Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Matthew Cline · Jan 14, 2016

jonesdave116 said:
Come back to us when you've found the gas velocity for sublimating H2O on a comet.

Tip: it's not the same as on Earth. Take it from there.

Preposterous! Intuition is always the best way to do physics!

Sol88 · Jan 14, 2016

jonesdave116 said:
Exposed water ice on the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko
www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature16190.html (paywalled)

http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2016/01/13/exposed-ice-on-rosettas-comet-confirmed-as-water/

"In the latest study, which focuses on scans between September and November 2014, the team confirms that two areas several tens of metres across in the Imhotep region that appear as bright patches in visible light, do indeed include a significant amount of water ice.
The ice is associated with cliff walls and debris falls, and was at an average temperature of about –120ºC at the time.
In those regions, pure water ice was found to occupy around 5% of each pixel sampling area, with the rest made up of the dark, dry material."

That’s awesome news!! :thumbsup:

Well done to the Rosetta scientists, they can now place comet 67P (comets) on the shelf along with Mercury, Luna, Mars, most the moons of Saturn and Jupiter, Uranus, Neptune, Ceres and Pluto as astronomical bodies with “Ice”.

Again well done Rosetta team on this outstanding finding!

jonesdave116 · Jan 14, 2016

From: http://www.holoscience.com/wp/deep-impact-2/
Thornhill in case nobody guesses.

Most of the volatiles detected in cometary comas are formed not by solar heating but by electrical ‘cathode sputtering’ of the high-temperature minerals on the comet surface. The evidence for this comes from the ‘puzzling’ abundance (densities at least 100 times greater than expected) of negative ions near the nucleus (link? Never heard of this). The negative ions combine with the positive hydrogen ions from the solar wind to give, amongst other things, the OH radical, which is then misinterpreted as signaling the presence of water ice on the comet. That is why all other means of detecting significant water ice on comets have generally failed.

Must be embarrassing to be so horribly wrong!

And from these very pages, from David Talbott: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10359420&postcount=2441)

likelihood of a hot and dry surface ("hot," as in the familiar lexicon of comet science)

Nope.

no layers of ice exposed beneath the surface, despite the requirements of standard theory

Already found subsurface ice long before he wrote that. And since.

no ice at the source of jets, not even where the most energetic jets are active

Like the CO2 jets at Hartley 2, entraining water ice, you mean?

electric discharge as the essential contributor to the comet's increasing activity.

Lol. No.

abundance of unexplained rocky debris on the surface, as seen on asteroids, including sharp edged boulders exhibiting no ices.

Plenty of boulders, many of them exhibiting ices. Wrong again. There's a trend developing here.

visible electrical erosion of the surface in the fashion of electrical etching of surface materials and electric discharge machining (edm)

Another lol.

surface electrochemically transformed and burned black by this discharge activity, as in laboratory experiments

See above.

focused glow discharge enigmatically moving across the surface during the course of the Rosetta observations

Super lol.

useful comparisons of this activity to the moving electrified plumes of Jupiter's moon Io and Saturn's moon Enceladus

?????????Does he mean the volcanic activity on Io, and the water plumes at Enceladus?
Either way, nope.

no support for the long-presumed "compositional zoning" in textbook solar system history and comet theory

Wrong.

evidence for electrochemical production of hydroxyl and/or water by electrical action on surface silicates and clays

Nope. Fails on proton flux alone.

evidence for production of water and/or hydroxyl by electrical activity in the coma

Nope. H2O found within 0- 500m of the nucleus, with no associated electric woo.

additional electrochemical transactions in the coma adding to diverse chemistry, ranging from CO2 to methane, alcohol, cyanide, and more

Nope. Philae found some of that stuff on the nucleus, but nothing to do with 'electrochemistry'. All of the COMs found at comets have also been found in dense interstellar molecular clouds. The precursors of solar systems.

relationship of comet flaring to arrival of charged particles from solar outbursts

Nope. Although we should see an increase in X-rays from the increased interaction between the heavier solar wind ions and the cometary neutrals.

So, all in all, I'd say the EU is still batting zero. Not only were they wrong; they were horribly wrong.

Reality Check · Jan 14, 2016

Sol88 said:
Well done to the Rosetta scientists, they can now place comet 67P (comets) on the shelf along with Mercury, Luna, Mars, most the moons of Saturn and Jupiter, Uranus, Neptune, Ceres and Pluto as astronomical bodies with “Ice”.!

That is an awesome insult to the intelligence of scientists who know the difference between planets, moons, icy moons and comets, Sol88 :jaw-dropp

!
An awesome set of lies as well from Sol88.

Comet 67P is not "on the shelf" with Mercury.
Comet 67P is not "on the shelf" with Luna.
Comet 67P is not "on the shelf" with Mars.
Comet 67P is not "on the shelf" with any of the moons of Saturn.
Comet 67P is not "on the shelf" with any of the moons of Jupiter.
Comet 67P is not "on the shelf" with Uranus.
Comet 67P is not "on the shelf" with Neptune.
Comet 67P is not "on the shelf" with Ceres.
Comet 67P is not "on the shelf" with Pluto.

Comets are astronomical bodies made of ices and dust that orbit the Sun.
More repeating of the "ice" in quotes lie from Sol88.

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.
203 days and counting of fear of doing basic 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.

jonesdave116 · Jan 14, 2016

From 'The Electric Comet', poster presentation by T & T to the IEEE 33RD annual conference on plasma sciences.

The jets exhibit narrowly confined filamentary structures over
great distances, defying the expected behavior of neutral gases in a vacuum.

You're not seeing the gases, you eejits, it's the DUST you are seeing. How many times?

Comets have unexpectedly high apparent coma temperatures and are sufficiently energetic to emit extreme ultraviolet light and even x-rays.

No they don't, and the x-rays are caused by solar wind heavy ions CXing with the cometary neutrals.

Water and other volatiles are in short supply or are completely absent on comet nuclei.

Snigger.

Most comets should be homogeneous—their interiors will have the same composition as their surfaces. They are simply “asteroids on eccentric orbits.”

So wrong it's not even wrong!

Comets follow their elongated paths within a weak electrical field centered
on the Sun

Which electric field? Never been seen. Certainly doesn't seem to have been noticed by Rosetta.

The observed jets of comets are electric arc discharges to the nucleus, producing “electrical discharge machining” (EDM) of the surface. The excavated material is accelerated into space along the jets’ observed filamentary arcs.

More lolworthy stuff.

Intermittent and wandering arcs erode the surface and burn it black, leaving
the distinctive scarring patterns of electric discharges.

Horribly wrong.

The jets’ explode from cometary nuclei at supersonic speeds and retain their
coherent structure for hundreds of thousands of miles. The collimation of such jets is a well-documented attribute of plasma discharge.

I'll only say it one more time; that is bloody dust you are seeing!

The primary distinction between comet and asteroid surfaces is that electrical
arcing and “electrostatic cleaning” of the comet nucleus will leave little or no
dust or debris on the surface during the active phase, even if a shallow layer
of dust may be attracted back to the nucleus electrostatically as the comet
becomes dormant in its retreat to more remote regions.

Had plenty of activity, and it's still covered in shed loads of dust. Epic fail.

If the electric theorists are correct.....................

They aren't chaps. Very, very, very wrong.

But a much different vantage point on the water question is possible. When astronomers view the comas of comets spectroscopically, what they actually see is the hydroxyl radical (OH), which they assume to be a residue of water (H2O) broken down by the ultraviolet light of the Sun (photolysis). This assumption is not only unwarranted, it requires a speed of “processing” by solar
radiation beyond anything that can be demonstrated experimentally.

Considering that the first unambiguous detection of neutral H2O (at Halley) was from the Kuiper Airborne Observatory, in 1986, then no Wal, what they are seeing, and had done numerous before you wrote that rubbish, and many times since, is H2O.
On the verge of calling this one an outright lie to fool the gullible.

In the electric model, negative oxygen ions are accelerated away from the comet in energetic jets, then combine preferentially with protons from the solar wind to form the observed
OH radical

Wrong. Not enough protons. And it is neutral H2O that they see, as well as OH. And to the best of my knowledge the O seen close to the comet is only O+.

Most of the voltage difference between the comet and the solar plasma
is taken up in a double layer of charge, called a plasma sheath, that surrounds the comet. When the electrical stress is great enough, the sheath glows and appears as the typical cometary coma and tail. Diffuse electrical discharges occur in the sheath and at the nucleus, radiating a variety of
frequencies, including x-rays

Oh dear. Double layers. Another failed prediction.

So where the sheath is most compressed, in the sunward direction, the electric field is strong enough to accelerate charged particles to x-ray energies. That may explain recent crescent-shaped x-ray images in relation to the comet nucleus and the Sun.

Sorry Wal, wrong again. The X-rays have specific signatures which tell us which ions are causing them. They are solar wind heavy ions, such as O6+.

Not very good at this science lark, is he?

Reality Check · Jan 14, 2016

jonesdave116 said:
From: http://www.holoscience.com/wp/deep-impact-2/
Thornhill in case nobody guesses.

Oh dear,

The Deep Impact mission to comet Tempel 1 was perhaps the most successful space mission for confirming Electric Universe predictions

Did Wal Thornhill in 2010 deludingly link to his lies about the Deep Impact results? Actually not directly. He lies about there being confirmed predictions on that linked page. It is a list of his. Deep Impact 2 is also a list of delusions and lies from the Thunderbolts cult, e.g.

"electrical exchanges between solar system bodies during a period of recent planetary chaos."
"Comets, asteroids and meteorites all originate from rocky planets and moons, lofted into space by overwhelmingly powerful electrical discharges."
"This website carried the only prediction] of the unexpected initial flash before impact" is a utter lie - to such flash as observed.
Picks incompetent sources to quote: A Time intereview !, the late Tom Van Flandern visualizing stuff.
Lies abut "recent discovery that stars form like a string of pearls".
Lies about "all comets were formed in a distant, homogeneous Oort cloud.
Comets were formed out of the left over gases and dust from the formation of the solar system.
Lies about EC "was able to predict or simply explain all of the discoveries made during the Deep Impact mission".
A delusion about the plumes on Io being non-existent "cathode jets".
"Comment: No. The cometesimal hypothesis" .is followed by lies about comet formation!
Idiotically debunks his dogma with "Comment: The EU model predicts that all active comets" because Tempel 1 was the first comet observed with that activity!

jonesdave116 · Jan 14, 2016

^And nowhere in those Deep Impact delusions can I see a single mention of the fact that the impact excavated solid ice grains. Didn't fit the delusion, so presumably just ignored it. Never seen reference to the ice at Hartley 2 either. Which is probably why it seems to come as a shock to the EU faithful when you inform them of it. Given that their sum total of knowledge about comets seems to come from T & T, not really surprising.
And he was still banging on about mistaking OH for H2O a good quarter of a century after H2O had first been detected. The bloke is either very ignorant of the relevant science, or he's a fraudster.

jonesdave116 · Jan 14, 2016

What would appear to be more horrendous scholarship and/or deliberate obfuscation by dear old Wal.

From: http://www.holoscience.com/wp/deep-impact-2/
Posted on October 27, 2010 by Wal Thornhill

Comment: The electrical model of comet behavior offers a simple answer to why an excess of water ‘vapor’ was found on Tempel 1’s sunward side. First, it is an unwarranted use of the word ‘vapor.’ It is the OH radical that is detected. It is an assumption that it is formed by the breakdown of H2O ‘vapor’ by solar UV radiation. As explained earlier, electrical sputtering of rocky minerals on the comet nucleus will tear molecules apart, producing O– ions which combine with protons (H+) from the solar ‘wind’ to produce OH. The sunward side of the coma is the place where the coma is most compressed and where we should expect OH to be most concentrated.

However, from 2005, a full 5 years before he tried to con his gullible acolytes with the above rubbish, we have;
Parent Volatiles in Comet 9P/Tempel 1: Before and After Impact
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/310/5746/270.short

We quantified eight parent volatiles (H2O, C2H6, HCN, CO, CH3OH, H2CO, C2H2, and CH4) in the Jupiter-family comet Tempel 1 using high-dispersion infrared spectroscopy in the wavelength range 2.8 to 5.0 micrometers.

There were other papers published on that mission which also laid out the unambiguous detection of H2O vapour and solid water ice grains from the impact, long before the fiction he wrote in 2010.
Ineptitude, or a conman? I'll leave it for the reader to decide.

Matthew Cline · Jan 14, 2016

jonesdave116 said:
... and solid water ice grains from the impact ...

Well obviously those water ice grains formed via the reverse-sublimation of water vapor created the ECH way. Duh!

Sol88 · Jan 15, 2016

jonesdave116 said:
^And nowhere in those Deep Impact delusions can I see a single mention of the fact that the impact excavated solid ice grains. Didn't fit the delusion, so presumably just ignored it. Never seen reference to the ice at Hartley 2 either. Which is probably why it seems to come as a shock to the EU faithful when you inform them of it. Given that their sum total of knowledge about comets seems to come from T & T, not really surprising.
And he was still banging on about mistaking OH for H2O a good quarter of a century after H2O had first been detected. The bloke is either very ignorant of the relevant science, or he's a fraudster.

I think you are going to need a bigger hammer JD116, then you can make anything fit!!!!

jonesdave116 · Jan 15, 2016

Not wasting bandwidth on youtube vids. Told you before. Point to whatever you're on about in the scientific literature.
Whatever it is, it doesn't change anything I've written above.

