Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

[JeanTate]

[...] Juergens (or whoever is claiming this) is using cartoon physics. Cartoon physics religious belief can do anything, I guess.

FTFY

 

[Ziggurat]

But hey, in religion you don't ever claim to be consistent ...

That's not actually fair. Religious beliefs can be consistent. Not all religious beliefs are, of course, but they can be, and for some of the great religious thinkers, they probably are. A consistent set of religious beliefs is still not science, of course, and we should not give religious beliefs any weight in regards to science even if they are consistent, but we need not attack religion categorically on these grounds.

Of course, what this means is that not only are his inconsistent EU beliefs a religion for him, but they're bad religion at that.

 

[JeanTate]

But hey, in religion you don't ever claim to be consistent ...

That's not actually fair. Religious beliefs can be consistent. Not all religious beliefs are, of course, but they can be, and for some of the great religious thinkers, they probably are. A consistent set of religious beliefs is still not science, of course, and we should not give religious beliefs any weight in regards to science even if they are consistent, but we need not attack religion categorically on these grounds.

Thanks for pointing this out.

Yes, you are right, the "ever" in my post is incorrect. And I've edited it: "But hey, in religion you don't ever have to claim to be consistent ..." (maybe I should simply remove "ever"?), and thanked you (maybe I should put it in the post itself?).

Of course, what this means is that not only are his inconsistent EU beliefs a religion for him, but they're bad religion at that.

I'm not 100% sure of this; it may be that Haig is rather agnostic, and is instead playing some sort of troll-like game? Perhaps as part of a 'link-farming' campaign? He certainly does post many of the same links - back to EU sites - repeatedly, far more than would seem to be necessary given the actual 'conversation'. And his frequent repetition of the same 'talking points', irrespective of how many times they've already been covered, seems inconsistent with mere religious-like fervor.

 

[dasmiller]

It's interesting to note mainstream speculation on Phobos and Deimos being blasted from the surface of Mars after finding material from those moons are the same as Mars.

Martian moon Phobos may have formed by catastrophic blast

Transfer of Impact Ejecta Material from the Surface of Mars to Phobos and Deimos

FORMATION OF PHOBOS AND DEIMOS VIA A GIANT IMPACT PDF

Per your last link, getting Deimos and Phobos into orbit involved hitting Mars with something that weighed 25 to 100 times as much as the two moons and melting ~40% of Mars' surface. The moons then coalesced from the debris.

As I understand ECH, it asserts that comets are formed by electrical processes that eject large chunks of the crust intact with minimal collateral damage.

Offhand, it seems that the paper either contradicts ECH or is perhaps irrelevant to it. Do you feel that it supports ECH, and if so, how?

 

[phunk]

Thanks for agreeing that it may be possible ! That IS what you meant to say, right ?

Not at all, and you know it.

 

[phunk]

Opposite charge to the plasma thunderbolt causing the blast and the same charge as the bulk of the crust of Mars.

How does that make any sense? Lightning doesn't charge things, it discharges them.

 

[Haig]

Producing controlled fusion is not the problem. We've been doing that for decades. Hell, you can even do it with table top devices. The problem is getting more useable power out than you need to start the reaction. But the fact that we have a tough time isn't relevant to stellar fusion. The sun's core is at far higher pressure than we can contain, and the core is also very well insulated so that the rate of power loss per unit volume is actually very low, far lower than we can achieve.

Thanks for the update

Lord love a duck. "Blasting" things into "highly eccentric orbits"?

Have you ever thought about what delta-V you'd need to "blast" something from an inner-planet circular orbit onto a comet-like orbit? You're talking about tens of kilometers per second. (Halley's Comet was going 70 km/s when it passed Earth.) That's ten or twenty times the speed of sound in rock---i.e., far faster than the fastest shock wave you can imagine.

In other words, the laws of physics say you can't "blast" rocks from Mars orbit into comet-like orbits. Juergens (or whoever is claiming this) is using cartoon physics. Cartoon physics can do anything, I guess.

What about the Great Comet Venus ? The Original Electric Comet What delta-V was it doing when it was blasted out of Jupiter ? Remembering the Great Comet PDF

I think that it is appropriate to report posts that are not about electric comets for being off topic.

Fair point

Let's see if I can follow ...

• blasting mountains off the Earth, intact, with exploding double layers has not been achieved (by EU fundies, or anyone else for that matter) here on Earth;
• producing copious, continuous, neutrino emission from 3000-4000K hydrogen plasmas has not been achieved (by EU fundies, or anyone else for that matter) here on Earth;
• creating EDM discharges (sufficient to create craters ~1m in diameter, and bigger) without also producing magnetic fields >a few nT and without also generating strong radio and microwave emission has not been achieved (by EU fundies, or anyone else for that matter) here on Earth;
• (I'll stop here; it's a very long list).

Forget double layers; central to EU dogma is double standards!

But hey, in religion you don't ever have to claim to be consistent ...

That's not actually fair. Religious beliefs can be consistent. Not all religious beliefs are, of course, but they can be, and for some of the great religious thinkers, they probably are. A consistent set of religious beliefs is still not science, of course, and we should not give religious beliefs any weight in regards to science even if they are consistent, but we need not attack religion categorically on these grounds.

Of course, what this means is that not only are his inconsistent EU beliefs a religion for him, but they're bad religion at that.

Thanks for pointing this out.

Yes, you are right, the "ever" in my post is incorrect. And I've edited it: "But hey, in religion you don't ever have to claim to be consistent ..." (maybe I should simply remove "ever"?), and thanked you (maybe I should put it in the post itself?).


I'm not 100% sure of this; it may be that Haig is rather agnostic, and is instead playing some sort of troll-like game? Perhaps as part of a 'link-farming' campaign? He certainly does post many of the same links - back to EU sites - repeatedly, far more than would seem to be necessary given the actual 'conversation'. And his frequent repetition of the same 'talking points', irrespective of how many times they've already been covered, seems inconsistent with mere religious-like fervor.

You guys are so funny

If I had a religion I would certainly be offended

The Acceptance of Correct Ideas in Science

Per your last link, getting Deimos and Phobos into orbit involved hitting Mars with something that weighed 25 to 100 times as much as the two moons and melting ~40% of Mars' surface. The moons then coalesced from the debris.

As I understand ECH, it asserts that comets are formed by electrical processes that eject large chunks of the crust intact with minimal collateral damage.

Offhand, it seems that the paper either contradicts ECH or is perhaps irrelevant to it. Do you feel that it supports ECH, and if so, how?

Nope, Just a point of interest that mainstream are proposing the moons of Mars being blasted out of the planet, particularly that planet

How does that make any sense? Lightning doesn't charge things, it discharges them.

Lightning equalises the potential as I understand it. So one losses charge and the other gains charge, right?

 

[Reality Check]

Still no surface "ice" RC?

Still the delusion that no surface ice has been found on any comets Sol88?
Still the delusion that comets are rock, Sol88?
Still so ignorant about scientists that you think that that are stupid enough to think that comets are rock, Sol88?
I am not arguing with "nutters, cranks and deluded people like me". I am not that stupid because I know that there is little hope of these nutters etc. to learn abut the real world. They will keep probably keep on repeating their delusion that comets are rocks even if a chunk of a comet is returned to Earth! I am recording for the world to see for the rest of the life of the Internet just how nutty, ignorant and deluded "nutters, cranks and deluded people like me" can be .

 

[Reality Check]

Yip, that's the level I seemed to be dealing with RC

Actually that might be the level of science that you know about given the many delusional people that have fooled you about basic science, Haig .

Let's be clear that lying about the Sun does not make delusions correct, Haig.
Even the excuse of being ignorant enough to believe in The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos etc. does not excuse denial of science.
11 year old schoolchildren would not know about the detection of the neutrinos from fusion from the center of the Sun but they should know about Google and Wikipedia!

 

[Sol88]

Ohhh they have, have they RC? How much "ice" have they found on 67P?

 

[Reality Check]

..snipped delusions...
It's interesting to note mainstream speculation on Phobos and Deimos being blasted from the surface of Mars after finding material from those moons are the same as Mars.

It is interesting to see you being ignorant enough to cite science that does not mention the Thunderbolts delusions, Haig .

We already know that impacts can knock mass into space, e.g. we have meteorites from Mars on Earth! One theory is that the Moon formed from an impact on the Earth. So these sources are not a surprise.
Martian moon Phobos may have formed by catastrophic blast


Transfer of Impact Ejecta Material from the Surface of Mars to Phobos and Deimos

FORMATION OF PHOBOS AND DEIMOS VIA A GIANT IMPACT PDF[/QUOTE]

 

[Sol88]

As for nutters,cranks and the like a quote by the greatest inventor science has known Nikola Tesla

Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.

and here we are today!
The OSRIS team have for quite some time know the source of the jets, no nozzles or orifaces found but the jets are now everywhere.

 

[Reality Check]

As I understand ECH, it asserts that comets are formed by electrical processes that eject large chunks of the crust intact with minimal collateral damage.

To add to your understanding of ECH, dasmiller: The crust the comets are being blasted from belongs to the Earth!
In the Thunderbolts authors world, Venus wanders around the Solar System and has close encounters with the Earth to explain various myths. So we have cubic kilometers of rock being blasted from the Earth in recent history without any residue left or effects on climate or animals.

 

[Reality Check]

How much "ice" have they found on 67P?

Now the delusion that no ice has been found on 67P pops its ugly head up again - the comet is mainly made up of ice as its measured density shows, Sol88. We have had a probe land on 67P and measure that the surface is a dust layer covering a layer of (harder than expected) ice.
The original delusion was that no surface ice has been found but 4th August 2009 Sol88: Deep Impact found ice on the surface of Tempel 1.

ETA:
16th April 2015, Sol88: Do not repeat a lie about no ice being found (ice found on Tempel 1 and 67P)
22nd April 2015 Sol88: Repeated delusions about comets do not reflect well on you
22nd April 2015 Sol88: The fantasy that Earth is a comet + "dirty snowballs" fantasy
22nd April 2015 Sol88: The delusion that Thunderbolts predicted the 67P bright spots
28th April 2015 Sol88: Are the Velikovskyian ideas that are the basis of the electric comet correct?
30th April 2015 Sol88: Why did Voyager 1 (and many other spacecraft) not turn into a comet?

P.S. 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)?

 

[Reality Check]

As for nutters,cranks and the like ....

Nikola Tesla was not stupid, Sol88.
If he was alive today he would not be deluded enough to think that comets are rocks because he knew about science and would understand The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos etc..

 

[Reality Check]

19th February 2015 Sol88: Can you recognize delusion cubed (ECH)? and the answer is obviously not !
ETA From the start of this thread:
20th February 2015 Sol88: Shows his inability to understand a comet image.
Followed by more delusions about images!
23rd February 2015 Sol88: A lie about the model of comets not being able to explain strata
23rd February 2015 Sol88 still believes in the Thunderbolts ignorance, delusions and lies
5th March 2015 Sol88 agrees that there is no rock detected on 67P by quoting Holger Sierks stating that there was no rock detected!. But then he goes back to the comets are rock delusion + the delusion then that what looks like rock in images must be rock (are clouds candy floss then !).
The delusion that fault lines on Earth "appears to be EDM scars on Earth"
The delusion that modern cartoons looking like petroglyphs is science (Erich von Däniken idiocy)!

Not that these delusion are new::
19th January 2010 Sol88: Do EC comets switch off at perihelion?
or 22nd December 2014: Questions about the origin of electric comets
or From August 2009 Sol88: List of 19! outstanding questions[/

 

[Haig]

Let's be clear that lying about the Sun does not make delusions correct, Haig.
Even the excuse of being ignorant enough to believe in The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos etc. does not excuse denial of science.
11 year old schoolchildren would not know about the detection of the neutrinos from fusion from the center of the Sun but they should know about Google and Wikipedia!

Electric Comets require an Electric Sun. So - lets see who is right about the Sun

Preview with Monty Childs: SAFIRE Project Update | EU2015

The SAFIRE Project is the first ever laboratory experiment to test a theory of the Sun. In this audio interview, Monty Childs, the director of the SAFIRE Project, offers a brief outline of progress and look ahead to the SAFIRE Team’s forthcoming report at the EU2015 Conference: Paths of Discovery. On Saturday, June 27, attendees at the event will witness the premiere of SAFIRE–The Documentary, written and produced by Ben Ged Low.

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: Is it you or Thunderbolts that are lying about the Sun

Electric Comets require an Electric Sun..

Nice that you acknowledge yet again that the electric comet delusion is based on another delusion Haig .

A pity that you did not read my post: It is that you or Thunderbolts are lying about the Sun, Haig.
The real confirmation that the center of the Sun is at the temperatures and pressures that make fusion to happen is the detection of neutrinos from that fusion .
Touting a stupid experiment does not change the fact that the laboratory tested laws of physics state that fusion happens at the center of stars.

9 June 2015 Haig: Is it you or Thunderbolts that are lying about the Sun?

 

[Matthew Cline]

Lightning equalises the potential as I understand it. So one losses charge and the other gains charge, right?

A discharge between two objects of opposite charge decreases the the absolute magnitude of the charge of each object.

By inducing charge and the opposite polarity in shallow layers of the crust possibly ? Thus breaking it up and blasting electric comet sized rocks into highly eccentric orbits ?

The problem is the "blasting". "Blasting" implies a great deal of force applied over a short period of time. You're saying enough force was applied to the rock to not only lift it out of the gravity well of Mars, but to change its orbit from regular to highly eccentric. If that much force was applied over a short enough time to be considered a "blast", the force would be so high it would shatter the rock into rubble.

So, maybe you mean to say that the force was applied over a longer period of time, so that the force was small enough to not shatter the rock (in which case you should use a word other than "blasting" to avoid confusion). I think the scenario you have in mind is that there's some oppositely charged object in space pulling the chunk of rock up. However, the scenario also has a an electric discharge from the crust of Mars to the space object being the cause of the huge chunk of rock separating. Problem is, once the discharge starts, there's nothing to stop it, so the absolute magnitude of the charges of the chunk of rock and the space object are going to rapidly decrease. Since the magnitude of the electrostatic attraction is proportional to the product of the charges of the two objects, the attractive force is also going to rapidly decrease. If the initial charges are high enough to pull the rock into outer space (and then into an eccentric orbit) despite this rapid decrease, then the initial attractive force would have been massive enough to fracture the rock.

Or maybe Ziggurat's interpretation is right, and the scenario is that electrostatic repulsion flings a rock away from the crust of Mars.

 

[Reality Check]

There are other problems with that word "blast" (which I also use!).
It implies an explosion which is relatively efficient and contained within a small volume. What we know about lightning is that it is not contained and not an efficient blast - there is a lot of light and heat released as well. A first approximation would be similar cubic kilometers of vaporized and melted rocks as the comets that are ejected into space. All of those many cubic kilometers of vaporized and melted rocks would remain on the planet. I suspect that a layer of melted rock possibly covering the surface of the planet would leave signs that are easy to detect!

P.S. That the origin of comets is just Mars seems to be Haig's personal fantasy. Note that there are no citations to the Thunderbolts statement of which rocky planets the comets came from. When we asked a expert (David Talbott) the response was basically 6 months of silence so far.
22 December 2014: Questions about the origin of electric comets includes
18 December 2014 David Talbott, Sol88 or Haig: Please list the planets and moons that were interacting to create comets.