Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
tusenfem said:
Yeah, that was when Peratt started to smoke too much and write his numerical simulation chapters in his book.
And why EEK? Did you not know that Peratt is supposed one of your gurus?
Click to expand...
Soll88's ignorance of basic research methodology pops up yet again:
  • Single author paper.
    Basically an opinion article!
  • An older (1988) paper, not a current textbook
  • In a only vaguely appropriate journal (Laser and Particle Beams).
    Why he could not get the paper published in his preferred IEEE journal?
  • and obscure - 5 refereed citations in 30 years :eek:!
Had a quick look and his "observational evidence" was
  • Double radio galaxies were challenging (in his 1988 opinion).
    I do not know when it was found that double radio galaxies were actually elliptical galaxies with jets. But he has the example of Cygnus A and there is in 1982:
    Spectroscopic and photographic observations of the Cygnus A group and of the stellar component of the Cygnus A galaxy
    Off-nuclear spectroscopic observations and photographic photometry are used to show that the non-thermal optical component of Cygnus A is situated in a large, normal-spectrum cD galaxy.
    Click to expand...
  • His invalid and ignored galaxy formation model (still had not learned what a spiral galaxy is - not a galaxy with no mass between its arms as in his computer simulation!).
 
Sol88: Delusions about a "deep fried ice cream model" (even with a :D)

Sol88 said:
Getting harder and harder with the data to defend the deep fried ice cream model! :D
Click to expand...
2 February 2017 Sol88: Delusions about a "deep fried ice cream model" (even with a :D).

Firstly no such model exists.
A press release with an astronomer describing the structure of 67P as "deep fried ice cream" is not scientific literature.
Why Comets Are Like Deep Fried Ice Cream

Secondly that statement is deluded because it is the existing data and new data from 67P that confirmed that comets have "crusts". It is that which gave rise to the description :jaw-dropp!
 
86 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 30 January 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 7 years!)

  1. 30 January 2017 Sol88: tusenfem said no to the futile task of educating a person who is determined to persist with ignorance about science, fantasies and delusions about comets, e.g. that they are rocks.
  2. 30 January 2017 Sol88: Acknowledges that he is persistently ignorant or deluded about comets, etc. and cannot be taught about the real world (which everyone including me already knows from this thread) :p.
  3. 1 February 2017 Sol88: Can you understand that plasma is quasi-neutral with no electric currents larger than the Debye length.
    (no answer expected given his delusion that comets are rocks based on persisting with ignorance and denial of basic science).
  4. 1 February 2017 Sol88: Lies about the position of posters in this thread - we have not moved away from mainstream comets, especially toward your and Thunderbolts delusion about comets being rocks with electrical discharges.
  5. 2 February 2017 Sol88: A lie that astronomers are scared of the astrophysics that they learn as students!
  6. 2 February 2017 Sol88: A lie that reputable astronomy books do not mention plasma.
  7. 2 February 2017 Sol88: A lie that astronomers "hate" plasma.
  8. 2 February 2017 Sol88: The repeated delusion that comets are the Moon!
  9. 2 February 2017 Sol88: A delusion that double layers appear in a study on the solar creating water in lunar soil.
  10. 2 February 2017 Sol88: Delusion that possible double layers in cometary dust tails have to do with his delusion that comets are rocks.
  11. 2 February 2017 Sol88: Delusion that a dusty plasma paper applies to his comets are rocks delusion.
  12. 2 February 2017 Sol88: Delusion that magnetosheath boundaries have anything with his delusion that comets are rocks.
  13. 2 February 2017 Sol88: Delusion that electric fields and cold electrons around Comet Halley are to do with his delusion that comets are rocks.
  14. 2 February 2017 Sol88: Lies about a paper being about the EU delusions, e.g. comets are rocks
  15. 2 February 2017 Sol88: Delusions about a "deep fried ice cream model" (even with a :D).

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.
 
The electric comet delusion first popped up here in on 18th June 2009

Sol88's delusion that comets are rocks actually dates from just before this thread in a general electric universe woo thread where Sol88 first asked to talk about electric comets on 18th June 2009 and I replied with the reasonable questions of
Reality Check said:
This is an EU (not actual science) thread so you start:
  • What is the EU idea of a comet?
  • What observational evidence does EU have for their idea?
Click to expand...
Almost 8 years later and all we have is his and the Thunderbolts cult delusions.
Plus maybe a few years? of lying by omission - Sol88 never stated that the electric comet delusion starts with them being blasted from the Earth in recent history by electrical discharges from a close by Venus!
 
Last edited:
Just for a bit more clarity, for people who may be lurking and are possibly not able to post on here, due to being terminally stupid and offensive:

Thornhill lied (by omission) about the ice ejected from the impact at Tempel 1. Ditto about the ice entrained in the jets at Hartley 2. Or are we to believe that somebody who has been studying comets for ~40 years just happened to miss those particular papers/ press releases?

Why prattle on about a non-existent pre-impact flash, when the biggest news from Tempel 1 was the ice that was ejected?

How could one say, in regard to the impactor at Tempel 1: "Copious X-rays will accompany discharges to the projectile, exceeding any reasonable model for X-ray production through the mechanics of impact." And then somehow fail to bother to read the papers that show, definitively, that no such X-ray enhancement was seen?

How does somebody, who has allegedly studied comets for 40 years, and gets most of his laughably bad science from press releases, miss something like this?: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/epoxi/epoxi20101118.html

I'll give another sneak preview of my magnum opus on this pathetic 'electric comet' woo:

Thornhill, somewhat ironically, wrote; “By the time of “Deep Impact” (July 4, 2005), comet theory had fragmented into contradictory hypotheses, due in part to the absence of detectible (sic) water on cometary surfaces—a prerequisite of standard theory.” Ironic, in the sense that ‘standard theory’ had known for some time that most of the ice contributing to outgassing had to be subsurface. Even more ironic, due to the fact that that the impact excavated solid ice grains, precisely as expected by standard theory, but not according to Thornhill, essentially killing his model right there and then.
Click to expand...

How can somebody, who supposedly has a BSc degree in a physics related area, contend that H+ from the solar wind smashes into extremely hard to find O- to create OH? Really? At ~1 keV? Err, no.

How can said idiot then contend that the OH, which won't form, will be then 'misinterpreted' by scientists as H2O? Never heard of spectroscopy, I presume. How are scientists getting a sub-millimeter signal at ~557 GHz from H2O, and somehow confusing that with OH? Hint: OH will not give you a signal anywhere near that wavelength, as would be very easy to find out. I've only got ~ 2 dozen references to such detections between 1985-2006. Obviously some people, who claim to have been studying comets for four decades, are rather selective in their reading.

How could anybody contend that the solar wind could have any relationship to the water outgassed by a comet, when we knew from 1986 at Halley, not to mention the AMPTE experiments, that the solar wind is getting nowhere near the nucleus at the time when the comet is most active? How stupid does one need to be to suggest such a thing? And how stupid does one need to be to believe it?

Why (seemingly deliberately) bring up the X-rays (generated by charge exchange) at comets, in favour of his pathetic woo? When we already knew that it was due to CX? Which, for the hard of thinking, is produced, for the most part, in narrow line emission that can be tied back to the individual ion that is involved in the CX.

How could one contend that comets are just 'asteroids on eccentric orbits', when there are asteroids on eccentric orbits that are most definitely not behaving like comets?

These are just some of the appalling errors made by Thorhill and Talbott in their 'electric comet' poster of 2006. It was supposedly meant for presentation at the ICOPS conference in Michigan, in 2006. That also, I believe, was another piece of fiction.

So, let's have a vote from the non-contributing lurkers:
1) Was Thornhill lying? Or;
2) Was Thornhill just grossly stupid?
There are no other options.

P.S.
Can we now get it in writing that a certain woo merchant believes Carl-Gunne Fälthammar is 'irrational'. And still believes (due to an hilarious inability to understand running difference images) that the Sun has a solid surface? Lol.

If anybody wants to check that the idiot Thornhill did indeed say the things I have attributed to him, then his and Talbott's 2006 laughably bad 'poster', is here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf
 
Last edited:
Here is an outright lie, for anybody who might doubt it:

But a much different vantage point on the water question is possible. When astronomers view the comas of comets spectroscopically, what they actually see is the hydroxyl radical (OH), which they assume to be a residue of water (H2O) broken down by the ultraviolet light of the Sun (photolysis). This assumption is not only unwarranted, it requires a speed of “processing” by solar radiation beyond anything that can be demonstrated experimentally.
Click to expand...

As I said, that is an outright lie. It is most definitely H2O! There is no chance of confusing H2O with OH in infrared or sub-millimetre spectra. As anybody who knows anything about such things would tell you. You don't even need to ask them - the information is easily accessible on the interweb. For those that understand it. Which obviously doesn't include Thornhill. And yet here he is, with his laughably bad ''science', telling everybody who has ever studied comets, including those that published the papers on these detections, that they've got it all wrong! Irony, anybody?

The quote comes from T & T's fictional poster, linked previously.
 
Last edited:
The electric comet delusion debunked

The mention of asteroids reminded me of my 26th August 2013 post back when I was treating the electric comet as a sincerely bad idea rather than deluded Thunderbolts cult dogma.

No answer to the simple facts:
  1. Comets have measured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).
  2. Comets may not have the composition of asteroids
  3. Deep Impact confirmed that comet nuclei are made of dust and ice not rock. There were a couple of surprises in that the dust was talcum powder rather than sand and the amount of ice was smaller than expected.
    "Analysis of data from the Swift X-ray telescope showed that the comet continued outgassing from the impact for 13 days, with a peak five days after impact. A total of 5 million kilograms (11 million pounds) of water[35] and between 10 and 25 million kilograms (22 and 55 million pounds) of dust were lost from the impact."WP
    Thus the water content of Comet Tempel 1 is 20% to 50%.
  4. Cometary dust as collected by the Stardust mission contain forms of carbon that are not in meteorites.
  5. Electric Comets I
  6. Electric Comets II: References
  7. Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (actually no EU X-ray bursts).
  8. The EC assumption of EDM machining does not produce jets.
  9. EDM in the EC idea needs a dielectric material which does not exist!
  10. No EDM sparks are seen in images of comet nuclei.
  11. No EDM hot spots are seen in thermal maps of Tempel 1.
  12. Voltage potentials are many orders of magnitude too small.
  13. EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets
  14. Water, water everywhere (except in the EC idea)
  15. EC proponents have the delusion that argument by YouTube video is somehow scientific :eye-poppi!
  16. EC proponents may think that EC comets switch off at perihelion?

In 2013, the JPL Small-Body Database Browser search engine listed 234,719 cataloged asteroids with an eccentricity > 0.17 (the minimum eccentricity of main belt "comets" that EU insists have to be comets).
 
Last edited:
jonesdave116 said:
If anybody wants to check that the idiot Thornhill did indeed say the things I have attributed to him, then his and Talbott's 2006 laughably bad 'poster', is here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf
Click to expand...
A rich source of Thunderbolts stupidity and/or lies about comets, jonesdave116. For example, just from page 8 about Stardust and Comet Wild 2:
  • The idiocy of using uncited press release(s).
    This is 2 years after Stardust - scientific literature exists :eek:!
  • "Some of the jets emanated from the dark unheated side of the comet—an anomaly no one had expected" is yet another bit of Thornhill stupidity or a lie.
    It takes an extremely stupid "physicist" to not know that the Sun heats up bodies and that the heat travels through matter. There is no unheated side of the comet :jaw-dropp!
  • The truth: Comet's Dust Clouds Hit NASA Spacecraft 'Like Thunderbolt'
    Thornhill lies about "energetic bursts" and "rocky particles as big as bullets"
  • The truth: NASA Spacecraft Reveals Surprising Anatomy Of A Comet
    "We thought Comet Wild 2 would be like a dirty, black, fluffy snowball," said Stardust Principal Investigator Dr. Donald Brownlee of the University of Washington, Seattle. "Instead, it was mind-boggling to see the diverse landscape in the first pictures from Stardust, including spires, pits and craters, which must be supported by a cohesive surface."
    Click to expand...
    It is the diversity of features that is "mind-boggling" not the features themselves.
    Thornhill lies about these features being only possible on rock.
  • The truth: There were bright spots on Wild 2, e.g Figure 7: Spots on Wild 2 and other comets, e.g. Tempel 1. They have an explanation - exposed water ice.
    Thornhill lies about these being unexplained and seems to lie about "hot spots".
 
