Merged The Electric Comet Theory Part III/SAFIRE

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sol88: Idiocy of citing a suprathermal electron paper that is not about his delusions

Well there seems to be strong evidence of those same fields accelerating electrons to high energies...
18 September 2017 Sol88: Idiocy of citing a suprathermal electron paper that is not about his comet delusions.

18 September 2017 Sol88: Lies about the paper he cites which is not about his comet delusions.
 
Sol88: A lie of "The 'dirtysnowball' is dead"

The 'dirtysnowball' is dead ...
18 September 2017 Sol88: A lie of "The 'dirtysnowball' is dead" followed by the idiocy of his ignorant delusions about comets are a model!
What he quotes is, does not cite and lies about is
Unexpected and significant findings in comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view
11 CONCLUSIONS The classical model of comets as dirty ice balls (Whipple 1950) has focused most models of comets on ices. The more we visit comets, the dustier they appear. With 67P’s dust-to-water ratio of 6 (and possibly larger), it is now necessary to spend much more time in modelling the non-volatile matrices with a modest content of ices inside.
This is that the classical model of comets as dirty ice balls meant that astronomers concentrated on the ice part of comets made of ice and dust. The example of 67P with a high ratio of dust makes models with high ratios of dust more important - Duh :eye-poppi!
 
Sol88: A lie that Whipple's 1950 model is the only mainstream model

but it's the only model available to the mainstream!
18 September 2017 Sol88: A lie that Whipple's 1950 model is the only mainstream model.
Of the last 70 years models of comet with various amounts of ices and dust have been used. That is what the paper he quoted is taking about :jaw-dropp!
18 September 2017 Sol88: A lie of "The 'dirtysnowball' is dead" followed by the idiocy of his ignorant delusions about comets are a model!

18 September 2017 Sol88: A lie that Whipple's 1950 model is wrong - it is applicable to comets that are more ice than dust as in the 1950's observsions.
 
Sol88: The idiocy of not knowing the meaning of surface and bulk is his problem

There's the mainstreams BIGGEST Problem!
18 September 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of not knowing the meaning of surface and bulk is his problem, not the mainstreams.
What he quotes is
The larger the dust-to-water ratio, the larger the porosity required to fit the observed nucleus bulk density. The RSI (Pätzold et al. 2016) and the CONSERT (Kofman et al. 2015) experiments exclude macro-porosity at scales above 100 m. CONSERT experiment provides a micro-porosity between 75 per cent and 85 per cent (Kofman et al. 2015). Hapke models provide a surface porosity of 87 per cent (Fornasier et al. 2015)
This is
  1. No voids (macro-porosity) bigger than 100 m
  2. A bulk porosity "between 75 per cent and 85 per cent".
    Properties of the 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko interior revealed by CONSERT radar
  3. A surface porosity of 87 per cent.
 
Last edited:
Sol88: Unsourced quotes that he lies about

All stated as FACT!
18 September 2017 Sol88: Unsourced quotes that he lies about.

For others:
The mainstream has centuries of observations of comets especially in the last 100 years and in the just completed Rosetta mission to Comet 67P. These have shown that comets are made of ices and dust and originate in the outer solar system (1000's of AU away for long period comets). The only way that they could have formed is along with the rest of the Solar System. This is a body of evidence that makes the origin of comets not FACT but enormously supported.
 
Last edited:
Does the current mainstream model have a name? Perhaps that's the problem: the old model has a pithy name while the current model is nameless.
 
Does the current mainstream model have a name? Perhaps that's the problem: the old model has a pithy name while the current model is nameless.
The name has not changed - it is still the "dirty snowball" or Whipple's model.
Some comets are better described as "icy dirtballs".
Some comets are better described as "deep fried ice cream".
 
Last edited:
The name has not changed - it is still the "dirty snowball" or Whipple's model.
Some comets are better described as "icy dirtballs".
Some comets are better described as "deep fried ice cream".


Tusenfem says no!

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
The 'dirtysnowball' is dead and it's time for a new model Unexpected and significant findings in comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view

Tusenfem
Whipple never saw a comet up close in the 50s of the last century.
Ofcourse, after the first picture of a cometary nucleus, it became clear that Whipple's model needed to be modified, and with every successful mission to comets we learn more, which is exactly what Fulle et al. are writing.

It is just YOU who is keeping on insisting that the mainstream model is Whipples dirty snowball. Yes, it keeps on being used in popular literature, it is hard to get rid of terms that have taken foothold but don't describe reality, just think about the term "big bang" which was used to ridicule the theory.
 
Last edited:
Sol88: A lie by quoting tusenfem debunking another lie

Tusenfem says no!
19 September 2017 Sol88: A lie by quoting tusenfem debunking another lie.
That was Sol88's lie of "The 'dirtysnowball' is dead" and the implication his ignorant delusions could replace evidence-based science.

There is no such thing as 'dirtysnowball'.
Whipple's model is described as the "dirty snowball" model. That is the widely used (if out of date) name for the model. That is what I wrote: it is still the "dirty snowball" (note the quotes) or Whipple's model.
The comet model is alive and well today.
The comet model has been modified to be wider in scope from comets composed mostly of ices + some dust to comets composed mostly of dust + some ices because we have evidence from that the dust component of at least 2 comets (Tempel 1 and 67P) is higher then was thought 70 years ago.

ETA: This looks like his previous idiocy that changing the description ("dirty snowball"/"icy dirt ball"/"deep fried ice cream") of a model makes it invalid. It does not matter what we call the mainstream model of comets. The model is based on real world, empirical evidence that comets are made of ices and dust, originate from the outer Solar System, are made of materials from the early Solar System, includes interstellar dust grains, etc.
 
Last edited:
254 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 23August 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)

  1. 13 September 2017 Sol88: A lie about wanting a link when he knows the link.
  2. 14 September 2017 Sol88: A repeated lie of dust being ejected electrically as in his comet delusions [by electrical discharges between the comet and Sun].
  3. 14 September 2017 Sol88: Idiocy of citing an electrostatic dust acceleration paper about mainstream comets made of ices and dust
  4. 14 September 2017 Sol88: Idiocy of citing an electrostatic charging paper about mainstream comets made of ices and dust
  5. 14 September 2017 Sol88: Lies again about there being no links.
  6. 14 September 2017 Sol88: Usual mindless parroting of the ignorant and deluded Thunderbolts cult that have been already addressed.
  7. 14 September 2017 Sol88: A lie about his comet delusions which do not include jets happen in the "boundary between lit areas and shadowed areas".
  8. 14 September 2017 Sol88: A lie because he knows that the actual location of jets is part of what makes his comet ideas into delusions.
  9. 14 September 2017 Sol88: A lie because the ignorant and deluded page he cites is not about comet jets.
  10. 14 September 2017 Sol88: Maybe a lie because he does not cite any observations of jets "seen to occur in the boundary between lit areas and shadowed areas".
  11. 18 September 2017 Sol88: Idiocy of citing a suprathermal electron paper that is not about his comet delusions.
  12. 18 September 2017 Sol88: Lies about the paper he cites which is not about his comet delusions.
  13. 18 September 2017 Sol88: A lie of "The 'dirtysnowball' is dead" followed by the idiocy of his ignorant delusions about comets are a model!
  14. 18 September 2017 Sol88: A lie that Whipple's 1950 model is the only mainstream mode and wrong.
  15. 18 September 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of not knowing the meaning of surface and bulk is his problem, not the mainstreams.
  16. 18 September 2017 Sol88: Unsourced quotes that he lies about (it is evidence, not fact).
  17. 19 September 2017 Sol88: A lie by quoting tusenfem debunking another lie.

Two years and counting of fear of doing basic physics: 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.
The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 8 years of delusions from Sol88)
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.
 
19 September 2017 Sol88: A lie by quoting tusenfem debunking another lie.
That was Sol88's lie of "The 'dirtysnowball' is dead" and the implication his ignorant delusions could replace evidence-based science.

There is no such thing as 'dirtysnowball'.
Whipple's model is described as the "dirty snowball" model. That is the widely used (if out of date) name for the model. That is what I wrote: it is still the "dirty snowball" (note the quotes) or Whipple's model.
The comet model is alive and well today.
The comet model has been modified to be wider in scope from comets composed mostly of ices + some dust to comets composed mostly of dust + some ices because we have evidence from that the dust component of at least 2 comets (Tempel 1 and 67P) is higher then was thought 70 years ago.

ETA: This looks like his previous idiocy that changing the description ("dirty snowball"/"icy dirt ball"/"deep fried ice cream") of a model makes it invalid. It does not matter what we call the mainstream model of comets. The model is based on real world, empirical evidence that comets are made of ices and dust, originate from the outer Solar System, are made of materials from the early Solar System, includes interstellar dust grains, etc.

Are they? Leftovers from the formation of the solar system?

And the the model looks like it's now composed mostly of rock with some dust and negligible 'ice' :jaw-dropp
 
Sol88: Lies about the mainstream model being mostly rock with some dust ...

And the the model looks like it's now composed mostly of rock with some dust and negligible 'ice' :jaw-dropp
19 September 2017 Sol88: Lies about the mainstream model looking like mostly rock with some dust and negligible 'ice'.
This is a comet. Comet 67P is at least 1/6th ices and the rest is dust with no rock at all found.

ETA: For others (and in no way supporting the idiotic delusion that comets are rocks), there is evidence that comets contain small amounts of "pebbles" or "stones" and even "boulders" - meteor showers
A meteor shower is the result of an interaction between a planet, such as Earth, and streams of debris from a comet. Comets can produce debris by water vapor drag, as demonstrated by Fred Whipple in 1951,[19] and by breakup. Whipple envisioned comets as "dirty snowballs," made up of rock embedded in ice, orbiting the Sun. The "ice" may be water, methane, ammonia, or other volatiles, alone or in combination. The "rock" may vary in size from that of a dust mote to that of a small boulder. Dust mote sized solids are orders of magnitude more common than those the size of sand grains, which, in turn, are similarly more common than those the size of pebbles, and so on. When the ice warms and sublimates, the vapor can drag along dust, sand, and pebbles.

Each time a comet swings by the Sun in its orbit, some of its ice vaporizes and a certain amount of meteoroids will be shed. The meteoroids spread out along the entire orbit of the comet to form a meteoroid stream, also known as a "dust trail" (as opposed to a comet's "dust tail" caused by the very small particles that are quickly blown away by solar radiation pressure).

Recently, Peter Jenniskens[17] has argued that most of our short-period meteor showers are not from the normal water vapor drag of active comets, but the product of infrequent disintegrations, when large chunks break off a mostly dormant comet. Examples are the Quadrantids and Geminids, which originated from a breakup of asteroid-looking objects, 2003 EH1 and 3200 Phaethon, respectively, about 500 and 1000 years ago. The fragments tend to fall apart quickly into dust, sand, and pebbles, and spread out along the orbit of the comet to form a dense meteoroid stream, which subsequently evolves into Earth's path.
 
Last edited:
Hey Ho. Sol's off again. Totally forgetting to mention that the idiot Thornhill came up with an impossible way of creating water at a comet. Or anywhere else. Do the maths. Look at the energetics involved. Lol. Only an idiot could have come up with such rubbish, eh?
Dear me; why do you idiots follow this burke? An explanation would be good. Given that he is essentially brain dead re any ACTUAL science. Strewth. Please explain.
If it is not already clear; Thornhill & Talbott are cranks. With zero scientific knowledge. They are nutjobs. Anybody that wants to prove otherwise, please join in. Lol.
 
Last edited:
According to the electric comet delusion, main belt comets should not exist but now we have another!
Hubble Spots Unique Object in the Main Asteroid Belt
The latest discovery was made by a team of international astronomers led by the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research. Using Hubble, they spotted a unique object in the Main Asteroid Belt – a binary asteroid known as 288P – which also behaves like a comet. According to the team’s study, this binary asteroid experiences sublimation as it nears the Sun, which causes comet-like tails to form.
...
As Jessica Agarwal explained in a Hubble press statement, this makes 288P the first known binary asteroid that is also classified as a main-belt comet. “We detected strong indications of the sublimation of water ice due to the increased solar heating – similar to how the tail of a comet is created,” she said. In addition to being a pleasant surprise, these findings are also highly significant when it comes to the study of the Solar System.
 
Sol88: A lie that the mainstream model is falsified

Tap Tap Tap...
2 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that the mainstream model is falsified :eye-poppi!
This another rather pathetic derail from the topic of the thread - his delusions about comets.

Hubble Spots Farthest-Ever Incoming Active Comet
This is about a new Comet C/2017 K2. Easily explained by the comet being new to the inner system and so having more volatile materials. That is what a "dirty snowball" does!

2 October 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of citing a comet originating from the Oort cloud, not the Earth as in his delusions about comets.

2 October 2017 Sol88: A delusion that Comet C/2017 K2 is Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko (the target of Rosetta and the subject of the paper he does not cite!)
 
Last edited:
254 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 23 August 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)

  1. 13 September 2017 Sol88: A lie about wanting a link when he knows the link.
  2. 14 September 2017 Sol88: A repeated lie of dust being ejected electrically as in his comet delusions [by electrical discharges between the comet and Sun].
  3. 14 September 2017 Sol88: Idiocy of citing an electrostatic dust acceleration paper about mainstream comets made of ices and dust
  4. 14 September 2017 Sol88: Idiocy of citing an electrostatic charging paper about mainstream comets made of ices and dust
  5. 14 September 2017 Sol88: Lies again about there being no links.
  6. 14 September 2017 Sol88: Usual mindless parroting of the ignorant and deluded Thunderbolts cult that have been already addressed.
  7. 14 September 2017 Sol88: A lie about his comet delusions which do not include jets happen in the "boundary between lit areas and shadowed areas".
  8. 14 September 2017 Sol88: A lie because he knows that the actual location of jets is part of what makes his comet ideas into delusions.
  9. 14 September 2017 Sol88: A lie because the ignorant and deluded page he cites is not about comet jets.
  10. 14 September 2017 Sol88: Maybe a lie because he does not cite any observations of jets "seen to occur in the boundary between lit areas and shadowed areas".
  11. 18 September 2017 Sol88: Idiocy of citing a suprathermal electron paper that is not about his comet delusions.
  12. 18 September 2017 Sol88: Lies about the paper he cites which is not about his comet delusions.
  13. 18 September 2017 Sol88: A lie of "The 'dirtysnowball' is dead" followed by the idiocy of his ignorant delusions about comets are a model!
  14. 18 September 2017 Sol88: A lie that Whipple's 1950 model is the only mainstream mode and wrong.
  15. 18 September 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of not knowing the meaning of surface and bulk is his problem, not the mainstreams.
  16. 18 September 2017 Sol88: Unsourced quotes that he lies about (it is evidence, not fact).
  17. 19 September 2017 Sol88: A lie by quoting tusenfem debunking another lie.
  18. 19 September 2017 Sol88: Lies about the mainstream model looking like mostly rock with some dust and negligible 'ice'.
  19. 2 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that the mainstream model is falsified :eye-poppi!
  20. 2 October 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of citing a comet originating from the Oort cloud, not the Earth as in his delusions about comets.
  21. 2 October 2017 Sol88: A delusion that Comet C/2017 K2 is Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko (the target of Rosetta and the subject of the paper he does not cite!)

Two years and counting of fear of doing basic physics: 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.
The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 8 years of delusions from Sol88)
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.
 
2 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that the mainstream model is falsified :eye-poppi!
This another rather pathetic derail from the topic of the thread - his delusions about comets.

Hubble Spots Farthest-Ever Incoming Active Comet
This is about a new Comet C/2017 K2. Easily explained by the comet being new to the inner system and so having more volatile materials. That is what a "dirty snowball" does!

2 October 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of citing a comet originating from the Oort cloud, not the Earth as in his delusions about comets.

2 October 2017 Sol88: A delusion that Comet C/2017 K2 is Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko (the target of Rosetta and the subject of the paper he does not cite!)

How's the dust being released from the Comet K2, reality Check?

Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Yu. V. Skorov1, L. Rezac1, P. Hartogh1 and H. U. Keller2

Conclusions. In the framework of the presented model, which can be considered common in terms of assumptions and physical parameters in the cometary community, the dust removal by a gas drag force is not a plausible physical mechanism. The sublimation of not only water ice, but also of super-volatile ice (i.e., CO) is unable to remove dust grains for illumination conditions corresponding to 1.3 AU. A way out of this impasse requires revision of the most common model assumption employed by the cometary community.

but comet K2 can at
Prediscovery observations from 2013 show
that the comet was also active at 23.7 au heliocentric distance.
10.3847/2041-8213/aa88b4

WoW, ay!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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