The Electric Comet theory

[Jrrarglblarg]

I expect these predictions to have a 100% failure rate.

 

[Reality Check]

Haig (7th July 2014), is 3.0 different from 0.6

Mainstream Ref:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(spacecraft)

The insanely wrong EC theory has no correct predictions. Haig.
Citing the Thunderbolts site whose authors are so ignorant that they do no know the difference between 0.6 and 3.0 is not good !
But then neither do you :
Haig (7th July 2014), is 3.0 different from 0.6?

Especially when we have a history of lies from Thunderbolts: The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: Thunderbolts idoicy and ignorance is exposed yet again

Some Electric Comet predictions from Thunderbolts ...

Rosetta Mission Predictions

So what are these "predictions", Haig?

* A statement of ignorance - non-deluded people expect comets to have spectacular, sharply defined surfaces because they are lumps of rock, dust, water ice and frozen gases formed under low gravity that may have had other bodies collide with them. We expect craters, peaks, weird shapes, etc.
And because we have other close-up images of comets, e.g. Tempel 1
Craters, smooth terrains, flows, and layering on the comet nuclei (04/2007)

* The idiocy of depending on "published artistic visualizations"!

* The idiocy of making up a fantasy without any citations about expecting 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko to be the observed shape.
Any one who could read would not be totally surprised at the shape - it is an extreme form of the peanut of 103P/Hartley.

* The idiocy of "none expects substantial water-ice either on or below the surface of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko".
Any one who can count up to 3 expects comets to have water-ice and more.
Cometary nuclei are composed of an amalgamation of rock, dust, water ice, and frozen gases such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, and ammonia.[12]

The weasel word of "substantial" just emphasizes once again how useless the electric comet theory is - where are the numbers Haig!

Electric comets still do not exist! (26th August 2013)

* "virtually no interstellar dust"
We expect the comet to produce comet dust like any comet.

* A list of fantasies ("things to look for") !
Scientific predictions include that the experiment can detect the predicted results. That list of fantasies has no mention of how Rosetta will be able to detect the fairy stories that the Thunderbolts site has spun.
* when will Rosetta be looking for "subsurface ice"?
* just what "electric fields" are expected and what does "unexpected" mean?
* what Rosetta instruments are looking for "plasma jets" (and where are they in the electric comet theory which is all about electrical discharges!).

My guess: we will see the usual whining from the Thunderbolts crew, e.g. "oh look, an image of a jet - it is a plasma jet", "static in the transmission - we did not except it because of our ignorance of astronomy - it is unexpected electrical fields!", "Rosetta did not find subsurface ice (let us ignore that Rosetta did not look for it) - thus no subsurface ice!".

* the ignorance of saying that minerals "that are typical of planetary surfaces within the habitable zone of the Sun" will be found when we already have evidence that as much as 10 percent of the comet's material formed in the hot inner solar nebula and was transported to the cold outer reaches where the comet came together as the Sun formed.

* The idiocy of citing a YouTube video instead of the scientific literature.
But of course, the electric comet fantasy has no scientific literature !

 

[Reality Check]

I will mention some actual science about Rosetta that the Thunderbolts people (and Haig) seem ignorant of.
There are lots of instruments on the spacecraft but some need special mention for this thread:
CONSERT "(COmet Nucleus Sounding Experiment by Radiowave Transmission) is a scientific experiment on board the European Space Agency's Rosetta mission, launched in 2004, which will provide information about the deep interior of the comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko upon the probe's rendezvous with the comet in 2014."
Real electric comet predictions would mention what this instrument will detect.

Micro-Imaging Dust Analysis System and the Cometary Secondary Ion Mass Analyser.
Real electric comet predictions would mention what these instruments will detect.

 

[tusenfem]

If a strong coronal mass ejection from the Sun strikes the comet, we expect the comet to respond electrically with a surge of activity, confirming that the jets are not due to warming from the Sun but to charged particle distribution in the electric field of the Sun.

Prithee Haig what exactly do your friends mean with "will respond electrically", it would be ever so nice if they would educate me a little bit further, so that I will be able to better analyse the data from the magnetometer and plasma instruments onboard Rosetta. It would be something awful if I would come to the wrong conclusions.

1) no evidence of subsurface ice at the sources of the jets;
2) virtually no interstellar dust, the second component of the “dirty snowball” theory;
3) discovery of minerals on the nucleus that are typical of planetary surfaces within the habitable zone of the Sun;
4) characteristic concentration of plasma jet activity eating away at the cliffs of elevated terrain and the margins of well-defined depressions;
5) measurable retreat of active cliff regions in the wake of this activity; and
6) the presence of unexpected electric fields within the coma and/or close to the comet nucleus, possibly even disrupting the anticipated landing on the surface.

Okay to go down the list:
1) It will be hard to look under the surface of the comet, however, if we see water emanate from the surface of the comet it has to come from somewhere. We already see water coming off the surface, but we don't measure any "machining" producing said water. Would thunder be so kind as to explain to us which signatures we would measure in our magnetic field and electric field measurements caused by EDM?

2) Why would there be interstellar dust on the surface of the comet? This is a Jupiter family comet, which has spent a lot of time already in the inner solar system, and if anything, one would expect interplanetary dust on the surface. Naturally we know that there are many processes to create the dust.

3) A I guess this is a step back to the "dirty snowball" that opponents of mainstream physics still see as "the epiphany of mainstream cometary physics" (although Fred Whipple came up with that idea in the 1950s). However, a quick look at what mainstream actually knows (and yes you only have to google for 1 minute, depending on your typing speed) you find e.g. the following from space.com:

The solid nucleus or core of a comet consists mostly of ice and dust coated with dark organic material, with the ice composed mainly of frozen water but perhaps other frozen substances as well, such as ammonia, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and methane. The nucleus might have a small rocky core.

So again we are a step ahead of the thunderpeeps, we roughly know what to find.

4-5) This would be a tremendous activity on the surface of the comet. If that has already started, which is should, as there is already water coming from the comet, and possibly CO2 also, then either we should see this machining of the surface with OSIRIS or VIRTIS, or we should measure specific strong signals in the magnetic field or with the Langmuir probes.

6) "unexpected" electric fields, well, how about the expected electric fields? Laakso wrote a whole paper about electric fields around comet 1P/Halley. But hey! I know! Mainstream is not supposed to be aware that electric fields and electric currents exist, so I'd better delete that Laakso paper from my hard drive, before I lose my funding.

So, as usual, the thunderpeeps don't have the foggiest about what modern space plasma physics is dealing with (which is e.g. also clear from Scott's paper from 2007 about "Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos").

Ah well, back to my Giotto and VEGA1/2 data, time to start working, preparing to understand the Rosetta measurements.

 

[Sol88]

What are the latest "facts" we have been able to glean from the data made public already?

 

[tusenfem]

What are the latest "facts" we have been able to glean from the data made public already?

• that it is a frakking interesting object
• that water, CO2 and dust are being emitted from the nuclues
• that the nucleus has an overall temperature of -70 degrees celcius, however that will be locally different, but VIRTIS could not resolve it at that time
• that it may be a contact binary, but erosion cannot be excluded in lieu of the water emission that was seen from the neck of the duck
• the surface is covered in dust, with clear rocks laying on the surface too
• no NAVCAM or OSIRIS picture has observed any lightning going on
• many first results will be presented at the EPSC in Lisbon in September, mine too although I am still in 1986 working on comet 1P/Halley

 

[Reality Check]

What are the latest "facts" we have been able to glean from the data made public already?

There are no "facts", Haig, there are real observations without the double quotes as tusenfem lists .

Not that you will understand that: Haig (7th July 2014), is 3.0 different from 0.6?

Or: Haig: (11 August 2014) Thunderbolts idiocy and ignorance is exposed yet again!
Which is just a repeat of The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.

And the other facts that you cannot understand: Electric comets still do not exist! (26th August 2013)

We now have local temperature differences: Finding my way around comet Churyumov-Gerasimenko Posted By Emily Lakdawalla

 

[Haig]

There are no "facts", Haig, there are real observations without the double quotes as tusenfem lists .

Not that you will understand that:

Well RC the "facts" show the dirty snowball comet theory is looking feeble against the electric comet theory I understand that

Just looking at the stunning pictures of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko taken from 65 miles

Rosetta Now Up Close to Comet 67P – Snapping Mapping Mosaics for Momentous Philae Landing

This image of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko shows the diversity of surface structures on the comet’s nucleus. It was taken by the Rosetta spacecraft’s OSIRIS narrow-angle camera on August 7, 2014. At the time, the spacecraft was 65 miles (104 kilometers) away from the 2.5 mile (4 kilometer) wide nucleus. Credit: ESA/Rosetta/MPS for OSIRIS Team MPS/UPD/LAM/IAA/SSO/INTA/UPM/DASP/IDA/Enhanced processing Marco Di Lorenzo/Ken Kremer

Reading that "The three-legged lander will fire two harpoons and use ice screws to anchor itself to the 4 kilometer (2.5 mile) wide comet’s surface." They really expected ice to screw into .... NOT this rock !!! Good luck with the plan ... interesting times

 

[thedopefishlives]

Where in there was the surface described as rocky? Or is that just you looking at the pretty picture and deciding it looks like an electric comet? Perhaps you should wait for actual data to come in before you start your victory lap.

 

[Haig]

Mainstream scientists think the interior of comets are a mixture of dust, ice and empty space.

Comet catcher Science 1 August 2014:
Vol. 345 no. 6196 pp. 502-505
DOI: 10.1126/science.345.6196.502

Looks like rosetta will show that isn't right .... as the pictures do suggest ...

http://rosetta.jpl.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/gallery_image/Uprint_Calendar_-_September_2014.jpg

http://rosetta.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery...menko?cb=Uprint_Calendar_-_September_2014.jpg

 

[phunk]

as the pictures do suggest ...

How so?

 

[tusenfem]

An outgassing comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko as seen by OSIRIS (the nucleus is overexposed to make the escaping gas visible). MIRO has shown that it is indeed water which is coming from the comet.
Looks to me that there is a "beam" of water coming from the "north" in the way that is expected in mainstream models.

 

[Dancing David]

Haig,
Uh huh, and any measured evidence that supports the EC.
Nope, not in your photos, and from your track record, never in the future.


BAM BAM BAM
Another senseless driveby posting.

 

[ferd burfle]

Where in there was the surface described as rocky? Or is that just you looking at the pretty picture and deciding it looks like an electric comet? Perhaps you should wait for actual data to come in before you start your victory lap.

Haig evidently has spectroscopic vision so powerful it even works on photos! Reminds me of folks who "heal" your cancer by email.

ferd

 

[Haig]

Haig evidently has spectroscopic vision so powerful it even works on photos! Reminds me of folks who "heal" your cancer by email.

ferd

Just use your own vision ;-)

Does this look like a body made of dust, ice and space? as the mainstream scientists believe.

It's looking very rock like and with extremely fresh varied features for a body "claimed" to be as old as the solar system.

The actual science favours the electric comet theory suggesting rocky debris from fairly recent times as argued for in the electric comet video.

We should know more as this mission proceeds, very interesting times and eye opening to see the numerous add hoc changes to the failed dirty snowball theory of comets continue.

 

[ben m]

I love how scientists have put a space probe bristling with electromagnetic and plasma instrumentation in orbit around a comet ... and the people calling themselves "Electric Comet theorists" can't be bothered in the slightest.

 

[dasmiller]

Just use your own vision ;-)

Does this look like a body made of dust, ice and space? as the mainstream scientists believe.

Actually, if I ask myself, "If someone took a huge chunk of glacier and put it in space, how would it look different from this?" I kinda come up empty. In grayscale, it's hard to tell ice from rock, but texture-wise, I'm not seeing a conflict.

It's looking very rock like and with extremely fresh varied features for a body "claimed" to be as old as the solar system.

You're saying that it doesn't look like an ancient dirty snowball because there should be more weathering?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Wouldn't an electric comet zap the crap out of the probe lander and destroy it?

 

[phunk]

Just use your own vision ;-)

Does this look like a body made of dust, ice and space? as the mainstream scientists believe.

Well, we're looking at a black and white photo from just slightly too far away to make out individual grains of dust, so yeah, I don't see anythink in the photos to suggest it isn't.

It's looking very rock like and with extremely fresh varied features for a body "claimed" to be as old as the solar system.

What do you think dirty ice looks like from 50+ km away in greyscale? Kinda like rock, don't you think?

You don't understand why surface features would look fresh* on a comet given the mainstream theory?

The actual science favours the electric comet theory suggesting rocky debris from fairly recent times as argued for in the electric comet video.

We should know more as this mission proceeds, very interesting times and eye opening to see the numerous add hoc changes to the failed dirty snowball theory of comets continue.

We'll definitely know more, but I have a feeling some people will stubbornly cling to their failed hypothesis.


* relative to the age of the solar system