If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum > Space and Astronomy > Against the Mainstream
Reload this Page New research results from the "Stardust" mission
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
Page 2 of 8 < 1 2 345 > Last »
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 02-March-2008, 11:34 PM
Luxor Luxor is offline
Banned
  
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18
Default
I can't tell for the post of yours that I am quoting, Luxor, whether you are making the following assertion or not; would you clarify please?



for avoidance of doubt Neried, yes.

Now a hypothetical for you my friend, just say for arguments sake or to just plain humor me, what would happen to standard cosmology if it's found comets are indeed electrical phenomena?
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 02-March-2008, 11:47 PM
ATKINS's Avatar
ATKINS ATKINS is offline
Senior Member
  
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 143
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
I don't think anyone correctly predicted what would happen when Deep Impact struck Tempel 1.
The "Thunderbolts" people did, here, the day before the actual impact. Or do you not consider their predictions to be "correct? If so, in what respect?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
I'm not sure anyone knows even now!
Because no research results have been published?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
We do know there was ice, but ice represented a small percent of the dust.
0,5% of the surface.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
There were also clays - not expected to exist in Kuiper belt objects. We don't know if the few comets we have observed are oddballs, or if the Kuiper belt is full of clay. We have composition records now of about 4 comets, and they all appear to contain an unexpectely high percentage of rather ordinary dirt.
Not to say, "rock".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
I will never understand why many insist that comet tails are hard evidence of electromagical zapping. Black object has frozen water ice on or near the surface...
This is a pure article of faith. None of the images support it. And why so black?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
black object is heated by the sun. Water volatizes and is blown away by the solar wind.
Even if we admit there is water, how could it be "blown away" by the "solar wind"? These words are simple metaphors borrowed from weather conditions pertaining on Earth. Whatever is in there is not blown away, in any case, since it follows a dead-straight course over astronomical distances. Things blown away by winds don't do that sort of thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
The basic physics is, well basic.
Indeed. From the gas-light era. Since then we've discovered electricity.
__________________
Where is the truth? Who sees the old hag and who the young beauty?
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 02-March-2008, 11:51 PM
korjik korjik is offline
Senior Member
  
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,971
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luxor View Post
Neried wrote:


Quote:
then the implications for the whole of cosmology are literally shattering.

Comets to the whole of cosmology eh? That's quite a bold assertion.

and thats why mainstream must defend their model come hell or high water, the implication that come from comets being electrical phenomena will bring a paradigm change that will rock standard mainstream cosmology to the very core.



Which in your opinion, Neried, Jim, Korjik and others, has the most sway here, the power of prediction or the power of maths?

Should we use the maths to make prediction or should we use the prediction to make the math?
If you didnt do the math, you didnt make a prediction. Just looking at a picture and saying that you think it is something isnt even science. I could say that pictures at the link ATKINS provided about jets looks like an advertisement about the Flying Spagetti Monster. That dosent make me right. Dosent make me wrong. ATKINS comments about the pictures dont make him right or wrong either, since he hasnt shown anything about what we are seeing.
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 03-March-2008, 12:31 AM
Nereid Nereid is offline
Senior Member
  
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 9,508
Default
[non-mod mode]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luxor View Post
I can't tell for the post of yours that I am quoting, Luxor, whether you are making the following assertion or not; would you clarify please?



for avoidance of doubt Neried, yes.

Now a hypothetical for you my friend, just say for arguments sake or to just plain humor me, what would happen to standard cosmology if it's found comets are indeed electrical phenomena?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luxor
and thats why mainstream must defend their model come hell or high water, the implication that come from comets being electrical phenomena will bring a paradigm change that will rock standard mainstream cosmology to the very core.
Would you please clarify what you mean by the following terms/expressions, as used in the sentence I am quoting?

"mainstream"

"their model"

"comets being electrical phenomena"

"paradigm change"

[/non-mod mode]
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 03-March-2008, 04:14 AM
Luxor Luxor is offline
Banned
  
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18
Default
"mainstream" = Mainstream is, generally, the common current of thought of the majority. It is a term most often applied in the arts (i.e., music, literature, and performance). This includes:

* something that is ordinary or usual;
* something that is familiar to the masses;
* something that is available to the general public.


"their model" = see above

"comets being electrical phenomena" = as opposed to sublimating dirtysnowyicymudball or whatever flavour it is now.


paradigm change = Paradigm shift, sometimes known as extraordinary science or revolutionary science, is the term first used by Thomas Kuhn in his influential 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions to describe a change in basic assumptions within the ruling theory of science. It is in contrast to his idea of normal science.

Clear? Neried

Now will you answer my question, Neried, or do feel you do not have to abide by the same rules us mortals have to.

The question is repeated below

Now a hypothetical for you my friend, just say for arguments sake or to just plain humor me, what would happen to standard cosmology if it's found comets are indeed electrical phenomena?
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 03-March-2008, 05:59 AM
VanderL VanderL is online now
Senior Member
  
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,571
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by korjik View Post
If you didnt do the math, you didnt make a prediction. Just looking at a picture and saying that you think it is something isnt even science. I could say that pictures at the link ATKINS provided about jets looks like an advertisement about the Flying Spagetti Monster. That dosent make me right. Dosent make me wrong. ATKINS comments about the pictures dont make him right or wrong either, since he hasnt shown anything about what we are seeing.
You're quite wrong on this, if I predict that the Rosetta mission will find that a comet's surface is rocky, and any subsurface samples contain almost no water/volatiles (less than what is needed to make outgassing a viable mechanism for comet jets), and they are very similar to the dust collected by the Stardust mission, I will need no math to make the claim.

Cheers.
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 03-March-2008, 07:00 AM
Nereid Nereid is offline
Senior Member
  
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 9,508
Default
[non-mod mode]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATKINS View Post
Thanks for responding, Nereid. I was expecting you to. We have crossed swords more than once on this forum and I see that you are still staunchly defending the faith. I hadn't, before last Thursday, posted anything in this forum for a little over a year because I found (and still find) the 30 day rule unjustified and unacceptable. What I found particularly significant in its timing and despicable in its principle, was that it came shortly after the memorable "bridges" debate which remains as an outstanding landmark in the ATM section of this forum. Commenting on the 30 day rule at the time in this post, dgruss23 pointed out that "Obviously we can either accept their rules or go elsewhere". I went elsewhere.

I don't intend to waste anyone's time by either restating the obvious or by attempting to answer the usual copy-and-paste questions above - it's ground that has been gone over sufficiently often in the past, in several other BAUT forums, as you yourself point out, some of which I contributed to myself, and in particular in the "Electric Comet" thread which was also closed around the same time as a result of the same 30-day rule.

The only really pertinent question in the above is the last one but I don't understand why you think it even needs answering. The question was:


Sorry if I seem to be labouring a point, but what is objectively new (not just what I consider to be new) is the latest research findings by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory who claim, to quote my initial post in this thread, that “as a whole, the samples look more asteroidal than cometary”, that "the Stardust material resembles chondritic meteorites from the asteroid belt", and that "the dust from Wild 2 also is missing ingredients that would be expected in comet dust".

The fact that it it is a startlingly new (and in mainstream BB theory, an embarrassingly "surprising") development is precisely the reason why I have dropped back in on the BAUT forum. There has so far been absolutely no explanation for it offered by mainstream contributers. Do you (and other mainstreamers) seriously think that the fact that the latest research findings concerning the dust brought back from comet Wild 2 show that, to all intents and purposes, it cannot be distinguished, in its physical or chemical composition, from a vulgar asteroid is of no significance in the ongoing debate about the nature of comets?
Would you mind refreshing my memory, ATKINS?

What papers, published in pertinent, peer-reviewed journals, present the 'electric comet' case?

When I entered 'electric comet Talbott' into Google (without the quotes; I remember that the name 'David Talbott' came up in connection with EU), at the top was www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf. It's not a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal of course, but does it come close, from your POV? In any case, to what extent does this document present the 'electric comet' case?

I'll respond to the post of yours that I'm quoting, at greater length, later.

[/non-mod mode]
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 03-March-2008, 07:57 AM
Fortis Fortis is online now
Senior Member
  
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,158
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanderL View Post
Yes! Surprisingly, it doesn't take water ice to produce water. It is possible to get water from minerals through electrical discharges, see for example here and here.


Cheers.
The articles are talking about an artificial fluidised-bed reactor using plasma derived from high concentrations of atomic hydrogen. In the environment of a comet can you indicate what rate of water production you would expect to see within the EU comet model? Is it sufficient to generate the tail? It is only fair to ask you this as this has been done for the conventional model regarding surface ice.
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 03-March-2008, 08:00 AM
Fortis Fortis is online now
Senior Member
  
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,158
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATKINS View Post
Thanks, VanderL, I was thinking of a offering a couple of other links but yours are much more respectable!
Please see my response to VanderL.
  #40 (permalink)  
Old 03-March-2008, 10:44 AM
Luxor Luxor is offline
Banned
  
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18
Default
I'll respond to the post of yours that I'm quoting, at greater length, later.

Along with the question I asked Neried?
  #41 (permalink)  
Old 03-March-2008, 02:32 PM
Jim's Avatar
Jim Jim is offline
Moderator
  
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clear Lake City, TX
Posts: 3,957
Default
I didn't realise there were now at least two moderators assigned to each thread...

Moderators are not "assigned" to any particular threads or forums. What we try to do is monitor them all, give special attention where needed, and not get in each other's way.

As regards the above, be reassured, I've just responded to Nereid's post, just before I read yours. I didn't "skip past" her post, as you put it: I've just been rather busy this week-end and I also gave priority to responding to a few more concrete questions/challenges in a couple of other posts. No lèse-majesté intened.

You did engage in a give-and-take with another Member, who posted after Nereid, and it had been about 48 hours since she posed her questions. A quick "I'll get back to you" might have been warranted.

You don't need to remind me that "the EU has been discussed here in several previous threads"... As regards your point about "new information", just read the end of my answer to Nereid. ...

Good. I expect you to discuss this new information and show how it changes things. To be honest, so far, I haven't seen it. What I have seen is your interpretation of some data; if you have a link to another source that provides a similar interpretation of the same data (preferably in a recognized journal), that would be appreciated.
__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov
  #42 (permalink)  
Old 03-March-2008, 02:32 PM
Jim's Avatar
Jim Jim is offline
Moderator
  
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clear Lake City, TX
Posts: 3,957
Default
Now will you answer my question, Neried, or do feel you do not have to abide by the same rules us mortals have to.

This statement somewhat bothers me as it comes very close to being a personal attack on another Member.

For clarification, the proponent(s)/defender(s) of an ATM concept are obligated to answer pertinent questions concerning that concept. If they feel they have previously answered a question, they can refer to that answer. If they feel the question is not pertinent, they can so state. If they are unable to answer, they can say so. But, all pertinent questions must be addressed in a timely fashion.

ETA: Obviously I feel that means within 48 hours.

(Ref. Rule 13)
__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov
Last edited by Jim : 03-March-2008 at 02:34 PM. Reason: added ETA comment
  #43 (permalink)  
Old 03-March-2008, 02:38 PM
Nereid Nereid is offline
Senior Member
  
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 9,508
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luxor View Post
"mainstream" = Mainstream is, generally, the common current of thought of the majority. It is a term most often applied in the arts (i.e., music, literature, and performance). This includes:

* something that is ordinary or usual;
* something that is familiar to the masses;
* something that is available to the general public.


"their model" = see above

"comets being electrical phenomena" = as opposed to sublimating dirtysnowyicymudball or whatever flavour it is now.


paradigm change = Paradigm shift, sometimes known as extraordinary science or revolutionary science, is the term first used by Thomas Kuhn in his influential 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions to describe a change in basic assumptions within the ruling theory of science. It is in contrast to his idea of normal science.

Clear? Neried

Now will you answer my question, Neried, or do feel you do not have to abide by the same rules us mortals have to.

The question is repeated below

Now a hypothetical for you my friend, just say for arguments sake or to just plain humor me, what would happen to standard cosmology if it's found comets are indeed electrical phenomena?
[non-mod mode]

Thank you for the clarifications.

Per the definition of "comets being electrical phenomena" above, the question asked ("what would happen to standard cosmology if it's found comets are indeed electrical phenomena?") makes so little sense that the only valid answer would be something like 'there would be no impact'.

Let's explore this a little further ...

Suppose "mainstream" were to be re-defined to refer to what a poll of a representative sample of professional astronomers, space scientists, etc would show. Sure, it's a pretty awful measure, but it has one attribute that makes it better than the Luxor definition - objective tests are possible, at least in principle.

Suppose tusenfem and korjik are considered to be a representative sample.

Then we already know the answer, from what they have posted in various ATM threads here in BAUT: something like 'the concept of "comets being electrical phenomena" is so poorly described, let alone defined, as to render the question essentially meaningless.

Let's look more closely at that definition/description: "= as opposed to sublimating dirtysnowyicymudball or whatever flavour it is now". As described, it is logically equivalent to 'comets being electrical phenomena = a label given to something other than an undefined entity' ... clearly this is nonsense.

Even if "whatever flavour it is now" were to be described more clearly, even if "sublimating dirtysnowyicymudball or" were deleted, the definition would become merely a placeholder for 'something other than {insert details of 'current flavour here}'. As such it would have only a random relationship to anything 'electrical'.

But maybe you intended to write something different, Luxor?

[/non-mod mode]
  #44 (permalink)  
Old 03-March-2008, 04:06 PM
korjik korjik is offline
Senior Member
  
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,971
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanderL View Post
You're quite wrong on this, if I predict that the Rosetta mission will find that a comet's surface is rocky, and any subsurface samples contain almost no water/volatiles (less than what is needed to make outgassing a viable mechanism for comet jets), and they are very similar to the dust collected by the Stardust mission, I will need no math to make the claim.

Cheers.
And the sky will be blue tomorrow morning. You havent said anything more profound than that.

I can also say they will not detect any surface charging other than local floating potential. Still dosent mean anything.

Properly done, your claims should have an explanation on how you can get an object of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko's size and density with only rock.

Otherwise all you have said is that the sky is blue.
  #45 (permalink)  
Old 03-March-2008, 04:38 PM
ATKINS's Avatar
ATKINS ATKINS is offline
Senior Member
  
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 143
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim View Post
You did engage in a give-and-take with another Member, who posted after Nereid, and it had been about 48 hours since she posed her questions. A quick "I'll get back to you" might have been warranted.
There was no offence intended. My apologies to Nereid for being impolite. But you know how it is when you get into a give-and-take discussion.

On you part, by the way, when you respond to posts, would it be possible for you to quote the author so there are no misunderstandings about who said what. It's already complicated enough keeping track of exactly who said what without adding to the confusion. My concern was prompted, specifically, by your following post, just after the one I quoted, which is in fact addressed to Luxor. Readers might have thought it was me.
__________________
Where is the truth? Who sees the old hag and who the young beauty?
  #46 (permalink)  
Old 03-March-2008, 08:08 PM
VanderL VanderL is online now
Senior Member
  
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,571
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by korjik View Post
And the sky will be blue tomorrow morning.
You havent said anything more profound than that.
You mean it is obvious that a comet has a rocky surface and will contain no significant amounts of ices/volatiles?

Quote:
Originally Posted by korjik View Post
I can also say they will not detect any surface charging other than local floating potential. Still dosent mean anything.
Really? I don't see what that has to do with claiming that comets and asteroids have similar compositions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by korjik View Post
Properly done, your claims should have an explanation on how you can get an object of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko's size and density with only rock.

Otherwise all you have said is that the sky is blue.
I expect comets are produced in a similar way as asteroids.
I don't think my claims should explain "how you can get an object of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko's size and density with only rock". That would be putting the cart before the horse; first we need to verify that comets are indeed just asteroids with special orbits, we can start speculating about why the objects would seem to possess such low densities later.

Cheers.
  #47 (permalink)  
Old 03-March-2008, 08:30 PM
VanderL VanderL is online now
Senior Member
  
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,571
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortis View Post
The articles are talking about an artificial fluidised-bed reactor using plasma derived from high concentrations of atomic hydrogen. In the environment of a comet can you indicate what rate of water production you would expect to see within the EU comet model?
Of course I expect the water production rate from discharging to be equal to the actually observed amounts. But that probably is not what you want to know. If you give me a couple of days, I should be able to come up with something useful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortis View Post
Is it sufficient to generate the tail?
I don't think water molecules generate the tail (I assume you mean the ion tail), I think I read somewhere that the ion tail is mostly ionised CO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortis View Post
It is only fair to ask you this as this has been done for the conventional model regarding surface ice.
I'm not sure I understand this, what exactly has been demonstrated for the conventional model?

Cheers.
  #48 (permalink)  
Old 03-March-2008, 08:47 PM
captain swoop's Avatar
captain swoop captain swoop is offline
Senior Member
  
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 4,592
Default
How is this thread now any different from all the other endless EU threads we have seen?
__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'