The Electric Comet theory

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reality Check, if the last posts of yours above are not garbled, what should I call them?. You're just repeating the same pronouncements, assorted quips, and slander. No argument from any facts at all. Why not start with a single misstatement of fact in the Electric Comet documentary and the accompanying addendum? That would actually be helpful, not just to me but to everyone who would like to get to the truth.

I've extended this invitation to quite a number of comet scientists over the past 18 months, and I will never ignore a reasonably stated objection.
 
David Talbott said:
Reality Check, if the last posts of yours above are not garbled, what should I call them?. ....
Click to expand...
David Talbott, call them clear and concise lists of questions for Soll88 and Haig.

I am repeating them because for the last 5 years Soll88 has ignored relevant questions (the last 4 years for Haig) :eek:.
And here you go: 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?
  1. 1:28 The delusion that science should know everything correctly and fully! This is the usual crank idea that because science does no know everything that their ideas are right (fallacy of false dichotomy).
  2. 1:28 In this case they have a quote mine of a sentence without context or a citation:
    "Everytime we look, we find textbooks were wrong.” - Ed Weiler, NASA Science Mission.​
    Searching for the quote gives all types of crank web sites (some more delusional than Thunderbolts!)
    I will assign this to their ignorance abut how science works - by rewriting textbooks!
  3. 1:47 The next quote mine of a sentence without context or a citation:
    "It is a mystery to me how comets work at all" Donald Brownlee Principal Investigator The Stardust Mission​
    (more deluded web sites on searching)
  4. 1:56 A lie about the "long ignored electrical behavior of the Sun" and the delusion that this lie changes the pictures about comets!
  5. 2:20 Images of solar flares and what looks like CME implies ignorance about the source of the solar wind (not solar flares or CME!)
  6. 3:20 Fred Whipple "envisioned" the dirty snowball model is just wrong - the evidence showed that comets were made of water, etc. (their densities) and had dark surfaces - thus the evidence for a dirty snowball model.
  7. Up to 5:40 More about the standard theory full of "imagines" woo.
  8. 5:40 the electric comet delusion starts to be explained.
  9. 6:06 "Not billions of years ago but a much more recent episode of planetary instability and violence. One that reached even into early human times" states the truly deluded part the of Electric Comet model. This is basically Velikovsky's worlds in collision fantasy applied to comets.
  10. 6:33 The delusion that electrical arcs "blasted" comets, asteroids and meteors from the surfaces of planets and moons.
  11. 6:43 The idiocy of an analogy to electric arc in hematite (comparing to an image of Comet Hartley 2)
  12. 7:08 The fantasy about the Sun's electrical field magically creating electrical discharges, to form the coma and tail.
  13. 7:20 Fantasies about electrical discharge forming jets.
  14. 7:37 Fantasy about electrical arcs "burning" the surface of the nucleus to blacken it.
  15. 8:21 Ignorance about the "long twisty" structures of comet tails leads to the delusion that it is electrical.
  16. 8:40 A fantasy about the electric force holding the coma in place around a comet.
  17. Then onto "The "Laws" of Compositional Zoning" (their quotes around Laws) - the basic physics that materials that form far from the Sun are different from those that form close to the Sun.
  18. 10:00 Denial of basic physics of compositional zoning. Goes onto the Stardust mission which showed that some of the dust in a comet came from the inner system. This leads to the delusion that ell of a comet cmes from the inner system.
  19. 11:00ish Basically lying about the Stardust Mission. The discovery of inner system dust did not "challenge all prior theories of a comets origins". It was the new discovery that the origin of most the dust in comets forming in the outer system was the inner system.
Click to expand...

ETA: The science that electric comets is invalid is listed in Electric comets still do not exist!
It is the comments in this and other videos that leads to the conclusion that this is an electric comet delusion, not theory.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of comet science moving progressively toward the Electric Comet hypothesis: One of the best tests is the changing discussion of the trigger for comet outbursts. Is this activity due primarily to warming by the Sun, or the effect of charged particles acting on the surface of the comet?

A recent Forbes article reports the opinion of Rosetta Project Scientist Matt Taylor: he expects that by next August "the interaction of the comet with charged particles from an increasing solar wind will cause more cometary outgassing and a much dustier environment, which he says may severely impinge on the lander’s solar arrays."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedo...tion-may-have-saved-esas-philae-comet-lander/

I'm not sure that Taylor is quoted accurately here, but if he is, it's just one more sign of the direction of comet science today. I'd appreciate any comments on the accuracy of this quote. A few years ago you could find virtually nothing relating a comet's outburst to charged particles striking the nucleus. (One exception is cited in the Electric Comet documentary.)
 
Last edited:
David Talbott said:
Speaking of comet science moving progressively toward the Electric Comet hypothesis:
Click to expand...
And then a citation that is nothing to do with the Electric Comet hypothesis, David Talbott :p!
Matt Taylor is not saying that 67P is a rock, that electrical discharges are creating water, that 67P was created by being blasted off the surface of a planet in relatively recent times etc.

He seems to be using a model of comets where there is a component of comet activity caused by energy supplied by the solar wind. ETA - this is new to me.
And minor nitpicks
* Forbes magazine, not the scientific literature!
* Harpoon Malfunction May Have Saved ESA's Philae Comet Lander is about an icy, dusty comet.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
No, Sol88, I am not idiotic enough to give into insane demands that I support an already valid model of comets when the topic of this thread is the electric comet theory.
  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!)
  11. 1 December 2014: A rather pathetic attempt to answer the above questions (mostly repeats of ignorance and fantasies).
  12. 2 December 2014: Sol88 does not notice that Wal Thornhill narrates an ignorant and deluded video about 67P!
  13. 3 December 2014 Sol88: What about the jets is specifically predicted by the electric comet fantasy to be confirmed by the OSIRIS instrument?
  14. 3 December 2014 Sol88: What does the electric comet fantasy predict about jet locations, especially on 67P?
  15. 4 December 2014 Sol88: how much water/water ice on/in 67P to account for the observed OH, does the electric comet fantasy come up with?
Of course the simple answer to most of the questions is that the electric comet theory is useless at making quantitative predictions - not that we will ever get this degree of honesty from you Sol88 (or Haig?) given the years of electric comet self-deception you have behind you.
Click to expand...

So you can't or wont do the calculation, RC?

Because I think doing the calculations are not really needed.

Let me try and explain nice a slowly for you RC :relieved:

See the mainstream model as the OH observed in the comets tail from photodissociation of H2O on or under the comets surface...:eusa_think:

The electric comets explain the observed OH in the comets tail by electrochemical interaction of dust being sputtered off the surface of the comets, which is just rock and interacting with the solar wind.

So at the source of the jets do we see ice or rock??? :confused:

No maths needed to calculate the water production rate but we can do after we confirm where the OH is coming from.

The rest of your impressive list RC will all fall into place once this dead simple observation is made, unfortunately according to Tusenfem, that's 6-12 months away. :eusa_eh:

So I queses we play verbal squash till then. ;)
 
Last edited:
JeanTate said:
Other members reading this: have you reviewed Ziggurat's calculations? Tom Bridgman's? Do they seem sound to you? If not, what flaws have you noticed? From your reading of the material Haig has provided links to, do Ziggurat's or Tom Bridgman's calculations misrepresent Scott's model in any significant way? If so, how?
Click to expand...

I do not think there is anything wrong with the calculations.
Another electric sun calculation done by me, which I cannot find so quickly here on ISF, but hey, let's take the adversary's homepage as a source. haig copied my calculation on Thunderdolts.

However, this belongs in the electric sun thread, and not in the electric comet thread.
 
Belz... said:
Based on what ?
Click to expand...

Based on the fact that the EC community insists on that mainstream can only use a 1950s model of the dirty snowball, whereas EC can use science up to the 1980s until Alfven stopped doing real stuff.
Thus any attempt to add plasma physics to cometary physics is seen as a validation of the EC hypothesis.
 
David Talbott said:
Speaking of comet science moving progressively toward the Electric Comet hypothesis: One of the best tests is the changing discussion of the trigger for comet outbursts. Is this activity due primarily to warming by the Sun, or the effect of charged particles acting on the surface of the comet?

A recent Forbes article reports the opinion of Rosetta Project Scientist Matt Taylor: he expects that by next August "the interaction of the comet with charged particles from an increasing solar wind will cause more cometary outgassing and a much dustier environment, which he says may severely impinge on the lander’s solar arrays."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedo...tion-may-have-saved-esas-philae-comet-lander/

I'm not sure that Taylor is quoted accurately here, but if he is, it's just one more sign of the direction of comet science today. I'd appreciate any comments on the accuracy of this quote. A few years ago you could find virtually nothing relating a comet's outburst to charged particles striking the nucleus. (One exception is cited in the Electric Comet documentary.)
Click to expand...

I can be sure that Matt is not quoted correctly there. The increase in outgassing is caused by being closer to the sun and thus more thermal influx. There is no "increase in solar wind" from where the comet is now and where it will be at perihelion. The velocity hardly changes and the density neither.
 
tusenfem said:
I do not think there is anything wrong with the calculations.
Another electric sun calculation done by me, which I cannot find so quickly here on ISF, but hey, let's take the adversary's homepage as a source. haig copied my calculation on Thunderdolts.

However, this belongs in the electric sun thread, and not in the electric comet thread.
Click to expand...
That was really brave of you tusenfem to link to a thread on another forum where your calculation is shown to be flawed in a very fundamental way.

As has been said many times, Electric Comet hypothesis needs an Electric Sun hypothesis and that thread is an excellent example of the development of the ES ideas since Juergens.

The calculation is supposed to disprove Juergens

Thanks :)
 
tusenfem said:
harhar

Naturally here was my reply to the comments on thunderdolts.

But then again, that discussion belongs in this 188 page long thread on the electric sun
Click to expand...

harhar indeed tusenfem,

An that's not the only rebut to your flawed calculation but others can follow the interesting whole three pages there if they want.

