ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

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


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Closed Thread
Old 7th November 2010, 05:19 AM   #601
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Dancing David:

You still struggling with rock aquiring charge in a plasma "wind"???

TRY & THIS LUNAR ELECTRIC FIELDS, SURFACE
POTENTIAL AND ASSOCIATED PLASMA SHEATHS*
J. W. FREEMAN and M. IBRAHIM
Dept. of Space Physics and Astronomy, Rice University, Houston, Tex., U.S.A.
Intersting to note DD is the very first opening line!!!

I'll highlight it for you, please understand this is were the "charge" comes from,



So if the electric field centre on the Sun has a higher charge (is more positive) than the comet nucleus, there will be a charge difference.

And I think we can all agree on the fact charges like to equilize!

which brings me to the next point,
And again, what makes the coma?

You pretend to know where the charge comes from, but lets see it is being bathed in this plasma stream, what makes for a charge difference from the stream?

Are you saying that a comet charged by the polarity of the sun, will be a different polarity from the sun?

And you do know that the solar wind has both positive and negative charges?
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th November 2010, 05:40 AM   #602
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
What electrical effects are you refering too?

Do you mean these:
one of the highest resolution image yet of these enigmatic solar flux tubes.
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1011...es_nso_big.jpg
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap101102.html

Or these effects in this picture of Enceladus
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0911...assini_big.png

So many of the ANOMALIES OF COMETS leave NASA scratching their heads but the new data/evidence seems to favour the EU/PC team over at Thunderbolts
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/a...105hartley.htm
I'm not RC, but Tom Bridgman has a website which includes detailed information on this topic, including many entries which very effectively demolish the basis of EU ideas.

For example:
Electric Universe: Plasma Modeling vs. 'Mystic Plasma'
Electric Universe: Everything I needed to know about science I learned from watching Star Trek?
Electric Universe: Lunar electric fields
"Electric Sun Verified"?? - In your dreams...
The REAL Electric Universe.

But let me ask you this, Haig: in the Electric Sun-based idea of comets, can a comet have a net charge greater than that of the electrons in a comparable volume of the interplanetary medium (at comparable distance from the Sun)?
DeiRenDopa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th November 2010, 08:26 AM   #603
Haig
Graduate Poster
 
Haig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa View Post
I'm not RC, but Tom Bridgman has a website which includes detailed information on this topic, including many entries which very effectively demolish the basis of EU ideas.
Hi DRD, thanks for the links, I haven't heard of Tom Bridgeman before but I'll take some time to read his views as soon as I can.

Quote:
But let me ask you this, Haig: in the Electric Sun-based idea of comets, can a comet have a net charge greater than that of the electrons in a comparable volume of the interplanetary medium (at comparable distance from the Sun)?
As a interested layman and just giving my take on what I've read. My answer is yes it can. This difference in charge sets up a Langmuir Sheath or plasma double layer and this forms the coma and tail. You would get a far better answer if you posed this question on the Thunderbolts forum but I'm sure you know that.

Let me ask you a couple of questions:
In 2005 Deep Impact’s 820-pound impactor collision with Comet Tempel 1 caused a flash/spark before actual contact. How was this possible?

Also, the actual impact produced a reaction that blinded the instruments of, Deep Impact, the mothership. Such was the scale of this second flash. Where did the energy come for this? Bearing in mind it wildly exceeded NASA predictions.

Thunderbolt answers to these questions make a lot of sense, particularly since they sucessfully predicted the first part, the flash before contact.
Haig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th November 2010, 08:37 AM   #604
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
As a interested layman and just giving my take on what I've read. My answer is yes it can. This difference in charge sets up a Langmuir Sheath or plasma double layer and this forms the coma and tail. You would get a far better answer if you posed this question on the Thunderbolts forum but I'm sure you know that.
When you've had a chance to read through Bridgman's many entries on EU/PC ideas, you'll understand why posting questions in the TB forum is, essentially, a waste of time; in a nutshell, despite the clearly posted aims, there is essentially nothing there that resembles modern science.

Quote:
Let me ask you a couple of questions:
In 2005 Deep Impact’s 820-pound impactor collision with Comet Tempel 1 caused a flash/spark before actual contact. How was this possible?
You might like to check your sources for this claim ... it's been repeated a huge number of times by EU/Electric Sun proponents, but there is no basis for the claim, from analysis of the raw Deep Impact data (AFAIK). Worse, as the original source of the EU/ES claim seems to be Thornhill, and as he is a well-known academic fraud, the constant repetition speaks volumes for EU supporters' critical thinking capabilities.

Quote:
Also, the actual impact produced a reaction that blinded the instruments of, Deep Impact, the mothership. Such was the scale of this second flash. Where did the energy come for this? Bearing in mind it wildly exceeded NASA predictions.
Again, you might like to check your sources for this claim.

Quote:
Thunderbolt answers to these questions make a lot of sense, particularly since they sucessfully predicted the first part, the flash before contact.
Really?!?

Would you care to present the actual predictions (not post-dictions), in their entirety, here? FWIW, these so-called predictions have been ripped to shreds, several times, in several internet fora; strangely the complete lack of any meaningful rebuttals, by EU/ES proponents, has never made it to the TB forum, which is rather telling given their loudly proclaimed assertion of adherence to the scientific method.
DeiRenDopa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th November 2010, 09:27 AM   #605
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Yes, this charge is (a) very small---a few hundred volts on the Moon--- (b) carries very little energy and (c) does not discharges. It's the stable quasiequilibrium configuration of charges when the Coulomb force is opposed by diffusion in a plasma---not some giant store of energy that's waiting for a plasma to show up and discharge it. The plasma created this charge.

(ETA) Note that an article saying "Solar wind plasma physics predicts a -100V plasma-induced electrostatic potential on the Moon" might as well say "Solar wind plasma physics does NOT charge the moon up to 10^12 gazillion volts", "Solar wind plasma does NOT behave one one hand like a magic high-voltage power supply, and at the same time like a screwdriver violently shorting out that power supply". "These interesting, true, and publishable results were obtained by professional physicists, by applying Maxwell's Equations and other standard physics techniques to modern data; not by exegesis of pre-space-age Alvfenic aphorisms."

Last edited by ben m; 7th November 2010 at 11:06 AM.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th November 2010, 11:58 AM   #606
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,418
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
What electrical effects are you refering too?
All of the electrcial effects mentioned in astrophysics papers.
You know - the ones "Uncle Wal" ignores.
But I suspect thatwhat Wally means by "electrical effects" is the claims of the various brands of pseudo-science called electrical universe/sun/comet/lets ignore the actual physics and observations and label it electrical.

Originally Posted by Haig View Post
Do you mean these:
one of the highest resolution image yet of these enigmatic solar flux tubes.
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1011...es_nso_big.jpg
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap101102.html
No.
Solar flux tubes are solar magnetic flux tubes.

Originally Posted by Haig View Post
Or these effects in this picture of Enceladus
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0911...assini_big.png
Defintely not - these are jets.
You need to learn some astronomy.

Last edited by Reality Check; 7th November 2010 at 12:04 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th November 2010, 12:02 PM   #607
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,418
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
Let me ask you a couple of questions:
In 2005 Deep Impact’s 820-pound impactor collision with Comet Tempel 1 caused a flash/spark before actual contact. How was this possible?
...
Thunderbolt answers to these questions make a lot of sense, particularly since they sucessfully predicted the first part, the flash before contact.
Thunderbolt is lying.
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
EC universe: Only give qualitative predictions.
Sol88 posted a list of EC "predictions" for Tempel 1 and Deep Impact. The closes it gets to an actual quantitative predictions is "The most obvious would be a flash (lightning-like discharge) shortly before impact." (emphasis added).

What actually happened was a flash on or after impact followed by a bigger one from deeper in the nucleus (according to NASA).
Quote:
Also, the actual impact produced a reaction that blinded the instruments of, Deep Impact, the mothership. Such was the scale of this second flash. Where did the energy come for this? Bearing in mind it wildly exceeded NASA predictions.
The instruments Deep Impact were not "blinded". Some pixels were momentarily saturated.
Let me ask you a couple of questions:
Have you heard of kinetic energy?
Do you know that the impactor was travelling really, really fast?

Last edited by Reality Check; 7th November 2010 at 12:11 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th November 2010, 11:36 PM   #608
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,329
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
Yes, this charge is (a) very small---a few hundred volts on the Moon--- (b) carries very little energy and (c) does not discharges. It's the stable quasiequilibrium configuration of charges when the Coulomb force is opposed by diffusion in a plasma---not some giant store of energy that's waiting for a plasma to show up and discharge it. The plasma created this charge.

(ETA) Note that an article saying "Solar wind plasma physics predicts a -100V plasma-induced electrostatic potential on the Moon" might as well say "Solar wind plasma physics does NOT charge the moon up to 10^12 gazillion volts", "Solar wind plasma does NOT behave one one hand like a magic high-voltage power supply, and at the same time like a screwdriver violently shorting out that power supply". "These interesting, true, and publishable results were obtained by professional physicists, by applying Maxwell's Equations and other standard physics techniques to modern data; not by exegesis of pre-space-age Alvfenic aphorisms."
Lets try -4000v
Quote:
encountered
(e.g. Fig. 1).
In addition, surface electric fields also likely contribute
to dust charging and transport. There is substantial
observational support for dust levitation a few
meters above the surface [9], and some evidence for
dust transport to much greater altitudes [10] and highly
accelerated dust [11].
LINK

Oh and the Moon has water!!

So BenM lets try and read from the same page eh? Space is full of plasma 99.9 % actualy and yes I'm aware that it is quasi-nuteral but stick a rock in the way and bingo, CHARGE SEPERATION!!! now question is what happens when the charges wants to get back together, 'cos charges do that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity

You may like to read up about it

hint: you may also want to note that an electric current causes a magnetic field may help you understand just what the EU is all about!!
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2010, 12:09 AM   #609
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,329
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Thunderbolt is lying.



The instruments Deep Impact were not "blinded". Some pixels were momentarily saturated.
Let me ask you a couple of questions:
Have you heard of kinetic energy?
Do you know that the impactor was travelling really, really fast?
the impactor was travelling really, really fast!! No it was travelling really, really, really fast!!!

In fact it was so fast it made two flashes!!! that's how fast it was going

Quote:
Have you heard of kinetic energy?
Yeah and the MATHS boffins and very clever Physicists esimated 4.5t of TNT, it exceeded those expectation by quite some amount....why?? Don't they feed enough penuts to the monkeys?

Uncle Wal predicted the two flashes regardless of the mechanisim and that the impact would be more energetic than the boffins 4.5t of TNT.

So far not one prediction fromthe mainstream has help up, funny that!
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2010, 12:18 AM   #610
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
[quote=Sol88;6527715]Lets try -4000v LINK

-4000V? On the whole moon? Sol88, have you ever done anything with that number? I just did. Calculate how much energy is stored by the excess charge on a 4000V moon. It's about one kilojoule. It's not enough electrical energy to brew a cup of coffee. It's not enough energy to fire a camera flashbulb. It's about the energy you get from eating one Tic Tac.

Quote:
So BenM lets try and read from the same page eh? Space is full of plasma 99.9 % actualy and yes I'm aware that it is quasi-nuteral but stick a rock in the way and bingo, CHARGE SEPERATION!!!
Yes, tiny static amount of charge separation, creating barely any voltage, storing practically no energy, and (listen carefully) NOT DISCHARGING. These are static conditions.

Quote:
now question is what happens when the charges wants to get back together, 'cos charges do that.
Not if they're still in the diffusion situation that separated them to begin with. Anyway, if they DO "get back together", nothing happens. There's no energy there to do anything visible.

Now I remember why I had you on ignore for years, Sol88.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2010, 01:10 AM   #611
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,329
BenM please place me on ignore again, after you show math you used to work out the moon has energy equivalent to one tic tak!

Remember it's only half the moon in sunlight (+ 100'sV) and the other half is in lunar night (- 1000'sV) your tic tak can launch dust into space!!

Where can I get one of your tic taks from?
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2010, 02:22 AM   #612
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,418
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
the impactor was travelling really, really fast!! No it was travelling really, really, really fast!!!

In fact it was so fast it made two flashes!!! that's how fast it was going
Right !
What actually happened was a flash on or after impact followed by a bigger one from deeper in the nucleus (according to NASA).
Thiunderbolts is still lying.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Yeah and the MATHS boffins and very clever Physicists esimated 4.5t of TNT, it exceeded those expectation by quite some amount....why?? Don't they feed enough penuts to the monkeys?

Yeah and we only have your assertion
  1. that was the prediction and
  2. that it was wrong.
You though are so ignorant that you cannot grasp the simple fact that the measured density of comet nuclei is ~0.6 g/cc, the measured density of asteroids is ~3.0 g/cc and that 0.6 is less than 3.0 !

Don't they feed you enough penauts?

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Uncle Wal predicted the two flashes regardless of the mechanisim and that the impact would be more energetic than the boffins 4.5t of TNT.

So far not one prediction fromthe mainstream has help up, funny that!
You remain persistently ignorant (i.e. delusional) what Uncle Wal Thornhill's prediction was and that he got it wrong.
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
EC universe: Only give qualitative predictions.
Sol88 posted a list of EC "predictions" for Tempel 1 and Deep Impact. The closes it gets to an actual quantitative predictions is "The most obvious would be a flash (lightning-like discharge) shortly before impact." (emphasis added).

What actually happened was a flash on or after impact followed by a bigger one from deeper in the nucleus (according to NASA).


So now we have the beginning of a list of your delustions:
  1. You think that 0.6 is less than 3.0 .
  2. You think that "shorly before" is "on or after".
Any more ignorance that you want to permanently record for the world to view?

So far lots of predictions from the mainstream has held up, funny that!

Last edited by Reality Check; 8th November 2010 at 02:54 AM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2010, 02:41 AM   #613
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,418
Exclamation The totally stupid electric comet idea debunked

Since Sol88 is back, lets expand the total debunking of the electric comet idea.
Thank Sol88 for continuing to point just how idiotic the EC idea is !

EC universe: Sol88 is of course just regurgitating the crackpot fantasies of the Thunderbolts web site. The authors of the site (and the books it is set up to sell to the gullible) are David Talbot and Wal Thornhill. How good is their physics?
They have a list of EC "predictions" for Tempel 1 and Deep Impact. The closest it gets to an actual quantitative prediction is "The most obvious would be a flash (lightning-like discharge) shortly before impact." (emphasis added). He was wrong and the web site continues to lie about this: there was a flash on or after the impact not "shortly before".
Real universe: Lightning like all electrical discharges requires a dielectric (insulating) medium to break down to from a conduction path for the discharge. But comets are surronded by plasma. Plasma is a conducting medium (about as consucting as a metal in general). Thus no electrical discharges are possible.

EC universe: They have a list of EC "predictions" for Tempel 1 and Deep Impact which include: "An abundance of water on or below the surface of the nucleus (the underlying assumption of the “dirty snowball” hypothesis) is unlikely."
Real universe: An "abundance" of water ice was found on the surface of Tempel 1.

EC universe: Comets are rocky bodies, comparable to asteriods and probably created in the same event as asteriods (according to Thunderbolts).


Real universe:
  1. Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).
  2. Comets may not have the composition of asteriods
  3. Deep Impact confirmed that comet nuclei are made of dust and ice not rock. There were a couple of surprises in that the dust was talcum powder rather than sand and the amount of ice was smaller than expected.
    "Analysis of data from the Swift X-ray telescope showed that the comet continued outgassing from the impact for 13 days, with a peak five days after impact. A total of 5 million kilograms (11 million pounds) of water[35] and between 10 and 25 million kilograms (22 and 55 million pounds) of dust were lost from the impact."WP
    Thus the water content of Comet Tempel 1 is 20% to 50%.
  4. Cometary dust as collected by the Stardust mission contain forms of carbon that are not in meteorites.
    Thus comets are not meteorites.
    Meteorites are rocky bodies (meteoroids and sometimes asteroids) that have reached the Earth's surface.
    Therefore comets are not meteoroids or asteriods.
    (or How Sol88 cannot stop shooting himself in the foot)
EC universe: Comet jets, coma and tails are created from material that that is created from rock by electrical discharge machining.(but according to solrey EDM does not mean EDM in the EC universe!).
Real universe:


Start with Tim Thompson's posts about thisThen look atEC universe: Rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value will be comets.N.B. Solar activity may cut tails in two but there have been no observations of comets turning off during low solar activity.(Sol88: I may be wrong - if so please provide the citations to these marvelous events.)

However this assertion has the fatal flaw of EC predictions - no mathematics or numbers.
But we can do their work for them can't we Sol88?

There are 4 observed main-belt comets with a minimum eccentricity of 0.1644 (133P/Elst-Pizarro). So the EC minimim must be this (or lower!).

Real universe: There are at least 173,583 asteroids (rocky bodies) that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value that are not comets. This includes asteroids that have been observed for decades.
There are 459,893 asteroids with eccentricities greater than the minimum observed eccentricity of comets (0.0279).
EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets

EC universe: solrey pointed out in this post that EC idea expects that the voltage potential a comet experiences would be orders of magnitude higher than that of the cloud to ground voltage potential in a thunderstorm (109 volts).
"Several" is more than a couple so the EC idea expects a voltage drop around a comet of at least 1012 volts.

Real universe: tusenfem pointed out that "Electric Fields and Cold Electrons in the Vicinity of Comet Halley" by Harri Laakso gave the measured potential drop between electrical layers around Comet Halley as 50 kV in this post. This is 10,000 times less than the thunderstorm potential and 10,000,000 times less that requires by the EC idea.

Water, water everywhere (except in the EC idea)
EC universe: Comets are rocky bodies, comparable to asteroids and probably created in the same event as asteroids (according to Thunderbolts). Comet jets, coma and tails are created from material (e.g. water) that that is created from rock by electrical discharge machining. Like everything in the EC idea there are no numbers and so no prediction of the composition of the nucleus. We could say that means that the EC idea predicts no water (0%) but there should be some blowback from the physically impossible (on comets) EDM process.
Asteroids in general have very low amounts of water. So let's just throw in 1% water as an extremely generous guess - IMHO it should be something like 0.01%. Sol88 or solrey should provide a better number if they have it.

Real universe: Comets are bodies with a mixture of rock and ices of various compounds, e.g. CO and water. They are have been described as "dirty snowballs". The volatile material (ices) is heated by the Sun and sublimates to form jets, the coma and the tail.This is supported by actual physical evidence, i.e. the results of the Deep Impact mission where the impact ejected material from the nucleus that was composed of 20-50% water and 80-50% dust.

EC universe: Only give qualitative predictions.
Sol88 posted a list of EC "predictions" for Tempel 1 and Deep Impact. The closes it gets to an actual quantitative predictions is "The most obvious would be a flash (lightning-like discharge) shortly before impact." (emphasis added).

What actually happened was a flash on or after impact followed by a bigger one from deeper in the nucleus (according to NASA). Total fail by Thornhill


Real universe: Scientific theories model the data mathematically and produce both qualitative and quantitative predictions. Someone could start with the papers of Whipple
  1. Whipple, Fred L. (1950). "A Comet Model. I. The acceleration of Comet Encke". Astrophys. J. 111: 375–394.
  2. Whipple, Fred L. (1951). "A Comet Model. II. Physical Relations for Comets and Meteors". Astrophys. J. 113: 464.
  3. Whipple, Fred L. (1955). "A Comet Model. III. The Zodiacal Light". Astrophys. J. 121: 750.
and then go ointo the 1000's of scientific papers and many textbooks about comets. Tim Thompson recommended Introduction to Comets by Brandt & Chapman (Cambridge University Press, 2004, 2nd edition).

EC comets switch off at perihelion
EC universe: An EC prediction is that comets will switch off (or to be charitable to the EC idea they will be less bright) at perihelion.
Real universe: We observe that comets are brightest at perihelion .

EC universe: Turn yourself into a crackpot idea by not publishing papers in peer reviewed journals.
Real universe: Take the risk of being wrong and become part of the scientific process by publishing papers in peer reviewed journals, e.g. Fred L. Whipple.

EC Universe: Turn yourself into a crackpot by quoting press releases and news articles. This has the added advantage of revealing your ignorance of the scientific literature.
Real Universe: Real scientists cite published scientific papers and textbooks.

Last edited by Reality Check; 8th November 2010 at 02:50 AM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2010, 03:19 AM   #614
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,418
Question Where are the measurements of the Tempel 1 impact exceeding the expected energy

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Yeah and the MATHS boffins and very clever Physicists esimated 4.5t of TNT, it exceeded those expectation by quite some amount....why?? Don't they feed enough penuts to the monkeys?
Yeah: You need to get your facts right.
The MATHS boffins and very clever Physicists esimated 19 Gigajoules (equivalent to 4.8 ton of TNT). Even Thunderbolts got that number right.
Sol88:
First asked 8 November 2010

Before I add this to the list of delusions that we expect from EC cranks:
  • How much is "quite some amount"?
    • 0.00001%?
    • 0.1%?
    • 100%?
    • 1,000,000%?
  • Where are the measurements of the Tempel 1 impact exceeding the expected energy?
The MATHS boffins and very clever Physicists then measured (as far as I can see) 17 Gigajoules.
Energy balance of the Deep Impact experiment
Quote:
We present results on the energy balance of the Deep Impact experiment based on analysis of 180 infrared spectra of the ejecta obtained by the Deep Impact spacecraft. We derive an output energy of 16.5 (+9.1/−4.1) GJ. With an input energy of 19.7 GJ, the error bars are large enough so that there may or may not be a balance between the kinetic energy of the impact and that of outflowing materials. Although possible, no other source of energy other than the impactor or the Sun is needed to explain the observations.
You have not been able to understand that the measured density of comet nuclei is ~0.6 g/cc, the measured density of asteroids is ~3.0 g/cc and that 0.6 is less than 3.0.
So trust me: The number 17 is less then the number 19. It does not exceed 19.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2010, 05:13 AM   #615
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
BenM please place me on ignore again, after you show math you used to work out the moon has energy equivalent to one tic tak!

Remember it's only half the moon in sunlight (+ 100'sV) and the other half is in lunar night (- 1000'sV) your tic tak can launch dust into space!!

Where can I get one of your tic taks from?
Too bad , you don't understand math. And where does the statitc launch dust into space? And a Life Saver will giver you a bigger charge.

Um, so you think that the charge on the moon is concentrated in one point?
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2010, 10:45 AM   #616
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
BenM please place me on ignore again, after you show math you used to work out the moon has energy equivalent to one tic tak!
Done and done.

Capacitance encountered when adding charge to a sphere of radius R:
C = 4 pi R epsilon_0

Energy stored by a capacitor C charged up to voltage V:
E = 1/2 C V^2
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2010, 01:06 PM   #617
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
Done and done.

Capacitance encountered when adding charge to a sphere of radius R:
C = 4 pi R epsilon_0

Energy stored by a capacitor C charged up to voltage V:
E = 1/2 C V^2
You realise, of course, that to Sol88 what you wrote is completely unintelligible?

I must say that one of the most amazing things about EU/PC proponents like Sol88 is not the profound ignorance of classical electromagnetism (much less even the plasma physics of the Godhead, Alfvén), but the evident pride in such gross ignorance!
DeiRenDopa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2010, 03:36 PM   #618
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa View Post
You realise, of course, that to Sol88 what you wrote is completely unintelligible?
Yes, I do.

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2010, 12:33 AM   #619
Tim Thompson
Muse
 
Tim Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
Lightbulb Deep Impact

Originally Posted by Haig View Post
In 2005 Deep Impact’s 820-pound impactor collision with Comet Tempel 1 caused a flash/spark before actual contact. How was this possible?
No, there was no emission of any kind prior to the actual impact. There was an initial relatively faint flash, followed by a second bright flash 0.124 seconds later. The initial faint flash was in fact the actual impact, and not a flash prior to actual impact. That faint initial flash is consistent with pre-mission laboratory experiments and indicates impact at a grazing angle of about 30 degrees onto a low density target with a relatively dark surface. Here are 3 relevant papers from the Lunar and Planetary Science bulletin:The latter paper tells us that vaporization of organic rich surface materials will result initially in a relatively faint visible plume.

Originally Posted by Haig View Post
Also, the actual impact produced a reaction that blinded the instruments of, Deep Impact, the mothership. Such was the scale of this second flash. Where did the energy come for this?
The brightness comes from sunlight reflected off of highly reflective material underneath the relatively dark surface. That's why the initial plume is faint, the surface is dark. Once the bright material underneath is liberated, which takes about 0.1 seconds, reflected sunlight saturates the detector. Your assumption that some extraordinary "energy" is involved is a serious mis-interpretation of what is actually happening. The brightness is purely reflected sunlight and nothing more than that. The saturation is strictly a consequence of the sensitivity setting of the detector. The plume in reality may have not looked bright to a human eye at all, but will have looked very bright to a detector set to a very low threshold. Without knowing exactly how sensitive the detector was, there is no way to judge the true brightness of the flashes.

Originally Posted by Haig View Post
Bearing in mind it wildly exceeded NASA predictions.
Wrong on two counts. First, NASA did not make any predictions; scientists who publish predictions, even if funded by NASA, never speak for NASA. The organization, NASA, never made any predictions. Groups or individual scientists did, but all of their published predictions were fairly general, "order of magnitude" statements, and mostly explicitly model dependent. However, none of the actual Deep Impact results were in any way "wildly" inconsistent with the published predictions.

Originally Posted by Haig View Post
Thunderbolt answers to these questions make a lot of sense, particularly since they sucessfully predicted the first part, the flash before contact.
If they predicted a flash before contact then that prediction was a failure, as there was no flash before contact.
__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell
Tim Thompson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2010, 02:40 AM   #620
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
the impactor was travelling really, really fast!! No it was travelling really, really, really fast!!!

In fact it was so fast it made two flashes!!! that's how fast it was going

Yeah and the MATHS boffins and very clever Physicists esimated 4.5t of TNT, it exceeded those expectation by quite some amount....why?? Don't they feed enough penuts to the monkeys?

Uncle Wal predicted the two flashes regardless of the mechanisim and that the impact would be more energetic than the boffins 4.5t of TNT.

So far not one prediction fromthe mainstream has help up, funny that!
Is English your first language?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2010, 03:44 PM   #621
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
No, there was no emission of any kind prior to the actual impact. There was an initial relatively faint flash, followed by a second bright flash 0.124 seconds later. The initial faint flash was in fact the actual impact, and not a flash prior to actual impact.

...


The brightness comes from sunlight reflected off of highly reflective material underneath the relatively dark surface.
My mental picture is something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV8MF-440xg

This is video of a torpedo being tested on a warship. The single "impact" makes two distinct flashes of brightness. First, there's sort of a whump corresponding to the explosion itself (or the shock wave or something) making the water whiten (and the destroyer lift up a bit). Then, later, there's a big spray as lots of material finds its way into the air.

Neither of these brightening events involves, say, the water emitting white-hot blackbody radiation. It's just a big cloud of reflective droplets getting spit out in front of your otherwise-dark surface.

And the two "brightenings" does not mean there were two explosions. There was one explosion having different effects on different parts of its target.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2010, 10:00 PM   #622
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,329
Quote:
The brightness comes from sunlight reflected off of highly reflective material underneath the relatively dark surface. That's why the initial plume is faint, the surface is dark. Once the bright material underneath is liberated, which takes about 0.1 seconds, reflected sunlight saturates the detector. Your assumption that some extraordinary "energy" is involved is a serious mis-interpretation of what is actually happening. The brightness is purely reflected sunlight and nothing more than that. The saturation is strictly a consequence of the sensitivity setting of the detector. The plume in reality may have not looked bright to a human eye at all, but will have looked very bright to a detector set to a very low threshold. Without knowing exactly how sensitive the detector was, there is no way to judge the true brightness of the flashes.
Do you think the bright spot on Hartly 2 are patches of ice then?
image Credit: NASA

And the jets are gas being released from deeper under the surface yeah? As per mainstream thinking.

Quote:
Wrong on two counts. First, NASA did not make any predictions; scientists who publish predictions, even if funded by NASA, never speak for NASA. The organization, NASA, never made any predictions. Groups or individual scientists did, but all of their published predictions were fairly general, "order of magnitude" statements, and mostly explicitly model dependent. However, none of the actual Deep Impact results were in any way "wildly" inconsistent with the published predictions.
Wal Thornhill DID, N.A.S.A did NOT!

Quote:
Advance flash
Thornhill: Electrical interactions with Deep Impact may be slight, but they should be measurable if NASA will look for them. They would likely be similar to those of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 prior to striking Jupiter's atmosphere: The most obvious would be a flash (lightning-like discharge) shortly before impact.
see [ 2005 July 03]

Result
What you see is something really surprising. First, there is a small flash, then there's a delay, then there's a big flash and the whole thing breaks loose.
see [ 2005 July 07]
LINK

The copper projectile did not have explosives in it did it? I can see how a missile or bomb might make two flashes, first the missile/bomb hits the surface then the explosives detonate.

Nuff said!

Quote:
If they predicted a flash before contact then that prediction was a failure, as there was no flash before contact.
Two flashes predicted two happened, seems your hang up on when they happend, prediction was for two and two there were!!
oh and that the impact would be more energetic than expected!

Quote:
High-energy explosion
Thornhill: The energetic effects of the encounter should exceed that of a simple physical impact, in the same way that was seen with comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 at Jupiter.
see [ 2001 Oct 18]
Result
It is now well documented that every scientist associated with the project was stunned by the energetic outburst.
see [ 2005 July 07]
link above
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2010, 10:09 PM   #623
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,329
What about Enceladus's jets?

Credit Cassini

full res here http://www.ciclops.org/view_media.php?id=29984

Or are those bright spot reflected sunlight as well?

I stunned that mainstream just make ***** up, anything to save your job I 'spose!
__________________
“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; 10th November 2010 at 10:11 PM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2010, 11:21 PM   #624
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Will this


stuff


never end?
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th November 2010, 02:13 AM   #625
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Let me guess: Sol88 did not respond to ben m's post providing exactly the explanation he (Sol88) asked for? Instead, Sol88's post(s) continue to clearly display not only gross ignorance, but one may infer that he is actually still very proud of his ignorance?

Can any active participant in this thread explain why some folk seem to be so proud of their ignorance? And seem not the least bit interested in actually learning the basics of astronomy, physics, etc necessary to understand even the data returned by spacecraft such as Cassini (let alone how that data can be analysed)?
DeiRenDopa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th November 2010, 02:28 AM   #626
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,418
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Wal Thornhill DID, N.A.S.A did NOT!
Wal Thornhill DID, N.A.S.A LIES ABOUT THE IMPACT!
I have fixed his quote with some emphasis for the really, really gulible.
Quote:
Advance flash
Thornhill: Electrical interactions with Deep Impact may be slight, but they should be measurable if NASA will look for them. They would likely be similar to those of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 prior to striking Jupiter's atmosphere: The most obvious would be a flash (lightning-like discharge) shortly before impact.

Result
What you see is something really surprising. First, there is a small flash on or after impact, then there's a delay, then there's a big flash and the whole thing breaks loose.
(emphasis and addition)

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post

Two flashes predicted two happened, seems your hang up on when they happend, prediction was for two and two there were!!
Learn to read. Sol88
The prediciton was for 2 flashes, one shortly before impact.
Only an idiot would believe Wal Thornhill's lie about the prediction.
His prediction: a flash shortly before impact.
The result : a flash on or after impact.
This is almost worthy of the The totally stupid electric comet idea debunked! list, e.g. in an EC proponent lie section.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
oh and that the impact would be more energetic than expected!
oh and another prediction where Wal Thornhill DID, N.A.S.A LIES ABOUT THE IMPACT!.
Where are the measurements of the Tempel 1 impact exceeding the expected energy?
Answered in the post since you are too lazy or gullible to look it up yourself:
  • Prediction: 19 Gigajoules
  • Result: 16.5 (+9.1/−4.1) GJ which includes 19 GJ
it will be added to the The totally stupid electric comet idea debunked! list real soon now). Thanks Sol88 once again.

You really are gullible to be taken in by that deluded book advertisement web site, Sol88. Try thinking for yourself for once.

Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th November 2010, 02:30 AM   #627
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,418
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
What about Enceladus's jets?
...snipped Sol88 inane rant...
They are jets.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th November 2010, 02:44 AM   #628
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
It amuses me to think that Sol88 thinks that he knows more about this that the scientists who actually study this subject.Where did you study Sol?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th November 2010, 03:19 AM   #629
Haig
Graduate Poster
 
Haig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,635
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Solar flux tubes are solar magnetic flux tubes.
Haven’t had time to come back into this thread yet but I will try to give it more thought soon. Just had to post this for now.

Anyone read this paper in full? In the abstract magnetic energy stored in the corona via reconnection is dismissed. Seems like EU/PC concepts are coming more into the mainstream and this, indirectly, supports the electric comet idea – discuss please.

Physics of Solar Coronal Mass Ejections [QUOTE]The traditional models, which envision releasing magnetic energy stored in the corona via reconnection (accomplished by specified and/or numerical dissipation in these models), have not produced quantitative agreement with the observed CME acceleration and propagation to 1 AU. In this talk, I will present a new concept that does not require reconnection and yields model CME dynamics in good quantitative agreement with data. The underlying magnetic structure is a flux rope, and the basic driving force is the toroidal Lorentz hoop force acting on a flux rope with two legs anchored in the Sun. The force equations were originally derived for axisymmetric toroidal tokamak equilibria by Shafranov, but the basic physics can be adapted to the dynamics of nonaxisymmetric solar flux ropes. The initial flux rope is driven out of equilibrium by increasing its poloidal flux. The calculated acceleration and subsequent propagation of model CMEs have been shown to correctly replicate the observed CME dynamics from the Sun to 1 AU, with the computed plasma and magnetic field parameters at 1 AU in close agreement with the in situ SW data. The increasing poloidal flux produces an electromotive force (EMF) that is sufficient to accelerate particles to X-ray energies. The predicted temporal profile of the EMF given by the best-fit solution to the observed CME trajectory is found to closely coincide with that of the observed associated solar flare X-ray intensity. [/quote]
Haig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th November 2010, 03:48 AM   #630
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,418
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
Haven’t had time to come back into this thread yet but I will try to give it more thought soon. Just had to post this for now.

Anyone read this paper in full? In the abstract magnetic energy stored in the corona via reconnection is dismissed. Seems like EU/PC concepts are coming more into the mainstream and this, indirectly, supports the electric comet idea – discuss please.

Physics of Solar Coronal Mass Ejections [
Nothing to do with this thread but...
The current "EU/PC concepts" have never been and never will be a part of mainstream physics because (as this and other threads show) they are a bunch of crackpot ideas only believed in by the gullible.

The electric comet idea is a fantasy as shown in my post The totally stupid electric comet idea debunked!

It takes real ignorance to be unable to grasp that the measured density of comet nuclei is ~0.6 g/cc, the measured density of asteroids is ~3.0 g/cc and that 0.6 is less than 3.0. See Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).

The abstract you quote does have anything to do with any "EU/PC concepts". It looks like standard electromagnetism.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th November 2010, 03:51 AM   #631
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,418
Just had to post this now (jjust as much as a derail as Haigs):
James Chen has a couple of other papers on CME, e.g.
Dynamics of Solar Coronal Mass Ejections: Theory and New SECCHI Observation
2009
Quote:
The physical mechanisms of coronal mass ejections (CMEs) and flares have been an important open question in solar and by implication stellar physics. The physical connections between CMEs and these phenomena have also been a major question. The new SECCHI observations represent unprecedented opportunities to test and establish new understanding of CME physics both closer to and farther away from the Sun than was previously possible. In this paper, I will discuss new results from recent applications of a theoretical flux-rope model of CMEs (Chen JGR, 1996) to several CMEs and their dynamics observed to about 100 Rs (1/2 AU) by SECCHI. Forces acting on these CMEs are found to be dominated by the Lorentz hoop force in the inner corona and by the competition of the hoop force and retarding drag force in the outer corona and heliosphere. It is shown that the erupting flux-rope model governed by these forces is able to fit the observed CME trajectories throughout the SECCHI field of view out to approximately 1/2 AU, indicating that the model correctly captures the basic physics, i.e., forces and magnetic geometry, of acceleration and propagation of CMEs. It is also shown that the duration of the poloidal flux injection function chosen to fit the CME trajectory closely match the duration of the observed GOES X-ray light curves for both short-duration and long-duration flares.
Hmmm... EU/PC is not mentioned. I wonder why!
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th November 2010, 04:19 AM   #632
Haig
Graduate Poster
 
Haig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,635
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
The abstract you quote does have anything to do with any "EU/PC concepts". It looks like standard electromagnetism
Ah! So RC you dismiss this paper without even reading it? This will seem like EU/PC stuff to many. Also, It’s not really a derail, as electric comets require the Sun to have an electric field to behave as they do.

The abstract
Quote:
The increasing poloidal flux produces an electromotive force (EMF) that is sufficient to accelerate particles to X-ray energies. The predicted temporal profile of the EMF given by the best-fit solution to the observed CME trajectory is found to closely coincide with that of the observed associated solar flare X-ray intensity.
BTW what is “standard electromagnetism” to you, in the context of this topic?
Haig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th November 2010, 04:34 AM   #633
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,878
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
Haven’t had time to come back into this thread yet but I will try to give it more thought soon. Just had to post this for now.

Anyone read this paper in full? In the abstract magnetic energy stored in the corona via reconnection is dismissed. Seems like EU/PC concepts are coming more into the mainstream and this, indirectly, supports the electric comet idea – discuss please.
Probably not, because it is an abstract for a talk at the 52nd annual meeting of the APS. Although there seems to be a paper about it too. (tho I have no access) He seems to use a force driving out the flux rope, which may model the observations for travel time and structure at Earth pretty well, but how does it fit with what is observed on the sun?

If you want to study this (but not in this thread) then you should read the papers by Christan Möstl 2009 and 2009 and by Marianne Temmer 2010 and references therein.

Note, however, that all these papers have nothing to do with the EU/PU/PC/ES/EC hypotheses in which not even the proponents can come to a coherent model of even the basics (see the pen-ultimate example the iron sun).
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem 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 Back to Top
Old 11th November 2010, 05:36 AM   #634
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
Haven’t had time to come back into this thread yet but I will try to give it more thought soon. Just had to post this for now.

Anyone read this paper in full? In the abstract magnetic energy stored in the corona via reconnection is dismissed. Seems like EU/PC concepts are coming more into the mainstream and this, indirectly, supports the electric comet idea – discuss please.

Physics of Solar Coronal Mass Ejections [QUOTE]The traditional models, which envision releasing magnetic energy stored in the corona via reconnection (accomplished by specified and/or numerical dissipation in these models), have not produced quantitative agreement with the observed CME acceleration and propagation to 1 AU. In this talk, I will present a new concept that does not require reconnection and yields model CME dynamics in good quantitative agreement with data. The underlying magnetic structure is a flux rope, and the basic driving force is the toroidal Lorentz hoop force acting on a flux rope with two legs anchored in the Sun. The force equations were originally derived for axisymmetric toroidal tokamak equilibria by Shafranov, but the basic physics can be adapted to the dynamics of nonaxisymmetric solar flux ropes. The initial flux rope is driven out of equilibrium by increasing its poloidal flux. The calculated acceleration and subsequent propagation of model CMEs have been shown to correctly replicate the observed CME dynamics from the Sun to 1 AU, with the computed plasma and magnetic field parameters at 1 AU in close agreement with the in situ SW data. The increasing poloidal flux produces an electromotive force (EMF) that is sufficient to accelerate particles to X-ray energies. The predicted temporal profile of the EMF given by the best-fit solution to the observed CME trajectory is found to closely coincide with that of the observed associated solar flare X-ray intensity.
[/quote]

Hi Haig,

Just a post and run, considering you just dropped some random but here the only answer is : no.

It does not support the EC theory at all.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th November 2010, 05:39 AM   #635
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
Ah! So RC you dismiss this paper without even reading it? This will seem like EU/PC stuff to many. Also, It’s not really a derail, as electric comets require the Sun to have an electric field to behave as they do.
False dichotomy and overgeneralization.

The sun is well know to have a magnetic field and there are times that other things happen with the solar wind and like. What strength is the 'electric field' of the sun Haig?

The electric comet theory is still wrong.

Where does the charge on the comet come from Haig?
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th November 2010, 12:19 PM   #636
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,418
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
Ah! So RC you dismiss this paper without even reading it? This will seem like EU/PC stuff to many. Also, It’s not really a derail, as electric comets require the Sun to have an electric field to behave as they do.
Ah! So Haig you think this paper has any EU/PC non-science in it without even reading it?
Only someone totally taken in by the EU/PC non-science would think that that abstract has anything to do with it. It is obviously abut solar magnetic flux ropes and the toroidal Lorentz hoop forces on them.
There is also the well known mainstream acceleration of particles by the magnetic fields (producing X-rays).

But I do see where you got the idea that it does - there is a Thunderbolts forum post mentioning the paper. The author merely quotes the abstract and underlines that the paper is an alternative electromagnetic explanation to the magnetic reconnection theory.

The electric comet idea is a fantasy as shown in my post The totally stupid electric comet idea debunked!

I hope that you are not one of the ignorant people that do not know the 0.6 is less that 3.0.

Originally Posted by Haig View Post
The abstract
BTW what is “standard electromagnetism” to you, in the context of this topic?
The application of the laws of electromagnetism (e.g. Maxwell's eqiuations) to physical situations.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th November 2010, 12:33 PM   #637
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
To those who fight the never ending battle against crackpots like Sol88, Mozina, etc.:

Your patience and endurance are admirable. Without your efforts these people would likely influence some of the uninformed audience to believe their nonsense. The more the lay public understands the nature of true science, the better off is our whole society.
Thank you for your contributions to this forum.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th November 2010, 12:47 PM   #638
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
Ah! So RC you dismiss this paper without even reading it? This will seem like EU/PC stuff to many.
Why?

Quote:
Also, It’s not really a derail, as electric comets require the Sun to have an electric field to behave as they do.

[...]
What, quantitatively, is the nature of the Sun's electric field, sufficient and necessary for the electric comet idea to be consistent with all the relevant observations (of comets)?
DeiRenDopa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th November 2010, 12:55 PM   #639
Haig
Graduate Poster
 
Haig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,635
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
False dichotomy and overgeneralization.
Hi again DD, I really haven’t the time for this just now, but what the heck….
Don’t agree. I only see two choices: the mainstream “dirty snowball” from the Oort Cloud or the EU/PC Electric Comet theory. Are there any others?

As for overgeneralization ….. Well what do you expect from a layman ;-)
Quote:
The sun is well know to have a magnetic field and there are times that other things happen with the solar wind and like
As I understand it magnetism and electricity are very closely connected.

A magnetic field is a field of force produced by moving electric charges, by electric fields that vary in time ~ snip~
In electromagnetism, magnetic fields are intimately related to electric fields; a changing magnetic field generates an electric field and a changing electric field produces a magnetic field.
Quote:
What strength is the 'electric field' of the sun Haig?
From what I have read, the best way to measure the strength of the electric field of the Sun is to measure the acceleration it produces. You know - the million miles an hour solar wind that sometimes virtually stops. BTW can you explain that? And how, in the first place, matter is being accelerated away from the strongest gravity around here?
Quote:
The electric comet theory is still wrong.
So you prefer the Snowball Comet from the Oort Cloud and you think that's right?
Quote:
Where does the charge on the comet come from Haig?
As I understand the electric comet theory:

Any comet in a plasma (the heliosphere) tends to acquire a net negative charge, particularly long period ones that spend a long time far out in the solar system..

As the comet, on a hugely eccentric orbit, comes in on close approach it is exposed to a strengthening plasma density and electric field from the Sun which is inclined to give a positive charge. This difference in charge sets up a Langmuir Sheath or plasma double layer and this forms the coma and tail and the comet becomes visible in a glow discharge.

However these examples from Thunderbolt put across the idea much better than I can:-

Electric Comets Re-write Space Science
Plasma Discharge Model
Comet Holmes In The Electric Universe

All the above findings pose enormous problems for the "dirty snowball" model; all are predictable features of the electric model.

Edited by jhunter1163:  Do not post large blocks of text from other sites. Links are sufficient.

Last edited by jhunter1163; 11th November 2010 at 06:25 PM.
Haig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th November 2010, 01:47 PM   #640
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
From what I have read, the best way to measure the strength of the electric field of the Sun is to measure the acceleration it produces. You know - the million miles an hour solar wind that sometimes virtually stops.
Ah, yes. Let's use the Solar Wind to measure the Sun's electric fields, eh? Half of the solar wind consists of 1 keV electrons--negatively charged particles---telling us that the Sun's electric field points INWARDS and integrates to -1 kilovolt. Half of the solar wind consists of 1 keV protons---positively charged particles---telling us that the Sun's electric field points OUTWARDS and integrates to +1 kilovolt.

Is the Sun's radial electric field simultaneously +1 kV and -1 kV? No it's not. The solar wind is not accelerated by an electric field.

By the way, the rest of your EU/PC colleagues (Zeuzzz, Mozina, etc.) always argue that the Sun's electric potential is *gazillions of volts*, and that to get this number you have to *ignore* the energies of the solar wind. You're telling us the opposite.

Quote:
Any comet in a plasma (the heliosphere) tends to acquire a net negative charge, particularly long period ones that spend a long time far out in the solar system..
How big a charge, Haig? My calculations showed that a charged-up comet (even if that actually happens) has only a few kilojoules of electrical energy.

Quote:
As the comet, on a hugely eccentric orbit, comes in on close approach it is exposed to a strengthening plasma density and electric field from the Sun which is inclined to give a positive charge. This difference in charge sets up a Langmuir Sheath or plasma double layer and this forms the coma and tail and the comet becomes visible in a glow discharge.
a) There's no such thing as a glow discharge in a plasma. Glow discharges are characteristic of insulators.

b) Comets don't have a glow-discharge spectrum (carbon/oxygen/metal atomic emission lines), they have a reflected-sunlight spectrum (blackbody with solar absorption lines).

c) The "discharge" and "double layer" and whatnot, only has a kilojoule's worth of energy to get rid of. That kilojoule wouldn't be visible from Earth unless it was used to power a laser beam aimed directly at Earth.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

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

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:12 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.