The Electric Comet Theory /SAFIRE Part V

[Reality Check]

Electric Comets I. by Tim Thompson on 20th June 2009
Tim Thompson starts with Sol88's lie that cometary science is dominated by gravity. The appropriate forces are used appropriately.
Tim Thompson addresses Sol88's and his cult's deluded fantasies about star formation.
Tim Thompson cites mainstream cometary science. Introduction to Comets by John C. Brandt & Robert D. Chapman, Cambridge University Press 2004 (2nd edition).
Tim Thompson points out Sol88's lie that his cult has any scientific models, when they have "some vague and unsupported comments about rocks in space". However even those fantasies are easily debunked.

Quote:

Arcing is episodic, it flashes like lightning. The X-ray emission from lightning comes in bursts, not as a steady background. The X-ray emission from comets does not come in bursts, so the actual observed X-ray emission from comets is not consistent with the idea given in the EU link.

The bursts of X-ray emission are broad band. The non-bursty X-ray emission from comets is a mix of broad band and narrow line. The narrow line emission is readily identified with known charge exchange mechanisms and other known narrow line production mechanisms supported by comparison with laboratory experiments. The broad band emission is readily identified as bow shock emission, and bremsstrahlung (neither of which, by the way, is consistent with arcing).

So what we have is that the known, observed X-ray emission from comets is well understood in terms of well known, standard physics, while simultaneously inconsistent with the vague claims from the EU crow. This state of affairs in fact tends to falsify the vague ideas put forth as a "model" by the EU crowd.

Electric Comets II: References by Tim Thompson on 20th June 2009. References for X-ray emission at comets, e.g. that they only come from the comet coma.
Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays by Tim Thompson on 22nd June 2009.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Yes, rock that doesn't exist, that you keep lying about, due to your religious need for it to be there. It ain't. Comets are a rock-free zone.

So,

Check;

Rock -

Quote:

More likely, the values are comparable to the one generally applied to static or sliding friction of dry rock

The rocky-like behavior of cometary landslides on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

Charge Separation -

Quote:

Cometary electrons eventually end up neutralizing the solar wind protons, and solar wind electrons eventually neutralize the cometary ions.

Electron and Ion Dynamics of the Solar Wind Interaction
with a Weakly Outgassing Comet

Electric fields -

Quote:

We identify and characterize the magnetic field aligned ambipolar electric field that ensures quasi-neutrality and traps warm electrons.

A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet

Happy days in the ELECTRIC COMET camp.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Sol88 shows how deep his decades of insanity is yet again.
The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma (updated 13 Mar 2020).

• Insane lie and insane insult that astronomers have written that comets are his demented dogma of actual rock.
  The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn and all astronomers by Sol88 linking them with Sol88's demented dogma, etc.
• Utter insanity of citing quoting mainstream ices and dust comet papers.
• Insane lies about papers.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Sol88 shows how deep his decades of insanity is yet again.
The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma (updated 13 Mar 2020).

• Insane lie and insane insult that astronomers have written that comets are his demented dogma of actual rock.
  The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn and all astronomers by Sol88 linking them with Sol88's demented dogma, etc. Wo said our understanding was evolving towards comets as mostly ROCK...
• Utter insanity of citing quoting mainstream ices and dust comet papers. AND ROCK... The rocky-like behavior of cometary landslides on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
• Insane lies about papers- on how rocky comets appear to be...

Mmmmm....

Comets appear to be as rocky as asteroids! Except of course asteroids and meteorites have MORE WATER than the now acknowledged less snowy more dirty icydirtball??



So, says those mainstream papers!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

So let's call it "rock", the meteoritic matrix from the original Whipple model.

That does not change anything.


This is an epic fail of the EC idea.

Snipped
.

Yes it very very much does because the implication are HUGE!!!

Quote:

The story of how LaPaz came into being is really a story of how the solar system came into being—and that's what makes the findings so interesting.

A huge disk of gas and dust began whirling around the sun 4.6 billion years ago.

Some of the material coalesced into the rocky planets we know and love, but a lot more of it aggregated into smaller chunks: asteroids and comets.

