Merged The Electric Comet Theory Part III/SAFIRE

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sol88: The problem is his ignorant delusions about a paper

Sol88 said:
You have a problem RC! ...
Click to expand...
24 August 2017 Sol88: The problem is his ignorant delusions about a paper (bulk = not surface!).
A homogeneous nucleus for comet 67P/Churyumov– Gerasimenko from its gravity field is not about the first few meters of the surface that MUPUS-PEN sampled or the rest of his deluded highlights of the paper and his usual insane comments.

24 August 2017 Sol88: Idiotic mention of a paper on ices and dust comets in his comet delusions thread.
 
Last edited:
Sol88: A lie about an ""old chestnut" when we have mechanisms to put dust in the coma

Sol88 said:
And then you run into the old chestnut of 'how is the dust ending up in the coma?'
Click to expand...
24 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about an ""old chestnut" when we have mechanisms to put dust in the coma which he has cited :eye-poppi.

24 August 2017 Sol88: Second idiotic mention of a paper on ices and dust comets in his comet delusions thread.

24 August 2017 Sol88: Third idiotic mention of a paper on ices and dust comets in his comet delusions thread.

24 August 2017 Sol88: Third time today not citing the papers he mentions and quotes.

GIADA: shining a light on the monitoring of the comet dust production from the nucleus of 67P/Churyumov Gerasimenko

Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

Read 254 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 23 August 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!) for his previous delusions and lies about dust activity.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
21 August 2017 Sol88: "Interesting" ignorance because main-belt comets show that his comets are rocks delusions are just that!
According to your delusions, the only bodies that can be comets are ones coming from the other system to the inner system. Main-belt comets cannot exist in your ignorant and deluded dogma :jaw-dropp!

On the other hand, there is the real world. In the real world ices sublimate within the snow line (about 5 AU). Asteroids may have ices. These ices can be exposed making some main-belt asteroids into temporary comets.
Click to expand...


Asteroid–comet continuum objects in the solar system Henry H. Hsieh1,2

4. Conclusion In summary, the population of small bodies in our solar system today, including both minor planets and classical comets, is far less well-delineated into distinct groups of objects than the classical paradigm might have led one to believe in the past. These objects instead appear to occupy a continuum spanning the full range of observational, physical and dynamical properties classically attributed solely either to asteroids or comets. We now know of currently actively sublimating main-belt objects that could have originated either in the asteroid belt or in the outer solar system, and objects displaying comet-like activity that may have no volatile ice content whatsoever. We have found objects composed of inner-asteroid-belt-like material on long-period comet-like orbits, and active objects on comet-like orbits that may in fact originate from the asteroid belt. We also now recognize that dormant comets may be found in both comet-like and un-comet-like orbits. The population of continuum objects is extraordinarily diverse, with each type of object holding the potential for revealing exciting new insights about our solar system due to their unique sets of overlapping comet- and asteroid-like properties. Given this complexity and the growing interest in addressing the many questions that it has raised thus far, it is likely that many more interesting findings await us in this rapidly developing field in the coming years.
Click to expand...

So still interesting Dancing David, Reality Check ay!
 
Sol88: Idiotic citing of a mainstream paper in a thread about his comet delusions

Sol88 said:
Asteroid–comet continuum objects in the solar system Henry H. Hsieh1,2
Click to expand...
25 August 2017 Sol88: Idiotic citing of a mainstream paper in a thread about his comet delusions.
To which we can add the inability to read English and so
25 August 2017 Sol88: Citing a paper that debunks the comets are rocks part of his delusions!
21 August 2017 Sol88: "Interesting" ignorance because main-belt comets show that his comets are rocks delusions are just that!
 
Last edited:
Back to the subject of the thread: Questions with deafening silence emphasizing the complete uselessness of the comets are rocks delusion.
  1. 14 August 2017 Sol88: Comets are rocks so where did that rock come from?
  2. 18 August 2017 Sol88: What is your predicted composition of comets from their origins?
  3. 18 August 2017 Sol88: What is your predicted density of comets?
  4. 18 August 2017 Sol88: What is the measured density of comets?
  5. 18 August 2017 Sol88: State the physics that explains any density difference showing that the measurements are matched.
  6. 22 August 2017 Sol88: Why are all main-belt asteroids not comets according to your comet delusions?
  7. 22 August 2017 Sol88: Why are all asteroids with cometary obits not comets as in your comet delusions?
  8. 23 August 2017 Sol88: Why does comet dust not match planetary rock or asteroid composition?
  9. 23 August 2017 Sol88: What is your evidence that comets were blasted from planets such as the Earth?
Electric comets still do not exist!
 
tusenfem said:
So if everything mainstream is not, then please enlighten us what is.
Click to expand...

Well maybe we can start at the start?

Mainstream get there assumption from models developed to try and explain observations.

Such as..

  1. the icy-glue model (Gombosi & Houpis 1986)
  2. the icy conglomerate model (Klinger et al. 1985)
  3. the fluffy aggregate model (Donn & Meakin 1989)
  4. the primordial rubble model (Weissman 1986)
  5. the layered pile model (Belton et al. 2007)
  6. The Sandbank model ( Raymond Lyttleton 1953)
All REQUIRE sublimation of frozen gases to try and explain observations.

So now after all the new data and observation we can rule out

the icy-glue model (Gombosi & Houpis 1986)
the fluffy aggregate model (Donn & Meakin 1989)
the primordial rubble model (Weissman 1986)
the layered pile model (Belton et al. 2007)
The Sandbank model ( Raymond Lyttleton 1953)

and the icy conglomerate model (Klinger et al. 1985), is on very shaky ground.

So that basically leaves the mainstream with NO MODEL to try and make sense of the data and observation.

So ad hoc explanations that are untestable rule the roost!

but the ELECTRIC COMET...

Solid as ROCK!!
 
Reality Check said:
Back to the subject of the thread: Questions with deafening silence emphasizing the complete uselessness of the comets are rocks delusion.
  1. 14 August 2017 Sol88: Comets are rocks so where did that rock come from?
  2. 18 August 2017 Sol88: What is your predicted composition of comets from their origins?
  3. 18 August 2017 Sol88: What is your predicted density of comets?
  4. 18 August 2017 Sol88: What is the measured density of comets?
  5. 18 August 2017 Sol88: State the physics that explains any density difference showing that the measurements are matched.
  6. 22 August 2017 Sol88: Why are all main-belt asteroids not comets according to your comet delusions?
  7. 22 August 2017 Sol88: Why are all asteroids with cometary obits not comets as in your comet delusions?
  8. 23 August 2017 Sol88: Why does comet dust not match planetary rock or asteroid composition?
  9. 23 August 2017 Sol88: What is your evidence that comets were blasted from planets such as the Earth?
Electric comets still do not exist!
Click to expand...

:eusa_eh:


Asteroid–comet continuum objects in the solar system Henry H. Hsieh1,2
:eusa_whistle:

Mainstream paper on comets and asteroids are ROCK! :D
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
but the ELECTRIC COMET...
Click to expand...

but the EC WHAT EXACTLY?

please enlighten us by writing up how the electric comet is supposed to work.
but note that even DT could not explain it, because it was not a "model" is was more like a "hypothesis" (I'd say more like loose sand)
YOU seem to be the expert here on the EC, so the burden is on YOU in this thread which is actually called (so you don't forget);

The Electric Comet Theory
 
Sol88 said:
Hybrid modelling of cometary plasma environments

go knock yourself out!


If fact, how does that work inside the diamagnetic cavity?
Click to expand...

Maybe you should read Cyril's paper, and then you would see that this paper is about:

Impact of photoionisation, charge exchange, and electron ionisation on bow shock and cometopause at 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

So, methinks you are a few 1000 km in the wrong place.
 
tusenfem said:
Maybe you should read Cyril's paper, and then you would see that this paper is about:

Impact of photoionisation, charge exchange, and electron ionisation on bow shock and cometopause at 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

So, methinks you are a few 1000 km in the wrong place.
Click to expand...

But it is coupled via complex plasma phenomena, including I'd say double layers!

Or as you'd call 'em, plasma boundaries :rolleyes:

As if in the dust is coupled all the way from the rock hard surface of the comet, all the way in a circuit way out too whoop whoop and back! The focus for the energy is the comet nucleus itself!

The bright spots are not ice but indeed the glow mode electric discharge machining of solid rock producing very fine dust composed on some comets as extremely high temperature minerals. Flash heated in a arc mode EDM, not seen on this low voltage outgassing comet. The bright spots also appear to be changing the surface as we watch.

These are confined into collimated 'jets' that we observe doing there thing.

But Hartley 2, had em stumped for water produced per surface area of nucleus...
 
Last edited:
Sol88[/B]: Ignorant "double layer" fantasies

Sol88 said:
But it is coupled via complex plasma phenomena, including I'd say double layers!
Click to expand...
28 August 2017 Sol88: Ignorant "double layer" fantasies.

28 August 2017 Sol88: Insanely ignorant statements about "bright spots" based on his comet delusions.

28 August 2017 Sol88: A probable lie about Hartley 2 (no citation).

28 August 2017 Sol88: A delusion about Hartley 2 since his comet delusions have no "water produced per surface area of nucleus" at all :eek:!
 
