Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sol88 said:
Saw that :)

Gunna be hard to argue with that data!
Click to expand...

It'll be very easy to argue against; where is the current that is powering it? Where is it coming from? Why don't we detect it? Why have we never seen the so called variable charge around the Sun? Why hasn't Rosetta detected it, despite following the exact same orbit as 67P for the last 14 months? Why do we not see any of the predicted electric woo on the comet? Why does all the evidence from the past 30 years prove that comets are made of ice and dust?

If they ever try to get the results of their pointless project into the scientific literature, those are just a few of the many questions that they will have to answer from the editor, before it even gets to the peer reviewers.

As I said, it is a quasi-religious cult with zero evidence. Which is why all its claims exist on crackpot science websites. They're still no further along the scientific route than homeopathy and astrology.
 
jonesdave116 said:
It'll be very easy to argue against; where is the current that is powering it? Where is it coming from? Why don't we detect it? Why have we never seen the so called variable charge around the Sun? Why hasn't Rosetta detected it, despite following the exact same orbit as 67P for the last 14 months? Why do we not see any of the predicted electric woo on the comet? Why does all the evidence from the past 30 years prove that comets are made of ice and dust?
Click to expand...

So you dismiss it BEFORE seeing the evidence and data. :eye-poppi

If they ever try to get the results of their pointless project into the scientific literature, those are just a few of the many questions that they will have to answer from the editor, before it even gets to the peer reviewers.
Click to expand...

The Safire team are independent scientists and are NOT part of the Electric Universe crowd. There will be papers published in respected journals.

As I said, it is a quasi-religious cult with zero evidence. Which is why all its claims exist on crackpot science websites. They're still no further along the scientific route than homeopathy and astrology.
Click to expand...

Prepare to eat your words :p
 
Haig said:
So you dismiss it BEFORE seeing the evidence and data.
Click to expand...

I just gave you evidence. The data is easily discerned due to it being totally lacking. It doesn't matter a jot what these people find in a lab experiment, given that there is no viable mechanism for any of the various and contradictory electric sun models, and there is absolutely zero evidence of these mechanisms even if they were possible.
No lab experiment can make up for the fact that we don't see the expected effects of the hypothesis. Where is the incoming current? Where is it coming from? Where are these variable charge regions? As long as they can't answer these questions, and more, then the whole process is pointless, and will make not a jot of difference to the world of *REAL* science, as they will be asking the same questions.
 
Sol88: Yet another irrelevant question about comets and jets

Sol88 said:
Have not heard a single explanation from you, Jonesdave116, on the MAINSTREAM mechanism for the production of cometary jets!
Click to expand...
Why should anyone answer an ignorant, irrelevant question whose answer you have denied for over 6 years , Sol88 :jaw-dropp?

The idiocy of your questions about the working mainstream science has been pointing about before but I will make this explicit.
  • This is a thread about the Electric Comet delusion. The working mainstream science of comets is irrelevant.
  • Continuously emphasizing 6 years and counting of your ignorance about the working mainstream science of comets shows that you want to remain deluded about comets.
  • People (jonesdave116) are free to not answer questions, especially from someone so deluded that they think that comets are rocks, etc.
  • Someone (not jonesdave116 given the science in his posts) not being able to answer inane questions does not mean that the science is not correct.

5 November 2015 Sol88: Yet another irrelevant question about the mainstream science of comets and their jets :eek:!
 
Sol88 said:
maybe you could explain
Click to expand...
Easy: This is a post full of your usual ignorance and a fantasy about electrical discharges, Sol88 :p. This ignorance even extends to the deluded Thunderbolts prophets!

A list of 29 items of ignorance. lies and delusions from Sol88 over the last 6 years.
  1. 4 November 2015 Sol88: What is the electric comet explanation for the origin of some jets from the walls of pits on 67P?
  2. 4 November 2015 Sol88: What is the electric comet explanation for the locations that jets have been traced to on 67P (the neck, not highest points)?
  3. 4 November 2015 Sol88: Do you understand the idiocy of that question about a hypothetical mainstream mechanism for narrow jets on Comet 19P?
  4. 4 November 2015 Sol88: David Talbott is deluded enough to extend the fantasies of Immanuel Velikovsky.
  5. 4 November 2015 Sol88: Wal Thornhill is a follower of the fantasies of Immanuel Velikovsky.
  6. 5 November 2015 Sol88: Yet another repeated, irrelevant question about the mainstream science of comets and their jets!
126 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.
 
Haig said:
Some more qualitative answers regarding electric comets reactions with an electric sun are progressing very well in the Safire Project investigation of the electric sun hypothesis.
Click to expand...
That is a lie, Haig.
The Safire project is an ignorant investigation of a fantasy about how the Sun works. It has nothing to do with your delusion that comets are rocks, electrical discharges on comets, etc.
 
Haig said:
So you dismiss it BEFORE seeing the evidence and data.
Click to expand...
Anyone with a working brain will dismiss the Safire project because it is investigating a fake Sun and will get the results they expect for that fake Sun.
The real Sun is not an electric light bulb powered by external current. The Sun is powered by fusion at its center. That you do not know this basic fact about the Sun is amazing, Haig :jaw-dropp!

Haig said:
The Safire team are independent scientists and are NOT part of the Electric Universe crowd.
Click to expand...
Your own link shows that is a lie, Haig. You linked to the crank EU2015 conference . EU = Electric Universe :eek:!
The Lead Scientist and Program Manager for the SAFIRE Project (Montgomery Childs) is part of the Electric Universe crowd and cannot recognize the delusions of the hosts and most of his fellow presenters. This is not a surprise when the description of the video is
Building on the past year of experimentation and analysis, the SAFIRE Project is moving into Phase 2, which takes the lessons from the Phase 1 Proof of Concept Prototype into a much larger chamber. Phase 1 ended on a cliff-hanger with indications of fusion and transient million-fold CME-like eruptions. Monty will present some aspects of the new chamber design, and also explain some of the equally challenging tasks of building SAFIRE Phase 2.
Click to expand...
A delusion that a simple plasma experiment will cause fusion!
A delusion that images that look like CME have anything to do with real CME!

Thunderbolts are a cult complete with prophets. You are the one who supplied a lot of the evidence for this, Haig: 10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.

And what do we see from a cult follower: A list of 29 items of ignorance, lies and delusions from Sol88 over the last 6 years.
With some of the same ignorance and delusions from you Haig.
 
Last edited:
Haig: Please list the members of the Safire team

Haig said:
The Safire team are independent scientists and are NOT part of the Electric Universe crowd.
Click to expand...
Sounds like an argument from ignorance. 5 November 2015 Haig: Please list the members of the Safire team and their publications in solar and plasma physics.

Members of the SAFIRE Project team will be presenting at the conference, including Montgomery Childs, Wal Thornhill, Dr. Donald Scott, Dr. Michael Clarage, Dr. Paul Anderson, Dr. Lowell Morgan and Jan Onderco
  • Wal Thornhill :eek:
    Well documented as deluded and a liar, e.g. electrical discharges created the Grand Canyon, comets are rocks, a prediction of a flash before impact on Tempel 1 was confirmed (the truth is a flash on impact and a later flash).
  • Dr. Donald Scott :eek:
    A retired electrical engineer with abysmal ignorance of solar and other physics. He may be persisting with the missing solar neutrino delusion.
  • Montgomery Childs
    An engineer and a speaker at Electric Universe conference(s). Works at Aurtas International Inc.
    Lead Scientist and Program Manager.
  • Dr. Michael Clarage, Shepherd Scientific Consulting, LLC
    A biophysicist and a speaker at Electric Universe conference(s). Works at Shepherd Scientific Consulting, LLC.
    Lead scientist.
  • Dr. Paul E. Anderson
    Consultant, AXES LLC
    Paul Anderson holds a Bachelor of Science in chemistry from Muhlenberg College and a PhD in physical chemistry from Northeastern University.
  • Dr. Lowell Morgan
    Plasma chemistry and electron collision physics. At last - someone who has actually studied something relevant to the project! On the other hand only 5 papers with a 12 year gap to his last one.
    Kinema Research & Software, LLC, P. O. Box 1147, Monument, CO 80132 USA
    Study of striations in a spherically symmetric Hydrogen discharge by Morgan and Childs. N.B. No Electric Sun!
    Prepared for submission to Physical Review E on 2/2/2115: Actually published in Plasma Sources Science and Technology.
  • Jan Onderco ?
Seems like the Safire team are mostly EU cranks with no expertise in plasma physics or solar physics.

As for papers in respected journals - we have "scientists" presenting their results at crank conferences and not publishing their Phase 1 results! The PDF you cited before is on a SAS web page.
4th June 2015 Haig: The basic idiocy of the Safire Project

ETA: The SAFIRE project – Electric Sun investigated has more about the SAFIRE project, including the authors lying about "The SAFIRE team does not hold to any one theory or another"!
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Why should anyone answer an ignorant, irrelevant question whose answer you have denied for over 6 years , Sol88 :jaw-dropp?
Click to expand...

The fact is that the question has been answered, and links provided. Sol just chooses not to believe them, given that enormous electric discharges from icy bodies makes more sense to him (despite no evidence).
For what it's worth, here we go again: http://planetary.brown.edu/pdfs/4623.pdf
Perhaps Sol could tell us what is scientifically inaccurate about the model?
 
jonesdave116 said:
It doesn't matter a jot what these people find in a lab experiment, ...

No lab experiment can make up for the fact that we don't see the expected effects of the hypothesis. Where is the incoming current? Where is it coming from? Where are these variable charge regions?
Click to expand...

A possible excuse: for some reason the current instruments can't detect these things. Thus they need to do experiments until they can reproduce what's actually seen, then they'll stick various instruments into those reproductions to experimentally validate whether or not the instruments can detect anything (after all, it's just math that says that the instruments should be able to detect those things). But, alas, they don't have the money to do any of that. :(:(:(
 
tusenfem said:
they are not even remotely interchangeable.
the ratio ionized vs. neutral gas is about 10-6, in the coma of 67P, comparison of all p!asma instruments with the cops neutral gas measurements.
now can we call this a plasma, is the question?
and the answer in this case is yes, because we can e.g. observe the electron upper hybrid frequency, indicating collective behaviour of the charged particles, one (1) of the requirements of a plasma.
a little knowledge goes a long way, sol, why not try to actually read e.g. alfven's cosmic electrodynamics and actually learn something about space plasmas or any other book on plasma physics: kivelson & russell, baumjohann & treumann, chen, stix, ..., heck even perrat gets the plasma physics correct if not his simulations)
Click to expand...

So we are now all happy to call the "gas" and "dust" on/around a comet PLASMA then?

That's great we are making good head way to comets being ELECTRICAL in nature!


This can also be interpreted as a rapid dispersion in the coma of fluffy particles because of electrostatic forces acting on fluffy particles alone and a different level of coupling with the gas with respect to the compact ones (Figs. 4d to i).
Click to expand...
gas or a plasma? :confused:

The dust is acting as a plasma as well as like charged particles!

To infer preliminary information on the dust acceleration region, we studied a possible systematic increase of the dust speed with respect to the nucleus distance. We classified the dust speed data into three subgroups according to the cometocentric distance: up to 15 km (labeled as 10 km), from 15 to 25 km (labeled as 20 km) and from 25 to 35 km (labeled as 30 km). Each set of data was grouped into speed bins (Figs. 9b−d). We fitted the data with Maxwell distributions due to the data skewness. We determined the speed confidence intervals by means of the bootstrap method and obtained (2.5 ± 0.8) m s-1, (3.0 ± 1.0) m s-1, and (4.3 ± 0.9) m s-1 for 10, 20, and 30 km, respectively. These results suggest a possible speed increase between 10 and 30 km.
Click to expand...
LINK

Hard for subsurface sublimation of pressurised chambers of ice/gas and to blow thru an extremely weak fluffy dust layer, entrain and accelerate dust out past Rosetta!

Extremely hard to explain, I'd say with mechanical gas dynamics ONLY. :blush:

What's your take on
possible speed increase between 10 and 30 km.
Click to expand...
, Tusenfem?
 
Sol88 said:
So we are now all happy to call the "gas" and "dust" on/around a comet PLASMA then?
Click to expand...
No "we" here, Sol88. We are not lying about what tusenfem wrote:
tusenfem said:
they are not even remotely interchangeable.
the ratio ionized vs. neutral gas is about 10-6, in the coma of 67P, comparison of all p!asma instruments with the cops neutral gas measurements.
now can we call this a plasma, is the question?
and the answer in this case is yes, because we can e.g. observe the electron upper hybrid frequency, indicating collective behaviour of the charged particles, one (1) of the requirements of a plasma.
Click to expand...
Rational people call gas that has the properties of plasma, PLASMA.
Rational people read nothing about dust in that post.

Sol88 said:
That's great we are making good head way to comets being ELECTRICAL in nature!
Click to expand...
That is a total delusion, Sol88. There are electromagnetic effects around comets.

Sol88 said:
The dust is acting as a plasma as well as like charged particles!
Click to expand...
Delusions about
GIADA: shining a light on the monitoring of the comet dust production from the nucleus of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
The dust is acing like electrostatically charged dust particles as stated in the paper.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
No "we" here, Sol88. We are not lying about what tusenfem wrote:

Rational people call gas that has the properties of plasma, PLASMA.
Rational people read nothing about dust in that post.


That is a total delusion, Sol88. There are electromagnetic effects around comets.


Delusions about
GIADA: shining a light on the monitoring of the comet dust production from the nucleus of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
The dust is acing like electrostatically charged dust particles as stated in the paper.
Click to expand...

Ummmm.....the charged dust acts both as a plasma and as individual charged particles

We find that neutral Na, Li, K, or Ca atoms with β > 50 could possibly fit the observations. Just as likely, we find that an interaction with the solar wind and the heliospheric magnetic field can cause the observed clump dynamical evolution, accelerating them quickly up to solar wind velocities. We thus speculate that the HVECs are composed of charged particles (dust particles) or neutral atoms accelerated by radiation pressure at β > 50 values.
Click to expand...
LINK

Abstract
We approach the complicated phenomena of gas-dust interactions in a cometary ionosphere, focusing in particular on the possibility of significant depletion in electron number density due to grain charging. Our one-dimensional ionospheric model, accounting for grain charging processes, is applied to the subsolar direction and the diamagnetic cavity of 67P/Churyuomov-Gerasimenko, the target comet for the ESA Rosetta mission, at perihelion (~1.25-1.30 AU). We argue on the one hand that grains with radii >100 nm are unlikely to significantly affect the overall ionospheric particle balance within this environment, at least for cometocentric distances >10 km. On the other hand, if nanograins with radii in the 1-3 nm range are ejected to the coma at a level of ~1% with respect to the mass of the sublimated gas, a significant electron depletion is expected up to cometocentric distances of several tens of kilometers. We relate these results to the recent Cassini discoveries of very pronounced electron depletion compared with the positive ion population in the plume of Enceladus, which has been attributed to nanograin charging.
Click to expand...
LINK
Rational people call gas that has the properties of plasma, PLASMA.
Rational people read nothing about dust in that post.
Click to expand...


Sublimation???
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Sublimation???
Click to expand...

And what has any of that got to do with sublimation? This has been known about for some time, and refers to nano-dust. There are certain constraints on its size, and these size constraints preclude the majority of dust seen at comets. There is no need of any electric woo to explain any of this, dust isn't plasma. These are charged nano-dust grains (or cometary atoms, as per "or neutral atoms accelerated by radiation pressure").
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50535/pdf

There is nothing here for EU. Comets have been shown to have ice subsurface. They have been shown to have low density. They have been shown to be outgassing H2O and other gases. That was the time that all these fairy tales should have ended. Quite why we're still having to endure this rubbish is beyond me.
 
Sol88 said:
Ummmm.....the charged dust acts both as a plasma and as individual charged particles.
Click to expand...
A little lie about a citation, Sol88: Dusty plasma acts like plasma. The dust is "particle up to about 10 nm (or 100 nm if large charges are present).".
Of course you will be ignorant about the dust in the paper you cited, Sol88. GIADA: shining a light on the monitoring of the comet dust production from the nucleus of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

Citations to real science do not support your delusions about comets, Sol88.
Dynamics of HVECs emitted from comet C/2011 L4 as observed by STEREO
On the Possibility of Significant Electron Depletion due to Nanograin Charging in the Coma of Comet 67p/churyumov-gerasimenko near Perihelion

Sol88 said:
Sublimation???
Click to expand...
The idiocy that these papers are about sublimation????
  1. Dynamics of high-velocity evanescent clumps (HVECs) expelled from the coma of comet C/2011 L4 as observed by STEREO
  2. Possibility of Significant Electron Depletion due to Nanograin Charging in the Coma of Comet 67p/churyumov-gerasimenko near Perihelion
 
Sol88 said:
Sublimation???
Click to expand...

You've also conveniently forgotten that the only reason (as I've explained before) that we know where the sublimation is happening (in visible light) is due to the dust that the gas entrains. The gas itself is invisible.
So what would be a good experiment to do to show that gas is lifting dust from a comet? How about looking at those areas, and seeing if there is any gas present associated with the observed dust?
Guess what? It's been done. More than once. What did they find? H2O, for the most part. Finding dust coming off the comet without any gas detected would be a mysterious finding. And has never been seen.
 
Just to help Sol, I had a little play with Photoshop:

33bgxz9.jpg


That's Hartley 2, by the way.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Have not heard a single explanation from you, Jonesdave116, on the MAINSTREAM mechanism for the production of cometary jets!

So have a crack sport, how do you think jets are formed, maintained and collimated?

Thread below should set you going.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10960917#post10960917
Click to expand...


Jonesdave116????

or

is your mate going to step in again?

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Why should anyone answer an ignorant, irrelevant question whose answer you have denied for over 6 years , Sol88 ?

The idiocy of your questions about the working mainstream science has been pointing about before but I will make this explicit.

This is a thread about the Electric Comet delusion. The working mainstream science of comets is irrelevant.
Continuously emphasizing 6 years and counting of your ignorance about the working mainstream science of comets shows that you want to remain deluded about comets.
People (jonesdave116) are free to not answer questions, especially from someone so deluded that they think that comets are rocks, etc.
Someone (not jonesdave116 given the science in his posts) not being able to answer inane questions does not mean that the science is not correct.


5 November 2015 Sol88: Yet another irrelevant question about the mainstream science of comets and their jets !
Click to expand...

Why should anyone answer an ignorant, irrelevant question whose answer you have denied for over 6 years , Sol88 ? Do you mean to say "don't ask questions we have no answer to!"

Show me the papers (Scientific with lots of maths from a reputable peer reviewed paper) or just for the hell it, have a crack yourself RC!
 
Last edited:
tusenfem said:
they are not even remotely interchangeable.
the ratio ionized vs. neutral gas is about 10-6, in the coma of 67P, comparison of all p!asma instruments with the cops neutral gas measurements.
now can we call this a plasma, is the question?
and the answer in this case is yes, because we can e.g. observe the electron upper hybrid frequency, indicating collective behaviour of the charged particles, one (1) of the requirements of a plasma.
a little knowledge goes a long way, sol, why not try to actually read e.g. alfven's cosmic electrodynamics and actually learn something about space plasmas or any other book on plasma physics: kivelson & russell, baumjohann & treumann, chen, stix, ..., heck even perrat gets the plasma physics correct if not his simulations)
Click to expand...

So it IS a plasma? Just so there are no more confusions.
 
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