Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sol88

Philosopher
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
8,382
This is the continuation thread of the original Electric Comet Theory thread found HERE. The split point is arbitrary, and please feel free to quote from the previous thread in this one.
Posted By: Agatha


Sol88 isn't even picking nits, he's pretending to pick nits. His posts all sound like this:



I mean, "picking nits" would at least require some sort of coherent statement. "Rosetta found X <link> which contradicts prediction Y made by Z <link>". Or "Yesterday Rosetta said 4 g/cm^3 and today they said 4.1 g/cm^3". Or "Rosetta replaced the image in that press release with a new one." That'd be picking nits. Sol88 can't even manage that.

Nit pick??? data says 67P is fluffy like snow according to the density and MUPUS says hard as (sintered ice) or rock??? as well as the lander "bouncing" off the surface.

CONCERT says no voids.

You have dust levitating and being transported by electric fields but feel the need to invoke fluidization by gas escaping.

Yo have CO, CO2 and H20 being produced in the same location during different times of the local day from a comet made of rock.

and it looks like rock (including crystallised silicates, clay and carbonates) with no surface ice detected, "How did clay and carbonates form in frozen comets?"...mainstream brushed over that chestnut.

Major problems reconciling the problem of heat transportation below the dust layer to start "sublimation"

Dust that "falls" apart but towering cliffs on the surface.


but yeah the dirtysnowball is the best guess mainstream could come up with.

As the posters on the ROSETTA BLOG site are asking, some non EU proponents are calling the standard theory into question.

and i think that's a good thing, we need to ask those hard questions.

The mainstream went to the comet with well defined preconceived ideas and have been surprised at every turn but to think of another theory is taboo.

AND

It's not my job to prove to you the ELECTRIC COMET is correct you can make your own mind up based on the multitude of data not agreeing with the standard model. If you think they're dirtysnowballs, dirtysnowballs they are.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's not my job to prove to you the ELECTRIC COMET is correct you can make your own mind up based on the multitude of data not agreeing with the standard model. If you think they're dirtysnowballs, dirtysnowballs they are.

That's not how it works. That's not how any of it works. :D

Here's your problem: You have this "multitude of data", but none of it proves electric space rocks. All it does is disagree slightly with predictions that were made in a time before hard data existed - which was the entire point of sending a spacecraft out to investigate the comet in the first place. Now that we can refine the models, they STILL don't point to an electric space rock. You're welcome to believe they are electric space rocks, but that doesn't make it so.
 
Here's your problem: You have this "multitude of data", but none of it proves electric space rocks. All it does is disagree slightly with predictions that were made in a time before hard data existed - which was the entire point of sending a spacecraft out to investigate the comet in the first place. Now that we can refine the models, they STILL don't point to an electric space rock. You're welcome to believe they are electric space rocks, but that doesn't make it so.

Just this simple piece of dicordent data is enough to raise serous doubts about the standard model.

Results (12) This means that the stuff is really hard! A very interesting finding, not visible from orbit!

Results (15) Surface must be >2 MPa hard! The comet remains surprising bizarre and uncooperative
LINK

“We found that the dust particles released first when the comet started to become active again are ‘fluffy’. They don’t contain ice, but they do contain a lot of sodium. We have found the parent material of interplanetary dust particles,” says lead author Rita Schulz of ESA’s Scientific Support Office.
LINK


So what's the mainstream fudge for this data.

It's a hard fluffy gasball???? :sdl:
 
Does hardness = density?
Yeah doesn't wash though.

You tell me what known substance on the comet could have the density less than water (He said the interior is now thought to be analogous to 'ash, cigarette ash or super-dry powder snow.') and harder than 2mpa??


Who's telling porkys?? the MUPUS team or me 'ol mate Holger??


Which is a far cry from
All it does is disagree slightly with predictions that were made in a time before hard data existed
You'll have to take your foot off the exaggerator! That's no slight disagreement with predictions, that's fatal. Not one prediction, from the mainstream point of view, has held out. They are morphing into a totally different model that now incorporates a lot of what the EU mob have been banging on about for some time.

I guess that's what science does but why trumpet it and puff up your chest that you know what comets are???? Ambition the short film is embarrassing to watch now, really cringe worthy. We know this we know that but in reality it was just a guess that turned out to be dead wrong.

and whilst I acknowledge there are paper on comets and plasma/electrical interaction they played no part in ANY prediction put up on a science education website NASA,ESA etc

Seems it was a SURPRISE for the big bangers, the original creationists.
 
Nit pick??? data says 67P is fluffy like snow according to the density and MUPUS says hard as (sintered ice) or rock??? as well as the lander "bouncing" off the surface.

Is it that hard for you to imagine that something as large as a comet has different properties in different areas? That it could have a solid surface in some areas and have deep layers of dust in others?
 
Yeah doesn't wash though.

You tell me what known substance on the comet could have the density less than water (He said the interior is now thought to be analogous to 'ash, cigarette ash or super-dry powder snow.') and harder than 2mpa??


Who's telling porkys?? the MUPUS team or me 'ol mate Holger??


Which is a far cry from You'll have to take your foot off the exaggerator! That's no slight disagreement with predictions, that's fatal. Not one prediction, from the mainstream point of view, has held out. They are morphing into a totally different model that now incorporates a lot of what the EU mob have been banging on about for some time.

I guess that's what science does but why trumpet it and puff up your chest that you know what comets are???? Ambition the short film is embarrassing to watch now, really cringe worthy. We know this we know that but in reality it was just a guess that turned out to be dead wrong.

and whilst I acknowledge there are paper on comets and plasma/electrical interaction they played no part in ANY prediction put up on a science education website NASA,ESA etc

Seems it was a SURPRISE for the big bangers, the original creationists.

Fail, try again.

Does hardness = density? Yes, or no?
 
That was to be my next point. What is it more like, a cueball, or an egg?

If you* ever live in an area that periodically has a lot of snow lying around, sometimes day/night warm/cold cycle will create a surprisingly strong crust on top of a lot of light, fluffy snow. The crust can sometimes be strong enough to walk on, but if you break through it, it's still light, fluffy snow underneath.

The comet does, in fact, go through warm/cold cycles, so the possibility of a crust troubles me not at all.

I don't whether the mechanism would be the same.

*the generic 'you', not LSSBB in particular
 
If you* ever live in an area that periodically has a lot of snow lying around, sometimes day/night warm/cold cycle will create a surprisingly strong crust on top of a lot of light, fluffy snow. The crust can sometimes be strong enough to walk on, but if you break through it, it's still light, fluffy snow underneath.

The comet does, in fact, go through warm/cold cycles, so the possibility of a crust troubles me not at all.

I don't whether the mechanism would be the same.

*the generic 'you', not LSSBB in particular

Yes, this and plow walls are something that Sol88 is unfamiliar with, or snowfall with freezing rain on top, plow walls on top of fluffy snow.
 
It has occurred to me over this winter that watching parking lot glaciers respond to insolation with and without a dust cap might be fruitful grad student research.
 
If you* ever live in an area that periodically has a lot of snow lying around, sometimes day/night warm/cold cycle will create a surprisingly strong crust on top of a lot of light, fluffy snow. The crust can sometimes be strong enough to walk on, but if you break through it, it's still light, fluffy snow underneath.

The comet does, in fact, go through warm/cold cycles, so the possibility of a crust troubles me not at all.

I don't whether the mechanism would be the same.

*the generic 'you', not LSSBB in particular

Exactly this, the fields where I take the dog for a walk are like this at the moment
 
Just this simple piece of dicordent data is enough to raise serous doubts about the standard model.


Only in your imagination, Sol. Real scientists see contradiction as an opportunity to do a definitive experiment that will advance our understanding. There's a timeless Niels Bohr quote: "How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress."

You claim to know how to breed a more beautiful and hardy orchid; why do you just stand outside the greenhouse throwing rocks at the glass?
 
Last edited:
Fail, try again.

Does hardness = density? Yes, or no?


Interesting question ;)

The "density" of The Electric Comet is addressed directly here :eek: ...

Rosetta Mission Update | First Science Papers
thunderbolts said:
Published on 7 Feb 2015
Scientists with the European Space Agency’s Rosetta mission are writing a new chapter in the history of comet science. However, institutional science’s understanding of comets is less certain today than at any time before. Recently, the Rosetta team published their first scientific papers following their successful landing on the comet 67P. Yet the scientific summaries raised far more question than answers.


The more 67P is studied the better the Electric Comet hypothesis looks :D The more "active" times ahead will show how good that hypothesis is :)
 
Interesting question ;)
Actually, the question is quite mundane. Practical examples will show you. What's the answer? (Hint: the question is yes/no).
The more 67P is studied the better the Electric Comet hypothesis looks :D The more "active" times ahead will show how good that hypothesis is :)
Based on the lack of any evidence whatsoever from 67P to support ECH, I find your conclusion laughable.
 
Cute :p

Electric Comets requires an Electric Sun requires an Electric Universe

Yip, it ALL comes as a package ;)

And since the electric sun is an unproven theory that has no actual experimental basis whatsoever, nor any actual predictive theories nor any realistic mechanism that would explain why it would form in the first place, the entire package is built upon fantasy and delusions.
"God keeps the sun running" is a better theory as it at least gives an (untestable and unverifiable) hypothesis on how things work.
 
David Talbott's 2005 ignorance about comets

The "density" of The Electric Comet is addressed directly here :eek: ...
Wrong, Haig - that is a web page produced by the crank David Talbott in 2005 with the usual fantasies and ignorance of science, e.g. his fantasy about an insulating layer of material on the surface of comets.

This was written in anticipation of the Deep Impact results that the Thunderbolts web site he runs has lied about for many years: The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.


David Talbott was (and seems to be still) ignorant of simple facts about the density of comets
* electric charges come in 2 types and so any possible effects can go both ways - either make comets (and asteroids) heavier than they are or lighter than they are.
* the density of comets and asteroids are determined using the same technique (their orbits give their mass, observations give their size). Anything that affects comets will also affect asteroids, But we have samples of asteroids that confirm that they are rocks (meteorites).
* The density of comets is determined in multiple ways.

Davit Talbott was ignorant about the scientific model of comets. Comet coma are mainly generated by jets from sublimating ices under the surface of the nucleus (not on the surface). This activity is not constant - it increases as the comet heats up.
His ignorance leads to some invalid statements abut comet "puzzles"
* There is no mystery about why comets are "coal black" - it is organic material.
* Comets have "craters" because they have jets creating them (and a few impacts as well).
* Comets are not "rocky" unless someone were ignorant enough to just look at images and deny the science behind the density measurements.
* Comet jets are "so narrow and energetic" because that is what ices sublimating through vents or pits in a low gravity field produce ":eek:!
* Some comets produce sulfur compounds because they contain sulfur compounds!
* There is a "superabundance of extremely fine dust" because the solar system contains lots of extremely fine dust.
* The "presence of water molecules increase with distance from the nucleus" has nothing to do with dust being driven off the nucleus.
* "coma temperatures reach 2 million degrees" is wrong.
Sun grazing comets do reach that temperature because they graze the Sun!
Scientists mystified how Comet Lovejoy survived 2 million degree K temperature pass through Sun’s corona.
* Comet Halley's outburst is expected from the scientific model. Outbursts are expected from all comets since ices vary in volatility and so it is possible for a patch of volatile ices to start sublimating.
What was unexpected was the size of the outburst - that was more like an impact on the comet.
* X-ray emissions were expected, detected and explained for comets before the Chandra X-ray Observatory on July 14, 2000.
Discovery of X-ray and Extreme Ultraviolet Emission from Comet C/Hyakutake 1996 B2 in 1996.
Comet Hyakutake x-ray source: Charge transfer of solar wind heavy ions in 1997.

The lack of x-rays from electric discharges is evidence against electric comets :eek:

David Talbott lied about
* the existence of evidence that suggests hat comets are highly negatively charged with respect to the Sun.
* the conventional theory has a scientific reason for "the high density of negative ions discovered near the comet nucleus" - interaction of atoms with the solar wind allows them to capture electrons.
* "an unexpected "forbidden oxygen" line at 1128Å in the spectrum of Comet Austin" has nothing to do with electrical discharges.
The Spectrum of Comet Austin from 910 to 1180 Å (1991!)
A spectrum of comet Austin (1988 c(1)) has been obtained from 910 to 1180 A. Three bright emission lines were detected, including a forbidden oxygen line (1128 A), which are attributable to radiative pumping of neutral oxygen by solar Lyman beta.
 
Yip, it ALL comes as a package ;)
Yep, Haig, a set of delusions does come as a package :p.
We have Electric Comets based on a neo-Velikovskian delusion and denial of actual science.
Then a jump to the equally delusional neo-Velikovskian Electric Universe with its denial of actual science.
TOP TEN REASONS WHY VELIKOVSKY IS WRONG

And in the middle is the differently delusional Electric Suns :eek:!
Here the main delusion is that the known laws of physics are wrong and so stars cannot be powered by fusion. Note the plural which you ignore - there are a couple of different Thunderbolts Electric Sun ideas: The Sad State of the Electric Sun(s) - Not So Bright
  • Thornhill's "Solar Resistor" model
  • Scott's "Solar Capacitor" model
A CosmoQuest thread on Scott's latest claim (a very invalid PDF in the web): Electric Sun verified Don E Scott claims.
And tusenfem's why the electric sun is no viable option post.
 
Last edited:
Phil Plait's comments on the latest Rosetta image release: A Comet’s Gorgeous Aura including a description of a pit caused by sublimating ice
For example, at the bottom of the image is a large, round depression (inset here). You might think that’s an impact crater, since those are common on asteroids and the like. But it’s actually a pit formed from leaking gas. Note the shadows in the pit’s floor; the rim is extremely jagged and spiky; those shards look to be dozens of meters high at least. They must be very fragile, and relatively young, or else they’d have long since been destroyed. You can also see rubble in the floor, probably debris that’s rolled downhill as the pit walls have eroded.


The Planetary Society's Emily Lakdawalla also comments on the latest images in Rosetta shifts from sedate circular orbits to swooping flybys with the intriguing thought that on one of the flybys it could be possible to Rosetta to picture its shadow crossing the nucleus.

The latest from the Rosetta Blog is Seasonal forecasts for 67P/C-G where we have scientific predictions for the erosion that Sun-driven sublimation will cause on the comet nucleus.
 
Last edited:
DEEP FRIED COMET

"A comet is like deep fried ice cream," said Murthy Gudipati of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California
So throw the MUPUS data out?? Comets, or at least 67P, are hard on the outside and soft in the middle!!!

p1660413.jpg
LINK

"The crust is made of crystalline ice, while the interior is colder and more porous. The organics are like a final layer of chocolate on top."
The crust is made of crystalline ice????? That's a new one!!

I believe we are yet to find "ICE"

the ad hoc nonsense to save the paradigm of comets, as leftovers from the formation of the solar system, are actually quite funny.... deep fried icecream :)

Looks like trouble in the camp!
 
Last edited:
DEEP FRIED COMET

So throw the MUPUS data out?? Comets, or at least 67P, are hard on the outside and soft in the middle!!!
So be fooled by splitting of the quote and not knowing what deep fried ice cream is, Sol88 :p!
DEEP FRIED COMET
"A comet is like deep fried ice cream," said Murthy Gudipati of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, corresponding author of a recent study appearing in The Journal of Physical Chemistry. "The crust is made of crystalline ice, while the interior is colder and more porous. The organics are like a final layer of chocolate on top."
Deep fried ice cream (Deep fried ice cream recipe) has a coating of crunchy stuff, e.g. bread crumbs. That is a good description of 67P as seen by MUPUS!

The ignorance of argument from ignorance - crystalline ice exists as anyone who has seen an ice cube knows.

We have found ICE!!!!! The reason being that only people like the deluded Thunderbolts camp would think that MUPUS found solid rock. Any one with any intelligence and knowledge of science knows that 0.4 g/cc (the measured density of 67P) is not the measured density of rock (~3 g/cc).

ETA - Quote mining by Sol88. The previous slide on Daniels Dies & Das (Daten -> wann es geschah, oft nicht wann es gepostet wuRDE!) is

Note the "Tens of Mpa" for ice - well above what was measured.
 
Last edited:
More fantastic images from Rosetta: An active comet, from a distance has jets all over but strongest from the neck.


Yes, fantastic indeed and more confirmation of the Electric Comet hypothesis :D

Rosetta Mission Update | 67P's Mysterious Water Production
Published on 16 Feb 2015
Today we continue our report on the first scientific papers on the Rosetta mission to comet 67P. As noted in the previous episode, comet scientists and the science media continue to hold to the traditional story of comets. One basis for the scientists’ purported confidence is the discovery of evidence for water production in cometary comas. However, the electric comet theory offers an alternative explanation that may better fit the available evidence.


The best is yet to come as 67P becomes more active electrically ;)
 
However, the electric comet theory offers an alternative explanation that may better fit the available evidence.

How would they possibly know? Unless they quantify their theory (which they will never, under any circumstances, be willing to do), then there's no way to tell if it's more or less accurate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom