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 9th August 2020, 12:55 PM   #241
lauwenmark
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 68
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Only impossible because of the maths...:rolleyes
Answering the (rather simple) questions I asked would help us all understand such answers differently than "That Sol guy likely understands nothing in advanced maths, so his only escape route is to make fun of it".

As a reminder, my questions were:

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.

And again, none of those involve complex answers relying on random research papers that are not talking about ECT; answering would merely involve sharing your conclusions and thoughts on the topic of maths wrt ECT.

Or should I conclude, by your lack of answers so far, that you never even thought about it? That would rather weird, to criticize mathematics so harshly while not even be able to say why!
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 9th August 2020, 02:20 PM   #242
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 6,188
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Only impossible because of the maths...
And you can show that it is possible despite the incredibly well tested science of electromagnetism?

Quote:
We have already done the “highly conductive medium” thing, again...
Without figures you have nothing ...
__________________
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 9th August 2020, 02:34 PM   #243
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,945
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

  1. Sol88 lies with "Why does math show the EC to be a complete failure?" when he knows the math, e.g. over 70 years of measurements of the density of comets to be not that of rock.
  2. Sol88 lies with "A better question would be..." when that is a question about mainstream ice and dust cometary science, not his cult's dead dogma.
  3. Sol88 lies with "attain the sum of all currents to zero" when this mainstream ice and dust cometary science has no currents.
  4. Sol88 lies with "Charge neutrality must be constantly trying to be maintained for it to remain a comet." when the it is ice sublimating that makes a comet. The theoretical and not observed electrostatic lofting of dust caused by the solar wind is not constant - it stops when the coma forms as he knows form the mainstream ice and dust cometary papers he has cited.
  5. Sol88 lies with "It’s not a pith ball champ." when Lukraak_Sisser did not write that.
  6. Sol88 lies with "double layers" at comets when he knows they are physically impossible at comets.
  7. Sol88 lies with "How do field aligned currents ..." - a question about imaginary fields aligned currents.
  8. Sol88 lies with "MHD maths says impossible but we see them.." when MHD sys there will be currents in plasma.
  9. Sol88 lies with "MHD maths says impossible but we see them.." when no "field aligned currents" and especially no physically impossible double layers have been seen at comets.
  10. Sol88 lies about "A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet" yet again ! This is a mainstream ice and dust cometary paper stating that the acceleration of elections is an electromagnetic phenomena.
  11. Sol88 lies with "received no response," when we have responded many times - this is [COLOR="Red"]mainstream ice and dust cometary science[/color] irrelevant to his cult's dead dogma.
  12. Sol88 lies with "This sound like brand new stuff here folks" when his spate of lies and ignorant fantasies about science has been going on for at least 11 years.
  13. Sol88 lies with "The dust (Mass) is being electrically removed". This is the theoretical and not observed electrostatic lofting of dust of dust dust caused by the solar wind.
  14. Sol88 lies with "EC theory description in a mainstream paper?" when his cult's dead and deluded dogma is not in any mainstream paper.
  15. Sol88 lies with "a confirmation of a process not involving sublimation as the main cause of mass loss." This is the theoretical and not observed electrostatic lofting of dust of dust dust caused by the solar wind. Sublimation remains as the main cause of cometary mass loss.
  16. Sol88 lies with "THIS IS NEW too mainstream science" . The theoretical and not observed electrostatic lofting of dust of dust dust caused by the solar wind has been known since the 1980's.
  17. Sol88 lies with "I understand what is implied by their findings" when all he does is lie about the papers.
  18. Sol88 lies with "Only impossible because of the maths." when it is the physical conditions at comets and observsions of comets that makes his cult's double layers into a delusion. Cometary coma are too magnetically (and physically?) turbulent for DLs to form. We have never observed DLs at comets.

Last edited by Reality Check; 9th August 2020 at 02:38 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 9th August 2020, 02:39 PM   #244
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,945
Exclamation The usual abysmal level of lies, delusions, insults, etc. addressed since 6 July 2009

URL="http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13039022#post13039022"]The thousands of lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma.[/url]
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)
543 items of lies, insults, etc. from Sol88 since ~10 March 2020

11 years of lying, etc. about posts, posters, science, and his dead dogma continues with 18 more lies, etc.

Sol88 and the Thunderbolts cult refusal to "Look thru the telescope"
More about Sol88's cult, Sol88's lies, Sol88 emphasizing his cult's idiocy and Thornhill's delusions about physics.

Last edited by Reality Check; 9th August 2020 at 02:44 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 12th August 2020, 01:58 PM   #245
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by lauwenmark View Post
Answering the (rather simple) questions I asked would help us all understand such answers differently than "That Sol guy likely understands nothing in advanced maths, so his only escape route is to make fun of it".

As a reminder, my questions were:

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.

And again, none of those involve complex answers relying on random research papers that are not talking about ECT; answering would merely involve sharing your conclusions and thoughts on the topic of maths wrt ECT.

Or should I conclude, by your lack of answers so far, that you never even thought about it? That would rather weird, to criticize mathematics so harshly while not even be able to say why!
1 - sure it can, why not? Whichever maths blows the wind thru your hair. MHD? PIC?

2- Nothing. Mainstream are still coming to terms with comets are rocky bodies discharging in the solar plasma.

3- Your math seems fine, just very complicated when electrons are treated as particles...

This one paper has introduced a new term in the math of cometary physics... This makes comets an electrical phenomena

We now understand comet nuclei to be more hard surface of consolidated dust than before...
__________________
“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; 12th August 2020 at 02:02 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 12th August 2020, 02:08 PM   #246
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
And you can show that it is possible despite the incredibly well tested science of electromagnetism?


Without figures you have nothing ...
Quote:
5. Discussion

To constrain the mechanism responsible for the anisotropic electron heating present in the latter region, we introduce an effective acceleration (ambipolar) potential (Egedal et al. 2008, 2010), ΦP,defined by the integral  () F= ∮ ·
Here the integration is performed along a field line starting from a pointx at y=0 up to the ambient solar wind, whereE·B∼0. ΦP is a measure for the work performed by the electric field. Electrons that have a parallel kinetic energy greater than ΦP that pass through the region gain energy while traversing into the potential well, and lose it again on their way out.

Those that enter the potential well with a parallel kinetic energy below the local ΦP remain trapped and bounce along the magnetic field line while their motion is simultaneously altered by the localE×B drift component.
AFully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet

Sorry, the “figures” don’t copy and paste so well.

Incredibly well tested you say? Point me in the direction where the above application of math is used with regards to comets.

Cheers.

__________________
“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 12th August 2020, 02:09 PM   #247
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
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?
You do understand, don’t you?

Quote:
In order to maintain quasi-neutrality, i.e., to increase the solar wind electron density in regions where the cometary ion density is substantially higher, a strong parallel electric field needs to be generated to locally and temporarily trap electrons. We have shown above that the production of suprathermal (solar wind) electrons is co-located with the region where the parallel electric field component dominates.
Quote:
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 (Gombosi et al. 2015).
A Full Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet

Quote:
No no, it is your theory, you explain it.
Comets are rocky bodies discharging in the solar plasma.

See above, figures 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

Last edited by Sol88; 12th August 2020 at 02:32 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 12th August 2020, 04:16 PM   #248
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,945
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

  1. Sol88 lies with "sure it can, why not" by not giving the math in his cult's dogma (rather hard because all the cult has is ignorant of physics, math less fantasies!).
  2. Sol88 blatantly lies with "Mainstream are still coming to terms with comets are rocky bodies discharging in the solar plasma" when his lies about the mainstream is not what the mainstream does. The mainstream does not know about the delusions of the obscure Thunderbolts cult. The few astronomers who do know about Thunderbolts understand that they are bunch of ignorant cranks spewing out nonsensical fantasies.
  3. Sol88 lies with "Your math seems fine ..." when he is abysmally ignorant of math , e.g. the math that shows comets are less dense than water, and physics as 11 years of ignorance and lies shows.
  4. Sol88 lies with "This one paper has introduced a new term in the math of cometary physics" when the papers he has cited are mainstream ice and dust papers.
  5. Sol88 lies with "We now understand comet nuclei to be more hard surface of consolidated dust than before" when he knows that 67P has a soft surface layer of dust.
  6. Sol88 lies about "A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet" again. An irrelevant to his cult's dogma and this thread quote. Lying question about that quote.
  7. Sol88 lies with "You do understand, don’t you?" when Lukraak_Sisser wrote No no, it is your theory, you explain it. and Sol88's reply is not abut his cult's dead dogma.
  8. Sol88 lies that a mainstream ice and dust paper is about his cult's dead dogma.
  9. Sol88 lies about his cult's dogma which has a delusion of an enormous, invisible solar electric field tearing rock apart, not mainstream science that plasma in a comet coma will have strong electric fields.
  10. Sol88 lies with random highlighting in a quote that is about not his cult's dead dogma.
  11. Sol88 lies when the mainstream ice and dust he quotes has no discharges at all, especially not his cult's delusion of massive electric discharges.

Last edited by Reality Check; 12th August 2020 at 04:39 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 12th August 2020, 07:07 PM   #250
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
And you can show that it is possible despite the incredibly well tested science of electromagnetism?


Without figures you have nothing ...
Quote:
Conclusions.

The ambipolar and polarisation electric fields both have a significant influence on the motion of cometary ions. This demonstrates the importance of space charge effects in comet plasma physics.
Polarisation of a small-scale cometary plasma environment

Space charge, important, steenkh.

Maths, with figures, if you like, though I’m happy either way...
__________________
“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 12th August 2020, 07:13 PM   #251
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
What math do we use to prove the dust is electrically charged ( - and +), being removed from the rocky like consolidated, dusty surface via electrostatic charging from suprathermal electrons, accelerated by a field aligned ambipolar electric field.

How do we put figures to those words?
__________________
“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 12th August 2020, 07:17 PM   #252
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by lauwenmark View Post
Answering the (rather simple) questions I asked would help us all understand such answers differently than "That Sol guy likely understands nothing in advanced maths, so his only escape route is to make fun of it".

As a reminder, my questions were:

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.

And again, none of those involve complex answers relying on random research papers that are not talking about ECT; answering would merely involve sharing your conclusions and thoughts on the topic of maths wrt ECT.

Or should I conclude, by your lack of answers so far, that you never even thought about it? That would rather weird, to criticize mathematics so harshly while not even be able to say why!

Feel free to use any math you’d like to describe the above.

Or

Read each individual paper yourself and come to your own conclusions...

Very easy, if you remember in the ELECTRIC COMET, the nucleus is a charged rocky body discharging in the solar plasma.

Not, a dirty snowball melting in 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 12th August 2020, 08:06 PM   #253
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,945
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

  1. Sol88 lies with "Polarisation of a small-scale cometary plasma environment" which is mainstream ice and dust science irrelevant to his cult's delusions about comets (impossible electric discharges, impossible double layers, the measured density and composition of comets, etc. etc.).
  2. Sol88 lies with "What math do we use to prove the dust is electrically charged" when he has cited mainstream ice and dust papers on the theoretical (i.e. mathematical physics) and undetected lofting of dust via electrostatic charging by the solar wind.
  3. Sol88 lies with "the rocky like consolidated, dusty surface" yet again when it is rocky like behavior of landslides on 67P.
  4. Sol88 lies with "electrostatic charging from suprathermal electrons" when the suprathermal electrons are in the coma, not on the surface of the nucleus.
  5. Sol88 lies with "accelerated by a field aligned ambipolar electric field" when the mainstream ice and dust papers do not say that.
  6. Sol88 lies with "Read each individual paper" when his cult have never published any scientific papers with their dogma. Sol88 has been spamming the thread with irrelevant mainstream ice and dust papers for many years.
  7. Sol88 emphasizes the deluded nature of his cult's dogma yet again with their delusion of comets discharging when plasma conducts.
  8. Sol88 lies with "Not, a dirty snowball melting in the Sun" when the physical evidence is that comets are ice and dust and the ice is sublimating (not melting).
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 12th August 2020, 10:42 PM   #254
lauwenmark
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 68
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
1 - sure it can, why not? Whichever maths blows the wind thru your hair. MHD? PIC?
Well, that's exactly what I'm also wondering: why not? You are calling those using the symbolic language of mathematics to describe their theories as "mathemagicians", so you seem to have some sort of grudge against them. i'd like to understand what it is.
Besides that, if it is fine to use the language of mathematics to describe the ECT, why has this not been done yet? Is there a specific reason to avoid doing it?
BTW, you seem to understand "maths" as "theories described by mathematics" (hence, I guess, the references to MHD and PIC). I am only talking about the mathemtics as a symbolic representation of a given physical phenomen. Thus, it means that pre-existing theories on which ECT possibly rely (like MHD) would only be a workbasis for a mathematical description of ECT itself.

Quote:
2- Nothing.
Then, why do you call scientists working on what you call "mainstream" "mathemagicians" ? What makes their use of mathematics different from how ECT uses it?

Quote:
Mainstream are still coming to terms with comets are rocky bodies discharging in the solar plasma.
I don't care about mainstream. Stop keeping back to it, it has, according to your own words, no value. I'm interested in your thoughts about ECT, not about mainstream.

Quote:
3- Your math seems fine, just very complicated when electrons are treated as particles...
My maths? I'm no (astro)physician, and besides, I don't see how one could claim any ownership over the mathematical symbolism. That's just a silly idea.

Quote:
This one paper has introduced a new term in the math of cometary physics... This makes comets an electrical phenomena
I don't care about mainstream. Stop keeping back to it, it has, according to your own words, no value. I am interested in your thoughts about ECT, not about mainstream.

Thus, here are my new questions, summarized:

4. If using the mathematical symbolism to describe a theory is fine, why has this not been done for ECT yet?

5. You called scientists "mathemagicians", obviously not in agreement in how they used mathematics. What is the difference between their use of that tool and the use ECT makes of it?
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 12th August 2020, 10:47 PM   #255
lauwenmark
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 68
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Feel free to use any math you’d like to describe the above.
There is no such thing as "any math". Mathematics is merely a form of symbolic language with its own set of rules, allowing to describe physical phenomens in a quantifiable way.

Quote:
Read each individual paper yourself and come to your own conclusions.
What paper? I'm not aware of any paper (1)written in support of the ECT and (2) describing it using mathematical symbolism.
I'm not asking about my opinion; I'm asking about yours. And I'm not asking your opinion about the validity of ECT; I'm asking your opinion about the use of mathematics in ECT, and how it is better than in other theories.
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 12th August 2020, 10:51 PM   #256
lauwenmark
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 68
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
What math do we use to prove the dust is electrically charged ( - and +), being removed from the rocky like consolidated, dusty surface via electrostatic charging from suprathermal electrons, accelerated by a field aligned ambipolar electric field.

How do we put figures to those words?
Is what you are describing above one of the claims made by ECT?
If so, then it means that it is precisely the job of any scientist believing ECT is correct to translate those words into equations (note that it is different than just "putting figures"), then enter experimental "figures" in those, and see if they match experimental results. did they already do it?

If that's not one of the claims made by ECT, then it is meaningless and off-topic, since the discussion is about ECT.

Last edited by lauwenmark; 12th August 2020 at 10:53 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 12th August 2020, 10:52 PM   #257
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,996
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
You do understand, don’t you?





A Full Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet

Comets are rocky bodies discharging in the solar plasma.

See above, figures and all!!
SO once again you refuste to actually answer how a negatively charged body can discharge AWAY from a positively charged body. Because that is what your theory currently 'explains'.

I'll ignore all the other inconsistencies and outright errors in your theory so you'll only have to explain that little fact.

So far you have given a lot of hot air and no substance. It's almost as if you cobbled partial explanations together without every linking them or extrapolating what that would mean.
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 13th August 2020, 04:37 AM   #258
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 6,188
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
AFully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet

Sorry, the “figures” don’t copy and paste so well.
That is OK. It is a mainstream paper anyway, so it is not relevant here. When I said "without figures you have nothing", it was of course figures relevant to the OP, especially the parts that are in conflict with science, which I believe this article is not.

Quote:
Incredibly well tested you say? Point me in the direction where the above application of math is used with regards to comets.
You just gave the reference yourself. Electromagnetism is incredibly well tested in the sense that we can safely claim that we know every law of physics that it obeys. That is why we know that a negatively charged object does not discharge away from a positive pole. You need to reject electromagnetism in order to make your Electrical Comet theory work.
__________________
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 13th August 2020, 09:21 AM   #259
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,933
What is "math"? Of course the language of physics is mathematics, i.e. in oder to describe physical phenomena we use the language of mathematics.

What is plasma physics "math"? Well, it consists of a conglomerate of electrodynamics and particle dynamics equations, part of which are shown in the image below.



Here "f" is the particle distribution function of ions "i" and electrons "e" and the first 2 equations tell us how the particle distribution function changes in time, they are the total derivatives Df/Dt, basically the equations of motion of the i's and e's.

The next four are Maxwell's equations. Added to these can be the continuity equation and others that may be needed. As they deal with particle distribution functions, this is a kinetic description.

Now "MHD" is not "a math", it is an approximation of the plasma physics equations where the particle motion around the magnetic field (gyration) is averaged over. Thereby, the particles turn into a fluid in this approach, and thus the name magnetoHYDROdynamics. (Alfvén's Nobel Prize discovery, a (less than) 1 page paper!!!) Of course this comes with the knowledge that you cannot look at phenomena that are smaller than the gyro radius of the heaviest particle, nor those that are faster than the lowest gyro period.

Neither is "PIC" a "math", even less than MHD. PIC = Particle In Cell, is a programming method where the whole volume that is studied is split up into boxes (not necessarily of equal size) then per box the particles are being influenced by the E/B fields and collisions and what-have-you-nots for a specific time interval (which can vary also) and then one looks at what a certain particle does, did it move in the delta-t into another box, or did it stay, did it go faster or slower, etc. etc. When the whole volume has been evaluated, then that is the next starting point, and the next time step is taken. If the mass of the particles is very different, e.g. electrons and protons, then the time step needs to be very small, as the electrons react much more actively to forces. That is why often instead of the 1/1836 mass factor, a 1/36 (the square root) is used (and of course you have to be aware of this fact and its consequences). Sometimes, the electrons are only used as a massless neutralizing fluid.

Why do we do MHD or PIC? Not because the math is "too difficult" (although I cannot call it easy either, lol) there are books and books full of "full math" to call it like that, on of my favourites is still "Instabilities in space and laboratory plasmas" by Don Melrose (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/19.......M/abstract).

But if you want to study some phenomena, then you just use what is necessary, if you look at large scale physics you probably switch to MHD, with its famous "frozen in" magnetic field. One of the consequences of MHD is that the electric field in the plasma is given by E = - v x B, and yes a very nice colleague of mine checked whether this frozen in condition is valid in the Earth's magnetotail: Breakdown of the frozen-in condition in the Earth's magnetotail, A.T.Y. Lui et al. (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/20...4215L/abstract), and as one would expect, it does break down in certain regions. And believe it or not, checking satellite data where E, v and B are measured with that equation is important to understand the phenomena that you are looking at.

If you do numerical simulations you turn to PIC (or some other techniques) in order to save calculation time on the very expensive super computers. Yes, you could calculate it fully and in real time, but then you better be patient and rich.

I have written this already several times, but it cannot hurt to do it again.
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes
twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist
tusenfem 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 13th August 2020, 09:38 AM   #260
lauwenmark
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 68
This is why I like reading those forums and similar websites: there are a lot of high quality informations being explained with a great deal of details and clarity. That's the best way to fight religious beliefs masquerading as 'science'. Thanks a lot for this great explanation, tusenfem.
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 13th August 2020, 11:49 AM   #261
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by lauwenmark View Post
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.


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.

I hope I explained my questions a little better this time and that you'll be able to provide answers to those.
Dude, so simple. Comets are charged rocky bodies discharging in the solar plasma...

So far we can tick mostly rocky and with the discharge involving the dust removing mass from the mostly rocky like... it’s a given it would be charged to the ambient plasma potential.

So, knock your sock off with the math that describes that reality.


So far the above points have all been either verifiable or raised as head scratching conundrums in mainstream papers. In relation to the accepted Dirtysnowball model. The opposing model.


I will continue to “mention” papers by the mainstream mathamagicians that would strongly suggest that in the ELECTRIC COMET, Comets are charged rocky bodies discharging in the solar plasma...

__________________
“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 13th August 2020, 11:58 AM   #262
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
What is "math"? Of course the language of physics is mathematics, i.e. in oder to describe physical phenomena we use the language of mathematics.

What is plasma physics "math"? Well, it consists of a conglomerate of electrodynamics and particle dynamics equations, part of which are shown in the image below.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...55e475ff36.png

Here "f" is the particle distribution function of ions "i" and electrons "e" and the first 2 equations tell us how the particle distribution function changes in time, they are the total derivatives Df/Dt, basically the equations of motion of the i's and e's.

The next four are Maxwell's equations. Added to these can be the continuity equation and others that may be needed. As they deal with particle distribution functions, this is a kinetic description.

Now "MHD" is not "a math", it is an approximation of the plasma physics equations where the particle motion around the magnetic field (gyration) is averaged over. Thereby, the particles turn into a fluid in this approach, and thus the name magnetoHYDROdynamics. (Alfvén's Nobel Prize discovery, a (less than) 1 page paper!!!) Of course this comes with the knowledge that you cannot look at phenomena that are smaller than the gyro radius of the heaviest particle, nor those that are faster than the lowest gyro period.

Neither is "PIC" a "math", even less than MHD. PIC = Particle In Cell, is a programming method where the whole volume that is studied is split up into boxes (not necessarily of equal size) then per box the particles are being influenced by the E/B fields and collisions and what-have-you-nots for a specific time interval (which can vary also) and then one looks at what a certain particle does, did it move in the delta-t into another box, or did it stay, did it go faster or slower, etc. etc. When the whole volume has been evaluated, then that is the next starting point, and the next time step is taken. If the mass of the particles is very different, e.g. electrons and protons, then the time step needs to be very small, as the electrons react much more actively to forces. That is why often instead of the 1/1836 mass factor, a 1/36 (the square root) is used (and of course you have to be aware of this fact and its consequences). Sometimes, the electrons are only used as a massless neutralizing fluid.

Why do we do MHD or PIC? Not because the math is "too difficult" (although I cannot call it easy either, lol) there are books and books full of "full math" to call it like that, on of my favourites is still "Instabilities in space and laboratory plasmas" by Don Melrose (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/19.......M/abstract).

But if you want to study some phenomena, then you just use what is necessary, if you look at large scale physics you probably switch to MHD, with its famous "frozen in" magnetic field. One of the consequences of MHD is that the electric field in the plasma is given by E = - v x B, and yes a very nice colleague of mine checked whether this frozen in condition is valid in the Earth's magnetotail: Breakdown of the frozen-in condition in the Earth's magnetotail, A.T.Y. Lui et al. (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/20...4215L/abstract), and as one would expect, it does break down in certain regions. And believe it or not, checking satellite data where E, v and B are measured with that equation is important to understand the phenomena that you are looking at.

If you do numerical simulations you turn to PIC (or some other techniques) in order to save calculation time on the very expensive super computers. Yes, you could calculate it fully and in real time, but then you better be patient and rich.

I have written this already several times, but it cannot hurt to do it again.
Awesome, as usual tusenfem! I hope people read and understood what you wrote, as we are currently there again, explaining it, again.

But

And just expedite the point I’m tying to make to the less well informed here is...
Quote:
then per box the particles are being influenced by the E/B fields and collisions and what-have-you-nots for a specific time interval (which can vary also) and then one looks at what a certain particle does
Would you expect to see Birkeland currents (field aligned electric currents), convectional, Hall, Polarisation and Field aligned ambipolar ELECTRIC FIELDS in this “math”?

Further and I believe very important for the electric comet is,

Quote:
If the mass of the particles is very different, e.g. electrons and protons, then the time step needs to be very small, as the electrons react much more actively to forces. That is why often instead of the 1/1836 mass factor, a 1/36 (the square root) is used (and of course you have to be aware of this fact and its consequences). Sometimes, the electrons are only used as a massless neutralizing fluid.
Seems very tricky to actually fully capture what’s going on wrt those electrons. Would it simplify the math somewhat by treating the electrons as a massless neutralising fluid if in relation to comets?

Can the DUSTY plasma be thought of as just VERY heavy electrons? If not which math do we use and were to capture this fact?



As I’m clearly no expert and there are some more “mathie” people here, perhaps you could point them to the correct “math” to use in relation to comets being charged rocky bodies discharging in the solar plasma.

Would stop the merry go round, 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

Last edited by Sol88; 13th August 2020 at 12:12 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 13th August 2020, 12:06 PM   #263
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by lauwenmark View Post
This is why I like reading those forums and similar websites: there are a lot of high quality informations being explained with a great deal of details and clarity. That's the best way to fight religious beliefs masquerading as 'science'. Thanks a lot for this great explanation, tusenfem.

tusenfem’s pretty good, ay.

__________________
“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 13th August 2020, 12:19 PM   #264
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by lauwenmark View Post
This is why I like reading those forums and similar websites: there are a lot of high quality informations being explained with a great deal of details and clarity. That's the best way to fight religious beliefs masquerading as 'science'. Thanks a lot for this great explanation, tusenfem.
Religion?

Wtf!

Pure science, ol mate...comets are charged rocky bodies discharging in the solar plasma flow.

Don’t let The “math” stop you from learning the non religious ELECTRIC UNIVERSE.
__________________
“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 13th August 2020, 12:25 PM   #265
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
That is OK. It is a mainstream paper anyway, so it is not relevant here. When I said "without figures you have nothing", it was of course figures relevant to the OP, especially the parts that are in conflict with science, which I believe this article is not.


You just gave the reference yourself. Electromagnetism is incredibly well tested in the sense that we can safely claim that we know every law of physics that it obeys. That is why we know that a negatively charged object does not discharge away from a positive pole. You need to reject electromagnetism in order to make your Electrical Comet theory work.

Well and maybe with tusenfem’s pointers in the correct “math” so as to make it true.

Why don’t the ions just neutralise the electrons just on the other side of the field aligned ambipolar electric field of Divin’s then?

By your reasoning we know that a negatively charged object does not discharge away from a positive pole Yet here are - & + right next door to each other?

You are still in the pith ball and gold leaf science champ....
__________________
“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 13th August 2020, 12:42 PM   #266
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,933
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
As I’m clearly no expert and there are some more “mathie” people here, perhaps you could point them to the correct “math” to use in relation to comets being charged rocky bodies discharging in the solar plasma.
So it completely went over your head.

__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes
twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist
tusenfem 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 13th August 2020, 01:06 PM   #267
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
So it completely went over your head.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5974fa07f2.jpg
No, I got it. After all these years.

Now, the HARD STUFF...

Dusty plasma....in you own time. Let everyone also catch up on the electric comet being impossible because the “math” says so...

And square one, again.


Which maths do we use for the above? Or all sorts of math? Little bit of this little bit of that....

Also, its ok if you just don’t know.
__________________
“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 13th August 2020, 01:09 PM   #268
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
We see comets as rocky bodies and we see mass being electrically removed from the nucleus.

Electric fields, electric currents all part and parcel as well...

So moot point really anyway but there are the math freaks here too tusenfem, so set ‘em straight on which math to use when....
__________________
“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 13th August 2020, 01:23 PM   #269
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
So it completely went over your head.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5974fa07f2.jpg
You like to play games. Let’s play.

Comets are CHARGED rocky bodies discharging in the solar wind.

Let’s take to very first premise, CHARGED.

tusenfem, can a object attain a floating potential when all currents (mostly those pesky light electrons) sum to zero at the body in question?

And therefore by definition when those currents do not sum to zero the object is either charging or discharging.

Simple, easy application of maths.

Possible, tusenfem.
__________________
“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; 13th August 2020 at 01:25 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 13th August 2020, 01:25 PM   #270
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,933
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Dusty plasma....in you own time. Let everyone also catch up on the electric comet being impossible because the “math” says so...
The "math" does not say anything, it's the actual observations that have been made that disprove the EC ideas as originating from Thornhill and Talbott.

I say ideas, because there is no such thing as an EC theory, and yes, I know, you grab on any paper that mentions electricity or electric field as prove that the EC idea has merit.

It does not.
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes
twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist
tusenfem 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 13th August 2020, 01:27 PM   #271
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,933
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Comets are CHARGED rocky bodies discharging in the solar wind.
What does that even mean in EC speak?
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes
twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist
tusenfem 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 13th August 2020, 01:38 PM   #272
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
What does that even mean in EC speak?
Yup, thought it might get a little hot unde your feet.

True to form champ, true to form.

__________________
“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 13th August 2020, 01:42 PM   #273
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
The "math" does not say anything, it's the actual observations that have been made that disprove the EC ideas as originating from Thornhill and Talbott.

I say ideas, because there is no such thing as an EC theory, and yes, I know, you grab on any paper that mentions electricity or electric field as prove that the EC idea has merit.

It does not.
Do we observe charged dust? Do we have a mechanism?

Bang on the money those old cunning devils Thornhill and Talbot (and the rest)

Grab onto? The NEW papers on double layers at comets? Or that comets are mostly rock?

Which one?
__________________
“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 13th August 2020, 01:46 PM   #274
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
The "math" does not say anything, it's the actual observations that have been made that disprove the EC ideas as originating from Thornhill and Talbott.

I say ideas, because there is no such thing as an EC theory, and yes, I know, you grab on any paper that mentions electricity or electric field as prove that the EC idea has merit.

It does not.

The "math" does not say anything, it's the actual observations that have been made that prove the EC ideas as originating from Thornhill and Talbott.

Fixed.
__________________
“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 13th August 2020, 01:53 PM   #275
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
The "math" does not say anything, it's the actual observations that have been made that disprove the EC ideas as originating from Thornhill and Talbott.

I say ideas, because there is no such thing as an EC theory, and yes, I know, you grab on any paper that mentions electricity or electric field as prove that the EC idea has merit.

It does not.
Are comets mostly rocky, tusenfem?

__________________
“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 13th August 2020, 01:56 PM   #276
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
The "math" does not say anything, it's the actual observations that have been made that disprove the EC ideas as originating from Thornhill and Talbott.

I say ideas, because there is no such thing as an EC theory, and yes, I know, you grab on any paper that mentions electricity or electric field as prove that the EC idea has merit.

It does not.

Is the dust charged?
__________________
“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 13th August 2020, 01:59 PM   #277
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
We could keep going but my point is made.


Maths is subservient to observation.
__________________
“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 13th August 2020, 03:07 PM   #278
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,945
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

  1. Sol88 lies with "discharging in the solar plasma" (physically impossible).
  2. Soll88 lies with "mostly rocky" (no rock has been found on comets, comets are still mostly ice and dust with the exception of Tempel 1 and 67P).
  3. Sol88 lies with "conundrums in mainstream papers" when he has cited no such thing.
  4. Sol88 lies with "The opposing model" when his cult's delusions are not a model.
  5. Sol88 lies with papers that "strongly suggest" the electric comet. He has been spamming the thread with irrelevant mainstream ice and dust papers. Lying about those papers emphasizes the Thunderbolts cult delusions about comets.
  6. Sol88 lies about tusenfem's "MHD/PIC" is not "a math" and are not "too difficult" post.
  7. Sol88 lies with "expedite the point I’m tying to make" when he quotes a basic fact about PIC from tusenfem's post.
  8. Sol88 lies with his persistent lying, irrelevant questions. Physical effects such a Birkeland currents are described by math, not "seen in math". More questions on mainstream physics not his cult's deluded dogma.
  9. Sol88 lies when he knows that "discharging in the solar plasma" is physically impossible.
  10. Sol88 lies with "Religion?" when he knows his cult fits the description of a religion. It has prophets (Talbott, Thornhill, Scott). These prophets are easily seen to be ignorant (Talbott and Scott) or liars (Thornhill) or deluded(Thornhill with his neutron = proton + electron delusion, etc.) by anyone with a good education. It has holy books written by the prophets. It has no supporting physical evidence for its "gods" of massive thunderbolts between planets and at comets, comets being rock blasted from Earth and other rocky planets, etc. It ignores physical reality. A small group of people have blind faith in the cult's dogma. Alt lest 1 person (Sol88) is willing to blatantly lie about everything for decades (11 years here) because of that blind faith.
  11. Sol88 lies when he knows that "discharging in the solar plasma" is physically impossible.
  12. Sol88 lies with "non religious ELECTRIC UNIVERSE" which is the Thunderbolts cult's dogma about the entire universe. Thornhill made their delusions about the universe obvious to anyone who can read. More about Sol88's cult, Sol88's lies, Sol88 emphasizing his cult's idiocy and Thornhill's delusions about physics.
  13. Sol88 lies with more irrelevant lying gibberish. There are no "electrons just on the other side...". There is no "field aligned ambipolar electric field of Divin’". The ambipolar electric field is text plasma physics.
  14. Sol88 lies with "Yet here are - & + right next door to each other?" when plasma is electrons and ions "next door to each other".
  15. Sol88 lies with "No, I got it." when he is still ignorantly parroting his cult delusions abut comets, e.g. physically impossible thunderbolts.
  16. Sol88 lies with "Dusty plasma..." which is mainstream physics irrelevant to his cult's deluded dogma.
  17. Sol88 lies with "We see comets as rocky bodies " when that is only his cult's deluded dogma. The rest of the world know the physical properties of comets says they are not rocks.
  18. Sol88 lies when he knows that "discharging in the solar plasma" is physically impossible.
  19. Sol88 lies with more irrelevant lying questions about mainstream physics.
  20. Sol88 lies with "Yup, thought it might get a little hot unde your feet". tusenfem is a plasma physicist studying comets. He knows when what he read is nonsense.
  21. mainstream physics[/b].
  22. Sol88 lies with "Do we observe charged dust?" when he has cited mainstream ice and dust papers reporting that.
  23. Sol88 lies with "Do we have a mechanism?" when he has cited mainstream ice and dust papers with the mechanisms.
  24. Sol88 lies with "Thornhill and Talbot" the cult prophets who have the delusion that physically impossible thunderbolts produce charged dust. All they have their decades old delusion, not any science to support it.
  25. Sol88 lies with "NEW papers on double layers at comets" which do not exist.
  26. Sol88 lies with "comets are mostly rock" when mainstream ice and dust papers do not say that.
  27. Sol88 lies with "actual observations" proving the delusions of hic cult prophets, Thornhill and Talbott. It is observations that have shown that Thornhill and Talbott's ideas are delusions Observations give the density and composition of comets as ice and dust. Observations show there are no thunderbolts at comets. Observations show the surface of comets is not what the industrial process of EDM produces. Observations show that there is no dielectric liquid around comet nuclei as required by EDM.
  28. Sol88 lies with "Are comets mostly rocky, tusenfem?"
  29. Sol88 lies with "Is the dust charged?"
  30. Sol88 tells the truth () with "We could keep going but my point is made.". His point that he will continue 11 years of spamming the thread with lying, irrelevant, already answered questions has been made.
  31. Sol88 lies with "Maths is subservient to observation" when no one has said that. It is observation plus math that is a foundation of 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 13th August 2020, 04:14 PM   #280
lauwenmark
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 68
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Dude, so simple. Comets are charged rocky bodies discharging in the solar plasma...

So, knock your sock off with the math that describes that reality.
So the answer of ECT to "how do you formalize things using mathematical symbolism?" is "Do it yourself dude!" ???

Quote:
So far the above points have all been either verifiable or raised as head scratching conundrums in mainstream papers. In relation to the accepted Dirtysnowball model. The opposing model.
So the answer of ECT to "how do you formalize things using mathematical symbolism?" is "We don't, since other people already did it and explained things in another way" ???

Quote:
I will continue to “mention” papers by the mainstream mathamagicians that would strongly suggest that in the ELECTRIC COMET, Comets are charged rocky bodies discharging in the solar plasma...
So, ECT research is so poor that you are forced to find mathematical descriptions supporting it on *other* theories???

Last edited by lauwenmark; 13th August 2020 at 04:59 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
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 03:40 PM.
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.