Last edited:
jonesdave116 said:
If anybody wants to check that the idiot Thornhill did indeed say the things I have attributed to him, then his and Talbott's 2006 laughably bad 'poster', is here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf
Click to expand...
The PDF regurgitates the lies Thornhill wrote about confirmed Deep Impact predictions. From 2010: The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions
There is an additional Thornhill lie about unexplained "white patches" that were thought to be water ice and confirmed to be water ice in a paper published February 2, 2006 (the poster is dated June 2006):
"Water Ice on the Surface of Comet Tempel 1," J. M. Sunshine, et.al.. Published in Science Express, February 2, 2006.

Thornhill doubles up on the lie with a "Deep Impact—Where’s the Water?" section that goes onto the OH lie that jonesdave116 has addressed.
 
Reality Check said:
There is an additional Thornhill lie about unexplained "white patches" that were thought to be water ice and confirmed to be water ice in a paper published February 2, 2006 (the poster is dated June 2006):
"Water Ice on the Surface of Comet Tempel 1," J. M. Sunshine, et.al.. Published in Science Express, February 2, 2006.

Thornhill doubles up on the lie with a "Deep Impact—Where’s the Water?" section that goes onto the OH lie that jonesdave116 has addressed.
Click to expand...

Precisely. And the paper that first announced the detection of the ejection of icy grains was in March 2006:

Detection of water ice grains after the DEEP IMPACT onto Comet 9P/Tempel 1
Schulz, R. et al
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/ps/2006/12/aahi281.ps.gz

For someone who, at the time, was claimed to have studied comets for 30 years, this seems like a strange oversight. Maybe he didn't think it was important. More likely, he knew damn well that it blew his nonsense out of the water, and didn't want to bring it to the attention of his book buying public.
 
Dancing David said:
Just a reminder from Feb 2015

"It's not my job to prove to you the ELECTRIC COMET is correct" - Sol88
Click to expand...

Lol. By which stage it was long since dead. Unfortunately (or fortunately, whichever way you look at it), I had never heard of this electric comet woo until Rosetta came out of hibernation, and approached the comet in 2014. I couldn't believe some of the rubbish I was reading from certain posters on the Rosetta blog. Which is how I ended up here.
I knew from previous studies of comets that what they were saying, such as 'no ice', 'no H2O', 'it's made of rock', and the rest of the palaver, was extremely easy to debunk with the papers I already had at hand (which have since increased exponentially). I wish I had been here in time for David Talbott's brief appearance; I'd have certainly had some less than polite demands for him to explain certain observations, and Thornhill's total disregard of them. Not to mention explaining what Thornhill passes off as 'science'.

Still, at least it's as dead as a very dead thing now.
 
tusenfem said:
And what is it precisely what you want us to take home here, Sol?
(by the way I have cited this paper numerous times in this thread and in other EU threads. you just learned about it now?)
Click to expand...

It is concluded that the dust particles are strongly charged and partially coupled to cometary plasmas (or vice versa).
 
jonesdave116 said:
Lol. By which stage it was long since dead. Unfortunately (or fortunately, whichever way you look at it), I had never heard of this electric comet woo until Rosetta came out of hibernation, and approached the comet in 2014. I couldn't believe some of the rubbish I was reading from certain posters on the Rosetta blog. Which is how I ended up here.
I knew from previous studies of comets that what they were saying, such as 'no ice', 'no H2O', 'it's made of rock', and the rest of the palaver, was extremely easy to debunk with the papers I already had at hand (which have since increased exponentially). I wish I had been here in time for David Talbott's brief appearance; I'd have certainly had some less than polite demands for him to explain certain observations, and Thornhill's total disregard of them. Not to mention explaining what Thornhill passes off as 'science'.

Still, at least it's as dead as a very dead thing now.


Sniped
Click to expand...

Ohhh...:blush:
 
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