I'm still trying to see how close the latest mainstream hypothesis on comets is to the Electric Comet hypothesis.

Where is the latest standard model on comets stated?
 
Haig said:
harhar indeed tusenfem,

An that's not the only rebut to your flawed calculation but others can follow the interesting whole three pages there if they want.

I'm still trying to see how close the latest mainstream hypothesis on comets is to the Electric Comet hypothesis.

Where is the latest standard model on comets stated?
Click to expand...

There is nothing more on my calculations in the next pages. Neried takes over. Upriver talks some nonsense that even gmirkin does not understand and that was it.

And I am still referring you to the books by Krishna Swami and Comets II from a few pages back. Guess you are not really interested.
 
tusenfem said:
There is nothing more on my calculations in the next pages. Neried takes over. Upriver talks some nonsense that even gmirkin does not understand and that was it.

And I am still referring you to the books by Krishna Swami and Comets II from a few pages back. Guess you are not really interested.
Click to expand...

You seem to have read a different thread to the one I started 😀

The first reply shows your flaw in using claimed data for a Fusion Sun to try to disprove a Electric Sun hypothesis. Others can judge for themselves the rest of the debate on those three pages.

Yes, I'm interested.

Don't have time just now to read books. Is there a link or a pdf you could give?

Heck, even a video would do. Maybe the mainstream model of comets is changing too fast to be pinned down?

That tricky EU / PC stuff ☺
 
Sol88 said:
Dead set :confused:
Click to expand...

What?


Sol88 said:
If it's a dirtysnowball then the Electric Comet is falsified :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Why can't a dirtysnowball interact electrically, particularly when traversing an electrical potential as posited by an electrical sun?


Sol88 said:
but apparently if the snowballs falsified then well just rejgger the edges a litle bring it back into alignment with theory...again ;)
Click to expand...

Does the Electric Comet Theory require (well if there was an electric comet theory) that there be no ice? If not then in either case it becomes a matter of the ratios of ice to dust.

Sol88 said:
jets, jets, jets everywhere! where's the ice/water?? :mad:

I WAS told there was water and ice making these jets, now where is it :blush:
Click to expand...

No wonder you're confused, it seems to be your intent. While the mechanisms of interaction may be different that doesn't mean there can't be considerable overlap in the composition of comets for both cases.
 
David Talbott said:
Speaking of comet science moving progressively toward the Electric Comet hypothesis: One of the best tests is the changing discussion of the trigger for comet outbursts. Is this activity due primarily to warming by the Sun, or the effect of charged particles acting on the surface of the comet?

A recent Forbes article reports the opinion of Rosetta Project Scientist Matt Taylor: he expects that by next August "the interaction of the comet with charged particles from an increasing solar wind will cause more cometary outgassing and a much dustier environment, which he says may severely impinge on the lander’s solar arrays."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedo...tion-may-have-saved-esas-philae-comet-lander/

I'm not sure that Taylor is quoted accurately here, but if he is, it's just one more sign of the direction of comet science today. I'd appreciate any comments on the accuracy of this quote. A few years ago you could find virtually nothing relating a comet's outburst to charged particles striking the nucleus. (One exception is cited in the Electric Comet documentary.)
Click to expand...

You do understand that those charge particles come from the the sun and that even charged particles running into you will warm you up? Increasing the number of impacts or the average velocity of the particles, or both, increases the rate of energy transfer.
 
tusenfem said:
I can be sure that Matt is not quoted correctly there. The increase in outgassing is caused by being closer to the sun and thus more thermal influx. There is no "increase in solar wind" from where the comet is now and where it will be at perihelion. The velocity hardly changes and the density neither.
Click to expand...


Wouldn't increased solar activity cause an "increase in solar wind". Aren't we now going through a phase of increased or increasing solar activity?
 
Haig said:
You seem to have read a different thread to the one I started 😀

The first reply shows your flaw in using claimed data for a Fusion Sun to try to disprove a Electric Sun hypothesis. Others can judge for themselves the rest of the debate on those three pages.

Yes, I'm interested.

Don't have time just now to read books. Is there a link or a pdf you could give?

Heck, even a video would do. Maybe the mainstream model of comets is changing too fast to be pinned down?

That tricky EU / PC stuff ☺
Click to expand...

some corrections

whether or not there is fusion in the sun, the total energy output of the sun is known, sovreply one was just silly, as physicist points out.

persian paladin does not like my assumptions, and does not let me use both juergens and alfven, but as in my reply, the heliospheric current sheet has a known thickness, and i was even generous in the thickness. but then produces a lot ofcwords but nothing to replace, though i must admid he at least tries to use math, and calculates something, a current that is attributed to alfven, a total current, notva current density, which does not jive with maxwell's equations, over what did paladin integrate?

then basically nereid takes over, until upriver comes with claim of "the collapse of the magnetic field of theright hand rule" or something, and then it is over.

no correction are even tried to be made!

ah no book ey! tough mainstream models come in books and papers, but yes there is a pdf of krishna swami's book somewhere on the internet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom