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 26th October 2019, 01:22 PM   #441
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
Or explain why the 'potential difference' needed to make his EC 'model' work does not affect the solar wind. Or planets. Or spacecraft.

Or explain how the putative currents fueling his EC sun model do not fry the planets as those are more conductive than the vacuum of space.

Or explain what mechanism would even create a uniform potential difference around each star that does not interfere with any other star.

In fact, his whole MO is avoiding anything to do with explaining and modelling his 'theory' and only focus on quote mining and misinterpreting minute details in order to steer away from having to actually explain things.
One of my faves is the Electric Comet “explanation” for the densities of comets and asteroids. Spacecraft can be sent to all manner of solar system objects, navigating without reference to all the giant inter-galactic currents, lightning bolts, etc (essential components of Velikovsky nonsense). Yet their observed positions and motions are unreliable for estimating density!
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 26th October 2019, 02:44 PM   #442
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,417
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
One of my faves is the Electric Comet “explanation” for the densities of comets and asteroids. Spacecraft can be sent to all manner of solar system objects, navigating without reference to all the giant inter-galactic currents, lightning bolts, etc (essential components of Velikovsky nonsense). Yet their observed positions and motions are unreliable for estimating density!
Hope your not religious?

Reference to lightning bolts in”Worlds in Collision” is mainly from religious texts.

And unless you like to get into if God is real or not...

How much does Saturn weigh again...

Here is a mainstream animation of cosmic lightning bolts.
__________________
“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 26th October 2019, 03:51 PM   #443
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Hope your not religious?

Reference to lightning bolts in”Worlds in Collision” is mainly from religious texts.

And unless you like to get into if God is real or not...

How much does Saturn weigh again...

Here is a mainstream animation of cosmic lightning bolts.
My bad.

So what do you, Electric Comet Model advocate, call them? Discharges? Jets?

And please show us all, in quantitative detail, how densities of (at least some) comets and (at least some) asteroids are estimated, based on observations. Oh, and how solar system probes get to where we want them to go.
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 26th October 2019, 04:13 PM   #444
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,417
Discharge would be the more correct term.

The RSI experiment, by your logic above, PROVES BEYOND ANY DOUBT,
Quote:
The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice.
The Nucleus of Comet 67P/ChuryumovGerasimenko - Part I: The Global View – nucleus mass, mass loss, porosity and implications

As far as I know, probes are not launched cruise and arrive at thier target. They are navigated, course corrected, do burns....standard stuff.
__________________
“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; 26th October 2019 at 04:15 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 26th October 2019, 04:25 PM   #445
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Discharge would be the more correct term.
Thanks. So the Sun is powered by a giant, inter-galactic ... discharge?

Quote:
The RSI experiment, by your logic above, PROVES BEYOND ANY DOUBT, The Nucleus of Comet 67P/ChuryumovGerasimenko - Part I: The Global View – nucleus mass, mass loss, porosity and implications
My bad.

I meant to ask how the densities are estimated using the Electric Comet Model (which is the topic of this thread).

Quote:

As far as I know, probes are not launched cruise and arrive at thier target. They are navigated, course corrected, do burns....standard stuff.
Thanks.

Again, my bad. I meant to ask how solar system probes get to where we want them, in the Electric Comet Theory (you know, the topic of this thread).

Would you care to answer please?
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 26th October 2019, 04:49 PM   #446
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,417
Navigating in Deep Space

Quote:
Using the large dish antennas of the Deep Space Network, they locate the spacecraft by sending precisely timed signals to it and measuring the time it takes for the signals to be received and retransmitted back to Earth. If the spacecraft is not on course, they send signals instructing it to adjust its trajectory. Using these techniques, the team can bring a spacecraft to a precise landing on Mars or into an orbit around a moon of Saturn after a journey of millions of kilometers.
Anything else you are unsure of.
__________________
“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 26th October 2019, 04:52 PM   #447
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,950
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Discharge would be the more correct term.

The RSI experiment, by your logic above, PROVES BEYOND ANY DOUBT, The Nucleus of Comet 67P/ChuryumovGerasimenko - Part I: The Global View – nucleus mass, mass loss, porosity and implications

As far as I know, probes are not launched cruise and arrive at thier target. They are navigated, course corrected, do burns....standard stuff.

Which falsifies your woo. You need rock. The density is half that of water. You failed. Again. Just as you did 14 years ago when thousands of tonnes of ice was blasted out of Tempel 1. Which Wal forgot to tell you about.
__________________
“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 26th October 2019, 05:01 PM   #448
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Thanks.
Quote:

Anything else you are unsure of.
Yes, there is actually.

Your post contains no mention of, or reference to, the Electric Comet Model. Which is the topic of this thread.

Using the Electric Comet Model, please explain how solar system probes get to their intended targets. In particular, please explain how electrical effects within the solar system (per the Electric Comet Model) are modeled and their impacts on trajectories are addressed.
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 26th October 2019, 06:13 PM   #449
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,417
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Which falsifies your woo. You need rock. The density is half that of water. You failed. Again. Just as you did 14 years ago when thousands of tonnes of ice was blasted out of Tempel 1. Which Wal forgot to tell you about.
Well, we thought comets to be mostly ice, now we know they are mostly some mysterious form of rock.

Tempel 1 had a pissy amount of water. Old news, old model.



Any charge separation at 67P to cause electrochemistry?



Sublimation not seen and not needed.
__________________
“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 26th October 2019, 06:14 PM   #450
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,417
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Thanks.


Yes, there is actually.

Your post contains no mention of, or reference to, the Electric Comet Model. Which is the topic of this thread.

Using the Electric Comet Model, please explain how solar system probes get to their intended targets. In particular, please explain how electrical effects within the solar system (per the Electric Comet Model) are modeled and their impacts on trajectories are addressed.

Strawman.



Who cares.
__________________
“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 26th October 2019, 08:30 PM   #451
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,950
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Well, we thought comets to be mostly ice, now we know they are mostly some mysterious form of rock.

Tempel 1 had a pissy amount of water. Old news, old model.



Any charge separation at 67P to cause electrochemistry?



Sublimation not seen and not needed.
No, we did not think comets were mostly ice, liar. How many times are you going to lie about that? Is it all you've got? And electrochemistry is getting you nothing, and sublimation is observed. Hard luck. And 8 - 18 000 tonnes of ice were excavated at Tempel 1. And you cannot explain it.
Lying about things is not going to alter the fact that your unscientific woo, believed by approximately nobody, has failed. Tough. Get over it.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin

Last edited by jonesdave116; 26th October 2019 at 08:32 PM.
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 27th October 2019, 04:17 AM   #452
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,417
Quote:
No, we did not think comets were mostly ice, liar.
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].
Sorry, my bad. Not think, we envisioned them as mostly ice, no lie.

No ice only dust for the deep impact...and M.A’Hearn was the PI for the mission...

Suck it up buttercup.

But as it’s all you have left, you are more than welcome to continue the first envisioned model of comets as mostly ice.

Deep impact


Comet Tempel 1 the ice comet.

__________________
“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 27th October 2019, 04:35 AM   #453
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,950
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Sorry, my bad. Not think, we envisioned them as mostly ice, no lie.

No ice only dust for the deep impact...and M.A’Hearn was the PI for the mission...

Suck it up buttercup.

But as it’s all you have left, you are more than welcome to continue the first envisioned model of comets as mostly ice.

Deep impact


Comet Tempel 1 the ice comet.

Still lying, huh? When was Whipple's model? When was the first visit to a comet for a close up look? You are pathetic. And a liar.
And thousands of tonnes of ice were excavated at Tempel 1. 14 years ago. That is when your idiotic woo should have died. Only a fool would carry on with this quasi-religion after that. And only fools did.
__________________
“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 27th October 2019, 05:04 AM   #454
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,417
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Still lying, huh? When was Whipple's model? When was the first visit to a comet for a close up look? You are pathetic. And a liar.
And thousands of tonnes of ice were excavated at Tempel 1. 14 years ago. That is when your idiotic woo should have died. Only a fool would carry on with this quasi-religion after that. And only fools did.

