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

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


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 11th January 2019, 05:18 AM   #2561
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,153
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
It’s actually a rhetorical question. This was observed and measured.

Shall we dig out the papers and have a look?


More than happy to wheel out Decca’s paper, again?
Deca's paper is irrelevant to the total failure of the electric comet woo.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 06:51 AM   #2562
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,344
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Deflection is the word you’re looking for, not stoping.

Is the solar wind being slowed at all? Like in the sublimation model of “mass loading”?
And this is relevant to your EC, how exactly?

Oh right, there is no EC, so your post is irrelevant just trolling!
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 11th January 2019, 06:52 AM   #2563
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,344
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
It’s actually a rhetorical question. This was observed and measured.

Shall we dig out the papers and have a look?


More than happy to wheel out Decca’s paper, again?
And this is relevant to your EC, how exactly?

Oh right, there is no EC, so your post is irrelevant just trolling!
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 11th January 2019, 06:53 AM   #2564
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,344
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Do you believe there is a NON negligible ambipolar electric field at comet 67P, jonesdave116?

Sounds like your a doubting Thomas still.
And this is relevant to your EC, how exactly?

Oh right, there is no EC, so your post is irrelevant just trolling!
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 11th January 2019, 07:56 AM   #2565
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,216
Maybe even the AMPTE paper for reference?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
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 11th January 2019, 08:21 AM   #2566
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,344
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Maybe even the AMPTE paper for reference?
And this is relevant to your EC, how exactly?

Oh right, there is no EC, so your post is irrelevant just trolling!
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 11th January 2019, 03:30 PM   #2567
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,216
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
And this is relevant to your EC, how exactly?

Oh right, there is no EC, so your post is irrelevant just trolling!
Hello jean tate.

Jonesdave116 is under the misguided impression that an electric field can not deflect the solar wind.

Poor jonesdave116.

He was also under the false impression that 67P was “outgassing” was substantial, though this new paper states
Quote:
It seems, however, that the lost gas masses were overestimated by the instruments and the teams of the gas instruments work hard on realistic final values.
because now we are starting to fall in line with
Quote:
4. Discussion An evaluation of low dust material densities (Fulle et al., 2016; 2017) versus relatively high dust material densities (RSI; CONSERT) favors dust material densities of 2000 - 3500 kg/m3 and high dust contents by volume in order to account for the observed nucleus mass and bulk density. All together, this implies high porosities and high dust-to-ice mass ratios Fnucleus. The nucleus body presents itself therefore as a highly porous dusty body with little ice.
Quote:
The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice. The total mass loss M puts hard constraints on the models of interpretation of the observations from other instruments on Rosetta.
This is in line with A’Hearn’s assertion of
Quote:
At the simplest level, a very basic question is whether comets are mostly ice or mostly rock/dirt/refractory material. Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the first quantitative model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high as 6 have been cited [
Quote:
As a reminder, the upper bound on the porosity is 73% to 85% for a highly porous stony body without ice for the selected dust material density range.
Although we are still under the false impression that
Quote:
Dust particles of all scales may be lifted from the surface or from lower inner structures or from shallow pits by the outflowing gas from the sublimation of the ice.
this has shown to be a misguided assumption in this latest paper Experiments on cometary activity: ejection of dust aggregates from a sublimating water-ice surface


So in summary the electric fields at comets actually do something and this is relevant to the ELECTRIC COMET.

What say ye Jean tate?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
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 11th January 2019, 03:54 PM   #2568
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,216
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
And this is relevant to your EC, how exactly?

Oh right, there is no EC, so your post is irrelevant just trolling!
I’d just like to reiterate

Comets are rocky bodies discharging in the solar wind, the ELECTRIC COMET MODEL



As opposed to comets are icy bodies sublimating from the heat of the sun, the SUBLIMATION MODEL
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
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 11th January 2019, 03:54 PM   #2569
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,153
Quote:
What say ye Jean tate?
Link your quotes, woo boy. Let us see what you've cherry-picked. And your electric field is trifling compared to those at asteroids, didn't show up at Halley, and cannot deflect the solar wind. Stop talking rubbish.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 03:55 PM   #2570
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,153
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
I’d just like to reiterate

Comets are rocky bodies discharging in the solar wind, the ELECTRIC COMET MODEL



As opposed to comets are icy bodies sublimating from the heat of the sun, the SUBLIMATION MODEL
No rock, no discharges. Total failure.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 04:00 PM   #2571
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,344
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Hello jean tate.

<irrelevancies snipped>

What say ye Jean tate?
JeanTate says: you have not presented any "ELECTRIC COMET MODEL". Which is what this thread is about.

Until you do, there is nothing to discuss.
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 11th January 2019, 04:03 PM   #2572
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,344
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
I’d just like to reiterate

Comets are rocky bodies discharging in the solar wind, the ELECTRIC COMET MODEL

<irrelevancies snipped>
Cool!

Why didn't you say so earlier?

Now we can have a discussion!

I'll start by asking: what do you mean by "discharging", in the ELECTRIC COMET MODEL?
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 11th January 2019, 04:03 PM   #2573
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,153
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
JeanTate says: you have not presented any "ELECTRIC COMET MODEL". Which is what this thread is about.

Until you do, there is nothing to discuss.
Seconded.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 05:16 PM   #2574
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,216
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Link your quotes, woo boy. Let us see what you've cherry-picked. And your electric field is trifling compared to those at asteroids, didn't show up at Halley, and cannot deflect the solar wind. Stop talking rubbish.
Which one in particular?

The one were your are shown to be ignorant on how an electric field can divert the solar wind?

That would be the best one.

Or was it the new paper backing A’Hearns statement that out understanding is evolving toward rock.

Or that the sublimation model is becoming untenable.
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
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 11th January 2019, 07:22 PM   #2575
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,216
Have a crack at Acceleration of ions and nano dust at a comet in the solar wind H.Gunell and replace the assumed POSITIVELY charged dust grains with the observed NEGATIVELY charged dust grains.

That confuses the mainstream somewhat.

One of my favourite words for the release of negatively charged nano dust from the rocky/stoney nucleus “Coulomb Explosion” which is more or less the “patched charge” model of M.Horanyi



No mechanism, jd116?

Seems you’d be wrong, again.

Not looking good, now is it champ.

Do you believe in electric fields at comets and that they actually “do” something? Or your still a dark sublimation type of mainstream plasma ignoramus?

Pull your head out of the gas light era and embrace the electric era.
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
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 11th January 2019, 08:56 PM   #2576
Indagator
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 54
PATHETIC EFFORT!

Sol88!

I see nothing has changed with you!

This is the 'electric comet' thread! When are you going to enlighten us about your 'electric comet' model? To date, you've offered no model! To date, you've offered no evidence! To date, you've offered no science! All you do is cite mainstream papers with the faint hope that someone will blindly accept your misinterpretations? Not a chance! I don't come here to discuss the mainstream model! I am well aware of what the mainstream model is! I come here to discuss your "electric comet" model! So, ....

Another New Year! Another opportunity to learn!

Remember, Sol88, there is no mainstream science that supports your electric rock religion as you describe it! Mainstream science does not bend that way! If mainstream science could help, mainstream science would! Sadly, the 'electric comet' can only exist if fundamental laws of physics are violated! To build an 'electric comet' you will need a whole new set of physical laws!

Seriously now, Sol88! You're coming up on 13 years of ongoing 'electric comet' FAILURE!

There is NO electric comet! The object is physically IMPOSSIBLE!
If the 'electric comet' exists, then simulate said object in the lab! Build a physical representation of said object, using whatever rocks, constraints, and assumptions you deem necessary! Remember, the KOSI experiments reproduced observable comet behaviour and physical properties (e.g., sintered dust mantles and bulk densities) using volatile ices and dust! Now, you do the same with your electrical rock! OK? Good luck with that!

There is NO electric star! The object is physically IMPOSSIBLE!
SAFIRE is a joke and a waste of valuable resources! Tell me, Sol88, is SAFIRE operating on alternating current as suggested by Alfven? NO? Is it possible that Alfven was WRONG? Sol88, can you tell me what SWEAP is? Can you tell me why SWEAP is mainstream science? Can you tell me why SWEAP will NOT support your electric lie? Can SAFIRE, as it is configured, replicate SWEAP data? Or is SAFIRE nothing more that electric ducks and bunnies? Nothing more than pretty pictures?

Grow up, Sol88! You have yet to provide ANY evidence or quantitative model that supports your electric religion!
Indagator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 09:17 PM   #2577
Indagator
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 54
Sol88! I was wondering if you might comment on something slightly off topic? In my last post, I bolded a specific sentence that I would like to discuss with you.

Regarding your "electric comet" ...
Originally Posted by Indagator View Post
If mainstream science could help, mainstream science would!
Now, as a mainstream scientist, I have no agenda! I am only interested in moving science forward! That means that,
  1. I like to learn new things that I (personally) did not know before!
  2. I like to learn new things that no living human ever knew before! And,
  3. I really like to solve problems!
Restated! I cannot, and will not, stand in the way of real scientific progress!

So, ... how do you build an "electric comet" model that uses real mainstream science? You can't! It is physically IMPOSSIBLE! FACT! Your vague, ethereal description of an "electric comet" violates fundamental laws of physics! FACT! Thornhill's vague, ethereal description of an "electric comet" (which you apparently have abandoned) violates fundamental laws of physics!

If your model was based on science, mainstream scientists, like myself, would be willing and able to help! Why would anyone in the mainstream science community want to stand in the way of real progress! When are you, Sol88, or any of your 'eu' buddies going to submit a quantitative model for peer-review?

As far as I can tell, Sol88, your whole 'ec' model is based on nothing more than ... "Hey! That looks like a bunny!"

Prove me wrong! And I know you know the drill ...!

Using electrostatics, electrodynamics, and orbital mechanics, show how eccentricity is responsible for the charging and discharging of your electric comet!

Remember, the internet never forgets! And everyone is watching to see what you will do! After all, this is your 'electric comet' thread!

Last edited by Indagator; 11th January 2019 at 09:22 PM.
Indagator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 10:11 PM   #2578
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,216
Do you believe in the ambipolar electric field at comet 67, indagator?

If not twaddle off and brush up on electric fields and charged particles, real mainstream stuff no applicable at comets.

But science is evolving toward the electric comet and I’m more than patient enough to bide my time and just highlight the latest papers saying as such.

So you can get your knickers all bunched up and spit the dummy but hems the facts champ.

Mainstream still struggle with the whole charge seperation and electric fields in space plasmas when said plasma is modelled as a perfect conductor.

Anyhoo, they’re there.
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
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 11th January 2019, 11:18 PM   #2579
Indagator
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 54
Sol88! You are a constant source of amusement to me! And you are also a constant source of disappointment!

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
< Blah, blah, blah ... >

Pull your head out of the gas light era and embrace the electric era.
Stepped in it again, didn't you?

Let's talk about "gaslight era" physics, shall we? What defines the gaslight era?

First use of piped combustible gas for "household" illumination was in 1792!
First patent for an electric light bulb for "household" illumination was in 1878!

Might this be a reasonable interval to define the "era" in question, Sol88?

Just some highlights then ...

In, and around, the identified interval of time we find fundamental advances in ...

"Classical" Electromagnetism
  • 1800 - Volta develops the first "voltaic pile" or "electrochemical battery" which employs an electrolyte and two dissimilar electrodes --- Foundational work critical to many future developments!
  • 1809 - Davy builds the first "electric arc light" using carbon in vacuum and 2000 voltaic pile elements --- With further advancement, this technology will eventually end the gaslight era!
  • 1813 - Gauss publishes a cornerstone law (i.e., the divergence of an electric field is proportional to the net electric charge density) that will eventually be included in Maxwell's Equations
  • 1831 - Faraday publishes his law of induction (i.e., an electromotive force is proportional to the rate of change of the magnetic flux), another cornerstone of what will become Maxwell's Equations
  • 1845 - Kirchhoff publishes two laws (i.e., Kirchhoff's Current Law and Kirchhoff's Voltage Law) used to analyze DC circuits --- Foundational principles used in electrical engineering and computer technology!
  • 1861 - Maxwell publishes the first version of his equations governing electromagnetism / Includes an early description of the Lorentz Force Law (published by Lorentz in 1895)
  • 1864 - Maxwell publishes an electromagnetic theory of light (i.e., light, as a propagating electromagnetic disturbance, must obey electromagnetic laws)
Keywords = Portable power, Electrical Engineering, Magnetohydrodynamic models, Kinetic PIC models

Spectroscopy
  • 1672 - Newton publishes a theoretical description of the decomposition of "white" light / First use of the term "spectrum" --- Candlelight era physics, 120 years before gaslight!
  • 1802 - Wollaston constructs the first spectrometer to study the Sun's "spectrum" / Discovers dark "absorption lines" in the solar signature
  • 1814 - Fraunhofer replaces the prism with a diffraction grating / Quantifies wavelength scale / Maps "absorption lines" in the solar spectrum
  • 1849 - Foucault demonstrates that a substance produces either absorption or emission lines at specific wavelengths based on the temperature of the source
  • 1853 - Angstrom publishes an observational and theoretical exploration of gas spectra / Measures the "emission" spectrum of hydrogen!
  • 1860 - Bunsen and Kirchoff make the connection between elements and their unique spectral signatures / While studying the Sun, they identify particular elements based on solar absorption lines!
Keywords = ALICE(Rosetta), MIRO(Rosetta), OSIRIS(Rosetta), VIRTIS(Rosetta)

Thermodynamics
  • 1714 - Fahrenheit invents the first reliable "mercury-in-glass" thermometer! --- Note: This date is arbitrarily chosen for its scientific utility as developments in thermometry can be traced back over 2000 years.
  • 1791 - Prevost, following Pictet's experiment on IR radiation, publishes results showing that all objects, regardless of temperature, radiate heat! --- Establishes foundation for future blackbody studies!
  • 1798 - Thompson shows that frictional heat is a form of kinetic energy! --- Foundational work for what will eventually be referred to as conservation of energy!!!
  • 1824 - Carnot publishes Reflections on the Motive Power of Fire wherein he outlines the Second Law of Thermodynamics using an hypothetical "heat engine" (i.e., the Carnot Cycle) --- Cold beer anyone?
  • 1845 - Regnault formalizes the Ideal Gas Law (PV = nRT) based on previous work done by Boyle (1662), Charles (1787), Gay-Lussac (1802), Avogadro (1811), and Clapeyron (1834)!
  • 1847 - Helmholtz publishes a paper discussing energy conservation in a closed system / Initial description of the First Law of Thermodynamics!
  • 1850 - Clausius formalizes the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics using principles developed by Carnot
    • First Law -- Energy is conserved in a closed thermodynamic system! Restated: The cyclic integral of the heat supplied to a system is proportional to the cyclic integral of the work extracted from the system!
    • Second Law -- For an isolated thermodynamic system, the total entropy is always greater than, or equal to zero! Restated: "Heat irreversibly flows" from a hot reservoir to a cold reservoir, unless external work is performed on the system!
    • A "thermodynamic cycle" will only occur if both the first and second laws of thermodynamics are satisfied!
  • 1856 - Harrison is granted a patent for a vapour compression refrigeration system using volatile gases / Early adopters of this technology included meat-packing plants and breweries! --- Mmmm! Cold beer!
  • 1873 - Gibbs introduces a graphical tool, the phase diagram, which could be used to describe thermodynamic behaviour of matter --- Solids! and Liquids! and Gases! Oh my ...!
  • 1873 - Van der Waals publishes his doctoral thesis developing his equation of state, along with concepts of molecular volume and molecular attraction / Real Gas Law / Critical-point
Keywords = Thermometry, Blackbody radiation, Laws of Thermodynamics, Energy Conservation, Phase Diagrams, Equations of State, KOSI Experiments!

Shall I go on, Sol88? Can you connect the dots, Sol88? NO? The "gaslight era" that you poo-poo is critical to advancements in science and engineering that continue to this day! Given what I have just listed (and this is a very short list), Sol88, you may wish to reconsider your ... tactics!

In an attempt to insult and belittle, you have once again shown your ignorance and contempt for science! It should now be obvious to ALL who read this that science iteratively draws on "gaslight era physics" while the 'eu/es/ec' insults, demeans, and slanders science! A trait I find common in the religious!

So, Sol88, when are you, our resident 'ec' expert, going to start using "gaslight era" physics? You know, concepts like Maxwell's Equations, the Laws of Thermodynamics, or any mainstream physics for that matter! Remember, Sol88, mainstream science cannot help your religion!

Word of warning, Sol88! After stepping in that much crap, you may want to measure your words more carefully so as not to put your foot in your mouth!!!

Post Script - Because the 'eu/es/ec' deplores "gaslight era" physics (and all science in general), perhaps you, Sol88, are now a proponent of Einstein's Special Relativity (1905), weaponized nuclear physics (1905), Einstein's General Relativity (1915), gravitational radiation (observed by LIGO in 2016), and gravitational redshift observed in S2 at pericenter around Sgr A* (observed by GRAVITY in 2018)? Could there be a SMBH at the center of our galaxy?

So! What era does your 'electric comet' religion operate in, Sol88? Please be specific! Given the importance of Maxwell's equations and thermodynamics, you might want to avail yourself of various educational opportunities!

I can now see why you would want to ignore "gaslight era" physics! Too damned real! Too damned complex! And mainstream "gaslight" physics provides NO support for your 'electric comet' religion!

Remember, Sol88, the internet never forgets! And everyone is watching to see what you will do! After all, this is your 'electric comet' thread! Let's talk about Dr. A'Hearn and rock, shall we?

Last edited by Indagator; 12th January 2019 at 12:51 AM.
Indagator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2019, 12:41 AM   #2580
Indagator
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 54
ASSIGNMENT #002

Ain't the internet a bitch, Sol88?

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Will you out smart me and find the link to the peer reviewed paper?

ASSIGNMENT #002 of ....

Referring to A'Hearn (2017) Comets: Looking Ahead

What do we know!
  • Dr. A'Hearn was a brilliant scientist, who built his reputation on the study of comets!
  • Dr. A'Hearn was the Principal Investigator for the Deep Impact mission!
  • Dr. A'Hearn knew that comets are composed of volatile ices and dust that sublimate when insolated!
  • Dr. A'Hearn never changed his position on comets being composed of volatile ices and dust! FACT!
  • Dr. A'Hearn's referenced document is not a peer-reviewed, 'research' paper! If it had been, Dr. A'Hearn would have used more appropriate language, as we shall soon discover!
  • Dr. A'Hearn's referenced document is a simple summary paper based on discussions and presentations made at a Royal Society meeting held in June of 2016! Context is very important here!
  • Dr. A'Hearn's paper lists "solar system" and "space exploration" as Subject Areas! Is this fact important to the material covered in the 'discussion' summary?
  • Dr. A'Hearn's paper lists "comets," "origin," "formation," and "protoplanetary disc" as Keywords! Is this fact also important to the material covered in the 'discussion' summary?
  • And finally, Dr. A'Hearn knew the difference between "rock/dirt/refractory material," as he called it, and whatever you are guessing your 'electric rock' is supposed to be made of! What? Mostly sandstone? Mostly limestone? Something blasted off the surface of a planet? Truly laughable!

