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 19th July 2020, 05:24 PM   #41
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,720
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

Sol88 lies with "playbook on highly conducting quasi neutral plasma.
It is textbook physics that his cult's thunderbolts require the breakdown of a dielectric medium and that plasma is highly conductive (not a dielectric medium).
Reality Check 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 19th July 2020, 05:30 PM   #42
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Sigh.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
I think YOU need to supply me with YOUR definition of what a comet is.

What makes a comet a comet, jean tate?

Once again, Sol88, this thread is about The Electric Comet Theory.

You, Sol88, are the only ISF member who is currently presenting/defending The Electric Comet Theory.

So only you, Sol88, can tell us what makes a comet a comet (per The Electric Comet Theory).
JeanTate 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 July 2020, 05:31 PM   #43
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,720
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

A "In a highly conductive quasi neutral medium with the application of electrostatics" lie.
Sol88 explicitly stated that that the Sun has a positive charge ("The anode or +") and that comets have a negative charge ("The cathode or -"). That positive charge will always attract electrons in the solar wind.

Sol88 lies that "Field aligned currents, Birkeland currents, double layers" exist in a "electrostatic quasi neutral highly conductive medium". They exist in plasma which is electromagnetically dynamic.
Reality Check 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 19th July 2020, 05:43 PM   #44
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,434
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
A "The comet is losing mass electrically" lie when comets predominately lose mass by ice sublimating.
When the solar wind can reach the nucleus there is electrostatic lofting of existing dust to make plains and dunes, and eject some dust. When a comet gets close to the Sun, ice sublimates, the coma forma, the solar wind is blocked and so much ice and dust is ejected that the topology of the comets changes!

An insult and lie that he answered a "Mercury, Io, Enceladus, Callisto etc etc?" question.

A lying "what the difference is between an active asteroid and a comet" question when Sol88 has cited and been cited sources on the difference.

A "comets are mostly ice and asteroids are mostly rock, is the best I have" lie

No it is the definition used by the mainstream... as per wiki

Comets =
Quote:
A comet is an icy, small Solar System body that, when passing close to the Sun, warms and begins to release gases, a process called outgassing.
Asteroids =
Quote:
Asteroids, sometimes called minor planets, are rocky, airless remnants left over from the early formation of our solar system about 4.6 billion years ago.
Quote:
The main difference between an asteroid and a comet is that a comet shows a coma due to sublimation of near surface ices by solar radiation. A few objects have ended up being dual-listed because they were first classified as minor planets but later showed evidence of cometary activity. Conversely, some (perhaps all) comets are eventually depleted of their surface volatile ices and become asteroid-like. A further distinction is that comets typically have more eccentric orbits than most asteroids; most "asteroids" with notably eccentric orbits are probably dormant or extinct comets.[43]
Mercury =
Quote:
The origin of the ice on Mercury is not yet known, but the two most likely sources are from outgassing of water from the planet's interior or deposition by impacts of comets.[71]
Is Mercury a comet, jean tate?


Quote:
c) What are comets made of?

At the simplest level, a very basic question is whether comets are mostly ice or mostly rock/dirt/refractory material.

Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the first quantitative model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving
more toward mostly rock
, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high as 6 have been cited [3,4].

Nevertheless, there is still considerable uncertainty about even this basic parameter, not least of which is that most measurements are subject to selection effects in removing refractories from the nucleus to the coma, where they are observed as dust.
Michael F. A’Hearn
__________________
“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; 19th July 2020 at 05:48 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 19th July 2020, 05:51 PM   #45
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,720
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

Sol88 continues to lie about JeanTate's question and insult JeanTate ("Your brain champ".
The question is "Within The Electric Comet Theory, why is Mercury (the planet) not a comet? Ditto the Moon, Callisto, Eros (the asteroid), Phobos (the Martian moon), and Vesta (the asteroid)."

A "These moons are actually discharging just like a comet" lie from Sol88. There are no electric discharges at comets, Io or Enceladus.

A "Seems most things in space have a “tail”, even stars!" lie. The only things in space with a cometary tail are comets. A handful of active asteroids have tails, etc.

Persist with his "comet 67P the dust is being removed electrically, from a rocky like consolidated nucleus" lies. It is "rocky like" behavior of landslides on 67P. Comets have a short period when mainstream science (not his cult delusions) says the solar wind can electrostatically transport dust and eject some dust.

