ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Closed Thread
Old 3rd June 2019, 06:29 PM   #3881
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,898
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
4 more useless post.
The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.

It is not useless to emphasis to the world that we are seeing delusional attacks on mainstream scientists and mainstream papers that in no way support the electric comet insanity. The electric comet is insane on it's own "merits"!

Sol88 should stick to the thread subject and try to remove that insanity. Sol88 should stick to the actual electric comet insanity instead of lying about it. Sol88 should would give evidence that comets are rocks blasted from rocky planets. Sol88 should give evidence for dielectric fluids needed for EDM at comets or evidence for any EDM there. Sol88 should give evidence of the distinctive electrical discharge radiation from jets that are supposed to be electrical discharges ! Sol88 should explain how jets as electrical discharges vanish in the shadows.

Maybe over 12 years of silence from Sol88 about that basic insanity shows that all Sol88 has blind "religious" faith in the deluded Thunderbolts cult comes and Sun dogma.

Sol88 insists on debasing the electric comet insanity further with pathetic and lying attacks on mainstream science. That shows that the electric comet is so insane that not even its supporters can support it !
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 Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 06:34 PM   #3882
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,898
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
A bit rich coming from somebody who has never made a single scientifically valid post in a decade and a half!
Probably not even a single scientifically valid paragraph in those posts in a decade and a half!
I even have my doubts about a single scientifically valid sentence.
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 Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 06:40 PM   #3883
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,773
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Probably not even a single scientifically valid paragraph in those posts in a decade and a half!
I even have my doubts about a single scientifically valid sentence.
Charge separation (MHD NOT VALID) at a rocky nucleus causing electric fields driving electric currents.



So simple.

It’s all about the PLASMA PLASMA PLASMA.

Sublimation for simpletons and mathamagicians.

1950’s theory vs 2016 data....

As A’Hearn stated our understanding has been evolving...toward MOSTLY ROCK.


however unfortunate his use of words were, it stands.

Comets are not snowyicydirtballs.
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 06:42 PM   #3884
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,898
Thumbs down The usual lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Actually, I just had to add, the times you contradict yourself is absolutely hilarious.
The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.

Missed this lie: I have not contradicted myself. Just about every one of your posts contains lies, delusions, insults etc. Persistent insanity over the 10 years here of ignoring the electric comet insanity and lying about mainstream ices and dust comets. Absolute insanity of lying about the electric comet insanity! Slight insanity of lying about words in mainstream ices and dust comets papers, e.g. astronomers writing about ices and dust comets mean dust when they use any term that is not ices, e.g. rock.
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 Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 06:44 PM   #3885
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,898
Thumbs down The usual lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...
The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.

Usual insane lies and gibberish about mainstream science and his electric comet insanity which has no real "PLASMA PLASMA PLASMA" in it set of insane fantasies!
Mainstream ices and dust comets have real plasma.

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd June 2019 at 06:46 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 Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 06:47 PM   #3886
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,724
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Charge separation (MHD NOT VALID) at a rocky nucleus causing electric fields driving electric currents.



So simple.

It’s all about the PLASMA PLASMA PLASMA.

Sublimation for simpletons and mathamagicians.

1950’s theory vs 2016 data....

As A’Hearn stated our understanding has been evolving...toward MOSTLY ROCK.


however unfortunate his use of words were, it stands.

Comets are not snowyicydirtballs.
Like I said, show where rock has been detected at a comet, or shut up. And you know nothing about plasma, nor comets. There is not a single piece of evidence in favour of your woo. Zilch. And a shed load against it. Not a single qualified scientist buys into your idiotic woo. It is a science-free zone, inhabited by Velikovskian nutjobs.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 06:49 PM   #3887
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,898
Thumbs down The usual lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Sublimation for simpletons and mathamagicians.
The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.

Insane insults about mainstream astronomers.

He is the "simpleton" who cannot understand what most children can understand when they see dry ice - ices sublimate and we detect ices on comets under conditions that they must sublimate !

This will probably trigger the usual insanity of no ices at all on comets. Or he will have his deluded version of ices that magically do not sublimate as they do here on Earth in experiments duplicating comets. Or some other, maybe new, delusions for a change?

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd June 2019 at 07:07 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 Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 07:00 PM   #3888
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,898
Thumbs down The usual lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
1950’s theory vs 2016 data.... .
The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.

An insane lie that cometary theory stopped in the 1950's when he has been citing modern papers with modern mainstream ices and dust theory.
The insane part of the lie is that cometary theory does not give comets a specific ratio between dust and ices. That is expressed as an unknown fraction as stated in at least 1 paper he has cited. It is stellar formation theory and data that gave the expectation in the 1950's that comets would be formed with more ices and dust. That is obvious to anyone with a brain. Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus are gas giants. Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus have ice moons, some of which are similar in size to comets. Pluto is an ice dwarf planet. All other known Kuiper belt objects are icy bodies. Conclusion: the outer solar system forms objects with more ice than dust!

The question is more what does the history of comets do to the dust/ices ratio? Obviously, this increases with visits to the inner solar system as ices sublimate and should decrease with deposition of fresh ices and dust in the outer solar system. But Jupiter-family comets such as Tempel 1 and 67P do not visit the outer solar system. They might not be replenished with ices or dust. That could be an explanation for their lower % of ices. We might make a guess: Jupiter-family comets will have high dust/ices ratios, Kuiper belt comets will have modest dust/ices ratios, Oort cloud comets will have low dust/ices ratios. An average potential comet object will be have an Oort cloud composition (low dust/ices ratio). However I suspect that actual long period comets from the Oort cloud are a lot rarer than the other comets. The average comet visiting us might be a modest or high dust/ices ratio.

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd June 2019 at 07:31 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 Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 07:05 PM   #3889
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,898
Thumbs down The usual lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Comets are not snowyicydirtballs.
The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.

Some "not snowyicydirtballs" insanity. Comets are still ices and dust ("snowy icy dirt balls). We have hints that the dust/ices ratio in a typical comet needs changing. Sample a few dozen more comets and we will have good evidence either way.
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 Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 09:40 PM   #3890
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,773
Hints??

Not according to A’Hearn.

Again,
Quote:
(c) What are comets made of?

At the simplest level, a very basic question is whether comets are mostly ice or mostly rock/dirt/refractory material. Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the first quantitative model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high as 6 have been cited [3,4].
Comets: looking ahead Michael F. A’Hearn


Big HINT.
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 10:55 PM   #3891
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,850
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Hints??



Not according to A’Hearn.



Again, Comets: looking ahead Michael F. A’Hearn





Big HINT.
Doesn't it strike yourself as rather poor that after all these pages, you are still left with just one quote from a defenceless dead astronomer?
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 4th June 2019, 12:39 AM   #3892
Indagator
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 93
A Prelude

Sol88! YOU ARE STILL FAILING TO MAKE YOUR CASE! YOU ARE STILL FAILING!

Are ya having any "luck" with your ASSIGNMENTS, Sol88? Did you think you could spend all your time being distracted by jonesdave116 and Reality Check? You should thank those two for keeping you from your responsibilities on this 'electric comet' thread ... ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS and PROVING your 'electric comet' is based on SCIENCE and not religion!

Problem is, Sol88 ... I WILL NOT GO AWAY! And YOU cannot hide from me!

So, with your avoidance tactics, are you telling me you can't do basic SCIENCE? Are you telling me you can't do basic PLASMA PHYSICS? Are you telling me you can't do basic MATH? Are you telling me you can't look things up on the internet? Are you telling me you still have no 'electric comet' model to discuss, test and review?

HOW are we ever going to discuss cometary DOUBLE LAYERS if you can't calculate a simple Debye length?

According to Deca et al (2017), what data is needed to calculate the Debye length for the solar wind?

According to Deca et al (2017), what is the Debye length for the solar wind?

According to Deca et al (2017), what is the numerical value of the gas production rate used in the simulation?

According to Deca et al (2017), how much water was required to produce the "simulated" charge separation?

According to Biver et al (2015), how much water did MIRO "observe" being emitted by 67P at 3.4 AU?

As a prelude to ASSIGNMENT #005, I would like to provide a quick update on your outstanding (i.e., unanswered) ASSIGNMENTS!!!

TABLE: Sol88's Outstanding FAILED(?) 'electric comet' and "Plasma Physics" ASSIGNMENTS!!!

ASSIGN Posted Grade Scope
#000 #2690 0/100 Explain, in 'electric comet' terms, why comet and asteroid eccentricities are so intimately mixed!
#001 #0860 0/100 A Test of Observation Skills and Five Simple Questions Posed and Answered in A'Hearn (2017)
#002 #2580 00000 A Detailed Discussion of A'Hearn et al (2008), wherein they present evidence that COMETS ARE NOT MADE OF ROCK!
#003 #2681 0/100 A Detailed Discussion of Deca et al (2017), wherein comets are made of Volatile Ices and Dust!
#004 #3819 0/100 Plasma Physics 555 - Fundamental Plasma Physics - I - Sol88's Lament
#005 NEXT ----- Forces Acting on Rosetta during the RSI Experiment - Calculations Based on Real Cited DATA
#006 ---- -----
#007 ---- -----
#008 ---- -----
#009 ---- -----
#010 ---- -----

As ALL the lurkers can plainly see, Sol88 offers NO science! NO math! NO model! NO evidence! Nothing but "ducks and bunnies" 'eu/es/ec' science whinging!

And this just in ... Sol88 APPARENTLY DOES NOT KNOW WHAT A PLASMA IS (i.e., Question 1) from ASSIGNMENT #004)! Sol88 knows absolutely nothing about plasmas and plasma physics! You're NEVER going to answer a single question about plasmas, are you, Sol88? YOU CAN'T! PATHETIC! TRULY PATHETIC!

What I would like to do in the next two posts is briefly discuss the EPIC FAILURE that is your 'electric comet' model! Specifically, the fact that you can't, won't, or blatantly refuse to answer direct and pointed questions presented in the form of several simple ASSIGNMENTS! Now, the reason you have been asked these questions is to determine whether the 'electric comet' is a viable alternative to the mainstream comet model! Because you cower in fear, and refuse to answer my questions, we must conclude that the 'electric comet' is NOT a viable model by any description!

To date, Sol88, you've offered me, a mainstream scientist, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO WORK WITH!

According to Deca et al (2017), how much water was required to produce the simulated charge separation?

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
No, your model says huge amounts of water. Our model say pittance.

We’ve been here and done that but for the slow of learning, how do you get Q?

Beginners....

Sol88, who do you think qualifies as "slow of learning" and "Beginner ..." in our discussions? And please provide a numerical measure of "pittance," if you'd be so kind!

ASSIGNMENT #000

Sol88, as you will no doubt recall, ASSIGNMENT #000 requires that you Use electrostatics, electrodynamics, and orbital mechanics, to show how eccentricity is responsible for charging and discharging your electric comet! To have any value, your model must properly account for the observed behaviour of all comets and asteroids listed in the table originally provided with the assignment! However, because you've made no attempt to deal with this issue, the table continues to grow! And to make matters worse, your 'electric comet' model must now be capable of predicting the activity levels and the associated bulk densities for each comet and asteroid if you wish to receive a passing grade!

So, here it is again, ... The Sexiest TABLE of "Small Bodies" on the ISF! As noted, the table has grown by ten records, plus I've added mass and bulk density data where available! This table, like your EPIC FAILURES, will continue to grow!

TABLE: Small Solar System Bodies that will NEVER, EVER be 'electric comets'

Object ID a (AU) e i q (AU) Q (AU) TJ Mass (kg) Density (kg/m3)
====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ======== ===========
KBO: 2014 MU69 44.630 0.0505 2.50 42.38 46.88 5.96
Asteroid:4 Vesta 2.361 0.0887 7.14 2.15 2.57 3.54 2.59E+20 3456
Comet: 372P/McNaught 4.496 0.1539 9.52 3.80 5.19 2.97 X
Asteroid:21 Lutetia 2.435 0.1634 3.06 2.04 2.83 3.49 1.70E+18 3400
Asteroid:162173 Ryugu 1.190 0.1902 5.88 0.96 1.42 5.31 4.5 E+11 1190
Asteroid:101955 Bennu 1.126 0.2037 6.03 0.90 1.36 5.53 7.8 E+10 1260
Asteroid:1999 CK103 3.337 0.2053 25.43 2.65 4.02 2.98 X
Comet: 367P/Catalina 3.511 0.2800 8.46 2.53 4.49 3.04
Asteroid:25143 Itokawa 1.324 0.2801 1.62 0.95 1.70 4.90 3.58E+10 1950
Asteroid:2014 QP241 3.493 0.3225 1.51 2.37 4.62 3.04
Comet: 116P/Wild 4 3.478 0.3725 3.61 2.19 4.78 3.01
Comet: 9P/Tempel 1 3.146 0.5096 10.47 1.54 4.75 2.97 X
Asteroid:6489 Golevka 2.502 0.6053 2.27 0.99 4.02 3.18 2.10E+11 2700
Asteroid:2001 KD55 3.344 0.6235 9.98 1.26 5.43 2.79 X
Asteroid:4179 Toutatis 2.531 0.6287 0.45 0.94 4.12 3.14 5.05E+13 2100
Asteroid:2014 LS26 3.364 0.6289 10.86 1.25 5.48 2.77 X
Asteroid:2000 DQ110 3.361 0.6297 58.28 1.25 5.48 2.20 X
Comet: 40P/Vaisala 1 4.940 0.6316 11.49 1.82 8.06 2.53 X
Asteroid:2016 RP33 3.334 0.6343 23.04 1.22 5.45 2.70 X
Asteroid:2014 XN40 3.381 0.6349 14.20 1.24 5.53 2.75 X
Asteroid:1986 RA 3.327 0.6358 19.13 1.21 5.44 2.73 X
Comet: 67P/C-G 3.463 0.6414 7.05 1.24 5.69 2.75 X 9.98E+12 538
Asteroid:2014 HW177 3.302 0.6437 13.00 1.18 5.43 2.76 X
Asteroid:1995 QN3 3.300 0.6450 14.79 1.17 5.43 2.75 X
Comet: 146P/Shoemaker 4.036 0.6467 23.09 1.43 6.65 2.53 X
Asteroid:2014 HY196 3.526 0.6561 42.29 1.21 5.84 2.40 X
Asteroid:2016 WX8 3.529 0.6572 13.29 1.21 5.85 2.68 X
Asteroid:944 Hidalgo 5.741 0.6608 42.52 1.95 9.53 2.07 X
Asteroid:2016 LA2 3.565 0.6748 17.43 1.16 5.97 2.63 X
Comet: 289P/Blanpain 3.080 0.6758 5.93 1.00 5.16 2.82 X
Asteroid:2011 YY28 3.388 0.6765 7.35 1.10 5.68 2.71 X
Asteroid:3552 Don Quixote 4.259 0.7088 31.08 1.24 7.28 2.31 X
Comet: 2P/Encke 2.218 0.8471 11.76 0.33 4.11 3.03
Asteroid:2005 MW9 3.580 0.8876 55.24 0.40 6.76 1.89
Comet: 1P/Halley 17.834 0.9671 162.26 0.59 35.10 -0.61 ? 2.2 E+14 600
Comet: C/2004 P1 8057. 0.9993 28.82 6.01 16107 2.58 ?
Comet: C/2004 U1 3613. 0.9993 130.63 2.66 7224 -1.28 ?
Comet: C/2007 M2 5360. 0.9993 80.95 3.54 10717 0.38
Comet: C/2011 F1 2776. 0.9993 56.62 1.82 5550 0.95
Comet: C/2013 F2 8409. 0.9993 61.75 6.22 16812 1.42
Comet: C/2013 J5 7151. 0.9993 136.01 4.91 14297 -1.99 ?
Comet: C/2013 US10 -2930. 1.0003 148.88 0.82 NaN ?
Comet: C/2017 U7 -4109. 1.0016 142.64 6.42 NaN ?
Comet: C/2018 C2 -1082. 1.0018 34.45 1.96 NaN ?
Interstellar: 1I/2017 U1-1.272 1.2011 122.74 0.26 NaN ?

Columns: a = Semi-major axis, e = Eccentricity, i = Inclination, q = Perihelion, Q = Aphelion, TJ = Tisserand parameter.

All orbital data was extracted from the JPL SBDB. Please note, the tabulated data, above, is a trivial subset of a greater whole. Literally thousands of data records! Literally thousands of small bodies! And not one 'electric comet' in the whole damned database! POOP! POOP! POOP! POOP! POOP! POOP! POOP!

Sol88, would you like to ask me any questions about the tabulated (i.e., observed) data? Is there any genuine curiosity left in you? Or has it all devolved into "ducks and bunnies" religious dogma?

ASSIGNMENT #002

This ASSIGNMENT requires courage to complete! This ASSIGNMENT requires that you look through the telescope! In several posts, I have given you clues as to the identity of the A'Hearn et al (TBD) paper! All you had to do is connect the dots! You FAILED once again, Sol88! Your credibility is in tatters! How can you mount a convincing argument for an 'electric comet' model when you refuse to face evidence that may contradict your ... religious beliefs! I'll give you one last chance to avoid a failing grade ...

Originally Posted by Indagator View Post
CONTEXT! A Harsh Reality!

FYI - Michael A'Hearn was not talking to someone like you, Sol88! No! Michael was talking to someone like me! Another mainstream scientist who understands the subject matter and the concept of context! From your posting history, it is obvious that you cannot read for comprehension, nor are you at all observant! Your religious desperation prevents you from seeing how mainstream science cannot support your blind faith, alternative facts view of the real world!

Your assignment!

Michael A'Hearn, along with several other "COMPETENT" scientists, wrote a paper several years ago that actually discusses the probability of "ROCK" being found in comets! This paper is real. It does exist. <I just checked! It's still out there!>

Using your favourite search engine, find this specific journal paper! A "SAMPLE" of one, if you will. When you have found it, please post a link for the class! If you need more clues than those already provided, I will post at your request. Once you have found and read (i.e., comprehended) said paper, we will discuss the mainstream implications! Remember, the internet is watching to see what you will do!

Have fun 'ec' expert! Remember, Michael A'Hearn knew the difference between what Whipple called 'meteoric material' and consolidated rock! Michael A'Hearn DID NOT change his position on comets being made of volatile ices and dust!

PERIOD!

Your behaviour on this thread is truly embarrassing, Sol88!

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Will you out smart me and find the link to the peer reviewed paper?

I love the hypocrisy, Sol88! Will you find the link to the peer reviewed paper? ARE YOU SCARED OF WHAT YOU'LL FIND? You should be!

I'll also wager you just can't wait to find out how this paper was used recently!

ASSIGNMENT #003

Deca et al (2017) Electron and Ion Dynamics of the Solar Wind Interaction with a Weakly Outgassing Comet!

A mainstream paper, written by mainstream scientists, in support of the mainstream comet model! A model first proposed by Whipple in 1950! A model that has been subsequently and continuously updated as our technical skills grow and our "vision" improves? A model that is actually consistent with observations!

You know, Sol88, I've been waiting for more than four months to discuss Deca et al (2017) with you! Hell! It's almost five months now! Longer than a typical academic term at your local university!!!

Regardless of the delay, I am really looking forward to discussing Deca et al (2017)! I've given you a list of questions that are critical to our discussion and your ASSIGNMENT grade! Please don't be a disappointment to me, or the lurkers! ANSWER MY QUESTIONS! How can WE build an 'electric comet' model if you don't answer my questions?

ASSIGNMENT #004

Originally Posted by Sol88 from 2019/05/07 (3596) View Post
You do know what plasma is, don’t you?
Originally Posted by Sol88 from 2019/05/08 (3651) View Post
You do know what plasma is?

Sol88! I thought you knew plasmas and plasma physics? Apparently that was a lie, wasn't it? Questions 2) and 3) are dead easy! What's the matter, Sol88? Is SCIENCE too hard? Is PLASMA PHYSICS too hard? Are you claiming that it is impossible to calculate the Debye length for the solar wind? Deca et al (2017) provide sufficient initial conditions to calculate the Debye length for the solar wind! It took me less than two minutes! Are you now saying that plasma physics does not need math? Are you saying there's something wrong with Deca et al (2017) because the authors know mathematics AND plasma physics? What's the matter, Sol88? You seem to be completely out of your league here! As was stated in the ASSIGNMENT, you should be able to answer all four questions after reading the "Introductory" chapter of any Plasma Physics text! Perhaps you've forgotten that google is your friend? Or, perhaps the real reason is that you can't read! Letting your eyes scan words on a page is not the same as reading, Sol88! Reading for comprehension is a skill that must be learned! Is that the problem, Sol88?

I hate watching you FLAIL and FAIL, Sol88, so here's what we're going to do! BABY STEPS! Look up the equation for the Debye length and make a list of the various parameters! Next, go through the text of the Deca et al paper and match the parameters with actual initial conditions data! For example, the "frozen-in" magnetic field, employed in the simulation, and required to calculate the plasma beta, is given as a vector, BIMF = (0,6,0) nT! Easy? Give it a go! I expect you might learn something! Maybe even gain some self-respect by making an effort to do some real science!

Take a chance, Sol88! Start answering my questions! Start doing your ASSIGNMENTS! Start learning something real about plasma physics! Embrace the "frozen-in" magnetic field! You need it to get your charge separation!

Post Script 1! Sol88! Why don't you recruit some of your ThunderButt buddies to come give you a hand answering my questions and defending your FAILED 'electric comet' dogma! You don't seem to be doing too well with this science thing!

Post Script 2! Is anyone interested in seeing Sol88's answers to my growing list of questions? Or am I just wasting my time here?
Indagator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th June 2019, 01:49 AM   #3893
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,773
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
Doesn't it strike yourself as rather poor that after all these pages, you are still left with just one quote from a defenceless dead astronomer?

Not just any astronomer, the preeminent COMETARY astronomer.

Reckon he’d be all over it, after all our understanding has been evolving.

Do you know what evolving means?




You seem to not give the man credit for he’s life’s work. Poor form I’d say as I’m just quoting him from his last paper.

Seems to get up every ones nose for some reason and I can’t fathom why. Is it because Thornhill said comets are rocky?

Anyhoo, he said it at it is what it is!



Suck it up princess.
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 4th June 2019, 02:23 AM   #3894
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,773
In fact if you really want the quote that gets me all frothy;
Quote:
Cometary electrons eventually end up neutralizing the solar wind protons, and solar wind electrons eventually neutralize the cometary ions.
how do you read that, steenkh?
?

In my reading if h2o ions are being neutralised (not positively charged any more) by cometary electrons, does that not just make it neutral water?

Along with solar wind protons becoming neutral hydrogen by pinching and electron.

Do you know the paper steenkh?

The death of MHD and the realisation that comets are a electric phenomenon (charge separated plasma), electric fields and the associated electric currents.

Double layers here we come. This is MY prediction.

See next snipe, steenkh ‘ol mate.
__________________
“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; 4th June 2019 at 02:28 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 Back to Top
Old 4th June 2019, 03:49 AM   #3895
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,773
@indigator you do know Asteroid:101955 Bennu is active.


Hows that fit into your neat little box?

Anywhoo MHD and it’s frozen in magnetic field is fun to watch and as long as it makes your mathamagics easy then good on ya. It’s not reality as has been shown.

You do know what a double layer is, I assume?

How are the electric currents generated? Sublimation?
__________________
“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; 4th June 2019 at 03:51 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 Back to Top
Old 4th June 2019, 04:23 AM   #3896
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,131
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Meh... just happy to see mainstream Dirtysnowballers acknowledge the fact ELECTRIC FIELDS are important for plasma dynamics.
I'll be happy to acknowledge anything you can present solid evidence for. So far you've spent years shouting about nonsense and avoiding real debate. That's not very convincing.

Quote:
Electric comet important that requires there to be electric fields or Dirtysnowball important were there maybe electric fields but there not doing anything.
That's not even a sentence.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th June 2019, 04:45 AM   #3897
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,773
Bet if we visit more asteroids we shall find them active as well.

Let’s go look 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 Back to Top
Old 4th June 2019, 04:50 AM   #3898
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,131
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Bet if we visit more asteroids we shall find them active as well.

Let’s go look ay?
What do you mean by "active"?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th June 2019, 04:50 AM   #3899
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,773
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I'll be happy to acknowledge anything you can present solid evidence for. So far you've spent years shouting about nonsense and avoiding real debate. That's not very convincing.



That's not even a sentence.
Sorry mate iPad autocorrect.

Anyhoo,
Quote:
The best explanation for the drastic decrease in dust brightness when consolidated regions are illuminated is a quenched dust activity due to the high cohesion of surface material. These observations show that, when 67P is approaching perihelion, the dust activity cannot be understood based on water-driven activity alone. This is in agreement with other modelling results on the seasonal evolution of the near-nucleus coma, which show that the correlation observed earlier in the mission, between the observed dust coma and a modelled water coma from a homogeneously sublimating nucleus, is significantly degraded (Shi et al. 2018b).
Diurnal variation of dust and gas production in comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko at the inbound equinox as seen by OSIRIS and VIRTIS-M on board Rosetta

What say ye champ?


Dirtysnowball?


Evidence says Mmmmmmmm.... your a clever cookie.
__________________
“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; 4th June 2019 at 05:01 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 Back to Top
Old 4th June 2019, 05:04 AM   #3900
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,773
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
What do you mean by "active"?
Asteroid or comet?

Asteroid–comet continuum objectsinthesolarsystem

Give a good start on the differences between the two.

Happy to help.
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 4th June 2019, 05:08 AM   #3901
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,773
What evidence are you looking for to lend more weight to the electric comet?

We have rock, electric fields, charge seperation, electric currents....

I’m a happy man.
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 4th June 2019, 05:49 AM   #3902
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,760
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
What evidence are you looking for to lend more weight to the electric comet?

We have rock, electric fields, charge seperation, electric currents....
Dude, we've been over this a bazillion times before.

Let me state the title of this thread, with some added emphasis ...

The Electric Comet Theory Part IV/SAFIRE

Where is it, this wonderful Theory?

It certainly seems to be lacking, spectacularly so, in all the thousands of posts by you, in this thread.

Quote:
I’m a happy man.
Enjoy your happiness, knowing that you have failed - spectacularly - to present any Theory at all, much less any Electric Comet Theory.
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 Back to Top
Old 4th June 2019, 05:58 AM   #3903
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,131
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Happy to help.
You didn't. What do you mean by "active"?

Quote:
What evidence are you looking for to lend more weight to the electric comet?
Anything would be a start.

Quote:
We have rock, electric fields, charge seperation, electric currents....
Having EM fields is not an indication that gravity doesn't exist.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th June 2019, 06:01 AM   #3904
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,773
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
What do you mean by "active"?
Active as in activity.

Quote:
One of the main goals of Rosetta is to understand cometary activity, i.e. the physical processes generating the dust and gas coma from the nucleus.

__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 4th June 2019, 06:04 AM   #3905
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,773
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Dude, we've been over this a bazillion times before.

Let me state the title of this thread, with some added emphasis ...

The Electric Comet Theory Part IV/SAFIRE

Where is it, this wonderful Theory?

It certainly seems to be lacking, spectacularly so, in all the thousands of posts by you, in this thread.



Enjoy your happiness, knowing that you have failed - spectacularly - to present any Theory at all, much less any Electric Comet Theory.
Go look it up and get back to us when you can, cheers.

You seem to struggle with the basics bit like rc.

Simpleton version just for you, comets are rocks discharging within the solar plasma.

At least our understanding has been evolving toward mostly rock. Singing comet was a good’n too for the EC.

Good start in my book.
__________________
“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; 4th June 2019 at 06:06 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 Back to Top
Old 4th June 2019, 06:08 AM   #3906
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,773
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
You didn't. What do you mean by "active"?



Anything would be a start.



Having EM fields is not an indication that gravity doesn't exist.
Who ever said gravity doesn’t exist?

You getting lessons from reality check in confabulation?
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 4th June 2019, 06:19 AM   #3907
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,760
Thanks.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Go look it up and get back to us when you can, cheers.

You seem to struggle with the basics bit like rc.

Simpleton version just for you, comets are rocks discharging within the solar plasma.

At least our understanding has been evolving toward mostly rock. Singing comet was a good’n too for the EC.

Good start in my book.
Some time in the past, I would have been rather surprised to see you so freely and openly admitting that no Electric Comet Theory exists, let alone one that you have written about here. But as you’ve been doing this for what, several years now, I am no longer.

It is good, however, to read - once again - your open admission of your spectacular failure.
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 Back to Top
Old 4th June 2019, 06:25 AM   #3908
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,773
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Go look it up and get back to us when you can, cheers.

You seem to struggle with the basics bit like rc.

Simpleton version just for you, comets are rocks discharging within the solar plasma.

At least our understanding has been evolving toward mostly rock. Singing comet was a good’n too for the EC.

Good start in my book.
If a call rock consolidated refractory material does that make it better for you?

Quote:
The scarcity of ice suggests that the thermo-physical properties of the nucleus are dominated by those of the refractory component.
LINK

Is this exactly what A’Hearn stated?

Comets are mostly rock, no. Comets are mostly consolidated refractory material.

Oh, ok.



Sorry 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 Back to Top
Old 4th June 2019, 06:36 AM   #3909
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,760
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
If a call rock consolidated refractory material does that make it better for you?

LINK

Is this exactly what A’Hearn stated?

Comets are mostly rock, no. Comets are mostly consolidated refractory material.

Oh, ok.



Sorry jean tate.
No worries mate.

I acknowledge that, over the many year life of this thread, you have been given dozens and dozens of opportunities to present, and defend, an Electric Comet Theory (or Model). And that at least once you made an attempt to do some very simple modeling and calculations.

I’m sure it’s very frustrating to keep failing, year after year. But maybe you could make another attempt? Try to at least start to tackle one of Indagator’s assignments?
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 Back to Top
Old 4th June 2019, 06:43 AM   #3910
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,131
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Active as in activity.
Then it's pointless, as everything in the universe has activity.

So what's your point?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th June 2019, 06:44 AM   #3911
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,131
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Who ever said gravity doesn’t exist?

You getting lessons from reality check in confabulation?
The whole point of the Electric Universe nonsense is to deny the existence of gravity as a force and instead explain all of that with EM fields. Don't pretend otherwise.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th June 2019, 06:49 AM   #3912
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,773
EM is the dominant force not gravity. EU never said gravity does not exist.

Don’t know where you got that howler. Not nearly as bad as a singularity though, now that’s a HOWLER.

Divide by zero = singularity
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 4th June 2019, 06:55 AM   #3913
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,131
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
EM is the dominant force not gravity. EU never said gravity does not exist.
If gravity exists then how strong is it? Why would you need EM to explain what gravity normally explains if gravity's there to begin with? The EU claims make no sense unless they're meant to replace gravity.

Quote:
Not nearly as bad as a singularity though, now that’s a HOWLER.

Divide by zero = singularity
The real howler is that you don't know what a singularity is, and what it means to science. No wonder you're looking for an alternative.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th June 2019, 09:47 AM   #3914
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,724
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Not just any astronomer, the preeminent COMETARY astronomer.

Reckon he’d be all over it, after all our understanding has been evolving.

Do you know what evolving means?




You seem to not give the man credit for he’s life’s work. Poor form I’d say as I’m just quoting him from his last paper.

Seems to get up every ones nose for some reason and I can’t fathom why. Is it because Thornhill said comets are rocky?

Anyhoo, he said it at it is what it is!



Suck it up princess.
Link to the detection of rock at a comet or quit with the pathetic lying.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th June 2019, 09:51 AM   #3915
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,724
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Go look it up and get back to us when you can, cheers.

You seem to struggle with the basics bit like rc.

Simpleton version just for you, comets are rocks discharging within the solar plasma.

At least our understanding has been evolving toward mostly rock. Singing comet was a good’n too for the EC.

Good start in my book.
No rock, no discharges (lol). Ergo you failed. Come up with another model that involves ice, gas and dust. I think we already have one of them. And I see no evidence to make it worth considering changing that model for one that is scientifically impossible, has no mechanisms and no evidence.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th June 2019, 12:42 PM   #3916
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,724
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
What evidence are you looking for to lend more weight to the electric comet?

We have rock, electric fields, charge seperation, electric currents....

I’m a happy man.
No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing. You need EDM (lol), and you need discharges. You haven't got them. Therefore, you have failed.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th June 2019, 01:27 PM   #3917
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,898
Thumbs down The usual lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
....
The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.

Usual insane insults of astronomers when only the ignorant deluded thunderbolts cult believes in the electric comet insanity of comets being rocks blasted from rocky planets by electric discharges between planets, etc.

Last edited by Reality Check; 4th June 2019 at 01:33 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 Back to Top
Old 4th June 2019, 01:32 PM   #3918
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,898
Thumbs down The usual lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Is it because Thornhill said comets are rocky?
The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.

Usual insane lies abut the electric comet insanity. The impossibility of comets being rocks (not "rocky") is just 1 bit of the insanity.

The thunderbolts cult prophet Thornhill is a deluded liar, e.g. 14 years of blatant lies of confirmed prediction for the Deep Impact mission that shoed that Tempel 1 was made of ices and dust by blasting ices and dust from the comet !
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 Back to Top
Old 4th June 2019, 01:36 PM   #3919
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,898
Thumbs down The usual lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...
The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.

Usual insane lies about textbook physics.
Quote:
Cometary electrons eventually end up neutralizing the solar wind protons, and solar wind electrons eventually neutralize the cometary ions.
This is the simple statement that opposite charges attract !

Last edited by Reality Check; 4th June 2019 at 01:47 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 Back to Top
Old 4th June 2019, 01:50 PM   #3920
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,898
Thumbs down The usual lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
The death of MHD ...
The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.

An insane "death of MHD" lie when MHD is valid.
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 Back to Top
Closed Thread

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 08:12 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.