The Electric Comet theory

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reality Check said:
Sol88:
Click to expand...

Well done RC, that's an excellent list! Lets see if we can have a crack at some of the points.

That way when you have to re post the same stuff again and again, it will not take up so much room.

1. 10-15m, I did?
2. orbital eccentricity AND orbital speed.
3. Terrestrial analogues: Sandstone has about 5-15MPa, Granite 5-20MPa Tensile strength LINK
4. No calculations, just an edumacted guess, comets are ROCK!
5. Surface ICE???? Why would the Electric comet calculate something that doesn't exist?
6. .005% I think from memory?
7. Charge differential?? Measure the charge on the Sun and the Charge on the Comet, I'd guess. Good luck with that.
8. That's rich RC, I mean we listne to the experts and quese what the story was only good for a bedtime story.
One of the observers was the Spitzer Space Telescope, a NASA mission that takes pictures in the infrared part of the spectrum. In the burst of light after the collision, Spitzer detected specific colors of infrared light that indicated that Tempel 1 contained clays and carbonates, the minerals of limestone and seashells.
Click to expand...
As for predictions, the "Double flash" was a kick in the codles for the mainstream!!
9. No I don't, I believe the mainstream have been deluded with the whole dirtysnowball story.
10. is there?
 
Sol88 said:
...
Click to expand...
So we have
  • an inability to click on links
  • an inability to comprehend English, e.g.
    15th November 2010 Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions: Lying about flashes
    The "confirmed' (which is the lie, Sol88) prediction is "would be a flash (lightning-like discharge) shortly before impact". There were 2 flashes after the impact.
  • ignorance of astronomy, e.g. that main-belt comets have the same orbital eccentricity AND orbital speed as asteroids.
  • ignorance of the electric comets delusion! No citation to the "AND orbital speed" making rocks into comets.
  • electric comet fantasies.
as "answers" to
  1. 5th August 2009 Sol88: Now where in the many published papers on the electric comet idea is the prediction that the electrical discharges are of duration 10-15 ms (your claim)?
  2. 5th August 2009 Sol88, How does the electric comet idea explain main-belt comets?
  3. 17 November 2014 Sol88: Please cite the announcement of the discovery of hard rock (not "rock stuff" but the solid rock your theory demands) on comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko.
  4. 17 November 2014 Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the density of comets
  5. 18 November 2014 Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the amount of surface ice on 67P (no detected surface ice).
  6. 18 November 2014 Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the amount of surface ice on Tempel 1 where surface ice was found
  7. 18 November 2014 Sol88: Please present the electric comet calculation for the electric charge differential around comets and show that it matches the measurements.
  8. 20 November 2014 Sol88: Can you understand that the Thunderbolts authors even lie about predictions
  9. 20 November 2014 Sol88: Can you understand the significant delusions on that Thunderbolts web page on 67P "predictions"?
  10. 24 November 2014 Sol88: Please cite the electric comet predictions for the albedo of comet nuclei (actual numbers not fantasies!)
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Sol88:
Click to expand...

I appreciate your contributions, Check, but 11 posts in a row ?
 
Looking back shows that Sol88 is so besotted by the electric comet delusion that he was willing to make up fairy stories to boost the authors image, e.g. on 8th November 2010:
Sol88 said:
Uncle Wal predicted the two flashes regardless of the mechanisim and that the impact would be more energetic than the boffins 4.5t of TNT.
Click to expand...
Wal Thornhill never predicted two flashes after the impact or how much energy the impact would release.
Reality Check said:
The lies
Click to expand...

I will add some science: Photometric Evolution of the Deep Impact Flash (03/2006)
The faint flash followed by the delayed saturated flash farther downrange can be explained by an oblique impact into a low-density (0.3 g/cc) target as documented in laboratory experiments [2-4].
...
[2] Schultz, P. H. et al. (2005) SSR, 117, 207-239.
[3] Ernst, C. M. and P. H. Schultz (2003) LPS XXXIV, #2020.
[4] Schultz, P. H. and J. L. B. Anderson (2005) LPS XXXVI, #1926
Click to expand...
This is hard experimental science, Sol88. Firing a projectile into a low density object at an oblique angle gives a faint flash followed by a brighter flash.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
I appreciate your contributions, Check, but 11 posts in a row ?
Click to expand...
I was away for a few days and did not see that Haig was just spamming the thread.
Sol88 was just being his usual incoherent self though - unless his point is that incredibility is the reason that the electric comet delusion is correct :D.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check, the data that's coming in is directly falsifying the standard model.

We all wait with baited breath on what the mainstream are now going to tell us what comets are.

I see you are still in the fluffysnowball camp, Reality Check!

I mean way back during the Deep Impact mission, mainstream had already run into some MAJOR problems with standard comet theory
 
Ziggurat said:
"In 2000, he turned his attention to thermodynamics and astrophysics, demonstrating that the universality advanced in Kirchhoff's Law of Thermal Emission is invalid."

I suspect you have no idea what this really means, Haig, but I'll clue you in on the punchline: a violation of Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation is equivalent to a violation of the 2nd rule of thermodynamics. In other words, Robitaille believes in perpetual motion machines.
Click to expand...
Sure I do Ziggurat. I was just about to post this reply for tusenfem and RC but it's perfect for you too :)

tusenfem said:
How reluctant? I must have written this before here.
There is no "mainstream magnetic comet" there is ONLY mainstream solar-wind-comet interaction which can be well described by a combination of gas dynamics and plasma physics.
Electric comet theory is nonsense in the sense that it "predicts" (okay handwaves) all kinds of things that observations have not shown to happen, like all the discharges that have to happen. Why do we not see any evidence of these discharges in the instruments that would be able to measure them?



Why would I want to separate them? Just because you come up with a new invention "the mainstream magnetic comet" does not mean that mainstream actually has this comet. Mainstream has the solar-wind-comet interaction.



No, you misinterprete that. After Alfvén (not Alfvèn) presented his MHD (which is a wonderful tool to work with) people grabbed this tool and used it for ANYTHING without actually checking if the requirements of MHD were fulfilled or not. Thus at the beginning of the MHD era a lot of wrong stuff was done. Nowadays, any first year student of plasma(astro)physics gets it hammered into head that one has to check the validity of the approximation (MHD is an approximation of full plasma physics), e.g. do not look at scales smaller than the largest ion gyro radius, etc.

ETA: I would like to see an actual quote from Alfvén in which he makes claims about the EU/PC crowd. And he never said that MHD was wrong.

Frozen in magnetic fields work very well. Indeed, a "renegate" mainstream magnetospheric physicist (he likes to look differently at some things, which is why I like him) actually looked at the breakdown of the frozen-in condition in the Earth's magnetotail. But searching for these breakdowns is not easy.



There is no "magnetic comet" model, there is only the magnetoplasma interaction of the solar wind with the outgassing comet. And you did not have to drag it out of me, if you would actually read some mainstream comet papers then you would already have known.
Click to expand...
Remember this tusenfem? As you can see it contains your request for ... quote ETA: I would like to see an actual quote from Alfvén in which he makes claims about the EU/PC crowd. And he never said that MHD was wrong.

I have replied before but it's worth repeating. Let me expand a little on what Alfvèn said ...

HANNES ALFVÉN Plasma physics, space research and the origin of the solar system Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1970 ... PDF HERE
Alfvèn said:
The cosmical plasma physics of today is far less advanced than the thermonuclear research physics. It is to some extent the playground of theoreticians who have never seen a plasma in a laboratory. Many of them still believe in formulae which we know from laboratory experiments to be wrong. The astrophysical correspondence to the thermonuclear crisis has not yet come.
I think it is evident now that in certain respects the first approach to the physics of cosmical plasmas has been a failure. It turns out that in several important cases this approach has not given even a first approximation to truth but led into dead-end streets from which we now have to turn back.

The reason for this is that several of the basic concepts on which the theories are founded, are not applicable to the condition prevailing in cosmos. They are « generally accepted » by most theoreticians, they are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods and it is only the plasma itself which does not « understand », how beautiful the theories are and absolutely refuses to obey them. It is now obvious that we have to start a second approach from widely different starting points.
Click to expand...

And that second approach makes it very clear of his concerns of using his MHD maths on real cosmical plasmas. Also the path being followed by the EU / PC crowd is the right one. ...

Second approach

Space plasmas have often a complicated
inhomogeneous structure

u depends on current and often suddenly
becomes o, E,, often # o

Frozen-in picture often completely misleading.

It is equally important to draw the current
lines and discuss the electric circuit

Electrostatic double layers are of decisive
importance in low density plasmas

Currents produce filaments or flow in thin sheets.

Theories still not very well developed and
partly phenomenological.

Unfortunately, mainstream still haven't followed the Second approach yet ... as this article from NASA shows What is Heliophysics?

They ignore things like the foundation of magnetohydrodynamics, the very author of the equations which gave birth to the field, told them that the equations were not a representation of reality. That electricity could not be removed and it still rep reality. So did they listen? No. they use it as proof that the solar wind can be accelerated by "magic".
Click to expand...

.
Reality Check said:
Wow, Haig, it is highly embarrassing for you that you still cannot recognize ignorance and delusions when you see them written down at the Thunderbolts forum :p!
You cite some idiot who is so ignorant that they do not know the measured density of comets and 67P in particular thinking that an image processed to emphasize depth cues somehow invalidates the mainstream model :jaw-dropp!
It is even more embarrassing that you remain ignorant about what the mainstream model is - it is not the "Dirty Snowball / Magnetic Comet" model. It is the "use all valid physics" model!

Comet_depth_cues is a beautiful processed picture of a comet made of ices and dust.
Click to expand...
Oh dear! you are struggling aren't you?

This quote and video may help you :)

"Main reason for my astonishment was not the new explanations of how it really is and works that wipes all the mainstream explanations away but how easily I could understand it work and being true. In contrast, all the explanations from mainstream science is base on theories where you have to use a lot of imagination for it to work. And also leave some 90% of it to unknown factors (black holes, dark matter, dark energy etc).

How could I believe in theories (on how universe works) that excludes all the major forces to be based on he weakest force of them all, gravity?"

The Electric Universe—Predictions and Surprises

I think it was Keynes who first said "maths is a good servant but a poor master"

It's how mainstream end up believing in "the Black Arts" of black holes, dark matter, dark energy ... and a perceived Universe we can only have 4% direct knowledge of !!!

This video also should help you ...
Still Chasing the Ghost of Dark Matter | Space News
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Reality Check, the data that's coming in is directly falsifying the standard model.
Click to expand...
Sol88, only total ignorance about the standard model could evoke such a comment. The detection of water, dust, etc. is directly even more evidence for the standard model :jaw-dropp!

The ignorant and deluded electric comet proponents deny the real results of Deep impact and even lie about them, Sol88.
 
Reality Check said:
Sol88, only total ignorance about the standard model could evoke such a comment. The detection of water, dust, etc. is directly even more evidence for the standard model :jaw-dropp!

The ignorant and deluded electric comet proponents deny the real results of Deep impact and even lie about them, Sol88.
Click to expand...

Oh..I see where we have made the mistake RC!

In the eighteenth century, cometary science was tackling big questions. Previous years had brought a greater understanding of the properties and nature of comets, and a consensus that these mysterious objects were celestial bodies that, like planets, travelled on very elliptical orbits around the Sun. Now, the debate shifted from nature to origin: where do comets come from, and how did they – and our Solar System – form?

A major step forward in the understanding of how comets formed came from German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who wrote his General History of Nature and Theory of the Heavens in 1755, before he turned his attention to mainly philosophical issues. In this early work, Kant suggested that the Sun and its planets formed from an extended, diffuse nebula and that comets, too, originated from this cloud.

Kant's "nebular hypothesis" was embraced and developed by French scientist Pierre-Simon Laplace. In 1805 he published his Celestial Mechanics, a seminal work about the Solar System where he also described its formation from the gravitational collapse of a primordial cloud of gas. However, Laplace could not find a place in this work for the highly eccentric orbits of comets, nor the almost random directions from which they seem to appear in the sky. He therefore argued for an interstellar origin, with comets streaking inwards from far beyond our Solar System.

This view prevailed until the second half of the nineteenth century, when astronomers discovered that the Sun – and by extension our whole Solar System – moves through our Galaxy. If comets were interstellar objects, we would see an excess of comets coming from the direction of the Sun's motion as it moves through interstellar space... but we do not. This spurred Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli to suggest that comets belong to the Solar System and surround the Sun in an almost uniform cloud – a view that became generally accepted only some decades after it was proposed.
Click to expand...
LINK

You still back somewhere in the 18th century Reality Check??? :boggled:

We moved ahead since then 'ol mate :cool:
 
Haig said:
I have replied before but it's worth repeating. Let me expand a little on what Alfvèn said ...

HANNES ALFVÉN Plasma physics, space research and the origin of the solar system Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1970 ... PDF HERE
Click to expand...
Wrong, Haig: an irrelevant speech from 1970 is not worth repeating unless you want to impress everyone with a delusion that science stopped in 1970 (or that Alfvén was some kind of god :D)!

Hannes Alfvén was a competent scientist. He would be appalled at the ignorance and delusions of the Thunderbolts cranks that you are obsessed with.
 
Seems space is more to do with charged particles, Birkeland currents, double layers, charge separation, that pesky PLASMA stuff etc etc than just gas and gravity.

Looks like your still back in the gas light era
 
Sol88 said:
Oh..I see where we have made the mistake RC!
Click to expand...
Oh ... ..I see where you have made the mistake Sol88!
You think that you can understand English and so are fooled into thinking the standard model of comets being ice and dust started in the 18th century :p.
You fantasizing about me still back somewhere in the 18th century Sol88???
You unable to understand that the Deep Impact, Rosetta , etc. science I have cited happened in the 20th and 21st century Sol88???

A History of Comets - Part 3 On the origin of comets
...
Towards a complete picture

In the first half of the twentieth century astronomers were collecting and studying more high-quality astronomical data than ever before, building up an impressive database. This allowed them to delve into the physical nature and origin of comets in great detail.

In 1950, American astronomer Fred Whipple proposed a new model to describe comets. Rather than a loose collection of dust and debris kept together by ice, he suggested that comets have an icy nucleus, consisting primarily of frozen volatiles like water, carbon dioxide, methane, and ammonia, and containing only traces of dust and rock. Whipple's "dirty snowball" model was later confirmed by ground- and space-based observations, although with minor corrections, as the nuclei of comets turned out to be both larger and darker than he had envisioned.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
Sure I do Ziggurat. I was just about to post this reply for tusenfem and RC but it's perfect for you too :)
Click to expand...

First off, this has zero relevance to what I just posted. The distinctions that Alfven makes between two different approaches has nothing, nothing, to do with Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation. Second, you've posted this before, and I've addressed it before. Alfven's 2nd approach cannot and does not rescue EU nonsense. Third, you're still in denial that Alfven explicitly contradicts the electric sun model in the very speech you appeal to.
 
Sol88 said:
Seems space is more to do with charged particles, Birkeland currents, double layers, charge separation, that pesky PLASMA stuff etc etc than just gas and gravity.
Click to expand...
Seems like ignorance of astronomy has lead you to the conclusion that gas, gravity, charged particles, Birkeland currents, double layers, charge separation, plasma etc etc. are not considered in astronomy, Sol88 :p.
 
Haig said:
Oh dear! you are struggling aren't you?
Click to expand...
No, Haig, I am not struggling at all with the concept that 0.6 is less than 3.0 unlike you :jaw-dropp!
I am not struggling at all with the science that supports the standard model of comet.
I am not struggling at all with the idiocy of citing the videos made by ignorant and deluded cranks. They are so ignorant that they think that astronomers can only see things. There is such a thing as gravitational lensing :eek:!
I am not struggling at all with the scientific evidence for black holes.
I am not struggling at all with the scientific evidence for dark matter.
I am not struggling at all with the scientific evidence for dark energy.
 
From the RationalWiki article on Pierre-Marie Luc Robitaille:

In 2000 he was asked to step down from his position as director (though he remains a professor) when he began to espouse ideas that were "outside his realm of expertise", specifically related to non-mainstream beliefs in the areas of astronomy and physics: he maintains that satellite measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation, believed by most astronomers to be an afterglow of the Big Bang, are actually observations of a glow from Earth's oceans. (Yes, presumably satellites millions of miles from Earth and pointed away from it that can see the CMB don't exist.) He also maintains that the sun is not a gaseous plasma, but is in fact made of liquid metallic hydrogen.
Click to expand...

Well.
 
David Talbott said:
Concerning Rosetta, I’ve wondered about the startling rubble field on the surface of 67P, since it doesn’t appear that any comet investigator anticipated such a thing. What is the significance of this debris for our understanding of comets? And is anyone speculating on a connection to the formative process?
Click to expand...

Welcome to the thread David Talbott, comet investigators are flummoxed by all the non anticipated things they have found so far.

Harder than expected, dryer, complex organics...:rolleyes:

Oh and those "cranks" over at thunderbolts get a fairly good bollocking here, 'cos they don't no *****!

No maths, no quantitative measurements so on and so on...

as I've said to Reality Check, the "Mainstream" is in a flap over the data coming back.

What I'm interested in is, are they going to be real scientist or are they going to declare there was not enough data to turn the Dirtysnowball model over!!!

In this case the've got no wiggle room, once they admit that the evidence lies more in favour of the Electric Comet model than the dirtysnowball model...you will feel the whooosh as the house of cards comes tumbling down, history books re-written and a lot of pissed of astrophysicists and citizen scientist that believed in the standard model...ouch :jaw-dropp

If what i believed to be true turns out to be a crock of ... then I'd happily eat my hat and science can keep pluging away at the mysteries of the dark arts!
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
No, Haig, I am not struggling at all with the concept that 0.6 is less than 3.0 unlike you :jaw-dropp!
I am not struggling at all with the science that supports the standard model of comet.
I am not struggling at all with the idiocy of citing the videos made by ignorant and deluded cranks. They are so ignorant that they think that astronomers can only see things. There is such a thing as gravitational lensing :eek:!
I am not struggling at all with the scientific evidence for black holes.
I am not struggling at all with the scientific evidence for dark matter.
I am not struggling at all with the scientific evidence for dark energy.
Click to expand...

Sure you are :D

This short video explains the errors you and mainstream are making and how important understanding comets actually is! Enjoy

Rosetta Mission Update | The Rocky Comet
Published on 25 Nov 2014
This is first in a series of Rosetta Mission Updates with Wal Thornhill. In this brief video, Wal offers a preliminary assessment of the Rosetta Mission to Comet 67P. Look for timely updates to follow.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom