Merged The Electric Comet Theory Part III/SAFIRE

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yet more Sol88 posts with ignorance, delusions or lies so the list needs an update.
254 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 23August 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)
  1. 24 August 2017 Sol88: An idiotic question - comets are not made of rock so MUPUS-PEN was not tested into rock!
  2. 24 August 2017 Sol88: The problem is his ignorant delusions about a paper (bulk = not surface!).
  3. 24 August 2017 Sol88: Idiotic mention of a paper on ices and dust comets in his comet delusions thread.
  4. 24 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about an ""old chestnut" when we have mechanisms to put dust in the coma which he has cited .
  5. 24 August 2017 Sol88: Second idiotic mention of a paper on ices and dust comets in his comet delusions thread.
  6. 24 August 2017 Sol88: Third idiotic mention of a paper on ices and dust comets in his comet delusions thread.
  7. 24 August 2017 Sol88: Third time today not citing the papers he mentions and quotes.
  8. 25 August 2017 Sol88: Idiotic citing of a mainstream paper in a thread about his comet delusions.
  9. 25 August 2017 Sol88: Citing a paper that debunks the comets are rocks part of his delusions!
  10. 28 August 2017 Sol88: Usual idiocy of citing mainstream comet paper and lying about them (no rock in them).
  11. 28 August 2017 Sol88: Idiotic citation of an irrelevant mainstream comet paper.
  12. 28 August 2017 Sol88: Ignorant "double layer" fantasies.
  13. 28 August 2017 Sol88: Insanely ignorant statements about "bright spots" based on his comet delusions.
  14. 28 August 2017 Sol88: A probable lie about Hartley 2 (no citation).
  15. 28 August 2017 Sol88: A delusion about Hartley 2 since his comet delusions have no "water produced per surface area of nucleus" at all :eye-poppi!
  16. 28 August 2017 Sol88: An irrelevant rant with the usual lies about the mainstream model.
  17. 4 September 2017 Sol88: The usual lie about comets being rock with citing mainstream ices and dust papers.
  18. 4 September 2017 Sol88: A couple of lies about the MUPUS-PEN design and testing that he has cited several times.
  19. 4 September 2017 Sol88: Usual unthinking parroting of Thunderbolts cult dogma of comets being rocks.
  20. 4 September 2017 Sol88: 8 years of denial of basic arithmetic (0.6 g/cc < 3.0 g/cc).
  21. 4 September 2017 Sol88: The idiocy again of citing mainstream comets are not rocks science!
  22. 4 September 2017 Sol88: Repeated idiocy of citing a mainstream comets are ices and dust paper, making deluded comments and a lie.
  23. 4 September 2017 Sol88: Repeats the 'ice' lie in an insanely ignorant and irrelevant question.
  24. 4 September 2017 Sol88: Repeated idiocy of citing a mainstream comets are ices and dust paper with a lie.
  25. 4 September 2017 Sol88: An irrelevant but correct comment about stratified materials for comets made of ices and dust :thumbsup:!
 
Sol88 said:
So really would be quite the something considering!
Click to expand...

Let's make this easy , Sol. Start from here, dear; what is this?

snowstorm_strip.jpg


That was 2011. So, what are we still talking about, lovey? The idiot Thornhill was wrong, wasn't he dear? Couldn't figure out some basic science. Like the solar wind hurtling into non-existent O- ions to create (water, OH)? What was that rubbish all about? Not going to happen, is it petal? Sci-Fi!
So, please, as has been asked before, many times, explain what we SHOULD have seen at this non-electric comet. I guess I don't need to link to previous posts by D. Talbott, or the garbage posted on Hollowscience, no?

Even as far as pseudoscience goes, this is a massive failure. Hardly bloody surprising, given the lack of scientific credentials of the burkes who came up with it, eh?

So, go on Sol, what is it that the two aforementioned loons came up with, that everybody else has missed? And then I'll link back to Talbott's post on here, re the predictions of what should be found. And wasn't.

However, please start with the above photo. What is it? Multiple choice, dear:

A) Limestone.
B) Ice.
C) An absolute disaster for the interplanetary division of the Medellin cartel.

Let's start from there, yes?
 
Lest we forget (and I can't be bothered with refs, because they've been done soooo many times);
The comet isn't rock (MIRO, CONSERT, plus orbital measurements, plus the 9P impact).
There IS H2O, as has been well known since 1985 (KAO), plus umpteen other detections.
There is no electric woo. As (not) measured. As per, for instance, the diamagnetic cavity at 1P and 67P. No magnetic field = (fill in as necessary).

To finish, without writing 5000 words, the electric comet woo has been shown to be total woo, as expected, by numerous missions to comets, as well as distant observations of such. It is nonsense. It is cretinous nonsense, in fact. It has ceased to be. It is an ex-idiotic idea. It has gone to meet the choir invisible. It is an ex idea.
Goodnight Polly. Bye bye David. Tata Wal. Try better next time. Loons.
 
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.
Click to expand...


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Hilarious! No, Sol, the bright spots are, indeed, ice. As has been pointed out to you numerous times. With links to the papers. The fact that you still believe this garbage just shows that your belief system is just that; a belief system. You want to believe it, despite ALL the evidence showing you, and the loon Thornhill, to be wrong. And with not a scintilla of evidence to back up your loopy beliefs.

Detection of exposed H2O ice on the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko as observed by Rosetta OSIRIS and VIRTIS instruments
Barucci, M.A. et al.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.00551.pdf

They even made temperature estimates of the icy spots. Now, how hot is this non-existent electric woo? What would be its signature with those instruments? Please explain. Scientifically.

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

Ye Gods! The arrogance and ignorance on full display here! An unqualified woo believer, who thinks that comets are rocks, blasted off of planets by thunderbolts of the Gods, lecturing an actual plasma astrophysicist (who did his PhD on double layers) about double layers! Unbelievable, Jeff.
 
Last edited:
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!
Click to expand...

What circuit? What energy? Whatever you are talking about (and it is very hard to tell), none of this imagined circuitry or energy is electrical woo, is it? Look up "diamagnetic cavity". It reaches from the surface to varying distances. A few hundred km at 67P, ~4500km at Halley. No magnetic field in that cavity. Plenty of dust, plenty of neutrals, some ions. None of it giving off a magnetic signature. Please explain. Scientifically.
 
Another Rosetta_RPC tweet

"Final decent" paper by Kevin Heritier et al. on Vertical structure of the near-surface expanding ionosphere @ doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1459

I have not yet have time to read it through, heard some of it at meetings/telecons, but still no evidence of EC nonsense.
 
tusenfem said:
Another Rosetta_RPC tweet

"Final decent" paper by Kevin Heritier et al. on Vertical structure of the near-surface expanding ionosphere @ doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1459

I have not yet have time to read it through, heard some of it at meetings/telecons, but still no evidence of EC nonsense.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the paper was "decent". However, I'm sure Tusenfem meant "descent". English can be a bugger at times!
Interesting paper, too. Not a sign of any electrical woo on the way down. Just like Philae. I really wish that there was somebody associated with that cult who could just answer a few honest, scientific questions.
Given that nobody is actually sufficiently qualified within said cult, then we are just left to wonder.....
 
Some interesting figures from the paper flagged by Tusenfem;

The peak outgassing rate, just after perihelion, was ~1200 l/s. That is roughly 20-30 x lower than that measured at Halley in 1986. It is roughly 200 x lower than that estimated for Hale-Bopp in 1997.
At the time of the final descent, the outgassing rate was estimated at ~1 l/s. This is roughly what it was when Rosetta first caught up with the comet in September 2014. Despite this low rate, the number of neutrals measured by the Rosetta COPS instrumentation was higher than at any time during the mission, due to the proximity of the craft to the comet (1/r2, and all that).
However, even the lower of the figures above is at least 7 orders of magnitude greater than can be accounted for by Thornhill's idiotic and unscientific claims of solar wind H+ somehow combining with pretty much non-existent O-, to form OH, which stupid scientists then misidentify as H2O. Such a pity that he never sees fit to explain these horrendous travesties of science that he keeps making.

Vertical structure of the near-surface expanding ionosphere of comet 67P probed by Rosetta
Heritier, K. L. et al
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/arti...ear-surface-expanding-ionosphere-of-comet-67P (paywalled)
 
Last edited:
jonesdave116 said:
My apologies. That might have sounded (in retrospect) a bit patronising. No offence meant. Blame it on Dutch beer. Amstel. I had no desire to create any dissent (sorry, I'll get my coat).
Click to expand...

No problem! Look at what Steve Milan wrote as a reply to Rosetta_RPC on twitter :-)
 
jonesdave116 said:
Let's make this easy , Sol. Start from here, dear; what is this?

[qimg]https://smd-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/science-red/s3fs-public/mnt/medialibrary/2010/11/17/snowstorm_strip.jpg[/qimg]

That was 2011. So, what are we still talking about, lovey? The idiot Thornhill was wrong, wasn't he dear? Couldn't figure out some basic science. Like the solar wind hurtling into non-existent O- ions to create (water, OH)? What was that rubbish all about? Not going to happen, is it petal? Sci-Fi!
So, please, as has been asked before, many times, explain what we SHOULD have seen at this non-electric comet. I guess I don't need to link to previous posts by D. Talbott, or the garbage posted on Hollowscience, no?

Even as far as pseudoscience goes, this is a massive failure. Hardly bloody surprising, given the lack of scientific credentials of the burkes who came up with it, eh?

So, go on Sol, what is it that the two aforementioned loons came up with, that everybody else has missed? And then I'll link back to Talbott's post on here, re the predictions of what should be found. And wasn't.

However, please start with the above photo. What is it? Multiple choice, dear:

A) Limestone.
B) Ice.
C) An absolute disaster for the interplanetary division of the Medellin cartel.

Let's start from there, yes?
Click to expand...


Ok, lets.

I pick B, ice!

Spontaneous formation of nonspherical water ice grains in a plasma environment

5. Conclusion [17] Our results demonstrate that ice grains spontaneously form in a suitably cooled plasma containing water vapor. No external nucleation material is required, i.e., homogeneous ionic nucleation takes place. Furthermore, the ice grains are aspherical when the background pressure is lower than a certain pressure and presumably this aspherical shape develops soonafter nucleation rather thanlater when the grains arelarge.
Click to expand...

Hidden 'ice' not required ;)
 
Further, there seems to be some confusion,
This bright material could be silicatic dust devoid of organic material, or, alternatively, icy grains.
Click to expand...
????

One or the other?

Comet 67P outbursts and quiescent coma at 1.3 AU from the Sun: dust properties from Rosetta/VIRTIS-H observations
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Further, there seems to be some confusion, ????

One or the other?

Comet 67P outbursts and quiescent coma at 1.3 AU from the Sun: dust properties from Rosetta/VIRTIS-H observations
Click to expand...

As usual some cherry-pick quoting from our friend Sol, the full sentences read:

In addition, the measured large bolometric albedos (∼0.7) indicate bright grains in the ejecta, which could either be silicatic grains, implying the thermal degradation of the carbonaceous material, or icy grains. The 3 μm absorption band from water ice is not detected in the spectra acquired during the outbursts, whereas signatures of organic compounds near 3.4 μm are observed in emission. The H2O 2.7 μm and CO2 4.3 μm vibrational bands do not show any enhancement during the outbursts.
Click to expand...

Note that this is about dust in an outburst, and not bright patches on the surface of the comet.

For those interested here is the link to mnras (paywalled, pdf available)
 
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