Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Reality Check · Jul 16, 2017

Sol88: Links to and quotes deluded and ignorant Thunderbolts lies

Sol88 said:
'Cause ol mate

17 July 2017 Sol88: Links to and quotes deluded and ignorant Thunderbolts lies about "evidence for electrical activity".
The link is to Franklin Anariba "my theoretical framework of electron-stripping" fantasy that has popped its ugly head up yet again!

17 July 2017 Sol88: His over 8 year old delusion that comets are rocks.
Still in denial of the real world fact of the measured density of comets, e.g. 67P, being less than that of water and many other physical facts about comets :eye-poppi

!

143 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 27 February 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 7 years!)

Deafening silence emphasizing the complete ignorance of science behind the comets are rocks delusion:
11 July 2017 Sol88: What did your comets are rocks delusion predict abut the observation of cold and warm electrons at 67P?
6 July 2017 Sol88: What does a rotating charged body do (so far a display of complete ignorance of basic electromagnetism!)?
7 July 2017 Sol88: What did your comets are rocks delusion predict about the impact of Rosetta on 67P?

Two 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 and Haig!).
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.

jonesdave116 · Jul 17, 2017

Sol88 said:
They sure do, they sure do!

Very much looking forward to the tail excursion paper

predicting some interesting findings in there I bet.

What are you predicting, Sol? Not cr*p like this, surely:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10359420&postcount=2441

From a certain person called David Talbott (zero scientific qualifications). Care to tell us how it gets better than this? Surely it can't get worse? Yep. Not gone well, has it? Perhaps dear old Dave can ......ohhhh no I'll get banned for calling out...blah, blah, blah.
Perhaps we could concentrate on the idiot Thornhill. Yes? Now, who came up with this crap about solar wind creating water (lol)? Who thought that up? Eh? Must have taken a genius, yes? Can you tell when I'm being sarcastic? Eh, Sol? Care to explain it to us? Perhaps the cretin Thornhill is reading, and would like to defend himself from accusations of being scientifically illiterate. Un-bloody-likely, I know.
So, Sol, given that this whole mission has been a complete kick in the ar*e for the EU cretins, what would you suggest next? See if Wal & Dave might not have been lying about asteroids? Carry on believing the rubbish because you have never been to college? I give up, seriously I do. Because there is no point in talking to people like you. You believe in fairytales, but you can't do science. Eh? How many years will it take of no results? Forever, eh, Sol? Sad.

Reality Check · Jul 17, 2017

jonesdave116 said:
What are you predicting, Sol? Not cr*p like this, surely:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10359420&postcount=2441

I had forgotten about that bunch of sometimes abysmal ignorance touted as predictions back in December 2014 by David Talbott.
For example, Rosetta was not equipped to find "stardust" :eye-poppi

! The Stardust mission needed the return of grains back to Earth where actual "stardust" was found.
His electric discharge fantasies failed.
The idiocy of "rocky debris" failed.

Reality Check · Jul 17, 2017

We have unthinking parroting again of an ignorant Franklin Anariba, so:
10 May 2017 Sol88: How Anariba is deluded about O₂ at 67P (dismisses 8 scientific mechanisms in a Thunderbolts web page).
10 May 2017 Sol88: Lies about Thunderbolts delusions explaining the O₂ observed on 67P.
18 March 2017 Sol88: We are saying that you and Dr Anariba have no idea what a bow shock in astrophysics is.
13 January 2017 Sol88: Ignorant about an ignorant or deluded electric universe supporter he has cited before :eye-poppi

!
8 January 2016 Sol88: That transcript implies that he has fallen for the cult dogma of comets being rocks because he ...
7 January 2016 Sol88: Dr. Franklin Anariba has zero published astrophysics papers or qualifications (the equivalent of relying on a plumber for medical advice!)

From tusenfem
13 January 2016: dranariba has zero knowledge about the sun, the solar wind and comets (as states Tusenfem, PhD, and mine is in plasma astrophysics)
16th November 2015: How interesting that Dr. F. Anariba only has papers on BiFeO3 and nano fibers and zilch about cometary physics.

Sol88 · Jul 17, 2017

4.3. Cold plasma filamentation The LAP probe current pulses presented in Section 3 were found to be due to localised plasma regions of high density and low electron temperature. Such density variations are not unexpected since they developed in the hybrid simulations for 67P at 1.3 AU by Koenders et al. (2015). Figure 6 of that study, which used spherically symmetric outgassing, shows a relatively consistently varying density in the innermost coma, out to some 30-50 km, where the expanding plasma breaks up into filaments or "spikes" of thickness less than 10 km, possibly down to the simulation grid resolution of 2.2 km.

My bold.

My PREDICTION those filaments or "spikes" will be found to be charged sheathed vortices!

Like little "dust devils" or "dust vortex"

There still flapping round in the dark on just why there is so much charge contained within those filaments or "spikes". Not a problem if the nucleus itself was "charged"!

Almost like it has a more negative charge with respect to the solar wind (charged particle stream)!

Tusenfem knows a little about magnetic flux ropes, I think.

If not Birkeland Currents: A Force-Free Field-Aligned Model or in a neat little video HERE

Will point you in the right direction.

Still up there with one of the best papers (Cold and warm electrons at comet 67P) yet on the finding from Rosetta and I bet Tusenfem tail excursion will be BETTER.

Sol88 · Jul 17, 2017

4.3. Cold plasma filamentation The LAP probe current pulses presented in Section 3 were found to be due to localised plasma regions of high density and low electron temperature. Such density variations are not unexpected since they developed in the hybrid simulations for 67P at 1.3 AU by Koenders et al. (2015). Figure 6 of that study, which used spherically symmetric outgassing, shows a relatively consistently varying density in the innermost coma, out to some 30-50 km, where the expanding plasma breaks up into filaments or "spikes" of thickness less than 10 km, possibly down to the simulation grid resolution of 2.2 km.

My bold.

My PREDICTION those filaments or "spikes" will be found to be charged sheathed vortices!

Like little "dust devils" or "dust vortex"

There still flapping round in the dark on just why there is so much charge contained within those filaments or "spikes". Not a problem if the nucleus itself was "charged"!

Almost like it has a more negative charge with respect to the solar wind (charged particle stream)!

Tusenfem knows a little about magnetic flux ropes, I think.

If not Birkeland Currents: A Force-Free Field-Aligned Model or in a neat little video HERE

Will point you in the right direction.

Still up there with one of the best papers (Cold and warm electrons at comet 67P) yet on the finding from Rosetta and I bet Tusenfem tail excursion will be BETTER.

Sol88 · Jul 17, 2017

jonesdave116 said:
What are you predicting, Sol? Not cr*p like this, surely:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10359420&postcount=2441

From a certain person called David Talbott (zero scientific qualifications). Care to tell us how it gets better than this? Surely it can't get worse? Yep. Not gone well, has it? Perhaps dear old Dave can ......ohhhh no I'll get banned for calling out...blah, blah, blah.
Perhaps we could concentrate on the idiot Thornhill. Yes? Now, who came up with this crap about solar wind creating water (lol)? Who thought that up? Eh? Must have taken a genius, yes? Can you tell when I'm being sarcastic? Eh, Sol? Care to explain it to us? Perhaps the cretin Thornhill is reading, and would like to defend himself from accusations of being scientifically illiterate. Un-bloody-likely, I know.
So, Sol, given that this whole mission has been a complete kick in the ar*e for the EU cretins, what would you suggest next? See if Wal & Dave might not have been lying about asteroids? Carry on believing the rubbish because you have never been to college? I give up, seriously I do. Because there is no point in talking to people like you. You believe in fairytales, but you can't do science. Eh? How many years will it take of no results? Forever, eh, Sol? Sad.

Talbott's, pretty much spot on...

• relationship of comet flaring to arrival of charged particles from solar outbursts

See CME impact on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

from the paper

We have observed how a CME impacts on comet 67P when the comet was at 1.41 au from the Sun (past perihelion). Rosetta was at this time on its inbound leg from the dayside excursion located at about 800 km from the nucleus. The plasma environment is significantly disturbed during the impact. The cold plasma density increases by as much as a factor of 10, to reach a maximum of 600 cm−3, the suprathermal electron flux (10–200 eV) increases by a factor of 5–10, and the background magnetic field increases by a factor of ∼2.5, from about 40 to 100 nT, while individual magnetic spikes reach above 200 nT.

sounds like a "flare" of the comet to me?

jonesdavid116, what say ye on Talbott's prediction?

Should we ask the scientific expert, Tusenfem?

Gentle tapping of nails into the dirtysnowydustyball of frozen icecream coffin.

Sol88 · Jul 17, 2017

Also another question a plasma physicist maybe able to answer is why call a Diocotron instability a Kelvin–Helmholtz instability when you are talking ONLY about plasma?

We suggest that these could possibly be formed by magnetic reconnection processes in the coma as the magnetic field across the CME changes polarity, or as a consequence of strong shears causing Kelvin–Helmholtz instabilities in the plasma flow.

Sol88 · Jul 17, 2017

• no ice at the source of jets, not even where the most energetic jets are active

So how is the mainstream coming along trying to explain the "jets"?

anything new?

or are YOU still relying on "cliffs collapsing'?

Reality Check · Jul 17, 2017

Sol88: A ignorant and deluded fanatsy about "charged sheathed vortices"

Sol88 said:
My bold.

Followed by
18 July 2017 Sol88: A ignorant and deluded delusion about "charged sheathed vortices"

Reality Check · Jul 17, 2017

Sol88: Abysmal ignorance about plasma, Birkeland currents and 67P

Sol88 said:
If not Birkeland Currents: A Force-Free Field-Aligned Model

18 July 2017 Sol88: Abysmal ignorance about plasma, Birkeland currents and 67P!
We expect plasma to form filaments.
Birkeland currents are caused by the solar wind encountering a strong planetary magnetic field and are hard to detect, e.g. the only known occurrence is around the Earth and we had to put a spacecraft inside them to measure the specific configuration that identifies them.

What makes this ignorance abysmal: 67P has no magnetic field :jaw-dropp

!

SelfSim · Jul 17, 2017

Reality Check said:
Sol88 said:

If not Birkeland Currents: A Force-Free Field-Aligned Model

Click to expand...

18 July 2017 Sol88: Abysmal ignorance about plasma, Birkeland currents and 67P!
We expect plasma to form filaments.
Birkeland currents are caused by the solar wind encountering a strong planetary magnetic field and are hard to detect, e.g. the only known occurrence is around the Earth and we had to put a spacecraft inside them to measure the specific configuration that identifies them.

What makes this ignorance abysmal: 67P has no magnetic field !

That paper by Donald Scott and his similar (pre-print?) one here, effectively demonstrates Scott's ignorance of the Physics of Birkeland Current fields!

The second paper was reviewed here. After reviewing the paper at length, (in Mozina's chosen realm), it was difficult to escape the conclusion that the bulk of the core technical content was entirely Lundquist's and not Scott's. In fact, Scott then went on to completely misinterpret the original fundamental physical definitions/models, resulting in his subsequent analysis going rapidly downhill thereon.

RC's above reference to 'abysmal ignorance', therefore, is not limited to mere 'EU enthusiasts'! (Ie: it clearly covers the popular EU 'theorist' (Scott) reference as well).

Reality Check · Jul 18, 2017

Sol88: Links to a lying video from the deluded Thunderbolts cult

Sol88 said:
or in a neat little video

18 July 2017 Sol88: Links to a lying and deluded video from the deluded Thunderbolts cult.

This is the ignorant Donald Scott of the Sun is basically a externally powered light bulb fantasy and delusions of neutron stars do not exist, magnetic reconnection does not exist, etc.
The web page starts with advertising a 2017 conference probably with the usual EU crackpots. Then the first lie :eye-poppi

!
Scientists have recognized the role of Birkeland currents in Earthly auroras and other atmospheric phenomena for many decades. In theory since Birkeland first proposed them over a century ago! They were ignored for some decades in favor of an alternative theory until Hannes Alfvén wrote about them. Birkeland currents were first detected in 1967 (60 years ago!) and have been studied since then.

"New Evidence for Cosmic Birkeland Currents" is lies and delusions. The video is an ad for the conference.
A lie of a unique signature of the currents being a "counter rotation" being visually verified with images of spiral galaxies in the background. The EU delusion of cosmic Birkeland currents powering galaxies.

Scott is honest about Birkeland currents being solar and planetary phenomena but then we get into what looks like crackpot science - his "model" of Birkeland currents as if 100 years of science did not exist! Asserts that they have a "totally unique" structure of a collection concentric cylinders that counter rotate.

Then comes his version of pareidolia. The counter rotating cloud banks at the north poles of Jupiter and Saturn become corroboration of Birkeland currents

!

Argument from ignorance. His inability to explain the weather patterns on Jupiter and Saturn does not mean that actual astronomers and planetary scientists cannot explain them.

He claims that Earth's auroras exhibit counter rotation but that is not support for Birkeland currents because they indirectly cause aurora by accelerating electrons.

An ignorant "why not no Saturn, Jupiter and the other planets" question. For a start because the solar wind is much weaker for Saturn, Jupiter, etc. (a thing called the inverse square law).

Repeats the "rotating cloud belts" delusion.

Next is a delusion about "strings of Birkeland currents" connecting galaxies.

A lie that counter rotating belts of stars would be strong evidence for Birkeland currents based on the ignorance of a retired electrical engineer (Scott)!

A flash of honesty - his "evidence" does not prove Birkeland currents cause the rotation of galaxies.
A flash of argument from ignorance - he cannot think of a reason for the rotation. It sounds like he is ignorant of the existence of scientific literature or unable to do literature research

!

EU fantasies and ignorance about hurricanes and some tornadoes here on Earth "may involve Birkeland currents".

Scott thinks that a probably crank web site about the "mysterious" (not!) ocean currents is a valid source of science. The very ignorant question of "what drives them". Maybe Scott needs to learn about Wikipedia, e.g.
ocean current and Gulf Stream

A "dynamos inside the Earth" fantasy for an explanation.

A delusion of driving by Birkeland currents.

Reality Check · Jul 18, 2017

Sol88: A lie about a prediction of a "comet flaring" being supported by no flaring

Sol88 said:
Talbott's, pretty much spot on...

18 July 2017 Sol88: A lie about Talbots prediction of a "comet flaring" being supported by no flaring!
A rational person reading CME impact on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

We have observed how a CME impacts on comet 67P when the comet was at 1.41 au from the Sun (past perihelion). Rosetta was at this time on its inbound leg from the dayside excursion located at about 800 km from the nucleus. The plasma environment is significantly disturbed during the impact. The cold plasma density increases by as much as a factor of 10, to reach a maximum of 600 cm−3, the suprathermal electron flux (10–200 eV) increases by a factor of 5–10, and the background magnetic field increases by a factor of ∼2.5, from about 40 to 100 nT, while individual magnetic spikes reach above 200 nT.

will read nothing about a "flare" from the comet. This is about the coma. Rosetta is about 800 km from the nucleus

!

Reality Check · Jul 18, 2017

Sol88: Another attempt to derail form his delusion that comets are rocks

Sol88 said:
Also another question a plasma physicist maybe able to answer is ...

18 July 2017 Sol88: Another attempt to derail form his delusion that comets are rocks.

Keep to the topic of the thread which is the EU and your persistent delusion that comets are rocks 8 years after you were told the physical facts about comets (density less than water!).

Reality Check · Jul 18, 2017

Sol88: Yet another attempt to derail form his delusion that comets are rocks

Sol88 said:
So how is the mainstream coming along trying to explain the "jets"?

18 July 2017 Sol88: Yet another attempt to derail form his delusion that comets are rocks.

Reality Check · Jul 18, 2017

Sol88: A lie about relying on "cliffs collapsing' for jets

Sol88 said:
or are YOU still relying on "cliffs collapsing'?

But I will continue to document when you lie about the mainstream working science on comets.
18 July 2017 Sol88: A lie about relying on "cliffs collapsing' for jets.

A single outburst of dust and gas which is not a jet was linked to a collapsing cliff: Collapsing cliff reveals comet’s interior

Rosetta scientists have made the first compelling link between an outburst of dust and gas and the collapse of a prominent cliff, which also exposed the pristine, icy interior of the comet.

Sudden and short-lived outbursts were observed frequently during Rosetta’s two-year mission at Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko. Although their exact trigger has been much debated, the outbursts seem to point back to the collapse of weak, eroded surfaces, with the sudden exposure and heating of volatile material likely playing a role.

tusenfem · Jul 18, 2017

Sol88 said:
Also another question a plasma physicist maybe able to answer is why call a Diocotron instability a Kelvin–Helmholtz instability when you are talking ONLY about plasma?

Because there is an extra necessary ingredient for the diocotron instability (not mentioned in this abysmal wiki page, but you could find it in Peratt's book), which is not there for the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability.

tusenfem · Jul 18, 2017

SelfSim said:
That paper by Donald Scott and his similar (pre-print?) one here, effectively demonstrates Scott's ignorance of the Physics of Birkeland Current fields!
The second paper was reviewed here. After reviewing the paper at length, (in Mozina's chosen realm), it was difficult to escape the conclusion that the bulk of the core technical content was entirely Lundquist's and not Scott's. In fact, Scott then went on to completely misinterpret the original fundamental physical definitions/models, resulting in his subsequent analysis going rapidly downhill thereon.

RC's above reference to 'abysmal ignorance', therefore, is not limited to mere 'EU enthusiasts'! (Ie: it clearly covers the popular EU 'theorist' (Scott) reference as well).

I think somewhere in this thread or another EU thread, this paper was discussed, and the some of the flaws were pointed out. (I am not going to search for it).
However, those kind of posts are "useless", because they don't stick in the minds of the EU proponents.

Sol88 · Jul 18, 2017

Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
What are you predicting, Sol? Not cr*p like this, surely:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2441

From a certain person called David Talbott (zero scientific qualifications). Care to tell us how it gets better than this? Surely it can't get worse? Yep. Not gone well, has it? Perhaps dear old Dave can ......ohhhh no I'll get banned for calling out...blah, blah, blah.
Perhaps we could concentrate on the idiot Thornhill. Yes? Now, who came up with this crap about solar wind creating water (lol)? Who thought that up? Eh? Must have taken a genius, yes? Can you tell when I'm being sarcastic? Eh, Sol? Care to explain it to us? Perhaps the cretin Thornhill is reading, and would like to defend himself from accusations of being scientifically illiterate. Un-bloody-likely, I know.
So, Sol, given that this whole mission has been a complete kick in the ar*e for the EU cretins, what would you suggest next? See if Wal & Dave might not have been lying about asteroids? Carry on believing the rubbish because you have never been to college? I give up, seriously I do. Because there is no point in talking to people like you. You believe in fairytales, but you can't do science. Eh? How many years will it take of no results? Forever, eh, Sol? Sad.
Talbott's, pretty much spot on...
Quote:
• relationship of comet flaring to arrival of charged particles from solar outbursts
See CME impact on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

from the paper
Quote:
We have observed how a CME impacts on comet 67P when the comet was at 1.41 au from the Sun (past perihelion). Rosetta was at this time on its inbound leg from the dayside excursion located at about 800 km from the nucleus. The plasma environment is significantly disturbed during the impact. The cold plasma density increases by as much as a factor of 10, to reach a maximum of 600 cm−3, the suprathermal electron flux (10–200 eV) increases by a factor of 5–10, and the background magnetic field increases by a factor of ∼2.5, from about 40 to 100 nT, while individual magnetic spikes reach above 200 nT.
sounds like a "flare" of the comet to me?

jonesdavid116, what say ye on Talbott's prediction?

Should we ask the scientific expert, Tusenfem?

Gentle tapping of nails into the dirtysnowydustyball of frozen icecream coffin.

So no word then...

Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Critical Thinker

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Illuminator

Philosopher

Share this page

ISF - Join now!