Merged The Electric Comet Theory Part III/SAFIRE

Status
Not open for further replies.
Speakers will not be projecting popular ideas and mathematical contrivances....
Click to expand...

Lol. No, we won't see anything mathematical. Ever. How many electrons to power the Sun? Simple maths. Where are they? Do they have an associated magnetic field? What strength is it? What happens when it inevitably encounters the outflowing IMF? All these questions, and more, will be totally ignored by the Velikovskian woo merchants during their totally irrelevant conference. Hey guys, here's a thought; how about doing some science, eh? Been about 30 years of this garbage now, hasn't it? Anybody else thinking that they should have got further than "it's electric!"? Prawns.
 
jonesdave116 said:
jonesdave116 said:
Speakers will not be projecting popular ideas and mathematical contrivances....
Click to expand...
Lol. No, we won't see anything mathematical. Ever. [snip] Anybody else thinking that they should have got further than "it's electric!"? Prawns.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I find this idea that mathematics, somehow, can't represent reality, or is inferior to qualitative layman's descriptions, fascinating. Posters may remember Micheal Mozina (now banned), who nicely encapsulated this sort of view in a couple of statements:
  • "Don't trust the math, trust the science"
  • "math bunnies"
(the latter in response to people referring to his repeated pareidolia as "seeing bunnies").

Thing is, we need the mathematics to get it right; otherwise we'd be still doing astrology. (Oh, wait, most people are :mad:).

Seems to me that most of these people, if they can't understand the math, assume there's something wrong with the math, not them - even when their own skills are demonstrably lacking.
Click to expand...
 
jonesdave116 said:
An interesting line from he EU conference woo:
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2017/01/22/eu2017-homepage-2/

Strange that, eh? Few? So, they still think 'dirty snowballs' are possible? Wow. Mainstream gave that up a while ago. Shame that these people are still basing their unscientific nonsense on Whipple's model from the 1950's. Having said that, they still think it is possible. Weird. Wish they'd make their minds up. Come on Wal, what is it that you actually believe, you old charlatan? So how are you going to spin this? I've got an idea; given that all of the comets that have been visited, and all of the comets that have been spectroscopically investigated by instruments that can detect H2O have detected H2O, why not start your woo with comets that have never been visited, nor probed by IR or sub-mm? Good place to start for a conman, yes?
Click to expand...


Conclusions. In the framework of the presented model, which can be considered common in terms of assumptions and physical
parameters in the cometary community, the dust removal by a gas drag force is not a plausible physical mechanism. The sublimation
of not only water ice, but also of super-volatile ice (i.e., CO) is unable to remove dust grains for illumination conditions corresponding
to 1.3 AU. A way out of this impasse requires revision of the most common model assumption employed by the cometary community.
Click to expand...
Skorov et al.: Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

So JD116, what is the mainstream model?
 
Sol88 said:
Skorov et al.: Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

So JD116, what is the mainstream model?
Click to expand...

Well, having read that paper some months ago, I'm not sure what they are suggesting. Unless I'm being thick, or they were being excessively cryptic, I didn't see an alternative suggestion. Probably best to email the author for clarification. Perhaps they were suggesting that the smaller dust grains are due to a distributed source in the coma from larger particles containing volatiles. The paper is referenced in this preprint:
Seasonal Mass Transfer on the Nucleus of Comet 67P/Chuyumov-Gerasimenko
Keller, H. U. et al. (Skorov is a co-author)
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1707/1707.06812.pdf

What it will not involve is any of the nonsense I mentioned in the post further up:

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.
Click to expand...

As for what the mainstream model is; it is based upon observation and measurement from near and far. It changes, and has continued to do so, as more and more measurements and observations become available. That is the obvious way to do science. A model is proposed and is then tested against observation. As per Whipple. When observation suggests the model needs tweaking, it is tweaked. And so we get ever closer to understanding the whole of the complex behaviour of comets.
What we don't do is to dream up scientifically impossible woo, based upon nothing more than mythology, and suggest that it is a viable, scientific model.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Skorov et al.: Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

So JD116, what is the mainstream model?
Click to expand...
Pardon my newbie question, but what I'm still wondering is what the 'Electric Comet Model' is. I've just finished reading a large chunk of the stuff on the 'thunderbolt' website as well as the threads on this very internationalskeptics forum, and apart some vague - and sometimes contradictory - claims at a strictly narrative/descriptive level, I've found nothing clear.

To me, it looks like philosophical talk. Was an EU-based comet model ever simulated on a computer, for example?

What's the point of asking others about their models if there is not even an EU-based one to discuss?
 
lauwenmark said:
Pardon my newbie question, but what I'm still wondering is what the 'Electric Comet Model' is. I've just finished reading a large chunk of the stuff on the 'thunderbolt' website as well as the threads on this very internationalskeptics forum, and apart some vague - and sometimes contradictory - claims at a strictly narrative/descriptive level, I've found nothing clear.

To me, it looks like philosophical talk. Was an EU-based comet model ever simulated on a computer, for example?

What's the point of asking others about their models if there is not even an EU-based one to discuss?
Click to expand...

Well, I see that this is your first post here, lauwenmark, so welcome.
And, yes, you've pretty much summed it up. There is no 'electric comet' model. Never has been. If you wish to read more of this scientifically illiterate nonsense, then I may be able to find a link; http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf
Please try to keep your sanity as you read that garbage. Not easy, I know. Essentially, the things you need to bear in mind, are the facts that neither of the idiots that came up with this woo are scientifically qualified. Certainly not in the relevant subject area. They tend to make stuff up. One of them is a bloke called David Talbott: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/David_Talbott
The other is a loon called Wallace Thornhill. Doesn't even rate a mention on Rational Wiki. Allegedly has a BSc in physics. Can't do maths. Can't do science. And they are both Velikovskian woo merchants. Bear that in mind, and you'll not go wrong :)
 
Last edited:
Sol88: Confirms once again that he is arguing from a stance of abysmal ignorance

Sol88 said:
So JD116, what is the mainstream model?
Click to expand...
Oh dear!
2 August 2017 Sol88: Confirms once again that he is arguing from a stance of abysmal ignorance about comets!
The mainstream model backed up by empirical evidence is that comets are made of ices and dust. There are a lot of other details. As new evidence is found the details change (this is called the scientific process) but the basics are not changed by the paper you cite. It is still deeply deluded to state that comets are rocks.

You cannot even remember a week ago! Or this could be the idiocy that pops up sometimes of asking everyone in a thread the same question to waste their time.
27 July 2017 Sol88: The delusion that comets are rocks is not supported by the delusion that a paper is about comets being rocks.
 
lauwenmark said:
Pardon my newbie question, but what I'm still wondering is what the 'Electric Comet Model' is.
Click to expand...
There is no real 'Electric Comet Model' :jaw-dropp!

There is whatever a Thunderbolts ("Electric Universe") person makes up when asked that question, web pages with vague and even incoherent assertions, crank books and even worse YouTube videos. They start with the debunked fantasies of Immanuel Velikovsky and add their delusions. My take on it:
We will lie about comparing myths (plural) to find common stories on astronomical events witnessed by humans in the last few thousand or 10 thousand years.
  • Venus erupted from Jupiter (a Greek myth borrowed by Romans).
  • Venus travelled to Earth and stopped its spin with no effect, e.g. the Moon retained it orbit, people did not undergo many g's of de-acceleration, noting fell over.
    This only a Hebrew story of the Sun stopping taken as poetic license by scholars. Electric magic is evoked to explain that there were no effects.
  • Venus restored exactly the same spin with no effects and only recorded by 1 people.
  • Venus passed by again to drop manna to Moses and his people.
    This only a Hebrew story. There is a bit of ignorance where Venus drops hydrocarbons (petrol!) rather than carbohydrates (food).
  • Venus comes back again to blast rocks from the surface of the Earth using electrical discharges and creates the comets.
    Big problem - comets are not rocks!
    Bigger problem - blasting to produce the number of observed comets would probably turn the surface of any planet into lava. To produce the number of objects in the sources of comets means stripping the entire crusts from planets.
The last is where Thunderbolts is a bit cowardly - it seems to be vague "electrical discharges between planets" rather than naming the culprits.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
So JD116, what is the mainstream model?
Click to expand...

If you would just actually read the Rosetta papers then you would know what the current mainstream model is. And no, it is not the long abandoned "dirty snowball", a term which for historical reasons keeps hanging around.

Several special issues of Science (31 July 2015, 23 January 2015), Astronomy & Astrophysics (vol 583, 2015), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (Vol 462, Issue Suppl_1, 2016) give enough reading material, and that is only the surface of what is being published.
 
So "Dirtysnowball" is out...

