Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
We know that Soll88 will ignore or deny the science so this is not addressed to you Sol88.

jonesdave116 and other posters.
A quick review of the literature published after 2005 on Deep Impact suggests that any change in water vaporization caused by the impact was hidden by natural variations in the rate.
Submillimeter Wave Astronomy Satellite observations of Comet 9P/Tempel 1 and Deep Impact (2006)
On 4 July 2005 at 5:52 UT the Deep Impact mission successfully completed its goal to hit the nucleus of 9P/Tempel 1 with an impactor, forming a crater on the nucleus and ejecting material into the coma of the comet. NASA's Submillimeter Wave Astronomy Satellite (SWAS) observed the 1-1 ortho-water ground-state rotational transition in Comet 9P/Tempel 1 before, during, and after the impact. No excess emission from the impact was detected by SWAS and we derive an upper limit of 1.8×10 kg on the water ice evaporated by the impact. However, the water production rate of the comet showed large natural variations of more than a factor of three during the weeks before and after the impact. Episodes of increased activity with QO˜10 molecules alternated with periods with low outgassing (QO ≲5×10 molecules). We estimate that 9P/Tempel 1 vaporized a total of N˜4.5×10 water molecules ( ˜1.3×10 kg) during June-September 2005. Our observations indicate that only a small fraction of the nucleus of Tempel 1 appears to be covered with active areas. Water vapor is expected to emanate predominantly from topographic features periodically facing the Sun as the comet rotates. We calculate that appreciable asymmetries of these features could lead to a spin-down or spin-up of the nucleus at observable rates.
Click to expand...
(my emphasis added)
 
Last edited:
jonesdave116 said:
For God's sake. That was 3 days after the event. They hadn't even had the spacecraft data to look at, nor the SWIFT data, that looked at it for a good while afterwards.
As I've said, read the damn paper. It was H20. End of story. Indisputable. Impactor makes hole in comet. Water comes out. Directly observed. As did a lot of dust. Now what do the mainstream say comets are made of? That's right, ice and dust.
You may also want to check out the SWIFT data, which puts the lie to the eejit Thornhill's claims of double flashes and electric outbursts.
Click to expand...

Still, not was predicted/expected was it now?

Unlike the predicted double flash! :cool:
 
Sol88: "Silicates are ROCK" is a lie - they are also cosmic dust

Sol88 said:
Sniff sniff mmmmm......
Click to expand...
Sniff sniff mmmmm......delusions galore, Sol88 !
Here we have
* the lie of "no ICE" after you quote "The distribution of water ice on the surface of Tempel 1..." :eye-poppi!
* the stupidity of thinking that a paper called The distribution of water ice in the interior of Comet Tempel 1 (PDF) would be about "ICE cliffs" on the surface of the comet :eek:
* the idiocy of trusting the obvious lies of Wal Thornhill.
He predicted a flash before the impact and listed that as confirmed . There was no flash before impact.
That makes his statement into a lie Sol88 :jaw-dropp!

You seem comfortable with lies since we have: 23 July 2015 Sol88: "Silicates are ROCK" is a lie because silicates are also cosmic dust.

ETA: You changed that to "Silicates including Extremely high temperature flash melted silicates like we find commonly in ROCK " which a lie by omission:
"Silicates including Extremely high temperature flash melted silicates like we find commonly in ROCK AND THE COSMIC DUST THAT COMETS COLLECT". I would guess that the deluded Thunderbolts people would claim that some electricity magic makes comets not collect cosmic dust :eek:.

This sounds like a previous delusion from you or Haig that because Stardust detected "high temperature flash melted silicates" in dust particles that comets are made of rock - say that this is not so Sol88!
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Sniff sniff mmmmm......



and no ICE (light frosting in three areas, but no mention of any ICE cliffs (retreating or not) was observed at any time during the DI mission, it's implied from IR observations...so back to square on...unless you'd like to have a crack at the double flash predicted by Wal Thornhill

I mean they had some seroius trouble because of the dust along with

Silicates including Extremely high temperature flash melted silicates like we find commonly in ROCK
Click to expand...

Yet again you totally ignore the fact that what came out of the comet after the impact was water. End of story. We are not talking here about the surface ice. They merely make the point that there isn't enough of it to explain the amount of water seen before the impact. Therefore there must be subsurface ice. Then they smack a probe into it and water comes out. QED. Subsurface ice. Unless your amazing scientific knowledge encompasses IR spectroscopy, and you have a new idea of what they might be seeing at ~3 microns? Why not write to the author and tell her and her colleagues that they've got it wrong, because you say so?

