Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Isn't the ECH argument that the high negative charge of the cometary nucleus draws in protons from far away? How large a charge would it need in order to pull that off?

Enormous, I'd imagine. The question that needs to be asked, though, is why this enormous increase hasn't been noticed by Tusenfem and his mates! They're either sleeping on the job, or it isn't happening. I think the latter is more likely :)

EDIT: And don't forget, we are talking about spacecraft killing fluxes here.
 
Last edited:
ISo even being very generous in my application of quantities regarding size, and only using the formation of OH rather than H2O, you are short by a mere 7 (SEVEN!) orders of magnitude in the required number of protons needed to produce just 1 litre of water per second.



<snipped for brevity>

Thanks very much jonesdave for taking the time to lay it out so clearly. Here we see the real reason the EU crowd avoids math; it's much harder to peddle baloney with math than it is with prose.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Excellent video showing the wealth of material and improved explanations of comet activities being provided by the Thunderbolts Project]
Wrong, Haig - yet another deluded video from the Thunderbolts cult does not explain anything about real comets.
This sounds like the idiocy of "mysteries" makes comets into rocks blasted off Earth by Venus in recent history :dl:!

The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 6 years of delusions from Sol88 and Haig!).
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc. mostly cited by Haig.
 
Last edited:
So electrochemistry is key to electric comets and there is lots of water produced in the voltage driven chemical reaction :cool:

MIRO MAPS WATER IN COMET’S COMA
That is a lie, Haig, because there is no electrochemistry in that blog article.
MIRO MAPS WATER IN COMET’S COMA
“Our observations show that the distribution of water in the coma is highly inhomogeneous,” explains Nicolas Biver, CNRS researcher at LESIA-Observatoire de Paris in Meudon, France, and lead author of the study.

“We found the highest density of water just above the neck, close to the north pole of the comet's rotation axis: in this narrow region, the column density of water is up to two orders of magnitude higher than elsewhere in the coma,” adds Dr Biver.

Lower but still substantial amounts of water are detected over the day side of the nucleus up to the terminator between the illuminated and dark side. The lowest amounts of water are found on the comet's night side – particularly over the southern polar regions; these could be due to either local outgassing or circulation effects within the coma, causing water to flow from the day to the night side.
This debunks the electric comet delusions of comets are rocks with electrical discharges yet again - a high concentration of water above the neck where there should be no imaginary electrical discharges :jaw-dropp!

The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 6 years of delusions from Sol88 and Haig!).
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc. mostly cited by Haig.
 
On pages 94/95 of The Electric Universe by Thornhill 2003/2007), we read, ...
delusions from the proven liar Wal Thornhill who is so deluded that he thinks Venus erupted from Jupiter in recent history, comets are rocks, imaginary electrical discharges happen on comets and that Grand Canyon was created by electrical discharges :eye-poppi!
The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 6 years of delusions from Sol88 and Haig!).
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc. mostly cited by Haig.

the rate of production in the coma of 67P, can also be explained by this process.
That looks like several lies, Haig
  1. The first lie is that this process can explain the rate of production in the coma of 67P.
    Calculations have already been done in this thread for the production of water by this process and it does not work even if comets are imagined to be rock which they are not!
  2. The second lie is that The negligible chondritic contribution in the lunar soils water is about comets or 67P - it is abut the moon.
  3. The third lie is that what you highlight is not about the rate of production of water in the coma of 67P or even on the moon :jaw-dropp!
    It is a statement that lunar grains have water with a D/H ratio similar to the solar wind.
The negligible chondritic contribution in the lunar soils water
Recent data from Apollo samples demonstrate the presence of water in the lunar interior and at the surface, challenging previous assumption that the Moon was free of water. However, the source(s) of this water remains enigmatic. The external flux of particles and solid materials that reach the surface of the airless Moon constitute a hydrogen (H) surface reservoir that can be converted to water (or OH) during proton implantation in rocks or remobilization during magmatic events. Our original goal was thus to quantify the relative contributions to this H surface reservoir. To this end, we report NanoSIMS measurements of D/H and 7Li/6Li ratios on agglutinates, volcanic glasses, and plagioclase grains from the Apollo sample collection. Clear correlations emerge between cosmogenic D and 6Li revealing that almost all D is produced by spallation reactions both on the surface and in the interior of the grains. In grain interiors, no evidence of chondritic water has been found. This observation allows us to constrain the H isotopic ratio of hypothetical juvenile lunar water to δD ≤ −550‰. On the grain surface, the hydroxyl concentrations are significant and the D/H ratios indicate that they originate from solar wind implantation. The scattering distribution of the data around the theoretical D vs. 6Li spallation correlation is compatible with a chondritic contribution <15%. In conclusion, (i) solar wind implantation is the major mechanism responsible for hydroxyls on the lunar surface, and (ii) the postulated chondritic lunar water is not retained in the regolith.
 
A couple of reminders from 2014 that the science evidence is favouring the electric comet hypothesis
Usual ignorance, delusions and lies from the Thunderbolts cult:
  • Delusions about "Electrical Sculpting of Surface Dust"
  • Lying about a "mystery" of cometary jets.
The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 6 years of delusions from Sol88 and Haig!).
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc. mostly cited by Haig.
 
Last edited:
And a couple more
A couple more videos containing ignorance, delusions and lies from the Thunderbolts cult:
  1. The stupidity that their ignorance about comets and "rubble" means that their delusions about comets being rocks, etc. are correct.
  2. Lying about "no water in 67P"? because they are denying the many observations of water on comets to support their delusions about comets being rocks, etc.!
The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 6 years of delusions from Sol88 and Haig!).
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc. mostly cited by Haig.
 
Yes, the flux it too low, the reaction rates are too low etc.
That has been discussed several times already in this thread.
Also the solar wind has not been seen by the Rosetta plasma instruments for months around perihelion, just now signatures of the solar wind are showing themselves again in the plasma instruments.
I had forgotten about this basic stupidity of the proton implantation idea supported by Haig and Franklin Anariba - it requires that the solar wind reaches the surface of the comet nucleus and this has not been the case for months. So where did all of the water in that time come from :p?
 
Are fractured cliffs the source of cometary dust jets ? insights from OSIRIS/Rosetta at 67P has some images of jet sources.
Fig. 1. Small jets arising from the fractured edge of a 200 m diameter pit. WAC image obtained from a distance of 9 km. Resolution: 0.73 m/px. Right panel shows the same pit from the opposite direction, exposing the morphology responsible for the activity seen in the left panel. For orientation, red and blue arrows indicate the same edges of the pit in both images. Image reference: WAC_201410-20T08.15.50.752Z_ID30_1397549000_F18
Fig. 2. Left panel: Map of sources active in December 2015, projected on the 3D shape model of 67P.Right:Close-view of an RGB color composite showing one of the sources with a typical bluer hue, corresponding to the location of the white box in the left panel. The color image reflects the variegation of the terrain in August 2014, when this area was not yet active. Distance from the comet center: 43 km, resolution: 0.75m/px. The large block in the center is about 100m wide.Reference image: NAC_2014-09-05T06.35.55.557Z_ID30_1397549300_F22
Fig. 3. Left panel: Map of sources active in April 2015, projected on the 3D shape model of 67P. Right: Close-view of one of the sources where a small jet is distinctly seen arising from the mass wasted area, even if it had passed the evening terminator since about 1/2h. Distance from the comet center: 91 km, resolution: 1.65 m/px. The circled area is about 80 m wide. Image references: NAC_2015-04-25T13.22.43.406Z_ID30_1397549001_F22 and NAC_2015-04-25T14.02.42.662Z_ID30_1397549001_F22.
N.B. The fractured cliffs are cliffs within rough terrain on 67P. e.g. pits, craters and scarps.
 
I had forgotten about this basic stupidity of the proton implantation idea supported by Haig and Franklin Anariba - it requires that the solar wind reaches the surface of the comet nucleus and this has not been the case for months. So where did all of the water in that time come from :p?

Quite. And as I have asked Haig, even where the SW has access to the surface, as it does on asteroids, why do we not see this behaviour? Why is the Moon not spewing out a shed load of H2O every time the dark side comes into sunlight?
For an asteroid the size of 67P, by my calculations previous, you would see roughly 1/ 10 billionth of a litre sublimated per second.
That would be why we don't see it!
 
Last edited:
It seems to me you are unable to comprehend the answers ;)

Look at those spirals! !

Spirals are not specific to electrical activity. Looking at spirals is not an electrical measurement.

There are lots of physical processes that cause spirals which are not caused by electrical activity. For instance, storms on earth and other planets form spirals. The spiral shape on planets is caused by Coriolis force. Fluid friction causes spirals in turbulence.

So maybe the spirals are caused by Coriolis force or friction!


Dust Whirls, Swirls and Twirls at Rosetta’s Comet

People starting to wake up and ask excellent questions!

You have not answered his question! He asked you what processes SPECIFIC to electrical activity are detected in comets.

You have replied many times mentioning observations without telling us how the observations specifically relate to electrical activity. Therefore, we have to assume the default hypothesis. You have come up with NO processes specific to electrical activity.

Not everything that glows is electric!
 
Spirals are not specific to electrical activity. Looking at spirals is not an electrical measurement.

There are lots of physical processes that cause spirals which are not caused by electrical activity. For instance, storms on earth and other planets form spirals. The spiral shape on planets is caused by Coriolis force. Fluid friction causes spirals in turbulence.

So maybe the spirals are caused by Coriolis force or friction!

Or it could be just what it says in the caption to the photo: "..a combination of several factors, including the rotation of the comet, differential flows of near-surface gas, and gravitational effects arising due to the uneven shape of the comet. The viewing perspective of the image might also distort the true shape of the outflowing material."

Still, after 17 months with zero evidence, I guess they are starting to get desperate. Hence the trumpeting of this Anariba nonsense. More of which anon.
 
Spirals are not specific to electrical activity. Looking at spirals is not an electrical measurement.

