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 15th August 2020, 04:01 AM   #321
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,433
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
And you can show that it is possible despite the incredibly well tested science of electromagnetism?


Without figures you have nothing ...
Point in case!

Aurora mysteries unlocked with NASA's THEMIS mission


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."
Big, no, very big supercomputers otherwise... the math don’t work!

Classic.

This is why MHD is used and has been used at comets to inform me that double layers (field aligned ambipolar electric fields) are impossible at comets and in space in general.


The maths led the way and mainstream followed....

Just like the radial outgassing (Haser model)...

So the electric comet cannot be true because even the gun mathamagicians will need very big supercomputers!

I rest the “Show me the math” confabulator is now dead.
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2020, 04:05 AM   #322
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,433
We can also add objects charging and discharging in flowing plasma to list of non arguments.
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2020, 11:08 AM   #323
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Site is back up, yay! I’ll wait a while before I try to post anything substantive.
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 15th August 2020, 11:28 AM   #324
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Sol88, did you read tusenfem’s posts from yesterday (may be day before, I guess)?

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Point in case!

Aurora mysteries unlocked with NASA's THEMIS mission




Big, no, very big supercomputers otherwise... the math don’t work!

Classic.

This is why MHD is used and has been used at comets to inform me that double layers (field aligned ambipolar electric fields) are impossible at comets and in space in general.


The maths led the way and mainstream followed....

Just like the radial outgassing (Haser model)...

So the electric comet cannot be true because even the gun mathamagicians will need very big supercomputers!

I rest the “Show me the math” confabulator is now dead.
Combining your copious commentary with tusenfem’s, it seems you two are in different universes!

You seem to have a great fondness for “ripper quotes”, tusenfem seems to dig more into the actual content, the observational data, the quantitative analyses, the carefully designed and caveated models.

Your approach seems well designed for cherry picking for religious propaganda, but unsuited for any kind of science. In particular, your approach cannot reveal inconsistencies between the content of T07 and the various papers you rip quotes from, for example, not least because you never make any quantitative evaluation, much less examine models.

So, how about it? Any chance you could consider starting to quantitative analysis?
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 15th August 2020, 01:30 PM   #325
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
I’ll start with this old post of mine (I re-asked this in many posts). My added hilite.

Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Sigh.


Once again, the topic of this thread is The Electric Comet Theory.

There is, currently, just one ISF member willing to propose/defend/explain that Theory, you.

You have briefly presented two Electric Comet Theories, B24 and T07.

B24 is toast.

Can we return to discussing T07, please?

Let's begin with this basic question, in The Electric Comet Theory T07: how are "oBjects including comets [...] able to charge to the ambient plasma potential"?

Starting with direct reference to T07 itself.

Thank you in advance.
Sol88, up till now, you have not answered my question.

Would you please do so now?

Thank you in advance.

Last edited by JeanTate; 15th August 2020 at 01:31 PM.
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 15th August 2020, 01:52 PM   #326
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,433
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Sol88, did you read tusenfem’s posts from yesterday (may be day before, I guess)?


Combining your copious commentary with tusenfem’s, it seems you two are in different universes!

You seem to have a great fondness for “ripper quotes”, tusenfem seems to dig more into the actual content, the observational data, the quantitative analyses, the carefully designed and caveated models.

Your approach seems well designed for cherry picking for religious propaganda, but unsuited for any kind of science. In particular, your approach cannot reveal inconsistencies between the content of T07 and the various papers you rip quotes from, for example, not least because you never make any quantitative evaluation, much less examine models.

So, how about it? Any chance you could consider starting to quantitative analysis?
Quantitative analysis? Not a hope, even the mainstream gunna struggle unless they use a very big Supercomputer...



Are you not keeping up?

We now know that comets are not Dirtysnowballs or even icydirtballls for that matter.

Comets being charged rocky bodies should be as easy to observe as the dust being charged and removed from the nucleus.

Mainstream still dicking round to to make the quantitative analyses, of the carefully designed and caveated models.

Models? Mainstream have more than just the Dirtysnowball/icydirtball model?

Please do tell, I’ve not seen it. I have asked various people that have said the Dirtysnowball was no longer valid (comets dustier than expected) but have not replacement. They just keep refining the dust to ice ratio until the ice disappears (using maths).

So....not sure where that leaves you, jean tate.

Just good to remember in the ELECTRIC COMET, co,ets are charged rocky bodies discharging in the solar plasma.



Ps

Mainstream are now just starting to quantify the discharging part. They have come to the conclusion comets are far More dustier than once commonly believed some time ago now.
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator

Last edited by Sol88; 15th August 2020 at 02:04 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 15th August 2020, 02:03 PM   #327
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,433
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
I’ll start with this old post of mine (I re-asked this in many posts). My added hilite.


Sol88, up till now, you have not answered my question.

Would you please do so now?

Thank you in advance.
Up till now, you’d be correct. Not too sure answering any of your questions is really going to help at all?

You’ll have to refresh my memory sorry on the specific question in relation to the electric comet and T07.
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2020, 02:11 PM   #328
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Up till now, you’d be correct. Not too sure answering any of your questions is really going to help at all?

You’ll have to refresh my memory sorry on the specific question in relation to the electric comet and T07.
In The Electric Comet Theory T07: how are "oBjects including comets [...] able to charge to the ambient plasma potential”?

Make direct and explicit reference to the content of T07.
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 15th August 2020, 02:29 PM   #329
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 6,144
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Quantitative analysis? Not a hope, even the mainstream gunna struggle unless they use a very big Supercomputer...
Interesting new excuse you found for not being able to predict comet behavior. It must be a relief to create an innovation after all these years.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh 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 15th August 2020, 02:33 PM   #330
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,433
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
In The Electric Comet Theory T07: how are "oBjects including comets [...] able to charge to the ambient plasma potential”?

Make direct and explicit reference to the content of T07.
From T07

Quote:
Comets follow their elongated paths within a weak electrical field centered on the Sun. In approaching the Sun, a charge imbalance develops between the nucleus and the higher voltage and charge density near the Sun. Growing electrical stresses initiate discharges and the formation of a glowing plasma sheath, appearing as the coma and tail.
And again in simplified words for you jean tate, comets are charged rocky bodies discharging in the solar plasma.

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

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator

Last edited by Sol88; 15th August 2020 at 02:39 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 15th August 2020, 02:38 PM   #331
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,433
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
Interesting new excuse you found for not being able to predict comet behavior. It must be a relief to create an innovation after all these years.

Predict comet behaviour??? Why?

Comets are charged rocky bodies discharging in the solar plasma. This we observe.



But to get the maths working to prove it to people like you, ya gunna need a bigger computer.

Shouldn’t be hard with the all the funding scientists burn thru. Surly, you coulbum some time off the very big supercomputers at somewhere like CERN, LIGO etc...
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2020, 02:47 PM   #332
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,433
Just to reiterate that it is believed in the electric comet that they are charged rocky bodies.

Quote:
According to the model, comets are not inert balls of ice and rocky dust particles aggregated into a "dirty iceball" as standard comet theory holds. Instead, they are solid, asteroid-like rocks, containing little ice. Negatively charged with electricity, their motion through the positively charged solar wind triggers electrical discharges. These, not vaporized ice, produce the characteristic comet glow and tail.
They Sing the Comet Electric

Further

Quote:
The evidence suggests that comets are highly negatively charged with respect to the Sun. As they rush toward the Sun, the voltage increases until at some point the comet nucleus begins to discharge. Electrons are stripped from a few points on the comet surface where the electric field is strongest. These “spark discharges” finely machine rocky material from the surface to form a “cathode jet” of negatively charged dust together with surface matter that has been torn apart to release ionized atoms and molecules, including oxygen.
Prediction #3: Electric Comets and the "Domino Effect"

So, do we understand now that in the ELECTRIC COMET we believe the nucleus to be a charged rocky body, jean tate?

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

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2020, 02:53 PM   #333
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Thanks.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
From T07



And again in simplified words for you jean tate, comets are charged rocky bodies discharging in the solar plasma.

Any more questions?
Could you expand on this please?

T07, the bit you quote, says that comets are unable to charge to the ambient plasma potential.

And your gloss, “comets are charged rocky bodies discharging in the solar plasma“ is a cop-out, an attempt to bridge a direct inconsistency.
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 15th August 2020, 04:05 PM   #334
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,433
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Thanks.


Could you expand on this please?

T07, the bit you quote, says that comets are unable to charge to the ambient plasma potential.

And your gloss, “comets are charged rocky bodies discharging in the solar plasma“ is a cop-out, an attempt to bridge a direct inconsistency.
It’s assumed from standard object charging in a flux of electrons, blah blah blah,nblah blablaba.

We call this the solar wind.

Why do think they would be unable to, according to standard garden variety plasma process in relation to charging and discharging?.

I’m confused. Do you not understand, jean tate?

Comets are charged rocky bodies.

__________________
“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; 15th August 2020 at 04:10 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 15th August 2020, 04:30 PM   #335
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Thanks.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
It’s assumed from standard object charging in a flux of electrons, blah blah blah,nblah blablaba.

We call this the solar wind.

Why do think they would be unable to, according to standard garden variety plasma process in relation to charging and discharging?.

I’m confused. Do you not understand, jean tate?

Comets are charged rocky bodies.

I think it’s important to pause a bit, and ask you to clarify some simple words.

With explicit reference to T07, what do the following mean:
solar wind
plasma, and what its “ambient potential” is
weak electrical field (centered on the Sun)

Part of my confusion is that in T07, there are only hints of “plasma processes”, and no “standard garden variety plasma process in relation to charging and discharging” at all.

In a while I’ll return to a somewhat different apparent inconsistency: why do comets have tails pointing the ~same way (~away from the Sun) both coming and going? At perihelion it seems comets have ~the same charge as at aphelion.
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 15th August 2020, 04:37 PM   #336
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,433
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Thanks.


I think it’s important to pause a bit, and ask you to clarify some simple words.

With explicit reference to T07, what do the following mean:
solar wind
plasma, and what its “ambient potential” is
weak electrical field (centered on the Sun)

Really?

Solar wind, like that the electrons are hotter and faster than the ions? Stick a rock body into that little thing we call the solar wind!

Plasma? Again, really? You fair dinkum, or what?

An electric field is not a double layer (plasma, see above) but a double layer is an electric field. I have that from the best authority.

Not sure where your coming from, jean tate. You still seem to be stuck on outdated models and math?
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2020, 04:50 PM   #337
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Thanks.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Really?

