The Electric Comet Theory /SAFIRE Part V - Page 6

Sol88 · 17th October 2019, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

There is ice. As proven. Enough to stop the solar wind in its tracks. And Patzold is likely wrong. As pointed out by Fulle. And nobody has claimed that comets are mostly ice for decades. That is your own pathetic strawman, which you have been told about repeatedly. Continuing to lie about it is not going to make it come true.
You have no model. It failed. You are grasping at straws of your own making to cover up your embarrassment of the electric comet woo having been totally falsified by observations. You have nowhere left to go.
If comets are little different to asteroids, why do comets develop comae, when the vast majority of asteroids don't? You have no answer. You ran away when Indagator asked you about it. I repeat - YOU HAVE NO MODEL.

There is ice. As proven. Enough to stop the solar wind in its tracks.

Really dude? Stop the solar wind?

Bugger me... ay tusenfem?

Far as I’m aware, mainstream are now aware the comet with its pissy, and doubtful, ice content is only deflecting the solar wind around it. The rest is all ambipolar, hall, solar wind and surface electric field interplays. Very hard for the mathamagicians

This same “ice” is also responsible for the creation and maintenance of cometary tails, so far recorded as massive solar system structures.

Ice, eh?

Reality Check · 17th October 2019, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by Sol88

....

The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.
The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn by Sol88 linking him with demented dogma, etc.
Sol88's lies about the demented SAFIRE experiment about the Sun and a scientific experiment about the solar wind and Parker spiral
Yet more propaganda from the Thunderbolts cult on the insane SAFIRE project.
That conversation with Monty exposed that the already insane SAFIRE project is even more insane than collapsing the Sun to a white dwarf

Plasma has been explained to Sol88 many times over the last 10 or more years but he is too interested in drinking his cult's poison to understand that plasma is a partially ionized gas that is quasi-neutral.

!

Sol88's usual insanity and lies about posts and posters.
jonesdave116 wrote "There is ice. As proven. Enough to stop the solar wind in its tracks. And Patzold is likely wrong. As pointed out by Fulle." My emphasis of Sol88's lie by quote mining.

Reality Check · 17th October 2019, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.
The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn by Sol88 linking him with demented dogma, etc.
Sol88's lies about the demented SAFIRE experiment about the Sun and a scientific experiment about the solar wind and Parker spiral
Yet more propaganda from the Thunderbolts cult on the insane SAFIRE project.
That conversation with Monty exposed that the already insane SAFIRE project is even more insane than collapsing the Sun to a white dwarf

Plasma has been explained to Sol88 many times over the last 10 or more years but he is too interested in drinking his cult's poison to understand that plasma is a partially ionized gas that is quasi-neutral.

!

Sol88's usual insanity and lies.

Sol88 · 17th October 2019, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Sol88's usual insanity and lies about posts and posters.
jonesdave116 wrote "There is ice. As proven. Enough to stop the solar wind in its tracks. And Patzold is likely wrong. As pointed out by Fulle." My emphasis of Sol88's lie by quote mining.

So Fulle called Patzold wrong and this was agreed by JD116 along with tusenfem.

Right, got it now.

Cheers, i was confused.

jonesdave116 · 17th October 2019, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by Sol88

There is ice. As proven. Enough to stop the solar wind in its tracks.

Really dude? Stop the solar wind?

Bugger me... ay tusenfem?

Far as I’m aware, mainstream are now aware the comet with its pissy, and doubtful, ice content is only deflecting the solar wind around it. The rest is all ambipolar, hall, solar wind and surface electric field interplays. Very hard for the mathamagicians

This same “ice” is also responsible for the creation and maintenance of cometary tails, so far recorded as massive solar system structures.

Ice, eh?

Another example of pure ignorance. Those fields don't just spring into being. They are caused by the interaction of the solar wind with the cometary coma. Which contains shed loads of volatiles from ices. And I guess you are too much of a coward to email Patzold, yes?

jonesdave116 · 17th October 2019, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by Sol88

I mean you’re the expert, so if you say so.

jd116.

So you more or less back jonesdave116’s statement above?

Martin Patzold is wrong?

The ROSINA and MIRO instruments are, you know, more or less, on the money in your books?

Patzold should pull his head in with these outlandish, bordering on crank claims of a highly porous dusty nucleus with little to no ice?

Do you think the RSI experiment holds any merit? As this is the very thing I’m having trouble with proving the nucleus is charged affecting the assumed bulk density.

Seems it’s know reared it’s ugly mug in this paper.

No the RSI measurements are not being called into question. You made that up. And you still have no model.

Reality Check · 17th October 2019, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by Sol88

So Fulle called Patzold wrong and this was agreed by JD116 along with tusenfem.

The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.
The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn by Sol88 linking him with demented dogma, etc.
Sol88's lies about the demented SAFIRE experiment about the Sun and a scientific experiment about the solar wind and Parker spiral
Yet more propaganda from the Thunderbolts cult on the insane SAFIRE project.
That conversation with Monty exposed that the already insane SAFIRE project is even more insane than collapsing the Sun to a white dwarf

Plasma has been explained to Sol88 many times over the last 10 or more years but he is too interested in drinking his cult's poison to understand that plasma is a partially ionized gas that is quasi-neutral.

!

Sol88's usual insanity.
My post was that Sol88 lied about jonesdave116's post by removing that Fulle pointed out that Patzold is likely wrong.

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Sol88's usual insanity and lies about posts and posters.
jonesdave116 wrote "There is ice. As proven. Enough to stop the solar wind in its tracks. And Patzold is likely wrong. As pointed out by Fulle." My emphasis of Sol88's lie by quote mining.

The Nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko – Part I: The global view – nucleus mass, mass-loss, porosity, and implications by Pätzold, et. al published 26 November 2018.

We have been observing 67P for decades. There are 3 or 4 years of published papers about Rosetta results before this paper. It was well established that 67P has a sizable amount of ices (currently > 17%). Thus a "little or no ices" phrase in Pätzold, et. al. cannot be about 67P.

