The Electric Comet Theory /SAFIRE Part V

[JeanTate]

Or explain why the 'potential difference' needed to make his EC 'model' work does not affect the solar wind. Or planets. Or spacecraft.

Or explain how the putative currents fueling his EC sun model do not fry the planets as those are more conductive than the vacuum of space.

Or explain what mechanism would even create a uniform potential difference around each star that does not interfere with any other star.

In fact, his whole MO is avoiding anything to do with explaining and modelling his 'theory' and only focus on quote mining and misinterpreting minute details in order to steer away from having to actually explain things.

One of my faves is the Electric Comet “explanation” for the densities of comets and asteroids. Spacecraft can be sent to all manner of solar system objects, navigating without reference to all the giant inter-galactic currents, lightning bolts, etc (essential components of Velikovsky nonsense). Yet their observed positions and motions are unreliable for estimating density!

 

[Sol88]

One of my faves is the Electric Comet “explanation” for the densities of comets and asteroids. Spacecraft can be sent to all manner of solar system objects, navigating without reference to all the giant inter-galactic currents, lightning bolts, etc (essential components of Velikovsky nonsense). Yet their observed positions and motions are unreliable for estimating density!

Hope your not religious?

Reference to lightning bolts in”Worlds in Collision” is mainly from religious texts.

And unless you like to get into if God is real or not...

How much does Saturn weigh again...

Here is a mainstream animation of cosmic lightning bolts.

 

[JeanTate]

Hope your not religious?

Reference to lightning bolts in”Worlds in Collision” is mainly from religious texts.

And unless you like to get into if God is real or not...

How much does Saturn weigh again...

Here is a mainstream animation of cosmic lightning bolts.

My bad.

So what do you, Electric Comet Model advocate, call them? Discharges? Jets?

And please show us all, in quantitative detail, how densities of (at least some) comets and (at least some) asteroids are estimated, based on observations. Oh, and how solar system probes get to where we want them to go.

 

[Sol88]

Discharge would be the more correct term.

The RSI experiment, by your logic above, PROVES BEYOND ANY DOUBT,

The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice.

The Nucleus of Comet 67P/ChuryumovGerasimenko - Part I: The Global View – nucleus mass, mass loss, porosity and implications

As far as I know, probes are not launched cruise and arrive at thier target. They are navigated, course corrected, do burns....standard stuff.

 

[JeanTate]

Discharge would be the more correct term.

Thanks. So the Sun is powered by a giant, inter-galactic ... discharge?

The RSI experiment, by your logic above, PROVES BEYOND ANY DOUBT, The Nucleus of Comet 67P/ChuryumovGerasimenko - Part I: The Global View – nucleus mass, mass loss, porosity and implications

My bad.

I meant to ask how the densities are estimated using the Electric Comet Model (which is the topic of this thread).

As far as I know, probes are not launched cruise and arrive at thier target. They are navigated, course corrected, do burns....standard stuff.

Thanks.

Again, my bad. I meant to ask how solar system probes get to where we want them, in the Electric Comet Theory (you know, the topic of this thread).

Would you care to answer please?

 

[Sol88]

Navigating in Deep Space

Using the large dish antennas of the Deep Space Network, they locate the spacecraft by sending precisely timed signals to it and measuring the time it takes for the signals to be received and retransmitted back to Earth. If the spacecraft is not on course, they send signals instructing it to adjust its trajectory. Using these techniques, the team can bring a spacecraft to a precise landing on Mars or into an orbit around a moon of Saturn after a journey of millions of kilometers.

Anything else you are unsure of.

 

[jonesdave116]

Discharge would be the more correct term.

The RSI experiment, by your logic above, PROVES BEYOND ANY DOUBT, The Nucleus of Comet 67P/ChuryumovGerasimenko - Part I: The Global View – nucleus mass, mass loss, porosity and implications

As far as I know, probes are not launched cruise and arrive at thier target. They are navigated, course corrected, do burns....standard stuff.

Which falsifies your woo. You need rock. The density is half that of water. You failed. Again. Just as you did 14 years ago when thousands of tonnes of ice was blasted out of Tempel 1. Which Wal forgot to tell you about.

 

[JeanTate]

Navigating in Deep Space

Thanks.

Anything else you are unsure of.

Yes, there is actually.

Your post contains no mention of, or reference to, the Electric Comet Model. Which is the topic of this thread.

Using the Electric Comet Model, please explain how solar system probes get to their intended targets. In particular, please explain how electrical effects within the solar system (per the Electric Comet Model) are modeled and their impacts on trajectories are addressed.

 

[Sol88]

Which falsifies your woo. You need rock. The density is half that of water. You failed. Again. Just as you did 14 years ago when thousands of tonnes of ice was blasted out of Tempel 1. Which Wal forgot to tell you about.

Well, we thought comets to be mostly ice, now we know they are mostly some mysterious form of rock.

Tempel 1 had a pissy amount of water. Old news, old model.



Any charge separation at 67P to cause electrochemistry?



Sublimation not seen and not needed.

 

[Sol88]

Thanks.


Yes, there is actually.

Your post contains no mention of, or reference to, the Electric Comet Model. Which is the topic of this thread.

Using the Electric Comet Model, please explain how solar system probes get to their intended targets. In particular, please explain how electrical effects within the solar system (per the Electric Comet Model) are modeled and their impacts on trajectories are addressed.

Strawman.



Who cares.

 

[jonesdave116]

Well, we thought comets to be mostly ice, now we know they are mostly some mysterious form of rock.

Tempel 1 had a pissy amount of water. Old news, old model.



Any charge separation at 67P to cause electrochemistry?



Sublimation not seen and not needed.

No, we did not think comets were mostly ice, liar. How many times are you going to lie about that? Is it all you've got? And electrochemistry is getting you nothing, and sublimation is observed. Hard luck. And 8 - 18 000 tonnes of ice were excavated at Tempel 1. And you cannot explain it.
Lying about things is not going to alter the fact that your unscientific woo, believed by approximately nobody, has failed. Tough. Get over it.

 

[Sol88]

No, we did not think comets were mostly ice, liar.

At the simplest level, a very basic question is whether comets are mostly ice or mostly rock/dirt/refractory material. Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the first quantitative model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high as 6 have been cited [3,4].

Sorry, my bad. Not think, we envisioned them as mostly ice, no lie.

No ice only dust for the deep impact...and M.A’Hearn was the PI for the mission...

Suck it up buttercup.

But as it’s all you have left, you are more than welcome to continue the first envisioned model of comets as mostly ice.

Deep impact


Comet Tempel 1 the ice comet.

 

[jonesdave116]

Sorry, my bad. Not think, we envisioned them as mostly ice, no lie.

No ice only dust for the deep impact...and M.A’Hearn was the PI for the mission...

Suck it up buttercup.

But as it’s all you have left, you are more than welcome to continue the first envisioned model of comets as mostly ice.

Deep impact


Comet Tempel 1 the ice comet.

Still lying, huh? When was Whipple's model? When was the first visit to a comet for a close up look? You are pathetic. And a liar.
And thousands of tonnes of ice were excavated at Tempel 1. 14 years ago. That is when your idiotic woo should have died. Only a fool would carry on with this quasi-religion after that. And only fools did.

 

[Sol88]

Still lying, huh? When was Whipple's model? When was the first visit to a comet for a close up look? You are pathetic. And a liar.
And thousands of tonnes of ice were excavated at Tempel 1. 14 years ago. That is when your idiotic woo should have died. Only a fool would carry on with this quasi-religion after that. And only fools did.

Nope inferred ice.

 

[JeanTate]

Strawman.



Who cares.

Well, my first reaction was “I do, and you should surely care too”.

But then I realized that you had not answered my question on how the densities of comets, and asteroids, are estimated using the Electric Comet Model. And then I remembered, vaguely, that you had once posted some sort of answer here (in this thread or a predecessor).

I guess your responses are a tacit admission that the Electric Comet model, as you understand it, is inconsistent with at least one set of robust, independently verified, quantitative observations, right?

If so, where does this thread go from here?

 

[JeanTate]

Leaving only stuff relevant to the topic of this thread (the Electric Comet model) ...

In the Electric Comet model, comets are solid rock (sandstone, basalt, gneiss) blasted from the Earth’s surface by lightning bolts from Venus when it made a close encounter with Earth a few thousand years ago.

So their bulk densities are certainly greater than 1 g/cm³.

Which is inconsistent with robust, independently verified, quantitative observations.

And you have been unable, after over a decade of trying, to explain this inconsistency.

Time to call it a day and close this thread?

 

[Sol88]

For a range of compacted dust material density from 2000 to 3500 kg/m3, the porosity varies between 65% - 79% when the dust-to-ice mass ratio Fnucleus for the nucleus body lies in the range 3 ≤ Fnucleus ≤ 7. The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice. The total mass loss M puts hard constraints on the models of interpretation of the observations from other instruments on Rosetta.

2000 to 3500 kg/m3, that’s very rock like to me...but what is consistent with robust, independently verified, quantitative observations. noted above , The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice. The total mass loss M puts hard constraints on the models of interpretation of the observations from other instruments on Rosetta

Were is the error!

Next please...

 

[jonesdave116]

2000 to 3500 kg/m3, that’s very rock like to me...but what is consistent with robust, independently verified, quantitative observations. noted above , The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice. The total mass loss M puts hard constraints on the models of interpretation of the observations from other instruments on Rosetta

Were is the error!

Next please...

Nope, no rock. Never seen at a comet. Just because you fail to understand basic science and observation does not alter the facts.

 

[jonesdave116]

Nope inferred ice.

And another lie. Observed ice. Liar.

 

[JeanTate]

Thanks.

2000 to 3500 kg/m3, that’s very rock like to me...but what is consistent with robust, independently verified, quantitative observations. noted above , The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice. The total mass loss M puts hard constraints on the models of interpretation of the observations from other instruments on Rosetta

Were is the error!

Next please...

(my bold)

Source?

In the Electric Comet model, comets are solid, not porous.

So what you posted is inconsistent with the Electric Comet model, right?

Also, where are the details of how the estimated densities were calculated using the Electric Comet model, which is the topic of this thread?