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
 


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 29th April 2019, 02:32 PM   #3401
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,845
Thumbs down Irrelevant to the insanity in the electric comet theory

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Implications you may ask? For who’s model, mainstream or electric comet?
As he has been told hundreds of times: Mainstream comets are irrelevant to the insanity in the electric comet theory.

An utterly lying question because
  1. A mainstream ices and dust comets paper is about the implications for the mainstream.
  2. A set of insane fantasies is not a model (electric comet).
  3. Few astronomers know about these insane fantasies spewed by a "cult" with prophets, holy books and religious followers .
  4. Those few astronomers know that the electric comet is insane, e.g. 70 years of evidence that comets are not rock including non-rocky planet dust samples returned in Stardust !
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 29th April 2019, 02:35 PM   #3402
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,845
Thumbs down Irrelevant to the insanity in the electric comet theory

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Don’t know why jonesdave116 ...
As he has been told hundreds of times: Mainstream comets are irrelevant to the insanity in the electric comet theory.

The mainstream comet model does not need defending. Any knowledgeable, rational person can understand the 70 years of evidence that comets are made of ices and dust.

What needs defending, is not being defended and is having its insanity emphasized with every post from Sol88 is the insanity in the electric comet theory !
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 29th April 2019, 02:38 PM   #3403
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,845
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
... electric comet hypothesis becoming the new and surprising mainstream model of comets...
The set of insane fantasies that is the insanity in the electric comet theory has no physics or math. Not one of its deluded authors has even attempted to create a model in the last 45 years !
The electric comet will never become mainstream because it is insanely deluded about real comets.
The electric comet will never become mainstream because its authors are too cowardly/incompetent/deluded/whatever to publish it in mainstream journals.

Last edited by Reality Check; 29th April 2019 at 02:41 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 29th April 2019, 02:47 PM   #3404
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,845
Thumbs down Irrelevant to the insanity in the electric comet theory

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
This in course would have to question the nebula collapse theory, one would wonder, which of in course entails the Sun being a thermonuclear bomb about half way through its rather unremarkable life.
As he has been told hundreds of times: Mainstream comets are irrelevant to the insanity in the electric comet theory.

As he has been told many times: Mainstream stellar system formation is irrelevant to the insanity in the electric comet theory.

As he has been told many times: Mainstream solar physics is irrelevant to the insanity in the electric comet theory.
Relevant to the SAFIRE insanity in addition to his electric comet insanity which is the just as external powered Sun that a 1st year astronomy student knows turns the Sun into a white dwarf !
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 29th April 2019, 02:51 PM   #3405
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,845
Thumbs down Irrelevant to the insanity in the electric comet theory

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
DeepImpact:ExcavatingCometTempel1
As he has been told hundreds of times: Mainstream comets are irrelevant to the insanity in the electric comet theory.

Sol88 once again emphasizes the insanity of the electric comet which is that comets are at least partly terrestrial rock insanely blasted from the Earth and other rocky planets in insane electrical discharges between planets, the insanity of jets being electrical discharges, insane EDM cleaning comet surfaces so that even more insanely they are clean (none of the detected dust!).
As he has been told hundreds of times: Deep Impact excavated water ices and dust from Tempel 1.
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 29th April 2019, 02:54 PM   #3406
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,845
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Are you sure you want to hang your hat on this paper?
Lies about jonesdave116's post which was about the insanity in the electric comet theory and the evidence for ices on comets.
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
There is no electric comet 'model'. Just a bunch of failed junk on a woo site. Supported only by scientifically illiterate wooists. No science, no mechanisms. No evidence.
And there is plenty of evidence for ice. You continually refuse to address it, as it contradicts your religious beliefs.
As he has been told hundreds of times: This and other papers are about ices on Tempel 1 and 67P and other comets !

Last edited by Reality Check; 29th April 2019 at 03:10 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 29th April 2019, 03:17 PM   #3407
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,845
Thumbs down Irrelevant to the insanity in the electric comet theory

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
We now have sufficient data that makes this presumption totally incorrect.
Lies about the paper he cites and quotes.

Deep Impact: Excavating Comet Tempel 1 14 Oct 2005
Quote:
Abstract
Deep Impact collided with comet Tempel 1, excavating a crater controlled by gravity. The comet's outer layer is composed of 1- to 100-micrometer fine particles with negligible strength (<65 pascals). Local gravitational field and average nucleus density (600 kilograms per cubic meter) are estimated from ejecta fallback. Initial ejecta were hot (>1000 kelvins). A large increase in organic material occurred during and after the event, with smaller changes in carbon dioxide relative to water. On approach, the spacecraft observed frequent natural outbursts, a mean radius of 3.0 ± 0.1 kilometers, smooth and rough terrain, scarps, and impact craters. A thermal map indicates a surface in equilibrium with sunlight.
...
Because the nucleus also has little thermal inertia, this activity must be driven by material that is near the surface. We suspect that such activity maybe common on other comets, but there are not sufficient data for any other comets to confirm this presumption
This is a paper that makes the authors of the electric comet insanity into liars. He does not cite any later papers saying the presumption is wrong, e.g. the literature on 67P.

Last edited by Reality Check; 29th April 2019 at 03:18 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 29th April 2019, 03:22 PM   #3408
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,845
Thumbs down Irrelevant to the insanity in the electric comet theory

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Stop moving the goal posts and you’ll see your ice is all assumptions, as they thought comets were composed mostly of ice...
A lie of moving the goalposts as the subject of this thread is "The Electric Comet Theory Part IV/SAFIRE". Both are obviously insane and indefensible, thus he moves the goalposts to irrelevant and dumb attacks on the mainstream.

A lie as he has been told maybe hundreds of times that ices have been detected on comets. On Tempel 1 as in this paper he cited. On 67P as in the 67P papers he has cited.

As he has been told hundreds of times: Mainstream comets and lies about them emphasizes the insanity in the electric comet theory.

Last edited by Reality Check; 29th April 2019 at 03:24 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 29th April 2019, 03:26 PM   #3409
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,845
Thumbs down Irrelevant to the insanity in the electric comet theory

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Overtime, and from this paper the PI’s understanding had been EVOLVING toward mostly rock.
The evidence of an obvious lie and insult about Michael A'Hearn who was an astronomer who wrote 377 papers about ices and dust comets and 8 about comets and "rock".

No rational, knowledgeable person such as astronomers believes in the insanity in the electric comet theory which is that comets are at least partly terrestrial rock insanely blasted from the Earth and other rocky planets in insane electrical discharges between planets, the insanity of jets being electrical discharges, insane EDM cleaning comet surfaces so that even more insanely they are clean (none of the detected dust!).

Last edited by Reality Check; 29th April 2019 at 03:28 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 29th April 2019, 03:36 PM   #3410
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,845
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Poor old Sol is well beyond his pay grade with this stuff. He wants a putative ambipolar field to explain all sorts of EC woo.
Another basic fact that Sol88 has not been able to understand for months if not years is that the ambipolar electric field will only exist inside a comet coma !
An ice grain or a dust grain on the surface of a comet nucleus should not be affected because the coma does not get to the surface. There are plenty of papers about what the ambipolar electric field does inside comet coma.

Each delusion stated about the ambipolar electric field is a lie about the insanity of the electric comet theory which is that comets are at least partly terrestrial rock insanely blasted from the Earth and other rocky planets in insane electrical discharges between planets, the insanity of jets being electrical discharges, insane EDM cleaning comet surfaces so that even more insanely they are clean (none of the detected dust!) and a solar electric field powering all of those insane discharges.
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 29th April 2019, 07:53 PM   #3411
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,580
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Ummmm....
Quote:
In summary, the simplistic model of dust production resulting from gas drag overcoming gravity is no longer tenable. However, the dominant mechanism is still unclear. While activity from “cliffs” has been observed by Rosetta (Vincent et al. 2016a;Pajolaetal.2017b), it remains difficult to prove that it dominates the emission.

So how is your "ice" getting there?

Its not sublimation.

End of your "ice" fantasy champ!

in fact,
Quote:
ot a ripper for you to put me out of my misery, as the only ELECTRIC COMET proponent here.

Quote:
Quote:
However, this assumption is surprisingly simple to challenge.
So let’s challenge it, ay?

Quote:
Quote:
In summary, the simplistic model of dust production resulting from gas drag overcoming gravity is no longer tenable. However, the dominant mechanism is still unclear. While activity from “cliffs” has been observed by Rosetta (Vincent et al. 2016a;Pajolaetal.2017b), it remains difficult to prove that it dominates the emission. The relationship of the uppermost (optically visible) surface to icy material just below the surface and the means of releasing the dust component remains a subject of speculation. Outburst phenomena are of interest as a means of lifting large chunks of material but it appears proven that the outbursts observed and quantified at 67P/C-G do not dominate the total visible particle emission of the comet. The exact mechanism is unknown and multiple mechanisms cannot be ruled out.
Cometary Dust



NO LONGER TENABLE, so why are you still here jonesdave116?

(tenable
/ˈtɛnəb(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: tenable

1.
able to be maintained or defended against attack or objection.
"such a simplistic approach is no longer tenable"
synonyms: defensible, justifiable, defendable, supportable, sustainable, maintainable, arguable, able to hold water, reasonable, rational, sound, viable, workable, plausible, credible, believable, conceivable, acceptable, imaginable
"this politically convenient view is no longer tenable")
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator

Last edited by Sol88; 29th April 2019 at 08:17 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 29th April 2019, 08:13 PM   #3412
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,580
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Poor old Sol is well beyond his pay grade with this stuff. He wants a putative ambipolar field to explain all sorts of EC woo. Including his rather deranged continued claims of charged dust. However, the field, if it exists, is pointing the wrong way to accelerate negatively charged dust. He has been asked umpteen times to explain this, and can't. We are left with lying and strawmen. Thread should be put out of its misery.
Your still thinking electrostatics 'ol mate.

How does a Birkeland current/current sheets keep - and + separate?

for a plasma ignoramus such as a few posters here, it's a difficult concept to get your head around.
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 29th April 2019, 09:23 PM   #3413
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,845
Thumbs down Irrelevant to the insanity in the electric comet theory

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Ummmm....
As he has been told hundreds of times: Mainstream comets and his lies about them emphasizes the insanity in the electric comet theory.

Last edited by Reality Check; 29th April 2019 at 09:24 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 29th April 2019, 09:25 PM   #3414
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,845
Thumbs down Irrelevant to the insanity in the electric comet theory

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So how is your "ice" getting there
As he has been told hundreds of times: Mainstream comets and his lies about them emphasizes the insanity in the electric comet theory.

We have found ices in comets.
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 29th April 2019, 09:26 PM   #3415
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,845
Thumbs down Irrelevant to the insanity in the electric comet theory

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Its not sublimation.
As he has been told hundreds of times: Mainstream comets and his lies about them emphasizes the insanity in the electric comet theory.

The mainstream is ices sublimating.
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 29th April 2019, 09:27 PM   #3416
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,845
Thumbs down Irrelevant to the insanity in the electric comet theory

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
End of your "ice" fantasy champ!
As he has been told hundreds of times: Mainstream comets and his lies about them emphasizes the insanity in the electric comet theory.

70 years of physical evidence for ices is not a fantasy.
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 29th April 2019, 09:28 PM   #3417
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,845
Thumbs down Irrelevant to the insanity in the electric comet theory

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
in fact,...
As he has been told hundreds of times: Mainstream comets and his lies about them emphasizes the insanity in the electric comet theory.

Mainstream papers that state comets have sublimating ices !
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 29th April 2019, 09:32 PM   #3418
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,845
Thumbs down Irrelevant to the insanity in the electric comet theory

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
NO LONGER TENABLE,
As he has been told hundreds of times: Mainstream comets and his lies about them emphasizes the insanity in the electric comet theory.

This is not his lie of sublimating ices being untenable: In summary, the simplistic model of dust production resulting from gas drag overcoming gravity is no longer tenable.

Cometary Dust is a mainstream ices and dust comet paper.
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 29th April 2019, 09:36 PM   #3419
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,845
Thumbs down Irrelevant to the insanity in the electric comet theory

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Your still thinking electrostatics 'ol mate.
As he has been told many times: Delusions about physics emphasizes the insanity in the electric comet theory.

This is jonesdave116 listing a couple of the deluded claims.
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Poor old Sol is well beyond his pay grade with this stuff. He wants a putative ambipolar field to explain all sorts of EC woo. Including his rather deranged continued claims of charged dust. However, the field, if it exists, is pointing the wrong way to accelerate negatively charged dust. He has been asked umpteen times to explain this, and can't. We are left with lying and strawmen. Thread should be put out of its misery.
Sol88 is lying about the insanity in the electric comet theory which does not include the ambipolar electric field. Ignorant delusions about what the ambipolar electric field inside a comet coma does are irrelevant to the insanity in the electric comet theory.
Ignorant delusions about what charged dust inside a comet coma does are irrelevant to the insanity in the electric comet theory.

As a totally irrelevant aside, I suspect that the ambipolar electric field will be always changing direction. The comet coma is turbulent both physically and magnetically. It may be that on average it has no net acceleration on negatively charged dust and ice grains (the usual lie by omission).
Cold electrons at comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko suggests that the ambipolar electric field acts as a damper for electrons
Quote:
We suggest that the ambipolar electric field keeps electrons in the inner coma for a much longer time, giving them time to dissipate energy by collisions with the neutrals.
Suprathermal electrons near the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov‐Gerasimenko at 3 AU: Model comparisons with Rosetta data
Quote:
Not surprisingly, electrons, from either the coma gas or surface, must be partially confined to the vicinity of the nucleus by an ambipolar electric field as described by the generalized Ohm's law.

Last edited by Reality Check; 29th April 2019 at 10:05 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 29th April 2019, 09:41 PM   #3420
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,845
Thumbs down Irrelevant to the insanity in the electric comet theory

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
How does a Birkeland current/current sheets keep - and + separate?
As he has been told many times: Delusions and 45 years of abysmal ignorance about physics emphasizes the insanity in the electric comet theory.

Birkeland currents do not happen at comets and are not part of the electric comet insanity which is that comets are at least partly terrestrial rock insanely blasted from the Earth and other rocky planets in insane electrical discharges between planets, the insanity of jets being electrical discharges, insane EDM cleaning comet surfaces so that even more insanely they are clean (none of the detected dust!) and a solar electric field powering all of those insane discharges.

The authors of the electric comet are so insanely obsessed with Birkeland currents that they see them everywhere inkling physically impossible places. From memory, they have the insane idea that they can see then in comet tails.

Last edited by Reality Check; 29th April 2019 at 09:51 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 29th April 2019, 09:47 PM   #3421
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,845
Thumbs down Irrelevant to the insanity in the electric comet theory

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
for a plasma ignoramus such as a few posters here, it's a difficult concept to get your head around.
As he has been told many times: Delusions and 45 years of abysmal ignorance about physics emphasizes the insanity in the electric comet theory.

The only "plasma ignoramus" is him since he has not understood any plasma physics that has been explained to him many times in this thread. He cannot even understand the English in Birkeland current:
Quote:
A Birkeland current is a set of currents that flow along geomagnetic field lines connecting the Earth’s magnetosphere to the Earth's high latitude ionosphere.
Birkeland currents have only been detected around the Earth and needed a probe inserted into them !

'Birkeland current comet' has 8 abstracts indirectly referencing comets, e.g. "Mid-latitude Jovian aurora produced by the impact of comet Shoemaker-Levy-9".

Last edited by Reality Check; 29th April 2019 at 09:51 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 29th April 2019, 10:22 PM   #3422
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,580
So Reality Check.

Check mate...
Quote:
In summary, the simplistic model of dust production resulting from gas drag overcoming gravity is no longer tenable. However, the dominant mechanism is still unclear. While activity from “cliffs” has been observed by Rosetta (Vincent et al. 2016a;Pajolaetal.2017b), it remains difficult to prove that it dominates the emission. The relationship of the uppermost (optically visible) surface to icy material just below the surface and the means of releasing the dust component remains a subject of speculation. Outburst phenomena are of interest as a means of lifting large chunks of material but it appears proven that the outbursts observed and quantified at 67P/C-G do not dominate the total visible particle emission of the comet. The exact mechanism is unknown and multiple mechanisms cannot be ruled out.
How is the dust released form the surface?

Sublimation is no longer tenable and this is from a MAINSTREAM ICES AND DUST PAPER!

Whipple's assumptions have proven to be wrong.
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 29th April 2019, 10:23 PM   #3423
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,580
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
As he has been told many times: Delusions and 45 years of abysmal ignorance about physics emphasizes the insanity in the electric comet theory.

The only "plasma ignoramus" is him since he has not understood any plasma physics that has been explained to him many times in this thread. He cannot even understand the English in Birkeland current:

Birkeland currents have only been detected around the Earth and needed a probe inserted into them !

'Birkeland current comet' has 8 abstracts indirectly referencing comets, e.g. "Mid-latitude Jovian aurora produced by the impact of comet Shoemaker-Levy-9".
Birkeland currents and comets, cheers RC!
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 29th April 2019, 10:25 PM   #3424
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,580
Whats the difference between flux ropes, flux tubes, fields aligned currents, force free currents and Birkeland currents?

Point form would be acceptable.
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 30th April 2019, 01:24 AM   #3425
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,580
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
As he has been told many times: Delusions about physics emphasizes the insanity in the electric comet theory.

This is jonesdave116 listing a couple of the deluded claims.


Sol88 is lying about the insanity in the electric comet theory which does not include the ambipolar electric field. Ignorant delusions about what the ambipolar electric field inside a comet coma does are irrelevant to the insanity in the electric comet theory.
Ignorant delusions about what charged dust inside a comet coma does are irrelevant to the insanity in the electric comet theory.

As a totally irrelevant aside, I suspect that the ambipolar electric field will be always changing direction. The comet coma is turbulent both physically and magnetically. It may be that on average it has no net acceleration on negatively charged dust and ice grains (the usual lie by omission).
Cold electrons at comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko suggests that the ambipolar electric field acts as a damper for electrons


Suprathermal electrons near the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov‐Gerasimenko at 3 AU: Model comparisons with Rosetta data
Spiky electric and magnetic field structures in flux rope experiments

or turbulent take your pick!

simpleton electrostatics it's not!
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 30th April 2019, 03:29 AM   #3426
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,495
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Your still thinking electrostatics 'ol mate.

How does a Birkeland current/current sheets keep - and + separate?

for a plasma ignoramus such as a few posters here, it's a difficult concept to get your head around.
That makes no sense whatsoever. Firstly, there are no Birkeland currents. Secondly, the ambipolar field is accelerating ions outward, and retarding electrons. If the dust is negatively charged, just like the electrons, what is happening to it? Assuming (wrongly) that the field is having any effect on it at all. As I said; this stuff is beyond you.
__________________
“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 30th April 2019, 03:30 AM   #3427
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,495
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So Reality Check.

Check mate...

How is the dust released form the surface?

Sublimation is no longer tenable and this is from a MAINSTREAM ICES AND DUST PAPER!

Whipple's assumptions have proven to be wrong.
Which is another lie, with added strawman.
__________________
“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 30th April 2019, 03:31 AM   #3428
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,495
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Birkeland currents and comets, cheers RC!
No Birkeland currents. No double layers. No EDM (lol). No discharges.No rock. Plenty of gas. Plenty of ice.

You failed. 100%.
__________________
“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 30th April 2019, 03:32 AM   #3429
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,495
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Whats the difference between flux ropes, flux tubes, fields aligned currents, force free currents and Birkeland currents?

Point form would be acceptable.
Tusenfem has already addressed this. And it has nothing to do with the complete failure of your 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 30th April 2019, 03:34 AM   #3430
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,495
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Spiky electric and magnetic field structures in flux rope experiments

or turbulent take your pick!

simpleton electrostatics it's not!
And has nothing to do with the failure of your impossible woo. Which you refuse to address, once again showing that even you know that it has failed miserably.
__________________
“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 30th April 2019, 09:14 AM   #3431
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,495
Just to show how Sol is merely trolling, here are some posts from 2007 on BAUT/ Cosmoquest;

PhantomWolf to Starboy (Sol88);

Quote:
And besides, aren't you pinning a lot on the MS being wrong? You willing to admit you are wrong when they find large amounts of ice under the surface of a comet?
Starboy:

Quote:
Totally willing to admit that what I believe is wrong, with no reservations!
Starboy to Tusenfem:

Quote:
Tusenfem, we can agree on that production of H2O by the impact, measured by infrared spectroscopy, showed an increase from 2.8 to 27 in units of 10-19W m-2, where the 2.8 should be considered the normal output for a Jupiter-family comet.

But we disagree on where it comes from. Is there ice, Tusenfem 1cm 2 cm 10 cm 100 cm 1000cm below the surface or indeed not on\in the nucleus at all?
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...electric+comet

The above was from February 2007.

The following paper was from January 2006;

Detection of water ice grains after the DEEP IMPACT
onto Comet 9P/Tempel 1

Schulz, R. et al.
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pd...12/aahi281.pdf

And this paper was from May 2007;

The distribution of water ice in the interior of Comet Tempel 1
Sunshine, J. M. et al.
http://planetary.brown.edu/pdfs/3546.pdf

Quote:
The Deep Impact flyby spacecraft includes a 1.05 to 4.8 μm infrared (IR) spectrometer. Although ice was not observed on the surface in the impact region, strong absorptions near 3 μm due to water ice are detected in IR measurements of the ejecta from the impact event. Absorptions from water ice occur throughout the IR dataset beginning three seconds after impact through the end of observations,∼45 min after impact. Spatially and temporally resolved IR spectra of the ejecta are analyzed in conjunction with laboratory impact experiments. The results imply an internal stratigraphy for Tempel 1 consisting of devolatilized materials transitioning to unaltered components at a depth of approximately one meter. At greater depths, which are thermally isolated from the surface, water ice is present. Up to depths of 10 to 20 m, the maximum depths excavated by the impact, these pristine materials consist of very fine grained (∼1±1 μm) water ice particles, which are free from refractory impurities.
And the following from 2012;

Investigation of dust and water ice in comet 9P/Tempel 1 from Spitzer observations of the Deep Impact event
Gicquel, A. et al.
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/fu...a18718-11.html

Quote:
A sustained production of water is observed, which can be explained by the sublimation of pure ice grains with sizes less than 1 μm and comprising a mass of ice of (0.8−1.8) × 107 kg.
Which is 8 000 - 18 000 tonnes.

And yet here he is, many years later, still talking about this totally debunked nonsense. Totally debunked by his own admission from back in 2007.
__________________
“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; 30th April 2019 at 09:21 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 30th April 2019, 02:32 PM   #3432
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,845
Thumbs down The usual gibberish will not be answered

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
....
The usual gibberish will not be answered. It is one or more of

Last edited by Reality Check; 30th April 2019 at 02:48 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 30th April 2019, 02:39 PM   #3433
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,845
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...
The usual gibberish will not be answered. It is one or more of

Last edited by Reality Check; 30th April 2019 at 02:50 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 30th April 2019, 02:42 PM   #3434
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,845
Thumbs down The usual gibberish will not be answered

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
....
The usual gibberish will not be answered. It is one or more of

Last edited by Reality Check; 30th April 2019 at 02:50 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 30th April 2019, 02:44 PM   #3435
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,845
Thumbs down The usual gibberish will not be answered

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...
The usual gibberish will not be answered. It is one or more of

Last edited by Reality Check; 30th April 2019 at 02:51 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 30th April 2019, 04:10 PM   #3436
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,580
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
[/url]



And the following from 2012;

Investigation of dust and water ice in comet 9P/Tempel 1 from Spitzer observations of the Deep Impact event
Gicquel, A. et al.
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/fu...a18718-11.html



Which is 8 000 - 18 000 tonnes.

And yet here he is, many years later, still talking about this totally debunked nonsense. Totally debunked by his own admission from back in 2007.
Absolute tripe!

But you,jonesdave116 would believe a paper from 2012
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 30th April 2019, 05:05 PM   #3437
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,845
Thumbs down The usual gibberish to not to be answered

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...
The usual gibberish to not be answered. It is one or more of

Last edited by Reality Check; 30th April 2019 at 05:10 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 30th April 2019, 08:28 PM   #3438
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,580
Quote:
Just to show how Sol is merely trolling, here are some posts from 2007 on BAUT/ Cosmoquest;

PhantomWolf to Starboy (Sol88);

Quote:
And besides, aren't you pinning a lot on the MS being wrong? You willing to admit you are wrong when they find large amounts of ice under the surface of a comet?
Starboy:

Quote:
Totally willing to admit that what I believe is wrong, with no reservations!
Starboy to Tusenfem:

Quote:
Tusenfem, we can agree on that production of H2O by the impact, measured by infrared spectroscopy, showed an increase from 2.8 to 27 in units of 10-19W m-2, where the 2.8 should be considered the normal output for a Jupiter-family comet.

But we disagree on where it comes from. Is there ice, Tusenfem 1cm 2 cm 10 cm 100 cm 1000cm below the surface or indeed not on\in the nucleus at all?
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...electric+comet

The above was from February 2007.
and from a 2018 paper

Quote:
The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice. The total mass-loss ΔM puts hard constraints on the models of interpretation of the observations from other instruments on Rosetta.
The Nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko – Part I: The global view – nucleus mass, mass-loss, porosity, and implications

So either Tempel 1 and Hartley 2 were ice comets and 67P is a dusty comet or there are a few glaring problems with the mainstream model.

As I stated back in 2007,
Quote:
Totally willing to admit that what I believe is wrong, with no reservations!
Seems ive been correct all along!

how do you feel jonesdave116?

again, becasue you seem slow to grasp the IMPLICATIONS of
Quote:
The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice.
along with
Quote:
So not feeling to worried by jd116's flawed paper from 12years ago.

Comets are mostly rock with EM (Plasma) forces dominate.
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator

Last edited by Sol88; 30th April 2019 at 08:30 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 30th April 2019, 08:39 PM   #3439
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,580
The implications are
Quote:
Wha tare comets made of? At the simplest level, a very basic question is whether comets are mostly ice or mostly rock/dirt/refractory material. Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the first quantitative model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high as 6 have been cited [3,4].
Whipple model??
Quote:
1 Introduction By the middle of the XXth century,Whipple (1950) inferred, through his analysis of the non keplerian motion of comets, the existence of cometary nuclei consisting of ices embedded with dust, i.e. micron-sized non-volatile particles. Dust ejected with gases from the nuclei, in combination with solar gravity and radiation pressure when comets approach the Sun, was recognized as the means by which the long-yellowish cometary dust tails are produced (e.g., Brandt and Chapman 1981). Significant progress in our understanding of cometary dust has been achieved, since the 1980’s, by a series of space missions performing flyby of nuclei and by remote observations of dust in cometary environments, as summarized below.
LINK

You're snookered champ!

Jonesdave116 links to A'Hearn's OLD papers where he envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice but absolutely refuses to accept A'Hearn's LASTEST paper (mainstream) understanding is EVOLVING. (evolve to change or develop gradually)

Why does your understanding have trouble evolving, jonesdave116?

Because the ELECTRIC COMET mob predicted that comets are rock and you're on some evangelical mission across multiple fora to "save" Whipple's outdated model of comets?

Kudos sport!
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator

Last edited by Sol88; 30th April 2019 at 08:58 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 30th April 2019, 08:43 PM   #3440
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,845
Thumbs down The usual gibberish not to be answered

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...
The usual gibberish not to be answered. It is one or more of

Last edited by Reality Check; 30th April 2019 at 08:49 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
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 06:48 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.