Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pebbles???? First of heard ANY mainstream mention of PEBBLES. What the hell are pebbles I hear you ask...
Click to expand...

Not rock. It is no different to when they use the term 'boulder'. It is a shorter way of saying 'a lump of cometary material containing dust and probably ice.' As they say:

Several pebble-like grains.........
Click to expand...

From: 67P/Churyamov-Gerasimenko surface properties as derived from CIVA panoramic images
Bibring, J.-P., et al. (2015)
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6247/aab0671
 
Rayleigh waves ????
Click to expand...

You need to read part of the abstract that you quoted. Namely:

.........this velocity translates into a shear modulus of the comet material of at least 3.2 MPa. Shear modulus scales with velocity squared, so when taking into account the formal uncertainties arising from the arrival time inversion, the shear modulus may easily be as large as 10 MPa. This is still low compared to solid rock or monocrystalline ice, but is compatible with highly porous materials.
Click to expand...

Relevant bits bolded!
 
Sol88 said:
Pebbles????
Click to expand...

Oh grow up, Sol, pebbles or dinosaur eggs or goosebumps have been discusssed already a long time, and belong in the real story of how objects were created in the protosolar disk. And pebbles is a generally used word, if you see small units.

The fact that you are clinging to the 1950s dirty snowball model by Whipple shows that of all the discoveries that have been made, you have been asleep. From the first flyby of a comet is was clear that there was no dirty snowball, the first pictures showed "rock" and the idea was bourne that it is more a snowy dirtball. But like it goes with memes, the dirty snowball stuck and is difficult to get rid off. Maybe you should read the MIDAS paper again about the dust, and how the theories about the origin of the solar system work.

Next to that, is always seems with you to "wait till the paper gets accepted", in this case Raj's paper is a presentation at the AGU, but at some point there will be a paper, yes. But why oh why do we always have to wait, why can't you and yourfriend at thunderdolts do something themselves? I gave you the links where to get the data, so what's keeping you?

The fact that the CCD was overexposed means noting, because the navcam was made for navigation not for making pictures. It is just a nice extra that the navcam can be used for science too. And then nothing in the RPC date signals a "discharge". There was a sudden increase in sent-out neutrals and that means that there can be more ionization through photo ionization and collisions and as the source declined also the plasma density declined again. And with the increased plasma density the embedded spacecraft gets more negatively charged, because the electrons stick easier to the surface than ions. And the whole process took over 4 hours! Not really what one expects from a "discharge".
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
P43A-2084: Cosmochemical implications of CONSERT permittivity characterization of 67P/CG



Chondrules???? Carbonaceous chondrite
Click to expand...

If you would actually read the Whipple 1950 paper you would see that the claim is that (taken from my submitted review paper):

Whipple [1950] combined all spectral observations and published the now well known “dirty snowball” model of comets. In this model the nucleus of the comet is seen as a conglomeration of volatile ices (such as H2O and CO2) bound in a solid rocky body of meteoritic material. Actually, this model was developed to explain the non-Keplerian behaviour of comets (specifically comet 2P/Encke);

Whipple, F. L. (1950), A comet model I. the acceleration of comet Encke, Astrophys. J., 111, 375 – 394.
 
By the way, the paper by Charlotte Götz on the diamagnetic cavity: Structure and Evolution of the Diamagnetic Cavity at Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko can be found here
 
tusenfem said:
By the way, the paper by Charlotte Götz on the diamagnetic cavity: Structure and Evolution of the Diamagnetic Cavity at Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko can be found here
Click to expand...

Ahh, nice one! I thought that might be the one I had already, from some time ago - but this is new.
Also found this one:

Properties of the dust in the coma of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko observed with VIRTIS- M
Rinaldi, G., et al.
http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/12/09/mnras.stw3197.abstract (abstract only)

Main finding of interest in this (re recent posts in here) is "the spatial distribution of the dust is strongly correlated with H2O but not with CO2 emission." Strongly suggesting that the dust in the coma is due to sublimation. Who'd have thought?
 
tusenfem said:
By the way, the paper by Charlotte Götz on the diamagnetic cavity: Structure and Evolution of the Diamagnetic Cavity at Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko can be found here
Click to expand...

