Bad Astronomy Vs Good Science. Debunking Phil Plait

Originally posted by ngchunter
where's all the heat? Comets are very cold things as proven by spectroscopic analysis

Hot X-rays from a Cold Comet

Astronomers using ROSAT decided to look at Hyakutake and they were shocked by what they saw. ROSAT images revealed a crescent-shaped region of x-ray emission around the comet 1000 times more intense than anyone had predicted!

Surprise, surprise.

The wavelength of radiation produced by an object is usually related to its temperature. The human body is warm enough (about 30 degrees Celsius) to generate infrared radiation, but it takes very high temperatures (millions of degrees Celsius) to produce X-rays. So, how could x-rays come from a frigid comet?

[edit on 29-5-2009 by squiz]

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by ngchunter
where's all the heat? Comets are very cold things as proven by spectroscopic analysis

Hot X-rays from a Cold Comet

I'm well aware of the discovery. Too bad it's still a COLD comet. The X-rays are the result of solar wind collisions with water, the spectrum of the comet shows a low black body temperature regardless. So much for electric universe theory.
Temperature map of comet tempel 1, in kelvin:
www.nasa.gov...
One warm spot where the sun is directly shining (thought not nearly x-ray warm), cold everywhere else.


[edit on 30-5-2009 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by ngchunter
Too bad it's still a COLD comet....Temperature map of comet tempel 1, in kelvin:
www.nasa.gov...
One warm spot where the sun is directly shining (thought not nearly x-ray warm), cold everywhere else.

Interesting how most of the surface is between 280 and 310 degrees Kelvin which is about 55 to 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Pretty warm for a cold comet out in empty space. It's beside the point anyway as X-rays were recorded emanating from comet LINEAR.

I agree that the X-rays are the result of an interaction between the comet and the solar wind but what's the deal with snowballs? It's an old speculation that comets are dirty snowballs and yet even with physical evidence from NASA's own missions showing that water is at best very rare they continue to call them snowballs. I don't get it, what happens when NASA stops calling them snowballs, will it upset the pope?

That last paragraph wasn't meant to be directed at you ngchunter. It's more out of frustration from reading about all of this new evidence on comets only to hear over and over the same old snowball line. It makes me wounder what else is spouted as fact with the utmost confidence only to be completely wrong.

When ions from the Sun blow past a comet, their strong positive charge attracts negatively-charged electrons from cometary atoms and molecules. In effect, the ions try to neutralize their own unbalanced charge by stealing electrons from the comet. Electrons that leap from neutral atoms to the passing solar wind ions emit x-rays as they cascade from high-energy to low-energy ionic orbits. This process, called a "charge exchange reaction,

Soure-Science NASA.gov

This sounds like plasma in the solar wind creating an electrical field to balance out an unequal electrical charge. "Charge Exchange Reaction", I experienced that same phenomena when the kitchen light shorted out.

[edit on 5/31/2009 by Devino]

reply to post by Devino


Exactly, even NASA is saying it's charge exchange. Great find Devino.
And as the comet moves in from the outer solar system towards the inner positive glow discharge of the sun this is when the charge exchange increases to form the plasma sheath (coma) and tail, discharges on the surface excavate material to form the dust tail as well as etching out the surface leaving the blackened scorched appearance. This is where the x-rays and UV light come from. This explains why they can have a tail beyond the limits of Jupiter, this explains why there is no clear line between comets and meteors, I could go on.

That snowball crap explains nothing and every bit, every single bit of data in the recent years says it's crap.
It takes a devout follower of the faith to persists in light of hard evidence. A familiar story isn't it?

X-rays are created in an electric field, not by any kinetic collisions. The X-rays observed in space are a result of electrical interactions. Not by kinetic force and not by gravity or any mythical black hole.

It was never said that a comet itself was hot, Ngchunter is constructing another strawman yet again in a vain attempt to find holes in the theory. And still ignore all the recent data that refutes the snowball theory.

Let me clarify the point Ngc is twisting.

It was stated that some of the minerals found in the comet dust where created in high temperatures. As discovered in the Stardust mission. This was not expected because comets where meant to be formed in the coldest part of the solar system.