Sol88 · 17th October 2019, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

No the RSI measurements are not being called into question. You made that up. And you still have no model.

RSI experiment confirms comets are highly porous? Is this correct jonesdave116?

Reality Check · 17th October 2019, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by Sol88

RSI ...

The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.
The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn by Sol88 linking him with demented dogma, etc.
Sol88's lies about the demented SAFIRE experiment about the Sun and a scientific experiment about the solar wind and Parker spiral
Yet more propaganda from the Thunderbolts cult on the insane SAFIRE project.
That conversation with Monty exposed that the already insane SAFIRE project is even more insane than collapsing the Sun to a white dwarf

Plasma has been explained to Sol88 many times over the last 10 or more years but he is too interested in drinking his cult's poison to understand that plasma is a partially ionized gas that is quasi-neutral.

!

Sol88's usual lies about posts and posters.

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

No the RSI measurements are not being called into question. You made that up. And you still have no model.

That is a reply to Sol88's deluded "Do you think the RSI experiment holds any merit?" question.

Sol88 replies with another lying question. We have discussed the RSI results several times over the last years. They were used to measure the gravity and mass of 67P. With the measured volume of 67P that makes Sol88's delusion that 67P is rock blatent since 67P is about a fifth less dense than rock (Mean density = 0.533 ± 0.006 g/cm3 [4][5]). The low mean density implies a high porosity. It was the another experiment that confirmed that 67P is about 70% porous.

Sol88 has a deluded lie of "proving the nucleus is charged affecting the assumed bulk density". Sol88 is abysmally ignorant/in deep denial of simple physics, and thus incapable of doing any physics.
In any case, this has been done and Sol88 knows this. The result is that 67P must be so enormously charged that it would be obvious to a blind person and we had the Rosetta spacecraft

!

jonesdave116 · 17th October 2019, 08:00 PM

Originally Posted by Sol88

RSI experiment confirms comets are highly porous? Is this correct jonesdave116?

What? It measures the gravity. Which gives us a mass which, divided by volume gives a density.

Sol88 · 17th October 2019, 08:41 PM

Quote:

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.

So we all agree the RSI experiment is infallible!

Quote:

(The total mass loss M puts hard constraints on the models of interpretation of the observations from other instruments on Rosetta.)

Great, so where has Patzold gone wrong in the following statement. Remember you agreed the RSI experiment is solid gold (otherwise Einstein is wrong).

Quote:

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.

Joensdave116, please point out where you think Patzold is in error.

Sol88 · 17th October 2019, 08:52 PM

Otherwise

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

Do you deny the very science you espouse? The very science Patzold has used.

otherwise...

Suck it up butter cup!

comets are not dirtysnowballs!!!

and mainstream have been caught with their pants down!

See...

Quote:

Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the first quantitative
model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high as 6 have been cited [3,4].

Comets: looking ahead
Michael F. A’Hearn

Quote:

(ii) upper porosity bound: if ice = 0, then Fnucleus = ∞ and dust (1-poro)-bulk = 0 in (11) and, not so unrealistically, the nucleus would be a highly porous stony agglomerate, essentially devoid of volitiles.

from Patzold et al

Maybe M.A'Hearn really meant stony agglomerations!

So lets have a look again

Quote:

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~~ highly porous stony agglomerates, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high as 6 have been cited

Would A'Hearn's statement be more correct then?

Reality Check · 17th October 2019, 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.
The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn by Sol88 linking him with demented dogma, etc.
Sol88's lies about the demented SAFIRE experiment about the Sun and a scientific experiment about the solar wind and Parker spiral
Yet more propaganda from the Thunderbolts cult on the insane SAFIRE project.
That conversation with Monty exposed that the already insane SAFIRE project is even more insane than collapsing the Sun to a white dwarf

Plasma has been explained to Sol88 many times over the last 10 or more years but he is too interested in drinking his cult's poison to understand that plasma is a partially ionized gas that is quasi-neutral.

!

Sol88's usual insanity.
We as in all of the rational, knowledgeable people who learn about RSI, agree that the RSI results measured the mass of 67P within the experimental limits. Thus Mass (9.982±0.003)×10^12 kg[4].

Reality Check · 17th October 2019, 08:57 PM

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.
The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn by Sol88 linking him with demented dogma, etc.
Sol88's lies about the demented SAFIRE experiment about the Sun and a scientific experiment about the solar wind and Parker spiral
Yet more propaganda from the Thunderbolts cult on the insane SAFIRE project.
That conversation with Monty exposed that the already insane SAFIRE project is even more insane than collapsing the Sun to a white dwarf

Plasma has been explained to Sol88 many times over the last 10 or more years but he is too interested in drinking his cult's poison to understand that plasma is a partially ionized gas that is quasi-neutral.

!

Sol88's usual insane lies.
This quote from Patzold et.al.

Quote:

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.

Is not this quote from Patzold et.al.

!

Quote:

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

And not this quote from Patzold et.al.

!

Quote:

(ii) upper porosity bound: if ice = 0, then Fnucleus = ∞ and dust (1-poro)-bulk = 0 in (11) and, not so unrealistically, the nucleus would be a highly porous stony agglomerate, essentially devoid of volitiles.

This is the obvious fact that if there is no ice then ..there is no ice

! More exactly, if a comet did not outgas from ices sublimating then the nucleus should have close to no volatiles. This is not 67P.

Sol88 insane ignorance includes not understanding the word "if"

!

Sol88 · 17th October 2019, 09:13 PM

Quote:

As a reminder, the upper bound on the porosity is 73% to 85% for a highly porous stony body without ice for the selected dust material density range.

Remember Fulle used 72.1% ^+14.3 _{- 11.7%}

So the upper range by Fulle would be on the order of 72.1 + 14.3 = 86.4% Porosity.

At Fulle's 86% porosity the nucleus is highly porous stony body without ice.

According to the RSI experiment any way!

ROSINA and MIRO data has been incorrectly modeled.

jonesdave116 · 17th October 2019, 09:13 PM

Originally Posted by Sol88

So we all agree the RSI experiment is infallible!

Great, so where has Patzold gone wrong in the following statement. Remember you agreed the RSI experiment is solid gold (otherwise Einstein is wrong).

Joensdave116, please point out where you think Patzold is in error.

Given that all the instruments, including ground based and those on other spacecraft all have the water production rate within a factor of a few, then he is obviously doing something wrong. Probably underestimating the fallback mass. And I fail to see what this has got to do with your failed 'model'. Assuming there is a model? I don't think there is. I don't think anybody associated with EU has got the foggiest clue about any of the relevant science. And you cannot explain the water production rates. As measured. By multiple instruments. You don't even have an explanation for why there is water being produced at all. Do you? Your woo is dead. Why are you still here?

jonesdave116 · 17th October 2019, 09:18 PM

Originally Posted by Sol88

ROSINA and MIRO data has been incorrectly modeled.

No it has not. Nor has the VIRTIS data. Nor has the observations from a Japanese spacecraft. Not those made from the ground. They are all within a factor of a few.
And you have no model, nor any explanation for the volatiles.

tusenfem · 18th October 2019, 02:52 AM

Originally Posted by Sol88

So Fulle called Patzold wrong and this was agreed by JD116 along with tusenfem.

I have not said anything about "fulle vs pätzold" so don't put my name in your ridiculous claims.

jonesdave116 · 18th October 2019, 05:39 AM

Originally Posted by tusenfem

I have not said anything about "fulle vs pätzold" so don't put my name in your ridiculous claims.

I'm not 100% sure it was Fulle. I'll have to check. I'm sure that whoever it was said that the mass loss may have been underestimated, or that the fall-back dust mass had.

Sol88 · 18th October 2019, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by tusenfem

I have not said anything about "fulle vs pätzold" so don't put my name in your ridiculous claims.

My apologies.

Quote:

The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice. The total mass loss M puts hard constraints on the models of interpretation of the observations from other instruments on Rosetta.

The Nucleus of Comet 67P/ChuryumovGerasimenko - Part I: The Global View – nucleus mass, mass loss, porosity and implications Martin Pätzold

What are your thoughts? Do iyou agree with Patzold’s papers findings? Simple yes no is ok.

67P is not a Dirtysnowball, this is the implications part of the paper.

Seems a few staunch dirtysnowballlers are have trouble coming to terms with the inevitable fact comets are not mostly ice.

And has been pointed out to me a few times now.

So, now you have dry dusty and highly porous comet. How does that fit with, say Tempel 1?

jonesdave116 · 18th October 2019, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by Sol88

67P is not a Dirtysnowball, this is the implications part of the paper.

Seems a few staunch dirtysnowballlers are have trouble coming to terms with the inevitable fact comets are not mostly ice.

Lying again. Strawman again. Do you ever give up with this dishonest crap?

Sol88 · 18th October 2019, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Lying again. Strawman again. Do you ever give up with this dishonest crap?

Lying again, ay.

I think it’s more like you are a little resistant to change...

Sol88 · 18th October 2019, 06:20 PM

Truth is comets contain very little to no ice.....

Burns a little, ay jonesdave116!

jonesdave116 · 18th October 2019, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by Sol88

Truth is comets contain very little to no ice.....

Burns a little, ay jonesdave116!

Wrong. As observed. Thousands of tonnes of it excavated at Tempel 1 by a teeny little impactor. That is when your woo died. Wal just forgot to inform his gullible acolytes.

jonesdave116 · 18th October 2019, 08:18 PM

Originally Posted by Sol88

Lying again, ay.

I think it’s more like you are a little resistant to change...

https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/...866/352ima.jpg

No, you lied, yet again, about claims that the comet is mostly ice. You continually lie about it. Lies are all you have left. No model, no explanations, you run away from questions about your idiotic woo, yet you are still here making a fool of yourself. Why? You lost, remember? No electric woo.

Sol88 · 18th October 2019, 10:00 PM

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Wrong. As observed. Thousands of tonnes of it excavated at Tempel 1 by a teeny little impactor. That is when your woo died. Wal just forgot to inform his gullible acolytes.

Well, one of these comets is an enigma.

Your mostly ice Tempel 1 and the dry as chips “dusty” comet, 67P.

One we wizzed past, the other we stayed with for awhile.

One when we thought comets were mostly ice and one where we think their mostly dry dust.

Two camps forming. Trouble in academia.

RPC team knows what’s the score is.

Sol88 · 18th October 2019, 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

No, you lied, yet again, about claims that the comet is mostly ice. You continually lie about it. Lies are all you have left. No model, no explanations, you run away from questions about your idiotic woo, yet you are still here making a fool of yourself. Why? You lost, remember? No electric woo.

What lie dude?

Talking about no model, you’ve agreed the Dirtysnowball snowball is dead. This IS the standard model.

Implications, implications...

Quote:

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

No lie.
You ok?

jonesdave116 · 19th October 2019, 03:44 AM

Quote:

One when we thought comets were mostly ice......

.

Is another lie.

jonesdave116 · 19th October 2019, 03:46 AM

Quote:

Talking about no model, you’ve agreed the Dirtysnowball snowball is dead. This IS the standard model.

Is another lie. Want me to link, yet again, to the paper I have linked before to you, to show that you are lying?

jonesdave116 · 19th October 2019, 03:57 AM

Quote:

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

And as Tempel 1 was of similar dimensions to 67P, and had a similar outgassing rate, the same applies. Still managed to excavate thousands of tones of the stuff from one tiny little area.
All of which means your 'model', if such you have, has failed. Long since.

tusenfem · 19th October 2019, 06:42 AM

Originally Posted by Sol88

67P is not a Dirtysnowball, this is the implications part of the paper.

the dirty snowball was the FIRST model of a comet build in the 1950s with NO close encounter with a comet, and from the ground one can only see the huge coma.

only in 1986 we got the first picture of the nucleus of a comet (1P/Halley in this case) from Giotto

since then the "dirty snowball" developed further into the "snowy dirtball" and on and on as we get more data

and yes, journalists, and YOU, like to continue the "dirty snowball", the journalists because they probably don't know better, you because you need to hang on to a strawman in order to "scandalize" mainstream, and to play games here, so that other members do the literature research for you after you give up some farts again, and then when you don't like the result you give a "trump hissy fit".

if you want "fulle vs pätzold" then YOU take all the papers, read them, and then make a consize summary of both and discuss the merits of either paper, maybe then there will be a usefull discussion in this thread THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT THE ELECTRIC COMET IDEA and not mainstream bashing.

Sol88 · 19th October 2019, 04:52 PM

Quote:

since then the "dirty snowball" developed further into the "snowy dirtball" and on and on as we get more data

Ok then...

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].

I’m I a a teller of porky pies when I said comets are rocky waaaayyyyy back at the start of the thread?

It’s what started this whole thread.

So you are right mainstream is evolving, towards what though?

Patzolds paper reinforces A’Hearns above statement.

So not mainstream bashing per se but just a slap round the chops to wake them up.

Comets are NOT Dirtysnowballs this is from mainstream science. The Dirtysnowball ... this IS the mainstream model.

jonesdave116 · 19th October 2019, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by Sol88

Ok then...

I’m I a a teller of porky pies when I said comets are rocky waaaayyyyy back at the start of the thread?

It’s what started this whole thread.

So you are right mainstream is evolving, towards what though?

Patzolds paper reinforces A’Hearns above statement.

So not mainstream bashing per se but just a slap round the chops to wake them up.

Comets are NOT Dirtysnowballs this is from mainstream science. The Dirtysnowball ... this IS the mainstream model.

Complete nonsense. It has just been explained to you. That has not been the model for a long time. And no rock has ever been found on a comet. Nor has any EDM (lol). Nor any electric discharges. So, it looks like you need to get your own house in order, as the mainstream model is doing just fine.

Sol88 · 19th October 2019, 11:41 PM

Quote:

the mainstream model is doing just fine.

Mmmmm.....

You lie,

A’Hearn said

Quote:

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

You spat the dummy not me...

Lukraak_Sisser · 20th October 2019, 02:40 AM

Let's see, there are according to Sol88, two theories.

Mainstream and the EU one.

The mainstream theory made predictions that have proven to be largely correct, but is open to minor tweakings as more data becomes available and can thus far be used to both predict what will happen, explain what we see and can be used to get spacecraft to within spitting distance of various celestial objects so far away that the accuracy hidden in there is astounding.

The EU theory predicts that nature should behave in the opposite way of what we observe and by extension claims that any machine based upon electromagnetism is doing it wrong.
Because, no matter how many times Sol88 deflects the question, if EU is right, then the solar wind as we see it should not exist.

Tough choice.

tusenfem · 20th October 2019, 02:45 AM

Originally Posted by Sol88

It’s what started this whole thread.

no, that is NOT what started this thread, whether comets are ice or rock, if you go back 5 threads yiu will see that thus is about the electric comet idea, which you have not added anything towards, apart from cherry picking sentences from e.g. rpc papers without understbanding them or checking whether they would fit in your electric ideas (which the don't because the electric fields that are there cannot possibly do what you want them to do and often point in the wrong direction).

jonesdave116 · 20th October 2019, 06:53 AM

Originally Posted by Sol88

Mmmmm.....

You lie,

A’Hearn said

You spat the dummy not me...

And again, you are lying. Get this through your thick head; Whipples's model was what was thought to be a reasonable model before we had visited a comet. Understand? Need it in pictures? Shall I write it in crayon for you?
Having visited a comet for the first time, in 1986 (nineteen eighty six) 33 (thirty three) years ago, ideas started to evolve based on information we did not have previously, and therefore could not have known. That is, we did not know it before. Understand? Not going too quickly, am I? Words aren't too long, are they?
Having visited more and more comets over the decades that came, and acquiring (getting) more information, they could therefore refine the model based on those observations. They did.
Then, in 2006, a couple of Velikovskian clowns wrote a bunch of scientifically impossible crap, believed only by the mentally afflicted, in which they set up the dirty snowball model from the 50s as a strawman, so the unqualified clowns could attack it. Only idiots believed them, and were conned by them. You seem to be the last of the aforementioned. Clear now?

Reality Check · 20th October 2019, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by Sol88

....

The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.
The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn by Sol88 linking him with demented dogma, etc.
Sol88's lies about the demented SAFIRE experiment about the Sun and a scientific experiment about the solar wind and Parker spiral
Yet more propaganda from the Thunderbolts cult on the insane SAFIRE project.
That conversation with Monty exposed that the already insane SAFIRE project is even more insane than collapsing the Sun to a white dwarf

Plasma has been explained to Sol88 many times over the last 10 or more years but he is too interested in drinking his cult's poison to understand that plasma is a partially ionized gas that is quasi-neutral.

!

Sol88's usual insanity of citing ices and dust comet papers irrelevant to his demented cult's electric comet insanity. Sol88's insanity is that comets are actual rock (no ices or a demented fantasy of "little ices") blasted from rocky planets by electric discharges between planets including recent times (witnessed by us!)

!

Reality Check · 20th October 2019, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.
The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn by Sol88 linking him with demented dogma, etc.
Sol88's lies about the demented SAFIRE experiment about the Sun and a scientific experiment about the solar wind and Parker spiral
Yet more propaganda from the Thunderbolts cult on the insane SAFIRE project.
That conversation with Monty exposed that the already insane SAFIRE project is even more insane than collapsing the Sun to a white dwarf

Plasma has been explained to Sol88 many times over the last 10 or more years but he is too interested in drinking his cult's poison to understand that plasma is a partially ionized gas that is quasi-neutral.

!

Sol88's usual insanity of citing ices and dust comet papers irrelevant to his demented cult's electric comet insanity. Sol88's insanity is that comets are actual rock (no ices or a demented fantasy of "little ices") blasted from rocky planets by electric discharges between planets including recent times (witnessed by us!)

!

Reality Check · 20th October 2019, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.
The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn by Sol88 linking him with demented dogma, etc.
Sol88's lies about the demented SAFIRE experiment about the Sun and a scientific experiment about the solar wind and Parker spiral
Yet more propaganda from the Thunderbolts cult on the insane SAFIRE project.
That conversation with Monty exposed that the already insane SAFIRE project is even more insane than collapsing the Sun to a white dwarf

Plasma has been explained to Sol88 many times over the last 10 or more years but he is too interested in drinking his cult's poison to understand that plasma is a partially ionized gas that is quasi-neutral.

!

Sol88's usual insanity irrelevant to his demented cult's electric comet insanity. Sol88's insanity is that comets are actual rock (no ices or a demented fantasy of "little ices") blasted from rocky planets by electric discharges between planets including recent times (witnessed by us!)

!

17th October 2019, 03:11 PM	#201
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,427	Originally Posted by jonesdave116 There is ice. As proven. Enough to stop the solar wind in its tracks. And Patzold is likely wrong. As pointed out by Fulle. And nobody has claimed that comets are mostly ice for decades. That is your own pathetic strawman, which you have been told about repeatedly. Continuing to lie about it is not going to make it come true. You have no model. It failed. You are grasping at straws of your own making to cover up your embarrassment of the electric comet woo having been totally falsified by observations. You have nowhere left to go. If comets are little different to asteroids, why do comets develop comae, when the vast majority of asteroids don't? You have no answer. You ran away when Indagator asked you about it. I repeat - YOU HAVE NO MODEL. There is ice. As proven. Enough to stop the solar wind in its tracks. Really dude? Stop the solar wind? Bugger me... ay tusenfem? Far as I’m aware, mainstream are now aware the comet with its pissy, and doubtful, ice content is only deflecting the solar wind around it. The rest is all ambipolar, hall, solar wind and surface electric field interplays. Very hard for the mathamagicians This same “ice” is also responsible for the creation and maintenance of cometary tails, so far recorded as massive solar system structures. Ice, eh?
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,427	__________________ “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; 17th October 2019 at 03:14 PM.

17th October 2019, 03:40 PM	#202
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 27,672	The usual lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years Originally Posted by Sol88 .... The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years. The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn by Sol88 linking him with demented dogma, etc. Sol88's lies about the demented SAFIRE experiment about the Sun and a scientific experiment about the solar wind and Parker spiral Yet more propaganda from the Thunderbolts cult on the insane SAFIRE project. That conversation with Monty exposed that the already insane SAFIRE project is even more insane than collapsing the Sun to a white dwarf Plasma has been explained to Sol88 many times over the last 10 or more years but he is too interested in drinking his cult's poison to understand that plasma is a partially ionized gas that is quasi-neutral. ! Sol88's usual insanity and lies about posts and posters. jonesdave116 wrote "There is ice. As proven. Enough to stop the solar wind in its tracks. And Patzold is likely wrong. As pointed out by Fulle." My emphasis of Sol88's lie by quote mining.
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 17th October 2019 at 03:41 PM.

17th October 2019, 03:41 PM	#203
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 27,672	The usual lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years Originally Posted by Sol88 ... The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years. The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn by Sol88 linking him with demented dogma, etc. Sol88's lies about the demented SAFIRE experiment about the Sun and a scientific experiment about the solar wind and Parker spiral Yet more propaganda from the Thunderbolts cult on the insane SAFIRE project. That conversation with Monty exposed that the already insane SAFIRE project is even more insane than collapsing the Sun to a white dwarf Plasma has been explained to Sol88 many times over the last 10 or more years but he is too interested in drinking his cult's poison to understand that plasma is a partially ionized gas that is quasi-neutral. ! Sol88's usual insanity and lies.
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!

17th October 2019, 05:00 PM	#204
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,427	Originally Posted by Reality Check Sol88's usual insanity and lies about posts and posters. jonesdave116 wrote "There is ice. As proven. Enough to stop the solar wind in its tracks. And Patzold is likely wrong. As pointed out by Fulle." My emphasis of Sol88's lie by quote mining. So Fulle called Patzold wrong and this was agreed by JD116 along with tusenfem. Right, got it now. Cheers, i was confused.
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,427	__________________ “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; 17th October 2019 at 05:01 PM.

17th October 2019, 05:14 PM	#205
jonesdave116 Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 4,962	Originally Posted by Sol88 There is ice. As proven. Enough to stop the solar wind in its tracks. Really dude? Stop the solar wind? Bugger me... ay tusenfem? Far as I’m aware, mainstream are now aware the comet with its pissy, and doubtful, ice content is only deflecting the solar wind around it. The rest is all ambipolar, hall, solar wind and surface electric field interplays. Very hard for the mathamagicians This same “ice” is also responsible for the creation and maintenance of cometary tails, so far recorded as massive solar system structures. Ice, eh? Another example of pure ignorance. Those fields don't just spring into being. They are caused by the interaction of the solar wind with the cometary coma. Which contains shed loads of volatiles from ices. And I guess you are too much of a coward to email Patzold, yes?
	__________________ “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

17th October 2019, 05:17 PM	#206
jonesdave116 Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 4,962	Originally Posted by Sol88 I mean you’re the expert, so if you say so. jd116. So you more or less back jonesdave116’s statement above? Martin Patzold is wrong? The ROSINA and MIRO instruments are, you know, more or less, on the money in your books? Patzold should pull his head in with these outlandish, bordering on crank claims of a highly porous dusty nucleus with little to no ice? Do you think the RSI experiment holds any merit? As this is the very thing I’m having trouble with proving the nucleus is charged affecting the assumed bulk density. Seems it’s know reared it’s ugly mug in this paper. No the RSI measurements are not being called into question. You made that up. And you still have no model.
	__________________ “There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin

17th October 2019, 05:55 PM	#207
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 27,672	The usual lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years Originally Posted by Sol88 So Fulle called Patzold wrong and this was agreed by JD116 along with tusenfem. The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years. The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn by Sol88 linking him with demented dogma, etc. Sol88's lies about the demented SAFIRE experiment about the Sun and a scientific experiment about the solar wind and Parker spiral Yet more propaganda from the Thunderbolts cult on the insane SAFIRE project. That conversation with Monty exposed that the already insane SAFIRE project is even more insane than collapsing the Sun to a white dwarf Plasma has been explained to Sol88 many times over the last 10 or more years but he is too interested in drinking his cult's poison to understand that plasma is a partially ionized gas that is quasi-neutral. ! Sol88's usual insanity. My post was that Sol88 lied about jonesdave116's post by removing that Fulle pointed out that Patzold is likely wrong. Originally Posted by Reality Check Sol88's usual insanity and lies about posts and posters. jonesdave116 wrote "There is ice. As proven. Enough to stop the solar wind in its tracks. And Patzold is likely wrong. As pointed out by Fulle." My emphasis of Sol88's lie by quote mining. The Nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko – Part I: The global view – nucleus mass, mass-loss, porosity, and implications by Pätzold, et. al published 26 November 2018. We have been observing 67P for decades. There are 3 or 4 years of published papers about Rosetta results before this paper. It was well established that 67P has a sizable amount of ices (currently > 17%). Thus a "little or no ices" phrase in Pätzold, et. al. cannot be about 67P.
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 17th October 2019 at 06:21 PM.

17th October 2019, 07:17 PM	#208
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,427	Originally Posted by jonesdave116 No the RSI measurements are not being called into question. You made that up. And you still have no model. RSI experiment confirms comets are highly porous? Is this correct jonesdave116?
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,427	__________________ “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

17th October 2019, 07:43 PM	#209
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 27,672	The usual lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years Originally Posted by Sol88 RSI ... The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years. The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn by Sol88 linking him with demented dogma, etc. Sol88's lies about the demented SAFIRE experiment about the Sun and a scientific experiment about the solar wind and Parker spiral Yet more propaganda from the Thunderbolts cult on the insane SAFIRE project. That conversation with Monty exposed that the already insane SAFIRE project is even more insane than collapsing the Sun to a white dwarf Plasma has been explained to Sol88 many times over the last 10 or more years but he is too interested in drinking his cult's poison to understand that plasma is a partially ionized gas that is quasi-neutral. ! Sol88's usual lies about posts and posters. Originally Posted by jonesdave116 No the RSI measurements are not being called into question. You made that up. And you still have no model. That is a reply to Sol88's deluded "Do you think the RSI experiment holds any merit?" question. Sol88 replies with another lying question. We have discussed the RSI results several times over the last years. They were used to measure the gravity and mass of 67P. With the measured volume of 67P that makes Sol88's delusion that 67P is rock blatent since 67P is about a fifth less dense than rock (Mean density = 0.533 ± 0.006 g/cm3 [4][5]). The low mean density implies a high porosity. It was the another experiment that confirmed that 67P is about 70% porous. Sol88 has a deluded lie of "proving the nucleus is charged affecting the assumed bulk density". Sol88 is abysmally ignorant/in deep denial of simple physics, and thus incapable of doing any physics. In any case, this has been done and Sol88 knows this. The result is that 67P must be so enormously charged that it would be obvious to a blind person and we had the Rosetta spacecraft !
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 17th October 2019 at 07:52 PM.

17th October 2019, 08:00 PM	#210
jonesdave116 Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 4,962	Originally Posted by Sol88 RSI experiment confirms comets are highly porous? Is this correct jonesdave116? What? It measures the gravity. Which gives us a mass which, divided by volume gives a density.
	__________________ “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

17th October 2019, 08:41 PM	#211
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,427	Quote: 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. So we all agree the RSI experiment is infallible! Quote: (The total mass loss M puts hard constraints on the models of interpretation of the observations from other instruments on Rosetta.) Great, so where has Patzold gone wrong in the following statement. Remember you agreed the RSI experiment is solid gold (otherwise Einstein is wrong). Quote: 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. Joensdave116, please point out where you think Patzold is in error.
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,427	__________________ “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

17th October 2019, 08:52 PM	#212
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,427	Otherwise The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice. Do you deny the very science you espouse? The very science Patzold has used. otherwise... Suck it up butter cup! comets are not dirtysnowballs!!! and mainstream have been caught with their pants down! See... Quote: Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the first quantitative model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high as 6 have been cited [3,4]. Comets: looking ahead Michael F. A’Hearn Quote: (ii) upper porosity bound: if ice = 0, then Fnucleus = ∞ and dust (1-poro)-bulk = 0 in (11) and, not so unrealistically, the nucleus would be a highly porous stony agglomerate, essentially devoid of volitiles. from Patzold et al Maybe M.A'Hearn really meant stony agglomerations! So lets have a look again Quote: 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~~ highly porous stony agglomerates, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high as 6 have been cited Would A'Hearn's statement be more correct then?
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,427	__________________ “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; 17th October 2019 at 08:54 PM.

17th October 2019, 08:53 PM	#213
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 27,672	The usual lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years Originally Posted by Sol88 ... The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years. The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn by Sol88 linking him with demented dogma, etc. Sol88's lies about the demented SAFIRE experiment about the Sun and a scientific experiment about the solar wind and Parker spiral Yet more propaganda from the Thunderbolts cult on the insane SAFIRE project. That conversation with Monty exposed that the already insane SAFIRE project is even more insane than collapsing the Sun to a white dwarf Plasma has been explained to Sol88 many times over the last 10 or more years but he is too interested in drinking his cult's poison to understand that plasma is a partially ionized gas that is quasi-neutral. ! Sol88's usual insanity. We as in all of the rational, knowledgeable people who learn about RSI, agree that the RSI results measured the mass of 67P within the experimental limits. Thus Mass (9.982±0.003)×10^12 kg[4].
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 17th October 2019 at 08:55 PM.

17th October 2019, 08:57 PM	#214
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 27,672	The usual lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years Originally Posted by Sol88 ... The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years. The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn by Sol88 linking him with demented dogma, etc. Sol88's lies about the demented SAFIRE experiment about the Sun and a scientific experiment about the solar wind and Parker spiral Yet more propaganda from the Thunderbolts cult on the insane SAFIRE project. That conversation with Monty exposed that the already insane SAFIRE project is even more insane than collapsing the Sun to a white dwarf Plasma has been explained to Sol88 many times over the last 10 or more years but he is too interested in drinking his cult's poison to understand that plasma is a partially ionized gas that is quasi-neutral. ! Sol88's usual insane lies. This quote from Patzold et.al. Quote: 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. Is not this quote from Patzold et.al. ! Quote: The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice. And not this quote from Patzold et.al. ! Quote: (ii) upper porosity bound: if ice = 0, then Fnucleus = ∞ and dust (1-poro)-bulk = 0 in (11) and, not so unrealistically, the nucleus would be a highly porous stony agglomerate, essentially devoid of volitiles. This is the obvious fact that if there is no ice then ..there is no ice ! More exactly, if a comet did not outgas from ices sublimating then the nucleus should have close to no volatiles. This is not 67P. Sol88 insane ignorance includes not understanding the word "if" !
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 17th October 2019 at 09:03 PM.

17th October 2019, 09:13 PM	#215
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,427	Quote: As a reminder, the upper bound on the porosity is 73% to 85% for a highly porous stony body without ice for the selected dust material density range. Remember Fulle used 72.1% ^+14.3 _{- 11.7%} So the upper range by Fulle would be on the order of 72.1 + 14.3 = 86.4% Porosity. At Fulle's 86% porosity the nucleus is highly porous stony body without ice. According to the RSI experiment any way! ROSINA and MIRO data has been incorrectly modeled.
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,427	__________________ “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

17th October 2019, 09:13 PM	#216
jonesdave116 Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 4,962	Originally Posted by Sol88 So we all agree the RSI experiment is infallible! Great, so where has Patzold gone wrong in the following statement. Remember you agreed the RSI experiment is solid gold (otherwise Einstein is wrong). Joensdave116, please point out where you think Patzold is in error. Given that all the instruments, including ground based and those on other spacecraft all have the water production rate within a factor of a few, then he is obviously doing something wrong. Probably underestimating the fallback mass. And I fail to see what this has got to do with your failed 'model'. Assuming there is a model? I don't think there is. I don't think anybody associated with EU has got the foggiest clue about any of the relevant science. And you cannot explain the water production rates. As measured. By multiple instruments. You don't even have an explanation for why there is water being produced at all. Do you? Your woo is dead. Why are you still here?
	__________________ “There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin

17th October 2019, 09:18 PM	#217
jonesdave116 Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 4,962	Originally Posted by Sol88 ROSINA and MIRO data has been incorrectly modeled. No it has not. Nor has the VIRTIS data. Nor has the observations from a Japanese spacecraft. Not those made from the ground. They are all within a factor of a few. And you have no model, nor any explanation for the volatiles.
	__________________ “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

18th October 2019, 02:52 AM	#218
tusenfem Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,912	Originally Posted by Sol88 So Fulle called Patzold wrong and this was agreed by JD116 along with tusenfem. I have not said anything about "fulle vs pätzold" so don't put my name in your ridiculous claims.
tusenfem Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,912	__________________ Scientific progress goes BOINK -- Calvin & Hobbes twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist Last edited by tusenfem; 18th October 2019 at 02:56 AM.

18th October 2019, 05:39 AM	#219
jonesdave116 Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 4,962	Originally Posted by tusenfem I have not said anything about "fulle vs pätzold" so don't put my name in your ridiculous claims. I'm not 100% sure it was Fulle. I'll have to check. I'm sure that whoever it was said that the mass loss may have been underestimated, or that the fall-back dust mass had.
	__________________ “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

18th October 2019, 12:41 PM	#220
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,427	Originally Posted by tusenfem I have not said anything about "fulle vs pätzold" so don't put my name in your ridiculous claims. My apologies. Quote: The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice. The total mass loss M puts hard constraints on the models of interpretation of the observations from other instruments on Rosetta. The Nucleus of Comet 67P/ChuryumovGerasimenko - Part I: The Global View – nucleus mass, mass loss, porosity and implications Martin Pätzold What are your thoughts? Do iyou agree with Patzold’s papers findings? Simple yes no is ok. 67P is not a Dirtysnowball, this is the implications part of the paper. Seems a few staunch dirtysnowballlers are have trouble coming to terms with the inevitable fact comets are not mostly ice. And has been pointed out to me a few times now. So, now you have dry dusty and highly porous comet. How does that fit with, say Tempel 1?
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,427	__________________ “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; 18th October 2019 at 12:57 PM.

18th October 2019, 01:03 PM	#221
jonesdave116 Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 4,962	Originally Posted by Sol88 67P is not a Dirtysnowball, this is the implications part of the paper. Seems a few staunch dirtysnowballlers are have trouble coming to terms with the inevitable fact comets are not mostly ice. Lying again. Strawman again. Do you ever give up with this dishonest crap?
	__________________ “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

18th October 2019, 06:19 PM	#222
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,427	Originally Posted by jonesdave116 Lying again. Strawman again. Do you ever give up with this dishonest crap? Lying again, ay. I think it’s more like you are a little resistant to change...
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,427	__________________ “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

18th October 2019, 06:20 PM	#223
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,427	Truth is comets contain very little to no ice..... Burns a little, ay jonesdave116!
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,427	__________________ “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

18th October 2019, 08:08 PM	#224
jonesdave116 Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 4,962	Originally Posted by Sol88 Truth is comets contain very little to no ice..... Burns a little, ay jonesdave116! Wrong. As observed. Thousands of tonnes of it excavated at Tempel 1 by a teeny little impactor. That is when your woo died. Wal just forgot to inform his gullible acolytes.
	__________________ “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

18th October 2019, 08:18 PM	#225
jonesdave116 Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 4,962	Originally Posted by Sol88 Lying again, ay. I think it’s more like you are a little resistant to change... https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/...866/352ima.jpg No, you lied, yet again, about claims that the comet is mostly ice. You continually lie about it. Lies are all you have left. No model, no explanations, you run away from questions about your idiotic woo, yet you are still here making a fool of yourself. Why? You lost, remember? No electric woo.
	__________________ “There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin

18th October 2019, 10:00 PM	#226
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,427	Originally Posted by jonesdave116 Wrong. As observed. Thousands of tonnes of it excavated at Tempel 1 by a teeny little impactor. That is when your woo died. Wal just forgot to inform his gullible acolytes. Well, one of these comets is an enigma. Your mostly ice Tempel 1 and the dry as chips “dusty” comet, 67P. One we wizzed past, the other we stayed with for awhile. One when we thought comets were mostly ice and one where we think their mostly dry dust. Two camps forming. Trouble in academia. RPC team knows what’s the score is.
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,427	__________________ “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

18th October 2019, 10:01 PM	#227
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,427	Originally Posted by jonesdave116 No, you lied, yet again, about claims that the comet is mostly ice. You continually lie about it. Lies are all you have left. No model, no explanations, you run away from questions about your idiotic woo, yet you are still here making a fool of yourself. Why? You lost, remember? No electric woo. What lie dude? Talking about no model, you’ve agreed the Dirtysnowball snowball is dead. This IS the standard model. Implications, implications... Quote: The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice. No lie. You ok?
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,427	__________________ “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; 18th October 2019 at 10:03 PM.

19th October 2019, 03:44 AM	#228
jonesdave116 Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 4,962	Quote: One when we thought comets were mostly ice...... . Is another lie.
	__________________ “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

19th October 2019, 03:46 AM	#229
jonesdave116 Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 4,962	Quote: Talking about no model, you’ve agreed the Dirtysnowball snowball is dead. This IS the standard model. Is another lie. Want me to link, yet again, to the paper I have linked before to you, to show that you are lying?
	__________________ “There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin

19th October 2019, 03:57 AM	#230
jonesdave116 Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 4,962	Quote: The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice. And as Tempel 1 was of similar dimensions to 67P, and had a similar outgassing rate, the same applies. Still managed to excavate thousands of tones of the stuff from one tiny little area. All of which means your 'model', if such you have, has failed. Long since.
	__________________ “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

19th October 2019, 06:42 AM	#231
tusenfem Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,912	Originally Posted by Sol88 67P is not a Dirtysnowball, this is the implications part of the paper. the dirty snowball was the *FIRST* model of a comet build in the 1950s with NO close encounter with a comet, and from the ground one can only see the huge coma. only in 1986 we got the first picture of the nucleus of a comet (1P/Halley in this case) from Giotto since then the "dirty snowball" developed further into the "snowy dirtball" and on and on as we get more data and yes, journalists, and YOU, like to continue the "dirty snowball", the journalists because they probably don't know better, you because you need to hang on to a strawman in order to "scandalize" mainstream, and to play games here, so that other members do the literature research for you after you give up some farts again, and then when you don't like the result you give a "trump hissy fit". if you want "fulle vs pätzold" then YOU take all the papers, read them, and then make a consize summary of both and discuss the merits of either paper, maybe then there will be a usefull discussion in this thread THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT THE ELECTRIC COMET IDEA and not mainstream bashing.
tusenfem Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,912	__________________ Scientific progress goes BOINK -- Calvin & Hobbes twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist Last edited by tusenfem; 19th October 2019 at 06:48 AM.

19th October 2019, 04:52 PM	#232
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,427	Quote: since then the "dirty snowball" developed further into the "snowy dirtball" and on and on as we get more data Ok then... 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]. I’m I a a teller of porky pies when I said comets are rocky waaaayyyyy back at the start of the thread? It’s what started this whole thread. So you are right mainstream is evolving, towards what though? Patzolds paper reinforces A’Hearns above statement. So not mainstream bashing per se but just a slap round the chops to wake them up. Comets are NOT Dirtysnowballs this is from mainstream science. The Dirtysnowball ... this IS the mainstream model.
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,427	__________________ “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; 19th October 2019 at 04:53 PM.

19th October 2019, 08:15 PM	#233
jonesdave116 Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 4,962	Originally Posted by Sol88 Ok then... I’m I a a teller of porky pies when I said comets are rocky waaaayyyyy back at the start of the thread? It’s what started this whole thread. So you are right mainstream is evolving, towards what though? Patzolds paper reinforces A’Hearns above statement. So not mainstream bashing per se but just a slap round the chops to wake them up. Comets are NOT Dirtysnowballs this is from mainstream science. The Dirtysnowball ... this IS the mainstream model. Complete nonsense. It has just been explained to you. That has not been the model for a long time. And no rock has ever been found on a comet. Nor has any EDM (lol). Nor any electric discharges. So, it looks like you need to get your own house in order, as the mainstream model is doing just fine.
	__________________ “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

19th October 2019, 11:41 PM	#234
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,427	Quote: the mainstream model is doing just fine. Mmmmm..... You lie, A’Hearn said Quote: 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 You spat the dummy not me...
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,427	__________________ “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

20th October 2019, 02:40 AM	#235
Lukraak_Sisser Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 3,922	Let's see, there are according to Sol88, two theories. Mainstream and the EU one. The mainstream theory made predictions that have proven to be largely correct, but is open to minor tweakings as more data becomes available and can thus far be used to both predict what will happen, explain what we see and can be used to get spacecraft to within spitting distance of various celestial objects so far away that the accuracy hidden in there is astounding. The EU theory predicts that nature should behave in the opposite way of what we observe and by extension claims that any machine based upon electromagnetism is doing it wrong. Because, no matter how many times Sol88 deflects the question, if EU is right, then the solar wind as we see it should not exist. Tough choice.