There are lots of physical processes that cause spirals which are not caused by electrical activity. For instance, storms on earth and other planets form spirals. The spiral shape on planets is caused by Coriolis force.

Careful there. I've seen suggestions by ECH/EU people that the winds on gas giants are due to electromagnetic activity, so I wouldn't be surprised if they claimed hurricanes and tornadoes on Earth are spiral due to electromagnetism.
 
As threatened promised, here is a take on part of Anariba's buffoonery.
This is from the intro pieces to the videos on dupetube, which I refuse to watch. It comes from https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/latest-tblog/ .
This is episode 3 – Solar Wind Sputtering and Its Relation to Water Observation in Comet 67P.
He basically quotes the findings from the paper, which is fine. Then his abysmal knowledge of comets comes to the fore. The following sentence sums it up: "Solar wind sputtering can explain dust jets and water ice formation in less illuminated areas of the comet, but not those areas facing the sun as the solar wind does not penetrate through the plasma sheath of the comet. These findings suggest another mechanism must be at work along with solar wind sputtering to generate all of the dust found in the coma. A corollary of this study is that proton ion implantation is more likely to occur in areas of less illumination."
Eh? Totally failing to grasp that sputtering has nothing whatsoever to do with the dust seen in the coma, which demonstrably comes from the outgassing vapour! If he'd have bothered to look at the figures in that paper (http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf...aa25980-15.pdf) he'd have seen that the sputtered species counts were extremely low, and in no way could be seen in the coma. Therefore, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that they could "explain dust jets and water ice formation in less illuminated areas of the comet." In the regions of highest sputtering ~600 counts, H2O >>>greater, hard to tell but probably 100s of thousands or more. So how many H2O molecules can be made from 600 SiO grains?
The rest of the stuff is about the lack of water ice on the surface, and has already been dealt with elsewhere. Seemingly he is unaware of MIROs latest findings of subsurfaace ice, as well as previous evidence at other comets. It is therefore irrelevant, and just further shows his apparent ignorance of the proton fluxes of the solar wind. And how it manages to burrow beneath the surface to create ice, whilst leaving the upper layers unaffected.
His conclusion is:
"Taken together, it is reasonable to attribute the observed water ice formed in less illuminated areas to proton (H+) implantation into refractory silicates where they interact with oxygen atoms located in the refractory silicate lattice structures. This is not unusual as it has already been demonstrated to occur in laboratory experiments and thought to be the dominant mechanism for water ice found on crater rims on the moon."

Where do they find these people?
 
Ouch- the idiocy in that Anariba quote hurts my brain!
The "less illuminated areas of the comet" are facing away from the Sun and away from the solar wind :eek:. Even without the shielding of the coma, any proton ion implantation is less likely in those areas.
 
Careful there. I've seen suggestions by ECH/EU people that the winds on gas giants are due to electromagnetic activity, so I wouldn't be surprised if they claimed hurricanes and tornadoes on Earth are spiral due to electromagnetism.

Electric sausages!!!!!

 
Ouch- the idiocy in that Anariba quote hurts my brain!
The "less illuminated areas of the comet" are facing away from the Sun and away from the solar wind :eek:. Even without the shielding of the coma, any proton ion implantation is less likely in those areas.

I actually emailed this joker earlier on, pointing out the obvious flaws with his idea, with links to the relevant papers re: subsurface ice, diamagnetic cavity, etc. Even did the maths for him regarding the proton flux. Wondered why he was pontificating on something that is easily shown to be rubbish, when we already have the evidence for how it is happening.
I received the predictable reply. Sounds like the brainwashing is terminal with this guy:

I thank you for having the motivation to correspond with me on this topic. I sincerely appreciate your comments, and I can assure you they have been taken into consideration in my analysis and presentations. Cometary activity is a rather complex phenomena, full of surprises, indicating there are lots of events to be understood. Attempting to understand these various phenomena is the task of a researcher, whether through a conventional or an alternative approach. Questioning current paradigms in a reasonable manner is the driving force behind innovation and technological progress, hence we should continue to do so, regardless of how improbably it might look to us initially.

My bolding of the usual EU speak.

Seriously, where do they find these comedians?

ETA: I should include my reply to his reply, I suppose. My usual diplomatic skills were in evidence:

No problem.

However, it doesn’t alter the fact that it is a scientific fact the there is subsurface ice, nor that there are nowhere near enough protons to account for any more than roughly 1/ 10 billionth of the observed water (simple maths). Or that the solar wind has been absent for some months, and is only now starting to be detected again. And that asteroids on elliptical orbits don’t magically become comets. And I daren’t tell you what a member of the Rosetta Plasma Consortium had to say on the matter. You know, as well as I do, that there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of getting this published in a respectable, peer reviewed journal. They would point out exactly the same flaws as I have, and a lot more besides. It’ll be just one more silly EU idea that the rest of the scientific community either ignores or tears to pieces. Which is why it is on Youtube and thunderdolts, where all the best scientific work is published! And probably best to leave it to those qualified in the relevant fields (such as plasma astrophysics) to do the research.

Best of luck with the paper!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

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