The Electric Comet Theory Part IV/SAFIRE

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

... electric fields and currents at comets.

The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.

Usual insane lies about the electric comet insanity which has no "electric fields and currents at comets"

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

145kv potential drop at P1 Halley should have been a warning, but alas mainstream still trying to smash a round peg into square hole.

The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.

Usual insane lies abut mainstream physics - which expects potential drops by applying textbook physics to comets.

Usual insane lies about his electric comet insanity which has no "145kv potential drop" at any comet !

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...a nucleus composed of consolidated dust.

The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.

Usual insane lies about comets - they are made of consolidated ices and dust.

Usual insane lies about his electric comet insanity that has comets amide of rock blasted from rocky planets, etc.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

I’d say that’s looking pretty good, not so for a sublimating Dirtysnowball!

The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.

Usual insane lies about his electric comet insanity which is getting more insane with every post he makes !

Usual insane lie that his delusions and lies about mainstream comets makes the mainstream comet model invalid.

Usual "Dirtysnowball" insanity. The model had the descriptive title of the "dirty snowball" model. The modem model can be described as the "any dust/ices ratio" model.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

...Please tell me that we don't have to explain quasi-neutrality to you!

You know this, jonesdave116, but maybe lurkers do not.
Decades of self-enforced abysmal ignorance from Sol88 (10 years here) means that he will never know about or will deny quasi-neutrality - ditto for any other physics.

The electric comet insanity is a set of ignorant and deluded fantasies with no physics or evidence. Sol88 believes fully in that thunderbolts cult dogma.

The electric sun insanity is a set of ignorant and deluded fantasies with a bit of physics in a couple of dubious papers and no evidence. First year astronomy students can see the obvious insanity of removing an internal heat source so that the Sun collapses to a white dwarf. Sol88 believes fully in that thunderbolts cult dogma.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by ferd burfle

Says the fellow who doesn't know the difference between specific gravity and bulk density.

Sol88 is the fellow who doesn't know the difference between unsupported delusions (the electric comet dogma vomited out by the thunderbolts cult) and any science such as the measured density of comets !

[Sol88]

Talking about scienz, real mainstream papers and the measured density of comet 67P.

Quote:

(ii) upper porosity bound: if ice = 0, then Fnucleus = ∞ and dust (1-poro)-bulk = 0 in (11) and, not so unrealistically, the nucleus would be a highly porous stony agglomerate, essentially devoid of volitiles.

The Nucleus of Comet 67P/Churyumov Gerasimenko - Part I: The Global View – nucleus mass, mass loss, porosity and implications

But don’t let me tell you, listen to an expert,

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

Or indeed

Quote:

Results. The spatial correlation between dust and water, both coming from the sun-lit side of the comet, shows that water is the main driver of dust activity in this time period. The spatial distribution of CO2 is not correlated with water and dust. There is no strong temporal correlation between the dust brightness and water production rate as the comet rotates. The dust brightness shows a peak at 0◦ sub-solar longitude, which is not pronounced in the water production. At the same epoch, there is also a maximum in CO2 production. An excess of measured water production, with respect to the value calculated using a simple thermo-physical model, is observed when the head lobe and regions of the Southern hemisphere with strong seasonal variations are illuminated (sub-solar longitude 270◦–50◦). A drastic decrease in dust production, when the water production (both measured and from the model) displays a maximum, happens when typical Northern consolidated regions are illuminated and the Southern hemisphere regions with strong seasonal variations are instead in shadow (sub-solar longitude 50◦–90◦). Possible explanations of these observations are presented and discussed.

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

So, yeah special comet rock.




Comet 67P a special comet.

[JeanTate]

Originally Posted by Sol88

<content unrelated to the Electric Comet Theory snipped>

So, you posted nothing, eh Sol88?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Usual "Dirtysnowball" insanity. The model had the descriptive title of the "dirty snowball" model. The modem model can be described as the "any dust/ices ratio" model.

Any ratio?

Quote:

not so unrealistically, the nucleus would be a highly porous stony agglomerate, essentially devoid of volitiles.

The Nucleus of Comet 67P/Churyumov Gerasimenko - Part I: The Global View – nucleus mass, mass loss, porosity and implications


What ratio is that, reality check?

At some point the dirtysnowball becomes just a dirtball, a consolidated dirt ball!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by JeanTate

So, you posted nothing, eh Sol88?

Quote:

Results. The spatial correlation between dust and water, both coming from the sun-lit side of the comet, shows that water is the main driver of dust activity in this time period. The spatial distribution of CO2 is not correlated with water and dust. There is no strong temporal correlation between the dust brightness and water production rate as the comet rotates. The dust brightness shows a peak at 0◦ sub-solar longitude, which is not pronounced in the water production. At the same epoch, there is also a maximum in CO2 production. An excess of measured water production, with respect to the value calculated using a simple thermo-physical model, is observed when the head lobe and regions of the Southern hemisphere with strong seasonal variations are illuminated (sub-solar longitude 270◦–50◦). A drastic decrease in dust production, when the water production (both measured and from the model) displays a maximum, happens when typical Northern consolidated regions are illuminated and the Southern hemisphere regions with strong seasonal variations are instead in shadow (sub-solar longitude 50◦–90◦). Possible explanations of these observations are presented and discussed.

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

JeanTate, what are you able to tell this poor misgiuded soul on what the typical Northern consolidated regions are?

Consolidated;
brought together into a single whole.
having become solid, firm, or coherent.

Porous

full of pores.
permeable by water, air, etc.

but The Nucleus of Comet 67P/Churyumov Gerasimenko - Part I: The Global View – nucleus mass, mass loss, porosity and implications says

Quote:

not so unrealistically, the nucleus would be a highly porous stony agglomerate, essentially devoid of volitiles.

So is a comet highly porous or is typical of Northern consolidated regions?

jean tate?

[Sol88]

Poor mainstreamers.

square peg into a round hole....again and again.

Chuckle snort giggle.

[Sol88]

glitch

[Sol88]

glitch

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.

Usual insane lies about mainstream ices and dust comet papers.
Usual insane insults of astronomers.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.

Usual insane lies about mainstream ices and dust comet papers.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.

Usual insanity about mainstream ices and dust comet papers.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.

Poor Sol88 who has

• resorted to posting more insane lies and insults of mainstream science and scientists.
• the compete delusion that applying the laws of physics to comets is "square peg into a round hole".
• been blindly parroting the insane dogma from his thunderbolts cults for over 10 years.
• displayed no ability to learn the basic physics that has been explained to him for over 10 years.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

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

The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.

Pity Sol88 who quotes yet again a debunking of the already insane electric comet insanity !

Quote:

Results. The spatial correlation between dust and water, both coming from the sun-lit side of the comet, shows that water is the main driver of dust activity in this time period. The spatial distribution of CO2 is not correlated with water and dust. There is no strong temporal correlation between the dust brightness and water production rate as the comet rotates. The dust brightness shows a peak at 0◦ sub-solar longitude, which is not pronounced in the water production. At the same epoch, there is also a maximum in CO2 production. An excess of measured water production, with respect to the value calculated using a simple thermo-physical model, is observed when the head lobe and regions of the Southern hemisphere with strong seasonal variations are illuminated (sub-solar longitude 270◦–50◦). A drastic decrease in dust production, when the water production (both measured and from the model) displays a maximum, happens when typical Northern consolidated regions are illuminated and the Southern hemisphere regions with strong seasonal variations are instead in shadow (sub-solar longitude 50◦–90◦). Possible explanations of these observations are presented and discussed.

my emphasis added.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

JeanTate, what are you able to tell this poor misgiuded soul on what the typical Northern consolidated regions are?:

The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.

Pity the poor misguided soul Sol88 who has learned nothing about comets in over 10 years and resorts to idiotic questions !

Comets are made of ices and dust thus the "typical Northern consolidated regions" are consolidated ices and dust.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

but The Nucleus of Comet 67P/Churyumov Gerasimenko - Part I: The Global View – nucleus mass, mass loss, porosity and implications says

The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.

Pity Sol88 who blatantly lies yet again about a mainstream ices and dust paper. All Sol88 can do is lie because all he has is a abysmally deluded belief in the electric comet insanity.

4th March 2019, Sol88's current insane obsession with the ices and dust comet paper: The Nucleus of Comet 67P/ChuryumovGerasimenko - Part I: The Global View – nucleus mass, mass loss, porosity and implications

[Indagator]

Sol88!

My plan was to provide an ASSIGNMENT update in two PARTS before moving on to ASSIGNMENT #005 : Forces Acting on Rosetta during the RSI Experiment - Calculations Based on Real Cited DATA! And then you spew this, ...

Originally Posted by Sol88

Not really, remember charge seperation can not happen.

Like your myopic view of electric currents.

Plasma numpties have trouble with the basics.

are there any electric fields in space, jonesdave116?

Decca’s paper was a boon for the Electric comet, along with all the following papers confirming electric fields and currents at comets.

145kv potential drop at P1 Halley should have been a warning, but alas mainstream still trying to smash a round peg into square hole.

Hilarious.

Anywhoo, happy to have electric fields, charge separation, electric currents, charged dust (complex plasma) and a nucleus composed of consolidated dust.

All we need for an ELECTRIC COMET.

I’d say that’s looking pretty good, not so for a sublimating Dirtysnowball!

Everything about this post is downright LAUGHABLE, Sol88!!! Unless, of course, this is further evidence of a traumatic brain injury! If that's the case, I extend my deepest and most sincere apologies and condolences for your loss!

Let's take a minute to dissect this putrid cadaver, shall we? I would like you and all the lurkers to note that you have never answered any of my simple plasma physics questions from ASSIGNMENT #004! Two of those questions are dead easy! The answers to one of those questions is required if WE are going to discuss DOUBLE LAYERS! Don't you want to discuss DOUBLE LAYERS in Deca et al (2017)?

Originally Posted by Sol88

Plasma numpties have trouble with the basics.

Are you a plasma numpty, Sol88?
Are you a plasma ignoramus?
Do you know the difference between "electric field strength" and a "potential difference?"
Can you tell me what the solar wind Debye length is from the Deca et al (2017) simulation, Sol88?
Why are you afraid to explore the plasma physics of your 'electric comet' model?
Why are you afraid to look through the telescope, Sol88?
How can you spot a plasma numpty, Sol88?
Are you a plasma numpty?

Let's look at each line ...

Originally Posted by Sol88

Not really, remember charge seperation can not happen.

That statement is completely WRONG! Of course, there's charge separation! The question has never been, "Is there charge separation, Sol88?" The question has ALWAYS been, "What causes charge separation?" You see, science is about precision! Science is about observation! A plasma, being an ionized GAS, already has separated charges! The problem, for you Sol88, is what mechanisms can cause charges to separate enough to violate quasi-neutrality? And then, how are these separated charges important to your religion? Read on ....

Originally Posted by Sol88

Like your myopic view of electric currents.

What do you know of electric currents, Sol88? EVERYONE knows you play clueless about plasmas! What about electric currents in plasmas? What about electric currents in space? What about electric currents, in general?

What is SWEAP, Sol88?
Where is SWEAP being used?
Why is SWEAP mainstream science?
How will the 'electric star' make use of SWEAP data when it is released to the scientific community?

Describe in detail, what YOU see in this SOLAR DYNAMICS OBSERVATORY (SDO) "telescope" image, Sol88! What are those crazy lines, Sol88? Can you use them to map electric currents on the sun? Describe the electric currents responsible for this ever changing image (check back every hour, or so, to see how the magnetic field evolves and changes)!

What's fascinating about this image, Sol88, is that it cannot be explained or modeled by 'electric star' proponents! Furthermore, SDO and SWEAP observations will never, ever be duplicated by SAFIRE, as SAFIRE is the farthest thing from empirical science! Just sayin! In my opinion, SAFIRE is nothing more than a bunch of grown men, wasting valuable resources, playing with a child's toy! Hee! Hee! Any thoughts?

Originally Posted by Sol88

Plasma numpties have trouble with the basics.

I'll ask again, in case you've forgotten (short-term memory is adversely affected by brain trauma, which might explain the last thirteen years) ...

Are you a plasma numpty, Sol88?
Are you a plasma ignoramus?
Do you know the difference between "electric field strength" and a "potential difference," Sol88?
Can you tell me what the solar wind Debye length is from the Deca et al (2017) "mathematical" simulation?
Why are you afraid to explore the plasma physics of your 'electric comet?'
Why are you afraid to look through the telescope?
How can I spot a plasma numpty, Sol88?
Are you a plasma numpty?

Originally Posted by Sol88

are there any electric fields in space, jonesdave116?

You know, Sol88, as relates to this thread, I ultimately don't care what jonesdave116, Reality Check, or anyone else on the ISF has to say! I don't care what Alfven may, or may NOT have said (e.g., Alfven said the Sun would operate on alternating current! TRUE STORY! AND crazy WRONG)! As a scientist, all I really care about is what the physics has to say!

Again, the question is not, "Are there any electric fields in space, Sol88?" The real question is, "Are the electric fields in space capable of doing the MAGIC that the 'electric comet' model demands?"

The answer to that is a deafening, NO! Read on ...

Originally Posted by Sol88

Decca’s paper was a boon for the Electric comet, along with all the following papers confirming electric fields and currents at comets.

Again, is this evidence of a traumatic brain injury? My condolences. First, the man's name is Deca, just one c! Second, the entire simulation run by Deca et al was built around the Whipple model! Are you now claiming that you accept the Whipple model? Have you ever read Whipple (1950)? Would you like to answer a few questions about Whipple (1950), Sol88?

Originally Posted by Deca et al (2017)

Cometary nuclei are small, irregularly shaped "icy dirt balls" left over from the dawn of our Solar System 4.6 billion years ago and are composed of a mixture of ices, refractory materials, and large organic molecules. When a comet is sufficiently close to the Sun, the sublimation of ice leads to an outgassing atmosphere and the formation of a coma, and a dust and plasma tail.

According to Deca et al (2017), what conditions were required to produce the published results you seem to think support your religion? A "frozen-in" magnetic field? Check! Water production consistent with that measured by the MIRO instrument? Check! Anything else, Sol88? ASSIGNMENT #003, perhaps?

And to reiterate (I'm so sorry for your loss), there are NO mainstream papers that support your religion, Sol88! NONE! Would you like to discuss Lisse et al (2006)? Would you like to discuss Lisse et al (2007)? Would you like to discuss Deca et al (2017)? Are there any other papers you'd like me to dissect on behalf of your 'electric comet' religion? PICK ONE!

Originally Posted by Sol88

145kv potential drop at P1 Halley should have been a warning, but alas mainstream still trying to smash a round peg into square hole.

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! AND PATHETIC!

My heart goes out to you, Sol88! I cannot imagine the struggles! First, the quoted value from Laakso (1991) is 135 kV! Your error is quite significant! Second, a potential "difference" is measured between two points! Anyone with knowledge of plasma physics knows that! The problem is, the number you cited is meaningless if you don't take into account the distance between the two points! In the case of comet Halley, that potential difference is spread out over 7000 km! It's right there in the text! That means that the "electric field strength" is ...

135000 V / 7000000 m = 0.019 V/m! That's some electric field you've got there, Sol88! Just to put things in perspective, "Coulomb explosions" (another FAILURE of comprehension on your part) require "electric field strengths" on the order of 10¹⁰ V/m!!! Does that even register with you, Sol88? Twelve orders of magnitude?

Restated! Comet Halley --- E_Halley = 0.019 V/m vs. Coulomb explosion --- E_CEx = 10000000000 V/m! We're talking thermonuclear here! REALLY! Thermonuclear weapons involve Coulomb explosions! And lots of shrapnel! Do we find temperatures at comets consistent with thermonuclear explosions, Sol88? NO! What was the maximum temperature recorded at 67P? Would you like me to go into more detail on Coulomb explosions? 'Tis a fascinating subject! Would you like to discuss the other electric fields measured at Halley? They're even smaller!

Originally Posted by Sol88

Hilarious.

That's for sure! The 'electric comet' is hilarious! The 'electric star' is a laugh riot! And the 'electric universe' is stupidly funny! And I do emphasis STUPID! NO science! NO math! NO model! NO evidence! Just BAD fiction!

Originally Posted by Sol88

Anywhoo, happy to have electric fields, charge separation, electric currents, charged dust (complex plasma) and a nucleus composed of consolidated dust.

Are the "electric fields" in your 'ec' model strong enough to move mountains, Sol88? What mechanisms are involved in "separating charges" at a comet (HINT: one of them involves the ionization of sublimated volatile ices)? Are any of these mechanisms available at asteroids? What are the differences between active comets, inactive comets, dormant comets, extinct comets, and asteroids? Describe in detail the "electric currents" found operating at comets! Be specific when discussing current densities! Define "a nucleus composed of consolidated dust?" What physical and chemical processes are involved in making DUST "consolidated?" Could ices be involved? Holy Doodle! This is painful!!!

Originally Posted by Sol88

All we need for an ELECTRIC COMET.

And ...? Are you going to finish that sentence? "All we need for an 'electric comet' is ...." WHAT? So far, NO science! NO math! NO model! NO evidence! What kind of "electric field strengths" are at play in your 'electric comet' religion? I need NUMBERS here!

Originally Posted by Sol88

I’d say that’s looking pretty good, not so for a sublimating Dirtysnowball!

Oh, the hypocrisy, Sol88! This is all so obvious and horribly sad! Your 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE!

Remember, Sol88 (apologies again for the brain thing), Deca et al (2017) used "icy dirt balls," not the "Dirtysnowball" you keep mentioning! Why is that fact so difficult for you to grasp? SORRY! SORRY! My bad!

Post Script! According to Deca et al (2017), Whipple is still an important part of the mainstream comet model, and apparently yours as well! According to Deca et al (2017), "frozen-in" magnetic fields are REQUIRED for charge separation! According to Deca et al (2017), significant amounts of sublimated water are REQUIRED for charge separation! Would you like to talk? Or are you going to ignore all the obvious holes I've punched in your religion? I'll wager you'll "IGNORE!" RELIGION is hard to give up, Sol88! Uncomplicated comfort! NO thought required!

[Sol88]

Physically impossible? How?

Not quite as physically possible as infinite mass though, ay Indagator. (LoL).

But that’s science by theoretical physics (mathamagicians).

Comets seem to contain very little “ice” (volatiles) and mostly rock,dirt, refractory material.

So say the mainstream papers using real proper scienz.

[Indagator]

Sol88! When will you learn? NONE of what you've ever said in this thread offers a logical defense of your religion!

To date, I've seen ... NO science! NO math! NO model! NO evidence! Just BAD fiction! Like the following tripe ...

Originally Posted by Sol88

Charge separation (MHD NOT VALID) at a rocky nucleus causing electric fields driving electric currents.

Your opening statement contains the kind of flawed "logic" and sentence structure one would expect from a four year old, Sol88!

What mechanisms are responsible for charge separation at comets? Asked another way, what mechanisms are present in the environment around asteroids that yield no charge separation, no visible coma, no plasma tail, and no dust tail? The "frozen-in" magnetic field is common in both cases! Could the presence of "observed" sublimation and ionization products derived from volatile species play an active role? What's wrong with asteroids that show no signs of cometary behaviour? According to your previous claims, Sol88, comets and asteroids are the same thing! If true, then they must be made of the same "stuff" as the planets they were MAGICALLY blasted off of! Here's something else I find laughable about your 'ec' model! While charge separation results in electric fields, charge separation is not really important to your 'electric comet!' Strong electric fields are! WHAT KIND OF ELECTRIC FIELD STRENGTHS ARE REQUIRED TO DRIVE 'electric comet' BEHAVIOUR? Are we talking mV/m (as measured), or are we looking at GV/m (not in evidence)? You give me some realistic numbers (i.e., from peer reviewed papers) and I'll do some calculations! Does that sound like a fair deal, Sol88? Of course, if anyone in your camp knew anything about plasmas, they could have already run the numbers by now! EVIDENCE OF ONGOING 'eu/es/ec' FAILURE! And speaking of numbers ...

HOW DOES A MATHEMATICAL TOOL (i.e., a fluid vs. kinetic model) CHANGE THE BEHAVIOUR OF AN ASTEROID INTO A COMET? That's some kind of uneducated logic, Sol88! Math does not change the behaviour of a system! Mathematical models attempt to reproduce what we observe! Nothing more! Simulation results not only depend on the model chosen, but also on the boundary conditions and the simplifying assumptions! For example, how does a ballistic (i.e., kinetic particle-in-cell) model alter the physical behaviour of a system such that a GAS coma forms, yielding observed charge separation? It doesn't! Sol88, your 'electric comet' does not work with MHD OR kinetic PIC codes! Your 'electric comet' violates the physics inherent in both systems! While a kinetic code will let a scientist explore the details of a process, none of the fundamental physics (e.g., Maxwell's Equations) works in your religion! For example, I can use Faraday's Law of Induction and the Generalized Ohm's Law to PROVE the validity of Alfven's ("frozen-in) Theorem! Can you, or anyone in your camp, prove me wrong ... with REAL PHYSICS? NOT WORDS! REAL PHYSICS? As a scientist, I use MHD and/or kinetic codes depending on what I am studying and what resources are available! MHD codes are robust mathematical tools that are still VALID when exploring macro-scale phenomena around comets! Kinetic codes are equally robust mathematical tools that are used to examine micro-scale phenomena! As it turns out, and much to your horror, kinetic codes are often used to study MAGNETIC RECONNECTION! Any thoughts on why? Do you know how Deca et al (2017) is connected to MAGNETIC RECONNECTION? Are you at all curious? Or do you feel safer with your head stuffed up Thornhill's derriere?

Let me summarize one important point from all that ...!

MHD and kinetic PIC codes use Maxwell's Equations to model the electromagnetic behaviour of plasmas!

The 'electric comet' does NOT work with MHD codes! AT ALL! NO science! NO math! NO model!

The 'electric comet' does NOT work with kinetic PIC codes! AT ALL! NO science! NO math! NO model!

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

Why has no one on this planet been able to build a testable, working model of an 'electric comet' or an 'electric star?' It's physically IMPOSSIBLE! Your religion violates Maxwell's Equations, thermodynamics, continuity and conservation laws!

Now, you can listen to your religious leaders, Sol88! Or you can listen to a mainstream scientist who's only trying to help you learn and grow! Where are you going to go, Sol88? You've been at this more than thirteen years, and still NO MODELS! Because of my education and experience, I know that in another thousand years, there will still be no working 'electric comet' model! It's physically IMPOSSIBLE! What kind of evidence might convince you that I'm sincere? Personally, I don't care if YOU want to waste your life chasing a fantasy! I'll stick with science and the thousands of unanswered questions that need to be investigated! And I will do what I can to steer others away from SCAM RELIGIONS! Sadly, you may be nothing more than a lost "soul" in the grand scheme! A real pity!

Originally Posted by Sol88

It’s all about the PLASMA PLASMA PLASMA.

This coming from someone who can't calculate a simple Debye length! Do you know what a hypocrite is, Sol88? You wear the label well!

If it's all about the PLASMA, why not do some calculations for the lurkers! Prove you've got some cohones! I predict this request will be followed by your SILENCE as you have NO cohones, and NO understanding of what a PLASMA really is!

If you knew anything about science and plasmas, you would also know that there's more to the story than just PLASMA! It's also about cryophysics, ionization processes, thermodynamics, ballistics, chemistry, gravity, comet geomorphology, and the list grows on!

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

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

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

Guess what, Sol88! The questions will never end! Your 'ec' will remain a lowly religion until you (or someone in your camp) starts working on the obvious problems! Comets are made of volatile ices and dust! NOT ROCK!

Originally Posted by Sol88

Sublimation for simpletons and mathamagicians.

Simpletons? Are you trying to insult again? AN EXTRAORDINARY FAIL!

Sublimation is an observed process, both in the lab and in situ at comets! What's the largest 'electric comet' ever reproduced in a lab, Sol88? What? Never been done? Never been attempted? Physically IMPOSSIBLE? More SILENCE? I also find it odd and laughable that you attempt to insult by equating mathematics with a real, observable physical process! Are you growing more desperate? More questions for Sol88? Why not ...!

1. What are the three most abundant elements in the observable universe?
2. Of those three, which is the most inert (i.e., does not, under normal circumstances, react with the other two)?
3. Of the two reactive elements, list eight common atomic/molecular "products" formed from their chemical interactions?
4. For bonus marks, list the sublimation temperatures for the eight atoms/molecules listed in 3)! Cite your references!

Originally Posted by Sol88

1950’s theory vs 2016 data....

A truly laughable statement! How is a date relevant in science? If something works, it works! Deca et al show that Whipple's model is still in play almost 70 years after it was published! Now, when will the 'electric universe' embrace and apply "gaslight era" physics to their vacuous models, Sol88? You know! Concept like electrostatics, electrodynamics, ... and thermodynamics to name but three! Just for fun ...

Whipple (1950) A comet model - I - The acceleration of Comet Encke, has been cited 1060 times since its initial publication! Of that, 15 citations are from this year alone! Furthermore, Deca et al (2017) make Whipple their first referenced paper! Seems like there's nothing inherently wrong with Whipple! Have you even bothered to read it, Sol88? NO? Unfortunately, your religion "prohibits" you from accepting the observed science! Actually it's worse than that! Your religion "prohibits" you from accepting ANY SCIENCE that contradicts 'eu' religious dogma!

Alfven (1957) On the theory of comet tails, has been cited 434 times in 62 years! Two of those citations are from this year! You do realize, Sol88, that Alfven (1957) presents a description of a "frozen-in," draped magnet field at comets! YES? YES!

Are there any peer reviewed papers written by 'electric universe' scientists, Sol88? IEEE conference proceeding do not count as the papers presented there have not been properly reviewed for physical consistency and numerical accuracy!

Originally Posted by Sol88

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

however unfortunate his use of words were, it stands.

WRONG!

I completely disagree with your interpretation and understanding of what Dr. A'Hearn said! It may also surprise you that I think Dr. A'Hearn is wrong! Care to discuss?

CONTEXT, Sol88? If you'd be so kind, please provide a description of 'electric comet' ROCK! Given that accretion is not a viable mechanism in your 'electric universe,' we will assume 'electric comets' were electrically blasted from planetary surfaces! What, then, are the proportions of the various components? Specifically, how much "SOLID" rock? How much dirt? How much refractory material? I am particularly interested in your musings on "dirt!" Please, define 'electric dirt!' And then tell us what planet various comets were blasted from!

Just a couple more days, Sol88! Then we'll discuss A'Hearn et al (200x)! Results from ASSIGNMENT #002 are going to hurt your longstanding, erroneous claims about what Dr. A'Hearn thought! However, because of your religious convictions, I predict you will never accept the contents of the contradictory paper and will find some way to blame others for your ONGOING FAILURES!

Originally Posted by Sol88

Comets are not snowyicydirtballs.

OOPS! Looks like you stepped in it again, Sol88!

Originally Posted by Deca et al (2017)

Cometary nuclei are small, irregularly shaped "icy dirt balls" left over from the dawn of our Solar System 4.6 billion years ago and are composed of a mixture of ices, refractory materials, and large organic molecules. When a comet is sufficiently close to the Sun, the sublimation of ice leads to an outgassing atmosphere and the formation of a coma, and a dust and plasma tail.

Seriously, Sol88! In the face of all that has been presented, how are you able to ignore the obvious contradiction posed by Deca et al? Your behaviour borders on psychotic. Your behaviour is quite disturbing! Do you need help? I am being quite sincere here!

Remember! The internet never, ever forgets! And this is just another FAILURE on your part to present a viable, testable, working 'electric comet' model! Thirteen years and nothing has changed for you, Sol88! NOTHING!

Post Script!
MHD IS STILL A VALID TOOL FOR MODELING SPECIFIC COMET BEHAVIOUR! TRUE!
MHD codes cannot be used in any way, shape, or form to model your 'electric comet!' TRUE!
Kinetic PIC codes cannot be used in any way, shape, or form to model your 'electric comet!' TRUE!
Your 'electric comet' cannot be modeled! TRUE!
With all that I know, I cannot find a way to use Maxwell's Equations, or any other physics to produce a computer simulation of an 'electric comet!' NO ONE CAN! Thornhill? Not a chance! Scott? Not a chance! Sol88? Not a chance!

[Sol88]

Dude dude dude, so so so wrong.

Asteroid have achieved equilibrium with thier plasma environment, comets have not. You know, the whole point of the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE.

charged bodies immersed in a plasma... so so simple.

Nice confabulation though, you and rc should really get together.

I’ll supply you a paper an strong electric fields at a comet and you find the highest measured electric field at an asteroid.

Now, unfortunately the paper does no cut and paste nicely but you can find the relevant parts easy enough.

Electric fields and cold electrons in the vicinity of comet Halley

Harri Laakso

Also very strong ( near On undeniable) evidence of my beloved plasma double layers.

Quote:

7. The cometopause is observed inbound at 160,000 km with a thickness of 10,000 kin. It has a positively charged outer surface and a negatively charged inner surface with a potential drop of 50-100 kV. A current layer, with a thickness of 22,000 km and the electric current flowing from dawn to dusk, is located on Vega 1 outside the cometopause at a distance of 8,000 kin. The current layer contains the solar wind plasma flow that is not properly able to penetrate the cometopause but is diverted to move along the cometopause.

Quote:

The dc electric field exhibits a large gradient (the total potential drop over the layer is -135 kV),

[Sol88]

Quote:

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

Hit the nail on the head champ!

Better lift ya game then, ay!


Your maths is the problem as you so correctly state.

Mathamagicians HATE plasma with a passion.

Plasma, coined by Langmuir because it resembles blood plasma a living thing, good luck with the math on that, sport.

[Sol88]

Ahhh, I see

Quote:

IMPOSSIBLE! Your religion violates Maxwell's Equations, thermodynamics, continuity and conservation laws!

I can see it’s going to be hard work receiving your blessing. I reject your religion (big bangers that divide by zero to achieve INFINITE DENSITY at a INFINITE POINT) bugger just read the whole article and see they achieved it by adding magnetic turbulence. Where is the electric currents? You know, Maxwells equations, amperes law......! This is excactly how the Dirtysnowball is morphing into at first a hybrid then, just flat out plasma phenomena.

So not really going to waste too much time on you, sorry Indy.


I’ll just keep adding MAINSTREAM papers on special comet ROCK (consolidated refractory minerals with an ORGANIC coating(almost like there was enough oxygen to support combustion))

Along with papers on the dominant agent in play at comets PLASMA.

sublimation papers are good for a giggle though.

[Sol88]

Sorry totally of topic but just could not help myself

Quote:

Our whole universe was in a hot, dense state
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started, wait
The earth began to cool, the autotrophs began to drool
Neanderthals developed tools
We built a wall (we built the pyramids)
Math, science, history, unraveling the mysteries
That all started with the big bang! Hey!

Sniped

It's expanding ever outward but one day
It will cause the stars to go the other way
Collapsing ever inward, we won't be here, it won't be hurt
Our best and brightest figure that it'll make an even bigger bang!
Australopithecus would really have been sick of us
Debating how we're here, they're catching deer (we're catching viruses)
Religion or astronomy (Descartes or Deuteronomy)
It all started with the big bang!
Music and mythology, Einstein and astrology
It all started with the big bang!
It all started with the big bang!

Songwriters: Ed Robertson / Steven Jay Page

Seems they forgot the strongest force in the universe.

Great show though, real rib tickler. Some posters here remind me of the characters in the show a bit.

[Sol88]

Quote:

CONTEXT, Sol88? If you'd be so kind, please provide a description of 'electric comet' ROCK! Given that accretion is not a viable mechanism in your 'electric universe,' we will assume 'electric comets' were electrically blasted from planetary surfaces! What, then, are the proportions of the various components? Specifically, how much "SOLID" rock? How much dirt? How much refractory material? I am particularly interested in your musings on "dirt!" Please, define 'electric dirt!' And then tell us what planet various comets were blasted from!

Electric dirt? I like that one.

Let’s see...

Quote:

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].

Mmmm can’t find reference to this electric dirt of yours.

Just your typical garden variety rock/dirt/refractory material that A’Hearn speaks of, though to be fair to the bloke his understanding was evolving towards mostly rock.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Electric dirt? I like that one.

Let’s see...


Mmmm can’t find reference to this electric dirt of yours.

Just your typical garden variety rock/dirt/refractory material that A’Hearn speaks of, though to be fair to the bloke his understanding was evolving towards mostly rock.

Just quit lying and point to the detection of rock in the scientific literature. You can't, because no such detection has ever been made. Ergo, you have yet another failure.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Sorry totally of topic but just could not help myself



Seems they forgot the strongest force in the universe.

Great show though, real rib tickler. Some posters here remind me of the characters in the show a bit.

Nope, EM forces are miniscule and trivial over any reasonable distance.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Ahhh, I see





I can see it’s going to be hard work receiving your blessing. I reject your religion (big bangers that divide by zero to achieve INFINITE DENSITY at a INFINITE POINT) bugger just read the whole article and see they achieved it by adding magnetic turbulence. Where is the electric currents? You know, Maxwells equations, amperes law......! This is excactly how the Dirtysnowball is morphing into at first a hybrid then, just flat out plasma phenomena.

So not really going to waste too much time on you, sorry Indy.


I’ll just keep adding MAINSTREAM papers on special comet ROCK (consolidated refractory minerals with an ORGANIC coating(almost like there was enough oxygen to support combustion))

Along with papers on the dominant agent in play at comets PLASMA.

sublimation papers are good for a giggle though.

Wrong. Not a single finding at any comet supports your idiotic woo. It has failed 100%.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Hit the nail on the head champ!

Better lift ya game then, ay!


Your maths is the problem as you so correctly state.

Mathamagicians HATE plasma with a passion.

Plasma, coined by Langmuir because it resembles blood plasma a living thing, good luck with the math on that, sport.

Mathematics is essential in plasma physics. Go look at any paper on the subject. Including Alfven's. Just because you and your cult are ignorant of plasma physics, and haven't got a plasma physicist to boast of, does not mean the rest of the real plasma physicists don't know what they're talking about.
After all, they know that an electric field that is retarding electrons is not going to be accelerating negatively charged dust. Or that quasi-neutrality means water ions are being turned into neutrals by solar wind electrons. Only a moron would come up with such idiocy. Certainly not someone who has even the most basic understanding of the subject. So, why would we listen to unqualified clowns on the subject? Explain.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Belz...

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.



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.

Sol88?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Dude dude dude, so so so wrong.

Asteroid have achieved equilibrium with thier plasma environment, comets have not. You know, the whole point of the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE.

charged bodies immersed in a plasma... so so simple.

Why have they achieved equilibrium? And why haven't comets? How about comets on asteroidal (i.e. circular) orbits? How about asteroids on cometary orbits? According to your ludicrous beliefs, anything (including spacecraft) on elliptical, cometary type orbits should become a comet. That does not happen. Why not? Because it is unscientific gibberish, dreamed up by non-scientists. Why on Earth would anybody take such idiots seriously?

[Sol88]

Was finding Bennu to be active a “surprise”?

I rest my case.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Was finding Bennu to be active a “surprise”?

I rest my case.

You don't have a case. Some small percentage of asteroids have minor activity. A quick scan of the asteroid belt shows that is is a very tiny percentage. And Bennu only has an eccentricity of 0.2. How does that fit with your woo?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.

Usual insane lies when he has been told the physical impossibility of the electric comet for over 10 years, e.g. the density of comets means they are not rocks.
Usual insane lies about mainstream ices and dust comet papers

Obviously insane lies about physics are popping up now
There is no "infinite mass" in physics. Sol88's insanity here looks like singularities in gravitation makes it invalid. That is insane because:

• Singularities only say that we cannot apply the laws of physics at extremely tiny scales (Planck length ).
  The Solar System and comets in it are kind of bigger than a Planck length or even a proton!
• Electromagnetism also has singularities.
  Sol88's delusions are debunking his electric comet insanity!

One the other hand, Wal Thornhill does have similar insane delusions such as denial of the detection of gravitational waves. Sol88 has been blindly parroting the thunderbolts cult dogma for over 10 years and making the dogma absolutely insane with his lies, delusions, insults, etc. This may be more of Sol88's drinking of the cult Kool-Aid.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.

Usual insane lies about ices and dust comet papers and his electric comet insanity.

For others:
Electric fields and cold electrons in the vicinity of comet Halley

Quote:

7. The cometopause is observed inbound at 160,000 km with a thickness of 10,000 kin. It has a positively charged outer surface and a negatively charged inner surface with a potential drop of 50-100 kV. A current layer, with a thickness of 22,000 km and the electric current flowing from dawn to dusk, is located on Vega 1 outside the cometopause at a distance of 8,000 kin. The current layer contains the solar wind plasma flow that is not properly able to penetrate the cometopause but is diverted to move along the cometopause.

A cometopause is the volume of interaction of a comet coma with the solar wind.

Nothing to do with Sol88'sa electric comet insanity. His deluded thunderbolts cult prophets probably do not know that the solar wind interacts with comet coma.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Also very strong ( near On undeniable) evidence of my beloved plasma double layers.

The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.

Sol88's insane lie about double layers at comets. Turbulence = no double layers. Sol88 knows the solar wind and thus coma Debye length are a few meters and that the scale of DLs is "some tens of the Debye lengths".

Quote:

7. The cometopause is observed inbound at 160,000 km with a thickness of 10,000 kin. It has a positively charged outer surface and a negatively charged inner surface with a potential drop of 50-100 kV. A current layer, with a thickness of 22,000 km and the electric current flowing from dawn to dusk, is located on Vega 1 outside the cometopause at a distance of 8,000 kin. The current layer contains the solar wind plasma flow that is not properly able to penetrate the cometopause but is diverted to move along the cometopause.

Emphasized Sol88's insane lie.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Electric fields and cold electrons in the vicinity of comet Halley

Quote:

The dc electric field exhibits a large gradient (the total potential drop over the layer is -135 kV),

The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.

Sol88's usual pathetic lies about this thread, science and the electric comet insanity.
The pathetic lie about science: Detecting an electric field does not support Sol88's electric comet insanity. A theory is supported by evidence matching what a theory predicts. Sol88's electric comet insanity has no predictions on the size of any electric field !

The pathetic lie about Sol88's electric comet insanity: It does not have any electric field in a comet coma !

The pathetic lie about this thread: The Laakso paper was brought up years ago as pert of the debunking of Sol88's electric comet insanity !

28th August 2009 tusenfem: "Hardly your expected "orders of magnitude higher than 109 V."
That was a electric comet supporter who was at least brave enough to try to support the electric comet rationally, coherently and honestly.