Nope inferred 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 27th October 2019, 07:05 AM   #455
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Strawman.



Who cares.
Well, my first reaction was “I do, and you should surely care too”.

But then I realized that you had not answered my question on how the densities of comets, and asteroids, are estimated using the Electric Comet Model. And then I remembered, vaguely, that you had once posted some sort of answer here (in this thread or a predecessor).

I guess your responses are a tacit admission that the Electric Comet model, as you understand it, is inconsistent with at least one set of robust, independently verified, quantitative observations, right?

If so, where does this thread go from here?
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 27th October 2019, 07:15 AM   #456
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Leaving only stuff relevant to the topic of this thread (the Electric Comet model) ...

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
In the Electric Comet model, comets are solid rock (sandstone, basalt, gneiss) blasted from the Earth’s surface by lightning bolts from Venus when it made a close encounter with Earth a few thousand years ago.

So their bulk densities are certainly greater than 1 g/cm3.

Which is inconsistent with robust, independently verified, quantitative observations.

And you have been unable, after over a decade of trying, to explain this inconsistency.

Time to call it a day and close this thread?
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 27th October 2019, 07:49 AM   #457
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,417
Quote:
For a range of compacted dust material density from 2000 to 3500 kg/m3, the porosity varies between 65% - 79% when the dust-to-ice mass ratio Fnucleus for the nucleus body lies in the range 3 ≤ Fnucleus ≤ 7. The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice. The total mass loss M puts hard constraints on the models of interpretation of the observations from other instruments on Rosetta.
2000 to 3500 kg/m3, that’s very rock like to me...but what is consistent with robust, independently verified, quantitative observations. noted above , The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice. The total mass loss M puts hard constraints on the models of interpretation of the observations from other instruments on Rosetta

Were is the error!

Next please...
__________________
“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; 27th October 2019 at 07:53 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 27th October 2019, 08:08 AM   #458
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,950
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
2000 to 3500 kg/m3, that’s very rock like to me...but what is consistent with robust, independently verified, quantitative observations. noted above , The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice. The total mass loss M puts hard constraints on the models of interpretation of the observations from other instruments on Rosetta

Were is the error!

Next please...
Nope, no rock. Never seen at a comet. Just because you fail to understand basic science and observation does not alter the facts.
__________________
“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 27th October 2019, 08:09 AM   #459
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,950
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Nope inferred ice.
And another lie. Observed ice. Liar.
__________________
“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 27th October 2019, 11:08 AM   #460
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Thanks.
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
2000 to 3500 kg/m3, that’s very rock like to me...but what is consistent with robust, independently verified, quantitative observations. noted above , The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice. The total mass loss M puts hard constraints on the models of interpretation of the observations from other instruments on Rosetta

Were is the error!

Next please...
(my bold)

Source?

In the Electric Comet model, comets are solid, not porous.

So what you posted is inconsistent with the Electric Comet model, right?

Also, where are the details of how the estimated densities were calculated using the Electric Comet model, which is the topic of this thread?
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 27th October 2019, 12:56 PM   #461
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,950
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Thanks.
(my bold)

Source?

In the Electric Comet model, comets are solid, not porous.

So what you posted is inconsistent with the Electric Comet model, right?

Also, where are the details of how the estimated densities were calculated using the Electric Comet model, which is the topic of this thread?
The irony being, that Sol has been claiming all along that the RSI measurements were wrong, because the density measured is inconsistent with rock. Now, he can't stop talking about Patzold's paper, which is based on the mass loss calculated using the RSI experiments! Irony, much?
__________________
“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 27th October 2019, 01:08 PM   #462
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
The irony being, that Sol has been claiming all along that the RSI measurements were wrong, because the density measured is inconsistent with rock. Now, he can't stop talking about Patzold's paper, which is based on the mass loss calculated using the RSI experiments! Irony, much?
Indeed.

For me the irony is also that, per the Electric Comet model, objects in the solar system do not travel on trajectories that are approximately Keplerian (per Newtonian gravity); in fact, they deviate wildly. For example, Venus coming very close to Earth only some few thousands of years ago. Yet the various space probes all seemed to arrive at their intended destinations without needing to use Electric Comet model inputs!
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 27th October 2019, 01:12 PM   #463
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,417
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
The irony being, that Sol has been claiming all along that the RSI measurements were wrong, because the density measured is inconsistent with rock. Now, he can't stop talking about Patzold's paper, which is based on the mass loss calculated using the RSI experiments! Irony, much?

Yup still calming the same.


Funny watching “real science”, comets are highly porous dusty objects with little to no ice and you still spit it,

Dust density = ROCK.

Comet is mostly vacuum

Still, no 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 27th October 2019, 01:18 PM   #464
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
<snip>

Comet is mostly vacuum

<snip>
Thanks Sol88.

Rare indeed is the day when you post something as clear as this, an unequivocal statement that the Electric Comet model (the topic of this thread) is inconsistent with the relevant observations.

So we can ask that this thread be closed now?
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 27th October 2019, 02:08 PM   #465
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,417
Sure can.

As long now believe REAL mainstream science following statement.

Quote:
Abstract The radio science experiment RSI on board Rosetta determined the mass of the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko at the start of the prime mission from August to November 2014 (GM = 666.2 ± 0.2 m3/s2 or 9,982 ± 3·1012 kg ) and shortly before the end of the mission from July to September 2016 (GM = 665.5 ± 0.1 m3/s2 or 9,971.5 ± 1.5·1012 kg). The mass loss is M = 10.5 ± 3.4·109 kg, about 0.1% of the nucleus mass. Almost 50% of the mass loss occurred during the 32 days before and 62 days after perihelion. The nucleus mass combined with the new very precise nucleus volume of 18.56±0.02 km3 yield a bulk density of 537.8 ± 0.6 kg/m3. This low bulk density suggests that the nucleus is highly porous. The porosity is constrained by the observed bulk density, the density of ices, mostly water ice, and the density of compacted nucleus dust material. For a range of compacted dust material density from 2000 to 3500 kg/m3, the porosity varies between 65% - 79% when the dust-to-ice mass ratio Fnucleus for the nucleus body lies in the range 3 ≤ Fnucleus ≤ 7. The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice. The total mass loss M puts hard constraints on the models of interpretation of the observations from other instruments on Rosetta.
Which pretty much confirmed the principle investigator of the dust up that was deep impact.
Quote:
c) Whatarecometsmadeof? 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
Real science papers by real scientists ‘dem ones, maffs and all!


But you don’t like it....


As you may well be aware I do not believe this to be the case.

Like charges repel....the nucleus is negatively charged and so is Rosetta.

Mainstream misinterpreted it has 67P has sod all mass. This has now left you with...

Drum roll please...The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice.

Science at its best.
__________________
“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; 27th October 2019 at 02:09 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 27th October 2019, 02:18 PM   #466
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Parts relevant to the topic of this thread, Electric Comet model, only.
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
As you may well be aware I do not believe this to be the case.

Like charges repel....the nucleus is negatively charged and so is Rosetta.

Mainstream misinterpreted it has 67P has sod all mass. This has now left you with...
Thanks!

Please show, at an appropiate level of detail, what the estimated density of 67P is, starting with an estimate of the mass.

Please use numbers and relevant equations (taken from published Electric Comet models).

To be clear, your personal beliefs do not, on their own, constitute 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 27th October 2019, 02:35 PM   #467
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,950
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Yup still calming the same.


Funny watching “real science”, comets are highly porous dusty objects with little to no ice and you still spit it,

Dust density = ROCK.

