Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

[tusenfem]

And what's the physical reason for that wouldn't happen? Because plasma is a conductor?

yes, it is called Debye shielding

And if the simlations were correct, shouldn't the jets also deform in the described way, leaning to one of the sides? Or the velocity of particles is too high to notice that?

Because the jets are mainly dust and neutral gas, so they do not participate (yet) in the mass loading of the solar wind. Only ions massload the solar wind.

Also, why do you square the distance in the denominator? This would obviously give you the field strength, not the potential.

Oops, that's what comes from doing work on a holiday (Corpus Christi). So you get 1e7 back, but only if the charged sphere is in vacuum, not when it is embedded in plasma.

 

[JeanTate]

Not so

predictions confirmed

A few quotes may also help you





Can you guess who ? I'm certain JT will know as he's already quoted him

Here
[...]

Bit of a fine line you're treading there, Haig: even a numpty* knows that unattributed quotes are a no-no.

*(my bold)

Personally, I find your posts nearly impenetrable walls of copypasta and nested quotes. Perhaps limiting the amount of quoted material to just the most relevant portions would improve clarity for others.

Yes, looking back at it and other similar posts of mine I can see your point.

Can't say for sure I can improve that much, because of limited time, I'm always gonna be a copy 'n paste numpty but I will try.

(source) In another post, Haig provided a link, to define "numpty":

Numpty
Scottish usage:
a) Someone who (sometimes unwittingly) by speech or action demonstrates a lack of knowledge or misconception of a particular subject or situation to the amusement of others.

(source, there are two other definitions)

So, Haig, your own words seem to say that your role here is that of a jester, that you are not serious in your posting; is that correct?

The copypasta mention also points to another self-described role, that of a spam troll. Pretty slick, I must say ... go all out to post links to your fave sites (while also assiduously avoiding any discussion of what you post), and use the cover of being just a numpty/jester to deflect attention from your core mission ...

 

[jonesdave116]

Measurements of the near-nucleus coma of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko with the Alice far-ultraviolet spectrograph on Rosetta
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/forth/aa25925-15.pdf

Why do you keep linking that article? It has no support for EU rubbish whatsoever! Quite the opposite. I'll explain it again, for the hard of thinking (you might want to pay attention here, Haig); H20 is sublimated from the comet (how is this water being produced in the EU model, i.e from a rock?).
Photo dissociation (that's sunlight, Haig) causes an electron to be freed from the H2O molecule.
With me so far?
That electron then 'impacts' other H20 (and CO2) molecules, causing them to dissociate into their constituent parts.
Now, where in that scenario is there anything that remotely supports the idiotic beliefs of the scientific pygmies at ThunderDolts?

 

[JeanTate]

Not so

predictions confirmed

A few quotes may also help you

So we're right back to the classic response of Inquisitors when a fundamental challenge is developing with the power to transform science: "Where's the math"? "Where's the peer-reviewed research."? For a few moments in the history of scientific progress, the ruse can be effective. Then suddenly people begin to realize that the first priorities are ALL ABOUT DIRECT EVIDENCE. Scientific revolutions begin when evidence, pointing directly to cause and effect, has become sufficiently clear to those who did not see it yesterday.

Seems to me this is exactly what is happening.

Or putting things in different words: Scientific revolutions begin just as soon as rare individuals, convinced by an extraordinary idea, begin to persuade well trained people through their use of evidence. This typically occurs long before "peer reviewed" papers begin to show up explicitly supporting the idea. Right now, good people are pausing long enough to consider evidence, and the result is a growing movement outside the mainstream but able to attract working scientists inspired by what they see. We grant anonymity to anyone who needs it (for reasons that are pretty obvious).

More tutoring, rwguinn? As for predictions, hang around for a bit today. And in the meantime perhaps you or someone else involved here will hazard a tiny, SOLITARY prediction? Will Rosetta find ice anywhere beneath the dry and scorched surface of 67P?

Thank you Haig!

I was going to write stuff about how, um, idiosyncratic David Talbott's view is (yes, those are quotes from his posts in the first ECM thread), about how, um, creative his interpretation of the history of science is, etc, but instead I realized that your link is much more informative than I had first imagined.

By juxtaposing those "predictions" - some dating back more than a decade! - with David's own words (from late 2014) you have (unwittingly, I'm sure) highlighted his, um, hypocrisy.

You see Thornhill - who is so extensively quoted in your link - is the co-author (with David Talbott) of the only primary source on the ech. And - per your link - Thornhill believes there is already overwhelming DIRECT EVIDENCE for his and Talbott's ech, and has been since at least 2001.

So Talbott's reasons for why "electrical theorists" have yet to provide any "math" or "peer-reviewed research" ring rather hollow; instead, he comes across as 'protesting too much', as attempting to divert attention from the fact that he (and Thornhill) have nothing of any scientific value to show, for their decades of work ...

 

[JeanTate]

How is one to analyze/evaluate this direct evidence without the use of math? Seems the only way to leave out the math would be to go the route of "67P looks like a rock, therefore it is a rock".

(my bold)

Which is just what EU proponents have been saying (Haig included).

Of all the instruments on Rosetta, and the data from them which has been published, it seems the only ones of interest to EU true-believers are those which 'take pictures'. Conspicuously absent is any discussion of data from instruments which were designed to detect electric fields, magnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation (such as radio) produced by "electricity", etc. Yet another pointer to the fact that "the EU" is more a fundamentalist religious cult than anything to do with science ...

 

[Haig]

Why do you keep linking that article? It has no support for EU rubbish whatsoever! Quite the opposite. I'll explain it again, for the hard of thinking (you might want to pay attention here, Haig); H20 is sublimated from the comet (how is this water being produced in the EU model, i.e from a rock?).
Photo dissociation (that's sunlight, Haig) causes an electron to be freed from the H2O molecule.
With me so far?
That electron then 'impacts' other H20 (and CO2) molecules, causing them to dissociate into their constituent parts.
Now, where in that scenario is there anything that remotely supports the idiotic beliefs of the scientific pygmies at ThunderDolts?

Sure it's not a FULL confirmation of the Electric Comet hypothesis but it's going that way. Notice they are still "assuming"

Measurements of the near-nucleus coma of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko with the Alice far-ultraviolet spectrograph on Rosetta PDF

Assuming the observed H and O emissions are primarily produced by electron impact dissociation of H2O, these far ultraviolet observations could be mapping the spatial distribution of water plumes erupting from the surface of the nucleus. A similar interpretation has been applied to the mapping of H and O emissions from water plumes emanating from Jupiter’s satellite Europa (Roth et al. 2014).

Closer to the Electric Comet than the Dirty Snowball / Snowy Dirtball comet I'd say

Add that to NASA's Electric Asteroid model and soon mainstream may say they have discovered the Electric Comet

 

[jonesdave116]

yes, it is called Debye shielding



Because the jets are mainly dust and neutral gas, so they do not participate (yet) in the mass loading of the solar wind. Only ions massload the solar wind.



Oops, that's what comes from doing work on a holiday (Corpus Christi). So you get 1e7 back, but only if the charged sphere is in vacuum, not when it is embedded in plasma.

The obvious thing that jumps out at me from increasing the solar wind proton impacts by 10^7 (actually, based on estimated maximum H20 production last time round, more like 10^9), is what effect would that have on Rosetta at, say, 10 km from the nucleus?
Can't imagine it would do any good! What sort of solar wind fluxes was it designed to withstand? A good sized CME, I imagine, but that is nowhere near 10 million - 1 billion protons cm^3.

ETA:
It seems Rosetta is equipped to make observations of the solar wind, as evidenced by this abstract: http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2015/EGU2015-7577.pdf
The fact that it doesn't mention a huge spike in the flux (not to mention the fact that it is still working), tend to make me think that it is extremely unlikely to have experienced any significant increases in that flux.