As for Thornhill's double flash? Didn't happen. Unless you have some referenced data that shows it did. As I said, see the SWIFT data.
"There is no evidence for a prompt flash at the time of impact." From: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103507004095
 
Sol88 said:
Still, not was predicted/expected was it now?
Click to expand...
Still touting your ignorance, Sol88 :p?
The double flash after impact was expected - just not widely known. You and the deluded, lying Thunderbolts crowd obsess about the expressions of surprise by a few people in the control room as reported in a news report at the impact.
The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos etc. links back to The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions. which you know about Sol88.

Rational people read the science and the experiments at Ames that produced double flashes before Deep Impact.

ETA: I wonder if Wal Thornhill is still lying about the flashes after 10 years?
ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Lying about flashes
Sol88 has brought up the crank ThunderBolts web site again and the list of EC "predictions". I mentioned a couple of these in The totally stupid electric comet idea that has been debunked!
So let's look at some of these predictions individually and in detail to show just how incompetent the authors of the EC idea are. That way I can reduce the above post in size as Sol88 is insisting in supplying even more material to debunk the EC idea.

All Thunderbolt quotes are from their Predictions Confirmed page. ...
Click to expand...
Thornhill is persisting with that lie first stated in July 2005 :eek:
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Still, not was predicted/expected was it now?

Unlike the predicted double flash! :cool:
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about? What wasn't predicted? That water would be seen in the ejecta plume? Of course it was predicted, and expected, and observed.

And like I said, the double flash is a figment of Thornhill's imagination. Or an outright lie, because he realised the data from this mission kills his nice little earner stone dead, and he needs to keep his gullible, scientifically illiterate acolytes on board.
 
jonesdave116 said:
As for Thornhill's double flash? Didn't happen. Unless you have some referenced data that shows it did. As I said, see the SWIFT data.
"There is no evidence for a prompt flash at the time of impact." From: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103507004095
Click to expand...
Just to emphasize that Sol88 denies science for many years - this is a parroting of the lie that there was a flash before the impact by Wal Thornhill.
Sol88 has known for 5 years about the science that shows that this is a lie. Tim Thompson posted science about this on 10th November 2010 in reply to Haig also parroting this lie.
No, there was no emission of any kind prior to the actual impact. There was an initial relatively faint flash, followed by a second bright flash 0.124 seconds later. The initial faint flash was in fact the actual impact, and not a flash prior to actual impact. That faint initial flash is consistent with pre-mission laboratory experiments and indicates impact at a grazing angle of about 30 degrees onto a low density target with a relatively dark surface. Here are 3 relevant papers from the Lunar and Planetary Science bulletin:
Click to expand...

The second paper puts the lie to the double flash not being predicted: "The faint flash followed by the delayed saturated flash farther downrange can be explained by an oblique impact into a low-density (0.3 g/cc) target as documented in laboratory experiments [2-4]."
[2] Schultz, P. H. et al. (2005) SSR, 117, 207-239.
[3] Ernst, C. M. and P. H. Schultz (2003) LPS XXXIV, #2020.
[4] Schultz, P. H. and J. L. B. Anderson (2005) LPS XXXVI, #1926.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Just to emphasize that Sol88 denies science for many years - this is a parroting of the lie that there was a flash before the impact by Wal Thornhill.
Sol88 has known for 5 years about the science that shows that this is a lie. Tim Thompson posted science about this on 10th November 2010 in reply to Haig also parroting this lie.


The second paper puts the lie to the double flash not being predicted: "The faint flash followed by the delayed saturated flash farther downrange can be explained by an oblique impact into a low-density (0.3 g/cc) target as documented in laboratory experiments [2-4]."
[2] Schultz, P. H. et al. (2005) SSR, 117, 207-239.
[3] Ernst, C. M. and P. H. Schultz (2003) LPS XXXIV, #2020.
[4] Schultz, P. H. and J. L. B. Anderson (2005) LPS XXXVI, #1926.
Click to expand...

Indeedy. The SWIFT data merely confirms that there was no pre-impact flash, and no flash at the precise time of impact in x-ray. Subsequent observations were of soft x-rays, wholly consistent with charge exchange between the solar wind and the ejected gas. An electrical flash would have been immediate and shown up as hard x-rays. Something that seems to have passed Thornhill by.
 
Sol88 said:
Still, not was predicted/expected was it now?

Unlike the predicted double flash! :cool:
Click to expand...

And that is all you have still, what about actual data that supports the ECT and an explanation fro why only 5 of the asteroid bodies show comas, other asteroids go through the exact same spaces as the five that have comas, yet they do not show comas.

