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 20th June 2019, 04:08 PM   #4201
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,886
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Mostly ice or mostly consolidated refractory dust?
Nothing to do with your failed woo. That says no ice, and planetary rock. The Tempel 1 impact blew a hole in the comet that shows it not to be rock. As do subsequent observations. It also ejected thousands of tonnes of solid ice. Game over. 4th July 2005. Why are you still here?
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 04:10 PM   #4202
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,245
Thumbs down The usual lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...
The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.

Sol88's usual insanity of asking already answered questions irrelevant to Sol88's demented cult's electric comet dogma.

Last edited by Reality Check; 20th June 2019 at 04:15 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 20th June 2019, 04:35 PM   #4203
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,245
Thumbs down An obviously insane delusion from Sol88 about a paper on field draping at 67P

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Good to see another paper confirming some of my prediction.
Sol88's demented cult's electric comet dogma has no predictions, just ~50 year old fantasies with added insane delusions.

Sol88 is so insanely ignorant about physics that Sol88 cannot make any predictions by himself. Sol88 has over a decade of pathetic "drinking in the Kool-Aid" of his cult but anyone who knows any physics sees that the cult is insane about comets. Sol88 has been spewing out insane delusions about textbook physics, e.g. an insane delusion that there are double layers at comets (turbulence makes them impossible, Debye length makes his lies about seeing them insanely ignorant). Sol88's persistent insanity that writing "electric field" is a prediction. etc.

What makes Sol88's delusion insane is that we can search this thread for 'draping 67P' ! That finds no predictions from Sol88.
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 21st June 2019, 01:46 AM   #4204
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,805
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Good to see you again.
je suis venu te dire que je m'en vais

cute, how you think you know the content of non-published papers, though
__________________
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 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 21st June 2019, 06:14 PM   #4205
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,033
Well pretty simple really. Comets are a electrical/plasma phenomena.

So I EXPECT your paper to contain confirmation of this FACT.

So we’ll see.
__________________
“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 21st June 2019, 06:25 PM   #4206
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,033
Well pretty simple really. Comets are a electrical/plasma phenomena.

So I EXPECT your paper to contain confirmation of this FACT.

So we’ll see.
__________________
“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 21st June 2019, 07:06 PM   #4207
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,886
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Well pretty simple really. Comets are a electrical/plasma phenomena.

So I EXPECT your paper to contain confirmation of this FACT.

So we’ll see.
Lol. Why? Why aren't asteroids an 'electrical/ plasma phenomenon'? Whatever the hell that is.
You need a radial electric field from the Sun. Impossible, and never measured. You need elliptical orbits within the non-existent field to cause electrical woo. But only at comets, and not at highly eccentric asteroids.
You need EDM (lol). Didn't happen. Cannot happen.
You need the jets to be discharges (lol). They demonstrably aren't.
You need the light from the cometary coma to be a glow discharge! (double lol). It isn't. Just sunlight reflected from dust (and sometimes ice).
You need the comet to have been blasted off a planet. It demonstrably is not. No rock anywhere to be seen.
You need no ice. There is tonnes of it.
You need the solar wind to make OH, which scientists can then mistake for H2O. Despite knowing that it most definitely is H2O since 1986.

That is what counts as a complete and utter failure. A failure that you haven't dealt with. And cannot deal with, due to it being not being based on any valid science - merely the mythology-based ramblings of scientifically illiterate Velikovskians. It is not now, nor ever has been, anything 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 Back to Top
Old 21st June 2019, 07:53 PM   #4208
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,957
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Lol. Why? Why aren't asteroids an 'electrical/ plasma phenomenon'? Whatever the hell that is.
You need a radial electric field from the Sun. Impossible, and never measured. You need elliptical orbits within the non-existent field to cause electrical woo. But only at comets, and not at highly eccentric asteroids.
You need EDM (lol). Didn't happen. Cannot happen.
You need the jets to be discharges (lol). They demonstrably aren't.
You need the light from the cometary coma to be a glow discharge! (double lol). It isn't. Just sunlight reflected from dust (and sometimes ice).
You need the comet to have been blasted off a planet. It demonstrably is not. No rock anywhere to be seen.
You need no ice. There is tonnes of it.
You need the solar wind to make OH, which scientists can then mistake for H2O. Despite knowing that it most definitely is H2O since 1986.

