The Electric Comet theory

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dancing David said:
So we know you can create copypasta, where is your data to support that

-comets are asteroids?
-that comets are not composed of volitiles that are commonly referred to as 'ice'. so is frozen ammonia an 'ice'?
-any evidence that there is an electrical discharge making a comet glow?

No you don't have that data, and just being able to copy and paste still won't do it.

As stated before Soll88 I am considering that you may just be a troll and that you lack the desire to show that the electric comet theory is correct.

The fact that you repeatedly present made up strawmen about the conventional comet theory is the most telling, in that you are NOT explaining how the electric cometr theory is correct.

For example, where in the actual mainstream scientific model of comets does its ay that they are not black?

To point this out I will ask you these simple question, which you will ignore as always.

What is a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon and what proportion of them is to be expected in a comet by mainstream theory?
What color is a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon?
What percentage of interstellar clouds that comets are formed from are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons?
Click to expand...

I don't know :rolleyes:
 
Just using 'ol mate Okams Razor, says blowing ice is BS!

and that's the best mainstream science can come up with!

Mainstream NEED ice, in all its forms or ....:eek:
 
Sol88: Do you know what Occam's razor actually says

Sol88 said:
Just using 'ol mate Okams Razor, says blowing ice is BS!
Click to expand...
Sol88: You are already in denial of basic arithmetic: Open question for you, Sol88 (18th September 2014): is 0.1 less than 3.0?
and in denial of the science since from basically the beginning of the thread on 6th July 2009: Electric comets still do not exist! (26th August 2013)
and unable to understand the lies on the Thunderbolts web site: The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.
and unable to comprehend the total ignorance of comets contained in the "model" on the Predictions for 'Deep Impact' page (otherwise you would not have linked to it!).
Do you want to add ignorance of Occam's razor to this list?

Sol88 (26 September 2014): Do you know what Occam's razor actually says and why it cannot be applied to the EC idea?
(Hint: a theory needs to actually be more than a delusional fantasy for Occam's razor to apply).
 
Last edited:
tusenfem said:
I just saw on a WebEx session from ESAC a science talk from the Rosetta SWT meeting there, where they showed an OSIRIS image, with the water jets emanating from the surface, and the jets could be traced back to certain surface features.
Click to expand...

When are we able to see this image Tusenfem?

We are ALL chaffing at the bit to see these "certain surface features" confused:

Surely this one photo can go long way to determining the origin of the "jets"
 
And we can finally agree on something Reality Check, i do DENY nearly all the ad hoc, cobbled together fairedust stories most mainstream astronomers tell.

Just to be able to stroke their beards and murmur to each other job well done nothing to see here move along.

Hidden "ice" under the dust, blowing around causing the smooth areas! :confused:
 
Reality Check said:
Sol88: You are already in denial of basic arithmetic: Open question for you, Sol88 (18th September 2014): is 0.1 less than 3.0?
and in denial of the science since from basically the beginning of the thread on 6th July 2009: Electric comets still do not exist! (26th August 2013)
and unable to understand the lies on the Thunderbolts web site: The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.
and unable to comprehend the total ignorance of comets contained in the "model" on the Predictions for 'Deep Impact' page (otherwise you would not have linked to it!).
Do you want to add ignorance of Occam's razor to this list?

Sol88 (26 September 2014): Do you know what Occam's razor actually says and why it cannot be applied to the EC idea?
(Hint: a theory needs to actually be more than a delusional fantasy for Occam's razor to apply).
Click to expand...

Going to be a fun day when the facts become obvious! :jaw-dropp

Looking forward to that day.....and THAT photo.
 
Sol88 said:
We can the sheeple see the image?
Click to expand...

No you cannot, this is a closed SWT (Science Working Team) meeting at ESAC.
I do not know when the OSIRIS team, or other teams will present their stuff. There is talk about an upcoming Nature issue in which the first results will be published.
 
Sol88 said:
Just using 'ol mate Okams Razor, says blowing ice is BS!

and that's the best mainstream science can come up with!

Mainstream NEED ice, in all its forms or ....:eek:
Click to expand...

YAWN! you sound like a broken record.
How is that calculation of water production through solar wind machining of the surface of the comet coming?
 
Sol88 said:
I don't know :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I suspect there is a troll:

Sol88

Answer with direct evidence:
So we know you can create copypasta, where is your data to support that

-comets are asteroids?
-that comets are not composed of volitiles that are commonly referred to as 'ice'. so is frozen ammonia an 'ice'?
-any evidence that there is an electrical discharge making a comet glow?
 
Sol88 said:
And we can finally agree on something Reality Check, i do DENY nearly all the ad hoc, cobbled together fairedust stories most mainstream astronomers tell.
Click to expand...
So you confirm that you are in denial of the actual science about comets. That denial would explain how you fell and continue to fall for the all the ad hoc, cobbled together, totally delusional fairy dust stories and actual lies that the Thunderbolts people tell about comets as listed in Sol88: (26 September 2014) Do you know what Occam's razor actually says?

Continued denial and ignorance does not make the science invalid - it makes you in so much denial that you are comfortable displaying your ignorance about comets, Sol88. The denial of the simple fact that the measured average density of comets are 5 times smaller than that of asteroids has lead you to be comfortable with ignorance of basic arithmetic (0.6 is < 3.0 from almost 5 years ago, 0.1 is < 3.0 from now)
 
Last edited:
Sol88's denial of science , basic arithmetic and lack of reading comprehension

Sol88 said:
Going to be a fun day when the facts become obvious! :jaw-dropp
Click to expand...
Going to be an astounding day when you realize that that the facts are obvious to anyone who is capable of thinking about them, Sol88 :jaw-dropp!
0.1 is not 3.0 (this is something young children know :p!), Thunderbolts lies about Deep Impact, the electric comet idea is a delusion and there is valid science (not on crank web sites :p) about comets.

Sol88's denial of science , basic arithmetic and lack of reading comprehension continues:
  1. denial of the science since from basically the beginning of the thread on 6th July 2009: Electric comets still do not exist! (26th August 2013)
  2. emphasized with the Rosetta mission: Open question for you, Sol88 (18th September 2014): is 0.1 less than 3.0?
  3. unable to understand the lies on the Thunderbolts web site: The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.
  4. unable to comprehend the total ignorance of comets contained in the "model" on the Predictions for 'Deep Impact' page (otherwise you would not have linked to it!).
  5. Sol88 (26 September 2014): Do you know what Occam's razor actually says and why it cannot be applied to the EC idea? (Hint: a theory needs to actually be more than a delusional fantasy for Occam's razor to apply).

To this we can add the rather idiotic demand that someone produces an image from a WebEx session, Sol88, when you have no evidence that they recorded that session :eye-poppi.
tusenfem pointed out that this was a closed meeting. My impression is that most of the OSIRIS data is not being released until the OSIRIS team finishes analyzing it. It is common practice to give the team that is responsible for an instruments first dibs on publishing results.
 
Last edited:

Attachments

  • comets II.jpg
    comets II.jpg
    15.5 KB · Views: 244
  • swamy.jpg
    swamy.jpg
    8.7 KB · Views: 243
  • russell.jpg
    russell.jpg
    18.1 KB · Views: 245
tusenfem said:
YAWN! you sound like a broken record.
How is that calculation of water production through solar wind machining of the surface of the comet coming?
Click to expand...

Ummm...water-on-the-moon-was-blown-in-by-solar-wind/
In studying tiny grains of lunar soil samples, they found that the reduction of oxygen from silicates in the soil by protons from the solar wind was almost certainly the means by which the water was generated
Click to expand...

So where is the water on the comet? I mean you can SEE the -OH so where is the water...oh "under the surface" of course :blush:
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Ummm...water-on-the-moon-was-blown-in-by-solar-wind/

So where is the water on the comet? I mean you can SEE the -OH so where is the water...oh "under the surface" of course :blush:
Click to expand...

Uh no. we see water coming from the comet, actual water, and probably even of different oxygen species. Rosina will publish this in science, probably by the end of November.
And we cannot SEE the OH, we might measure it. And as before, why would we expect ice on the surface of a comet which passes close by the sun every six years? Maybe in a few nooks and crannies, but definitely not all over the surface. Even unedumacated logic should reach that conclusion.

ETA:
Then about the link. It is interesting, the results from Chandrayaan, but of course this is "old news" because a few years ago it was already posited that the interaction of the solar wind with the surface of the moon could create water in the regolith by studying the stuff that has been brought down from the moon. Here for example is a discovery magazine article about the water production from impacting protons onto the surface of the moon from 2012. Which is after a paper in Nature Geoscience (stupicly they don't put a link to the original paper but I found it here, unfortunately, I don't have personal access, need to wait for my student to get it for me).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom