JREF Homepage Swift Blog
Events Calendar
$1 Million Paranormal Challenge
The Amaz!ng
Meeting Useful Links
Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register
Members List Events
Tags Help
Go Back <#> JREF Forum » General Topics
» Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
Reload this Page * The Electric Comet
theory *
Click Here To Donate
User Name Remember Me?
Password
Notices
Advertisement
ADGRPID:786397|SERVTYPE:4
Help Menu
Frequently Asked Questions
Tutorials and Guides
How To.... Guides
Signatures and Avatars
Post Formatting Codes
Help Forum
Membership Agreement
Membership Agreement FAQ
New Members 'Welcome Thread'
New Members 'Hints & Tips'
The Moderating Team
Contact Us
Site Map
Event Calendars
JREF Events
Member Organized Events
General Events
JREF Forum Site Guide
Links JREF Topics General
Members Only
Forum Home Page Welcome ! General
Skepticism and the Paranormal Science,
Mathematics, Medicine and Technology Community
Forum Index JREF Education
History, Literature, and the Arts
Humor
Links Manager $1M Dollar Challenge
Economics, Business and Finance
Conspiracy Theories
Movies, TV, Music, Computer Gaming, and other Entertainment
vBImage Host Latest Commentary Issues
Religion and Philosophy
Social Issues and Current Events
Puzzles
New Posts
The Amaz!ng Meeting! and other Skeptical Events
Non-USA & General Politics Computers and
Internet Sport
Linking to the Forum The Repository
USA Politics
Conjurer's Corner Forum Rules
Moderating Team Book Reviews
Skeptical Podcasts
Forum Management
Public Notices Forum Spotlight
Forum Help
Reply
Page 16 of 29 *«* First <
6 7
8 9
10
11 12
13
14
15
*16* 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
>
Last *»*
Thread Tools
Old 7th November 2010, 04:19 AM #*601*
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Dancing David's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 26,350
Originally Posted by *Sol88* View Post
Dancing David:
You still struggling with rock aquiring charge in a plasma "wind"???
TRY & THIS LUNAR
ELECTRIC FIELDS, SURFACE
POTENTIAL AND ASSOCIATED PLASMA SHEATHS*
J. W. FREEMAN and M. IBRAHIM
Dept. of Space Physics and Astronomy, Rice University, Houston, Tex., U.S.A.
Intersting to
note DD is the very first opening line!!!
I'll highlight it for you, please understand this is were the "charge"
comes from,
So if the electric field centre on the Sun has a higher charge (is more
positive) than the comet nucleus, there will be a charge difference.
And I think we can all agree on the fact charges like to equilize!
which brings me to the next point,
And again, what makes the coma?
You pretend to know where the charge comes from, but lets see it is
being bathed in this plasma stream, what makes for a charge difference
from the stream?
Are you saying that a comet charged by the polarity of the sun, will be
a different polarity from the sun?
And you do know that the solar wind has both positive and negative charges?
__________________
Note: Often I am drawing too fine a point and will agree with you anyway
in a general sense.
"To say we need to travel everywhere in order to say there is no God is
like saying we need to look behind the fridge to be sure our house isn't
infested with galaxy clusters. "-Piggy
Dancing David is offline Quote this post in a PM
Nominate this post for this
month's language award
Copy a direct
link to this post Reply With Quote
Back to Top <#JREF_Forum_top>
Dancing David
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Dancing David
Old 7th November 2010, 04:40 AM #*602*
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by *Haig* View Post
What electrical effects are you refering too?
Do you mean these:
one of the highest resolution image yet of these enigmatic solar flux tubes.
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1011...es_nso_big.jpg
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap101102.html
Or these effects in this picture of Enceladus
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0911...assini_big.png
So many of the ANOMALIES OF COMETS
leave NASA scratching
their heads but the new data/evidence seems to favour the EU/PC team
over at Thunderbolts
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/a...105hartley.htm
I'm not RC, but Tom Bridgman has a website which includes detailed
information on this topic, including many entries which very effectively
demolish the basis of EU ideas.
