Sigh....Just for the lurkers, I'll link to this again:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11702725&postcount=3232
Thornhill's quote is from the fantasy poster here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf
Now, tell us, why is he telling his acolytes that scientists are "assuming" that they see H2O? If he's not bothered about water at comets, why not come up with some more of his scientifically impossible woo to explain it? Magic electric fairies, maybe? Most of them would believe it.
What scientists were actually seeing was unambiguously, definitively, H2O. For 20 years prior to when he wrote that rubbish. So, was he lying? Or is he just scientifically illiterate? What do the lurkers think that the signal at ~557 GHz in the sub-mm is, for example? And do they think the IR detections could possibly be mistaking OH for H2O? I'll tell you now - no they couldn't.
So, what is it, lying or scientific illiteracy? I'm happy with whatever you plump for. There are no other options.
And then we have his fantasy of solar wind H+ smashing into O- at 400 km/s to create OH (which scientists were obviously mistaking for H2O!). Check with any scientist in the field; H+ will not combine with anything at ~1 keV! Why didn't he know this? Again, I'm happy with the outcome of either lying or scientific illiteracy.
Apart from which, he is supposed to have been researching comets for 30 years when he wrote that pile of fail. How come he missed the bit about the solar wind not actually getting anywhere near the nucleus to perform his impossible woo in the first place? Hopeless research skills, lying or scientific illiteracy? I'm happy with any of those.
And then, from December 2014, we have:
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/congratulations-rosetta-shame-about-the-science/
However, it’s a shame that scientists misled the engineers with their cherished story of icy comets, which resulted in an inappropriate design for the lander, Philae
.
Despite the fact the he knew that the Tempel 1 impact had excavated a shed load of icy grains. Despite the fact that he must have seen the pictures, not to mention the papers, documenting the proverbial snowstorm around Hartley 2. I'll post the pic again, because it's so lovely!
From:
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/18nov_cometsnowstorm (2010)
Now, given that his research seems to almost totally consist of cherry picking and quote mining from press releases, how do you think all that managed to escape his attention? And how he failed, in a fair minded way, to present such evidence to those who hang on his every word? What would one call that? Lying by omission, rubbish (i.e. selective) research? Ignoring it, and hoping nobody within EU circles would notice (a fair assumption)? Deceit would probably be the nicest thing I could call it.
Further from that article, we have:
But despite the stark reality, the story of comets remains unchanged. The ice ‘must be’ buried beneath that rocky-looking crust. This is a favourite recourse of astrophysicists to have mechanisms buried out of sight inside celestial bodies or black holes where they are difficult or impossible to verify. But this time the Philae lander may have sent sufficient information to expose this convenient fiction.
Sorry, but that is just outright lying. See above, re the Tempel 1 impactor excavating a load of solid ice. And CO2 jets (electric discharges according to the genius Thornhill!) excavating an immense amount at Hartley 2.
And then he's off again, with this pile of scientific fail and obfuscation:
However, the Vega 2 spacecraft found the reverse, which “may indicate the existence of parents of OH other than H2O.” This finding supports the Electric Universe model, which proposes comet nuclei as fragments of planetary surfaces. Their rocky surfaces are spark-machined by a cold cathode type of coronal discharge. The electricity is provided by the comet’s motion in the solar plasma’s weak electric field (which is also responsible for the acceleration of the solar wind away from the Sun despite its powerful gravity). OH is produced easily from clay and rock minerals by an electric discharge.
Not going to get OH from the solar wind, is he? And he isn't going to be turning that into H2O, is he? As for discharges; lol, is the most scientific word I can think of to describe that! He could have looked at the papers on Hartley 2, where his 'discharges' were seen to be cold, neutral jets of CO2, entraining water ice! Why didn't he know this in December 2014?
Why didn't he check out the paper that showed the temperature map of that comet, where there was zero indication of any electric woo going on? More rubbish research, or more omission of facts just to keep the fantasy alive? You decide.
He prattles on further, in regard to Halley:
The power supply problem may have a simple explanation related to the electrical charging of the spacecraft in the comet’s highly active environment.
Err. no. Such a thing would have been measured by the instruments. And wasn't. As he really ought to know. Put that one down to just plain obfuscation.
And, after a pile more gibberish, we get this pearl of scientific wisdom:
If it looks like rock, it’s safest to assume it is rock! It is not necessary for the low density to be due solely to high porosity of the interior of the comet. The electrical model even suggests hollowness as a possibility
.
Now, that is just idiocy, given the size of the crater caused by the impact into Tempel 1. Or did that pass him by as well? For somebody who has supposedly been researching comets since the mid-70s, that is an egregious oversight. Or was it? The rest of that nonsense is just an unfortunate prediction, given that MIRO and CONSERT both went on to show that it isn't rock, and nor is it hollow. Porosity means small scale, Wal. Not dirty great holes in the thing! As we already knew from lab simulations, but why would he know that, given how much else he didn't seem to know?
I could go on and on (and frequently have). That is just a fraction of the material that I have collected on the deceit that has been the electric comet fantasy. Hands up anyone who bought into it? Shame on you! Hands up anyone who thinks he has been the least bit honest in his presentation of it?
The distribution of water ice in the interior of Comet Tempel 1
Sunshine, J. M. et al (2007)
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5abd/57ce43924466abb4c4f3bca01f2a50dd12a3.pdf
Detection of water ice grains after the DEEP IMPACT onto Comet 9P/Tempel 1
Schulz, R. et al (2006)
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full/2006/12/aahi281/aahi281.right.html
Return to Comet Tempel 1: Overview of Stardust-NExT results
Veverka, J. et al (2013)
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.470.3350&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Water ice and dust in the innermost coma of comet 103P/Hartley 2
Protopapa, S. et al (2014)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.3382.pdf
The temperature, thermal inertia, roughness and color of the nuclei of Comets 103P/Hartley 2 and 9P/Tempel 1
Groussin, O. et al(2013)
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...9PTempel_1/links/02bfe5137699829f03000000.pdf
I'll write up a few later. In general it's extremely educational, especially the clarity of some of the explanations from ISF members.
!
!