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 Yesterday, 04:53 AM   #2401
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,670
Well, i’d start by giving this paper a good going over, tusenfem.

Apossible mechanism for the formation of magnetic field dropouts in the coma of 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3118

Quote:
In our opinion, it is possible that the observed diamagnetic region in Goetz et al. (2016a) is not a ‘classical’ diamagnetic cavity, but it might be a local phenomenon caused by some different process. There are (at least) two reasons why the diamagnetic region might not be associated with a global diamagnetic cavity surrounding the nucleus: (i) the total gas production rate is not sufcient to create such a large diamagnetic cavity, and (ii) the large number and short duration of these magnetic eld-free regions.

‘Classical’ is that secret code for we assumed and we were wrong?

Bit like ‘classical’ draping, ay?


Quote:
The physical picture we provide in this paper is simple: a local electron heating process can generate a magnetic eld-free region due to a strong ambipolar electric eld. However, due to the limitations of uid simulations, we are not able to simulate the local electron heating process self-consistently.
Could a STRONG ambipolar electric field also be called a double layer, tusenfem?
__________________
"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; Yesterday at 05:13 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 Yesterday, 05:26 AM   #2402
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,215
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Well, i’d start by giving this paper a good going over, tusenfem.

Apossible mechanism for the formation of magnetic field dropouts in the coma of 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3118
That paper has been discussed already, and it is a dud.
When asked, the authors do not know where their hot electrons come from.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
'Classical’ is that secret code for we assumed and we were wrong?
No, classical means the the ion-neutral drag model creating the diamagetic cavity by Tom Cravens.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Bit like ‘classical’ draping, ay?
No, not at all.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Could a STRONG ambipolar electric field also be called a double layer, tusenfem?
No, an ambipolar electric field is generated actually to slow down the electrons which want to escape faster than the ions.
So, no an ambipolar elelctric field is not a double layer.
And again no, because a double layer would accelerate electrons in a beam and would not heat them like those that the authors put "not self-consistently" into their simulations.
__________________
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

Last edited by tusenfem; Yesterday at 05:29 AM.
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:34 AM   #2403
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,558
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
  1. Per the ELECTRIC COMET model, all comets are rocky. However, not all rocky bodies are comets. (let's put aside "ice/s" for the purpose of my clarification question). How come?
I don't know? lets investigate shall we?
Sure.

Let's start with something pretty fundamental: what do you mean by "comet" (in the ELECTRIC COMET model)?

I think there's some subtlety you may be missing, which may be highlighted by some history.

Consider "planet".

Before telescopes, people in many parts of the world (cultures, societies, traditions, whatever) independently recognized what we today call Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. In some, Venus as a morning star was different from Venus as an evening star; in some, Mercury was not noted (dense forest, cloudy conditions, etc).

Before telescopes, these five could be classed together (as "planets") because they were "stars which wandered" (or something similar).

So too with "comets".

Perhaps not as many peoples recognized them as recognized planets (again, before telescopes), but certainly many different ones were observed. They could be classed together because they were "fuzzy/hairy/tailed things in the sky which moved (with respect to the "true" stars)" (or something similar).

With telescopes, planets could be seen as disks, some with phases (like the Moon), more were discovered, and one had rings. And the case for the morning and evening appearances of Mercury and Venus being the same (two) objects strengthened.

For comets, telescopes brought (many more) discoveries, tails of different kinds (several visually distinguishable, others require spectroscopy), a better handle on their variability (in "brightness"), ...

... and one thing very different, yet very similar, to planets: some comets "return" (the same "comet" re-appears in the sky, after ~87 years, or ~23 years, or ...). This is a little like evening star Venus = morning star Venus, but also not, because how a particular comet appeared, with each return, could be very different.

So why are the different returns of periodic comets (as we call them today) regarded as the same object (a comet), rather than different ones?

I would like you, Sol88, to have a go at answering this question. How you answer will - I expect - be very important for how we continue to discuss the ELECTRIC COMET model.

Quote:
  1. OK. However, I think you need to quantify "a different potential" and to better define "the surrounding plasma". After all, 10-99 V could be such a difference, as could 1099 V. And "surrounding" could be as far away as merely 10-6m, or 106m.
The potential difference is anything you want except zero and the plasma surrounding the comet starts at the surface and ends at the heliopause.
Something for later ...
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 Yesterday, 07:56 AM   #2404
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,935
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Typical response from an uninformed and apathetic mainstreamer.
I'm apathetic to your nonsense, yes. And how can I be informed about your model when your model contains no information? You're the one who said the voltage could be anything, not me.

Quote:
Right, so obviously up to speed on double layers then.
I'm up to speed on basic electrodynamics, which double layers have to obey.

Quote:
So they most probably are majic to the ignorant.
That's unintentionally ironic.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 Yesterday, 09:05 AM   #2405
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,343
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
2) You think currents drive some significant processes here, mainly current carrying double layers! including the formation of water from rock. How can that happen at an arbitrary voltage? It cannot. There's got to be some minimum threshold voltage to make it happen, and there's got to be some voltage that's too large (ie, it would do MORE than what's observed).

My bold

https://i.imgflip.com/28mhz5.jpg


Perhaps you can tell me why you doubt the double layers can not exist at/around a comet?

OT
Lol. It's ironic you would use this meme to make an assertion. Giorgio Tsoukalos is regarded as a charlatan and/or idiot by most people who can count beyond 10. The meme makes fun of his habit of making claims by allusion rather than declarative statements, so he can deny them if necessary. Hmm...
/OT
__________________
"You do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.”-Fran Lebowitz
"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 Yesterday, 02:19 PM   #2406
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 21,517
Thumbs down Yet another lying question to derail from his many comet delusions

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Sorry RC, was that a yes or a no?
24 April 2018: Yet another lying question to derail from his many comet delusions.

23 April 2018: A stupid demand for a yes/no answer to support his delusions about comets and DLs.
You have documented lies and delusions about comets and DLs. It is up to you to be honest by producing scientific evidence (a paper stating the detection od DLs around comets) or saying that you were wrong.

Not that honesty will ever appear:
881 items of ignorance, idiocy (citing irrelevant mainstream papers), delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 23 April 2018 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!) includes delusions about plasma.

Sol88's 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; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, a "hard shell of refractory material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.

18 November 2010: The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions by Wal Thornhill
2 December 2014: Sol88 does not notice that Wal Thornhill narrates an ignorant and deluded video about 67P!
18 December 2014: The bad science and delusions in Newton’s Electric Clockwork Solar System by Wal Thornhill.
5 January 2015: Wal Thornhill makes up fantasies about comets
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.
13 April 2018: A couple of the delusions in Scott's Birkeland current paper.

The electric comet delusion has at least 45 years without a scientific electric comet model or observations to support it!

Getting lose to 3 years of the fear of doing basic physics: 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.

Last edited by Reality Check; Yesterday at 02:26 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:45 PM   #2407
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,670
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I'm apathetic to your nonsense, yes. And how can I be informed about your model when your model contains no information? You're the one who said the voltage could be anything, not me.



I'm up to speed on basic electrodynamics, which double layers have to obey.



That's unintentionally ironic.
And Whipple gave you a quantitative model to work with?

Just so simple, Whipple said comets are icy bodies sublimating in the warmth of the sun. Electric comet says they are rocky bodies discharging in the solar plasma.

That’s it.
__________________
"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]
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 Yesterday, 02:51 PM   #2408
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,670
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
.

So why are the different returns of periodic comets (as we call them today) regarded as the same object (a comet), rather than different ones?

I would like you, Sol88, to have a go at answering this question. How you answer will - I expect - be very important for how we continue to discuss the ELECTRIC COMET model.



Something for later ...

Are you talking about Whipple non gravitational forces?
__________________
"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]
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 Yesterday, 02:53 PM   #2409
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,670
Originally Posted by ferd burfle View Post
OT
Lol. It's ironic you would use this meme to make an assertion. Giorgio Tsoukalos is regarded as a charlatan and/or idiot by most people who can count beyond 10. The meme makes fun of his habit of making claims by allusion rather than declarative statements, so he can deny them if necessary. Hmm...
/OT

Not saying it was the aliens but it was the aliens!!!!


Classic!

Good on ziggurat putting a bit of light hearted fun into the conversation.
__________________
"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]
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 Yesterday, 02:57 PM   #2410
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,670
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
That paper has been discussed already, and it is a dud.
When asked, the authors do not know where their hot electrons come from.



No, classical means the the ion-neutral drag model creating the diamagetic cavity by Tom Cravens.



No, not at all.



No, an ambipolar electric field is generated actually to slow down the electrons which want to escape faster than the ions.
So, no an ambipolar elelctric field is not a double layer.
And again no, because a double layer would accelerate electrons in a beam and would not heat them like those that the authors put "not self-consistently" into their simulations.
Ahhh...the electron beam or “jets” of a comet, thank you tusenfem.

Not just electrons sport but also negatively charged dust.

Think we are making head way here tusenfem.
__________________
"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]
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 Yesterday, 03:00 PM   #2411
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,558
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Are you talking about Whipple non gravitational forces?
Why do you ask?

Here's the question again (you can re-read the preamble if you like):

Why are the different returns of periodic comets (as we call them today) regarded as the same object (a comet), rather than different ones?

ETA: the working out of how to match a newly observed comet with one that had been observed before (i.e. not two different objects, but just one, no matter how different the appearances were) - or not - was done well before 1950. Indeed, well before Whipple was born.

Last edited by JeanTate; Yesterday at 03:46 PM. Reason: ETA
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 Yesterday, 03:48 PM   #2412
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,670
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Why do you ask?

Here's the question again (you can re-read the preamble if you like):

Why are the different returns of periodic comets (as we call them today) regarded as the same object (a comet), rather than different ones?

ETA: the working out of how to match a newly observed comet with one that had been observed before (i.e. not two different objects, but just one, no matter how different the appearances were) was done well before 1950. Indeed, well before Whippler was born.

I don’t understand your question. How do you know they are the same object?
__________________
"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]
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 Yesterday, 04:50 PM   #2413
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,558
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
I don’t understand your question. How do you know they are the same object?
Thanks Sol88.

The fact that you need to ask this question tells me a great deal about what you know, and what you do not know, about comets (as the term is used by most people, including astronomers).

The first periodic comet to be recognized (in some sense anyway) was Halley's comet, a.k.a. 1P/Halley; the WP article on it may help you to find an answer to your question.
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 Yesterday, 06:18 PM   #2414
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,935
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
And Whipple gave you a quantitative model to work with?
Yes. And it's quite quantitative.

Quote:
Electric comet says they are rocky bodies discharging in the solar plasma.
But not in a way that you can quantify, apparently.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 Yesterday, 07:38 PM   #2415
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,670
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
That paper has been discussed already, and it is a dud.
When asked, the authors do not know where their hot electrons come from.



No, classical means the the ion-neutral drag model creating the diamagetic cavity by Tom Cravens.



No, not at all.



No, an ambipolar electric field is generated actually to slow down the electrons which want to escape faster than the ions.
So, no an ambipolar elelctric field is not a double layer.
And again no, because a double layer would accelerate electrons in a beam and would not heat them like those that the authors put "not self-consistently" into their simulations.
A dud, in a peer reviewed paper?

What's K. Altwegg's take on the dud paper she's co-authored?

It's only a dud paper if comets are dirtysnowballs and they use MHD.
__________________
"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]
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 Yesterday, 07:45 PM   #2416
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,670
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Yes. And it's quite quantitative.



But not in a way that you can quantify, apparently.
Quote:
Giotto provided the first evidence in support of Fred Whipple's "dirty snowball" hypothesis for comet construction; Whipple postulated that comets are icy objects warmed by the Sun as they approach the inner Solar System, causing ices on their surfaces to sublimate (change directly from a solid to a gas), and jets of volatile material to burst outward, creating the coma. Giotto showed that this model was broadly correct,[49] though with modifications. Halley's albedo, for instance, is about 4%, meaning that it reflects only 4% of the sunlight hitting it; about what one would expect for coal.[54] Thus, despite appearing brilliant white to observers on Earth, Halley's Comet is in fact pitch black. The surface temperature of evaporating "dirty ice" ranges from 170 K (−103 °C) at higher albedo to 220 K (−53 °C) at low albedo; Vega 1 found Halley's surface temperature to be in the range 300–400 K (30–130 °C). This suggested that only 10% of Halley's surface was active, and that large portions of it were coated in a layer of dark dust that retained heat.[15] Together, these observations suggested that Halley was in fact predominantly composed of non-volatile materials, and thus more closely resembled a "snowy dirtball" than a "dirty snowball".[16]
[55]
EC postulated that comets are rocky objects immersed in the solar plasma of the Sun causing a charge differential as they approach the inner Solar System, causing dust to be electrostatically machined from the surface and form highly collimated jets of charged dust and neutrals to burst outward, creating the coma.


Just as quantitative as Whipples?
__________________
"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]
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 Yesterday, 07:48 PM   #2417
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 21,517
Thumbs down Usual insanity of irrelevant papers to detail from his comet delusions

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
A dud, in a peer reviewed paper?
24 April 2018: Usual insanity of irrelevant papers to detail from his many comet delusions.
Especially since we have seen this paper before.
18 January 2018: Double idiocy of insult and a paper irrelevant to his comet delusions.
18 January 2018 Sol88: Inane post to derail from his comet delusions.

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post

Last edited by Reality Check; Yesterday at 07:49 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:56 PM   #2418
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 21,517
Thumbs down Lies about the electric comet delusion yet again

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
EC postulated ...
24 April 2018: Lies about the electric comet delusion yet again by missing out the blasted from planets insanity.

24 April 2018: A "postulated" and "quantitative" electric comet lie.
His Thunderbolts cult took the fantasies of a Bible scholar and used them to make up comet delusions with no quantitative predictions for over 45 years (see below).

24 April 2018: A Whipple postulated lie.
He has an unattributed quote which states that Whipple was broadly right and does not highlight that !
Postulates in science are used to create a scientific theory and its testable, falsifiable predictions.
Quote:
Giotto provided the first evidence in support of Fred Whipple's "dirty snowball" hypothesis for comet construction; Whipple postulated that comets are icy objects warmed by the Sun as they approach the inner Solar System, causing ices on their surfaces to sublimate (change directly from a solid to a gas), and jets of volatile material to burst outward, creating the coma. Giotto showed that this model was broadly correct,[49] though with modifications. Halley's albedo, for instance, is about 4%, meaning that it reflects only 4% of the sunlight hitting it; about what one would expect for coal.[54] Thus, despite appearing brilliant white to observers on Earth, Halley's Comet is in fact pitch black. The surface temperature of evaporating "dirty ice" ranges from 170 K (−103 °C) at higher albedo to 220 K (−53 °C) at low albedo; Vega 1 found Halley's surface temperature to be in the range 300–400 K (30–130 °C). This suggested that only 10% of Halley's surface was active, and that large portions of it were coated in a layer of dark dust that retained heat.[15] Together, these observations suggested that Halley was in fact predominantly composed of non-volatile materials, and thus more closely resembled a "snowy dirtball" than a "dirty snowball".[16]
[55]

881 items of ignorance, idiocy (citing irrelevant mainstream papers), delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 23 April 2018 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)

Sol88's 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; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, a "hard shell of refractory material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.

18 November 2010: The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions by Wal Thornhill
2 December 2014: Sol88 does not notice that Wal Thornhill narrates an ignorant and deluded video about 67P!
18 December 2014: The bad science and delusions in Newton’s Electric Clockwork Solar System by Wal Thornhill.
5 January 2015: Wal Thornhill makes up fantasies about comets
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.
13 April 2018: A couple of the delusions in Scott's Birkeland current paper.

The electric comet delusion has at least 45 years without a scientific electric comet model or observations to support it!

Getting lose to 3 years of the fear of doing basic physics: 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.

Last edited by Reality Check; Yesterday at 08:04 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:55 PM   #2419
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,935
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
EC postulated that comets are rocky objects immersed in the solar plasma of the Sun causing a charge differential as they approach the inner Solar System, causing dust to be electrostatically machined from the surface and form highly collimated jets of charged dust and neutrals to burst outward, creating the coma.


Just as quantitative as Whipples?
Not even close. For example, what voltage is necessary to machine the surface? What current is needed to produce the amount of observed dust? How does this machining produce water, and how much water can it produce?

You have nothing quantitative at all. In contrast, even the short summary of Whipple's paper contains multiple quantifications, and his full paper contains many more.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 Yesterday, 10:58 PM   #2420
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,215
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
And Whipple gave you a quantitative model to work with?

Just so simple, Whipple said comets are icy bodies sublimating in the warmth of the sun. Electric comet says they are rocky bodies discharging in the solar plasma.

That’s it.
but your electric friends have bezillions of in situ data, which whipple did not have
so your friends need to up the ante and show their proof instead of just assuming
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:00 PM   #2421
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,215
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Ahhh...the electron beam or “jets” of a comet, thank you tusenfem.

Not just electrons sport but also negatively charged dust.

Think we are making head way here tusenfem.
i cannot see it, your interpretation of my answer is erroneous and confabulated as usual
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 01:12 AM   #2422
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Quote:
The diamagnetic cavity is the Langmuir sheath, then go drag that sheath thru a magnetised plasma!
Whatever this may mean, please show us your evidence.
Righto, lets head back into Current sheets in comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko’s coma

Quote:
The different directions of the nested draped magnetic field lead to the creation of current sheets through Ampère’s law:∇  B(t) = J(t) +@D(t)@t
:
right?

So about the diamagnetic cavity...

Quote:
Next to that, the discovery of the diamagnetic cavity around comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko [67P/CG, Goetz et al., 2016a] calls for a current sheet on the boundary between the magnetic and non-magnetic regions. Using a statistical study Goetz et al. [2016b] showed that there is a current sheet of up to 1 A/m2 on this boundary.
and yes very interesting this piece...

Quote:
Interestingly, one would expect that when oppositely directed magnetic fields are pressed together in the coma around the nucleus, magnetic reconnection would take place.
Same as double layers, one would think with opposite charges right next each other they'd cancel.

You may know the paper, tusenfem.
__________________
"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]
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, 01:24 AM   #2423
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,670
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
That paper has been discussed already, and it is a dud.
When asked, the authors do not know where their hot electrons come from.



No, classical means the the ion-neutral drag model creating the diamagetic cavity by Tom Cravens.



No, not at all.



No, an ambipolar electric field is generated actually to slow down the electrons which want to escape faster than the ions.
So, no an ambipolar elelctric field is not a double layer.
And again no, because a double layer would accelerate electrons in a beam and would not heat them like those that the authors put "not self-consistently" into their simulations.
Dust arriving in bursts and negatively charged. Hot and cold electrons. Supra thermal electrons. Evidence of sub-surface energy storage in comet.

Problems all disappear if the comet itself was negatively charged with respect to the local solar wind.

but if there sublimating snowballs...

also
Quote:
No, classical means the the ion-neutral drag model creating the diamagetic cavity by Tom Cravens.
seems Tom was wrong.
__________________
"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 01:25 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 Today, 04:27 AM   #2424
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,670
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Why do you ask?

Here's the question again (you can re-read the preamble if you like):

Why are the different returns of periodic comets (as we call them today) regarded as the same object (a comet), rather than different ones?

ETA: the working out of how to match a newly observed comet with one that had been observed before (i.e. not two different objects, but just one, no matter how different the appearances were) - or not - was done well before 1950. Indeed, well before Whipple was born.
G’day jean tate.

You maybe interested in this paper to broaden your knowledge on the history of comet models.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1999ApJ...525C.393B

In particular the the statement by Vorontsov-Velgaminov.



Maybe then we can discuss your question?
__________________
"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 04:34 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 Today, 04:41 AM   #2425
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,558
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
EC postulated that comets are rocky objects immersed in the solar plasma of the Sun causing a charge differential as they approach the inner Solar System, causing dust to be electrostatically machined from the surface and form highly collimated jets of charged dust and neutrals to burst outward, creating the coma.

<snip>
So, now we have:

The ELECTRIC COMET model is as follows:
1) comets are rocky objects
2) they have minimal to no "ice/s"
3) they seek electrical equilibrium with the surrounding plasma
4) they are discharging in the solar wind as they approach the inner Solar System
5) dust is electrostatically machined from the surface during this discharge
6) the charged dust so machined forms highly collimated, bursting jets
7) neutrals go along for the ride (not sure about this?)
8) the jets form the comet's coma
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 Today, 04:55 AM   #2426
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,558
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Quote:
Why do you ask?

Here's the question again (you can re-read the preamble if you like):

Why are the different returns of periodic comets (as we call them today) regarded as the same object (a comet), rather than different ones?

ETA: the working out of how to match a newly observed comet with one that had been observed before (i.e. not two different objects, but just one, no matter how different the appearances were) - or not - was done well before 1950. Indeed, well before Whipple was born.
G’day jean tate.

You maybe interested in this paper to broaden your knowledge on the history of comet models.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1999ApJ...525C.393B

In particular the the statement by Vorontsov-Velgaminov.
Thanks Sol88, it's a nice, short, review paper.

Sadly, however, I did not see any "statement by Vorontsov-Velgaminov". Perhaps you could quote it?

Quote:
Maybe then we can discuss your question?
We can?

I don't see how Belton (1999) helps you answer the question I asked. Here it is again:

Why are the different returns of periodic comets (as we call them today) regarded as the same object (a comet), rather than different ones?

Oh, and a reminder as to why this is important: the ELECTRIC COMET model, which I've just updated to include a recent post by you, starts with the word "comets". To have a discussion of this model, it is necessary - critical, in fact - that we all understand what this means (in the model). And in this context, knowing whether what is called, by astronomers, the "return" of a comet is the same "rocky object" or not.
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 Today, 05:07 AM   #2427
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,215
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Righto, lets head back into Current sheets in comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko’s coma
sure whatever

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Quote:
The different directions of the nested draped magnetic field lead to the creation of current sheets through Ampère’s law:∇  B(t) = J(t) +@D(t)@t
right?
so far so good

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So about the diamagnetic cavity...
Quote:
Next to that, the discovery of the diamagnetic cavity around comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko [67P/CG, Goetz et al., 2016a] calls for a current sheet on the boundary between the magnetic and non-magnetic regions. Using a statistical study Goetz et al. [2016b] showed that there is a current sheet of up to 1 A/m2 on this boundary.
I guess

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Quote:
Interestingly, one would expect that when oppositely directed magnetic fields are pressed together in the coma around the nucleus, magnetic reconnection would take place.
and yes very interesting this piece...
And what are we supposed to have learned or understood at this point?

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Same as double layers, one would think with opposite charges right next each other they'd cancel.
No not at all as double layers, the last quote has nothing to do with double layers, just as the first quotes about the currents (that are flowing perpendicular to the magnetic field, and thus not away from the comet but "around" it as it were, have nothing to do with double layers.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
You may know the paper, tusenfem.
I do know the paper and you don't understand it, even though you are the self proclaimed protector of the electric universe, but have zero knowledge about electrodynamics.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 05:08 AM   #2428
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,215
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Problems all disappear if the comet itself was negatively charged with respect to the local solar wind.
Well, how are we going to get all the positive ions to flow out from the comet ...

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
seems Tom was wrong.
Although it is true Cravens' model might need some amendment, unless Huang et al. can give a real reason why there suddenly are "pockets of hot electrons" and put it self-consistently in their model, I don't believe his simulations.
__________________
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

Last edited by tusenfem; Today at 05:12 AM.
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 05:54 AM   #2429
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,935
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Well, how are we going to get all the positive ions to flow out from the comet ...
Double layers, obviously. They're magic. They can do anything.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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, 07:11 AM   #2430
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,935
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Problems all disappear if the comet itself was negatively charged with respect to the local solar wind.
You previously said the voltage could be positive OR negative. Now you've changed your mind.

This is why I can't take you seriously.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 07:27 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.