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 31st July 2020, 10:16 PM   #201
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,996
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Electric Comets says they are negatively charged with respect to the sun.

How large?

Well, you haven’t really answered my question and it does have a direct bearing on what we are discussing.

Can an object charge/discharge in the solar plasma stream?
No no, it is your theory, you explain it.
But, a negatively charged object will accelerate towards a positively charged object. Something every experiment with electricity ever has shown. Especially in a vacuum.
So, your EC theory would predict that comets will be drawn towards the sun, in a way gravity alone cannot explain.
In fact, given the sheer amount of time in the solar system, the EC would predict there are no old comets in the solar system, as everything would have been sucked into the sun.

Yet... we do not see this. At all.

So again, reality does not conform with your theory and again EC needs magic.

Currently your magical EC fields need to both be so large as to make cometary tails, but be so small that no instrument on any spacecraft ever sees them.
And it needs to be magically capable of causing your much vaunted discharges of a single charge, while at the same time not having any effect on the moving charges of the solar wind.
And it needs to be both strong enough to encompass the entire solar system, yet at the same time weak enough charges can even leave the sun.
And you now need the magic that it is again strong enough to cause cometary tails and weak enough to have no effect on the movement of comets.
And if comets are negative it needs to be magically able to allow a negative discharge to move away from the positive pole, rather than towards it. (you do know the tail of a comet points away from the sun right?)

Rather than asking if I can explain things for you, wouldn't it be better if you addressed those glaring inconsistencies between observed reality and your farce of a theory?
Lukraak_Sisser 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 2nd August 2020, 01:43 PM   #202
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,932
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

Sol88 lies with "Electric Comets says they are negatively charged with respect to the sun." when his cult's dogma is comets are highly negatively charged. An enormously high charge so that physically impossible thunderbolts tears imaginary rock apart into dust and gas. This is not the few volts that are measured in the coma or the hundreds of volts that are possible for electrostatic charging by the solar wind. It is at least 10,000,000,000 volts (see below) !
Sol88 lies with "How large?" when the charge has to produce 35 gigivolts to turn the measured density of comet 67P into that of rock. That accelerates ions around the comet to speeds high enough to produce obvious and unseen radiation from the acceleration and collision with the comet.
Sol88 lies with "it does have a direct bearing on what we are discussing" when we are not discussing his irrelevant mainstream ice and dust cometary science.
Sol88 lies with "Can an object charge/discharge in the solar plasma stream?". The mainstream science is that it is physically impossible for comets to discharge at all.
Sol88 lies with "Can an object charge/discharge in the solar plasma stream?". Sol88 has cited the mainstream science that comet can theoretically have dust charged by the solar wind to temporarily electrostatically eject a not measured amount of dust.
Sol88 lies with "Can an object charge/discharge in the solar plasma stream?" when this is not his cult's delusion of a comet charged to such an enormous level that physically impossible thunderbolts tears imaginary rock apart into dust and gas.

W.T."Tom" Bridgman Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy
Electric Comets: More Failures of the Electric Comet Model
Electric Comets III: Mass vs. Charge
Quote:
Harvey's updated computation is here.
...
At 35 GeV, this is NASTY hard radiation, well above the pair-production threshold (see Transforming Energy into mass: Particle Creation) for electrons and protons. If that were the case, we should see large amounts of antimatter where the electrons and ions strike. This is even worse than the EU radiation environment I examine in my "Death by Electric Universe" series.
Electric Comets II. Of Water & Ice
Electric Comets: Failures of the Electric Comet Model

Last edited by Reality Check; 2nd August 2020 at 01:59 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 3rd August 2020, 10:22 PM   #203
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 6,187
I find it interesting how the nice-sounding words completely break down into silliness in a math-free theory.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh 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 5th August 2020, 06:38 PM   #204
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
I find it interesting how the nice-sounding words completely break down into silliness in a math-free theory.
Mathamagicians can work there majik, as has been proven time and again here.

Plasma double layers, field aligned currents seems difficult for you to understand because of the lack of maths or because it’s too hard for you?

Using maths, can an object exposed to the solar wind charge to the ambient potential, steenkh?

Prove me wrong using whatever math blows the wind thru your hair...


Maths is not science.....
__________________
“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 5th August 2020, 08:31 PM   #205
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,932
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

Sol88 writes "Mathamagicians" nonsense parroting his cult's hatred of math and physics. Math is the language of physics.
Sol88 lies with repeating his answered "charge to the ambient potential" question about mainstream ice and dust cometary science, not his cult's delusions about comets.
How Sol88 and Wal Thornhill make the electric comet deluded with EDM
Sol88 lies with "Prove me wrong" when no one is saying that mainstream ice and dust cometary science is wrong.
Sol88 lies with "Maths is not science" when no one says that maths is science. Mathematics is a fundamental part science as anyone who has read a textbook knows.

Last edited by Reality Check; 5th August 2020 at 08:34 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 5th August 2020, 08:33 PM   #206
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,932
Exclamation The usual abysmal level of lies, delusions, insults, etc. addressed since 6 July 2009

]The thousands of lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma.
The abysmal insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn and all astronomers by Sol88 linking them with Sol88's dogma, etc. (no astronomer believes comets are actual rock)
522 items of lies, insults, etc. from Sol88 since ~10 March 2020

The litany of lies, etc. continues.
  1. Sol88 writes "Mathamagicians" nonsense parroting his cult's hatred of math and physics.
  2. Sol88 lies with repeating his answered "charge to the ambient potential" question about mainstream ice and dust cometary science, not his cult's delusions about comets.
  3. Sol88 lies with "Prove me wrong" when no one is saying that mainstream ice and dust cometary science is wrong.
  4. Sol88 lies with "Maths is not science" when no one says that maths is science.
  5. Sol88 lies that MWD was written by his fantasy of "Mathamagicians"
  6. Sol88 lies with "Radial outgassing... maths proved it too".
  7. Sol88 lies with "Unfortunately it was wrong".
  8. Sol88 lies with "like comets being mostly ice sublimating in the warmth of the Sun".
  9. Sol88 lies with his repeated and answered many times comet dust "attain a charge as per mainstream science" question

Last edited by Reality Check; 5th August 2020 at 09:16 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 5th August 2020, 08:52 PM   #207
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Mmmmm.... MHD springs to mind.

Mathamagicians at their best! Radial outgassing... maths proved it too!

Unfortunately it was wrong, like comets being mostly ice sublimating in the warmth of the Sun.

__________________
“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 5th August 2020, 08:55 PM   #208
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
]The thousands of lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma.
The abysmal insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn and all astronomers by Sol88 linking them with Sol88's dogma, etc. (no astronomer believes comets are actual rock)
522 items of lies, insults, etc. from Sol88 since ~10 March 2020

The litany of lies, etc. continues.
  1. Sol88 writes "Mathamagicians" nonsense parroting his cult's hatred of math and physics.
  2. Sol88 lies with repeating his answered "charge to the ambient potential" question about mainstream ice and dust cometary science, not his cult's delusions about comets.
  3. Sol88 lies with "Prove me wrong" when no one is saying that mainstream ice and dust cometary science is wrong.
  4. Sol88 lies with "Maths is not science" when no one says that maths is science.
Oi, reality check, can a mainstream mostly dust with some ice comet, attain a charge as per mainstream science on bodies charging in a plasma environment (lots of maths too)?



What say ye, 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 5th August 2020, 09:15 PM   #209
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,932
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

Sol88 lies that MWD was written by his fantasy of "Mathamagicians". MHD is textbook plasma science.
Sol88 lies with "Radial outgassing... maths proved it too". The radial outgassing approximation used in the Haser model was based on the physical fact that in the 1960's we could only see radial outgassing from comets .
Sol88 lies with "Unfortunately it was wrong". It was an approximation.
Sol88 lies with "like comets being mostly ice sublimating in the warmth of the Sun". Comets are still mostly ice sublimating in the warmth of the Sun. With a few exceptions - Tempel 1 with up to 50% ice, 67P with at least 14% ice.
Sol88 lies with his repeated and answered comet dust "attain a charge as per mainstream science" question in a thread about his cult's dead dogma about comets and deluded dogma about stars (turns the Sun into a white dwarf, fries us with gamma rays etc.).

Last edited by Reality Check; 5th August 2020 at 09:18 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 6th August 2020, 03:52 AM   #210
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Sol88 lies that MWD was written by his fantasy of "Mathamagicians". MHD is textbook plasma science.
Sol88 lies with "Radial outgassing... maths proved it too". The radial outgassing approximation used in the Haser model was based on the physical fact that in the 1960's we could only see radial outgassing from comets
When is MHD been proven to be correct? Nothing wrong with the maths, though.

Haser model, same basket... maths is spot on. No faults in the equations to be found.


Now, it’s not the ‘60s anymore, now is it?

__________________
“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 6th August 2020, 05:03 AM   #211
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
When is MHD been proven to be correct? Nothing wrong with the maths, though.

Haser model, same basket... maths is spot on. No faults in the equations to be found.


Now, it’s not the ‘60s anymore, now is it?

What does this have to do with The Electric Comet Theory, the topic of this thread?
JeanTate 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 6th August 2020, 12:39 PM   #212
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
What does this have to do with The Electric Comet Theory, the topic of this thread?
Mathamagicians Doing their majik.

Nothing wrong with the math though...

The assumption and application of said math...

The Dirtysnowball... Ahhhh...math...

__________________
“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 6th August 2020, 12:53 PM   #213
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Mathamagicians Doing their majik.

Nothing wrong with the math though...

The assumption and application of said math...

The Dirtysnowball... Ahhhh...math...

I see, thank you.

Nothing, then, whatsoever to do with The Electric Comet Theory, the topic of this thread.

Why didn’t you say so directly?

When, may I ask, will you engage in a discussion of The Electric Comet Theory (the topic of this thread)?
JeanTate 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 6th August 2020, 01:10 PM   #214
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
I see, thank you.

Nothing, then, whatsoever to do with The Electric Comet Theory, the topic of this thread.

Why didn’t you say so directly?

When, may I ask, will you engage in a discussion of The Electric Comet Theory (the topic of this thread)?
The electric comet proposes the nucleus is a charged object this is seen in the data.

Meantime everyone here including you is avoiding the question of wether oBjects including comets are able to charge to the ambient plasma potential. Why?

In your mathamagicians world view, is this possible?

If not, no electric comet, the very topic of this thread...
__________________
“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 6th August 2020, 01:16 PM   #215
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Look thru the telescope jean tate,
__________________
“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 6th August 2020, 01:26 PM   #216
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Sigh.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
The electric comet proposes the nucleus is a charged object this is seen in the data.

Meantime everyone here including you is avoiding the question of wether oBjects including comets are able to charge to the ambient plasma potential. Why?

In your mathamagicians world view, is this possible?

If not, no electric comet, the very topic of this thread...
Once again, the topic of this thread is The Electric Comet Theory.

There is, currently, just one ISF member willing to propose/defend/explain that Theory, you.

You have briefly presented two Electric Comet Theories, B24 and T07.

B24 is toast.

Can we return to discussing T07, please?

Let's begin with this basic question, in The Electric Comet Theory T07: how are "oBjects including comets [...] able to charge to the ambient plasma potential"?

Starting with direct reference to T07 itself.

Thank you in advance.
JeanTate 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 6th August 2020, 01:55 PM   #217
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Sigh.


Once again, the topic of this thread is The Electric Comet Theory.

There is, currently, just one ISF member willing to propose/defend/explain that Theory, you.

You have briefly presented two Electric Comet Theories, B24 and T07.

B24 is toast.

Can we return to discussing T07, please?

Let's begin with this basic question, in The Electric Comet Theory T07: how are "oBjects including comets [...] able to charge to the ambient plasma potential"?

Starting with direct reference to T07 itself.

Thank you in advance.

So, your view is objects in a plasma flow will NOT attain a charge?

Would make it easier than digging out the hundreds of papers (primary sources), your move.
__________________
“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; 6th August 2020 at 01:59 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 6th August 2020, 02:05 PM   #218
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So, your view is objects in a plasma flow will NOT attain a charge?
My view is irrelevant.

Again, the topic of this thread is The Electric Commet Theory. Focussing on T07, for now anyway.

Also, your claim - re The Electric Comet Theory T07 - is that "oBjects including comets are able to charge to the ambient plasma potential" (my hilite).

Quote:
Would make it easier than digging out the hundreds of papers (primary sources).
Yes and no.

It may be necessary to read only T07.

So, to repeat my question:

In The Electric Comet Theory T07: how are "oBjects including comets [...] able to charge to the ambient plasma potential"?

Looking forward to your answer.
JeanTate 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 6th August 2020, 02:28 PM   #219
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,932
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

Sol88 lies with "When is MHD been proven to be correct?" when MWD is textbook physics, i.e. matches real world plasma in experiments and observations.
Sol88 lies with "Haser model, same basket" when this is textbook astronomy.
Sol88 lies with "Now, it’s not the ‘60s anymore, now is it" when the Haser model is still valid within its area of application. It is not the 1700's but Newton's laws are still valid for non-relativistic speeds !
Sol88's lie and stupidity of "Mathamagicians Doing their majik.". Science is not magic except to people like the ignorant, lying and deluded Thunderbolts cult. The stupidity is Sol88 insulting the scientists abused in his cult's dogma ! If he had ever read Birkeland's book he would find many pages of mathematics such as a calculation of the speed of the "electron pencils" Birkeland thought caused aurora.
Sol88 lies with "The Dirtysnowball" which is a scientific theory based on physical evidence not his ignorant "math magic" fantasy. Sol88 even constantly lies abut the name! It is the "dirty snowball" (two words) model.
Sol88 lies with "this is seen in the data" when there is no measurement of the charge of a comet nucleus.
Sol88 lies with "Meantime everyone here including you is avoiding the question" when we have answered it and Sol88 cited papers on this mainstream ice and dust cometary science.
Sol88 lies with "your mathamagicians world view" when we have the scientific view of the real world. As Sol88 cited, apply the laws of physics to the solar wind hitting a comet nucleus and it will become charged to a small voltage and in theory (but not observed) dust can be ejected.
Sol88 lies with "If not, no electric comet" when his cult's deluded dogma about comets does not include mainstream ice and dust cometary theory of the solar wind electrostatically charging dust during the time before the coma stops it reaching the nucleus.
Sol88 lies with "Look thru the telescope jean tate" when JeanTate is asking about the Thunderbolts cult's dead and deluded dogma which is based on completely ignoring what is seen in telescopes !

Last edited by Reality Check; 6th August 2020 at 02:57 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 6th August 2020, 02:47 PM   #220
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,932
Exclamation Sol88 and the Thunderbolts cult refusal to "Look thru the telescope"

That is some more of the Thunderbolts cult delusions. Firstly that just looking through a telescope shows that comets are their delusion of rock blasted from Earth, etc. by thunderbolts between planets, etc. Secondly that they are not completely ignoring what is seen through a telescope! Thirdly that only telescopes exist !
More about Sol88's cult, Sol88's lies, Sol88 emphasizing his cult's idiocy and Thornhill's delusions about physics.

We have sent spacecraft to comets with cameras and scientific instruments (and an impactor). They all gave empirical evidence supporting that comets are ice and dust, as in the many papers that Sol88 has cited many times.

The images collected by looking thru telescopes tell us that comet nuclei are dark, variously shaped (as predicted by the mainstream) and have features consistent with being ice and dust (plains, scarps, cliffs). These features change as ice sublimates. Sol88's cult have the delusion that they see rock.

The orbital data collected by looking thru telescopes tells us that comets are less dense than water as pointed out 11 years ago here and known since the 1960's . Sol88's cult have the delusion that comets are the density of asteroids.

The spectroscopic data collected by looking thru telescopes tells us that comets are covered in organic material and emit gases from sublimating ices. Sol88's cult have the delusion that comets are covered in soot from a delusion of the industrial process of EDM happening at comets.
How Sol88 and Wal Thornhill make the electric comet deluded with EDM

Last edited by Reality Check; 6th August 2020 at 02:58 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 6th August 2020, 02:55 PM   #221
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,932
Exclamation The usual abysmal level of lies, delusions, insults, etc. addressed since 6 July 2009

The thousands of lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma.
The abysmal insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn and all astronomers by Sol88 linking them with Sol88's dogma, etc. (no astronomer believes comets are actual rock)
531 items of lies, insults, etc. from Sol88 since ~10 March 2020

The litany of lies, etc. continues.
  1. Sol88 lies with "When is MHD been proven to be correct?" when MWD is textbook physics, i.e. matches real world plasma in experiments and observations.
  2. Sol88 lies with "Haser model, same basket" when this is textbook astronomy.
  3. Sol88 lies with "Now, it’s not the ‘60s anymore, now is it" when the Haser model is still valid within its area of application. It is not the 1700's but Newton's laws are still valid for non-relativistic speeds !
  4. Sol88's lie and stupidity of "Mathamagicians Doing their majik.". Science is not magic except to people like the ignorant, lying and deluded Thunderbolts cult. The stupidity is Sol88 insulting the scientists abused in his cult's dogma ! If he had ever read Birkeland's book he would find many pages of mathematics such as a calculation of the speed of the "electron pencils" Birkeland thought caused aurora.
  5. Sol88 lies with "The Dirtysnowball" which is a scientific theory based on physical evidence not his ignorant "math magic" fantasy. Sol88 even constantly lies abut the name! It is the "dirty snowball" (two words) model.
  6. Sol88 lies with "this is seen in the data" when there is no measurement of the charge of a comet nucleus.
  7. Sol88 lies with "Meantime everyone here including you is avoiding the question" when we have answered it and Sol88 cited papers on this mainstream ice and dust cometary science.
  8. Sol88 lies with "your mathamagicians world view" when we have the scientific view of the real world. As Sol88 cited, apply the laws of physics to the solar wind hitting a comet nucleus and it will become charged to a small voltage and in theory (but not observed) dust can be ejected.
  9. Sol88 lies with "If not, no electric comet" when his cult's deluded dogma about comets does not include mainstream ice and dust cometary theory of the solar wind electrostatically charging dust during the time before the coma stops it reaching the nucleus.
  10. Sol88 lies with "Look thru the telescope jean tate" when JeanTate is asking about the Thunderbolts cult's dead and deluded dogma which is based on completely ignoring what is seen in telescopes !
  11. Sol88 nonsense of "Indeed it is and has been for awhile" when it is Sol88 demanding views on irrelevant mainstream ice and dust cometary science for many years.
  12. Sol88 lies with "Shouldn’t even really be a “view”." when it is irrelevant mainstream ice and dust cometary science.

Last edited by Reality Check; 6th August 2020 at 04:26 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 6th August 2020, 03:58 PM   #222
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
My view is irrelevant.


Looking forward to your answer.

Indeed it is and has been for awhile!

Shouldn’t even really be a “view”.

__________________
“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 6th August 2020, 04:26 PM   #223
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,932
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

Sol88 nonsense of "Indeed it is and has been for awhile" when it is Sol88 demanding views on irrelevant mainstream ice and dust cometary science for many years.
Sol88 lies with "Shouldn’t even really be a “view”." when it is irrelevant mainstream ice and dust cometary science.
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 6th August 2020, 11:02 PM   #224
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 6,187
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Mathamagicians can work there majik, as has been proven time and again here.
Quite true. And math can also show what is not real, as you know all too well, because the EC fails completely.

Quote:
Maths is not science.....
Interesting opinion. Is this because you can’t do the math?
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh 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 7th August 2020, 12:01 AM   #225
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
Quite true. And math can also show what is not real, as you know all too well, because the EC fails completely.


Interesting opinion. Is this because you can’t do the math?
Mmmmm.... I disagree.

Why does math show the EC to be a complete failure?
__________________
“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 7th August 2020, 01:07 AM   #226
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
Quite true. And math can also show what is not real, as you know all too well, because the EC fails completely.


Interesting opinion. Is this because you can’t do the math?
A better question would be, in what form would the charge imbalance show up in the Rosetta data if the nucleus were a charged object (rhetorical anyway but anywhoo, ill play with ya’s) in trying to attain the sum of all currents to zero. Charge neutrality must be constantly trying to be maintained for it to remain a comet.



Otherwise, it’s an asteroid.
__________________
“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; 7th August 2020 at 01:08 AM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2020, 04:06 AM   #227
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,996
See how our Sol88 once again tries to steer away the conversation from presenting an actual working model and ignores the internal inconsistencies created by his own attempts at making one.

Can you show the maths that allows a negatively charged object to discharge AWAY from a positive pole? I know it's just one of your many magical claims, but it shows such an ignorance about even basic electricity that I wonder how you ever allowed to slip it in.

Of course, given your claims, I doubt you had or understood high school science at all.
Lukraak_Sisser 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 7th August 2020, 04:31 AM   #228
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
See how our Sol88 once again tries to steer away the conversation from presenting an actual working model and ignores the internal inconsistencies created by his own attempts at making one.

Can you show the maths that allows a negatively charged object to discharge AWAY from a positive pole? I know it's just one of your many magical claims, but it shows such an ignorance about even basic electricity that I wonder how you ever allowed to slip it in.

Of course, given your claims, I doubt you had or understood high school science at all.
It’s not a pith ball champ.

How do field aligned currents and double layers fit into your simplistic views of the plasma dynamics at a comet?

MHD maths says impossible but we see them...
__________________
“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 7th August 2020, 05:41 AM   #229
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,996
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
It’s not a pith ball champ.

How do field aligned currents and double layers fit into your simplistic views of the plasma dynamics at a comet?

MHD maths says impossible but we see them...
Ah, so you refuse to answer a core question about your theory by going with the 'just asking more irrelevant nonsense' route.

YOU have claimed comets are negatively charged.
YOU have claimed that the sun is positively charged.
YOU have claimed the tail of a comet is a discharge event in the solar electric field.
YOU have claimed to know electricity.

Now every electric experiment ever claims the tail of the comet would then point TO the sun.

So, explain that first, preferably with math and an experiment, then come back to see if you can understand mainstream science.
Lukraak_Sisser 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 7th August 2020, 08:26 AM   #230
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 6,187
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Mmmmm.... I disagree.

Why does math show the EC to be a complete failure?
You should have read your critics more closely instead of ignoring them. Just take a look at what Lukraak_Sisser is telling you: a negatively charged object does not discharge away from a positive pole. This is one of reasons why you reject math. You would have cheerfully accepted it if it had supported your position.

Besides, whenever somebody has made a calculation for you, it has shown that even when the effects that you dig out exist, they are not nearly strong enough to have an influence. And that gives you another reason to replace mathemajicks with your own math-free majick.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh 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 7th August 2020, 04:18 PM   #231
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Sigh.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Indeed it is and has been for awhile!

Shouldn’t even really be a “view”.

Once again, I do not understand The Electric Comet Theory, the topic of this thread.

You do (or at least seem to be the best informed of regulars here now).

So here's my question again:

In The Electric Comet Theory T07: how are "oBjects including comets [...] able to charge to the ambient plasma potential"?

When may I expect an answer?
JeanTate 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 7th August 2020, 04:47 PM   #232
lauwenmark
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 68
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Maths is not science.....
Mathematics are merely, in the context of physics, a tool, allowing us to describe natural phenomens in a very precise, quantifiable way. You can see it as a specific form of artificial language, designed to overcome the limitations inherent to the vague and empirical rules over which spoken languages are based.

There are, of course, scientists who study 'the tool itself' - pure mathematicians. But that's not what (astro)physicians are doing. They are only using mathematics to express clearly and quantify their ideas. This is no different from musicians using music staff notation to write down their composition so others can reproduce them and understand them.

Physicians are not inventing mathematical developments "out of thin air", as you seem to think; they make hypotheses and postulates, then they formalize them using the universal mathematical language, so others can understand what they mean and measure how far/close to reality they are.

That's what people here were trying to ask you for all these years - if you have an 'Electric Universe Hypothesis', why not express it in precise, unquestionable terms that only the mathematical language allows?

Or maybe you are trying to say that mathematics are not always able to describe a physical phenomen? But then, what would be a proper language to describe such a phenomen in a precise, impossible to twist, way? Obviously, spoken languages like English would do no better than maths, as they can only achieve the same amount of precision that mathematical notation can with lots of effort.

What language to use, Sol, to describe and quantify EU, besides the mathematical one? What would you suggest to use as a 'common formalizing language' for it?

This also implies an interesting side question. You keep quoting scientific papers of all kinds. Those papers routinely formalize their findings using the mathematical language. So, in some way, you agree that this language is accurate enough for the phenomens they are describing or the theories they are proposing. The question is thus: why would the mathematical language be 'good enough' for all of them, yet unsufficient and lacking for EU itself? Or, put in another way, what makes, according to you, EU so different that it cannot be formalized the same way as those?
lauwenmark 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 7th August 2020, 10:32 PM   #233
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by lauwenmark View Post
Mathematics are merely, in the context of physics, a tool, allowing us to describe natural phenomens in a very precise, quantifiable way. You can see it as a specific form of artificial language, designed to overcome the limitations inherent to the vague and empirical rules over which spoken languages are based.

There are, of course, scientists who study 'the tool itself' - pure mathematicians. But that's not what (astro)physicians are doing. They are only using mathematics to express clearly and quantify their ideas. This is no different from musicians using music staff notation to write down their composition so others can reproduce them and understand them.

Physicians are not inventing mathematical developments "out of thin air", as you seem to think; they make hypotheses and postulates, then they formalize them using the universal mathematical language, so others can understand what they mean and measure how far/close to reality they are.

That's what people here were trying to ask you for all these years - if you have an 'Electric Universe Hypothesis', why not express it in precise, unquestionable terms that only the mathematical language allows?

Or maybe you are trying to say that mathematics are not always able to describe a physical phenomen? But then, what would be a proper language to describe such a phenomen in a precise, impossible to twist, way? Obviously, spoken languages like English would do no better than maths, as they can only achieve the same amount of precision that mathematical notation can with lots of effort.

What language to use, Sol, to describe and quantify EU, besides the mathematical one? What would you suggest to use as a 'common formalizing language' for it?

This also implies an interesting side question. You keep quoting scientific papers of all kinds. Those papers routinely formalize their findings using the mathematical language. So, in some way, you agree that this language is accurate enough for the phenomens they are describing or the theories they are proposing. The question is thus: why would the mathematical language be 'good enough' for all of them, yet unsufficient and lacking for EU itself? Or, put in another way, what makes, according to you, EU so different that it cannot be formalized the same way as those?
Well A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet Is full of maths and plain English that says comets are an electrical phenomenon...


What say ye, maths speaker?

Especially the maths, as I’ve asked and received no response, on this particular little gem...
Quote:
One of the surprising findings of the Rosetta mission is the presence of suprathermal electrons in the close cometary plasma environment with energies up to about 100eV. The population was present already during the weakly outgassing phases of 67P’s orbit around the Sun (Clark et al. 2015). Understanding the suprathermal electron population is important, since increased fluxes of the latter have been shown to strongly affect also the cometary ionosphere via electronimpact ionization (Galand et al. 2016), charge exchange (Wedlund et al. 2017; Heritier et al. 2018), and is thought to affect dust grain charging processes
thought to affect dust grain charging processes? What if It is the dominant player?

This sound like brand new stuff here folks, maths and all.

__________________
“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 7th August 2020, 11:54 PM   #234
lauwenmark
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 68
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Well A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet Is full of maths and plain English that says comets are an electrical phenomenon...


What say ye, maths speaker?
I'm saying that you are not answering my question(s). I asked:
- Why do you think maths cannot be used as a formal descriptive language for the EC theory;
- What makes the EC theory different from other papers you're constantly quoting, that makes mathematics an acceptable descriptive language for all those papers, but not for the EC itself;
- What other symbolic language would you propose to describe the EC theory, given that you consider mathematics to not be suited for it.

You answered by linking to a document that does not describe nor formalize the EC theory. Its content may be interesting per se, but it is off-topic.

Or did I misunderstood, and should I consider the paper quoted above as a reference document describing the EC theory?

Last edited by lauwenmark; 7th August 2020 at 11:58 PM.
lauwenmark 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 8th August 2020, 05:21 AM   #235
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by lauwenmark View Post
I'm saying that you are not answering my question(s). I asked:
- Why do you think maths cannot be used as a formal descriptive language for the EC theory;
- What makes the EC theory different from other papers you're constantly quoting, that makes mathematics an acceptable descriptive language for all those papers, but not for the EC itself;
- What other symbolic language would you propose to describe the EC theory, given that you consider mathematics to not be suited for it.

You answered by linking to a document that does not describe nor formalize the EC theory. Its content may be interesting per se, but it is off-topic.

Or did I misunderstood, and should I consider the paper quoted above as a reference document describing the EC theory?
Per se?

The dust (Mass) is being electrically removed via the above process math and all.

EC theory description in a mainstream paper?

No, a confirmation of a process not involving sublimation as the main cause of mass loss.

THIS IS NEW too mainstream science in its application to the plasma around a comet.


Didn’t need math to describe it either but I understand what is implied by their findings...
__________________
“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; 8th August 2020 at 05:22 AM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2020, 06:08 AM   #236
lauwenmark
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 68
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Per se?

The dust (Mass) is being electrically removed via the above process math and all.
Yes, that I understood from the abstract. But as I said, that was not what my question was about. I was not asking about a mechanism to electrically remove dust.

Quote:
EC theory description in a mainstream paper?
Well, my questions were related to the topic of a formalized presentation of the ECT, and you answered with a reference to a research document, so the logical conclusion would be that the document talks about the ECT. Else, there is no point in even mentioning it.

Quote:
No, a confirmation of a process not involving sublimation as the main cause of mass loss.
I didn't ask for such a confirmation, so I don't know why you are pushing this forward.

Quote:
THIS IS NEW too mainstream science in its application to the plasma around a comet.
Maybe, but that is not related in any way to what I asked.

Quote:
Didn’t need math to describe it either but I understand what is implied by their findings...
I don't care about their findings, as my question was related to mathematics being used (or not) as a formal descriptive language of the ECT.

So, to remind you, I asked:

1 - Why do you think maths cannot be used as a formal descriptive language for the EC theory;

2 - What makes the EC theory different from other papers you're constantly quoting, that makes mathematics an acceptable descriptive language for all those papers, but not for the EC itself;

3 - What other symbolic language would you propose to describe the EC theory, given that you consider mathematics to not be suited for it.

You did not answer 1 at all, I think. Why? This should be a pretty simple question to answer, since I'm merely asking your personal opinion.

You did not answer 2 at all either. Again, I don't know why you didn't. You merely suggested that it "was not needed to describe and understand what's happening". That's likely true, but I was not asking if maths were *needed*; I was asking what would *prevent* maths to be used to accurately describe the ECT. After all, if a theory can be described with the limited expressivity of English, surely it could also be using mathematics, wouldn't it?

You didn't answer 3 either. My only guess is that you have no idea about it and/or no suitable symbolic language has been designed so far to explain the ECT accurately. But then, could it still be considered as a scientific hypothesis?

I hope I explained my questions a little better this time and that you'll be able to provide answers to those.
lauwenmark 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 8th August 2020, 09:46 AM   #237
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 6,187
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Well A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet Is full of maths and plain English that says comets are an electrical phenomenon...
Nobody denies that electromagnetics play a role for comets and in the universe in general. But this paper is not a paper on the EC theory, and this has been pointed out to you many times before. You seem to think that if the word "eletrical" is mentioned, it must support the EC theory. Much like you seem to think that if a flaw is found in the scientific theory of comets, then EC must be true.

But the impossibility of EC has been pointed out to you many times, so EC can never be scientific as long as this is not solved, and the real existence of electromagnetism in the universe is not a support of an impossible theory.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh 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 8th August 2020, 11:25 PM   #238
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
Nobody denies that electromagnetics play a role for comets and in the universe in general. But this paper is not a paper on the EC theory, and this has been pointed out to you many times before. You seem to think that if the word "eletrical" is mentioned, it must support the EC theory. Much like you seem to think that if a flaw is found in the scientific theory of comets, then EC must be true.

But the impossibility of EC has been pointed out to you many times, so EC can never be scientific as long as this is not solved, and the real existence of electromagnetism in the universe is not a support of an impossible theory.
Only impossible because of the maths...

We have already done the “highly conductive medium” thing, again...
__________________
“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 9th August 2020, 07:21 AM   #239
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Well A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet Is full of maths and plain English that says comets are an electrical phenomenon...


What say ye, maths speaker?

Especially the maths, as I’ve asked and received no response, on this particular little gem...

thought to affect dust grain charging processes? What if It is the dominant player?

This sound like brand new stuff here folks, maths and all.

So?

The topic of this thread is The Electric Comet Theory. Per Thornhill (2007).

Still waiting for you to show how any of this is relevant to T07.
JeanTate 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 9th August 2020, 07:23 AM   #240
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Only impossible because of the maths...

We have already done the “highly conductive medium” thing, again...
For all we know it's just as impossible in The Electric Comet Theory, the topic of this thread, per T07.

When may we expect some answers to the (many) questions on T07?
JeanTate 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 10:40 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.