Interestingly, I also found this from MNRAS:

A possible mechanism for the formation of magnetic field dropouts in the coma of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Huang, Z., et al.
http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/12/01/mnras.stw3118.abstract (free access)

From the abstract:
We find that a local increase of electron thermal pressure is capable to generate many of the observed features of the diamagnetic regions
observed by RPC-MAG. The simulation results show that a magnetic field free region is formed and the recovery phase of the magnetic field magnitude is faster than the declining phase.
Click to expand...

However, in the summary, they do note that:

Finally, as we mentioned earlier in this paper, at this time we are unable to identify a specific process producing such a short-lived electron heating in isolated magnetic flux tubes. Rosetta observations do not show increased energetic electron fluxes in the vicinity of diamagnetic dropouts
Click to expand...

It's all well beyond my pay grade, but does look interesting as an alternative possibility.
 
Last edited:
jonesdave116 said:
Interestingly, I also found this from MNRAS:

A possible mechanism for the formation of magnetic field dropouts in the coma of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Huang, Z., et al.
http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/12/01/mnras.stw3118.abstract (free access)

From the abstract:


However, in the summary, they do note that:



It's all well beyond my pay grade, but does look interesting as an alternative possibility.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it is a possible process, increading the plasma pressure (electron in this case) and having pressure balance (gas and magnetic) has to lead to a decrease in the magnetic field strength.

However, like they state, they don't have the foggiest how this increased pressure is produced, they just put it into their computer model. Unless they come up with a physical mechanism, I don't think much of it.
 
Sol88: A lie to support his delusion that comets are rocks

Sol88 said:
Pebbles???? First of heard ANY mainstream mention of PEBBLES.
Click to expand...
12 December 2016 Sol88: A lie to support his delusion that comets are rocks - there were no pebbles made of rock imaged in the ices and dust surface of 67P.

P43A-2082: Origin(s) of the local structures at the Philae landing site and possible implications on the formation and evolution of the 67P nucleus
What Sol88 highlighted was "dominated by fractures and agglomerates of consolidated materials." and "grains that look like pebbles".
 
Last edited:
Sol88: A lie about Rayleigh waves based on his delusion that comets are rocks

Sol88 said:
Rayleigh waves ????
Click to expand...
12 December 2018 Sol88: A lie about Rayleigh waves based on his delusion that comets are rocks.

No one should be deluded enough to think that comet nuclei are not solid - not even the insanity of the electric comet you are parroting from the Thunderbolts cult claims that!

A comet nucleus made of ices and dust is solid, thus the Rayleigh waves in the solid surface of the comet :jaw-dropp!
P42A-04: Constraints for the subsurface structure at the Abydos site on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko resulting from CASSE listening to the MUPUS insertion phase
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
:(
Click to expand...
The post is very clear, Sol88. It takes an abysmal level of ignorance about comets and a belief in delusions (e.g. an idiot) to
  • Believe that comets are rocks 7 years after being told the measured density of comets, especially with the evidence from 67P which you are lying about.
  • Continue to mindlessly parroting the Thunderbolts cult delusions about comets during those 7 years.
  • Believe in people who have been lying about comets for 11 years (Wal Thornhill's lies from 2005 about Deep Impact)
  • Be afraid of the real world of physics - the size of the crater made by an impact on rock is less that on a comet.
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:
tusenfem said:
However, like they state, they don't have the foggiest how this increased pressure is produced, they just put it into their computer model. Unless they come up with a physical mechanism, I don't think much of it.
Click to expand...

I didn't think you'd be impressed! Without a mechanism it is just an interesting modelling result.

So, two things immediately came to mind: firstly, have we been consistently underestimating the outgassing rates of comets? However, the paper mentioned that models based on the Halley data show a good agreement with the boundary crossing distances. Without reading the papers (I will at some stage), how good is the fit? What are the error bars?
Secondly, perhaps the Halley situation was more complex than the two boundary crossings imply. Which allowed me to use my not inconsiderable Photoshop skills to illustrate :) :

o94s5u.jpghttp:


Without more data, it may remain unresolved. I'm sure I read a paper that offered a possibility of remote detection of the cavity, but I don't appear to have saved it, and I can't even remember what method they were proposing.
 
37 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 2 December 2016 (maybe hundreds more in the last 7 years!)

A couple of previous posts:
22 June 2009 Tim Thompson: Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays
26 August 2013: Electric comets do not exist (before it became clear that this was from the deeply delusional Thunderbolts cult)

  1. 2 December 2016 Sol88: A lie about a charged coma dust paper being about his electric comet delusion.
  2. 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
  3. 2 December 2016 Sol88: Repeats the static electricity movement of dust on airless bodies lie.
  4. 2 December 2016 Sol88: Fantasy that solar wind induced electric fields are evidence for his comets are rocks delusion.
  5. 2 December 2016 Sol88: Still ignorant after 8 7 years about sublimation on comets!
  6. 2 December 2016 Sol88: An implied lie about receding cliffs on Tempel 1 being sources of jets or his imaginary electrical discharges.
  7. 6 December 2016 Sol88: Links to and quotes from the deluded and lying Thunderbolts web site
  8. 6 December 2016 Sol88: Links to another 2 liars at Thunderbolts- Michael Goodspeed and Steve Smith (not the already documented liar Wal Thornhill) lying from 2010.
  9. 7 December 2016 Sol88: Emphasizes how crazy the "Electric Universe mob" are with the insanity that Io (a moon) is a comet!
  10. 8 December 2016 Sol88: It is a waste of time explaining anything to a deluded person who thinks comets are rocks.
  11. 8 December 2016 Sol88: A lie about electrostatic changing of comet nanograins being the same for nanograins at Enceladus jets.
  12. 8 December 2016 Sol88: A delusion about a "frost line".
  13. 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.
  14. 8 December 2016 Sol88: The usual delusion of "ICE" when in the real world there are observations of actual ice.
  15. 8 December 2016 Sol88: The repeated idiocy of debunking his delusion by citing the tracing of jets to pits (not high points on 67P).
  16. 8 December 2016 Sol88: A lie about "a cliff collapse" after quoting cliffs receding.
  17. 8 December 2016 Sol88: The delusion that Philae landed on a cliff so the MUPUS instrument sampled a cliff.
  18. 9 December 2016 Sol88: Lies about papers being problem for the mainstream model of comets.
  19. 9 December 2016 Sol88: The idiocy of thinking that a comet outburst is anything like his delusion of electrical discharges on comets.
  20. 12 December 2016 Sol88: A lie to support his delusion that comets are rocks - there were no pebbles made of rock imaged in the ices and dust surface of 67P.
  21. 12 December 2018 Sol88: A lie about Rayleigh waves based on his delusion that comets are rocks.
  22. 12 December 2016 Sol88: A lie about carbonaceous chondrite meteorites when a paper mentions carbon in the measured ices and dust of Comet 67P.
  23. 12 December 2016 Sol88: The delusion that solar wind interaction is anything to do with his delusion about electrical discharges on his delusion of a rocky comet.
 
I think we can say, without any fear of contradiction, that the 'electric comet' has been well and truly put to bed, yes? I doubt that there are more than a handful of people on the whole planet that still believe in this ill thought out, unscientific, neo-Velikovskian woo.
If there are, perhaps they'd like to arm themselves with the various EU 'predictions' for various cometary encounters, and come on here and defend them. I'm afraid that poor old Sol has run out of gas, given the total lack of evidence from the Rosetta mission. Maybe the woo merchants who sold him this particular pup would like to come to his defence, preferably with some science? However, we all know that that will not happen; they are probably far too busy obfuscating, manipulating, and generally finding ways to lie about the data, to bother with poor old Sol.
When can we expect the 'new, improved electric comet woo'?
Believe me people, they will not let it die. Always more suckers to be dragged in and fleeced. They'll come up with some equally unscientific rubbish.
And their followers will belieeeeevvvve. Ohhh yes. They'll believe. Praise the......
 
jonesdave116 said:
I think we can say, without any fear of contradiction, that the 'electric comet' has been well and truly put to bed, yes? I doubt that there are more than a handful of people on the whole planet that still believe in this ill thought out, unscientific, neo-Velikovskian woo.
If there are, perhaps they'd like to arm themselves with the various EU 'predictions' for various cometary encounters, and come on here and defend them. I'm afraid that poor old Sol has run out of gas, given the total lack of evidence from the Rosetta mission. Maybe the woo merchants who sold him this particular pup would like to come to his defence, preferably with some science? However, we all know that that will not happen; they are probably far too busy obfuscating, manipulating, and generally finding ways to lie about the data, to bother with poor old Sol.
When can we expect the 'new, improved electric comet woo'?
Believe me people, they will not let it die. Always more suckers to be dragged in and fleeced. They'll come up with some equally unscientific rubbish.
And their followers will belieeeeevvvve. Ohhh yes. They'll believe. Praise the......
Click to expand...
Did EU ever get out of bed?
 
While I'm in a philosophical mood (i.e. won the quiz, had a couple of pints), let me say
[philosophy] I get damned annoyed with some of the people repeating the nonsense that T & T invented. Sometimes that shows. However, annoyance does not even come close to the feelings I have towards the woo merchants that spread the rubbish that they believe in.
Now, one of those woo merchants cannot be named, as he is a (albeit short term) member. As for the other one, no such restrictions apply.
Thornhill, supposedly, has a PhD! Lol. What in? Do they do PhDs in scientific illiteracy, obfuscation and neo-Velikovskian woo? First I've heard of it!
His electric comet nonsense died in July 2005. And he knows it. I've been through years worth of posts on BAUT/ Cosmoquest, as well as here. It was dead long before Rosetta reached 67P. Most of the people who seemed to think it had a reasonable chance, have long since given up the ghost. Most of them were apparently unaware of previous observations that ruled it out.... by their own admission of what would rule it out for them!!!! I well recall the first time that I ever heard of this 'electric comet' woo. Some idiot on the Rosetta blog suggesting that the H2O detected by MIRO and VIRTIS was actually OH! I mean, seriously, how thick do you need to be to believe that? So I checked it out. And sure enough, there was some burke actually suggesting such a thing! Strange that in the course of my first degree, I could have sworn that I had seen results from Vega and the Kuiper Airborne Observatory, that said that they had most definitely detected H2O. And, during a 2nd degree, had seen shed loads of evidence for it being detected at dozens of other comets.
Why were they unaware? No access to scientific papers? Totally relying on a scientifically challenged woo merchant to provide news for them? This really gets my dander up! I cannot put it more strongly than that. Actually, I could, but I'd get a nasty pm from the mods.
My advice, for what good it will do, is for the followers of such woo merchants to get themselves an education in what the 'mainstream' are actually saying (i.e. degree level), and to question everything you are being told; not only by the 'mainstream', but by idiots who obviously can't think their way out of a paper bag. [/philosophy]
 
jonesdave116 said:
Thornhill, supposedly, has a PhD!
Click to expand...
Not even a PhD!
Wal Thornhill
Wallace Thornhill (b. May 2, 1942) earned a degree in physics and electronics at the University of Melbourne, Australia, and began postgraduate studies. Before entering university he had been inspired by Immanuel Velikovsky's best-selling book, Worlds in Collision. However, the lack of curiosity and the frequent hostility toward this challenge to mainstream science convinced Thornhill to pursue an independent path outside academia.
Click to expand...
So he started in denial of science, learning physics did not change that and he has spent the last 40 years adding more irrational denial to his CV - try reading his rants at his web site , e.g. the denial of gravitational waves back in February 26, 2016. An honest person would amend that blog to reflect the two published detections of gravitational waves.
 
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