Sol88 lies that Mercury and Venus have tails as in cometary tails.
Sol88 suggests that his cult would be deluded enough to think that planets are comets !
Will Thunderbolts also have the delusion that Mercury is a comet just because it has a sodium ion tail? [so far according to Sol88 the answered is yes]
Mercury has a sodium ion tail from mainstream physics unrelated to comets. Venus has temporary "tail" events that happen when the solar wind almost stops and its atmosphere becomes teardrop shaped. Comet tails are formed by the solar wind!
When a planet behaves like a comet: The tail of Venus and the weak solar wind
Reality Check 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 19th July 2020, 05:53 PM   #46
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,720
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

"I think YOU need to supply me with YOUR definition of what a comet is" trolling when that is irrelevant
Reality Check 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 19th July 2020, 06:10 PM   #47
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,720
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

Sol88 lies by quote mining the the Wikipedia Comet article.
The definition of a comet is not a quote mined sentence.
Quote:
A comet is an icy, small Solar System body that, when passing close to the Sun, warms and begins to release gases, a process called outgassing. This produces a visible atmosphere or coma, and sometimes also a tail. These phenomena are due to the effects of solar radiation and the solar wind acting upon the nucleus of the comet. Comet nuclei range from a few hundred meters to tens of kilometers across and are composed of loose collections of ice, dust, and small rocky particles. The coma may be up to 15 times Earth's diameter, while the tail may stretch one astronomical unit. If sufficiently bright, a comet may be seen from Earth without the aid of a telescope and may subtend an arc of 30° (60 Moons) across the sky.
Sol88 lies by qoute mining the Wikipedia Mercury article where ice has been detected on the floors of deep craters at the poles that are never exposed to direct sunlight with sources of outgassing or comet impacts. Mercury is a planet.

A lying "Is Mercury a comet" question when Mercury is a planet.

Sol88 repeats his insult of A'Hearn and all astronomers.
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)
Reality Check 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 19th July 2020, 06:53 PM   #48
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,434
Are comets mostly ice or mostly rock, rc?
__________________
“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 July 2020, 07:31 PM   #49
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,720
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

A lying "Are comets mostly ice or mostly rock, rc?" question when Sol88 knows the answer.

For others:
As far as we know, comets are mostly ice except for 2 (Tempel 1 may be 50% ice, 67P is at least 14% ice). It is yet to be determined whether Tempel 1 and 67P are atypical or typical comets. That is why A'hearn's paper had astronomers "evolving toward" (future tense) more rock than ice because Comet 67P has 33% to 14% ice. Sol88 and his cult want comets to be all rock according to his prophets with fantasies about their impossible electric discharges magically making an imaginary amount of surface ice out of rock. Anyone with eyes can read about Deep Impact ejecting subsurface water ice from Tempel 1 and making a crater showing that the surface is ice and dust, not rock.
Comets: looking ahead by Michael F. A’Hearn in the themed issue ‘Cometary science after Rosetta’.
Michael F. A’Hearn asked questions about mainstream ice and dust comets and later gave the science relating to those questions.
(a) Where did comets form?
(b) How did comets form?
(c) What are comets made of?.
(d) How are comets put together?
(e) How do comets work?
Reality Check 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 19th July 2020, 08:43 PM   #50
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,434
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
A lying "Are comets mostly ice or mostly rock, rc?" question when Sol88 knows the answer.

For others:
As far as we know, comets are mostly ice except for 2 (Tempel 1 may be 50% ice, 67P is at least 14% ice). It is yet to be determined whether Tempel 1 and 67P are atypical or typical comets. That is why A'hearn's paper had astronomers "evolving toward" (future tense) more rock than ice because Comet 67P has 33% to 14% ice. Sol88 and his cult want comets to be all rock according to his prophets with fantasies about their impossible electric discharges magically making an imaginary amount of surface ice out of rock. Anyone with eyes can read about Deep Impact ejecting subsurface water ice from Tempel 1 and making a crater showing that the surface is ice and dust, not rock.
Comets: looking ahead by Michael F. A’Hearn in the themed issue ‘Cometary science after Rosetta’.
Michael F. A’Hearn asked questions about mainstream ice and dust comets and later gave the science relating to those questions.
(a) Where did comets form?
(b) How did comets form?
(c) What are comets made of?.
(d) How are comets put together?
(e) How do comets work?
Quote:

Ahhhh, "dark ice"!


Right so the "ice" is hidden under a consolidated surface. Interesting.
__________________
“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; 19th July 2020 at 08:48 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 19th July 2020, 09:19 PM   #51
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,965
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
You are correct, undeniable, Lukrakk!

In a highly conductive quasi neutral medium with the application of electrostatics it is indeed IMPOSSIBLE....


Unfortunately we don’t live in that universe...


Field aligned currents, Birkeland currents, double layers all very difficult in your electrostatic quasi neutral highly conductive medium.

Very hard to reconcile the two views...
Yes, it is hard. The one view has untold observations and functioning equipment and the EU view has none of that.

Again, your pet theory would allow for machines that would solve world hunger, allow (nearly) free space exploration and tons more direct applications.

So, build something. Show it actually works. Create a plasma where positive and negative charges move in the same direction in an electrical field.

But I guess all your theory will ever amount to is emoji's and non answers like this.
Lukraak_Sisser 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 July 2020, 11:01 PM   #52
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,434
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
Yes, it is hard. The one view has untold observations and functioning equipment and the EU view has none of that.

Again, your pet theory would allow for machines that would solve world hunger, allow (nearly) free space exploration and tons more direct applications.

So, build something. Show it actually works. Create a plasma where positive and negative charges move in the same direction in an electrical field.

But I guess all your theory will ever amount to is emoji's and non answers like this.

Talking about solar wind and the POSITIVE SUN.

Quote:
With more negatively charged electrons streaming away, the sun takes on a positive charge. This makes it harder for the electrons to escape the sun's pull. Some electrons have a lot of energy and keep traveling for infinite distances. Those with less energy can't escape the sun's positive charge and are attracted back to the sun. As they do, some of those electrons can be knocked off their tracks ever-so-slightly by collisions with surrounding plasma.
Electron temperature of the solar wind

You can start there if you'd like Lukraak_Sisser?



If you are feeling real brave, you can then move onto this free space exploration...

Quote:
"Perhaps the most significant finding," Stone said, "is
that tether currents proved to be up to three times greater
than existing theoretical models predicted prior to the
mission. With the amount of power generated being directly
proportional to the current, this bodes well for
technological applications."

"Reversing the direction of current flow puts the system
into an electric-motor mode," Stone explained. This harnessed
energy could furnish thrust for reboosting a space station,
satellite or Shuttle in a decaying orbit
EARLY FINDINGS FROM TETHERED SATELLITE MISSION POINT TO REVAMPING OF SPACE PHYSICS THEORIES

Would you like another serve, Lukraak_Sisser?
__________________
“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 July 2020, 11:02 PM   #53
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,434
Sorry forgot the emoji!

__________________
“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 July 2020, 11:50 PM   #54
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,434
Ahhhh....
Quote:
Fig. 1.Sketch of the ambipolar electric potential energy outside the source r≥r0. The plot also shows the trajectories of some returning, trapped, and runaway electrons.
Electron temperature of the solar wind



Double Layers, the same as we see at COMET 67P's

Quote:
We identify and characterize the magnetic field aligned ambipolar electric field that ensures quasi-neutrality and traps warm electrons
A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet


Folks, the ELECTRIC SUN, ELECTRIC COMET = ELECTRIC UNIVERSE!
__________________
“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; 19th July 2020 at 11:57 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 20th July 2020, 12:00 AM   #55
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,919
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
You are correct, undeniable, Lukrakk!

In a highly conductive quasi neutral medium with the application of electrostatics it is indeed IMPOSSIBLE....


Unfortunately we don’t live in that universe...


Field aligned currents, Birkeland currents, double layers all very difficult in your electrostatic quasi neutral highly conductive medium.

Very hard to reconcile the two views...
No, also in the plasma universe electrons and ions will have to obey the general electromagnetic rules.
Naturally field aligned currents, Birkeland currents and double layers all have ions and electrons moving in opposite directions.
__________________
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 July 2020, 12:07 AM   #56
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,434
Talking about charged dust and the ambipolar electric field...

Quote:
Nevertheless, the ambipolar electric field force is dominant and particles of all sizes move towards the negative~E~B-
Dust particles under the influence of crossed electric and magnetic fields in the sheath of an rf discharge

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
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 20th July 2020, 12:10 AM   #57
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,434
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
No, also in the plasma universe electrons and ions will have to obey the general electromagnetic rules.
Naturally field aligned currents, Birkeland currents and double layers all have ions and electrons moving in opposite directions.
Naturally!

Would you also include ELECTRON STRAHL in the above classification, 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
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 20th July 2020, 12:13 AM   #58
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,434
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
No, also in the plasma universe electrons and ions will have to obey the general electromagnetic rules.
Naturally field aligned currents, Birkeland currents and double layers all have ions and electrons moving in opposite directions.
YES, they do have to and they do...

Electron temperature of the solar wind


the same mechanism as

A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet

Ambipolar Electric Fields, suspiciously like double layers, doing DOUBLE LAYER things!
__________________
“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 20th July 2020, 01:17 AM   #59
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,919
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Naturally!

Would you also include ELECTRON STRAHL in the above classification, tusenfem?
electrons are electrons, whether they are "strahling" or not
__________________
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 July 2020, 01:24 AM   #60
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,434
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
electrons are electrons, whether they are "strahling" or not
Cool, so an electron "beam" can also be included in your list!


Quote:
Naturally field aligned currents, Birkeland currents and double layers all have ions and electrons moving in opposite directions.
Any Ions moving in the opposite direction?



Tricky stuff this plasma, ay!

__________________
“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 20th July 2020, 06:45 AM   #61
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,919
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Cool, so an electron "beam" can also be included in your list!
In what list? What are you babbling about? I have no list, except for going to the grocery store or a todo list.
__________________
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 July 2020, 07:09 AM   #62
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,919
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Any Ions moving in the opposite direction?
Yes, of course, ever cared to look at what a double layer does?
Or what the definition of a current is?

Current in a plasma:

[img]http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?
{\bf J} = \Sum_k n_k {\bf v}_k q_k
[/img]

where n_k is the density of species k, v_k is the velocity of species k and q_k is the charge of species k, and species k will be electrons and ions. In a quasi-neutral plasma moving at a certain velocity, like e.g. the solar wind, you find that J = 0.

But of course you will claim that this is MHD or whatever. so, just that you can do the calculations yourself in the particle realm, we switch over to kinetic theory and find that

[img]http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?
{\bf J}(t,{\bf x}) = \Sum q \int d^3{\bf p} {\bf v} f({\bf p}, t, {\bf x})
[/img]

where you can take any particle distributino function f(p,t.x).

If you want the full details on how to proceed, I will point you to Instabilities in space and laboratory plasmas by Don Melrose (where "introductory" should be taken with a grain of salt, next to that an excellent book even almost 35 years since its publication).

(seems like LaTeX is still not working on the board, so attaching two gifs)



__________________
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 July 2020, 01:07 PM   #63
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Yes, of course, ever cared to look at what a double layer does?
Or what the definition of a current is?

Current in a plasma:

[img]http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?
{\bf J} = \Sum_k n_k {\bf v}_k q_k
[/img]

where n_k is the density of species k, v_k is the velocity of species k and q_k is the charge of species k, and species k will be electrons and ions. In a quasi-neutral plasma moving at a certain velocity, like e.g. the solar wind, you find that J = 0.

But of course you will claim that this is MHD or whatever. so, just that you can do the calculations yourself in the particle realm, we switch over to kinetic theory and find that

[img]http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?
{\bf J}(t,{\bf x}) = \Sum q \int d^3{\bf p} {\bf v} f({\bf p}, t, {\bf x})
[/img]

where you can take any particle distributino function f(p,t.x).

If you want the full details on how to proceed, I will point you to Instabilities in space and laboratory plasmas by Don Melrose (where "introductory" should be taken with a grain of salt, next to that an excellent book even almost 35 years since its publication).

(seems like LaTeX is still not working on the board, so attaching two gifs)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5a540d4b46.gif

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5a54e2d5c7.gif
Sol88: do you understand what’s in this post by tusenfem?

Can you please cite an Electric Comet Theory source in which these concepts are discussed (with or without equations)?

Thank you in advance.
JeanTate 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 July 2020, 07:26 PM   #64
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,720
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

Sol88 replies to A lying "Are comets mostly ice or mostly rock, rc?" question when Sol88 knows the answer with more irrelevant lies.

A "Ahhhh, "dark ice"!" lie when the quote has no dark ice..
Sol88 persists with his years long "ice" lie when ice exists on comets.
Sol8 lies about the "The surface of the nucleus is generally dry, dusty or rocky, suggesting that the ices are hidden beneath a surface crust several metres thick." quote. The sentence before this is "Research conducted in 2014 suggests that comets are like "deep fried ice cream", in that their surfaces are formed of dense crystalline ice mixed with organic compounds, while the interior ice is colder and less dense" (Comet - Nucleus).
Sol88 lies that ice is hidden under the surface of comets when he knows there is surface ice on comets.
Reality Check 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 20th July 2020, 07:40 PM   #65
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,720
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

A "Talking about solar wind and the POSITIVE SUN." lie.

Sol88 lies that Electron temperature of the solar wind is about his cult's delusions about the Sun that turn it into a white dwarf, fry us with fusion gamma rays, etc. It is a mainstream paper with the mainstream physics that electrons are lighter than protons (duh!) and so accelerate from the Sun more leaving the Sun with a positive charge.

Sol88 lies about and obsesses with an old tethered satellite experiment yet again !
EARLY FINDINGS FROM TETHERED SATELLITE MISSION POINT TO REVAMPING OF SPACE PHYSICS THEORIEs is a 1996 experiment where "tether currents proved to be up to three times greater
than existing theoretical models predicted prior to the mission.". That was a good result for using tethers to power satellites. That was mainstream science unrelated to any of his cult's delusions about the Sun or comet dogma.
Reality Check 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 20th July 2020, 07:49 PM   #66
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,720
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

Sol88's persistent lie that double layers exist in papers that not about double layers.
Electron temperature of the solar wind has no double layers.

Sol88's persistent lies that mainstream ice and comet papers are anything to do with Sol88's and his cult's debunked dogma.
A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet

Sol88's persistent lies about Sol88's and his cult's debunked dogma which has no magnetic field aligned ambipolar electric field.
Reality Check 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 20th July 2020, 07:56 PM   #67
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,720
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

Sol88 lies that Dust particles under the influence of crossed electric and magnetic fields in the sheath of an rf discharge is about his cult's debunked dogma.
This is an experiment using an rf discharge to create a dusty plasma with an external magnetic field. The results are applicable to cosmic dusty plasma in magnetic fields, dust in fusion devices, etc.

Sol88's years long lies and obsession about the ambipolar electric field continues. This is textbook plasma physics. The different mobility of electrons and ions in a plasma causes an electric field to exist. Sol88's cult completely ignores science textbooks!

Last edited by Reality Check; 20th July 2020 at 08:35 PM.
Reality Check 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 20th July 2020, 08:05 PM   #68
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,720
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

A lying "ELECTRON STRAHL" question (strahl is the electron component of the solar wind).

Electrons and ions will have to obey the general electromagnetic rules. Those electrons as alresy noted obey the fact that opposite charge attract. A positive Sun attracts the strahl. That is part of Electron temperature of the solar wind which Sol88 has cited !
Quote:
With more negatively charged electrons streaming away, the sun takes on a positive charge. This makes it harder for the electrons to escape the sun's pull. Some electrons have a lot of energy and keep traveling for infinite distances. Those with less energy can't escape the sun's positive charge and are attracted back to the sun. As they do, some of those electrons can be knocked off their tracks ever-so-slightly by collisions with surrounding plasma.
Quote:
Fig. 1.Sketch of the ambipolar electric potential energy outside the source r≥r0. The plot also shows the trajectories of some returning, trapped, and runaway electrons.
The difference between this real physics and Sol88's cult delusions about the Sun is that the cult requires the Sun to have an enormous charge to attract the massive current that they need to create impossible fusion in the solar atmosphere and kill us with gamma rays ! That positive charge will probably stop any electrons from escaping the Sun.
Reality Check 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 20th July 2020, 08:09 PM   #69
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,720
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

Sol88 lies with "YES, they do have to and they do" and citing a paper only about electrons.

Sol88 lies again by citing A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet which is a mainstream COLOR="Red"]]ice and dust[/color] comet paper irrelevant to his debunked dogma.

Sol88 lies again that ambipolar electric fields are like double layers or act as double layer.

Last edited by Reality Check; 20th July 2020 at 08:36 PM.
Reality Check 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 20th July 2020, 08:16 PM   #70
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,720
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

A lying "Any Ions moving in the opposite direction?" question.
A plasma is a partially ionized gas. A plasma contains neutral atoms, electrons and ions (with the exception of AFAIK artificial ion only and electron only plasmas). The solar wind has neutral atoms, electrons and ions. Comet coma have neutral atoms, electrons and ions. etc. High school level physics - apply an external electric field and that electric field will accelerate the ions and electrons in opposite directions !
The solar wind close to a positive Sun will have its ions and electrons accelerated in opposite directions. The resulting direction of travel will depend the speed of the charges.
Electron temperature of the solar wind

Sol88's lies about double layers includes persistently denying what double layers are - a layer of negative charge separated from a layer of positive charge. They have an electric field between them. That electric field will accelerate electrons and ions in opposite directions. As I recall, some extremely accelerated electrons in solar flares are attributed to double layers in magnetic reconnection.

Last edited by Reality Check; 20th July 2020 at 08:24 PM.
Reality Check 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 20th July 2020, 08:37 PM   #71
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,720
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)
381 items of lies, insults, etc. from Sol88 since ~10 March 2020
P.S.
The other very debunked cult dogma of an electric sun (SAFIRE) has not been mentioned in a while (CNO fusion neutrinos detected from the real Sun).
Sol88's cult ignores that their ignorant fantasies cause at least hundreds of mass extinction events on Earth !
Will Thunderbolts also have the delusion that Mercury is a comet just because it has a sodium ion tail?[Sol88 implies the answer is yes by citing Mercury's magnetotail!]
Sol88 continues to emphasize his cult's delusion of claiming that active asteroids are comets that turns >600,000 catalogued asteroids into comets !
Lowell Morgan who was the only actual physicist on the SAFIRE project says "EU concept is fraudulent ********", "they don't really know any physics or mathematics to speak of", "Monty and the others were making fraudulent statements" (via jonesdave116 and a Professor Dave video)
  1. A "Jonesdave116’s highly conductive medium, plasma!" lie when being highly conductive is a physical property of plasma.
  2. "Dirtysnowball! (In a highly conductive medium)" gibberish. Every body in the solar system is surrounded by highly conductive plasma such as the solar wind.
  3. A "From your source" lie when my source is about Sol88's lie that the corona has something to do with his cults debunked dogma.
  4. A "bang on about like it some form of impediment" lie when plasma being highly conductive makes his cults thunderbolts physically impossible.
  5. A "Old school, as shown by SAFIRE" lie (SAFIRE had no science beyond some plasma physics and is now a cold fusion scam).
  6. Sol88 lies that Bebbu is a CI-chondrit and now a "how about some plasma instruments on these asteroid probe" lie.
  7. Years of Sol88 lies about his cult's debunked dogma continues (it has actual rock not a "rocky like" fantasy).
  8. Sol88 continues to thoughtlessly parrot his cult's physically impossible double layers at comets when a plasma physicist here has said they do not exist.
  9. Sol88 continues to parrot his cult's electric sun as a anode delusion that makes the Sun into a white dwarf...
  10. A lying "difference between an active asteroid and a comet?" question when he has cited the difference.
  11. "You do know there is water on Mercury, don’t you?" idiocy when Mercury is a planet.
  12. A "that’s your definition of a comet" lie. An active asteroid is an asteroid.
  13. A "The comet is losing mass electrically" lie when comets predominately lose mass by ice sublimating.
  14. An insult and lie that he answered a "Mercury, Io, Enceladus, Callisto etc etc?" question.
  15. A lying "what the difference is between an active asteroid and a comet" question when Sol88 has cited and been cited sources on the difference.
  16. A "comets are mostly ice and asteroids are mostly rock, is the best I have" lie
  17. Sol88 lies by not giving the electric comet reasons about why about why Mercury, Callisto etc. are not comets.
  18. Sol88 lies by citing The Magnetic Field Structure of Mercury's Magnetotail (comets do not have a magnetic field or magnetotail from it).
  19. A "In a highly conductive quasi neutral medium with the application of electrostatics" lie.
  20. Sol88 lies that "Field aligned currents, Birkeland currents, double layers" exist in a "electrostatic quasi neutral highly conductive medium".
  21. Sol88 continues to lie about JeanTate's question and insult JeanTate ("Your brain champ").
  22. A "These moons are actually discharging just like a comet" lie from Sol88
  23. A "Seems most things in space have a “tail”, even stars!" lie.
  24. Persist with his "comet 67P the dust is being removed electrically, from a rocky like consolidated nucleus" lies.
  25. Sol88 lies that Mercury and Venus have tails as in cometary tails.
  26. Sol88 suggests that his cult would be deluded enough to think that planets are comets !
  27. "I think YOU need to supply me with YOUR definition of what a comet is" trolling when that is irrelevant
  28. Sol88 lies by quote mining the the Wikipedia Comet article.
  29. Sol88 lies by qoute mining the Wikipedia Mercury article where ice has been detected on the floors of deep craters ...
  30. A lying "Is Mercury a comet" question when Mercury is a planet.
  31. Sol88 repeats his insult of A'Hearn and all astronomers.
  32. A lying "Are comets mostly ice or mostly rock, rc?" question when Sol88 knows the answer.
  33. A "Ahhhh, "dark ice"!" lie when the quote has no dark ice..
  34. Sol88 persists with his years long "ice" lie when ice exists on comets.
  35. Sol8 lies about the "The surface of the nucleus is generally dry, dusty or rocky, suggesting that the ices are hidden beneath a surface crust several metres thick." quote.
  36. Sol88 lies that ice is hidden under the surface of comets when he knows there is surface ice on comets.
  37. A "Talking about solar wind and the POSITIVE SUN." lie.
  38. Sol88 lies that Electron temperature of the solar wind is about his cult's delusions about the Sun that turn it into a white dwarf...
  39. Sol88 lies about and obsesses with an irrelevant, old tethered satellite experiment yet again!
  40. Sol88's persistent lie that double layers exist in papers that not about double layers.
  41. Sol88's persistent lies that mainstream ice and comet papers are anything to do with Sol88's and his cult's debunked dogma.
  42. Sol88's persistent lies about Sol88's and his cult's debunked dogma which has no magnetic field aligned ambipolar electric field.
  43. Sol88 lies that Dust particles under the influence of crossed electric and magnetic fields in the sheath of an rf discharge is about his cult's debunked dogma.
  44. Sol88's years long lies and obsession about the ambipolar electric field continues.
  45. A lying "ELECTRON STRAHL" question (strahl is the electron component of the solar wind).
  46. Sol88 lies with "YES, they do have to and they do" and citing a paper only about electrons.
  47. Sol88 lies again by citing A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet which is a mainstream COLOR="Red"]]ice and dust[/color] comet paper irrelevant to his debunked dogma.
  48. Sol88 lies again that ambipolar electric fields are like double layers or act as double layer.
  49. A lying "Any Ions moving in the opposite direction?" question.

Last edited by Reality Check; 20th July 2020 at 08:39 PM.
Reality Check 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 20th July 2020, 10:31 PM   #72
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,965
Watching Sol88 dig holes in his own theory is fun, but Sol88 that is not how you convince others.

1. You keep claiming that your theory works in a quasi neutral plasma, but you also claim that the sun is positive by ejecting electrons and thus the solar wind should be negative. Once again you claim nature is wrong to make your 'theory' work.
2. You claim those electrons have escaped the sun to get around the problem of them not being accelerated towards the sun. But in electrical theory, not your strong suit of course, escaped means that they are no longer within the electrical influence of the sun. So in your explanation the electrical field of the sun barely makes it past the corona. And thus is in no way able to influence comets, making the EC model pointless.
Once again you show the magic needed to make the EC model work with an electric field that is both strong enough to create cometary tails and weak enough not to influence electrons at the same spot.
Lukraak_Sisser 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 July 2020, 12:27 AM   #73
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,434
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Yes, of course, ever cared to look at what a double layer does?
Or what the definition of a current is?

Current in a plasma:

[img]http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?
{\bf J} = \Sum_k n_k {\bf v}_k q_k
[/img]

where n_k is the density of species k, v_k is the velocity of species k and q_k is the charge of species k, and species k will be electrons and ions. In a quasi-neutral plasma moving at a certain velocity, like e.g. the solar wind, you find that J = 0.

But of course you will claim that this is MHD or whatever. so, just that you can do the calculations yourself in the particle realm, we switch over to kinetic theory and find that

[img]http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?
{\bf J}(t,{\bf x}) = \Sum q \int d^3{\bf p} {\bf v} f({\bf p}, t, {\bf x})
[/img]

where you can take any particle distributino function f(p,t.x).

If you want the full details on how to proceed, I will point you to Instabilities in space and laboratory plasmas by Don Melrose (where "introductory" should be taken with a grain of salt, next to that an excellent book even almost 35 years since its publication).

(seems like LaTeX is still not working on the board, so attaching two gifs)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5a540d4b46.gif

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5a54e2d5c7.gif
Well j=0, MHD (your frozen in magnetic field) is no better than 1/r law for the outgassing. Nice and easy maths but not reality. In fact has lead you down the garden path...shed loads of ice MUST be there, even if it's "hidden".

The second is great for the ions but the electrons seems to be treated like the poor cousin, why?

What is VERY APPARENT is the complex non linear behavior that is plasma and that Mathamajics has a bit to go to catch up!
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 July 2020, 12:33 AM   #74
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,434
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
Watching Sol88 dig holes in his own theory is fun, but Sol88 that is not how you convince others.

1. You keep claiming that your theory works in a quasi neutral plasma, but you also claim that the sun is positive by ejecting electrons and thus the solar wind should be negative. Once again you claim nature is wrong to make your 'theory' work.
2. You claim those electrons have escaped the sun to get around the problem of them not being accelerated towards the sun. But in electrical theory, not your strong suit of course, escaped means that they are no longer within the electrical influence of the sun. So in your explanation the electrical field of the sun barely makes it past the corona. And thus is in no way able to influence comets, making the EC model pointless.
Once again you show the magic needed to make the EC model work with an electric field that is both strong enough to create cometary tails and weak enough not to influence electrons at the same spot.
You are under the assumption I am trying to convince you, ummmm not a chance apparently.

1. Much easier for you to also believe in the solar wind being a perfect conductor! (easy maths)

2. See 1

Much much safer!
__________________
“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; 21st July 2020 at 12:40 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 21st July 2020, 02:31 AM   #75
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,919
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
The second is great for the ions but the electrons seems to be treated like the poor cousin, why?
Well, apparently you have no idea what you are talking about, there is nothing in the post that did not include electrons.

Also, there was nothing about a frozen in magnetic field, there was only the hydrodynamic approach where both electrons and ions are seen as separate fluids moving at the same speed in the same direction, resulting in J=0.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
What is VERY APPARENT is the complex non linear behavior that is plasma and that Mathamajics has a bit to go to catch up!
Well, you would VERY APPARENTLY be wrong. You would know if you would take the effort of actually looking at what plasma physics is doing, e.g. in the book that I cited which has a whole chapter on "Nonlinear instabilities and strong turbulence". Or you could take a look at the link that I posted earlier showing a whole bunch of text book dealing with nonlinear plasma physics.

But of course it is much easier to just throw claims into the interspace without any support. Just because you cannot fathom what actual physicists are doing, and doing a great job of it, you think by playing the ISF-Trump you can discredit somehow mainstream physics (without which you would not have a computer nor internet) and thereby make the electric comet idea victorious.

I know I am talking to a deaf man's ear, but the only way of showing that the electric comet idea has any merit is by actually presenting an electric comet model, the very topic of this thread.

But ... that is not the reason why you are here, is it? You are here because you get off on getting people all riled up about the nonsense you so gladly write here in the forum. Actually, that's quite sad.
__________________
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 21st July 2020, 03:55 AM   #76
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,434
No, I understand you can make anything possible with math.

Crap in crap out....

You use frozen in magnetic field liberally,
Quote:
Naturally, this can only be assumed when the field is frozen into the plasma, and therefore the plasma-β is estimated from the IES values.
Assumptions in assumptions out... Current sheets in comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko’s coma

Quote:
Assuming that the magnetic field moves together with the plasma (i.e. frozen in) at a velocity given by the ion and electron spectrometer
Currents in Cometary Comae

We can argue semantics till the cows come home, still rocky like comets discharging dust electrically.

You got anything on dusty plasmas, like the ones at 67P?
__________________
“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; 21st July 2020 at 04:02 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 21st July 2020, 04:08 AM   #77
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,434
Talking about discharging...

Quote:
Also, large spikes were observed in the MAG data, which are interpreted as flux ropes created by reconnection of the CME magnetic field and that draped around the nucleus. In Fig. 9BB an example of such a structure is shown in minimum variance coordinates [Sonnerup and Scheible, 1998], which has the classical characteristics of a flux rope, which means that there is a strong current flowing along the centre of the tube.
Currents in Cometary Comae



Wonder if jonesdave116 ever read your papers 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
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 July 2020, 04:12 AM   #78
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,434
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Well, apparently you have no idea what you are talking about, there is nothing in the post that did not include electrons.

Also, there was nothing about a frozen in magnetic field, there was only the hydrodynamic approach where both electrons and ions are seen as separate fluids moving at the same speed in the same direction, resulting in J=0.



Well, you would VERY APPARENTLY be wrong. You would know if you would take the effort of actually looking at what plasma physics is doing, e.g. in the book that I cited which has a whole chapter on "Nonlinear instabilities and strong turbulence". Or you could take a look at the link that I posted earlier showing a whole bunch of text book dealing with nonlinear plasma physics.

But of course it is much easier to just throw claims into the interspace without any support. Just because you cannot fathom what actual physicists are doing, and doing a great job of it, you think by playing the ISF-Trump you can discredit somehow mainstream physics (without which you would not have a computer nor internet) and thereby make the electric comet idea victorious.

I know I am talking to a deaf man's ear, but the only way of showing that the electric comet idea has any merit is by actually presenting an electric comet model, the very topic of this thread.

But ... that is not the reason why you are here, is it? You are here because you get off on getting people all riled up about the nonsense you so gladly write here in the forum. Actually, that's quite sad.

But it’s so easy to poke holes in mainstream faerietales.

Icy Dirtysnowballs.... I know you like to play games, tusenfem.


The new papers should cause you to review your papers, will you?
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2020, 05:29 AM   #79
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,965
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
You are under the assumption I am trying to convince you, ummmm not a chance apparently.

1. Much easier for you to also believe in the solar wind being a perfect conductor! (easy maths)

2. See 1

Much much safer!
Interesting. Rather than addressing the glaring mutually exclusive assumptions needed to begin making your theory work you choose to put a strawman assumption in my mouth.

So again. Is the solar wind composed of equal amounts positive and negative charges as you claim in your quasi neutral plama assumptions, in which case the sun must be neutral? Or is the sun positively charged as you also claim, in which case the solar wind must be negatively charged?

And have the electrons in the solar escaped, as you claim? In which case the proposed electric field for the EC cannot reach comets when thet are active. Or does the proposed electric field extend throughout the solar system as you have claimed ? In which case you need to explain why the electrons in the solar wind do not respond to said proposed field.

It's not my fault you proposed mutually exlusive explanations to solve non existent problems.
Lukraak_Sisser 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 July 2020, 05:43 AM   #80
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,919
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
But it’s so easy to poke holes in mainstream faerietales.
No, you just do not understand the physics. You don't understand when it is okay to use MHD and when you have to go kinetic. You want to do everything kinetic, that is fine, I assume you use the general theory of releativity to calculate how long it takes for an apple to fall down from the tree to the ground, that's fine with me, but I'd rather use Newtonian physics.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Icy Dirtysnowballs.... I know you like to play games, tusenfem.
Yes, card games, board games, but not so fond of computer games.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
The new papers should cause you to review your papers, will you?
Which new papers?
And what should I review?
Please go in depth, the whole shebang, you might get co-authorship.
And while you are at it, send me a fully descriptive electric comet theory.
__________________
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
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 09:38 PM.
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.