Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sol88: tusenfem said no to the futile task of educating a deluded person

Sol88 said:
Sorry JD116, Tusenfem says no to learning.
Click to expand...
A lie, Sol88.
30 January 2017 Sol88: tusenfem said no to the futile task of educating a person who is determined to persist with ignorance about science, fantasies and delusions about comets, e.g. that they are rocks.

For example:
 
Last edited:
hecd2 said:
Meanwhile, over at Blunderdolts, Mozina demonstrates that after several years of being corrected, he still thinks that the term 'magnetic flux' means a change in the field.
Click to expand...
As we can see from this thread, persisting in ignorance and denial of the real world is practically an entry requirement for being a Thunderbolts cult follower!

We have over 7 years of ignorance and denial from Sol88 about comets.
Mozina is worse with his "surface" of the Sun is an iron crust delusion that he has persisted in since at least 2006. He still thinks that the TRACE spacecraft images of a solar flare thousands of kilometers above the photosphere in a filter that only detects Fe IX ions at temperatures between 160,000 K and 2,000,000 K (173 A passband) magically becomes "iron mountain ranges" on the surface when turned into a running difference movie. A running difference movie is just subtracting the previous image from an image so that differences are emphasized. In this case we see the heating and cooling of plasma in the solar flare and a CME.
 
Reality Check said:
A lie, Sol88.
30 January 2017 Sol88: tusenfem said no to the futile task of educating a person who is determined to persist with ignorance about science, fantasies and delusions about comets, e.g. that they are rocks.

For example:
Click to expand...

Good on you RC, I think you finally got it!
 
tusenfem said:
Field aligned currents are currents flowing along the magnetic field.
Birkeland currents are a special class of field aligned currents which are flowing in the Earth's magnetosphere, e.g. during the formation of the substorm current wedge.
Flux ropes are twisted magnetic structures generated by various processes, either on the sun or in the solar wind or in the magnetotail ...
Click to expand...

But all REQUIRE the flow of electric charge, yeah?
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Mindlessly parroting Thunderbolts delusions? Magnetic fields alone do not generate electric currents as in your delusional EU world. It is changing magnetic fields that accelerate charges. The Scolahrbedia article does not even have the word current in it :eek:!

30 January 2017 Sol88: Delusion that a list of mostly unrelated things should be called Birkeland currents.
Magnetic flux ropes are not Birkeland currents.

30 January 2017 Sol88: A lie of Birkeland discovering "magnetic flux ropes, force free field aligned currents, "stringy things"" and even Birkeland currents :jaw-dropp!
Birkeland suggested that they existed around the Earth existed in his 1908 book.
Birkeland currents were not detected around the Earth until 1963 and recognized in 1967.
Click to expand...

Whoo boy! :blush:

Dear Reality Check, as long as your ok with
It is changing magnetic fields that accelerate charges.
Click to expand...
:cool:
 
Sol88: Acknowledges that he is persistently ignorant or deluded about comets, etc,

Sol88 said:
Good on you RC, I think you finally got it!
Click to expand...
30 January 2017 Sol88: Acknowledges that he is persistently ignorant or deluded about comets, etc. and cannot be taught about the real world :jaw-dropp.
30 January 2017 Sol88: tusenfem said no to the futile task of educating a person who is determined to persist with ignorance about science, fantasies and delusions about comets, e.g. that they are rocks.

That "finally" is a lie because I have known for many years that you have a delusion that comets are rocks, persist in ignorance about science and show no sign of being able to learn science, e.g. the relatively simple physics behind the measurement of comet densities.
 
Last edited:
86 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 30 January 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 7 years!)

  1. 30 January 2017 Sol88: tusenfem said no to the futile task of educating a person who is determined to persist with ignorance about science, fantasies and delusions about comets, e.g. that they are rocks.
  2. 30 January 2017 Sol88: Acknowledges that he is persistently ignorant or deluded about comets, etc. and cannot be taught about the real world (which everyone including me already knows from this thread) :p.

The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 7 years of delusions from Sol88 and Haig!).
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.
More than a year 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.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
I'll just leave this here, for any lurkers:

In particular, Alfvén waves appear to be responsible for certain kinds of auroras (Stasiewics et al.,2000; Keiling et al. 2003; Chaston et al. 2003, 2007; Janhunen et al., 2006), and recent observations (Chaston et al., 2009) indicate that they play an important role in magnetic reconnection.
Click to expand...

And then there is a brief section entitled 'Reconnection', just before 'Concluding Remarks'.
I'm guessing, by a certain person's definition, that Falthammar is therefore 'irrational' :)

The Earth’s Magnetosphere as a Key to the Plasma Universe
C-G Falthammar (2010)
http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:484042/FULLTEXT01.pdf
 
tusenfem said:
I am not going to answer this.
Click to expand...

I am not sure where Sol is going with this. If he likes, I could dig around to find the earliest references I can find to electric currents in the comae of comets. Or the modelling/ prediction thereof. One thing I am sure of; they will exist, and they will pre-date his Velikovskian cult's intellectually fraudulent pronouncements on comets.
 
Last edited:
SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) has 25 abstracts for 'electric currents in the coma of comets' (184 for 'electric currents comet').

Sol88 may be trying to mindlessly parrot Thunderbolts cult dogma as usual, e.g. that astronomers ignore electric currents in space or that papers mentioning electric currents are support for their delusions. Maybe there is an EU insanity of electric current = electric discharge?
 
Reality Check said:
SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) has 25 abstracts for 'electric currents in the coma of comets' (184 for 'electric currents comet').

Sol88 may be trying to mindlessly parrot Thunderbolts cult dogma as usual, e.g. that astronomers ignore electric currents in space or that papers mentioning electric currents are support for their delusions. Maybe there is an EU insanity of electric current = electric discharge?
Click to expand...

Quite. I didn't do much of a search, but did find one from 1986, which was a paper on the 1984/5 AMPTE artificial comet experiments. There was a current mentioned in that, formed at the cavity boundary:

Dynamics of the AMPTE artificial comet
Haerendel, G. et al (1986)
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...cial_comet/links/53da42980cf2631430c807cf.pdf

Of course, there is no 'actual' comet in the centre of this exploded cloud of lithium/ barium! Therefore, as the cloud of gas has not travelled in from the outer reaches of the solar system, it consequently cannot have been charged up by a non-existent radial electric field (why 'radial', by the way? The magnetic field is radial. I thought the electric field would not be parallel to that, but hey ho). So whatever current was measured is obviously not there because of any of Thornhill's unscientific woo.
 
Ahh, I should have done the obvious thing, and checked Tusenfem's paper, 'Currents in cometary comae'. Looking through the references in there takes us back to at least 1975, with:

The cometary magnetic field and its associated electric currents
Ip, W-H. & Mendis, D. A. (1975)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0019103575901153

Paywalled, but the title kind of tells you all you need to know. I daresay that this was not the first mention, but it obviously pre-dates any in-situ measurements at comets, artificial or otherwise.
 
Last edited:
jonesdave116 said:
I am not sure where Sol is going with this. If he likes, I could dig around to find the earliest references I can find to electric currents in the comae of comets. Or the modelling/ prediction thereof. One thing I am sure of; they will exist, and they will pre-date his Velikovskian cult's intellectually fraudulent pronouncements on comets.
Click to expand...


Going with it?

Just trying to get us all to read from the same page. I'm glad we now ALL agree there are electric currents involved and have moved away from
Each comet has a tiny frozen part, called a nucleus, often no larger than a few kilometers across. The nucleus contains icy chunks, frozen gases with bits of embedded dust. A comet warms up as it nears the Sun and develops an atmosphere, or coma. The sun's heat causes the comet's ices to change to gases so the coma gets larger. The coma may extend hundreds of thousands of kilometers. The pressure of sunlight and high-speed solar particles (solar wind) can blow the coma dust and gas away from the Ssun, sometimes forming a long, bright tail. Comets actually have two tails - a dust tail and an ion (gas) tail.
Click to expand...
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/comets/indepth


So that's a win!
 
Sol88 said:
So that's a win!
Click to expand...

Is it hell a 'win'!!! How on earth do you figure that, when I have just shown you, as did Tusenfem's paper, that we have known about currents at comets long before we ever damn well got to one! Who do you think did the modelling/ theorising on this? Thornhill? Over 40 years ago?
If you'd read a reasonable fraction of any number of papers on comets going back to Halley and Giacobini-Zinner, not to mention the AMPTE experiments, all over 30 years ago, you would have known this! And would therefore not be wasting people's time with gleeful links to papers mentioning currents, that we've damn well known about since Adam was a boy!

You don't need currents; you need rock, and you need discharges. And there ain't any. Then again, had you read a fair percentage of those papers I mentioned, you wouldn't have been expecting any. Neither would Wal. Assuming he would have understood them. Which is unlikely.
 
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/comets/indepth
Click to expand...

Christ, that is a very basic overview page for the layman! Yes, it's the type of place that Thornhill usually goes for his quote mining; however, I seriously doubt that he ever linked to that page - that top photo of Hartley 2, surrounded by an enormous cloud of solid ice particles wouldn't have done much for his credibility, not to mention his book sales!
 
Last edited:
Well, at least that NASA page is accurate, which is certainly not something one could accuse Thornhill of being, regarding his various inane pronouncements on comets.
For some time I have been compiling a wee treatise on this whole, sorry 'electric comet' nonsense. Unfortunately, it is turning into something of a magnum opus! Whether I will ever finish it, I don't know. However, just to redress the balance, here is a sneak preview of the first part:

First of all, let us deal with Thornhill’s bizarre claims about scientists misinterpreting OH for H2O. This is simply not true. It is difficult to believe that anybody who knows anything about the science behind infrared and sub-millimetre detections of water, and the detections that have been made at numerous comets, could possibly come to this conclusion. He was making this claim at least as late as 2010; “The negative ions combine with the positive hydrogen ions from the solar wind to give, amongst other things, the OH radical, which is then misinterpreted as signaling (sic) the presence of water ice on the comet.” [6].
The first unambiguous detection of H2O at a comet was made by the Kuiper Airborne Observatory in 1985, for comet 1P/Halley [7]. H2O was also detected by the Vega spacecraft in-situ at that comet [8]. Both of those observations were made in infrared. There is no possibility of confusing the water signal with an OH signal. Numerous other unambiguous detections followed between 1986 and 2010, when Thornhill wrote the sentence quoted above. A number of them were detected in sub-millimetre observations by the ODIN satellite. These detections are at ~557 GHz and, again, that is most definitely H2O, and cannot possibly be confused with OH [9].
Unambiguous ground detections of H2O were first made in 1995 for comet C/1991 T2 Shoemaker-Levy, in IR ‘hot bands’ [10].
So, the fact that Thornhill could deny that this was happening is testament either to his scientific ignorance, poor research skills, or a desire not to reveal these findings to his followers (i.e. lying). Take your pick; neither option looks good if you are an EU supporter.
Click to expand...

[6] http://www.holoscience.com/wp/deep-impact-2/

[7] Mumma, M. J. et al, 1986.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/232/4757/1523

[8] Coombes, M. et al, 1988
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...experiment/links/00b495314ec6341807000000.pdf

[9] Biver, N. et al, 2008
https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0610779.pdf

[10] Dello Russo, N. D. et al, 2002
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2001JE001838/full
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom