Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

[Jrrarglblarg]

Not so fast!

I've given answers to your questions if you can't understand them, that's tough

Perhaps you are using a different meaning of the word "answer" than I'm used to. Random youchump links fall far outside my expectation of a list or narrative describing specific and unique features of electrical activity.

How about you trying to answer the questions posted above and again here ... in case you get confused

The cortex of space crap coating the comet is thinner (and probably absent in areas) where the two lobes meet. You like making stuff up, so here goes.

Once upon a time there were two comets. They met, fell into gravitational attraction with one another and combined as one to travel the vast cold wastes of deep space together, no longer lonely, joined in a sacred bond of gravitational compression and atomic cross linking of ice crystals. Together they fell back toward the sun from the cold dark. Is this now their first trip to the sun together, or have they made this conjoined journey before? We don't know yet, but the area where they are joined has been protected lo these many years from accretion of space crap. And those areas where the cortex of space crap is thinner - from less years of accretion - are less insulated from sunshine.

And meanwhile, one of the unique characteristics of electrical activity is missing - the fact that electrons like to jump off sharp point much more than leaping up from the bottom of a valley or bowl.

 

[Haig]

Perhaps you are using a different meaning of the word "answer" than I'm used to. Random youchump links fall far outside my expectation of a list or narrative describing specific and unique features of electrical activity.

You need to get out more

The cortex of space crap coating the comet is thinner (and probably absent in areas) where the two lobes meet. You like making stuff up, so here goes.

Once upon a time there were two comets. They met, fell into gravitational attraction with one another and combined as one to travel the vast cold wastes of deep space together, no longer lonely, joined in a sacred bond of gravitational compression and atomic cross linking of ice crystals. Together they fell back toward the sun from the cold dark. Is this now their first trip to the sun together, or have they made this conjoined journey before? We don't know yet, but the area where they are joined has been protected lo these many years from accretion of space crap. And those areas where the cortex of space crap is thinner - from less years of accretion - are less insulated from sunshine.

And meanwhile, one of the unique characteristics of electrical activity is missing - the fact that electrons like to jump off sharp point much more than leaping up from the bottom of a valley or bowl.

Imaginative, but still doesn't answer the questions ...

taygatayga March 10, 2015, 2:21 PM
If the activity surrounding the comet is due to heating why is it majorly associated with the neck region which is in shadow more often than the lobes? Also, there is evidently no sign of water ice on the comet surface; is it water that is detected in the coma or a proxy which is assumed to indicate the presence of water and, if so, could there be another source?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Nearly every answer you post is either a youchump EW bible thumper video or breathless speculative opinions of other people, frequently ending in a question.

Stop it. Answer one question, just once, in your own words with no emoji:
What specific characteristics of electrical activity are mutually exclusive of sublimation driven activity?

 

[Haig]

Nearly every answer you post is either a youchump EW bible thumper video or breathless speculative opinions of other people, frequently ending in a question.

Stop it. Answer one question, just once, in your own words with no emoji:
What specific characteristics of electrical activity are mutually exclusive of sublimation driven activity?

I'll give you three answers (with examples) that convince me in the absence of ANY better explanation ...

The size of a comets coma in relation to the size of it's nucleus

The length of a comets tail remaining attached to the coma/nucleus despite ALL even regrowing when detached by solar activity

The jets emanating from the nucleus

 

[dasmiller]

I'll give you three answers (with examples) that convince me in the absence of ANY better explanation ...

The size of a comets coma in relation to the size of it's nucleus

All right, just taking the first one, what is it about the size of Holmes' coma that convinces you that ECH is correct?

 

[Haig]

All right, just taking the first one, what is it about the size of Holmes' coma that convinces you that ECH is correct?

What is it about sublimation that convinces you that it can produce a coma that's sometimes bigger than the Sun ?


The Electric Universe—A Study in Contrasts

 

[dasmiller]

What is it about sublimation that convinces you that it can produce a coma that's sometimes bigger than the Sun ?

That's it? No reason given? You're convinced by the large Holmes coma that ECH is a better explanation, but can't give any explanation of why that coma fits ECH better than mainstream?


In answer to your question: You're asking me defend a position I have not taken. I have never cited the size of Holmes' coma as evidence against ECH. It's not obvious to me what the size limit would be for either ECH or mainstream theory.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I'll give you three answers (with examples) that convince me in the absence of ANY better explanation ...

The size of a comets coma in relation to the size of it's nucleus

The length of a comets tail remaining attached to the coma/nucleus despite ALL even regrowing when detached by solar activity

The jets emanating from the nucleus

Specifics in your own words = links to unrelated information?

I begin to understand you.

None of your links even address the general essence of my question.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

What is it about sublimation that convinces you that it can produce a coma that's sometimes bigger than the Sun ?


The Electric Universe—A Study in Contrasts

What is it about sublimation that convinces you a cloud of diffuse particles spreading in absolute vacuum must be smaller than some arbitrary other thing?

 

[aleCcowaN]

Why Don't Comets Melt in the Sun?

Sungrazer comets that survive perihelion extremely close to the Sun is a longstanding puzzle for comet science. In reality, observations going back centuries reveals that a comet’s activity has little or nothing to do with solar warming. Comets sometimes flare or even explode at impossibly vast distances from the Sun. What does the electric comet theory tell us about these enduring comet mysteries?

time 0:44

 

[Haig]

What is it about sublimation that convinces you a cloud of diffuse particles spreading in absolute vacuum must be smaller than some arbitrary other thing?

Here is something that should give you a clue ...

Comets

Comets are not made out of water and ice; they are made out of rock.

They discharge a plasma coma due to the rapidly changing electrical field they are moving through.

Since they spend most of their time in the outer solar system, they acquire a charge relative to that environment. As it approaches the Sun’s electrical field, it has to equalize its charge rapidly which causes the discharging we see as comet tails.

"There's a lot of structure on the comet, which is a bit surprising," Richardson said. "That could mean there's some strength to the comet.

 

[dasmiller]

Here is something that should give you a clue ...

No. Don't give us a clue, or a hint, or something tangentially related. Just tell us why.

The linked page that you provided doesn't say anything about the size of the coma.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Here is something that should give you a clue ...

Comets

Unsupported Assertion by Copypasta. If a comet is indeed rock as per your gullibly repeated thoughts of others then yes, a cloud of diffuse particles would be a difficult thing to explain. But you have not proven comets are rocks so you don't get to use that "fact" as proof of anything. Presenting one supposition as proof of another doesn't even rise to the level of circular logic.

Fail.

 

[jonesdave116]

"If the activity surrounding the comet is due to heating why is it majorly associated with the neck region which is in shadow more often than the lobes? Also, there is evidently no sign of water ice on the comet surface; is it water that is detected in the coma or a proxy which is assumed to indicate the presence of water and, if so, could there be another source?"

Erm, because there is ice there? You obviously didn't see Tusenfem's post a little above yours. From the Rosetta blog of 13 March:
"It is clear from this image that indeed Hapi reflects red light less effectively than most other visible regions on the comet and thus appears slightly blue-ish. Importantly, this blue-ish colouring might point to the presence of frozen water ice at or just below the dusty surface of Hapi."
Results were from the OSIRIS instrument, not a pseudo-scientific website peddling gobblydegook and faith based nonsense relying on zero scientific data.

 

[ferd burfle]

Haig, why don't the Thunerbolts people take all the money they spend on CGI to make their fact-free cartoons and spend it on gathering data to develop their model? One starts to think it's all done to attract cranks and the ignorant.

 

[Matthew Cline]

Haig, is it your position that sublimation of ice couldn't release water fast enough to form a huge coma, but EDM can release oxygen from rock fast enough (when combined with solar wind hydrogen) to form such huge comas? If yes, say so. If not, just say exactly what you mean, rather than giving us "clues", links, or copy-pasted text.

 

[tusenfem]

I would still like to see Haig come up with a real calculation that the reaction rate of the loosened oxygen from the cometary surface and the protons of the solar wind is fast enough to actually create so much hydroxyl around the comet. Naturally, that would have to include also an esitmate of how much oxygen is produced by EDM.

Unfortunately, Haig can only copypaste texts that are only sideways relevant, and even though this thread is 6 years old, and there are several older threads with EC discussions embedded in EU themes, there is NOT EVEN A HINT OF A BACK OF THE ENVELOPE CALCULATION for the water (hydroxyl) production. Not even on Thunderdolts, where apparently all the "experts" on Electic Universe are coming together.

Also my question about what would be the signature of EDM in the fields instruments gets ignored constantly, probably because they don't understand what an actual discharge would be doing in the field of EM radiation production.

It is pointless to discuss wit Haig or with Sol88 because they don't have even the most basic knowledge of physics, and they can only copypaste what they cherrypick from google searches, heck, even Talbott did not help these poor souls, and disappeared after a week or three (with friends like this, who needs ISF adversaries).

 

[aleCcowaN]

It is pointless to discuss wit Haig or with Sol88 because they don't have even the most basic knowledge of physics, and they can only copypaste what they cherrypick from google searches, heck, even Talbott did not help these poor souls, and disappeared after a week or three (with friends like this, who needs ISF adversaries).

"They" don't need that. It's just for training and to show followers "they" can discuss as equals with "the scientific crowd", being that "equal" equivalent to just having a ping-pong ball moving without caring where it bounces on and regardless a point is scored. And to achieve that "they" just need this forum rules.

The whole situations reminds me the Slovak angelologist who use these fora in a similar way. He departed from a preconception, tried several approaches and finally got a statistical device used out of context to produce artifactual noise which he was able to read as tea leaves. The long discussion is immaterial, as he used it in his website as propaganda in "Is angelology of history a bogus?" (the old "something was discussed ... we're still here"). This year a British disciple of his briefly continued that debate. She stopped participating after her first suspension. You may find her posts in Abandon all Hope.

The practical result for Haig/Sol88 (litewave/Emil Pales in the comparing thread) is "them" having links from "their supporters' " pointing to their web production, while none is pointing there from a sceptical source anathematizing what "they" claim.

Never underestimate "dudes" who can have a group of fellows in a picture, all of them jumping at the same time while they hold a stupid expression.

 

[Reality Check]

You just have to ask nicely

Answering nicely with actual science rather than videos would be good, Haig.
Knowing that Mars is not a comet would be better !
We know that you will never understand that the Thunderbolts authors are ignorant about comets, deluded about comets and even lie about comets:
EC proponents trust a web site that lies to its readers about "confirmed" predictions: The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.

 

[Reality Check]

Dust Whirls, Swirls and Twirls at Rosetta’s Comet

People starting to wake up and ask excellent questions!

An excellent question from a commenter with an excellent answer AFAIK:
Firstly: The neck need not be "in shadow more often than the lobes". The lobes shadow each other as well as the neck. Two of the images in that article clearly show the neck being as bright as the lobes.
Secondly: The neck is connected to the lobes. The neck has a smaller volume than the lobes. A smaller volume takes a smaller time to heat up than a larger volume (the lobes). So the heating of the lobes by the Sun may cause a faster heating of the neck.
Thirdly: It is possible that the neck is a different composition and structure than the lobes, e.g. more loosely compacted ices and dust with a greater proportion of ices.

ETA: The question is also answered in the comments:

Bob King March 10, 2015, 2:55 PM
Taygatayga,
That is an excellent question. It would seem that more ice must be near the surface or possibly exposed there than in other places. Since the comet is rotating, the photos only show one quick view at a time, so the region no doubt spends some time in sunlight during its 12.4 hour rotation. Actual water has been detected in the coma along with carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide.

ETA:

And then KABAHM OSIRIS seems to find evidence for ice at or under the surface of the neck region.