That is what counts as a complete and utter failure. A failure that you haven't dealt with. And cannot deal with, due to it being not being based on any valid science - merely the mythology-based ramblings of scientifically illiterate Velikovskians. It is not now, nor ever has been, anything to do with science.
You cannot hide the fact that, like Sol88, these folks are actually anti-science, not pseudoscience. Their goal is to replace science with worship of the Thunderbolt Gods.
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 Back to Top
Old 21st June 2019, 10:58 PM   #4209
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,033
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Lol. Why? Why aren't asteroids an 'electrical/ plasma phenomenon'? Whatever the hell that is.
You need a radial electric field from the Sun. Impossible, and never measured. You need elliptical orbits within the non-existent field to cause electrical woo. But only at comets, and not at highly eccentric asteroids.
You need EDM (lol). Didn't happen. Cannot happen.
You need the jets to be discharges (lol). They demonstrably aren't.
You need the light from the cometary coma to be a glow discharge! (double lol). It isn't. Just sunlight reflected from dust (and sometimes ice).
You need the comet to have been blasted off a planet. It demonstrably is not. No rock anywhere to be seen.
You need no ice. There is tonnes of it.
You need the solar wind to make OH, which scientists can then mistake for H2O. Despite knowing that it most definitely is H2O since 1986.

That is what counts as a complete and utter failure. A failure that you haven't dealt with. And cannot deal with, due to it being not being based on any valid science - merely the mythology-based ramblings of scientifically illiterate Velikovskians. It is not now, nor ever has been, anything to do with science.
New papers baby new papers.

Even A’Hearn was evolving.

You’re stuck in the past.

The future is the electric comet.

We have rock, we have electric fields, we have electric currents.
__________________
“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 22nd June 2019, 01:53 AM   #4210
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,886
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
New papers baby new papers.

Even A’Hearn was evolving.

You’re stuck in the past.

The future is the electric comet.

We have rock, we have electric fields, we have electric currents.
Nope, you have precisely nothing. You don't need fields or currents. I outlined what you need. You failed. If you believe otherwise, point to the detections of rock, EDM (lol), discharges, glow discharges, solar wind that went missing for 8 months creating OH, radial electric fields, eccentric asteroids outgassing H2O, etc, etc. You have nothing. No papers give any support whatsoever to your impossible, unscientific woo. They falsified it long before Rosetta got to 67P. You just didn't know that because your high priests conveniently forgot to mention them!
A decade and a half, and still batting zero. Some achievement that!
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2019, 06:39 PM   #4211
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,033
Tell what we don’t need, ice?
__________________
“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 22nd June 2019, 10:51 PM   #4212
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,033
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
je suis venu te dire que je m'en vais

cute, how you think you know the content of non-published papers, though
Unusually high magnetic fields in the coma of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko during its high-activity phase

When does the paper get released?


Poor jonesy still in denial.

Can’t even engage me on the suprathermal electron population at 67P.
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 22nd June 2019, 10:53 PM   #4213
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,033
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Nope, you have precisely nothing. You don't need fields or currents. I outlined what you need. You failed. If you believe otherwise, point to the detections of rock, EDM (lol), discharges, glow discharges, solar wind that went missing for 8 months creating OH, radial electric fields, eccentric asteroids outgassing H2O, etc, etc. You have nothing. No papers give any support whatsoever to your impossible, unscientific woo. They falsified it long before Rosetta got to 67P. You just didn't know that because your high priests conveniently forgot to mention them!
A decade and a half, and still batting zero. Some achievement that!

Do you even know what a suprathermal electron is, jonesdave116?




What’s giving them the energy to leave the potential well?
__________________
“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 23rd June 2019, 03:04 AM   #4214
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,886
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Unusually high magnetic fields in the coma of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko during its high-activity phase

When does the paper get released?


Poor jonesy still in denial.

Can’t even engage me on the suprathermal electron population at 67P.
What is the point? You do not understand the science, and it has nothing to do with the complete failure of your woo. As pointed out above. And numerous other times. This thread is about the dumb electric comet nonsense. It has demonstrably failed. That is what you need to deal with. Why do you still believe this after the lies of Thornhill were exposed at Tempel 1? Thousands of tonnes of ice ejected, and a surface that is quite obviously not rock. And his lies about H2O were exposed 20 years before he wrote his fiction, by the findings at Halley by the KAO, Vega and Giotto? How is it possible to have not known about these things before making stupid claims that there was no ice, no H2O, and the comet was composed of rock? How is it possible to be conned by the claim of the solar wind creating OH, when it was known since 1986 that the solar wind wasn't even reaching the nucleus?
In short, how much ignorance of the subject is necessary in order to believe in the scientifically impossible, mythology-based nonsense that is the electric comet? And why on Earth would anybody with even a rudimentary knowledge of the subject area believe such idiocy? After all, no scientists have contributed to this execrable nonsense.
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2019, 03:06 AM   #4215
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,886
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Do you even know what a suprathermal electron is, jonesdave116?




What’s giving them the energy to leave the potential well?
Certainly not an ambipolar field that is pointed in the wrong direction! Lern to scienz.
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2019, 04:22 AM   #4216
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,033
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Certainly not an ambipolar field that is pointed in the wrong direction! Lern to scienz.
Point is you don’t know? Or that you just contradicted yourself?

Can the electrons escape the ambipolar electric field or not jonesdave116?

Or are you stating NO electrons can escape the ambipolar electric field?

Do you even know what you are talking about or just out for a troll?

Do you even know scienz outside the dogma of the Dirtysnowball model?

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

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

Last edited by Sol88; 23rd June 2019 at 04:24 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 Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2019, 04:29 AM   #4217
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,033
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
What is the point? You do not understand the science, and it has nothing to do with the complete failure of your woo. As pointed out above. And numerous other times. This thread is about the dumb electric comet nonsense. It has demonstrably failed. That is what you need to deal with. Why do you still believe this after the lies of Thornhill were exposed at Tempel 1? Thousands of tonnes of ice ejected, and a surface that is quite obviously not rock. And his lies about H2O were exposed 20 years before he wrote his fiction, by the findings at Halley by the KAO, Vega and Giotto? How is it possible to have not known about these things before making stupid claims that there was no ice, no H2O, and the comet was composed of rock? How is it possible to be conned by the claim of the solar wind creating OH, when it was known since 1986 that the solar wind wasn't even reaching the nucleus?
In short, how much ignorance of the subject is necessary in order to believe in the scientifically impossible, mythology-based nonsense that is the electric comet? And why on Earth would anybody with even a rudimentary knowledge of the subject area believe such idiocy? After all, no scientists have contributed to this execrable nonsense.


comet was composed of rock? No comets are mostly rock not composed of it. There composed mainly of vacuum.

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].

I didn’t say it, Michael F. A’Hearn did. I thought he had written many more peer reviewed papers than me.

Seems both you and rc get your knickers all bunched up every time he says rock?
__________________
“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; 23rd June 2019 at 04:38 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 Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2019, 04:32 AM   #4218
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,957
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Certainly not an ambipolar field that is pointed in the wrong direction! Lern to scienz.
That’s not fair. We all know that Sol88 cannot.

But that’s not the point ... he’s not here to discuss science; he’s here to promote anti-science!
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 Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2019, 04:41 AM   #4219
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,033
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
That’s not fair. We all know that Sol88 cannot.

But that’s not the point ... he’s not here to discuss science; he’s here to promote anti-science!
are you more cleverer than jonesy?

Suprathermal electrons, GO.



Jonesdave116 says no electrons/negatively charged dust can leave the nucleus therefore no stoopid electric comet.

But we observe and measure this very fact that jonesdave116 seems completely oblivious too.

The dust arrives in bursts or showers, how, if nothing negatively charged at all can escape the nucleus???? Very confusing.

__________________
“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; 23rd June 2019 at 04:48 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 Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2019, 04:49 AM   #4220
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,886
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Point is you don’t know? Or that you just contradicted yourself?

Can the electrons escape the ambipolar electric field or not jonesdave116?

Or are you stating NO electrons can escape the ambipolar electric field?

Do you even know what you are talking about or just out for a troll?

Do you even know scienz outside the dogma of the Dirtysnowball model?

Oh dear! I've told you before - leave this plasma physics stuff alone. You are out of your depth. Of course they can bloody escape! What would happen if they didn't? The field would reverse, and electrons would be accelerated and ions retarded! How difficult can this be?
What is the charge on a cold electron? What is the charge on a suprathermal electron? Where do the suprathermal electrons come from? Hint; not the solar wind.
Until you have even a basic understanding of the subject, there is no point having any discussion about it. I would suggest lifting the veil of your undoubted ignorance by starting with this paper;

Suprathermal electrons near the nucleus of comet67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko at 3 AU: Model comparisons with Rosetta data
Madanian, H. et al.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....2/2016JA022610

In particular, sections 5 & 6. If you can't understand that, then there is no hope for 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 Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2019, 04:52 AM   #4221
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,886
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post

Jonesdave116 says no electrons/negatively charged dust can leave the nucleus therefore no stoopid electric comet.
Stop lying about what I said.

Quote:
Very confusing.

Only to those who are clueless about the subject.
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2019, 04:54 AM   #4222
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,886
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post


comet was composed of rock? No comets are mostly rock not composed of it. There They're composed mainly of vacuum.




I didn’t say it, Michael F. A’Hearn did. I thought he had written many more peer reviewed papers than me.

Seems both you and rc get your knickers all bunched up every time he says rock?
There is no rock at comets. Never seen. Please point to the detection. What was it? Granite? Sandstone? Basalt? Lol.
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2019, 10:48 AM   #4223
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,485
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post


comet was composed of rock? No comets are mostly rock not composed of it. There composed mainly of vacuum.




I didn’t say it, Michael F. A’Hearn did. I thought he had written many more peer reviewed papers than me.

Seems both you and rc get your knickers all bunched up every time he says rock?

Let's have a look at the abstract of the A'Hearn review paper Sol seems to quote at least once every page:

Quote:
Abstract

We outline the key questions about comets that must be answered in order to understand cometary formation in the context of the protoplanetary disc and the role of comets in the formation and evolution of the solar system. We then discuss the new understanding of comets from Rosetta and from other recent advances, including work presented by others at the discussion meeting. Finally, we suggest some key directions for future projects to better address the above questions.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/d...rsta.2016.0261


Uh, oh! Seems A'Hearn thinks comets formed when there were no planets from which magic lightning bolts could blast chunks! And he thinks planets formed from a protoplanetary disc---EC heresy!

The review paper, as jonesdave has pointed out previously, is a review paper, not primary literature, and as such may or may not have been peer-reviewed; maybe someone here knows. Regardless, it was written by a comet scientist for other comet scientists, all of whom know from the scientific evidence that comets comprise refractory dust, not rock in the conventional meaning. A'Hearn did not anticipate (or worry about) woomongers misrepresenting his use of the term to promote their anti-science views.

As I said, jonesdave has pointed out all the above on a number of occasions and Sol will no doubt obfuscate, misrepresent or simply ignore this once again. The boat that is the electric comet idea sank immediately upon launch; I find it amusing that Sol clings desperately to what he thinks is a wooden plank when he actually has a death grip on the anchor.
__________________
"You do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.”-Fran Lebowitz
ferd burfle 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 23rd June 2019, 03:37 PM   #4224
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,033
Quote:
How many times? Can you not read? Are you completely ignorant of all things scientific? Which way is the putative ambipolar field pointing? Will that accelerate negatively charged anything away from the comet? Really, how many times is it going to have to be pointed out to you before you understand? Seriously, I could have explained this to a 12 year old, just once, and the twelve year old would have got it. Why can't you? Never studied science, have you? Or maths. Or much of anything, as far as I can see.
jonedave116

Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Oh dear! I've told you before - leave this plasma physics stuff alone. You are out of your depth. Of course they can bloody escape! What would happen if they didn't? The field would reverse, and electrons would be accelerated and ions retarded! How difficult can this be?
What is the charge on a cold electron? What is the charge on a suprathermal electron? Where do the suprathermal electrons come from? Hint; not the solar wind.
Until you have even a basic understanding of the subject, there is no point having any discussion about it. I would suggest lifting the veil of your undoubted ignorance by starting with this paper;

Suprathermal electrons near the nucleus of comet67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko at 3 AU: Model comparisons with Rosetta data
Madanian, H. et al.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....2/2016JA022610

In particular, sections 5 & 6. If you can't understand that, then there is no hope for you.


Oh, so now they can escape, along with the negatively charged dust in the jets they arrive in burst and showers. .

I mean I never doubted it but jonesdave116.... trolling happily.

So I’m glad we’ve cleared that, ay jonesdave116

Both negative AND positive can come from the nucleus.

How jonesdave116, using your electrostatic pithball model?

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

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

Last edited by Sol88; 23rd June 2019 at 05:19 PM. Reason: added context
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 23rd June 2019, 04:00 PM   #4225
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,033
Originally Posted by ferd burfle View Post
Let's have a look at the abstract of the A'Hearn review paper Sol seems to quote at least once every page:


https://royalsocietypublishing.org/d...rsta.2016.0261


Uh, oh! Seems A'Hearn thinks comets formed when there were no planets from which magic lightning bolts could blast chunks! And he thinks planets formed from a protoplanetary disc---EC heresy!

The review paper, as jonesdave has pointed out previously, is a review paper, not primary literature, and as such may or may not have been peer-reviewed; maybe someone here knows. Regardless, it was written by a comet scientist for other comet scientists, all of whom know from the scientific evidence that comets comprise refractory dust, not rock in the conventional meaning. A'Hearn did not anticipate (or worry about) woomongers misrepresenting his use of the term to promote their anti-science views.

As I said, jonesdave has pointed out all the above on a number of occasions and Sol will no doubt obfuscate, misrepresent or simply ignore this once again. The boat that is the electric comet idea sank immediately upon launch; I find it amusing that Sol clings desperately to what he thinks is a wooden plank when he actually has a death grip on the anchor.

Ahhh, the old nebular collapse theory. Of course the ELECTRIC COMET call this into question.


So the Dirtysnowball is alive and well ferd?

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 [3,4].




We are evolving towards comets being mostly ROCK.

not dust, not ice but ROCK.



Nice try though. Time to circle the wagons again.
__________________
“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 23rd June 2019, 05:25 PM   #4226
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,033
Originally Posted by ferd burfle View Post
Let's have a look at the abstract of the A'Hearn review paper Sol seems to quote at least once every page:


https://royalsocietypublishing.org/d...rsta.2016.0261


Uh, oh! Seems A'Hearn thinks comets formed when there were no planets from which magic lightning bolts could blast chunks! And he thinks planets formed from a protoplanetary disc---EC heresy!

The review paper, as jonesdave has pointed out previously, is a review paper, not primary literature, and as such may or may not have been peer-reviewed; maybe someone here knows. Regardless, it was written by a comet scientist for other comet scientists, all of whom know from the scientific evidence that comets comprise refractory dust, not rock in the conventional meaning. A'Hearn did not anticipate (or worry about) woomongers misrepresenting his use of the term to promote their anti-science views.

As I said, jonesdave has pointed out all the above on a number of occasions and Sol will no doubt obfuscate, misrepresent or simply ignore this once again. The boat that is the electric comet idea sank immediately upon launch; I find it amusing that Sol clings desperately to what he thinks is a wooden plank when he actually has a death grip on the anchor.
So, you seem pretty cluey sport. Whats your take on The Nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko – Part I: The global view – nucleus mass, mass-loss, porosity, and implications

In particular
Quote:
not so unrealistically, the nucleus would be a highly porous stony agglomerate, essentially devoid of volitiles.
Which is very much what A'Hearn was say in our understanding evolving towards mostly ROCK.

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].

So....Comet's minerals hint at liquid water, Scientists Gaining Clearer Picture of Comet Makeup and Origin, Composition of a Comet Poses a Puzzle for Scientists, Science NASA's crash comet made of clay

Got some more...
__________________
“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; 23rd June 2019 at 05:32 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 23rd June 2019, 08:28 PM   #4227
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,033
Ahh, I see what A'Hearn meant now.

Rock comet

Quote:
Rock comets, unlike other comets, which outgas primarily ice, have a nucleus made of rock. As a result, their outgassing can be unpredictable.
Not the dirtysnowball MOSTLY ice comet but these new MOSTLY rock comets.
__________________
“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 23rd June 2019, 08:46 PM   #4228
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,033
Originally Posted by ferd burfle View Post
Let's have a look at the abstract of the A'Hearn review paper Sol seems to quote at least once every page:


https://royalsocietypublishing.org/d...rsta.2016.0261


Uh, oh! Seems A'Hearn thinks comets formed when there were no planets from which magic lightning bolts could blast chunks! And he thinks planets formed from a protoplanetary disc---EC heresy!

The review paper, as jonesdave has pointed out previously, is a review paper, not primary literature, and as such may or may not have been peer-reviewed; maybe someone here knows. Regardless, it was written by a comet scientist for other comet scientists, all of whom know from the scientific evidence that comets comprise refractory dust, not rock in the conventional meaning. A'Hearn did not anticipate (or worry about) woomongers misrepresenting his use of the term to promote their anti-science views.

As I said, jonesdave has pointed out all the above on a number of occasions and Sol will no doubt obfuscate, misrepresent or simply ignore this once again. The boat that is the electric comet idea sank immediately upon launch; I find it amusing that Sol clings desperately to what he thinks is a wooden plank when he actually has a death grip on the anchor.
Quote:
Abstract

We outline the key questions about comets that must be answered in order to understand cometary formation in the context of the protoplanetary disc and the role of comets in the formation and evolution of the solar system. We then discuss the new understanding of comets from Rosetta and from other recent advances, including work presented by others at the discussion meeting. Finally, we suggest some key directions for future projects to better address the above questions.
Ah the square peg mainstream are trying to bang into a round hole!

Maybe the model of the formation of the solar system should be revisited?

__________________
“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 24th June 2019, 06:13 AM   #4229
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,886
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
jonedave116





Oh, so now they can escape, along with the negatively charged dust in the jets they arrive in burst and showers. .

I mean I never doubted it but jonesdave116.... trolling happily.

So I’m glad we’ve cleared that, ay jonesdave116

Both negative AND positive can come from the nucleus.

How jonesdave116, using your electrostatic pithball model?

You really are dense, aren't you? The electrons are not being accelerated. The ions are. The effect of the field is to maintain quasi-neutrality. So, any claims that negatively charged anything are being ACCELERATED is plain wrong, and stupid into the bargain. Learn to read.
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 06:14 AM   #4230
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,886
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Ahhh, the old nebular collapse theory. Of course the ELECTRIC COMET call this into question.


So the Dirtysnowball is alive and well ferd?







We are evolving towards comets being mostly ROCK.

not dust, not ice but ROCK.



Nice try though. Time to circle the wagons again.
How many times, woo boy? Where is this rock? Show me the papers where it has been detected. Stop lying.
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 06:15 AM   #4231
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,886
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Ahh, I see what A'Hearn meant now.

Rock comet



Not the dirtysnowball MOSTLY ice comet but these new MOSTLY rock comets.
No rock ever detected at a comet. Where is it? Stop lying.
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 06:18 AM   #4232
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,886
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Ah the square peg mainstream are trying to bang into a round hole!

Maybe the model of the formation of the solar system should be revisited?

No need to revisit it. We can see it in action around other stars. The fine details are interesting, and there is still much to learn. The fact that planets form from disks of gas and dust around stars is observed. Learn some science. And then go away.
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 02:06 PM   #4233
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,245
Thumbs down The usual lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...
The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.

Sol88's usual insane lies about comets and lies about posts.
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 24th June 2019, 02:07 PM   #4234
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,245
Thumbs down The usual lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...
The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.

Sol88 insanity duplicated!

Last edited by Reality Check; 24th June 2019 at 02:09 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 24th June 2019, 02:09 PM   #4235
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,245
Thumbs down The usual lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...
The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.

Sol88's usual insane lies.

The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn by Sol88 linking him with demented dogma, etc.
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 24th June 2019, 02:10 PM   #4236
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,245
Thumbs down The usual lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...
The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.
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 24th June 2019, 02:11 PM   #4237
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,245
Thumbs down The usual lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...
The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.

Sol88's usual insanity and insults of posters.
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 24th June 2019, 02:13 PM   #4238
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,245
Thumbs down The usual lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...
The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.

Sol88's usual insanity about mainstream comets irrelevant to his demented cult's dogma about comets

Last edited by Reality Check; 24th June 2019 at 02:15 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 24th June 2019, 02:14 PM   #4239
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,245
Thumbs down The usual lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...
The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.

Sol88's usual insanity about mainstream comets irrelevant to his demented cult's dogma about comets.

Last edited by Reality Check; 24th June 2019 at 02:17 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 24th June 2019, 02:16 PM   #4240
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,245
Thumbs down The usual lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...
The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.

Sol88's usual insanity about mainstream comets irrelevant to his demented cult's dogma about comets.

The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn by Sol88 linking him with demented dogma, etc.
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
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 05:37 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.