Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sol88 said:
Just show me, Sol88 qualitative and quantitative how this is supposed to work. Not just tiny quotes from press releases, but the whole thingamajik....
Click to expand...
Followed by not answering the actual question, Sol88, which is about your fantasy abut EDM:
Please show in detail that the amount of water group ions that is observed around a comet and in its tail can be produced by this mechanism.

Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity. is not about water group ions!

ETA:
6th July 2009 Sol88: tusenfem asks for the qualitative and quantitative mechanism by which EDM produces the amount of water group ions that is observed around a comet and in its tail
remains unanswered after over 6 years now except for the delusion that an electrostatic charge paper is about EDM.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
No imaginary electric discharges in Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity.??????????
Click to expand...
Only the deluded will read about electrical discharges in Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity., Sol88. Thus the electrical discharges are imaginary.

But maybe someone with
will also be incapable of searching for the word discharge in a paper.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Just show me, Sol88 qualitative and quantitative how this is supposed to work. Not just tiny quotes from press releases, but the whole thingamajik.

Charging of the comet nucleus
EDM on a singly charged nucleus
Release of oxygen ions (most likely positively charged)
Reaction with the solar wind protons (also positively charged, possibly highly energetic)

Please show in detail that the amount of water group ions that is observed around a comet and in its tail can be produced by this mechanism.

Hoping to hear back from you soon with the math and chemical reactions to back yourself up.

Yours truly
Tusenfem

Like this Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity
Click to expand...

Don't think you quite understood that, did you?
 
Reminding people about the long time that you have held fast to the Thunderbolts delusions and lies is not wise, Sol88
For example, the Predicted TWO flashes Which is confirmed... lie pops up on the first part of this thread on 10 July 2009!
The parroting of the Thunderbolts idiocy of "it looks like rock to me so it must be rock" dates from 10th July 2009 which includes the dependency on citing Internet physics cranks rather than learning science. More than 6 years, Sol88, and you have still not learned about the several ways that the density of comets have been measured!

31st July 2009 Sol88: Dancing David asked you "speccifically where the data is that shows that comets have a density comparable to an asteroid?" leads to the admission that There is none.

3rd August 2009: Sol88 ignorantly thinks that an astronomy textbook example of calculating the average density of asteroids is has the actual density of comets and asteroids are calculated. The problem is that there is little sign that Sol88 has progressed beyond that ignorance given the ongoing fantasy that comets are rocks.

3rd August 2009: The fantasy that plasma models have to do with the electric comet delusion.

10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Reminding people about the long time that you have held fast to the Thunderbolts delusions and lies is not wise, Sol88
For example, the Predicted TWO flashes Which is confirmed... lie pops up on the first part of this thread on 10 July 2009!

10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.
Click to expand...

Lol. Is that the bit that Pete Schultz got right, and Thornhill completely ****** up? As in: "In this scenario (and in Scenario 1b), a three-component plume should be observed in the MRI and may allow the identification of this surface property.
i.T = 0.06 s (first frame): very weak flash.
ii.T = 1s (~17 frames): high-angle jet-like plasma plume due to cavitation and redirection back out the penetration funnel.
iii.T=1 to 20s: opaque spherical cloud forming a shadow above the
comet surface.
iv.T = 20 s to 100 s: high-angle ejecta plume extending >
10 km above the surface surrounded by a high-angle (~60?) ejecta curtain.
v.T > 200 s: advancing annulus of disturbed cometary surface near the
crater as low-velocity components return. High-angle central plume
may detach from the crater due to collapse and shut off of deep ejecta"

From: http://pds-smallbodies.astro.umd.ed...ience_reviews/crater_size_evolutn_schultz.pdf

Surprisingly, (?) written before the DI impact. Yet Thornhill says he was the first!
Wouldn't be surprised if he'd seen this and thought to turn it to his own advantage, given the scientific literacy of his followers (or lack thereof).
His problem was that the flash was on impact, and the larger flash was ~0.12 seconds later. The fact that neither the Chandra nor SWIFT X-ray satellites saw anything should also inform anyone who is reasonably scientifically literate, that this was not an electric discharge! Won't stop the idiots though.
 
Last edited:
jonesdave116 said:
Lol. Is that the bit that Pete Schultz got right, and Thornhill completely ****** up?
Click to expand...
It is worse than that, jonesdave116.
Pete Schultz got this right.
Thornhill completely messed up, lied abut it and Sol88 still cannot understand that he has been lied to!
ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Lying about flashes
Thornhill has a list of "confirmed" predictions which includes two flashes - one before impact from an electrical discharge and another on or after impact. That is a lie because there were two flashes on or after impact which is not a confirmation of his prediction.
ETA: On the other hand Thornhill only mentions an "advanced flash". That hints slightly that he thought that there would be no flash on impact!

P.S. The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions from 28th November 2010!

That paper is great science: EXPECTATIONS FOR CRATER SIZE AND PHOTOMETRIC EVOLUTION FROM THE DEEP IMPACT COLLISION (PDF)
The NASA Discovery Deep Impact mission involves a unique experiment designed to excavatepristinematerialsfrombelowthesurfaceofcomet.InJuly2005,theDeepImpact(DI) spacecraft, will release a 360kg probe that will collide with comet 9P/Tempel 1. This collision will excavatepristinematerialsfromdepthandproduceacraterwhosesizeandappearancewillprovide fundamental insights into the nature and physical properties of the upper 20 to 40m. Laboratory impact experiments performed at the NASA Ames Vertical Gun Range at NASA Ames Research Center were designed to assess the range of possible outcomes for a wide range of target types and impactangles.Althoughallexperimentswereperformedunderterrestrialgravity,keyscalingrelations and processes allow first-order extrapolations to Tempel 1. If gravity-scaling relations apply (weakly bonded particulate near-surface), the DI impact could create a crater 70m to 140m in diameter, depending on the scaling relation applied. Smaller than expected craters can be attributed either to the effect of strength limiting crater growth or to collapse of an unstable (deep) transient crater as a resultofveryhighporosityandcompressibility.Largerthenexpectedcraterscouldindicateunusually low density (<0.3gcm−3)or backpressures from expanding vapor. Consequently, final crater size or depth may not uniquely establish the physical nature of the upper 20m of the comet.But the observed ejecta curtain angles and crater morphology will help resolve this ambiguity. Moreover, the intensity and decay of the impact “flash” as observed from Earth, space probes, or the accompanying DI flyby instruments should provide critical data that will further resolve ambiguities.
Click to expand...
It turns out that the crater was ~100 meters across so the gravity-scaling relations were good.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
It turns out that the crater was ~100 meters across so the gravity-scaling relations were good.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough. I was re-reading that paper today! Along with some old Halley stuff. Amazing how much stuff one accumulates when one has to do proper science, as opposed to just play at it!
 
I mean this statement KILLS sublimating subsurface ICE story DEAD!

Here we assume that the acceleration due to gas drag on the nanograin particles is negligible compared to that of electrostatic forces, and thus the kinetic energy of the charged nanograins should reflect the surface potential at the region of the nucleus from which they are emitted (e.g. Szego et al., 2014).
Click to expand...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003206331500238XLInk
 
Sol88 said:
I mean this statement KILLS sublimating subsurface ICE story DEAD!
Click to expand...

How can it "KILL it dead" when it has already been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt? See the results from Tempel 1, 10 years ago. Probe hits comet, water comes out. Inconvenient truth.
 
Sol88 said:
Are you saying there can be no discharges in this system? :confused:
Click to expand...
We are saying what even high school science students know: electrostatic means charges that do not move on the objects in question (dust) :jaw-dropp. That means no current. That means no electrical discharges.
What is accelerated in the paper is electrostatically charged dust.
 
Sol88 said:
I mean this statement KILLS sublimating subsurface ICE story DEAD!
Click to expand...
That is a lie, Sol88.
Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity is not about sublimating subsurface ice..

Not a surprise from from someone
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
We are saying what even high school science students know: electrostatic means charges that do not move on the objects in question (dust) :jaw-dropp. That means no current. That means no electrical discharges.
What is accelerated in the paper is electrostatically charged dust.
Click to expand...

What is accelerated in the paper is electrostatically charged dust.
Click to expand...
Please, Reality Check, you have my interest. Can you explain to this completely delusional gullible fool where the dust accelerated past 67P's escape velocity goes?

How fast is the acceleration? What speeds do the dust obtain? Anything like the speeds we observe from the sublimating "ice's" entraining dust?

Now the dust is charged what effects would we expect to see in the dynamically charged areas around the nucleus?

Could the "sand dunes" on 67P be from charged dust accelerating to a different area of charge on the surface of 67P and not sublimating gas?

Could the charged and accelerated dust act as a "coupler" between the diamagnetic cavity and the comets plasma-sphere thereby still allowing the solar wind access to the nucleus in beams of highly energetic particles accelerated thru known plasma processes?


who has spent 94 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.
Click to expand...
Did the calculation but crater size was undetermined because an UNKNOWN amount of dust "fell" back into the crater, 'cos 50m seems a smallish crater for you story RC :(
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Please, Reality Check, you have my interest. Can you explain to this completely delusional gullible fool where the dust accelerated past 67P's escape velocity goes?
Click to expand...
A "completely delusional gullible fool" (as you put it, Sol88) wanting to show that they are non-gullible, non-delusional and non-foolish would read Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity.
They would not do a Gish gallop of irrelevant questions.

The next step to take would be to to disassociate themselves from the completely delusional, ignorant liars of the Thunderbolts cult.

This might be unlikely from someone
Especially when they just fantasize about Deep Impact - the impact crater was observed to be ~150 meters in diameter (not 50m). The size of an impact crater in rock would be 7 meters across :jaw-dropp!

As pointed out on 25 June 2015 Sol88: On February 15, NASA scientists identified the crater formed by Deep Impact in images from Stardust. The crater is estimated to be 150 meters (500 ft) in diameter, and has a bright mound in the center likely created when material from the impact fell back into the crater.[46]
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Could the charged and accelerated dust act as a "coupler" between the diamagnetic cavity and the comets plasma-sphere thereby still allowing the solar wind access to the nucleus in beams of highly energetic particles accelerated thru known plasma processes?
Click to expand...

No, the Giotto probe only found ions of cometary origin within the cavity.

Did the calculation but crater size was undetermined because an UNKNOWN amount of dust "fell" back into the crater, 'cos 50m seems a smallish crater for you story RC :(
Click to expand...

Trust me, you would not get a crater of that size from a ~ 350 kg impactor, at 10 km/s into rock!
And that is an irrelevance anyway, given that the IR specrtometry unambiguously found emission lines from H2O vapour in the plume, and absorption lines from H20 ice in the ejecta.
Pete Schultz did mountains of lab work on potential crater sizes and plume development, among other things, using the NASA Ames vertical gun range. Umpteen various angles of impact, umpteen potential target strengths and compositions. I doubt there is anyone in the world that knows more about impact cratering than this guy. He was pretty much spot on for an oblique impact into a highly porous target.
 
The other side of what jonesdave116 points out is that an impact on rock produces ejected rock not ices!
6 October 2015 Sol88: Please cite the observations that Deep Impact ejecta contained no water or other ices.

That will be hard: A total of 5 million kilograms (11 million pounds) of water[40] and between 10 and 25 million kilograms (22 and 55 million pounds) of dust were lost from the impact.[38]
So at least 20% of the ejecta was water, not solid rock! I suspect that the Thunderbolts delusion will be that the impact magically changed rock into water and dust without producing boulders, stones, grains or rock vapor.
 
Reality Check said:
A "completely delusional gullible fool" (as you put it, Sol88) wanting to show that they are non-gullible, non-delusional and non-foolish would read Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity.
They would not do a Gish gallop of irrelevant questions.

The next step to take would be to to disassociate themselves from the completely delusional, ignorant liars of the Thunderbolts cult.

This might be unlikely from someone
Especially when they just fantasize about Deep Impact - the impact crater was observed to be ~150 meters in diameter (not 50m). The size of an impact crater in rock would be 7 meters across :jaw-dropp!

As pointed out on 25 June 2015 Sol88: On February 15, NASA scientists identified the crater formed by Deep Impact in images from Stardust. The crater is estimated to be 150 meters (500 ft) in diameter, and has a bright mound in the center likely created when material from the impact fell back into the crater.[46]
Click to expand...


So after all your challenges to me you are unwilling or scared to answer these basic questions based on the paperSurface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity

What happens to the dust accelerated beyond escape velocity?

Can you or Joesdavis 116 give that a go? :cool:
 
Sol88 said:
What happens to the dust accelerated beyond escape velocity?

Can you or Joesdavis 116 give that a go? :cool:
Click to expand...

Perhaps you'd like to answer this question: What the Hell relevance has it got?

As shown from the sputtering data, not to mention measurements at other comets, the solar wind, which causes the electrostatic effects, is barely, and sometimes never, reaching the surface, particularly as activity increases. We've known about this effect for a long time. It is part of mainstream science. I fail to see what relevance it has to what is going on at this or any other comet, when it comes to explaining what is/ has been observed.
Going by this logic, all the EU gubbins about electric discharges etc, should only occur when the activity is very low. It didn't.
Perhaps you could tell us what happens to other dust covered objects, such as large asteroids, or the Moon, due to this effect? And don't forget, these bodies don't have a shed load of cometary neutrals to block the solar wind from hitting the surface.
It might shift some dust around. So will outgassing, on a comet. Hard to see how this helps EU claims.
 
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