ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 10th January 2018, 11:59 AM   #1161
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,253
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
nonsense snipped

Diamagnetic cavity always sounded a bit like magnetic reconnection! magical neutral gas holds back solar wind!!!
In what universe is the diamagnetic cavity "like magnetic reconnection"?
It's just two "winds" colliding and one stopping the other.

Huang explains the DC with magical hot electrons which are not observed at all.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem 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
Old 10th January 2018, 01:09 PM   #1162
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 21,807
Thumbs down Sol88: Lies about a paper describing "chardged inner and outer sides"

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
PLASMA ENVIRONMENT AROUND COMET 67P/CHURYUMOV–GERASIMENKO AT PERIHELION:
MODEL COMPARISON WITH ROSETTA DATA
11 January 2018 Sol88: Lies about papers describing "chardged inner and outer sides".

11 January 2018 Sol88: Ignorant delusion about double layers.

11 January 2018 Sol88: Idiotic incredibility about the fact that neutral gas can "hold back" the solar wind.
The physics that makes this incredibility idiotic is that the solar wind is particles that will be deflected by any other particles. A neutral gas has particles !
A counterexample that also makes this incredibility idiotic is that the solar wind does not penetrate the Earth's atmosphere of neutral gas (but our magnetic filed also plays a role).

Last edited by Reality Check; 10th January 2018 at 01:15 PM.
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
Old 10th January 2018, 09:29 PM   #1163
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,834
@rc
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]
Sol88 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
Old 10th January 2018, 09:36 PM   #1164
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,834
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
In what universe is the diamagnetic cavity "like magnetic reconnection"?
It's just two "winds" colliding and one stopping the other.

Huang explains the DC with magical hot electrons which are not observed at all.
Two “winds” colliding!!! sounds like the name of a band

But seriously can’t happen can it!

Quote:
cavity. In our opinion, it is possible that the observed diamagnetic region in Goetz et al. (2016a) is not a ‘classical’ diamagnetic cavity, but it might be a local phenomenon caused by some different process. There are (at least) two reasons why the diamagnetic region might not be associated with a global diamagnetic cavity surrounding the nucleus: (i) the total gas production rate is not sufcient to create such a large diamagnetic cavity, and (ii) the large number and short duration of these magnetic eld-free regions. As Goetz et al. (2016a) discussed, the total gas production rate must be larger than 3×1028 s−1 at1.3autocreateanextendedcavityexpandingto around 170km.Hansenetal.(2016) obtained a total gas production rate of ∼1028 s−1 at 1.3 au from a multi-instrumental analysis of Rosetta observations, which is a factor of 3 smaller than the gas production rate necessary to push the diamagnetic cavity boundary out to the Rosetta’s location.
Also

Quote:
the Rosetta magnetometer observed several short-duration (tens of seconds to tens of minutes) diamagnetic regions Goetz et al. (2016a). Quite surprisingly, these diamagnetic regions were found around twice as far from the nucleus (∼170km) than predicted by simulations Koenders et al. (2015); Rubin et al. (2015a); Huang et al. (2016)

In reply to your magical hot electrons

Quote:
by Goetz et al. (2016b) showed that the RPC-MAG has observed diamagnetic regions at distances from 30 to 400km at different heliocentric distances. All these diamagnetic regions were observed much further from the nucleus than the predicted distances of the diamagnetic cavity boundary. The physical mechanism responsible for these diamagnetic regions is still unclear.
Apossible mechanism for the formation of magnetic field dropouts in the coma of 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]
Sol88 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
Old 10th January 2018, 11:58 PM   #1165
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,834
Quote:
An additional point is that between 2015 April and 2016 February, RPC-MAG observed over 650 diamagnetic regions at cometocentric distances about two to three times further than the expected diamagnetic cavity boundary. The duration of these events is between ~10 s and ~40 min. During this time Rosetta moves only ~10 m to ~2 km, implying that these diamagnetic regions must be very fast moving. In their first paper, Goetz et al. (2016a) associated these diamagnetic regions with instabilities propagating along the cavity boundary
or are they your FTE's, Tusenfem?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]
Sol88 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
Old 11th January 2018, 01:05 AM   #1166
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,253
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Two “winds” colliding!!! sounds like the name of a band

But seriously can’t happen can it!
Whatever you say, Sol, you seem to be the expert.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
In reply to your magical hot electrons
Huang himself has told me he has NO IDEA what would produce the magical hot electrons.

But then who am I to disagree with the cometary plasma physics expert Sol88
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem 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
Old 11th January 2018, 01:06 AM   #1167
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,253
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
or are they your FTE's, Tusenfem?
I did not know I had any FTEs.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem 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
Old 11th January 2018, 03:22 AM   #1168
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,834
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
In what universe is the diamagnetic cavity "like magnetic reconnection"?
It's just two "winds" colliding and one stopping the other.

Huang explains the DC with magical hot electrons which are not observed at all.
Maybe Huang should talk with Agarwal?

Prediction - the events are connected.
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]

Last edited by Sol88; 11th January 2018 at 03:29 AM.
Sol88 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
Old 11th January 2018, 03:26 AM   #1169
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,834
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Whatever you say, Sol, you seem to be the expert.



Huang himself has told me he has NO IDEA what would produce the magical hot electrons.

But then who am I to disagree with the cometary plasma physics expert Sol88
So you are saying he is wrong then?

Or do you agree they may indeed be there, he just had no idea what would produce a field aligned current to the nucleus surface!
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]
Sol88 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
Old 11th January 2018, 05:42 AM   #1170
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,703
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Maybe Huang should talk with Agarwal?

Prediction - the events are connected.
Lol. What on Earth would be the connection between a DC, and an outburst from the surface? Particularly when the DC wasn't even around at the time of the outburst? Deary me, this is heading ever further into fantasy land, as Sol fails to come to grips with the fact that his cherished electric comet woo has been shown to be precisely that - unscientific woo.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 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
Old 11th January 2018, 06:33 AM   #1171
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,703
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So you are saying he is wrong then?

Or do you agree they may indeed be there, he just had no idea what would produce a field aligned current to the nucleus surface!
That a diamagnetic cavity forms is beyond question. It was previously predicted, and then seen during the AMPTE experiments, followed by a clear detection at Halley. Huang (whose paper has been cited once in 13 months - by himself) was looking for a possible alternative explanation for 67P, due to the predictions of the cavity surface distance being much less than that observed by Rosetta. This was due to the estimated water production rate. However, it appears that the water production rate, based on ROSINA data, may actually have been somewhat higher than believed, possibly due to an extended source of water within the coma.
Furthermore, Huang nowhere says that there is a field aligned current to the nucleus. You made that up.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin

Last edited by jonesdave116; 11th January 2018 at 06:39 AM.
jonesdave116 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
Old 11th January 2018, 02:49 PM   #1172
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 21,807
Exclamation Sol88: Seems to agree that his posts are ignorant/idiotic/delusional/lying

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
@rc
12 January 20i8 Sol88: Seems to agree that his posts are ignorant/idiotic/delusional/lying!

11 January 2018 Sol88: Lies about papers describing "chardged inner and outer sides".

11 January 2018 Sol88: Ignorant delusion about double layers.

11 January 2018 Sol88: Idiotic incredibility about the fact that neutral gas can "hold back" the solar wind.
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
Old 11th January 2018, 03:00 PM   #1173
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 21,807
Thumbs down Sol88: Ignorance of English: "does not know" cannot be wrong

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So you are saying he is wrong then?
12 January 2018 Sol88: Ignorance of English: "does not know" is not a proposal that can be wrong

tusenfem wrote Huang explains the DC with magical hot electrons which are not observed at all.
The paper is: A possible mechanism for the formation of magnetic field dropouts in the coma of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko by Huang et. al.

tusenfem then wrote Huang himself has told me he has NO IDEA what would produce the magical hot electrons.

tusenfem is not stating that Huang is wrong. tusenfem wrote that the possible mechanism in Huang et. al depends on hot electrons that have not been observed and that Huang himself does not know what would produce the hot electrons.
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
Old 11th January 2018, 03:14 PM   #1174
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,834
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Lol. What on Earth would be the connection between a DC, and an outburst from the surface? Particularly when the DC wasn't even around at the time of the outburst? Deary me, this is heading ever further into fantasy land, as Sol fails to come to grips with the fact that his cherished electric comet woo has been shown to be precisely that - unscientific woo.
So no DC during perihelion?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]
Sol88 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
Old 11th January 2018, 03:15 PM   #1175
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,834
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
That a diamagnetic cavity forms is beyond question. It was previously predicted, and then seen during the AMPTE experiments, followed by a clear detection at Halley. Huang (whose paper has been cited once in 13 months - by himself) was looking for a possible alternative explanation for 67P, due to the predictions of the cavity surface distance being much less than that observed by Rosetta. This was due to the estimated water production rate. However, it appears that the water production rate, based on ROSINA data, may actually have been somewhat higher than believed, possibly due to an extended source of water within the coma.
Furthermore, Huang nowhere says that there is a field aligned current to the nucleus. You made that up.
First Skorov now Huang

Diamagnetic cavity or magnetic drop out???? There was still some mag field fluctuations just not as large as outside the double layer.

Sorry not a FAC but a magnetic flux tube!!! Which you know is a current so how does that circuit operate on a dirtysnowball?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]

Last edited by Sol88; 11th January 2018 at 03:22 PM.
Sol88 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
Old 11th January 2018, 04:08 PM   #1176
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 21,807
Thumbs down Idiotic, lying and irreverent question to derail from his comet delusions

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So no DC during perihelion?
12 January 2018 Sol88: Idiotic, lying and irreverent question to derail from his comet delusions.
His comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, etc. etc.

First detection of a diamagnetic cavity at comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Quote:
The Rosetta magnetometer RPC-MAG has been exploring the plasma environment of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko since August 2014. The first months were dominated by low-frequency waves which evolved into more complex features. However, at the end of July 2015, close to perihelion, the magnetometer detected a region that did not contain any magnetic field at all.
my emphasis added.

Structure and evolution of the diamagnetic cavity at comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko
Quote:
The long duration of the Rosetta mission allows us to study the evolution of the diamagnetic cavity at comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko in detail. From 2015 April to 2016 February 665 intervals could be identified where Rosetta was located in a zero-magnetic-field region.

Last edited by Reality Check; 11th January 2018 at 04:10 PM.
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
Old 11th January 2018, 04:19 PM   #1177
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,703
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So no DC during perihelion?
Of course there is - I explained already that they were detected at Halley and during the AMPTE experiments. You linked to the Agarwal paper - that outburst happened at a distance where no DC could form, due to the low outgassing rate.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 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
Old 11th January 2018, 04:26 PM   #1178
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,703
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
First Skorov now Huang

Diamagnetic cavity or magnetic drop out???? There was still some mag field fluctuations just not as large as outside the double layer.

Sorry not a FAC but a magnetic flux tube!!! Which you know is a current so how does that circuit operate on a dirtysnowball?
What DL? There isn't one. Nor would/ has any plasma physicist predicted that there would be one in that location. Mendis floated the possibility of a DL forming in the tail. He wrote a number of papers post-Halley, and not once does he propose that the DC is a DL! The Halley data has been around for over 30 years. Nobody has suggested that the DC has anything to do with a DL. Due to the fact that it is nothing like a DL.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 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
Old 11th January 2018, 05:13 PM   #1179
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 21,807
Thumbs down Sol88: Lies about the Skorov and Huang papers being about a double layer.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
... outside the double layer.
12 January 2018 Sol88: Lies about the Skorov and Huang papers being about a double layer.
A diamagnetic cavity is not a double layer as he knows.
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
Old 11th January 2018, 05:21 PM   #1180
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 21,807
563 items of ignorance, idiocy (citing irrelevant mainstream papers), delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 8 January 2018 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)
  1. 10 January 2018 Sol88: A "confused" lie to derail from his comet delusions.
  2. 11 January 2018 Sol88: Lies about papers describing "chardged inner and outer sides".
  3. 11 January 2018 Sol88: Ignorant delusion about double layers.
  4. 11 January 2018 Sol88: Idiotic incredibility about the fact that neutral gas can "hold back" the solar wind.
  5. 12 January 20i8 Sol88: Seems to agree that his posts are ignorant/idiotic/delusional/lying!
  6. 12 January 2018 Sol88: Ignorance of English: "does not know" is not a proposal that can be wrong
  7. 12 January 2018 Sol88: Idiotic, lying and irreverent question to derail from his comet delusions.
  8. 12 January 2018 Sol88: Lies about the Skorov and Huang papers being about a double layer.

His comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, etc. etc.

The electric comet delusion has at least 45 years without a scientific electric comet model or observations to support it !

Over 2 years and counting of fear of doing basic physics: 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.

The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 8 years of delusions from Sol88)
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.
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
Old 11th January 2018, 06:16 PM   #1181
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,834
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
What DL? There isn't one. Nor would/ has any plasma physicist predicted that there would be one in that location. Mendis floated the possibility of a DL forming in the tail. He wrote a number of papers post-Halley, and not once does he propose that the DC is a DL! The Halley data has been around for over 30 years. Nobody has suggested that the DC has anything to do with a DL. Due to the fact that it is nothing like a DL.
Electric Fields and Cold Electrons in the Vicinity of Comet Halley
HARRI LAAKSO

These plasma "structures" (Tusenfem, the super duper space plasma physicist never answered the question I originally asked)

But LAAKSO is describing this picture
Quote:
9. A current layer of thickness-7,000 km is crossed at 0709 UT (54,000k in) by Vega 1. This layer is provided by the magnetic field formerly stored in side this transition In. thec urrenlta yer, the cold electron density increases significantly which results in the rapid saturation of the measurements The dc electric field exhibits a large gradient the total potential drop over the layer is -135 kV), and a plasma wave burst is observesd simultaneously


Is this correct Tusenfem?

Quote:
Four distinct regions of a double layer can be identified, which affect charged particles passing through it, or within it:
  1. A positive potential side of the double layer where electrons are accelerated towards it;
  2. A positive potential within the double layer where electrons are decelerated;
  3. A negative potential within the double layer where electrons are decelerated; and
  4. A negative potential side of the double layer where electrons are accelerated.
Double layer (plasma physics)
from just a few post back...

Quote:
This boundary, that was assumed to be outside of the diamagnetic cavity, was characterized by enhanced magnetic field pile-up, reduced electron densities, and accelerated water-group ions on the outside, and reduced magnetic field pile-up, enhanced electron densities, and low energy water-group ions on the inside (Mandt et al. 2016).
PLASMA ENVIRONMENT AROUND COMET 67P/CHURYUMOV–GERASIMENKO AT PERIHELION: MODEL COMPARISON WITH ROSETTA DATA
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]

Last edited by Sol88; 11th January 2018 at 06:45 PM.
Sol88 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
Old 11th January 2018, 06:38 PM   #1182
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,834
Quote:
The spacecraft potential affects the lowest energy in the local plasma population which can be measured by RPCICA. When the spacecraft potential is low or positive it is likely that part of the population cannot reach the detector. It is also possible that the limited .eld-of-view of RPC-ICA plays a much larger role for the lowest energy ions when the spacecraft potential does not attract ions from all directions. A negative spacecraft potential will accelerate ions towards the spacecraft and thus make lower energy ions easier to measure. Much of the time, RPC-ICA does not detect any ions at the lowest energy levels, which is due to a negative spacecraft potential prevailing throughout most of the mission. Odelstad et al. (2017) reported the spacecraft potential for the period from 2014 September until end of mission. The spacecraft potential was mostly negative except for the period 2015 April to mid June, the dayside excursion (2015 September) and the nightside excursion (2016 march).
Evolution of the ion environment of comet 67P during the Rosetta mission as seen by RPC-ICA

Quote:
Four distinct regions of a double layer can be identified, which affect charged particles passing through it, or within it:

A positive potential side of the double layer where electrons are accelerated towards it;
A positive potential within the double layer where electrons are decelerated;
A negative potential within the double layer where electrons are decelerated; and
A negative potential side of the double layer where electrons are accelerated.
Almost like there's a double layer around the probe itself!
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]
Sol88 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
Old 11th January 2018, 07:27 PM   #1183
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 21,807
Thumbs down Sol88: A lie that a Laakso paper on Comet Halley is describing a double layer

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Electric Fields and Cold Electrons in the Vicinity of Comet Halley
HARRI LAAKSO
12 January 2018 Sol88: A lie that a Laakso paper on Comet Halley is describing a double layer.
A layer of current is not a double layer as anyone who can count to 2 knows !
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
Old 11th January 2018, 07:30 PM   #1184
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 21,807
Thumbs down Sol88: Idiocy that a "Plasma Environment" paper is relevant to his comet delusions

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
PLASMA ENVIRONMENT AROUND COMET 67P/CHURYUMOV–GERASIMENKO AT PERIHELION: MODEL COMPARISON WITH ROSETTA DATA
12 January 2018 Sol88: Idiocy that a "Plasma Environment around 67P" paper is relevant to his comet delusions
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
Old 11th January 2018, 07:32 PM   #1185
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 21,807
Thumbs down Sol88: Double layer lie to derail from his comet delusions

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Evolution of the ion environment of comet 67P during the Rosetta mission as seen by RPC-ICA
12 January 2017 Sol88: Double layer lie to derail from his comet delusions.

ETA: Changed from his usual idiocy of citing papers about comets made of ices and dust to a lie because the quote has not even a hint of double layers. The quote is about the polarity of the spacecraft over long timescales (3 reversals from 2014 September until end of mission). Double layers also have scales of less than 100 meters as he knows which Rosetta would travel through in seconds, not months !

His comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, etc. etc.

The electric comet delusion has at least 45 years without a scientific electric comet model or observations to support it !

Over 2 years and counting of fear of doing basic physics: 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.

The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 8 years of delusions from Sol88)
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.

Last edited by Reality Check; 11th January 2018 at 07:43 PM.
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
Old 11th January 2018, 08:16 PM   #1186
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,703
Quote:
Sorry not a FAC but a magnetic flux tube!!! Which you know is a current so how does that circuit operate on a dirtysnowball?
And if the 'current' were to reach the surface, it would have to travel through the DC to get there. Now, what are the EU peeps always fond of telling us about electric currents and magnetic fields? What is measured within the DC? 0nT, near as makes no difference. So, nothing happening there, is there?
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 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
Old 11th January 2018, 09:00 PM   #1187
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,834
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
And if the 'current' were to reach the surface, it would have to travel through the DC to get there. Now, what are the EU peeps always fond of telling us about electric currents and magnetic fields? What is measured within the DC? 0nT, near as makes no difference. So, nothing happening there, is there?

0nT you say?

Constant electric current = constant magnetic field

I believe your interpretation of the DC is incorrect, as has been shown!

What do you know about filed aligned currents, magnetic flux tubes, Flux transfer events....
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]

Last edited by Sol88; 11th January 2018 at 09:03 PM.
Sol88 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
Old 11th January 2018, 09:32 PM   #1188
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,703
Quote:
I believe your interpretation of the DC is incorrect, as has been shown!
Where has it been shown?

Quote:
0nT you say?
No, Neubauer, among others, said it:

Quote:
A cavity region with essentially zero magnetic field has been discovered, with a width of 8,500 km along the trajectory around closest approach.
First results from the Giotto magnetometer experiment at comet Halley
Neubauer, F. M. et al
https://www.nature.com/articles/321352a0

Quote:
Constant electric current = constant magnetic field
And zero current = zero magnetic field. As measured.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin

Last edited by jonesdave116; 11th January 2018 at 09:55 PM.
jonesdave116 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
Old 11th January 2018, 11:04 PM   #1189
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,703
Quote:
What do you know about filed aligned currents, magnetic flux tubes, Flux transfer events.....
Oh, I'm no expert. I bow to Tusenfem and others on that. However, I'd like to know what happens to these imagined currents as they head towards the nucleus and encounter a piled up magnetic field. And somehow fail to register on the magnetometer having somehow penetrated that barrier.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 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
Old 12th January 2018, 12:28 AM   #1190
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,253
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Maybe Huang should talk with Agarwal?

Prediction - the events are connected.
How could that be? The "Argawal" event happened much much later and has nothing to do with a diamagnetic cavity.

You are making stuff up to find "connections" that only exist in your fantasy EC universe.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem 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
Old 12th January 2018, 12:31 AM   #1191
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,253
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So you are saying he is wrong then?

Or do you agree they may indeed be there, he just had no idea what would produce a field aligned current to the nucleus surface!
yes, he has a solution that could produce such a signature
however that solution is not found in the measurements and he has no idea what would produce such a pocket of hot electrons.
and no there is no field aligned current to the nuclear surface, because the field is draped around the comet and does not go to the surface, another fantasy from your imaginary EC universe.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem 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
Old 12th January 2018, 02:38 AM   #1192
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,253
From now on I will wait until Sol writes his paper on this topic, including readily available data. This discussion is pointless, because Sol will ask an explanation, and then will just discard it as it will not fit his fantasy EC universe ideas.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem 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
Old 12th January 2018, 10:18 AM   #1193
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 39,129
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was. Same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
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
Old 12th January 2018, 10:54 AM   #1194
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,253
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was. Same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was.
mmmm you could make a song out of that.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem 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
Old 12th January 2018, 12:01 PM   #1195
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,703
Hmmmm. Interestingly, Huang et al have now come up with a second possible interpretation for the low magnetic field regions. They have introduced the Hall effect into their simulations:

Quote:
The most important feature from the Hall MHD simulations is that there can be dayside magnetic reconnection, which can create weak magnetic field regions outside the global diamagnetic cavity. One of the most puzzling observations from the Rosetta Plasma Consortium (RPC) is that the magnetometer observed weak magnetic field at a distance much farther away than the predicted diamagnetic cavity. Goetz et al. (2016b,a) explained the weak magnetic field observations as K-H instabilities propagating along the cavity boundary and Huang et al. (2016b) explained them as short-lived enhanced electron pressure along magnetic field lines. The Hall MHD simulation may provide a third option, magnetic field reconnection on the dayside. Further investigation and data comparison is necessary, but at this point, we refer this to future studies.
Hall Effect in the coma of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Huang, Z. et al.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/advan...dFrom=fulltext (paywalled)
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 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
Old 12th January 2018, 12:26 PM   #1196
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,253
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Hmmmm. Interestingly, Huang et al have now come up with a second possible interpretation for the low magnetic field regions. They have introduced the Hall effect into their simulations:



Hall Effect in the coma of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Huang, Z. et al.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/advan...dFrom=fulltext (paywalled)
I have not seen anything of this study. But when I look at the last part of the abstract:

Originally Posted by Huang et al.
We conclude that the substantial change in the inner coma environment is due to the fact that the ion inertial length (or gyro radius) is not much smaller than the size of the diamagnetic cavity.
The bold actually means that using MHD cannot be done, and you have to go to a kinetic code.
Of course you work with the tools that you have, but because of high ion densities (and mass) and medium magnetic field strength means that the alfven speed is very low and thus reconnection should be very slow. A point that I make in my current sheet paper.
I will have to get the paper to see what they do, but these are the first things that come into my mind.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem 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
Old 12th January 2018, 05:49 PM   #1197
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,703
On a related note, Timar et al, in a recent paper, have taken the 1986 neutral drag model of T. E. Cravens, and input realistic outgassing and solar wind dynamic pressure data, and find that it matches the Goetz et al findings very well indeed.

Modelling the size of the very dynamic diamagnetic cavity of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko

Timar, A. et al (C. Goetz is a co-author)
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/artic...2/S723/4553522 (free access)
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin

Last edited by jonesdave116; 12th January 2018 at 05:51 PM.
jonesdave116 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
Old 13th January 2018, 05:35 AM   #1198
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,253
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
On a related note, Timar et al, in a recent paper, have taken the 1986 neutral drag model of T. E. Cravens, and input realistic outgassing and solar wind dynamic pressure data, and find that it matches the Goetz et al findings very well indeed.

Modelling the size of the very dynamic diamagnetic cavity of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko

Timar, A. et al (C. Goetz is a co-author)
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/artic...2/S723/4553522 (free access)
Also, it should not be forgotten that the "location of the DC" to which the measured location is compared is coming from the simulations by Koenders et al. And although these simulations are good, they are not perfect.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem 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
Old 13th January 2018, 05:23 PM   #1199
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,834
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
On a related note, Timar et al, in a recent paper, have taken the 1986 neutral drag model of T. E. Cravens, and input realistic outgassing and solar wind dynamic pressure data, and find that it matches the Goetz et al findings very well indeed.

Modelling the size of the very dynamic diamagnetic cavity of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko

Timar, A. et al (C. Goetz is a co-author)
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/artic...2/S723/4553522 (free access)

Mmmmmm.......couple new papers out.

Dynamic unmagnetized plasma in the diamagnetic cavity around comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko Rajkumar Hajra1, Pierre Henri1, Xavier Valli`eres1, Jerome Mor´e1, Nicolas Gilet1, Gaetan Wattieaux2, Charlotte Goetz3, Ingo Richter3, Bruce T. Tsurutani4, Herbert Gunell5,6, Hans Nilsson7, Anders I. Eriksson8, Zoltan Nemeth9, James L. Burch10, Martin Rubin11


Quote:
1 INTRODUCTION The diamagnetic cavity (magnetic field-free region) near the cometary nucleus is one of the most interesting features of the plasma environment of active comets. The cometary plasma from the active outgassing comet exerts pressure on the incoming solar wind. This mechanism leads to the formation of a near-nucleus solar wind cavity void of any E-mail: rhajra@cnrs-orleans.fr, rajkumarhajra@yahoo.co.in (RH) solar wind ions (e.g., Nilsson et al. 2017; Behar et al. 2017) and a diamagnetic cavity free from interplanetary magnetic f ields (e.g., Neubauer et al. 1986; Cravens 1987; Ip & Axford 1987)


Which magically introduces a “surprise’!

Quote:
What is the nature of these steepened unmagnetized plasma enhancement structures?
what is a steepened unmagnetized plasma enhancement structure, tusenfem?

Quote:
Transmission mechanism across the diamagnetic cavity boundary
You’d be interested in that one jonesdave116!

Pretty much well....electric comet!

We could wheel out as many papers for the electric comet as the dirtysnowball now

That’s science.
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]
Sol88 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
Old 13th January 2018, 06:02 PM   #1200
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,703
@Sol, why are you drawing attention to papers that directly contradict your electric comet lunacy? Very strange tactic. And no, you cannot wheel out any papers in favour of the EC woo, because none have been written.
Also, a link to the paper would be useful.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:08 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.