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
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 20 of 29 *«* First <
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
*20* 21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
>
Thread Tools
Old 27th November 2010, 10:14 PM #*761*
Reality Check
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 7,791
Originally Posted by *Haig* View Post
OK Ben, RC and DD can you explain these (my bold):-
....
Both attachment and separation are explained by ordinary physics. I
suggest that you try to learn it.
Neither can be explined by a *physically impossible, debunked* idea: The
totally stupid electric comet idea that has been debunked!
__________________
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!
Find More Posts by Reality Check
Old 27th November 2010, 10:22 PM #*762*
Reality Check
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 7,791
Originally Posted by *Haig* View Post
The Thunderbolts can explain it very well as electric comets
...
Thunderbolts is a crank web site set up primarily to sell crank books.
Citing it is evidence of your gullibility or ignorance of science.
I suggest that you try learning some science rather than continyuing to
parrot this crank web site without any thought of your own.
To address your quotes: They show that the author is abysmally ignorant
of physics: Cometary material subliminates (not melts).
The rest is just the fantasies of a crank.
__________________
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!
Find More Posts by Reality Check
Old 27th November 2010, 10:46 PM #*763*
Reality Check
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 7,791
Thumbs down *The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep
Impact predictions*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a summary of the lies, failures and confirmations of the
prediction of the Thunderbolts web sit about the Deep Impact mission.
The sloppiness of the author is obvious when you look at what they call
results. They are all dated a few days or weeks after the impact and so
must be based on press releases and news reports. There is no citation
at all to any scientific literature.
The lies
* ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Lying about flashes
* ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: electrical energy release
* ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Lying about the energetic
effects
The failures
* ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: missing water non-prediction
* ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Sheath around impactor
* ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Comet breakup
* ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: System failure
* ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Water in coma
* ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Multiple craters
* ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Surface geology
* ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Surface arcing
Confirmed but also confirming the mainstream
* ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Fine dust
* ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Possible new jet
__________________
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!
Find More Posts by Reality Check
Old 28th November 2010, 05:04 AM #*764*
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Dancing David's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 26,350
Haig,
Why only five asteroids showing comas? Why not the rest?
__________________
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 28th November 2010, 11:00 AM #*765*
Haig
Critical Thinker
Haig's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 367
Originally Posted by *Reality Check* View Post
Both attachment and separation are explained by ordinary physics. I
suggest that you try to learn it.
Can't you explain why a comet with a tiny nucleus can have a coma the
diameter of the Sun and a tail longer than 1AU? Then explain, why a
passing CME removes the coma and tail only for the coma and tail to
reappear shortly after?
Really RC, what is the explanation of ordinary physics, please state it.
*why do they stay attached and not dissipate?*
http://www.solarviews.com/thumb/comet/comet.gif
*Why can CME do this?*
This event was observed by the STEREO space probe
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...il_rip_off.ogg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet
Quote:
Neither can be explined by a *physically impossible, debunked* idea: The
totally stupid electric comet idea that has been debunked!
So you keep saying but straw men don't count as a debunk.
Originally Posted by *Reality Check* View Post
Thunderbolts is a crank web site set up primarily to sell crank books.
Citing it is evidence of your gullibility or ignorance of science.
Originally Posted by *Haig*
I suggest that you try learning some Thunderbolts
rather than continyuing to parrot
this crank science without any thought of your own.
You might learn something RC
Originally Posted by *Reality Check*
To address your quotes: They show that the author is abysmally ignorant
of physics: Cometary material subliminates (not melts).
The rest is just the fantasies of a crank.
It's not so long since mainstream science denied the aurora could be
powered by the Sun now it's fact.
*Birkeland currents in the Earth's magnetosphere*
The presence of Birkeland currents has been absolutely confirmed with
satellite-borne particle and magnetic field experiments conducted over
the past two decades. These satellite observations have determined the
large-scale patterns, flow directions, and intensities of Birkeland
currents in the auroral and polar regions, and their relationship to the
orientation and magnitude of the interplanetary magnetic field. The
Birkeland currents are directly associated with visible and UV auroral
forms observed with satellites.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h5771446ux3xh584/
Originally Posted by *Dancing David* View Post
Haig,
Why only five asteroids showing comas? Why not the rest?
Well DD, as I understand it, the five have sufficiently eccentric
orbits, the rest don't.
Here, this explains it better and in more detail:
Quote:
an 'asteroid' on a sufficiently elliptical orbit will do precisely what
a comet does?it will discharge electrically. What distinguishes the
cometary 'asteroids', observed by the University of Hawaii astronomers,
are the paths they follow, moving them through the radial electric field
of the Sun to a greater extent than is typical of other bodies in the
'asteroid belt' (See chart above). Cometary effects may also be expected
from an asteroid if it passes through the huge electric comet tail
[called the magnetosphere] of a giant planet.
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 28th November 2010, 11:11 AM #*766*
Reality Check
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 7,791
Originally Posted by *Haig* View Post
Really RC, what is the explanation of ordinary physics, please state it.
No. Do your own research. I am not going to do that work of someone who
is being so folled by a crank web site. It is now obvious that nothing I
say can change your delustion that ~0.6 g/cc is ~3.0 g/cc.
Originally Posted by *Haig* View Post
...snipped off topic stuff...
Well DD, as I understand it, the five have sufficiently eccentric
orbits, the rest don't.
Wrong yet again Haig. Learn to read *The totally stupid electric comet
idea that has been debunked!*
or
other posts in this thread. I will emphasis the numbers for you.
There are 5 observed main-belt comets
with a minimum
eccentricity of 0.1644 (133P/Elst-Pizarro
). So the EC minimim
must be this (or lower!).
There are at least *173,583* asteroids (rocky bodies) that have an orbit
with an eccentricity above that EC 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).
Also see EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets
Quote:
Good examples of the asteriods that should be comets according to the EC
idea are many of the named asteroids:
* Juno (e=0.2553, observed
over a span of 67,610 days).
* Pallas (e=0.2309, observed
over a span of 64,291 days)
* Astraea (e=0.1917,
observed over a span of 59,759 days)
* ...More than 46 other named asteroids observed 1000's of times
over decades.
* Vera (e=0.1939, observed
over a span of 45,191 days)
~
__________________
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!
Find More Posts by Reality Check
Old 28th November 2010, 11:34 AM #*767*
Haig
Critical Thinker
Haig's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 367
*Can "dirty snowball" comets do this? Perhaps this is evidence for
electric comets?*
*Comet McNaught, also known as the Great Comet of 2007*
SWICS found that even at 160 million miles from the comet's nucleus, the
tail had slowed the solar wind to half its normal speed. The solar wind
should usually be about 435 miles (700 km) per second at that distance
from the Sun, but inside the comet's ion tail, it was less than 250
miles (400 km) per second.
"This was very surprising to me. Way past the orbit of Mars, the solar
wind felt the disturbance of this little comet. It will be a serious
challenge for us theoreticians and computer modellers to figure out the
physics,"
?space science professor, Michael Combi
*The Explosive Demise of Comet Linear*
A comet nucleus can be compared to the insulating material in a
capacitor. As charge is exchanged from the comet?s surface to the solar
wind, electrical energy is stored in the nucleus in the form of charge
polarization. This can easily build up intense mechanical stress in the
comet nucleus, which may be released catastrophically, as in a capacitor
when its insulation suffers rapid breakdown. The comet will explode!
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 28th November 2010, 11:38 AM #*768*
Tubbythin
Master Poster
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,728
Originally Posted by *Haig* View Post
*Can "dirty snowball" comets do this? Perhaps this is evidence for
electric comets?*
*Comet McNaught, also known as the Great Comet of 2007*
SWICS found that even at 160 million miles from the comet's nucleus, the
tail had slowed the solar wind to half its normal speed. The solar wind
should usually be about 435 miles (700 km) per second at that distance
from the Sun, but inside the comet's ion tail, it was less than 250
miles (400 km) per second.
"This was very surprising to me. Way past the orbit of Mars, the solar
wind felt the disturbance of this little comet. It will be a serious
challenge for us theoreticians and computer modellers to figure out the
physics,"
?space science professor, Michael Combi
*The Explosive Demise of Comet Linear*
A comet nucleus can be compared to the insulating material in a
capacitor. As charge is exchanged from the comet?s surface to the solar
wind, electrical energy is stored in the nucleus in the form of charge
polarization. This can easily build up intense mechanical stress in the
comet nucleus, which may be released catastrophically, as in a capacitor
when its insulation suffers rapid breakdown. The comet will explode!
No.
Tubbythin 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>
Tubbythin
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Tubbythin
Old 28th November 2010, 11:50 AM #*769*
Reality Check
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 7,791
Originally Posted by *Haig* View Post
*Can "dirty snowball" comets do this? Perhaps this is evidence for
electric comets?*
*Comet McNaught, also known as the Great Comet of 2007*
SWICS found that even at 160 million miles from the comet's nucleus, the
tail had slowed the solar wind to half its normal speed. The solar wind
should usually be about 435 miles (700 km) per second at that distance
from the Sun, but inside the comet's ion tail, it was less than 250
miles (400 km) per second.
"This was very surprising to me. Way past the orbit of Mars, the solar
wind felt the disturbance of this little comet. It will be a serious
challenge for us theoreticians and computer modellers to figure out the
physics,"
?space science professor, Michael Combi
*The Explosive Demise of Comet Linear*
A comet nucleus can be compared to the insulating material in a
capacitor. As charge is exchanged from the comet?s surface to the solar
wind, electrical energy is stored in the nucleus in the form of charge
polarization. This can easily build up intense mechanical stress in the
comet nucleus, which may be released catastrophically, as in a capacitor
when its insulation suffers rapid breakdown. The comet will explode!
Yes: "dirty snowballs" or even "icy dustballs" can do that.
No: It is not evidence for electric comets since they do not exist: *The
totally stupid electric comet idea that has been debunked!*
__________________
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 ; 28th
November 2010 at 11:52 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 28th November 2010, 11:58 AM #*770*
Haig
Critical Thinker
Haig's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 367
Originally Posted by *Reality Check* View Post
No. Do your own research. I am not going to do that work of someone who
is being so folled by a crank web site.
Disappointing RC. I thought you could do better than that.
Quote:
It is now obvious that nothing I say can change your delustion that ~0.6
g/cc is ~3.0 g/cc.
If you calculate the density, without taking into account the effects of
a charged body moving through an electric field, your results are prone
to error.
The charge of a body is NOT dependant on its density, is it?
Quote:
Wrong yet again Haig. Learn to read
Wrong yet again RC. Learn to read
Originally Posted by *Thunderbolts*
So an 'asteroid' on a sufficiently elliptical orbit will do precisely
what a comet does?it will discharge electrically
and
Originally Posted by *Thunderbots*
Cometary effects may also be expected from an asteroid if it passes
through the huge electric comet tail [called the magnetosphere] of a
giant planet.
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/a...etasteroid.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
/ Last edited by Haig ; 28th November 2010 at
12:07 PM. /
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 28th November 2010, 12:06 PM #*771*
Haig
Critical Thinker
Haig's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 367
Originally Posted by *Tubbythin* View Post
No.
Thanks
Originally Posted by *Reality Check* View Post
Yes: "dirty snowballs" or even "icy dustballs" can do that.
No: It is not evidence for electric comets since they do not exist: *The
totally stupid electric comet idea that has been debunked!*
Yes: "dirty snowballs" or even "icy dustballs" can do that, really RC?
Could you tell me how?
*What's in a Comet's Tail?
*
Originally Posted by *Thunderbolts*
When comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 broke apart, astronomers reasoned that the
fractured nucleus would expose fresh ices that would sublimate
furiously. So several ground-based telescopes and the Hubble Space
Telescope trained their spectroscopes on the tails of the fragments of
SL-9, looking for traces of volatile gases. None of the gases were found.
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 28th November 2010, 12:08 PM #*772*
Tubbythin
Master Poster
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,728
Originally Posted by *Haig* View Post
Disappointing RC. I thought you could do better than that.
If you calculate the density without taking into account the effects of
a charged body moving through and electric field your results are prone
to error.
Does the density of a proton change when it moves through an electric
field?
Tubbythin 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>
Tubbythin
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Tubbythin
Old 28th November 2010, 12:10 PM #*773*
Tubbythin
Master Poster
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,728
Originally Posted by *Haig* View Post
Thanks
Just to clear up any confusion, that was an answer to your second
question not your first.
Tubbythin 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>
Tubbythin
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Tubbythin
Old 28th November 2010, 12:57 PM #*774*
Haig
Critical Thinker
Haig's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 367
Originally Posted by *Tubbythin* View Post
Does the density of a proton change when it moves through an electric
field?
uncertain.
Originally Posted by *Tubbythin* View Post
Just to clear up any confusion, that was an answer to your second
question not your first.
oh! never mind, thanks anyway
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 28th November 2010, 01:17 PM #*775*
Haig
Critical Thinker
Haig's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 367
Originally Posted by *Tubbythin* View Post
Does the density of a proton change when it moves through an electric
field?
Mmm,Tubbythin maybe you could give answers to these questions that RC
refused to?
Can't you explain why a comet with a tiny nucleus can have a coma the
diameter of the Sun and a tail longer than 1AU? Then explain, why a
passing CME removes the coma and tail only for the coma and tail to
reappear shortly after?
Really RC, what is the explanation of ordinary physics, please state it.
why do they stay attached and not dissipate?
http://www.solarviews.com/thumb/comet/comet.gif
Why can CME do this?
This event was observed by the STEREO space probe
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...il_rip_off.ogg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet
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 28th November 2010, 01:39 PM #*776*
Zeuzzz
Master Poster
Zeuzzz's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,636
Found this awesome picture that seems to involve some sort of electric
engine and a comet behind it. Could be relevant.
Note how some of its yellow. The color yellow means complete
confirmation of surface electricity and the whole "electric universe"
theory.
....
Is there a link to the most complete "electric comet" theory? I know a
few publications in IEEE journals that I cant access but they are by
Thornhill, and his work tends to be (although sometimes intriguing)
lacking specifics and maths, so im dubious of them. Preferably one with
some basic EM and maths in would be great.
__________________
I would get high on life, but its cut with all sorts of crap.
Zeuzzz 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>
Zeuzzz
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Zeuzzz
Old 28th November 2010, 04:14 PM #*777*
Reality Check
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 7,791
Originally Posted by *Haig* View Post
Disappointing RC. I thought you could do better than that.
Disappointing Haig. I thought that you had the ability to do your own
thinking rather than being totally fooled by a crank web site.
Originally Posted by *Haig* View Post
If you calculate the density, without taking into account the effects of
a charged body moving through an electric field, your results are prone
to error.
Show me the calculation of the effect of the solar electric field on the
*mass* of an comet. The volume is calculated from looking at the comets.
Dividing the two gives the density.
Also show why asteroiids in similar orbits as comets have different
densities:
There are at least *173,583* asteroids (rocky bodies) that have an
orbit with an eccentricity above that EC 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).
Also see EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets
Originally Posted by *Haig* View Post
The charge of a body is NOT dependant on its density, is it?
Wrong yet again RC. Learn to read
and
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/a...etasteroid.htm
And another link to the crackpot Thunderbolts web site that lies to its
readers: *The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact
predictions*
Wrong yet again Haig. Learn to read that crank web site and understand
that it is just spouting fantasies and lying to its readers.
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
(another observation
) (and Abell
520 )
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1
; Review 2