgotten more about comets than they have ever known.
And they still have zero evidence to back up their idiotic nonsense. Surprise, surprise.
As somebody would once have said.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
This is the continuation thread of the original Electric Comet Theory thread found HERE. The split point is arbitrary, and please feel free to quote from the previous thread in this one.
Posted By: Agatha




Nit pick??? data says 67P is fluffy like snow according to the density and MUPUS says hard as (sintered ice) or rock??? as well as the lander "bouncing" off the surface.

CONCERT says no voids.

You have dust levitating and being transported by electric fields but feel the need to invoke fluidization by gas escaping.

Yo have CO, CO2 and H20 being produced in the same location during different times of the local day from a comet made of rock.

and it looks like rock (including crystallised silicates, clay and carbonates) with no surface ice detected, "How did clay and carbonates form in frozen comets?"...mainstream brushed over that chestnut.

Major problems reconciling the problem of heat transportation below the dust layer to start "sublimation"

Dust that "falls" apart but towering cliffs on the surface.


but yeah the dirtysnowball is the best guess mainstream could come up with.

As the posters on the ROSETTA BLOG site are asking, some non EU proponents are calling the standard theory into question.

and i think that's a good thing, we need to ask those hard questions.

The mainstream went to the comet with well defined preconceived ideas and have been surprised at every turn but to think of another theory is taboo.

AND

It's not my job to prove to you the ELECTRIC COMET is correct you can make your own mind up based on the multitude of data not agreeing with the standard model. If you think they're dirtysnowballs, dirtysnowballs they are.
Click to expand...

Interesting reading for the open minded-
http://www.varchive.org/bdb/comet.htm
 
Fonebone said:
Interesting reading for the open minded-
http://www.varchive.org/bdb/comet.htm
Click to expand...


In the future, please include yourr thoughts or a synopsis of the linked material. Many people here don't follow blind links. I'm not sure what your point is; I read it and Einstein graciously reviewed and commented on Velikovsky's naive notions. Most telling was Einstein's comment:

When an astronomer hears such arguments as yours, and he has not enough sense of humor, then he necessarily will be angry or rude.
Click to expand...


Similarly, the EC people on this thread have received a range of responses to their unsupportabed claims.
 
Fonebone said:
Interesting reading for the open minded
Click to expand...

As somebody once said; nothing wrong with keeping your mind open; so long as your brains don't fall out. Or words to that effect. (Sagan?)
Which is what has happened with the EU nutters. Not suggesting that they had any brains in the first place, mind.
 
Fonebone said:
Interesting reading for the open minded-
http://www.varchive.org/bdb/comet.htm
Click to expand...

Or the hard of thinking.
Either way, you are talking complete b*ll*cks.
Back it up. Let's see some evidence. That would be good after umpteen years of asking.
1 year at the comet, now; where's the evidence? There isn't any, nor ever will be.
Why? Because it is complete garbage.

P.S.
I seriously don't get that link. What the hell is that about? Seems like somebody has got all self indulgent, and created a website on the back of it. Makes eff all sense to me. No offence.
 
Last edited:
Jrrarglblarg said:
i understand your desire to serve science and truth by responding in this topic, but this thread makes me imagine a gaggle of adults arguing with children through a schoolyard fence. Posts like sol88's last offering are in the realm of "nasa = nazi" hoax arguments in terms of usefulness and accuracy.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you are right. It would be interesting if there would be an actual discussion here in this thread, comparing mainstream with EC models.

However, this is very much like debating a creationist. Sol88 can just throw in anything he likes, whether it is on topic or not, make any claim he feels like without thinking a second if it can even remotely be true or not. And the mainstream guys then have to think about how to respond and how to explain it to the interested public what is wrong with this claim again and again, it gets tiresome, especially when such claim has been answered already several times.

So, sometimes the best answer is "whaddevvah".
 
tusenfem said:
However, this is very much like debating a creationist. Sol88 can just throw in anything he likes, whether it is on topic or not, make any claim he feels like without thinking a second if it can even remotely be true or not. And the mainstream guys then have to think about how to respond and how to explain it to the interested public what is wrong with this claim again and again, it gets tiresome, especially when such claim has been answered already several times.
Click to expand...


There's a quote, Mark Twain and/or Churchill take your pick, "A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on".
 
Fonebone said:
Interesting reading for the open minded-
http://www.varchive.org/bdb/comet.htm
Click to expand...
Einstein was polite enough to address Velikovsky's idea about comets grazing the sun in the 1950's. Einstein points out scientific errors and has comments such as:
4 [E: This is a quite superficial way of inference. One would have first to show that the phenomenon cannot be explained through an independent movement of the tail, without assumption of specific forces.]

5 [E: A mere assertion.]

6 [E.: Vague assertion.]

7 [E: This is quite possible with formations which consist of (one-sided) charged ions.]

8 [E.: Weak explanation! On this one cannot build. It would be interesting to know what other specialists think of it.]

9 [E.: Yes. Otherwise Kepler’s third law would not be valid.]
Click to expand...
 
tusenfem said:
Also there is a very nice blog post about the singing paper on the rosetta blog
http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2015/08/19/what-made-the-comet-sing/
Click to expand...


Geez, you come back from a coupla days looking at rock art and ....

Our model furthermore allows for the apparent saturation
of wave activity at around 30 km distance to be understood:
the newborn ions need to be accelerated to constitute a significant current and the waves need to grow
Click to expand...

Double layer would do a great job satisfying those criteria! :D

Pretty well much the end of the dirtysnowball, save the still hidden sublimation releasing the neutrals!

or I'm misreading the paper Tusenfem? is this a "whaddavvah" moment?

i mean
However, this is very much like debating a creationist. Sol88 can just throw in anything he likes, whether it is on topic or not, make any claim he feels like without thinking a second if it can even remotely be true or not. And the mainstream guys then have to think about how to respond and how to explain it to the interested public what is wrong with this claim again and again, it gets tiresome, especially when such claim has been answered already several times.

So, sometimes the best answer is "whaddevvah".
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