Sol88, did you really read and comprehend this earlier post? Are you now familiar with terms like Context? Comprehension? Observation? Probably not! Regardless ...

CONTEXT! A Harsh Reality!

FYI - Michael A'Hearn was not talking to someone like you, Sol88! No! Michael was talking to someone like me! Another mainstream scientist who understands the subject matter and the concept of context! From your posting history, it is obvious that you cannot read for comprehension, nor are you at all observant! Your religious desperation prevents you from seeing how mainstream science cannot support your blind faith, alternative facts view of the real world!

YOUR ASSIGNMENT!

Michael A'Hearn, along with several other "competent" scientists, wrote a paper several years ago that actually discusses the probability of "ROCK" being found in comets! This paper is real. It does exist.

Using your favourite search engine, find this specific journal paper! A "sample" of one, if you will. When you have found it, please post a link for the class! If you need more clues than those already provided, I will post at your request. Once you have found and read (i.e., comprehended) said paper, we will discuss the mainstream implications! Remember, the internet is watching to see what you will do!

Have fun 'ec' expert! Remember, Michael A'Hearn knew the difference between what Whipple called 'meteoric material' and consolidated rock! Michael A'Hearn did not change his position on comets being made of volatile ices and dust! For example (and I've got hundreds of 'em), ...

Originally Posted by A'Hearn (2017) Comets: Looking Ahead
(a) Where did comets form?

It is generally agreed that comets, in order to incorporate the ices needed to produce the observed outgassing, must have formed outside the water-ice line, with some of them having formed as far out as beyond the CO-ice line.
And ...

Originally Posted by A'Hearn (2017) Comets: Looking Ahead
(e) How do comets work?

Finally, we need to understand how comets work in order to determine which observational aspects of a comet are primordial and which are due to evolutionary processes. At what depths do ices sublime? What is the fundamental reason that discrete jets are seen in the coma? What selection effects are there in the mass loss from a comet? Are there any features on the surface of a comet that are primordial, and if so which ones? How does the gas interact with the dust in the near-surface region (both above and below the surface)? How does the outflowing gas behave - both kinematically and chemically?
And ...

Originally Posted by A'Hearn (2017) Comets: Looking Ahead
(a) How do comets work?
(i) Nucleus

We now have evidence from the Philae landing that comets form subsurface, hard, presumably icy layers, possibly similar to those formed in the KOSI (Kometensimulation) experiments. < ... >

Icy patches have been observed previously on the surface of comets Tempel 1 and Hartley 2, although understanding the details, beyond grain size and amount of ice, was mostly speculative, with both bulk ice and frosts from the previous night being proposed. Rosetta has shown for the first time that at least some of these icy patches are frost, condensing during local night, from either vapour transported from below the surface or residual cooling gas above the surface, and disappearing very soon after sunrise. Rosetta has also shown longer lasting deposits on and at the bases of cliffs, and, by inference from colours, at many locations and having limited lifetimes. It is still debatable whether this implies that ice in the nucleus is patchy rather than in large blocks.

Is it possible that Dr. A'Hearn just said comet nuclei may be made of large blocks of ice? Is it possible that some aspects of Whipple's model may still be in play? Is it possible that MHD is still valid at comets? Is it possible that Sol88 is WRONG about what Dr. A'Hearn was saying in the referenced paper? I wonder!

--- The answers to the four questions just posed --- YES! YES! YES! And Most certainly YES!

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Will you out smart me and find the link to the peer reviewed paper?

Are you having fun, Sol88? I am!

Post Script - Let's play a simple comprehension game, shall we? Discounting context for a moment, what kind of terminology does Dr. A'Hearn use in the referenced paper? Based on word count alone ...

Meteoric Material Counts Notes
"Rock" 2  
"Dirt" 1  
"Dust" 14 Includes 4 "ice/dust" and "dust/ice" plus one each "gas-to-dust" and "gas/dust" references
"Refractory" and "Refractories" 10  
Volatile Material  
"Dirty snowball" 1  
"Ice" 23 Includes 4 "ice/dust" and "dust/ice" references
"Icy" 6  
"Frost" 2  
"Water" 12 Includes 4 "H2O" references
"Gas" 26 Includes 5 "gaseous" 4 "outgassing" plus one each "gas-to-dust" and "gas/dust"
PSN / Accretion Related  
"Protoplanetary disc" 10 Including use as a KEYWORD for the paper
"Protosolar disc" 1  
"Protosolar nebula" 1  
"KOSI" 2 Remember the KOSI experiments? Volatile ices and dusts that reproduce observable comet behaviour!

BIG QUESTION, Sol88! What do you think Dr. A'Hearn's paper is really all about? Hint: It's not rock! Can you connect the dots?

I know for a fact that you cannot read for comprehension! The evidence of this is clear for all the lurkers on the internet to see! Just wait until we get to Deca et al (2017)! That ASSIGNMENT is going to hurt!

CONTEXT! CONTEXT! CONTEXT!
Indagator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2019, 02:43 AM   #2581
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,153
Quote:
One of my favourite words for the release of negatively charged nano dust from the rocky/stoney nucleus “Coulomb Explosion” which is more or less the “patched charge” model of M.Horanyi
Utter nonsense. Otherwise we'd see it at asteroids. We don't. Therefore you fail again. No model, no mechanisms, no science, no evidence.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2019, 02:54 AM   #2582
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,153
Quote:
Do you believe in the ambipolar electric field at comet 67, indagator?
Which is a total irrelevance. And you seem to be unable to explain why it is relevant.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2019, 02:58 AM   #2583
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,153
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Which one in particular?

The one were your are shown to be ignorant on how an electric field can divert the solar wind?

That would be the best one.

Or was it the new paper backing A’Hearns statement that out understanding is evolving toward rock.

Or that the sublimation model is becoming untenable.
Rubbish. An electric field is not diverting the solar wind. No rock ever detected at comets, and sublimation is seen.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2019, 03:04 AM   #2584
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,153
Quote:
But science is evolving toward the electric comet and I’m more than patient enough to bide my time and just highlight the latest papers saying as such.
No, it is not. The electric comet woo is thoroughly debunked. Not that it needed to be. It has nothing to do with science.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2019, 05:26 AM   #2585
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,216
Thanks indagtor
Quote:
YOUR ASSIGNMENT!

Michael A'Hearn, along with several other "competent" scientists, wrote a paper several years ago that actually discusses the probability of "ROCK" being found in comets! This paper is real. It does exist.

Using your favourite search engine, find this specific journal paper! A "sample" of one, if you will. When you have found it, please post a link for the class! If you need more clues than those already provided, I will post at your request. Once you have found and read (i.e., comprehended) said paper, we will discuss the mainstream implications! Remember, the internet is watching to see what you will do!
Ok A’Hearn said
Quote:
What are comets made of? At the simplest level, a very basic question is whether comets are mostly ice or mostly rock/dirt/refractory material. Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the first quantitative model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high as 6 have been cited [3,4].
Ok then...

This mob reckon
Quote:
For very high Fnucleus values, the nucleus is highly porous and dusty with very little ice (e.g. for Fnucleus = 7, the ice content is about 7% for porosities between 68% and 80%, respectively). A variation in porosity by 1% beyond the 70% implies a steep increase in Fnucleus, leaving only a tiny fractional ice content. As a reminder, the upper bound on the porosity is 73% to 85% for a highly porous stony body without ice for the selected dust material density range.
The Nucleus of Comet 67P/ChuryumovGerasimenko - Part I: The Global View – nucleus mass, mass loss, porosity and implications

Comet 67P’s porosity is in the order of, and this is from A’Hearns paper
Quote:
At smaller scales, the results from CONSERT showed that the smaller lobe (the head), at least on radio-wave paths from the orbiter to the lander, was relatively homogeneous on a scale of tens of metres, i.e. that there were no large (more than 10m) voids and no obvious changes in porosity in the bulk of the head. The results also showed that it was extremely porous (75 85%), although the outermost layer (approx. 5–10m, the resolution limit of CONSERT with a 3m wavelength) was likely somewhat denser, i.e. lower in porosity than the bulk, and that the dust/ice ratio was 0.4 to 2.6 by volume [42,43]. The combination of CONSERT data with data from SESAME on Philae confirms that the outermost metre is less porous than the bulk of the head [44]. The range of dust/ice ratios by volume might be barely consistent with the ratio of refractories to volatiles cited above (6, by mass) if the density of the dusty particles is sufficiently high, but this does highlight the large uncertainties in this most basic of parameters.
Comets: looking ahead Michael F. A’Hearn

So he might of jumped the gun on mostly rock. Looks like he actually should have said mostly stoney, like an asteroid.

What kind of mainstream scientist are you indagator?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]

Last edited by Sol88; 12th January 2019 at 05:28 AM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2019, 05:34 AM   #2586
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,216
So yeah nah, looks like A’Hearns understanding was evolving.

Maybe yours should too.

Just saying.
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
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 12th January 2019, 06:34 AM   #2587
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,153
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So yeah nah, looks like A’Hearns understanding was evolving.

Maybe yours should too.

Just saying.
No, it was not. There has never been any rock detected at a comet. And if comets are just like asteroids, why aren't they outgassing, and why do they have much higher densities?
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2019, 02:19 PM   #2588
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,216
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
No, it was not. There has never been any rock detected at a comet. And if comets are just like asteroids, why aren't they outgassing, and why do they have much higher densities?
I don’t know.

But would be interested in finding out.

Maybe a mainstream scientist like Indagator might like to help?

We would need a few mainstream peer reviewed papers on electric field strengths at comets and asteroids.

I could go dig out the Electric Fields and Cold Electrons in the Vicinity of Comet Halley HARRI LAAKSO

Quote:
This can be explained better by the latter model because strongly charged dust particles can stream within the rays.
Quote:
The presence of this magnetic structure led to the formation of the current layer at 0709 UT, the thickness of which was about 7000 km (see Plate 5). Our measurements cover only the farst current layer crossing displayed in Plate 5. The cold electron density increases much faster than expected, reaching its saturation level after 1 min. A sudden burst of energetic ions (>40 keV) was also measured be- tween the discontinuities given above [Somogyi et al., 1986]. Corresponding to the rising electron density, the dc electric field increases rapidly but does not exceed the saturation level. According to these measurements, the total potential drop over the boundary is of the order of 135 kV.
So jonesdave116’s view of a comets electric field as some sort of pith ball electrostatic primary school experiment maybe a little to simplistic.

So that’s Halley, now for an asteroid. You pick a paper, jonesdave116 or Indagator and we’ll compare.

Is that a fair call?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]

Last edited by Sol88; 12th January 2019 at 02:23 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 12th January 2019, 02:37 PM   #2589
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,216
Jonesdave116, what’s your take on this...

Quote:
For very high Fnucleus values, the nucleus is highly porous and dusty with very little ice (e.g. for Fnucleus = 7, the ice content is about 7% for porosities between 68% and 80%, respectively). A variation in porosity by 1% beyond the 70% implies a steep increase in Fnucleus, leaving only a tiny fractional ice content. As a reminder, the upper bound on the porosity is 73% to 85% for a highly porous stony body without ice for the selected dust material density range.

So if the dust
Quote:
The CONSERT experiment (Kofman et al., 2015) determined the permittivity of the interior at the Philae landing site on the “head” of the nucleus. The permittivity of 1.27 was used to derive a volumetric dust-to-ice ratio of 0.4 … 2.6 and a porosity of 75% … 85%. The material density range of carbonaceous chondrites is 2700 kg/m³ to 3100 kg/m³ at an average of 2900 kg/m³. This covers the upper density range considered by Pätzold et al. (2016). The volumetric dust-to-ice ratio Fvolume is given by . So, for a range of 3 < Fnucleus < 7, a range of 1.2 < Fvolume < 2.6 is derived, in excellent agreement with CONSERT. Herique et al. (2016) extended the range of dust material to 2000 - 3500 kg/m3. This would cover fully the density considerations of RSI and CONSERT. Fulle et al. (2016) examined the dust particle material composition encountered in space. Estimating the microporosity of the dust particles and a filling factor, the material density of compacted dust particles is found to be kg/m3. This was updatet to kg/m3 (Fulle et al., 2017) which is a shift towards a higher compacted average dust material density but it covers essentially the same density range as in Fulle et al. (2016) and it fully includes the densities assumed by Pätzold et al. (2016), Kofman et al. (2015) and Herique et al. (2016).
And

CONCERT found that
Quote:
a porosity of 75% … 85%.
How does that stack up against
Quote:
As a reminder, the upper bound on the porosity is 73% to 85% for a highly porous stony body without ice for the selected dust material density range.
The Nucleus of Comet 67P/ChuryumovGerasimenko - Part I: The Global View – nucleus mass, mass loss, porosity and implications

???????


I think A’Hearn’s statement, with some of the latest data in hand, maybe on the money.

Quote:
(c) What are comets made of? At the simplest level, a very basic question is whether comets are mostly ice or mostly rock/dirt/refractory material. Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the first quantitative model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high as 6 have been cited [3,4]
Comets: looking ahead Michael F. A’Hearn

Indagators assertion that the above was not a peer reviewed paper is just a weak cop out and kick in the face for A’Hearn.

His understanding was evolving.


Next problem will be how does a comet that MOSTLY VACUUM have the structural integrity to display the diverse landforms it does.
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]

Last edited by Sol88; 12th January 2019 at 02:41 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 12th January 2019, 02:53 PM   #2590
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,153
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
I don’t know.

But would be interested in finding out.

Maybe a mainstream scientist like Indagator might like to help?

We would need a few mainstream peer reviewed papers on electric field strengths at comets and asteroids.

I could go dig out the Electric Fields and Cold Electrons in the Vicinity of Comet Halley HARRI LAAKSO





So jonesdave116’s view of a comets electric field as some sort of pith ball electrostatic primary school experiment maybe a little to simplistic.

So that’s Halley, now for an asteroid. You pick a paper, jonesdave116 or Indagator and we’ll compare.

Is that a fair call?
No, you are talking crap again. You have been given the field strengths at asteroids and inactive comets, and the strengths at active comets. No comparison. And whatever Laakso did or didn't see, was nowhere near the nucleus. For the one millionth time - the ions matched the velocity of the neutrals in the DC at Halley, and all the electrons were cold. Which part of that are you unable to understand?
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2019, 02:56 PM   #2591
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,153
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Jonesdave116, what’s your take on this...




So if the dust

And

CONCERT found that

How does that stack up against The Nucleus of Comet 67P/ChuryumovGerasimenko - Part I: The Global View – nucleus mass, mass loss, porosity and implications

???????


I think A’Hearn’s statement, with some of the latest data in hand, maybe on the money.

Comets: looking ahead Michael F. A’Hearn

Indagators assertion that the above was not a peer reviewed paper is just a weak cop out and kick in the face for A’Hearn.

His understanding was evolving.


Next problem will be how does a comet that MOSTLY VACUUM have the structural integrity to display the diverse landforms it does.

More disgraceful and deceitful lying about what A'Hearn meant. Get a life. No rock has ever been detected at a comet. Stop lying. Getting sick of it.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2019, 03:16 PM   #2592
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,344
You know, I think Indagator (and many before him) is onto something.

Step back a minute, and read almost any of Sol88's posts (the ones on A'Hearn are particularly good examples).

What do you see?

Words, but no numbers or equations etc.

How is the case for the EC presented, using these words?

I submit that it's essentially the same as that of a deeply religious person trying to interpret what, to them, is a sacred book/work, to support some political/social position/notion: snippets, many out of context, strung together to paint a coherent whole.

In Sol88's case, the glaring failures of this approach have been repeatedly pointed out (thanks RC, jd, Indagator, tusenfem, ...).

But Sol88 is unmoved.

Because, to him, this has nothing to do with science; rather, it's about defending a religious position.

And, oddly (not!), EC Central (thunderdolts) has almost zero discussion of anything like an EC. Almost as if they are ashamed to mention it.
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 12th January 2019, 03:25 PM   #2593
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,216
Maths?

I could give you numbers that prove pink unicorns, flying elephants or indeed dark matter and black holes!

At this stage, I’m just going for...

Do you believe that ambipolar electric fields are in operation at comets?

I think we’ve past the whole mainstream denial of CHARGE SEPRATION in space plasma....maybe not though.
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
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 12th January 2019, 03:25 PM   #2594
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,153
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post

<snipped for brevity>
And, oddly (not!), EC Central (thunderdolts) has almost zero discussion of anything like an EC. Almost as if they are ashamed to mention it.
Yep. You go back to the start of that 67P thread on dunderdolts, and it was quite active, with various posters. I remember one particular poster callied 'Viscount Aero' being particularly vocal about what would and wouldn't be seen. Hasn't been on there for yonks! The only people left are the True Believers. Hallelujah!
The same thing happened on the Rosetta Blog, where I used to post. Loads of the buggers around early on - none left by the end. Evidence kind of does that to you.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2019, 03:28 PM   #2595
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,153
Quote:
Do you believe that ambipolar electric fields are in operation at comets?
Irrelevant. If you think it is relevant, then spell out what you think these **** weak fields are doing. You have had plenty of opportunity, so get on with it. Or.....................
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2019, 03:28 PM   #2596
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,216
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
More disgraceful and deceitful lying about what A'Hearn meant. Get a life. No rock has ever been detected at a comet. Stop lying. Getting sick of it.
Change of description,not ROCK but STONEY!

Highly porous but stoney with no ice.

That’s the end of the dirtysnowball.

Mainstream need another model for comets.

Won’t be the Electric Comet
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
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 12th January 2019, 03:32 PM   #2597
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,153
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Change of description,not ROCK but STONEY!

Highly porous but stoney with no ice.

That’s the end of the dirtysnowball.

Mainstream need another model for comets.

Won’t be the Electric Comet
Oh dear. More outright lying. Is that all you've got left? Tell us - what planetary surface do you think this comet was blasted off by impossible electric woo? How does that planet's surface match 67P's? Stop talking crap, and give us your idiotic model.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2019, 03:34 PM   #2598
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,216
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Irrelevant. If you think it is relevant, then spell out what you think these **** weak fields are doing. You have had plenty of opportunity, so get on with it. Or.....................
And that’s why everyone of those posters gave up, can’t discuss with crusaders like jonesdave116.

Won’t acknowledge the bleeding obvious.

Won’t let go of an old model, even when new data and new papers cast serous doubt on an existing model.
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
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 12th January 2019, 03:45 PM   #2599
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,153
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
And that’s why everyone of those posters gave up, can’t discuss with crusaders like jonesdave116.

Won’t acknowledge the bleeding obvious.

Won’t let go of an old model, even when new data and new papers cast serous doubt on an existing model.
Nope, no doubt has been thrown on it. You are lying again. As usual. It is all you have left. Your religion is dead. You need a new one. Try astrology.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2019, 04:00 PM   #2600
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,153
Quote:
And that’s why everyone of those posters gave up, can’t discuss with crusaders like jonesdave116.
Which posters? Example, please.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
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 03:52 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.