Comets Destroy Einstein's Nonsense

reply to post by squiz

The point is that contrary to what Tammy Plotner wrote, the kink in the tail of the comet is not a twist. Despite how it may appear (with a bit of imagination) through a telescope, it is not rotating. It is a place where the tail was interrupted and reformed. The instability is in the solar wind, not in the tail. Of course the ionized gasses of the tail are affected by the solar wind. It is the solar wind which forces the gasses emitted by the comet into a tail in the first place.

I haven't missed any boat. The OP has claimed comets do not contain water, that they are solid rock (and he can tell that by looking at the pictures of them). The OP has claimed that the tail cannot contain water vapor, that the spectrographic analysts are mistaken or even lying. The OP has claimed that the findings from Deep Impact are proof of these claims. The OP has even claimed that the solar wind is not really wind (though I'm not sure what he claims it is). None of these claims carry any weight.

reply to post by Phage


Thanks for clearing that up, I agree the solar wind affects the tail. And that sounds reasonable.
As a point of interest the tail also affects the solar wind slowing it down, Even millions of miles away. This was another unexpected surprise.
There is ice but not enough has been accounted for. Ice should be expected, we see it on asteroids as well.
The water signatures are actually stronger away from the nucleus, lending some support for another origin. As well as the forbidden O line. This has become a more accepted idea lately. Not confirmed but now considered in officialdom.
The solar wind is not wind it's a plasma and behaves as such.
Most of the time when gas is mentioned they are actually refering to plasma, it doesn't behave like gas, it behaves like plasma.

I'd have to agree with deep impact confirming many of the predictions made by EU theorist Wall Thornhill. He had it all in writing before the event.

Each to there own, Thanx.

Lets see

Originally posted by Phage The OP has claimed comets do not contain water, that they are solid rock (and he can tell that by looking at the pictures of them).

I think I'm capable of telling a snowball from a boulder, how about yourself?

Originally posted by PhageThe OP has claimed that the tail cannot contain water vapor, that the spectrographic analysts are mistaken or even lying.

I've never made that claim. I claimed the water in the spectrograph analysis was from recombination, not from the comet itself.

Originally posted by PhageThe OP has claimed that the findings from Deep Impact are proof of these claims.

They are, its simple enough to review the data and listen to what the scientists said:

"Since the visible images have a higher spatial resolution, we use those images to calculate the extent of ice on Tempel 1's surface. That turns out to be a small fraction of the surface, only 0.5%. "

"What is significant is that the extent of this ice on Tempel 1's surface is not sufficient to produce the observed abundance of water and its by-products in the comet's coma. "

"Theories about the volatile layers (water ice) below the surface of short-period comets are going to have to be revised"

"All we needed was a factor of three boost from the impact to get a definite detection [of water ice beneath the surface]," said Qi. "We didn't see that."

"It's pretty clear that this event did not produce a gusher," said SWAS principal investigator Gary Melnick of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA). "The more optimistic predictions for water output from the impact haven't materialized, at least not yet."

"There's a lot of structure on the comet, which is a bit surprising," Richardson said. "That could mean there's some strength to the comet."

Originally posted by PhageThe OP has even claimed that the solar wind is not really wind (though I'm not sure what he claims it is). None of these claims carry any weight.

Its not wind. It doesn't exert any physical force per-say. Supposedly "radiation pressure" is what makes the tail point away from the Sun. Last time I checked, "radiation pressure" has nothing to do with "wind" and everything to do with electromagnetic forces.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Lets see

Ooh, yes, let's!

mnemeth1:

Originally posted by Phage
The OP has claimed comets do not contain water, that they are solid rock (and he can tell that by looking at the pictures of them).

I think I'm capable of telling a snowball from a boulder, how about yourself?

It seems that the OP has not the wit to realize that a ball of ice moving through space at high speed will, over its years or centuries of travel far from the Sun, become encrusted with particles of dust and other microscopic rubbish it runs into. There's plenty of dreck in the solar system.

Planets and big moons show a fresh face to the stars because any dust falling on them gets burnt up in their atmospheres. Everything else in the solar system is covered with dust and shows it. No matter whether it's made of ice or mashed potatoes, after long enough, everything in space eventually comes to look like a rock.

Comets are called 'dirty snowballs' because they are, in fact, dirty.

mnemeth1:

Originally posted by Phage
The OP has claimed that the tail cannot contain water vapor, that the spectrographic analysts are mistaken or even lying.

I've never made that claim. I claimed the water in the spectrograph analysis was from recombination, not from the comet itself.

The recombination claim was thoroughly debunked - no, kicked to tiny pieces - earlier in the thread. The OP is clutching at nonexistent straws. Neither recombination nor any other explanation but outgassing from the comet itself can possibly account for the seven tons of water per second observed pouring from comet Hyakatuke in 1994.

mnemeth1:

Originally posted by Phage
The OP has claimed that the findings from Deep Impact are proof of these claims.

They are, its simple enough to review the data...

They are not, as Phage has clearly shown. The OP claimed 'no water', not 'a little water'. As the OP ought to know (though given his cluelessness about basic physics, he probably doesn't), the presence of any water at all makes it impossible for comets to be charged bodies unless the water is somehow insulated from the charged part of the coment - and obviously it is not, otherwise we wouldn't be seeing plumes of it pouring out, would we? Electrical properties of water

mnemeth1:

Originally posted by Phage
The OP has even claimed that the solar wind is not really wind (though I'm not sure what he claims it is). None of these claims carry any weight.

Its not wind. It doesn't exert any physical force per-say. Supposedly "radiation pressure" is what makes the tail point away from the Sun.

Again the OP shows his laughable ignorance of the fields in which he claims expertise. The solar wind has nothing to do with radiation pressure, which is caused by photons. The solar wind consists of ions and electrons moving very fast. Ions and electrons both have mass and therefore momentum, and when they hit something this momentum is converted to force - to pressure, in fact. Only a scientific ignoramus would claim the solar wind exerts no pressure, or confuse solar wind pressure with the radiation pressure of sunlight.

Besides, radiation pressure is the same as any other kind of pressure:

Converted to more accessible units, 3.61 µPa is 3.6 newtons per square kilometer, or 2.08 lbs (force) per square mile. While rather small in comparison to chemical thrusters, the radiation pressure force is inexorable and requires no fuel mass. Thus over months-to-years, the net (integrated) amount of force is substantial...

If radiation pressure wasn't the same as real pressure, what would be the point of JAXA launching this?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/383ea04e2cc9.jpg[/atsimg]
Space yacht Ikaros ready to cast off for far side of the sun

A Mitsubishi H-2A rocket carrying Ikaros (an acronym for Interplanetary Kite-craft Accelerated by Radiation of the Sun) is set to blast off from Tanegashima island in south-west Japan at 6.44am local time.

The long-awaited launch is seen as part of a mission that could change the course of interplanetary exploration.

If it is successful, Ikaros will be carried through deep space at high speed with the help of a 20-metre sail, propelled by the pressure from solar particles.

While real science makes our fantasies come breathtakingly true, pseudoscientific cults like that of the electric universe mire their believers in myth and stupidity, promising the stars and delivering... thunder balls.

[edit on 18/5/10 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by Astyanax
no, kicked to tiny pieces - earlier in the thread. The OP is clutching at nonexistent straws. Neither recombination nor any other explanation but outgassing from the comet itself can possibly account for the seven tons of water per second observed pouring from comet Hyakatuke in 1994.

Wow you are confident in yourself. No that was hydrogen they were measuring, and indirect measure of water broken down by UV radiation.

In order for them to account for the supposed water the entire comet nucleus was thought to be active as it was only thought to be 2 kilometres arcross. Hmm... not so cut and dry I'm afraid. Please, do you really think your little math problems resemble anything like reality?

That rate is intriguing, says Bertaux, because radio waves bounced off the comet indicate that its nucleus is small, only about 2 km in diameter, or one-fifth the diameter of Halley. Solar heating must have made Hyakutake’s entire surface “active”—turning water-ice into jets of steam—in order to account for all the water vapor, he argues. Bertaux notes that among the handful of comets that scientists have observed closely, usually only a small fraction of the surface is active.
Hyakutake’s high abundance of diatomic sulfur also fascinates researchers. Compared to other sulfur molecules, the diatomic form is short-lived. A’Hearn says no existing theory can account for its abundance, but he suggests its presence indicates that observers are directly seeing material from the comet’s inner coma or perhaps even its heavily shrouded nucleus.

In order to account for the hydrogen it had to do what no other comet has ever been observed to do.

No, no problems there, perfectly within expected theoretical expectations. Not!

www.sciencenews.org...

Perhaps you can answer a few of the questions, here's another one that will go unanswered.
Why was Hale Bopp active 4 years after leaving the inner solar system? Why was it still active out past the orbits of Uranus? How can the suns heat still activate super sonic jets of water way out there?

Outgassing cannot account for Hyakatuke's vast hydrogen envelopes, just as it can't account for Hale Bopp's activity well outside the Sun's ability to melt ice !

You can get as technical as you like but if you can't answer these simple questions you shouldn't act like you know it all.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by squiz]

No that was hydrogen they were measuring, and indirect measure of water broken down by UV radiation.

Please see my earlier post and the link from it. You are wrong; hydrogen and hydroxyl lines were both observed and measured.

In order for them to account for the supposed water the entire comet nucleus was thought to be active as it was only thought to be 2 kilometres arcross. Hmm... not so cut and dry I'm afraid. Please, do you really think your little math problems resemble anything like reality?

Yes, I do believe my little maths problem, as you call it, resembles reality. If you managed to follow it - it's quite simple, high-school arithmetic - you would have seen that I used the 2km figure in doing the calculation.

If you dispute my theory or my mathematics, show clearly how and why I am wrong. That's how it's done in science.

No, no problems there, perfectly within expected theoretical expectations. Not!

Comets are mysterious and difficult to study, although we have made huge advances lately. Through our new methods, we are disovering unexpected things. That's usually the way when people (or their machines) go exploring the unknown. That's why it's called 'the unknown' - get it, Squiz? Only a fool imagines that science claims knowledge of the future or that scientists expect to be able to predict all observations in advance from theory.

It is when new knowledge falsifies theory that it becomes interesting. None of those questions you quote does that. Yes, Hyakatuke and every other comet we've closely studied has held some surprises. The bigger surprise would be if they didn't. But a surprise or two isn't the same as falsifying standard cosmology, no matter how much the OP may bluster and fume.

Anyway, the article you link to is dated June 1996, just two months after Hyakutake made its way past Earth en route to the Sun. The mysteries it posed were still fresh at the time. Now please look at the dates of the papers I quote in my post: from six to 13 years after your linked article, which is outdated. Some of those 'mysteries' aren't so mysterious any more.

Why was Hale Bop active 4 years after leaving the inner solar system? Why was it still active out past the orbits of Uranus? How can the suns heat still activate super sonic jets of water way out there?

I don't know. Do scientists claim to? Does their admission of ignorance violate standard cosmology?

And it's Hale-Bopp, by the way. You managed to insult two astronomers with one misspelling. Looks like you really care about science.

*

When the EU cult fathers come up with a rigorous, mathematically consistent theory from whose equations the correct values of the universal constants can be derived - that is, when they have something approaching what modern science has - then they will be worth taking seriously. Then they may apply their theory to these strange cometary phenomena and see if they can successfully explain them. When that happens, we'll agree with Mastermind Mnemeth that the Electric Universe has 'destroyed Einstein's nonsense'. I'm not holding my breath. Are you?

Where is their science, these blustering, empty-headed jugglers of thunder balls? I'll tell you straight: they don't have any. In fact, they're desperate for some semblance of rigour - remember the welcoming arms you threw around that poor delusive fellow, Stephen Crothers? Only to find out, in the end, that he was nothing but another Ph.D. student with a chip on his shoulder and a mistake in his calculations. That episode alone was enough to show the bankruptcy of the electric universe cult, the intellectual vacuum at its centre. Yet still the faithful cleave to their sputtering, guttering religion.

I've participated on dozens of these EU threads now and every one of them is the same. Never do we see any attempt to explain the principles and theory of the electric universe. Never is an EU cosmology - a history and geography of the cosmos derivable from EU ideas - presented. Instead, the OP attempts to challenge orthodox cosmology based on some obscure finding that does not seem to fit with it. Such an approach shows that the EU cultist is not working to a scientific paradigm but a dogmatic, faith-based one.

Challenging orthodox cosmology is a fine thing - if you can do it - but even disproving the standard model would not mean that electric-universe beliefs are correct. That will still have to be proved separately. At present, there is not a scintilla of evidence in favour of electric-universe ideas.

*

EU cultists are like intelligent-design advocates: debunk their arguments a dozen times over and they'll still resurrect them, zombie-like, in a thirteenth thread. And no wonder. They're two of a kind, EU cultists and creationists: their beliefs are religious, not scientific, and they haven't the first idea what science really is, and how it works.

[edit on 18/5/10 by Astyanax]

reply to post by squiz


What a load of nonsense he just spewed.

You can tell they are getting desperate when they are engaging in lies and half truths.

I'll have a response up to his nonsense shortly.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Oh, take as long as you like, just post something sensible for a change. Some of us are getting a little tired of electric drivel.

reply to post by Astyanax


"Does their admission of ignorance violate standard cosmology? "

yes, yes it does.

By not addressing a directly falsifying observation, it can be considered a failure.

There is no plausible mechanism of sublimation for these observations.

Of course, without sublimation, that doesn't leave any options for the totalitarian czars of science other than the electric comet theory.

Originally posted by Astyanax
It seems that the OP has not the wit to realize that a ball of ice moving through space at high speed will, over its years or centuries of travel far from the Sun, become encrusted with particles of dust and other microscopic rubbish it runs into. There's plenty of dreck in the solar system.

So if we leave a ball of ice in space it will turn into a pitch black ball of heavily cratered rock on the surface with all the ice being trapped in the core sublimating from the inside out through cracks and fissures in the surface of this rock.

Yeah.... nothing crazy about this explanation.

Originally posted by Astyanax
The recombination claim was thoroughly debunked - no, kicked to tiny pieces - earlier in the thread. The OP is clutching at nonexistent straws. Neither recombination nor any other explanation but outgassing from the comet itself can possibly account for the seven tons of water per second observed pouring from comet Hyakatuke in 1994.

I find it amusing you assume that space is electrically neutral in all your supposed debunking examples, while at the same time believing:
-radiation pressure as the mechanism for the direction of the comet's tail.
-magnetic reconnection as the mechanism for CMEs "disconnecting" comet's from their tails.
-intense magnetic fields generating x-rays out of pixie dust? (I haven't seen a rational explanation for comet x-rays by standard theorists)

Your "debunking" examples only fly if space is electrically neutral, which clearly it is not given the evidence.

Originally posted by Astyanax
They are not, as Phage has clearly shown. The OP claimed 'no water', not 'a little water'. As the OP ought to know (though given his cluelessness about basic physics, he probably doesn't), the presence of any water at all makes it impossible for comets to be charged bodies unless the water is somehow insulated from the charged part of the coment - and obviously it is not, otherwise we wouldn't be seeing plumes of it pouring out, would we? Electrical properties of water

I claimed that the water in the spectrum is from OH ions. I claimed that the OH ions in the spectrum are generated from recombination. Considering that scientists are using "magnetic reconnection", the "photoelectric effect", and "radiation pressure" to explain comets, which necessarily are electromagnetic properties of matter, its also safe to say that "water" fails to explain observations.

Only ionized plasma that is magnetically reactive applies to these explanations.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Again the OP shows his laughable ignorance of the fields in which he claims expertise. The solar wind has nothing to do with radiation pressure, which is caused by photons. The solar wind consists of ions and electrons moving very fast. Ions and electrons both have mass and therefore momentum, and when they hit something this momentum is converted to force - to pressure, in fact. Only a scientific ignoramus would claim the solar wind exerts no pressure, or confuse solar wind pressure with the radiation pressure of sunlight.

The solar wind has nothing to do with radiation pressure, however the standard theory of comet tails has everything to do with radiation pressure.

Are you ignorant of this fact? You must be for you to be making my case for me like that.

You can't have "wind" in a near perfect vacuum. Scientists calling the solar wind "wind" is a blatant attempt to mislead the general public as to what is really going on.


[edit on 18-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by Astyanax


Your calculations don't take in the negatively charged field at the nucleus, or the induced magnetic field. Or the Interplanetary magnetic field. Or that it would act as a sink for positive ions. The tail does slow the solar plasma and there is charge exchange even millions of miles away. I see no calculations concerning any kind of bow shock or rather plasma sheath interaction. Or any plasma physics at all.
It's Just adding numbers together for god's sake with no consideration to anything whatsoever. It's quite rediculous.

I'm not a scientist, but I'm certain you were not even aware of many of these things.

The hydroxls you refer to are measured at quites some distance from the nucleus in the coma, and yes I am aware. To drop the science jargon the coma can be bloody enormous. You didn't account for overall surface interaction with the coma which can be immense, or the interaction with a multimillion mile tail.
Or the fact that a build up of positive solar ions have been measured in the comets "cough" Bow shock, providing plenty to go around.

Epic fail, I didn't even think it was worth pointing out or commenting on to be honest.

It's called reductio ad absurdum.

Hale-Bopp (happy) serves as falsification, remember it's part of the scientific method. As I said it will go unanswered.

I got this on comets:

The tails of the comets do not obey the principle of gravitation and are
repelled by the sun. “There is beyond question some profound secret and
mystery of nature concerned in the phenomenon of their tails” ; enormous
sweep which it (the tail) makes round the sun in perihelion, in the manner
of a straight and rigid rod, is in defiance of the law of gravitation, nay,
even of the recorded laws of motion” (J. Herschel).(22)


“What has puzzled astronomers since the time of Newton,
is the fact that while all other bodies in the sidereal universe, as far
as we are aware, obey the law of gravitation, comets’ tails are clearly
subject to some strong repulsive force, which drives the matter composing
them away from the sun with enormously high velocities” (W.H. Pickering)
The change in the angular velocity of comets (especially of the comet
(Encke) is not in accord with the theoretical computations based on the
theory of gravitation.(23)

If the Sun has a high potential it should send particles away in
opposition to gravity. Thus electricity enters the picture.
Also the Sun can cause radioactivity on the comet material and
thus send those away as well.


www.varchive.org...

[edit on 5/18/2010 by TeslaandLyne]

reply to post by squiz

I see no calculations concerning any kind of bow shock or rather plasma sheath interaction. Or any plasma physics at all. It's just adding numbers together for god's sake with no consideration to anything whatsoever. It's quite rediculous.

The discrepancy is far too large for these things to have any serious effect on the conclusion for Hyakutake, as far as I can see. The volume of water is just too great. If you disagree, show us the calculations.

Besides, both H and OH lines were observed in Hyakutake's coma, in proportions that indicate they are the result of the ionization of ordinary water, not recombination.

The solid curved line is the result of a model for the distribution of hydrogen in the coma which accounts for the detailed physics and chemistry of the photochemical destruction of water and the production cometary H and OH. The importance of such a detailed model is that is permits us to calculate an accurate production rate of water from observations of H and OH. Source

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by squiz

 

I see no calculations concerning any kind of bow shock or rather plasma sheath interaction. Or any plasma physics at all. It's just adding numbers together for god's sake with no consideration to anything whatsoever. It's quite rediculous.

The discrepancy is far too large for these things to have any serious effect on the conclusion for Hyakutake, as far as I can see. The volume of water is just too great. If you disagree, show us the calculations.

Besides, both H and OH lines were observed in Hyakutake's coma, in proportions that indicate they are the result of the ionization of ordinary water, not recombination.

The solid curved line is the result of a model for the distribution of hydrogen in the coma which accounts for the detailed physics and chemistry of the photochemical destruction of water and the production cometary H and OH. The importance of such a detailed model is that is permits us to calculate an accurate production rate of water from observations of H and OH. Source

There's no references on the site to just how the supposed model is put together or what assumptions are made.

Gee, where have I run into this before.

The models are bogus because:
1. They make unfounded assumptions about the origins of O, OH, and H ions.

2. No singular model of cometary photodestruction can explain all comets. If photodestruction of water ice was the actually the cause of the observed O, OH and H spectra, one model should consistently agree with all observations.

3. It is well known that silicates can produce those same observed emissions in space.
"Observations on the lunar surface reported by Hapke et al., and independently by Epstein and Taylor had “already demonstrated that such proton-assisted abstraction of oxygen (preferentially 016) from silicates is an active process in space, resulting in a flux of OH and related species.” "

So let us list what we do know with certainty:

Given that all cometary nucleus that have been observed have had no visible water ice on the surface.

Given that cometary dust is observed to be finely divided.

Given that cometary dust samples returned by Stardust were observed to be subjected to extreme heating.

Given that no one model of photoelectric effects can account for all cometary observations.

Given that we have observed clear indicators of electric discharge activity from comets in the form of: x-ray emissions, filamentary tails, comas reactive to CMEs, CMEs occurring in conjunction with sun grazing comets.

I think we can conclude the evidence highly favors Alfven's explanation of where the O, OH, and H ions are coming from.

reply to post by Astyanax


Well I'm glad you now know what they were measuring, an indirect measurement of water.

Yes the volume is just too great. Imagine this, the entire surface of the comet erupting in in super sonic jets of water. Wow! Why doesn't it tear itself apart? And yes, usually it's only a small percent of surface area that is normally active.

It's a theoretical model. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it should be made clear. The super efficient photolysys required by the model has never been fully verified. The same model doesn't work for every case I'm afraid. To hazzard a guess I'd say it only fits Hyakutake.
In most cases I'm aware of the amount of neutral hydrogen is far too high relative to the OH. A problem not often talked about. The other disturbing truth I have to repeat. It hasn't been found to exist in the quantities required at the source. True for every single observed nuclei.

It does not falsify the EU model I'm sorry, even if one was actually was releasing vast amounts of water, however unlikely. I've said it several times already WATER IS ONLY A PROBLEM FOR THE DIRTY SNOWBALL THEORY. It's a matter for the snowball theory to account for the water. It has to be there on every single comet, according to the theory.
So far, not so good. Everything points to another origin.

The fact remains that no comet nucleus has been willing to show it's vast water reserves. None.

The fact remains that you cannot explain sublimination beyond the suns ability to melt ice. Or any of the other problems or rather falsifications.

We have water signatures in sun spots, nope no ice there. We have it in the atmosphere on Mercury, none there either. We have it spewing from mythical black holes. Nah! probably not. We found it on the surface of the moon. We have a good indication that it forms with the help of dusty plasma. It's everywhere. In Many of these examples some are suggesting the exact same mechanism that you believe impossible.

I'll refer once again to the warning that was ignored.

This was reported in Nature May 1986

"only indirect and sometimes ambiguous evidence in favor of water has been found; indeed, some facts appear to contradict this hypothesis." Thus, the authors suggest, "This problem requires further analysis and may indicate the existence of parents of OH other than H2O."

[edit on 19-5-2010 by squiz]

Today's wisdom is tommorrow's foolishness.

Science is a process of refining approximations of the truth.

I bet you're both wrong, but we won't truly know until we get more and better probes out there.