Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
jonesdave116 said:
And your point is? This has nothing to do with EU ideas. It is perfectly mainstream, and has been for a long time. Here is an abstract of a paper from 1963 (!) which discusses it: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0019103562900118
I think that if you read T & T's 2006 poster, you'll find that they are talking about far more dramatic electrical woo, than this perfectly mainstream mechanism. Electric discharges causing the jets, et stupid cetera.
Click to expand...

Ohhh you knew all along???? :boxedin:
 
Sol88 said:
Not even sure if you can think independently RC:
Click to expand...
We are sure that you cannot think independently, Sol88. We have 8 years of evidence that you have a delusion about comets being rocks because you are unable to think for yourself and so can only parrot the Thunderbolts cult delusions about comets.
The denial of the real worlds means that you are happy to lie about electrical discharges being physically impossibly emitted from pits and cracks (not high points) :jaw-dropp!

2 December 2016 Sol88: A lie by quote mining and not citing a paper that debunks your comets are rocks delusion by tracing jets to pits
 
So, if a get this right JD116, everything after sublimation takes place is electrical? as mainstream have known about for quite sometime?
 
Sol88: Repeats the static electricity on airless bodies lie

Sol88 said:
except THEY DID FIND EVIDENCE .
Click to expand...
2 December 2016 Sol88: Repeats the static electricity movement of dust on airless bodies lie.
This is not your comets are rocks delusion.
This is not your comet jets are electrical discharges delusion.
This is not your comets were blasted off planets (Earth?) in recent times delusion.

29 August 2016 Sol88: Repeating a lie does not make it true. You know that the electrostatic transport of dust across airless bodies is not anything to do with sublimation.

The multiple lies about Static electricity may transport dust across airless planetary bodies.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
We are sure that you cannot think independently, Sol88. We have 8 years of evidence that you have a delusion about comets being rocks because you are unable to think for yourself and so can only parrot the Thunderbolts cult delusions about comets.
The denial of the real worlds means that you are happy to lie about electrical discharges being physically impossibly emitted from pits and cracks (not high points) :jaw-dropp!

2 December 2016 Sol88: A lie by quote mining and not citing a paper that debunks your comets are rocks delusion by tracing jets to pits
Click to expand...

No wonder I, not being able to think for myself of course, why the main source of jets now seem to be said to come from cliffs? just like on Tempel 1

Thought mainstream would of put this baby to bed?? Seems strange when
Comparison of Deep Impact and Stardust photos of a smooth elevated feature on the surface of the nucleus showing recession of icy cliffs at the margins.
Click to expand...

Strange...:confused: my silly, thinking Cliffs are high points.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
2 December 2016 Sol88: Repeats the static electricity movement of dust on airless bodies lie.
This is not your comets are rocks delusion.
This is not your comet jets are electrical discharges delusion.
This is not your comets were blasted off planets (Earth?) in recent times delusion.

29 August 2016 Sol88: Repeating a lie does not make it true. You know that the electrostatic transport of dust across airless bodies is not anything to do with sublimation.

The multiple lies about Static electricity may transport dust across airless planetary bodies.
Click to expand...

Dude, I think sublimation has a minimal impact on the comets production of OH, you are the ones STUCK with sublimation as the mechanism for the jets, water and all the other phenomena on a comet.
 
Sol88: Fantasy that solar wind induced electric fields are evidence for his delusion

Sol88 said:
What about the in conjunction and coupled to the SW electric field......
Click to expand...
what about:
2 December 2016 Sol88: Fantasy that solar wind induced electric fields are evidence for his comets are rocks delusion.

You know that the solar wind charges objects. Yu know that charged objects have electric fields.
 
Sol88: Still ignorant after 8 years about sublimation on comets

Sol88 said:
Yeah nah, the sun gets down into cracks ...
Click to expand...
2 December 2016 Sol88: Still ignorant after 8 years about sublimation on comets!

The Sun heats up the entire body of the comet nucleus, ices sublimate under the surface to gas and the gas exits via pits and cracks blowing dust out.
 
 
Sol88 said:
Thanks again for the LINK to the ELECTRIC COMET
Click to expand...

What has that got to do with the electric comet nonsense? In case you haven't noticed, there hasn't been a single piece of evidence for it. It is as debunked as it is possible to be!

Notice the jets are NOT collimated when they leave the surface but are after a certain distance, why and how JD116?
Click to expand...

As I said previously, that is due to you reading the paper wrongly. The 'apparent' collimation, as explained in the paper (which is only discussing a model, by the way), is due to line of sight effects.

"The three-dimensional dust tracing analysis shows that photographed jets are often a conjunction of multiple aligned jet structures on top of a non-collimated, homogeneously released dust background."

IOW, they are not suddenly becoming collimated by magic. Although I do recall seeing what appeared to be faint jets in the neck region 'merging' early in the mission, due to the fact that they were coming from opposite sides of the neck.
 
Sol88: A lie about receding cliffs on Tempel 1 being sources of jets

Sol88 said:
Strange...:confused: my silly, thinking Cliffs are high points.
Click to expand...
2 December 2016 Sol88: An implied lie about receding cliffs on Tempel 1 being sources of jets or his imaginary electrical discharges.

The cliffs on Tempel 1 receded because they are made of ices and dust and the ices sublimated.
The sources of jets on 67P are traced to cracks in cliff faces (not high points) and pits (definitely not high points).