Solar wind, like that the electrons are hotter and faster than the ions? Stick a rock body into that little thing we call the solar wind!

Plasma? Again, really? You fair dinkum, or what?

An electric field is not a double layer (plasma, see above) but a double layer is an electric field. I have that from the best authority.

Not sure where your coming from, jean tate. You still seem to be stuck on outdated models and math?
No explicit reference to T07.

Why not?

Could you please actually answer the questions? Note that the “plasma” question is tied to what its ambient potential is.

Note: there seems to be no solar wind/plasma in T07; certainly you’ve not pointed to it yet (so how can we discuss any of its features?).
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 15th August 2020, 07:21 PM   #338
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
One more clarification, with explicit reference to T07.

Discharging, charging, “charged body”: I guess you, and T07, always mean the same thing, right?

Charging-> net flow of charge from {what?} to {what?}
Discharging -> net flow of charge in the opposite direction
A “charged body” can discharge, but it cannot further charge. Right?

Can you confirm please?
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 15th August 2020, 09:53 PM   #339
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,433
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
One more clarification, with explicit reference to T07.

Discharging, charging, “charged body”: I guess you, and T07, always mean the same thing, right?

Charging-> net flow of charge from {what?} to {what?}
Discharging -> net flow of charge in the opposite direction
A “charged body” can discharge, but it cannot further charge. Right?

Can you confirm please?
Actually we meant asteroids... same thing.

A body immersed in a flowing plasma, such as the solar wind will try and attain a situation were net flow of charge either to or from the body, is no longer achieved.


Do you understand now, jean tate?

Or would like like me to draw a picture in big crayons for you?

A “charged body” can discharge, but it cannot further charge. Right?

A body can attain a floating potential compared to the ambient plasma. Relative if it’s charging or discharging. Seems from the data somethings going on...

A Sheath has formed around this particular object immersed in the solar wind. Now a double layer...around this rocky object. The ELECTRIC COMET


Would you care to ask an expert about the currents involved here? Tusenfem has a few papers on such a thing. Though they in need of an update.

In light of the new “math” required to solve the plasma situation around comets.

Or indeed plasma any were in space as neatly summed up here in a recent paper on just such a problem in plasma physics...

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."
Gunna need sophisticated algorithms and very big Supercomputers!

Not much hope fore us more pen and paper mortals, is there now?
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 16th August 2020, 05:17 AM   #340
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,919
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Solar wind, like that the electrons are hotter and faster than the ions? Stick a rock body into that little thing we call the solar wind!
No they don't, please show observational evidence, i.e. data.
If they would, there would be an enormous ambipolar electric field, which there is not, which would slow down the electrons and accelerate the ions.
__________________
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, 08:53 AM   #341
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,919
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Says Lukrakk

Not too sure how you are understanding the same thing.
I do, I am just making observations about your statements and reality.
__________________
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, 08:55 AM   #342
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,919
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Apart from the fact discharging can not happen if MHD is used. In COMETS BEING CHARGED ROCKY BODIES DISCHARGING IN THE SOLAR PLASMA this is not a problem as MHD is pointless.
Discharges, as per T07 and the rest of the EC "literature" cannot happen in full plasma physics (i.e. not taking the MHD approximation, I posted some of the equations).

EC 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 16th August 2020, 09:13 AM   #343
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,919
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Birkeland proved it some 100 yrs ago, did you not hear?
No, Birkeland did not prove anything, he could not, because the technique was not there yet.
Birkeland had the idea that the aurora had something to do with electric currents or electrically charged particles, that might come from the Sun.
In order to check this, he and his assistants went up north in Scandinavia, in 1902 - 1903, where each person was in their own little hut somewhere with a compass needle. Whenever there would be aurora overhead, they would record the movement of the needle.
With that he was able to show that when the aurora was stronger the needle would move more. All the results can be seen in his publication "The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition 1902–1903 (158 MB)
https://ia802700.us.archive.org/21/i...01chririch.pdf
Birkeland concluded that there should be a stream of corpuscules coming from the Sun which would interact with the Earth's magnetic field, create currents which would drive the aurora.
This, unfortunately, was not accepted by a prominent physicist of the time, Sidney Chapman, and thereby the idea got buried.
It took until the beginning of the space age, that indeed magnetic field aligned currents in the Earth's polar magnetic field were found. About 60 years after Birkeland's death these currents were mearused.

Sato, T.; Iijima, T. (1979). "Primary sources of large-scale Birkeland currents". Space Science Reviews. 24 (3): 347–366. Bibcode:1979SSRv...24..347S. doi:10.1007/BF00212423


Potemra, T. A. (1978). "Observation of Birkeland currents with the TRIAD satellite". Astrophysics and Space Science. 58 (1): 207–226. Bibcode:1978Ap&SS..58..207P. doi:10.1007/BF00645387.)
__________________
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, 09:52 AM   #344
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,919
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Quantitative analysis? Not a hope, even the mainstream gunna struggle unless they use a very big Supercomputer...
And this comment clearly shows that Sol has no idea of what space physicists are doing. Numerical modelling is only done by a small group of the space physics community. And they are strongly bound by actual observations made by in-situ instruments or "long range" instruments (like telescopes).

The only way of finding out what is happening, e.g. at comets, is to use DATA and physics to explain what is going on. As an example, at the beginning of the Rosetta mission at 67P/CG we found strong quasi-monochromatic waves in the magnetic field, the singing comet, an using the physics of the Modified Ion Weibel Instability, we could explain how these waves were excited. There was no need for supercomputers, just pencil and paper and then later a small program to make calculations of the whole parameter space, which is a wee bit easier that making like 10.000 calculations by hand.

Another example, unfortunately not at 67P/CG, but it could be done at Halley. Again magnetic field measurements (kind of a professional hazard from me) find upstream of Venus's bow shock proton cyclotron waves. Again, just using plasma physics, the theory of particle and field dynamics when the temperature of the ions is higher perpendicular to the magnetic field than along it, one can explain these waves. Not only explain them, but use their amplitude for example to calculate the density of the ions that generate these waves. And lo-and-behold fits very well with the exospheric neutral hydrogen density profile (of course over an order of magnitude less, because not all hydrogen gets ionized) (Delva et al., 2009)

And yes, numerical modelling can help, and sometimes find things that we do not know, as they have not yet been found in the data. The other way around, numerical modelling can also help interpret observations that are difficult to interpret without a larger view.

So, no, space physics does not need "supercomputers" to get actual results.
__________________
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, 02:52 PM   #345
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Quantitative analysis? Not a hope, even the mainstream gunna struggle unless they use a very big Supercomputer...



Are you not keeping up?

We now know that comets are not Dirtysnowballs or even icydirtballls for that matter.

Comets being charged rocky bodies should be as easy to observe as the dust being charged and removed from the nucleus.

Mainstream still dicking round to to make the quantitative analyses, of the carefully designed and caveated models.

Models? Mainstream have more than just the Dirtysnowball/icydirtball model?

Please do tell, I’ve not seen it. I have asked various people that have said the Dirtysnowball was no longer valid (comets dustier than expected) but have not replacement. They just keep refining the dust to ice ratio until the ice disappears (using maths).

So....not sure where that leaves you, jean tate.

Just good to remember in the ELECTRIC COMET, co,ets are charged rocky bodies discharging in the solar plasma.



Ps

Mainstream are now just starting to quantify the discharging part. They have come to the conclusion comets are far More dustier than once commonly believed some time ago now.
As good as any to reply to...

A Tom Thumb squib (firework) goes bang! So does a supernova. Yet the two differ in more than just the energy generated in <1second, say.

In your posts, Sol88, it seems you take little account of such ... a discharge could be 1 electron a second, or 1030, for example.

Among other things, this, um, reluctance to consider quantities makes it impossible to discuss science, including The Electric Comet Theory T07.

At least that’s what I think.
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 16th August 2020, 02:58 PM   #346
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Thanks.

Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Discharges, as per T07 and the rest of the EC "literature" cannot happen in full plasma physics (i.e. not taking the MHD approximation, I posted some of the equations).

EC is pointless.
Among other things, I was hoping to get Sol88 to realize, by himself, that T07 is just as toast as B24, in terms of being consistent with what we know, today, about the solar wind, how it interacts with comets, etc.

And that’s not even considering the internal contradictions and inconsistencies.

Queue a return to religious slogans and propaganda in 3, 2, ...
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 16th August 2020, 03:21 PM   #347
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,704
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

An enormous spate of lies from Sol88 over teh weekend needs 2 posts
  1. Sol88 lies with "Seems to be the main beef with you mob.". The main beef is that he has spent decades parroting obvious delusions of the electric comet and sun. Anyone who bothers to learn about real comets or the Sun knows that the electric comet and sub are delusions. It is Sol88 who is demonstrating that he belongs to a cult with his blind faith in its dogma. It is Thunderbolts that shows it is a cult with its
    • fact less, math less, physics less dogma.
    • holy books
    • Prophets to be believed in even when they obviously lie and/or are obviously deluded. Thornhill has been lying about the Deep Impact results for 15 years. None of his sycophants has been brave enough to point out the physical facts about the results, e.g. there was no flash before impact, there were no unexpected results!
    • Not a single astronomer in its ranks!
  2. Sol88 lies with "discharging (losing mass) electrically in the solar plasma". Plasma conducts so no discharges.
  3. Sol88 lies with "losing mass" (no mass loss has been seen by the mainstream mechanism of temporary electrostatic lofting via the the solar wind)
  4. Sol88 lies with "Talking about pointless math proving a non reality."
    Unusually high magnetic fields in the coma of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko during its high-activity phase is mainstream ice and dust comet science.
  5. Sol88 lies with "What was the point?". He knows the point is to do science, i.e. model the real world with physics and math. The lack of this is part of what shows his cult is s cult.
  6. Sol88 lies with Unusually high magnetic fields in the coma of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko during its high-activity phase which is s mainstream ice and dust comet science.
  7. Sol88 lies with A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet which is mainstream ice and dust comet science.
  8. Slo88 lies with "It’s comming together, slowly but still comming together" when he is citing mainstream ice and dust comet science.[/b].
  9. Sol88 lies with "Says Lukrakk". Sol88 and his cult have a delusion that a negatively charged object can charge away from a positively charged object. Lukraak_Sisser asked for the cult's explanation.
  10. Sol88 lies with "As far a I know the electrons and ions don’t just float off of the nucleus" when the question was about tails. These form when ice sublimates and neutral gas is ejected from the nucleus. This is then ionized by interaction with sunlight and the coma. We know this because the ionization of the coma decreased when Rosetta got closer to 67P.
  11. Sol88 lies with "As far a I know the electrons and ions don’t just float off of the nucleus" when no electrons or ions have been seen to "just float off of the nucleus".
  12. Sol88 shows abysmal ignorance with "As far a I know the electrons and ions don’t just float off of the nucleus" . His cult's delusion of an always charged nucleus means that only electrons or only ions will leave the nucleus. This is basic electromagnetism. Like charges repel, unlike charges attract!. If a comet is negative it will attract ions and repel electrons. Vice versa for a positive nucleus.
  13. Sol88 lies yet again by citing irrelevant spacecraft charging.
    Sol88 and his cult have the delusion that comets are made of solid metal ! Sol88 because he cites metallic objects charging in the solar wind. His cult has the delusion of EDM (an industrial process to machine metal) in comets.
  14. Sol88 lies about JeanTate's You put an Electric Comet Theory on the table, T07 post. Rather than defending T07, Sol88 does spew out "religious propaganda, and fundamentalist religion to boot"
  15. Sol88 lies with "Comets are not even close to a Dirtysnowball" when comets have been matching the model of being made of ice and dust as in the many mainstream ice and dust papers that Sol88 has cited.
  16. Sol88 lies with "part from the fact discharging can not happen if MHD is used". His cult's delusional thunderbolts are impossible at comates from the definition of electric discharges needing the breakdown of an insulating medium.
  17. Sol88 lies with "DISCHARGING IN THE SOLAR PLASMA" which by definition does not happen.
  18. Sol88 lies with "HD is pointless" when MHD is the working scientific theory for describing plasma.
  19. Sol88 lies about JeanTate's post about Sol88 claims and T07 and Sol88's endless parroting of religious propaganda.
  20. Sol88 lies with "There is the maths there, if it helps" (no math in that post or in any of the cult's dogma he has cited ).
  21. Sol88 lies with "electromagnetism the dominant force" when this is his electromagnetism is zero between neutral objects, gravity is non-zero between them.
  22. Sol88 lies with "plasma the fundamental state of matter." when it is neutral matter that is the fundamental state of matter. Plasma is the majority of the 4% of baryonic matter in the universe because the universe is full of hot things called stars!
  23. Sol88 lies with "At least you are starting to ask the correct questions." when JeanTate has been asking about his cult's dogma for many years and is still getting no answers.
  24. Sol88 lies with "Shall we focus on the moon?" which he knows has nothing to do with his cut's deluded dogma.
  25. Sol88 lies about Lukraak_Sisser post about Sol88's cult's delusion that a charged object will repel both electrons and ions.
  26. Sol88 lies with "how do Birkeland currents fit in?" which are standard physics that his cult's deluded dogma lies about.
  27. Sol88 lies with the irrelvant "Birkeland Currents: A Force-Free Field-Aligned Model" a stupid paper by the deluded Don Scott (he turns the Sun into a white dwarf by powering it externally !).
  28. Sol88 lies with "Take note of the concentric counter rotations". Scott has a paper that uses math (that math which Sol88 hates!). Scott has the delusion that weather on Saturn is Birkeland currents in plasma!
  29. Sol88 lies with "Cutting edge stuff my friend" when his cult' dogma has not changed for decades.
  30. Sol88 lies by quoting Divin - a mainstream ice and dust comet paper.
  31. Slo88 lies by highlighting his irrelevant obsession with dust charging in comet coma. This is irrelevant to his cult's deluded dogma.
  32. Solk88 iw2s with "My money, the electric comet" when mainstream dust charging in comet coma is irrelevant to his cult's deluded dogma.
  33. Sol88 lies with "How would you suggest Divin et al proceed" when Divin el al. is a mainstream ice and dust comet paper.
  34. Sol88 lies with "Magic? Why?" on Birkeland currents. He knows they do not happen at comets because comets do not have a magnetic field like Earth's to make them possible. He knows that we do not "see them" - we had to put a spacecraft in them to detect them.
  35. Sol88 lies with "Birkeland proved it some 100 yrs ago".
    Birkeland currents
    Birkeland suggested that aurora were caused by "electric corpuscles from the sun". Hannes Alfvén "proved" the theory in 1934. Actual "proof" came magnetometer readings from the U.S. Navy satellite 1963-38C, launched in 1963 and analyzed in 1966.
  36. Sol88 lies with " introduction to spacecraft charging" - comets are not spacecraft.
  37. Sol88 lies with "Replace space craft ..." when he has to replace the spacecraft with a many kilometer wide spacecraft.
  38. Sol88 lies with "Further" (further derailing to the delusion that comets are spacecraft).
  39. Sol88 lies with "Unusually high magnetic fields in the coma of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko during its high-activity phase", a mainstream ice and dust comet paper.
  40. Sol88 lies with "field aligned ambipolar electric field, the suprathermal electrons" which are mainstream physics ignored by his cult's deluded dogma.
  41. Sol88 lies with "charging of the nucleus" which stops when the solar wind is blocked by the coma with its field aligned ambipolar electric field and its uprathermal electrons.
  42. Sol88 lies with "How would this affect...?" which is a question about mainstream ice and dust cometary science.
  43. Sol88 lies with "Or we still struggling with grasping “electricity”?". when everyone else here knows textbook electromagnetism , unlike Sol88 and his cult's deluded dogma. Children know that there currents flow between charge differences. They can read the + and - on a battery! They know that batteries stop working!
  44. Sol88 lies with "Point in case!".
    The successful use of "very sophisticated algorithms and very big supercomputers" in Aurora mysteries unlocked with NASA's THEMIS mission is irrelevant to his cult's hatred of math and science.
  45. Sol88 lies with "the math don’t work" when it was the successful use of "very sophisticated algorithms and very big supercomputers".
  46. Soll8 lies with "successful use of "This is why MHD is used and has been used at comets". MHD is used at comets when it is appropriate to use it.
  47. Sool88 lies with "double layers (field aligned ambipolar electric fields)". DLs are not the physics that different mobility of electrons and ions causes ambipolar electric fields.
  48. Sol88 lies with " inform me that double layers ... are impossible at comets".
    As the plasma physicist studying comets
    , tusenfem, told him, DLs are impossible in comet coma because they are turbulent.
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 16th August 2020, 04:24 PM   #348
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,704
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

Continuing with Sol88's lying "Aurora mysteries unlocked with NASA's THEMIS mission" post"
  1. Sol88 lies with "The maths led the way and mainstream followed". Science is not just math.
  2. Sol88 lies with "Just like the radial outgassing (Haser model)"., The outgassing from comets was observed to be radial in the 1960's, thus the 1960's Haser model.
  3. Sol88 lies with "So the electric comet cannot be true ...". His cult's dogma is deluded because of the known properties of comets and basic physics.
  4. Sol88 lies with "We can also add objects charging and discharging in flowing plasma to list of non arguments.". No one has an issue with the mainstream theoretical, temporary but not detected lofting of dust by the solar wind electrostatically charging dust. [COLOR="Red "]But his cult's dogma is still deluded because the definition of discharging needs a insulating medium, no discharges have been seen at costs, etc..[/color]
  5. Sol88 lies with "We now know that comets are not Dirtysnowballs or even icydirtballls". He has cited mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
  6. Sol88 lies with "rocky bodies" whne comets are ice and ust.
  7. Sol88 lies that the mainstream dust being charged and removed from the nucleus would be easy to detect.
  8. Sol88 lies with "Mainstream still dicking round" when the mainstream has quantitative models. It is his cults deluded dogma that lacks any model at all.
  9. Sol88 lies with "Models?" when the mainstream ice and dust cometary model includes different modeling of aspects of ice and dust comets as in the papers he has cited.
  10. Sol88 lies with "rocky bodies" again.
  11. Sol88 lies with "discharging in the solar plasma" again.
  12. Sol88 lies with "Mainstream are now just starting to quantify the discharging part" when the mainstream knows that electric discharges in plasma are delusional.
  13. Sol88 lies with "Theyhave come to the conclusion comets are far More dustier". The mainstream may be evolving toward (future tense) comets being more dust than ice because a couple of comets have more dust than ice.
  14. Sol88 lies by quoting T07's delusions yet again and parroting his cult's "rocky bodies discharging in the solar plasma" delusions.
  15. Sol88 emphasizes that his cult is deluded with "Predict comet behaviour??? Why?" when predicting behavior is how we separate science from speculation, fairy tales and delusions.
  16. Soll88 lies with "This we observe". We do not observe that comets are his cults delusion of rock. We do not observe that there his cult's delusion of thunderbolts at comets.
  17. Sol88 lies with "ya gunna need a bigger computer". Scientists were doing science for centuries before there were electronic computers.
  18. Sol88 lies with "all the funding scientists burn thru". Scientists use their funding to to actual science, not waster their time and money on the blatant delusions of an internet cult.
  19. Sol88 lies with "you coulbum some time" when it is his cult that should be showing that it is not deluded by doing science. Of course we have to thank Sol88 for giving us yet anther cult delusion - that supercomputers are needed to do science !
  20. Sol88 lies with "it is believed in the electric comet that they are charged rocky bodies" when we know that Sol88's cult has this deluded dogma. What JeanTate and others are asking for is more than spamming the thread with what we already know.
  21. Sol88 lies with "standard object charging in a flux of electrons" when his cult's deludes dogma is about an imaginary enormous solar electric field and the solar wind is not a "flux of electrons".
  22. Sol88 lies yet again with "discharging"
  23. Sol88 lies with "charged rocky bodies".
  24. Sol88 lies with "rock body" . Put a rock body like the Moon into the solar wind and and we get trivial charging that just lifts dust. We do not get Sol88's cult's delusion of enormous thunderbolts tearing the Moon apart !
  25. Sol88 lies with "a double layer is an electric field" when a double layer is two layers of opposite charge with obviously an electric field between them.
  26. Sol88 lies with "You still seem to be stuck on outdated models and math?" when JeanTate is asking about Sol88's cult's dogma.
  27. Sol88 lies with "Actually we meant asteroids." when JeanTate asked about comets.
  28. Sol88 lies with "A “charged body” can discharge, but it cannot further charge. Right?". A charged body in a plasma cannot discharge by "thunderbolts" (electric discharges). It can "discharge" slowly as in the opposite of charging. A charged body can always charge more. A charged body that has reached equilibrium with surrounding plasma will not charge more.
  29. Sol88 lis with "Though they in need of an update." when he has given no evidence that tusenfem's papers need updating and his level of ignorance means he cannot know that - look at his decades old belief in obvious delusions of his cult!
  30. Solo88 lies with "In light of the new “math” required to solve the plasma situation around comets."
  31. Sol88 lies with "a recent paper on just such a problem in plasma physics" when he cites a paper with no problem. It is basic science that PIC simulations are as detailed as the computing resources allow. The smaller scales that you want to look at, the more cells you need in a PIC and the bigger the computer.
  32. Sol88 lies with "Gunna need sophisticated algorithms and very big Supercomputers!" when this mainstream paper just needs these to resolve "smaller, local scales".
  33. Sol88 lies with "Not much hope fore us more pen and paper mortals" when many scientists use "pen and paper", with normal computing, to do science :eye-poppy! This mainstream paper just needs details and so uses supercomputers.
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 16th August 2020, 04:27 PM   #349
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,704
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)
611 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 18 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 48 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 33 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

Last edited by Reality Check; 16th August 2020 at 04:29 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 16th August 2020, 05:11 PM   #350
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,433
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Thanks.



Among other things, I was hoping to get Sol88 to realize, by himself, that T07 is just as toast as B24, in terms of being consistent with what we know, today, about the solar wind, how it interacts with comets, etc.

And that’s not even considering the internal contradictions and inconsistencies.

Queue a return to religious slogans and propaganda in 3, 2, ...
What do “we” know, fill me in, in terms of being consistent with what we know, today, about the solar wind, how it interacts with comets, etc.

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?

Seems fairly new to me.

But as you are now an expert on the standard dirtysnowball model...
__________________
“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 16th August 2020, 05:16 PM   #351
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,433
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
And this comment clearly shows that Sol has no idea of what space physicists are doing. Numerical modelling is only done by a small group of the space physics community. And they are strongly bound by actual observations made by in-situ instruments or "long range" instruments (like telescopes).

The only way of finding out what is happening, e.g. at comets, is to use DATA and physics to explain what is going on. As an example, at the beginning of the Rosetta mission at 67P/CG we found strong quasi-monochromatic waves in the magnetic field, the singing comet, an using the physics of the Modified Ion Weibel Instability, we could explain how these waves were excited. There was no need for supercomputers, just pencil and paper and then later a small program to make calculations of the whole parameter space, which is a wee bit easier that making like 10.000 calculations by hand.

Another example, unfortunately not at 67P/CG, but it could be done at Halley. Again magnetic field measurements (kind of a professional hazard from me) find upstream of Venus's bow shock proton cyclotron waves. Again, just using plasma physics, the theory of particle and field dynamics when the temperature of the ions is higher perpendicular to the magnetic field than along it, one can explain these waves. Not only explain them, but use their amplitude for example to calculate the density of the ions that generate these waves. And lo-and-behold fits very well with the exospheric neutral hydrogen density profile (of course over an order of magnitude less, because not all hydrogen gets ionized) (Delva et al., 2009)

And yes, numerical modelling can help, and sometimes find things that we do not know, as they have not yet been found in the data. The other way around, numerical modelling can also help interpret observations that are difficult to interpret without a larger view.

So, no, space physics does not need "supercomputers" to get actual results.
Ahhh, the singing comet, quite the surprise, was it not?

Also a surprise at that distance (outgassing level) was the plasma sheath...

Almost like the rocky body was charged as compared to the ambient plasma.

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?

And if this potential is of a level that a plasma sheath would form around such an object, as seen in the RPC data?

Maths seems pretty standard in this regard.
__________________
“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 16th August 2020, 05:19 PM   #352
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,433
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.
__________________
“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 16th August 2020, 05:22 PM   #353
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,433
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
No they don't, please show observational evidence, i.e. data.
If they would, there would be an enormous ambipolar electric field, which there is not, which would slow down the electrons and accelerate the ions.
Wrong...the moon has one...

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

Think man, think. Any electric fields?
__________________
“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 16th August 2020, 05:24 PM   #354
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,433
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Discharges, as per T07 and the rest of the EC "literature" cannot happen in full plasma physics (i.e. not taking the MHD approximation, I posted some of the equations).

EC is pointless.

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?
__________________
“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 16th August 2020, 05:48 PM   #355
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Sigh

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
What do “we” know, fill me in, in terms of being consistent with what we know, today, about the solar wind, how it interacts with comets, etc.

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?

Seems fairly new to me.

But as you are now an expert on the standard dirtysnowball model...
2+2 != 3

That does not mean 2+2 = 5, no matter how hard Big Brother works to convince Winston Smith otherwise.

No matter how dirty snowballs are, or aren’t; no matter how icy dirt balls are, or aren’t, T07 is toast. The solar wind/comet interaction does not include EDM originating in the wind and producing “collimated jets”. The solar-wind plasma is not accelerated by a radial electric field centered on the Sun. And so on.

Focus, Sol88, focus! This thread is about The Electric Comet Theory, T07 in particular.

So unless you have yet a different Electric Comet Theory, we’ve reached a conclusion of sorts, haven’t we?

Last edited by JeanTate; 16th August 2020 at 05:50 PM.
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 16th August 2020, 05:53 PM   #356
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
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.
Per T07, there’s “cathode sputtering” and “EDM erosion”. Even “an intense electric field”.

There’s not.

So T07 is toast, right?
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 16th August 2020, 06:57 PM   #357
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,433
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Per T07, there’s “cathode sputtering” and “EDM erosion”. Even “an intense electric field”.

There’s not.

So T07 is toast, right?
Why, I wonder, would you think there are no intense electric fields? Especially, intense surface electric fields.

To be expected in the sunlight/shadow boundaries. Funnily enough, we also see “sublimation” here too.

So, I contend, jean tate, you are incorrect.


Think asteroid/comet continuum here.

All a question, as the electric comet states, charge equilibrium and the maintenance there of.

We now see this in the removal of charged dust... via the mechanism now proposed by Divin.

Surface, including intense, electric fields will have an influence on this process as well.

Mmmm...electric fields nice, double layers...majik!

__________________
“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 16th August 2020, 07:04 PM   #358
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,433
Toast??

I think they call this the “Patched Charge” model, as per Experimental Methods of Dust Charging and Mobilization on Surfaces with Exposure to Ultraviolet Radiation or Plasmas

That require electrons, that can now, as we now know, be quite energetic (suprathermal) via the mechanism now proposed by Divin et al (electron acceleration in an electric double layer)

So, what say ye in relation to the facts presented, jean tate?

Still not sublimation, now is it. You know, the generally accepted theory of comets.

What theory would you suggest best matches the data above?

Considering also, that the nucleus appears to be rocky?
__________________
“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 16th August 2020, 09:15 PM   #359
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,704
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.

Last edited by Reality Check; 16th August 2020 at 09:20 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 16th August 2020, 09:50 PM   #360
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,704
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

  1. Sol88 lies with "What do “we” know, fill me in," when he has been talking about the solar wind, etc. for years.
  2. Sol88 lies with "How’s the solar wind interacting with the field aligned ambipolar electric field" (mainstream physics)
  3. Sol88 lies with "is this consistent with sublimation theory" when he has cited mainstream ice and dust comet papers about this.
  4. Sol88 lie with "Seems fairly new to me." when he has cited mainstream ice and dust comet papers for years.
  5. Sol88 lies with "But as you are now an expert on the standard dirtysnowball model." when JeanTate is asking about Sol88 cult's deluded dogma.
  6. Sol88 lies with "the singing comet, quite the surprise" when that is mainstream ice and dust cometary science, still not explained by his cult's deleted dogma.
  7. Sol88 lies with "Also a surprise at that distance (outgassing level) was the plasma sheath" when there are no plasma sheaths at comets.
  8. Sol88 lies with "rocky body" when comets are not rocks.
  9. Sol88 lies with "was charged as compared to the ambient plasma" when the ambient plasma is neutral.
  10. Sol88 lies with "You kinda dodged the question a few pages back no" when tusenfem gave a coherent answer.
  11. Sol88 constantly lies by repeating his already answered and irrelevant questions about mainstream physics
  12. Sol88 lies with "a plasma sheath would form around such an object, as seen in the RPC data".
  13. Sol88 lies with "which math" to describe mainstream physics that is not his cult's deluded dogma.
  14. Sol88 lies with "should be used instead of the dubious sublimation (Dirtysnowball) model" when he is asking about the dirty snowball model which is established and supported science.
  15. Sol88 lies with "moon has one" when an ambipolar electric field is a property of a plasma.
  16. Sol88 lies with "What’s on the wake of an object in plasma (solar wind)?" (not his cult's deluded dogma).
  17. Sol88 lies with "Simple yes/no" when the question has been answered many times. Theoretical, undetected and temporary dust removal is not his cults deluded demand for enormous thunderbolts tearing solid rock apart.
  18. Sol88 lies with "no intense electric fields" when the mainstream physics he is citing says there are no intense electric fields on comet nuclei. There is juts enough to loft some dust.
  19. Sol88 lies with "To be expected in the sunlight/shadow boundaries" when he doe snot cite the any science about this.
  20. Sol88 lies with "we also see “sublimation” here too" when we see actual sublimation as the sunlight/shadow boundary moves.
  21. Sol88 lies with "asteroid/comet continuum" when that is a 1 paper that has a continuum between behaviors. There is Sol88's cult delusion of claiming that these asteroids are comets making 100,000's of cataloged asteroids into comets !
  22. Sol88 lies with "via the mechanism now proposed by Divin" which is decades old mainstream ice and dust cometary science.
  23. Sol88 lies with "double layers" yet again.
  24. Sol88 lies with Experimental Methods of Dust Charging and Mobilization on Surfaces with Exposure to Ultraviolet Radiation or Plasmas
  25. Sol88 lies with "suprathermal" - these are electrons in the comet coma, not on the surface.
  26. Sol88 lies yet again about Divin which has not physically impossible double layers.
  27. Sol88 lies with "what say ye in relation to the facts presented, jean tate?" when Sol88 has presented only lies about mainstream ice and dust comets.
  28. Sol88 lies with "Still not sublimation" when he is lying about mainstream ice and dust comets based on ice sublimating ! Eve paper about the coma (Devin et al. ) has the coma formed from gas from sublimating ice that is partially ionized by sunlight, etc. as the neutral gas leaves the surface.
  29. Sol88 lies with "the nucleus appears to be rock" when comet surfaces are ice and dust.
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
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 02:44 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.