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 30th April 2019, 08:44 PM   #3441
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,825
Thumbs down The usual gibberish not to be answered

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...
Persistent lies about astronomers and insults of astronomers.
The usual gibberish not to be answered. It is one or more of

Last edited by Reality Check; 30th April 2019 at 08:50 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 30th April 2019, 10:23 PM   #3442
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,932
You make too easy Reality Check!

sublimation is unable to remove anything , ergo scrap that as a mechanism for "jet"/activity and comets as mostly ice is incorrect.

As the NEW raft of papers show!

Still funny as fark to watch you too hang onto the old days religiously!

Comets are MOSTLY ROCK.


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 1st May 2019, 12:23 AM   #3443
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,671
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
sublimation is unable to remove anything , ergo scrap that as a mechanism for "jet"/activity and comets as mostly ice is incorrect.
Even if it is true, it does not make the Electric Comet fantasy true. Scientists would need to come up with something that is possible in physics, rather than EU.

Quote:
Comets are MOSTLY ROCK.
And this rock miraculously turns into ice when struck with a pellet?
__________________
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 1st May 2019, 02:05 AM   #3444
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,932
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
Even if it is true, it does not make the Electric Comet fantasy true. Scientists would need to come up with something that is possible in physics, rather than EU.


And this rock miraculously turns into ice when struck with a pellet?
Mainstream are the one trying to preform miracles.

Comets are mostly rock with very little ice...

Please tell me you’ve read The Nucleus of Comet 67P/ChuryumovGerasimenko - Part I: The Global View – nucleus mass, mass loss, porosity and implications before you chime in with comments, much like reality check’s.

Please someone other than, reality check and jonesdave116, please give a concise summary of what the implications are for Whipple’s Dirtysnowball model.

Would settle this endless loop right there.

Steenkh?

What’s your take on the possibilities other than sublimation and comets are mostly ice?
__________________
“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; 1st May 2019 at 02:07 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 1st May 2019, 04:00 AM   #3445
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,819
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Mainstream are the one trying to preform miracles.

Comets are mostly rock with very little ice...

Please tell me you’ve read The Nucleus of Comet 67P/ChuryumovGerasimenko - Part I: The Global View – nucleus mass, mass loss, porosity and implications before you chime in with comments, much like reality check’s.

Please someone other than, reality check and jonesdave116, please give a concise summary of what the implications are for Whipple’s Dirtysnowball model.

Would settle this endless loop right there.

Steenkh?

What’s your take on the possibilities other than sublimation and comets are mostly ice?

More deliberate lying. There is no rock. How many times do you need to be told before you stop lying? Lies are all you have left, aren't they?
__________________
“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 1st May 2019, 04:02 AM   #3446
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,819
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
You make too easy Reality Check!

sublimation is unable to remove anything , ergo scrap that as a mechanism for "jet"/activity and comets as mostly ice is incorrect.

As the NEW raft of papers show!

Still funny as fark to watch you too hang onto the old days religiously!

Comets are MOSTLY ROCK.


Simple
More lying. No rock, and plenty of ice. And sublimation can most certainly remove dust, as shown in lab experiments. Just quit with these pathetic lies.
__________________
“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 1st May 2019, 04:09 AM   #3447
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,819
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Absolute tripe!

But you,jonesdave116 would believe a paper from 2012
Thousands of tonnes of ice ejected, which you yourself said would kill your woo. Why are you still here, still refusing to address the evidence, and still lying?
Sol, all you have ever done about this idiotic model is lie and obfuscate and gish-gallop. It is pathetic. You even make some of the most dogmatic EUists look bad, and that really takes some doing. You have absolutely nothing. No science, no mechanisms and no evidence. You are all talk. You have clue zero about any science, and rely purely on a quasi-religious belief in the unscientific garbage of non-scientists with a Velikovskian agenda.
Your woo is long dead. Nobody believes it. It has totally failed. Not a single piece of evidence for it. And a shed load against. Complete 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 1st May 2019, 04:25 AM   #3448
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,819
Quote:
So either Tempel 1 and Hartley 2 were ice comets and 67P is a dusty comet or there are a few glaring problems with the mainstream model.
Liar. There is no such thing as 'ice comets' according to the idiot Thornhill. They are all rock, blasted off of planets. Ergo, you admit that you, and your woo, are a complete failure. And Tempel 1 was outgassing less than 67P at the time of encounter. Therefore, 67P is icier than Tempel 1, from which thousands of tonnes of ice were excavated! Your own post from 2007 shows that you now agree that your woo has completely failed. You can lie all you like, but the internet never forgets. Your problem is that you lie so often that you cannot keep track of all the lies you've told, and get tripped up by them coming back to haunt you.
And this thread is not about the mainstream model - it is about the 100% failed EC woo.
__________________
“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 1st May 2019, 04:37 AM   #3449
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,819
Quote:
But you,jonesdave116 would believe a paper from 2012
They detected thousands of tonnes of ice being ejected. What is not to believe, given that other studies confirm this? You failed, based on your own post from 2007. Now you are off on another gish-gallop of lying to hide from the fact that your woo has failed by your own standards.
__________________
“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 1st May 2019, 04:43 AM   #3450
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,932
The Nucleus of Comet 67P/ChuryumovGerasimenko - Part I: The Global View – nucleus mass, mass loss, porosity and implications

Steenkh?
__________________
“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 1st May 2019, 04:44 AM   #3451
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,932
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
They detected thousands of tonnes of ice being ejected. What is not to believe, given that other studies confirm this? You failed, based on your own post from 2007. Now you are off on another gish-gallop of lying to hide from the fact that your woo has failed by your own standards.
Do you OR do you not believe Martin Pätzold
Quote:
The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice.
jonesdave116?

Quote:
The Deep Impact onto comet 9P/Tempel 1, did enable an estimate of the bulk density of 400 kg/m³ from the dynamics of the impact ejecta, albeit with a high uncertainty (A'Hearn et al., 2005).
jd116?

Pony up.
__________________
“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; 1st May 2019 at 04:48 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 1st May 2019, 05:20 AM   #3452
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,819
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Do you OR do you not believe Martin Pätzold jonesdave116?

jd116?

Pony up.
I believe the observations that detected thousands of tonnes of ice. It is indisputable.
And I find it far more likely that Patzold et al have made a wrong assumption somewhere along the line, than every single gas estimate from various instruments, and Earth-based observations, are wrong. As I've already pointed out here;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2623
__________________
“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 1st May 2019, 05:31 AM   #3453
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,671
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Mainstream are the one trying to preform miracles.
First of all, you carefully avoid the very telling result of Deep Impact on Tempel 1. Secondly, any failure of the mainstream view is not an endorsement of EU. You have been told this for years, and yet you continue treating the Electric Comet as the default theory if mainstream fails.

Quote:
Comets are mostly rock with very little ice...
Except, of course, Tempel 1.

Quote:
Please tell me you’ve read The Nucleus of Comet 67P/ChuryumovGerasimenko - Part I: The Global View – nucleus mass, mass loss, porosity and implications before you chime in with comments, much like reality check’s.
OK, I have. It says that there is little ice, lots of dust, and it does not mention rock at all. I see no problem for the mainstream view that cannot be overcome, but the Electric Comet view fails by the lack of rock.

Quote:
What’s your take on the possibilities other than sublimation and comets are mostly ice?
I am not sure that sublimation has been ruled out by the one single study that you like to quote, and in any case sublimation then only fails as the engine for moving the dust particles, not the water particles. As far as I gather, Electric Comet fails in moving both.

In my view, the porosity of comets has made it clear that comets do not have to be mostly ice for mainstream mechanisms to hold, and we can probably find burnt-out comets that no longer outgas because the ice has mostly gone. Oumuamua was probably such an example. If we want to know if Oumuamua is a former comet or a present asteroid, we need to know its porosity. We know that asteroids are much more dense than comets - another blow to Electric Comet.
__________________
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 1st May 2019, 01:32 PM   #3454
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,825
Thumbs down Usual lies not to be answered

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...
This post is one or more of
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 1st May 2019, 01:34 PM   #3455
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,825
Thumbs down Usual lies not to be answered

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...
This post is one or more of
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 1st May 2019, 01:39 PM   #3456
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,825
Thumbs down Usual lies, delusions, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...
Usual lies, delusions, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years. This post is one or more of
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 1st May 2019, 01:40 PM   #3457
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,825
Thumbs down Usual lies, delusions, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...
Usual lies, delusions, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years. This post is one or more of
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 1st May 2019, 01:47 PM   #3458
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,932
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
First of all, you carefully avoid the very telling result of Deep Impact on Tempel 1. Secondly, any failure of the mainstream view is not an endorsement of EU. You have been told this for years, and yet you continue treating the Electric Comet as the default theory if mainstream fails.


Except, of course, Tempel 1.


OK, I have. It says that there is little ice, lots of dust, and it does not mention rock at all. I see no problem for the mainstream view that cannot be overcome, but the Electric Comet view fails by the lack of rock.


I am not sure that sublimation has been ruled out by the one single study that you like to quote, and in any case sublimation then only fails as the engine for moving the dust particles, not the water particles. As far as I gather, Electric Comet fails in moving both.

In my view, the porosity of comets has made it clear that comets do not have to be mostly ice for mainstream mechanisms to hold, and we can probably find burnt-out comets that no longer outgas because the ice has mostly gone. Oumuamua was probably such an example. If we want to know if Oumuamua is a former comet or a present asteroid, we need to know its porosity. We know that asteroids are much more dense than comets - another blow to Electric Comet.
So the ONLY difference between asteroids and comets is thier bulk density?

Researchers find water in samples from asteroid Itokawa

Quote:
The team's findings suggest that impacts early in Earth's history by similar asteroids could have delivered as much as half of our planet's ocean water.
Thought comets were supposed to deliver water to Earth?


So if I understand you correctly, that Tempel 1 is a standard garden variety Whipple Dirtysnowball icy comet and 67p is a dusty comet with minimal to no ice?

And that sublimation is a viable mechanism for the release of ice grains only?

And asteroids are extinct comets and active asteroids are non extinct comets?

Or have I misinterpreted your understanding of comets?

But our general understanding is that comets are mostly ice and asteroids are mostly rock?
__________________
“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; 1st May 2019 at 01:51 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 1st May 2019, 02:04 PM   #3459
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,932
Steenkh, you may have also read
Quote:
From the discussion above it seems to be clear that the lost gas mass was strongly overestimated by the gas instruments and these teams work all on more realistic estimates.
from Patzold’s paper?

This has implications for Tempel 1’s “tons and tons” of ice (gas) released during deep impact.

Deep Impact Was a Dust-up, Not a Gusher
Quote:
SWAS operators were puzzled by the lack of increased water vapor from Tempel 1.
So Tempel 1 is a special standard mostly ice type comet? And all other comets visted are anomalies...mostly rock/stony/refractory dust with a density of terrestrial rock and minimal to no ice.

Right think I’ve got it now.
__________________
“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; 1st May 2019 at 02:06 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 1st May 2019, 02:07 PM   #3460
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,825
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
I am not sure that sublimation has been ruled out by the one single study that you like to quote, and in any case sublimation then only fails as the engine for moving the dust particles, not the water particles. As far as I gather, Electric Comet fails in moving both.
The situation is worse than an deluded obsession with 1 study, steenkh.

Sol88 lies by cherry picking one possibility out of a range that is dismissed by the authors. jonesdave116 wrote on 1st March 2019
Quote:
Lying again. Learn to read. From the summary and conclusions;
Quote:
Larger porosities (> 80%) require very high dust-to-ice ratios (Fnucleus >> 7), where the ice content decreases rapidly from a few percent to ultimately zero, representing a highly porous dusty nucleus with little to no ice. This is probably unrealistic in the case of 67P, but not unreasonable because it is the ultimate fate of a comet nucleus at the end of its "active life".
The part you cherry-picked was from a list of possible porosities. They dismiss this in the summary.
Sol88 lies because this study has ices sublimating! That "lost gas mass" in the abstract is gas from sublimating ices in this mainstream ices and dust paper.

Sol88 lies because the ices we have detected at 67P will sublimate. It is textbook physics backed up by experiments that ices in the conditions of comets close to the Sun will sublimate.
Water ice found on the surface of comet 67P (January 14, 2016)

As you have seen it is useless trying to answer Sol88's stupidity of asking about mainstream comets in a thread about the electric comet insanity. 10 years of this thread says all you will get back is more stupidity and lies. That 10 years gives us:
The insane delusion that density alone is what separates comets from asteroids.
The insane delusion that an asteroid having some water as expected in the mainstream is relevant to the electric comet insanity of comets being rock blasted from rocky planets, etc..
A deluded lie about ices on Tempel 1 by citing the production of water vapor and still denying that the millions of kilograms of ejecta contained 20-50% water!
A deluded "Thought comets were supposed to deliver water to Earth?" lie. Internal production, comets and asteroids are the mechanisms proposed for the oceans on Earth. Years ago, we found that water on comets had a range of isotope ratios that included the predictions for the early oceans (Now researchers find that water seen in Comet Hartley 2 is very close to Earth's, with about 1,610 deuterium atoms per 10 million regular hydrogen atoms from 2011). But years ago we found this was not the case for 67P (Rosetta Comet Mission Reveals Clues About the Origin of Earth’s Water from 2014).

Last edited by Reality Check; 1st May 2019 at 02:30 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 1st May 2019, 02:09 PM   #3461
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,825
Thumbs down Usual lies, delusions, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...
Usual lies, delusions, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years. This post is one or more of
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 1st May 2019, 02:13 PM   #3462
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,825
Thumbs down Usual lies, delusions, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...
Usual lies, delusions, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years. This post is one or more of

Last edited by Reality Check; 1st May 2019 at 02:22 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 1st May 2019, 03:11 PM   #3463
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,932
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
The situation is worse than an deluded obsession with 1 study, steenkh.

Sol88 lies by cherry picking one possibility out of a range that is dismissed by the authors. jonesdave116 wrote on 1st March 2019


Sol88 lies because this study has ices sublimating! That "lost gas mass" in the abstract is gas from sublimating ices in this mainstream ices and dust paper.

Sol88 lies because the ices we have detected at 67P will sublimate. It is textbook physics backed up by experiments that ices in the conditions of comets close to the Sun will sublimate.
Water ice found on the surface of comet 67P (January 14, 2016) f
I fear you fear debating this particular paper reality check?

Quote:
Quote:
Lying again. Learn to read. From the summary and conclusions;
Larger porosities (> 80%) require very high dust-to-ice ratios (Fnucleus >> 7), where the ice content decreases rapidly from a few percent to ultimately zero, representing a highly porous dusty nucleus with little to no ice. This is probably unrealistic in the case of 67P, but not unreasonable because it is the ultimate fate of a comet nucleus at the end of its "active life".
The part you cherry-picked was from a list of possible porosities. They dismiss this in the summary.
So,....how far through it’s “life” span is comet 67P? Avitive asteroid Bennu is the other side of that equation. So it stands 85% porosity for 67P.

Comet 67P is a stony(rocky/refractory material) highly porous agglomeration of organics with little to no volatiles.


The implications are fatal to Whipple’s sublimation model for anyone with a spare neutron or two to inferr from the data received in situ and the visual pictures of fractured rock, along with the complete failure to provide a plausible explanation for the production of said debatable mas loss from “gas” and dust.

These were thought to be as per Whipple’s model in the production of gas and dust from sublimation under solar illumination.

Your Dirtysnowball.


Keen to have a real dig at the paper reality check?
__________________
“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; 1st May 2019 at 03:21 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 1st May 2019, 03:30 PM   #3464
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,932
We’ve forgotten all about the ELECTRIC COMET also postulating the nucleus is NOT in charge equilibrium with its current PLASMA (that magical fourth state (the FUNDAMENTAL state) of matter ) environment.

Effectively it’s a charged rock. This would manifest as a polarised electric field centred on the nucleus.

Ambipolar electric fields, surface electric fields, polarised electric fields, hall currents, fields aligned current these are just a few of my favourite things...

Oh, look Size of a plasma cloud matters. The polarisation electric field of a small-scale comet ionosphere

Quote:
Conclusions: The same process gives rise to a tailward directed electric field with a strength of the order of 10% of the solar wind electric field. Using a simple cloud model we have shown that the polarisation electric field, which arises because of the small size of the comet ionosphere as compared to the pick up ion gyroradius, can explain the observed significant tailward acceleration of cometary ions and is consistent with the observed lack of influence of the solar wind electric field in the inner coma.
Silly us in our kerfufflle to argue of A’Hearns definition of ROCK.


As in
Quote:
(c) Whatarecometsmadeof? 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].
__________________
“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; 1st May 2019 at 03:40 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 1st May 2019, 04:06 PM   #3465
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,825
Thumbs down Usual lies, delusions, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...
Usual lies, delusions, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years. This post is one or more of
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 1st May 2019, 04:09 PM   #3466
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,825
Thumbs down The usual lies, delusions, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...
The usual lies, delusions, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years. This post is one or more of
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 1st May 2019, 09:09 PM   #3467
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,932
Quote:
Persistent lies about comets.
Ices have been found on comets as in the papers he has cited.


Not in dispute. The amount of ice at Tempel 1 was deduced from the dust observed from an incoorect assumption on the dust to gas ratio.

Seems they were out by quite a bit.

Tempel 1 seems very much like an outlier, in the mainstream thinking.

67P is NOTHING like Tempel 1 according to Reality Check and jonesdave116.

But 67P is like Bennu an asteroid, active at that!

Quote:
Quote:
Lying again. Learn to read. From the summary and conclusions;
Larger porosities (> 80%) require very high dust-to-ice ratios (Fnucleus >> 7), where the ice content decreases rapidly from a few percent to ultimately zero, representing a highly porous dusty nucleus with little to no ice. This is probably unrealistic in the case of 67P, but not unreasonable because it is the ultimate fate of a comet nucleus at the end of its "active life".
Quote:
The part you cherry-picked was from a list of possible porosities. They dismiss this in the summary
.
They did not dismiss this fatal piece of data for the dirtysnowball, you just have trouble accepting the new data.

Funny as!
__________________
“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; 1st May 2019 at 09:13 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 2nd May 2019, 12:54 AM   #3468
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,671
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So the ONLY difference between asteroids and comets is thier bulk density?
No. Where did I say that?

Quote:
Researchers find water in samples from asteroid Itokawa

Thought comets were supposed to deliver water to Earth?
I believe that idea has run into problems after the finding that the water on comets has different ratios of isotopes than water on Earth.

Finding water on asteroids does not in any way validate Electric Comet.

Quote:
So if I understand you correctly, that Tempel 1 is a standard garden variety Whipple Dirtysnowball icy comet and 67p is a dusty comet with minimal to no ice?
No, you did not understand me correctly. Where did you get the idea that there was minimal to no ice? Did you not read the conclusion that "This is probably unrealistic in the case of 67P"?

Quote:
And that sublimation is a viable mechanism for the release of ice grains only?
And how does that support Electric Comet?

Quote:
And asteroids are extinct comets and active asteroids are non extinct comets?
I think that some asteroids could be extinct comets, but I do not know if we have found any. As I pointed out with Oumuamua, we do not know their porosity. As far as I know, a comet that sublimates all of its water does not turn its dust into rock.

Quote:
Or have I misinterpreted your understanding of comets?
Probably.

Quote:
But our general understanding is that comets are mostly ice and asteroids are mostly rock?
I do not know about "mostly". Your favourite quote from A'Hearn indicates otherwise, but he is conveniently dead, so it is difficult to get that cleared up. I am sure you would tell us if any living scientist would say something similar. I just note that there is sufficient water on comets to keep them outgassing through sublimation.

If all asteroids are extinct comets, how could that happen when they are on orbits that do not bring them near the Sun?
__________________
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 2nd May 2019, 01:18 AM   #3469
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,671
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Steenkh, you may have also read from Patzold’s paper?

This has implications for Tempel 1’s “tons and tons” of ice (gas) released during deep impact.

Deep Impact Was a Dust-up, Not a Gusher
That was in 2005. Do you have the final results?

I not that even without impact, Comet Tempel 1 is releasing 550 pounds of water per second. That is pretty good for a body with little to no ice.
__________________
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 2nd May 2019, 04:16 AM   #3470
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,819
Quote:
Not in dispute. The amount of ice at Tempel 1 was deduced from the dust observed from an incoorect assumption on the dust to gas ratio.
And another lie. The ice was detected in IR from the absorption spectrum at 3 μm by the in-situ spacecraft. Spitzer used the v2 vibrational band of water at 6.4 μm to calculate the amount of ice released into the coma.
__________________
“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; 2nd May 2019 at 04:21 AM.
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 2nd May 2019, 04:24 AM   #3471
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,819
Quote:
Tempel 1 seems very much like an outlier, in the mainstream thinking.
And that is another lie. Tempel 1 was outgassing roughly the same amount as 67P at the time of encounter.

Quote:
But 67P is like Bennu an asteroid, active at that!
Is also a lie.

Quote:
They did not dismiss this fatal piece of data for the dirtysnowball, you just have trouble accepting the new data.
Is also a lie. They certainly did for the case of 67P. As they wrote. Learn to read.
__________________
“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; 2nd May 2019 at 04:26 AM.
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 2nd May 2019, 04:28 AM   #3472
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,819
Quote:
Effectively it’s a charged rock. This would manifest as a polarised electric field centred on the nucleus.
Is a lie. And there is zero evidence for any electric comet woo. It is 100% debunked.

Quote:
Ambipolar electric fields, surface electric fields, polarised electric fields, hall currents, fields aligned current these are just a few of my favourite things...
None of which has anything to do with the failed EC woo. You need EDM (lol), and discharges, and rock. There are none of those things. Ergo, the EC woo has failed.

Quote:
The implications are fatal to Whipple’s sublimation model for anyone with a spare neutron or two to inferr from the data received in situ and the visual pictures of fractured rock, along with the complete failure to provide a plausible explanation for the production of said debatable mas loss from “gas” and dust.
Strawman and lies. What is 'debatable'? You haven't a clue about the relevant science, so show me where this has been called into question.
__________________
“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; 2nd May 2019 at 04:33 AM.
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 2nd May 2019, 04:35 AM   #3473
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,819
Quote:
But our general understanding is that comets are mostly ice and asteroids are mostly rock?
Another deliberate lie. As has been pointed out numerous times.

Quote:
Comets are MOSTLY ROCK.
Lie. Show the detection of rock.
__________________
“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; 2nd May 2019 at 04:43 AM.
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 2nd May 2019, 04:44 AM   #3474
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,932
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
And another lie. The ice was detected in IR from the absorption spectrum at 3 μm by the in-situ spacecraft. Spitzer used the v2 vibrational band of water at 6.4 μm to calculate the amount of ice released into the coma.
Well there your problem.

What model did they use?
__________________
“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 2nd May 2019, 04:54 AM   #3475
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,819
Quote:
Thought comets were supposed to deliver water to Earth?
As pointed out, this is no longer thought to be the major source of Earth's water. The D/H ratios measured in comets is mostly different to that found in Earth's ocean waters.

http://sci.esa.int/rosetta/55117-fir...s-water-ratio/
__________________
“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 2nd May 2019, 04:55 AM   #3476
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,819
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Well there your problem.

What model did they use?
Read the papers. And they didn't model the ice detections. They detected them. 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 2nd May 2019, 05:16 AM   #3477
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,819
Icy Grains from the Nucleus of Comet C/2013 US10 (Catalina)
Protopapa, S. et al. (2018)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.08215.pdf

Water Ice and Dust in the Innermost Coma of Comet103P/Hartley 2
Protopapa, S. et al. (2014)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.3382.pdf

Comet Hale–Bopp in outburst: Imaging the dynamics of icy particles with HST/NICMOS
McCarthy Jr, D. W. et al. (2007)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...19103507000541

Comet 17P/Holmes in Outburst: The Near Infrared Spectrum
Yang, B. et al. (2009)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.1317.pdf
__________________
“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; 2nd May 2019 at 05:28 AM.
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 2nd May 2019, 03:21 PM   #3478
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,825
Thumbs down The usual lies, delusions, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...
The usual lies, delusions, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years. This post is one or more of
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 2nd May 2019, 03:22 PM   #3479
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,825
Thumbs down The usual lies, delusions, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...
The usual lies, delusions, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years. This post is one or more of
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 2nd May 2019, 03:46 PM   #3480
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,825
For other posters:
Why Sol88's "What model did they use?" post was the usual lies, delusions, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.

The first reason is that he has been posting about comets for over 10 years and has never learned basic astronomy, physics or even science in that decade or more!

jonesdave116 wrote:
Quote:
And another lie. The ice was detected in IR from the absorption spectrum at 3 μm by the in-situ spacecraft. Spitzer used the v2 vibrational band of water at 6.4 μm to calculate the amount of ice released into the coma.
This is basic physics that high school science students know about - spectroscopy. Atoms, molecules and materials reflect and emit light at energies that collectively are a signature of the atom, molecule or material.
When we detect the spectra of water ice grains being emitted from a comet, that is detection of water ice grains at that comet !
When we detect the spectra of water molecules being emitted from a comet, that is detection of water molecules at that comet !
When we detect the spectra of dust grains being emitted from a comet,that is detection of dust grains at that comet !

Thus "What model did they use?" is an insanely deluded question. No comet model is used in spectroscopy.

Astronomers do tend to write "consistent with" rather than "detection of" in scientific papers which is downplaying usual for scientific papers. For example, from
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Icy Grains from the Nucleus of Comet C/2013 US10 (Catalina)
Protopapa, S. et al. (2018)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.08215.pdf

Water Ice and Dust in the Innermost Coma of Comet103P/Hartley 2
Protopapa, S. et al. (2014)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.3382.pdf

Comet Hale–Bopp in outburst: Imaging the dynamics of icy particles with HST/NICMOS
McCarthy Jr, D. W. et al. (2007)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...19103507000541

Comet 17P/Holmes in Outburst: The Near Infrared Spectrum
Yang, B. et al. (2009)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.1317.pdf
Water Ice and Dust in the Innermost Coma of Comet 103P/Hartley 2
Quote:
The extracted reflectance spectra include well defined absorption bands near 1.5, 2.0, and 3.0 m consistent in position, bandwidth, and shape with the presence of water ice grains.

Last edited by Reality Check; 2nd May 2019 at 03:48 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
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 05:05 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.