Merged The Electric Comet Theory Part III/SAFIRE

jonesdave116 said:

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.

Click to expand...

tusenfem said:

Oh, puhleese! jonesdave, that would require solly to do some actual reading and thinking ....

Click to expand...

But a much different vantage point on the water question is possible. When
astronomers view the comas of comets spectroscopically, what they actually
see is the hydroxyl radical (OH), which they assume to be a residue of water...

Click to expand...

We have reported the first definite detection of H20 in Halley's comet, and the first interpretable and unequivocal detection for any comet.

Click to expand...

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...

Dancing David said:

Welcome to the forum!

It is mostly completely lacking any data which supports it's views.
In a nut shell, it is the idea that bodies away from the sun acquire some electrical charge and then when they move to the inner solar system they interact with some other existing field and the coma is an electrical discharge.

The fact that does not work is something the EC proponents are oblivious to.

Click to expand...

jonesdave116 said:

FTFY.

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

and your blind to the contradictions???

Model it still fluffy dust covered solid ice??

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

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

Click to expand...

1. Wasting peoples time by asking them about irrelevant information.
   This thread is about the Electric Comet Theory which is the delusion that comets are rocks that were blasted off the Earth as witnessed by humans, by electric discharges between the Earth and Venus, comet jets are electrical discharges between the comet and the Sun, electrical discharge machining of the surface, etc.
2. Sol88 is asking you about the mainstream in order to compare it to his delusion that comets are rocks, etc.
   Any issues with the mainstream become a fantasy of support for that delusion. That is the logical fallacy of false dichotomy. An issue with a model A is never support for a totally debunked theory (to the point it becomes delusional) B.

1. 17 July 2017 Sol88: Unthinking parroting again of an ignorant Franklin Anariba
2. 18 July 2017 Sol88: A ignorant and deluded fantasy about "charged sheathed vortices"
3. 18 July 2017 Sol88: Abysmal ignorance about plasma, Birkeland currents and 67P!
4. 18 July 2017 Sol88: Links to a lying and deluded video from the deluded Thunderbolts cult.
5. 18 July 2017 Sol88: A lie about Talbots prediction of a "comet flaring" being supported by no flaring!
6. 18 July 2017 Sol88: Another attempt to derail form his delusion that comets are rocks.
7. 18 July 2017 Sol88: A lie about relying on "cliffs collapsing' for jets.
8. 20 July 2017 Sol88: Swallows the Thunderbolts magnetic reconnection "Kool-Aid" - what a surprise!
9. 20 July 2017 Sol88: Fatally ignorant about magnetic reconnection which is not force free field aligned currents!
10. 20 July 2017 Sol88: A lie about a Thunderbolts lie about Deep Impact.
11. 27 July 2017 Sol88: The delusion that comets are rocks is not supported by the delusion that a paper is about comets being rocks.
12. 26 July 2017 Sol88: Repeats his delusion that scientific papers are about his delusion that comets are rocks.
13. 26 July 2017 Sol88: Ignorance about what tusenfem wrote "no" to (as requested in that post!).
14. 27 July 2017 Sol88: The persistent and irrelevant delusion that there are images of comets showing that they are rocks.
15. 2 August 2017 Sol88: Confirms once again that he is arguing from a stance of abysmal ignorance about comets (for the last 8 years)!

Reality Check said:

New Comet: C/2017 O1 ASAS-SN Takes Earth by Surprise

So in the EU delusion, a comet that has a period of millions of years and thus last visited the inner solar system millions of years ago (before the existence of human beings) was blasted off the Earth some thousands of years ago as reported in human myths !

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

and your blind to the contradictions???

Model it still fluffy dust covered solid ice??

Click to expand...

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...

jonesdave116 said:

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.

Click to expand...

The evidence suggests that comets are highly negatively charged with respect to the Sun. As they rush toward the Sun, the voltage increases until at some point the comet nucleus begins to discharge. Electrons are stripped from a few points on the comet surface where the electric field is strongest. These “spark discharges” finely machine rocky material from the surface to form a “cathode jet” of negatively charged dust together with surface matter that has been torn apart to release ionized atoms and molecules, including oxygen.

Click to expand...

At the simplest level, a very basic question is whether comets are mostly ice or mostly
rock/dirt/refractory material. Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the first quantitative
model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving
more toward mostly rock, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high
as 6 have been cited

Click to expand...

However, the gas-driven dust activity cannot explain the presence of particles smaller than 1mm in the coma
because the high tensile strength required to detach these particles from the surface cannot be provided by evaporation of volatile ices.

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...

And the vast cloud of dust from the comet fits the electrical machining model but not the sublimating ices model.

Click to expand...

Abstract
ROSETTA's probe Philae landed on a dust covered soil. This dust may be ejected from the ground through many mechanisms (other than spacecraft landing) : micro-meteorite impacts, electrostatic charging and soil outgassing. In any cases, the dust grains charge electrostatically in the ambient plasma and this charge impacts the dust interaction with the spacecraft, which is itself differentially charged due to its partial exposure to the solar UV light. Using the DUST addition to the Spacecraft-Plasma Interaction Software (SPIS) routinely used to compute the charge state of the spacecraft surfaces, we simulate the electrostatic charging of Philae as well as its dust environment. SPIS-DUST allows one to compute the electrostatic charging of the dust grains on the ground and in the plasma, and to model their ejection and their recollection by the probe. We simulated one cometary day of the Philae environment at different distances from the sun to observe the variation of the dust collection with Philae's local time.*

Simulation of the electrostatic charging of Philae on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko and of its interaction with the dusts. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/public...simenko_and_of_its_interaction_with_the_dusts [accessed Aug 3, 2017].

Click to expand...

Abstract. ROSETTA’s probe Philae landed on a dust covered soil. This dust may be ejected from the ground through many mechanisms (other than spacecraft landing) : micro-meteorite impacts, electrostatic charging and soil outgassing. In any cases, the dust grains charge electrostatically in the ambient plasma and this charge impacts the dust interaction with the spacecraft, which is itself differentially charged due to its partial exposure to the solar UV light. Using the DUST addition to the Spacecraft-Plasma Interaction Software (SPIS) routinely used to compute the charge state of the spacecraft surfaces, we simulate the electrostatic charging of Philae as well as its dust environment. SPIS-DUST allows one to compute the electrostatic charging of the dust grains on the ground and in the plasma, and to model their ejection and their recollection by the probe. We simulated one cometary day of the Philae environment at different distances from the sun to observe the variation of the dust collection with Philae’s local time.

Click to expand...

We present the regional setting of Abydos and define geological units. Abydos is essentially an alcove at the foot of a scarp composed of heavily fractured consolidated materials.

Click to expand...

The Sun's surface, the photosphere, has a temperature of around 6000 degrees, but the outer atmosphere, the corona - best seen from Earth during total solar eclipses - is several hundred times hotter. How the corona is heated to millions of degrees is one of the most significant unsolved problems in astrophysics. The solution will help scientists better understand the heating of other stars.
"Why the Sun's corona is so hot is a long-standing puzzle. It's as if a flame were coming out of an ice cube. It doesn't make any sense! Solar astronomers think that the key lies in the magnetic field, but there are still arguments about the details," added Dr Brooks.


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-08-clue-mystery-sun-hot-atmosphere.html#jCp

Click to expand...

jonesdave116 said:

^^^^Blah, blah, blah. And could you please point us to any detection of rock? You know, from the instruments that would detect rock? Such as MIRO, or CONSERT? No, you can't, because it doesn't exist. So, how about detections of this non-existent EDM (lol)? You think something like that could happen? And go undetected? No, and no, would be the answer to that. So, please explain how electric woo is turning granite, for instance, into fluffy dust with a density of ~ 1kg/m³. Not thought this through, have you?
Let us make this quite clear; for 2 years a spacecraft orbited this comet. It had a whole bunch of instruments that could detect all kinds of things. Two things that it most DEFINITELY didn't detect, were rock and electrical discharge woo. It is a busted flush.
And you still haven't told us what all the white stuff was around Hartley 2. Any ideas? What are Wally's 'electrical' jets made of? Well, we've known for years that the ones at Hartley 2 were CO₂ gas. Eh? What were the temperatures of those jets? Consistent with electrical woo, was it? No. How big was the crater made on Tempel 1? Is that consistent with rock? No.
In short, there is zero evidence for rock, and zero evidence (let alone a valid scientific mechanism) for electrical woo hitting the comet. It is inane, unscientific, unsupported woo, based purely on the idiotic Velikovskian beliefs of a couple of chancers. End of.

Click to expand...

envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high as 6 have been cited

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

and just for s..ts n giggles

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

Tell Michael that...oh wait

but he did say

Why would he say such a stupid thing?

Click to expand...

jonesdave116 said:

^^^^Blah, blah, blah. And could you please point us to any detection of rock? You know, from the instruments that would detect rock? Such as MIRO, or CONSERT? No, you can't, because it doesn't exist. So, how about detections of this non-existent EDM (lol)? You think something like that could happen? And go undetected? No, and no, would be the answer to that. So, please explain how electric woo is turning granite, for instance, into fluffy dust with a density of ~ 1kg/m³. Not thought this through, have you?
Let us make this quite clear; for 2 years a spacecraft orbited this comet. It had a whole bunch of instruments that could detect all kinds of things. Two things that it most DEFINITELY didn't detect, were rock and electrical discharge woo. It is a busted flush.
And you still haven't told us what all the white stuff was around Hartley 2. Any ideas? What are Wally's 'electrical' jets made of? Well, we've known for years that the ones at Hartley 2 were CO₂ gas. Eh? What were the temperatures of those jets? Consistent with electrical woo, was it? No. How big was the crater made on Tempel 1? Is that consistent with rock? No.
In short, there is zero evidence for rock, and zero evidence (let alone a valid scientific mechanism) for electrical woo hitting the comet. It is inane, unscientific, unsupported woo, based purely on the idiotic Velikovskian beliefs of a couple of chancers. End of.

Click to expand...

Based on those observations we consider compact particle populations with typical densities of 3kg/m3 on the one hand and fragments as produced by the disruption of fluffy aggregates in the s/c vicinity with low densities of 1 kg/m3 on the other hand.

Click to expand...