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 19th June 2015, 11:05 AM   #1
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,856
The Electric Comet Theory Part III/SAFIRE

In one of the Electric Comet threads, Haig introduced SAFIRE (or maybe it was Sol88?). In the Phys.org ("PO") comments on an article entitled A celestial butterfly emerges from its dusty cocoon, cantdrive85 ("cd") also introduced SAFIRE.

Here's how it stated:
Originally Posted by cantdrive85
It would also seem as if BK completely dismisses lab experiment as being valid to science. He prefers his pet theory to rigorous scientific discovery. What else would you expect from a pseudoscientific metaphysicist tho?
"BK" refers to Brian Koberlein, and the blog post cd cited first cited is Hot Topic; however, the one he was basing his comments on is actually Quacks Like a Duck (as he later clarified).

The part in this blog post which apparently triggered his ire is this:
Quote:
For example, there’s a recent experiment by electric universe supporters known as the SAFIRE project. The basic setup is a plasma globe (or Tesla ball) where things like voltage, current, and gas pressure can be varied. What the project shows is that there are some broad similarities between a plasma ball and the Sun. There are current hot spots, an overall surface glow, and the surrounding plasma gets hotter than the surface of the ball. The similarities are kind of interesting to see, but from them many EU supporters claim that this demonstrates the Sun is actually electrically charged. That is, the similarities show that the underlying physics must be the same.
I asked cd about whether the project had published any papers (no), and then "in what way(s) does SAFIRE test anything to do with the Sun?"

Here's his response:
Quote:
It's an exercise in approximation, fulfilling and developing the quantitative constraints you keep blathering about, further developing our knowledge of plasma discharge given certain conditions, and addressing questions regarding anomalous phenomena observed by astrophysicists. Not purely mathematical gymnastics but experimentation, ya know that ol' nugget.
I invited cd to come over here to have a deep, detailed discussion of SAFIRE, and its role in testing "the Electric Sun", partly because PO's comments are severely restricted in length and formatting. Rather than wait for him to take up my offer, I thought I'd be proactive.

From memory, the link in BK's blog post is the same as the one Haig (or Sol88) posted, repeatedly; it's an interesting read
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 19th June 2015, 06:31 PM   #2
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,018
I suspect the argument wouldn't get very far, tbh, JT. To quote from the latest (AFAIK) SAFIRE pdf: "Further refinements in Juregen’s theory have been put forth,(7) but the exact mechanism that could account for an electrically powered sun is still under question."
So the nonsense model proposed by Jurgens, has been added to! The reference in the text leads to Don Scott's equally silly Electric Sky, which was comprehensively taken apart by Tom Bridgman. And, no doubt, a number of high school physics students.
So for them to say there is no exact mechanism, is double speak for "they haven't got a clue."
It's all still dependent on an Electric God.
Any amount of messing around in a lab, even if it were scalable, is pointless without telling us where the power source comes from, and why we don't detect it.
And good luck to them scaling up the nuclear reactions they'll need to account for the neutrino flux!
__________________
“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 20th June 2015, 05:50 AM   #3
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,856
From the section entitled "Experimental", sub-section "Instrumentation" of the PDF:
Originally Posted by Anderson+
SAFIRE was envisioned to proceed in three stages, the first was a thorough assessment of the electric sun model and how it relates to the current fusion/gravitational model.12 The next stage was to assemble a small scale “prove out” to test instrumentation capabilities and satisfactory concepts. The work presented in this paper will report on this second stage work. The final third stage would be the actual scaled instrument capable of supplying the desired wattage upon the electrode assembly.
12 is M. Childs. “SAFIRE: Stellar Atmospheric Function in Regulation Experiment”, 2013 Electric Universe Conference, Albuquerque, NM. I could not find this, but did find two videos of M. Childs making presentations entitled "SAFIRE: An Experimental Investigation of the Electric Sun" (Parts 1 and 2). These do not seem to be a summary of "a thorough assessment of the electric sun model and how it relates to the current fusion/gravitational model". Perhaps it will be included in the paper which reports the results of the "final third stage".

Despite what Anderson+ write, "this paper" seem to go rather beyond the stated scope. For example:
Originally Posted by Anderson+
The parallel between certain aspects of the sun’s atmosphere and such a discharge may lie in the supergranulation aspect of the photosphere. Figure 5 shows a typical high resolution picture of a sunspot, showing the photospheric granules “reaching” thorough the atmosphere in the opening. On the right are the anode tufts in our experiments. It is logical to assume that with a higher current density they would closely packed and forced together.
According to cd, the third stage results will be presented shortly, at an EU conference. I expect this presentation will also be a video; will a paper follow?

Should the authors seek to publish in a relevant peer-reviewed journal, they will likely be asked to fix the real bloopers in the PDF; for example: "Visible light emission arises from the atmosphere (photosphere and chromosphere) of the sun, not the core. This is known because the temperature of the layer below the chromosphere (the layer below the sunspots as in Figure 5) was measured using various spectrographic techniques, and is estimated to only be ~4000°K."
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 20th June 2015, 06:01 AM   #4
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,856
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
I suspect the argument wouldn't get very far, tbh, JT.
Maybe not, but this thread may turn out to be a good resource.

Quote:
Any amount of messing around in a lab, even if it were scalable, is pointless without telling us where the power source comes from, and why we don't detect it.
Well, one very useful result may be that the preferred model, for how the Sun is powered, will be quantified to some extent. For example, one of the scaling parameters SAFIRE is being designed around is the "surface wattage as the sun". From Figure 7, this seems to be ~64000000 W/m2. Assuming the final report contains details of the scaling, together with the voltages and currents, there may be something which Scott has never opined on.

Also, a perfectly legitimate question will be, as you say, what is the analog on the Sun for the wires in the pedestal, through which the current flows.

Quote:
And good luck to them scaling up the nuclear reactions they'll need to account for the neutrino flux!
To be fair, that's beyond the scope of SAFIRE.
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 21st June 2015, 02:48 PM   #5
ben m
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
So it sounds like the plan is:

a) Build a big glow-discharge tube
b) Run a bunch of basically uninteresting glow-discharge experiments
c) Take photographs of the discharges to put next to photos of the Sun.
d) Brag about how the photo-comparisons were obtained from "real laboratory experiments"
e) Ignore everything else we know about the Sun.
ben m 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 21st June 2015, 04:21 PM   #6
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,275
This is just a modern version of Birkeland's 1908 experiments with terrella ("little Earth"!) where he made bad analogies with solar activity using images of electrical discharges from metallic spheres containing magnets and in a high electric field.

They are already repeating this mistake in the small-scale experiment (JMP and SAFIRE: What makes the sun shine? (PDF)).
  1. There are tufts "caused by enhanced electric fields around high points on the surface of the anode". They compare a image of a sunspot surrounding granulation with an image of tufts all around their anode ! They seem ignorant that solar granules are the top of convection cells distributed around the Sun with lifetimes of hours. They are not separated "tufts" that can last as long as they want them to last.
  2. Figure 5 (actually 9) - A quiescent anode discharge in the SBJ unit (left) and a screen capture from Stereo-A Secchi EUVI detector at 171 nanometer wavelength.

More mistakes in the "Spectroscopy" section.
  • Sunspots are in the photosphere (not a vague "below the chromosphere").
  • The photosphere has a temperature of ~5700°K (not ~4000°K which may be the sunspot temperature).
  • No one should think that the "standard fusion model" explains the high temperature of the corona. The coronal heating problem is that the heat from the Sun from fusion alone cannot heat the corona and thus there have to be non-thermal mechanisms to do this!
  • Magnetic reconnection in the form of nano-flares happens to be one of the mechanisms to solve the coronal heating problem.
  • An implied delusion that an electrical discharge is the only mechanism that can ionize atoms as if they were ignorant about the temperature of the Sun!
  • The actual delusion that electrical discharges (such as lightning) can happen in plasma.

Last edited by Reality Check; 21st June 2015 at 04:27 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 21st June 2015, 04:47 PM   #7
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,018
Whoops, looks like Mozina may not be too happy! From the Thunderdolts forum;
Mozina: "I'm curious if the Safire experiments include any work with a *cathode* solar model, or if it's been primarily limited to studying the anode/Jergen's/Scott solar model?"

The "cathode" model is his one

Turns out they aren't looking at that one, only Scott's equally nutty model. There may be trouble ahead.
__________________
“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 26th July 2017, 03:59 AM   #8
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,018
Mod Info This is a continuation from here, and as is usual, the split point was arbitrary. Participants are free to copy & paste from the previous iteration[s] of the thread.
Posted By:Agatha








As has been pointed out by RC,, the flaring mentioned by Talbott is (presumably) to do with an increase in the non-existent electrical woo that he believed (surely he can't still believe it?) causes the jets at comets.
We already knew before Rosetta that the jets aren't any kind of electric woo. I point the interested reader to some of the papers on the Hartley 2 mission. CO2 gas and ice, was the outcome in that particular case. So, Sol discussing particular aspects of perfectly mainstream science, regarding what happens in a cometary coma during a CME, is a totally pointless discussion. Interesting, but totally unrelated to any of the woo dreamed up by T & T.
For what it's worth, we know that solar wind heavy ions are responsible for the x-ray emission seen at comets. So, an increase in the solar wind flux should see an increase in x-ray production. Want to call that a flare? Fine, if you must, but it's a perfectly mainstream one. The whole of the sunward coma will be compressed. There has been a paper on this. Again, very interesting, but nothing to do with EU woo.
Given how vague the predictions of Talbott were, it is hard to know exactly what he was on about. Which is the whole ethos of EU; keep it as vague as possible, so that you can later claim to be right. A bit like tabloid psychics.
__________________
“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 Agatha; 27th July 2017 at 03:18 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 26th July 2017, 04:21 AM   #9
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,018
What Sol needs to concentrate on are the core claims of T & T, regarding their lunatic 'electric comet' idea. That is;

1) The jets are electrical discharges to (from?) the nucleus: Either way, that has been 100% debunked by observation and measurement. Or lack thereof.

2) The comet is a rock: Yet again, 100% disproven. By the impact at Tempel 1, and the results from MIRO and CONSERT at 67P.

3) The comet charges up due to a radial electric field around the Sun: Zero evidence of any such thing.

4) The H2O at comets is not H2O, but is OH, that stupid scientists mistake for H2O (I kid you not!): Well that was dead long before T & T wrote their horrific poster on electric comets. From 1985, in fact. And many observations since. Definitively, unarguably, 100% H2O. Solid and gaseous.

5) Said OH will be caused by solar wind H+ striking O- ions, which have been electrically machined from the non-existent rock of the comet (deary me): Not going to happen. SW H+ is far too energetic to combine with anything. There is naff all O- for it to combine with anyway, even if it were possible. And, when you do the sums, it turns out that even if every H+ ion was somehow involved in production of OH (or H2O, or magic fairy dust, whatever), then there ain't anywhere near enough of it to account for even 1 litre of water production. By many orders of magnitude. So, all in all, a really dumb idea. And very unscientific. Which is not at all surprising, given who dreamed it up.

So, Sol, how do you think all that has gone? Not well, really, eh? Console yourself by having another look at all those pretty pictures from Hartley 2, back in 2010, of all that fluffy ice floating around the comet. And then ask yourself, "why are we still discussing this woo?"
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
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 26th July 2017, 05:59 AM   #10
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,364
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Tusenfem says no, comets do not "flare" with the arrival of a CME.

I think the term "flare" may need to be defined because the comet most certainly responded to the CME and I'd say it in fact flared from it's "normal" state to a more active (electrically speaking) state.
No there was no "flare", it was just the CME arriving, compressing the magentic field, the higher density of SW particles interacting with the neutrals (ionization) and the ions (charge exchange) and other processes.

Has absolutely noting to do with T's flaring electrically speaking.
__________________
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 26th July 2017, 08:47 PM   #11
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,275
Thumbs down Sol88 : The persistent delusion that there are images of comets that are rocks

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
As imaged by ROLIS and CIVA?
27 July 2017 Sol88: The persistent and irrelevant delusion that there are images of comets showing that they are rocks.
ROLIS and CIVA were cameras on the Philae lander. During the decent they took images of a comet nucleus made up of ices and dust.
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
The model here is that the surface of comets initially consist of a mixture of ices and dust. Sublimation when comets get close to the Sun form a layer of weakly cohesive dust on the nucleus surface.
A layer of dust was detected by the Philae lander. Underneath that layer of dust was a layer of ice. The MUPUS instrument that you know about found that this ice layer was harder than expected.
The CONSERT instrument in the Rosetta orbiter used the Philae lander to measure the density of the interior of 67P which was not the density of rock as in your delusion as you already know.

We have been through EU abysmal ignorance of astronomical images leading to the delusion of "I see rocks in images of comes made of ices and dust" a few times before. for example, 16 February 2016 Sol88: a follower of the deluded Thunderbolts cult who has the insane idea that he can look at an image of a comet and tell what it is made of
That composition is hard to establish from images is illustrated by Ziggurat's earlier post I've asked this of EU advocates before, I'm going to give it another shot. Here are two photographs. What kind of material are we looking at in each picture?

I am surprised that we did not see that delusion applied to jonesdave116's image in this post a few days ago on of Tempel 1! Look at all of the "rocks" on the surface ! We would see yet again denial that Deep Impact ejected water and dust. And ...
Two years and counting of fear of doing basic physics: 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.
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 26th July 2017, 09:20 PM   #12
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,275
Question Sol88: Did the Stardust mission sample the subsurface composition of comet Wild 2

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
We also have Thornhill's now 12 year old () web page with lies about confirmed Deep Impact predictions
My previous analysis of the lies, etc. on this web page did not include the Stardust fantasies from Thornhill.

The "Subsurface composition" paragraph is several lies, starting with the title ! Let us see if Sol88 can understand this:
27 July 2017 Sol88: Did the Stardust mission sample the subsurface composition of comet Wild 2?
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 26th July 2017, 09:25 PM   #13
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,275
Question Sol88: Where is the EU prediction of subsurface composition

27 July 2017 Sol88: Where is the EU prediction of subsurface composition in the "Subsurface composition" paragraph or linked web page?
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 26th July 2017, 09:45 PM   #14
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,275
Question Sol88: What does a deluded denial of Solar System formation have to do with comets

27 July 2017 Sol88: What does a deluded denial of the formation of the Solar System have to do with the EU subsurface composition of comets
Their delusion is that planets whizz around the Solar System to match their fantasies.

We have had measurements of the subsurface composition of Tempel 1 since 2005 (the Deep Impact mission) and from 2017 there is 67P (Rosetta mission).
The ages of the planets and Sun match, i.e. they formed together.
Planets have not "remained in their present orbits ever since". The Moon was probably formed by a planet colliding with the Earth. The Nice model has Jupiter starting close to the Sun and migrating outward.
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 26th July 2017, 11:40 PM   #15
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,364
From the @Rosetta_RPC tweet:
A paper on the expanding ionosphere of the comet

Vertical struct of the near-surf expanding ionosphere of comet 67P probed by Rosetta by Heritier et al. in MNRAS without any EC woo :-)
__________________
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 27th July 2017, 04:32 PM   #16
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,275
New Comet: C/2017 O1 ASAS-SN Takes Earth by Surprise
Quote:
On a long term parabolic orbit probably measured in the millions of years, O1 ASAS-SN has an orbit inclined 40 degrees to the ecliptic, and reaches perihelion 1.5 AU from the Sun just outside the orbit of Mars on October 14th. This is most likely Comet C/2017 O1 ASAS-SN’s first passage through the inner solar system.
So in the EU delusion, a comet that has a period of millions of years and thus last visited the inner solar system millions of years ago (before the existence of human beings) was blasted off the Earth some thousands of years ago as reported in human myths !
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 27th July 2017, 11:40 PM   #17
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,364
Quote:
The Electric Comet Theory Part III - Let's Go Round Again
Do we really need to?????
__________________
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 27th July 2017, 11:52 PM   #18
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,364
Then to be more constructive, some of the latest Rosetta papers:

Marshall et al.: Spatially resolved evolution of the local H2O production rates
of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko from the MIRO instrument on Rosetta


Gunell et al.: Ion acoustic waves at comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko - Observations and computations

Hoang et al.: The heterogeneous coma of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
as seen by ROSINA: H2O, CO2, and CO from September 2014 to February 2016


Skorov et al.: Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

Then there are lots more papers in the ADS data base.

There is also the EPSC meeting in September with 2 cometary sessions:
Comets: Observations, laboratory simulations and models Oral session
Comets: Observations, laboratory simulations and models Poster session

What do we know and what don’t we know following the cessation of the operational phase of the Rosetta mission Oral session
What do we know and what don’t we know following the cessation of the operational phase of the Rosetta mission Poster session
__________________
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 30th July 2017, 04:56 PM   #19
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,018
An interesting line from he EU conference woo:
Quote:
few if any “dirty snowball” comets;
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/201...17-homepage-2/

Strange that, eh? Few? So, they still think 'dirty snowballs' are possible? Wow. Mainstream gave that up a while ago. Shame that these people are still basing their unscientific nonsense on Whipple's model from the 1950's. Having said that, they still think it is possible. Weird. Wish they'd make their minds up. Come on Wal, what is it that you actually believe, you old charlatan? So how are you going to spin this? I've got an idea; given that all of the comets that have been visited, and all of the comets that have been spectroscopically investigated by instruments that can detect H2O have detected H2O, why not start your woo with comets that have never been visited, nor probed by IR or sub-mm? Good place to start for a conman, 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
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 30th July 2017, 06:18 PM   #20
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,275
To put that woo in more context :
Quote:
Speakers will not be projecting popular ideas and mathematical contrivances into an imagined future. EU2017 will call for science minus the fiction. No Big Bang, no dark matter, no black hole singularities, no neutron stars, no thermonuclear core of the sun, no planets on clockwork orbits for billions of years; few if any “dirty snowball” comets; and no claim whatsoever that comets and asteroids trace to the primitive origins of the solar system (one of the more popular fictions).
All sorts of idiocy in the Thunderbolts dogma.
  • The evidence for the Big Bang is overwhelming, e.g. the CMB temperature, black body spectrum and power spectrum.
  • The evidence for dark matter is very strong with many independent lines of evidence.
  • Black hole singularities are a simple consequence of the known laws of physics, i.e. nothing we know can stop their formation.
    In reality this is Thunderbolts idiocy that black holes do not exist. But that does not depend on the singularities in GR which are expected to vanish when QM is added. If there is matter with enough density a black hole will form, with or without a singularity.
  • "no neutron stars" is really delusional when we have observed neutron stars since 1967.
  • "no thermonuclear core of the sun" is abysmally ignorant about basic astronomy.
    Basic astronomy: A stable star needs a balance between gravity and pressure. That needs an interior where pressure and temperature increases with depth. That leads to conditions at the core of a star where thermonuclear reactions have to happen. We have observed the neutrino flux produced by that fusion.
    This may be the repeated idiocy of the solved solar neutrino problem + neutrino oscillations do not exist.
  • "no planets on clockwork orbits for billions of years"
    At last - simple ignorance rather than delusions!
    The Nice model has Jupiter starting close to the Sun and migrating outward. Planetary migration is a standard part of the formation of planetary systems.
    We do not have "clockwork orbits" as in fixed orbits. Interactions change the orbits.
    This is probably the Thunderbolts idiocy of believing in planets whizzing around to fit with what they imagines myths say they do, e.g. Venus erupting from Jupiter, Saturn moving around, etc.
  • The comet delusion is that only a few and maybe no comets are made of ices and dust.
    Over 60 years of comet observations show that assertion is abysmally deluded about comets. No comet has been measured to have a density of rock. Deep Impact did not hit rock and ejected water and dust. Then there is the Rosetta mission.
  • A lie about "one of the more popular fictions".
    The scientific evidence is that "comets and asteroids trace to the primitive origins of the solar system".
    Meteorites are dated to be a bit younger than the Sun, like the Earth and Moon.
    Comets can have periods of millions of years, i.e. that is a minimum age for comets.
    Some comets have hyperbolic orbits so we see them just once. That means that they have a origin in a existing reservoir of bodies, e.g. the Oort cloud.
    No comet has an orbit that originates in the inner solar system at the Earth or other planet as in the Thunderbolts delusion.
    Stardust collected dust from a comet that are consistent with material from the early solar system, including possible interstellar dust particles.
    One of the Thunderbolts lies seems to be that Stardust confirmed their delusion that comets are rock blasted from planets. However nothing characteristic of planets was detected - no basalt, granite, limestone, sandstone, etc.

Last edited by Reality Check; 30th July 2017 at 06:19 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 30th July 2017, 06:48 PM   #21
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,018
Quote:
Speakers will not be projecting popular ideas and mathematical contrivances....
Lol. No, we won't see anything mathematical. Ever. How many electrons to power the Sun? Simple maths. Where are they? Do they have an associated magnetic field? What strength is it? What happens when it inevitably encounters the outflowing IMF? All these questions, and more, will be totally ignored by the Velikovskian woo merchants during their totally irrelevant conference. Hey guys, here's a thought; how about doing some science, eh? Been about 30 years of this garbage now, hasn't it? Anybody else thinking that they should have got further than "it's electric!"? Prawns.
__________________
“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 30th July 2017, 07:40 PM   #22
grmcdorman
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,215
[quote=jonesdave116;11939521]
Originally Posted by jonesdave116
Quote:
Speakers will not be projecting popular ideas and mathematical contrivances....
Lol. No, we won't see anything mathematical. Ever. [snip] Anybody else thinking that they should have got further than "it's electric!"? Prawns.
Absolutely. I find this idea that mathematics, somehow, can't represent reality, or is inferior to qualitative layman's descriptions, fascinating. Posters may remember Micheal Mozina (now banned), who nicely encapsulated this sort of view in a couple of statements:
  • "Don't trust the math, trust the science"
  • "math bunnies"
(the latter in response to people referring to his repeated pareidolia as "seeing bunnies").

Thing is, we need the mathematics to get it right; otherwise we'd be still doing astrology. (Oh, wait, most people are ).

Seems to me that most of these people, if they can't understand the math, assume there's something wrong with the math, not them - even when their own skills are demonstrably lacking.
__________________
"Hello. My name is Inigo Skywalker. You are my father. Prepare to die."
grmcdorman 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 1st August 2017, 05:00 AM   #23
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,147
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
An interesting line from he EU conference woo:
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/201...17-homepage-2/

Strange that, eh? Few? So, they still think 'dirty snowballs' are possible? Wow. Mainstream gave that up a while ago. Shame that these people are still basing their unscientific nonsense on Whipple's model from the 1950's. Having said that, they still think it is possible. Weird. Wish they'd make their minds up. Come on Wal, what is it that you actually believe, you old charlatan? So how are you going to spin this? I've got an idea; given that all of the comets that have been visited, and all of the comets that have been spectroscopically investigated by instruments that can detect H2O have detected H2O, why not start your woo with comets that have never been visited, nor probed by IR or sub-mm? Good place to start for a conman, yes?

Quote:
Conclusions. In the framework of the presented model, which can be considered common in terms of assumptions and physical
parameters in the cometary community, the dust removal by a gas drag force is not a plausible physical mechanism. The sublimation
of not only water ice, but also of super-volatile ice (i.e., CO) is unable to remove dust grains for illumination conditions corresponding
to 1.3 AU. A way out of this impasse requires revision of the most common model assumption employed by the cometary community.
Skorov et al.: Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

So JD116, what is the mainstream model?
__________________
"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 1st August 2017, 06:53 AM   #24
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,018
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Skorov et al.: Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

So JD116, what is the mainstream model?
Well, having read that paper some months ago, I'm not sure what they are suggesting. Unless I'm being thick, or they were being excessively cryptic, I didn't see an alternative suggestion. Probably best to email the author for clarification. Perhaps they were suggesting that the smaller dust grains are due to a distributed source in the coma from larger particles containing volatiles. The paper is referenced in this preprint:
Seasonal Mass Transfer on the Nucleus of Comet 67P/Chuyumov-Gerasimenko
Keller, H. U. et al. (Skorov is a co-author)
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1707/1707.06812.pdf

What it will not involve is any of the nonsense I mentioned in the post further up:

Quote:
1) The jets are electrical discharges to (from?) the nucleus: Either way, that has been 100% debunked by observation and measurement. Or lack thereof.

2) The comet is a rock: Yet again, 100% disproven. By the impact at Tempel 1, and the results from MIRO and CONSERT at 67P.

3) The comet charges up due to a radial electric field around the Sun: Zero evidence of any such thing.

4) The H2O at comets is not H2O, but is OH, that stupid scientists mistake for H2O (I kid you not!): Well that was dead long before T & T wrote their horrific poster on electric comets. From 1985, in fact. And many observations since. Definitively, unarguably, 100% H2O. Solid and gaseous.

5) Said OH will be caused by solar wind H+ striking O- ions, which have been electrically machined from the non-existent rock of the comet (deary me): Not going to happen. SW H+ is far too energetic to combine with anything. There is naff all O- for it to combine with anyway, even if it were possible. And, when you do the sums, it turns out that even if every H+ ion was somehow involved in production of OH (or H2O, or magic fairy dust, whatever), then there ain't anywhere near enough of it to account for even 1 litre of water production. By many orders of magnitude. So, all in all, a really dumb idea. And very unscientific. Which is not at all surprising, given who dreamed it up.
As for what the mainstream model is; it is based upon observation and measurement from near and far. It changes, and has continued to do so, as more and more measurements and observations become available. That is the obvious way to do science. A model is proposed and is then tested against observation. As per Whipple. When observation suggests the model needs tweaking, it is tweaked. And so we get ever closer to understanding the whole of the complex behaviour of comets.
What we don't do is to dream up scientifically impossible woo, based upon nothing more than mythology, and suggest that it is a viable, scientific model.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

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

Last edited by jonesdave116; 1st August 2017 at 06:57 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2017, 02:28 PM   #25
lauwenmark
New Blood
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 12
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Skorov et al.: Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

So JD116, what is the mainstream model?
Pardon my newbie question, but what I'm still wondering is what the 'Electric Comet Model' is. I've just finished reading a large chunk of the stuff on the 'thunderbolt' website as well as the threads on this very internationalskeptics forum, and apart some vague - and sometimes contradictory - claims at a strictly narrative/descriptive level, I've found nothing clear.

To me, it looks like philosophical talk. Was an EU-based comet model ever simulated on a computer, for example?

What's the point of asking others about their models if there is not even an EU-based one to discuss?
lauwenmark 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 1st August 2017, 04:28 PM   #26
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,018
Originally Posted by lauwenmark View Post
Pardon my newbie question, but what I'm still wondering is what the 'Electric Comet Model' is. I've just finished reading a large chunk of the stuff on the 'thunderbolt' website as well as the threads on this very internationalskeptics forum, and apart some vague - and sometimes contradictory - claims at a strictly narrative/descriptive level, I've found nothing clear.

To me, it looks like philosophical talk. Was an EU-based comet model ever simulated on a computer, for example?

What's the point of asking others about their models if there is not even an EU-based one to discuss?
Well, I see that this is your first post here, lauwenmark, so welcome.
And, yes, you've pretty much summed it up. There is no 'electric comet' model. Never has been. If you wish to read more of this scientifically illiterate nonsense, then I may be able to find a link; http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf
Please try to keep your sanity as you read that garbage. Not easy, I know. Essentially, the things you need to bear in mind, are the facts that neither of the idiots that came up with this woo are scientifically qualified. Certainly not in the relevant subject area. They tend to make stuff up. One of them is a bloke called David Talbott: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/David_Talbott
The other is a loon called Wallace Thornhill. Doesn't even rate a mention on Rational Wiki. Allegedly has a BSc in physics. Can't do maths. Can't do science. And they are both Velikovskian woo merchants. Bear that in mind, and you'll not go wrong
__________________
“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; 1st August 2017 at 04:33 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 1st August 2017, 05:39 PM   #27
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,275
Thumbs down Sol88: Confirms once again that he is arguing from a stance of abysmal ignorance

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So JD116, what is the mainstream model?
Oh dear!
2 August 2017 Sol88: Confirms once again that he is arguing from a stance of abysmal ignorance about comets!
The mainstream model backed up by empirical evidence is that comets are made of ices and dust. There are a lot of other details. As new evidence is found the details change (this is called the scientific process) but the basics are not changed by the paper you cite. It is still deeply deluded to state that comets are rocks.

You cannot even remember a week ago! Or this could be the idiocy that pops up sometimes of asking everyone in a thread the same question to waste their time.
27 July 2017 Sol88: The delusion that comets are rocks is not supported by the delusion that a paper is about comets being rocks.
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 1st August 2017, 06:01 PM   #28
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,275
Originally Posted by lauwenmark View Post
Pardon my newbie question, but what I'm still wondering is what the 'Electric Comet Model' is.
There is no real 'Electric Comet Model' !

There is whatever a Thunderbolts ("Electric Universe") person makes up when asked that question, web pages with vague and even incoherent assertions, crank books and even worse YouTube videos. They start with the debunked fantasies of Immanuel Velikovsky and add their delusions. My take on it:
We will lie about comparing myths (plural) to find common stories on astronomical events witnessed by humans in the last few thousand or 10 thousand years.
  • Venus erupted from Jupiter (a Greek myth borrowed by Romans).
  • Venus travelled to Earth and stopped its spin with no effect, e.g. the Moon retained it orbit, people did not undergo many g's of de-acceleration, noting fell over.
    This only a Hebrew story of the Sun stopping taken as poetic license by scholars. Electric magic is evoked to explain that there were no effects.
  • Venus restored exactly the same spin with no effects and only recorded by 1 people.
  • Venus passed by again to drop manna to Moses and his people.
    This only a Hebrew story. There is a bit of ignorance where Venus drops hydrocarbons (petrol!) rather than carbohydrates (food).
  • Venus comes back again to blast rocks from the surface of the Earth using electrical discharges and creates the comets.
    Big problem - comets are not rocks!
    Bigger problem - blasting to produce the number of observed comets would probably turn the surface of any planet into lava. To produce the number of objects in the sources of comets means stripping the entire crusts from planets.
The last is where Thunderbolts is a bit cowardly - it seems to be vague "electrical discharges between planets" rather than naming the culprits.

Last edited by Reality Check; 1st August 2017 at 06:05 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 1st August 2017, 11:48 PM   #29
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,364
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So JD116, what is the mainstream model?
If you would just actually read the Rosetta papers then you would know what the current mainstream model is. And no, it is not the long abandoned "dirty snowball", a term which for historical reasons keeps hanging around.

Several special issues of Science (31 July 2015, 23 January 2015), Astronomy & Astrophysics (vol 583, 2015), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (Vol 462, Issue Suppl_1, 2016) give enough reading material, and that is only the surface of what is being published.
__________________
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 2nd August 2017, 01:26 AM   #30
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,147
So "Dirtysnowball" is out...

The new model is...based upon observation and measurement from near and far.????

Ok let's ask the new poster here, welcome lauwenmark.

What, at this time, is your understanding of the MAINSTREAM model of comets?

hint, the experts say the Dirtysnowball is dead and buried and the new model is...based upon observation and measurement from near and far.????

and read the papers and that's the new model.

Feel free to ask the "experts"

PS if you have not read the paper yet give Comets: looking ahead Michael F. A’Hearn a crack, see what ya reckon.
__________________
"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; 2nd August 2017 at 01:28 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 2nd August 2017, 01:26 AM   #31
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,364
Ha! I just noticed in the reservations that Yuri Skorov is coming to visit my institute!
I will let him give a seminar.
__________________
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 2nd August 2017, 01:45 AM   #32
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,147
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
If you would just actually read the Rosetta papers then you would know what the current mainstream model is. And no, it is not the long abandoned "dirty snowball", a term which for historical reasons keeps hanging around.

Several special issues of Science (31 July 2015, 23 January 2015), Astronomy & Astrophysics (vol 583, 2015), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (Vol 462, Issue Suppl_1, 2016) give enough reading material, and that is only the surface of what is being published.

is it deep fried ice cream??
__________________
"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 2nd August 2017, 01:52 AM   #33
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,147
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Ha! I just noticed in the reservations that Yuri Skorov is coming to visit my institute!
I will let him give a seminar.

Great, can you ask him please what he meant by the statement
Quote:
A way out of this impasse requires revision of the most common model assumption employed by the cometary community
???

JD1116 is confused on the statement.
__________________
"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 2nd August 2017, 02:05 AM   #34
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,018
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Ha! I just noticed in the reservations that Yuri Skorov is coming to visit my institute!
I will let him give a seminar.
I just went through his paper a couple more times. I also had a look at some of the other papers he referenced in there. The problem seems to come down to cohesiveness of the < 1mm sized dust particles. As suggested in another paper, the model suggests that such particles must come from the disintegration of larger aggregates in the coma, as gas drag cannot account for them. From what I remember, this is in keeping with the findings from GIADA, which finds that the dust is an agglomerate of ever smaller grains.

What drives the dust activity of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko?
Gundlach, B. et al.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.08545.pdf
__________________
“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 2nd August 2017, 02:05 AM   #35
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,147
JD116, what are the most common model assumption employed by the cometary community they may need revision?
__________________
"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 2nd August 2017, 02:09 AM   #36
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,018
OK, let's have a look at what T & T have to say about the dust;....................er, nothing. Except the bit where they confuse the sunlight reflected from jets of such material, and claim that it's an electrical discharge. Oh dear.
__________________
“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 2nd August 2017, 02:11 AM   #37
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,147
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
I just went through his paper a couple more times. I also had a look at some of the other papers he referenced in there. The problem seems to come down to cohesiveness of the < 1mm sized dust particles. As suggested in another paper, the model suggests that such particles must come from the disintegration of larger aggregates in the coma, as gas drag cannot account for them. From what I remember, this is in keeping with the findings from GIADA, which finds that the dust is an agglomerate of ever smaller grains.

What drives the dust activity of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko?
Gundlach, B. et al.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.08545.pdf
and your blind to the contradictions???

Model it still fluffy dust covered solid ice??
__________________
"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 2nd August 2017, 02:13 AM   #38
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,018
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
JD116, what are the most common model assumption employed by the cometary community they may need revision?
Why don't you email the author? Then I wouldn't need to speculate. However, I will - the assumption that ALL the dust is in the coma is due to gas drag from the nucleus. Some of it (i.e. < 1mm) is more likely to be from disintegration of larger particles within the coma.
__________________
“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 2nd August 2017, 02:16 AM   #39
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,018
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
and your blind to the contradictions???

Model it still fluffy dust covered solid ice??
Yes. Please point me to a finding that says otherwise. Start with GIADA. What did they find? Instead of writing nonsense, why don't you actually have the cojones to say what you mean. What contradictions? How does it work in your mind? With evidence to back it up, please.
__________________
“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 2nd August 2017, 02:47 AM   #40
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,018
Here, this didn't strain my research skills too much:

Quote:
Rosetta thus gives evidence for a significant amount of fluffy particles in the solid material ejected by comets.
Physical properties of dust particles in cometary comae: from clues to evidence with the Rosetta mission
Levasseur-Regourd, A. C. et al.
https://hal-insu.archives-ouvertes.f...11564/document

And:
DENSITY AND CHARGE OF PRISTINE FLUFFY PARTICLES FROM COMET 67P/CHURYUMOV–GERASIMENKO
Fulle, M. et al.
http://oro.open.ac.uk/44289/1/apjl_802_1_L12o.pdf

Lots of fluffy particles floating around. Apparently as unseen by electric comet advocates as the snowstorm of ice around Hartley 2.
__________________
“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; 2nd August 2017 at 03:31 AM. Reason: change url to a freebie
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
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 01:07 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.