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 Today, 02:59 PM   #961
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,164
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
It is hard to know what exactly you misunderstand, it is so much.

Is there any reason why currents and quasi-neutrality cannot occur at the same time?



Well, I guess your understanding is flawed to say the least.




Well I guess you are going to explain why that makes more sense.

You can google how much current is flowing, which has nothing to do with charge separation and all about inductive currents (in a simplified way like Alfvén's unipolar inductor)
Well, all the above WELL known plasma physics as a direct bearing on this

Quote:
Unlike the freely sublimating surface, the temperature of a dust covered nucleus surface (layer of 10 cm in thickness is depleted of ice at the equator) is significantly higher (see the two plots in figure 2 at right) and approaches the black body radiation equilibrium. This is due to the assumed low heat conduction of the porous dust layer: 0.1 W m–l K–l. However, in this case the remaining heat available for sublimation is significantly lower than in the first case, As a consequence, the outgassing rate for water is several orders of magnitude lower than in the case of a freely sublimating surface and doesn’t compare favorably with observations of comet P/Wirtanen (figure 7). The results for the dust covered case are not discussed further in this paper.
Temperature and Gas Production Distributions on the Surface of a Spherical Model Comet Nucleus in the Orbit of 46 P/Wirtanen

With the observed fact of granular plains with “dunes”, large boulders with layered bedrock and cliffs with fractal fracturing.

With the summary here of a dust to ice ration of 6

Quote:
11 CONCLUSIONS The classical model of comets as dirty ice balls (Whipple 1950)has focused most models of comets on ices. The more we visit comets, the dustier they appear. With 67P’s dust-to-water ratio of 6 (and possibly larger), it is now necessary to spend much more time in modelling the non-volatile matrices with a modest content of ices inside. Jean-Pierre Bibring proposes a new word naming this stuff, ‘organic(e)s’, where the modest content of ices (within brackets) well summarizes the dominant non-volatile component. Between the sizes of 0.1 and 1 mm, 99 per cent of the dust mass is in the form of compact particles, denser than the nucleus. This implies that much of the nucleus mass is in the form of mineral aggregates (silicates and suldes), so that a better denition may be ‘mineral organic(e)s’. The balanced analysis of ices, minerals and organic matter will help us to understand these objects and their origin. The Rosetta Mission conrms that 67P is an extreme mixture of volatile ices formed in very cold regions, and of minerals partly coming from the inner hot proto-solar nebula. The observed structure of the nucleus of 67P has already allowed us to better constrain how the scattered disc wasformed.ThedustparticlesdetectedbytheRosetta Missionareforcingustoarealchangeofparadigm,regardi ngwhich collisions really occurred during the accretion of the Solar system in and beyond the Uranus–Neptune region.
Unexpected and significant findings in comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view

Which has to do with Argwals paper on sub surface energy powering the “jets”

Which if you follow Skorov makes the the whole above ‘dirtysnowball’ theory falsified.

Quote:
Conclusions. In the framework of the presented model, which can be considered common in terms of assumptions and physical parameters in the cometary community, the dust removal by a gas drag force is not a plausible physical mechanism. The sublimation of not only water ice, but also of super-volatile ice (i.e., CO) is unable to remove dust grains for illumination conditions corresponding to 1.3 AU. Awayoutof this impasse requires revision of the most common model assumption employed by the cometary community.
Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

But on the ELECTRICAL COMET the plasma effects are just coming into focus!

So there is a point to all your work with the RPC team.


The model I’d dead right there, it can not be saved not matter how much ‘ice’ jd116 uses to justify whipple’s icy conglomerate!
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]

Last edited by Sol88; Today at 03:11 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:31 PM   #962
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,167
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Nope, I don't see plasma physics as having any "bearing" on the paper. At a quick glance it seems to be purely a thermodynamic model.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
With the observed fact of granular plains with “dunes”, large boulders with layered bedrock and cliffs with fractal fracturing.

With the summary here of a dust to ice ration of 6

Unexpected and significant findings in comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view

Which has to do with Argwals paper on sub surface energy powering the “jets”

Which if you follow Skorov makes the the whole above ‘dirtysnowball’ theory falsified.



Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

But on the ELECTRICAL COMET the plasma effects are just coming into focus!

So there is a point to all your work with the RPC team.


The model I’d dead right there, it can not be saved not matter how much ‘ice’ jd116 uses to justify whipple’s icy conglomerate!

The section you quoted clearly states that particular case referenced in the quote "doesn’t compare favorably with observations of comet P/Wirtanen"

ETA: For added quotes

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Unexpected and significant findings in comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view
Dust to water ratio doesn't support EC claim of a, well, rock to whatever ratio. Nor does the paper in general, citing "proto-solar nebula" as the source of the material in the comet.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

Again from the paper...

Quote:
"the gas drag is not sufficient to remove dust grains of sizes <1 mm"
So again that paper simply says their model of the forces involved (gas drag vs cohesion) is insufficient and then only for "dust grains of sizes <1 mm".

While EC remains insufficient at any consideration without projected values to apply to any model.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; Today at 03:49 PM. Reason: Edit of quoted post
The Man is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:37 PM   #963
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Nope, I don't see plasma physics as having any "bearing" on the paper. At a quick glance it seems to be purely a thermodynamic model.




The section you quoted clearly states that particular case referenced in the quote "doesn’t compare favorably with observations of comet P/Wirtanen"

ETA: For added quotes



Dust to water ratio doesn't support EC claim of a, well, rock to whatever ratio. Nor does the paper in general, citing "proto-solar nebula" as the source of the material in the comet.




Again from the paper...



So again that paper simply says their model of the forces involved (gas drag vs cohesion) is insufficient and then only for "dust grains of sizes <1 mm".

While EC remains insufficient at any consideration without projected values to apply to any model.

Yup, once again Sol brings the failed “asteroid-of-the-gaps” false dilemma argument. He thinks if real scientists can’t explain something yet, it somehow provides support for his Velikovskian non-theory.

Since everyone participating in this thread except Sol sees the fatal flaws in the EC idea, I’m not sure to whom he’s preaching.
__________________
Chicken is a vegetable-James May, vegetarian
A target doesn't need to be preselected-Jabba
ferd burfle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:50 PM   #964
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,718
Thumbs down Sol88: Plasma physics has no relevance for his many comet delusions

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Well, all the above WELL known plasma physics as a direct bearing on this
12 December 2017 Sol88: Plasma physics has no relevance for his many comet delusions.

12 December 2017 Sol88: Lies about a paper on an ice and rock comet being about rock, etc.
[url="https://trs.jpl.nasa.gov/bitstream/handle/2014/19427/98-0801.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y"]Temperature and Gas Production Distributions on the Surface of a Spherical Model Comet Nucleus in the Orbit of 46 P/Wirtanen

12 December 2017 Sol88: Repeated lie about Skorov falsifying the fact that comets are made of ices and dust.

12 December 2017 Sol88: Repeated lie about his comet delusions including any plasma or other physics.
The electric comet delusion has at least 45 years without a scientific electric comet model or observations to support it !

12 December 2017 Sol88: Repeated 'ice' lie when he knows of the many observations of ices on comets.

His comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; etc. etc.

Also:
12 December 2017 Sol88: Persistent idiocy of citing ices and dust comet papers to derail from his comet delusions.

Last edited by Reality Check; Today at 04:53 PM.
Reality Check is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 05:05 PM   #965
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,718
498 items of ignorance, idiocy (citing irrelevant mainstream papers), delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 7 December 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)

The electric comet delusion has at least 45 years without a scientific electric comet model or observations to support it !
  1. 8 December 2017 Sol88: Idiotic and irrelevant post to derail from his comet delusions.
  2. 8 December 2017 Sol88: Lies about tusenfem's paper with "no such thing as charge separation" idiocy.
  3. 8 December 2017 Sol88: Lies about tusenfem's paper with "Nothing electrical" idiocy.
  4. 8 December 2017 Sol88: Idiocy about what he quotes and highlights (field-aligned currents is not charge separation - !).
  5. 8 December 2017 Sol88: Idiocy about what he quotes and highlights (energetic electrons is not charge separation - !).
  6. 8 December 2017 Sol88: Idiocy about what he quotes and highlights (magnetic reconnection is not charge separation - !).
  7. 8 December 2017 Sol88: Lies again about tusenfem's paper with "no charge separation" idiocy
  8. 8 December 2017 Sol88: Lies about plasma physics.
  9. 12 December 2017 Sol88: The ignorance that the size of a magnetic field sets the strength of currents.
  10. 12 December 2017 Sol88: Ignorant fantasies to derail from his comet delusions.
  11. 12 December 2017 Sol88: Stupid "quasi neutral" question to derail from his comet delusions.
  12. 12 December 2017 Sol88: Lies about his understanding of space plasma when he is mindlessly parroting Thunderbolts cult dogma.
  13. 12 December 2017 Sol88: A lying "plasma physics " post.
  14. 12 December 2017 Sol88: A lie that any of his "electric woo happened" (was detected) at Comet 67P as jonesdave116 correctly stated.
  15. 12 December 2017 Sol88: Delusions about Hannes Alfvén to derail from his comet delusions.
  16. 12 December 2017 Sol88: Plasma physics has no relevance for his many comet delusions.
  17. 12 December 2017 Sol88: Lies about a paper on an ice and rock comet being about rock, etc.
  18. 12 December 2017 Sol88: Repeated lie about Skorov falsifying the fact that comets are made of ices and dust.
  19. 12 December 2017 Sol88: Repeated lie about his comet delusions including any plasma or other physics.
  20. 12 December 2017 Sol88: Repeated 'ice' lie when he knows of the many observations of ices on comets.
  21. 12 December 2017 Sol88: Persistent idiocy of citing ices and dust comet papers to derail from his comet delusions.
Reality Check is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:39 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.