Merged The Electric Comet Theory Part III/SAFIRE

Status
Not open for further replies.
Captain_Swoop said:
I go away for 6 months and it's like I never left.
Groundhog thread.
Click to expand...

Plentys gone on, 'ol mate!

With every new paper the "dirtysnowball" model HAS to be revised till it's not the dirtysnowball model any longer.

The mainstream model of comets is like blob of jelly :boggled:
 
Sol88: A stupid question derailing from his delusions about comets.

Sol88 said:
How's the dust being released from the Comet K2, reality Check?
Click to expand...
3 October 2017 Sol88: A stupid question derailing from his delusions about comets.
It is stupid because he has had 8 years to learn about the working mainstream model of comets :jaw-dropp!

3 October 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of citing a near-surface ice paper about ice and dust comets.

3 October 2017 Sol88: Lies about a near-surface ice paper about ice and dust comets.
Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko by Yu. V. Skorov, L. Rezac1, P. Hartogh1 and H. U. Keller does not rule out every possible mechanism for forming a dust coma for every possible comet.
Methods. We used a 1D thermophysical numerical model that provides a realistic description of cohesion forces among dust aggregates. Several conditions of solar illumination on the nucleus are investigated for the H2O, CO, and CO2 ices below the dust layer. We examine a wide range of dust grain sizes.

Conclusions.In the framework of the presented model[/COLOR], 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...

Emphasized the parts he lied about. The activity of Comet K2 is explained by CO2, CO, O2, and N2 ices at the surface. That is not the model in this paper.

3 October 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of citing C/2017 K2 (PANSTARRS) paper about ice and dust comets.

3 October 2017 Sol88: Lies about a C/2017 K2 (PANSTARRS) paper about ice and dust comets.
The paper he cites gives explains the coma formation at its distance :eye-poppi!
A Comet Active Beyond the Crystallization Zone
Prediscovery observations from 2013 show that the comet was also active at 23.7 au heliocentric distance. While neither water ice sublimation nor exothermic crystallization can account for the observed distant activity, the measured properties are consistent with activity driven by sublimating supervolatile ices such as CO2, CO, O2, and N2. Survival of supervolatiles at the nucleus surface is likely a result of the comet's recent arrival from the frigid Oort Cloud.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Sol88: The only "plenty" that is going on is posts of ignorance, delusions and lies

Sol88 said:
Plentys gone on, 'ol mate!
Click to expand...
3 October 2017 Sol88: The only "plenty" that is going on is more posts full of ignorance, delusions and lies
275 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 2 October 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)

3 October 2017 Sol88: The persistent lie of a "dirtysnowball" model existing.
It is the comet model or Whipple's model or Whipple's "dirty snowball" term can be used.

It is comet nuclei that are popularly described as a "dirty snowballs", "icy dirtballs" or like "deep fried ice cream". Even as a description "dirtysnowball" is a lie.

3 October 2017 Sol88:The insanity that scientific models cannot change when new data is collected.
That is not surprising when he is a follower of the almost religious Thunderbolts cult where there is only dogma based on 60 year old delusions.
 
@ Reality Check,

That's great mate, as long as your comfortable with that!
 
Oh I see, K2 is a "special" comet. :rolleyes:

So if "super volatiles" can not remove dust at 1.3 au how the hell is it removing dust at 23.7au?

even if the ice is on the surface exposed to the full heat of the Sun.


Just another "oddball" comet then, ay?
 
Sol88: A lie about K2 being a special comet

Sol88 said:
Oh I see, K2 is a "special" comet. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
8 years of ignorance, delusions and lies and the rest of the post makes that into a lie even with the rolleyes.
3 October 2017 Sol88: A lie about K2 being a "special" comet.
K2 is one of the billons of objects that are possible comets in the Oort cloud. They have been there for billions of years. When they are perturbed into the inner system they will have very volatile materials ("supervolatiles") on their surface. Thus K2 is just a new comet.

3 October 2017 Sol88: Repeats a lie of "supervolatiles" can not remove dust at 1.3 au.
3 October 2017 Sol88: Lies about a near-surface ice paper about ice and dust comets.
Reality Check said:
Emphasized the parts he lied about. The activity of Comet K2 is explained by CO2, CO, O2, and N2 ices at the surface. That is not the model in this paper.
Click to expand...