EU had previously stated prior to the stardust mission, that comets where debris from large scale electric discharges on planets, moons etc... This is where the heat in the formation comes in.

There is no disputing comet itself is cold, this was never said, The heat was to do with the jets and the actual formation of the comet in the first place. Ngc can post any bit of official data from NASA and thats fine because that's where all the evidence has come from. EU theory is not at odds with the data, only the interpretations. But as you can see they are catching on.
However X-rays being created from the solar wind striking water is nonsense. There is no water to be found on the surface of comets. Tempel one had only 0.5% on it's surface all other missions have revealed zero. Even NASA has said there's not enough ice to account for the tail. .

I'd like an explanation for some of the anomalous cometary behavior under the standard theory from Ngc.

Regardless I'll think the standard comet theory is dead even at the official research level anyway. People just don't know it yet.

Originally posted by Devino
Interesting how most of the surface is between 280 and 310 degrees Kelvin which is about 55 to 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Pretty warm for a cold comet out in empty space.

Might want to check your math there again. 280 K = 44 F, 7 C. 310 degrees is only acheived in direct sunlight, and is hardly surprising given the comet's near perihelion distance from the sun in the summer of 2005 (when this image was taken) of 1.5 AU and a very long day of 40 hours. Given that, 100 degrees is relatively cool, and 44 degrees is downright cold. EU predicts a very hot comet surrounded by a ball of plasma, and that electrical discharges are forming the minerals found on its surface. This is not the case.

It's beside the point anyway as X-rays were recorded emanating from comet LINEAR.

I see absolutely no reason to believe LINEAR's temp/solar distance ratio would be wildly different from Tempel 1's. Besides, Temple 1 also emits x-rays:
esamultimedia.esa.int...

yet even with physical evidence from NASA's own missions showing that water is at best very rare they continue to call them snowballs.

It's been known for a century that cometary gasses are mostly non-water volatiles, like ammonia, cyanide, etc. "Snowball" is just an analogy, don't take it so literally. Ion exchange through collisions with solar wind particles is not the same as the electrical arcing being proposed by EU.

[edit on 1-6-2009 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by squiz
EU had previously stated prior to the stardust mission, that comets where debris from large scale electric discharges on planets, moons etc... This is where the heat in the formation comes in.

Oh, EU didn't say comets were like lightbulbs then?

The revolutionary electric Sun model set forth by Juergens in the early 70's included a view of comets as electric discharge phenomena. If the Sun is a glow discharge at the center of a radial electric field, then comets moving on highly elliptical orbits through this electric field will experience increasing stresses that can only be relieved through electrical arcing...
www.thunderbolts.info...

We suggest that in ancient times, this same "plasma tail" of Venus emitted a visible glow by the same mechanism that comets do today, plasma discharge.
www.kronia.com...

Sounds to me like the electrical discharges should be ongoing, producing plasma to generate its light, hence, high temp.

However X-rays being created from the solar wind striking water is nonsense. There is no water to be found on the surface of comets.

www.nasa.gov...
www.naoj.org...
No water huh? BS.

[edit on 1-6-2009 by ngchunter]

reply to post by ngchunter


Your for point only emphasizes your misunderstanding, the high temperature minerals are from the comets birth through electric discharge machining. This is where the stardust mission comes in.

You original assertion that the finding of dust somehow invalidates the theory is ridiculous and laughable.
As if EU theorists never expected to find dust, that dust is not plasma, ever heard of dusty plasma? Ionized dust?

Your extracts are exactly right. But have nothing to do with my quote, concerning the original formation.

Oh, EU didn't say comets were like lightbulbs then?

No they didn't. It's more like a cathode.

Once again, there is no ice on the surface of comets or negligible in the case of Tempel 1. There is no disputing the water that is CREATED in the tail. This is why it is found in larger quantities further away from nucleus.
Why is that?

Even NASA has stated there is not enough ice to account for the tail.

Still can't answer any of my questions NGC? Still ignoring the hard evidence that they are not snowballs and more like asteroids in composition?
This has been stated as fact officially.

This is just comets, the area you picked on, because dust invalidates plasma
I really must not be very good at explaining the theory because you twist it into something you think you can invalidate. While ignoring the data and failing to give any explanation for the standard model. Perhaps you are just trolling now?

Comets are cold comets have water in the tail, no argument here, what else you got? And answer some of my questions please.

Turbulent flow in supersonic shocks has become the catch-all for astrophysicists when confronted with energetic processes away from stars in deep space. The extreme temperature calculated for the ions is based on the assumption that their motion is random, in other words, thermal. If the motion is not random but is accelerated in an electric field, the notion of temperature is entirely misleading and inappropriate. The detection of a forbidden oxygen line at 1128Å in cometary comas is consistent with the presence of an intense electric field. At comet Giacobini-Zinner ICE detected ions around the spacecraft in very highly collimated beams (electric currents) coming from the direction of the Sun. The shape of the comet's coma is determined principally by the electrical stresses near the comet and the resulting active discharges, or cathode jets. It is not simply a supersonic shock front. It is also obvious that a tiny piece of rock cannot have significant gravitational influence on a coma of gas that may be up to several million kilometres in diameter and entrain more mass than the comet nucleus. Far more powerful electrical influences provide a simple answer. t

www.holoscience.com...






[edit on 1-6-2009 by squiz]

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by ngchunter

 

Your for point only emphasizes your misunderstanding, the high temperature minerals are from the comets birth through electric discharge machining.

That is not the theory that was proposed by "EU scholars" who tried to explain the glow of comets themselves through electric discharge. You're selectively leaving off parts of your theory that debunk it. Arguing with someone this intellectually dishonest is pointless.

You original assertion that the finding of dust somehow invalidates the theory is ridiculous and laughable.

It's related; if there's ample amounts of dust in a comet's tail, just as much as expected, then there's absolutely no reason to believe for a second that a comet's glow is the result of electrical discharges because it was obviously coming from the dust reflecting sunlight, just as proposed by standard theory.

Once again, there is no ice on the surface of comets or negligible in the case of Tempel 1. There is no disputing the water that is CREATED in the tail.

Talk about contradicting statements. Volatiles, and not just water, are in the tail because they CAME FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE COMET AS PROVEN BY TEMPEL 1'S IMPACT SPECTRA. www.nasa.gov...

It makes absolutely no sense why molecules of water would be magically "created" in what your theory thinks is a giant ball of PLASMA!

This is why it is found in larger quantities further away from nucleus.
Why is that?

It's called outgassing.

[edit on 1-6-2009 by ngchunter]

Accidental double click.

[edit on 1-6-2009 by ngchunter]

Man this is pointless, you just don't get it, I can't be bothered repeating myself. You don't understand the theory plain and simple. I've tried explaining. I think my four year old daughter would have a better chance of grasping it.
You haven't got one single aspect of it correct, you make it up based on your own perceptions then try to poke holes based on that, it's really quite pathetic
Still didn't answer any of my questions well done.
And totally ignore the data from the missions.

Enjoy your Bliss.

[edit on 1-6-2009 by squiz]

Nevermind


[edit on 1-6-2009 by squiz]

Originally posted by ngchunter
That is not the theory that was proposed by "EU scholars" who tried to explain the glow of comets themselves through electric discharge. You're selectively leaving off parts of your theory that debunk it. Arguing with someone this intellectually dishonest is pointless.

Thornhill: Comets are the result of electrical discharge machining of planetary bodies that occurs in the catastrophic evolution of planetary orbits. It is far too simplistic to assume that the planets were formed along with the Sun and remained in their present orbits ever since.

Wrong again. You've 100% missed the point with this issue. As with you lightbulb comments, dust etc.. can't argue it if you don't get it. And yes they are displaying electric discharge.

It's related; if there's ample amounts of dust in a comet's tail, just as much as expected, then there's absolutely no reason to believe for a second that a comet's glow is the result of electrical discharges because it was obviously coming from the dust reflecting sunlight, just as proposed by standard theory.

Look at the extract I posted above regarding Borrely... and here's a little more.

There is also the problem of concentrating the heat of the Sun at the bottoms of holes that are not pointing at the Sun. To make it more difficult, the dark, heat absorbing regions are not where the jets are issuing from. As for the off-center coma, in 1985 the International Cometary Explorer (ICE) spacecraft found that cometary effects were asymmetric around comet Giacobini-Zinner. So it seems symptomatic of rigid scientific beliefs that NASA scientists were caught again by surprise in 2001!

You statements are at odds with the evidence.

Talk about contradicting statements. Volatiles, and not just water, are in the tail because they CAME FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE COMET AS PROVEN BY TEMPEL 1'S IMPACT SPECTRA.

Only 0.5 water on surface area of comet, NASA could not account for the water. FACT. Outgassing does not explain why we find something at higher levels from it's source!
This is where it looks absurd. Out of the four comet missions three of the nucleus have been bone dry, Tempels ice was negligible. Oh it must be beneath the surface! Nope, Deep impact was described as a dust up and not a "gusher" as expected, no ice. The samples from stardust showed some elements formed in extreme heat!
Regardless of electric theory it's a pretty clear the snowball idea is wrong the physical evidence says so. To state otherwise is, well.....

It makes absolutely no sense why molecules of water would be magically "created" in what your theory thinks is a giant ball of PLASMA!

No sense to you of course.

The hydroxyl radical, OH, is the most abundant cometary radical. It is detected in the coma at some distance from the comet nucleus, where it is assumed that water (H2O) is broken down by solar UV radiation to form OH, H and O. It is chiefly the presence of this radical that leads to estimates of the amount of water ice sublimating from the comet nucleus. The comas of O and OH are far less extensive than the H coma but have comparable density.

The negatively charged oxygen atom, or negative oxygen ion, has been detected close to cometary nuclei. And the spectrum of neutral oxygen (O) shows a "forbidden line" indicative of the presence of an "intense" electric field. The discovery at comet Halley of negative ions puzzled investigators because they are easily destroyed by solar radiation. They wrote, "an efficient production mechanism, so far unidentified, is required to account for the observed densities." And the intense electric field near the comet nucleus is inexplicable if it is merely an inert body ploughing through the solar wind.

Let's see how the electrical model of comets explains these mysteries. The electric field near the comet nucleus is expected if a comet is a highly negatively charged body, relative to the solar wind. Cathode sputtering of the comet nucleus will strip atoms and molecules directly from solid rock and charge them negatively. So the presence of negative oxygen and other ions close to the comet nucleus is to be expected. Negative oxygen ions will be accelerated away from the comet in the cathode jets and combine with protons from the solar wind to form the observed OH radical at some distance from the nucleus.

Hmmm, might not be water at all.
Actually this has also been picked up and suggested by someone at ESA I believe. Because there aint enough ice to account for a million kilometer tail.
And all our close pics of comets reveal them to be bone dry. As "an efficient production mechanism, so far unidentified, is required to account for the observed densities."

And how about this line "And the intense electric field near the comet nucleus is inexplicable if it is merely an inert body ploughing through the solar wind.."

The important point is that the OH does not need to come from water ice on, or in, the comet. Of course, some water is likely to be present on a comet or asteroid. It depends upon their parent body. And since there are many moons in the outer solar system and the rings of Saturn with copious water ice, we may expect some smaller bodies like comets and asteroids to have some too. But what is obvious from the closeup images of comet nuclei is that they look like dark, burnt rocks. They do not look icy. Their appearance fits the electrical model and not the poorly consolidated dirty ice model.

In 1980, a report on cometary science in the journal Nature outlined some of the mysteries and anomalies. It concluded: "cometary scientists need to consider more carefully whether H2O-ice really does constitute a major fraction of comet nuclei" The warning went unheeded. So the myth lives on and the mysteries grow with each new discovery.

This is from the guy with the most success at predicting comet behavior, Wall Thornhill.

C'mon NGC answer some of my questions. it's page three now and you've avoided them. What is your preferred cosmological model? what do you propose as explanations for my questions? Stop dodging.

Successful comet prediction EU theory = what, about a dozen or more?
www.thunderbolts.info...

Standard theory = ZERO!

[edit on 2-6-2009 by squiz]

It's related; if there's ample amounts of dust in a comet's tail, just as much as expected, then there's absolutely no reason to believe for a second that a comet's glow is the result of electrical discharges because it was obviously coming from the dust reflecting sunlight, just as proposed by standard theory.

Had to highlight this one, it's a buety.

Explain how Holmes maintained a coma larger than the sun, are the fine IONIZED particles being held by gravity?
Why are there jets in the unlit areas?
Explain, since your on and on about temperature why comets even sublimate beyond Jupiter where it's far to cold to melt? or why the tails have been observed pointing in the wrong direction for that matter?
I've already asked these questions of you.
I said it before The Hypocrisy is stunning.

Here's the bottom line all of the comet missions have proven the standard theory false, all of them.

If there was any clear falsifying data against the electric comet model it would be all over the internet and spouted by the orthodoxy to no end. It isn't. And you've provided none.

Dozen have predictions have been confirmed and all the questions you cannot answer under the standard theory are easily answered with the electric model.

The aspects of the theory have been tested in the lab, as per Kristian Birkelands experiments, the results do confirm the observations.
The theory also extends beyond the EU theorist and actually predates any formal EU theory.

Due to the folding of the interplanetary magnetic field into the tail as a comet sweeps through the interplanetary medium, the magnetic field in the tail can be built up to the order of 100 gammas at a heliocentric distance of about 1 AU. This folding of magnetic flux tubes also results in a cross-tail electric current passing through a neutral sheet. When streams of enhanced plasma density merge with the main tail, cross-tail currents as large as 1 billion A may result. A condition could arise which causes a significant fraction of this current to be discharged through the inner coma, resulting in rapid ionization. The typical time scale for such outbursts of ionization is estimated to be of the order of 10,000 sec, which is in reasonable agreement with observation.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

The vector helium magnetometer on the International Cometary Explorer observed the magnetic fields induced by the interaction of comet Giacobini-Zinner with the solar wind. A magnetic tail was penetrated about 7800 kilometers downstream from the comet and was found to be 10,000 kilometers wide. It consisted of two lobes, containing oppositely directed fields with strengths up to 60 nanoteslas, separated by a plasma sheet about 1000 kilometers thick containing a thin current sheet. The magnetotail was enclosed in an extended ionosheath characterized by intense hydromagnetic turbulence and interplanetary fields draped around the comet. A distant bow wave, which may or may not have been a bow shock, was observed at both edges of the ionoshpeath. Weak turbulence was observed well upstream of the bow wave.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

The possibility of transformation of the kinetic energy of high-energy (more than 1 MeV) protons ejected during solar flares into the electrical energy of macroscopic electric double layer in the subsurface region of a cometary nucleus is considered. It is found that at certain conditions, concerning dielectric properties of the nucleus, the energy of the electric field generated during strong solar flares is restricted by discharge potential of the nucleus material. This energy is comparable to the energy of large cometary outbursts. Simulation of the electric discharge mechanism of cometary outbursts in the corresponding technical high-voltage generating device seems a relevant problem.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

Several consequences of Alfven's (1957) hydromagnetic model of comets are developed. It is shown that such a model not only accounts for the observed morphology and time variations of the fine structure in the plasma tail, but also leads, in a natural way, towards explanations of two of the central problems in cometary physics; namely, the short ionization time-scales of the cometary molecules, and the large velocities and accelerations observed far down the tail.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

Independent from Eu theorists. Oh no, there's no electric activity here, move along

[edit on 2-6-2009 by squiz]

Originally posted by squiz
Wrong again. You've 100% missed the point with this issue.

No, but you're quite the quote miner aren't you? There's no sense talking to you, it's so predictable. How EU thinks comets formed is IRRELEVANT considering they think comets glow because of electrical discharge.

The conventional view is that comets are inert chunks of ice and dust, or "dirty snowballs" evaporating in the heat of the Sun. The alternative view is that comets discharge ELECTRICALLY as they move through a radial electrical field of the Sun.
www.rense.com...

There's no reason to believe that dust particles should be emitted by a comet if you think the glow is caused by electricity, not dust and water, except again to insulate the theory as an unfalsifiable belief system.

Only 0.5 water on surface area of comet,

Good job completely ignoring my post. Outgassing, water accounted for by Tempel 1's plume. Fact. EU debunked.

Originally posted by ngchunter
No, but you're quite the quote miner aren't you? There's no sense talking to you, it's so predictable. How EU thinks comets formed is IRRELEVANT considering they think comets glow because of electrical discharge.

The conventional view is that comets are inert chunks of ice and dust, or "dirty snowballs" evaporating in the heat of the Sun. The alternative view is that comets discharge ELECTRICALLY as they move through a radial electrical field of the Sun.
www.rense.com...

There's no reason to believe that dust particles should be emitted by a comet if you think the glow is caused by electricity, not dust and water, except again to insulate the theory as an unfalsifiable belief system.

Your ignorance is showing again NGC. The dust is excavated from the surface like a type of cathode spluttering. There's plenty of reason to believe, like experimental evidence, it's not even in question really it's expected.
I thought quotes would be better because you twist everything I say into something it's not.

Only 0.5 water on surface area of comet,

Good job completely ignoring my post. Outgassing, water accounted for by Tempel 1's plume. Fact. EU debunked.

No, not ignored, I posted the reason why large amounts of water a presumed by the spectra. Good job ignoring that, and good job ignoring my questions for the entire thread.

Are you saying that fact about Tempel is not true? anyone can look it up. Can you explain the water in the spectra when so little was found on the nucleus?

It's a simple fact that you are ignoring as well as the others having no ice!!. Tempel 1 had less than one percent water on it's surface area. All others have been bone dry. So the observed densities are a mystery. There must be another mechanism, after all, the water is inferred.

They wrote, "an efficient production mechanism, so far unidentified, is required to account for the observed densities." And the intense electric field near the comet nucleus is inexplicable if it is merely an inert body ploughing through the solar wind.

Hmmm, what could that other mechanism be? OMG an electric field!!!

according to Horst Uwe Keller of the Max Planck Institut für Aeronomie: "We discovered that a comet is not really a 'dirty snowball' since dirt is dominant, not ice.

This guy aint a EU theorist, is he?

Just to clarify, what's this piece of falsifying evidence then? It's not because of dust because that just silly.

It's not water, because not enough water has been found on or in the nucleus. And the presence of water would seem to be a problem when there's none at the source. And measured further from the source for that matter.

It's not because they are cold either.... a problem where x-rays are concerned.

The extreme temperature calculated for the ions is based on the assumption that their motion is random, in other words, thermal. If the motion is not random but is accelerated in an electric field, the notion of temperature is entirely misleading and inappropriate.

I've presented plenty of falsifying evidence for the standard theory.
Presented in the questions you are unable to answer.
And In the data collected and observable evidence.

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by ngchunter

Back to comets-

Now, explain why next to no water (0.5%) was found on Tempel and absolutely none of the other comet missions?

Explain why solar flares are associated with comets close calls with the sun?

Explain why comets have craters and look EXACTLY like asteroids?

Explain why comets emit X-rays and UV light?

Explain how Holmes maintained a coma larger than the sun by way of gravity? Ioniosed dust BTW. DUSTY PLASMA

Why are the plumes in the range of 1400 degrees?

Why are the jets discharged at supersonic speeds and maintain structure for hundreds of thousands of miles?

Explain why deep impact produced such a surprisingly large flash?
Explain why there was a pre flash before impact?
Why was there no water?
Why was the dust so fine?
Why was it ionized? DUSTY PLASMA.
Why did the comas spectrum change?
Why where there jets on the unlit side of the comet?

Explain how EU theorist Wall Thornhill predicted many of these in advance?

Why are even NASA reconsidering standard comet theory?

Because standard comet theory is a complete and absolute failure, and every observation, I'll say it again EVERY OBSERVATION is in support of the electric model. And all the questions above are easily answered. And many PREDICTED I must emphasize.

Here, get an education so you know what your arguing about instead of making stuff up. This also discuss stardust mission, so you can see for yourself. It also highlights the many successful predictions by Wall Thornhill made in advance of deep impact. As well as some revealing reports from NASA's own scientist. I don't hate them btw, in fact they are slowly starting to come around. There are many free thinking scientists who are getting on board. It's the dogma I hate. It's the dogma that is keeping the human race back from realizing the true nature of the cosmos.

Start at part 3 for the EU stuff. Although I doubt you'll bother.
www.youtube.com...

P.S I'm still waiting for those so called other cosmological models. And that easy debunking! So far you've only shown failure to get the simplest concepts right.


[edit on 28-5-2009 by squiz]

My hat off to you squizz.
You are really hitting the core of the issue here and I don't just mean the EU theory. Back when I lost all love for BA it was in conection to one of my favourite EU supporter scientist's, so even though this thread has moved away from BA is is still heading in the right direction.

Squizz you are an excellent spokesman on this subject and I so wish I could speak it like you but I guess I will have to be contented with being just a lay person and sit back and enjoy people like you speak so well on my favourite subject.

Pity none of you'r questions were answered but in a way it is further proof that standard theory is not with it yet but each day it creap's a little further in the EU direction.

I have to say I have learned a lot so far from this thread but there is one thing I think you didn't bring into your argument and that was the electron beam that is seen to the sunward side of comets.

Another thing I have difficulty getting my head around is the tail which always points away from the sun. It truly is amazing to see. There is this tail that can sometimes reach as far a jupiter. Now as the comet is aproaching the sun the tail is stretched out behind which creates the illusion that the tail is made up of ice sublimating from the comet but what is the mechanism that causes the tail to point the other way as the comet moves away from the sun. When you see it happen it seems as if the comet is going through the tail but it isn't is it?

Anyway I really have enjoyed all your posts and by far I think EU has beaten standard theory by miles..

daz__

I appreciate your comments ngchunter and respect your point of view but this quote defies logic.

Originally posted by ngchunter
"Snowball" is just an analogy, don't take it so literally.

The term "Snowball", an analogy for comets, is not analogous to comets at all. It has now become an analogy for the ignorance of science on the subject of comets IMO. And I wounder how anyone is expected to take literature if not literally?



Debating over who was wrong does nothing to help explain observed phenomena and I would like to point out that I feel a sort of "I told you so" attitude from the EU group that I don't care for. What is needed is to focus on the evidence from these missions and form a theory based on the facts. Anything that is contradicted by this evidence should be discarded such as the old comet theory.

Comet tail are not comprised of just dust there is also an ion tail or charged particles of gas called plasma.

A comet generally has two tails, not one... One tail is due to the comet's dust particles, the other is due to ionized gas from the comet coma

Source-Windows to the Universe.


The ion tail reacts differently than the dust tail to the Sun's solar wind.

The ions are susceptible to a magnetic force due to the solar magnetic field carried by the solar wind. Consequently, the ions are swept out of the coma into a long, distinctive ion tail. Because the most common ion, CO+, scatters blue light better than red, the ion tail often appears to the human eye as blue. Also, the magnetic force is very strong and produces ropes, knots and streamers that distinguish the ion tail from the dust tail

Compared to the ION tail, the dust tail is morphologically diffuse, and appears white or slightly pink. The dust particles in the tail are individually in orbit about the sun, each with slightly less attraction to the sun than the nucleus because of the effect of radiation pressure. This causes the dust tail to be curved as the comet swings around the sun."

Source both from-ifa.Hawaii.edu

Originally posted by daz__
there is one thing I think you [squiz] didn't bring into your argument and that was the electron beam that is seen to the sunward side of comets.

I found a couple of good pictures of a comets anti-tail.
Comet Arend-Roland-April 25,1957 and comet Lulin-February 7, 2009.

Originally posted by Devino
I appreciate your comments ngchunter and respect your point of view but this quote defies logic.

Originally posted by ngchunter
"Snowball" is just an analogy, don't take it so literally.

The term "Snowball", an analogy for comets, is not analogous to comets at all. It has now become an analogy for the ignorance of science on the subject of comets IMO. And I wounder how anyone is expected to take literature if not literally?

Hello Devino;
a very good point you made here and I would like to add that in my opinion when the snowball comet is suggested it is meant to be taken literally. As the first sattelites made it out to the first comets they expected huge ice balls with loads of sublimation of the ice out into space. What they did find was how wrong they were. They actually found the blackist objects ever with little or no ice or water.

Debating over who was wrong does nothing to help explain observed phenomena and I would like to point out that I feel a sort of "I told you so" attitude from the EU group that I don't care for. What is needed is to focus on the evidence from these missions and form a theory based on the facts. Anything that is contradicted by this evidence should be discarded such as the old comet theory.

I can't help but agree with you on that point but man's history seem's to be all about war and who is right and who is wrong. Perhaps it is a deficency in our language that holds us back.

A comet generally has two tails, not one... One tail is due to the comet's dust particles, the other is due to ionized gas from the comet coma

Source-Windows to the Universe.

Yes comets in general can have two tails but there are time's when they display more than two tail's. I remember in january last year one morning out watching comet holmes with naked eye it was clearly showing multiple tails, perhaps up to 5 tail's. It looked a lot like a giant jelly-fish out in space with it's long tendrils flapping about in space. Truly and awesome sight.




Thanks for those lovely pictures. The Arend-Roland picture is spectacular. It looks like a dart head.

daz__

edit:spelling

[edit on 4/6/2009 by daz__]

Originally posted by squizYour ignorance is showing again NGC. The dust is excavated from the surface like a type of cathode spluttering. There's plenty of reason to believe, like experimental evidence,

Thanks for admitting that your theory changed horses when experimental evidence proved the presence of dust, that's all I wanted to hear.

No, not ignored, I posted the reason why large amounts of water a presumed by the spectra.

Large amounts of water exist in crystal form under the comet's surface where they're partially insulated. Surface area water is not the presumption. Good job ignoring that time and time again (how many times must I say it? O-U-T-G-A-S-S-I-N-G). Until you learn some intellectual honesty I see no reason to address your posts either, you're just talking past me.

Are you saying that fact about Tempel is not true?

Strawman. You're not reading my posts, let alone addressing them, so I'm not going to extend you the same respect.

Originally posted by ngchunter
Strawman. You're not reading my posts, let alone addressing them, so I'm not going to extend you the same respect.

OMG! you must be joking. HOW ABOUT THOSE QUESTIONS THEN? . or rather falsifications If your preferred theory is sound these questions should not be a problem, but apparently they are.

The experimental evidence I'm referring to involves plasma discharge in the lab. Not stardust which was no surprise for EU only standard theory.
You really think dust is falsifying evidence? this fact highlights that you really haven't a clue what your trying to debunk.
The electric comet idea is over a hundred years old.

And there is this (again).

In 1980, a report on cometary science in the journal Nature outlined some of the mysteries and anomalies. It concluded: "cometary scientists need to consider more carefully whether H2O-ice really does constitute a major fraction of comet nuclei" The warning went unheeded. So the myth lives on and the mysteries grow with each new discovery.

Go back and read why.

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.

www.sciencemag.org...

It is you who are being intellectually dishonest, you state there are water crystals below the surface as fact, typical of mainstream cosmology where this is the norm. While you are scrambling to find a hole in the theory at the same time you ignore ALL of the problems associated with the standard theory, and you cannot answer them. It's quite an amusing little display.

Water below the surface is nothing but speculation. I know mainstream cosmology relies heavily on speculation. Are we resorting to this now to save the theory?
And all the while the physical evidence shows silicates formed in extreme heat!!! Ad hocs where put in place rather than re evaluating the ASSUMPTIONS.
The impact certainly didn't reveal any hidden water deposits.
How can outgassing explain why we have higher concentrations further from the source?

And it really doesn't matter, the finding of sufficient water and is only a problem for the standard theory. And so far they haven't found enough to account for a million km tail that can sublimate for eons.

The electric model does not exclude the possibility of water on a comet nucleus, but water is not required, and the electrical theorists say we will inevitably find more than one comet discharging energetically but with no water present at all. This lack of need for volatiles is supported by the occasional outbursts from comets in "deep freeze" beyond Saturn.

www.thunderbolts.info...

I think there's enough here for an honest person to see that the facts and evidence speak for themselves. As well as the results of the predictions made by the electric model.

Enjoy you're blackholes, darkmatter and pink unicorns.

[edit on 4-6-2009 by squiz]