Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

[Sol88]

Comet assumptions

How did comets form?

Comets are some of the material left over from the formation of the planets. Our entire solar system, including comets, was created by the collapse of a giant, diffuse cloud of gas and dust about 4.6 billion years ago. Much of the matter merged into planets, but some remained to form small lumps of frozen gas and dust in the outer region of the solar system, where temperatures were cold enough to produce ice.

Where do comets come from?

Comets are found in two main regions of the solar system: the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud. There are two types of comets: short-period comets and long-period comets.

Short-period comets – comets that frequently return to the inner solar system – probably come from the Kuiper Belt beyond the orbit of Neptune. Astronomers estimate that this belt contains at least 200 million objects, which are thought to have remained essentially unchanged since the birth of the solar system 4.6 billion years ago.

Long-period comets, which can take thousands of years to complete their orbits, are thought to emanate from the Oort Cloud, a vast group of frozen bodies in the outer part of the solar system. The Oort Cloud is thought to extend 50,000 times the distance from the Earth to the Sun.

Oort Cloud comets, like their Kuiper Belt brothers, probably originated in the region of the solar system between Jupiter and Neptune, but were ejected from to the Oort Cloud by close encounters with the gravity of the giant planets.

Comets are kicked out of the Oort Cloud and the Kuiper Belt by the pull of the gravity of another object – a planet, a star, or another small body. They then begin their journey toward the inner solar system and the Sun.

LINK

 

[jonesdave116]

Ummmm.....the assumption were comets are frozen lumps of dust and ice, left over from the formation of the solar system, gently sublimating in the the Suns warmth.

That's it

Rosetta went to 67P to confirm these assumptions.

See signature below

Wrong. That is the doctrine as preached by the idiots Thornhill & Talbott. Neither of whom are qualified to know enough about comets to be even commenting on the matter. Repeat the doctrine often enough, and people become brainwashed by it.
You'll notice, however, based on your own recent posts, that that is not what happens. Anything that didn't fit in with previous models has been reported openly. Compare that to T & T. Did they report the discovery of solid ice from the Tempel 1 impact on Thunderbolts (or anywhere else)?
Or the same feature in the jets at Hartley 2? No, they didn't. Just some made up nonsense about an electric flash. Ask yourself why that was. And then have a good long think about who is actually reporting things freely, and who is editing and obfuscating it to keep within their own preconcieved notions, and keep their acolytes buying the books, DVDs and conference tickets.
They've got an idea to sell, and contrary evidence is not part of their plans.

 

[jonesdave116]

Comet assumptions





LINK

All of which is still basically true.
Here is the latest thinking based on discoveries from 67P:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L33/meta

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1507.02328.pdf

 

[jonesdave116]

Ummmm.....the assumption were comets are frozen lumps of dust and ice, left over from the formation of the solar system, gently sublimating in the the Suns warmth.

And there has been no evidence to suggest that any of that isn't true, either. In fact bag loads of evidence to say it was correct.
And they were not assumptions. They were based on evidence.

 

[Sol88]

Wrong. That is the doctrine as preached by the idiots Thornhill & Talbott. Neither of whom are qualified to know enough about comets to be even commenting on the matter. Repeat the doctrine often enough, and people become brainwashed by it.
You'll notice, however, based on your own recent posts, that that is not what happens. Anything that didn't fit in with previous models has been reported openly. Compare that to T & T. Did they report the discovery of solid ice from the Tempel 1 impact on Thunderbolts (or anywhere else)?
Or the same feature in the jets at Hartley 2? No, they didn't. Just some made up nonsense about an electric flash. Ask yourself why that was. And then have a good long think about who is actually reporting things freely, and who is editing and obfuscating it to keep within their own preconcieved notions, and keep their acolytes buying the books, DVDs and conference tickets.
They've got an idea to sell, and contrary evidence is not part of their plans.

ok, you tell me what the assumptions on comets are/were then.

Gunna be hilarious

 

[jonesdave116]

ok, you tell me what the assumptions on comets are/were then.

Gunna be hilarious

No. Before I do that, you first explain why your high priests have been the ones lying about and obfuscating the data to the extent that you believe that evidence based models of comets are, in fact, only assumptions.
And then I'll go through all the evidence, with links, to which particular "assumptions" are actually based on very good evidence.

EDIT: And it won't involve mythology or pareidolia.

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88: How does the electric comet explain this tweet with science not fantasies

Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity

Citation of predictions from science being detected actually shows that you cannot read English Sol88 ! Nothing in that post about any prediction from the electric comet delusion.
18 March 2016 Sol88: How does the electric comet delusion explain this tweet with actual science not fantasies?

18 March 2016 Sol88: The delusion that detecting that comets are made of various amounts of ices and dust invalidates the model that comets are made of ices and dust !
18 March 2016 Sol88: A little lie yet again with "ices" (scare quotes) when comets have ices.
18 March 2016 Sol88: A lie about ices being hidden - we have detected lots of ice on comets, e.g. the impact ejecta from Tempel 1 and several Rosetta observations.
18 March 2016 Sol88: Delusion that comets have not been confirmed to have been made of ices and dust.


The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 6 years of delusions from Sol88 and Haig!).
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc. mostly cited by Haig.
269 days and counting of fear of doing basic physics: 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88: God of the gaps argument from a "solar system formation completely" tweet

MUPUS on Philae ‏@Philae_MUPUS 15 hrs15 hours ago

#ESLAB50 Fulle: We need to rethink our understanding of comet formation i.e. solar system formation completely.

The idiocy of science by tweet yet again from Sol88 .
This is probably that comets may have interstellar gas and dust in their composition - contradicting the electric comet delusion of comets being blasted from Earth !

21 March 2016 Sol88: God of the gaps argument from a "solar system formation completely" tweet.

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88: God of the gaps argument from a "assumptions which did not hold" tweet

MUPUS on Philae ‏@Philae_MUPUS 15 hrs15 hours ago

#ESLAB50 Fulchignioni:

Predictions before mission were largely based on assumptions which did not hold. #ThatsWhyWeHaveMissions

The idiocy of science by tweet yet again from Sol88 .
This is true - the hardness of the ice found by MUPUS was underestimated so we could only measure a lower limit for the hardness.

Sol88: This is not the utter stupidity from the Thunderbolts cult that you follow of thinking that comets are rock because they were blasted from the surface of Earth via lightning from Venus as it stopped the Earth spinning, restarted it spinning and dropped manna because of Bible texts. You are literally pursuing a God of the gaps argument !
21 March 2016 Sol88: God of the gaps argument from a "assumptions which did not hold" tweet.

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88: A lie - it was the measured density of comets lead to ices and dust

Rosetta went to 67P to confirm these assumptions.

That is a couple of lies, Sol88. You know that it was the measured density of comets that lead to the conclusion that they are made of ices and dust. You know that the conclusion has been confirmed for decades, especially with the Deep Impact mission. You know that Rosetta went to 67P to study 67P in detail!

21 March 2016 Sol88: A lie - it was the measured density of comets lead to a composition of ices and dust in the 1950's

21 March 2016 Sol88: A lie - Rosetta went to 67P to study 67P in detail.

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88: A lie about an assumption that comets formed during solar sstem formation

Comet assumptions

Another lie about comets assumptions does not create them, Sol88.
You know that comets are measured to be made of ices and dust.
You know that the ices and dust have to have a source.
You know that most bodies in the solar system were formed during the formation of the solar system !
The rational conclusion (not assumption) is the comets formed during the formation of the solar system.
21 March 2016 Sol88: A lie about an assumption that comets formed during the formation of the solar system.

We know where this lie originates - your delusion that that comets are rock because they were blasted from the surface of Earth via lightning from Venus as it stopped the Earth spinning, restarted it spinning and dropped manna because of Bible texts.

 

[Reality Check]

ok, you tell me what the assumptions on comets are/were then.

No, Sol88: there is no way that we are going to try to educate someone who has the delusion that that comets are rock because they were blasted from the surface of Earth via lightning from Venus as it stopped the Earth spinning, restarted it spinning and dropped manna because of Bible texts .
Anyone can see that over 6 years of retaining that delusion while people here have tried to educate you about real comets makes that an impossible task. We will not waste our time.

For lurkers: Soll88 is basically lying about assumptions. We have evidence about comets.
The only assumption that is used is one that even the Thunderbolts cult might agree with! The laws of physics that we derived here on Earth from experiments and observations also apply to the solar system (and beyond). The difference is that scientists (and any one with a couple of brain cells) try to apply those laws to the real world, not the Thunderbolts fantasy world. See Electric comets still do not exist! for the totally debunked imaginary electric comet which Sol88 and his cult still believe in.

 

[Sol88]

No. Before I do that, you first explain why your high priests have been the ones lying about and obfuscating the data to the extent that you believe that evidence based models of comets are, in fact, only assumptions.
And then I'll go through all the evidence, with links, to which particular "assumptions" are actually based on very good evidence.

EDIT: And it won't involve mythology or pareidolia.

So unwilling then, JD116 to let the lurkers know your understanding of the "mainstream" view which would also be the assumptions they made before sending Rosetta on the way?

Like the MUPUS experiment, failed because of "mainstreams" assumptions.

 

[Sol88]

Wrong. That is the doctrine as preached by the idiots Thornhill & Talbott. Neither of whom are qualified to know enough about comets to be even commenting on the matter. Repeat the doctrine often enough, and people become brainwashed by it.
You'll notice, however, based on your own recent posts, that that is not what happens. Anything that didn't fit in with previous models has been reported openly. Compare that to T & T. Did they report the discovery of solid ice from the Tempel 1 impact on Thunderbolts (or anywhere else)?
Or the same feature in the jets at Hartley 2? No, they didn't. Just some made up nonsense about an electric flash. Ask yourself why that was. And then have a good long think about who is actually reporting things freely, and who is editing and obfuscating it to keep within their own preconcieved notions, and keep their acolytes buying the books, DVDs and conference tickets.
They've got an idea to sell, and contrary evidence is not part of their plans.

Geez, your on the money there JD116!!!

Repeat the doctrine often enough, and people become brainwashed by it.

The nebular hypothesis is the most widely accepted model in the field of cosmogony to explain the formation and evolution of the Solar System. It suggests that the Solar System formed from nebulous material. The theory was developed by Immanuel Kant and published in his Allgemeine Naturgeschichte und Theorie des Himmels ("Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens"), published in 1755.

LINK

So I guess if you repeat it enough time,as stated by you JD116, people become brainwashed by it and if you've been repeating the mantra since 1755 well I guess it just accepted.

Then along came the space age and the evidenced fruit salad of planets moons comets and asteroids.

Have a crack at Ceres's new place in the formation of the solar system from some dudes theory from 1755!!!


Why would Birkeland currents NOT be included in the nebular collapse theroy?????

Professor Emeritus of the Alfvén Laboratory in Sweden, Carl-Gunne Fälthammar wrote:[6] "A reason why Birkeland currents are particularly interesting is that, in the plasma forced to carry them, they cause a number of plasma physical processes to occur (waves, instabilities, fine structure formation). These in turn lead to consequences such as acceleration of charged particles, both positive and negative, and element separation (such as preferential ejection of oxygen ions). Both of these classes of phenomena should have a general astrophysical interest far beyond that of understanding the space environment of our own Earth."

Electrons moving along a Birkeland current may be accelerated by a plasma double layer. If the resulting electrons approach relativistic velocities (i.e. if they approach the speed of light) they may subsequently produce a Bennett pinch, which in a magnetic field causes the electrons to spiral and emit synchrotron radiation that may include radio, optical (i.e. visible light), x-rays, and gamma rays.

LINK


Funny as

 

[jonesdave116]

So unwilling then, JD116 to let the lurkers know your understanding of the "mainstream" view which would also be the assumptions they made before sending Rosetta on the way?

Like the MUPUS experiment, failed because of "mainstreams" assumptions.

I've told you; I'll link to all the known evidence about comets prior to this mission, once YOU EXPLAIN why your high priests have been lying to their faithful but gullible and scientifically illiterate followers about comets since the day they invented this electric comet rubbish.
Or do I need to go through their garbage (again) and point out where they have done this?
Then perhaps we can go through what is an "assumption" and what was well know based on evidence.
Finally, we can round it off by listing all the evidence that Wallace & Gromit built their electric comet model on; in fact, I'll do that now: ....................................................................................................................................

Didn't take long, did it?

 

[tusenfem]

Why would Birkeland currents NOT be included in the nebular collapse theroy?????

If you can give an actual real application of Birkeland currents in your theroy, we might consider it. Nothing to do with electric comets though.

 

[jonesdave116]

@Tusenfem,
You may be interested to know that the idiot on the Rosetta blog has made a further post, in reply to Harvey.
http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2016/0...ic-field-free-bubble-at-comet/#comment-599538

 

[tusenfem]

@Tusenfem,
You may be interested to know that the idiot on the Rosetta blog has made a further post, in reply to Harvey.
http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2016/0...ic-field-free-bubble-at-comet/#comment-599538

Oh brother ... a short quick reply only.
I have not have had time to even think about a reply, but Harvey did not do a bad job. Charlotte and I and colleague have been to busy today discussing the next steps in analysing the RPC data.

 

[jonesdave116]

Oh brother ... a short quick reply only.
I have not have had time to even think about a reply, but Harvey did not do a bad job. Charlotte and I and colleague have been to busy today discussing the next steps in analysing the RPC data.

Yes, I made a couple of replies myself (awaiting moderation). The idiot can't seem to get it through his head, despite repeated links, that the comet itself has no magnetic field. And doesn't even want to address how the same phenomena were seen in the AMPTE experiments. Also seems to think nobody has bothered measuring the solar wind while this was going on. Despite there being nothing to measure that close in at that time.

 

[Reality Check]

So unwilling then, JD116 ...

Wrong Sol88, the post reads as jonesdave116 not willing to cater for your new delusion about comets, i.e. that the mainstream theory of comets is based on assumptions. jonesdave116 is pointing out that the subject of this thread (electric comets) is "mythology or pareidolia".

The MUPUS experiment failed because of mainstream calculations (you know the thing that you and the electric comet delusion does not have !) based on the evidence that they had about existing comets.