The link does not work, but I found this
Earth-shattering news! Astrophysicists need to revise their theories based on new experimental data... just as they have always done.

So, where is the EU-based theory that explains comet formation better than the mainstream theories?

Or do you really think, just like Intelligent Design proponents or Conspiracy Theorists, that because mainstream theories are not 100.00000000% confirmed and don't have every little detail worked out, that alternative "theories" composed of half-baked qualitative ideas with no self-consistent structure, unsupported or even disproven by experimental evidence, are then by default correct?
I called it in the closed EU thread the mors tua, vita mea fallacy.

At least real scientists can admit when they are wrong and then correct their mistakes. That is not something EU proponents seem willing to do.
Are you, sol88, prepared to face the fact that EU ideas are wrong and admit so?
Or are you going to run around in circles, tap dancing around the issues, moving goalposts and avoiding the questions, just so you won't have to admit that you were wrong?

Now, address my points:
And again:

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Wonders if I'm actually going to get an answer from the EU crew.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Papageno wrote: No I do not subscribe to ID or any or that this is a conspiracy, but when the evidence is so strongly against the current accepted "dirtysnow ball" model we must a least look at the options. The EC model has predicted nearly all observed phenomena.

Just so I'm clear, which model do you subscribe to Papageno?

My ego is not that big, I would gladly admit I'm wrong if that is the case, but remember it's not just my idea that comets are an electrical event and evidence from the mainstream seems to be so contradictory that the snowy, icy, dirt ball theory has been falsified

So now to the nitty gritty;

That’s not what I said, if you read carefully. I've read Wikipedia entry, quote:

"The Fluorescence occurs when a molecule or quantum dot relaxes to its ground state after being electronically excited." (LINK)

But forgive my ignorance but fluorescence is not the same as X-Rays is it?

The Earth's magnetosphere has nothing to do with the X-ray emission from comets, I just remarked that with the new evidence in from the cluster satellites, the Earth appeared to "look" much like a comet, and that indeed comets give of X-Rays and so do most of the Planets (LINK)



So then X-Ray production in Earths auroras is a charge exchange process independent of the auroral circuit? (LINK)

My bad again I understood auroras to be part of a circuit, our local solar circuit

Seems there a lot more going on than a melting ice cube.

Sol

But forgive my ignorance but fluorescence is not the same as X-Rays is it?

X-Rays are the result of Fluorescence.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

My bad again I understood auroras to be part of a circuit, our local solar circuit

Auroras occur when the charges particles trapped by the Van Allen Belts enter our atmosphere at the poles. No circuit or current required at all, just a little understanding of the mechanics of charged particle motion inside a magnetic field.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Do you mean the "predictions" page about Deep Impact on the thunderbolts website? I don't think you can make any vaguer predictions than those posted there (maybe, some, larger, ...), which of course increases the chances of being right enormously. Still, they weren't very accurate, and those that were more or less correct don't contradict the existing model.
If you know of any better predictions (you know, with some numbers in them or so) made by the EC model (whatever that may be, I don't think a true model has been shown yet, just a lot of loose statements), then please point me to them!

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Sounds contrdictary to this LINK

So who do I believe??

Sol

Really, vague? I love the accepted explination for the observed double flash

Seems mainstream is a little more vague.

Sol

BTW have'nt seen any maths or quantative estimate on the obsereved phenomena from the mainstream.

If we would show you the math you would not understand anyway!
Search for a message by Tim Thompson, he listed a LOT of papers dealing with deep impact with lots of math.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Sounds contrdictary to this

And since when has Wikipedia been an authoritive scientific source? I expanded on NASA's quote.

Energetic ions from the Sun cause aurora and energize electrons in the Earth's magnetosphere. These electrons move along the Earth's magnetic field and eventually strike the Earth's ionosphere, causing the X-ray emission

The areas of electrons caught in the Earth's magnetic field are called the Van Allen Belts. When they hit the atmosphere they cause it to fluoresce in an aruroa.

So who do I believe??

Hmmmm, the choice of NASA or Wikipedia.....

By the way, are you going to answer my questions from page 1?

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Just a little remark on auroras at the Earth.

One of the mechanisms of creating aurora is through reconnection in the Earth's magnetotail. The stretched magnetic field "snaps" and the field lines shoot back to the Earth, accelerating the plasma that is in the magnetotail. These accelerated particles follow the field lines to the auroral region of the Earth, where they interact with a.o. the oxygen (green) and nitrogen (red) in the atmosphere, creating the aurora. This is typically night-side aurora.

There can also be dayside aurora created through the cusp/cleft region of the Earth's magnetosphere. These can be driven "directly" by the solar wind particles.

I do not understand the dynamo action that is written there, unless they mean "dayside reconnection at the cusp". They say that the "dynamo process" is hampered, and that you need reconnection. So, I think instead of the listing of the origin of aurorae this should be put inthe listing of obsolete theories.

And indeed, the aurorae are often associated with Birkeland currents. Birkeland was the first to think about the fact that the aurorae could be caused by currents flowing (although I think he did not get the direction of the currents correctly. I am not sure here, but I think he thought they were the currents that we now call the electrojet. I need to read up on this before I can update the Birkeland current wiki page).

By the way, for those EU people who still complain about currents not being taken seriously in the mainstream, I would like to point them to the paper by Tony Lui in the latest Annales Geophysicae Time development of electric fields and currents in space plasmas.

I apologize to the moderator for this hijacking of the thread, and now back to the not-so-very-electric comets.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

What evidence is there for a flash slightly before impact (the Thunderbolts prediction)? What evidence is there that the first, slight flash was not at impact?

Anyway, what about this prediction from the same Thunderbolts page:
Wrong, wasn't it?
Lots of water underneath the surface, and even water on the surface:
Or how about this one:
Sudden onset, exponential decline? Wrong again:
Still, Thunderbolts claimed more than a week later still that

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

I counter cliam with this Fram

LINK

sol

I did not argue that there were no two flashes, I argued that there is no evidence at all that the first flash happened before impact.

Scientists are looking for new explanations to fit all the observations. This is what the mission was for, as we didn't (and don't) know enough about comets. Hence the surprises, changes, ad-hoc explanations, and so on. This is normal.
Has the EU crowd or anyone at Thunderbolts put any part of the EU model in question after a lot of their predictions (vague as they were) didn't come true? I have certainly not seen any changes, retractions, ...

This to me is one of the main differences between scientists and ATM'ers of the far-out kind: scientists adjust theories and ideas when confronted with observations and counterevidence. ATM'ers like the people at Thunderbolts only see things that support their ideas and discard the rest.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

You do not subscribe to ID or conspiracy theories, but you use the same methods.

Show us this evidence so strongly against the mainstream model (hint: press releases containing just the words "electric" or "charged particle" are not evidence).
Show us this Electric Comet model that fits so well the observations.

You are behaving like CTs:
It is actually irrelevant: I am arguing against your method.
You started the thread claiming that mainstream scientists are drifting towards a EU-based theory for comets.
We are still waiting for you to support this claim with actual evidence (let me repeat: the words "electric" and "charged particle" in the press release are not such evidence).


Yet you fail to present the evidence disproving the mainstream model and the evidence supporting the EC model.
Actually, you have not even presented the EC model: so how does this model work?

Your actions on this board contradict your words:
The EC "theory" requires a larger leap than the mainstream one.

Therefore:
You have the burden to prove that the EC "theory" requires a smaller inductive leap than the mainstream theory.


I would not use Wikipedia as a reference for Physics.
Anyway, here is the context:
You gave the impression that fluorescence is not an electromagnetic effect for you.


X-rays can be absorbed and emitted in the process of fluorescence.
Fluorescence usually refers to the process of an atom or molecule being excited by electromagnetic radiation and then emitting EM radiation when it relaxes back to the ground-state.
In the charge-exchange reaction, the excitation occurs when the ion acquires an electron.
Both processes can emit X-rays and UV light.


So you did not refer to it because it is relevant to the topic:
"the graphic looks uncannily like a comet"
Remember what I said in the "Electric Sun" thread:
The more we go on, the more you fit JayUtah's description of CTs:
No answer my questions:
Why do you try to identify X-rays with one of the possible processes that can produce them?


What circuit?


There is so much more going on in Physics and Astronomy that you are not aware of.
And you will never be as long as you use EU websites, Wikipedia and press releases as your sources.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Okay, let's put aside the discussion that has nothing to do with the electric comet. I still have a question about Deep Impact that I posted before, but which was nicely ignored. But as the topic arises again, I like to pose it again.

I think this is an important question. Like I said, I am not up to date with everything that was send down by Deep Impact, but this camera thingy is not something to be looked over.

Maybe I will get an answer this time :-)
(You see, even this mainstreamer is trying to learn something)

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

I think you should try to make it sound like a question first; what exactly are you trying to find out here?

Cheers.

My guess the camera thingy stopped working becase it just got ran over by a huge comet.

From space.com article




Here's a quicktime video of the compactors point of view. Looks like it took pictures right into the gorund to me.

I'd love to know where this information that the camera mysteriously stopped working before impact came from. I googled it, and found no reference for a failing camera befroe impact, except on Thunderbolts site.

__________________
"The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest." - G'Kar

From A'Hearn himself:

Careful before you suggest people are fabricating evidence. I don't have info on the impactor's camera speed, but if it is comparable to the flyby camera it would be 50 msec per frame.

Tusenfem, what exactly are you trying to establish?

Cheers.

Probably that the impactor relative to the comet was traveling at about 20kps? Even if it did snap "one more shot" it wouldn't have had time to transmit it. 50 msec per frame? Where is the link for that?

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

The impactor's specs and details can be found here (download SSEC_SC3_doc.pdf), and it has a maximum frame rate of 0.1Hz, apparently is was set for 1Hz which would have meant 3 more images (as it stopped at 3.7 sec before impact). There was also evidence that the impactor was disturbed, the team concluded this was from comet dust particles.

About the pre-impact flash, here is the relevant quote:

So, Thornhill's predictions were on the money.

Cheers.

What I was trying to get at, was the prediction or statement of Thornhill on the Thunderbolts website, where he says that the impact probe got electrically shorted out by an arc from the comet.
As I understood, the camera on the impactor was snapping shots at a rate of 1 per 1.7 seconds. (This I got from the page I linked to, and trying to understand the snapshot rate of the impactor camera) If this is correct, then the reason that there was no "closeR up" is because the impact had already taken place before the next shot was due. This in contrast to Thorny's theory of electric shorting out.
The question (sort of) was if I was correct that the camera worked at that rate. If so, another nail on the coffin of Thornhill.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your post. Look at your last quote: it confirms that there was a double flash, but not that the flash came before the impact. You have a flash, and a few frames (i.e. one fifth to one tenth of a second) later, the material released by the impact can be seen. How does this tell us that the flash came before the impact?

And that is only one prediction which is claimed to be correct without any actual evidence for it (oh yes, I remember an earlier discussion on this forum (with P.Asmah, amongst others), directly after the Deep Impact mission, where it was even claimed that the flash was 'microseconds' before the impact, as if that could somehow be determined...
I just reference this to show that this has been discussed before, and that the Thunderbolts people seem to have a hard time doing even the most basic calculations before making predictions or drawing conclusions.

Basically, there was a double flash, but there is no indication at all that it happened before the impact, and the official explanation, while no certainty, seems very reasonable, and fits the dirty snowball theory as well.

As has been said in this thread, some of the other predictions (those that can be verified) were wrong as well.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

When can we expect your answer to these direct, pertinent questions concerning the ATM idea that you presented in your post, P.Asmah?

Where can one read how Thornhill derived his "preditions"?

Where is the science behind those "predictions" published? The chains of logic and the calculations which take (took Thornhill from) the underlying science to the specific "predicitions"?

To what extent can anyone (independently) reproduce those "predictions"?

Did you even read my post? As I understand it, the impact camera stopped 3.7 seconds before impact, acting with a frame rate of 1 per sec. I don't know if the impactor intrument shorted out (the team apparently thinks of dust particles), but it did stop 18.6 miles away from comet Tempel 1.

So I don't see any nails in Thornhill's coffin.

Cheers.

Did you try and calculate what this delay would mean in travelled distance? The DI team has great difficulty explaining the double flash and needs exotic material that doesn't fit observations (high relief and several researchers claiming a hard surface was hit). While a double flash is not proof of anything electric, it fits Thornhill's prediction.

I can't find any "microseconds" reference other than the one you provided, is it from the Thunderbolts site?

2 frames between the flashes could mean roughly between 0.1 and 0.2 seconds, that is a very long time.


It doesn't seem reasonable to me, and the snowball needs a lot of ice (btw it's officially a snowy dirtball now), which wasn't at the surface, and until the X-ray data also wasn't in the plume (it didn't change by the impact). I don't think the X-ray data are conclusive, the plots are really noisy. I think the Wild 2 dust will tell us some more about the volatile content and also about the fluffiness.

Not "as well".

Cheers.

Maybe his website has the information you need, he has a lot of pages about comets.

Don't know, but I could try to find some references for you.

I think it would be possible to recreate both the mainstream and the electric model in the lab. Is there any experimental data available?

Cheers.

I've looked (several times); I found nothing of any substance (just handwaving and word salad).I am curious - please see if you can find any.Sorry, it seems I wasn't sufficiently clear.

From the Thornhill prediction page (I assume this is what you referred to earlier "So, Thornhill's predictions were on the money."):How did Thornhill determine that more than one flash ("discharge") could be detected, by the camera on the mothership, given that camera's time resolution?

How did Thornhill determine that any flash other than the impact itself would generate enough (light) photons to be unambiguously detected by the camera? That there would be too few photons to (permanently) disable the camera?This seems to be a critical aspect to the making the Thornhill's "predictions", yet I could find nothing in the Thornhill material that would enable me to link "electric arcing causes the craters seen on comets" to "we may expect a sudden discharge between the comet nucleus and the copper projectile", in any way other than handwaving.

Can you walk us through the link please?

VanderL wrote Say if we had a "solar wind" tunnel and moved a charged object with in it which also had an increasing wind "pressure" at one end of the tunnel or a quarter of a torroid, then scaled up to match the observations, would that now a least see if we are on the right track?

Love to give it a go

Sol