For others:
What is interesting about K2 is that we have observed sublimating ices forming the coma at such a large distance. That means that a major source of sublimation closer to the Sun (water ice) cannot be creating the coma.
A good description at Bad Astronomy: Astronomers spot the most distant active inbound comet ever - 2.5 *billion* km away!
At those distances, water is far too cold to sublimate. Sometimes, in distant comets when they are still cold, water ice changes structure from an amorphous composition to more familiar ice crystals, and this can release heat and cause some gas to escape. However, at that distance, K2 was still too cold to do even that.

So, some other substance must be behind the activity. It’s not certain what it might be, but the likely suspects are frozen oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, or carbon monoxide. All of those sublimate at colder temperatures than water.
Click to expand...


3 October 2017 Sol88: The delusion that every comet is the same, e.g. K2 and 67P :eye-poppi!
Comets have different orbits. C/2017 K2 has a hyperbolic orbit.
Comets have visited the inner system a different number of times. The hyperbolic orbit of K2 tells us that this is the comet's first and very likely only visit to the inner system. After perihelion around 2022, K2 will head out of the Solar System never to be seen again.
Comets have different compositions. K2 has never visited the inner system and so has a surface covered with sublimating supervolatile ices such as CO2, CO, O2, and N2.

275 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 2 October 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)
 
Last edited:
Sol88: Give the electric comet calculation of the distance(s) that comet coma form

The measured origin of real comets reminds ne that there are unanswered questions about the topic of the thread - the deluded electric comet dogma.

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?
  10. 28 August 2017 Sol88: What is your prediction for the "water produced per surface area of nucleus" on Hartley 2?
No honesty yet:
4 September 2017 Sol88: Are you not honest enough to acknowledge the Thunderbolts comet origins?

Delusions about comet jets are being regurgitated so:
14 September 2017 Sol88: Cite the observations from comet jets of narrow band x-rays bursts that electrical discharges emit.

3 October 2017 Sol88: Give the electric comet calculation of the distance(s) that comet coma form.

The idiocy of comets being rocks with the impossibility of electric discharge machining making a coma gives an expectation that all comets have to form coma at about the same distance. But here we have a comet forming a coma about over 10 times further from the Sun than another comet!

Electric comets still do not exist!
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
8 years of ignorance, delusions and lies and the rest of the post makes that into a lie even with the rolleyes.
3 October 2017 Sol88: A lie about K2 being a "special" comet.
K2 is one of the billons of objects that are possible comets in the Oort cloud. They have been there for billions of years. When they are perturbed into the inner system they will have very volatile materials ("supervolatiles") on their surface. Thus K2 is just a new comet.

3 October 2017 Sol88: Repeats a lie of "supervolatiles" can not remove dust at 1.3 au.
3 October 2017 Sol88: Lies about a near-surface ice paper about ice and dust comets.



For others:
What is interesting about K2 is that we have observed sublimating ices forming the coma at such a large distance. That means that a major source of sublimation closer to the Sun (water ice) cannot be creating the coma.
A good description at Bad Astronomy: Astronomers spot the most distant active inbound comet ever - 2.5 *billion* km away!



3 October 2017 Sol88: The delusion that every comet is the same, e.g. K2 and 67P :eye-poppi!
Comets have different orbits. C/2017 K2 has a hyperbolic orbit.
Comets have visited the inner system a different number of times. The hyperbolic orbit of K2 tells us that this is the comet's first and very likely only visit to the inner system. After perihelion around 2022, K2 will head out of the Solar System never to be seen again.
Comets have different compositions. K2 has never visited the inner system and so has a surface covered with sublimating supervolatile ices such as CO2, CO, O2, and N2.

275 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 2 October 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)
Click to expand...

Sublimating super volatiles can NOT remove dust at any distance from the Sun! :jaw-dropp

And you've got it happening at 23.7au :blush: :rolleyes:

But it MUST fit the dirty snowball model or..... :blush:

Plenty of evidence that the dirtysnowball model has been falsified!

A new model is required as stated by Skorov :D

There is no viable mechanism for the removal of dust by gas sumblimating on or near the surface.. BUT WE SEE 'jets" of dust, how Reality Check?
 
The dirty snowball is the 1950s model, sorry Sol, but research means that things develop. If they would not, you would be posting your junk on a clay tablet using cuniform.