Sol88: What is your prediction for the "water produced per surface area of nucleus"

Back to the subject of the thread: Questions with deafening silence emphasizing the complete uselessness of the comets are rocks delusion.
  1. 14 August 2017 Sol88: Comets are rocks so where did that rock come from?
  2. 18 August 2017 Sol88: What is your predicted composition of comets from their origins?
  3. 18 August 2017 Sol88: What is your predicted density of comets?
  4. 18 August 2017 Sol88: What is the measured density of comets?
  5. 18 August 2017 Sol88: State the physics that explains any density difference showing that the measurements are matched.
  6. 22 August 2017 Sol88: Why are all main-belt asteroids not comets according to your comet delusions?
  7. 22 August 2017 Sol88: Why are all asteroids with cometary obits not comets as in your comet delusions?
  8. 23 August 2017 Sol88: Why does comet dust not match planetary rock or asteroid composition?
  9. 23 August 2017 Sol88: What is your evidence that comets were blasted from planets such as the Earth?
28 August 2017 Sol88: What is your prediction for the "water produced per surface area of nucleus" on Hartley 2?
Electric comets still do not exist![/QUOTE]
 
Sol88: An irrelevant rant with the usual lies about the mainstream model

Sol88 said:
Well maybe we can start at the start?...
Click to expand...
28 August 2017 Sol88: An irrelevant rant with the usual lies about the mainstream model.
The mainstream model of sublimating ices has worked for the last 70 years. Your comet delusions as you know have been debunked since the day they were proposed by the existing data on comets.
 
Last edited:
I still dont get why Sol seems to equate density with hardness- just because something is hard, doesnt mean its dense, and vice versa

Oh and thankyou to tusenfem and the others for posting links to the various papers, its fascinating to see the progress on the various missions continuing long after the 'media' drops them
 
Dabop said:
I still dont get why Sol seems to equate density with hardness- just because something is hard, doesnt mean its dense, and vice versa
Click to expand...

Exactly, dislocations in a lattice structure reduce density but can increase hardness.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardness

By varying the presence of interstitial atoms and the density of dislocations, a particular metal's hardness can be controlled. Although seemingly counter-intuitive, as the density of dislocations increases, there are more intersections created and consequently more anchor points. Similarly, as more interstitial atoms are added, more pinning points that impede the movements of dislocations are formed. As a result, the more anchor points added, the harder the material will become.
Click to expand...


From my metallurgy classes I recall the three primary crystalline structures for steel as Austenite, Pearlite and Martensite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austenite

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearlite

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martensite

While austenite is denser martensite is significantly harder (can also be harder than pearlite), again due to the number of dislocations.

One of the differences between the two phases is that martensite has a body-centered tetragonal (BCT) crystal structure, whereas austenite has a face-centered cubic (FCC) structure. The transition between these two structures requires very little thermal activation energy because it is a diffusionless transformation, which results in the subtle but rapid rearrangement of atomic positions, and has been known to occur even at cryogenic temperatures.[1] Martensite has a lower density than austenite, so that the martensitic transformation results in a relative change of volume.[4] Of considerably greater importance than the volume change is the shear strain which has a magnitude of about 0.26 and which determines the shape of the plates of martensite.[5]

Martensite is not shown in the equilibrium phase diagram of the iron-carbon system because it is not an equilibrium phase. Equilibrium phases form by slow cooling rates that allow sufficient time for diffusion, whereas martensite is usually formed by very high cooling rates. Since chemical processes (the attainment of equilibrium) accelerate at higher temperature, martensite is easily destroyed by the application of heat. This process is called tempering. In some alloys, the effect is reduced by adding elements such as tungsten that interfere with cementite nucleation, but, more often than not, the nucleation is allowed to proceed to relieve stresses. Since quenching can be difficult to control, many steels are quenched to produce an overabundance of martensite, then tempered to gradually reduce its concentration until the preferred structure for the intended application is achieved. The needle-like microstructure of martensite leads to brittle behavior of the material. Too much martensite leaves steel brittle; too little leaves it soft.
Click to expand...



The highest hardness of a pearlitic steel is 400 Brinell whereas martensite can achieve 700 Brinell.[2]
Click to expand...

Austenitic Alloys run about 110 to 256 Brinell.

Similarly ice is less dense than water but harder, though that is due to the nature and rigidity of the lattice structure vs the degrees of freedom in the water phase. In contrast to the dislocations inherent in different lattice structures of steel noted above.
 
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