Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

[ben m]

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

The planet Venus was *not* blasted out of Jupiter. What moron told you that? Oh, Talbott, I see. Go ahead and quote the actual orbital-mechanics equations that you think Talbott used to draw that picture. I'll wait.

(Hint: He didn't use any orbital-mechanics equations. He just made some stuff up. I can do it too: "In 1066, the planet Uranus came and visited the inner solar system and its moon Miranda bopped King Harald on the head, rendering him unable to fend off William the Conqueror")

 

[jonesdave116]

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

Or, maybe, more likely, Haig hasn't got a clue what he's talking about? And that doesn't just apply to him, but Sol as well, and also to the scientific pygmies who conjured this nonsense out of nowhere in the first place.
There is so much evidence to show the comet is producing water, yet this load of brainwashed numpties can't see it. That's what you get for believing in a religion.
There is a very good analogy used by Richard Dawkins, and I'm loath to use it here; but it's getting close.

 

[jonesdave116]

The planet Venus was *not* blasted out of Jupiter. What moron told you that? Oh, Talbott, I see. Go ahead and quote the actual orbital-mechanics equations that you think Talbott used to draw that picture. I'll wait.

(Hint: He didn't use any orbital-mechanics equations. He just made some stuff up. I can do it too: "In 1066, the planet Uranus came and visited the inner solar system and its moon Miranda bopped King Harald on the head, rendering him unable to fend off William the Conqueror")

I remember reading that cr*p when I was about 11 (Velikovsky): suffice to say, when I grew up, and got an education, I left it a long way behind.

EDIT: Why couldn't the damn thing have hit William the Bastard on the head?

 

[jonesdave116]

"The mysteries find direct answers electrically—in the transaction between a negatively charged comet nucleus and the Sun. In the electric model, negative oxygen ions are accelerated away from the comet in energetic jets, then combine preferentially with protons from the solar wind to form the observed OH radical and the neutral hydrogen gathered around the coma in vast concentric bubbles. These abundances simply confirm the energetic charge exchange between the nucleus and the Sun."

How's that one going, Wal? Not looking too good is it? Stick to whatever it is you're actually good at. Not sure what that is, but it sure as hell isn't science.

 

[Reality Check]

The planet Venus was *not* blasted out of Jupiter. What moron told you that? Oh, Talbott, I see. Go ahead and quote the actual orbital-mechanics equations that you think Talbott used to draw that picture. I'll wait.

Good analogy, ben m.
The first link is a long rant from Talbott that ignores what is physically possible and obsesses on Venus in myths.
The second link is a Michael Goodspeed with many flaws.

1. Being ignorant about your own theory is abysmal - the basis of the electric comets is that comets are rocks that originated on planets and thus coma, jets and tails have to be "electrical", not sublimated gases.
2. Cherry picking historical quotes about comets and electricity is not evidence for an electric comet theory existing in e.g. 1872.
3. Science progresses - old beliefs about comets need not (and did not!) stand up over time as more data was gathered.
4. Science is not fantasies published in obscure magazines.
5. Emphasizing that a theory is based on the ideas of a few people is bad.
6. Emphasizing that a theory has existed for ~150 years as Goodspeed believes and is still a crank theory is really insane.
7. Emphasizing that a theory has existed for a several decades and still has no actual physics behind it (just word salad) is really bad.

 

[Reality Check]

For those that like science rather than fantasy - 67P is getting hot enough that we now see jets from the "night" side:
Rosetta’s Comet Keeps On Jetting Even After the Sun Goes Down
The nice thing is that we can visually trace the jets back to their source in this image.

 

[Haig]

The planet Venus was *not* blasted out of Jupiter. What moron told you that? Oh, Talbott, I see. Go ahead and quote the actual orbital-mechanics equations that you think Talbott used to draw that picture. I'll wait.

(Hint: He didn't use any orbital-mechanics equations. He just made some stuff up. I can do it too: "In 1066, the planet Uranus came and visited the inner solar system and its moon Miranda bopped King Harald on the head, rendering him unable to fend off William the Conqueror")

It's not only him to have suggested rocky cores being eject material from the cores of the gas giants

More on Mercury’s Mysteries (my bold)

There are two possible electrical origins of planets in the solar system. First, the Sun may become electrically unstable and eject sufficient matter to form a gas giant companion. Currently, astrophysicists are unable to account for powerful jets of matter seen issuing from stars and galaxies. The electrical model interprets them as electric discharge phenomena. So stars undergoing a nova outburst may give birth to gas giant planets, which explains the discovery of giant planets in very close orbits about nearby stars. It is similarly proposed that rocky planets are ‘born’ fully formed by material jetted from within a brown dwarf star or gas giant planet undergoing an electrical ‘flaring’ or ‘nova’ outburst. As British physicist Peter Warlow wrote in 1982:

“…the obvious place for a small heavy planet to form is at the core of a large gaseous planet. This is the ideal place to collect together the heavier elements and if, for the same but unknown reason that quasars eject material from their cores, the core of that large planet is also ejected, then we will have a source of Earth-like and Venus-like planets. If the lesser nova eruptions of stars are, in fact, manifestations of the same process, then we have a source of the larger Jupiter-like planets.”
— The Reversing Earth, 1982.

 

[Haig]

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

Yes, can't wait for the Electric Comet 67P show to start again, the Rosetta Team have been very quiet lately.

FINE STRUCTURE IN THE COMET’S JETS

Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko has shown activity in the form of jets for many months now, but the latest image reveals that the large-scale jets seen in previous images can now be resolved into many smaller jets emerging from the surface, which seem to merge together further away from the comet nucleus. Although much activity still emanates from the ‘neck’ region, jets are also appearing from both of the comet’s two lobes.

Looking very "rock like" dry and ice free

Also with electrical action detected close to the nucleus (my bold)

They discovered that the molecules seem to be broken up in a two-step process.

 

[Reality Check]

It's not only him to have suggested rocky cores being eject material from the cores of the gas giants

Wow you know of a crank on the internet who can cite yet another crank, Haig !

That is the deluded Wal Thornhill who thinks that the Grand Canyon was created by lightning. He confirms that he is desperate to retain his delusion that Venus was ejected from Jupiter by citing a Peter Warlow wrote a crank book in 1982 rather than publishing actual science!

 

[Reality Check]

Yes, ..snipped comets are rocks delusion...

Yes, Haig, we know that you and Sol88 share the delusion that comets are rocks despite the scientific evidence that they are ices and dust.
Lying about FINE STRUCTURE IN THE COMET’S JETS does not help:
* no conclusion that 67P is a rock!
* nothing about ice.

Lying by quote mining is even worse Haig:
Ultraviolet study reveals surprises in comet coma

2 June 2015
Rosetta’s continued close study of Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko has revealed an unexpected process at work, causing the rapid breakup of water and carbon dioxide molecules spewing from the comet’s surface.
...
For this study, the team focused on the nature of ‘plumes’ of water and carbon dioxide gas erupting from the comet’s surface, triggered by the warmth of the Sun. To do so, they looked at the emission from hydrogen and oxygen atoms resulting from broken water molecules, and similarly carbon atoms from carbon dioxide molecules, close to the comet nucleus.

They discovered that the molecules seem to be broken up in a two-step process.

First, an ultraviolet photon from the Sun hits a water molecule in the comet’s coma and ionises it, knocking out an energetic electron. This electron then hits another water molecule in the coma, breaking it apart into two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen, and energising them in the process. These atoms then emit ultraviolet light that is detected at characteristic wavelengths by Alice.

(my emphasis added)

This is neutral water (not ionized by imaginary electric discharges!) 1 kilometer up in the coma (not the surface!) being ionized by a solar UV photon.

 

[ben m]

It's not only him to have suggested rocky cores being eject material from the cores of the gas giants

Haig, don't take this personally: Wal Thornhill is a moron. Dave Talbott is a moron. You could take the stupidest idea on Earth and find three morons each citing the other two for support.

You want to defend your comet-mars idea, cite something intelligent. Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Pierre Hugoniot, Andre-Marie Ampere?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

That's right ! From what I've read.

Has there been any fusion done here on Earth ? Give a source if you claim it has.

Now that others have shown you that yes, we have achieved fusion on earth. And we've even gotten a lot of power out of it (as demonstrated on some remote islands) lets get back to the original question.

The power output we measure from the sun is consistent with what mainstream science would predict if the sun were purely powered by gravity assisted hydrogen fusion in the core. And the process is highly inefficient, a m³ of solar core produces about the power of a compost heap or equivalent. It's just that the sun is so BIG that it gives that much power.
Yet you claim the sun is electric powered. Therefore that fusion must not occur or we'd measure a discrepancy.
So what mechanism in EU theory blocks that fusion and how does EU explain that the energy produced by their currently experimentally unproved method is exactly the same as we would expect from fusion?

 

[Sol88]

For those that like science rather than fantasy - 67P is getting hot enough that we now see jets from the "night" side:
Rosetta’s Comet Keeps On Jetting Even After the Sun Goes Down
The nice thing is that we can visually trace the jets back to their source in this image.

How hot RC?

 

[Sol88]

I've been trying to reconcile the two competing models, sublimation vs the ECH but just can't find a coherent explanation of the sublimation model.

Can any of the "mainstreamers" here able to point me towards the currently excepted model for sublimation from a comet?

 

[jonesdave116]

I've been trying to reconcile the two competing models, sublimation vs the ECH but just can't find a coherent explanation of the sublimation model.

Can any of the "mainstreamers" here able to point me towards the currently excepted model for sublimation from a comet?

Yes, you linked to part of it yourself, Sol: http://www.aanda.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201525925

If you want to go back some time to show that this is really H20 that is being dissociated, then look here: http://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2015/pdf/2494.pdf

The VIRTIS measurements detected the spectral line of water. Not OH. And if you read the paper carefully, you will see that their measurements were made of emissions coming from a distance of 0 - ~500m from the comet.

If you doubt that the OH that is being produced is OH+ (as would be expected from photodissociation) and not Thornhill's loony idea, which I've highlighted before, which expects an OH- ion, then there is plenty of stuff out there, such as here: http://authors.library.caltech.edu/22348/

Strange, isn't it. I can't seem to find a coherent explanation of the EU model. At least, not one that agrees with actual observations. And when I point this out, your cobber Haig links to some nonsense in an attempt to claim that negative = positive. Very strange.

tl;dr? EU requires OH- to be produced from the non-existent silicate rock. It then requires a proton (H+) from the solar wind to combine with the OH- to form H20. That is Thornhill's fantasy for the observed water. Except a) the OH observed is positive, and b) there are nowhere near enough protons in the solar wind to account for the amount of H20 observed. As has been shown.

ETA:
The following may also help in the understanding that Thornhill's explanation for the water observed is wrong: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002GL016840/pdf
In this they discuss the detections of various species at 19P/Borrelly, but the most important, for this discussion, are H2O+ and OH+. No mention of OH-, which is required if Thornhill's explanation is to be correct. Not to mention an increase in solar wind H+ density of about 10 000 000 times its measured value.

 

[Ziggurat]

I've been trying to reconcile the two competing models, sublimation vs the ECH

You cannot reconcile them. They are fundamentally incompatible. Perhaps you meant to use a different word?

but just can't find a coherent explanation of the sublimation model.

Seriously? Between the standard model and ECH, you think the standard model is the incoherent one?

You really haven't been paying attention.

There is no model for ECH. There's a bunch of half-baked ideas, some of them directly contradictory, the only apparent commonality is that they're all inspired by Velikovsky and they have to use "electricity" in them somewhere. Other than that, all bets are off regarding ECH. It can be anything its proponents want to be, and shifts depending on which question they're trying to answer.

 

[Belz...]

What about the Great Comet Venus ?

You must be joking.

 

[Dancing David]

The planet Venus was *not* blasted out of Jupiter. What moron told you that? Oh, Talbott, I see. Go ahead and quote the actual orbital-mechanics equations that you think Talbott used to draw that picture. I'll wait.

(Hint: He didn't use any orbital-mechanics equations. He just made some stuff up. I can do it too: "In 1066, the planet Uranus came and visited the inner solar system and its moon Miranda bopped King Harald on the head, rendering him unable to fend off William the Conqueror")

the comet on the Bayeux tapestry proves it!

 

[ferd burfle]

Nothing much is happening at the center of the Sun.

If I wanted to convince a curious scientist or science-educated layperson that exploring the EU/ech/PC would be a complete waste of their time, and I had to do with just one Tweet, this is waht I'd send. What better way to convince a scientifically literate person that there's no there there?

But it is pure signature gold.

 

[ben m]

Nothing much is happening at the center of the Sun.

Missed this before. Yeah, Haig, that's straight-up contradiction. Which of the following is true:

a) The center of the Sun is a place where the laws of gravity, pressure, and nuclear physics are obeyed AND fusion takes place and generates heat.

OR

b) The center of the Sun is a special weird place where the laws of physics are altered in some weird way that prevents fusion from occurring.

It's one or the other. Neither of them are "nothing much is happening". Which one is it?