But of course mainstream physics is not allowed to develop any starting models, they have to immediately reject their ideas and embrace the so called "electric universe" nonsense.

Skorov is the only one at the moment who does not believe in gas drag, and whether his ideas bear any merit will have to be seen. At presentations in Riga during the EPSC it was found that the dust and gas move together, and modeling of outgassing on 67P and then adding dust could very well explain the observations that were made. So it can be quite possible that Skorov is, dare I say it, wrong.
 
Sol88 said:
Sublimating super volatiles can NOT remove dust at any distance from the Sun! :jaw-dropp

And you've got it happening at 23.7au :blush: :rolleyes:

But it MUST fit the dirty snowball model or..... :blush:

Plenty of evidence that the dirtysnowball model has been falsified!

A new model is required as stated by Skorov :D

There is no viable mechanism for the removal of dust by gas sumblimating on or near the surface.. BUT WE SEE 'jets" of dust, how Reality Check?
Click to expand...

Again...

The ratio of vapor pressure to the physically determined tensile strength for various agglomerate sizes and layer thicknesses provides further evidence that the gas drag is not sufficient to remove dust grains of sizes <1 mm, which is a result of taking cohesion forces among the particles into account.
Click to expand...

the purported inefficacy of gas drag in the referenced paper is specifically for "dust grains of sizes <1 mm".


From a related paper...


Conclusions. Our model can explain the large grains (ranging from 2 cm to 1 m in radius) in the inner coma of comet 67P/ChuryumovGerasimenko
that have been observed by the OSIRIS camera at heliocentric distances between 3.4 AU and 3.7 AU. Furthermore, the
model predicts the release of decimeter-sized aggregates (trail particles) close to the heliocentric distance at which the gas-driven dust
activity vanishes. 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.
These smaller particles can be produced for instance by spin-up and centrifugal mass loss of ejected larger aggregates.
Click to expand...

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.08545.pdf
 
Sol88: A lie that sublimating supervolatiles can not remove dust

I will not quote yet another post full of lies
4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that sublimating supervolatiles can not remove dust at any distance from the Sun when he has cited a paper stating that they can at 23 AU :eye-poppi!
A Comet Active Beyond the Crystallization Zone

4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that sublimating supervolatiles cannot remove dust at 23 AU when he has cited a paper stating that they can.
A Comet Active Beyond the Crystallization Zone

4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that observations must fit the mainstream comet model when it is the model that must fit as many observations as possible like all scientific models.

4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that the working mainstream comet model is falsified.

4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that Skorov wants to replace the working mainstream comet model.
Skorov et. al are the only people who think that gas drag cannot explain the lifting of small grains of dust (< 1 mm). They believes that gas drag does lift grains of dust > 1 mm in size.
Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko by Yu. V. Skorov, L. Rezac1, P. Hartogh1 and H. U. Keller

4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that there is no viable mechanism for the removal of dust by gas sublimating on or near the surface.
The sublimation of H2O, CO2, CO, O2, and N2 ices are the mechanism for all comets. For K2 @ 23 AU:
Emphasized the parts he lied about. The activity of Comet K2 is explained by CO2, CO, O2, and N2 ices at the surface.
 
Last edited:
Sol88: Cite the electric comet modeling of the lifting of dust from comet nuclei

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?
  10. 28 August 2017 Sol88: What is your prediction for the "water produced per surface area of nucleus" on Hartley 2?
  11. 14 September 2017 Sol88: Cite the observations from comet jets of narrow band x-rays bursts that electrical discharges emit.
No honesty yet:
4 September 2017 Sol88: Are you not honest enough to acknowledge the Thunderbolts comet origins?

3 October 2017 Sol88: Give the electric comet calculation of the distance(s) that comet coma form.

Lies about the mainstream mechanism of sublimating ices lifting dust from comet nuclei so let us get back to the subject of the thread:
4 October 2017 Sol88: Cite the electric comet modeling of the lifting of dust from comet nuclei.
Probably impossible since all you have shown in 8 years is mindless parroting of the Thunderbolts ignorant delusions about comets based on Immanuel Velikovsky's ignorant fantasies about planets.

Electric comets still do not exist!
 
Last edited:
tusenfem said:
The dirty snowball is the 1950s model, sorry Sol, but research means that things develop. If they would not, you would be posting your junk on a clay tablet using cuniform.