For example:
Electric Universe: Plasma Modeling vs. 'Mystic Plasma'
Electric Universe: Everything I needed to know about science I learned
from watching Star Trek?
Electric Universe: Lunar electric fields
"Electric Sun Verified"?? - In your dreams...
The REAL Electric Universe
.
But let me ask you this, Haig: in the Electric Sun-based idea of comets,
can a comet have a net charge greater than that of the electrons in a
comparable volume of the interplanetary medium (at comparable distance
from the Sun)?
DeiRenDopa is offline Quote this post in a PM
Nominate this post for this
month's language award
Copy a direct
link to this post Reply With Quote
Back to Top <#JREF_Forum_top>
DeiRenDopa
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by DeiRenDopa
Old 7th November 2010, 07:26 AM #*603*
Haig
Critical Thinker
Haig's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by *DeiRenDopa* View Post
I'm not RC, but Tom Bridgman has a website which includes detailed
information on this topic, including many entries which very effectively
demolish the basis of EU ideas.
Hi DRD, thanks for the links, I haven't heard of Tom Bridgeman before
but I'll take some time to read his views as soon as I can.
Quote:
But let me ask you this, Haig: in the Electric Sun-based idea of comets,
can a comet have a net charge greater than that of the electrons in a
comparable volume of the interplanetary medium (at comparable distance
from the Sun)?
As a interested layman and just giving my take on what I've read. My
answer is yes it can. This difference in charge sets up a Langmuir
Sheath or plasma double layer
and this forms the
coma and tail. You would get a far better answer if you posed this
question on the Thunderbolts forum but I'm sure you know that.
Let me ask you a couple of questions:
In 2005 Deep Impact?s 820-pound impactor collision with Comet Tempel 1
caused a flash/spark before actual contact. How was this possible?
Also, the actual impact produced a reaction that blinded the instruments
of, Deep Impact, the mothership. Such was the scale of this second
flash. Where did the energy come for this? Bearing in mind it wildly
exceeded NASA predictions.
Thunderbolt answers to these questions make a lot of sense, particularly
since they sucessfully predicted the first part, the flash before contact.
Haig is offline Quote this post in a PM
Nominate this post for this
month's language award
Copy a direct
link to this post Reply With Quote
Back to Top <#JREF_Forum_top>
Haig
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Haig
Old 7th November 2010, 07:37 AM #*604*
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by *Haig* View Post
As a interested layman and just giving my take on what I've read. My
answer is yes it can. This difference in charge sets up a Langmuir
Sheath or plasma double layer
and this forms the
coma and tail. You would get a far better answer if you posed this
question on the Thunderbolts forum but I'm sure you know that.
When you've had a chance to read through Bridgman's many entries on
EU/PC ideas, you'll understand why posting questions in the TB forum is,
essentially, a waste of time; in a nutshell, despite the clearly posted
aims, there is essentially nothing there that resembles modern science.
Quote:
Let me ask you a couple of questions:
In 2005 Deep Impact?s 820-pound impactor collision with Comet Tempel 1
caused a flash/spark before actual contact. How was this possible?
You might like to check your sources for this claim ... it's been
repeated a huge number of times by EU/Electric Sun proponents, but there
is no basis for the claim, from analysis of the raw Deep Impact data
(AFAIK). Worse, as the original source of the EU/ES claim seems to be
Thornhill, and as he is a well-known academic fraud, the constant
repetition speaks volumes for EU supporters' critical thinking capabilities.
Quote:
Also, the actual impact produced a reaction that blinded the instruments
of, Deep Impact, the mothership. Such was the scale of this second
flash. Where did the energy come for this? Bearing in mind it wildly
exceeded NASA predictions.
Again, you might like to check your sources for this claim.
Quote:
Thunderbolt answers to these questions make a lot of sense, particularly
since they sucessfully predicted the first part, the flash before contact.
Really?!?
Would you care to present the actual predictions (not post-dictions), in
their entirety, here? FWIW, these so-called predictions have been ripped
to shreds, several times, in several internet fora; strangely the
complete lack of any meaningful rebuttals, by EU/ES proponents, has
never made it to the TB forum, which is rather telling given their
loudly proclaimed assertion of adherence to the scientific method.
DeiRenDopa is offline Quote this post in a PM
Nominate this post for this
month's language award
Copy a direct
link to this post Reply With Quote
Back to Top <#JREF_Forum_top>
DeiRenDopa
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by DeiRenDopa
Old 7th November 2010, 08:27 AM #*605*
ben m
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,070
Originally Posted by *Sol88* View Post
TRY & THIS LUNAR
ELECTRIC FIELDS, SURFACE
POTENTIAL AND ASSOCIATED PLASMA SHEATHS*
J. W. FREEMAN and M. IBRAHIM
Dept. of Space Physics and Astronomy, Rice University, Houston, Tex., U.S.A.
Intersting to
note DD is the very first opening line!!!
Yes, this charge is (a) very small---a few hundred volts on the Moon---
(b) carries very little energy and (c) /does not discharges/. It's the
stable quasiequilibrium configuration of charges when the Coulomb force
is opposed by diffusion in a plasma---not some giant store of energy
that's waiting for a plasma to show up and discharge it. The plasma
/created/ this charge.
(ETA) Note that an article saying "Solar wind plasma physics predicts a
-100V plasma-induced electrostatic potential on the Moon" might as well
say "Solar wind plasma physics does NOT charge the moon up to 10^12
gazillion volts", "Solar wind plasma does NOT behave one one hand like a
magic high-voltage power supply, and at the same time like a screwdriver
violently shorting out that power supply". "These interesting, true, and
publishable results were obtained by professional physicists, by
applying Maxwell's Equations and other standard physics techniques to
modern data; not by exegesis of pre-space-age Alvfenic aphorisms."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
/ Last edited by ben m ; 7th November 2010 at
10:06 AM. /
ben m is offline Quote this post in a PM
Nominate this post for this
month's language award
Copy a direct
link to this post Reply With Quote
Back to Top <#JREF_Forum_top>
ben m
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by ben m
Old 7th November 2010, 10:58 AM #*606*
Reality Check
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 7,791
Originally Posted by *Haig* View Post
What electrical effects are you refering too?
All of the electrcial effects mentioned in astrophysics papers.
You know - the ones "Uncle Wal" ignores.
But I suspect thatwhat Wally means by "electrical effects" is the claims
of the various brands of pseudo-science called electrical
universe/sun/comet/lets ignore the actual physics and observations and
label it electrical.
Originally Posted by *Haig* View Post
Do you mean these:
one of the highest resolution image yet of these enigmatic solar flux tubes.
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1011...es_nso_big.jpg
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap101102.html
No.
Solar flux tubes are solar *magnetic* flux tubes.
Originally Posted by *Haig* View Post
Or these effects in this picture of Enceladus
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0911...assini_big.png
Defintely not - these are jets.
You need to learn some astronomy.
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
(another observation
) (and Abell
520 )
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1
; Review 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
/ Last edited by Reality Check ; 7th November
2010 at 11:04 AM. /
Reality Check is offline Quote this post in a PM
Nominate this post for this
month's language award
Copy a direct
link to this post Reply With Quote
Back to Top <#JREF_Forum_top>
Reality Check
View Public Profile
Visit Reality Check's homepage!
Find More Posts by Reality Check
Old 7th November 2010, 11:02 AM #*607*
Reality Check
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 7,791
Originally Posted by *Haig* View Post
Let me ask you a couple of questions:
In 2005 Deep Impact?s 820-pound impactor collision with Comet Tempel 1
caused a flash/spark before actual contact. How was this possible?
...
Thunderbolt answers to these questions make a lot of sense, particularly
since they sucessfully predicted the first part, the flash before contact.
