Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
jonesdave116 and tusenfem,

Thanks for carrying on the spread of good information! I am still reading but gave up on discussion a while back. Sol88 repeats of prior things that were dispelled long ago have really been addressed in detail that they ignore.
 
Sol88: Emphasizes how crazy the "Electric Universe mob" are with Io is a comet

Sol88 said:
YOU (Mainstream) can "see" ice in the retreating cliffs on Tempel 1, we (the Electric Universe mob)...
Click to expand...
7 December 2016 Sol88: Emphasizes how crazy the "Electric Universe mob" are with the insanity that Io (a moon) is a comet!

WE the rational people have not drunken the Kool-aid served by the deluded and lying Thunderbolts cult.

Doubles up on the insanity by citing the tracing of dust jets to fractured cliffs on 67P - a possible mechanism for the dust jets on other comets.
Are fractured cliffs the source of cometary dust jets ? Insights from OSIRIS/Rosetta at 67P
Dust jets, i.e. fuzzy collimated streams of cometary material arising from the nucleus, have been observed in-situ on all comets since the Giotto mission flew by comet 1P/Halley in 1986. Yet their formation mechanism remains unknown. Several solutions have been proposed, from localized physical mechanisms on the surface/sub-surface (see review in Belton (2010)) to purely dynamical processes involving the focusing of gas flows by the local topography (Crifo et al. 2002). While the latter seems to be responsible for the larger features, high resolution imagery has shown that broad streams are composed of many smaller features (a few meters wide) that connect directly to the nucleus surface. We monitored these jets at high resolution and over several months to understand what are the physical processes driving their formation, and how this affects the surface. Using many images of the same areas with different viewing angles, we performed a 3-dimensional reconstruction of collimated jets, and linked them precisely to their sources on the nucleus. Results. We show here observational evidence that the Northern hemisphere jets of comet 67P arise from areas with sharp topographic changes and describe the physical processes involved. We propose a model in which active cliffs are the main source of jet-like features, and therefore the regions eroding the fastest on comets. We suggest that this is a common mechanism taking place on all comets.
Click to expand...
(my emphasis added)


The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 7 years of delusions from Sol88 and Haig!).
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.
More than a year 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.

The last is especially relevant given that it looks like the entire Thunderbolts cult has been terrified of physics since 2005 (Deep Impact) :p!
David Talbott, 29 March 2005: if it happens that the Deep Impact projectile strikes a SOLID ROCK, the snowball theory of comets is finished. Deep Impact struck dust and ices and the ejecta was dust and ices.

Wal Thornhil and his 2005 abysmal denial of the real world (explicit mention of electrical discharges between planets in historical times): The Deep Impact of Comet Theory. This has "predictions" that he later lies about being confirmed, the forbidden lines idiocy, sharp relief features lie, etc.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
As for any discharges, even in the broadest terms of what an electrical discharge is, why don't we ask Tusenfem and the RPC cabal??
Click to expand...
Rather - why have you not learned the information that was given to you years ago, Sol88?
22 June 2009 Tim Thompson: Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays

This is really simple - no electrical discharges have ever been detected on any comet despite electrical discharges being easily detected. No bright as lightning jets. Broad band X-ray emission as expected from plasma processes.

26 August 2013: Electric comets do not exist (before it became clear that this from the deeply delusional Thunderbolts cult)
 
Dancing David said:
jonesdave116 and tusenfem,

Thanks for carrying on the spread of good information! I am still reading but gave up on discussion a while back. Sol88 repeats of prior things that were dispelled long ago have really been addressed in detail that they ignore.
Click to expand...

Thanks, DD, but lately is has mainly been JD, I have been pretty busy the last few weeks.
 
Dancing David said:
jonesdave116 and tusenfem,

Thanks for carrying on the spread of good information! I am still reading but gave up on discussion a while back. Sol88 repeats of prior things that were dispelled long ago have really been addressed in detail that they ignore.
Click to expand...

You are more than welcome. The more that these idiots spread, the less happy about it that I am. Just need to keep this going, in the event that anyone reads this, and happens to think that they are not scientifically illiterate plebs, who happen to believe in Velikovskian woo.
I, personally, do my best.
Still, it would be good if the woo-merchant-in-chief would actually have the cojones to poke his face in here. Not going to happen, of course.
We ended up being stuck with a neo-Velikovskian mythology woo artist. Whom, I believe, has no scientific qualifications.
Neither of them have a clue about plasma in a cometary environment. Neither of them know jack **** about science in general.
Still, that is generally good enough for Dunderdolts.misinfo.
Bless 'em.
 
Ok let's try a different tack, JD116.

Please tell all you know about
The Rosetta IES data presented in this study represent the first measurements of energetic charged
submicron-sized dust or ice grains (nanograins) in a cometary environment.
Click to expand...
...

Although the data presented herein are from an electron analyzer, the presence of fluxes at energies above
10 keV/e indicates that heavier particles such as negative ions or charged nanograins (possibly clusters of
ions) rather than electrons are being detected. Solar wind electrons, photoelectrons, and coma electrons
are all at much lower energies (well below a few hundred eV). Because of the occasional and very localized
nature of the negative particle signatures and their point of origin in the neck region of the comet, from
which active plumes often originate, we conclude that they most likely are cometary particles or grains that
pick up electrons during their motion through the photoelectron and coma electron environment close to
the comet rather than atmospheric species ionized by electron attachment (i. e., negative ions).
Click to expand...
LINK

in relation to

Abstract

We have investigated through simulation the electrostatic charging of the nucleus of Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko during periods of weak outgassing activity. Specifically, we have modeled the surface potential and electric field at the surface of the nucleus during the initial Rosetta rendezvous at 3.5 AU and the release of the Philae lander at 3 AU. We have also investigated the possibility of dust acceleration and ejection above the nucleus due to electrostatic forces. Finally, we discuss these modeling results in the context of possible observations by instruments on both the Rosetta orbiter and the Philae lander.
Click to expand...
LINK



and because it's the same mechanism on Enceladus
Abstract
One of the surprises revealed by the Cassini mission during its flybys of the satellite Enceladus was the presence of charged nanograins associated with the jets emitted near the satellite's south pole. Measurements by the CAPS instrument on Cassini have shown that these grains consist of both a positively as well as negatively charged population. Assuming that they are composed mostly of water molecules, the mass to charge ratios (M/Q) of the grains are at least as high as 1000. (See e.g. Hill et al., JGR 117, A05209, 2012.) The mechanisms by which these nanograins are formed and destroyed have not been established. A larger question is, how widespread are these processes, and can we find them elsewhere? Enceladus has often been compared to a comet and although that may be a stretch, an opportunity will arise to make some comparisons in 2 years when the Rosetta spacecraft (S/C) rendezvous with comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. Included in the mission payload as part of the Rosetta Plasma Consortium is the Ion and Electron Sensor (IES) instrument, capable of measuring both negatively and positively charged particles over an energy/charge range up to 17 keV/e. Although we designed this instrument primarily to measure electrons and ions it is capable of measuring charged nanograins over this energy range. Since the Rosetta S/C speed relative to the comet nucleus will be much lower than the Cassini flyby speed at Enceladus IES measurements will be able to extend the upper range of M/Q present at the comet to much higher values than was possible at Enceladus. We will show examples of expected IES response for model particle distributions.
Click to expand...
LINK
 
Last edited:
jonesdave116 said:
As Tusenfem pointed out, they are not discharges. And, as Tom Bridgman said some time ago:


http://dealingwithcreationisminastr.../11/electric-comets-failures-of-electric.html

And I think we, as well as you, know precisely what T & T meant when they were talking about discharges:


http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf

One assumes that these 'electric arc discharges' are the most prominent, collimated jets, yes? Which, as I've pointed out, are the same 'brightness' as the nucleus, at best. That is, a surface that reflects ~6% of the incident light.
Summer fireworks on comet 67P
Vincent, J.-B., et al.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.07743.pdf

So, that particular claim seems to be due to the fact that certain woo peddlers don't understand that those images have been 'stretched' (i.e. the contrast has been altered). In other words, your whole 'discharge' house of cards is built upon pareidolia, and an inability to do a little bit of research.
Click to expand...

Except the one that saturated the CCD on the NavCam :blush:

Some did however saturate the NavCam CCD when the nucleus did
not (i.e. outburst #15, on 21/08/2016), so one can expect that after calibration they will appear at least as strong as the outbursts typically detected by OSIRIS.
Click to expand...

Sorry to burst your bubble JD116but I do understand about "stretching images". Please tell me about CCD saturation of an outburst, a "Jet", when nucleus did not?
 
and because you are just so good at explaining the obvious are you able to explain

We can constrain the dust velocity in these plumes by
using the cadence of our images. For instance the plume
associated to event #25 extends by at least 8150 m (edge
of NAC frame) and was not detected in the previous image
acquired 10 min earlier. This implies that dust was ejected
with a minimum velocity of 13 m:s��1. This is at least one
order of magnitude larger than the typical velocity of dust
grains in 67P's jets (1 m:s��1, Lin et al. (2016)), indicative of
more energetic events.
Click to expand...
More energetic?

This, of course, put constraints on the
thermophysics and volatile content of active areas, which
need to ensure the sustainability and repeatability of the
jets we observed.
Click to expand...
how are they sustained at such energetic levels and repeatable over many nucleus rotations?

The summer outbursts presented here are not the first ones
detected by the OSIRIS cameras on comet 67P. We did observe
a large outburst in April 2014, at a distance of 4AU
Click to expand...
Beyond the frost line??

and at night?
The next event occurred in February 2015
at a distance of 2.5 AU and is described in Knollenberg
(2015). Although much smaller in scale that most of the
other events, it is particularly interesting because it arose
from an area that had been in the night for 5 hours when
the outbursts occurred.
Click to expand...
How does the energy get down to the "ices" thru very low thermal inertia crust?
These areas are characterized by steep scarps, cli.s, and pits, which contrast with the overall atter morphology of the Southern hemisphere. It is interesting to note that beyond those three areas, it seems like all outbursts sources are located close to morphological boundaries, i.e. areas where we observe discontinuities in the local terrain, either textural or topographic. Region boundaries are de- .ned in El-Maarry et al. (2015b, 2016). This seems to indicate a link between morphology and outbursts, although it is not clear which one influences the other.
Click to expand...
ok back to cliffs of "ICE"

We observe that most sources fall on steep topographic
structures such as scarps and pits, often displaying nearby
talus deposits.
Click to expand...
Is a pit "steep" topographically?

On the basis of our observations of the dust plumes and of the local nucleus morphology, we can infer a possible mechanism generating the outbursts. Vincent et al. (2016) has proposed receding fractured cliffs as the major process responsible for the usual dust jets seen around 67P and other comets
Click to expand...
looks like you're getting painted into a corner! How does a cliff collapse collimate the jets??? as observed in the images?

This process requires less energy input than other mechanisms because cometary cliffs are extremely weak (tensile strength < 100 Pa)
Click to expand...
Is that from MUPUS sniff, sniff mmmmm something's off here. extremely weak ay??? looks like solid rock Philae bounced across solid rock..the

Understanding the details of a cometary cli collapse
is challenging because we do not know well the mechanical
properties of the material material
Click to expand...
Ummm did you not just say <100 Pa??? confused?

This idea will be tested with a more detailed morphological
study using forthcoming high resolution images, joint
analysis with other instruments on board Rosetta, and numerical
modeling.
Click to expand...
We plebs can only wait.




Love to hear it?

Seems a very convoluted way of saying "we have no idea how these jets are made"
 
Sol88 said:
and because you are just so good at explaining the obvious are you able to explain

More energetic?

how are they sustained at such energetic levels and repeatable over many nucleus rotations?

Beyond the frost line??

and at night? How does the energy get down to the "ices" thru very low thermal inertia crust?
ok back to cliffs of "ICE"

Is a pit "steep" topographically?

looks like you're getting painted into a corner! How does a cliff collapse collimate the jets??? as observed in the images?

Is that from MUPUS sniff, sniff mmmmm something's off here. extremely weak ay??? looks like solid rock Philae bounced across solid rock..the

Ummm did you not just say <100 Pa??? confused?

We plebs can only wait.




Love to hear it?

Seems a very convoluted way of saying "we have no idea how these jets are made"
Click to expand...
They're still not lightning bolts, so you still fail.
 
jonesdave116 said:
You are more than welcome. The more that these idiots spread, the less happy about it that I am. Just need to keep this going, in the event that anyone reads this, and happens to think that they are not scientifically illiterate plebs, who happen to believe in Velikovskian woo.
I, personally, do my best.
Still, it would be good if the woo-merchant-in-chief would actually have the cojones to poke his face in here. Not going to happen, of course.
We ended up being stuck with a neo-Velikovskian mythology woo artist. Whom, I believe, has no scientific qualifications.
Neither of them have a clue about plasma in a cometary environment. Neither of them know jack **** about science in general.
Still, that is generally good enough for Dunderdolts.misinfo.
Bless 'em.
Click to expand...

Well, one of them D Talbot maybe did poke around for a while. I can't recall.

But is seems to me to be like any conspiracy theory, they are more interested in the echo chamber than discussion.
 
Sol88: Waste of time explaining to a deluded person who thinks comets are rocks

Sol88 said:
Please tell all you know about ...
Click to expand...
Your delusions are delusions - no one needs to waste their time explaining the real world which you have been denying for 8 years ands counting!

8 December 2016 Sol88: It is a waste of time explaining anything to a deluded person who thinks comets are rocks.

The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 7 years of delusions from Sol88 and Haig!).
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.
More than a year 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.
 
Last edited:
Sol88: Lie about comet electrostatic charging being the same as for Enceladus jets

Sol88 said:
and because it's the same mechanism on Enceladus LINK
Click to expand...
8 December 2016 Sol88: A lie about electrostatic changing of comet nanograins being the same for nanograins at Enceladus jets.

Read what you quoted.
Enceladus does not have a coma which is needed for the changing of comet nanograins found during the Rosetta mission.
The mechanism for the production of charged nanograins at Enceladus jets "have not been established" (this is before Rosetta).
 
Sol88: A delusion about a "frost line"

Sol88 said:
and because you are just so good at explaining the obvious are you able to explain
Click to expand...
8 December 2016 Sol88: It is a waste of time explaining anything to a deluded person who thinks comets are rocks fro the last 8 years and counting.

Someone who has not understood that 0.6 (the average density of comets) is less than 3.0 (the average density of asteroids) for 8 years probably cannot understand that 1 + 1 = 2 and will definitely deny any science presented to them.

Followed by:
8 December 2016 Sol88: A delusion about a "frost line".
8 December 2016 Sol88: A delusion of a "very low thermal inertia crust" so that he thinks that the Sun only heats up the surface of comet nuclei.
8 December 2016 Sol88: The usual delusion of "ICE" when in the real world there are observations of actual ice.
8 December 2016 Sol88: The repeated idiocy of debunking his delusion by citing the tracing of jets to pits (not high points on 67P).
8 December 2016 Sol88: A lie about "a cliff collapse" after quoting cliffs receding.
8 December 2016 Sol88: The delusion that Philae landed on a cliff so the MUPUS instrument sampled a cliff.
 
Sol88 said:
Except the one that saturated the CCD on the NavCam :blush:



Sorry to burst your bubble JD116but I do understand about "stretching images". Please tell me about CCD saturation of an outburst, a "Jet", when nucleus did not?
Click to expand...

That was the NAVCAM. Jesus. I linked you to the paper a while ago. The BRIGHTEST jet was no brighter than the nucleus. End of story. Nothing was anomalous. Nothing was self-illuminated. No electric woo. Not seen, not detected. It is dead on its a**e. Not a single piece of evidence.
I'll repeat this, for the hard of thinking (in capitals, and bolded):

WALLACE THORNHILL IS A LIAR, AND IS SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE. HE IS A CON ARTIST. MORE FOOL YOU FOR BELIEVING HIS RUBBISH.

Understand?
 
Last edited:
Here's one for the hard of thinking:
Why would a 370 kg impactor make a 50-150m hole in a rock? Why would said impact throw out a shed load of ice?
Answers on a postcard to, 'We make crap up for fun'; not sure of the address, but I think that you'll find it to be coincidental with that of dunderdolts.misinfo.

It is horrendously bad rubbish. It bears absolutely no relation to science. Its promulgators are either scientifically ignorant, illiterate or con artists. Probably a combination of all three.
Their followers seem to have an almost religious zeal about them. Which is fine. Just stick with the rest of the woo believers (YECs, astrologers, homeopathists), and don't try to pretend that what you believe has anything to do with science.
It doesn't.
 
How does the energy get down to the "ices" thru very low thermal inertia crust?
Click to expand...

Errm, ever been on a beach after the Sun goes in? Stuck your hand in the sand? Hell, I used to do it all the time on the black sand beach I used to go to in NZ. Thermal inertia. Try reading up about it, yes? And, while you're at it, try reading up on the sublimation temperatures of H2O, CO2 and CO. Very interesting read. If you can understand it.
 
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