ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Closed Thread
Old 21st October 2009, 08:31 PM   #521
Zeuzzz
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Ugh, another electric thread ? What is it with these folks, anyway ? Why does everything need to be electric ? What's next ? Electric trees ?



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...a1b541e7c96d66
Quote:
Dynamical aspects of electrical trees

Abstract

Electrical trees have been generated both experimentally and through stochastic modelling procedures using fractal analysis in two dimensions. The effect of space charge on the tree dynamics are analysed by solving Poisson's equation and the physical aspects governing the tree propagation are discussed.

"These folks" .... as if it were a sect or something

Last edited by Zeuzzz; 21st October 2009 at 09:21 PM.
Zeuzzz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2009, 08:52 AM   #522
solrey
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 33
Quote:
Ugh, another electric thread ? What is it with these folks, anyway ? Why does everything need to be electric ? What's next ? Electric trees ?
Great idea!
How about something like...

Electricity Harvested From Trees!

Quote:
Electrical engineers Babak Parviz and Brian Otis and undergraduate student Carlton Himes demonstrate an electrical circuit that runs entirely off tree power.
Quote:
After spending the summer surveying trees, the researchers discovered that big leaf maple trees generated a steady voltage of up to a few hundred millivolts. Powering a circuit, however, required a much higher voltage.

To extract electricity from trees and convert it into useful energy, researchers built a boost converter capable of picking up as little as a 20 millivolt output and storing it to produce a greater output. By hooking it up to a tree using electrodes, the custom-built device was able to generate an output voltage of 1.1 volts, enough to run low-power sensors.

Shocking.
solrey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th January 2010, 04:29 AM   #523
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,755
Water water everywhere!!!!

How unexpected! Water on the moon

Quote:
Transcript:

Music from "Water On The Moon"
Dr. Carle Pieters: Well, the Moon continues to surprise us. Widespread water has been detected on the surface of the Moon. You have to think outside the box on this. This is not what any of us expected a decade ago. But widespread water has been detected on the surface of the Moon
How would this have any bearing on our "dirtysnowball"? after all comets are nothing but ice, 'cos we see it in the spectra!

let's see what Robert Green says
Quote:
Nancy Atkinson: And the process for how water can actually be on the moon's surface is a little complicated, so I'm going to let Robert Green explain it:

Robert Green: One of the hypotheses were are working with is that there is oxygen in the rocks on the surface of the Moon, there is hydrogen coming from the sun hitting those rocks. Oxygen and hydrogen together make water, so there could be a process with the solar wind carrying the hydrogen which makes water on the surface of the Moon.
but not on Comets???

why not? They did just find a little they found a lot!!

Quote:
Tony Colaprete: Indeed yes, we found water. We didn't find just a little bit, we found a significant amount. If you remember about a month ago we were talking about teaspoons into glasses from an area about the size of a football field, well now I can say today in the 20-30 meter created by LCROSS, we have maybe about a dozen of these two gallon buckets worth of water.

Nancy Atkinson: Colaprete said they also found signatures of other compounds as well in the impact site in Cabeus Crater, including sodium and carbon dioxide, which they are still analyzing.
Sodium and Carbon dioxide??? where have we seen those before in relation to observed OH and H2O??

Again comets are an electrical phenomena!
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th January 2010, 04:57 AM   #524
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,873
Exclamation Water, water everywhere (except in the EC idea)

(thanks Sol88 for reminding me that the Deep Impact results supply more than 1 nail in the EC coffin!)
(edited to empahsis that this is about EDM not comet composition before adding the post to the growing collection of EC idea failures)

EC universe: Comets are rocky bodies, comparable to asteroids and probably created in the same event as asteroids (according to Thunderbolts). Comet jets, coma and tails are created from material (e.g. water) that that is created from rock by electrical discharge machining. Like everything in the EC idea there are no numbers and so no prediction of the composition of the nucleus. We could say that means that the EC idea predicts no water (0%) but there should be some blowback from the physically impossible (on comets) EDM process.
Asteroids in general have very low amounts of water. So let's just throw in 1% water as an extremely generous guess - IMHO it should be something like 0.01%. Sol88 or solrey should provide a better number if they have it.

Real universe: Comets are bodies with a mixture of rock and ices of various compounds, e.g. CO and water. They are have been described as "dirty snowballs". The volatile material (ices) is heated by the Sun and sublimates to form jets, the coma and the tail.

So let up look at the results of the Deep Impact mission

The impact ejected material from the nucleus that was composed of 20-50% of water and 80-50% dust.

Thus before the impact a random spot on the nucleus surface was covered with material that contained at least 20% water to a depth of about 30 meters. This is is many times greater than what the EC idea predicts.

How can the EC idea produce all this water?
My guess based on the inane logic that we see from EC proponents is that they will say the the EDM magically increases by orders of magnitude for some unspecified reason after the impact and then goes back to normal after a few days. They will ignore the fact that EDM produces narrow band X-ray radiation (in bursts) even normally. The gigantic increase in radiation would be easily seen in the X-ray observations of the impact.

N.B.
There is a large asteroid with a confirmed signature of water on its surface (no abundance data yet): 24 Themis.
One third of the mass of the asteroid belt is contained in the dwarf planet Ceres whose shape indicates a rocky core and icy mantle.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th January 2010, 05:03 AM   #525
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,873
Exclamation A collection of problems with the EC idea

EC universe: Comets are rocky bodies, comparable to asteriods and probably created in the same event as asteriods (according to Thunderbolts).



Real universe:
  1. Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).
  2. Comets may not have the composition of asteriods
  3. Deep Impact confirmed that comet nuclei are made of dust and ice not rock. There were a couple of surprises in that the dust was talcum powder rather than sand and the amount of ice was smaller than expected.
    "Analysis of data from the Swift X-ray telescope showed that the comet continued outgassing from the impact for 13 days, with a peak five days after impact. A total of 5 million kilograms (11 million pounds) of water[35] and between 10 and 25 million kilograms (22 and 55 million pounds) of dust were lost from the impact."WP
    Thus the water content of Comet Tempel 1 is 20% to 50%.
EC universe: Comet jets, coma and tails are created from material that that is created from rock by electrical discharge machining.(but according to solrey EDM does not mean EDM in the EC universe!).

Real universe:


Start with Tim Thompson's posts about thisThen look atEC universe: Rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value will be comets.N.B. Solar activity may cut tails in two but there have been no observations of comets turning off during low solar activity.(Sol88: I may be wrong - if so please provide the citations to these marvelous events.)

However this assertion has the fatal flaw of EC predictions - no mathematics or numbers.
But we can do their work for them can't we Sol88?

There are 4 observed main-belt comets with a minimum eccentricity of 0.1644 (133P/Elst-Pizarro). So the EC minimim must be this (or lower!).

Real universe: There are at least 173,583 asteroids (rocky bodies) that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value that are not comets. This includes asteroids that have been observed for decades.
There are 459,893 asteroids with eccentricities greater than the minimum observed eccentricity of comets (0.0279).
EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets


EC universe: solrey pointed out in this post that EC idea expects that the voltage potential a comet experiences would be orders of magnitude higher than that of the cloud to ground voltage potential in a thunderstorm (109 volts).
"Several" is more than a couple so the EC idea expects a voltage drop around a comet of at least 1012 volts.

Real universe: tusenfem pointed out that "Electric Fields and Cold Electrons in the Vicinity of Comet Halley" by Harri Laakso gave the measured potential drop between electrical layers around Comet Halley as 50 kV in this post. This is 10,000 times less than the thunderstorm potential and 10,000,000 times less that requires by the EC idea.

Water, water everywhere (except in the EC idea)
EC universe: Comets are rocky bodies, comparable to asteroids and probably created in the same event as asteroids (according to Thunderbolts). Comet jets, coma and tails are created from material (e.g. water) that that is created from rock by electrical discharge machining. Like everything in the EC idea there are no numbers and so no prediction of the composition of the nucleus. We could say that means that the EC idea predicts no water (0%) but there should be some blowback from the physically impossible (on comets) EDM process.
Asteroids in general have very low amounts of water. So let's just throw in 1% water as an extremely generous guess - IMHO it should be something like 0.01%. Sol88 or solrey should provide a better number if they have it.

Real universe: Comets are bodies with a mixture of rock and ices of various compounds, e.g. CO and water. They are have been described as "dirty snowballs". The volatile material (ices) is heated by the Sun and sublimates to form jets, the coma and the tail.This is supported by actual physical evidence, i.e. the results of the Deep Impact mission where the impact ejected material from the nucleus that was composed of 20-50% water and 80-50% dust.


EC universe: Only give qualitative predictions.
Sol88 posted a list of EC "predictions" for Tempel 1 and Deep Impact. The closes it gets to an actual quantitative predictions is "The most obvious would be a flash (lightning-like discharge) shortly before impact." (emphasis added).

What actually happened was a flash on or after impact followed by a bigger one from deeper in the nucleus (according to NASA).

Real universe: Scientific theories model the data mathematically and produce both qualitative and quantitative predictions.



Someone could start with the papers of Whipple
  1. Whipple, Fred L. (1950). "A Comet Model. I. The acceleration of Comet Encke". Astrophys. J. 111: 375–394.
  2. Whipple, Fred L. (1951). "A Comet Model. II. Physical Relations for Comets and Meteors". Astrophys. J. 113: 464.
  3. Whipple, Fred L. (1955). "A Comet Model. III. The Zodiacal Light". Astrophys. J. 121: 750.
and then go ointo the 1000's of scientific papers and many textbooks about comets. Tim Thompson recommened Introduction to Comets by Brandt & Chapman (Cambridge University Press, 2004, 2nd edition).


EC universe: Turn yourself into a crackpot idea by not publishing papers in peer reviewed journals.
Real universe: Take the risk of being wrong and become part of the scientific process by publishing papers in peer reviewed journals, e.g. Fred L. Whipple.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th January 2010, 05:09 AM   #526
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,873
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Water water everywhere!!!!

How unexpected! Water on the moon
How well predicted decades before the event!!!!

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Again comets are an electrical phenomena!
Again Sol88 demonstrates his ignorance.
Comets are enormously more abundant in water than the Moon.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2010, 05:26 AM   #527
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,755
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
How well predicted decades before the event!!!!


Again Sol88 demonstrates his ignorance.
Comets are enormously more abundant in water than the Moon.

sigh
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2010, 05:53 AM   #528
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,755
yeah, but you are right of course RC, there is water on the moon from all the comet impacts, after all they are 20%-80% water with a touch of dust!

How else could there be water on the Moon, eh?

WIKI

Quote:
Presence of water


The continuous bombardment of the Moon by comets and meteoroids has most likely added small amounts of water to the lunar surface. If so, sunlight would split much of this water into its constituent elements of hydrogen and oxygen, both of which would ordinarily escape into space over time because of the Moon's weak gravity. However, because of the slightness of the axial tilt of the Moon's spin axis to the ecliptic plane—only 1.5°—some deep craters near the poles never receive direct light from the Sun and are thus in permanent shadow (see Shackleton crater). Water molecules that ended up in these craters could be stable for long periods of time.

Clementine has mapped craters at the lunar south pole[26] that are shadowed in this way, and computer simulations suggest that up to 14,000 km² might be in permanent shadow.[19] Results from the Clementine mission bistatic radar experiment are consistent with small, frozen pockets of water close to the surface, and data from the Lunar Prospector neutron spectrometer indicate that anomalously high concentrations of hydrogen are present in the upper metre of the regolith near the polar regions.[27] Estimate for the quantity of water on the Moon is 32 ounces per short ton (1 kg/Mg) of the top layer of Moon's surface.

Water ice can be mined and then split into its constituent hydrogen and oxygen atoms by means of nuclear generators or electric power stations equipped with solar panels. The presence of usable quantities of water on the Moon is an important factor in rendering lunar habitation cost-effective, since transporting water from Earth would be prohibitively expensive. However, recent observations made with the Arecibo planetary radar suggest that some of the near-polar Clementine radar data that were previously interpreted as being indicative of water ice might instead be a result of rocks ejected from young impact craters.[28] The question of how much water there is on the Moon has not been resolved.

In July 2008, small amounts of water were found in the interior of volcanic pearls from the Moon (brought to Earth in 1971 by the Apollo 15 astronauts).[29][30]

On September 24, 2009, the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) reported that their first lunar mission, Chandrayaan-1 using NASA's Moon Mineralogy Mapper, found evidence of large quantities of water on the Moon's surface, and that water is still presently being formed.[31][32] The instrument observed an absorption line in the spectrum of sunlight reflected from the Moon, indicating that light of a particular wavelength (around 2.8 micrometres) is being absorbed more readily than other nearby wavelengths. The position and shape of the line indicate the absorption is due to water. A nearby line also revealed the presence of the closely-related molecule hydroxyl, which consists of an oxygen atom with a single hydrogen atom. The exact abundance of water was not determined, but the team believed it could be as high as 1,000 parts per million in the top layer of Lunar soil.

On November 13, 2009, NASA announced the results of the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite, saying that "not just water, but lots of water" had been found by the mission near the southern pole.[33]
So you only have two choices RC spelled out for you here
Quote:
Water may have been delivered to the Moon over geological timescales by the regular bombardment of water-bearing comets, asteroids and meteoroids or continuously produced in situ by the hydrogen ions (protons) of the solar wind impacting oxygen-bearing minerals.[5]
One happend long ago the other is still happening!

Now where was the water on/in these comets?
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2010, 07:31 AM   #529
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Electric Comet,a great 60's band.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2010, 07:59 AM   #530
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by solrey View Post
(emphasis added)




ROFLMAO.

Low porosity equals high density. Low strength equals brittle.

As in a ROCKY BODY.

ROFLMAO

Debating this group of mental midgets is just a waste of time.
I've just read through the thread.You have the cheek to call other people mental midgets?

Last edited by dafydd; 11th January 2010 at 08:00 AM.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2010, 11:43 AM   #531
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,873
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
sigh
Once again you prove you inability to understand the simplest fact:
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Real universe: Comets are bodies with a mixture of rock and ices of various compounds, e.g. CO and water. They are have been described as "dirty snowballs". The volatile material (ices) is heated by the Sun and sublimates to form jets, the coma and the tail.This is supported by actual physical evidence, i.e. the results of the Deep Impact mission where the impact ejected material from the nucleus that was composed of 20-50% water and 80-50% dust.
sigh

Last edited by Reality Check; 11th January 2010 at 11:44 AM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2010, 11:48 AM   #532
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,873
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
yeah, but you are right of course RC, there is water on the moon from all the comet impacts, after all they are 20%-80% water with a touch of dust!
How else could there be water on the Moon, eh?
What an idiotic question.
As the dumb post goes on the Moon has a tiny bit of water on it becasue of comet impacts and capture from the solar wind.

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Real universe: Comets are bodies with a mixture of rock and ices of various compounds, e.g. CO and water. They are have been described as "dirty snowballs". The volatile material (ices) is heated by the Sun and sublimates to form jets, the coma and the tail.This is supported by actual physical evidence, i.e. the results of the Deep Impact mission where the impact ejected material from the nucleus that was composed of 20-50% water and 80-50% dust.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th January 2010, 05:38 AM   #533
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Real universe: Comets are bodies with a mixture of rock and ices of various compounds, e.g. CO and water. They are have been described as "dirty snowballs". The volatile material (ices) is heated by the Sun and sublimates to form jets, the coma and the tail.This is supported by actual physical evidence, i.e. the results of the Deep Impact mission where the impact ejected material from the nucleus that was composed of 20-50% water and 80-50% dust.
80-50% dust???

This dust? http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news113.html
Quote:
One of the most remarkable particles found in the Stardust collection is a particle named after the Inca Sun God Inti. Inti is collection of rock fragments that are all related in mineralogical, isotopic and chemical composition to rare components in meteorites called "Calcium Aluminum Inclusions" or CAI's for short. CAI's are the oldest materials that formed in the solar system and they contain a remarkable set of minerals that form at extremely high temperature.
but wait there is more

Quote:
The comet samples collected by Stardust contain abundant crystalline minerals and in most cases it is clear that they did not form by the predicted mild heating of interstellar dust. Many are too large, and have complex mineralogical and chemical compositions that could not have formed by this process. Instead of the mild heating that astronomers envisioned the comet samples were heated during their formation to severe temperatures, temperatures high enough to melt or vaporize them. The temperatures above 1300 ¼C and the samples were white hot. This is quite remarkable because the some of the ice components of comets appear to have formed only 30 degrees above absolute zero
How much ice has been observed on the surface of the comet RC? (not inferred from spectroscopy)

So how did your high temp dust get on the outside "rind" of a comet?

oh wait it was transported!!
Quote:
Because the rocky materials in comet Wild 2 formed at such high temperatures, we believe that they formed in the hot inner regions of the young solar system and were then transported all the way to beyond the orbit of Neptune.
How? is not the Sun the biggest gravitational body in the SS?

How about the "soot" found in these dust samples! http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200...runc_sys.shtml
Quote:
"These forms of carbon don't look like what we find in meteorites, which is something like compacted soot from your chimney. The carbon compounds from this comet are a much more complicated mix of compounds," commented Carnegie's Marc Fries. "It will be an exciting challenge to explain how these compounds formed and wound up in the comet."
exciting challenge to explain!!!
NOT for an electric comet!! This is to be expected!

But there has to be water ice on/in a comet because we see OH in the tail of a comet and there is absolutly no way water can be made from the solar wind imapcting rock!

Except for the moon and maybe asteroids (MBC's)!
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th January 2010, 05:47 AM   #534
AWPrime
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,926
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So how did your high temp dust get on the outside "rind" of a comet?

oh wait it was transported!!

How?
Why am I not surprised, that you don't known that the radiation pressure of light can be used for propulsion.
__________________
Sir Arthur C. Clarke - "Any sufficiently advanced technology, to the uninformed observer, is indistinguishable from magic."
c4ts - "Jesus loves the little children, Nice and fat and honey roasted..."
Lancastic = Demonstrative of outstanding personal effort in the exposing of frauds.
Rob Lister - "The enemy of my enemy probably tastes yummy. "
AWPrime is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th January 2010, 05:59 AM   #535
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,755
Thunderbolts just say it so much more poeticaly than I can.

Quote:
As for the water (ice), that was supposed to be the primary constituent of comets. But the anticipated markers of water on the nucleus of Wild 2 are absent. One mineral present in the comet particles is olivine, an iron-magnesium silicate. In the presence of water and even modest heat, olivine will be converted to another mineral, serpentine. Place olivine in the presence of water (steam?) at the temperatures indicated for its formation, and it would be almost instantly converted to serpentine.

According to Stardust principal investigator Donald Brownlee, “no evidence of water has been detected in the particles”. One sign of water, for example, would be the presence of hydrate silicates, Brownlee said, “but so far none of these have been found in the Stardust samples”.

How, then, are we to reconcile the absence of water signatures in the comet dust with the fact that cometary comas often exude an abundance of water (or at least the hydroxyl radical OH). We answered that question in a three-part series, “Deep Impact—Where’s the Water?” (first article here) The OH and whatever actual water may have been present in the coma were manufactured in the coma—an acknowledged “chemical factory”. The vehicle for this process has already been observed—reactions between the oxygen ions in the coma plasma and the hydrogen ions in the solar wind. Charge exchange is now known to occur.

The least we can say today is that most comets contain no appreciable levels of water (i.e., most comets are neither “dirty snowballs” nor “icy dirtballs”), Additionally, it needs to be emphasized that there is no conflict between Stardust and Deep Impact data. Brownlee, who is not prone to overstate theoretical implications, points out that Stardust collected dust that was released directly from the surface in jets. "We're confident that the things coming out [of Comet Wild 2] are the same as those that went in”, he told Space.com.

That means the material has not been processed by the chemical factory of the coma. "We believe that we collected the most pristine samples of a comet”, he said. Hence, the failure to find a signature of water in the comet dust is consistent with all of the facts we have presented in previous discussion.

It is not unreasonable to suggest, therefore, that only one comet model can make sense of what is otherwise a hopelessly confused picture. This model is electric. And thanks to the technological successes of the space age, all of the markers reasonably expected of an electric comet have been found.
So the actual pyshical samples returned to Earth and studied in the lab, showed no signs of water! How surprising for you!
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th January 2010, 06:01 AM   #536
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,873
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
How dumb.
Dust is dust. The temperature at which it was formed is an interesting insight into the conditions of the formaito of the Solar System.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
How much ice has been observed on the surface of the comet RC? (not inferred from spectroscopy)
What a dumb question.
None. A bright spot on a comet surface is just a bright spot until spectroscopy identifies what emitted the light.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So how did your high temp dust get on the outside "rind" of a comet?
Gravity.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
How about the "soot" found in these dust samples! http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200...runc_sys.shtml

exciting challenge to explain!!!
NOT for an electric comet!! This is to be expected!
Are you that ignorant?
The electric comet idea is the dumb idea from a book advertisment site.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th January 2010, 06:04 AM   #537
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,755
Originally Posted by AWPrime View Post
Why am I not surprised, that you don't known that the radiation pressure of light can be used for propulsion.
???

Not what Michael Zolensky, Stardust curator and co-investigator at NASA's Johnson Space Center, Houston said
Quote:
The jets then supposedly ejected the heated material out to the Kuiper belt. And here the minerals supposedly mixed with ices to provide the building blocks of Wild 2.

Michael Zolensky, Stardust curator and co-investigator at NASA's Johnson Space Center, Houston, put it this way: "We have found very high-temperature minerals, which supports a particular model where strong bipolar jets coming out of the early sun propelled material formed near to the sun outward to the outer reaches of the solar system".
That's electric!
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th January 2010, 06:05 AM   #538
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,755
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post


Are you that ignorant?
The electric comet idea is the dumb idea from a book advertisment site.
Owns your behind buttercup!
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th January 2010, 06:06 AM   #539
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,873
Question Please cite the electric comet paper that predicts the exact forms of carbon

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
How about the "soot" found in these dust samples! http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200...runc_sys.shtml

exciting challenge to explain!!!
NOT for an electric comet!! This is to be expected!
First asked 14 January 2010
Sol88,
Please cite the electric comet paper that predicts the exact forms of carbon found by Stardust.

Or is this just another bit of ignorance from you?
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th January 2010, 06:07 AM   #540
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,873
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Owns your behind buttercup!
Owns your forward dandelion!
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th January 2010, 06:09 AM   #541
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,873
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
???

Not what Michael Zolensky, Stardust curator and co-investigator at NASA's Johnson Space Center, Houston said

That's electric!
Thats electromagnetic!
And nothing to do with the stupid electric comet idea.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th January 2010, 06:10 AM   #542
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,873
Exclamation The totally stupid electric comet idea debunked

EC universe: Comets are rocky bodies, comparable to asteriods and probably created in the same event as asteriods (according to Thunderbolts).


Real universe:
  1. Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).
  2. Comets may not have the composition of asteriods
  3. Deep Impact confirmed that comet nuclei are made of dust and ice not rock. There were a couple of surprises in that the dust was talcum powder rather than sand and the amount of ice was smaller than expected.
    "Analysis of data from the Swift X-ray telescope showed that the comet continued outgassing from the impact for 13 days, with a peak five days after impact. A total of 5 million kilograms (11 million pounds) of water[35] and between 10 and 25 million kilograms (22 and 55 million pounds) of dust were lost from the impact."WP
    Thus the water content of Comet Tempel 1 is 20% to 50%.
EC universe: Comet jets, coma and tails are created from material that that is created from rock by electrical discharge machining.(but according to solrey EDM does not mean EDM in the EC universe!).

Real universe:



Start with Tim Thompson's posts about thisThen look atEC universe: Rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value will be comets.N.B. Solar activity may cut tails in two but there have been no observations of comets turning off during low solar activity.(Sol88: I may be wrong - if so please provide the citations to these marvelous events.)

However this assertion has the fatal flaw of EC predictions - no mathematics or numbers.
But we can do their work for them can't we Sol88?

There are 4 observed main-belt comets with a minimum eccentricity of 0.1644 (133P/Elst-Pizarro). So the EC minimim must be this (or lower!).

Real universe: There are at least 173,583 asteroids (rocky bodies) that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value that are not comets. This includes asteroids that have been observed for decades.
There are 459,893 asteroids with eccentricities greater than the minimum observed eccentricity of comets (0.0279).
EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets


EC universe: solrey pointed out in this post that EC idea expects that the voltage potential a comet experiences would be orders of magnitude higher than that of the cloud to ground voltage potential in a thunderstorm (109 volts).
"Several" is more than a couple so the EC idea expects a voltage drop around a comet of at least 1012 volts.

Real universe: tusenfem pointed out that "Electric Fields and Cold Electrons in the Vicinity of Comet Halley" by Harri Laakso gave the measured potential drop between electrical layers around Comet Halley as 50 kV in this post. This is 10,000 times less than the thunderstorm potential and 10,000,000 times less that requires by the EC idea.

Water, water everywhere (except in the EC idea)
EC universe: Comets are rocky bodies, comparable to asteroids and probably created in the same event as asteroids (according to Thunderbolts). Comet jets, coma and tails are created from material (e.g. water) that that is created from rock by electrical discharge machining. Like everything in the EC idea there are no numbers and so no prediction of the composition of the nucleus. We could say that means that the EC idea predicts no water (0%) but there should be some blowback from the physically impossible (on comets) EDM process.
Asteroids in general have very low amounts of water. So let's just throw in 1% water as an extremely generous guess - IMHO it should be something like 0.01%. Sol88 or solrey should provide a better number if they have it.

Real universe: Comets are bodies with a mixture of rock and ices of various compounds, e.g. CO and water. They are have been described as "dirty snowballs". The volatile material (ices) is heated by the Sun and sublimates to form jets, the coma and the tail.This is supported by actual physical evidence, i.e. the results of the Deep Impact mission where the impact ejected material from the nucleus that was composed of 20-50% water and 80-50% dust.


EC universe: Only give qualitative predictions.
Sol88 posted a list of EC "predictions" for Tempel 1 and Deep Impact. The closes it gets to an actual quantitative predictions is "The most obvious would be a flash (lightning-like discharge) shortly before impact." (emphasis added).

What actually happened was a flash on or after impact followed by a bigger one from deeper in the nucleus (according to NASA).

Real universe: Scientific theories model the data mathematically and produce both qualitative and quantitative predictions.




Someone could start with the papers of Whipple
  1. Whipple, Fred L. (1950). "A Comet Model. I. The acceleration of Comet Encke". Astrophys. J. 111: 375–394.
  2. Whipple, Fred L. (1951). "A Comet Model. II. Physical Relations for Comets and Meteors". Astrophys. J. 113: 464.
  3. Whipple, Fred L. (1955). "A Comet Model. III. The Zodiacal Light". Astrophys. J. 121: 750.
and then go ointo the 1000's of scientific papers and many textbooks about comets. Tim Thompson recommened Introduction to Comets by Brandt & Chapman (Cambridge University Press, 2004, 2nd edition).


EC universe: Turn yourself into a crackpot idea by not publishing papers in peer reviewed journals.
Real universe: Take the risk of being wrong and become part of the scientific process by publishing papers in peer reviewed journals, e.g. Fred L. Whipple.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th January 2010, 06:15 AM   #543
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,755
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Thats electromagnetic!
And nothing to do with the stupid electric comet idea.
Polar jet

Quote:
While it is still mostly a mystery to physicists how polar jets are formed and powered, the two most often proposed origins of this power are the central object (such as a black hole), and the accretion disk.
Quote:
While it is not known exactly how accretion disks manage to produce jets, they are thought to generate tangled magnetic fields that cause the jets to collimate.
Ahh the 'ol tangeled magnetic field!! umm....where is the electric current that makes these tangeld magnetic fields??
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th January 2010, 06:18 AM   #544
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,873
Exclamation How Sol88 cannot stop shooting himself in the foot

The EC idea is that comets are asteriods. So they should have the same composition as asteroids and thus meteorites. Only an idiot would ignore the evidence against this:But here is another bit of evidence against the EC idea suppied by Sol88:
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
80-50% dust???
How about the "soot" found in these dust samples! http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200...runc_sys.shtml
Quote:
"These forms of carbon don't look like what we find in meteorites, which is something like compacted soot from your chimney. The carbon compounds from this comet are a much more complicated mix of compounds," commented Carnegie's Marc Fries. "It will be an exciting challenge to explain how these compounds formed and wound up in the comet."
(emphasis added)
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th January 2010, 06:30 AM   #545
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,873
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Polar jet

Ahh the 'ol tangeled magnetic field!! umm....where is the electric current that makes these tangeld magnetic fields??
How dumb - derailing your own thread.

But...
The Sun's magnetic field is thought to be a solar dynamo (and there are electric currents!).
There is no reason why simliar processes could not exist during the creation of the Solar System. It would be more turbulent than the since there is a big cloud of plasma collapsing, electric currents going everywhere and thus tangeld magnetic fields.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th January 2010, 03:17 AM   #546
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,755
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
The EC idea is that comets are asteriods. So they should have the same composition as asteroids and thus meteorites. Only an idiot would ignore the evidence against this:But here is another bit of evidence against the EC idea suppied by Sol88:

(emphasis added)
Arguing with mental midgets get tiresome but still fun!

Quote:
have the same composition as asteroids and thus meteorites.
these one you mean


Quote:
H Chondrites

High Iron (12 to 21% metallic iron) (also called Bronzite Chondrites) 31.4% of falls. Minerals: Olivine, pyroxene, metal, plagioclase, sulfide.
Quote:
L Chondrites

Low Iron (5 to 10% metallic iron) (also called Hypersthene Chondrites) 34.8% of falls. Minerals: Olivine, pyroxene, plagioclase, metal, sulfide.
Quote:
LL Chondrites

Low Metal Content (about 2% metallic iron) (also called Amphoterites) Principle minerals are bronzite, olivine, and minor oligoclase. 7.2% of falls.
Quote:
Among the high temperature materials some are already well known components of primitive meteorites; rocks from asteroids that formed between Mars and Jupiter. These include odd rounded particles called chondrules and white irregular particles known as Calcium Aluminum Inclusions (CAIs). Chondrules are the dominant material in many primitive meteorites and they are rounded droplets of rocks that melted and then quickly cooled as they orbited the Sun. CAIs are much rarer than chondrules and are distinguished by their unusual chemical and isotopic composition. They are also the oldest solar system materials and are composed of exotic minerals that form at the very high temperature.
Quote:
Comet ice formed in cold regions beyond the planet Neptune but the rocks, probably the bulk of any comet's mass, formed much closer to the Sun in regions hot enough to evaporate bricks.
LINK

Mmmm.... I smell trouble for you RC!!

The bulk of the comets mass is drum roll........ROCK the same as observed in meteorites!!!

and this little gem

Quote:
It was very exciting to find that pieces of CAIs and chondrules in the comet and the scientific implications of this are profound. When we first presented the discovery of comet CAIs at the annual Lunar and Planetary Science conference, just three months after Stardust landed, you could see jaws drop in the room crowded with 600 scientists. It was just phenomenal to discover something this profound, right in the beginning of the analysis program. The discovery of chondrules and CAIs proves that matter abundantly formed in the inner solar system was somehow transported to the edge of the young solar system where comets formed.
Why would it be profound, RC?
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th January 2010, 03:40 AM   #547
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,873
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Arguing with mental midgets get tiresome but still fun!
these one you mean
Hi there mental midget !
Read what you quoted:
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200...runc_sys.shtml
Quote:
"These forms of carbon don't look like what we find in meteorites, which is something like compacted soot from your chimney. The carbon compounds from this comet are a much more complicated mix of compounds," commented Carnegie's Marc Fries. "It will be an exciting challenge to explain how these compounds formed and wound up in the comet."
(emphasis added)

Meteorites contain olivine, pyroxene and other neat stuff.
Cometary dust as collected by the Stardust mission contains forms of carbon that are not in meteorites.
Thus comets are not meteorites.
Meteorites are asteriods that have reaches the Earth's surface.
Therefore comets are not asteriods.



Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
The mental midget strikes again !
The article is talking about the dust that was collected by Stardust.

[quote=Sol88;5512370]
Mmmm.... I smell trouble for you RC!!
[quote]
Mmmm.... I smell ignorance and the inability to read from you Sol88!!

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
The bulk of the comets mass is drum roll........ROCK the same as observed in meteorites!!!
I was right : ignorance and the inability to read from Sol88 .

The article never states that the bulk of the comets mass is rock.
Everything in the article is about the dust that they analysed, e.g.
Quote:
What we found was remarkable! Instead of rocky materials that formed around previous generations of stars we found that most of the comet's rocky matter formed inside our solar system at extremely high temperature. In great contrast to its ice, our comet's rocky material had formed under white-hot conditions.
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Why would it be profound, RC?
Learn to read Sol88.
Because the Stardust results suggest that the proto-solar system was a much more turbulent place than scientists expected, including flows of material from the inner systen to the outer.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th January 2010, 03:47 AM   #548
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,873
The totally stupid electric comet idea debunked

EC universe: Comets are rocky bodies, comparable to asteriods and probably created in the same event as asteriods (according to Thunderbolts).


Real universe:
  1. Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).
  2. Comets may not have the composition of asteriods
  3. Deep Impact confirmed that comet nuclei are made of dust and ice not rock. There were a couple of surprises in that the dust was talcum powder rather than sand and the amount of ice was smaller than expected.
    "Analysis of data from the Swift X-ray telescope showed that the comet continued outgassing from the impact for 13 days, with a peak five days after impact. A total of 5 million kilograms (11 million pounds) of water[35] and between 10 and 25 million kilograms (22 and 55 million pounds) of dust were lost from the impact."WP
    Thus the water content of Comet Tempel 1 is 20% to 50%.
  4. Cometary dust as collected by the Stardust mission contain forms of carbon that are not in meteorites.
    Thus comets are not meteorites.
    Meteorites are rocky bodies (meteoroids and sometimes asteroids) that have reached the Earth's surface.
    Therefore comets are not meteoroids or asteriods.
    (or How Sol88 cannot stop shooting himself in the foot)
EC universe: Comet jets, coma and tails are created from material that that is created from rock by electrical discharge machining.(but according to solrey EDM does not mean EDM in the EC universe!).

Real universe:




Start with Tim Thompson's posts about thisThen look atEC universe: Rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value will be comets.N.B. Solar activity may cut tails in two but there have been no observations of comets turning off during low solar activity.(Sol88: I may be wrong - if so please provide the citations to these marvelous events.)

However this assertion has the fatal flaw of EC predictions - no mathematics or numbers.
But we can do their work for them can't we Sol88?

There are 4 observed main-belt comets with a minimum eccentricity of 0.1644 (133P/Elst-Pizarro). So the EC minimim must be this (or lower!).

Real universe: There are at least 173,583 asteroids (rocky bodies) that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value that are not comets. This includes asteroids that have been observed for decades.
There are 459,893 asteroids with eccentricities greater than the minimum observed eccentricity of comets (0.0279).
EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets


EC universe: solrey pointed out in this post that EC idea expects that the voltage potential a comet experiences would be orders of magnitude higher than that of the cloud to ground voltage potential in a thunderstorm (109 volts).
"Several" is more than a couple so the EC idea expects a voltage drop around a comet of at least 1012 volts.

Real universe: tusenfem pointed out that "Electric Fields and Cold Electrons in the Vicinity of Comet Halley" by Harri Laakso gave the measured potential drop between electrical layers around Comet Halley as 50 kV in this post. This is 10,000 times less than the thunderstorm potential and 10,000,000 times less that requires by the EC idea.

Water, water everywhere (except in the EC idea)
EC universe: Comets are rocky bodies, comparable to asteroids and probably created in the same event as asteroids (according to Thunderbolts). Comet jets, coma and tails are created from material (e.g. water) that that is created from rock by electrical discharge machining. Like everything in the EC idea there are no numbers and so no prediction of the composition of the nucleus. We could say that means that the EC idea predicts no water (0%) but there should be some blowback from the physically impossible (on comets) EDM process.
Asteroids in general have very low amounts of water. So let's just throw in 1% water as an extremely generous guess - IMHO it should be something like 0.01%. Sol88 or solrey should provide a better number if they have it.

Real universe: Comets are bodies with a mixture of rock and ices of various compounds, e.g. CO and water. They are have been described as "dirty snowballs". The volatile material (ices) is heated by the Sun and sublimates to form jets, the coma and the tail.This is supported by actual physical evidence, i.e. the results of the Deep Impact mission where the impact ejected material from the nucleus that was composed of 20-50% water and 80-50% dust.


EC universe: Only give qualitative predictions.
Sol88 posted a list of EC "predictions" for Tempel 1 and Deep Impact. The closes it gets to an actual quantitative predictions is "The most obvious would be a flash (lightning-like discharge) shortly before impact." (emphasis added).

What actually happened was a flash on or after impact followed by a bigger one from deeper in the nucleus (according to NASA).

Real universe: Scientific theories model the data mathematically and produce both qualitative and quantitative predictions.





Someone could start with the papers of Whipple
  1. Whipple, Fred L. (1950). "A Comet Model. I. The acceleration of Comet Encke". Astrophys. J. 111: 375–394.
  2. Whipple, Fred L. (1951). "A Comet Model. II. Physical Relations for Comets and Meteors". Astrophys. J. 113: 464.
  3. Whipple, Fred L. (1955). "A Comet Model. III. The Zodiacal Light". Astrophys. J. 121: 750.
and then go ointo the 1000's of scientific papers and many textbooks about comets. Tim Thompson recommened Introduction to Comets by Brandt & Chapman (Cambridge University Press, 2004, 2nd edition).


EC universe: Turn yourself into a crackpot idea by not publishing papers in peer reviewed journals.
Real universe: Take the risk of being wrong and become part of the scientific process by publishing papers in peer reviewed journals, e.g. Fred L. Whipple.[/quote]
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th January 2010, 03:50 AM   #549
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,755
Comet ice formed in cold regions beyond the planet Neptune but the rocks, probably the bulk of any comet's mass, formed much closer to the Sun in regions hot enough to evaporate bricks.

__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th January 2010, 03:52 AM   #550
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,873
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Comet ice formed in cold regions beyond the planet Neptune but the rocks, probably the bulk of any comet's mass, formed much closer to the Sun in regions hot enough to evaporate bricks.

Learn to read, Sol88.
The name of the mission may be a clue (but not to you): Stardust.
Comet ice formed in cold regions beyond the planet Neptune but the Dust, probably the bulk of any comet's mass, formed much closer to the Sun in hot regions.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th January 2010, 05:12 AM   #551
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,755
Umm.....no Dr. Don Brownlee, Stardust Principal Investigator said rock, not dust!

as I quoted!

Quote:
Comet ice formed in cold regions beyond the planet Neptune but the rocks, probably the bulk of any comet's mass, formed much closer to the Sun in regions hot enough to evaporate bricks. The materials that we collected from comet Wild 2 do contain pre-solar "stardust" grains, identified on the basis of their unusual isotopic composition, but these grains are very, very rare.
As I was right : ignorance and the inability to read from Realty Check .

Reality Check sounds like you need one mate!
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th January 2010, 05:24 AM   #552
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,755
and these ROCKS have the same composition as meteorites!

So how did they mix?? because
Quote:
we now know that comets are really a mix of materials made by conditions of both "fire and ice".
Solar wind pressure? Bipolar outflows?(EU) Gravity? (the universe's dominate force) or like the book advertisment site said, they were electricaly machined of the surface of planets and Moons

Quote:
Comets, specifically, have nothing to do with an ancient nebular cloud of cold gas and dust that became gravitationally unstable and collapsed into the Solar System of today. Comets and their asteroid sisters are relative newcomers to the solar family and might have been blasted out of larger bodies by tremendously powerful electric discharges in the recent past. They are not "snowballs" or blobs of muddy slush, they are solid, rocky, cratered, electrically charged objects.
LINK
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th January 2010, 05:42 AM   #553
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
???

Not what Michael Zolensky, Stardust curator and co-investigator at NASA's Johnson Space Center, Houston said

That's electric!

You are so silly!

Everything with you is electric this and electric that, and you just insert it wherever you want and then pretend that it is there in some press release, when in fact you just inserted it there.

here is the press release
http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/status/060313.html

But I note that as usuall you do not have a citation for the early sun and the creation of the bipolar jets being electric. I wonder why?
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th January 2010, 05:45 AM   #554
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
and these ROCKS have the same composition as meteorites!

So how did they mix?? because

Solar wind pressure? Bipolar outflows?(EU) Gravity? (the universe's dominate force) or like the book advertisment site said, they were electricaly machined of the surface of planets and Moons

LINK
Funny that Thunderdolts has no references to the passage you quote , now does it? It is just an unsupported assertion of a beleif without evidemce.

More silly on you.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th January 2010, 05:50 AM   #555
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Umm.....no Dr. Don Brownlee, Stardust Principal Investigator said rock, not dust!

as I quoted!



As I was right : ignorance and the inability to read from Realty Check .

Reality Check sounds like you need one mate!

No the only thing lacking in your quote is any evidence that Dr. Brownless said anything that you pretend he did:
http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news116.html

There is is, where is the silly stuff you say? Where is the electric part? Hmmmmm. Gosh you mean that the CAI were formed bewteen the orbit or Mars and Jupiter when the sun was young? You mean you directly contradict what Sol88 has to say, and that he misundetsood the context of the stuff he quotes. Shocker.

ETA: You missed this
Quote:
in addition to the numerous jets of dust and gas escaping into space.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

Last edited by Dancing David; 14th January 2010 at 05:51 AM.
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th January 2010, 03:59 AM   #556
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,755
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
No the only thing lacking in your quote is any evidence that Dr. Brownless said anything that you pretend he did:
http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news116.html

There is is, where is the silly stuff you say? Where is the electric part? Hmmmmm. Gosh you mean that the CAI were formed bewteen the orbit or Mars and Jupiter when the sun was young? You mean you directly contradict what Sol88 has to say, and that he misundetsood the context of the stuff he quotes. Shocker.

ETA: You missed this
Are you saying he did not say the bulk of a comets mass is rock?

Troll!

Search "rock" + "mass" + "bulk"

Appology accepted!

for those that carnt be arsed to search here is the quote again, from DD's link.

Quote:
Comet ice formed in cold regions beyond the planet Neptune but the rocks, probably the bulk of any comet's mass, formed much closer to the Sun in regions hot enough to evaporate bricks.
So how did the "volitiles" get in with the high temp "dust" where it is hot enough to melt brick?

Dancing David? RC?

Now according to you'se I'm pretty daft, but I'm interested in your informed decision anywhoo?
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th January 2010, 04:59 AM   #557
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Are you saying he did not say the bulk of a comets mass is rock?

Troll!

Search "rock" + "mass" + "bulk"

Appology accepted!

for those that carnt be arsed to search here is the quote again, from DD's link.
i stated very clearly that you conclusions about teh nature of comets are unsupported by what Dr. Brownless said.
Quote:


So how did the "volitiles" get in with the high temp "dust" where it is hot enough to melt brick?
Silly again, you can't understand that stuff can cool off. Okay.
Quote:

Dancing David? RC?

Now according to you'se I'm pretty daft, but I'm interested in your informed decision anywhoo?
I said silly, the things you say are silly, and unsupported, you quote one thing and say another.

If you read Dr. Bownlee's article he talks a lot about dust dust dust, no where does he say that comets are solid rock like asteroids.

You just pick little pieces and ignore the rest.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th January 2010, 05:35 AM   #558
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,755
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
i stated very clearly that you conclusions about teh nature of comets are unsupported by what Dr. Brownless said.

Silly again, you can't understand that stuff can cool off. Okay.


I said silly, the things you say are silly, and unsupported, you quote one thing and say another.

If you read Dr. Bownlee's article he talks a lot about dust dust dust, no where does he say that comets are solid rock like asteroids.

You just pick little pieces and ignore the rest.
The bulk of the comets mass is rock, re read it! Not dust, not ice but rock made with high temp minerals and crystals like those found in meteorites.

Like Brownlee said
Quote:
Among the high temperature materials some are already well known components of primitive meteorites; rocks from asteroids that formed between Mars and Jupiter. These include odd rounded particles called chondrules and white irregular particles known as Calcium Aluminum Inclusions (CAIs). Chondrules are the dominant material in many primitive meteorites and they are rounded droplets of rocks that melted and then quickly cooled as they orbited the Sun. CAIs are much rarer than chondrules and are distinguished by their unusual chemical and isotopic composition. They are also the oldest solar system materials and are composed of exotic minerals that form at the very high temperature.
Then ice mixed with it, by dark energy majik!!
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th January 2010, 06:15 AM   #559
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,755
I love this makes me laugh every time

The stardust team (mainstream) said

Quote:
Comets are small, cold, primordial bodies that formed at the edge of the solar system, near Pluto. They are made of material that is nearly unchanged since the Sun and planets formed 4.6 billion years ago. Comets are frozen bodies, far from the Sun, that have never been exposed to the environments similar to those on the early Earth that preceded and led to the emergence of life. Comets are among the most inhospitable places in the solar system for life.
Comets are small, cold, primordial bodies that formed at the edge of the solar system, near Pluto, except they did'nt!
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th January 2010, 08:52 AM   #560
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
The bulk of the comets mass is rock, re read it! Not dust, not ice but rock made with high temp minerals and crystals like those found in meteorites.

Like Brownlee said

Then ice mixed with it, by dark energy majik!!
I did read it, I can't help your understanding of it.
Quote:
What we found was remarkable! Instead of rocky materials that formed around previous generations of stars we found that most of the comet's rocky matter formed inside our solar system at extremely high temperature. In great contrast to its ice, our comet's rocky material had formed under white-hot conditions. Even though we confirmed Comets are ancient bodies with an abundance of ice, some of which formed a few tens of degrees above absolute zero at the edge of the solar system, we now know that comets are really a mix of materials made by conditions of both "fire and ice". Comet ice formed in cold regions beyond the planet Neptune but the rocks, probably the bulk of any comet's mass, formed much closer to the Sun in regions hot enough to evaporate bricks. The materials that we collected from comet Wild 2 do contain pre-solar "stardust" grains, identified on the basis of their unusual isotopic composition, but these grains are very, very rare.

Among the high temperature materials some are already well known components of primitive meteorites; rocks from asteroids that formed between Mars and Jupiter. These include odd rounded particles called chondrules and white irregular particles known as Calcium Aluminum Inclusions (CAIs). Chondrules are the dominant material in many primitive meteorites and they are rounded droplets of rocks that melted and then quickly cooled as they orbited the Sun. CAIs are much rarer than chondrules and are distinguished by their unusual chemical and isotopic composition. They are also the oldest solar system materials and are composed of exotic minerals that form at the very high temperature.
It was very exciting to find that pieces of CAIs and chondrules in the comet and the scientific implications of this are profound. When we first presented the discovery of comet CAIs at the annual Lunar and Planetary Science conference, just three months after Stardust landed, you could see jaws drop in the room crowded with 600 scientists. It was just phenomenal to discover something this profound, right in the beginning of the analysis program. The discovery of chondrules and CAIs proves that matter abundantly formed in the inner solar system was somehow transported to the edge of the young solar system where comets formed. There are some theories that suggest that CAI's formed just a few radii from the surface of the Sun, 4.567 billion years ago. The finding that inner solar system materials, formed at very high temperature, were transported all the way to the edge of the Solar System to the region where Pluto is one of the major scientific findings of Stardust. In other words, instead of being dominated by particles formed around other stars, our comet's rocks were predominantly formed close to the Sun. Thus, these comet sample studies have provided a direct look at the nature and origin of the building blocks of planets, materials that were sprayed all over the young solar system and must have been incorporated into all planets and moons.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

Last edited by Dancing David; 15th January 2010 at 08:56 AM.
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:32 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.