Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Came across the list of speakers for the EU2017 conference and it is a familiar collection of mostly deluded cranks lying about science.

See 14th July 2014 Haig: How can you believe in the competence of the EU proponents when the speakers at their 2014 conference was a collection of cranks, actual deluded people and some electrical engineers? that links to my analysis of those speakers in 2014 .
For EU2015: EU2015 will be yet another collection of mostly cranks

For the 2017 conference:
  1. Wallace Thornhill: shows that he has really gone off the deep end with gravity is electromagnetic :eye-poppi!
  2. David Talbot: the delusion that his fantasies about myths leads to science.
  3. Donald Scott: His fantasies about Birkeland currents.
  4. Jim Ryder: keynote speaker.
  5. Gerald Pollack: A biomedical engineer profoundly ignorant about the atmosphere, e.g. he does not know how clouds float!, talks about his "EZ water" delusion.
  6. Montgomery Childs : talking about the about 4 year old SAFIRE project that has only produced 1 paper.
  7. Ben Davidson: talking about his delusion of the Sun causing earthquakes making them predictable.
  8. Jacqueline Greenfield: More on the EZ Water delusion from a "Naturopathic and Oriental Medical Physician" :eek:!
  9. Garrett Hill: will advertise "a company and some of their research into coherent structures in rotating plasmas and self-assembly in electric fields" maybe (or not) with EU delusions mixed in.
  10. Eileen McKusick: will describe her crank "Biofield Anatomy Hypothesis".
  11. Andrew Hall: looks like the stupidity of electric discharges creating geography.
  12. Franklin Anariba: repeating his ignorance about comets and astrophysics.
  13. Jerry Tennant: a rather deluded surgeon which is worrying (memory stored in magnetic fields!) :eek:!
  14. Stephen Crothers: is obviously going to be deluded about the 3 detections of gravitational waves with an added bonus of a special relativity delusion :eye-poppi!
  15. Bill Mullen: a talk by a Velikovsky crank on Velikovsky.
  16. Irving Wolfe: a talk by a Velikovsky crank on Velikovsky.
  17. Andrew Fitts: a talk by a Velikovsky crank on Velikovsky.
  18. Peter ‘Mungo’ Jupp: will present a delusion that petrification is "instantaneous".
    Has an obviously deluded web site[/URL "Mankind has been repeatedly destroyed and reborn from time immemorial."!) with a blog that looks like incoherent ranting about basically unassociated events and myths.
    [*]Edwin Kaal: will present a deluded atomic "model", e.g."neutrons are redefined as a connection between protons and electrons".
    [*]Johnny Godowski: a talk by a Velikovsky crank on Velikovsky.
    [*]Peter Moddel: a talk on philosophy seemingly based on EU delusions.
    [*]C.J. Ransom: looks like the idiocy of surprising results in the past = the science will be shown to be wrong.
    [*]Ev Cochrane: will talk on the Venus was a comet fantasy and that Mars was named after the god Mars by the Latin believer in the god Mars - wow :eek:!
http://www.ancientdestructions.com/
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Came across the list of speakers for the EU2017 conference and it is a familiar collection of mostly deluded cranks ... {snip}..
Click to expand...
A gathering of cranks! Thanks RC, for taking the time (and effort) it must've taken to review that so-called 'conference'. There are some new names on that list I hadn't seen yet, and it always helps to expand one's crank detection horizons! :)

By the way, I notice there is now a TBolts ad-hom attack thread, for which the poster has been chastised for launching (in a TBolts kind of way). Beats me why the mods there didn't can it altogether(?) (The offender is also continuing his tirade at his usual abode).
 
Sol88 said:
The impact/electrical discharge will be into rock, not loosely consolidated ice and dust. The impact crater will be smaller than expected.

Tap tap...
Click to expand...

Great. So we have a starting point. Please show where any of the many instruments detected;
a) Rock
b) electrical discharges.

Not gone well, has it? In fact, it has been, as predicted, a complete failure. The idiot Thornhill thinks H+ from the solar wind will combine with (presumably) O-, or OH-to form water. Yes? Trust me, this does not work. Not in science, anyway. When are his scientifically illiterate acolytes going to figure this out? Not happening. Doesn't work. Eh? It is such a shame that such scientifically illiterate people with so much (seemingly) time on their hands, don't use it to tell us what will happen the next time Mars is in Uranus. You know - astrology? I'd love to know what happens next time Mars is in Uranus. This is stuff I need to know about. It might hurt. Fair warning, please.
 
The impact/electrical discharge will be into rock, not loosely consolidated ice and dust. The impact crater will be smaller than expected.
Click to expand...

Which was horribly wrong, yes? So, your point of bringing up the idiot Thornhill's failed prediction, is what? Exactly?
May I remind you that the impact threw up a bunch of SOLID ice? Which was detected? May I also remind you, that the idiot Thornhill failed to comment (due to lack of a relevant degree) on the Hartley/2 findings? What a tosser. Want a picture?

snowstorm_strip.jpg


Now, what did the scientifically illiterate Aussie burke have to say about this? Zip, far as I can see. Know why? Because he is scientifically illiterate. Anybody disagree? No, thought not.
 
Last edited:
Came across the list of speakers for the EU2017 conference and it is a familiar collection of mostly deluded cranks lying about science.
Click to expand...

Christ. Now there is a meeting between the clueless and the mythologists (same thing). Deary me. And they wonder why nobody takes them seriously!
 
Sol88 said:
You have much to learn young padiwan!
Click to expand...

And you are, by your own admission, scientifically illiterate. Yes? How many times do you need to get owned by the likes of Tim Thompson, MV, RC, et al, before you realise that you are out of your depth? Give up. Your stupid electric comet nonsense was predictably wrong. EU is predictably wrong. Go do something useful. Write astrology columns for a WA newspaper, yes? As close to science as you are likely to get, woo boy.
 
jonesdave116 said:
And they wonder why nobody takes them seriously!
Click to expand...
The increase of ignorance and delusion in these conferences is another reason that that nobody takes EU seriously.
Last year Thornhill was just a deluded Velikovsky follower with documented lying about the Deep Impact mission. Now Thornhill shows even more delusion by presenting a 1946 Velikovsky monograph "Cosmos Without Gravitation" and idiotic statements such as "Goodbye big bang and the mathematical nonsense masquerading as modern science"!
The last time Crothers was at an EU conference, he was had the delusion that black holes could not be predicted by GR. Now Crothers is even deluded into thinking that SR is wrong.
Scott used to just have an absolutely ignorant idea that the Sun was powered by currents from space. Now he seems deluded about Birkeland currents, his "model" for them, and is lying about new evidence for them in space (18 July 2017 Sol88: Links to a lying and deluded video from the deluded Thunderbolts cult.).

P.S. A lie about Thornhill at that list of speakers:
He has spoken at numerous international conferences and authored or co-authored papers ranging from the Martian “blueberry” phenomenon to the “plasma focus” at the centers of galaxies.
Click to expand...
No sign of that range :eek:!
There are 2 obscure Thornhill "papers" in a 2007 IEEE special issue which has valid science but also fantasies, e.g. petroglyphs with evidence of "high-current Z-pinches". SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) gives those 2 papers with Thornhill, W as an author (as well as what looks like an another Thornhill, W working on actual Z-pinches).

ETA: Here is that 1946 Velikovsky monograph "Cosmos Without Gravitation". Basically a list of his ignorance, cherry pickling outdated quotes, expressions of incredibility, e.g. clouds cannot exist!
 
Last edited:
Well, RC, as Tim Thompson said years ago, Thornhill has a BSc degree. In physics, allegedly. Whooppee. I might have a couple myself. He does not have a PhD. He is a Velikovskian. Self confessed. Nobody, surprisingly, is taking the slightest bit of notice of what he, or his loony followers, are saying. Why they keep on with this charade is beyond me. Every time they are challenged about putting something in the literature, it is always "just around the corner." Has been for a couple of decades. I simply do not understand their mentality. Do they honestly think anybody is taking a blind bit of notice? Of course not.
We have seen Scott misidentifying a planetary nebula as a Z-pinch! He wrote on his woo site that "positive ions are expelled by the Sun" (or words to that effect). It seems he was unaware of the electrons; and when that was pointed out, Juergens garbage has turned into even more garbage, as they tried to rescue it from a morass of ignorance. It is beyond a joke. At the end of the day, if you believe in Velikovsky, you are not doing science. Eh, Wal? Eh, Don? Eh, Dave? Waste of space, the lot of them. Irrelevant.
 
Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity
on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

In summary, within the framework of the widely used thermophysical
models that account for the relevant physics, dust removal
by a gas-lifting force is not possible. Even a super-volatile
ice (i.e., CO) situated close to the surface (strongly unphysical
assumption) cannot remove dust grains even for perihelion-like
flux conditions, except for a very narrow range of conditions
(Fig. 3). A way out of the impasse requires focusing on a revised
common model assumption listed at the beginning of this
section. It is evident that models in which the cohesion is ignored
do not provide a consistent physical picture of the real dust activity
on comets.
Click to expand...
 
Sol88: The delusion that comets are rocks is not supported by a delusion on a paper

Sol88 said:
Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity
on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Click to expand...
27 July 2017 Sol88: The delusion that comets are rocks is not supported by the delusion that a paper is about comets being rocks.

The question asked in the paper is whether an assumption of cohesionless dust in previous models of near-surface ice driving dust activity is correct. Specifically they model an ice layer covered by a dust layer with cohesion between the grains and find that the model does not produce lifting of dust.

Any knowledgeable or rational person will know that a rock layer cannot drive any lifting of dust maybe even with the addition of idiocy such as an undetected electric field:eek:!

Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko by Skorov, Rezac, Hartogh and Keller.
Abstract

Context. Mainly for historical reasons, nearly all of the current thermophysical models of dust activity rely on the poorly justified assumption of cohesionless dust lifted by a gas drag force against the weak nucleus gravity. The interpretation of Rosetta data and our understanding of comet activity is particularly sensitive to this assumption.

Aims. We investigate the role that cohesion forces among the dust grains play in the evolution of temperature and pressure at the ice-dust interface and the resulting dust activity (lifting).

Methods. We used a 1D thermophysical numerical model that provides a realistic description of cohesion forces among dust aggregates. Several conditions of solar illumination on the nucleus are investigated for the H2O, CO, and CO2 ices below the dust layer. We examine a wide range of dust grain sizes.

Results. The simulations confirm an increase in temperature and pressure at the ice boundary between the two model layers with respect to exposed pure ice. Furthermore, we show that a non-monotonic behavior of temperature and pressure versus layer thickness is expected at the ice-dust interface for fine aggregates (of sizes ≤30 μm), but not for the larger grains. The ratio of vapor pressure to the physically determined tensile strength for various agglomerate sizes and layer thicknesses provides further evidence that the gas drag is not sufficient to remove dust grains of sizes <1 mm, which is a result of taking cohesion forces among the particles into account.

Conclusions. In the framework of the presented model, which can be considered common in terms of assumptions and physical parameters in the cometary community, the dust removal by a gas drag force is not a plausible physical mechanism. The sublimation of not only water ice, but also of super-volatile ice (i.e., CO) is unable to remove dust grains for illumination conditions corresponding to 1.3 AU. A way out of this impasse requires revision of the most common model assumption employed by the cometary community.
Click to expand...
That gas-driven dust activity in comets is not solved fully yet seems to be a well known issue. There is at least one paper that resolves the issue for larger grains on 67P:
What drives the dust activity of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko? by B. Gundlach, J. Blum, H. U. Keller, Y. V. Skorov (June 2015)
Conclusions. Our model can explain the large grains (ranging from 2 cm to 1 m in radius) in the inner coma of comet67P/ChuryumovGerasimenko that have been observed by the OSIRIS camera at heliocentric distances between 3.4AU and 3.7AU. Furthermore, the model predicts the release of decimeter-sized aggregates (trail particles) close to the heliocentric distance at which the gas-driven dust activity vanishes. However, the gas-driven dust activity cannot explain the presence of particles smaller than ∼ 1mm in the coma because the high tensile strength required to detach these particles from the surface cannot be provided by evaporation of volatile ices. These smaller particles can be produced for instance by spin-up and centrifugal mass loss of ejected larger aggregates.
Click to expand...
The model here is that the surface of comets initially consist of a mixture of ices and dust. Sublimation when comets get close to the Sun form a layer of weakly cohesive dust on the nucleus surface.
 
Last edited:
Yep. Do I need to link Talbott's list of failed predictions? Again? Now, tell us Sol, how is H2O being created? Just once more, for s____ and giggles! Do you, personally, believe that is possible? How many times do we need to show that T & T are scientifically illiterate? Hardly surprising, is it? Neither of them are relevantly qualified, eh? Now, let's go through it again; how is H2O created? Lol. What was all the white stuff around Hartley 2? What did the idiot Thornhill have to say about it? Strangely, nothing. Pretty much gave up on posting about comets after that, didn't the old con artist? Wonder why that was? Guess.
 
We also have Thornhill's now 12 year old (:eek:) web page with lies about confirmed Deep Impact predictions!
Apparently no one in the Thunderbolts cult is able to comprehend English, e.g. the meanings of the words "before" and "after" which make the flashes prediction into a lie! More likely they are so afraid of T & T that they will not suggest that the lies be removed in case they are booted out of the cult.

The lies, failures and successes "successes" of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions
 
jonesdave116 said:
Yep. Do I need to link Talbott's list of failed predictions? Again? Now, tell us Sol, how is H2O being created? Just once more, for s____ and giggles! Do you, personally, believe that is possible? How many times do we need to show that T & T are scientifically illiterate? Hardly surprising, is it? Neither of them are relevantly qualified, eh? Now, let's go through it again; how is H2O created? Lol. What was all the white stuff around Hartley 2? What did the idiot Thornhill have to say about it? Strangely, nothing. Pretty much gave up on posting about comets after that, didn't the old con artist? Wonder why that was? Guess.
Click to expand...

Everything ok JD116?
 
Reality Check said:
27 July 2017 Sol88: The delusion that comets are rocks is not supported by the delusion that a paper is about comets being rocks.

The question asked in the paper is whether an assumption of cohesionless dust in previous models of near-surface ice driving dust activity is correct. Specifically they model an ice layer covered by a dust layer with cohesion between the grains and find that the model does not produce lifting of dust.

Any knowledgeable or rational person will know that a rock layer cannot drive any lifting of dust maybe even with the addition of idiocy such as an undetected electric field:eek:!

Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko by Skorov, Rezac, Hartogh and Keller.

That gas-driven dust activity in comets is not solved fully yet seems to be a well known issue. There is at least one paper that resolves the issue for larger grains on 67P:
What drives the dust activity of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko? by B. Gundlach, J. Blum, H. U. Keller, Y. V. Skorov (June 2015)

The model here is that the surface of comets initially consist of a mixture of ices and dust. Sublimation when comets get close to the Sun form a layer of weakly cohesive dust on the nucleus surface.
Click to expand...

What else could be removing dust I hear you say RC? Well....Electrostatic forces on grains near asteroids and comets
Abstract. Dust on and near the surface of small planetary bodies (e.g. asteroids, the Moon, Mars’ moons) is subject to gravity, cohesion and electrostatic forces. Due to the very low gravity on small bodies, the behavior of small dust grains is driven by non-gravitational forces. Recent work by Scheeres et al. has shown that cohesion, specifically van der Waals force, is significant for grains on asteroids. In addition to van der Waals cohesion, dust grains also experience electrostatic forces, arising from their interaction with each other (through tribocharging) and the solar wind plasma (which produces both grain charging and an external electric field). Electrostatic forces influence both the interactions of grains on the surface of small bodies as well as the dynamics of grains in the plasma sheath above the surface. While tribocharging between identical dielectric grains remains poorly understood, we have recently expanded an existing charge transfer model to consider continuous size distributions of grains and are planning an experiment to test the charge predictions produced. Additionally, we will present predictions of the size of dust grains that are capable of detaching from the surface of small bodies.
Click to expand...

Hey maybe, just maybe...:confused:
 
Yep. Do I need to link Talbott's list of failed predictions? Again? Now, tell us Sol, how is H2O being created? Just once more, for s____ and giggles! Do you, personally, believe that is possible? How many times do we need to show that T & T are scientifically illiterate? Hardly surprising, is it? Neither of them are relevantly qualified, eh? Now, let's go through it again; how is H2O created? Lol. What was all the white stuff around Hartley 2? What did the idiot Thornhill have to say about it? Strangely, nothing. Pretty much gave up on posting about comets after that, didn't the old con artist? Wonder why that was? Guess.
 
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