Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sol88 said:
:confused:


So how do the cliffs and pit walls form a "jet" with all the measured parameters so far, jonesdave116???


Why not have a crack as well Reality Check??

You know just to set the lurkers right :)

we know this theory...

Formation of jets in Comet 19P/Borrelly by subsurface geysers
Click to expand...


Poor Sol, all you have is an apparent contradiction between a 12 year old abstract and the latest observations. But best to go on the offense when you have no model of your own and your ECH claims are all contradicted by observation.

Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago.-Bernard Berenson, Notebook (1892).
 
Sol88 said:
:confused:


So how do the cliffs and pit walls form a "jet" with all the measured parameters so far, jonesdave116???
Click to expand...

Like this:

34hjfia.jpg
 
So, Sol, how about backing up some of this electric bobbins with some actual evidence? Instead of all the hand waving, obfuscation and misunderstanding about the actual science.
How's it getting along? Seen any electric glows? Discharges? Any indication whatsoever of electrical activity on or near the comet?
How are Thornhill and Talbott's delusions coming along? No H2O, just electrically stripped O combining with H from the solar wind in the tail of the comet? Last I heard it was actual H2O and it was on the sunlit facing part of the comet. Not to mention that the solar wind measured flux is not dense enough to remotely account for it, wherever it is.
And how about the density. Figured that out yet?
As I keep saying, there is not one scrap of evidence in favour of this scientifically illiterate nonsense, and plenty against it.
It's dead.
 
Sol88 said:
Why not have a crack as well Reality Check??
Click to expand...
We do not have to obey the demands of people who are so obsessed with the delusion that comets are rocks that they are afraid to do basic physics, Sol88.
25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor. That is 33 days of fear of physics and counting (10 years for Thunderbolts), Sol88 :p!

The fact remains that rational, knowledgeable people who study comets have no problem with jets from pits.

Rational people read and understand English.
Formation of jets in Comet 19P/Borrelly by subsurface geysers is about "several highly collimated dust jets emanating from the nucleus" - not all jets.
We have an old hypothesis that some highly collimated dust jets are emitted from pits with restricted openings.
We have the current real world observations on 67P that jets can be emitted from pits with steep walls.
 
Sol88 said:
Ummm...
Click to expand...
Ummm...Ignoring the real world as usual, Sol88?
The jets do not issue from only high points as in the EC delusion that you are obsessed with. That would be jets issuing from the tops of the lobes which are the high points of 67P.
The jets issue from below the high points of the lobes.
* pits
* cliffs
* flatlands
 
Reality Check said:
We do not have to obey the demands of people who are so obsessed with the delusion that comets are rocks that they are afraid to do basic physics, Sol88.
25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor. That is 33 days of fear of physics and counting (10 years for Thunderbolts), Sol88 :p!

The fact remains that rational, knowledgeable people who study comets have no problem with jets from pits.

Rational people read and understand English.
Formation of jets in Comet 19P/Borrelly by subsurface geysers is about "several highly collimated dust jets emanating from the nucleus" - not all jets.
We have an old hypothesis that some highly collimated dust jets are emitted from pits with restricted openings.
We have the current real world observations on 67P that jets can be emitted from pits with steep walls.
Click to expand...

Mmmmm.....thought you couldn't, me 'ol mate! :D
 
ferd burfle said:
Poor Sol, all you have is an apparent contradiction between a 12 year old abstract and the latest observations
Click to expand...
Actually it is worse than that - all Sol88 has is delusions about a 12 year old abstract which is about a specific subset of jets!
AFAIK these jets have not been found on 67P.
 
Yeah, exposed edges of ices below the dust crust. As opposed to electrons dancing on the head of a pin.

Hey, sol88, have you come up yet with that list I asked for? A list of specific mutually exclusive criteria or features of electrical activity and sublimation? Without that I fear you are shooting in the dark, grasping at straws and making Texas sharp shooter targets when reading about what actual scientists are doing.
 
jonesdave116 said:
So, Sol, how about backing up some of this electric bobbins with some actual evidence? Instead of all the hand waving, obfuscation and misunderstanding about the actual science.
How's it getting along? Seen any electric glows? Discharges? Any indication whatsoever of electrical activity on or near the comet?
How are Thornhill and Talbott's delusions coming along? No H2O, just electrically stripped O combining with H from the solar wind in the tail of the comet? Last I heard it was actual H2O and it was on the sunlit facing part of the comet. Not to mention that the solar wind measured flux is not dense enough to remotely account for it, wherever it is.
And how about the density. Figured that out yet?
As I keep saying, there is not one scrap of evidence in favour of this scientifically illiterate nonsense, and plenty against it.
It's dead.
Click to expand...


Go on have a crack at explaining to the "cliffs" driving the activity!!!! :jaw-dropp


We've seen "recession of icy cliffs at the margins." see the post above!

How do they form the "jets" at the speeds measured (700ms)??
 
10:02:14
[INSET CLIP: HOLGER SIERKS
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, OSIRIS INSTRUMENT]
“We see them either at various places either as standing walls, big huge cliffs, often 200m up to 700m these big huge cliffs on back side of the head lobe but we also see many of these upright walls in the pits that have typical diameter of 200m. And so these are the source, the main source region…you can’t rule out flatlands - we also have a few indications of activity in flatlands - but the driving activity is cliffs.”
Click to expand...

Again, the driving activity is cliffs, but he's says we see them as "standing walls" like that which was observed on Tempel 1

PIA13862_modest.jpg
 
Sol88 said:
Mmmmm.....thought you couldn't, me 'ol mate! :D
Click to expand...
That wrong, Sol88. I could explain it to you but I know that you are too obsessed with your delusion that comets are rocks to ever accept any explanation for anything from anyone.
For example
 
Cats now out of the bag now HOLGER SIERKS!

Now one here going to have a crack at how the cliffs drive the jets?

Pressure is on YOU to explain YOUR SUBLIMATION theory.

You REQUIRE subsurface ice!

You REQUIRE pressurised chambers!

You REQUIRE the nozzle to be of a smaller diameter to the chamber, to sustain the jets!

So how do the cliffs drive the activity?

and why would the OSIRIS team not release the images after a year of observation???


People are asking..
 
Reality Check said:
That wrong, Sol88. I could explain it to you but I know that you are too obsessed with your delusion that comets are rocks to ever accept any explanation for anything from anyone.
For example
Click to expand...


Called your bluff, sport!

Go hide behind your non falsifiable sublimation theory, which even YOU can't explain! :boggled:
 
Sol88 said:
Again, the driving activity is cliffs, but he's says we see them as "standing walls" like that which was observed on Tempel 1
Click to expand...
http://www.esa.int/esatv/content/download/342714/15476782/EbS97722.doc
10:02:14
[INSET CLIP: HOLGER SIERKS
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, OSIRIS INSTRUMENT]
“We see them either at various places either as standing walls, big huge cliffs, often 200m up to 700m these big huge cliffs on back side of the head lobe but we also see many of these upright walls in the pits that have typical diameter of 200m. And so these are the source, the main source region…you can’t rule out flatlands - we also have a few indications of activity in flatlands - but the driving activity is cliffs.”
Click to expand...
Note the word either and look up what it means.

Of course the idiocy of obsessing on comments in a video is that these comments are not very clear. Tis is especially true for what may be a German speaking English. My interpretation is that HOLGER SIERKS is saying that jets issue from either
  • standing walls or
  • big huge cliffs or
  • upright walls in pits or
  • some from flatlands
In English standing walls are not cliffs, Sol88 :duh:!
 
Sol88 said:
Go hide behind your non falsifiable sublimation theory, which even YOU can't explain! :boggled:
Click to expand...
Remain hiding behind the ignorance, delusions and lies that you are mindlessly supporting from the Thunderbolts crowd, Sol88 :eek
Remain hiding behind the delusion that I cannot explain comet science. 6 years of experience with your need to remain ignorant about comets tells me that it is useless to try to teach you, Sol88.

Sublimation from the ices on comets is very falsifiable. If we never detected the ices sublimating then they do not sublimate! We have detected the products of ices sublimating, thus they sublimate :jaw-dropp.

Nice of you to confirm that you are obsessed with your delusion that comets are rocks to the point that you will not learn about real comets! For example you have ignored for 6 years the basic physics that ices in the conditions found on comets will sublimate and have been observed to sublimate!

The reality remains:
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
http://www.esa.int/esatv/content/download/342714/15476782/EbS97722.doc

Note the word either and look up what it means.

Of course the idiocy of obsessing on comments in a video is that these comments are not very clear. Tis is especially true for what may be a German speaking English. My interpretation is that HOLGER SIERKS is saying that jets issue from either
  • standing walls or
  • big huge cliffs or
  • upright walls in pits or
  • some from flatlands
In English standing walls are not cliffs, Sol88 :duh:!
Click to expand...

What's a "standing Wall" in the context of jet's source then Reality Check?

It's YOUR theory and you can't explain it, even to some of the laymen lurkers here?

You can't or you won't?

or, as I suspect, you just have no idea, can't think critically for yourself and just hide behind the coat tails of "real" scientist and blindly parrot what they say :blush:

not too sure if your actually aware of your own theory :confused:

That's sad :(
 
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