Why does the ECT have no explanation for that?
 
Last edited:
For the same reason they can't explain why the "EDM jets" are happening at low spots on the comet rather than high, pointy spots the way voltage arcing happens in the observable real world.
 
jonesdave116 said:
Indeedy. The SWIFT data merely confirms that there was no pre-impact flash, and no flash at the precise time of impact in x-ray. Subsequent observations were of soft x-rays, wholly consistent with charge exchange between the solar wind and the ejected gas. An electrical flash would have been immediate and shown up as hard x-rays. Something that seems to have passed Thornhill by.
Click to expand...


:yawn

Really?

Been there done that, got the shirt to prove it! :)

Let's get back to the real interesting stuff...
 
Last edited:
...back to the interesting stuff


Rosetta orbiter science

@2:12 the presenter states "OSIRIS has been monitoring the activity of dust jets in order to find their source"

Can any one here explain to me exactly what he's saying?

"Jet" sources are standing walls? "cliffs" are the sources?

"can't rule out flat lands" but "there is an indication there is activity on the flat lands"


But he states "but the driving activity is Cliffs" ummmm.....ok

How do the jets operate off the "flat lands" and how do "cliffs" drive the jet's activity???

confused by the mainstream once again :(

oh wait.....
 
...at the jets source, there should be a hole/orifice with sublimating ice present?

but Sam Gulkis says "We see water coming out of regions which are usually on a boundary"

Boundary you say Sam, what kind of boundary?

Ahhhh the boundary between an illuminated piece of the comet and a non illuminated piece of the comet.

And as the shadow area gets exposed to the sun it emits "gas".

Cool, just like on the Moon

Could this also be the source of the dust on comets, another airless rock moving thru a plasma stream?

like as if in an ELECTRICAL EFFECT?

What could cause this? Stubbs has an idea: "The dayside of the moon is positively charged; the nightside is negatively charged." At the interface between night and day, he explains, "electrostatically charged dust would be pushed across the terminator sideways," by horizontal electric fields. (Learn more: "Moon Fountains." )
Click to expand...

December 7, 2005: Every lunar morning, when the sun first peeks over the dusty soil of the moon after two weeks of frigid lunar night, a strange storm stirs the surface.

The next time you see the moon, trace your finger along the terminator, the dividing line between lunar night and day. That's where the storm is. It's a long and skinny dust storm, stretching all the way from the north pole to the south pole, swirling across the surface, following the terminator as sunrise ceaselessly sweeps around the moon.
Never heard of it? Few have. But scientists are increasingly confident that the storm is real.
Click to expand...

Now YOU HAVE


Possible water cycle
Production

Lunar water has two potential origins: water-bearing comets (and other bodies) striking the Moon, and in situ production. It has been theorized that the latter may occur when hydrogen ions (protons) in the solar wind chemically combine with the oxygen atoms present in the lunar minerals (oxides, silicates etc.) to produce small amounts of water trapped in the minerals' crystal lattices or as hydroxyl groups, potential water precursors.[56] (This mineral-bound water, or hydroxylated mineral surface, must not be confused with water ice.)

The hydroxyl surface groups (S–OH) formed by the reaction of protons (H+) with oxygen atoms accessible at oxide surface (S=O) could further be converted in water molecules (H2O) adsorbed onto the oxide mineral's surface. The mass balance of a chemical rearrangement supposed at the oxide surface could be schematically written as follows:

2 S-OH —> S=O + S + H2O

or,

2 S-OH —> S–O–S + H2O


where S represents the oxide surface.

The formation of one water molecule requires the presence of two adjacent hydroxyl groups, or a cascade of successive reactions of one oxygen atom with two protons. This could constitute a limiting factor and decreases the probability of water production if the proton density per surface unit is too low.
Click to expand...

Remember we found some H- as well, so we may have hydrides as well.

Lunar water has two potential origins: water-bearing comets (and other bodies) striking the Moon, and in situ production[/B]
Click to expand...

My money's on in situ production


Just say'n
 
Last edited:
Come on guyz! Let's just concede, Sol88 is right, let him write the ultimate model of electric comets.
 
jonesdave116 said:
And for the gazillionth time, the solar wind proton flux is billions of times too low for that to be a mechanism. It's not all that difficult to work out.
Click to expand...

Lunar water has two potential origins: water-bearing comets (and other bodies) striking the Moon, and in situ production.
Click to expand...

Well that only leaves you with "comets and other bodies" and Earth's water never came from a comet so the ONLY viable alternative is other bodies, presumable asteroids (ROCKS).

Whoops seems you have painted yourself into a corner...again ;)
 
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