 

[jonesdave116]

Sure it's not a FULL confirmation of the Electric Comet hypothesis but it's going that way. Notice they are still "assuming"

Measurements of the near-nucleus coma of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko with the Alice far-ultraviolet spectrograph on Rosetta PDF



Closer to the Electric Comet than the Dirty Snowball / Snowy Dirtball comet I'd say

Add that to NASA's Electric Asteroid model and soon mainstream may say they have discovered the Electric Comet

Jesus H. Christ. Are you deliberately being stupid? Explain how that is any sort of support for EU nonsense. How is water, sublimating from ice, supporting EU? How is photo-dissociation of H20 and CO2 support for EU?
Yes, I know 'electrons' sounds almost like 'electric', but the electrons are produced FROM the EXISTING water and CO2 molecules. Not from rock, not by magic electric fairies beavering away on the comet, purely by photons hitting Water and CO2. From sunlight. The same sunlight that is causing them to sublimate in the first place.

If the EU model (for which there is so far zero evidence, if you discount pareidolia) is correct, why is the density 470 kg m^3, and where is all the water coming from?
As I've said, explain those things in a scientific and testable way, and there might be a debate to be had. You can't though, and neither can Talbott (I highlighted his highly relevant qualifications previously). Solar wind doesn't work for water production, electrostatic repulsion doesn't work to explain the density, and there is no electrical activity seen or measured to explain anything else.
It is a dead idea. Shuffled off its mortal coil. Gone to meet its maker.

 

[JeanTate]

Sure it's not a FULL confirmation of the Electric Comet hypothesis but it's going that way. Notice they are still "assuming"

Measurements of the near-nucleus coma of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko with the Alice far-ultraviolet spectrograph on Rosetta PDF



Closer to the Electric Comet than the Dirty Snowball / Snowy Dirtball comet I'd say

Add that to NASA's Electric Asteroid model and soon mainstream may say they have discovered the Electric Comet

(my bold)

To add to what jonesdave116 posted, "the Electric Comet" requires that comets be composed of solid rock. As comets are not composed of solid rock - just look at their estimated densities - "the Electric Comet" is, um, strongly inconsistent with the facts and data (your gold standard, I believe, Haig).

It seems that simple logic is also not one of your strong suits, Haig.

 

[jonesdave116]

I believe Jean posted a link to this earlier, but may be worth highlighting again; Tom Bridgman's latest blog post:
Electric Comets: More Failures of the Electric Comet Model
http://dealingwithcreationisminastr...2015/05/electric-comets-more-failures-of.html

 

[Haig]

(my bold)

To add to what jonesdave116 posted, "the Electric Comet" requires that comets be composed of solid rock. As comets are not composed of solid rock - just look at their estimated densities - "the Electric Comet" is, um, strongly inconsistent with the facts and data (your gold standard, I believe, Haig).

It seems that simple logic is also not one of your strong suits, Haig.

Seems that memory isn't one of your strong suits JT

The comet density question has been answered ad nauseam on this and the first thread in answer to Dancing David and RC.

Actually, the Electric Comet hypothesis doesn't "require" that comets are rock but they do think they are for sound reasons. What is required is that they are charged bodies as the links and videos make that perfectly clear.

If they are not rock why did the copper projectile of the Deep Impact mission to Comet Tempel 1 barely leave a mark ???

And poor little Philae bounced off "rock like" 67P several times.

Maybe comets ARE as hard as they look comet 67P images

Seems to me you need to read more and say less

Here is a start for you ... Common Misconceptions

 

[JeanTate]

Seems that memory isn't one of your strong suits JT

The comet density question has been answered ad nauseam on this and the first thread in answer to Dancing David and RC.

I'm sure that you are correct ... comets do not have densities consistent with them being solid rock. Per the facts and data.

Actually, the Electric Comet hypothesis doesn't "require" that comets are rock but they do think they are for sound reasons.

Not according to David Talbott.

You might like to re-read his posts, in the predecessor thread to this one.

What is required is that they are charged bodies as the links and videos make that perfectly clear.

Indeed.

And it "is required" that the charge they hold is sufficient to support on-going EDM.

Which is strongly inconsistent with the relevant facts and data.

If they are not rock why did the copper projectile of the Deep Impact mission to Comet Tempel 1 barely leave a mark ???

And poor little Philae bounced off "rock like" 67P several times.

