Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Whoops, that's electric and on the moon it produces OH! but not a comet :mad:
Click to expand...

Yawn, and it then goes on to say that these are caused by sputtering. That is the impact of the heavier ions of the solar wind on the dust particles. The heavier ions make up only around 1% of the solar wind. This is a well known and expected phenomenon, and has been tested in the lab.
The statement also talks about the changes in sublimation and sputtering on a seasonal and diurnal basis. To be expected that there isn't much going on on the part of the comet not facing the solar wind, or heated directly. Pretty much, once again, as one would expect from the standard model. As opposed to the electric woo woo which must somehow turn itself off, coincidentally, when that part of the comet isn't sunlight. Argues more against EU, so once again, thanks for the link, but not sure why you highlighted it.
 
Sol88 said:
So how's the hunt for "ice" and confirmation of the sublimation theory going??

Not so good from what I can see.
Click to expand...
Obviously you need glasses and a better memory, Sol88, because we have detected ices on comets (even water ice), comets are made of ices and dust and every comet jet is made of sublimating ices and dust :jaw-dropp!
 
Sol88 said:
Whoops, that's electric and on the moon it produces OH! but not a comet :mad:
Click to expand...
Whoops, that is the idiocy of thinking that comets are made of rock like the Moon, Sol88 :p!
Dust particles also splutter as you would have found out if you understood what you read.

Solar Wind sputtering from the surface of Comet Churyumov-Gerasimenko is not support for the delusions that you support about
  • Earth once orbiting Saturn
  • Planets colliding
  • Magical thunderbolts between planets
  • Comets being blasted from planets
  • Comets being rocks despite their measured density
  • etc.

Lying about Solar Wind sputtering from the surface of Comet Churyumov-Gerasimenko is bad. It is about the observed species from sublimation and observed species from spluttering.
Most of the observed species in the coma are volatile material that are released from the comet’s surface by sublimation, for example H2O, CO, CO2 and many others. ...
In addition to the volatile material we detected atoms of Na, K, Si, S, and some more, which cannot or only partially be set free via sublimation.Again, we project these measurements down onto the surface of the comet.
These maps for the sputtered atoms differ significantly from the maps for volatile species, like the water map, in some cases they are almost the opposite. Our present understanding is that these atoms are the result of solar wind sputtering of refractory material, i.e. of dust located on the cometary surface.
Click to expand...
Interesting points that authors make is that
  • the maps of the origins of sublimated species vary with seasonal variation, i.e. what we would expect from sublimation caused by heat.
  • and are different from the maps of origins of sputtered species.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Tusenfem, how do us mere mortals get in on the action?

Do they do webcast's? Release papers?

or all sit behind closed doors stroking each others beards nodding in agreeance with sublimation theory?

Solar Wind sputtering from the surface of Comet
Churyumov-Gerasimenko



Whoops, that's electric and on the moon it produces OH! but not a comet :mad:
Click to expand...

they write papers, give press conferences ( e.g. the unmagnetizedness of the comet from rpc and romap) there are blogs from esa etc etc

no sputtering is not electric it is the impacting of sw ions on the surface and mechanically kick out particles from the surface. no ec there at all.
and maybe it does create water, but as you keep on forgetting or more likely ignoring the production rate is what is important. show us the production rate and then we can talk further.
 
Sol88: Continued unthinking support for the Thunderbolts delusions

Sol88 said:
Show me the "ice" :)
Click to expand...
What an astounding delusion, Sol88: We do not have samples of ice from any comet to show you :jaw-dropp!

What we have is the detection of water ice on the surface of Tempel 1 that you already know about. So you can stop lying about no having ice "shown to you".
ETA: But this is not likely since this you have known about this since 4th August 2009 Sol88: Deep Impact found ice on the surface of Tempel 1.
What we have is the measured density of comets that tells any rational person that they are made up of ices and dust not rock.
What we have is the detection of sublimated ices being emitted from comets.
What we may have is the insanity of thinking that we have samples from inside comets! One of the Rosetta experiments is to use radio waves to investigate the interior of 67P but I think that needs the lander to be working.

Sol88: Are you going to continue to display the mindlessness of supporting the Thunderbolts delusions about
  • Earth once orbiting Saturn
  • Planets colliding
  • Magical thunderbolts between planets
  • Comets being blasted from planets
  • Comets being rocks despite their measured density
  • Comets having no ice despite ices being detected on their surface (even water ice on Temple 1) :eek:
  • etc.

There is no point in citing actual science to you, Sol88, given that you have been totally taken in by the obvious Thunderbolts delusions. But I will point you to the 313 abstracts about "detection of ices on the surface of a comet" in ADS.
This includes: Exposed Water Ice Deposits on the Surface of Comet 9P/Tempel 1 :eye-poppi
 
Last edited:
Reality Check, you have found no ice but it is REQUIRED for mainstreams sublimation theory!

and I don't mean the trivial amounts of frost found on temple 1. How much "ice" did we find on Borelly? Wild2?.....NONE but why stop a good story from continuing ay!

Tell the truth, 'ol mate NO ICE FOUND but inferred and sublimating ice invoked to save prior theory!!!

AND


the absolute contempt to produce made up evidence presented as fact is outstanding!!!

e.g
Based onthe comparison between OSIRIS observations and laboratory results, our favoured interpretation of the observed
features is that the bright spots are exposures of water ice, resulting from the removal of the uppermost layer of
refractory dust that covers the rest of the nucleus. Some of the observations of clusters of bright spots are very
indicative of a formation process, which involves the breakage and collapse of brittle layers of ice to form fields
of large boulders, some of them showing bright spots on part of their surface.
Click to expand...


You've got your hand on it again!
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Show me the "ice" :)


not inferred, t he actual "ice".
Click to expand...

Show me the electric arcs. Not inferences from petroglyphs, not occasional overexposed pixels, show me the actual arcs that are doing the EDM.

Show me the galactic current flows that power the sun. Not youtube videos about Birkeland, not speculations about solar neutrinos, show me the actual galactic current flows.

Show me some numbers that make sense. Not complaints about mainstream science, not speculations about density measurements, simply show me some numbers that make sense - "If the solar system had an electric field with X strength centered on the sun, and 67P is made of typical silicates, then 67P would need to discharge Z coulombs during its inbound leg . . . etc, etc."

Show me a lightning bolt that would eject a hundred cubic kilometers of rock (more-or-less intact!) from the surface of the earth. Don't show me an odd scar on someone's arm, don't give me speculations about solar hydrogen, show me a lightning bolt than can eject a hundred cubic kilometers of rock.

(I'll stop there, but I think you get the gist)
 
Sol88: Do not repeat a lie about no ice being found (ice found on Tempel 1)

Sol88 said:
Reality Check, you have found no ice ..
Click to expand...
Sol88, that is a lie as you know that ice has been found on a comet.
The scientific truth is:

A Thunderbolts delusion that you support is that comets are rocks. Sol88: Continued unthinking support for the Thunderbolts delusions

Which reminds me: 16 April 2015 Sol88: Do you share the Thunderbolts delusion from David Talbott that Earth used to orbit with Saturn in recent times (recent enough to be a myth)?
2. "…He claims, with complete assurance, that Venus, Mars, Saturn, and Jupiter traveled very close to Earth within human memory. He says that together these planets presented a stupendous form in the sky, at times peaceful and at time violent." Parsons, Steve (2005). ...
Click to expand...

P.S.
19th January 2010 Sol88: Do EC comets switch off at perihelion?
22nd December 2014: Questions about the origin of electric comets
From August 2009 Sol88: List of 19! outstanding questions[/QUOTE]

ETA: Your denial of the real world since 2009 is well documented, Sol88: Electric comets still do not exist!

ETA2:
Sublimating gas being emitted from a pit on 67P: Active pit
Active pit detected in Seth region of Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko. This is an OSIRIS narrow-angle camera image acquired on 28 August 2014 from a distance of 60 km. The image resolution is 1 m/pixel. Enhancing the contrast (right) reveals fine structures in the shadow of the pit, interpreted as jet-like features rising from the pit.
Click to expand...
This is an image from last year and from a fair distance away. Rosetta has taken many more images from closer in and of an increasingly active comet. It is probable that better images will emerge in the next few months.
 
Last edited:
dasmiller said:
Show me the electric arcs. Not inferences from petroglyphs, not occasional overexposed pixels, show me the actual arcs that are doing the EDM.

Show me the galactic current flows that power the sun. Not youtube videos about Birkeland, not speculations about solar neutrinos, show me the actual galactic current flows.

Show me some numbers that make sense. Not complaints about mainstream science, not speculations about density measurements, simply show me some numbers that make sense - "If the solar system had an electric field with X strength centered on the sun, and 67P is made of typical silicates, then 67P would need to discharge Z coulombs during its inbound leg . . . etc, etc."

Show me a lightning bolt that would eject a hundred cubic kilometers of rock (more-or-less intact!) from the surface of the earth. Don't show me an odd scar on someone's arm, don't give me speculations about solar hydrogen, show me a lightning bolt than can eject a hundred cubic kilometers of rock.

(I'll stop there, but I think you get the gist)
Click to expand...

I would second this. Sol88, you complain about mainstream science not producing any results (mostly by ignoring all results you don't agree with/ understand), yet you've never shown the electric universe model is even plausible in any way.
Not a single shred of experimental evidence has ever been given or found. In fact all theories proposed so far go against what we know about how electromagnetism works.
So, show us those experiments, the mathematical theory underlying them and the predictions made with it.
 
Somebody who is more clued up on magnetic field propagation than I can comment on the following. I lifted it from the Rosetta blog, posted by Harvey, who is the same Prof. Harvey Rutt I referenced some posts back. It was in relation to a non-magnetised comet:

"There is something else this rules out (not that it needed to.)

Lets take a *really feeble* discharge current, say 1mA/cm^2 or 10A/m^2. That is very low by Lab standards & certainly wont do anything dramatic, let alone shift masses of neutrals & dust.
Take, say, a 50m radius carrying 1mA/cm^2, and say 1km away.

The resultant field is around 2*10^-5T
The reported field is <2*10^-9T, some ten thousand times weaker.
You can mess with the assumptions as you like; no way willl you drop the field by 10^4 - and the current density I've used is extremely low, you could argue for a thousamd or more times that.

So maybe Philae was at the exact centre, or several fields *exactly* vector cancelled at both craft, or whatever; there is certain to be an explanation."

Interestingly, he posted it two days ago, and hasn't had a response as yet!
So never mind "where's the ice"; where's the electricity?

http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2015/04/14/rosetta-and-philae-find-comet-not-magnetised/
 
Last edited:
dasmiller said:
Show me the electric arcs. Not inferences from petroglyphs, not occasional overexposed pixels, show me the actual arcs that are doing the EDM.

Show me the galactic current flows that power the sun. Not youtube videos about Birkeland, not speculations about solar neutrinos, show me the actual galactic current flows.

Show me some numbers that make sense. Not complaints about mainstream science, not speculations about density measurements, simply show me some numbers that make sense - "If the solar system had an electric field with X strength centered on the sun, and 67P is made of typical silicates, then 67P would need to discharge Z coulombs during its inbound leg . . . etc, etc."

Show me a lightning bolt that would eject a hundred cubic kilometers of rock (more-or-less intact!) from the surface of the earth. Don't show me an odd scar on someone's arm, don't give me speculations about solar hydrogen, show me a lightning bolt than can eject a hundred cubic kilometers of rock.

(I'll stop there, but I think you get the gist)
Click to expand...

Muwahaha
 
Missed this rant from Sol88:
Sol88 said:
the absolute contempt to produce made up evidence presented as fact is outstanding!!!
Click to expand...
The absolute contempt that I (and maybe other posters) have is for blind unthinking support for the "made up evidence presented as fact" by the Thunderbolts authors, Sol88.
Here you are lying about "made up facts" from scientists when you support the various delusions that the Thunderbolts authors have stated, e.g. the fantasy that comets are rocks!.

The lie is that you quote scientists comparing laboratory measurements (the Holy Grail of the electric universe :eek:!) to actual measurements and concluding that the actual measurements are compatible with the detection of water ice. That is not "made up facts" - that is science! The usual bad scholarship is missing out the source of what you quoted, Sol88. Luckily there is Google.
Metre-size bright spots at the surface of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko: Interpretation of OSIRIS data using laboratory experiments (PDF)
Analysis of the results of past and present laboratory experiments with H2O-ice/dust mixtures provide interesting insights about the nature and origin of the bright spots. In particular, recent sublimation experiments conducted at the University of Bern reproduce the spectro-photometric variability observed at the surface of the nucleus by sequences of formation and ejection of a mantle of refractory organic-rich dust at the surface of the icy material. The formation of hardened layers of ice by sintering/re-condensation below the uppermost dust layer can also have strong implications for both the photometric and mechanical properties of the subsurface layer. Based on the comparison between OSIRIS observations and laboratory results, our favoured interpretation of the observed features is that the bright spots are exposures of water ice, resulting from the removal of the uppermost layer of refractory dust that covers the rest of the nucleus.
Click to expand...
And here is how science works, Sol88 - they have a hypothesis (the bright spots look like water ice) and a test that can falsify their hypothesis:
These surface exposures of water ice must be more recent than the last passage at perihelion, as they would rapidly sublimate at short heliocentric distance. The hypothesis formulated here will thus easily be tested as the comet approaches the Sun, by checking if and how fast the bright spots vanish and disappear.
Click to expand...
From the same conference:
Solar Wind sputtering from the surface of Comet Churyumov-Gerasimenko (PDF) includes the detection of sublimated species from ices.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom