The Electric Comet theory

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have a feeling we are going to have lots to discuss by the end of the week.
I have a feeling that we are going to see lots of idiotic comments on the Thunderbolts web site from electric comet proponents after the end of the converafernce, Sol88. Which you and Haig will probably blindly parrot here. They will
  • take every mention of electromagnetism as support for the dumb idea that comets are rock.
  • think that any unknowns are support for the invalid electric comet idea, i.e. God of the gaps argument.
  • think that anything they do not understand is support for the invalid electric comet idea (argument from ignorance).
  • think that anything that the scientific model does not explain is support for the invalid electric comet idea (fallacy of false dichotomy).
 
I have a feeling that we are going to see lots of idiotic comments on the Thunderbolts web site from electric comet proponents after the end of the converafernce, Sol88. Which you and Haig will probably blindly parrot here. They will
  • take every mention of electromagnetism as support for the dumb idea that comets are rock.
  • think that any unknowns are support for the invalid electric comet idea, i.e. God of the gaps argument.
  • think that anything they do not understand is support for the invalid electric comet idea (argument from ignorance).
  • think that anything that the scientific model does not explain is support for the invalid electric comet idea (fallacy of false dichotomy).

Reality Check please answer the question after reading this paper

Abstract

Although the Moon and asteroids are often thought of as having relatively dormant environments, in fact the Moon at least is very electrically active. The surfaces of airless bodies are directly exposed to solar UV and X-rays, as well as solar wind plasma and energetic particles. This bombardment creates a complex electric field and plasma environment, with the surface typically charging positive in sunlight and negative in shadow, and surface potentials varying over orders of magnitude in response to changing solar illumination and plasma conditions. We present the first efforts to derive the exact magnitude of the nightside lunar surface electric potential from orbit (which involves correcting for spacecraft charging effects), rather than the lower limits which have been derived before. We then compare these measurements to simple theoretical models and other predictions for lunar surface charging in shadow during quiet times. In addition, we present a complete survey of lunar surface charging (utilizing data from Apollo surface observations and Lunar Prospector orbital observations, in concert with theory and modeling) for all lunar locations and solar and plasma conditions, in order to demonstrate the wide range of charging conditions that can occur on airless bodies. By validating surface charging models for the Moon, we can gain confidence in the application of these models to other airless bodies such as asteroids, moons, and Mercury. It is important to have confidence in these theoretical tools, so we can apply them to problems such as dust levitation and transport - which may be of fundamental importance

and hows this applies to the standard mainstream theory of comets and in particular, sublimating subsurface ice??
 
Last edited:
Insult??? what your inteligence?? sorry mate, shall we speak slower and use little words?
And the response to my post is to question my intelligence, Sol88 :eek:!
Read what you wrote
[Will they say the mainstream model is DEAD or make up more male bovine excrement.
The insult to the scientists is "make up": Trusting a scientific theory such as the comet model without credible evidence is not what competent scientist (or rational people for that matter!) do.
The insult to the science is "male bovine excrement".
 
Soll88, Please read what you quote:
I have a feeling that we are going to see lots of idiotic comments on the Thunderbolts web site from electric comet proponents after the end of the converafernce, Sol88. Which you and Haig will probably blindly parrot here. They will
  • take every mention of electromagnetism as support for the dumb idea that comets are rock.
  • think that any unknowns are support for the invalid electric comet idea, i.e. God of the gaps argument.
  • think that anything they do not understand is support for the invalid electric comet idea (argument from ignorance).
  • think that anything that the scientific model does not explain is support for the invalid electric comet idea (fallacy of false dichotomy).

Please read Surface Charging on Airless Bodies
Although the Moon and asteroids are often thought of as having relatively dormant environments, in fact the Moon at least is very electrically active. The surfaces of airless bodies are directly exposed to solar UV and X-rays, as well as solar wind plasma and energetic particles. This bombardment creates a complex electric field and plasma environment, with the surface typically charging positive in sunlight and negative in shadow, and surface potentials varying over orders of magnitude in response to changing solar illumination and plasma conditions. We present the first efforts to derive the exact magnitude of the nightside lunar surface electric potential from orbit (which involves correcting for spacecraft charging effects), rather than the lower limits which have been derived before. We then compare these measurements to simple theoretical models and other predictions for lunar surface charging in shadow during quiet times. In addition, we present a complete survey of lunar surface charging (utilizing data from Apollo surface observations and Lunar Prospector orbital observations, in concert with theory and modeling) for all lunar locations and solar and plasma conditions, in order to demonstrate the wide range of charging conditions that can occur on airless bodies. By validating surface charging models for the Moon, we can gain confidence in the application of these models to other airless bodies such as asteroids, moons, and Mercury. It is important to have confidence in these theoretical tools, so we can apply them to problems such as dust levitation and transport - which may be of fundamental importance both at the Moon and on asteroids.
and how this applies to the standard mainstream theory of asteroids, moons, Mercury, and other airless, rocky objects :eek:!

No one knows whether this relatively new analysis (2007) may or may not apply to comets. There are hints - the ice and dust "dunes" on 67P suggest some form of ice and dust movement.
 
Last edited:
And the response to my post is to question my intelligence, Sol88 :eek:!
Read what you wrote

The insult to the scientists is "make up": Trusting a scientific theory such as the comet model without credible evidence is not what competent scientist (or rational people for that matter!) do.
The insult to the science is "male bovine excrement".

Trusting a scientific theory such as the comet model without credible evidence is not what competent scientist (or rational people for that matter!) do, so mainstream just make it up to save prior theory...whooboy!

Oort Cloud, Dusty rind over an icy core, sublimating ice, leftovers from the formation of the solar system...etc etc and you want to talk about made up, ok. :rolleyes:
 
Soll88, Please read what you quote:


Please read Surface Charging on Airless Bodies

and how this applies to the standard mainstream theory of asteroids, moons, Mercury, and other airless, rocky objects :eek:!

No one knows whether this relatively new analysis (2007) may or may not apply to comets. There are hints - the ice and dust "dunes" on 67P suggest some form of ice and dust movement.

and how this applies to the standard mainstream theory of asteroids, moons, Mercury, and other airless, rocky objects :eek:!

but not comets, Reality Check? Why not?

Is it because you have trouble formulating your own ideas? You need to have them presented to you in full by "mainstream" scientists?

I fail to understand your thinking :boggled: as much as I fail to understand why mainstream are so reluctant to embrace EM as the dominate force in the Universe...
"Gravitational systems are the 'ashes' of prior electrical systems." Hannes Alfven
 
Haig, are you going to ever answer my straight questions ?
Gezz Belz, what straight question? This thread has gone nuts with RC spamming the board !

Maybe you should ask him?

Lots of answers here about the Electric Comet hypothesis

It's ALL about evidence ... and here ...
Rosetta Mission Update | The Rocky Comet
This is first in a series of Rosetta Mission Updates with Wal Thornhill and Dave Talbott. In this brief video, Wal offers a preliminary assessment of the Rosetta Mission to Comet 67P

more to come shortly :)
 
and how this applies to the standard mainstream thery of asteroids, moons, Mercury, and other airless, rocky objects :eek:!
Wow - way still not to understand what you read Sol88 :p!
Of course Surface Charging on Airless Bodies applies to asteroids, moons, Mercury, and other airless, rocky objects that is what the abstract states.
But comets are not asteroids, moons or Mercury - they are not rocks :jaw-dropp!

Thus no one knows whether this relatively new analysis (2007) may or may not apply to comets. There are hints - the ice and dust "dunes" on 67P suggest some form of ice and dust movement. But that could be as simple as ice and dust falling "downhill" in the gravity of the comet.
 
Last edited:
A puzzle for mainstream ;)

Rosetta Reignites Debate on Earth's Oceans
For them, water must always be "carried" or "brought"--but this is a perpetual loop conundrum for them: What brought the water to the comets and asteroids?

Therefore the theory is not believable. It is further not believable when considering that myriad celestial bodies have known water on them such as Enceladus and Europa, others. So, again, what brought their water? And how can tiny rocks magically seed every planet and icy moon?

Where is the mechanism for this and where is the evidence for this massive bombardment activity? But there is a deeper conundrum: Why did the trillions of comets and asteroids discriminate with Europa, missing Ganymede? Did they have a group meeting and decide to not visit Io either? Why did the rock swarm gang up on poor Enceladus but not want to visit Iapetus?
 
Ice dunes?
There only ice and dust on comets and so any dunes have to be made up of ice and dust, Sol88 :p.

Of course as anyone who has ever been in show and seen similar patterns knows, this is "wind blown" ice particles and dust particles that have formed dunes.
 
Sol88: List of outstanding questions

Which reminds me. Sol88: List of outstanding questions
  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?
  16. 5 December 2014 Sol88: Is "ice at the jet source" how we know comets produce jets and OH-?
 
Last edited:
There only ice and dust on comets and so any dunes have to be made up of ice and dust, Sol88 :p.

Of course as anyone who has ever been in show and seen similar patterns knows, this is "wind blown" ice particles and dust particles that have formed dunes.

Ahh you are a tricky bugger RC, when you said wind I thought as the wind here on good 'ol Earth but you meant the ELECTRIC COMET's ION WIND
on wind, ionic wind, coronal wind or electric wind are expressions formerly used to describe the resulting localized neutral flow induced by electrostatic forces linked to corona discharge arising at the tips of some sharp conductors (such as points or blades) submitted to high-voltages relative to ground. Modern implementations belong to the family of electrohydrodynamic (EHD) devices.

So the INOIC WIND on a comet can blow ice into dunes...really, what ice?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom