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

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


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Closed Thread
Old 25th July 2018, 06:34 AM   #3881
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,004
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
The Coulomb force is not replacing gravity ya burke! It's lessening it's apparent force!

That might be the case but it's thrown a spanner in your mass estimates and ultimately the density calculation for 67P!

No one cares it's out by a few meters when your measuring the mass from mm differences from radio wave propagation...well YOU HAVE A PROBLEM
Good to see a demonstration that, despite what you've posted earlier, you Sol88 are more than capable of doing the calculations required to show how the relevant data is consistent with an estimated density of 67P being ~that of "rock".

Or do you lack the cojones to do such a calculation, for fear it'll blast your beloved ELECTRIC COMET model into dust?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2018, 08:12 AM   #3882
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,529
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
The Coulomb force is not replacing gravity ya burke! It's lessening it's apparent force!

That might be the case but it's thrown a spanner in your mass estimates and ultimately the density calculation for 67P!

No one cares it's out by a few meters when your measuring the mass from mm differences from radio wave propagation...well YOU HAVE A PROBLEM
Personally I think this just shows how little Sol understands about what he is suggesting. He doesn't seem to understand the problem.
Here is a breakdown of the problem that he needs to calculate;

Forget about RSI. Regardless of what this invisible plasma woo is doing to the signal, it doesn't affect the gravity (and therefore the calculated density) of the comet. That is measured by the effect it has on the orbiting spacecraft. If the gravity were greater than that which is measured, the spacecraft would crash. It didn't.
Suppose we wish to orbit a satellite around Earth, at a certain altitude; how do we go about doing that? Well, we need to know the gravity exerted on it by the planet. To cut a long story short, we can then calculate an orbital speed that will keep it in that orbit. If we get the speed wrong, then it'll either head back towards Earth, or head outwards into a more distant orbit.
If the spacecraft behaves as expected, then we know that we have measured Earth's gravity correctly.
The same applies at 67P. If the density were 4 x greater than measured, then the orbital speed used by the mission controllers would not be sufficient to keep it in orbit, and it would crash.
So, Sol needs to explain how it was able to maintain this orbit, at a speed insufficient to keep it from crashing, if the density were as he suggests. That is where we are now. He suggests electrostatic repulsion. Harvey and Tom Bridgman have already shown him how to do that calculation. The results show the suggestion of electrostatic repulsion to be idiotic.
It is now up to Sol to show why it isn't idiotic. Firstly, give us the equation. Secondly, give us the figures to plug into it.
Hint: this has already been done.
__________________
“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; 25th July 2018 at 08:15 AM.
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2018, 10:19 AM   #3883
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,455
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Ok, I'll simplify it for you then me 'ol chugger tusenfem!

your original assertion HERE



Does a point charge have an electric field?

i know what i wrote, and it is true.
however what you wrote

Quote:
like the electric field of off the charged nucleus?

That doesn't need charge separation of the solar wind!
of off??
the second line is your claim
whatever
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 01:36 AM   #3885
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,712
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Personally I think this just shows how little Sol understands about what he is suggesting. He doesn't seem to understand the problem.
Here is a breakdown of the problem that he needs to calculate;

Forget about RSI. Regardless of what this invisible plasma woo is doing to the signal, it doesn't affect the gravity (and therefore the calculated density) of the comet. That is measured by the effect it has on the orbiting spacecraft. If the gravity were greater than that which is measured, the spacecraft would crash. It didn't.
Suppose we wish to orbit a satellite around Earth, at a certain altitude; how do we go about doing that? Well, we need to know the gravity exerted on it by the planet. To cut a long story short, we can then calculate an orbital speed that will keep it in that orbit. If we get the speed wrong, then it'll either head back towards Earth, or head outwards into a more distant orbit.
If the spacecraft behaves as expected, then we know that we have measured Earth's gravity correctly.
The same applies at 67P. If the density were 4 x greater than measured, then the orbital speed used by the mission controllers would not be sufficient to keep it in orbit, and it would crash.
So, Sol needs to explain how it was able to maintain this orbit, at a speed insufficient to keep it from crashing, if the density were as he suggests. That is where we are now. He suggests electrostatic repulsion. Harvey and Tom Bridgman have already shown him how to do that calculation. The results show the suggestion of electrostatic repulsion to be idiotic.
It is now up to Sol to show why it isn't idiotic. Firstly, give us the equation. Secondly, give us the figures to plug into it.
Hint: this has already been done.
Righto, back from out back and need to set a few boundaries so we all read from the same book.

Official 67P Stats

Mass= 9.98e12 kg
Volume = 187000 m3
GM = 662.2m3-m2
Density = 533 kg/m3


g = 6.8e-4 m-s-2 30 years of the Vega mission: Comparison of some properties of the 1P/Halley and 67P/ChuryumovëGerasimenko comets


That's pretty much the mainstream understanding?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 02:21 AM   #3886
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,455
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Those numbers are WIKI's understanding, I assume you are going to complain about slightly different numbers in the Ksanfomati paper?
For those interested the DOI is 10.3367/UFNe.2016.07.037867
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 04:43 AM   #3887
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,712
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Those numbers are WIKI's understanding, I assume you are going to complain about slightly different numbers in the Ksanfomati paper?
For those interested the DOI is 10.3367/UFNe.2016.07.037867
At the moment, just a consensus on the generally accepted figures for 67P.

So wiki or not, can I use them in a few calcs?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 04:54 AM   #3888
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,434
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
At the moment, just a consensus on the generally accepted figures for 67P.

So wiki or not, can I use them in a few calcs?
Please don't. Your "Volume" is wrong by five decimal orders of magnitude.

The Wiki article you were citing gives the volume as 18.7 km3. That's 18700000000 cubic meters, not 187000.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 05:12 AM   #3889
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,712
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Please don't. Your "Volume" is wrong by five decimal orders of magnitude.

The Wiki article you were citing gives the volume as 18.7 km3. That's 18700000000 cubic meters, not 187000.
Roger 18700000000 or 1.87e10. Ok

We should add

Rosetta mass 1250 kg

Orbit distance 10km

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

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 02:39 PM   #3890
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,048
Thumbs down A "mainstream understanding" delusion about measured comet densities

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
That's pretty much the mainstream understanding?
10 August 2018: A "mainstream understanding" delusion about measured comet densities

He knows that comet densities have been measured for over 60 years to be less than that of water.

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 Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 02:51 PM   #3891
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,048
Thumbs down Idiocy of discussing comets are rocks insanity starting with 67P is not a rock

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So wiki or not, can I use them in a few calcs?
10 August 2018: Idiocy of discussing his "comets are rocks, etc." insanity starting with the measurement that Comet 67P is not a rock!

Add a "few calcs" delusion when he has a track record of 9 years of the inability to do basic physics or even click on links.

This may be doing a calculation from the density of an ices and dust comet, coming up with a fantasy that the mainstream is wrong and then the stupidity that we have seen before that his "comets are rocks, etc." insanity must be right. Charitably this is the fallacy of false dichotomy.

Maybe the idiocy of doing the same calculations that have been done before which are a small bit of evidence debunks his comet insanity: Electric Comets III: Mass vs. Charge

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; 9th August 2018 at 02:57 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 03:24 PM   #3892
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,712
Focus rc, focus.

Gunna give this math turn out a crack. Tom simplistic calculations will very much be a part of this whole shebang.

Just need to establish a baseline on “known” comet properties so as to leave no wiggle room. For you and me both.

Keen to play?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 03:34 PM   #3893
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,048
Thumbs down Confirms the stupidity of repeating calculations that debunk his comet insanity

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Gunna give this math turn out a crack. Tom simplistic calculations will very much be a part of this whole shebang.
10 August 2018: Confirms the stupidity of repeating calculations that debunk his comet insanity.

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 Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 03:43 PM   #3894
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,048
Question Do you agree to use the measured density of Comet 67P (less than rock)

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Keen to play?
Of course I am keen to expose even more parroting of the delusion that you can do physics when you have denied physics calculation for over 9 years .

We will start with where you started, "Official 67P Stats". This is Comet 67P
Quote:
Volume 18.7 km3 (4.5 cu mi)[3]
Mass (9.982±0.003)×1012 kg[3]
Mean density 0.533 ± 0.006 g/cm
10 August 2018 Sol88: Do you agree to use the measured density of Comet 67P (about 6 times less than that of rock)?

N.B. This is what the orbital parameters gives us. The RSI measurement also gives us a similar mass. It is this mass that the electric comet insanity says is wrong.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 03:46 PM   #3895
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,712
Focus rc, focus.

Gunna give this math turn out a crack. Tom simplistic calculations will very much be a part of this whole shebang.

Just need to establish a baseline on “known” comet properties so as to leave no wiggle room. For you and me both.

Keen to play?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 05:21 PM   #3896
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,048
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Focus rc, focus.
Read posts, Sol88, read posts.
10 August 2018 Sol88: Do you agree to use the measured density of Comet 67P (about 6 times less than that of rock)?
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 05:45 PM   #3897
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,529
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post


Orbit distance 10km

For the calcs
Irrelevant; Rosetta orbited at distances from 1500 km to 0 km. The equations for the force laws involved both decrease as the inverse square of the distance, which means that they cancel out.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 06:19 PM   #3898
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,712
Well the flight team for Rosetta needed something so they could ORBIT the nucleus, like you said Jd116 and with fuel to spare!!

Focus jd116, focus

Quote:
Cometary nuclei consist mostly of dust and water ice1. Previous observations have found nuclei to be low-density and highly porous bodies2,3,4, but have only moderately constrained the range of allowed densities because of the measurement uncertainties. Here we report the precise mass, bulk density, porosity and internal structure of the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko on the basis of its gravity field. The mass and gravity field are derived from measured spacecraft velocity perturbations at fly-by distances between 10 and 100 kilometres. The gravitational point mass is GM = 666.2 ± 0.2 cubic metres per second squared, giving a mass M = (9,982 ± 3) × 109 kilograms. Together with the current estimate of the volume of the nucleus5, the average bulk density of the nucleus is 533 ± 6 kilograms per cubic metre. The nucleus appears to be a low-density, highly porous (72–74 per cent) dusty body, similar to that of comet 9P/Tempel 12,3. The most likely composition mix has approximately four times more dust than ice by mass and two times more dust than ice by volume. We conclude that the interior of the nucleus is homogeneous and constant in density on a global scale without large voids. The high porosity seems to be an inherent property of the nucleus material.
LINK

So, tusenfem is wiki on the money here sport?

Which one would you like to use? the 10 or 100km jd116?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]

Last edited by Sol88; 9th August 2018 at 07:10 PM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 06:49 PM   #3899
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,712
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Of course I am keen to expose even more parroting of the delusion that you can do physics when you have denied physics calculation for over 9 years .

We will start with where you started, "Official 67P Stats". This is Comet 67P

10 August 2018 Sol88: Do you agree to use the measured density of Comet 67P (about 6 times less than that of rock)?

N.B. This is what the orbital parameters gives us. The RSI measurement also gives us a similar mass. It is this mass that the electric comet insanity says is wrong.

So which mass do i use rc?

Wiki's 9.98e12 kg or M. Pätzold's 9.982e9 kg?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 06:50 PM   #3900
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,529
Quote:
Well the flight team for Rosetta needed something so they could ORBIT the nucleus, like you said Jd116 and with fuel to spare!!

Focus jd116, focus
No, you focus. What is Coulomb's law? What is the gravitational law? Both of them have r2 as the denominator. Ergo, they cancel out.
This has nothing to do with the flight team. They measured the mass, and therefore the gravity, using Doppler effects on the RSI. That tells them at what velocity to orbit the spacecraft in bound orbits. At 5 km the velocity required will be higher than at 20 km. If they had got it wrong, the spacecraft would either crash or fly off to who knows where. They didn't get it wrong, did they? So, what is causing Rosetta to orbit in bound orbits (i.e. not using propulsion, merely gravity) when you think the damn thing is 5 x heavier than measured? Let me spell this out again; It. would. crash.
__________________
“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; 9th August 2018 at 06:51 PM.
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 06:58 PM   #3901
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,529
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So which mass do i use rc?

Wiki's 9.98e12 kg or M. Pätzold's 9.982e9 kg?
Pätzold states the mass as  (9,982 ± 3) × 109 kg. I think you'll find that 9 (thousand) 982 x 109 = 9.982 x 1012!
__________________
“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; 9th August 2018 at 06:59 PM.
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 07:00 PM   #3902
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,712
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
No, you focus. What is Coulomb's law? What is the gravitational law? Both of them have r2 as the denominator. Ergo, they cancel out.
This has nothing to do with the flight team. They measured the mass, and therefore the gravity, using Doppler effects on the RSI. That tells them at what velocity to orbit the spacecraft in bound orbits. At 5 km the velocity required will be higher than at 20 km. If they had got it wrong, the spacecraft would either crash or fly off to who knows where. They didn't get it wrong, did they? So, what is causing Rosetta to orbit in bound orbits (i.e. not using propulsion, merely gravity) when you think the damn thing is 5 x heavier than measured? Let me spell this out again; It. would. crash.
gravitational law = FIXED CAN NOT BE CHANGED (except via more or less mass)
Coulomb's law = Variable power, can be attractive OR repulsive.

BOTH are inverse square laws.

Is this correct jd116? this is my limited understanding.
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 07:05 PM   #3903
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,712
Great so we can lock in

9.98e12 kg for the mass
1.87e10 m3 for volume
533 kg/m3 for density
662.2m3-m2 for GM
6.8e-4 m-s-2 for g

orbit distance for both Newton and Coulomb's laws = 10km

Lock them in?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 07:09 PM   #3904
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,048
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Lock them in?
Lock in that comets do not have the density of rock as we have known for 70 years - sure.
10 August 2018 Sol88: Do you agree to use the measured density of Comet 67P (about 6 times less than that of rock)?

Last edited by Reality Check; 9th August 2018 at 07:12 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 07:13 PM   #3905
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,529
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Great so we can lock in

9.98e12 kg for the mass
1.87e10 m3 for volume
533 kg/m3 for density
662.2m3-m2 for GM
6.8e-4 m-s-2 for g

orbit distance for both Newton and Coulomb's laws = 10km

Lock them in?
No, you do not need an orbital distance! As Tom Bridgman stated:

Quote:
The fact that both force laws are inverse-square allows distance between the masses, r, to cancel out. This leaves: ......
And as Prof. Harvey Rutt stated:

Quote:
So the r^2 cancels out, it does have the right functional form.
So q1q2=Gm1m2/ke.
Otherwise do what you want. Harvey has already done it for you. Just copy his calculation.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 07:21 PM   #3906
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,712
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
gravitational law = FIXED CAN NOT BE CHANGED (except via more or less mass)
Coulomb's law = Variable power, can be attractive OR repulsive.

BOTH are inverse square laws.

Is this correct jd116? this is my limited understanding.

is this also correct jd116?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 07:32 PM   #3907
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,529
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
is this also correct jd116?
Both laws have r2 as the denominator. So they cancel out. It doesn't matter what distance you are calculating, because whatever it is will be the denominator in both laws. And will therefore cancel out.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 07:48 PM   #3908
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,529
Quote:
Coulomb's law = Variable power, can be attractive OR repulsive.
And whichever you are calculating relies on r2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 08:29 PM   #3909
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,712
So yes or no?

Quote:
gravitational law = FIXED CAN NOT BE CHANGED (except via more or less mass)
Coulomb's law = Variable power, can be attractive OR repulsive.

BOTH are inverse square laws.
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
is this also correct jd116?
Newtons requires either more or less MASS with distance being fixed to change the ATTRACTIVE only gravitational force.

Coulomb requires more or less CHARGE with distance being fixed to change the ATTRACTIVE or REPULSIVE electrostatic force.

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

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]

Last edited by Sol88; 9th August 2018 at 08:33 PM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 08:37 PM   #3910
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,529
Quote:
So yes or no?
Yes or no, what? What are you on about? Coulomb's law: F = ke q1q2/ r2.

Newton: F = G m1m2/ r2. So, r2 cancels out.
__________________
“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; 9th August 2018 at 08:57 PM.
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 10:03 PM   #3911
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,712
Coulomb's law: F = ke q1q2/ r2

Ok what would happen if q1 AND q2 are both the same sign?



Then what would happen if the same were true for m1 AND m2?

r2 still holds true!
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]

Last edited by Sol88; 9th August 2018 at 10:05 PM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2018, 03:10 AM   #3912
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,712
So how many newtons of attractive force does the mass of the comet and the mass of Rosetta work out to?

How many newtons of repulsive force does the charge of the comet and the charge of Rosetta work out to?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2018, 05:52 AM   #3913
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,712
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Both laws have r2 as the denominator. So they cancel out. It doesn't matter what distance you are calculating, because whatever it is will be the denominator in both laws. And will therefore cancel out.
What happens when one force is attractive and one is repulsive? how do they cancel out?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2018, 06:38 AM   #3914
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,529
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
What happens when one force is attractive and one is repulsive? how do they cancel out?
Because the calculations both have r2 as the denominator. It is the denominator that cancels out. That is the distance of the spacecraft from the comet. You want to make it 10 km? Then we have F = ke q1q2/ 10 000m2 to work out the non-existent repulsive force, and F = G m1m2/ 10 000m2 to work out the gravitational force. You are dividing both by the same number. It therefore cancels out. Whatever distance the s/c is from the nucleus is going to be the denominator.
So, what you end up with is ke q1q2 = G m1m2. To rearrange that, multiply both sides by 1/ ke to get rid of ke from the LH side, and you end up with;

q1q2 = G m1m2/ ke.

Now, from that we know m1 (mass s/c), m2 (mass comet as measured), G and Ke are constants that can be looked up. We know the voltage on q1 (s/c). So to complete the calculation we need to estimate the capacitance of the s/c and the comet. Relatively straightforward. We can then figure out, in Coulombs how much charge is distributed between the s/c and comet. From the capacitance and voltage we can work out how many Coulombs are on the s/c and therefore how many need to be on the comet. From the capacitance of the comet, we can work out the voltage required from Q = CV. That is, V = Q/C. And you'll find that this has been done. It is a ludicrous figure of ~ 100 gigavolts. It isn't tenable.
__________________
“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; 10th August 2018 at 06:56 AM.
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2018, 06:40 AM   #3915
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,455
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Well the flight team for Rosetta needed something so they could ORBIT the nucleus, like you said Jd116 and with fuel to spare!!

Focus jd116, focus

LINK

So, tusenfem is wiki on the money here sport?

Which one would you like to use? the 10 or 100km jd116?
I don't care, you can use the wiki numbers, that's fine.
It also does not matter if you use 10 or 100 km for orbital distance. For generality you can use α × 10 km.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2018, 06:46 AM   #3916
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,455
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Coulomb's law: F = ke q1q2/ r2

Ok what would happen if q1 AND q2 are both the same sign?



Then what would happen if the same were true for m1 AND m2?

r2 still holds true!
my gawd, man, YOU are supposed to be the Electric Anything expert, and you don't even know how coulomb's law works?

What the frak do you want to calculate, STATE THAT FIRST!!!
Do you want to equate Newton and Coulomb?
Do you want to disturbe Newton by Coulomb?
WHAT DO YOU WANT?
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2018, 06:47 AM   #3917
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,455
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So how many newtons of attractive force does the mass of the comet and the mass of Rosetta work out to?

How many newtons of repulsive force does the charge of the comet and the charge of Rosetta work out to?
You have the numbers, put them in the friggin equations and tell us!
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2018, 06:48 AM   #3918
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,455
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
What happens when one force is attractive and one is repulsive? how do they cancel out?
To quote a dispicable person: SAD!
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2018, 06:49 AM   #3919
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,529
Essentially Sol, what we are doing by cancelling out the denominator, is calculating the charge required on the comet at 0 m, i.e. the surface. The charge 'felt' by the s/c will lessen as 1/ r2 as you move away from the nucleus, just as the gravitational force 'felt' will drop off as 1/ r2. So, we can do a whole series of calculations for varying orbital parameters, but there is no point. Surely the charge in question is that on the comet surface. And that would disrupt any material known to man.
__________________
“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; 10th August 2018 at 06:55 AM.
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2018, 08:12 AM   #3920
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,529
For Sol's benefit I'll try to show why Harvey and Tom's calculations lead to the same conclusion, despite looking somewhat different on paper.

First off, we have the Coulomb constant, ke, which is a known number. However, Harvey and Tom use it differently, but this will have no bearing on the result. ke is derived from Gauss's law, and is given as 1/ 4πε0, where ε0 is the vacuum permittivity, and Tom uses this form in his calculation.
So, essentially, Harvey gets rid of ke by multiplying each side of the equation by 1/ ke. For Tom, he needs to get rid of it by multiplying both sides by 4πε0/ 1.
It will have precisely the same effect.
Another difference, is that Harvey just equates the two force laws, and works out what charge would be needed to fully cancel gravity for the mass as measured by Rosetta (35 gigavolts). Of course, that isn't the figure we need. EU say that a charge is cancelling out some proportion of the measured mass/ gravity. So, if you want the comet to be 2000 kg/m3, and we take the measured density of ~ 500 kg/m3, that means that you need to have it (4 - 1) x Harvey's result, i.e. 3 x 35 = 105 gigavolts.

Tom has done things slightly differently, and has built the real and apparent masses into his equation, assuming we can leave the s/c mass as it is. So, he has Gm (M' - M), where m = s/c mass, M' = mass required by EU, and M is the mass as measured by Rosetta. He then converts that into an equation using density values, mass = density x volume.
So Tom, having inserted an EU value of 2000 kg/m3, and a measured value of 400 kg/m3, comes up with a distributed charge between s/c and comet of 3.65 x 10-4 C2. And that is basically as far as he goes.
So, given the charge on Rosetta worked out by Harvey, we know that it is 10-8 C. Therefore, from Tom's final figures, we know the charge on the comet must be 3.65 x 104 C. From the capacitance estimated by Harvey of 67P, of 0.3uF, we can work out the voltage on the comet from Q = CV. So, V = Q/C, = 3.65 x 104 C/ 3.0 x 10-7 F.
Which gives us ~ 1.2 x 1011 V. That is 120 gigavolts. That is not possible.

http://dealingwithcreationisminastro...vs-charge.html

http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2015/04...comment-432278
__________________
“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; 10th August 2018 at 08:38 AM.
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

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

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:21 AM.
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.