The Electric Comet theory

[Jrrarglblarg]

One thing that occurs to me, and I'm posting this thought here rather than the Rosetta thread as it contains random thoughts of a carpenter rather than actual science:

A comet flies way the heck out away from the sun and dumps heat against the immense heatsink of the universe then comes back in toward the sun. That means the comet would be very cold in relation to the solar wind and various sparse gasses so would function as a condensation surface for those relatively warmer substances. So that would cause some amount of redeposit of material on the surface of a comet on the way back in.

As I say, just random thoughts of a carpenter.

 

[Reality Check]

Mainstream text book science that i read as a kid and young adult said comets were made of dust and ice formed from the leftovers from the formation of the solar system!!
...snipped incoherent rant...

Ditto, Sol88, and add in some astronomy courses that I took at university !
The text book science has not changed. Comets were made of dust and ice formed from the leftovers from the formation of the solar system!

 

[Reality Check]

So Electric Comet theory is nonsense but mainstream Magnetic Comet theory is good !!!

Wrong, Haig - the application of physics that actually works to comets is good.

The Electric Comet theory is nonsense because it is a set of delusions from the Thunderbolts cranks who cannot even understand basic stuff like the measured density of comets is less than that of rock.

 

[Reality Check]

Hi Reality Check
...
Some of the websites and webpages Haig has posted links to seem to be pretty slick, and the videos can't have been cheap to produce. Do you know where these three guys get the money they need to produce and maintain all this?

I can only guess, JeanTate - maybe from their book sales and revenue from web site and YouTube advertisements? There are the three main electric universe/electric sun books. Talbot has another book called The Saturn Myth.
And of course if you have a bit of a cult like Thunderbolts there is the possibility of member donations.

 

[Reality Check]

Lets look at the latest surprise and see if you guys can solve it?

Let us see:
You have confused quasars with comets, Haig.
You have again confused quasars with comets, Haig.
You have yet again confused quasars with comets, Haig.
Solved !

 

[Reality Check]

Then there this that fits in very well with..

And repeating your ignorance about what comets are (they are not galaxies!) does fit with the current theme of this thread, Haig!

 

[Reality Check]

Most Undeniable Evidence of the Electric Universe to Date

Most Undeniable Evidence of the Real Universe to Date
NASA Probe Zapped by Saturn Moon's Static
http://www.space.com/27466-cassini-spacecraft-static-saturn-moon-hyperion.html

Cassini caught in Hyperion's electron beam
http://sci.esa.int/cassini-huygens/54777-cassini-caught-in-hyperions-electron-beam/


NASA admits moon-satelite discharge occurred
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15345

 

[Reality Check]

Your mainstream dogma struggles with this but NOT EU / PC theory

Repeating the delusions and ignorance in a video by Talbott does not make them anything but delusions and ignorance , Haig!
Stating your inability to understand the difference between a comet and a planet is also not good

Haig (20th November 2014): Can you understand the ignorance and delusions in that Thunderbolts video about Mars?

 

[Reality Check]

the Electric Universe view ...

is to replace science with ignorance and delusions, Haig .

Astronomy: Planets in chaos

The discovery of thousands of star systems wildly different from our own has demolished ideas about how planets form. Astronomers are searching for a whole new theory
...
A planet is born
In the search for an overarching theory, astronomers do agree that core accretion has some things right: planets are leftovers from the birth of stars, a process in which interstellar clouds of hydrogen and helium gas contract until their cores grow dense and hot enough to ignite (see 'Planetary standard model').
...

 

[Reality Check]

Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille: Sun on Trial | EU2014]

Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille: Crank presenting pseudoscience at a conference for cranks.

 

[Reality Check]

So it looks like Haig is trying to spam this thread with many posts containing material irrelevant to electric comets in order to avoid answering:

• Haig (30th June 2014): Why do EU supporters continue to claim that astronomers ignore E fields, etc.?
• Haig (3 November 2014) supplied another example of this ignorance by a EU supporter posting on the Thunderbolts forum.
• Haig (7th July 2014), is 3.0 different from 0.6?
• Haig (7th July 2014), if you want to see many cases of delusional thinking and ignorance from an EU "expert" often citing other EU "experts" then have a look at the Thunderbolts picture of the day blog!
• Haig (14th July 2014), How can you believe in the competence of the EU proponents when the speakers at their 2014 conference was a collection of cranks, actual deluded people and some electrical engineers? (the deluded people were the Velikovsky belivers: David Talbott, Daniel Jencka, Dwardu Cardona)?
• Haig (3 November 2014): What is the density of comet 67P; What is the density of rock? Are they the same?
• Plus any scientific answers to the science stated in Electric comets still do not exist!
• Haig (3rd November 2014): Have you noted the 19 items of ignorance and delusion in the first 11 minutes (out of 90!) of a Thunderbolt video that you cited?
• Haig (4th November 2014): Have you understood that Hyperion is an icy moon, not a rock (so why is it not a comet )?
• Haig (20th November 2014): Can you understand the ignorance and delusions in that Thunderbolts video about Mars?
• 24 November 2014 Haig: Please cite the electric comet predictions for the albedo of comet nuclei (actual numbers not fantasies!)
• 24 November 2014 Haig: Can you understand that this ES "paper" is ignorant about and lies about astronomy?
• 25 November 2014 Haig: Please cite the electric comet calculations for density of comets, e.g. 67P.
  Start by showing that the electric field of the Sun does not make the real density of comets less than the gravitationally calculated values
• 25 November 2014 Haig: Please cite the electric comet calculations for the production of a coma and jets from 67P at some 250 million miles from the Sun and at a temp of 205-230K (surface) and 30-160k (subsurface).
• 25 November 2014 Haig: Please cite the electric comet calculations for the production of organic compounds from 67P at some 250 million miles from the Sun and at a temp of 205-230K (surface) and 30-160k (subsurface).

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88:

• 5th August 2009 Sol88: Now where in the many published papers on the electric comet idea is the prediction that the electrical discharges are of duration 10-15 ms (your claim)?
• 5th August 2009 Sol88, How does the electric comet idea explain main-belt comets?
• 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 2014 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.
• 20 November 2014 Sol88: Can you understand that the Thunderbolts authors even lie about predictions
• 20 November 2014 Sol88: Can you understand the significant delusions on that Thunderbolts web page on 67P "predictions"?
• 24 November 2014 Sol88: Please cite the electric comet predictions for the albedo of comet nuclei (actual numbers not fantasies!)

 

[rwguinn]

Most Undeniable Evidence of the Real Universe to Date
NASA Probe Zapped by Saturn Moon's Static
http://www.space.com/27466-cassini-spacecraft-static-saturn-moon-hyperion.html

Cassini caught in Hyperion's electron beam
http://sci.esa.int/cassini-huygens/54777-cassini-caught-in-hyperions-electron-beam/


NASA admits moon-satelite discharge occurred
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15345

And more from the late 1970-1980 timeframe:--I did the modal analysis and testing for this spacecraft which investigated that very thing:

electrical charging of spacecraft – an effect caused by repeated passage through the magnetosphere and known to have contributed to several on-orbit satellite failures.

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/S/SCATHA.html
http://www.researchgate.net/publica..._the_charging_of_the_SCATHA_(P78-2)_satellite

 

[Reality Check]

Sure there is science in this

We can be sure that there is little valid science that the holoscience web site run by the Velikovskian Wal Thornhill, Haig !
As Ziggurat wrote:

Oh dear, not this pathetic Velikovskian crap again.

 

[Reality Check]

Concerning Rosetta, I’ve wondered about the startling rubble field on the surface of 67P, since it doesn’t appear that any comet investigator anticipated such a thing. What is the significance of this debris for our understanding of comets? And is anyone speculating on a connection to the formative process?

No significance, David Talbott.
We know that comets formed with the rest of the solar system. The "rubble field" is probably blocks of ice and dust. That sounds like common knowledge that would not be commented on.
ETA: calling the rubble "debris" may be wrong. That suggests something like a landslide. The rubble may formed in place. There is at least one crater that seems to have a rubble-filled floor though.

However the actual scientific data (not just images) will have scientists speculating on the formative process of comets and 67P in particular.

 

[Reality Check]

W.T. "Tom" Bridgman is an astronomer who has also written on the electric comet idea:
Electric Comets: Failures of the Electric Comet Model on November 24, 2013.
Electric Comets II. Of Water & Ice in November 23, 2014.

The second blog post has the comment

I've also heard some claims that the low density (0.4 gm/cm^3, less than water) of the comet nucleus inferred from the spacecraft motion could be the result of electrostatic repulsion between the spacecraft and nucleus.

If this is an actual electric comet claim then it reveals the proponents ignorance of their own claims !
To have a repulsion you need like charges. But their claim is that there should be electrical discharges between the spacecraft and comet - that needs separation of opposite charges.

Alternately: the electric comet theory predicts that the measured 0.4 gm/cm^3 is too large!

 

[Haig]

There is a good chance that it will be discussed next week in ESOC Darmstadt, where the SWT (Science Working Team) of Rosetta takes place, which I unfortunately cannot attend due to other duties.

I think I have seen a post on the Rosetta blog positing a very close pass by Jupiter in order to explain the sulfur. I have not seen it discussed any further, but then it is also not my specialization field.

I guess there can be all kinds of explanations for a rubble field, pick rubble up from somewhere, or outgassing breaking "rocks" off the surrounding surface, but that is just my speculation.

This week we have a 8 km flyby (give or take a km) who knows what we will see.

WOW! this IS a highly embarrassing image of 67P for the mainstream "Dirty Snowball / Magnetic Comet" model ...
http://mattias.malmer.nu/2014/11/civa-depth-cues/comet_depth_cues/

Re: What is 67P made of?
Unread postby Doubting Thomas » Sun Nov 30, 2014 4:12 am

The best indication yet of what 67P is made of is the famous CIVA image take by Philae of its final resting place, and in particular this extraordinary reprocessed version by Mattias Malmer which clearly shows the jumble of rocks and boulders which Plilae finally tumbled down into: http://mattias.malmer.nu/2014/11/civa-d ... epth_cues/. It is almost a 3D image, so good is the resolution of the in-depth perspective. Truly amazing, and no doubt highly embarrassing for the "dirty snowballers"! This is brilliant citizen science.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15429

 

[Reality Check]

WOW! this IS a highly embarrassing image of 67P for the mainstream "Dirty Snowball / Magnetic Comet" model ...

Wow, Haig, it is highly embarrassing for you that you still cannot recognize ignorance and delusions when you see them written down at the Thunderbolts forum !
You cite some idiot who is so ignorant that they do not know the measured density of comets and 67P in particular thinking that an image processed to emphasize depth cues somehow invalidates the mainstream model !
It is even more embarrassing that you remain ignorant about what the mainstream model is - it is not the "Dirty Snowball / Magnetic Comet" model. It is the "use all valid physics" model!

Comet_depth_cues is a beautiful processed picture of a comet made of ices and dust.

 

[David Talbott]

I guess there can be all kinds of explanations for a rubble field, pick rubble up from somewhere, or outgassing breaking "rocks" off the surrounding surface, but that is just my speculation.

Thanks Tusenfem. Presumably comet specialists are considering a cloud of debris originally moving with the comet. That would circumvent the astronomical improbabilities of the 67P nucleus running into sufficient numbers of “rocks” in interplanetary space to create the debris field (the answer offered by LSSBB). Given the comet's low escape velocity (about half a meter per second), impacts at several km per second would presumably remove a good deal more surface material than they would leave behind. But material settling to the surface from a surrounding cloud of debris would not present the huge improbabilities of collisional scenarios.

 

[Ziggurat]

Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille: Sun on Trial | EU2014
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TOKo7Ik9f8&list=UUvHqXK_Hz79tjqRosK4tWYA

"In 2000, he turned his attention to thermodynamics and astrophysics, demonstrating that the universality advanced in Kirchhoff's Law of Thermal Emission is invalid."

I suspect you have no idea what this really means, Haig, but I'll clue you in on the punchline: a violation of Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation is equivalent to a violation of the 2nd rule of thermodynamics. In other words, Robitaille believes in perpetual motion machines.