But of course mainstream physics is not allowed to develop any starting models, they have to immediately reject their ideas and embrace the so called "electric universe" nonsense.

Skorov is the only one at the moment who does not believe in gas drag, and whether his ideas bear any merit will have to be seen. At presentations in Riga during the EPSC it was found that the dust and gas move together, and modeling of outgassing on 67P and then adding dust could very well explain the observations that were made. So it can be quite possible that Skorov is, dare I say it, wrong.
Click to expand...

Big call, cobber, big call!

Someone is wrong for sure ;)

Whipple was somewhat off the mark as the revisions are not looking favourable to ice with some dust model, so the ratio was revised to dusty with some ice
Initial gas and dust emissions revealed a dust-to-gas ratio of 4±2 for 3.7–3.4AU [56] (6±2 if only water is considered) and 3.8–6.5 between 4.5 and 2.9AU [17] (with a dust loss rate evolution from 3.7 to 2.9AU of 0.5–15 kg s-1), which, when combined with the other physical characteristics above, imply a rather porous nucleus (approx. 72–74%), that is an icy dust ball rather than a dusty snowball, and one that is rather homogeneous down to 10–100m scales [34,41]
Click to expand...
, now tending towards mostly rocky consolidated with minimal ice...
Here ‘consolidated’ is used to refer to areas that appear rocky
in appearance and are cohesive enough to display lineaments and fractures.
Click to expand...
The Rosetta mission orbiter science overview: the comet phase
M. G. G. T. Taylor1,†, N. Altobelli2, B. J. Buratti3 and M. Choukroun3

(c) What are comets made of? 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 [3,4].
Click to expand...
Comets: looking ahead
Michael F. A’Hearn

Not his fault as we knew nothing about outer space then but it is the mainstream fault for ignoring the overwhelming electrical effects now more than obviously dominate on/in and around a comet and trying to keep the dirtysnowballl alive!


So where to now Tusenfem?

How long do you still try and model comets as dirtysnowballs? Reality Check still thinks they are :)
 
Last edited:
Sol88: A lie that any observation shows the comets are rocky

Usual idiocy and lies.
4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that any observation shows the comets are rocky (even if the word is struck out).

4 October 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of citing a paper about 67P debunking his comet delusions.

4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that we knew nothing about outer space in the 1950's.
Whipple knew the measured densities of comets (less then water).

4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that the mainstream has ignored electrical effects.

4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that imaginary "overwhelming electrical effects" have ever been detected or "dominate" around comets.
What has been detected are the mainstream effects, e.g. comet coma interacting with the solar wind. No evidence for his comet delusions have ever been detected. No electrical discharges. Nm massive electric field between comets and the Sun.

4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that I think that comets are modeled as dirty snowballs.
Comets are modeled as real world comets with nuclei made of varying proportions of ices and dust :jaw-dropp! Comets have been described as several things, e.g. "dirty snowballs". The working comet model is sometimes labeled as the dirty snowball model but everyone (except you!) knows that this includes all compositions of comets.
 
Last edited:
275 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 2 October 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)

  1. 3 October 2017 Sol88: A stupid question derailing from his delusions about comets.
  2. 3 October 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of citing a near-surface ice paper about ice and dust comets.
  3. 3 October 2017 Sol88: Lies about a near-surface ice paper about ice and dust comets.
  4. 3 October 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of citing C/2017 K2 (PANSTARRS) paper about ice and dust comets.
  5. 3 October 2017 Sol88: Lies about a C/2017 K2 (PANSTARRS) paper about ice and dust comets.
  6. 3 October 2017 Sol88: The only "plenty" that is going on is more posts full of ignorance, delusions and lies
  7. 3 October 2017 Sol88: The persistent lie of a "dirtysnowball" model existing
  8. 3 October 2017 Sol88: The insanity that scientific models cannot change when new data is collected.
  9. 3 October 2017 Sol88: A lie about K2 being a "special" comet.
  10. 3 October 2017 Sol88: Repeats a lie of "supervolatiles" can not remove dust at 1.3 au.
  11. 3 October 2017 Sol88: The delusion that every comet is the same, e.g. K2 and 67P !
  12. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that sublimating supervolatiles can not remove dust at any distance from the Sun when he has cited a paper stating that they can at 23 AU !
  13. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that sublimating supervolatiles cannot remove dust at 23 AU when he has cited a paper stating that they can.
  14. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that observations must fit the mainstream comet model when it is the model that must fit as many observations as possible like all scientific models.
  15. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that the working mainstream comet model is falsified.
  16. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that Skorov wants to replace the working mainstream comet model.
  17. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that there is no viable mechanism for the removal of dust by gas sublimating on or near the surface.
  18. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that any observation shows the comets are rocky (even if the word is struck out).
  19. 4 October 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of citing a paper about 67P debunking his comet delusions.
  20. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that we knew nothing about outer space in the 1950's.
  21. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that the mainstream has ignored electrical effects.
  22. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that imaginary "overwhelming electrical effects" have ever been detected or "dominate" around comets.
  23. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that I think that comets are modeled as dirty snowballs.

Two years and counting of fear of doing basic physics: 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.
The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 8 years of delusions from Sol88)
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.
 
Reality Check said:
275 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 2 October 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)

  1. 3 October 2017 Sol88: A stupid question derailing from his delusions about comets.
  2. 3 October 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of citing a near-surface ice paper about ice and dust comets.
  3. 3 October 2017 Sol88: Lies about a near-surface ice paper about ice and dust comets.
  4. 3 October 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of citing C/2017 K2 (PANSTARRS) paper about ice and dust comets.
  5. 3 October 2017 Sol88: Lies about a C/2017 K2 (PANSTARRS) paper about ice and dust comets.
  6. 3 October 2017 Sol88: The only "plenty" that is going on is more posts full of ignorance, delusions and lies
  7. 3 October 2017 Sol88: The persistent lie of a "dirtysnowball" model existing
  8. 3 October 2017 Sol88: The insanity that scientific models cannot change when new data is collected.
  9. 3 October 2017 Sol88: A lie about K2 being a "special" comet.
  10. 3 October 2017 Sol88: Repeats a lie of "supervolatiles" can not remove dust at 1.3 au.
  11. 3 October 2017 Sol88: The delusion that every comet is the same, e.g. K2 and 67P !
  12. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that sublimating supervolatiles can not remove dust at any distance from the Sun when he has cited a paper stating that they can at 23 AU !
  13. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that sublimating supervolatiles cannot remove dust at 23 AU when he has cited a paper stating that they can.
  14. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that observations must fit the mainstream comet model when it is the model that must fit as many observations as possible like all scientific models.
  15. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that the working mainstream comet model is falsified.
  16. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that Skorov wants to replace the working mainstream comet model.
  17. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that there is no viable mechanism for the removal of dust by gas sublimating on or near the surface.
  18. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that any observation shows the comets are rocky (even if the word is struck out).
  19. 4 October 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of citing a paper about 67P debunking his comet delusions.
  20. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that we knew nothing about outer space in the 1950's.
  21. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that the mainstream has ignored electrical effects.
  22. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that imaginary "overwhelming electrical effects" have ever been detected or "dominate" around comets.
  23. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that I think that comets are modeled as dirty snowballs.

Two years and counting of fear of doing basic physics: 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.
The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 8 years of delusions from Sol88)
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.
Click to expand...

Look if you want me to answer any of those questions you'll have to supply me with a complete list :)

not some half arsed bit n bobs.

thank you
 
Sol88 said:
How long do you still try and model comets as dirtysnowballs? Reality Check still thinks they are :)
Click to expand...

No
Edited by Agatha: 
Removed namecalling, a breach of rule 0/
if you would actually read and understand what I am writing is that the dirty snowball was invented in the 1950s when we had NO close up views whatsoever of comets. As soon as the flybys by Halley happened in the 1980s it became clear that the nucleus looked different from what was thought in the simple model dubbed "dirty snowball" (i.e. volatile ices such as H2O and CO2, bound in a solid rocky body of meteoritic material) needed to be revised, and so it moved on and on with more observations of more comets more information about the structure is found and thereby the dirty snowball model is adapted. THIS IS JUST THE BASIC SCIENTIFIC PROCESS, YOU START FROM A SIMPLE EXPLANATION AND THEN MOVE ON FROM THERE IF YOU GET MORE OBSERVATIONS, AMEND THE MODEL.

I guess you think that Einstein should have thrown away Newton's work, and have started from scratch to explain gravity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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