Thunderbolt is lying.
Originally Posted by *Reality Check* View Post
*EC universe:* Only give qualitative predictions.
Sol88 posted a list of EC "predictions"
for Tempel
1 and Deep Impact. The closes it gets to an actual quantitative
predictions is "The most obvious would be a flash (lightning-like
discharge) shortly *before* impact." (emphasis added).
What actually happened was a flash *on or after* impact followed by a
bigger one from deeper in the nucleus (according to NASA
).
Quote:
Also, the actual impact produced a reaction that blinded the instruments
of, Deep Impact, the mothership. Such was the scale of this second
flash. Where did the energy come for this? Bearing in mind it wildly
exceeded NASA predictions.
The instruments Deep Impact were not "blinded". Some pixels were
momentarily saturated.
Let me ask you a couple of questions:
Have you heard of kinetic energy?
Do you know that the impactor was travelling really, really fast?
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
(another observation
) (and Abell
520 )
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1
; Review 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
/ Last edited by Reality Check ; 7th November
2010 at 11:11 AM. /
Reality Check is offline Quote this post in a PM
Nominate this post for this
month's language award
Copy a direct
link to this post Reply With Quote
Back to Top <#JREF_Forum_top>
Reality Check
View Public Profile
Visit Reality Check's homepage!
Find More Posts by Reality Check
Old 7th November 2010, 10:36 PM #*608*
Sol88
Muse
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 691
Originally Posted by *ben m* View Post
Yes, this charge is (a) very small---a few hundred volts on the Moon---
(b) carries very little energy and (c) /does not discharges/. It's the
stable quasiequilibrium configuration of charges when the Coulomb force
is opposed by diffusion in a plasma---not some giant store of energy
that's waiting for a plasma to show up and discharge it. The plasma
/created/ this charge.
(ETA) Note that an article saying "Solar wind plasma physics predicts a
-100V plasma-induced electrostatic potential on the Moon" might as well
say "Solar wind plasma physics does NOT charge the moon up to 10^12
gazillion volts", "Solar wind plasma does NOT behave one one hand like a
magic high-voltage power supply, and at the same time like a screwdriver
violently shorting out that power supply". "These interesting, true, and
publishable results were obtained by professional physicists, by
applying Maxwell's Equations and other standard physics techniques to
modern data; not by exegesis of pre-space-age Alvfenic aphorisms."
Lets try -4000v
Quote:
encountered
(e.g. Fig. 1).
In addition, surface electric fields also likely contribute
to dust charging and transport. There is substantial
observational support for dust levitation a few
meters above the surface [9], and some evidence for
dust transport to much greater altitudes [10] and highly
accelerated dust [11].
LINK
Oh and the Moon has water!!
So BenM lets try and read from the same page eh? Space is full of plasma
99.9 % actualy and yes I'm aware that it is quasi-nuteral but stick a
rock in the way and bingo, CHARGE SEPERATION!!! now question is what
happens when the charges wants to get back together, 'cos charges do that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity
You may like to read up about it
hint: you may also want to note that an electric current causes a
magnetic field may help you understand just what the EU is all about!!
__________________
I see that tusenfem become the third person to have a go at your list,
while I was posting; of course that will change my two lists /somewhat/
... (DeiRenDopa)
I'm always in the plasma, it's just the density that varies! (Sol88)
?Black holes are where God divided by zero.? ? Comedian Steven Wright
Sol88 is offline Quote this post in a PM
Nominate this post for this
month's language award
Copy a direct
link to this post Reply With Quote
Back to Top <#JREF_Forum_top>
Sol88
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Sol88
Old 7th November 2010, 11:09 PM #*609*
Sol88
Muse
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 691
Originally Posted by *Reality Check* View Post
Thunderbolt is lying.
The instruments Deep Impact were not "blinded". Some pixels were
momentarily saturated.
Let me ask you a couple of questions:
Have you heard of kinetic energy?
Do you know that the impactor was travelling really, really fast?
the impactor was travelling really, really fast!! No it was travelling
really, really, really fast!!!
In fact it was so fast it made two flashes!!! that's how fast it was going
Quote:
Have you heard of kinetic energy?
Yeah and the MATHS boffins and very clever Physicists esimated 4.5t of
TNT, it exceeded those expectation by quite some amount....why?? Don't
they feed enough penuts to the monkeys?
Uncle Wal predicted the two flashes regardless of the mechanisim and
that the impact would be more energetic than the boffins 4.5t of TNT.
So far not one prediction fromthe mainstream has help up, funny that!
__________________
I see that tusenfem become the third person to have a go at your list,
while I was posting; of course that will change my two lists /somewhat/
... (DeiRenDopa)
I'm always in the plasma, it's just the density that varies! (Sol88)
?Black holes are where God divided by zero.? ? Comedian Steven Wright
Sol88 is offline Quote this post in a PM
Nominate this post for this
month's language award
Copy a direct
link to this post Reply With Quote
Back to Top <#JREF_Forum_top>
Sol88
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Sol88
Old 7th November 2010, 11:18 PM #*610*
ben m
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,070
[quote=Sol88;6527715]Lets try -4000v LINK
-4000V? On the whole moon? Sol88, have you /ever/ done anything with
that number? I just did. Calculate how much energy is stored by the
excess charge on a 4000V moon. It's about one kilojoule. It's not enough
electrical energy to /brew a cup of coffee/. It's not enough energy to
fire a /camera flashbulb/. It's about the energy you get from /eating
one Tic Tac/.
Quote:
So BenM lets try and read from the same page eh? Space is full of plasma
99.9 % actualy and yes I'm aware that it is quasi-nuteral but stick a
rock in the way and bingo, CHARGE SEPERATION!!!
Yes, tiny /static/ amount of charge separation, creating barely any
voltage, storing practically no energy, and (listen carefully) NOT
DISCHARGING. These are static conditions.
Quote:
now question is what happens when the charges wants to get back
together, 'cos charges do that.
Not if they're still in the diffusion situation that separated them to
begin with. Anyway, if they DO "get back together", nothing happens.
There's no energy there to do anything visible.
Now I remember why I had you on ignore for years, Sol88.
ben m is offline Quote this post in a PM
Nominate this post for this
month's language award
Copy a direct
link to this post Reply With Quote
Back to Top <#JREF_Forum_top>
ben m
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by ben m
Old 8th November 2010, 12:10 AM #*611*
Sol88
Muse
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 691
BenM please place me on ignore again, after you show math you used to
work out the moon has energy equivalent to one tic tak!
Remember it's only half the moon in sunlight (+ 100'sV) and the other
half is in lunar night (- 1000'sV) your tic tak can launch dust into space!!
Where can I get one of your tic taks from?
__________________
I see that tusenfem become the third person to have a go at your list,
while I was posting; of course that will change my two lists /somewhat/
... (DeiRenDopa)
I'm always in the plasma, it's just the density that varies! (Sol88)
?Black holes are where God divided by zero.? ? Comedian Steven Wright
Sol88 is offline Quote this post in a PM
Nominate this post for this
month's language award
Copy a direct
link to this post Reply With Quote
Back to Top <#JREF_Forum_top>
Sol88
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Sol88
Old 8th November 2010, 01:22 AM #*612*
Reality Check
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 7,791
Originally Posted by *Sol88* View Post
the impactor was travelling really, really fast!! No it was travelling
really, really, really fast!!!
In fact it was so fast it made two flashes!!! that's how fast it was going
Right !
What actually happened was a flash *on or after* impact followed by a
bigger one from deeper in the nucleus (according to NASA
).
Thiunderbolts is still lying.
Originally Posted by *Sol88* View Post
Yeah and the MATHS boffins and very clever Physicists esimated 4.5t of
TNT, it exceeded those expectation by quite some amount....why?? Don't
they feed enough penuts to the monkeys?
Yeah and we only have your assertion
1. that was the prediction and
2. that it was wrong.
You though are so ignorant that you cannot grasp the simple fact that
the measured density of comet nuclei
is *~0.6 g/cc*, the
measured density of asteroids is *~3.0 g/cc* and that *0.6 is less than
3.0 !*
Don't they feed you enough penauts?
Originally Posted by *Sol88* View Post
Uncle Wal predicted the two flashes regardless of the mechanisim and
that the impact would be more energetic than the boffins 4.5t of TNT.
So far not one prediction fromthe mainstream has help up, funny that!
You remain persistently ignorant (i.e. delusional) what Uncle Wal
Thornhill's prediction was and that he got it wrong.
Originally Posted by *Reality Check* View Post
*EC universe:* Only give qualitative predictions.
Sol88 posted a list of EC "predictions"
for Tempel
1 and Deep Impact. The closes it gets to an actual quantitative
predictions is "The most obvious would be a flash (lightning-like
discharge) *shortly* *before* impact." (emphasis added).
What actually happened was a flash *on or after* impact followed by a
bigger one from deeper in the nucleus (according to NASA
).
So now we have the beginning of a list of your delustions:
1. You think that *0.6 is less than 3.0 .*
2. You think that "*shorly before*" is "*on or after*".
Any more ignorance that you want to permanently record for the world to
view?
So far lots of predictions from the mainstream has held up, funny that!
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
(another observation
) (and Abell
520 )
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1
; Review 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
/ Last edited by Reality Check ; 8th November
2010 at 01:54 AM. /
Reality Check is offline Quote this post in a PM
Nominate this post for this
month's language award
Copy a direct
link to this post Reply With Quote
Back to Top <#JREF_Forum_top>
Reality Check
View Public Profile
Visit Reality Check's homepage!
Find More Posts by Reality Check
Old 8th November 2010, 01:41 AM #*613*
Reality Check
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 7,791
Exclamation *The totally stupid electric comet idea debunked*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since Sol88 is back, lets expand the total debunking of the electric
comet idea.
Thank Sol88 for continuing to point just how idiotic the EC idea is !
*EC universe:* Sol88 is of course just regurgitating the crackpot
fantasies of the Thunderbolts web site. The authors of the site (and the
books it is set up to sell to the gullible) are David Talbot and Wal
Thornhill. How good is their physics?
They have a list of EC "predictions"
for Tempel
1 and Deep Impact. The closest it gets to an actual quantitative
prediction is "The most obvious would be a flash (*lightning-like
discharge*) shortly before impact." (emphasis added). He was wrong and
the web site continues to lie about this: there was a flash on or after
the impact
not
"shortly before".
*Real universe: *Lightning like all electrical discharges
requires a
dielectric (insulating) medium to break down to from a conduction path
for the discharge. But comets are surronded by plasma. Plasma is a
conducting medium (about as consucting as a metal in general). Thus no
electrical discharges
are possible.
*EC universe:* They have a list of EC "predictions"
for Tempel
1 and Deep Impact which include: "An abundance of water on or below the
surface of the nucleus (the underlying assumption of the ?dirty
snowball? hypothesis) is unlikely."
*Real universe:* An "abundance" of water ice was found on the surface of
Tempel 1.
*EC universe:* Comets are rocky bodies, comparable to asteriods and
probably created in the same event as asteriods (according to Thunderbolts).
*Real universe:*
1. Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of
rocks (asteroids).
2. Comets may not have the composition of asteriods
3. Deep Impact
confirmed that comet nuclei are made of dust and ice not rock.
There were a couple of surprises in that the dust was talcum
powder rather than sand and the amount of ice was smaller than
expected.
"Analysis of data from the Swift X-ray telescope
showed that the comet continued outgassing from the impact for 13
days, with a peak five days after impact. A total of 5 million
kilograms (11 million pounds) of water[35]
and between 10
and 25 million kilograms (22 and 55 million pounds) of dust were
lost from the impact."^WP
*Thus the water content of Comet Tempel 1 is 20% to 50%.*
4. Cometary dust as collected by the Stardust mission contain forms
of carbon that are not in meteorites.
Thus comets are not meteorites.
Meteorites are rocky bodies (meteoroids and sometimes asteroids)
that have reached the Earth's surface.
*Therefore comets are not **meteoroids* *or asteriods*.
(or *How Sol88 cannot stop shooting himself in the foot
*)
*EC universe:* Comet jets, coma and tails are created from material that
that is created from rock by electrical discharge machining
.(but
according to solrey EDM does not mean EDM in the EC universe!).
*Real universe:*
Start with Tim Thompson's posts about this
* Electric Comets I
* Electric Comets II: References
* Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays
(actually no EU X-ray bursts).
Then look at
* The EC assumption of EDM machining does not produce jets
.
* EDM in the EC idea needs a dielectric material which does not
exist!
* No EDM sparks are seen in images of comet nuclei.
* No EDM hot spots are seen in thermal maps of Tempel 1.
* Voltage potentials are many orders of magnitude too small.
*EC universe:* Rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity
above a minimum value will be comets.N.B. Solar activity may cut tails
in two but there have been no observations of comets turning off during
low solar activity.(Sol88: I may be wrong - if so please provide the
citations to these marvelous events.)
However this assertion has the fatal flaw of EC predictions - no
mathematics or numbers.
But we can do their work for them can't we Sol88?
There are 4 observed main-belt comets
with a minimum
eccentricity of 0.1644 (133P/Elst-Pizarro
). So the EC minimim
must be this (or lower!).
*Real universe:* There are at least 173,583 asteroids (rocky bodies)
that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value that are
*not* comets. This includes asteroids that have been observed for decades.
There are 459,893 asteroids with eccentricities greater than the minimum
observed eccentricity of comets (0.0279).
*EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets
*
*EC universe:* solrey pointed out in this post
that EC
idea expects that the voltage potential a comet experiences would be
orders of magnitude higher than that of the cloud to ground voltage
potential in a thunderstorm (*10^9 volts*).
"Several" is more than a couple so the EC idea expects a voltage drop
around a comet of at least 10^12 volts.
*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 as *50 kV* in this post
. This is
10,000 times less than the thunderstorm potential and 10,000,000 times
less that requires by the EC idea.
*Water, water everywhere (except in the EC idea)
*
*EC universe:* Comets are rocky bodies, comparable to asteroids and
probably created in the same event as asteroids (according to
Thunderbolts). Comet jets, coma and tails are created from material
(e.g. water) that that is created from rock by electrical discharge
machining .
Like everything in the EC idea there are no numbers and so no prediction
of the composition of the nucleus. We could say that means that the EC
idea predicts no water (0%) but there should be some blowback from the
physically impossible (on comets)
EDM process.
Asteroids in general have very low amounts of water. So let's just throw
in 1% water as an extremely generous guess - IMHO it should be something
like 0.01%. Sol88 or solrey should provide a better number if they have it.
*Real universe:* Comets are bodies with a mixture of rock and ices of
various compounds, e.g. CO and water. They are have been described as
"dirty snowballs". The volatile material (ices) is heated by the Sun and
sublimates to form jets, the coma and the tail.This is supported by
actual physical evidence, i.e. the results of the Deep Impact mission
where
the impact ejected material from the nucleus that was composed of
*20-50% water and 80-50% dust*.
*EC universe:* Only give qualitative predictions.
Sol88 posted a list of EC "predictions"
for Tempel
1 and Deep Impact. The closes it gets to an actual quantitative
predictions is "The most obvious would be a flash (lightning-like
discharge) shortly *before* impact." (emphasis added).
