Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sol88: A follower of a dying, ignorant and deluded cult insults mainstream sceince

Sol88 said:
but if your happy to swallow the codswallop dished up by mainstream...
Click to expand...
22 February 2017 Sol88: A follower of the dying, ignorant and deluded Thunderbolts "cult" insults mainstream science - imagine how little that impacts the real world!
 
Sol88: A delusion that a "1950's model" with evidence supporting it needs saving

Sol88 said:
...SAVE the 1950's model of what comets where thought to be well, good luck! :)
Click to expand...
You end up with a delusion - what a surprise :jaw-dropp!
22 February 2017 Sol88: A delusion that a "1950's model" with enormous evidence supporting it needs saving.
 
101 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 2 February 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 7 years!)

A reminder: Almost 8 years later and all we have is his and the Thunderbolts cult delusions.
And: The electric comet delusion debunked back in 2013 :eek:!

Yet more items of ignorance, delusion and lies:
  1. 7 February 2017 Sol88: Repeated delusion that simulated surface charging of the 67P nucleus supports his delusion that comets are rocks.
  2. 7 February 2017 Sol88: An incoherent rant about the detection of water ice grains at Comet 9P/Tempel 1
  3. 7 February 2017 Sol88: Water ice ejected from Comet 9P/Tempel 1 confirmed that his comet are rocks delusion is a delusion.
  4. 7 February 2017 Sol88: Over 7 years of persistent ignorance about comets and their jets :eye-poppi!
  5. 7 February 2017 Sol88: A lie about "Collapsing cliffs" in the context of comet jets.
  6. 7 February 2017 Sol88: A lie about images of water ices patches being electric discharges.
  7. 7 February 2017 Sol88: Abysmal ignorance of scientific language - "thought" = supported by scientific evidence.
  8. 7 February 2017 Sol88: Uncited images and what looks like a lie by quote mining - cut out the evidence for water ice.
  9. 7 February 2017 Sol88: A lie of the Stardust results being "ad hoc sweep under the carpet".
  10. 7 February 2017 Sol88: A lie about ices not being detected by Rosetta.
  11. 7 February 2017 Sol88: A lie about the Philea results, e.g. dust layer over hard ice + subsurface structure.

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.
 
ferd burfle said:
Greetings, lurkers! What Sol hopes some of you don't know is that while many rocks (minerals) contain silicates, not all silicates are rocks (minerals). Silicates are just any chemical compound that contains the element silicon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicate. The main reason we know comets are not rock is that the bulk density of comets has been measured many times and is far less than rock. The regular posters in this thread know this and I'm pretty Sol knows it too, which makes Sol's statement what your mother would have called a "fib".

Sol, buddy, time to freshen up your act. We've seen these same strawmen and false equivalencies from you for many years now.
Click to expand...

Yawn.. Physical, Chemical, and Mineralogical Properties
of Comet 81P/Wild 2 Particles Collected by Stardust

Mineralogical characterization of fragments
extracted from tracks indicates that most tracks were dominated by olivine, low-Ca
pyroxene, or Fe-sulfides, although one track was dominated by refractory minerals similar
to Ca–Al inclusions in primitive meteorites. Minor mineral phases, including Cu–Fesulfide,
Fe–Zn-sulfide, carbonate and metal oxides, were found along some tracks.
Click to expand...

but your saying it's all in the form of dust? and not rock like "well consolidated material"? as seen on 67P





and I 'spose you do know the specific gravity of water ice? how porous was the layer encountered by the MUPUS instrument?

There was an attempt to put one of the MUPUS sensors into the surface material at the site of the last contact of Philae with the nucleus. Noticeable penetration of the tester probe was not achieved that led to estimation of the minimum compressive strength of the material to be ⩾4 MPa4 This fairly high strength appears to indicate the presence of highly porous ice with grains “frozen” at contacts.
Click to expand...

Please tell the lurkers how an instrument designed to penetrate amorphous "ice" that was expected at the comet with no noticeable penetration even into highly porous ice?
 
Last edited:
ferd burfle said:
Huge thanks for posting this, jd, now I finally get it. People who understand these concepts are smart; people who can explain them, like WDC, to the not- mathematically-gifted are smarter
Click to expand...

Ohhhh...well that explains it:o


Please ignore the ELECTRIC CURRENT forming the MAGNETIC FIELDS in the first place, as they do nothing!

Magnetic reconnection, up there with gravitational waves, dark matter, dark energy, black holes.............
 
Last edited:
Hey RC,
The delay in the peak brightness may
represent the interval between formation of the hot
vapor beneath the surface of the comet and its
appearance at the surface. This delay, however, is
one of the current mysteries of the impact event. The
interval is too long for mere burial of the projectile in
the target, or ricochet of projectile out of the crater.
So what is happening during this interval?
Click to expand...

Care to give it a crack mate?

com'n your a clever cookie!
 
Reality Check said:
101 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 2 February 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 7 years!)

A reminder: Almost 8 years later and all we have is his and the Thunderbolts cult delusions.
And: The electric comet delusion debunked back in 2013 :eek:!

Yet more items of ignorance, delusion and lies:
  1. 7 February 2017 Sol88: Repeated delusion that simulated surface charging of the 67P nucleus supports his delusion that comets are rocks.
  2. 7 February 2017 Sol88: An incoherent rant about the detection of water ice grains at Comet 9P/Tempel 1
  3. 7 February 2017 Sol88: Water ice ejected from Comet 9P/Tempel 1 confirmed that his comet are rocks delusion is a delusion.
  4. 7 February 2017 Sol88: Over 7 years of persistent ignorance about comets and their jets :eye-poppi!
  5. 7 February 2017 Sol88: A lie about "Collapsing cliffs" in the context of comet jets.
  6. 7 February 2017 Sol88: A lie about images of water ices patches being electric discharges.
  7. 7 February 2017 Sol88: Abysmal ignorance of scientific language - "thought" = supported by scientific evidence.
  8. 7 February 2017 Sol88: Uncited images and what looks like a lie by quote mining - cut out the evidence for water ice.
  9. 7 February 2017 Sol88: A lie of the Stardust results being "ad hoc sweep under the carpet".
  10. 7 February 2017 Sol88: A lie about ices not being detected by Rosetta.
  11. 7 February 2017 Sol88: A lie about the Philea results, e.g. dust layer over hard ice + subsurface structure.

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.
Click to expand...
How exhausting! There is no scientific evidence, no observational data, no scientific methodology, no mathematical demonstration or logic that can dissuade a true believer.
 
Still no word from the mainstream on the "jets" they observed up close for nearly two years!

Holger Sierks must have quite the collection by now. Still embargoed as well I guess
 
Still no word from the mainstream on the "jets" they observed up close for nearly two years!

Holger Sierks must have quite the collection by now. Still embargoed as well I guess
 
Any O2 in any of these Fred Burfle
Mineralogical characterization of fragments extracted from tracks indicates that most tracks were dominated by olivine, low-Ca pyroxene, or Fe-sulfides, although one track was dominated by refractory minerals similar to Ca–Al inclusions in primitive meteorites. Minor mineral phases, including Cu–Fesulfide, Fe–Zn-sulfide, carbonate and metal oxides, were found along some tracks
Click to expand...
 
Hey Sol, like me to link that paper that shows that the idiot Thornhill's 'electric discharges' are actually CO2 jets again? Do you really need that much embarrassment? You know, where they actually spectroscopically resolve the jets to be CO2, and entraining H2O ice? How many times do we need to show that the little Aussie bleeder was lying like like a big 'un, eh? I'm happy to keep doing it. Do please keep giving me the opportunity to highlight the fact that he was LYING.

tl;dr? Thornhill is a liar.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Still no word from the mainstream on the "jets" they observed up close for nearly two years!

Holger Sierks must have quite the collection by now. Still embargoed as well I guess
Click to expand...

Lol. They even reported the increase in neutrals from one of the 'jets' on the Rosetta blog, yonks ago (http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2015/08/11/comets-firework-display-ahead-of-perihelion/). Strange how they failed to see the liar Thornhill's electric woo, eh? How many instruments? For how long? He was lying Sol. Have you not figured out that this was just a fairy tale designed for those with a questionable IQ? Time to own up. You were lied to.
For the hard of thinking; no electric woo. Lots of ice. No rock. Now, please remind us of Thornhill's lies again. Or do I need to do it? Again?
 
Cool, perhaps you can show us how the jets merge from smaller to larger in the vacuum of space?
 
Sol88 said:
Cool, perhaps you can show us how the jets merge from smaller to larger in the vacuum of space?
Click to expand...

Please show me the paper where this occurred, and I might comment on whatever lies that Thornhill has come up with to explain it.
 
Sol88 said:
Cool, perhaps you can show us how the jets merge from smaller to larger in the vacuum of space?
Click to expand...

And please explain, in words of one syllable or less, for those of us who are not used to lies, how this happens from an 'electrical' point of view. Or would that involve even more lies?
 
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