2 December 2016 Sol88: Repeats the static electricity movement of dust on airless bodies lie.
29 August 2016 Sol88: Repeating a lie does not make it true. You know that the electrostatic transport of dust across airless bodies is not anything to do with sublimation.
The multiple lies about Static electricity may transport dust across airless planetary bodies.
 
Last edited:
Dude, I think sublimation has a minimal impact on the comets production of OH, you are the ones STUCK with sublimation as the mechanism for the jets, water and all the other phenomena on a comet.
Click to expand...

Well, unfortunately for you, the evidence says that you are wrong. We see ice below, on, and within the surface material. We see H2O and other gases above the surface. So it is fair to say that that is where the gas is coming from, n'est-ce pas? When MIRO and VIRTIS first looked for signs of outgassing, where did they look? Where they could see dust jets, of course. Just like the jets of dust and ice at Hartley 2 were seen to be composed of CO2. How is the H2O and CO2 getting there? Where is it coming from?

EDIT: And I don't see what OH has got to do with it. That is merely a breakdown product of H2O. Which was seen very close to the nucleus (0 - 500m). Not much time to create much OH in 1 second or less.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
So, if a get this right JD116, everything after sublimation takes place is electrical? as mainstream have known about for quite sometime?
Click to expand...

Err, no. What would give you that idea? Nobody has seen any evidence of electrical dust transportation (which would be lateral and insignificant, anyway).
The bulk of the dust movement is seemingly due to fallback from one hemisphere (mainly the south) to the other hemisphere (i.e. the north).
It sure as hell isn't throwing it out at escape velocity in an 'upward' direction!
 
Here is a paper discussing various options for dust transportation, and the morphology seen on the surface due to dust: http://boris.unibe.ch/81720/8/aa26049-15_proof.pdf
Electrostatic effects are not high on their list of candidates, but not ruled out either. They may, as I've mentioned before, play a small role, but how would you recognise it? Airfall would seem to be the biggest contributor to dust transportation. And sublimation is proven beyond any doubt to be responsible for the dust that leaves the surface. It would be difficult not to leave the surface, when you have a gas rushing past at sufficient velocity to lift you from the surface!
 
Sol88 said:
What about the in conjunction and coupled to the SW electric field...Mmmmmmm


Yeah nah, the sun gets down into cracks and crevices some unknown distance under the surface, gently warming the "water ice" which we see as "jets" and at times can explosively release water

hay if say if fast enough and for long enough, it almost sounds plausible!
Click to expand...

None of which is in any way relevant to electric comet woo. They mention the SW electric field only to query why there are periods when the detection of the charged dust particles is lower than at other times. Because the SW electric field is believed to be responsible for the acceleration of the particles back towards the comet. They got to where they were due to being entrained by fast escaping gas. i.e. sublimation.
As for the plausibility of sublimation, it is only a mystery to you because you don't understand it. It is inevitable.
 
And Sol still hasn't explained why we see no evidence of this electrical woo. And why these 'discharges' are extremely dark. And cold. And are seen to be composed of dust and gas. And ice, in the case of 103/P. They sound very non-electrical to me. Almost impossible to think of a phenomenon that is less electrical.
 
Sol88, let me help you out.

Scratch everything.

All that is happening to comets is that the material on them reaches critical ionization velocity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_ionization_velocity

What is happening is the comet is slamming into incoming solar wind particles which are already ionized and travelling at great velocity, leading to any neutral gas knocked off the comet to ionize itself, giving a large plume of material.

Basically what is happening is not that the comet is icey (establishment is clearly wrong, the plumes are not sublimating gas), they are just travelling so fast that their surfaces are being eroded away by small, very high energy particles ripping apart the comet from the star it is orbiting.

Think of sandblasting, only with extremely high velocity ionized material.

Neither EU's interpretation or establishment's is correct. They are both wrong.
 
jeffreyw said:
Sol88, let me help you out.

Scratch everything.

All that is happening to comets is that the material on them reaches critical ionization velocity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_ionization_velocity

What is happening is the comet is slamming into incoming solar wind particles which are already ionized and travelling at great velocity, leading to any neutral gas knocked off the comet to ionize itself, giving a large plume of material.

Basically what is happening is not that the comet is icey (establishment is clearly wrong, the plumes are not sublimating gas), they are just travelling so fast that their surfaces are being eroded away by small, very high energy particles ripping apart the comet from the star it is orbiting.

Think of sandblasting, only with extremely high velocity ionized material.

Neither EU's interpretation or establishment's is correct. They are both wrong.
Click to expand...

All of which is total nonsense, and has already been refuted by evidence linked to in this thread over many years. The comet IS icy, as observed. On the surface, within the surface, and below the surface.
CIV is NOT POSSIBLE at times of high outgassing, as outlined not long ago by Tusenfem (the SW is getting nowhere near the comet for many months).

Ergo, you're statement is as evidence-free, and refuted by observation, as anything Sol has ever come out with.
 
On a different subject, I said:

It (i.e. electrostatic levitation) sure as hell isn't throwing it out at escape velocity in an 'upward' direction!
Click to expand...

Which is wrong. Mea culpa. However, it still can only happen at times of low outgassing, as proposed in Sol's favourite paper by Nordheim, et al. And also proposed many years earlier by Mendis, et al (including Whipple): http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/...age=787&epage=787&send=Send+PDF&filetype=.pdf

EDIT: It should also be noted that this effect will be seen on asteroids for the whole of their orbit, due to the lack of volatile outgassing. If this was the principle reason for the dust in cometary comae, then asteroids would appear to be no different to comets. However, even the ones in elliptical orbits DO appear to be very different.
 
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