The new model is...based upon observation and measurement from near and far.????

Ok let's ask the new poster here, welcome lauwenmark.

What, at this time, is your understanding of the MAINSTREAM model of comets?

hint, the experts say the Dirtysnowball is dead and buried and the new model is...based upon observation and measurement from near and far.????

and read the papers and that's the new model.

Feel free to ask the "experts" ;)

PS if you have not read the paper yet give Comets: looking ahead Michael F. A’Hearn a crack, see what ya reckon.
 
Last edited:
Ha! I just noticed in the reservations that Yuri Skorov is coming to visit my institute!
I will let him give a seminar.
 
tusenfem said:
If you would just actually read the Rosetta papers then you would know what the current mainstream model is. And no, it is not the long abandoned "dirty snowball", a term which for historical reasons keeps hanging around.

Several special issues of Science (31 July 2015, 23 January 2015), Astronomy & Astrophysics (vol 583, 2015), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (Vol 462, Issue Suppl_1, 2016) give enough reading material, and that is only the surface of what is being published.
Click to expand...


is it deep fried ice cream??
 
tusenfem said:
Ha! I just noticed in the reservations that Yuri Skorov is coming to visit my institute!
I will let him give a seminar.
Click to expand...


Great, can you ask him please what he meant by the statement
A way out of this impasse requires revision of the most common model assumption employed by the cometary community
Click to expand...
???

JD1116 is confused on the statement.
 
tusenfem said:
Ha! I just noticed in the reservations that Yuri Skorov is coming to visit my institute!
I will let him give a seminar.
Click to expand...

I just went through his paper a couple more times. I also had a look at some of the other papers he referenced in there. The problem seems to come down to cohesiveness of the < 1mm sized dust particles. As suggested in another paper, the model suggests that such particles must come from the disintegration of larger aggregates in the coma, as gas drag cannot account for them. From what I remember, this is in keeping with the findings from GIADA, which finds that the dust is an agglomerate of ever smaller grains.

What drives the dust activity of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko?
Gundlach, B. et al.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.08545.pdf
 
JD116, what are the most common model assumption employed by the cometary community they may need revision?
 
OK, let's have a look at what T & T have to say about the dust;....................er, nothing. Except the bit where they confuse the sunlight reflected from jets of such material, and claim that it's an electrical discharge. Oh dear.
 
jonesdave116 said:
I just went through his paper a couple more times. I also had a look at some of the other papers he referenced in there. The problem seems to come down to cohesiveness of the < 1mm sized dust particles. As suggested in another paper, the model suggests that such particles must come from the disintegration of larger aggregates in the coma, as gas drag cannot account for them. From what I remember, this is in keeping with the findings from GIADA, which finds that the dust is an agglomerate of ever smaller grains.

What drives the dust activity of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko?
Gundlach, B. et al.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.08545.pdf
Click to expand...

and your blind to the contradictions???

Model it still fluffy dust covered solid ice??
 
Sol88 said:
JD116, what are the most common model assumption employed by the cometary community they may need revision?
Click to expand...

Why don't you email the author? Then I wouldn't need to speculate. However, I will - the assumption that ALL the dust is in the coma is due to gas drag from the nucleus. Some of it (i.e. < 1mm) is more likely to be from disintegration of larger particles within the coma.
 
Sol88 said:
and your blind to the contradictions???

Model it still fluffy dust covered solid ice??
Click to expand...

Yes. Please point me to a finding that says otherwise. Start with GIADA. What did they find? Instead of writing nonsense, why don't you actually have the cojones to say what you mean. What contradictions? How does it work in your mind? With evidence to back it up, please.
 
Here, this didn't strain my research skills too much:

Rosetta thus gives evidence for a significant amount of fluffy particles in the solid material ejected by comets.
Click to expand...

Physical properties of dust particles in cometary comae: from clues to evidence with the Rosetta mission
Levasseur-Regourd, A. C. et al.
https://hal-insu.archives-ouvertes.fr/insu-01211564/document

And:
DENSITY AND CHARGE OF PRISTINE FLUFFY PARTICLES FROM COMET 67P/CHURYUMOV–GERASIMENKO
Fulle, M. et al.
http://oro.open.ac.uk/44289/1/apjl_802_1_L12o.pdf

Lots of fluffy particles floating around. Apparently as unseen by electric comet advocates as the snowstorm of ice around Hartley 2.
 
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