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 16th August 2020, 10:53 PM   #362
lauwenmark
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 68
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Got some ripper quotes too!

Proposal is wrong? Like the proposal comets are mostly ice?

Got a quote here for you from quite a famous comet investigator...

(Snip)

So the proposal that comets are mostly ice is incorrect. A’Hearn proposal is that comets are mostly rock. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, now is there lauwenmark?

That's fun in how you exactly proved my point:
Originally Posted by lauwenmark
Sol is not trying to show that T07 is correct; he's trying to show that every other proposal is wrong. Hence his constant strategy of quoting "mainstream" papers.
The reader will appreciate.

Originally Posted by Sol88
Predict? Like in comets are rocky? Check
Where? Where are the equations showing it? When I say "predict", I of course mean "establish, by a reasoning based on previous knowledge and formalized in mathematical terms allowing to estimate, based on the currently known data, the postulated outcome".
ECT predicts *nothing*. It just says - like you do - "we think they are rocky". You cannot predict it.

And you conveniently ignored the most important part of my reply, so I'll kindly remind it to you:

Is there any way to compare observed data with predictions made by ECT? Can ECT predict any physical value or range of values?

Show me how, on the basis of the content of TO7 (since it seems like the only ECT paper you could find), you can do that. And I'm not talking about watching a compressed picture and guess-deducing unicorns from its artifacts; I'm talking about a mathematically sound demonstration.

Originally Posted by Sol88
Comets are charged rocky objects discharging (losing mass) electrically in the solar plasma.
As I just asked: prove it, using T07. If you cannot prove it using T07, then T07 doesn't say the same thing as you, and you have to tell us why.

Last edited by lauwenmark; 16th August 2020 at 10:56 PM.
lauwenmark 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 16th August 2020, 11:37 PM   #363
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,921
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
How’s the solar wind interacting with the field aligned ambipolar electric field and is this consistent with sublimation theory (the Dirtysnowball) in the loss of mass thru plasma process’s?
Again, a comment like this shows that Sol is just cherry-picking stuff from papers that he completely does not understand. If he would understand the papers, he would also understand that this question does not make any sense.


The creation of the "field aligned ambipolar electric field" that Sol is so fond of is a direct result of the interaction of the solar wind with the outgassing comet. Also notice in the figure the location of this electric field ...
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes
twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist
tusenfem 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 16th August 2020, 11:48 PM   #364
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,921
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Ahhh, the singing comet, quite the surprise, was it not?
Yes, it was, as we had never visited a comet at such low production rate, and never considered what would happen in that case. Fortunately, plasma physics came to the rescue and explained the waves.
We are here still waiting for the EC explanantion of these waves.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Also a surprise at that distance (outgassing level) was the plasma sheath...
Don't know what you mean here.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Almost like the rocky body was charged as compared to the ambient plasma.
Again, ever since the Giotto flyby of Halley, we know that it is not "just a snowball" (something that Whipple actually never claimed! but got distorted into the "dirty snowball" and that name stuck)

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
You kinda dodged the question a few pages back now, tusenfem but can an object such as a comet attain a floating potential in a plasma stream such as the solar wind?
Nope, I explained about stuff in plasma charging. I stopped when I noticed it was pointless to go on, because your interest in real physics is not there, you only want to have your perceptions confirmed. And if you have to twist plasma physics and EC for that, you seem to be quite okay with doing that.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
And if this potential is of a level that a plasma sheath would form around such an object, as seen in the RPC data?
I am reasonably sure you are probably talking about the diagmagnetic cavity, but then who knows what you actually mean.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Maths seems pretty standard in this regard.
Math is never the problem, Sol, it is just that you do not understand how space plasma physics works.
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes
twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist
tusenfem 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 17th August 2020, 12:08 AM   #365
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,921
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So after that little post tusenfem, which math are we going to use to capture the solar winds interaction (The Sun), the field aligned ambipolar electric fields, the electric currents and the removal of dust via the above plasma processs, as the model that should be used instead of the dubious sublimation (Dirtysnowball) model.
See my previous answer about you not understanding ...
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes
twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist
tusenfem 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 17th August 2020, 12:10 AM   #366
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,921
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Wrong...the moon has one...

What’s on the wake of an object in plasma (solar wind)?

Think man, think. Any electric fields?
Again, this was your claim that the electrons in the solar wind were hotter and faster than the ions, what does the moon have to with that claim, absolutely nothting!

Maybe you should start thinking before you write down general junk which we then have to try to interprete it in the way you mean it.
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes
twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist
tusenfem 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 17th August 2020, 12:17 AM   #367
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,921
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Simple yes/no, tusenfem.

Can the dust being removed from the surface via the mechanism suggested by Divin et al, be classed as a discharge? Considering the dust is, in fact, charged?
In principle no, because Divin et al. [2020] does not mention how dust is removed from the surface of the cometary nucleus.

They mention dust three times in the introduction (and the word dust appears 5 times in the paper, once more in the affilications and once more in the references):

Originally Posted by divin et al.
Cometary nuclei are small solar system bodies composed of dust, rocks, volatiles, and ices. As a cometary nucleus travels closer to the Sun, its surface warms up and the environment
gets embedded with dust and gas, producing a large-scale comet.

...

Understanding the suprathermal electron population is important, since increased fluxes of the latter have been shown to strongly affect also the cometary ionosphere via electronimpact ionization (Galand et al. 2016), charge exchange (Wedlund et al. 2017; Heritier et al. 2018), and is thought to affect dust grain charging processes (Gombosi et al. 2015).
That is ALL they say.
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes
twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist

Last edited by tusenfem; 17th August 2020 at 12:19 AM.
tusenfem 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 17th August 2020, 01:17 AM   #368
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,435
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
In principle no, because Divin et al. [2020] does not mention how dust is removed from the surface of the cometary nucleus.

They mention dust three times in the introduction (and the word dust appears 5 times in the paper, once more in the affilications and once more in the references):



That is ALL they say.
Mmmmmm... in principle ya thunk? Should we investigate a little more, ya think, tusenfem? Or does mess to mush with the old dead unfortunately named “Dirtysnowball”?

Well, they (Divin et al) also say ....
Quote:
Abstract The cometary mission Rosetta has shown the presence of higher-than-expected suprathermal electron fluxes. In this study, using 3D fully kinetic electromagnetic simulations of the interaction of the solar wind with a comet, we constrain the kinetic mechanism that is responsible for the bulk electron energization that creates the suprathermal distribution from the warm background of solar wind electrons. We identify and characterize the magnetic fieldaligned ambipolar electric field that ensures quasi-neutrality and traps warm electrons. Solar wind electrons are accelerated to energies as high as 50–70 eV close to the comet nucleus without the need for wave–particle or turbulent heating mechanisms. We find that the accelerating potential controls the parallel electron temperature, total density, and (to a lesser degree) the perpendicular electron temperature and the magnetic field magnitude. Our self-consistent approach enables us to better understand the underlying plasma processes that govern the nearcomet plasma environment.
Which would help M. Galand.... solve thier little conundrum


Quote:
The origin of the hot (>10 eV) electrons detected by RPC-IES whose level increases over the low ξ activity regions of the winter hemisphere and which are driving the ionospheric densities in this region is still not fully resolved. They cannot be explained by unaffected photoelectrons or solar wind electrons. Indeed, if it would be pure photoelectrons, the energetic electrons would correlate with the activity level ξ in the summer hemisphere, which is not observed. The measured hot electrons have higher fluxes and higher energies than the solar wind population (Clark et al. 2015). Additional processes must therefore be taking place, affecting these populations. Clark et al. (2015) suggested electrostatic shock potentials, magnetic field compression and wave–particle interactions. More recently, Broiles et al. (2016b) analysed RPC-IES and ROSINA-COPS over the Southern hemisphere on 2014 November 1. Similar to our findings during period T2, they found a positive correlation between the hot electron (Te > 100 000 K) flux density and the ROSINA-COPS neutral density. They concluded that the electron population had been heated by lower hybrid waves, though it remains unclear what population – solar wind or cometary – it is heated from. Madanian et al. (2016) also proposed the effect of ambipolar electric field with inward acceleration of electrons and, for more extreme cases, the compression of solar wind electrons associated with interplanetary shocks, as other energization processes of the electron population. The origin of the hot electrons is still under debate, but may be further constrained by the analysis of additional cases under different outgassing activities, seasons and conditions in the space environment of comet 67P.

Lower Hybrid Waves or Field Aligned Ambipolar Electric Field, tusenfem?

Happy to accept, may have an affect on the dust, as observed, before “outgassing” from sublimation of hidden “ice/s” had really even started.

The same non sublimation effect may happen anywhere... this is also observed.

The nucleus is a charged rocky body, tusenfem?

__________________
“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; 17th August 2020 at 01:25 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 17th August 2020, 02:21 AM   #369
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,921
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Mmmmmm... in principle ya thunk? Should we investigate a little more, ya think, tusenfem? Or does mess to mush with the old dead unfortunately named “Dirtysnowball”?
The paper is not about dust removal from the comet, so you are making things up, as usual, to suit your own purposes. You can keep on claiming your stuff, but it is NOT IN THE PAPER.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Well, they (Divin et al) also say ....
I know what they say, e.g.:

Originally Posted by Divin et al.
We identify and characterize the magnetic fieldaligned ambipolar electric field that ensures quasi-neutrality and traps warm electrons.
Clearly showing that their electric field CANNOT be a double layer.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Which would help M. Galand.... solve thier little conundrum
And has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR DUST REMOVAL IDEAS

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Lower Hybrid Waves or Field Aligned Ambipolar Electric Field, tusenfem?
What of it?

Frak, this is pointless.
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes
twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist
tusenfem 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 17th August 2020, 03:18 AM   #370
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,435
Red face

Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
The paper is not about dust removal from the comet, so you are making things up, as usual, to suit your own purposes. You can keep on claiming your stuff, but it is NOT IN THE PAPER.



I know what they say, e.g.:



Clearly showing that their electric field CANNOT be a double layer.



And has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR DUST REMOVAL IDEAS



What of it?

Frak, this is pointless.

What of it?

Ha ha,

Well in the paper by https://academic.oup.com/mnras/artic...54752#49637590

They suggest hybrid waves, Divin says electric fields acting very much like a double layer in the trapping and accelerating of mostly electrons as the mechanism.

M.Galand has no mention of dust charging though there is a liberal mention of energetic electron impact ionisation.

We now know, a field aligned ambipolar electric field is responsible and MAY affect the dust charging...

I’d say, their on the money. It does affect the dust charging and I’d suggest there is some plasma coupling to surface electric fields, rendering the charged patch model for the mobilisation and lofting of dust.

Not sure, your LHW can do this? Though I think it was mentioned in the Redistribution of particles across the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

I’d suggest the charged dust responding surface electric fields MAY also play a role.



Pointless?.....
__________________
“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 17th August 2020, 03:58 AM   #371
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,435
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Again, this was your claim that the electrons in the solar wind were hotter and faster than the ions, what does the moon have to with that claim, absolutely nothting!

Maybe you should start thinking before you write down general junk which we then have to try to interprete it in the way you mean it.
Same process at the moon (and asteroids).

Quote:
. The potential structure changes from a monotonic classical sheath to an inverse sheath as the emitted electron density becomes larger than the plasma electron density. In a relatively newer, recently developed charging model, called the Patched Charge Model, it has shown both theoretically and experimentally that even in photoelectron-rich environment, dust particles lying on a regolith surface can attain large negative potential due to formation of micro cavities.

This negative potential may reach such values so that dust mobilization and lofting may become possible.

In our work, we have assumed the existence of such negatively charged dust particles in a photoelectron-rich environment and argue that once the dust lofting is effected, the levitation can be sustained through the ion-drag force. The conditions of levitation are investigated for these dust particles and the levitation distances from the lunar surface are calculated.
Dust levitation in an inverse sheath


So, we can now add, at least at comets, suprathermal electrons from the field aligned ambipolar electric field to the , dust particles lying on a regolith surface can attain large negative potential due to formation of micro cavities.

This negative potential may reach such values so that dust mobilization and lofting may become possible.


This MAY be the mechanism were by Divin states
Quote:
and is thought to affect dust grain charging processes (Gombosi et al. 2015).
Seems like common sense but apparently we are going to need very big supercomputers and sophisticated algorithms to see if it’s correct.

Otherwise, outgassing via sublimation.
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 17th August 2020, 04:22 AM   #372
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,732
Exclamation Sol88's lies of repeating his questions about mainstream physics

Sol88's is trolling the thread with repeated, irrelevant, already answered, lying questions about mainstream comets. These are lies because this is a thread abut his cult's deluded dogma.
  • The idiocy of "Is dust charged" when Sol88 cited the mainstream ice and dust comet papers detecting charged dust.
  • Trolling with repeated questions on comets & potential in the solar wind when Sol88 cited the mainstream ice and dust comet papers that stated the solar wind can theoretically charge dust on comet nuclei.
    This should cause some dust to escape the nucleus but is such a minor effect that none of of the dust has been detected.
    This stops when the solar wind is blocked by the formation of the coma. It is the ejection of dust and gas from ice sublimating that is measured and dominates mass loss.
  • Lying question of "which maths" to use to describe mainstream physics.
  • Constant lying with "The nucleus is a charged rocky body" sometimes as a questions.
    A comet is ice and dust, not rock. Mainstream physics predicts that comets will be temporary charged by teh solar wind before being shielded by the coma. In real life, we do not detect any dust being ejected before the coma forms so any ejection of electrostatically lofted dust is minor.
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 17th August 2020, 04:48 AM   #373
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,732
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

  1. Sol88 lies with "they (Divin et al) also say" which is not dust being removed from the surface.
  2. Sol88 lies with another irrelevant to his cult's deluded dogma mainstream ice and dust comet paper. Ionospheric plasma of comet 67P probed by Rosetta at 3 au from the Sun by M. Galand et al. 2016.
  3. Sol88 lies with a question about mainstream ice and dust cometary science, not his cult's deluded dogma.
  4. Sol88 lies with "may have an affect on the dust" as these papers are about the coma not the surface.
  5. Sol88 lies with "before “outgassing”" as these papers are about the coma formed by outgassing.
  6. Sol88 lies with "sublimation of hidden “ice/s”" when comets have ice as in papers he has cited.
  7. Sol88 lies with "The same non sublimation effect may happen anywhere" as electrostatic lofting of duct by the solar wind is not his cult's deludes dogma.
  8. Sol88 lies with "The nucleus is a charged..." (the solar wind temporary charges dust. we do not detect any such dust before the coma blocks the solar wind).
  9. Sol88 lies with "rocky body" when comets are ice and dust as in the papers Sol88 has cited.
  10. Sol88 lie s with "What of it?' when tusenfem points out that Sol88 is lying about the mainstream ice and dust papera he cites. Divin et al. [2020] is not about dust removal from the comet, no double layers in the paper, the coma is not the nucleus surface !.
  11. Sol88 lies by citing again an irrelevant to his cult's deluded dogma, mainstream paper ! (M. Galand et al. 2016).
  12. Sol88 lies with "We now know, a field aligned ambipolar electric field is responsible" What he quoted from Divin et al. [2020] just says that a magnetic fieldaligned ambipolar electric field traps warm electrons.
  13. Sol88 lies with mainstream charged dust which is not his cult's deluded dogma.
  14. Sol88 lies with Redistribution of particles across the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko which is not his cult's deluded dogma.
  15. Sol88 lies with "Same process at the moon (and asteroids)" which are not comets that develop coma to stop the process and tis not his cult's deluded dogma.
  16. Sol88 lies with Dust levitation in an inverse sheath which does not mention comets and is not his cult's deluded dogma.
  17. Slo88 lies with suprathermal electrons in the coma/electrostatic dust lofting that does not exist with a coma when neither is not his cult's deluded dogma.
  18. Sol88 lies with "his MAY be the mechanism were by Divin states" when Divin is talking about electrons in the coma and is not his cult's deluded dogma.
  19. Sol88 lies with "very big supercomputers and sophisticated algorithm" but here his abysmal ignorance and lying IS his cult's deluded dogma. It is only PIC simulations taken to small scales that need supercomputers, etc. We can do 1980's style PIC simulations on mobile devices (slowly) ! Certainly practical on ordinary PCs. It is only when we have billions of cells that supercomputers may be needed (or distributed computing).
    Sol88 is lying by cherry picking a single result out of the millions of physics papers and lying about that result !
    Aurora mysteries unlocked with NASA's THEMIS mission is THEMIS showing that magnetic reconnection is a primary driver of substorms that lead to aurora. One of the delusions of Sol88's cult is the seen in the lab and nature magnetic reconnection does not exist!
    Quote:
    "In order to understand these features in the aurora, you really need to resolve both global and smaller, local scales. That's why it was so challenging up to now," said Slava Merkin, co-author on one of the new papers and scientist at NASA's Center for Geospace Storms headquartered at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland. "It requires very sophisticated algorithms and very big supercomputers."

    The new computer simulations almost perfectly match THEMIS and ground observations.
    Smaller, local scales = more cells in a computer model = more computing power needed = supercomputers. Add "very sophisticated algorithms" to make the computation faster (or in some cases possible).

Last edited by Reality Check; 17th August 2020 at 05:02 AM.
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 17th August 2020, 04:49 AM   #374
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,732
Exclamation The usual abysmal level of lies, delusions, insults, etc. addressed since 6 July 2009

The thousands of lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma.
The abysmal insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn and all astronomers by Sol88 linking them with Sol88's dogma, etc. (no astronomer believes comets are actual rock)
710 items of lies, insults, etc. from Sol88 since ~10 March 2020

11 years of lying, etc. about posts, posters, science, and his dead dogma continues with 29 more lies, insults of astronomers being deluded by writing comets are his cult's rock, etc.
11 years of lying, etc. about posts, posters, science, and his dead dogma continues with 19 more lies, insults of astronomers being deluded by writing comets are his cult's rock, etc.

Sol88 and the Thunderbolts cult refusal to "Look thru the telescope"
More about Sol88's cult, Sol88's lies, Sol88 emphasizing his cult's idiocy and Thornhill's delusions about physics.
How Sol88 and Wal Thornhill make the electric comet deluded with EDM, Part II
Why Sol88's cult having comet tails as electric discharges is deluded
[url="http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13191844#post13191844"]Sol88 constantly lies by repeating his already answered and irrelevant questions about mainstream physics[/URL
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 17th August 2020, 05:19 AM   #375
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,732
Sol88 is lying that all of physics or maybe all of plasma physics needs ""very big supercomputers and sophisticated algorithms" . Obviously he has never heard of Newton, Einstein, Birkeland, or Alfven, all of whom did work without supercomputers!

The paper Sol88 is lying about makes it clear why supercomputers were needed for this specific model.
Ballooning‐Interchange Instability in the Near‐Earth Plasma Sheet and Auroral Beads: Global Magnetospheric Modeling at the Limit of the MHD Approximation
Quote:
Abstract
Explosive magnetotail activity has long been understood in the context of its auroral manifestations. While global models have been used to interpret and understand many magnetospheric processes, the temporal and spatial scales of some auroral forms have been inaccessible to global modeling creating a gulf between observational and theoretical studies of these phenomena. We present here an important step toward bridging this gulf using a newly developed global magnetosphere‐ionosphere model with resolution capturing < 30 km azimuthal scales in the auroral zone. In a global magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulation of the growth phase of a synthetic substorm, we find the self‐consistent formation and destabilization of localized magnetic field minima in the near‐Earth magnetotail. We demonstrate that this destabilization is due to ballooning‐interchange instability which drives earthward entropy bubbles with embedded magnetic fronts. Finally, we show that these bubbles create localized field‐aligned current structures that manifest in the ionosphere with properties matching observed auroral beads.
Plain Language Summary
The aurora has long been used as a window onto the magnetosphere. However, auroral observations are inherently limited in trying to reconstruct global magnetospheric dynamics from the “magnetic shadow” they cast on Earth. For this reason modeling has been used in tandem with observations to better contextualize and understand the data. Substorms, the violent reconfiguration of the magnetotail and one of the most dynamic magnetospheric phenomena, have been known to be preceded by the formation of bead‐like structures in the aurora. The processes responsible for auroral beading and their causal versus correlative role with substorm onset have remained an enduring mystery. The vast disparity between the spatial scales of auroral beads and those of the global magnetosphere has greatly complicated the use of modeling in unraveling this mystery. We show here for the first time a demonstration of the self‐consistent formation of a magnetospheric configuration that becomes unstable during the period preceding the substorm onset and that this instability manifests in the ionosphere with similar morphology to auroral beads. The global context of the model shows that the magnetospheric processes responsible for beading are not necessarily causal to onset but a consequence of the slow magnetotail reconfiguration that precedes onset.
This is a MHD model with a grid of 382×512×382 cells (only 74,713,088 cells so I assume that it is the calculation between cells that is computing intensive). They need a lot of cells and thus a supercomputer because they are simulating from twice the radius of the Earth down to ~30 kilometers.

Last edited by Reality Check; 17th August 2020 at 05:20 AM.
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 17th August 2020, 08:10 AM   #376
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,921
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Well in the paper by https://academic.oup.com/mnras/artic...54752#49637590

They suggest hybrid waves, Divin says electric fields acting very much like a double layer in the trapping and accelerating of mostly electrons as the mechanism.

M.Galand has no mention of dust charging though there is a liberal mention of energetic electron impact ionisation.
Yes, Marina says nothing about dust, but that will not stop you to make it sound like that anyway.

Waves or electric fields or ... there are more ways to skin a cat ... there are various ways of energizing ions and electrons.

Divin's field is NOT a double layer, a double layer would only accelerate (or reflect) an electron, NEVER trap it. Not that you care.

Please notice that the electric field in Divin's paper is hundreds of km BEHIND the comet, something you have, up to now, probably never noticed, althoug I have asked you where the electric field was located.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
We now know, a field aligned ambipolar electric field is responsible and MAY affect the dust charging...
Yes, MAY, and with the electric field and the suprathermal electrons hundreds of km behind the comet, there is no connection with the body proper.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
I’d say, their on the money. It does affect the dust charging and I’d suggest there is some plasma coupling to surface electric fields, rendering the charged patch model for the mobilisation and lofting of dust.

Not sure, your LHW can do this? Though I think it was mentioned in the Redistribution of particles across the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

I’d suggest the charged dust responding surface electric fields MAY also play a role.
"their" on the money, their what?
Read the paper and try to understand it, then you know where what is happening.

"My LHWs" I have done nothing with Lower Hybrid Waves.
You "think" it is in that paper, then show it.
Charged dust on the surface may react to surface fields, sure, now show me a paper that shows the electric removal of the dust from the comet.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Pointless?.....
Quite pointless, as you have no idea what is said in the papers you so desperately want to have as evidence for the EC rubbish
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes
twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist
tusenfem 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 17th August 2020, 08:13 AM   #377
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,921
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Same process at the moon (and asteroids).
Again replying nonsense!

Your claim was that in the solar wind the electrons are hotter and faster than the ions. Now show us data of the undisturbed solar wind, there is enough of those, and show that this is the case.
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes
twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist
tusenfem 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 17th August 2020, 02:26 PM   #378
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,435
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Again replying nonsense!

Your claim was that in the solar wind the electrons are hotter and faster than the ions. Now show us data of the undisturbed solar wind, there is enough of those, and show that this is the case.


Quote:
"People have been studying the solar wind since its discovery in 1959, but there are many important properties of this plasma which are still not well understood," says physicist Stas Boldyrev from the University of Wisconsin–Madison.
Not well understood, tusenfem?

Quote:
Just to complicate matters further, thanks to its tiny mass, electrons get a good head start over heavier ions as they shoot forth from the Sun's atmosphere, leaving a largely positive cloud of particles in their wake.
More responsive as well...

Quote:
"It turns out that our results agree very well with measurements of the temperature profile of the solar wind and they may explain why the electron temperature declines with the distance so slowly," says Boldyrev.
Even better, in relation to an object, a rocky body for instance, immersed in this plasma stream encounter one of these...

Quote:
We concentrate on the dynamics of energetic electrons propagating along a radially diverging magnetic-flux tube. Due to conservation of their magnetic moments, the electrons form a beam collimated along the magnetic-field lines
Electron temperature of the solar wind


Now, not too jump around too much and I do hope you can keep up but Solar wind interaction with comet 67P: impacts of corotating interaction regions

Just say’n....
__________________
“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; 17th August 2020 at 02:27 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 17th August 2020, 02:29 PM   #379
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,435
Now, plasma expert you tell us poor plebs the following.

What happens when one of these field aligned electron beams, interacts with the field aligned ambipolar electric field?

What happens to the dust charging that MAY happen? Would the comets “activity” level increase?

Tough question, for a Dirtysnowball. But right up your alley, tusenfem, what with all this mag data!
__________________
“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; 17th August 2020 at 02:37 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 17th August 2020, 02:51 PM   #380
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,732
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

  1. Sol88 lies about tusenfem's Again replying nonsense! post which was clear English.
  2. Sol88 lies with Electron temperature of the solar wind which is not his cult's deluded dogma.
  3. Sol88 lies with a "still not well understood" quote which is not his cult's deluded dogma.
  4. Sol88 lies with a " our results agree very well with measurements" quote which as not his cult's deluded dogma.
  5. Sol88 lies with a "electrons form a beam" quote which is not his cult's deluded dogma.
  6. Sol88 lies with Solar wind interaction with comet 67P: impacts of corotating interaction regions which is not his cult's deluded dogma.
  7. Sol88 lies with "What happens when one of these field aligned electron beam..." which is not his cult's deluded dogma.
  8. Sol88 lies with "What happens to the dust charging..." which is not his cult's deluded dogma.
  9. Sol88 lies with "Would the comets “activity” level increase?" which is not his cult's deluded dogma.
  10. Sol88 lies once with "Tough question, for a Dirtysnowball." which is not his cult's deluded dogma.
  11. Sol88 lies twice with "Tough question, for a Dirtysnowball." when the mainstream ice and dust comet model uses mainstream physics that can answer real questions about comets.
  12. Sol88 emphasizes that his cult's dogma is deluded with "Tough question, for a Dirtysnowball." since his cult are totally unable to answer any of the questions he asks !

Last edited by Reality Check; 17th August 2020 at 02:56 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 17th August 2020, 03:01 PM   #381
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,732
Exclamation The usual abysmal level of lies, delusions, insults, etc. addressed since 6 July 2009

The thousands of lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma.
The abysmal insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn and all astronomers by Sol88 linking them with Sol88's dogma, etc. (no astronomer believes comets are actual rock)
710 items of lies, insults, etc. from Sol88 since ~10 March 2020

11 years of lying, etc. about posts, posters, science, and his dead dogma continues with 29 more lies, insults of astronomers being deluded by writing comets are his cult's rock, etc.
11 years of lying, etc. about posts, posters, science, and his dead dogma continues with 19 more lies, insults of astronomers being deluded by writing comets are his cult's rock, etc.
11 years of lying, etc. about posts, posters, science, and his dead dogma continues with 12 more lies, insults of astronomers being deluded by writing comets are his cult's rock, etc.

Sol88 and the Thunderbolts cult refusal to "Look thru the telescope"
More about Sol88's cult, Sol88's lies, Sol88 emphasizing his cult's idiocy and Thornhill's delusions about physics.
How Sol88 and Wal Thornhill make the electric comet deluded with EDM, Part II
Why Sol88's cult having comet tails as electric discharges is deluded
Sol88 constantly lies by repeating his already answered and irrelevant questions about mainstream physics

Last edited by Reality Check; 17th August 2020 at 03:03 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 17th August 2020, 08:52 PM   #382
lauwenmark
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 68
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Now, plasma expert you tell us poor plebs the following.
Stop asking others about what is in the 'mainstream' model. Answer questions about the ECT (that's the topic of this thread, right?). For example:

Is there any way to compare observed data with predictions made by ECT? Can ECT predict any physical value or range of values?

Show me how, on the basis of the content of T07 (since it seems like the only ECT paper you could find), you can do that. And I'm not talking about watching a compressed picture and guess-deducing unicorns from its artifacts; I'm talking about a mathematically sound demonstration.

Originally Posted by Sol88
Comets are charged rocky objects discharging (losing mass) electrically in the solar plasma.
As I just asked: prove it, using T07. If you cannot prove it using T07, then T07 doesn't say the same thing as you, and you have to tell us why.

There. I put the questions in bold so you can't miss them.

Tough question, for a Dirtybattery proponent. But right up your alley, Sol, what with all those claims!
lauwenmark 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 17th August 2020, 11:43 PM   #383
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,921
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
From a quick look at the paper, electrons traveling along a radial magnetic field, shows that they are basically only looking at the strahl component of the solar wind electrons.
Interesting, but we know that the magnetic field is not radial, but has a Parker spiral.
Nevertheless, it is interesting and I am sure the Parker Solar Probe and the Solar Orbiter will weigh in on this topic.
Also, I must admit I made one mistake, the electron and ion temperature are not the same, however, the bulk velocities are. It is clearly visible in my own latest paper, so my snafu.

With respect to Edberg's paper, that is not related to Boldyrev's paper, as there are no corotating interaction regions in the latter's model.
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes
twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist
tusenfem 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 17th August 2020, 11:52 PM   #384
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,921
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Now, plasma expert you tell us poor plebs the following.

What happens when one of these field aligned electron beams, interacts with the field aligned ambipolar electric field?
Yet again, a question that makes no sense, because, as I said earlier, the electric field in Divin's NUMERICAL MODEL is a result of the interaction of the solar wind with the outgassing comet. It would be perfectly clear why this question does not make sense if one would look at the figures. Of course there is a lot of discussion about stuff where Rosetta never went, so there are no observations.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
What happens to the dust charging that MAY happen? Would the comets “activity” level increase?
You tell me. They make no statement about that.
But if the electrons are suprathermal, it is more likely that they kick out excess charges from dust particles.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Tough question, for a Dirtysnowball. But right up your alley, tusenfem, what with all this mag data!
What mag data? Did you not notice that you are looking at simulations and that neither Divin's paper nor Boldyrev's paper are showing any measured data to compare with their models?
Okay, the electric field in Divin is too far away from the comet so Rosetta never was able to measure there.
The solar wind with Parker Solar Probe is well measured and I think that Boldyrev should have at least attempted to show some of his ideas in comparison with observations.
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes
twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist
tusenfem 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 19th August 2020, 01:14 PM   #385
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,435
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Yet again, a question that makes no sense, because, as I said earlier, the electric field in Divin's NUMERICAL MODEL is a result of the interaction of the solar wind with the outgassing comet. It would be perfectly clear why this question does not make sense if one would look at the figures. Of course there is a lot of discussion about stuff where Rosetta never went, so there are no observations.



You tell me. They make no statement about that.
But if the electrons are suprathermal, it is more likely that they kick out excess charges from dust particles.



What mag data? Did you not notice that you are looking at simulations and that neither Divin's paper nor Boldyrev's paper are showing any measured data to compare with their models?
Okay, the electric field in Divin is too far away from the comet so Rosetta never was able to measure there.
The solar wind with Parker Solar Probe is well measured and I think that Boldyrev should have at least attempted to show some of his ideas in comparison with observations.
Thank you, tusenfem.

So, even the solar wind is still “a bit of mystery”. Fair enough.

Do you think it’s maybe worth looking into...
__________________
“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 19th August 2020, 04:22 PM   #386
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,732
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

  1. Sol88 lies with "So, even the solar wind is still “a bit of mystery”." when tusenfem did not write that in Yet again, a question that makes no sense
  2. Sol88 lies with "Do you think it’s maybe worth looking into" when his nonsense is not his cult's deluded dogma and tusenfem has said his question does not make sense.
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 19th August 2020, 08:10 PM   #387
lauwenmark
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 68
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Thank you, tusenfem.
So, even the solar wind is still “a bit of mystery”. Fair enough.
Solar wind is nothing mysterious, and tusenfem never said that. Just because not every single interaction and phenomen related to it is not fully modelized does not mean the whole thing is mysterious or unexplained.
Scientist: "I'm not quite sure if my car consumes 6.1l/100km or 6.2l/100km."
Sol88: "So, even cars are still a 'bit of mystery'. Fair enough."
Originally Posted by Sol88
Do you think it’s maybe worth looking into...
Stop asking others about what is in the 'mainstream' model. Answer questions about the ECT (that's the topic of this thread, right?). For example:

Is there any way to compare observed data with predictions made by ECT? Can ECT predict any physical value or range of values?

Show me how, on the basis of the content of T07 (since it seems like the only ECT paper you could find), you can do that. And I'm not talking about watching a compressed picture and guess-deducing unicorns from its artifacts; I'm talking about a mathematically sound demonstration.

Originally Posted by Sol88
Comets are charged rocky objects discharging (losing mass) electrically in the solar plasma.
As I just asked: prove it, using T07. If you cannot prove it using T07, then T07 doesn't say the same thing as you, and you have to tell us why.

There. I put the questions in bold so you can't miss them.

Tough question, for a Dirtybattery proponent. But right up your alley, Sol, what with all those claims!
lauwenmark 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 20th August 2020, 01:24 AM   #388
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,921
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Do you think it’s maybe worth looking into...
What makes you think the solar wind is not investigated?
We "just" started the Stereo, Parker Solar Probe and the Solar Orbiter ...
Again another of your uninformed comments.
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes
twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist
tusenfem 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 20th August 2020, 01:27 AM   #389
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,921
Originally Posted by lauwenmark View Post
Scientist: "I'm not quite sure if my car consumes 6.1l/100km or 6.2l/100km."
Sol88: "So, even cars are still a 'bit of mystery'. Fair enough."
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes
twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist
tusenfem 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 20th August 2020, 02:15 PM   #390
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,732
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
What makes you think the solar wind is not investigated?
We "just" started the Stereo, Parker Solar Probe and the Solar Orbiter ...
Again another of your uninformed comments.
There was also the Ulysses spacecraft launched in 1990, decommissioned 2009 to study the Sun at all latitudes. Ulysses explicitly debunked the electric sun delusion of enormous electric currents powering the Sun by not detecting them even at the solar poles.
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 1st September 2020, 05:27 PM   #391
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,435
Originally Posted by lauwenmark View Post
Solar wind is nothing mysterious, and tusenfem never said that. Just because not every single interaction and phenomen related to it is not fully modelized does not mean the whole thing is mysterious or unexplained.
Scientist: "I'm not quite sure if my car consumes 6.1l/100km or 6.2l/100km."
Sol88: "So, even cars are still a 'bit of mystery'. Fair enough."


Stop asking others about what is in the 'mainstream' model. Answer questions about the ECT (that's the topic of this thread, right?). For example:

Is there any way to compare observed data with predictions made by ECT? Can ECT predict any physical value or range of values?

Show me how, on the basis of the content of T07 (since it seems like the only ECT paper you could find), you can do that. And I'm not talking about watching a compressed picture and guess-deducing unicorns from its artifacts; I'm talking about a mathematically sound demonstration.


As I just asked: prove it, using T07. If you cannot prove it using T07, then T07 doesn't say the same thing as you, and you have to tell us why.

There. I put the questions in bold so you can't miss them.

Tough question, for a Dirtybattery proponent. But right up your alley, Sol, what with all those claims!

Geez, you go away remote fishing and find pearlers like this!

Solar wind is a mystery to the mainstream FULL STOP. How’s the corona heated again....

Anyway, back to the subject at hand and a piece of irrefutable evidence for the electric comet with predictions by the mainstream, no less.

DUSTY PLASMA EFFECTS IN COMETS: EXPECTATIONS FOR ROSETTA

Quote:
It is our expectation that the Rosetta/Philae rendezvous mission to comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko would bring closure to many open questions about comets, and the physics of dusty plasmas in cometary environments, while possibly observing a range of as of yet unseen and unpredicted phenomena.
Expectations, predictions all the same thing...

Now, lauwenmark how’d they go?

The ELECTRIC COMET!

Not a Dirtysnowball melting in the Sun...

The dust is being removed from the surface, not by fictitious sublimation by via the dust being CHARGED.

So, we have moved on somewhat since you became a poster here.

Do try and keep up.

You can pull T07 apart all you want but comets are still ROCKY BODIES DISCHARGING IN THE SOLAR PLASMA.

__________________
“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 1st September 2020, 05:40 PM   #392
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,435
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
What makes you think the solar wind is not investigated?
We "just" started the Stereo, Parker Solar Probe and the Solar Orbiter ...
Again another of your uninformed comments.
Just started???

Cool, maybe now you’ll advance enough to now that the solar wind just doesn’t blow the tail away from the sun...

I still hear it on all the podcasts I listen too....

Wrong, wrong, wrong

Simple question then to test your knowledge of the solar wind...

Can a rocky object charge to the ambient plasma potential and if the ambient plasma potential changes, will this rocky body respond?

Go on, I dare ya.

So I assert mainstream no nothing about the solar wind. Mainstream will still be wondering how this mysterious “wind” happens at all until ELECTRICITY is taking into account and putting to bed the nice fairietale story of Einstein’s.

This IS slowly happening.

Sit back dude and have a coffee...
__________________
“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 1st September 2020, 05:52 PM   #393
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,435
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
There was also the Ulysses spacecraft launched in 1990, decommissioned 2009 to study the Sun at all latitudes. Ulysses explicitly debunked the electric sun delusion of enormous electric currents powering the Sun by not detecting them even at the solar poles.
Did find the tail of a comet though...

But we (mainstream) now think this happens at all stars...


Gas reaches young stars along magnetic field lines

Quote:
In the simplest scenario, the magnetic field looks similar to that of the Earth. Gas from the inner rim of the disk would be funneled to the magnetic North and to the magnetic South pole of the star.
Stars are ELECTRIC.

__________________
“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 1st September 2020, 05:54 PM   #394
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,435
In relation to maths as the proof needed for comets to be electrical phenomena.

Quote:
Your maths is good, your physics is awful..
Sublimation is a BUST!
__________________
“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 1st September 2020, 08:21 PM   #395
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,732
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

  1. Sol88 lies with "Solar wind is a mystery to the mainstream FULL STOP".
  2. Sol88 lies with "How’s the corona heated again...".
  3. Sol88 lies with "DUSTY PLASMA EFFECTS IN COMETS: EXPECTATIONS FOR ROSETTA" which is nothing to do with his cult's deluded dogma
  4. Sol88 lies that science stopped in 2013 (the date of that paper).
  5. Sol88 lies with " fictitious sublimation" - the ice at comets that he has cited will sublimate.
  6. Sol88 lies with "ROCKY BODIES DISCHARGING IN THE SOLAR PLASMA".
  7. Sol88 lies with "the solar wind just doesn’t blow the tail away from the sun" when that is exactly whet the solar wind does.
  8. Sol88 lies with his obsessive "ambient plasma potential" question which has been answered many times and which is nothing to do with his cult's deluded dogma
  9. Sol88 lies with "mainstream no nothing about the solar wind" when the mainstream knows a lot about the solar wind.
  10. Sol88 lies that the mainstream does not use electromagnetism to explain the solar wind when he has cited at least 1 paper doing just that
  11. Sol88 lies once with "the nice fairietale story of Einstein’s" when Einstein did not research the solar wind.
  12. Sol88 lies twice with "the nice fairietale story of Einstein’s" when general relativity is irrelevant to the solar wind.
  13. Sol88 lies three times (!) with "the nice fairietale story of Einstein’s" when general relativity is textbook physics that has passed all of its text.
  14. Sol88 lies about my post which was Ulysses explicitly debunked the electric sun delusion of enormous electric currents powering the Sun by not detecting them even at the solar poles.. Ulysses did not "find" a comet tail. Ulysses passed through the detected tail of Comet Hyakutake showing that it was longer than expected.
  15. Sol88 lies with "Gas reaches young stars along magnetic field lines
  16. " which is nothing to do with his cult's deluded dogma
  17. Sol88 lies with "Stars are ELECTRIC" when he knows his dogma is deluded because it: Makes the Sun collapse to a white dwarf. Fries us with gamma rays. Has enormous invisible electric currents (see above). Stars are formed from delusions about plasma pinches.
  18. Sol88 lies with "In relation to maths as the proof needed for comets to be electrical phenomena" . It is the laws of physics that makes his dogma deluded. It is physical observations that makes his dogma deluded. It is the lack of physics and math that makes his dogma deluded.
  19. Sol88 lies with a unsourced "Your maths is good, your physics is awful.." quote. Sol88 and his cult are abysmally ignorant of/deluded about both math and physics. Sol88's deluded dogma about comets and stars has no math or physics, good or bad.
    Apply math and physics to observations of actual comets and it is the mainstream model that emerges!
  20. Sol88 lies with "Sublimation is a BUST!" when he is the one supporting that ice is sublimating on comets !
    Sol88 knows that comets =are at least 14% ice and cites papers about this. Sol88 knows we have detected ice on comet nuclei and cites papers about tis. The physical properties of that ice means it will sublimate.

Last edited by Reality Check; 1st September 2020 at 08:35 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 1st September 2020, 08:26 PM   #396
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,732
Exclamation he usual abysmal level of lies, delusions, insults, etc. addressed since 6 July 2009

The thousands of lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma.
The abysmal insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn and all astronomers by Sol88 linking them with Sol88's dogma, etc. (no astronomer believes comets are actual rock)
710 items of lies, insults, etc. from Sol88 since ~10 March 2020

11 years of lying, etc. about posts, posters, science, and his dead dogma continues with 29 more lies, insults of astronomers being deluded by writing comets are his cult's rock, etc.
11 years of lying, etc. about posts, posters, science, and his dead dogma continues with 19 more lies, insults of astronomers being deluded by writing comets are his cult's rock, etc.
11 years of lying, etc. about posts, posters, science, and his dead dogma continues with 12 more lies, insults of astronomers being deluded by writing comets are his cult's rock, etc.
11 years of lying, etc. about posts, posters, science, and his dead dogma continues with 2 more lies, insults of astronomers being deluded by writing comets are his cult's rock, etc.
11 years of lying, etc. about posts, posters, science, and his dead dogma continues with 20 more lies, insults of astronomers being deluded by writing comets are his cult's rock, etc.

Sol88 and the Thunderbolts cult refusal to "Look thru the telescope"
More about Sol88's cult, Sol88's lies, Sol88 emphasizing his cult's idiocy and Thornhill's delusions about physics.
How Sol88 and Wal Thornhill make the electric comet deluded with EDM, Part II
Why Sol88's cult having comet tails as electric discharges is deluded
Sol88 constantly lies by repeating his already answered and irrelevant questions about mainstream physics

Last edited by Reality Check; 1st September 2020 at 08:35 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 1st September 2020, 08:49 PM   #397
lauwenmark
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 68
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Geez, you go away remote fishing and find pearlers like this!

Solar wind is a mystery to the mainstream FULL STOP.
Faith. Again. What are you doing on a science forum?

Quote:
How’s the corona heated again....
Non sequitur.

Quote:
Anyway, back to the subject at hand
Oh, you are finally answering questions about the ECT, like:

Originally Posted by lauwenmark
Is there any way to compare observed data with predictions made by ECT? Can ECT predict any physical value or range of values?

Show me how, on the basis of the content of T07 (since it seems like the only ECT paper you could find), you can do that. And I'm not talking about watching a compressed picture and guess-deducing unicorns from its artifacts; I'm talking about a mathematically sound demonstration.

As I just asked: prove it, using T07. If you cannot prove it using T07, then T07 doesn't say the same thing as you, and you have to tell us why.

Originally Posted by Sol88
and a piece of irrefutable evidence for the electric comet with predictions by the mainstream, no less.
Ah, no. That's your usual "Let's quote a random paper and draw conclusions about what it does not tell/explain/contain, and stick ELECTRIC COMET randomly somewhere. Oh, and add a few questions about the 'mainstream' model.

Originally Posted by Sol88
You can pull T07 apart all you want
I didn't even have the opportunity so far, since you never refer to it in your answers, when I explicitely asked about it.

Originally Posted by Sol88
but comets are still ROCKY BODIES DISCHARGING IN THE SOLAR PLASMA.
Faith. Again. You can shout it a million times, write it in bold capital letters, make songs about it or bind me on a chair, slap me with a wet towel and blind me with one of those 1kW lamps CIA investigators seem to like so much, it won't change this single damn fact:

So far, you failed to prove it, using T07. If you cannot prove it using T07, then T07 doesn't say the same thing as you, and you have to tell us why.

Drown us under a zillion other papers if you want. Repeat, again and again, that others are wrong. Won't make you any more right. This is science we're talking about, not politics.

This last bit of yours entertained me, though:
Originally Posted by Sol88
Paper: "In the simplest scenario, the magnetic field looks similar to that of the Earth. Gas from the inner rim of the disk would be funneled to the magnetic North and to the magnetic South pole of the star."
Sol88: "Stars are ELECTRIC."
Do you enjoy flying unicorns? I do. They exist! I can easily demonstrate it:
Motions of the running horse and cheetah revisited: Fundamental mechanics of the transverse and rotary gallop
Quote:
Mammals use two distinct gallops referred to as the transverse (where landing and take-off are contralateral) and rotary (where landing and take-off are ipsilateral). These two gallops are used by a variety of mammals, but the transverse gallop is epitomized by the horse and the rotary gallop by the cheetah.
A FLYING UNICORNS universe, guys, I'm telling ya!

Tartuffe.
lauwenmark 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 1st September 2020, 09:48 PM   #398
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,435
From the paper by D.A. Mendis and M. Horányi
Quote:
5. ELECTROSTATIC DISRUPTION IN THE COMETARY ENVIRONMENT [42] When a body is electrically charged, the mutual repulsion
Now, what have we found...from Divin

Quote:
One of the surprising findings of the Rosetta mission is the presence of suprathermal electrons in the close cometary plasma environment with energies up to about 100eV. The population was present already during the weakly outgassing phases of 67P’s orbit around the Sun (Clark et al. 2015). Understanding the suprathermal electron population is important, since increased fluxes of the latter have been shown to strongly affect also the cometary ionosphere via electronimpact ionization (Galand et al. 2016), charge exchange (Wedlund et al. 2017; Heritier et al. 2018), and is thought to affect dust grain charging processes (Gombosi et al. 2015).
Sublimation no longer required.

The dust is losing MASS electrically.

That is the electric comet, the problem is always been from the mainstream “No Mechanism”.

Well now you have one.

So prediction CONFIRMED.

let’s have a look at some more predictions that are in T07 from primary sources...
__________________
“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 1st September 2020, 09:53 PM   #399
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,435
2. BASICPHYSICSOFDUSTYPLASMAS:GRAIN CHARGINGANDITSPHYSICALAND DYNAMICALEFFECTS

This question is the one tusenfem seems to have trouble with.

Quote:
Central to this study is the electrostatic charging of grains (in isolation or in an ensemble) in plasma and radiative environments. This is given by (MATHS) where Q is the grain charge, C is the grain capacitance, and Nare the grain surface potential, and the average ambient plasma potential, respectively. Contributions to the total current reaching the grain’s surface, Itot, can come from processes, including background electron and ion collection, secondary electron emission (due to energetic electron or ion impact), thermionic emission (due to grain heating), photoelectron emission, field emission of electrons (due to large surface fields), etc. [Whipple, 1981; Mendis, 2002]. These currents depend on the properties of both the grains and the ambient plasmas.
So all we need is a few energetic electrons... Divin has told you how now.

Prediction confirmed
__________________
“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 1st September 2020, 09:57 PM   #400
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,435
Quote:
High concentration of dust can lead to electron depletion in a thermal plasma, when the dominant charging currents are due to electron and ion collection. Alternately, dust grains can also lead to an increase of the electron density in a plasma, when photoelectron emission, thermionic emission of electrons, electric field emission and secondary emission are dominant [Mendis, 2002]. Sputtered ions can change the composition of the plasma environment.
Not “neutral gas” from “sublimation” that’s cooling the electrons...

Quote:
[14] The charging of grains in a plasma can lead to physical and dynamical consequences for the dust. We discuss these in subsequent sections, as they apply to the changing cometary environment. The physical consequences include electrostatic levitation and blow-off of dust from the charged cometary nucleus and electrostatic disruption and erosion of charge dust in the cometary plasma environment. The dynamical consequence arises from the new electrodynamic forces that charged dust grains experience in the magnetized plasma environment of the comet.
The ELECTRIC COMET! No sublimation required. NO DIRTYSNOWBALL. NO MAINSTREAM MODEL.

let’s continue...
__________________
“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 09:15 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.