Comets are smaller, icier bodies with more ancient origin stories, while asteroids tend to be much larger and composed of rocky materials from more recent times (relatively speaking).

That's the story of the dirtysnowball...

This my friends is the conundrum mainstream now face!

It makes your creation story just...

What if and just what if A huge disk of gas and dust began whirling around the sun 4.6 billion years ago never happened?

Instead the gas and dust, as so happens on here, is actualy PLASMA and CHARGED DUST! Imagine something as crazy as all that with the obligatory CHARGE SEPARATION and the in suing ELECTRIC FIELDS .

Ouch!

So, yeah ,nah 'cos, That does not change anything." and
"This is an epic fail of the EC idea." are a big call there champ!

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Yes it very very much does because the implication are HUGE!!!



That's the story of the dirtysnowball...

This my friends is the conundrum mainstream now face!

It makes your creation story just...

What if and just what if A huge disk of gas and dust began whirling around the sun 4.6 billion years ago never happened?

Instead the gas and dust, as so happens on here, is actualy PLASMA and CHARGED DUST! Imagine something as crazy as all that with the obligatory CHARGE SEPARATION and the in suing ELECTRIC FIELDS .

Ouch!

So, yeah ,nah 'cos, That does not change anything." and
"This is an epic fail of the EC idea." are a big call there champ!

There is still (measured) 10^6 times more gas than plasma at the comet.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

So,

Check;

Rock - The rocky-like behavior of cometary landslides on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

Charge Separation - Electron and Ion Dynamics of the Solar Wind Interaction
with a Weakly Outgassing Comet

Electric fields - A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet

Happy days in the ELECTRIC COMET camp.

Why would you be happy? You have no rock. You have no charge separation beyond the Debye length. You have no discharges. You have no EDM (lol). And yet we have also known, for 30+ years, that we do have water vapour. And we have also known, for 20+ years that we do have ice. You are still batting zero. Unless you'd like to point to some actual detections? As that is not going to happen, why don't you just give up? No science, no mechanisms, no evidence. 'Twas ever thus with you clowns.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Yes it very very much does because the implication are HUGE!!!



That's the story of the dirtysnowball...

This my friends is the conundrum mainstream now face!

It makes your creation story just...

What if and just what if A huge disk of gas and dust began whirling around the sun 4.6 billion years ago never happened?

Instead the gas and dust, as so happens on here, is actualy PLASMA and CHARGED DUST! Imagine something as crazy as all that with the obligatory CHARGE SEPARATION and the in suing ELECTRIC FIELDS .

Ouch!

So, yeah ,nah 'cos, That does not change anything." and
"This is an epic fail of the EC idea." are a big call there champ!

Just fairy tales. No science. As usual. What electric fields?

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

The rocky-like behavior of cometary landslides on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

According to your woo, there cannot be any landslides. The surface is jagged due to electrical woo carving it out. Please show us the detection of electrical woo coincident with a landslide. I can show actual measurements of dust and vapour. No electric woo, however. Another strike against impossible fairy stories.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

There is still (measured) 10^6 times more gas than plasma at the comet.

Don't forget the density of the nucleus at 0.533 g/cm³!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

According to your woo, there cannot be any landslides. The surface is jagged due to electrical woo carving it out. Please show us the detection of electrical woo coincident with a landslide. I can show actual measurements of dust and vapour. No electric woo, however. Another strike against impossible fairy stories.

and still, there they are! (rocky behavior)

Comets are rockier than space rocks (asteroids/meteorites) and space rocks are wetter than comets.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Why would you be happy? You have no rock. You have no charge separation beyond the Debye length. You have no discharges. You have no EDM (lol). And yet we have also known, for 30+ years, that we do have water vapour. And we have also known, for 20+ years that we do have ice. You are still batting zero. Unless you'd like to point to some actual detections? As that is not going to happen, why don't you just give up? No science, no mechanisms, no evidence. 'Twas ever thus with you clowns.

You have no charge separation beyond the Debye length???

Not what me 'ol mate Deca says.

Quote:

Note that the cometary electrons are not coupled to the cometary ions and leave the source region along the magnetic field lines that intersect the population in the vicinity of the nucleus.

A spatial separation of the particles of cometary origin can be seen in the density profiles of ne,c (Figure 2(a)) and ni,c (Figure 2(b)) in the y„Q=„Q0 plane.

The convective electric field carried by the solar wind is non negligible close to nucleus (Deca et al. 2019) and picks up the cometary electrons on a spatial scale comparable to the electron Larmor radius.

After magnetization, they carry a velocity composed of an„QE„Q¡Ñ„QB drift component and a component parallel to their respective magnetic field line.

Such a localized cometary electron current explains the cometary electron density profile in Figure 1, i.e., the two channels of cometary electrons emanating from the highdensity part of the coma that move along the magnetic field lines in the solar wind frame

Quote:

A large ambipolar electric field is established that is associated with the local electron density gradient

A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet

And so say all of us Andrey Divin , Jan Deca, Anders Eriksson, Pierre Henri, Giovanni Lapenta , Vyacheslav Olshevsky and
Stefano Markidis

but not jonesdave116!

No mechanism, what a dropper!

That champ, along with comets are ROCK, is about shop shut on my front.

this is the ELECTRIC COMET!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

According to your woo, there cannot be any landslides. The surface is jagged due to electrical woo carving it out. Please show us the detection of electrical woo coincident with a landslide. I can show actual measurements of dust and vapour. No electric woo, however. Another strike against impossible fairy stories.

Yeah, carving it out of rock!

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Don't forget the density of the nucleus at 0.533 g/cm³!

And what has that got to do with what Tusenfem posted? Just more proof that the comet isn't rock. As we have known for decades.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

and still, there they are! (rocky behavior)

Comets are rockier than space rocks (asteroids/meteorites) and space rocks are wetter than comets.

Nope. No rock ever detected at a comet. Please link to the paper where this rock was detected, or admit that you are a liar.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

You have no charge separation beyond the Debye length???

Not what me 'ol mate Deca says.

Wrong. And where are these discharges? Please link to the paper where they were detected, or admit that you are a liar.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Yeah, carving it out of rock!

No rock. It doesn't matter how many times you lie about it, it isn't there, and neither is your electric woo. Total fail.

[jonesdave116]

So, let's talk about landslides.
Well, Rosetta happened to get in the way of one, and was therefore able to detect the outgassing, as well as the dust from the event. Didn't detect any electric woo, however.
They also have a habit of leaving exposed ice, as well as icy boulders in the debris.
Let us now assume that these cliffs and such like are composed of granite. Or sandstone. Or limestone. Whatever. Those rocks have high strength. The comet, however, has an extremely low gravity. Absolutely no reason whatsoever for those cliffs and overhangs to fall down. As can be proven mathematically. Therefore, said cliffs and overhangs must be composed of extremely weak material. And they are.

The 2016 Feb 19 outburst of comet 67P/CG: an ESA Rosetta multi-instrument study
Grün, E. et al. (2016)
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/artic...1/S220/2633359

The pristine interior of comet 67P revealed by the combined Aswan outburst and cliff collapse
Pajola, M. et al. (2017)
https://kar.kent.ac.uk/61744/1/Pajol...SCL-merged.pdf

Estimating the strength of the nucleus material of comet 67P Churyumov–Gerasimenko
Basilevsky, A. T. et al. (2016)
https://link.springer.com/article/10...38094616040018 (paywalled; the abstract is all you need)

So, not at all what you would expect of electric woo doing stuff to rock.

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Don't forget the density of the nucleus at 0.533 g/cm³!

Surely this attempt to deflect is an admission that tusenfem has brought up and inconvenient piece of fact.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Sol88 shows how deep his decades of insanity is yet again.
The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma (updated 13 Mar 2020).

This post:
31 March 2020: Sol88 shows he is insane with his decades old demented delusion that that comets appear to be rocky when they do not to anyone with 1 brain cell (density, etc. as shown to him 11 years ago) )! Now Sol88 demonstrates how utterly insane he is by expanding his demented delusion that comets have less water then asteroids. The truth to anyone with a brain is that mainstream astronomy saya and has evidence that comets and asteroids formed around the same time in the early solar system. We expect them to start with similar amounts of water.
Primitive CI chondrites are a small percentage of asteroids that have primitive compositions. They have up to 22% water, mostly bound on their minerals.
67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko has at least 17% ices including water ices. Taking the low limit, this one and only comet has less water ices than the water bound in minerals in primitive CI chondrites.. On the other hand we have the example of Deep Impact on Tempel 1. That ejected water and dust. Tempel 1 is between 20% and 50% water ice. Tempel 1 is probably more hydrated than primitive CI chondrites!

Next post: Sol88 shows how insane he is with his usual deluded rant.
Next post: Sol88 shows how insane he is by citing the measured density of 67P which shows it is not rock.
His insanity is emphasized also by this being irrelevant to the post that he quoted !
Sol88 writes a demented rant about plasma and charged dust. tusenfem replies with a real fact about comets.

Originally Posted by tusenfem

There is still (measured) 10^6 times more gas than plasma at the comet.

Next post: Sol88 shows how insane he is with his usual deluded rant.
Next post: Sol88 shows how insane he is with his usual deluded rant.
Next post: Sol88 shows how insane he is with his usual insane lies about posts and posters (jonesdave116 pointed out that Sol88's demented dogma will have no landslides).

[Sol88]

Quote:

You have no charge separation beyond the Debye length. You have no discharges.

jonedave116

Ummmm....what are you on cobber?

First line

Quote:

Note that the cometary electrons are not coupled to the cometary ions and leave the source region along the magnetic field lines that intersect the population in the vicinity of the nucleus.

Deca states quite clearly in A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet

Quote:

A spatial separation of the particles of cometary origin can be seen

and

Quote:

After magnetization, they carry a velocity composed of a drift component and a component parallel to their respective magnetic field line.

and

Quote:

Such a localized cometary electron current

So, what else would a plasma numpty look for?

Charge separation, electric field and discharge currents.

also

ROCK!

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

jonedave116

Ummmm....what are you on cobber?

First line

Deca states quite clearly in A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet



and



and



So, what else would a plasma numpty look for?

Charge separation, electric field and discharge currents.

also

ROCK!

So, you still can't understand that paper. Who's surprised? Maybe I'll get round to explaining it to you. Again. And there is no rock. That is an outright lie.
So, why would any putative charge separation do anything to the nucleus? It is nowhere near the nucleus. And this model is only relevant at large heliocentric distances. How does charge separation = lightning bolts? Which mysteriously fail to trouble the magnetometer?
I keep asking, you keep lying and obfuscating. Show me the detection of rock, show me the detection of discharges. You can't, because they don't exist. Therefore your woo is dead, and there is nothing to discuss.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

....

Sol88 shows how deep his decades of insanity is yet again.
The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma (updated 13 Mar 2020).

Sol88 descends to insane insults of posters and insane lies about science.

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Why would you be happy? You have no rock. You have no charge separation beyond the Debye length. You have no discharges. You have no EDM (lol). And yet we have also known, for 30+ years, that we do have water vapour. And we have also known, for 20+ years that we do have ice. You are still batting zero. Unless you'd like to point to some actual detections? As that is not going to happen, why don't you just give up? No science, no mechanisms, no evidence. 'Twas ever thus with you clowns.

jonesdave116 wrote textbook plasma physics that has been cited to Sol88 and explained many times. Plasma has a Debye length that is a scale beyond which plasma acts as neutral gas, i.e. none of Sol88's insane obsession with the words "charge separation" that he has ranting about for years.
Sol88 emphasizes how deeply insane he is with a deluded rant irrelevant to jonesdave116's post. His quote mine lies from A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet are not his insane delusions about charge separation ! They are on the movement of electrons (currents) that we expect in interacting plasmas (solar wind and comet coma).

Sol88 emphasizes how deeply insane he is with demented "discharge currents" gibberish. There are no electric discharges and so "discharge currents" in plasma because plasma is an extremely good conductor. What is really insane is that "discharge currents" are what we get from batteries, printed circuit boards, and devices to create plasma.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

So, you still can't understand that paper. Who's surprised? Maybe I'll get round to explaining it to you. Again. And there is no rock. That is an outright lie.
So, why would any putative charge separation do anything to the nucleus? It is nowhere near the nucleus. And this model is only relevant at large heliocentric distances. How does charge separation = lightning bolts? Which mysteriously fail to trouble the magnetometer?
I keep asking, you keep lying and obfuscating. Show me the detection of rock, show me the detection of discharges. You can't, because they don't exist. Therefore your woo is dead, and there is nothing to discuss.

Yawn, not my problem you struggle with the absolute basics mate!

for instance

show me the detection of discharges. You can't, because they don't exist.

Lets start at the kindergarten end, see if you can keep up.



An electric discharge is the release and transmission of electricity in an applied electric field through a medium such as a gas.

(wiki) or in our case a PLASMA!


From A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet

So...

Quote:

Such a localized cometary electron current explains the cometary electron density.

A large ambipolar electric field is established that is associated with the local electron density gradient

Keeping up so far, jonesdave116?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Yawn, not my problem you struggle with the absolute basics mate!

for instance

show me the detection of discharges. You can't, because they don't exist.

Lets start at the kindergarten end, see if you can keep up.



An electric discharge is the release and transmission of electricity in an applied electric field through a medium such as a gas.

(wiki) or in our case a PLASMA!


From A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet

So...


Keeping up so far, jonesdave116?

So where are these discharges? Show me the detection, and stop running away. Magnetometer data. Publicly available. Find an outburst that is well dated, look through mag data. Find nothing. Think you can do that? Your contention is that the jets are discharges. They aren't, as we have known for a long time. They are gas and dust and, sometimes, ice. No electric woo. As (not) observed. Therefore your woo is dead. No discharges, no rock to sculpt.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet

When are you going to grow a pair, and actually email Deca, instead of lying about his paper? Ask him if the Debye length was violated, and whether this would lead to lightning bolts. That would be a start.

[Sol88]

Don't need too, I showed you the discharge.

This is the large scale discharge, not the EDM that we observed on Tempel 1.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Don't need too, I showed you the discharge.

This is the large scale discharge, not the EDM that we observed on Tempel 1.

No, you did not show a discharge. That is another lie. And there was no EDM (lol) at Tempel 1. So, that is two lies in quick succession. No discharges, no rock. Fail.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Sol88 shows how deep his decades of insanity is yet again.
The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma (updated 30 Mar 2020 to add his demented "comets have less wager than asteroids" lie).

This post: Insults and makes himself into an deluded liar !
We know the definition of an electrical discharge. It needs the breakdown of s dielectric (non-conducting) medium such as neutral gas like the Earth's atmosphere (thus lightning). Plasma conducts !
31 Mar 2020: Sol88 quotes a definition of electric discharge from Wikipedia that shows he is a deluded liar. Electric discharge. has "plasma" only in a footnote about the article being a stub.
Sol88 persists in lying by quote mining.

Quote:

An electric discharge is the release and transmission of electricity in an applied electric field through a medium such as a gas.[1]

[1] is "American Geophysical Union, National Research Council (U.S.). Geophysics Study Committee (1986) The earth's electrical environment. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp 263". That gas is our atmosphere !

Sol88 quotes the paper stating "electron current" and "electric field" and has the insane delusion that these are electrical discharges.

Next post : Sol88 goes totally insane with delusions and lies.
Sol88 has already made himself into an deluded liar about the definition of electric discharges (see above). Now he doubles up on his insane lying. There are no electrical discharges in A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet
Sol88 makes himself into a deluded liar yet again. We have never observed any signs of electric discharges on any comet. We did not observe EDM on Tempel 1. We observed that the topology of Tempel 1 changed as expected for sublimating ices.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

No, you did not show a discharge. That is another lie. And there was no EDM (lol) at Tempel 1. So, that is two lies in quick succession. No discharges, no rock. Fail.

Oh my friend but we did!

Conveniently forgotten again by plasma numties.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Sol88 shows how deep his decades of insanity is yet again.
The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma (updated 31 Mar 2020 to add his demented lies about electric discharges).

This is his decades old insanity that an abysmally ignorant and totally denuded person can tell sane people what is in a astronomical image.
We observed that the topology of Tempel 1 changed as expected for sublimating ices and Sol88 emphasizes his insanity with an image of that expected change in topology! Cliffs of ices and dust will recede when the ices sublimate.

And Sol88 is too much of a coward to give the context or caption of that image: Comparison of Deep Impact and Stardust photos of a smooth elevated feature on the surface of the nucleus showing recession of icy cliffs at the margins. (my emphasis).

Quote:

The crater that formed was not visible to Deep Impact due to the cloud of dust raised by the impact, but was estimated to be between 100 and 250 meters in diameter[6] and 30 meters deep. The probe's spectrometer instrument detected dust particles finer than human hair, and discovered the presence of silicates, carbonates, smectite, metal sulfides (such as fool's gold), amorphous carbon and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Water ice was detected in the ejecta.[7] The water ice came from 1 meter below the surface crust (the devolatized layer around the nucleus).[7]
...
On February 15, NASA scientists identified the crater formed by Deep Impact in images from Stardust. The crater is estimated to be 150 m (490 ft) in diameter, and has a bright mound in the center likely created when material from the impact fell back into the crater.[9]

Deep impact showed that Tempel 1 was 20% to 50% water ice (thus supporting icy cliffs!)and that the crater size rules out Sol88's demented dogma of comets being rock.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by steenkh

Surely this attempt to deflect is an admission that tusenfem has brought up and inconvenient piece of fact.

That is the problem with "creationist discussion techniques", they will just throw in some unrelated stuff if they don't like where the discussion is going.

They can just show anything, because they are under no obligation to actually bring any proof that what they show is what they claim it is.

A perfect example is the image of the surface of Temple 1, where (apparently) Sol88 claims that it is proof for EDM (or why else show this picture when JD talks about EDM), whereas the caption from wikipedia tells us:

"Comparison of Deep Impact and Stardust photos of a smooth elevated feature on the surface of the nucleus showing recession of icy cliffs at the margins."

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

That is the problem with "creationist discussion techniques", they will just throw in some unrelated stuff if they don't like where the discussion is going.

They can just show anything, because they are under no obligation to actually bring any proof that what they show is what they claim it is.

A perfect example is the image of the surface of Temple 1, where (apparently) Sol88 claims that it is proof for EDM (or why else show this picture when JD talks about EDM), whereas the caption from wikipedia tells us:

"Comparison of Deep Impact and Stardust photos of a smooth elevated feature on the surface of the nucleus showing recession of icy cliffs at the margins."

As jonesy'd say Show me the papers!

There are none on the receding icy cliffs of Temple 1, though I did find one on frost patches! Would love to go a little deeper into these receding icy cliff? Peer reviewed Papers, journal article, press release, anything'll do.

I'll take no response as just a guess by JPL otherwise.

anyhoo, something up your alley.

Quote:

Note that the cometary electrons are not coupled to the cometary ions and leave the source region along the magnetic field lines that intersect the population in the vicinity of the nucleus.

A spatial separation of the particles of cometary origin can be seen in the density profiles of ne,c (Figure 2(a)) and ni,c (Figure 2(b)) in the y„Q=„Q0 plane.

The convective electric field carried by the solar wind is nonnegligible close to nucleus (Deca et al. 2019) and picks up the cometary electrons on a spatial scale comparable to the electron Larmor radius. After magnetization, they carry a velocity composed of an„QE„Q¡Ñ„QB drift component and a component parallel to their respective magnetic field line.

Such a localized cometary electron current explains the cometary electron density profile in Figure 1, i.e., the two channels of cometary electrons emanating from the highdensity part of the coma that move along the magnetic field lines in the solar wind frame.

A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet

Seems poor jonesdave116 is having trouble understanding the above.

I've asserted my opinion in relation to the electric comet and electric discharge in particular.

Which in the above quote does not meet the criteria for an electric discharge?

We can at least settle that with your expert knowledge on the matter. We can leave the comet as made of a "meteoric matrix" till later, lest jd116 throws a rod!

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Oh my friend but we did!

Conveniently forgotten again by plasma numties.

Nope, that is precisely what we saw at 67P. Cliffs with exposed nucleus material. And given that impossible EDM was not seen at 67P, we can also rule it out at Tempel 1. Mainly because it is impossible.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

As jonesy'd say Show me the papers!

There are none on the receding icy cliffs of Temple 1, though I did find one on frost patches! Would love to go a little deeper into these receding icy cliff? Peer reviewed Papers, journal article, press release, anything'll do.

I'll take no response as just a guess by JPL otherwise.

anyhoo, something up your alley.

A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet

Seems poor jonesdave116 is having trouble understanding the above.

I've asserted my opinion in relation to the electric comet and electric discharge in particular.

Which in the above quote does not meet the criteria for an electric discharge?

We can at least settle that with your expert knowledge on the matter. We can leave the comet as made of a "meteoric matrix" till later, lest jd116 throws a rod!

More nonsense. You seem to forget what your woo claims. Let me refresh your memory;

Quote:

Comets follow their elongated paths within a weak electrical field centered on the Sun. In approaching the Sun, a charge imbalance develops between the nucleus and the higher voltage and charge density near the Sun. Growing electrical stresses initiate discharges and the formation of a glowing plasma sheath, appearing as the coma and tail.

So, you have a radial electric field. However, we already know that there is a radial magnetic field. Both of these statements cannot be true. As pointed out by Tim Thompson 16 years ago. Given that the IMF is measured, and the radial electric field is both impossible, and isn't measured, then it can be dismissed as scientifically impossible woo. So, the raison d'etre of your electric comet woo just disappeared. That renders the rest of it moot.
However, as also mentioned by TT, the comet is supposed to be charging up where there is no charge, and discharging where there is more charge! More impossible woo.
Discharges are obviously not initiated, as they would be detected. Another failure..
And there is no glowing plasma sheath. The only light coming from the cometary coma is from sunlight reflected from dust. As observed. Yet more fail.
Not going well, is it? So, let us look further at what the electric idiots claim;

Quote:

The observed jets of comets are electric arc discharges to the nucleus, producing “electrical discharge machining” (EDM) of the surface. The excavated material is accelerated into space along the jets’ observed filamentary arcs.

Oh dear! How can anyone possibly believe that, and claim to be sane, let alone scientifically literate!
Well, let's see; no discharges to the nucleus. The magnetometer data is publicly available. The spikes from these non-existent discharges should stick out like a sore thumb. They aren't there.
EDM (lol) is a highly controlled process, that simply does not occur in nature. It is a human construct. It most certainly does not occur on comets. Again, it would stick out like a sore thumb. It doesn't. Remember the magnetometer data? Particularly from within the DC, when the comet is most active? What does 0 nT mean to the electric idiots? Hmmm? And we knew this since 1986!

So, your claims that charge separation = discharges is a moot point. Discharges would be measured, and aren't.
As for the paper itself; well, If I was writing the paper, and there had been some large scale violation of quasi-neutrality (i.e. well beyond the Debye length), I would say so. And my wording, regarding the electric field that ensures quasi-neutrality, would be along the lines of, "the electric field therefore ensures that quasi-neutrality is RE-ESTABLISHED." However, their wording is, "quasi-neutrality is MAINTAINED." "Maintained", to me, means it never went away.
However, these are all moot points, as there were no discharges measured, and no EDM (lol) was measured. And there cannot be a radial electric field. And you cannot gain charge where there is none, and discharge it where there is lots. You cannot blast pieces of planets into space with electric woo. And there is no rock anyway. So, the whole thing is based on a couple of Velikovskian twits, with zero scientific knowledge, looking at highly stretched pictures of comets, and deliberately lying and obfuscating about a handful of press releases, in order to con the gullible.
Give yourself a pat on the back for being one of the few people on the planet gullible enough to be conned by such nonsense.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

More nonsense. You seem to forget what your woo claims. Let me refresh your memory;



So, you have a radial electric field. However, we already know that there is a radial magnetic field. Both of these statements cannot be true. As pointed out by Tim Thompson 16 years ago. Given that the IMF is measured, and the radial electric field is both impossible, and isn't measured, then it can be dismissed as scientifically impossible woo. So, the raison d'etre of your electric comet woo just disappeared. That renders the rest of it moot.
However, as also mentioned by TT, the comet is supposed to be charging up where there is no charge, and discharging where there is more charge! More impossible woo.
Discharges are obviously not initiated, as they would be detected. Another failure..
And there is no glowing plasma sheath. The only light coming from the cometary coma is from sunlight reflected from dust. As observed. Yet more fail.
Not going well, is it? So, let us look further at what the electric idiots claim;



Oh dear! How can anyone possibly believe that, and claim to be sane, let alone scientifically literate!
Well, let's see; no discharges to the nucleus. The magnetometer data is publicly available. The spikes from these non-existent discharges should stick out like a sore thumb. They aren't there.
EDM (lol) is a highly controlled process, that simply does not occur in nature. It is a human construct. It most certainly does not occur on comets. Again, it would stick out like a sore thumb. It doesn't. Remember the magnetometer data? Particularly from within the DC, when the comet is most active? What does 0 nT mean to the electric idiots? Hmmm? And we knew this since 1986!

So, your claims that charge separation = discharges is a moot point. Discharges would be measured, and aren't.
As for the paper itself; well, If I was writing the paper, and there had been some large scale violation of quasi-neutrality (i.e. well beyond the Debye length), I would say so. And my wording, regarding the electric field that ensures quasi-neutrality, would be along the lines of, "the electric field therefore ensures that quasi-neutrality is RE-ESTABLISHED." However, their wording is, "quasi-neutrality is MAINTAINED." "Maintained", to me, means it never went away.
However, these are all moot points, as there were no discharges measured, and no EDM (lol) was measured. And there cannot be a radial electric field. And you cannot gain charge where there is none, and discharge it where there is lots. You cannot blast pieces of planets into space with electric woo. And there is no rock anyway. So, the whole thing is based on a couple of Velikovskian twits, with zero scientific knowledge, looking at highly stretched pictures of comets, and deliberately lying and obfuscating about a handful of press releases, in order to con the gullible.
Give yourself a pat on the back for being one of the few people on the planet gullible enough to be conned by such nonsense.

Ahhh, perfect, absolutely perfect!

Thank you jonesdave116!

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Ahhh, perfect, absolutely perfect!

Thank you jonesdave116!

Of course it's perfect. I quoted your own woo, and stuck to real science and observation to debunk it. Some of which was observed two decades before your woo was invented!

[Lukraak_Sisser]

For Sol88's theory to be true:

Every experiment with nuclear fusion needs to be wrong and not have worked.
Gravity needs to stop working at arbitrary scales
Atoms need to behave differently from observation
Sublimation needs to not happen (so no freeze drying anything ever)
Solar wind needs to behave the opposite way of what we see
Electricity as we use it needs to stop working as it is observed on earth
All spacecraft need to have taken tons of extra fuel and shielding to keep working.

But Sol88 keeps ignoring all these massive discrepancies between his fantasy and the real world and instead focus on pointless minutiae, which STILL only support him when he massively misinterprets or misquotes them.
I predict that at his deathbed Sol88 will still be claiming mainstream is about to be proven wrong.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

I predict that at his deathbed, shortly after being hit by a lightning bolt from a passing planet, Sol88 will still be claiming mainstream is about to be proven wrong.

FTFY

EDIT:
Whoops, how stupid of me! He'd be long since dead from the gamma rays produced by Don Scott's fusion in the chromosphere!

[jonesdave116]

On a different note, Monty sure picked a cracking time to try to monetise his cheap energy scam! Lol.