The Electric Comet theory

[Dancing David]

I can take a picture of snow that fell just after Christmas that now looks like black basalt along the side of the road.

Exactly!

Plow walls are very hard as well, snow drifts like sand dunes,etc...

 

[Dancing David]

Ummm... the shiny stuff is NOT ice!!! And the "shiny" stuff seen at the base of the jets is the EDM we bang on about.

Any clearer, JeanTate??

Mainstream contradicted themselves on this occasion more than once to save face and the snowydirtball paradigm.

And now have gone into lock down mode with the OSIRIS images, Why?

It looks liek a magic bunny, so with no evidence other than you magical surmise you have nothing but a magic bunny picture.

same as it ever was.

I am very impressed by the vast improvement in your writing skills recently, what changed between the time you first started posting and your recent posts?
You know write coherent complete sentences and no longer make the grammatical errors that you used to.

Is it a spell checker?

 

[tusenfem]

You know write coherent complete sentences and no longer make the grammatical errors that you used to.

coherent and complete sentences do not make up for claimed nonsense and information emptiness.

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning, Sol88.

You've written quite a few posts in the last day or so. While I'm still working on your lengthy post about "ice and jets" (my shorthand), some of what you've posted since I am finding quite disturbing.

So, out of sequence ...

Mainstream contradicted themselves on this occasion more than once to save face and the snowydirtball paradigm.

And now have gone into lock down mode with the OSIRIS images, Why?
This is, of course, not relevant.

Why, Sol88, do you find it so hard to stay focused?

This is, to me, quite troubling.

First, you have quoted something without linking, or citing, its source. So making it hard to check. You want to communicate effectively with your target audience (presumably at least those ISF members actively responding to what you post)? Don't make it unnecessarily hard for them!

Second, by losing the distinction between who wrote which words, you have made implications - however unintentionally - that are (or could be) at odds with the facts. As it's my words you are misquoting, I'm not happy. Or, in what I think is Strine, pissed off.

This is on topic

Comments including links to sites irrelevant to the post or to unpublished theories or non peer-reviewed papers will likely be trashed.

Which includes the ELECTRIC COMET HYPOTHESIS

So i'm unsure what angle your trying to work there JT

You and I are posting in the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section of the ISF. While you may be posting, or have posted, to whatever source you are quoting from (you did not cite/source it, tut! tut!), I am not.

So it is, for me, off-topic.

Further, if you want to write about what you think is a conspiracy, please go post in the relevant section of the ISF (HINT: it's not the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section).

 

[JeanTate]

A second, rather disturbing, post by you, Sol88.

Hello again, Sol88.

Yes, somewhat. Thank you.

One thing I'll be checking is the relevant ech primary sources. So far, there seems to be just Thornhill & Talbott (2006)*. If you know of any other primary sources - re the ech - which are directly relevant, please cite them.

Because to the mainstream, it's crackpot pseudoscience and if want to earn a living in this field you better tow the party line.

Sol88, you and Haig have posted a vast amount of stuff in this thread. And in the links there's a vast amount more.

However, that which is relevant to the ech is - depressingly - only a small fraction of that vastness.

Further, there seem to be very few, if any, primary sources. And by 'primary sources' here I mean something quite specific: documents whose authors are Thornhill and/or Talbott (and/or possibly some other electrical theorists); documents which clearly state and discuss the ech; documents which show how each of the specific 'predictions' are derived from the ech axioms/assumptions/postulates. Ideally, these would be papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals; however, any document which meets the above criteria would do, at least as a starting point.

I find it very strange that neither you nor Haig seem able to cite such documents (Thornhill 2007 is a possible exception).

Would you care to try again?

Better ATM, to point out the contradictions in mainstream peer reviewed papers on trying to force prior beliefs into data coming back from all comet mission so far.

I mean

The total area of exposed water ice is substantially less than that required to support the observed ambient outgassing from the comet, which likely has additional source regions below the surface.

but

showing recession of icy cliffs at the margins.

so what's going on Jeanette?

Sourceless quotes -> no way to check.

Nothing more needs be said.

And in particular

We also present a number of interesting coma features that were observed, including surface jets detected at the limb of the nucleus when the exposed ice patches are passing over the horizon, and features that appear to be jets emanating from unilluminated sources near the negative pole.

and the paper on jets emanating from those "icy cliff", you those icy cliffs that the total area of exposed water ice is substantially less than that required to support the observed ambient outgassing from the comet

(my bold)

Which paper would that be, Sol88?

But even if you did source your quotes, it's irrelevant to this thread, right?

I mean, we're discussing the electric comet hypothesis, right?

Why, Sol88, is it so hard for you to stay focused?

 

[JeanTate]

Hello again, Sol88.

Yes, somewhat. Thank you.

One thing I'll be checking is the relevant ech primary sources. So far, there seems to be just Thornhill & Talbott (2006)*. If you know of any other primary sources - re the ech - which are directly relevant, please cite them.


This is, of course, not relevant.

Why, Sol88, do you find it so hard to stay focused?

* not counting Thornhill (2007), which is behind a paywall

I see in your statement that you are rather preoccupied with peer review and publication with regard to theories and results. You should not be. When you are working at a frontier of knowledge, as indeed you are, you should not be unduly concerned with the peers. They represent existing and accepted knowledge which may of course be flawed, in which case peer acceptance would be a handicap. You may say that is the way of science but maybe that is why science is in a bit of trouble in many areas at this time, with surprise and incredulity expressed at every turn of the page.

Dude hit the nail on the head!

What "Dude" would that be, Sol88?

And where did "Dude" publish those words?

How can peer reviewed paper be accepted if the peers don't know Jack.Sheite?

I guess it'd be difficult.

Fortunately, it seems that (with one possible exception) primary sources on the ech require little more than a standard high school education to read and understand, and are so obviously riddled with flaws, mistakes, errors and so on that to publish any of them a science journal would seriously damage its hard-won reputation.

But I could be wrong.

And a single counter example will show that I am.

Got a primary source, on the ech, that you'd like to cite, Sol88?

It would be new to them as well, would it not?

Yes, indeed it would.

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning, paladin17.

OK, now I see that I was mistaken.
The voltage between perihelion and aphelion is proportional to 2e/a(1-e²), and the mean orbital speed also obviously falls as a^-3/2, so this makes the effect of potential change even weaker for bigger orbits.
So yes, eccentricity is the main factor, and in this framework (where only radial field is considered) orbits with smaller semi-major axes would experience even higher voltage differentials. However, relative potential change (in terms of a ratio of change) is equal to 2e/(1-e) and is independent of the orbit size.

Thank you for pointing me on that.

You're welcome.

I look forward to further analyses from you.

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning, tusenfem.

My assumption based on the list of molecules in the post above...far too complex for ANY maths.

Well, yeah, for your math surely.
Then again that is not an answer at all, as expected from you.
Please ask your friends on thunderdolts how the EDM is processing the nucleus, creating the water, and in what amounts, and why that EDM leaves not traces in the fields instruments?
I doubt that you will do that, but hey, I am a sucker for optimism.

(my bold)

I too am greatly puzzled by this silence, by 'electrical theorists'.

I mean, they bang on about electrical this and electromagnetic that; arcs this, discharges that; EDM! EDM! ... and yet not a peep about the signatures all this 'high energy' electrical stuff would leave, in many of the detectors on many of the space probes*. It's almost as if they don't understand how those instruments work, can't analyse the data from them, know nothing about plasma physics, ... have never even tried listening to an AM radio while someone's doing arc welding a few meters away!

Surely there must be someone over in the thunderdolts forum who has noticed this strange silence?

(I have come to accept that Haig may never understand this, but perhaps Sol88 might, one day).

* the only detectors they seem to think are relevant are optical band imagers, and the only data from them worthy of consideration low dynamic range JPEGs!

 

[Andy_Ross]

It's almost as if they don't understand how those instruments work, can't analyse the data from them, know nothing about plasma physics, ... have never even tried listening to an AM radio while someone's doing arc welding a few meters away!

Or even tuned their radio in to listen to 'long wave' to listen to the whistles of distant lightning or heard the crackle of lightning close by on any radio channel.

 

[Ziggurat]

First - Why did I bring Miles Mathis into this thread ? ...

Electric Comets requires an Electric Sun requires an Electric Universe / Plasma Cosmology ... it's a package deal they ALL go together

And Miles Mathis has a finger in ALL those Pi(s)

That should set off warning klaxons in your head. And yet, it doesn't.

The point is NONE of my list OR YOUR list of Space Greats or ANY list of humans got everything right or didn't make mistakes.

Believing Pi = 4 is not just a mistake. It's a sign of mental illness.

Third - Your FIRST reaction to anyone who challenges the mainstream dogma is to attack the person much much more than the new idea. Why is that ?

Actually, I attacked the idea first (I had no idea how crazy Pantsload was). You haven't responded on that account, so I'll ignore that complaint until you do.

So language like crank, crackpot, idiocy, delusions, ignorant, pantload ... etc ... aren't really compliant with rule 0. or 12. now are they ???

Actually, we (you included) can insult non-members as much as we want without running afoul of the forum rules (no profanity, of course).

I don't see a problem with Mathis's logic, reasoning or math and he is right to point to the "holes" in mainstream dogma.

Dogma like pi = 3.1415926...?

He is not alone ...

Well, sure. There are lots of crazies.

The problem of "Pi" and the problem of "Prime Numbers"

Yeah, that's pretty crazy. "If we agree that numbers basically basically are integers and introducing fraction “or decimal point” is just arbitrary..."
Why the hell would we agree to that? That's just stupid.

 

[tusenfem]

A second, rather disturbing, post by you, Sol88.

Sol88, you and Haig have posted a vast amount of stuff in this thread. And in the links there's a vast amount more.

However, that which is relevant to the ech is - depressingly - only a small fraction of that vastness.

Further, there seem to be very few, if any, primary sources. And by 'primary sources' here I mean something quite specific: documents whose authors are Thornhill and/or Talbott (and/or possibly some other electrical theorists); documents which clearly state and discuss the ech; documents which show how each of the specific 'predictions' are derived from the ech axioms/assumptions/postulates. Ideally, these would be papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals; however, any document which meets the above criteria would do, at least as a starting point.

I find it very strange that neither you nor Haig seem able to cite such documents (Thornhill 2007 is a possible exception).

Would you care to try again?


Sourceless quotes -> no way to check.

Nothing more needs be said.

(my bold)

Which paper would that be, Sol88?

But even if you did source your quotes, it's irrelevant to this thread, right?

I mean, we're discussing the electric comet hypothesis, right?

Why, Sol88, is it so hard for you to stay focused?

i just obtained the 1page paper thornhill 2007.
don't hild your breath for deep insights
ETA it is a conference abstract.

 

[Reality Check]

There IS cause for concern about the way mainly publicly funded science is being withheld in the Rosetta mission.

There is no concern for anyone who is not paranoid or into instant gratification or dislikes scientists enough to deny them rewards fro decades of work, Haig !

Eta: You ignored the fact that a 6 month proprietary period exists for Rosetta instrumental data, Haig:

Access to Rosetta data (16/07/2014!)

So it is dumb to demand data from even the start of the encounter back August 2014 given that the data will not be released until at least February 2015 (aside from the images that teams released e.g. for publicity and conferences) !

Once again with the idiocy of a Google image search, Haig.

A pity that you cannot recognize the ignorance in that rather ignorant post by Dave in the ROSETTA IN 2015, Haig. My reply (my bold added)

A lot of stuff in that post, Dave but
1. There are adequate explanations for the 67P flare-up just as in the bigger Holmes flare-up, e.g. pockets of ice being exposed.
2. I recall that the density before Rosetta was 1 g/cc. The cause of the increase seems obvious -.the strange shape of the comet. The density is likely to remain at around 0.4 g/cc. This figure does not depend on the internal structure of 67P.
3. There is no detection of "electric activity" on the comet surface so that cannot be a cause of the higher than expected temperature. It is more likely to be a fault with the modeling of the temperature.
4. .Nice discovery that the 67P dust particles tend to be larger then expected from other missions. No one should infer from a comment that "fluffiness" of the dust is of electrical origin. Snowflakes are "fluffy"!
5. Ice was not detected from Rosetta but detected by MIDAS (and harder than designed for). This was consistent with hard ice . You get jets from sublimation of subsurface ice where the gas is shaped by pits or fissures or chambers. Philae has detected ice on 67P because that is the only physically possible option for a comet made up of dust and ices.
6. Morphology: There are some unexpected features but most have been seen before. Probably caused by its strange shape. Of course it is not a "dirty snowball" - it is basically2 dirty snowballs joined together.
7. It is no surprise that no "electrical activity" has been reported yet because the teams are probably still analyzing the data! No press releases implies no surprises in the data so far.
8. Enthusiastic amateurs are free to look for Philae.
9. The wrong D/H ratio is evidence that asteroids provided most of the Earth's oceans. The wide range of D/H ratios between comets is evidence that they originated in different places.
Asteroids include water which can be significant in many chondritic asteroids . There is evidence that some have quantities of ice in them (main belt comets) or even an internal liquid ocean for Ceres.

There will be an updated comet model from some of these findings, not a new model

I did not point out Dave's lies in that comment, e.g. ice has been found under the surface of 67P by MIDAS.
AFAIK no results from CONSERT have been released so there would be no announcement of the discovery of ice .

ETA: The reply by THOMAS is just a lot of paranoia about the standard practice of the scientists working on an instrument having first use of the data.

 

[Reality Check]

What's mainstreams explanation for these molecules AND minerals in the comet? ..snipped more ignorance...

The mainstream explanation is in the scientific literature that you are refusing to learn about, Sol88 !

The evidence is that comets are made of dust that formed in the outer solar system and of dust that formed in the inner solar system. Solar pressure can transport dust from the inner solar system to the outer.

The orbits of long period comets tell anyone who knows about science that they were formed in the Oort Cloud.
The orbits of short period comets tell anyone who knows about science that they were formed in the Kuiper Belt.

ETA: We have to wonder what is the ech explanation for the evidence that comets contain dust from both the inner and outer solar system (mostly outer as far as I recall)?
Did they form in the outer solar system, migrate into the inner system, crash into planets and bounce off intact with "rocks" and then return to the outer solar system ?

 

[Reality Check]

Missed this:

Because to the mainstream, it's crackpot pseudoscience ...

No, Soll88: To anyone with a basic knowledge of science the electric comet idea is a fantasy (comets are not rocks!) based on a delusion from the 1950's (planets do not whizz around the solar system in via lotion of the laws of physics).
The electric comet is not even pseudoscience because there is no science in it - just speculations.

...and the paper on jets emanating from those "icy cliff", you those icy cliffs that the total area of exposed water ice is substantially less than that required to support the observed ambient outgassing from the comet

This is fairly incoherent Soll88. You seem to repeating your confusion about the detection of water ice on and below the surface of Templel 1 and the simulation of jets on the ice cliffs of Tempel 1.
The distribution of water ice in the interior of Comet Tempel 1
Jet activity on the cliffs of comet 9P Tempel 1 (PDF)

 

[Reality Check]

First - Why did I bring Miles Mathis into this thread ? ...

It is obviously to imply the Electric Comets, Electric Sun and Electric Universe / Plasma Cosmology authors are as delusional as Miles Mathis, Haig !
Or to emphasize how ignorant of science and mathematics someone would have to be to fall for the Thunderbolts electric comet delusion, Haig?

By citing Miles Mathis you imply that only someone dumb enough to believe that pi = 4 (and this is just one of his delusions!) would believe in any the Thunderbolts idea .

By citing Miles Mathis you imply ignorance abut some science an mathematics or blind faith about any crank you find on the web, e.g. you cite
* A PDF containing a long tirade basically whining about labels in diagrams and descriptions of comets and their anti-tails, etc.
* The invalid Electric Charge web page that has already been commented on.
* A rant about his invalid "correction" to calculus, c, Yangs-Mills, Einstein, etc. And what looks like the idiocy of thinking the strong force does not exist!
* a reduced mass PDF which is basically the delusion that two accelerations cannot be subtracted because he goes on a rant about fields without any maths!
* any one with a high school education should knows that electrons do not orbit around the nucleus as Miles Mathis thinks.

 

[Reality Check]

i just obtained the 1page paper thornhill 2007.
don't hild your breath for deep insights
ETA it is a conference abstract.

Also The Electrical Nature of Comets ends with

On the basis of an electrical theory of comets, the author predicted that the Deep Impact mission would observe an electrical flash before impact with the copper projectile and that the outburst would be more energetic than expected.

So the fact that there were two flashes after impact and the outburst was as energetic as expected from experiment falsifies that "electrical theory of comets".
The real problem is that Thornhill has allowed lying about the Deep Impact results for 9 and a half years now on the Thunderbolts web site by having these as confirmed predictions: The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.

 

[fuelair]

Derek wants to send all to this nice debunkity report on the forms of scientific flummery: http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2015/01/08/mountebanks_con_men_and_heretics.php

As mostly happens, I find it useful and informational. Derek summarizes it for the less interested.........

 

[Sol88]

Good morning, Sol88.

You've written quite a few posts in the last day or so. While I'm still working on your lengthy post about "ice and jets" (my shorthand), some of what you've posted since I am finding quite disturbing.

Snipped sniping....

You and I are posting in the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section of the ISF. While you may be posting, or have posted, to whatever source you are quoting from (you did not cite/source it, tut! tut!), I am not.

So it is, for me, off-topic.

Further, if you want to write about what you think is a conspiracy, please go post in the relevant section of the ISF (HINT: it's not the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section).

Sorry 'ol mate!

It's bang on topic.

I/we/the world want I look at the hires pics that OSIRIS is capable of. For me this is all that is needed to confirm or deny the existence of bright pixel saturated discreet regions at the source of the jets.

I'm no scientist and I ain't going to be submitting no peer reviewed paper from looking at pretty pictures and I'd hazard a guess neither would any one of the great uneducated heathens that are just interested in "pretty pictures".

You can judge for yourself from the comments from the LINK I supplied the ESA is under enormous pressure.

 

[Sol88]

Any way we digress again Jean Tate.

Back to those pesky jets on Tempel 1.

Realty Check had a crack at it and is still quite blind to the contradiction in the statement by Jessica Sunshine and the paper by Holger Sierks.


Direct question to you Jean Tate, why were the "Icy Cliffs" and the area near impact site not picked up as surface ice by J.Sunshine et al?

if indeed it was surface ice, which IMHO it is...not

 

[Sol88]

Also The Electrical Nature of Comets ends with

So the fact that there were two flashes after impact and the outburst was as energetic as expected from experiment falsifies that "electrical theory of comets".
The real problem is that Thornhill has allowed lying about the Deep Impact results for 9 and a half years now on the Thunderbolts web site by having these as confirmed predictions: The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.

Two flashes predicted, two flashes observed.

The energetic explosion denied investigators there primary mission, to observe to crater, which also by the way produced more dust than expected, which included, clays, carbonates and crystallised silicates!!! ROCK in layman terms.