Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sol88 said:
Bluer spectra = "ice" yeah??? :rolf:
Click to expand...

Yes, indeed, exposed ice has a bluer spectrum than dust covered ice.
From a @Rosetta_RPC tweet from the #Comets2016 meeting:
#comets2016 Hey, my comet is a chameleon from red to blue to red again, due to appearance of water ice, as seen by osiris (and virtis)
Too bad, Sol88 does not understand physics.
Actually, for those who are not afraid to click the variegation paper is freely downloadable.
 
Last edited:
dranariba said:
In this context, O2 can absorb a negative charged through charge exchange due to demonstrated high electron densities in the vicinity of the nucleus,
Click to expand...

Well, apparently dranariba does not know what charge exchange is.
Always great to see from simple things when people are bogus.
Actuall, looking at the dranariba's cv he should know better.
 
O2 and H2O formation by electrochemical means – In this method, O2, O2-, OH, -OH, and other chemical species are released into the coma by various mechanisms, such as “electron-stripping,” solar wind sputtering, and solar heating. In this context, O2 can absorb a negative charged through charge exchange due to demonstrated high electron densities in the vicinity of the nucleus, followed up by protonation via the solar wind. Subsequently, water can then be formed via at least two pathways linking O2 and H2O formation:

(1) O2 + H → H2O
(2) O2- + H+ → H2O
Click to expand...

Which may or may not be possible. However, it is totally irrelevant. H2O does not need to be formed like this at comets. In case Anariba has missed it, plenty of H2O ice has been seen on the nucleus. That's where it comes from - heat from Sun + ice = vapour. Not rocket science, is it, Doctor? And one of the first detections of H2O vapour at the comet was by VIRTIS, and that was within 0 - 500m of the nucleus. And where is he getting the H from? Plenty of H2O detected around perihelion, when the solar wind was nowhere to be seen. He should stick to what he's good at. Whatever that may be.
I did email this bloke yonks ago, and pointed out that he was making a fool of himself, and may want to check the previous results from comet missions. However, he seems to have decided that his 15 minutes of fame within a crackpot cult was more important to him than his scientific credibility. Hey ho.
 
Oh dear, it just gets worse:

In other words, this mechanism represents a very small percentage of the total water presence on the surface of the nucleus. A quick analysis of these findings and the observations reported on solar sputtering mentioned earlier leads me to think that solar sputtering can play a role in the water ice observations for the following reasons:

a. According to the derive water ice abundance maps, only small amounts of water ice are detected on the surface.
b. Water ice seems to be replenished in regions of lesser illumination, such as shadows or at night time.
c. Solar sputtering has been shown to be effective in areas of lesser illumination.

Taken together, it is reasonable to attribute the observed water ice formed in less illuminated areas to proton (H+) implantation into refractory silicates where they interact with oxygen atoms located in the refractory silicate lattice structures. This is not unusual as it has already been demonstrated to occur in laboratory experiments and thought to be the dominant mechanism for water ice found on crater rims on the moon.
Click to expand...

I did mention in my aforementioned email to this chap that he couldn't use that argument, as he needed to account for the H2O production at times when the solar wind was getting nowhere near the comet nucleus. We already knew about this from Halley in 1986. How is he getting sputtering without the solar wind? Answers on a postcard.

EDIT:
I also invited him to do the calculation of how many H+ ions were striking the comet per second, and to compare that to the number of molecules of H2O being outgassed per second. Evidently he didn't bother to do the calculation.
 
Last edited:
Sol88: A lie that a paper is about the electric comet delusion

Sol88 said:
Redistribution of particles across the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Click to expand...
13 January 2017 Sol88: A lie that a paper is about the electric comet delusion - no electrical discharges or comets are rocks blasted from the Earth in recent times :eek:!

Redistribution of particles across the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Results. We show by observation and modeling that “airfall” as a consequence of non-escaping large particles emitted from the neck region of the nucleus is a plausible explanation for the smooth thin deposits in the northern hemisphere of the nucleus. The consequences are also discussed. We also present observations of aeolian ripples and ventifacts. We show by numerical modeling that a type of saltation is plausible even under the rarified gas densities seen at the surface of the nucleus. However, interparticle cohesive forces present difficulties for this model, and an alternative mechanism for the initiation of reptation and creep may result from the airfall mechanism. The requirements on gas density and other parameters of this alternative make it a more attractive explanation for the observations. The uncertainties and implications are discussed.
Click to expand...
 
Sol88: Ignorant about a electric universe supporter he has cited before

Sol88 said:
So who's this bloody young whipper snapper Franklin Anariba, PhD????
Click to expand...
He is an ignorant and/or deluded electric comet supporter who was stupid enough as you know to speak at one of their conferences. On January 6, 2016 he confirmed his stupidity by publishing your linked blog article on the ignorant, deluded and lying Thunderbolts web site.
13 January 2017 Sol88: Ignorant about an ignorant or deluded electric universe supporter he has cited before :eek:!

tusenfem's replies when Haig first cited this inanity from the chemist Franklin Anariba in January 2016.
tusenfem said:
no sweetypie, I am not upset, I am just stating the obvious by quoting dranariba's words. which you obviously have not read.

I doubt that dranariba will ever submit an actual paper on this rubbish.

And no, I don't have time for boobtoop nonsense.
Click to expand...
dranariba has zero knowledge about the sun, the solar wind and comets (as states Tusenfem, PhD, and mine is in plasma astrophysics)

jonesdave116 calculated the production of water at the times that the solar wind actually reached the nucleus in late 2014:
jonesdave116 said:
Indeed; so here we go again! This was for 1 l/s of H2O back in late 2014;

1 litre of water is 3.3 x 10^25 molecules of H2O.
Solar wind speed varies, but a good average for this purpose is 400 km/s.
Density of the solar wind at about 2.7 AU; well, at 1 AU it has been measured at about 7 protons cm^3. This also varies, but is a good average. This decreases as the inverse square of the distance from the Sun. 2.7^2 = 7.29. So, a good approximation for the solar wind density at 67P at the moment is 1 proton cm^3. Area of 67P impacted by the solar wind; latest measurements put it about 4km x 3km at its widest and longest points.
Of course it is very irregular in shape, but let's be generous and say it
presents 12km^2 to the solar wind at any one point in time.
Water production from 67P as of July-August 2014 equals an average 1 litre per second.

So, how many protons are hitting 67P per second? 12km^2 = 1.2 x 10^11 cm^2. Every second 400km worth of the solar wind is blowing by. 400km = 4 x 10^7 cm.
So, (4.0 x 10^7) x (1.2 x 10^11) = 4.8 x 10^18 proton impacts every second. It takes two of those protons to make a water molecule, but we'll just be generous again and see how many OH molecules would be formed, which will be the number I just calculated; 4.8 x 10^18.
As previously shown, 1 litre of water contains 3.3 x 10^25 molecules of water! So even being very generous in my application of quantities regarding size, and only using the formation of OH rather than H2O, you are short by a mere 7 (SEVEN!) orders of magnitude in the required number of protons needed to produce just 1 litre of water per second. And this is in July-August. Around perihelion 67P was outgassing (from memory) well over 100 l/s. We also need to take into account the reaction rate of the protons. I can't be bothered looking this up, as it has clearly been shown already that these proposed processes by Thornhill & Anariba are junk. However, you would need to increase the solar wind density by roughly 10 orders of magnitude. For the mathematically challenged, that is 10 billion times!

Hale-Bopp, at 200 000 l/s doesn't bear thinking about.
Click to expand...
Sol88 many be one of the "mathematically challenged" who is insisting that the solar wind has to be 10 billion times denser than it is measured :eek:!

13 January 2017 Sol88: Cites the ignorant, deluded and lying Thunderbolts web site.

10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.
 
Last edited:
Ooooohhh.... the big bad wolf, maths, scary! :dio:

Just to highlight the issue, today's Phys.org article

What puzzles scientists about this particular galaxy is that the calculations don't add up. With such a relatively low mass for the central black hole, models for the emission from the object cannot explain the observed spectrum.
Click to expand...
LINK I'm sure the math is correct shame about the assumptions.

So your back of the napkin calculation are full of assumption but your equations are mathematically correct i.e 1=1=2!

Good on ya Jonesdave116 but it's a non starter all the data back from Rosetta says you've got more at play here than just 1+1=2! :)

as Tusenfem well and truly knows.
 
Last edited:
Maybe Tusenfem could tell Jonesdave116, Reality Check and the lurkers looking for that real mainstream science, more about
We also observe unprecedentedly large magnetic field spikes at 800 km, reaching above 200 nT, which are interpreted as magnetic flux ropes.
Click to expand...

Tusenfem, what is the difference between a MAGNETIC FLUX ROPE a FIELD ALIGNED CURRENT and a BIRKELAND CURRENT?

See the paper is pay walled now :(

A fantasy about electric current from the Sun??????????????
Yessssssss................ !
Click to expand...
From Reality Check :)
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Ooooohhh.... the big bad wolf, maths, scary! :dio:

Just to highlight the issue, today's Phys.org article

LINK I'm sure the math is correct shame about the assumptions.

So your back of the napkin calculation are full of assumption but your equations are mathematically correct i.e 1=1=2!

Good on ya Jonesdave116 but it's a non starter all the data back from Rosetta says you've got more at play here than just 1+1=2! :)

as Tusenfem well and truly knows.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Has nothing to do with comets, and the easily calculated flux of the solar wind at any given distance from the Sun. Not to mention that the solar wind, as mentioned countless times, is not getting anywhere near the comet for a long period of time around perihelion.
Ergo, Wal and Anariba's nonsense about the solar wind being in any way responsible for vapour production is pure fantasy. Hence there is no reason for any scientifically literate person to take it seriously. Which is why you won't find any papers on it. It is far too easy to show it to be wrong.
No amount of quoting irrelevant articles is going to change the fact that the 'electric comet' is dead and buried. An evidence free zone. Not a single prediction from DT was correct. No discharges, no rock. It's finished.
 
Sol88: Cites the crank Donald E. Scott - a member of the deluded Thunderbolts cult

Sol88 said:
For anyone interested in looking down the rabbit hole...
Click to expand...
16 January 2017 Sol88: An irrelevant citation of the crank Donald E. Scott - a member of the deluded Thunderbolts cult :eek:!

The math might be correct but then the delusions start:
A picture of Saturn's north pole where wind currents create a hexagonal pattern.
A picture of the Hourglass (or Butterfly) planetary nebula, M2-9.
A citation of one of the papers containing fantasies by A.L.Peratt, Characteristics of a High-Current, Z-Pinch Aurora As Recorded in Antiquity, Part II.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
For anyone interested in looking down the rabbit hole...Birkeland Currents: Force-Free Field-Aligned Model Derivation
Click to expand...

And, as I'm sure Tusenfem will tell you, these are not Birkeland currents. They are induced by the CME within the coma. They are not physically connected to the Sun!
Besides, didn't the idiot Thornhill want all this electric woo to cause 'discharges'?
So, where were they?

Sorry, but the complete destruction of the 'electric comet' woo by this mission, and others, has left the most brainwashed acolytes scrabbling around for any old nonsense to try to keep it alive. It died on July 4th 2005.
R.I.P.
 
Sol88: Persists with a fantasy of an "electric current from the Sun" paper

Sol88 said:
See the paper is pay walled now
Click to expand...
16 January 2017 Sol88: Persists with an ignorant fantasy of an "electric current from the Sun" paper.
The title and abstract clearly states CME.
CME impact on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
We present Rosetta observations from comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko during the impact of a coronal mass ejection (CME). The CME impacted on 2015 Oct 5–6, when Rosetta was about 800 km from the comet nucleus, and 1.4 au from the Sun. Upon impact, the plasma environment is compressed to the level that solar wind ions, not seen a few days earlier when at 1500 km, now reach Rosetta. In response to the compression, the flux of suprathermal electrons increases by a factor of 5–10 and the background magnetic field strength increases by a factor of ∼2.5. The plasma density increases by a factor of 10 and reaches 600 cm−3, due to increased particle impact ionization, charge exchange and the adiabatic compression of the plasma environment. We also observe unprecedentedly large magnetic field spikes at 800 km, reaching above 200 nT, which are interpreted as magnetic flux ropes. We suggest that these could possibly be formed by magnetic reconnection processes in the coma as the magnetic field across the CME changes polarity, or as a consequence of strong shears causing Kelvin–Helmholtz instabilities in the plasma flow. Due to the limited orbit of Rosetta, we are not able to observe if a tail disconnection occurs during the CME impact, which could be expected based on previous remote observations of other CME–comet interactions.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
So your back of the napkin calculation are full of assumption but your equations are mathematically correct i.e 1=1=2!
Click to expand...

No, they are based on the known solar wind ion densities, as measured many times, by many spacecraft, including Rosetta, at various distances Unless you can point to an observation that says it can increase by ~ 10 orders of magnitude? Nope, that wouldn't happen, because any spacecraft encountering that level of sw flux would be dead before it could relay the results.
 
Sol88: Emphasizes his fear of trying to understand physics

Sol88 said:
Ooooohhh.... the big bad wolf, maths, scary!
Click to expand...
16 January 2017 Sol88: Emphasizes his fear of trying to understand physics.

More than a year 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.

And now he is afraid of a calculation from 2014 :p! jonesdave116 calculated the production of water at the times that the solar wind actually reached the nucleus in late 2014.
 
Last edited:
75 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 11 January 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 7 years!)

  1. 13 January 2017 Sol88: A lie that a paper is about the electric comet delusion - no electrical discharges or comets are rocks blasted from the Earth in recent times :eye-poppi!
  2. 13 January 2017 Sol88: Ignorant about an ignorant or deluded electric universe supporter he has cited before :eye-poppi!
  3. 16 January 2017 Sol88: Highlights his electric comet delusion with a citation to black holes :eye-poppi!
  4. 16 January 2017 Sol88: An attempt to waste posters time with a display of ignorance.
  5. 16 January 2017 Sol88: An irrelevant citation of the crank Donald E. Scott - a member of the deluded Thunderbolts cult :eye-poppi!
  6. 16 January 2017 Sol88: Persists with an ignorant fantasy of an "electric current from the Sun" paper.
  7. 16 January 2017 Sol88: Emphasizes his fear of trying to understand physics.

The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 7 years of delusions from Sol88 and Haig!).
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.
More than a year 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.
 
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