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 24th December 2018, 05:51 AM   #1721
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,778
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
I am not ignoring any evidence. It is off-topic, as it has nothing to do with the failed EC woo. The ions are of cometary origin, and there is nobody saying differently.
And leave the neutrals for dead.

Can you not read or something?
__________________
“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 24th December 2018, 05:52 AM   #1722
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,725
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Mmmmmm......

Thought so.
Another pointless and irrelevant post.
__________________
“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 24th December 2018, 05:55 AM   #1723
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,778
You do not mention charge in your post, why not?
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th December 2018, 05:56 AM   #1724
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,725
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
And leave the neutrals for dead.

Can you not read or something?
And what the hell has that got to do with your failed woo? Spell it out, as I am getting sick of your failure to deal with it. Stop obfuscating and deal with it.
__________________
“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 24th December 2018, 05:57 AM   #1725
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,778
The dust is charged from the surface of the nucleus also responding to the same ambipolar electric field as the ions.

Or do you still not believe the comet has an ambipolar electric field?
__________________
“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 24th December 2018, 05:58 AM   #1726
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,778
Look let’s make this real easy, do you BELIEVE 67P has an ambipolar electric field?

If not end of conversation...no ambipolar electric field = no electric comet!

Dead set simple cobber.
__________________
“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 24th December 2018, 05:58 AM   #1727
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,725
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
You do not mention charge in your post, why not?
Irrelevant. Knock it off.
__________________
“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 24th December 2018, 06:00 AM   #1728
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,725
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
The dust is charged from the surface of the nucleus also responding to the same ambipolar electric field as the ions.

Or do you still not believe the comet has an ambipolar electric field?
It is completely irrelevant to your failed woo. Not interested. Deal with the failures of your woo, as outlined numerous times.
__________________
“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 24th December 2018, 06:11 AM   #1729
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,778
Look let’s make this real easy, do you BELIEVE 67P has an ambipolar electric field?

If not end of conversation...no ambipolar electric field = no electric comet!

Dead set simple cobber.
__________________
“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 24th December 2018, 06:13 AM   #1730
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,725
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
So, where are we now with the electric comet 'model'? What have we learned after over a decade of this woo being spammed around various fora on the internet? Let's break it down to its most fundamental claims, as per the Thornhill & Talbott poster from 2006;

Comets are rocks, blasted from planets by unknown electric woo.
Leaving aside the scientifically impossible mechanisms described to achieve this, we need only look at the composition of planets and moons, and at the composition of comets, and do a comparison. Earth, Mars, Mercury and Venus; all rock with high density. Comets; highly porous mixture of dust (fluffy and compact), ice and organics, with very low density.
Therefore the electric comet model fails.

Comets are merely asteroids on elliptical orbits.
Any cursory examination of the many asteroids on elliptical orbits shows this to be wrong.
Therefore the electric comet model fails.

The jets observed are electric discharges to (from?) the nucleus.
Electric discharges would show up in the magnetometer data. There was nothing. The jets are observed to be gas, dust and, sometimes, ice.
Therefore the electric comet model fails.

There is little to no ice, and the water observed is actually OH.
Water has been definitively detected at comets since 1986. So that was a lie.
Therefore the electric comet model fails.

The OH (H2O?) that is observed is due to solar wind H+ combining with O-.
Impossible. The H+ ions are far too energetic to combine with anything.
There is nowhere near enough H+ to explain even 1 litre of water per second.
There is little to no O-.
The solar wind is getting nowhere near the nucleus for about 8 months around perihelion.
Therefore the electric comet model fails.

Those are the fundamental building blocks underlying the electric comet model. Verdict? It fails. Horribly, and indisputably. The electric comet model was stillborn. It was never alive, and nobody has come close to zapping its stinking corpse with 50 000 volts to bring it to life. It is a miserable, neo-Velikovskian heap of trash, dreamed up by unqualified woo merchants. It is a joke. It isn't worthy of our attention.
The continued failure to deal with the above is a statement that Sol88 agrees that the EC woo has failed. Indisputably.
__________________
“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 24th December 2018, 06:15 AM   #1731
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,725
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Look let’s make this real easy, do you BELIEVE 67P has an ambipolar electric field?

If not end of conversation...no ambipolar electric field = no electric comet!

Dead set simple cobber.
Irrelevant. Stay on topic. Your model has already failed. There is no electric comet. Discuss its failure.
__________________
“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 24th December 2018, 06:18 AM   #1732
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,778
Look let’s make this real easy, do you BELIEVE 67P has an ambipolar electric field?

If not end of conversation...no ambipolar electric field = no electric comet!

Dead set simple cobber.

Here’s you chance to end the conversation, go for it.

Yes = ambipolar electric field
No = no electric comet

We can save a fair bit of time if you care to answer.
__________________
“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; 24th December 2018 at 06:20 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 24th December 2018, 06:23 AM   #1733
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,725
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Look let’s make this real easy, do you BELIEVE 67P has an ambipolar electric field?

If not end of conversation...no ambipolar electric field = no electric comet!

Dead set simple cobber.

Here’s you chance to end the conversation, go for it.

Yes = ambipolar electric field
No = no electric comet

We can save a fair bit of time if you care to answer.
There is nothing to discuss. Your model failed, as you agreed.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1730
__________________
“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 24th December 2018, 06:38 AM   #1734
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,778
Look let’s make this real easy, do you BELIEVE 67P has an ambipolar electric field?

If not end of conversation...no ambipolar electric field = no electric comet!

Dead set simple cobber.

Here’s you chance to end the conversation, go for it.

Yes = ambipolar electric field
No = no electric comet

We can save a fair bit of time if you care to answer.







Here’s your chance for me to put up or shut up...


Is there an ambipolar electric field at 67p, Jonesdave 116?
__________________
“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 24th December 2018, 06:39 AM   #1735
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,778
All you have to say is no and the threads finished.
__________________
“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 24th December 2018, 06:41 AM   #1736
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,725
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Look let’s make this real easy, do you BELIEVE 67P has an ambipolar electric field?

If not end of conversation...no ambipolar electric field = no electric comet!

Dead set simple cobber.

Here’s you chance to end the conversation, go for it.

Yes = ambipolar electric field
No = no electric comet

We can save a fair bit of time if you care to answer.







Here’s your chance for me to put up or shut up...


Is there an ambipolar electric field at 67p, Jonesdave 116?
Irrelevant. Nothing to do with the failed EC woo. You cannot address those failures, having had ample opportunity for a month. It is over.
__________________
“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 24th December 2018, 06:51 AM   #1737
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,778
So was that a yes, comet 67p as an ambipolar electric field?

Or

No, comet 67p does not have an electric field?

And

Perhaps you could explain why you think it’s irrelevant?
__________________
“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 24th December 2018, 06:56 AM   #1738
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,725
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post

Perhaps you could explain why you think it’s irrelevant?
Have already done that.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1730

Getting sick of the refusal to deal with this failure, and the continual posting of irrelevant nonsense by this poster, in order to avoid dealing with the total failure of his laughable model.
__________________
“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 24th December 2018, 06:58 AM   #1739
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,778
So was that a yes, comet 67p as an ambipolar electric field?

Or

No, comet 67p does not have an electric field?

And

Perhaps you could explain why you think it’s irrelevant?




Feel free to stop posting then.
__________________
“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 24th December 2018, 07:00 AM   #1740
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,778
Pretty obvious what your answer is.


So don’t be shy now, simple Y or N will do.
__________________
“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 24th December 2018, 07:03 AM   #1741
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,725
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So was that a yes, comet 67p as an ambipolar electric field?

Or

No, comet 67p does not have an electric field?

And

Perhaps you could explain why you think it’s irrelevant?




Feel free to stop posting then.
So, you agree that your model failed? Good. You are the one that needs to stop posting - no evidence, no mechanisms, no science. And a total refusal to address the failures of the idiotic model;

Comets are rocks, blasted from planets by unknown electric woo.
Leaving aside the scientifically impossible mechanisms described to achieve this, we need only look at the composition of planets and moons, and at the composition of comets, and do a comparison. Earth, Mars, Mercury and Venus; all rock with high density. Comets; highly porous mixture of dust (fluffy and compact), ice and organics, with very low density.
Therefore the electric comet model fails.

Comets are merely asteroids on elliptical orbits.
Any cursory examination of the many asteroids on elliptical orbits shows this to be wrong.
Therefore the electric comet model fails.

The jets observed are electric discharges to (from?) the nucleus.
Electric discharges would show up in the magnetometer data. There was nothing. The jets are observed to be gas, dust and, sometimes, ice.
Therefore the electric comet model fails.

There is little to no ice, and the water observed is actually OH.
Water has been definitively detected at comets since 1986. So that was a lie.
Therefore the electric comet model fails.

The OH (H2O?) that is observed is due to solar wind H+ combining with O-.
Impossible. The H+ ions are far too energetic to combine with anything.
There is nowhere near enough H+ to explain even 1 litre of water per second.
There is little to no O-.
The solar wind is getting nowhere near the nucleus for about 8 months around perihelion.
Therefore the electric comet model fails.

Those are the fundamental building blocks underlying the electric comet model. Verdict? It fails. Horribly, and indisputably. The electric comet model was stillborn. It was never alive, and nobody has come close to zapping its stinking corpse with 50 000 volts to bring it to life. It is a miserable, neo-Velikovskian heap of trash, dreamed up by unqualified woo merchants. It is a joke. It isn't worthy of our attention.

Still waiting...........
__________________
“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 24th December 2018, 07:05 AM   #1742
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,725
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Pretty obvious what your answer is.


So don’t be shy now, simple Y or N will do.
Totally irrelevant. Your model failed. Ambipolar fields have nothing to do with that failure. Stop avoiding the failure of your model.
__________________
“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 24th December 2018, 11:13 AM   #1743
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,478
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Quote:
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
Max Plank
You see this quote often from folks pushing pseudoscience, especially from the "Einstein was wrong" crowd. Problem is, good old Max was referring to scientific truths, which the EC idea isn't and never will be.
__________________
"You do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.”-Fran Lebowitz
ferd burfle 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 24th December 2018, 01:13 PM   #1744
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,778
So was that a yes, comet 67p as an ambipolar electric field?

Or

No, comet 67p does not have an electric field?




Feel free to answer free burfle as jonesdave 116 will not.

Very simple,
__________________
“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 24th December 2018, 01:20 PM   #1745
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,778
Oh and merry Christmas.


Hope the big fella put some good news on sublimation under the tree for you.
__________________
“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 24th December 2018, 01:24 PM   #1746
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,778
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Totally irrelevant. Your model failed. Ambipolar fields have nothing to do with that failure. Stop avoiding the failure of your model.
Is that a yes, jd116?

Comet 67P has a ambipolar electric field?


Can’t see why it’s irrelevant as your refusal to answer is quite entertaining.

Even Fred burfle can not answer a simple straight forward question..
__________________
“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 24th December 2018, 01:30 PM   #1747
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,725
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So was that a yes, comet 67p as an ambipolar electric field?

Or

No, comet 67p does not have an electric field?




Feel free to answer free burfle as jonesdave 116 will not.

Very simple,
It is of no relevance to the failure of your model. Having an ambipolar field is nothing to do with the complete lack of discharges and EDM (lol). It is nothing to do with a density of ~ 530 kg/m3. It has nothing to do with the detection of water vapour, and ice. It is nothing to do with the EC's impossible method for manufacturing water. It has nothing to do with the D/H ratio of the water vapour not matching solar wind values.
Your model has failed. No point in discussing an irrelevancy like ambipolar fields. They are not going to fix any of the above. The EC woo has 100% 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 24th December 2018, 01:32 PM   #1748
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,725
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Is that a yes, jd116?

Comet 67P has a ambipolar electric field?


Can’t see why it’s irrelevant as your refusal to answer is quite entertaining.

Even Fred burfle can not answer a simple straight forward question..
It is irrelevant. I am not getting drawn into a discussion of something that is totally irrelevant. Your model failed. I have outlined the fundamental claims that have failed. Your refusal to deal with them is telling.
__________________
“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 24th December 2018, 01:35 PM   #1749
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,725
And again. Deal with it. Ambipolar fields have nothing to do with the complete failure of your model.


Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
So, where are we now with the electric comet 'model'? What have we learned after over a decade of this woo being spammed around various fora on the internet? Let's break it down to its most fundamental claims, as per the Thornhill & Talbott poster from 2006;

Comets are rocks, blasted from planets by unknown electric woo.
Leaving aside the scientifically impossible mechanisms described to achieve this, we need only look at the composition of planets and moons, and at the composition of comets, and do a comparison. Earth, Mars, Mercury and Venus; all rock with high density. Comets; highly porous mixture of dust (fluffy and compact), ice and organics, with very low density.
Therefore the electric comet model fails.

Comets are merely asteroids on elliptical orbits.
Any cursory examination of the many asteroids on elliptical orbits shows this to be wrong.
Therefore the electric comet model fails.

The jets observed are electric discharges to (from?) the nucleus.
Electric discharges would show up in the magnetometer data. There was nothing. The jets are observed to be gas, dust and, sometimes, ice.
Therefore the electric comet model fails.

There is little to no ice, and the water observed is actually OH.
Water has been definitively detected at comets since 1986. So that was a lie.
Therefore the electric comet model fails.

The OH (H2O?) that is observed is due to solar wind H+ combining with O-.
Impossible. The H+ ions are far too energetic to combine with anything.
There is nowhere near enough H+ to explain even 1 litre of water per second.
There is little to no O-.
The solar wind is getting nowhere near the nucleus for about 8 months around perihelion.
Therefore the electric comet model fails.

Those are the fundamental building blocks underlying the electric comet model. Verdict? It fails. Horribly, and indisputably. The electric comet model was stillborn. It was never alive, and nobody has come close to zapping its stinking corpse with 50 000 volts to bring it to life. It is a miserable, neo-Velikovskian heap of trash, dreamed up by unqualified woo merchants. It is a joke. It isn't worthy of our attention.
__________________
“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 24th December 2018, 01:37 PM   #1750
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,778
Is that a yes, jd116?

I very much would like to answer the questions in your list, again, but need you not to stick your fingers in your ears and go la la la.

Why so childish?


This is a valid question I ask of you that is on topic.
__________________
“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; 24th December 2018 at 01:40 PM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th December 2018, 01:44 PM   #1751
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,725
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Is that a yes, jd116?

I very much would like to answer the questions in your list, again, but need you not to stick your fingers in your ears and go la la la.

Why so childish?


This is a valid question I ask of you that is on topic.
It is NOT on topic. Read my post and tell me what relevance it has. Is it going to make the thousands of tonnes of excavated ice at Tempel 1 disappear? Is it going to create granite? Is it going to create water vapour? And CO2? Et cetera.
It is irrelevant to my post. Your failure to deal with the failures I pointed out renders your model dead in the water. Game over.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin

Last edited by jonesdave116; 24th December 2018 at 01:45 PM.
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 24th December 2018, 02:01 PM   #1752
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,778
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
It is NOT on topic. Read my post and tell me what relevance it has. Is it going to make the thousands of tonnes of excavated ice at Tempel 1 disappear? Is it going to create granite? Is it going to create water vapour? And CO2? Et cetera.
It is irrelevant to my post. Your failure to deal with the failures I pointed out renders your model dead in the water. Game over.
So, again, yes or no?

Does 67P have an ambipolar electric field?

Then we can get onto you dead easy but irrelevant, as you say, questions.
__________________
“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 24th December 2018, 02:03 PM   #1753
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,725
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So, again, yes or no?

Does 67P have an ambipolar electric field?

Then we can get onto you dead easy but irrelevant, as you say, questions.
Irrelevant. Answer the points that show your model to be a failure.
__________________
“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 24th December 2018, 02:05 PM   #1754
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,725
Comets are rocks, blasted from planets by unknown electric woo.
Leaving aside the scientifically impossible mechanisms described to achieve this, we need only look at the composition of planets and moons, and at the composition of comets, and do a comparison. Earth, Mars, Mercury and Venus; all rock with high density. Comets; highly porous mixture of dust (fluffy and compact), ice and organics, with very low density.
Therefore the electric comet model fails.

Ambipolar field explains this how?
__________________
“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 24th December 2018, 02:06 PM   #1755
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,725
Comets are merely asteroids on elliptical orbits.
Any cursory examination of the many asteroids on elliptical orbits shows this to be wrong.
Therefore the electric comet model fails.

Ambipolar field explains this how?
__________________
“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 24th December 2018, 02:08 PM   #1756
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,725
The jets observed are electric discharges to (from?) the nucleus.
Electric discharges would show up in the magnetometer data. There was nothing. The jets are observed to be gas, dust and, sometimes, ice.
Therefore the electric comet model fails.

Ambipolar field explains this how?
__________________
“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 24th December 2018, 02:08 PM   #1757
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,778
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Comets are rocks, blasted from planets by unknown electric woo.
Leaving aside the scientifically impossible mechanisms described to achieve this, we need only look at the composition of planets and moons, and at the composition of comets, and do a comparison. Earth, Mars, Mercury and Venus; all rock with high density. Comets; highly porous mixture of dust (fluffy and compact), ice and organics, with very low density.
Therefore the electric comet model fails.

Ambipolar field explains this how?

Does an ambipolar electric field exist at comet 67P, jonesdave116?
__________________
“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 24th December 2018, 02:09 PM   #1758
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,725
There is little to no ice, and the water observed is actually OH.
Water has been definitively detected at comets since 1986. So that was a lie.
Therefore the electric comet model fails.

Ambipolar field explains this how?
__________________
“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 24th December 2018, 02:10 PM   #1759
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,725
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Does an ambipolar electric field exist at comet 67P, jonesdave116?
Irrelevant. Your model has failed. And the reasons it fails have nothing to do with the existence or otherwise of ambipolar fields. I doubt you even know what they are.
__________________
“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 24th December 2018, 02:11 PM   #1760
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,725
The OH (H2O?) that is observed is due to solar wind H+ combining with O-.
Impossible. The H+ ions are far too energetic to combine with anything.
There is nowhere near enough H+ to explain even 1 litre of water per second.
There is little to no O-.
The solar wind is getting nowhere near the nucleus for about 8 months around perihelion.
Therefore the electric comet model fails.

Ambipolar field explains this how?
__________________
“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
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 08:11 AM.
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.