The Electric Comet theory

Status
Not open for further replies.
JeanTate said:
Hi Sol88,

I don't know to whom you're addressing your post, but this part caught my eye:

I can't post links yet, but on 17th November 2014, 01:19 AM, in post #1644 in this thread, you wrote "whoa...wait a minute, i think i found the surface ice on comet Temple 1 [...] Look at all the bright ice on the surface, so bright it saturated the camera!!"

I'm quite confused ... if you yourself are convinced there's surface ice on at least one comet, why did you write "you have found NO ICE water or any other kind"?
Click to expand...

Sorry Jean Tate, tak'n the piss out mainstream (them)

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.
Click to expand...
There they say it...

Icy cliffs

Retreating Icy cliffs!!! :eek: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempel_1

Whoo boy!
 
Haig said:
It's obvious the mainstream won't give up the myth of the sublimating ices on comets ...snipped ignorant rant......
Click to expand...
It is obvious that you will not give up the ignorant and deluded fairy story of solid rock comets, Haig :p!
The Thunderbolts woo has so fooled you that you remain in denial of basic facts about comets after many years:
* their density means that they are not solid rock.
* we have observed the sublimating ices from comets - so it is not a myth no matter how often the ignorant Thunderbolts crowd label it a myth :jaw-dropp!
and cannot even recognize the total uselessness of the electric comet fantasies. The outstanding questions for you and Sol88 clearly show this:
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
Dr. Michael Clarage: Understanding the Electric Sun Model | EU2014
Click to expand...
Actually this is more of Haig not understanding the woo of YouTube video citations or even the ignorance and delusions contained in Thunderbolts videos :p:

Haig (3rd November 2014): Have you noted the 19 items of ignorance and delusion in the first 11 minutes (out of 90!) of a Thunderbolt video that you cited?

Haig (20th November 2014): Can you understand the ignorance and delusions in that Thunderbolts video about Mars?

This is yet another ignorant and deluded electric sun proponent:
24 November 2014 Haig: Can you understand that this ES "paper" is ignorant about and lies about astronomy?
 
Haig said:
Space News | The SAFIRE Project:Testing the Electric Sun
Click to expand...
The answer to 24 November 2014 Haig: Can you understand that this ES "paper" is ignorant about and lies about astronomy? so far remains as no :p!
The authors are so abysmally ignorant that they think that light being created billions of light years away (and billions of years in the past) is near-Earth!
They know so little abut science that they think that an experiment designed to mimic an electric sun will match the real Sun.

Haig - try reading the actual description of the experiment and the committal to "I see bunnies in the clouds" logic. We have known for over a century (a guy called Birkeland!) that images that look like solar features can be created in the lab.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
You've got the cart before the horse my friend.
Click to expand...
No, Sol88:
A working scientific theory has math , math, math!
A working scientific theory has science, science, science!
A working scientific theory has observations, observations, observations!
The mainstream has math, science and observations that show that comets are dust + ices.

What the Thunderbolts ideas has is ignorance, ignorance, ignorance; delusions, delusions, delusions; lies, lies, lies :p
 
Sol88 said:
Sorry Jean Tate, tak'n the piss out mainstream (them)
Click to expand...
Wrong, Sol88: Stating that no surface ice has been found after you have cited surface ice has been found is taking the piss out of yourself by implying that you are comfortable with lying about surface ice being found :p.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempel_1
Retreating Icy cliffs!!! As expected from the science of comets!!! As not expected in the electric comet delusion!!!
 
Reality Check said:
No, Sol88:
A working scientific theory has math , math, math!
A working scientific theory has science, science, science!
A working scientific theory has observations, observations, observations!
The mainstream has math, science and observations that show that comets are dust + ices.

What the Thunderbolts ideas has is ignorance, ignorance, ignorance; delusions, delusions, delusions; lies, lies, lies :p
Click to expand...

again for the slow learners

One way to characterize water production rates in comets is to calculate an equivalent
surface area of water ice, which when exposed to sunlight at the comet's heliocentric distance, is
required to produce the observed water vapor. Because of the reality of variable surface and
surface fractional coverage by water this is called the "minimum active area," It was calculated
for all SWAN water production rates of 103P/Hartley 2 from 1997 and 2010 and compared with
8
the measured minimum, maximum and mean cross sections of the nucleus from EPOXI imaging
(A'Hearn et al. 2011), and all are plotted in Figure 3. The minimum active area is similar but
not equal to the active area. It is defined as A = LQr2/[NAFS(1-AV)], where L=50 kJ mol-1 is the
latent heat of water for sublimation, r is the heliocentric distance in AU, NA=6.022 x 1023 mol-1
(the Avogadro constant), FS=1365 W m-2 (the solar constant), and AV=0.03 (the assumed bond
albedo of the nucleus). See (Keller 1990) for a discussion of this definition.
Click to expand...

There's your maths...so where is the REQUIRED WATER ICE????

as stated many many many times before Reality Check, your maths is correct your assumptions are WRONG.

We have not observed enough ICE on or below a comets surface to account for the OH production REQUIRED for the dirtysnowball theory to work.

I mean to over simplify things

Dirtysnowball model = ice(surface and subsurface) contained in a dusty matrix

Electric Comet model = Rock and no ICE

no maths required :blush:
 
Missed this:
Haig said:
Some serious questions here for mainstream to answer about comets.
Click to expand...
Someone need to read the thread title Haig: The Electric Comet theory.
This is not the "educate people about the logical fallacy of false dichotomy (yet again!)" thread.
This is not the "answer questions from ignorant and deluded people on another forum" thread!
This is not even the "try to educate people so ignorant that they cannot see that the electric comet idea is ignorant and deluded and thus are incapable of understanding mainstream comet explanations" thread :rolleyes:

We may write educational posts about the real science of comets.
But the 5 years of continued denial shown since the start of the thread by Sol88 and your 4 years of denial shows it is a waste of time to try to educate Sol88 or you.
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
Discovering The Electric Sun
Click to expand...

Oh dear. Back to Juergens' model again. The one that would make the sun explode.

Really, Haig, you need to do better than just rehashing more links to the same nonsense. Ever notice how there's never any numbers attached to these figures and graphs? There's a reason: if you actually plug in the numbers (like I did), you quickly find that the entire idea is nonsense.
 
Sol88: Cite the literature on not enought ice for the scientific comet model

Sol88 said:
...snipped insults....
We have not observed enough ICE on or below a comets surface to account for the OH production REQUIRED for the dirtysnowball theory to work.
Click to expand...
24 November 2014 Sol88, Please cite the scientific literature for your assertion that we have not observed enough ICE or below a comet surface required from the scientific comet model to work.

My hope is that you are not blindly parroting the crank Thunderbolts web site. Or worse just making this up.

24 November 2014 Sol88, How do you expect instruments to look below the surface of a comet to find ICE :eek:?
We do have Deep Impact
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[40] and between 10 and 25 million kilograms (22 and 55 million pounds) of dust were lost from the impact.[38]
Click to expand...
 
Ziggurat said:
Oh dear. Back to Juergens' model again. The one that would make the sun explode.
Click to expand...
It gets even worse for Haig: He does not realize that this web page was written by the crank David Talbott - a neo-Velikovskian
David N. Talbott (born 1942) is an American author and long-time promoter of neo-Velikovskian ideas. Inspired by Immanuel Velikovsky, he proposes a "Polar Configuration"[1] involving the five planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, Mars, Earth, in order, which formerly orbited the Sun as a linear assembly while it rotated about its barycenter and influenced human mythology.[2]
Click to expand...

ETA
And worse for Haig: From 24th August 2013
tusenfem said:
That Juergens' paper I have already shown to lead to local IMF magnetic fields orders of magnitude greater than measured around the Earth. Just a small mistake, can happen, Juergens did not know the IMF near the Earth probably when he came up with his model. Unfortunately for the EU peeps, that is about the only paper which does some quantitative work, and then it is wrong .... just search for it I did it here on the board for reasonable assumptions.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
A break from the electric comet delusion for some real, valid science.
Water Production by Comet 103P/Hartley 2 Observed with the SWAN Instrument on the SOHO Spacecraft
Global water production rates were determined from the Lyalpha emission of hydrogen around comet 103P/Hartley 2, observed with the SWAN (Solar Wind Anisotropies) all-sky camera on the SOHO spacecraft from 2010 September 14 through December 12. This time period included the November 4 flyby by the EPOXI spacecraft. Water production was three times lower than during the 1997 apparition also measured by SWAN. In 2010, it increased by a factor of ~2.5 within one day on September 30 with a similar corresponding drop between November 24 and 30. The total surface area of sublimating water within ±20 days of perihelion was ~0.5 km2, about half of the mean cross section of the nucleus. Outside this period it was ~0.2 km2. The peak value was 90%, implying a significant water production by released nucleus icy fragments.
Click to expand...
The Results and Discussion section points out that
One way to characterize water production rates in comets is to calculate an equivalent surface area of water ice, which when exposed to sunlight at the comet’s heliocentric distance, is required to produce the observed water vapor. ... The minimum active area is similar but not equal to the active area.
Click to expand...
So the authors took the total water production values and converted them to minimum active areas over +/- 60 days from perihelion to polt Figure 3:
Figure 3. Minimum active area (in m2) of comet 103P/Hartley 2 plotted as a function of time from perihelion. The triangles give the values calculated from the SWAN water production rates in 2010 and the diamonds from 1997. The solid horizontal lines give the maximum and minimum cross sections of the nucleus from EPOXI (A’Hearn et al. 2011) and the mean value from Spitzer Space Telescope (Lisse et al. 2009). Since it is apparent from EPOXI results that the entire nucleus is not active, much of the water production seen within ±20 days of perihelion must be due to the icy fragments released by the CO2-driven activity. Furthermore, since the activity was three times higher in 1997, either the CO2-driven activity was much larger, or perhaps some more drastic change happened to the nucleus since 1997.
Click to expand...
 
Reality Check said:
24 November 2014 Sol88, Please cite the scientific literature for your assertion that we have not observed enough ICE or below a comet surface required from the scientific comet model to work.

My hope is that you are not blindly parroting the crank Thunderbolts web site. Or worse just making this up.

24 November 2014 Sol88, How do you expect instruments to look below the surface of a comet to find ICE :eek:?
We do have Deep Impact
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

he distribution of water ice on the surface of Tempel 1 ob-
served by DI is restricted to three discrete and relatively small
areas, none of which were near the location of the impact.
Sunshine et al. (2006a)
note that the amount of surface water
ice is insufficient to support the ambient outgassing observed
for Tempel 1, and call for sub-surface (but presumably near sur-
face) sources of water.
Click to expand...

http://www.planetary.brown.edu/pdfs/3546.pdf

So why didn't the deep impact show the "Icy Cliffs" as indeed ICE??

So why RC would they state "retreating icy cliffs" then show the distribution of surface ice on only three discrete areas, no where near the "icy cliffs"?
 
Reality Check said:
A break from the electric comet delusion for some real, valid science.
Water Production by Comet 103P/Hartley 2 Observed with the SWAN Instrument on the SOHO Spacecraft

The Results and Discussion section points out that

So the authors took the total water production values and converted them to minimum active areas over +/- 60 days from perihelion to polt Figure 3:
Click to expand...

So measuring the hydrogen and Hydroxyl in the coma tells you how much water is on/in a comet nucleus??

Whoo boy! :rolleyes: I can see why the mainstream are confused.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Oh dear. Back to Juergens' model again. The one that would make the sun explode.

Really, Haig, you need to do better than just rehashing more links to the same nonsense. Ever notice how there's never any numbers attached to these figures and graphs? There's a reason: if you actually plug in the numbers (like I did), you quickly find that the entire idea is nonsense.
Click to expand...
The fact that the Sun hasn't exploded should prove your assumptions are wrong ;)

Gee, RC rehashes his links ALL the time and you don't whine at him :rolleyes:

Interesting times ahead for the Electric Comet theory with Rosetta showing what's happening.

Wal Thornhill and David Talbott on Rosetta | Space News
Published on 26 Oct 2014 Today, the chief principals of the Thunderbolts Project, Wal Thornhill and David Talbott, take a closer look at the latest information from the Rosetta mission to Comet 67P.
Click to expand...

Rosetta Mission Predictions
Significant things to look for as the Rosetta mission continues:

No evidence of subsurface ice at the sources of the jets;
Virtually no interstellar dust, the second component of the “dirty snowball” theory;
Discovery of minerals on the nucleus that are typical of planetary surfaces within the
Habitable zone of the Sun; characteristic concentration of plasma jet activity eating away at the cliffs of elevated terrain and the margins of well-defined depressions;
Measurable retreat of active cliff regions in the wake of this activity; and
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. This could occur on or after touch down because the sharp metallic edges of the spacecraft make an ideal focus for a diffuse plasma discharge, which would disrupt communications and possibly interfere with spacecraft electronics.
And, 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.
Click to expand...

Water, Water Nonexistent
Sep 5, 2014

So far, 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko’s water ice remains hidden.

According to a recent press release, one of Rosetta’s onboard instruments is detecting oxygen and hydrogen surrounding comet 67P/C-G. “ALICE” is an ultraviolet imaging spectrometer built to examine the comet’s coma, as well as study the surface. There is, however, a frustrating result from ALICE. Dr. Alan Stern, principal investigator and an associate vice president of the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) Space Science and Engineering Division, said, “We’re a bit surprised at both just how very unreflective the comet’s surface is, and what little evidence of exposed water-ice it shows.”

The observations are no surprise to Electric Universe advocates. In fact, it is surprising that astrophysicists are still in the dark when it comes to comet morphology. After visiting five comet nuclei in the past few years, finding them to be hot, dry, and rocky, it is strange to find them continuing to promote the “dirty snowball” theory of comets.
Click to expand...
 
JeanTate said:
Hi again tusenfem,

I did not know about those "data repositories"; can you give links to them please?

From my own work, as a citizen scientist (check out my posts in the Radio Galaxy Zoo discussion forum - sorry, you'll have to use google to find it, "Radio Galaxy Zoo Talk" should get your there), I know how easy and straight-forward it is to download data, analyze it using free software (TOPCAT is darn good!), etc.

I find it astonishing that no proponent of 'electric comet' - in this thread anyway - seems to have even tried this. But then, as none of 'the electrical theorists' seem to have done anything like this either, they don't exactly have any good role models to follow, do they?


And as I said earlier, Tom Bridgman's website has challenges for EC/ES enthusiasts, as well as a pretty thorough debunking of all published versions of ES. Yet no one - it seems - has ever accepted his challenges.

It's very puzzling.
Click to expand...

Hi Jean!

If you would like to see the data of "old" missions there is:
NASA's Planetary Data System (short PDS)
ESA's Planetary Science Archive (short PSA)

Then for Earth magnetospheric data there are:
ESA's Cluster Science Archive
NASA's Themis / Artemis Archive
 
Haig said:
The fact that the Sun hasn't exploded should prove your assumptions are wrong ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah, no. It proves Juergens wrong.

Gee, RC rehashes his links ALL the time and you don't whine at him :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Because you never address them. But I've addressed Juergens. Until you can deal with my proof of why Juergens is a nutjob, then there's no point in reposting his theory. And until you can deal with the points RC keeps making, there's no reason for him to stop.
 
Hi Sol88,
Sol88 said:
again for the slow learners



There's your maths...so where is the REQUIRED WATER ICE????

as stated many many many times before Reality Check, your maths is correct your assumptions are WRONG.

We have not observed enough ICE on or below a comets surface to account for the OH production REQUIRED for the dirtysnowball theory to work.

I mean to over simplify things

Dirtysnowball model = ice(surface and subsurface) contained in a dusty matrix

Electric Comet model = Rock and no ICE

no maths required :blush:
Click to expand...
I'm a bit confused about this post of yours, and I hope you can clarify please.

The title of this thread is "The Electric Comet theory", and so I think it should be about the "Electric Comet theory".

Yet most of your post (that I'm quoting) is about something else. Can you please explain why what you posted is relevant to the "Electric Comet theory"? I mean, other than "Electric Comet model = Rock and no ICE".

Thank you in advance.
Also, you end your post with "no maths required :blush:"; what does this mean?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom