Merged The Electric Comet Theory Part III/SAFIRE

Status
Not open for further replies.
tusenfem said:
Oh but we cannot ask questions about the EC, EC is true, and you know it!
To question is to doubt, to doubt is sinfull and the thunderbolts of the gods will smite you!

This thread started on 6 July 2009, and since then we have obtained not one direct answer of any of the EC (EU, ES) proponents on how things work in their version of the universe. I guess if you are not part of the incrowd you are not allowed to know. And I am not sure if Sol belongs to the incrowd, because he does not seem to be able to explain anything either, or he has signed a non-disclosure agreement with T&T.
Click to expand...
Thanks tsf.

I've been reading along for some time, and it does seem that Sol88 comes across are rather ignorant of just what the EC theory is.

However, we did get a post or two by David Talbott, did we not? Maybe that was a difficult thread? :confused:
 
Sol88 said:
Oh please Tusenfem, I've known you long enough to know that you know what the ELECTRIC COMET model is and what the implications are.
Click to expand...
Tsf may - or may not - know what this thing is, and he may - or may not - know what "the implications" are.

However, I do not (not much anyway). And I'm pretty sure most readers don't either ... so why not take some time to give us all a summary of what you understand it to be? :)
 
JeanTate said:
Thanks tsf.

I've been reading along for some time, and it does seem that Sol88 comes across are rather ignorant of just what the EC theory is.

However, we did get a post or two by David Talbott, did we not? Maybe that was a difficult thread? :confused:
Click to expand...

Talbott appeared for about 2 weeks in december 2014

So I asked DT three questions and this is the non-answer that I was getting from the supposedly electric comet expert. Instead of getting an explanation, I got a list of what Rosetta scientists should be finding out for DT. Not ONE word that actually answered my simple questions. Something JeanTate also pointed out in post 2122.

Of course the best part is in post 2180, where DT tells us that: Seems to me that the point should be pretty clear by now. There is no electric comet model, just a hypothesis that deserves more than you've granted it so far.

Basically DT keeps on claiming, without any evidence of published papers, that: which is why comet scientists are moving increasingly toward an electrical understanding of this behavior. (e.g. post 2343)

Basically DT left us with the following message:
Okay I see this thread has now exploded into hopeless excess. However, my sketchy list of electric comet predictions has led to a number of comments and challenges that will be well worth integrating into the predictions themselves. Won't try to keep up with all the polemic excursions, but some of the comments on the wording of the predictions will be useful.

Is it appropriate to describe an active comet as "hot and dry? Yes, in the words of comet investigators responding to the Borrelly findings in 2001 (Deep Space 1 probe)

"The spectrum suggests that the surface is hot and dry. It is surprising that we saw no traces of water ice." Dr. Laurence Soderblom, U.S. Geological Survey

"No traces of water ice" is of course the reason why standard theorists were so surprised. And no sublimating ice is the background FACT leading to the "hot and dry" finding.

While I may change a few words in the predictions listed, my plan is to supplement each prediction with examples and a few illustrations. I expect to begin the Thunderbolts report this week, as a continuing blog. Of course, the excess of postings here of late did indeed slow me down a couple of days.

I can promise that, as the report continues, I will not ignore criticisms posted on this ISF thread.

A few more posts with little substance follow and on 10 December he is gone, without answering my three simple questions, nor anybody elses. Well, to be honest, he did answer some questions, but never the specific ones on the electric comet model hypothesis.
 
tusenfem said:
Uhhh ... no, I don't think so.

Over the last 8 years you have learned zilch about basic mainstream plasma physics. If you come up with weird questions like:

Oh wait, how is the energy getting there to charge all the dust up?

Goodness! YOU are the expert on the electric comet, so you tell us!

It is all quite easy in the mainstream (dusty) plasma physics, and I am sure it has been explained already a few times in this thread. So, the answer is still no, because it does not do any good, we can discuss, and I (and others) can explain, and you will say you "understand" and two pages on you will come up with the same question or the same debunked argument.

Why not ask T&T how it works and come back and explain it to us.

Have a great weekend.
Click to expand...

And that's the crux of the matter here is it not Tusenfem?

Sublimation is not required and indeed seems can not work as REQUIRED under the common model! :D
 
Sol88 said:
And that's the crux of the matter here is it not Tusenfem?

Sublimation is not required and indeed seems can not work as REQUIRED under the common model! :D
Click to expand...

Then please enlighten us how we get the outgassing water H2O and carbon(di)oxide CO and CO2 in the coma of the comet if sublimation is not required.
I guess some aliens just turn open the water taps?
 
For those really interested in the science of comets, if there is "no sublimation required" at the comet, then there will be no H2O, CO or CO2 around the comet.

If they are not around, then there can be no pick-up of newly formed ions in the solar wind magnetic field, which will slow down the solar wind (concervation of momentum) and hang-up the magnetic field lines around the comet, creating the cometary ion tail, as already explained by Alfven in 1957.

Apparently, there is a model now that discusses whether gas drag can remove dust particles from the surface of the comet or not. The authors claim that particles of 0.001 to 1 mm cannot always be removed from the surface by gas drag (I think because of cohesion, but this is not my specialty area, and i would have to read the paper better but not on a sunday).

Now, this seems to be, I guess, for Sol a confirmation that the electric comet hypothesis is correct. Not that any of the Rosetta instruments have actually observed the electric discharges that the EC needs, but hey, as we have seen from the Talbott discussion above, the EC is about making hypotheses and not about looking for evidence in any data.
 
tusenfem said:
For those really interested in the science of comets, if there is "no sublimation required" at the comet, then there will be no H2O, CO or CO2 around the comet.

If they are not around, then there can be no pick-up of newly formed ions in the solar wind magnetic field, which will slow down the solar wind (concervation of momentum) and hang-up the magnetic field lines around the comet, creating the cometary ion tail, as already explained by Alfven in 1957.
Click to expand...

Exactly, even an assertion of "no sublimation required" does not necessitate an assertion of 'no sublimation present or expected'

tusenfem said:
Apparently, there is a model now that discusses whether gas drag can remove dust particles from the surface of the comet or not. The authors claim that particles of 0.001 to 1 mm cannot always be removed from the surface by gas drag (I think because of cohesion, but this is not my specialty area, and i would have to read the paper better but not on a sunday).
Click to expand...

That's the impression I got from a quick read of the paper. Which is certainly not making an assertion of "no sublimation required", present or expected but simply that the gas drag appears insufficient in some modeling because of cohesion for larger (but detected) particles. Thing is, to address this particular aspect a quantitative EC model (if there ever is one that can at least in any way agree with observational evidence) would have to overcome the very same cohesive forces (provided those cohesive forces are themselves accurately modeled in this instance) for those larger particles.


tusenfem said:
Now, this seems to be, I guess, for Sol a confirmation that the electric comet hypothesis is correct. Not that any of the Rosetta instruments have actually observed the electric discharges that the EC needs, but hey, as we have seen from the Talbott discussion above, the EC is about making hypotheses and not about looking for evidence in any data.
Click to expand...

Yep, why bother actually doing the quantitative work to compare with observational evidence when it just demonstrates the glaring lack of evidence.
 
Last edited:
Sol88: Deep ignorance about what he quotes as usual

Sol88 said:
And the dust is where?
Click to expand...
14 August 2017 Sol88: Deep ignorance about what he quotes as usual!
Water Ice and Dust in the Innermost Coma of Comet 103P/Hartley 2.
One can compare the icy grains in comet Hartley 2, a hyperactive comet from which icy grains are apparently dragged out continuously by gaseous CO2, with the icy grains mechanically excavated from 10-20-m depths in the low-activity comet Tempel 1 [Sunshine et al., 2007], and with the icy grains excavated by the infrequent but large natural outbursts of comet Holmes [Yang et al., 2009]. In all three cases, the icy grains are relatively pure and dominated by particles of order 1 µm in size. Taken together this suggests that in most comets the ice in the interior of the nuclei is in the form of aggregates of relatively pure ice and that intimate mixtures of ice and refractories are rare. Furthermore, this implies that nuclei are commonly very porous, as suggested by the few bulk densities that have been determined and that aggregation models [e.g., Greenberg and Li, 1999] that call for grains with refractory cores, organic mantles, and icy crusts are generally inappropriate for comets.
Click to expand...
This is a quote about icy grains so we do not expect the word "dust" in it! However "refractories" at the end of the quote is that dust! For example Refractory materials in comet samples is about the Stardust dust grains.
 
Last edited:
Sol88: Another lie about the Skorov et. al. (2017) paper.

Sol88 said:
No, the new assumptions are volatiles, including supervolitiles, can not remove the ubiquitous "dust' that we see in the COMA! ...
Click to expand...
14 August 2017 Sol88: Another lie about the Skorov et. al. (2017) paper.
Skorov et. al. (2017) does not assume that volatiles cannot remove the dust we see in the coma. Skorov et. al. (2017) uses a computer model to show that for
  • 1 comet (67P)
  • at a close distance to the Sun (1.3 AU)
  • for 1 mechanism (gas dragging),
their model's cohesion between dust and ice "is not sufficient to remove dust grains of sizes <1 mm". What make this post into a lie is that we have observed dust jetting from the surface of 67P which Sol88 knows (read the thread!).
There is also empirical evidence that gas dragging did move dust into the coma of Comet 103P/Hartley 2.
11 August 2017 Sol88: A lying comparison between Protopapa, et. al. and Skorov et. al.
 
Sol88: A ignorant citation of Hess et. al. which is obviously about Philae

Sol88 said:
SIMULATION OF THE ELECTROSTATIC CHARGING OF PHILAE ON 67P/CHURYUMOV-GERASIMENKO AND OF ITS INTERACTION WITH THE DUSTS.
Click to expand...
14 August 2017 Sol88: A ignorant citation of Hess et. al. which is obviously about Philae and its dust environment, not comet coma.
In addition this is a conference presentation, not a published paper: Simulation of the electrostatic charging of Philae on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko and of its interaction with the dusts.
 
Sol88: An ignorant fantasy about Skorov et. al which is not about outbursts

Sol88 said:
The Skorov papers model puts an interesting new spin on the The 2016 Feb 19 outburst of comet 67P/CG: an ESA Rosetta multi-instrument study paper.
Click to expand...
14 August 2017 Sol88: An ignorant fantasy about Skorov et. al which is not about outbursts.
With:
14 August 2017 Sol88: The bad act of not giving a link to his source again!
The 19 Feb. 2016 Outburst of Comet 67P/CG: An ESA Rosetta Multi-Instrument Study

11 August 2017 Sol88: A lying comparison between Protopapa, et. al. and Skorov et. al.
 
Sol88: Debunks his comet are rocks delusion by citing a thermal lag paper

Sol88 said:
Sunset jets observed on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko sustained by subsurface thermal lag
Click to expand...
14 August 2017 Sol88: Debunks his comet are rocks delusion by citing a thermal lag paper :jaw-dropp!

Sol88 said:
And the dust is charged!
Click to expand...
14 August 2017 Sol88: A "surprise" lie that dust from 67P is charged.
This has been in several papers that he knows about and explained with the basic physics that sunlight charges ice and dust grains.
 
Sol88: A lying question exposing his comets are rocks delusion yet again

Sol88 said:
How does that jive with the assumed bulk density?
Click to expand...
14 August 2017 Sol88: A lying question exposing his comets are rocks delusion yet again.
The "assumed" is a lie. The measured mean density of 67P is 0.533 ± 0.006 g/cm3. 67P is not rock as in your delusion. The measured densities of comets are less than that of water and much less than that of rock. Comets are not rock as in your 8 year long delusion.
The density of dust grains alone says nothing about the bulk density of 67P.
 
Sol88: A derail from his comets are rock delusion to his ignorance about comets

Sol88 said:
So if the dust is being charged even in the diamagnetic cavity, how's that come about?
Click to expand...
14 August 2017 Sol88: A derail from his comets are rock delusion to his ignorance about comets!
No effect on sunlight charging dust.
I suspect that the diamagnetic cavity could enhance dust charging. It is caused by the solar wind but no magnetic field implies less to stop the solar wind from interactions with dust and charging it.

Yes - Jets were quite active around perihelion and the irrelevant situation of when Rosetta would have been inside the diamagnetic cavity.

14 August 2017 Sol88: The repeated lie of putting ice in quotes.
14 August 2017 Sol88: The "MUPUS tried to hammer into rock" delusion raises its ugly head again!
 
Sol88: Comets are rocks so where did that rock come from

Sol88 said:
Jeantate, your questions are in this instance are irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Oh dear:
14 August 2017 Sol88: A delusion that questions about the electric comet theory are irrelevant to a thread about the electric comet theory.
You are the one wanting to directly compare models. The first step is not to link to lying Thunderbolts pages about history. The first step is to fully cite the electric comet "model".

A simple question for you about the EC theory:
14 August 2017 Sol88: Comets are rocks so where did that rock come from?
Real scientists look at comets and measure their density to be less than water.
Real scientists look at comets and measure that they originate in the outer solar system.
Real scientists have scientific models for the formation of solar systems. They note that there is a lot of "left overs", especially in the outer system. These will be made of ices and dust. If they are perturbed so that they fall into the inner system then we have comets.

Are Thunderbolts real scientists or deluded cranks? Do they have a rational explanation for the origin of comets as rocks?
 
Last edited:
Just don't look thru the telescope Reality check and it'll all be good cobber!
 
Last edited:
Reality check, question just for you old mate.

How much ice did Philes find? Specifically from the MUPUS experiment?

Please feel free to link to the relevant paper.

;)
 
Sol88: Gibberish about not looking thru the telescope

Sol88 said:
Just don't look thru the telescope Reality check and it'll all be good cobber!
Click to expand...
14 August 2017 Sol88: Gibberish about not looking thru the telescope.
Is this his ignorant fantasy that comets are rocks because he imagines images of comets to be rock?
Or an inability to read? My post before his was:
14 August 2017 Sol88: A delusion that questions about the electric comet theory are irrelevant to a thread about the electric comet theory.
14 August 2017 Sol88: Comets are rocks so where did that rock come from?
 
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