Comet is mostly vacuum

Still, no ice.
Plenty of ice. Observed all the time at comets. 8 000 - 18 000 tonnes of it blasted out of Tempel 1 by a tiny little impactor. No rock, no electric woo, but plenty of ice. 14 years ago. Why are you 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 27th October 2019, 02:40 PM   #468
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,950
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Sure can.

As long now believe REAL mainstream science following statement.



Which pretty much confirmed the principle investigator of the dust up that was deep impact.


Real science papers by real scientists ‘dem ones, maffs and all!


But you don’t like it....


As you may well be aware I do not believe this to be the case.

Like charges repel....the nucleus is negatively charged and so is Rosetta.

Mainstream misinterpreted it has 67P has sod all mass. This has now left you with...

Drum roll please...The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice.

Science at its best.
Just quit the lying and various other crap. Where does Patzold specify how much ice he thinks there is at 67P? Does anybody agree with him? Or are all the other instruments disagreeing? And are all the plasma simulations, based on the outgassing rates, strangely matching what we see? Are the non-gravitational models, based on the outgassing, strangely matching what was measured by ROSINA et al?
Meanwhile, you still haven't even got a workable model, and zero science. Go away, and come back when you have learned enough science to get by in a discussion, rather than having to continually resort to lies and obfuscation. Your woo is long dead. It was never alive, due to being scientifically impossible nonsense, dreamed up by Velikovskian loons. No scientists take such puerile rubbish seriously.
__________________
“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

Last edited by jonesdave116; 27th October 2019 at 02:42 PM.
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 27th October 2019, 03:54 PM   #469
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,417
Quote:
Does anybody agree with him?
Ahhh, classic.

Just because you don’t believe it... doesn’t make not true.

Poor jonesy.

Rock, rock ,rock all the way down.


J Sunshine was wrong Patzold was right (far better data)

Tempel 1 was a special Dirtysnowball.

Ice spontaneously forms in a plasma, as you’ve been shown and choose to ignore.

Ignoramus...

All we, the electric comet, needs is charge separation. Comets have it in spades, along with, just like asteroids, HYDRATED MINERALS.

AND YOU, JONESDAVE116

are completely stumped why the dust we do capture is flash heated and anhydrous.




Mainstream, so far up the icydirtball they get a head down n from lack of oxygen.
__________________
“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 27th October 2019, 04:05 PM   #470
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,950
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Ahhh, classic.

Just because you don’t believe it... doesn’t make not true.

Poor jonesy.

Rock, rock ,rock all the way down.


J Sunshine was wrong Patzold was right (far better data)

Tempel 1 was a special Dirtysnowball.

Ice spontaneously forms in a plasma, as you’ve been shown and choose to ignore.

Ignoramus...

All we, the electric comet, needs is charge separation. Comets have it in spades, along with, just like asteroids, HYDRATED MINERALS.

AND YOU, JONESDAVE116

are completely stumped why the dust we do capture is flash heated and anhydrous.




Mainstream, so far up the icydirtball they get a head down n from lack of oxygen.
And lying again. What a surprise! Jessica Sunshine was not wrong. You cannot misidentify the IR signal of ice. Fact. Stop making things up. It is tiresome. Thousands of tonnes of ice were ejected from Tempel 1. Not a single scientist is questioning that. Only you. Therefore we can safely ignore that claim coming, as it does, from an unqualified wooist. And a whole bunch of people would have to be very wrong for Patzold to be right. He has just underestimated the fallback mass. Even in the paper, he only claims that the highest estimates of ice loss need to be cut by a factor of ten. That still leaves hundreds of thousands, to millions of tonnes of ice disappearing. And you can't explain it.
You have nothing other than faith in clueless Velikovskians, whose scientific knowledge would not trouble the space on a postage stamp, were we to summarise it in writing.
__________________
“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

Last edited by jonesdave116; 27th October 2019 at 04:07 PM.
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 28th October 2019, 04:39 AM   #471
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,417
Now repeat after me.

All need is a potential difference. Is there a potential difference at 67P?

What kind of comet ice produced the observed “zoo” of stuff we see including https://phys.org/news/2016-05-comet-...cipe-life.html

https://www.esa.int/Science_Explorat...ients_for_life

Interesting to note Dr Anariba’shttps://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/201...ba-space-news/ paper on electrochemistry at 67P and the following paper.

Study of plasma induced chemistry by DC discharges in CO2/N2/H2O mixtures above a water surface.

Just the abstract at the moment till I can save a few more $, so I’ll just hold the interesting bits.

Quote:
Abstract

The chemistry induced by atmospheric pressure DC discharges above a water surface in CO(2)/N(2)/H(2)O mixtures was investigated. The gaseous mixtures studied represent a model prebiotic atmosphere of the Earth.

The most remarkable changes in the chemical composition of the treated gas were the decomposition of CO(2) and the production of CO. The concentration of CO increased logarithmically with the increasing input energy density and an increasing initial concentration of CO(2) in the gas. The highest achieved concentration of CO was 4.0 +/- 0.6 vol. %.

The production of CO was crucial for the synthesis of organic species, since reactions of CO with some reactive species generated in the plasma, e. g. H* or N* radicals, were probably the starting point in this synthesis.

The presence of organic species (including the tentative identification of some amino acids) was demonstrated by the analysis of solid and liquid samples by high-performance liquid chromatography, infrared absorption spectroscopy and proton-transfer-reaction mass spectrometry.

Formation of organic species in a completely inorganic CO(2)/N(2)/H(2)O atmosphere is a significant finding for the theory of the origins of life.
Interesting how the how electric comet can tie stuff together.

Plasma plasma, electric fields, Birkeland 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

Last edited by Sol88; 28th October 2019 at 04:59 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 28th October 2019, 04:57 AM   #472
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,417
Study on the chemical evolution of low molecular weight compounds in a highly oxidized atmosphere using electric discharges.

Quote:
Abstract
The molecular basis for the chemical evolution of low molecular compounds was studied using electric discharges on a highly oxidized atmosphere comprised of CO2, N2 and H2O. In the gas phase, O2 and CO were formed by the decomposition of CO2 and their yields were enhanced by the addition of N2 to the gas mixture. It was demonstrated that H2O suppressed the reduction of CO2 while H2O also had a role in producing organic compounds such as formic acid and formaldehyde. Infrared analysis of the water soluble products and the inner surface of the reaction vessel indicated the production of compounds more complex than formic acid and formaldehyde. These compounds contained the chemical bonds which were identified to be OH, CO, CN and/or CC.
Interesting to note the electric discharge required to MAKE CN.

Comets can be fairly rich in CN, so I’ve heard.

Is there an potential difference in the plasma that surrounds 67P?

Now you’ll never hear me shut up about Dr Anaribas paper now. After water ions are released in the electric discharge giving the observed anhydrous dust.

In the soup of plasma the “zoo” is being made... Aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons in comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko seen by ROSINA
__________________
“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; 28th October 2019 at 05:01 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 28th October 2019, 04:59 AM   #473
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Now repeat after me.

All need is a potential difference. Is there a potential difference at 67P?

What kind of comet ice produced the observed “zoo” of stuff we see including https://phys.org/news/2016-05-comet-...cipe-life.html

Interesting to note Dr Anariba’shttps://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/201...ba-space-news/ paper on electrochemistry at 67P and the following paper.

Study of plasma induced chemistry by DC discharges in CO2/N2/H2O mixtures above a water surface.

Just the abstract at the moment till I can save a few more $, so I’ll just hold the interesting bits.



Interesting how the how electric comet can tie stuff together.

Plasma plasma, electric fields, Birkeland currents,
Sorry Sol88, but this post of yours doesn’t seem to address any of the questions I asked you, about the Electric Comet model (the topic of this thread).

Nor does the following one.

When may I expect answers?
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 28th October 2019, 05:37 AM   #474
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,950
Quote:
Now repeat after me.

