The Electric Comet theory

[Reality Check]

...You state it like fact, so Reality Check show me the proof all evidence so far proves otherwise.

I state it like standard astronomy, Sol88. We can even see solar systems being formed!
A fantasy that imaginary evidence proves otherwise is just a fantasy, Sol88. Unfortunately Sol88's denial of science, basic arithmetic and lack of reading comprehension indicates that an explanation of standard astronomy is beyond you but: Formation and evolution of the Solar System

 

[Sol88]

17 November 2012 Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the density of comets

17 November 2014 Sol88: Please cite the announcement of the discovery of hard rock (not "rock stuff" but the solid rocky our theory demands) on comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko.

Not that I expect any answers or evidence since Sol88's denial of science, basic arithmetic and lack of reading comprehension. has the still unanswered
Open question for you, Sol88 (18th September 2014): is 0.1 less than 3.0?
(but a bit of science for you Sol88 - the irregular shape of 67P has upped that density to a whopping estimate of 0.4 gm/cc!)

Ummm....the science back so far said its "Hard" 67P is surprisingly hard!

Electric Comet predicted that little nugget, mainstream are "surprised"...again

Also predicted was again lack of surface ice and again mainstream scientists were surprised...again

Surprised there was not enough ice under that thin crust, they were surprised when Deep impact produced more dust than expected, that was surprising (Uncle Wal predicted that would be the case)


So, Reality Check the holes in the mainstream theory are becoming embarrasing even for this Comet Electric

 

[Sol88]

I state it like standard astronomy, Sol88. We can even see solar systems being formed!
A fantasy that imaginary evidence proves otherwise is just a fantasy, Sol88. Unfortunately Sol88's denial of science, basic arithmetic and lack of reading comprehension indicates that an explanation of standard astronomy is beyond you but: Formation and evolution of the Solar System

Quote from your link

The current standard theory for Solar System formation, the nebular hypothesis, has fallen into and out of favour since its formulation by Emanuel Swedenborg, Immanuel Kant, and Pierre-Simon Laplace in the 18th century.

Really??? the current in favour theory???? and of course we can take that to the bank

the FACT you find high temp minerals in ultra fine comet dust, knock that theory on the head.

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88]: Present the electric comet calculation of the amount of surface ice on 67P

Ummm....the science back so far said its "Hard" 67P is surprisingly hard!

Ummm....I know that the science back so far said its "Hard" 67P is surprisingly hard!

That does not support the electric comet delusion that comets are rocks, Sol88 and your display of ignorance about the electric comet idea by being unable to answer this basic question about it:
17 November 2012 Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the density of comets

Another fantasy (so far) about the electric comet idea demands another question:
Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the amount of surface ice on 67P (no detected surface ice)
And related to this:
Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the amount of surface ice on Tempel 1 where surface ice was found

 

[Sol88]

I think thats why the mainstream are so threatend. One chink in your armour and down come the whole house of cards the standard mainsteam mob have built on a base of sandy assumptions!

These dudes came to thier conlusions before we when to space but the thoery is still in favour Reality Check.

No FACTS just the favourite theory back int the 18th century.

Thats the best you'se can come up with!!!

 

[Dancing David]

Sol 88,
You still lack any data to suggest the electric charge differential that would support the EC theory.

Why is that?

 

[Reality Check]

Quote from your link

Quote mining is bad because that is essentially lying by removing the surrounding content, Sol88
Formation and evolution of the Solar System

The current standard theory for Solar System formation, the nebular hypothesis, has fallen into and out of favour since its formulation by Emanuel Swedenborg, Immanuel Kant, and Pierre-Simon Laplace in the 18th century. The most significant criticism of the hypothesis was its apparent inability to explain the Sun's relative lack of angular momentum when compared to the planets.[5] However, since the early 1980s studies of young stars have shown them to be surrounded by cool discs of dust and gas, exactly as the nebular hypothesis predicts, which has led to its re-acceptance.[6].

(my emphasis added)

Really!!!! the current in favour theory!!!! and of course we can take that to the bank until a better one comes along - science is !!!!

the FACT you find high temp minerals in ultra fine comet dust, knock that theory on the head.

The FACT is that you do not understand that the Stardust results is extra evidence that makes the electric comet formation delusion delusional, Sol88 !

The comet samples show that the outer regions of the early Solar System were not isolated and were not a refuge where interstellar materials could commonly survive.[42] The data suggest that high-temperature inner Solar System material formed and was subsequently transferred to the Kuiper Belt.[43]

Constraints on the Formation Age of Cometary Material from the NASA Stardust Mission

We measured the 26Al-26Mg isotope systematics of a ~5-micrometer refractory particle, Coki, returned from comet 81P/Wild 2 in order to relate the time scales of formation of cometary inclusions to their meteoritic counterparts. The data show no evidence of radiogenic 26Mg and define an upper limit to the abundance of 26Al at the time of particle formation: 26Al/27Al < 1 × 10−5. The absence of 26Al indicates that Coki formed >1.7 million years after the oldest solids in the solar system, calcium- and aluminum-rich inclusions (CAIs). The data suggest that high-temperature inner solar system material formed, was subsequently transferred to the Kuiper Belt, and was incorporated into comets several million years after CAI formation.

So you have asteroids forming first and then dust being incorporated into comets several million years later!
All of this is billions of years ago (no humans around).

 

[Sol88]

Ummm....I know that the science back so far said its "Hard" 67P is surprisingly hard!

That does not support the electric comet delusion that comets are rocks, Sol88 and your display of ignorance about the electric comet idea by being unable to answer this basic question about it:
17 November 2012 Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the density of comets

Another fantasy (so far) about the electric comet idea demands another question:
Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the amount of surface ice on 67P (no detected surface ice)
And related to this:
Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the amount of surface ice on Tempel 1 where surface ice was found

Comets have measured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).

in fact as you said 67P is estimated at 0.4g/cc but is hard as rock!! not sure how you reconcile those to facts.

the data is telling you something RC, till we find your ice and in particular WATER ice, your dirtysnowball is dead.

 

[Sol88]

Sol 88,
You still lack any data to suggest the electric charge differential that would support the EC theory.

Why is that?

Tusenfem has some of that data from ROMAP and being the top scientist he is as soon as hes vaction is over and he's published is findings I'm sure he may drop in again and let us know.

Spose we could use our Moon as a stand in http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/electric-moon.html

"With ARTEMIS, we can see the plasma ring and wiggle a bit, surprisingly far away from the moon," says Halekas. ARTEMIS stands for "Acceleration, Reconnection, Turbulence and Electrodynamics of the Moon’s Interaction with the Sun".

Both rocky airless bodies exposed to the plasma stream eminating from the electric SUN

 

[Reality Check]

I think thats why the mainstream are so threatend. ...

Wrong, Sol88: The mainstream is not threatened by the fantasies of a few cranks on an Internet forum. The mainstream hardly even knows about these cranks, their ignorance (comet density is much less than rock), delusions (humans saw comets forming!) and denial of basic physics (magical invisible undetectable electrical discharges) !

The electric comet is just unsupported fantasies:
17 November 2012 Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the density of comets
18 November 2014 Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the amount of surface ice on 67P (no detected surface ice).
18 November 2014 Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the amount of surface ice on Tempel 1 where surface ice was found

The authors even lie about predictions: The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.
(e.g. they predict a flash before impact and there were 2 flashes after impact which they claim as a successful prediction)

 

[Sol88]

dosent look like it, there in a flap

 

[Reality Check]

in fact as you said 67P is estimated at 0.4g/cc but is hard as rock!! not sure how you reconcile those to facts.

In fact you did not understand what I wrote, Sol88.

No one would be would be ignorant enough to compare those values because

• Mpa is not density !
• the density of 67P is 0.4 g/cm³
• the density of 0.4 g/cm³ is an average density and so little to do with the surface density.

No, Sol88: Comets are icy and dusty through out their volume.
We know that their surfaces are different from their interiors because they outgas. Thus anyone who knows about comets will suspect that they have a "crust" - just not the idiocy of a M&M analogy.
More like a ice-cream that has been in the freezer too long and has developed an icy exterior with s softer interior.

The point being that no one should be ignorant enough to think that the average density of a comet is the surface density.

Another point would be that even the surface of the comet nucleus varies. It could be that the lander had the luck to bounce onto the one bit of exposed surface ice on 67P !

The existing density data is telling anyone with basic arithmetic skills that the "dirtysnowball"/"iceydustball" model is alive and well, Sol88 .

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88: Please present the electric comet calculation for the charge differential

Tusenfem has some of that data from ROMAP....

Whoops, you missed out a vital step Sol88 !
We have known that there are "electric charge differential" around comets for some time. They have been measured! Their existence does not say that the electric comet delusion is correct. What separates a delusion from science is that in science a theory makes predictions. So
Sol88: Please present the electric comet calculation for the electric charge differential around comets and show that it matches the measurements.

ETA: Electric comets still do not exist! (26th August 2013)
Item 12 is Voltage potentials are many orders of magnitude too small. from 31st August 2009!

Real universe: tusenfem pointed out that "Electric Fields and Cold Electrons in the Vicinity of Comet Halley" by Harri Laakso gave the measured potential drop between electrical layers around Comet Halley.

 

[Sol88]

Ha ha ha

You have so far found ROCK and NO ice!

just say'n

ROCK and NO Ice

 

[rwguinn]

No, Haig.
What the guy (Holger?) says is that parts of the grey ground are slightly reddish/less red. He is talking about the red component of a grey surface.

A fairy story about this redness being because of Fe and thus the comet magically came from the iron oxide-rich regolith of Mars is bad because it shows ignorance about comets, Haig:

• Comets were formed in the early history of the Solar System - no Mars with oxidized Fe existed - probably just a ball of molten rock!
• Comets were formed in the outer Solar System.

Since s/he seems to b'leev wikipedia:
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_algae
So there actually may be life on the comet?

 

[Sol88]

The existing density data is telling anyone with basic arithmetic skills that the "dirtysnowball"/"iceydustball" model is alive and well, Sol88 .

so lets take the ice/snow (because we have found none) out of the description and update it to reflect the present findings

so that leaves us with "dust" even "ball" is wrong.

So from the evidence so far we have rockydustydouble lobed bodies!

That not what we've been told

A comet is an icy body that releases gas or dust. They are often compared to dirty snowballs, though recent research has led some scientists to call them snowy dirtballs. Comets contain dust, ice, carbon dioxide, ammonia, methane and more. Astronomers think comets are leftovers from the gas, dust, ice and rocks that initially formed the solar system about 4.6 billion years ago.

 

[Reality Check]

You have so far found ROCK and NO ice

That is a an electric comet delusion, Sol88 - the density of comets means that it is impossible for them to be ROCK.
Not only but so busted that even dogs are laughing at the electric comet delusion

No ROCK has been announced as found as the deafening silence from you shows:
17 November 2014 Sol88: Please cite the announcement of the discovery of hard rock (not "rock stuff" but the solid rock your theory demands) on comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko.

We have seen plenty of water ejected from 69P. It is surface ice that has not been detected as expected.

 

[Reality Check]

...so that leaves us with "dust" even "ball" is wrong.

So that leaves the obsession with the naming of the model so that you can avoid the science, Soll88.

• Comets contain ices (snow)
• Comets contain dust

Thus people call comets

• dirty snow balls or
• snowy dust balls

This leaves an opening for that meaningless spiel about the word "ball", Sol88, because observed comets are not balls - look at 67P !
This is what comets are

A comet is an icy body that releases gas or dust. They are often compared to dirty snowballs, though recent research has led some scientists to call them snowy dirtballs. Comets contain dust, ice, carbon dioxide, ammonia, methane and more. Astronomers think comets are leftovers from the gas, dust, ice and rocks that initially formed the solar system about 4.6 billion years ago.

Or you can do some science:
17 November 2014 Sol88: Please cite the announcement of the discovery of hard rock (not "rock stuff" but the solid rock your theory demands) on comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko.
17 November 2012 Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the density of comets
17 November 2012 Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the density of comets
18 November 2014 Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the amount of surface ice on 67P (no detected surface ice).
18 November 2014 Sol88: Present the electric comet calculation of the amount of surface ice on Tempel 1 where surface ice was found
18 November 2014 Sol88: Please present the electric comet calculation for the electric charge differential around comets and show that it matches the measurements.

 

[Reality Check]

Let us look back in history and see what science Sol88 has missed by depending on the electric comet cranks.
If you search the literature then there are papers that assume that 67P will have some surface ice.

But then we actually observe 67P and Rosetta takes comet’s temperature (1 August 2014))

ESA’s Rosetta spacecraft has made its first temperature measurements of its target comet, finding that it is too hot to be covered in ice and must instead have a dark, dusty crust.

So a lack of surface ice should not have been a surprise.

But communication is never perfect and the Alice team were "a bit surprised" to not detect surface ice a month later:
Rosetta Comet is Darker than Charcoal

Sept. 5, 2014: A NASA instrument aboard the European Space Agency’s (ESA's) Rosetta orbiter has successfully made its first delivery of science data from comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.

The instrument, named Alice, began mapping the comet’s surface last month, recording the first far-ultraviolet light spectra of the comet’s surface. From the data, the Alice team discovered the comet is unusually dark -- darker than charcoal-black -- when viewed in ultraviolet wavelengths. Alice also detected both hydrogen and oxygen in the comet’s coma, or atmosphere.

Rosetta scientists also discovered the comet’s surface so far shows no large water-ice patches. The team expected to see ice patches on the comet’s surface because it is too far away for the sun’s warmth to turn its water into vapor.

"We’re a bit surprised at just how unreflective the comet’s surface is and how little evidence of exposed water-ice it shows," said Alan Stern, Alice principal investigator at the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado

 

[Reality Check]

A post from 4th August 2009 about science that seems still unknown by Sol88 !

Deep Impact found ice on the surface of Tempel 1.

So we find surface ice on one comet and no surface ice on another comet (67P). So the electric comet fantasy about surface ice is what, Sol88:

• that all comets have surface ice?
• that no comets have surface ice?
• that comets discovered on a Friday have surface ice ?