Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sol88: Wwater ice ejected from 9P/Tempel 1 makes comet are rocks = a delusion

Sol88 said:
Detection of water ice grains after the DEEP IMPACT onto Comet 9P/Tempel 1
...
I see no death knell for the EU in any of the paper, just more support for the ELECTRIC COMET!
Click to expand...
That is an ignorant fantasy, Sol88. Your delusion of comets = rocks says nothing about the real world.

The Deep Impact ejecta show that Tempel 1 has a composition that concludes water ices.
7 February 2017 Sol88: Water ice ejected from Comet 9P/Tempel 1 confirmed that his comet are rocks delusion is a delusion.
 
Perhaps most curious is a very small minority who seem quite unfazed about dropping almost any - indeed, almost every - core EU idea ... the Sun is not powered by giant interstellar Birkelend currents? OK. Comets are not rocky? Sure, why not. Get them started on magnetic reconnection, say, or the redshifts of galaxies and quasars however, ... (that this is primarily anti-science can be seen in the extraordinary number of times the words "believe" and "belief" are used, as if a religious cult and science differ only in their belief systems)
Click to expand...

Yep, this either makes me laugh, or feel like kicking them, depending on my mood. By definition, everything they believe, such as electric comets, electric sun, electric cratering, is a 'belief' that is based on zero evidence.
Who are the ones displaying religious like behaviour? That is, a belief in something for which there is no evidence, and in many cases is scientifically impossible, or already been shown not to be true. Pots, kettles, glass houses and stones come to mind.
 
Sol88: Over 7 years of persistent ignorance about comets and their jets

Sol88 said:
So how are the "Jets" formed, powered and sustained!
Click to expand...
7 February 2017 Sol88: Over 7 years of persistent ignorance about comets and their jets :jaw-dropp!

7 February 2017 Sol88: A lie about "Collapsing cliffs" in the context of comet jets.

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.
 
Sol88: A lie about images of water ices patches being electric discharges

Sol88 said:
electric discharges!
Click to expand...
7 February 2017 Sol88: A lie about images of water ices patches being electric discharges.

7 February 2017 Sol88: Abysmal ignorance of scientific language - "thought" = supported by scientific evidence.
Until we have actual comet water ice samples, scientists state that it is "thought" to be water ices because the scientific evidence is that it is water ice.

7 February 2017 Sol88: Uncited images and what looks like a lie by quote mining - cut out the evidence for water ice.
 
jonesdave116 said:
Ahh, would this be the magnetic reconnection that Alfvén's mate, Falthammar, doesn't seem to have a problem with, as I linked to previously? :)
Click to expand...
Ignoring the bombast etc, one thing that really strikes me when I read what EU zealots have to say about "magnetic reconnection" is confusion.

This goes beyond the standard (for "the EU") vagueness and handwaving waffle; there really does seem to be multiple meanings all mixed up.

I think it'd be worth a separate thread, here in ISF, to discuss this. For example, to cover how the following are the same and different:
  • magnetic connection in a vacuum, or a medium free of electric fields and free charges
  • what - very specifically - Alfven meant in his papers
  • what's been/being explored at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, in the magnetic reconnection experiment
  • "circuit reconnection" - given Maxwell's equations is this nothing more than a different way to view magnetic reconnection?

Quite separately, and perhaps not for a thread which aims simply to understand the nuances of meaning in the term, why do so many EU zealots get so hot and bothered about it? I doubt it's simply the fact that Alfven wrote some stuff on it ... did Velikovsky rail against it perhaps?
 
Sol88: A lie of the Stardust results being "ad hoc sweep under the carpet"

Sol88 said:
You should have been smarted when
....
Click to expand...
7 February 2017 Sol88: A lie of the Stardust results being "ad hoc sweep under the carpet".

Uses his hero Wal Thornhill's lie of citing outdated press release + the idiocy that mainstream surprises are support for his comets are rocks delusion.

Stardust: A Mission With Many Scientific Surprises is a 2009 press release. As Sol88 has been told, the fact is that grains formed in the inner solar system are transported to the outer solar system by the solar wind. So in hindsight there is no surprise!
 
Reality Check said:
<snip>

Had a quick look and his "observational evidence" was
Click to expand...

  • The "textbook" cite is Matthews+ (1964) (ADS link).
 
Last edited:
Sol88: A lie about the Philea results, e.g. dust layer over hard ice

Sol88 said:
Philea would have been the definitive answer but the only failure/s for the whole mission were the system designed to fasten it to the nucleus!!!
Click to expand...
I would call this ignorance because Philea partially worked even though it was not tethered but Sol88 knows this from the thread so it becomes a lie:
7 February 2017 Sol88: A lie about the Philea results, e.g. dust layer over hard ice + subsurface structure.

Surprising Comet Discoveries by Rosetta's Philae Lander Unveiled
Beneath the surface of Comet 67P
Instead, the investigations have shown that the porosity comes about because the comet is a more or less uniform mixture of ice and 'fluffy' dust grains, rather than a honeycomb structure featuring large voids.

CONSERT works by 'sounding' the comet's nucleus. This involves beaming radio waves through the comet from Philae to the orbiter.
Click to expand...
 
jonesdave116 said:
No, Michael, it is based on everything he has ever said about comets.
Click to expand...
To be charitable to Thornhill, the EU delusions about electric discharges on comets may include the formation of water molecules which would could then form water ices. However all EU has is fantasies and so there is no prediction for the amount of water ices. So we are free to assume no water ices at all. Alternately the entire surface of all comet nuclei should be covered with water ice in the EU fantasy which is not observed.
 
JeanTate said:
Ignoring the bombast etc, one thing that really strikes me when I read what EU zealots have to say about "magnetic reconnection" is confusion.

This goes beyond the standard (for "the EU") vagueness and handwaving waffle; there really does seem to be multiple meanings all mixed up.

I think it'd be worth a separate thread, here in ISF, to discuss this. For example, to cover how the following are the same and different:
  • magnetic connection in a vacuum, or a medium free of electric fields and free charges
  • what - very specifically - Alfven meant in his papers
  • what's been/being explored at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, in the magnetic reconnection experiment
  • "circuit reconnection" - given Maxwell's equations is this nothing more than a different way to view magnetic reconnection?

Quite separately, and perhaps not for a thread which aims simply to understand the nuances of meaning in the term, why do so many EU zealots get so hot and bothered about it? I doubt it's simply the fact that Alfven wrote some stuff on it ... did Velikovsky rail against it perhaps?
Click to expand...

What I can't get quite clear, is that I recall Falthammar being a co-author on a paper in possibly the late 70s or sometime in the 80s, where the authors agreed that certain detections were consistent with magnetic reconnection.
I can't locate the paper at the moment. However, he definitely was a "believer" by the 2000s, as is shown in the two links I provided a little while back. Who is to say that Alfvén's views would not have changed, had he lived longer, and seen the evidence that Falthammar had?
Another thing that confuses me (probably just being dim) is the reference by Alfvén in the table I link below. Nothing new re frozen-in fields; we already know he took that to be true in many cases. However, perhaps you'll understand better what he is referring to by "Energy release through magnetic merging."?



The table is from:

Viking in the plasma universe
Alfvén, H. (1987)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/GL014i004p00475/full

The paper is paywalled, but I have it if anyone wants it.
 
Reality Check said:
To be charitable to Thornhill, the EU delusions about electric discharges on comets may include the formation of water molecules which would could then form water ices. However all EU has is fantasies and so there is no prediction for the amount of water ices. So we are free to assume no water ices at all. Alternately the entire surface of all comet nuclei should be covered with water ice in the EU fantasy which is not observed.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, RC, if he had no problem hand waving the ice and water away, why go to such tortured lengths to ascribe the water to some physically impossible mechanism? In my opinion, because he doesn't want ice on or below the surface, and certainly not enough to account for the ~ 20 000 l/s spewing out of Halley! That is a killer.
And why ignore the Tempel 1 data on the excavated ice, or the pretty pictures of Hartley 2, surrounded by ice?
Mind you, if he'd read the papers on Hartley 2, he wouldn't have still been prattling on about discharges in his 2014 hollowscience article on Rosetta; we knew by then that his 'discharges' were cold, neutral CO2, entraining said ice! Not to mention the temperature maps of the active area of Hartley. Methinks he did know, but still has unsold books to flog!
 
Last edited:
jonesdave116 said:
OK, just for the lurkers:

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/deep-impact-2/
Click to expand...
As we expect from Wal Thorhill, a 2010 blog post full of lies and delusions, e.g. the flash before impact lie from 2006.
  • A lie of a "consensus view of comets as inert, primordial icy bodies". The mainstream treats comets as extremely dynamic, primordial icy bodies.
  • A "Comets, asteroids and meteorites all originate from rocky planets and moons, lofted into space by overwhelmingly powerful electrical discharges" delusion.
  • A lie of "a body less than 1000 km diameter will fragment in a collision".
    Astronomers have no problem with comets existing in the enormous volume of the outer solar system.
  • An uncited quote of an astronomer in a Times article about the formation of planets.
    What variation of the composition of comets says is that they have different histories and possibly the primordial gas cloud was not as homogenous as we think.
  • An uncited quote from the late Tom Van Flandern.
  • A lie of a "recent discovery that stars form like a string of pearls"?
  • A lie about the Stardust confirming EU.
    Finding that comets contain high temperature primordial grains confirms that they formed in the early solar system.
  • Ignorance - varied shapes of comets is expected from their history alone (different sublimation histories).
    The usual approximation of ellipsoid shapes for comets and asteroids is an assumption.
  • A lie of "electrical model of comets was able to predict or simply explain".
  • Ignorance of "Also the orbits of comets do not conform to their supposed origin in a hypothetical ‘Oort cloud’ at great distance from the solar system."
    It is long period comets that have orbits that originate in the Oort cloud.
    Short-period comets are thought to originate from the centaurs and the Kuiper belt/scattered disc.
  • A delusion of "impossibly perfect cylindrical venturies in the surface rock to produce the observed fan-like jets"
  • A delusion of craters on comets being formed by electric discharges.
  • The "OH radical" delusion.
  • etc. etc. etc.
 
jonesdave116 said:
What I can't get quite clear, is that I recall Falthammar being a co-author on a paper in possibly the late 70s or sometime in the 80s, where the authors agreed that certain detections were consistent with magnetic reconnection.
Click to expand...

Just for completeness, this is the paper I was referring to:

Direct observation of a tangential electric field component at the magnetopause (1979)
F. S. Mozer, R. B. Torbert, U. V. Fahleson, C.-G. Fälthammar, A. Gonfalone, A. Pedersen, C. T. Russell
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/GL006i004p00305/full
 
Last edited:
Do I recall Tusenfem saying something about writing a paper on ion acoustic waves at 67P? Might have been in an older thread that I've been reading. Anyways, there is now a paper on them:

Ion acoustic waves at comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Observations and computations
Gunell, H. et al
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/forth/aa29801-16.pdf

Also, some interesting stuff on the gunk that Philae kicked up on its unplanned excursion:

Decay of COSAC and Ptolemy mass spectra at comet 67P/Churyumov Gerasimenko
Krüger, H. et al
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/forth/aa30286-16.pdf
 
Some clarifications and corrections are in order.

Yesterday I wrote: "While it may take some time to find them, it's not all that hard to cite published papers whose contents are clearly and obviously inconsistent with the "Electric Comet" ideas as published by T&T, Sol, MM, etc." The quick check I just did failed to find the post(s) I had vaguely remembered, by MM here in ISF, on "Electric Comet" ideas. So I should not have included MM in that list. T&T, Sol, and etc remain.

Likewise, "Per T&T (and Sol, and MM, and ...), 67/P is (mostly) rock, ": I could find, in my quick search, nothing by MM on 67/P being (mostly) rock.

However, this is more general (not limited to "Electric Comet" ideas), so it still stands: "Yes, it's incredibly easy to find things T&T (and Sol88, and Scott, and MM, and ...) have said (in documents openly available on the internet) which may be characterized as "lies", "fraud", and so on."
 
JeanTate said:
Some clarifications and corrections are in order.

Yesterday I wrote: "While it may take some time to find them, it's not all that hard to cite published papers whose contents are clearly and obviously inconsistent with the "Electric Comet" ideas as published by T&T, Sol, MM, etc." The quick check I just did failed to find the post(s) I had vaguely remembered, by MM here in ISF, on "Electric Comet" ideas. So I should not have included MM in that list. T&T, Sol, and etc remain.

Likewise, "Per T&T (and Sol, and MM, and ...), 67/P is (mostly) rock, ": I could find, in my quick search, nothing by MM on 67/P being (mostly) rock.

However, this is more general (not limited to "Electric Comet" ideas), so it still stands: "Yes, it's incredibly easy to find things T&T (and Sol88, and Scott, and MM, and ...) have said (in documents openly available on the internet) which may be characterized as "lies", "fraud", and so on."
Click to expand...

Yep, hence my post #3272 above, re Alfvén's thoughts on reconnection. Unless I'm being totally stupid, it is plain in the table there that he is saying the following:

Column 1, bottom row; Energy release through magnetic merging
Column 2 (heading, 'Fluid plasma (MHD), bottom row; Possible

That looks very much to me (but what do I know?) as if he's saying magnetic merging, i.e. magnetic reconnection, is possible. If that's the case, why do the EU evangelicals bang on as if he had totally ruled it out under any circumstances? More rubbish research?
 
JeanTate said:
Ignoring the bombast etc, one thing that really strikes me when I read what EU zealots have to say about "magnetic reconnection" is confusion.

This goes beyond the standard (for "the EU") vagueness and handwaving waffle; there really does seem to be multiple meanings all mixed up.

I think it'd be worth a separate thread, here in ISF, to discuss this. For example, to cover how the following are the same and different:
  • magnetic connection in a vacuum, or a medium free of electric fields and free charges
  • what - very specifically - Alfven meant in his papers
  • what's been/being explored at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, in the magnetic reconnection experiment
  • "circuit reconnection" - given Maxwell's equations is this nothing more than a different way to view magnetic reconnection?

Quite separately, and perhaps not for a thread which aims simply to understand the nuances of meaning in the term, why do so many EU zealots get so hot and bothered about it? I doubt it's simply the fact that Alfven wrote some stuff on it ... did Velikovsky rail against it perhaps?
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's OT but ...

I stumbled across "Perspectives on magnetic reconnection" (Zweibel&Yamada, 2016; link). The abstract begins "Magnetic reconnection is a topological rearrangement of magnetic field that occurs on time scales much faster than the global magnetic diffusion time." How good is this would you say, tusenfem?
 
JeanTate said:
Ignoring the bombast etc, one thing that really strikes me when I read what EU zealots have to say about "magnetic reconnection" is confusion.

This goes beyond the standard (for "the EU") vagueness and handwaving waffle; there really does seem to be multiple meanings all mixed up.

I think it'd be worth a separate thread, here in ISF, to discuss this. For example, to cover how the following are the same and different:
magnetic connection in a vacuum, or a medium free of electric fields and free charges
what - very specifically - Alfven meant in his papers
what's been/being explored at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, in the magnetic reconnection experiment
"circuit reconnection" - given Maxwell's equations is this nothing more than a different way to view magnetic reconnection?

Quite separately, and perhaps not for a thread which aims simply to understand the nuances of meaning in the term, why do so many EU zealots get so hot and bothered about it? I doubt it's simply the fact that Alfven wrote some stuff on it ... did Velikovsky rail against it perhaps?
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's OT but ...

I stumbled across "Perspectives on magnetic reconnection" (Zweibel&Yamada, 2016; link). The abstract begins "Magnetic reconnection is a topological rearrangement of magnetic field that occurs on time scales much faster than the global magnetic diffusion time." How good is this would you say, tusenfem?
Click to expand...
Actually, I should have done some research, on what's already available, here in the ISF.

For example, there are two excellent threads on this topic:
Magnetic reconnection and physical processes
Problems With Magnetic Reconnection

Between them they address each and every one of the points in my initial post (and thanks to jd116 for some additional historical references on Alfven). And lots more besides.

Now back to your regular program...
 
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