Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hell even the IBEX mission confirms the ELECTRICAL nature of the Universe!!

and that's has nothing to do with comet but does the ELECTRIC SUN model with in turn has a huge bearing on the ELECTRIC COMET!!!

but it does
“Collectively, these papers represent a huge step forward in our understanding of the interstellar medium in the heliophysics community,” said McComas.
Click to expand...

So, your set in concrete understanding of the solar wind JD116 is not looking so solid now, ay!

But you are 100% sure what goes on at a comet, JD116!

You are good!
 
Sol88 said:
Would you like a tissue JD116?

Are you so narrow minded to think it (the electrical effects seen thru out the solar system are only confined to comets)???
Click to expand...

Grow up. Jupiter is a bloody planet, in case you haven't noticed. We are talking about comets, and the total lack of evidence for any of this EU garbage thereon.
 
Sol88 said:
Hell even the IBEX mission confirms the ELECTRICAL nature of the Universe!!

and that's has nothing to do with comet but does the ELECTRIC SUN model with in turn has a huge bearing on the ELECTRIC COMET!!!

but it does

So, your set in concrete understanding of the solar wind JD116 is not looking so solid now, ay!

But you are 100% sure what goes on at a comet, JD116!

You are good!
Click to expand...

It's not that I'm good, it's just that you aren't. IBEX does nothing for the idiotic electric sun nonsense, just as Voyager didn't. Scott was only about 10^8 out on the energy needed for his daft model as measured by Voyager.

And the solar wind is continuously monitored around 67P. And it hasn't done anything out of the ordinary. Hence why we know it has nothing much to do with what we see on the surface of the comet, and doesn't even reach that surface for long periods.
I'm not interested in Scott's delusions; start a separate thread, and in the meantime start listing the evidence for this stupid electric comet idea, as seen at this or any other comet. Shouldn't take long.
 
Those hot spots in the MIRO graphic sure are interesting!

Anywhoo off to look at more Petroglyphs and rock art!

Bloody silly these ancient people must be on the good stuff to me up with such silly ideas!

fyi I don't think they were they were trying to word us up best they could!
 
Sol88 said:
Hey, maybe not "crazy" out gassing but they are....:D

The line between comets and asteroids is very blurry
Click to expand...

Ye Gods. That link to a "comet like asteroid" has nothing to do with an asteroid being a comet! It looks like a comet because it was in a collision! That's the point of the piece. The cometary appearance is due to the collision producing a tail of debris! Yet more misunderstanding of science. Should have read it properly.
And no, the line between comets and asteroids isn't that blurry. A very few have been seen that display comet like behavior, but could in fact be old, almost devolitalised comets. Asteroids are rocks. Rosetta went to see a couple on its way to the comet. Very different. Much denser like you'd expect rock to be.
 
Sol88 said:
Those hot spots in the MIRO graphic sure are interesting!

Anywhoo off to look at more Petroglyphs and rock art!

Bloody silly these ancient people must be on the good stuff to me up with such silly ideas!

fyi I don't think they were they were trying to word us up best they could!
Click to expand...


Want to try that again in English???????
 
Sol88 said:
@Jonesdavid116

Ho hum...



This I believe was when they smashed an impactor into rock (you did say the MOON is not a comet and it is ROCK, did you not JD116??)

So how does you statement hold up to that??

Ohh that's right the Moon is not a comet and we are only talking about comets, so forget we see on Enceladus, Ceres, Mercury... and concentrate on the data from Tempel 1!!!

Because you don't want to contradict yourself JD116!
Click to expand...

Yet more obfuscation. Why didn't you quote the bit that said: "Scientists believe the water and mix of volatiles that LCROSS and LRO detected could be the remnants of a comet impact. According to scientists, these volatile chemical by-products are also evidence of a cycle through which water ice reacts with lunar soil grains."

Can't imagine why you left that out.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2010/10-89AR.html
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
How do they form, say Ethanol, outside the environment of a planetary surface?

There obviously forming around comets!

So what;s the mainstream explanation???

.......is that crickets I hear..... :blush:
Click to expand...

Google Scholar shows 3,760 papers about ethanol in outer space. While a lot of those are about detection and classification, there's also a lot about formation. If you want more details you can read some of those papers, or you can ask an astrochemist about it.
 
Last edited:
Lukraak_Sisser said:
So requesting that you defend the actual EC theory is off topic and you head off back into misunderstanding regular science.
Interesting way to show you also do not understand the EC theory Sol
Click to expand...

Mind you, it's not surprising that he doesn't fully understand it. Here is what Thornhill wrote: "“The cathode jets strip and ionize atoms of oxygen from minerals on the comet and accelerate the negative ions away in a fine jet. The oxygen ions then combine with the protons in the solar wind to form the hydroxyl radical, OH, which was mistakenly assumed to be evidence of an ultraviolet breakdown product of water molecules from the comet. Oxygen and hydrogen have both been found in the comet’s coma, by the Rosetta ultraviolet spectrometer.”

I copied that from a Thunderdolts webpage not that long ago. It was here: https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2014/10/27/predictions-for-comet-science-after-rosetta/

As you can see, that page has now been taken down. Wonder why? Might that be a tacit admission that the all knowing genius Wal didn't have a clue what he was talking about? Seems so.

EDIT:
Having had a butchers at their "predictions pending" page, there is obviously still a bit of tidying up to do! Like the Deep Impact entries.

"The impact crater will be smaller than expected." Nope, got that wrong.

"High-energy electrical noise." No, mucked that up, too.

"Copious X-rays." Nope, nothing on impact, and only soft x-rays from sw c-x afterwards.

And various other failed predictions that are still showing as so far "unresolved." They obviously haven't checked the scientific literature in the last 8-10 years.
Not doing too well on this prediction lark, is he?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/predictions_pending.htm#cdi

No wonder Sol is confused.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Sorry sport it is YOU who do not understand, i mean

small electrical effects that are KNOWN????

get your hand off it ya drongo :mad:

Did you miss the LINK Now I'm hopeless at maths but I believe that's 1.2e+12 watts of power, so small, expected, electrical effects in space are seen you are 100% correct, even here on Earth we have

So I'd be scared to what your current would look like! :boggled:

And the old chestnut of "There is ELECTRICITY in space, it just doesn't do anything" is dead buried and gone to join DARK ENERGY AND DARK MATTER in the graveyard of totally wrong ideas!
Click to expand...

Localized currents created in a gaseous atmosphere by known processes that DO NOT take place in a near vacuum such as a comet.
Io actually travels trough Jupiter's atmosphere, but I guess planetology is another science that you only glance trough for the word electric without understanding the theory.
the reason you get lightning bolts there is that there is a medium to travel trough and something to ionize, coupled with a magnetic field that is strong enough to induce the effect.
Neither of these are present at a comet.

And the currents needed to power the sun of your EU fantasy then apparently scare you. The same for the currents needed to create visible effects on a comet. Of course that also would require a magnetic field so strong that Rosetta would have been ejected into deep space before ever reaching the comet, but this is where the EU magic comes in. It is special magnetism that affects one thing, but not another.
In the same way the EU currents are magically able to both be so strong as to ionize a vacuum with a visible effect to create a comet's tail, but at the same time ignore the large metal object next to the comet.
 
I just thought of a simple experiment that would go a long way to prove EC/EU.
And it should be reasonably cheap, so even EU scientists could perform it, provided they are willing to actually invest some money of course.

We know that the tail of a comet is the result of the interaction between the sun and the comet, because the tail only appears near the sun and then always points away from the sun, regardless of the comet's position.

Now, the EC group claims this is an electrical effect.

So, why not reproduce it in an experiment.
All they would have to do is have a vacuum bulb (easy to get to near space vacuum even with commercial pumps and seals) in which they place two objects, one representing the comet and the other the sun. One of the two should be able to move. These objects should be able to be either magnetized or polarized.
Then all they have to demonstrate is that it is possible to get a continuous visible electrical discharge at a 180 degree angle from the shortest line between the two objects.

That simple demonstration, which according to regular science should be impossible, would go a long way to open up new roads of research. Max costs should be maybe 5000$ or so?
Of course I'm not really surprised none of the EU proponents have ever tried this, because they will fail, as the EU is based upon impossible theories. But I'd be happily proven wrong.
 
Sol88 said:
Good now we are getting somewhere!

How do they form, say Ethanol, outside the environment of a planetary surface?

There obviously forming around comets!

So what;s the mainstream explanation???
Click to expand...

It would be good if you would know that such products are highly available in the universe, there is no need at all for a planetary surface to for ethanol.

This is probably the next fancy location for Spring Break.

So tiresome to always have to point out your lack of knowledge, Sol, can't you just go hunt kangaroos or something.
 
jonesdave116 said:
Ye Gods. That link to a "comet like asteroid" has nothing to do with an asteroid being a comet! It looks like a comet because it was in a collision! That's the point of the piece. The cometary appearance is due to the collision producing a tail of debris! Yet more misunderstanding of science. Should have read it properly.
And no, the line between comets and asteroids isn't that blurry. A very few have been seen that display comet like behavior, but could in fact be old, almost devolitalised comets. Asteroids are rocks. Rosetta went to see a couple on its way to the comet. Very different. Much denser like you'd expect rock to be.
Click to expand...


Just so I'm clear are you saying asteroids are/maybe devolitalised comets, Jonesdave116?

Or at least some percentage?
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Just so I'm clear are you saying asteroids are/maybe devolitalised comets, Jonesdave116?

Or at least some percentage?
Click to expand...

No, they wouldn't be "asteroids", they could appear to be "asteroid like". Any close inspection would show their physical parameters (i.e. density) to be perfectly in line with those of a comet. The asteroids that have been discovered that show comet like behaviour, that is about 13 in a population of millions, are thought to be caused by collisions.
The percentage would likely be very low. There are around 4 000 known comets. There are millions of asteroids. Their orbits should give them away, but there are plenty of asteroids with eccentric orbits, and some comets (i.e. Schwassmann-Wachmann 1) with almost circular orbits.
Smash a DI probe into a "dead" comet, and water will still come out. The Sun's heat can only penetrate so far; once that layer is devolitalised, then activity should cease, assuming the orbital parameters remain the same, or they aren't impacted by meteors.
 
tusenfem said:
It would be good if you would know that such products are highly available in the universe, there is no need at all for a planetary surface to for ethanol.

This is probably the next fancy location for Spring Break.
Click to expand...

Well, heck, that'd be easy enough for the the EC/EU people to explain away: a planet with oceans made of booze got blown up by a giant space lightning bolt. Add in a fact-free assertion that chemistry can't happen in outer space, and voilà, the existence of alcohol clouds in space becomes evidence for EU.
 
Sol88: States a delusion about "Sugar ice sublimate to colaldehyde gas"

Sol88 said:
And I 'spose we can add
Click to expand...
27 October 2015 Sol88: States a delusion about "Sugar ice sublimate to colaldehyde gas"

A list of 14 items of ignorance. lies and delusions from Sol88 over the last 6 years.
  1. A couple of lies about the [URL="http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Rosetta/Rosetta_the_ambition_to_turn_science_fiction_into_science_fact"]Rosetta: the ambition to turn science fiction into science fact article.[/URL]
  2. 21 October 2015 Sol88: Ignorant that the Solar System formed from a cloud of Hydrocarbons, Argon, Nitrogen....
  3. [B]21 October 2015 Sol88[/B]: Ignorant about what tholins are.
  4. 21 October 2015 Sol88: A lie about "a host of confirmation and surprises" for the EC delusion at 67P.
  5. 21 October 2015 Sol88: The repeated delusion that "surprises" support the EC delusion (logical fallacy of false dichotomy).

117 days and counting of fear of 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.
 
Sol88: Lies about papers being proven wrong

Sol88 said:
A better topic would be the explanation by someone (mainstreamer) on how the "jets" are produced!
Click to expand...
An even better topic is why someone would not bother learn this basic fact abut comets after 6 years, Sol88 :jaw-dropp.

Or why should anyone here try to explain basic stuff about comets to someone who is so in denial of science that they mindlessly believe in 10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.

Or why should we bother addressing the ignorance of a person with a track record of denying science that is presented to them (basically this entire thread!), e.g. 12 October 2015 Sol88: You are lying about "not much to very little ice" produced by Deep impact.

Assertions from ignorance, denial and delusions about science are lies.
27 October 2015 Sol88: A lie about "Formation of jets in Comet 19P/Borrelly by subsurface geysers" being proven wrong.

27 October 2015 Sol88: A lie about "Geologic control of jet formation on Comet 103P/Hartley 2" being proven wrong.

27 October 2015 Sol88: A lazy lie about a "pit like structure" and the jet that was observed from it.
It is a real pit and a jet-like structure.
10th June 2015 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
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Those hot spots in the MIRO graphic sure are interesting!
Click to expand...
Is this yet more delusions about science, Sol88, or do you have something scientifically valid to say about these hot spots in an unspecified MIRO graphic? All I have see so far is the usual denial of science in a paper.

Dark side of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko in Aug-Oct 2014 MIRO/Rosetta continuum observations of polar night in the southern regions
The high obliquity (∼ 50◦) of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko (67P) is responsible for a long-lasting winter polar night in the southern regions of the nucleus. We report observations made with the submillimeter and millimeter continuum channels of the Microwave Instrument onboard the Rosetta Orbiter (MIRO) of the thermal emission from these regions during the period August October 2014. Before these observations, the southern polar regions had been in darkness for approximately five years. Subsurface temperatures in the range 25-50 K are measured. Thermal model calculations of the nucleus near-surface temperatures carried out over the orbit of 67P, coupled with radiative transfer calculations of the MIRO channels brightness temperatures, suggest that these regions have a thermal inertia within the range 10-60 J m−2 K−1 s−0.5. Such low thermal inertia values are consistent with a highly porous, loose, regolith-like surface. These values are similar to those derived elsewhere on the nucleus. A large difference in the brightness temperatures measured by the two MIRO continuum channels is tentatively attributed to dielectric properties that differ significantly from the sunlit side, within the first few tens of centimeters. This is suggestive of the presence of ice(s) within the MIRO depths of investigation in the southern polar regions. These regions started to receive sunlight in May of 2015, and refinements of the shape model in these regions, as well as continuing MIRO observations of 67P, will allow refining these results and reveal the thermal properties and potential ice content of the southern regions in more detail.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
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