The Electric Comet theory

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sol88 said:
Yeah it's nearly as bad as wasting billions of dollars chasing ICE on comets :mad:
Click to expand...
No, Sol88 - it is nearly as bad as denying basic science to blindly advocate the Thunderbolts delusion that comets are made of ROCK :p!

17 December 2014 Sol88: Do you understand how bad it is to change someone's quote to something that they would never say?
This is basically you changing a quote to make a scientist look stupid enough to think that comets are made of rock despite the evidence that they are made of ices and dust.
Thus a retraction seems in order, Sol88.
 
Haig said:
predictions confirmed
Click to expand...
Haig: The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.
Thunderbolts are ignorant about comets.
Thunderbolts are deluded about comets.
Thunderbolts lie to their readers about comets.
The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site and videos
Reality Check said:

Sol88: List of outstanding questions
Haig: List of outstanding questions

Electric comets still do not exist :eek:!
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
So where is the list of successful predictions for mainstreams comet model hypothesis ???? :p
Click to expand...
So where is the understanding of how irrelevant that question is, Haig, when this is the Electric Comet theory thread :jaw-dropp!
The inanity of that strikeout is obvious - there is a scientific model of comets than makes scientific predictions.

I see a delusion about an imaginary "EU / PC hypothesis" predicting gamma rays from lightning, Haig.
 
Last edited:
JeanTate said:
Good morning, Sol88.

Sure, that sounds like an interesting topic.


OK. I'll start by collecting everything in your post that is related to "jets" and the ech (that included, obviously, their location).


Hmm, not quite what I was expecting.

So, what was I expecting?

At least something like this:

In the ech, comets are composed of rock, and have a homogeneous structure. Ices - the solid forms of water, carbon dioxide, etc - form as a result of electrical discharges (including arcs) in which oxygen, carbon, sulfur, etc is liberated from rock minerals and combines with protons from the solar wind. Thus there will be "no ice at the source of jets, not even where the most energetic jets are active" (source)

Instead of something like this, what did you post?

Let's see ...


What does that have to do with the ech?

On the one hand, you explicitly stated it was (your summary of) "mainstreams [sic] explanation"; on the other, you presented nothing on the ech.

Sounds rather like this, eh? "you [...] seem to spend most of your words on asking/demanding/insisting on/etc "mainstream" explanations for comet phenomena apparently picked at random [...], or claiming/screaming/etc that some (cherry picked?) phenomenon/event/data is inconsistent with "mainstream" theory/models/explanations/etc." (source)


Well, yes, that's what I'm trying to do.

So, can we have a discussion of the ech, please?

You started this thread, explicitly on "The Electric Comet theory". Yet in this post of yours (the one I'm quoting) you said nothing about the ech at all.

Why is it apparently so hard for you to stay focused?
Click to expand...

No subsurface chambers venting thru an orifice = mainstream fail....but we still see jets...why JEAN TATE

even if the comets not an electrical discharge phenomena, mainstream are going to have to come up with another theory for jet production :jaw-dropp

but as stated in the ECH jets are an electrical discharge phenomena :D
 
Haig: the delusions in Newton’s Electric Clockwork Solar System by Wal Thornhil

Haig said:
...
Click to expand...
A couple rather stupid links are not science or evidence, Haig.
We have an idiotic Google search for charged + planet images on a crank web site.
We have a link to a page in the crank web site - Wal Thornhill has the delusion that the Grand Canyon was created by electrical discharges!

18 December 2014 Haig: Can you grasp the delusional nature of Newton’s Electric Clockwork Solar System by Wal Thornhill?

  • It starts with a lie: Scientists know that all forces "rule the cosmos" . However the basic fact the electromagnetic forces can be shielded means that gravitational forces dominate in cosmological scale.
  • Arguments from ignorance/incredibility/God of the gaps (filled with electromagnetism).
  • "We cannot explain the origin of the solar system." is ignorant - we have as good theory for the origin of the solar system - which has nothing to do with the stability of the solar system :eek:.
  • The idiocy of assuming "clockwork stability" when he has just stated that it does not exist!
    We know that the Earth's orbit has been stable enough for billions of years for life come into being and evolve. There is no evidence that other planets have done anything surprising.
  • A link to a page where Wal Thornhill goes off the deep end in supporting another cranks fantasy electrical theory of gravity. This is really bad because Wal Thornhill should know about QM and the insanity of "returning to a classical model of the atom".
  • A summary of that insanity of classical atoms and dipoles being gravity.
  • A rant about the dimensions of the gravitational constant.
    G is a proportionality constant and so has the dimensions that it needs!
  • G is is not "most inconstant of physical constants".
    G is the physical constant that is hardest to measure and has the widest range of values. It is the most inaccurate of physical constants.
  • A derail into the electric sun fantasy and more fantasies based on that.
  • Electric comet lies in an image.
Ending with a display of ignorance, fantasies and lies:
  • The AU is 149597870700 metres (exactly) - it does not change.
  • The fantasy that EMOND can explain the rate of precession of Mercury’s perihelion.
  • The lie of "Einstein’s theory does not explain gravity" - it matches the rate of precession of Mercury’s perihelion :eek:!
  • An unsupported assertion about Lunar Eccentricity and gibberish sbout electrogravitic ‘nudge’s.
  • The delusion that he solved the Pioneer Anomaly (which BTW has been solved!) - all he dis was write a web page with no numbers.
  • A lie about comet orbits not obeying Newton’s law of gravity. Astronomers have been using Newton’s law of gravity to predict the positions of comets for centuries. Outgassing of course does change the orbits over time.
 
We have not seen David Talbott for a while and there are a lot of questions outstanding.
8 December 2014 David Talbott: Citations that solar warming can't account for comet outbursts, etc.

8 December 2014 David Talbott: How about you quote the first statement of fact (with the scientific literature to back it up) in that video and we will start from there.
Could id be that that video contains no scientific evidence for the electric comet idea :eek:!

Questions about his "predictions":
8 December 2014 David Talbott: How hot is hot? How dry is dry?
8 December 2014 David Talbott: If instruments detect that above activity, how will astronomers tell the difference between standard comet physics and the electric comet physics?
8 December 2014 David Talbott: Why should scientists do the idiocy of comparing x-ray and ultraviolet emissions to predictions from 20 years ago when they have more current predictions?
8 December 2014 David Talbott: What are the electric comet predictions for x-ray and ultraviolet emissions?
8 December 2014 David Talbott: What "unexpected negative ions close to the nucleus"?
and
8 December 2014 David Talbott: What instruments will detect what you state can be detected in your predictions?

tusenfem's response to the "predictions" which seems to have been ignored except for Haig's fantasy about 67P looking like a chink of Mars in one image.

David Talbott's unsupported assertions about the scientific comet model made on 11 December 2014 (basically "mysteries" magically support the electric comet idea).

Questions about the origin of electric comets
 
Please list the planets and moons that were interacting to create comets

9 December 2014 David Talbott, Sol88 or Haig: Why are the orbits of comets not traced back to planets or moons?
Note that "wishful thinking about electricity" is not an answer!

9 December 2014 David Talbott, Sol88 or Haig: Why is the total mass of comets greater to or comparable to that of the rocky planets and moons (which still exist!)?

9 December 2014 David Talbott, Sol88 or Haig: What is the physical evidence of appreciable parts of the surfaces of planets and moons being removed in recent (say Neolithic or Early Bronze Age) times?

10 December 2014 David Talbott, Sol88 or Haig: What happened in "early human times" that stopped the creation of comets?

The electric comet origin is very vague in in the sources that I have seen. Unspecified planets and unspecified moons do unspecified electric stuff to each other in unspecified (but up to "early human times") time periods :p.
So a really simple question:
18 December 2014 David Talbott, Sol88 or Haig: Please list the planets and moons that were interacting to create comets.
For example, if comets were created from the Earth then the list will include Earth interacting with planet X or moon Y.
 
Sol88 said:
No subsurface chambers venting thru an orifice = mainstream fail....but we still see jets...why JEAN TATE
Click to expand...
Maybe because Sol88 cannot understand some logic :p!
We have a scientific mechanism for creating jets which is not your fantasy, Sol88. That mechanism is ices sublimating below the surface of the comet - no "subsurface chambers". The gases rise up through the ices and dust above them to escape. The ice and dust above the sublimating ices are blown away from the comet. That forms a funnel or orifice that creates jets out of the gas.
The observation that jets exist is evidence for the mechanism working.

No images of active jets coming out of a funnel or orifice yet is a lack of data, not failure.
Failure is basically everything about the electric comet idea: Electric comets still do not exist :eek:!
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
And even snow becomes very hard when it gets all the air squeezed out in an avalanche.

-200C Canada is much colder than I remember!

;)
Click to expand...

Yeah. :p I meant on other planets without atmosphere and far from the sun, or, you know, comets. The coldest I've seen in Canada was -60 with the wind factor. -45 on the meter. The air was so cold it burned our lungs. Ouch.
 
From one of Haig's links:

“why do we think that physicists know anything about gravity beyond mathematical descriptions of its observed effects?” All that modern physics has done is to obscure the need for serious investigation of an unsolved problem. Even some effects attributed to the action of gravity, like the bending of light, need not have anything to do with gravity.
Click to expand...

So we know more about electromagnetism than the mathematical description of its observed effects? What is the "more" we know about it, and how did we figure it out?
 
Reality Check said:
No, Sol88 - it is nearly as bad as denying basic science to blindly advocate the Thunderbolts delusion that comets are made of ROCK :p!

17 December 2014 Sol88: Do you understand how bad it is to change someone's quote to something that they would never say?
This is basically you changing a quote to make a scientist look stupid enough to think that comets are made of rock despite the evidence that they are made of ices and dust.
Thus a retraction seems in order, Sol88.
Click to expand...

NO, Comets are rock, or if you like, according to Osiris team leader, rocky like BUT not rock.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Yeah. :p I meant on other planets without atmosphere and far from the sun, or, you know, comets. The coldest I've seen in Canada was -60 with the wind factor. -45 on the meter. The air was so cold it burned our lungs. Ouch.
Click to expand...

Even at -100c ice is softer than the probe on MUPUS, so it should have been able to "chip" at the ice but not if it was hard like....ROCK :rolleyes:

Otherwise go get a hammer and chisel and have a go on the ahrdest ice you can find, then go find a rock and give that a go!

Which one will chip first??? MUPUS failed during its attempt :boxedin:

Maybe they should have designed it to go into rock...oh wait that was the ice screws job...how'd that go! :rolleyes:

all indications so far are that the surface was harder than expected...the expected but not found ICE :cool:
 
Reality Check said:
Maybe because Sol88 cannot understand some logic :p!
We have a scientific mechanism for creating jets which is not your fantasy, Sol88. That mechanism is ices sublimating below the surface of the comet - no "subsurface chambers". The gases rise up through the ices and dust above them to escape. The ice and dust above the sublimating ices are blown away from the comet. That forms a funnel or orifice that creates jets out of the gas.
The observation that jets exist is evidence for the mechanism working.

No images of active jets coming out of a funnel or orifice yet is a lack of data, not failure.
Failure is basically everything about the electric comet idea: Electric comets still do not exist :eek:!
Click to expand...

The data is there, RC. But they will not release it....why?

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2011/pdf/2439.pdf

Introduction:
Images obtained with the Deep Impact Flyby spacecraft's Medium-Resolution Instrument
(
MRI) and High-Resolution Instrument (HRI) during
the EPOXI mission's closest approach to comet
103P/Hartley
2 reveal the existence of numerous
highly collimated, active, filamentary structures eman
ating from the nucleus. Remarkably, several filaments
also exhibited strong activity on the night-side of the
nucleus. The resolution of larger jet-like features into
bundles of such filamentary structures was first recog-
nized on comet 1P/Halley with the Giotto
HMC camera [1, 2]. Although the past two decades have seen ex-
tensive analytical and numerical work to model the
physical processes controlling filament and/or jet out
gassing [4, 5, 6, 7, 8], new physical constraints im-
posed by the recent observations of Hartley 2’s surface.
Click to expand...
My bold...now where have I heard this before???? Stringy things...no that was NASA...Mmmmm....something to do with MAGNATISIM and ELECTRIC CURRENT "Filamentary Structures in plasma" LINK


The gases rise up through the ices and dust above them to escape. The ice and dust above the sublimating ices are blown away from the comet. That forms a funnel or orifice that creates jets out of the gas.
The observation that jets exist is evidence for the mechanism working.
Click to expand...
:redface1

So you, REALITY CHECK, do not agree with the mainstream view of jet production??? since you've just tweaked it a little toward the EC explination of jet production :bigclap

Icarus 167 (2004) 30–36
www.elsevier.com/locate/icarus
Formation of jets in Comet 19P/Borrelly by subsurface geysers

Abstract
Observations of the inner coma of Comet 19P/Borrelly with the camera on the Deep Space 1 spacecraft revealed several highly collimated
dust jets emanating from the nucleus. The observed jets can be produced by acceleration of evolved gas from a subsurface cavity through
a narrow orifice to the surface
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
Not that calculation ... the ONE between an encounter with Mars and Earth !!!
Click to expand...

Huh. Turns out that one of the claims of Worlds in Collision was that Mars made several flybys of Earth, after it had been displaced from its orbit by Venus. I must have stopped reading the book before I got to that part.
 
Sol88 said:
No subsurface chambers venting thru an orifice = mainstream fail....but we still see jets...why JEAN TATE

even if the comets not an electrical discharge phenomena, mainstream are going to have to come up with another theory for jet production :jaw-dropp

but as stated in the ECH jets are an electrical discharge phenomena :D
Click to expand...

How do you know there are no subsurface chambers?
Have you some secret access to the CONSERT data?
 
Matthew Cline said:
So we know more about electromagnetism than the mathematical description of its observed effects? What is the "more" we know about it, and how did we figure it out?
Click to expand...

That is one of the things that surprises me every time.
Why is it always that gravity is not understood? It is two masses attracting each other
Why do those that say that gravity is not understood claim that the electric force is understood? It is two charges attracting (repulsing) each other.
Basically, I see no difference between the two, and nobody of the unbelievers has ever explained to me why it is harder to believe in gravity than in electricity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom