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.
Reply
Old 14th May 2019, 08:13 PM   #3721
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,636
Thumbs down The usual lies, delusions, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So ...
So: The usual lies, delusions, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years. This post is one or more ofPersistent insanity about real active asteroids has been explained to him many times in an electric comet insanity thread !
Persistent insane lies about the electric comet insanity which has no sublimation, centrifugal force or impacts producing dust - just the insanity of imaginary, invisible electric discharges ding whatever magic the massively deluded Thunderbolts cult wants.

ETA: Also the persistent insanity of mentioning active asteroids which debunk his electric comet insanity by not being in similar orbits to comets as that stupidity wants !
Electric comets still do not exist!: EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets!

Last edited by Reality Check; 14th May 2019 at 09:27 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2019, 10:07 PM   #3722
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,512
So sublimation and centrifugal force are the two main culprits for dust removal.

Ok just like on active asteroids!

Did we miss impacts?
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2019, 10:12 PM   #3723
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,512
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
As yet another example of Sol88 insane posts over the last 10 year, there is his citation of a paper on rotating comets when his electric comet insanity has no rotating comets !

On migration of dust and ice grains on the surface of the rotating comet nucleus

A rotating body has a maximum velocity at its equator. That is where it is most possible for dust grains to be ejected. Thus "We have shown that the grains traveling to the equator of the comet can be thrown out into space" is what mainstream physics allows.
The last sentence is the obvious fact that the amount of dust covering ices will influence comet activity. So the migration of dust from rotation should influence comet activity.

Like a rotating garden sprinkler? Looks like, from this angle and solar illumination anyway, a fractal assemblage of filamentary highly colimated jets.
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 01:55 AM   #3724
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,441
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So sublimation and centrifugal force are the two main culprits for dust removal.

Ok just like on active asteroids!

Did we miss impacts?
What the hell are you blathering on about, and why are you still here?
__________________
“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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 01:56 AM   #3725
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,441
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So do you agree jonesdave116 that sublimation is not the driver of activity? As pointed out in a few papers now.

Or you are still happy for special sublimation of cometary rock?
That is not what those papers are saying. 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
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 01:57 AM   #3726
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,441
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Which non existent electric field was reality check on about?
Electric fields are a complete irrelevance to your failed 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 01:59 AM   #3727
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,441
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So just to make sure the sublimation of water ice is the main driver of the activity on the Dirtysnowball?

Yes or no reality check, jonesdave116?
Yes. As stated. Learn to read;

Quote:
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.
Which part of that is not penetrating what counts for your brain?
__________________
“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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 02:01 AM   #3728
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,441
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
New *physics: *Dust *is *many *orders *of *magnitude *heavier *than *ions *and *can *carry *many *orders *of * *magnitude *larger *+ *or *-‐ * *me *dependent *charge. *


Dusty Plasmas in the Solar System

Now, which electric field is this dust responding to again reality check. Must of missed that bit.

Also

Is this the same electric field accelerating charged particles?
Gibberish. Which electric field? And what has that got to do with your failed woo? Where was the EDM (lol)? The discharges? The rock? You lost. Go away, and get over 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 02:03 AM   #3729
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,441
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Well there you go, Reality check was spot on.

Sorry for all my crank woo woo.

I mean so it has been shown in a peer reviewed paper, this paper On migration of dust and ice grains on the surface of the rotating comet nucleus

Got the MATHS that PROVES this is the case.

That, along with sublimation seems to be the main culprit!

Unlike my unscientific electric fields, charged dust, electric currents pseudo scientific malarky!
You haven't got a clue what you are talking about. As you have been told multiple times, by multiple posters. Go away. Lern to scienz.
__________________
“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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 01:45 PM   #3730
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,636
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 is his active asteroids are comets insanity that debunks his electric comet insanity.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 01:46 PM   #3731
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,636
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 is his active asteroids are comets insanity that debunks his electric comet insanity.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 07:07 PM   #3732
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,512
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
You haven't got a clue what you are talking about. As you have been told multiple times, by multiple posters. Go away. Lern to scienz.
The dust is flung off a rotating nucleus.

Absolutely love it, this learning scienz stuff.

Maths is quite convoluted and in depth but yeah a viable option.

Anymore scienz available 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 07:24 PM   #3733
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,636
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.
Insanity about dust being (possibly) flung off the rotating nucleus of a comet when the electric comet insanity does not have that.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2019, 07:10 PM   #3734
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,512
Water formation on the moon

Quote:
"Overall, this study advances our understanding on the origin of water as detected on the moon and other airless bodies in our solar system such as Mercury and asteroids and provides, for the first time, a scientifically sound and proven mechanism of water formation," HIGP's Jeffrey Gillis-Davis concluded.
And comets, just saying...
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2019, 07:20 PM   #3735
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,636
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.
Repeated delusion that any comet is the Moon !
Repeated delusion that a water producing mechanism explicitly stated to be for the "moon and other airless bodies in our solar system such as Mercury and asteroids" happens on comets.
Usual insane lie about the electric comet insanity which does not have this water producing mechanism (that insanity has electric discharges magically producing water from solid rock).
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2019, 08:09 PM   #3736
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,512
Water is being made, brilliant.
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2019, 08:58 PM   #3737
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,636
Thumbs down The usual lies, delusions, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Water is being made, brilliant.
The usual lies, delusions, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.
Irrelevant nonsense about an experiment confirming water being made on the Moon. Water formation on the moon
Quote:
Chemistry Professor Ralf I. Kaiser and HIGP's Jeffrey Gillis-Davis designed the experiments to test the synergy between hydrogen protons from solar wind, lunar minerals, and micrometeorite impacts. Zhu irradiated samples of olivine, a dry mineral that serves as a surrogate of lunar material, with deuterium ions as a proxy for solar wind protons.

Last edited by Reality Check; 21st May 2019 at 09:02 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2019, 09:43 PM   #3738
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,512
Why not comets? Since our understanding has evolved away from thinking comets were mostly ice to mostly asteroidial type composition.
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2019, 09:46 PM   #3739
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,512
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
The usual lies, delusions, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.
Repeated delusion that any comet is the Moon !
Repeated delusion that a water producing mechanism explicitly stated to be for the "moon and other airless bodies in our solar system such as Mercury and asteroids" happens on comets.
Usual insane lie about the electric comet insanity which does not have this water producing mechanism (that insanity has electric discharges magically producing water from solid rock).
Happens on comets as well.
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2019, 02:09 AM   #3740
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,441
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Water formation on the moon



And comets, just saying...
Nope, just lying, as usual.
__________________
“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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2019, 02:11 AM   #3741
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,441
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Why not comets? Since our understanding has evolved away from thinking comets were mostly ice to mostly asteroidial type composition.
How many times do you need to be told? Nowhere near enough protons in the solar wind. Solar wind isn't even reaching the comet nucleus for months on end. We have been through all this before. Why can you not manage to remember these things? Do you have a learning disability?
__________________
“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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2019, 02:13 AM   #3742
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,441
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Happens on comets as well.
Is another lie.
__________________
“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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2019, 01:46 PM   #3743
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,636
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.
Persistent "evolved away from thinking comets were mostly ice to mostly asteroidial type composition" lies.

No one has said that. It is only in his head, not that of astronomers or anyone who thinks rationally about asteroids or comets. Comets are still made of ices sublimating to give jets, coma and tail. Comets are still made of dust. The ratio in a few comets is more dust than ices, e.g. at least 17% ices for 67P. which has lead to evolving (present tense !) toward comets in general being more dust than ices.

Comet dust and asteroid rock will have similar composition as the mainstream has held for 70 years! A common origin in the early solar system says this. They will also differ because the common origin is different parts of the early solar system, comets have a high % of ices.

The insanity is emphasizing yet again that his electric comet insanity is that comets and asteroids have are made of terrestrial-like rock from rocky planets such as the Earth. That is insane because we have tonnes of samples of asteroids and that rock formed in outer space. This is insane because we have dust grains from a comet and that dust formed in outer space. This is insane because the average density of comets is much less than that of asteroids (~0.6 g/cc vs rus ~3 g/cc) as he has known for at least 10 years !

Last edited by Reality Check; 22nd May 2019 at 01:58 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2019, 01:55 PM   #3744
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,636
Thumbs down usual lies, delusions, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Happens on comets as well.
The usual lies, delusions, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.
The delusion that the Moon is a comet or vice versa. Ditto for Mercury, asteroid and other airless bodies. Comets are not moons, planets or asteroids. Comets are not always airless (comet coma). The insanity in this case is
  • His fact-less and ignorant fantasy is not part of the electric comet insanity !
  • A delusion that comets only have water ices?
  • If it did happen, this mainstream physics would be included in the mainstream model.
    Comets will still have water, CO, CO2, methane and ammonia ices. Those ices will still sublimate. Jets, coma and tails will still be formed by those sublimating ices. This mechanism would be a tiny contribution to the production of water ices and water.
  • Any contribution to water ices from this mechanism cannot be significant has been explained to him many times .
    It certainly cannot explain the amount of water ices that we have detected. Thus comets have to have native sources of water ices. And native sources of CO, CO2, methane and ammonia ices.

Last edited by Reality Check; 22nd May 2019 at 02:05 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2019, 08:55 PM   #3745
Indagator
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 64
Well! Well! Well! How SADLY PATHETIC!!

Sol88!

I'm away for 16 weeks and I come back to find our resident 'ec' expert still has NOTHING salient to offer regarding the subject of this thread! Silly me! Why would I expect anything to be different? You've been at this least 13 years, And still NO science! Still NO evidence! Still NO model! Sol88! How's your little world? Would you like to continue our discussion of the mainstream comet model used by Deca et al (2017)? What about Lisse et al (2006) as relates to accretion processes observed here, there and everywhere? What's next for you an me? More unanswered ASSIGNMENTS? Have you found that A'Hearn et al (20XX) paper yet? You know, the one where A'Hearn et al present evidence that COMETS ARE NOT MADE OF ROCK! They're actually made of volatile ices and dust!

What's the matter, Sol88? Are you still afraid to look through the ol' telescope? PATHETIC EFFORT! Don't you think it's time to up your game?

In the last 16 weeks have you taken any time to answer my questions? I've literally asked you hundreds and hundreds of pointed questions! Some easy! Some hard! Regardless, these questions are the same kinds of questions you and your camp NEED to answer if you want to graduate from RELIGION to science!

Sol88! Help me out here! How can you and I build a working 'model' of an 'electric comet' ...? Well, you start by answering my questions!!! ALL OF THEM!!!

Now, because the internet never, ever forgets, let's take a wee step back ...!

Here's my last post from 2019/01/29!

And here's your response ...

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Yes I’d say there’s a cockup.

Happy to correct them if you find some value.

Sol88! In case it was not obvious, I do find value in the answers you provide to my questions! Why?

I ask questions to learn things! I ask questions to explore concepts and ideas with people! I ask questions because I seek knowledge! I asked my first set of 20 simple 'Yes/No' questions to explore your personal view of what science is, and what aspects of the 'eu/es/ec' are valid from your perspective!

Sol88, I ask you questions because I never, ever want to misrepresent your views! Your answers are always important!

Again, I present for your dining and dancing pleasure, the table of 20 questions! All you need do is "quote" this post and edit the answers to align with your knowledge and opinion of things. No need for explanation. That can and will come later! I'm just looking for Yes/No answers at this point. Please note, I've included your original answers as recorded in my last post.

TABLE: Sol88's 20 Answers to Indagator's 20 Questions
# Questions Answers
01 Could any principles/physics of the electric comet be wrong? Yes ---> Yes / No
02 Could any principles/physics of the electric star be wrong? Yes ---> Yes / No
03 Could any principles/physics of the electric universe be wrong? Yes ---> Yes / No
04 Could every aspect of the electric universe be wrong? No ---> Yes / No
05 Does gravity play any part in orbital mechanics? Yes ---> Yes / No
06 Does gravity play any part in star formation processes? No ---> Yes / No
07 Does electrostatics/electrodynamics play any part in orbital mechanics? Yes ---> Yes / No
08 Does electrostatics/electrodynamics play any part in star formation processes? No ---> Yes / No
09 Are stars powered by nuclear fusion occurring in the core? Yes ---> Yes / No
10 Are stars powered by nuclear fusion occurring on the surface? Yes ---> Yes / No
11 Are asteroids made of rock? No ---> Yes / No
12 Are asteroids made of volatile ices and dusts? Yes ---> Yes / No
13 Are comets made of rock? No ---> Yes / No
14 Are comets made of volatile ices and dusts? Yes ---> Yes / No
15 Is sublimation (i.e., a state change from solid to gas) a real physical process? Yes ---> Yes / No
16 Is eccentricity important to comet charging and discharging processes? Yes ---> Yes / No
17 Is electric discharge machining responsible for terrestrial geomorphology (e.g., the Grand Canyon)? Yes ---> Yes / No
18 Does a magnetic field always indicate the presence of an electric current? Yes ---> Yes / No
19 Do you know where the water ice line is for our star at this point in its life cycle? No ---> Yes / No
20 Do you know what a sedimentary tidal rhythmite is? -?- ---> Yes / No

Please, Sol88, if you would be so kind! I really want to know what you know! And I thank you in advance!

Once you've answered these simple questions, we'll work on ASSIGNMENT #004 together!
Indagator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2019, 09:35 PM   #3746
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,636
Originally Posted by Indagator View Post
Have you found that A'Hearn et al (20XX) paper yet?
That is actually one of the bits of insanity that Sol88 persists with. When presented with the fact that anyone can find the papers A'Hearn has written Sol88 obsesses about and lies about a few sentences from A'Hearn's probably last paper !

When presented with the fact that A'Hearn has written dozens of papers on ices and dust comets that include ices and dust and not rock, Sol88 obsesses about and lies about a few sentences from A'Hearn's probably last paper !

Knowing that is an insane insult of the deceased A'Hearn to associate him with the electric comet insanity, Sol88 obsesses about and lies about a few sentences from A'Hearn's probably last paper !

I hope Sol88 changes the insanely ignorant answer to question 10 so that the Earth is not fried by the gamma radiation from the electric sun "nuclear fusion occurring on the surface" delusion!

Last edited by Reality Check; 22nd May 2019 at 09:38 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2019, 09:43 AM   #3747
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,512
Indagator, I can’t wait!
__________________
“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 May 2019 at 10:02 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2019, 03:40 PM   #3748
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,512
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Water formation on the moon



And comets, just saying...
Interesting

Comet inspires chemistry for making breathable oxygen on Mars

Quote:
More fundamentally though, he says the reaction represents a new kind of chemistry discovered by studying comets.
...


The Electrochemistry of Comets with Dr. Franklin Anariba
__________________
“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 May 2019 at 03:44 PM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2019, 07:52 PM   #3749
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,441
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
And they were wrong about comets. As Tusenfem and myself suspected (calculated!), they were orders of magnitude out with their mechanism. It is a non-starter, as pointed out in a reply to their paper;

On the origin of molecular oxygen in cometary comae
Heritier, K. L. et al.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04972-5

And Anariba hasn't got a clue.

EDIT: Oh dear, these people are starting to annoy me now! Yao & Giapis are still banging on about reactions with the spacecraft surfaces possibly producing the O2. I pointed out to them in an email that this is very hard to reconcile with the Alice observations, which show the O2/H2O ratio declining with increasing impact parameter (height above the nucleus surface) of the observations. It was also pointed out in another paper;

Origin of Molecular Oxygen in Comets: Current Knowledge and Perspectives
Luspay-Kuti, A. et al. (2018)
https://www.researchgate.net/profile...rspectives.pdf


Quote:
It is also important to note that Alice has detected O2 independently of ROSINA (Keeney et al.2017a), and post-perihelion Alice results indicate that the relative O2/H2O decreases with increasing impact parameter above the nucleus (Keeney et al.2017b). Although the Alice measurements may arguably be affected by spacecraft-produced O2, the observed O2/H2O variation with impact parameter would be unlikely within this framework. Finally, ER reactions require a direct collision with the appropriate atom, which is a low probability process.
__________________
“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 May 2019 at 08:13 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2019, 01:25 PM   #3750
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,636
Thumbs down The usual lies, delusions, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Indagator, I can’t wait!
The usual lies, delusions, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.

Indagator's post is questions for Sol88 about the electric comet and star insanity.

Last edited by Reality Check; 26th May 2019 at 01:26 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2019, 01:37 PM   #3751
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,636
Thumbs down The usual lies, delusions, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Interesting
The usual lies, delusions, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.
Not interesting that he has an insane delusion that the planet Mars is a comet !

Not interesting that he lies about science yet again.
Comet inspires chemistry for making breathable oxygen on Mars
Quote:
This reaction occurs on comets when water molecules vaporize from the surface and are then accelerated by the solar wind until they crash back into the comet at high speed.

Comets, however, also emit carbon dioxide (CO2). Giapis and Yao wanted to test if CO2 could also produce molecular oxygen in collisions with the comet surface.
The detection of molecular oxygen in the coma and tail of comet 67P could be from molecular oxygen stored during the formation of comets in the early solar system. The molecular oxygen could also come from chemistry. That inspired some chemists to test a viable chemical pathway to generate O2 from CO2 by colliding CO2 with a surface under conditions that might happen at Mars: "That could explain the presence of small amounts of oxygen that have been observed high in the Martian atmosphere"

Not interesting that he lies about his electric comet insanity yet again. This is valid mainstream science, not part of the electric comet insanity.
Not interesting that that he links yet again to the deluded ideas of Dr. Franklin Anariba at the insane Thunderbolts cult.

Last edited by Reality Check; 26th May 2019 at 01:42 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2019, 02:00 PM   #3752
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,636
Comet inspires chemistry for making breathable oxygen on Mars describes Direct dioxygen evolution in collisions of carbon dioxide with surfaces by Yunxi Yao, Philip Shushkov, Thomas F. Miller III & Konstantinos P. Giapis (2019)
There is also their previous paper Dynamic molecular oxygen production in cometary comae by Yunxi Yao & Konstantinos P. Giapis (2017)

This may be a case of "someone with a hammer seeing everything as nails". Researchers on chemical reactions on surfaces know that O2 is a byproduct. They see that there are rare occurrences of O2 in space. Thus they apply their "hammer" to produce that O2. This may be a viable mechanism but there is the missing step so far of quantitative analysis. We know a lot about comet 67P, e.g. its surface area and properties of its coma. It should be possible to at least get an estimate of the O2 production from this mechanism.

ETA: They do say production "in part" so the question is rather whether this mechanism could produce a significant part of the O2.

Last edited by Reality Check; 26th May 2019 at 02:05 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2019, 10:38 AM   #3753
Indagator
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 64
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! 'Tis to laugh!

Sol88! When you say ...
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Indagator, I can’t wait!
... do you mean that you can't wait to continue our discussion of Lisse et al (2006)? That's excellent news! I am so looking forward to all your insightful answers to the questions I posed back on 2018/12/06!

By the way, did you find time to read the short SST and IRS papers I provided links for? You know! The papers you most surely ignored! Well, here are your links again ...

Werner et al (2004) The Spitzer Space Telescope Mission and

Houck et al (2004) The Infrared Spectrograph (IRS) on the Spitzer Space Telescope

Any questions?

And once you've digested a little background science related to Spitzer, you might want to read the follow on article by Lisse et al (2007) where the authors go into far more detail regarding the analysis of IR spectra from the "ejecta" of comets 9P/Tempel 1 and C/1995 O1 (Hale-Bopp), plus the circumstellar material associated with the young stellar object HD100546!

Here's the link to the follow on paper ... Lisse et al (2007) Comparison of the Composition of the Tempel 1 Ejecta to the Dust in Comet C/Hale-Bopp 1995 O1 and YSO HD 100546

A few simple questions, Sol88!
  1. According to Lisse et al (2006), what is the "dust-to-gas" ratio for the material ejected during the Deep Impact experiment?
  2. According to Lisse et al (2006), what temperatures were used to derive the "best-fit" to "observed" IR spectra of the DI ejecta? And why?
  3. According to Lisse et al (2006), how much of the 9P/Tempel 1 ejecta was unprocessed material accreted directly from the ISM?
  4. Given that the DI experiment was observed at multiple wavelengths, what is the minimum and maximum mass of water ejected?
  5. In electromagnetic terms, explain why the "measured" minimum and maximum water masses are separated by two orders of magnitude!
Any questions?

FYI! I've got another 20+ papers that I would like to include in our discussion! Papers that address issues with IR spectroscopy, PSN mixing models, and accretion mechanics! Just let me know when you'd like the links!!! I should also mention that, as regards questions 4) and 5), I've got links to a handful of papers that may shed some light ... if you care to do any real science!

Thanks again, Sol88, for wanting to continue our discussion of Lisse et al (2006)! When would you like to start answering my questions?

Sol88! When you say ...
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Indagator, I can’t wait!
... do you mean that you can't wait to continue our discussion of Deca et al (2017)? That's excellent news! I am so looking forward to all your insightful answers to the questions I posed back on 2019/01/13!

Let me tell you, Sol88, that Deca et al paper is one brilliant bit of scientific investigation! What do you think of Deca et al (2017), given that it captures the essence of the mainstream comet model? You know! The one built on a foundation established by Whipple in 1950 and progressed by the mainstream science community right up to this day? As an aside, I would also enjoy discussing the iPIC3D code used by the authors! Are you up for it?

Sol88! Are you the one that said ...

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

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

Beginners....

Indeed! How do YOU get Q, Sol88? A pittance YOU say?

A few simple questions, Sol88!
  1. According to Deca et al (2017), how much water was required to produce the simulated charge separation?
  2. According to Deca et al (2017), how much dust was required to produce the simulated charge separation?
  3. According to Deca et al (2017), what was the water temperature required to produce the simulated charge separation?
  4. According to Deca et al (2017), is the "frozen-in" magnetic field orthogonal to, or parallel to the solar wind flow?
  5. According to Deca et al (2017), why is the orientation of the "frozen-in" magnetic field important?
  6. According to Deca et al (2017), why is it important to know the ion and electron Larmor radii?
  7. According to Biver et al (2015), how much water did MIRO "observe" being emitted by 67P at 3.4 AU?
  8. According to Biver et al (2015), what was the "observed" physical distribution of the water being emitted?
  9. Is the amount of water used by Deca et al (2017) consistent with that "measured" by MIRO (Biver et al (2015))?
  10. Regarding Q, please provide a detailed description of the Haser model and why it is still applicable when used correctly!
Any questions? Hee! Hee!

For completeness, here's the link to the referenced Biver et al (2015) paper ...Biver et al (2015) Distribution of Water Around the Nucleus of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko at 3.4 AU from the Sun as Seen by the MIRO Instrument on Rosetta

Interesting thought, Sol88 ... Would you like to add the Haser (1957) model to our discussion list? It might be entertaining ... for me at least! Perhaps you've actually read and comprehended Whipple (1950)? Would you like to discuss Whipple (1950) as well? I'll apply the same rigour to either of those discussions as I have to Lisse et al (2006) and Deca et al (2017)!!! Do you want to play?

Sol88! I have literally thousands of questions! You need to get moving on generating some answers! Unfortunately, I can't help you as I do not support your 'eu/es/ec' religion! Do you need to recruit some folks from Thunderbutts to give you a hand? I expect that won't go well at all! I do hope you will start making an effort! Think of the lurkers! Think of the mainstream science community! Think of the laughter! Alas! Thirteen years with nothing to show for it! Hee! Hee! PATHETIC! No science! No math! No evidence! No model!

Thanks again, Sol88, for wanting to continue our discussion of Deca et al (2017)! When would you like to start answering my questions?

Sol88! When you say ...
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Indagator, I can’t wait!
... do you mean that you can't wait to answer my 20 super simple 'Yes/No' questions? Questions you already took a stab at back on 2018/11/15! Questions that would take you literally two minutes to correct! After all, I thought you were sincere when you said ...

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Yes I’d say there’s a cockup.

Happy to correct them if you find some value.
As previously mentioned, I do find value in your answers, Sol88! I ask you questions because I want to learn about YOUR 'eu/es/ec' world! Is it asking too much of you? You appear to be the only one on this planet that has any interest in 'advancing' and defending the 'eu/es/ec' on the ISF! Help me out here! If you would be so kind, please, answer my questions! Start with the simple stuff! We can grow from there!

Thanks again, Sol88, for wanting to answer my 20 simple 'Yes/No' questions! Any thoughts on timeline? Or are we going back to ...

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Why bother?

Remember, Sol88! The internet never, ever forgets! And you can be sure that all your words can and will be used against you on this ISF 'electric comet' thread!

Much more to follow ... including several more ASSIGNMENTS ...! I'll BET you can't wait!
Indagator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2019, 10:45 AM   #3754
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,176
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Indagator, I can’t wait!
After ten years of this thread, a less cynical man would have thought you'd have learned something by now, Sol88. Alas, no.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2019, 03:30 PM   #3755
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,636
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
After ten years of this thread, a less cynical man would have thought you'd have learned something by now, Sol88. Alas, no.
He has not even learned what "circumstellar material" means !

Lisse et al - 2006 - Spitzer Spectral Observations of the Deep Impact Ejecta (PDF) includes that the spectra of Deep Impact ejecta matches that of the material around the young stellar object HD100546. The electric comet insanity is that comets are made of rocks blasted from rocky planets. That circumstellar material is left overs from the formation of HD100546, not a science fantasy story of rocky planets blasted into dust by magical electrical discharges!

HD100546 has a super-Jupiter and maybe a protoplanet forming.

Lisse et al - 2006 - Spitzer Spectral Observations of the Deep Impact Ejecta (PDF)
Quote:
Emission signatures due to amorphous and crystalline silicates, amorphous carbon, carbonates, phyllosilicates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, water gas and ice, and sulfides were found.
Where is the signature of granite? Basalt? Limestone? Sandstone? Coal?
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2019, 06:07 PM   #3756
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,441
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
<snipped for brevity>

ETA: They do say production "in part" so the question is rather whether this mechanism could produce a significant part of the O2.
Absolutely not. This was addressed in;

On the origin of molecular oxygen in cometary comae
Heritier, K. L. et al.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04972-5

This was a reply to the original paper by Yao & Giapis. They replied to the reply, here;

Reply to “On the origin of molecular oxygen in cometary comae”
Yao, Y. & Giapis. K. P.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04943-w

In that they concede that the mechanism is short, numbers wise. They say that they had conceded that the ion flux was too low in their original paper. What they don't comment on is just how far short it was! They then suggest that reactions on the spacecraft material could be causing the high detection rate. Which is annoying, as I'd already pointed out to Giapis in an email that this could not explain the ALICE observations. Luckily, it was highlighted later, here;

Origin of Molecular Oxygen in Comets: Current Knowledge and Perspectives
Luspay-Kuti, A. et al.

Quote:
It is also important to note that Alice has detected O2 independently of ROSINA (Keeney et al.2017a), and post-perihelion Alice results indicate that the relative O2/H2O decreases with increasing impact parameter above the nucleus (Keeney et al.2017b). Although the Alice measurements may arguably be affected by spacecraft-produced O2, the observed O2/H2O variation with impact parameter would be unlikely within this framework.
That paper was published 18 October 2018. Here is my comment from 6 July 2018;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...y#post12352720

And in their latest paper they are still banging on about reactions from the spacecraft;

Direct dioxygen evolution in collisions of carbon dioxide with surfaces
Yao, Y. et al.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-10342-6

Quote:
Even at low yield, however, contribution to the measured O2 abundance may be disproportionate if the CO2 reaction occurs close to the point of measurement. For example, we have verified experimentally that the reaction takes place on indium–tin oxide (ITO), a man-made material found on Rosetta’s thermal insulation and solar panels. Thus, CO2 collisions on the spacecraft’s exposed surfaces can change the composition of the surrounding gaseous halo with unknown repercussions for mass spectrometric measurements.
Which is nonsense, of course. The O2 production rate is closely tied to the H2O production rate, and not the CO2 rate. And still does not explain the ALICE observations.
__________________
“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; 28th May 2019 at 06:10 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 12:55 AM   #3757
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,512
Quote:
And still does not explain the ALICE observations.
Cool, are you able to explain the chameleon?


The effects of dust outbursts on the anomalistic features observed by Rosetta Alice around67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

Quote:
Since the AF has also been observed during stellar calibrations that were pointed several tens of degrees away from the comet and sun and during observations of the shadowed side of the nucleus a scattered light origin for the AF can be rejected further and may suggest the possibility that the instrument is immersed in a nano/micrograin or charged particle environment, some of which may pass through the Alice slit.
ALICE, what a fantastic instrument!

So do we have oxygen "ice" at 67P, jonesdave116?

Where do you think the O2 is coming from?
__________________
“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; 29th May 2019 at 01:00 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 04:01 AM   #3758
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,441
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Cool, are you able to explain the chameleon?


The effects of dust outbursts on the anomalistic features observed by Rosetta Alice around67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko



ALICE, what a fantastic instrument!

So do we have oxygen "ice" at 67P, jonesdave116?

Where do you think the O2 is coming from?

What the hell has this got to do with your failed 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 05:00 AM   #3759
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,512
Sublimation you say? Ok.
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 05:16 AM   #3760
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,512
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
What the hell has this got to do with your failed woo?
Failed wo0?

https://mobile.twitter.com/Rosetta_R...72223619334145


Elias Odelstad seems to think I’m on the money. Do you agree 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:35 AM.
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.