Detection of Water Vapor in Halley's Comet
Michael J. Mumma, Harold A. Weaver, Harold P. Larson, D. Scott Davis, Michael Williams
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/232/4757/1523.short
Science 20 Jun 1986:
Vol. 232, Issue 4757, pp. 1523-1528
DOI: 10.1126/science.232.4757.1523

EDIT:
And let's be quite clear here; the only people who have been misrepresenting the data to fit their story regarding comets, are Thornhill and Talbott.
Everything in the scientific literature has evidence to back it up. EVIDENCE; something that is well outside of the EU 'paradigm'.

tusenfem · Jan 15, 2016

for those interested in cometary plasma physics:

Mass-loading, pile-up, and mirror-mode waves at comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, 15 pages of RPC delight (open access)

jonesdave116 · Jan 15, 2016

tusenfem said:
for those interested in cometary plasma physics:

Mass-loading, pile-up, and mirror-mode waves at comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, 15 pages of RPC delight (open access)

Very interesting. Can't pretend that I understood every word, but that has given me something to do for the rest of the evening; Googling various terms on Scholar!

By the way, if anybody wants, but can't get hold of:
Exposed water ice on the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture16190.html (paywalled)

let me know by PM, and I'll e-mail it.

tusenfem · Jan 16, 2016

jonesdave116 said:
Very interesting. Can't pretend that I understood every word, but that has given me something to do for the rest of the evening; Googling various terms on Scholar!

I am always happy to give further explanations, just come over for coffee.

Ziggurat · Jan 16, 2016

I've asked this of EU advocates before, I'm going to give it another shot. Here are two photographs. What kind of material are we looking at in each picture?

jonesdave116 · Jan 16, 2016

Ziggurat said:
I've asked this of EU advocates before, I'm going to give it another shot. Here are two photographs. What kind of material are we looking at in each picture?

Hmmm. I think the top one is glacial ice, and the lower one rock. But I could be wrong. They could both be ice. Either way, I'm sure there is an electrical explanation for both of them. It just won't make any sense.

Darwin123 · Jan 17, 2016

Ziggurat said:
I've asked this of EU advocates before, I'm going to give it another shot. Here are two photographs. What kind of material are we looking at in each picture?

By any chance could they be:

The same rock formation at different parts of the day?

Or the same ice formation at different parts of the day?

Maybe with an added rotation to make them seem even more different?

Darwin123 · Jan 17, 2016

Matthew Cline said:
Preposterous! Intuition is always the best way to do physics!

You made a typographic error!

You meant to type:

Preposterous Intuition is always voodoo physics!

jonesdave116 · Jan 17, 2016

Oh lordy. I found myself on thunderdolts, having followed a Rational Wiki link (honest), and discovered that a certain Subhan Ibadov, PhD will be a speaker at their next conference. His premise? "Electric Discharge Mechanism of Comet Outbursts and Thunderbolts/Lightning in Comet Nuclei Due to Solar Flares."
Mind boggling. Here is a link to an abstract of his; Space observations of comets during solar flares: A possible explanation for comet brightness outbursts: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117711007605

As Tusenfem may know, there was a large CME back in September 2014, which was detected by Rosetta's RPC instruments. There is a recent (paywalled) paper on it, which I can't get my hands on: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11038-015-9479-5.
It refers to this event (I think): http://spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=13&month=09&year=2014.

Now I know why one of the EU fantasists was going on about solar flares on the ESA Rosetta blog. As far as I recall, nothing of note happened at that time at 67P.

Seems like the more that electric woo of T & T's variety recedes into the background, the more they are desperately searching for something, anything (as long as it isn't 'mainstream') to replace it with! Anariba will be speaking also.

tusenfem · Jan 17, 2016

jonesdave116 said:
As Tusenfem may know, there was a large CME back in September 2014, which was detected by Rosetta's RPC instruments. There is a recent (paywalled) paper on it, which I can't get my hands on: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11038-015-9479-5.
It refers to this event (I think): http://spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=13&month=09&year=2014.

I thinks I have Susan's paper in my LitDB, but not on this laptop, maybe tomorrow at the office.
And if not, I know an editor of Earth, Moon and Planets, just a few doors down the hall.

Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Muse

Philosopher

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Philosopher

Muse

Philosopher

Philosopher

Illuminator

Philosopher

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Graduate Poster

Graduate Poster

Philosopher

Illuminator

Share this page

ISF - Join now!