Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reality Check said:
27 July 2017 Sol88: The delusion that comets are rocks is not supported by the delusion that a paper is about comets being rocks.

The question asked in the paper is whether an assumption of cohesionless dust in previous models of near-surface ice driving dust activity is correct. Specifically they model an ice layer covered by a dust layer with cohesion between the grains and find that the model does not produce lifting of dust.

Any knowledgeable or rational person will know that a rock layer cannot drive any lifting of dust maybe even with the addition of idiocy such as an undetected electric field:eek:!

Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko by Skorov, Rezac, Hartogh and Keller.

That gas-driven dust activity in comets is not solved fully yet seems to be a well known issue. There is at least one paper that resolves the issue for larger grains on 67P:
What drives the dust activity of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko? by B. Gundlach, J. Blum, H. U. Keller, Y. V. Skorov (June 2015)

The model here is that the surface of comets initially consist of a mixture of ices and dust. Sublimation when comets get close to the Sun form a layer of weakly cohesive dust on the nucleus surface.
Click to expand...

As imaged by ROLIS and CIVA? Righto :rolleyes:
 
Sol88 said:
What else could be removing dust I hear you say RC? Well....Electrostatic forces on grains near asteroids and comets

Hey maybe, just maybe...:confused:
Click to expand...

So please point me to where the idiot Thornhill predicted that electrostatic forces were responsible for ice laden dust grains leaving the comet. That would be interesting to read. In the meantime; where was the electric discharge machining (lol) as predicted? Where were the electric jets? Where was the lack of ice and water, as predicted by the aforementioned geniuses?
Sorry, Sol, it is dead. Deader than a very dead thing. Kaput. Truth be told, it was dead before Rosetta ever reached 67P. See the pretty picture, above. Like I say, the idiot Wal went quiet after that, didn't he? Unsurprisingly.
 
Sol88: Repeats his delusion that scientific papers are about his delusion

Sol88 said:
What else could be removing dust I hear you say RC?
Click to expand...
26 July 2017 Sol88: Repeats his delusion that scientific papers are about his delusion that comets are rocks.

With an added bonus delusion that conference presentations are published, peer-reviewed literature! In this case a presentation by aerospace engineers at a non-astronomy conference ("Powders and Grains 2017 – 8th International Conference on Micromechanics on Granular Media"). One bit of ignorance - the author have the interaction with the solar wind charging grains but comets are shielded by their coma from the solar wind :eek:!
The paper Sol88 cited (see 27 July 2017 Sol88: The delusion that comets are rocks is not supported by the delusion that a paper is about comets being rocks) is on 67P when it is closest to the Sun (1.3 AU) with no solar wind at the nucleus.
The paper I cited in that post explains all except the smaller dust grains for 67P for a bigger distance from the Sun (~ 3 AU).
 
Last edited:
tusenfem said:
no
Click to expand...

Tusenfem says no, comets do not "flare" with the arrival of a CME. :thumbsup:

I think the term "flare" may need to be defined because the comet most certainly responded to the CME and I'd say it in fact flared from it's "normal" state to a more active (electrically speaking) state.
 
Sol88 said:
Tusenfem says no, comets do not "flare" with the arrival of a CME. :thumbsup:

I think the term "flare" may need to be defined because the comet most certainly responded to the CME and I'd say it in fact flared from it's "normal" state to a more active (electrically speaking) state.
Click to expand...

Really? I think I've read all the papers relating to CMEs at 67P. Which one are you referring to? Electrically speaking.
 
Sol88 said:
Tusenfem says no, comets do not "flare" with the arrival of a CME. :thumbsup:

I think the term "flare" may need to be defined because the comet most certainly responded to the CME and I'd say it in fact flared from it's "normal" state to a more active (electrically speaking) state.
Click to expand...

Responded to? Wow. A comet, surrounded by neutrals and ions 'responded' to a shed load of incoming ions from a CME. Well, I'll be darned. How did it respond, Sol? And how would you expect it to respond. In detail.
 
jonesdave116 said:
Responded to? Wow. A comet, surrounded by neutrals and ions 'responded' to a shed load of incoming ions from a CME. Well, I'll be darned. How did it respond, Sol? And how would you expect it to respond. In detail.
Click to expand...

Ahhh... you've got it! :thumbsup:
 
Sol88: Ignorance about what tusenfem wrote "no" to

Sol88 said:
Tusenfem says no, comets do not "flare" with the arrival of a CME.
Click to expand...
26 July 2017 Sol88: Ignorance about what tusenfem wrote "no" to.
You asked "Did Talbotts prediction turn out to be correct or not? ". Talbott wrote ""relationship of comet flaring to arrival of charged particles from solar outbursts".
The answer is obviously no because
  1. A vague fantasy is not a prediction.
  2. Comets do not flare.
    There are outbursts from the nucleus. There are jets from the nucleus.
    The mainstream working science of comets is that their coma will react to changes in the solar wind (a well Duh moment!).
  3. The EU delusion is about electrical discharges from the nucleus so that fantasy is very probably about the nucleus, not the coma.
 
As has been pointed out by RC,, the flaring mentioned by Talbott is (presumably) to do with an increase in the non-existent electrical woo that he believed (surely he can't still believe it?) causes the jets at comets.
We already knew before Rosetta that the jets aren't any kind of electric woo. I point the interested reader to some of the papers on the Hartley 2 mission. CO2 gas and ice, was the outcome in that particular case. So, Sol discussing particular aspects of perfectly mainstream science, regarding what happens in a cometary coma during a CME, is a totally pointless discussion. Interesting, but totally unrelated to any of the woo dreamed up by T & T.
For what it's worth, we know that solar wind heavy ions are responsible for the x-ray emission seen at comets. So, an increase in the solar wind flux should see an increase in x-ray production. Want to call that a flare? Fine, if you must, but it's a perfectly mainstream one. The whole of the sunward coma will be compressed. There has been a paper on this. Again, very interesting, but nothing to do with EU woo.
Given how vague the predictions of Talbott were, it is hard to know exactly what he was on about. Which is the whole ethos of EU; keep it as vague as possible, so that you can later claim to be right. A bit like tabloid psychics.
 
What Sol needs to concentrate on are the core claims of T & T, regarding their lunatic 'electric comet' idea. That is;

1) The jets are electrical discharges to (from?) the nucleus: Either way, that has been 100% debunked by observation and measurement. Or lack thereof.

2) The comet is a rock: Yet again, 100% disproven. By the impact at Tempel 1, and the results from MIRO and CONSERT at 67P.

3) The comet charges up due to a radial electric field around the Sun: Zero evidence of any such thing.

4) The H2O at comets is not H2O, but is OH, that stupid scientists mistake for H2O (I kid you not!): Well that was dead long before T & T wrote their horrific poster on electric comets. From 1985, in fact. And many observations since. Definitively, unarguably, 100% H2O. Solid and gaseous.

5) Said OH will be caused by solar wind H+ striking O- ions, which have been electrically machined from the non-existent rock of the comet (deary me): Not going to happen. SW H+ is far too energetic to combine with anything. There is naff all O- for it to combine with anyway, even if it were possible. And, when you do the sums, it turns out that even if every H+ ion was somehow involved in production of OH (or H2O, or magic fairy dust, whatever), then there ain't anywhere near enough of it to account for even 1 litre of water production. By many orders of magnitude. So, all in all, a really dumb idea. And very unscientific. Which is not at all surprising, given who dreamed it up.

So, Sol, how do you think all that has gone? Not well, really, eh? Console yourself by having another look at all those pretty pictures from Hartley 2, back in 2010, of all that fluffy ice floating around the comet. And then ask yourself, "why are we still discussing this woo?"
 
Sol88 said:
Tusenfem says no, comets do not "flare" with the arrival of a CME. :thumbsup:

I think the term "flare" may need to be defined because the comet most certainly responded to the CME and I'd say it in fact flared from it's "normal" state to a more active (electrically speaking) state.
Click to expand...

No there was no "flare", it was just the CME arriving, compressing the magentic field, the higher density of SW particles interacting with the neutrals (ionization) and the ions (charge exchange) and other processes.

Has absolutely noting to do with T's flaring electrically speaking.
 
Sol88 : The persistent delusion that there are images of comets that are rocks

Sol88 said:
As imaged by ROLIS and CIVA?
Click to expand...
27 July 2017 Sol88: The persistent and irrelevant delusion that there are images of comets showing that they are rocks.
ROLIS and CIVA were cameras on the Philae lander. During the decent they took images of a comet nucleus made up of ices and dust.
Reality Check said:
The model here is that the surface of comets initially consist of a mixture of ices and dust. Sublimation when comets get close to the Sun form a layer of weakly cohesive dust on the nucleus surface.
Click to expand...
A layer of dust was detected by the Philae lander. Underneath that layer of dust was a layer of ice. The MUPUS instrument that you know about found that this ice layer was harder than expected.
The CONSERT instrument in the Rosetta orbiter used the Philae lander to measure the density of the interior of 67P which was not the density of rock as in your delusion as you already know.

We have been through EU abysmal ignorance of astronomical images leading to the delusion of "I see rocks in images of comes made of ices and dust" a few times before. for example, 16 February 2016 Sol88: a follower of the deluded Thunderbolts cult who has the insane idea that he can look at an image of a comet and tell what it is made of
That composition is hard to establish from images is illustrated by Ziggurat's earlier post I've asked this of EU advocates before, I'm going to give it another shot. Here are two photographs. What kind of material are we looking at in each picture?

I am surprised that we did not see that delusion applied to jonesdave116's image in this post a few days ago on of Tempel 1! Look at all of the "rocks" on the surface :p! We would see yet again denial that Deep Impact ejected water and dust. And ...
Two years 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: Did the Stardust mission sample the subsurface composition of comet Wild 2

Reality Check said:
We also have Thornhill's now 12 year old (:eek:) web page with lies about confirmed Deep Impact predictions
Click to expand...
My previous analysis of the lies, etc. on this web page did not include the Stardust fantasies from Thornhill.

The "Subsurface composition" paragraph is several lies, starting with the title :eek:! Let us see if Sol88 can understand this:
27 July 2017 Sol88: Did the Stardust mission sample the subsurface composition of comet Wild 2?
 
Sol88: Where is the EU prediction of subsurface composition

27 July 2017 Sol88: Where is the EU prediction of subsurface composition in the "Subsurface composition" paragraph or linked web page?
 
Last edited:
Sol88: What does a deluded denial of Solar System formation have to do with comets

27 July 2017 Sol88: What does a deluded denial of the formation of the Solar System have to do with the EU subsurface composition of comets
Their delusion is that planets whizz around the Solar System to match their fantasies.

We have had measurements of the subsurface composition of Tempel 1 since 2005 (the Deep Impact mission) and from 2017 there is 67P (Rosetta mission).
The ages of the planets and Sun match, i.e. they formed together.
Planets have not "remained in their present orbits ever since". The Moon was probably formed by a planet colliding with the Earth. The Nice model has Jupiter starting close to the Sun and migrating outward.
 
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