Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

[Sol88]

Amazing only because you don't understand it. These molecules have been seen around newly born stars. No reason they shouldn't be incorporated into comets, which form around newly born stars. Damn sight harder to explain how they got there from some electric discharge hitting a planet. Maybe the discharge that formed this comet hit a brewery, or an orchard? I'm sure Wal is working on it as we speak.

Yawn..again


Ummm... something called the Electric Sun

Now we (mainstream) all know that the Sun/s are not an electric discharge phenomena but in the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE guess what... they are

So nothing new there JD116 in fact it is expected!


but

These molecules have been seen around newly born stars. No reason they shouldn't be incorporated into comets, which form around newly born stars

Are you stating there is ICE/S around stars and that's where these molecules are coming from, Jonesdave116?

 

[jonesdave116]

Yawn..again


Ummm... something called the Electric Sun

Now we (mainstream) all know that the Sun/s are not an electric discharge phenomena but in the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE guess what... they are

So nothing new there JD116 in fact it is expected!


but

Are you stating there is ICE/S around stars and that's where these molecules are coming from, Jonesdave116?

The various electric sun models are nonsense, a complete evidence-free joke.

As for the second part; read the bloody paper, then do a search on Google, or Google scholar. We are not here to educate you.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Yawn..again


Ummm... something called the Electric Sun

Now we (mainstream) all know that the Sun/s are not an electric discharge phenomena but in the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE guess what... they are

So nothing new there JD116 in fact it is expected!


but

Are you stating there is ICE/S around stars and that's where these molecules are coming from, Jonesdave116?

You keep focussing on details while ignoring the fact that if the EU were true none of our electrical equipment would function as EU electricity does not follow the laws of electricity we use on earth.

The whole 'theory' is a contradictory, mathematically impossible, practically disproven mess of guesswork and pixel staring.

The fact that you even point to the electric sun means you simply do not understand how electricity works. Unless of course you can come up with the model that at least:
A: Shows how nuclear fusion gets stopped in the sun so that it's energy needs to come from somewhere else.
B: Gives an underlying mechanism that keeps the current from the sun to 'somewhere' running.
C: Explains why we cannot detect that current.

It's of course also shown in your continued misinterpretation of papers showing small, expected, electrical effects in space to mean that they mean the EC theory holds water, even though for the EC theory the effects would need to be at least a million times stronger (and behaving counter to normal electricity again) which is exactly what is NOT measured. So you are using data that disproves the EC and then say that that means EC is true.
If you are going that route, at least explain HOW minor electrical charges can suddenly become a million times stronger without showing up on the instruments.

 

[Sol88]

Off topic Lukraak Sisser!

A better topic would be the explanation by someone (mainstreamer) on how the "jets" are produced!

Other than the proven wrong

Formation of jets in Comet 19P/Borrelly by subsurface geysers

and

Geologic control of jet formation on Comet 103P/Hartley 2

Far as I know, mainstream have no coherent explanation for all the observed features of the jets on 67P, except for some vague reference to some jet issuing from the rim of a pit like feature.

No jets have yet been observed (except by me 'ol mate Holger Sierks and his team) and the images released at a resolution detailed enough to pick out the features.

Care to give me your interpretation JD116?, Lukraak_Sisser et al...?

or are you so wrapped up in the delusional story comets are made of ice (and WOW there must be some interesting ICE/s!!!) with a soft and fluffy surface or was that a hard rind, covering those ices down to several meters never mind, the story sounds plausible if you repeat it often enough though.

 

[jonesdave116]

Off topic Lukraak Sisser!

A better topic would be the explanation by someone (mainstreamer) on how the "jets" are produced!

Other than the proven wrong

and



Far as I know, mainstream have no coherent explanation for all the observed features of the jets on 67P, except for some vague reference to some jet issuing from the rim of a pit like feature.

No jets have yet been observed (except by me 'ol mate Holger Sierks and his team) and the images released at a resolution detailed enough to pick out the features.

Care to give me your interpretation JD116?, Lukraak_Sisser et al...?

or are you so wrapped up in the delusional story comets are made of ice (and WOW there must be some interesting ICE/s!!!) with a soft and fluffy surface or was that a hard rind, covering those ices down to several meters never mind, the story sounds plausible if you repeat it often enough though.

Where were those mechanisms proven wrong? Comets are made of ice. It is indisputable. Solid ice grains do not come out of rocky bodies due to impacts or CO2 jets. MIRO wouldn't find it beneath the surface.
The gases from these ices have been observed in many comets for decades. They are no different, if you bothered to look, to the molecules and compounds found in interstellar dust clouds and around newly formed stars, which form from interstellar dust clouds.

This electric comet rubbish died a long time ago. It's just that its followers are too scientifically illiterate to realise it.

 

[jonesdave116]

....or are you so wrapped up in the delusional story comets are made of ice (and WOW there must be some interesting ICE/s!!!) with a soft and fluffy surface or was that a hard rind, covering those ices down to several meters never mind, the story sounds plausible if you repeat it often enough though.

No Sol, you are the delusional one, who is constantly repeating evidence-free, scientifically silly nonsense, to the point where YOU think it's plausible. Despite the total lack of evidence to back it up. That's a religion.
There is plenty of evidence for all the things you accuse us of "believing", as has been pointed out ad nauseam. If not, point out what you believe to be the missing evidence for an icy comet, and we can go round in circles again linking to the real evidence.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

So requesting that you defend the actual EC theory is off topic and you head off back into misunderstanding regular science.
Interesting way to show you also do not understand the EC theory Sol

 

[Mader Levap]

The Philae probe was a failure due to expectations of what a comet is thought to be!!!

In this context, BS. If EU and EC was true, Rosetta - build according to mainstream science - would be lost in space/missed/dead ten times over before it had chance to release Philae.

There are things that we do not knew/know about comets (otherwise, why send probes in first place?). But that have nothing to do with pseudoscience crackpottery called "EU".

 

[Matthew Cline]

Are you stating there is ICE/S around stars and that's where these molecules are coming from, Jonesdave116?

He's saying that that 1) such molecules (like ethanol) can be created outside the environment of planetary surfaces, and 2) after they are formed, some of those molecules then later become ice.

 

[Sol88]

Give it up.
What has Ceres to do with the vast number of asteroids we see? It is a dwarf planet that has undergone differentiation, and probably has an icy mantle. It has a density of ~ 2000 kg/m^3.
Is it outgassing like crazy, like a comet? Is the Moon? Are other asteroids? In fact any planetary body where the solar wind has access to the surface? No. Why not? Because the solar wind cannot create the amount of H2O and other gases seen at comets. Nor can any sort of electric woo.
It is a non-mechanism. Do the maths.

Hey, maybe not "crazy" out gassing but they are....

The line between comets and asteroids is very blurry

Comet like Asteroid

 

[Sol88]

He's saying that that 1) such molecules (like ethanol) can be created outside the environment of planetary surfaces, and 2) after they are formed, some of those molecules then later become ice.

Good now we are getting somewhere!

How do they form, say Ethanol, outside the environment of a planetary surface?

There obviously forming around comets!

So what;s the mainstream explanation???

.......is that crickets I hear.....

 

[Sol88]

So requesting that you defend the actual EC theory is off topic and you head off back into misunderstanding regular science.
Interesting way to show you also do not understand the EC theory Sol

Sorry sport it is YOU who do not understand, i mean

It's of course also shown in your continued misinterpretation of papers showing small, expected, electrical effects in space to mean that they mean the EC theory holds water, even though for the EC theory the effects would need to be at least a million times stronger (and behaving counter to normal electricity again) which is exactly what is NOT measured.

small electrical effects that are KNOWN????

get your hand off it ya drongo

Did you miss the

as well as
Quote:
The Jovian magnetic field lines that do get past Io’s ionosphere also induce an electric current, which is believed to be able to generate as much as 400,000 volts across itself, as well as an electric current of 3 million ampere.

LINK Now I'm hopeless at maths but I believe that's 1.2e+12 watts of power, so small, expected, electrical effects in space are seen you are 100% correct, even here on Earth we have

THEMIS mission tracks electrical tornadoes in space

So I'd be scared to what your

EC theory the effects would need to be at least a million times stronger

current would look like!

And the old chestnut of "There is ELECTRICITY in space, it just doesn't do anything" is dead buried and gone to join DARK ENERGY AND DARK MATTER in the graveyard of totally wrong ideas!

 

[Sol88]

In this context, BS. If EU and EC was true, Rosetta - build according to mainstream science - would be lost in space/missed/dead ten times over before it had chance to release Philae.

There are things that we do not knew/know about comets (otherwise, why send probes in first place?). But that have nothing to do with pseudoscience crackpottery called "EU".

So why build the probe, Philae, to land on the EXPECTED icy surface!!

They were wrong..again! Sorry let me rephrase that they were "Surprised"

It crashed, bounced and did a very small amount of science due to where it randomly ended up!


And satellites do get fried in LEO. Let's see how Cassini goes flying thru the electrical discharge current contecting Saturn and Enculadeus!

NASA Teleconference to Preview Historic Flyby of Icy Saturn Moon

I won't load the pic here but have a look at Enceladus "Jets" just like a comet/s

Dramatic jets of ice, water vapor and organic compounds spray from the south pole of Saturn's moon Enceladus in this image captured by NASA's Cassini spacecraft in November 2009.

jets of ice, water vapor and organic compounds!!!! That's the MAINSTREAM DEFINITION of a comet!!!

but in case you are still struggling I found this very informative site for you to look at and try and understand there is not that much difference between the two.

What's the difference between a comet, asteroid, meteoroid, meteor & meteorite? Read on to find the answers!

have a go see if you can grasp the technical details

 

[Sol88]

@Jonesdavid116

Solid ice grains do not come out of rocky bodies due to impacts or CO2 jets.

Ho hum...

The nature, concentration and distribution of this material requires further analysis;[10] chief mission scientist Anthony Colaprete has stated that the ejecta appears to include a range of fine-grained particulates of near pure crystalline water-ice.[12]

This I believe was when they

LCROSS space probe had detected a significant amount of hydroxyl group in the material thrown up from a south polar crater by an impactor

smashed an impactor into rock (you did say the MOON is not a comet and it is ROCK, did you not JD116??)

So how does you statement

Solid ice grains do not come out of rocky bodies due to impacts or CO2 jets.

hold up to that??

Ohh that's right the Moon is not a comet and we are only talking about comets, so forget we see on Enceladus, Ceres, Mercury... and concentrate on the data from Tempel 1!!!

Because you don't want to contradict yourself JD116!

 

[jonesdave116]

Good now we are getting somewhere!

How do they form, say Ethanol, outside the environment of a planetary surface?

There obviously forming around comets!

So what;s the mainstream explanation???

.......is that crickets I hear.....

Grow up, and do the research. The explanation is known. Look for it instead of continually displaying your ignorance on here.

 

[jonesdave116]

Sorry sport it is YOU who do not understand, i mean

small electrical effects that are KNOWN????

get your hand off it ya drongo

Did you miss the LINK Now I'm hopeless at maths but I believe that's 1.2e+12 watts of power, so small, expected, electrical effects in space are seen you are 100% correct, even here on Earth we have

So I'd be scared to what your current would look like!

And the old chestnut of "There is ELECTRICITY in space, it just doesn't do anything" is dead buried and gone to join DARK ENERGY AND DARK MATTER in the graveyard of totally wrong ideas!

More garbage that has nothing to do with comets.

 

[jonesdave116]

So why build the probe, Philae, to land on the EXPECTED icy surface!!

They were wrong..again! Sorry let me rephrase that they were "Surprised"

It crashed, bounced and did a very small amount of science due to where it randomly ended up!


And satellites do get fried in LEO. Let's see how Cassini goes flying thru the electrical discharge current contecting Saturn and Enculadeus!

I won't load the pic here but have a look at Enceladus "Jets" just like a comet/s

Dramatic jets of ice, water vapor and organic compounds spray from the south pole of Saturn's moon Enceladus in this image captured by NASA's Cassini spacecraft in November 2009.

jets of ice, water vapor and organic compounds!!!! That's the MAINSTREAM DEFINITION of a comet!!!

but in case you are still struggling I found this very informative site for you to look at and try and understand there is not that much difference between the two.

What's the difference between a comet, asteroid, meteoroid, meteor & meteorite? Read on to find the answers!

have a go see if you can grasp the technical details

Yet more cr*p that has zilch to do with comets being made of rock. Not that anybody in their right mind believes that.

 

[Sol88]

Sorry sport it is YOU who do not understand, i mean

small electrical effects that are KNOWN????

get your hand off it ya drongo

Did you miss the LINK Now I'm hopeless at maths but I believe that's 1.2e+12 watts of power, so small, expected, electrical effects in space are seen you are 100% correct, even here on Earth we have

So I'd be scared to what your current would look like!

And the old chestnut of "There is ELECTRICITY in space, it just doesn't do anything" is dead buried and gone to join DARK ENERGY AND DARK MATTER in the graveyard of totally wrong ideas!

1.2 trillion watts is that small Lakraak Sisser?

Just trying gauge what you think?

 

[Sol88]

Would you like a tissue JD116?

Are you so narrow minded to think it (the electrical effects seen thru out the solar system are only confined to comets)???

 

[jonesdave116]

@Jonesdavid116

Ho hum...



This I believe was when they smashed an impactor into rock (you did say the MOON is not a comet and it is ROCK, did you not JD116??)

So how does you statement hold up to that??

Ohh that's right the Moon is not a comet and we are only talking about comets, so forget we see on Enceladus, Ceres, Mercury... and concentrate on the data from Tempel 1!!!

Because you don't want to contradict yourself JD116!

Give up. You haven't got a clue what you're talking about. Enceladus has an icy crust with a bloody great ocean of water beneath it. The amount of H2O coming from the Moon is trivial. It isn't at comets.
What is the density of rock? How are you getting cold jets of neutral CO2 from a comet entraining ice? Why do we see none of this idiotic electric nonsense going on? Where are these negative O ions close to the nucleus as predicted by the idiot Thornhill? If they existed, how is the solar wind increasing in density by umpteen orders of magnitude to impossibly combine with them to form OH? How is it then further impossibly attracting another H+ ion to form water?
Why are the 21 COMs found on Lovejoy all found in interstellar star forming regions, but not on the surface of planets? How the hell are you getting an electric discharge to blow a bloody great lump of material into space at escape velocity without totally destroying it? Where are these gigantic discharges?

The whole of this electric comet garbage looks like it came from a brainstorming session of 13 year old science students after a morning glue sniffing party.