ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

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


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 11th July 2018, 12:04 PM   #3441
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,168
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
No Sol88, just no.

I would like to ask you, politely, to refrain from this kind of behavior; I may be mistaken but I think it violates the ISF’s membership agreement.

Turning to substance, what do you mean by “charge separation”? Please answer with detail, preferably quantitative detail.
Oh, ok then.

Electron and Ion Dynamics of the Solar Wind Interaction with a Weakly Outgassing Comet J.Decca

Get back to with your comments.

Cheers
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 12:14 PM   #3442
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,168
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
OMFSM
maybe Soll88 should look for an Electric Spider!
https://www.cell.com/current-biology...18)30693-6.pdf
Or

e-glider-active-electrostatic-flight-for-airless-body-exploration

Quote:
We envisage the global scale exploration of airless bodies by a gliding vehicle that experiences its own electrostatic lift and drag by its interaction with the naturally charged particle environment near the surface. This Electrostatic Glider (E-Glider) lifts off by extending thin, charged, appendages, which are also articulated to direct the levitation force in the most convenient direction for propulsion and maneuvering.

Seems Mother Nature is onto this electric stuff!
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 12:15 PM   #3443
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,168
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Naturally, electric shirt theory is part of the electric universe.




Though (only slightly) more seriously, given that just in a neutral atom there is "charge separation happening" between the protons and electrons. The degree of charge separation would seem to be the relevant factor for "THE ELECTRIC COMET" or just the meager electric shirt.
Yup, turtles all the way!
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 12:17 PM   #3444
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,859
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Oh, ok then.
Thanks.
Quote:
Electron and Ion Dynamics of the Solar Wind Interaction with a Weakly Outgassing Comet J.Decca

Get back to with your comments.

Cheers
Um ... I want what you, Sol88, mean by the term “charge separation”; specifically in the context of the ELECTRIC COMET model.

I want to be 100% certain that I fully understand exactly and precisely what you mean. I hope, but do not expect, that whatever definition you give you will stick to (you have a well-documented history of changing your mind, in ways well beyond trivial).

It’s perfectly OK to paraphrase what others have written, but I want to read what you yourself mean by “charge separation”.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 12:29 PM   #3445
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,859
Gonna help you out, Sol88.

A neutron is electrically neutral, but is comprised of three quarks, each of which is not electrically neutral. Per the Sol88 definition, is this an example of “charge separation”? If not,why not?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 12:30 PM   #3446
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,387
Jan Deca talks about the charge separation of the solar wind, which then gets neutralized by the cometary electrons and ions, this has been discussed already many pages ago, so this exactly leads to no electric fields as the ec would need.

and i notice i get no answers on how strong the electric fields of the ec need to be, but then the electric community has always been vague about quantifying their ideas.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 12:34 PM   #3447
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,859
{deleted, duplicate post}

Last edited by JeanTate; 11th July 2018 at 12:37 PM.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 01:56 PM   #3448
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,168
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Jan Deca talks about the charge separation of the solar wind, which then gets neutralized by the cometary electrons and ions, this has been discussed already many pages ago, so this exactly leads to no electric fields as the ec would need.

and i notice i get no answers on how strong the electric fields of the ec need to be, but then the electric community has always been vague about quantifying their ideas.
Yeah, nah fair call, fair call, but how far?

From Decca’s paper.

Quote:
Cometary electrons eventually end up neutralizing the solar wind protons, and solar wind electrons eventually neutralize the cometary ions.
say 3AU? 8AU? Comet tails are fairly large structures.

Quote:
Figs. 1(d) and 1(g) show a fanlike structure [15] and density fluctuations or filamentation [43] that can be associated with the so-called “singing comet” waves [25].
from day bloody one!


Quote:
Fig. 4(a)] under the influence of an ambipolar electric field that is generated by the large electron pressure gradient in the inhomogeneous cometary plasma [50], which further enhances the separation of the solar wind electron and ion flows.
double layer.


”been vague about quantifying their ideas”

To be fair and balanced, the mainstream have?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]

Last edited by Sol88; 11th July 2018 at 02:08 PM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 02:05 PM   #3449
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,168
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Gonna help you out, Sol88.

A neutron is electrically neutral, but is comprised of three quarks, each of which is not electrically neutral. Per the Sol88 definition, is this an example of “charge separation”? If not,why not?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 02:18 PM   #3450
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,168
Mainstream or at least regular posters here, jumped up and down, thru hissy fits and really made a song and dance about when charge seperation(violation of quasi neutrality, failure of MHD, blah blah blah) was TOLD to the mainstream as a cause for some of the observed effects.

But....nooooo

Qausi neutrality was the LAW!

Now we are having discussions on the electric comet, via charge separation as a main driver for cometary activity, in which CS is the being treated like that ‘ol chestnut of magnetic fields in space being caused soley by electric currents.

To which the trolls come back with the classic “what about your fridge magnet?”



That’s science
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 02:27 PM   #3451
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,168
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Thanks.

Um ... I want what you, Sol88, mean by the term “charge separation”; specifically in the context of the ELECTRIC COMET model.

I want to be 100% certain that I fully understand exactly and precisely what you mean. I hope, but do not expect, that whatever definition you give you will stick to (you have a well-documented history of changing your mind, in ways well beyond trivial).

It’s perfectly OK to paraphrase what others have written, but I want to read what you yourself mean by “charge separation”.
Same as J.Decca, though adding in the plasma boundaries and tail structures( in their entirety) would give a better overall view of the kinetic plasma effects at comets.
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]

Last edited by Sol88; 11th July 2018 at 02:29 PM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 02:57 PM   #3452
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,328
Thumbs down Stupid denial of the antimatter radiation from his hypothetically charged nucleus

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
The nucleus is charged & polarised.
Rosetta is also charged.
12 July 2018: Stupid denial of the antimatter radiation from his hypothetically charged nucleus.

Last edited by Reality Check; 11th July 2018 at 03:00 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 03:00 PM   #3453
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,328
Thumbs down Insane fantasy that writing "charge" means that we cannot measure bulk density

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
And therefore your precious last strong hold of bulk density...
12 July 2018: Insane fantasy that merely writing "charge" means that we cannot measure the bulk density of comets.
Apply physics to the charges of 67P and Rosetta and plug in measurements. That tells rational people that this single measurement of bulk density of a single comet is correct.
What makes this insane is that ~9 years ago he was told of three different, independent techniques (pre-Rosetta) used to measure the bulk densities of comets.

Last edited by Reality Check; 11th July 2018 at 03:04 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 03:09 PM   #3454
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,328
Thumbs down "Looks like rock" insanity and deluded lies about ices and dust comet papers

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
It looks like rock,...
12 July 2018: "Looks like rock" insanity and deluded lies about ices and dust comet papers.
The stupidity of finding the composition of comets from images has been explained to him many times, thus the insanity of repeating it expecting a different result.
No published paper about comets states that they are rock and so he is repeating deluded "bedrock" = rock, etc. lies.

Last edited by Reality Check; 11th July 2018 at 03:11 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 03:15 PM   #3455
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,859
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Same as J.Decca, though adding in the plasma boundaries and tail structures( in their entirety) would give a better overall view of the kinetic plasma effects at comets.
Let me summarize your, Sol88, definition of “charge separation”:

{crickets}

I’m glad that you recognize the need to provide such a definition, and I await you posting it, with interest.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 03:19 PM   #3456
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,859
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Mainstream or at least regular posters here, jumped up and down, thru hissy fits and really made a song and dance about when charge seperation(violation of quasi neutrality, failure of MHD, blah blah blah) was TOLD to the mainstream as a cause for some of the observed effects.

But....nooooo

Qausi neutrality was the LAW!

Now we are having discussions on the electric comet, via charge separation as a main driver for cometary activity, in which CS is the being treated like that ‘ol chestnut of magnetic fields in space being caused soley by electric currents.

To which the trolls come back with the classic “what about your fridge magnet?”



That’s science
Nice piece of fiction, Sol88!

Back in the real world, folks are waiting, with bated breath, for you to provide your definition of “charge separation”, and to reply to my questions about the density of (at least) five comets ...
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 03:27 PM   #3457
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,328
Thumbs down Stupidity and "looking shaky" lie about Oumuamua (1I/2017 U1)

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Is looking shaky, especially in light of our NEW friend 1I/2017 U1!
...
non-gravitational acceleration????
12 July 2018: Stupidity and "looking shaky" lie about ʻOumuamua (1I/2017 U1)
The measured changes in the motion of 'Oumuamua are accelerations. Eliminating known gravitational (and some other) causes leaves non-gravitational causes. Thus ʻOumuamua's motion is affected by non-gravitational acceleration !

An explanation for the non-gravitational acceleration is outgassing of volatiles as in real world comets. Thus his "looking shaky" lie.

Non-gravitational acceleration in the trajectory of 1I/2017 U1 (‘Oumuamua)
Quote:
After ruling out solar-radiation pressure, drag- and friction-like forces, interaction with solar wind for a highly magnetized object, and geometric effects originating from ‘Oumuamua potentially being composed of several spatially separated bodies or having a pronounced offset between its photocentre and centre of mass, we find comet-like outgassing to be a physically viable explanation, provided that ‘Oumuamua has thermal properties similar to comets.

Last edited by Reality Check; 11th July 2018 at 03:34 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 03:34 PM   #3458
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,328
Thumbs down nsanity that he knows the "power" of charge separation

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So, we have The Man, Reality Check and Jean Tate all now agreeing on how pervasive charge separation is and when you talk magnitudes it can become powerful enough to power...
12 July 2018: Insanity that he knows the "magnitude/power" of charge separation when all he knows is the words charge separation!

Plasmas have separated charges.
Plasmas do not ""violate" quasi-neutrality.
Deluded fantasies about basic plasma properties do not support the insanity of the electric comet.

Nothing to do with:
Sol88's comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, a "hard shell of refractory +material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.
Totally inane delusions about charge separation doing magic.

Last edited by Reality Check; 11th July 2018 at 03:39 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 03:38 PM   #3459
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,328
Thumbs down More "the word separate does magic" insanity to derail from his many comet decisions

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
and yet they separate!
12 July 20918: More "the word separate does magic" insanity to derail from his many comet decisions.

Writing "separate" or "charge separation" does not make the universe obey ignorant delusions.

Plasmas have separated charges.
Plasmas do not ""violate" quasi-neutrality.
Deluded fantasies about basic plasma properties do not support the insanity of the electric comet.

Nothing to do with:
Sol88's comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, a "hard shell of refractory +material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.
Totally inane delusions about charge separation doing magic.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 03:46 PM   #3460
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,328
Thumbs down A "accelerating dust of the surface of a comet" lie and delusion

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Well accelerating dust of the surface of a comet for starters.
12 July 2018: A "accelerating dust of the surface of a comet" lie and delusion.
Writing those words is not evidence of powerful forces from charge separation.

He is repeating his delusion that dust is accelerated from the surface of comets by charging from the solar wind when he knows that comet coma stop the solar wind reaching the surface.

Plasmas have separated charges.
Plasmas do not ""violate" quasi-neutrality.
Deluded fantasies about basic plasma properties do not support the insanity of the electric comet.

Nothing to do with:
Sol88's comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, a "hard shell of refractory +material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.
Totally inane delusions about charge separation doing magic.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 03:49 PM   #3461
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,328
Thumbs down Persists with the insanity of citing an ices and dust comet paper

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Electron and Ion Dynamics of the Solar Wind Interaction with a Weakly Outgassing Comet J.Decca
Persists with the insanity of citing an ices and dust comet paper (Electron and Ion Dynamics of the Solar Wind Interaction with a Weakly Outgassing Comet).

Outgassing from sublimating volatiles !

Nothing to do with:
Sol88's comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, a "hard shell of refractory +material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.
Totally inane delusions about charge separation doing magic.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 03:52 PM   #3462
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,328
Thumbs down Repeats his stupidity of calling a ambipolar electric field, a double layer

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
double layer.
12 July 2018: Repeats his stupidity of calling a ambipolar electric field, a double layer.

3 July 2018: Deluded lies about no sublimation and ambipolar electric fields.

Sol88's comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, a "hard shell of refractory +material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.
Totally inane delusions about charge separation doing magic. Stupidly thinks that a ambipolar electric field is a double layer.

Last edited by Reality Check; 11th July 2018 at 03:56 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 03:58 PM   #3463
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,328
Thumbs down A lying rant about charge separation and quasi-neutrality to derail from delusions

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Mainstream ...
12 July 2018: A lying rant about charge separation and quasi-neutrality to derail from his many comet delusions.

1 lie from the rant: There is no "failure of MHD". There is the appropriate use of MHD. Magnetohydrodynamics is designed for the use on partially ionized gases ("magneto") acting as a fluid (hydrodynamics).

Plasmas have separated charges.
Plasmas do not ""violate" quasi-neutrality.
Deluded fantasies about basic plasma properties do not support the insanity of the electric comet.

Nothing to do with:
Sol88's comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, a "hard shell of refractory +material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.
Totally inane delusions about charge separation doing magic. Stupidly thinks that a ambipolar electric field is a double layer.

Last edited by Reality Check; 11th July 2018 at 04:07 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 04:10 PM   #3464
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,328
Thumbs down A "having discussions on the electric comet" lie

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Now we are having discussions on the electric comet, via charge separation as a main driver for cometary...
12 July 2018: A "having discussions on the electric comet" lie
He is spewing ignorant delusions about charge separation not connected to the electric comet insanity.

We are pointing out that all he is writing is ignorant delusions about charge separation that need to be connected to the electric comet using physics.
Plasmas have separated charges.
Plasmas do not ""violate" quasi-neutrality.
Deluded fantasies about basic plasma properties do not support the insanity of the electric comet.

Nothing to do with:
Sol88's comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, a "hard shell of refractory +material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.
Totally inane delusions about charge separation doing magic. Stupidly thinks that a ambipolar electric field is a double layer.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 04:17 PM   #3465
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,328
Thumbs down A "trolls" insult and “what about your fridge magnet?” lie

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
To which the trolls come back with the classic “what about your fridge magnet?”
12 July 2018: A "trolls" insult and “what about your fridge magnet?” lie

A joke: maybe Soll88 should look for an Electric Spider!
Electric Fields Elicit Ballooning in Spiders (PDF) is an interesting observation that spiders balloon when they detect electric fields.

A physical fact and question: A neutron is electrically neutral, but is comprised of three quarks, each of which is not electrically neutral. Per the Sol88 definition, is this an example of “charge separation”? If not,why not?
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 04:33 PM   #3466
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,042
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Same as J.Decca, though adding in the plasma boundaries and tail structures( in their entirety) would give a better overall view of the kinetic plasma effects at comets.
Jeez, how thick do you need to be? Why not email Deca et al, and ask them how this might end up with Coulombic explosions (lol)? Or EDM (lol)? Or wandering arc discharges (deary me!)? Why don't you Sol, show us this impossible crap in the data, yes? I'll tell you why - because it didn't happen, woo boy. Now go away, and pollute some other forum with your nonsense. 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

Last edited by jonesdave116; 11th July 2018 at 04:35 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 04:43 PM   #3467
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,042
Quote:
That’s science
Err, no. Science is what was detected by various instruments. And none of them saw any of the scientifically illiterate woo dreamed up by the idiot Thornhill. Correct? Or would you like to argue that the moron Thornhill is some sort of scientific guru? If so, show us something that the proven liar has got right. Ever.
Can't do it, eh,Sol?
__________________
“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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 08:38 PM   #3468
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,168
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Jeez, how thick do you need to be? Why not email Deca et al, and ask them how this might end up with Coulombic explosions (lol)? Or EDM (lol)? Or wandering arc discharges (deary me!)? Why don't you Sol, show us this impossible crap in the data, yes? I'll tell you why - because it didn't happen, woo boy. Now go away, and pollute some other forum with your nonsense. Yes?
Well you’d need to seperate charges to have any chance at the above....guess what ol mate.

__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 09:32 PM   #3469
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,387
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Same as J.Decca, though adding in the plasma boundaries and tail structures( in their entirety) would give a better overall view of the kinetic plasma effects at comets.
I still see you don't put any numbers on your claims.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 09:39 PM   #3470
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,387
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Yeah, nah fair call, fair call, but how far?

From Decca’s paper.

say 3AU? 8AU? Comet tails are fairly large structures.
As Deca's simulation box (see Figure 1 and text above) is 3300 × 2200 × 2200 km, I hardly think the neutralization would be at 3 AU or more distance. Read, Sol, read, and try to understand the figures in the paper.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 12:00 AM   #3471
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,168
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
As Deca's simulation box (see Figure 1 and text above) is 3300 × 2200 × 2200 km, I hardly think the neutralization would be at 3 AU or more distance. Read, Sol, read, and try to understand the figures in the paper.
Well then champ, please copy the section from the paper that states how far away from the point of separation neutralisation is complete.

I await your excellent reading and comprehension skills.

__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 12:03 AM   #3472
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,168
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Err, no. Science is what was detected by various instruments. And none of them saw any of the scientifically illiterate woo dreamed up by the idiot Thornhill. Correct? Or would you like to argue that the moron Thornhill is some sort of scientific guru? If so, show us something that the proven liar has got right. Ever.
Can't do it, eh,Sol?

Guru?

No, Wal Thornhill saw outside the box, it is you that is bound by this box.

Sublimating dirtysnowball!!
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 12:06 AM   #3473
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,168
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Thanks.

Um ... I want what you, Sol88, mean by the term “charge separation”; specifically in the context of the ELECTRIC COMET model.

I want to be 100% certain that I fully understand exactly and precisely what you mean. I hope, but do not expect, that whatever definition you give you will stick to (you have a well-documented history of changing your mind, in ways well beyond trivial).

It’s perfectly OK to paraphrase what others have written, but I want to read what you yourself mean by “charge separation”.
The rock seperates the solar wind protons and electrons.

So so simple.

Please provide an example where I have “changed my mind”.

Comet are rocks separating the charges contained with in the solar wind plasma?

What are you failing to grasp, jean tate?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]

Last edited by Sol88; 12th July 2018 at 12:15 AM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 12:16 AM   #3474
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,168
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Jan Deca talks about the charge separation of the solar wind, which then gets neutralized by the cometary electrons and ions, this has been discussed already many pages ago, so this exactly leads to no electric fields as the ec would need.

and i notice i get no answers on how strong the electric fields of the ec need to be, but then the electric community has always been vague about quantifying their ideas.
Where is the neutralisation taking place again, tusenfem?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 01:30 AM   #3475
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,168
Quote:
and i notice i get no answers on how strong the electric fields of the ec need to be, but then the electric community has always been vague about quantifying their ideas.
Quote:
Quote:
A satisfactory explanation for the observed electron dynamics, however, is not yet available.
J.Decca

Any progress?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]

Last edited by Sol88; 12th July 2018 at 01:33 AM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 01:44 AM   #3476
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,042
Quote:
Comet are rocks separating the charges contained with in the solar wind plasma?

What are you failing to grasp, jean tate?
How about the fact that you are continually lying about rock. There isn't any, as proven. Ergo your electric comet woo is dead.
__________________
“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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 01:48 AM   #3477
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,042
Quote:
Well you’d need to seperate charges to have any chance at the above....guess what ol mate
Guess what? None of your woo was detected, so it is all irrelevant isn't 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
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 03:03 AM   #3478
Indagator
Student
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 33
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
The rock seperates the solar wind protons and electrons.

So so simple.

Please provide an example where I have “changed my mind”.

Comet are rocks separating the charges contained with in the solar wind plasma?

What are you failing to grasp, jean tate?

LAUGHABLE!

Remember this table, Sol88?

Object ID a e i q Q
Astrd: 2001 KD55 3.344 0.6235 9.98 1.26 5.43
Astrd: 2014 LS26 3.364 0.6289 10.86 1.25 5.48
Astrd: 2000 DQ110 3.361 0.6297 58.28 1.25 5.48
Astrd: 2016 RP33 3.334 0.6343 23.04 1.22 5.45
Astrd: 2014 XN40 3.381 0.6349 14.20 1.24 5.53
Astrd: 1986 RA 3.327 0.6358 19.13 1.21 5.44
Comet: 67P/C-G 3.463 0.6414 7.05 1.24 5.69
Astrd: 2014 HW177 3.302 0.6437 13.00 1.18 5.43
Astrd: 1995 QN3 3.300 0.6450 14.79 1.17 5.43
Astrd: 2014 HY196 3.526 0.6561 42.29 1.21 5.84
Astrd: 2016 WX8 3.529 0.6572 13.29 1.21 5.85
Astrd: 2016 LA2 3.565 0.6748 17.43 1.16 5.97
Astrd: 2011 YY28 3.388 0.6765 7.35 1.10 5.68


Columns: a = Semi-major axis (AU), e = Eccentricity, i = Inclination, q = Perihelion (AU), Q = Aphelion (AU). All data extracted from the JPL SBDB. Please note, the tabulated data, above, is a trivial subset of a greater whole.

Care to try again?

Care to provide a real physical mechanism for how an insulator causes solar wind protons to travel in one direction and solar wind electrons to travel in another, whilst simultaneously causing "cometary electrons" to chase after (and neutralize) those solar wind protons while "cometary ions" seek out and neutralize with solar wind electrons? Are we going to continue talking about your brand of electrical magic? Or are we going to finally introduce some real world physics?

Would you like another expert's take on your latest about face?

Does charge separation occur at comets? YES!
Does charge separation occur at asteroids? NO! (Please refer to table above)

Why the difference? Sublimating volatile ices are being ionized producing .... I'll let you figure out the rest of the explanation (you've heard it often enough)!

REMEMBER! Sol88! It's your model! It's your claim! You HAVE TO PROVE it!

This thread is open to discuss the electric comet! Dig?

I also find it extraordinarily funny that you claim this is all,

Quote:
So so simple.
when it is obvious that your "electric comet" is impossible to model quantitatively (i.e., it cannot exist)! You have been working diligently for over nine years trying to convince the ISF membership (and no doubt others) that your "model" has merit ... and yet we find ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! ONE EPIC FAILURE AFTER ANOTHER! And now you want to change directions again claiming it was charge separation all along?

Question for you, Sol88 - Can we now legitimately drop eccentricity, and the associated orbital charging/discharging mechanism from The Sol88 electric comet model? I wonder what the "eu brain trust" will think of your new model?

Post Script - I've got some catching up to do! Fifteen pages in three weeks? And still nothing intelligent from our resident "ec" expert! Sol88, I hope to find much more time to pick your brain about your electric comet model! I do hope you are up to the challenge!

Last edited by Indagator; 12th July 2018 at 03:08 AM.
Indagator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 04:01 AM   #3479
Indagator
Student
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 33
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
The rock seperates the solar wind protons and electrons.

So so simple.

Please provide an example where I have “changed my mind”.

Comet are rocks separating the charges contained with in the solar wind plasma?

What are you failing to grasp, jean tate?

LAUGHABLE!

Sol88! I do hope you know that the internet never forgets!

And you want just one example where you've changed your mind?

I see no mention of "charge separation" or "double layers" in your electric comet model description published, 2009/07/26!

Quote:
ELECTRIC COMET MODEL:
  • Comets are debris produced during violent electrical interactions of planets and moons in an earlier phase of solar system history. Comets are similar to asteroids, and their composition varies. Most comets should be homogeneous—their interiors will have the same composition as their surfaces. They are simply “asteroids on eccentric orbits.”
  • Comets follow their elongated paths within a weak electrical field centered on the Sun. In approaching the Sun, a charge imbalance develops between the nucleus and the higher voltage and charge density near the Sun. Growing electrical stresses initiate discharges and the formation of a glowing plasma sheath, appearing as the coma and tail.
  • The observed jets of comets are electric arc discharges to the nucleus, producing “electrical discharge machining” (EDM) of the surface. The excavated material is accelerated into space along the jets’ observed filamentary arcs.
  • Intermittent and wandering arcs erode the surface and burn it black, leaving the distinctive scarring patterns of electric discharges.
  • The jets’ explode from cometary nuclei at supersonic speeds and retain their coherent structure for hundreds of thousands of miles. The collimation of such jets is a well-documented attribute of plasma discharge.
  • The tails of comets reveal well-defined filaments extending up to tens of millions of miles without dissipating in the vacuum of space. This “violation” of neutral gas behavior in a vacuum is to be expected of a plasma discharge within the ambient electric field of the Sun.
  • It is the electric force that holds the spherical cometary coma in place as the comet races around the Sun. The diameter of the visible coma will often reach millions of miles. And the visible coma is surrounded by an even larger and more “improbable” spherical envelope of fluorescing hydrogen visible in ultraviolet light.
  • The primary distinction between comet and asteroid surfaces is that electrical arcing and “electrostatic cleaning” of the comet nucleus will leave little or no dust or debris on the surface during the active phase, even if a shallow layer of dust may be attracted back to the nucleus electrostatically as the comet becomes dormant in its retreat to more remote regions.

If you need additional proof of how often you've changed your mind and just how nebulous your electric comet "model" really is, I'll gladly dig up some more internet dirt for you!

To be honest, Sol88, in nine years (and I've been looking) you have never once given a clear and testable scientific description of what the electric comet "model" is supposed to be or how it physically operates! As a matter of fact, your entire posting history here on the electric comet thread is best described as religious mumblings!

Remember, a clear and testable scientific description must address a specific feature of your model! For example ---

Using electrostatics, electrodynamics, and orbital mechanics, show how eccentricity is responsible for the charging and discharging of your electric comet!

If eccentricity is no longer a part of your model, please, let us know! EmKay?
Indagator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 09:00 AM   #3480
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,387
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Well then champ, please copy the section from the paper that states how far away from the point of separation neutralisation is complete.

I await your excellent reading and comprehension skills.

If you look at the figures it is clear
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:52 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.