All need is a potential difference. Is there a potential difference at 67P?
Nope. Solar wind is getting nowhere near the comet, and you have no mechanism. Not a scientifically valid one, anyways. You may well have this at asteroids though. So, tell us why we don't see this woo at asteroids. Fail.
__________________
“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 28th October 2019, 05:42 AM   #475
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,950
Study on the chemical evolution of low molecular weight compounds in a highly oxidized atmosphere using electric discharges.
Kawamoto K. & Akaboshi M.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6815608

Is nothing to do with comets. And requires electric discharges. There were none. Fail.
__________________
“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

Last edited by jonesdave116; 28th October 2019 at 05:43 AM.
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 28th October 2019, 05:56 AM   #476
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 91,292
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Birkeland currents, Z pinch and double layers are the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE.
Still waiting for your answer to my question, Sol:

I'm asking you in what way does this water generation prove your general theory. And while you're at it, why and how does it make the "mostly icy comet" theory incorrect?

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Geez, ya take off for a week fishing and more confirmation of charge and electric fields...

Researchers discover how water is regenerated on asteroids



and comets!!!

as proposed by Dr. Franklin Anariba

Comets as Water Factories | Space New



Funny how it works out...


now...lets hear jd116 whine on that it cant happpen
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 28th October 2019, 06:09 AM   #477
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,950
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Study of plasma induced chemistry by DC discharges in CO2/N2/H2O mixtures above a water surface.

Just the abstract at the moment till I can save a few more $, so I’ll just hold the interesting bits.



Interesting how the how electric comet can tie stuff together.

Plasma plasma, electric fields, Birkeland currents,
Don't waste your money. I've read it. Nothing to do with comets. You need lightning bolts and liquid water. Not getting that at comets.
__________________
“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 28th October 2019, 06:34 AM   #478
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,950
Quote:
Interesting to note Dr Anariba’shttps://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/201...ba-space-news/ paper on electrochemistry at 67P and the following paper.
Where has Anariba written a paper on this? Last time I checked, he was still talking out of his arse.
__________________
“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 28th October 2019, 10:02 AM   #479
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,491
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Where has Anariba written a paper on this? Last time I checked, he was still talking out of his arse.

Electrochemistry is solution chemistry. No solutions on comets, no electrochemistry on comets. Sol has been told this and has ignored it many times before. Anariba uses the term because it sounds sciencey to the uninformed.

Quote:
Electrochemistry is the branch of physical chemistry that studies the relationship between electricity, as a measurable and quantitative phenomenon, and identifiable chemical change, with either electricity considered an outcome of a particular chemical change or vice versa. These reactions involve electric charges moving between electrodes and an electrolyte (or ionic species in a solution). Thus electrochemistry deals with the interaction between electrical energy and chemical change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrochemistry
__________________
"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 28th October 2019, 03:09 PM   #480
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,417
Fred me ‘ol mate, jonesdave116 bangs on about “no solar wind reading the surface” so no electrochemistry.

We have quite a potential difference in play at 67P, cheers J Deca, and we have sheds load of “ingredients” in a plasma solution.

Quote:
Results. It is shown that the bulk composition of the gaseous phase includes a high number of aliphatic compounds such as methane, ethane, and propane, as well as the aromatic compounds benzene and toluene. Butane and pentane were successfully identified in measurements at closer distance to the comet in May 2016. Furthermore, the presence of hexane and heptane in the coma is confirmed on rare occasions during the mission. Their presence in DFMS space data appears to be linked to days or periods of high dust activity. In addition to the saturated aliphatic and aromatic compounds, a high number of remaining unsaturated species is present, which cannot be explained by fragmentation of saturated species or contribution from other organic molecules in addition to pure hydrocarbons. This indicates the existence of unsaturated aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbon molecules in the coma of comet 67P.
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2019/10/aa34666-18/aa34666-18.html

So.....ummmm

No?

Oh you mob are quite happy to postulate, from another postulate on the postulate that comets are left overs.



Anywho...
__________________
“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
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 10:20 AM.
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.