Seems that memory isn't one of your strong suits Haig

The Temple 1 projectile and Philae boucing questions have been answered ad nauseam on this thread (and perhaps the first thread as well), in response to posts by you and Sol88.

Maybe comets ARE as hard as they look comet 67P images

Ziggurat's 'beyond stupid' comment springs to mind ... ice, even 'dry ice, can be as hard as rock; ever taken a fall on an ice-rink, Haig?

 

[Haig]

Ziggurat's 'beyond stupid' comment springs to mind ... ice, even 'dry ice, can be as hard as rock; ever taken a fall on an ice-rink, Haig?

You think 67P images looks like ICE ?

 

[JeanTate]

[...]
Here is a start for you ... Common Misconceptions

Hilarious!

Nothing to do with the ech, nor even the ES.

True to numpty form ("Someone who (sometimes unwittingly) by speech or action demonstrates a lack of knowledge or misconception of a particular subject or situation to the amusement of others.")

 

[JeanTate]

You think 67P images looks like ICE ?

Yes.

Ever seen a glacier, Haig? Or the dark, dirty hard crust of ice that often/sometimes (depends on where you live) forms on the 'snowbank' some days after a snow-covered street has been ploughed?

It's been said before - many times, by several different ISF members - that the incredulity which both you and Sol88 express, re 67P images and 'ice', may be due to your limited experience with ice, here on Earth. Which is kinda funny, really, given your love of facts and data ...

 

[Ziggurat]

You think 67P images looks like ICE ?

First, the surface isn't ice. Second, I don't think you can tell composition from a black and white photo. What are these?

 

[Haig]

Yes.

Ever seen a glacier, Haig? Or the dark, dirty hard crust of ice that often/sometimes (depends on where you live) forms on the 'snowbank' some days after a snow-covered street has been ploughed?

Well even the ESA said 67P was rock like So not an uncommon view then

recent images shared from the Rosetta team were obtained from a distance of 285 kilometers above 67P’s surface, and scientists say they surpass all pictures taken from earlier space missions of cometary surfaces. Visible are steep slopes and precipices, sharp-edged rock structure, prominent pits, and smooth, wide plains

 

[JeanTate]

Well even the ESA said 67P was rock like So not an uncommon view then

http://www.universetoday.com/113712...seup-views-of-comet-67pchuryumov-gerasimenko/

Yep ... ice is a kind of rock, particularly in environments well below the triple point of water ... looks like rock, is hard like rock, fractures like rock, totally expected, given the well-known physical properties of solid water.

Of course, David Talbott - and you? - uses the word 'rock' to refer to the sorts of things found in temperate/tropical climes here on Earth, sedimentary rock, igneous rock, etc. Rock that is (mostly) 'dry'.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well even the ESA said 67P was rock like So not an uncommon view then

http://www.universetoday.com/113712...seup-views-of-comet-67pchuryumov-gerasimenko/

Still can't figure out the difference between science and press reports, I see. Those words are from Nancy Atkinson, who wrote the article, NOT the ESA. She is a journalist with a BA in English. She has no formal training in science, and no role in any space missions. Her use of the word "rock" is not in any way significant.

But I'm not surprised that you would miss these little details. After all, it's not like you or any of the EU proponents knows anything about science either.

 

[tusenfem]

The obvious thing that jumps out at me from increasing the solar wind proton impacts by 10^7 (actually, based on estimated maximum H20 production last time round, more like 10^9), is what effect would that have on Rosetta at, say, 10 km from the nucleus?
Can't imagine it would do any good! What sort of solar wind fluxes was it designed to withstand? A good sized CME, I imagine, but that is nowhere near 10 million - 1 billion protons cm^3.

ETA:
It seems Rosetta is equipped to make observations of the solar wind, as evidenced by this abstract: http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2015/EGU2015-7577.pdf
The fact that it doesn't mention a huge spike in the flux (not to mention the fact that it is still working), tend to make me think that it is extremely unlikely to have experienced any significant increases in that flux.

that is an egu abstract for the paper i said was not yet in print
i should have remembered this abstract from tom