What actually happened was a flash *on or after* impact followed by a
bigger one from deeper in the nucleus (according to NASA
). Total
fail by Thornhill
*Real universe:* Scientific theories model the data mathematically and
produce both qualitative and quantitative predictions. Someone could
start with the papers of Whipple
1. Whipple, Fred L. (1950). "A Comet Model. I. The acceleration of
Comet Encke
".
/Astrophys. J.
/ *111*: 375?394.
2. Whipple, Fred L. (1951). "A Comet Model. II. Physical Relations
for Comets and Meteors
".
/Astrophys. J.
/ *113*: 464.
3. Whipple, Fred L. (1955). "A Comet Model. III. The Zodiacal Light
".
/Astrophys. J.
/ *121*: 750.
and then go ointo the 1000's of scientific papers and many textbooks
about comets. Tim Thompson recommended /Introduction to Comets/ by
Brandt & Chapman (Cambridge University Press, 2004, 2nd edition).
*EC comets switch off at perihelion*
*EC universe:* An EC prediction is that comets will switch off (or to be
charitable to the EC idea they will be less bright) at perihelion.
*Real universe:* We observe that comets are brightest at perihelion .
*EC universe:* Turn yourself into a crackpot idea by not publishing
papers in peer reviewed journals.
*Real universe:* Take the risk of being wrong and become part of the
scientific process by publishing papers in peer reviewed journals, e.g.
Fred L. Whipple.
*EC Universe:* Turn yourself into a crackpot by quoting press releases
and news articles. This has the added advantage of revealing your
ignorance of the scientific literature.
*Real Universe:* Real scientists cite published scientific papers and
textbooks.
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
(another observation
) (and Abell
520 )
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1
; Review 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
/ Last edited by Reality Check ; 8th November
2010 at 01:50 AM. /
Reality Check is offline Quote this post in a PM
Nominate this post for this
month's language award
Copy a direct
link to this post Reply With Quote
Back to Top <#JREF_Forum_top>
Reality Check
View Public Profile
Visit Reality Check's homepage!
Find More Posts by Reality Check
Old 8th November 2010, 02:19 AM #*614*
Reality Check
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 7,791
Question *Where are the measurements of the Tempel 1 impact exceeding
the expected energy*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by *Sol88* View Post
Yeah and the MATHS boffins and very clever Physicists esimated 4.5t of
TNT, it exceeded those expectation by quite some amount....why?? Don't
they feed enough penuts to the monkeys?
Yeah: You need to get your facts right.
The MATHS boffins and very clever Physicists esimated 19 Gigajoules
(equivalent to *4.8 ton of TNT*). Even Thunderbolts got that number right.
Sol88:
*First asked 8 November 2010*
Before I add this to the list of delusions that we expect from EC cranks:
* How much is "quite some amount"?
o 0.00001%?
o 0.1%?
o 100%?
o 1,000,000%?
* Where are the measurements of the Tempel 1 impact exceeding the
expected energy?
The MATHS boffins and very clever Physicists then measured (as far as I
can see) 17 Gigajoules.
Energy balance of the Deep Impact experiment
Quote:
We present results on the energy balance of the Deep Impact experiment
based on analysis of 180 infrared spectra of the ejecta obtained by the
Deep Impact spacecraft. We derive an output energy of 16.5 (+9.1/?4.1)
GJ. With an input energy of 19.7 GJ, the error bars are large enough so
that there may or may not be a balance between the kinetic energy of the
impact and that of outflowing materials. Although possible, no other
source of energy other than the impactor or the Sun is needed to explain
the observations.
You have not been able to understand that the measured density of comet
nuclei is *~0.6 g/cc*,
the measured density of asteroids is *~3.0 g/cc* and that *0.6 is less
than 3.0.*
So trust me: The number 17 is less then the number 19. It does not
exceed 19.
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
(another observation
) (and Abell
520 )
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1
; Review 2
Reality Check is offline Quote this post in a PM
Nominate this post for this
month's language award
Copy a direct
link to this post Reply With Quote
Back to Top <#JREF_Forum_top>
Reality Check
View Public Profile
Visit Reality Check's homepage!