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 9th August 2017, 03:40 PM   #81
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,013
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Then why do YOU keep on insisting that the mainstream model is "the dirty snowball"?
None of the mainstream proponents it making that claim, it is ONLY YOU!

Why not read a paper by Martin Rubin on how he models the outgassing of a comet? Why not read the papers by other Rosetta scientists who discover all kinds of (new) stuff, improving our knowledge of how comets work?

Why have your thunderdolts buddies and you not even looked at actual data from the Rosetta mission and from Vega 1, 2, Giotto etc. which are all freely available on the ESA and NASA data servers?

Oh, wait, that would take you out of your security blanket, confront you with new knowledge and updated models.

Heck, I expected to find X at 67P, what I found was Y, now I need to understand why Y, what makes it so (apart from Captain Pickard telling me to). That is the frakking greatness of doing scientific research. You never know what bone you get thrown. We (I) understand the basics very well, but now having this incredible amount of new data at a comet with an activity much less than we have ever visited before, makes us (me) think about things we have not thought of before, because at the earlier flybys it was not necessary to think about them.

But Sol, please stay inside your security zone, singing your mantra: "mainstream is snowball, snowstream is mainball, streamball in snowmain, I'm in my safe domain".
How'd the catch-up with Yu. V. Skorov go? Did mention the reasoning behind the statement
Quote:
Awayoutof this impasse requires revision of the most common model assumption employed by the cometary community
?

Common model? My understanding of the common model is the dirtysnowball?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
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 9th August 2017, 03:55 PM   #82
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,305
Thumbs down Sol88: Emphasizes over 8 years of ignorance and delusions about comets

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
My understanding of the common model is the dirtysnowball?
10 August 2017 Sol88: Emphasizes over 8 years of ignorance and delusions about comets with a small lie about a paper.

The paper is A comet model. I. The acceleration of Comet Encke by Whipple, F. L.; Astrophysical Journal, vol. 111, p. 375-394 (1950).
This is no"dirtysnowball" model. Comets are described as dirty snowballs. The small lie is that the paper contains "dirtysnowball".
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 9th August 2017, 04:09 PM   #83
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,305
Thumbs down Sol88: A lie about a quote mine from the Skorov paper

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Common model? My understanding of the common model is the dirtysnowball?
10 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about a quote mine from the Skorov paper.
He knows that the paper models comets as ices and dust as in the Whipple paper from 1950 that he cites !
27 July 2017 Sol88: The delusion that comets are rocks is not supported by the delusion that a paper is about comets being rocks.

The full quote is
Quote:
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.
The model being considered is dust removal by a gas drag from sublimating ices. There is no "common model". There is the common "model assumption", i.e. that gas drag is what removes dust from comet nuclei made up of ices and dust.

Last edited by Reality Check; 9th August 2017 at 04:14 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 9th August 2017, 11:14 PM   #84
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,013
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
10 August 2017 Sol88: Emphasizes over 8 years of ignorance and delusions about comets with a small lie about a paper.

The paper is A comet model. I. The acceleration of Comet Encke by Whipple, F. L.; Astrophysical Journal, vol. 111, p. 375-394 (1950).
This is no"dirtysnowball" model. Comets are described as dirty snowballs. The small lie is that the paper contains "dirtysnowball".
Apologies, my bad.

The model is not the dirtysnowball model but "The model consists of a conglomerate made up of ices such as h2o, NH3, and other molecules volatile at room temperature, mixed with meteoritic materials." ... which we describe as "Dirtysnowballs"

We're all clear now on what the mainstream model to be able to interpret the data and observations actually is?

Quote:
WATER/ROCK INTERACTIONS IN EXPERIMENTALLY SIMULATED
"DIRTY SNOWBALL" AND "DIRTY ICEBALL' COMETARY NUCLEI

James L. Gooding I and Judith H. Allton 2 ISN21/Planetary Science Branch, NASA/Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX 77058 USA. 2C23/Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Co., Houston, "IX
77058 USA.
oh wait dirtyiceball???

Anyhoo, the mainstream model has solid foundation in Whipples model.
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
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 9th August 2017, 11:58 PM   #85
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,013
Or as Franklin Anariba, PhD calls it, because like me
Quote:
As can be ascertained by reading most of the reports published on scientific journals on comet 67P, the main paradigm is the one proposed by Whipple some time ago which can be called the Condensation-Sublimation model.
So should we call it the Condensation-Sublimation model so you mob don't get your knickers in a knot about it still being called the "dirtysnowiceball" model?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
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 10th August 2017, 12:07 AM   #86
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,013
We need to have this minor detail cleared up so we can directly compare models based on the new observations and data (and papers) now available.

For those lurkers who are unaware of the history of the ELECTRIC COMETS idea and think it's just from a bunch of, as JD116 bangs on about, Velikovskian woo merchants and dismissed out of hand, then arm yourself with real knowledge.

Here a little history on the ELECTRIC COMET.
  1. History of Electric Comet Theory: An Introduction
  2. History of Electric Comet Theory: Part 2
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
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 10th August 2017, 12:18 AM   #87
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,013
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
159 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to July 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)
  1. 17 July 2017 Sol88: Unthinking parroting again of an ignorant Franklin Anariba
  2. 18 July 2017 Sol88: A ignorant and deluded fantasy about "charged sheathed vortices"
  3. 18 July 2017 Sol88: Abysmal ignorance about plasma, Birkeland currents and 67P!
  4. 18 July 2017 Sol88: Links to a lying and deluded video from the deluded Thunderbolts cult.
  5. 18 July 2017 Sol88: A lie about Talbots prediction of a "comet flaring" being supported by no flaring!
  6. 18 July 2017 Sol88: Another attempt to derail form his delusion that comets are rocks.
  7. 18 July 2017 Sol88: A lie about relying on "cliffs collapsing' for jets.
  8. 20 July 2017 Sol88: Swallows the Thunderbolts magnetic reconnection "Kool-Aid" - what a surprise!
  9. 20 July 2017 Sol88: Fatally ignorant about magnetic reconnection which is not force free field aligned currents!
  10. 20 July 2017 Sol88: A lie about a Thunderbolts lie about Deep Impact.
  11. 27 July 2017 Sol88: The delusion that comets are rocks is not supported by the delusion that a paper is about comets being rocks.
  12. 26 July 2017 Sol88: Repeats his delusion that scientific papers are about his delusion that comets are rocks.
  13. 26 July 2017 Sol88: Ignorance about what tusenfem wrote "no" to (as requested in that post!).
  14. 27 July 2017 Sol88: The persistent and irrelevant delusion that there are images of comets showing that they are rocks.
  15. 2 August 2017 Sol88: Confirms once again that he is arguing from a stance of abysmal ignorance about comets (for the last 8 years)!
General Thunderbolt cult stuff:
20 July 2017: A Thunderbolts follower with a ignorant "cosmic climate model" delusions.
21 July 2017: The mostly ignorant and deluded cranks speaking at the EU2017 conference.
24 July 2017: Thornhill shows again that he has gone off the deep end with a "gravity = EM" speech.
31 July 2017: All sorts of idiocy in the Thunderbolts dogma listed for EU2017 (Big Bang denial, black hole denial, delusion that stars are not powered by fusion, etc.)

Deafening silence emphasizing the complete ignorance of science behind the comets are rocks delusion:
11 July 2017 Sol88: What did your comets are rocks delusion predict abut the observation of cold and warm electrons at 67P?
6 July 2017 Sol88: What does a rotating charged body do (so far a display of complete ignorance of basic electromagnetism!)?
7 July 2017 Sol88: What did your comets are rocks delusion predict about the impact of Rosetta on 67P?

27 July 2017 Sol88: Did the Stardust mission sample the subsurface composition of comet Wild 2?
27 July 2017 Sol88: Where is the EU prediction of subsurface composition in the "Subsurface composition" paragraph or linked web page?
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
and then you write in the comments section of Magnetic fields in massive star formation cores you hypocritical joker!

by the way, the above was predicted and expected in the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE!

just maybe COMETS are an electrical phenomena and NOT icy conglomerates subliming in the warmth of the sun.

Just say'n
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]

Last edited by Sol88; 10th August 2017 at 12:26 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 10th August 2017, 01:10 AM   #88
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,990
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
How'd the catch-up with Yu. V. Skorov go? Did mention the reasoning behind the statement ?
As he ain't coming until November, I would say it did not go.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Common model? My understanding of the common model is the dirtysnowball?
And I guess you assume that research stopped after 1950 and Whipple's initial model is the proof, just like in the thunderdolts community anything T&T write is not to be questioned, and goodness forbid actually tested with data.

If you would actually read the Whipple paper you would find out that he says that comets consist (quoting myself):

Whipple [1950] combined all spectral observations and published the now well-known “dirty snowball” model of comets. In this model the nucleus of the comet is seen as a conglomeration of volatile ices (such as H2O and CO2) bound in a solid rocky body of meteoritic material.

This is the original "dirty snowball."

I cannot find who actually coined the term, maybe it was Whipple, maybe not.
__________________
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

Last edited by tusenfem; 10th August 2017 at 01:14 AM.
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 10th August 2017, 01:28 AM   #89
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,990
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
just maybe COMETS are an electrical phenomena and NOT icy conglomerates subliming in the warmth of the sun.
And maybe comets are just atmospheric, phosphorus pehnomena, why not just stop in the 18th century?

Now, please explain in full detail how this electrical phenomenon works.
__________________
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 10th August 2017, 02:16 PM   #90
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,305
Thumbs down Sol88: A fantasy and insult about me commenting on a phys.org article (not me!)

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
and then you write in the comments section of Magnetic fields in massive star formation cores you hypocritical joker! ....
11 August 2017 Sol88: A fantasy and insult about me commenting on a phys.org article that I have never even read !
It looks like Sol88 thinks that everyone with the username RealityCheck on the Internet is me!

I have now read the article which is about real science, not his delusions about comets.
Magnetic fields in massive star formation cores
Quote:
Studies of molecular clouds have revealed that star formation usually occurs in a two-step process. First, supersonic flows compress the clouds into dense filaments light-years long, after which gravity collapses the densest material in the filament into cores. In this scenario, massive cores (each more than about 20 solar masses) preferentially form at intersections where filaments cross, producing sites of clustered star formation. The process sounds reasonable and is expected to be efficient, but the observed rate of star formation in dense gas is only a few percent of the rate expected if the material really were freely collapsing. To solve the problem, astronomers have proposed that magnetic fields support the cores against the collapse induced by self-gravity.
11 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about hypocrisy.
That RealityCheck asks another commenter to address the science.
Which is exactly what I have been doing.
Your "science" stated 8 years ago was a Thunderbolts claim that comets are rocks.
The science with supporting evidence for the last 67 years is that comets are ices and dust. Thus stating that comets are rocks once is a mistake. Repeating that comets are rocks after been told their density (less than water) is an error. After being told the Deep Impact results (water + dust) it is bordering on delusion. After 8 years and especially the Rosetta mission to 67P we have a documented history of you parroting the Thunderbolts delusion.

When you lie I will document that you lied. Thus that list and the additional items here.
174 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 10 August 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)
In the same post: General Thunderbolt cult stuff + Deafening silence emphasizing the complete ignorance of science behind the comets are rocks delusion.

11 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about "magnetic fields support the cores" being predicted by EU.
EU is a bunch of fairy stories from the ignorant and deluded Thunderbolts cult who start with the stupidity of Velikovsky and add their own inane fantasies to his, e.g. this entire thread! EU has no predictions about the real world.
But just in case this is not yet another delusion:
11 August 2017 Sol88: Cite the EU prediction that during mainstream star formation, "magnetic fields support the cores against the collapse induced by self-gravity".

This is not the EU fairy story about z-pinches and Birkeland currents crushing gas cloud to create a star. This is the mainstream model of a molecular cloud collapsing to form stars.

11 August 2017 Sol88: The persistent 8 year old delusions about comets..

Last edited by Reality Check; 10th August 2017 at 03:03 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 10th August 2017, 02:29 PM   #91
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,305
Thumbs down Sol88: Repeats the delusion that there is a dirtysnowball model

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Apologies, my bad. ...
A bit of honesty ! The rest of the post is a rinse and repeat of a futile attempt to hide the completely delusional nature of the "comets are rocks" idea.
11 August 2017 Sol88: Repeats his delusions about his imaginary dirtysnowball model.
The main delusion is that describing comes as dirty snowballs is a model!
There is the delusion that changing the description, especially for specific comets, makes the working scientific model of comets wrong.
A minor delusion is that "dirty snowball" is spelt "dirtysnowball " as he has been doing quite a lot!

11 August 2017 Sol88: Derails yet again from his delusion that comets are rocks blasted from the Earth by electrical discharges from Venus as recorded in myths.

Last edited by Reality Check; 10th August 2017 at 02:35 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 10th August 2017, 02:42 PM   #92
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,305
Sol88: A lie about an irrelevant Gooding and Allton paper

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
oh wait dirtyiceball???
11 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about an irrelevant Gooding and Allton paper.
The paper is WATER/ROCK INTERACTIONS IN EXPERIMENTALLY SIMULATED "DIRTY SNOWBALL" AND "DIRTY ICEBALL' COMETARY NUCLEI"
This paper is not about his delusion that comets are rocks.
The title has mainstream descriptions of comet nuclei - note the quotes. The word "dirtyiceball" appears nowhere in the paper. The quotes which make it clear that there are not named models are missed out.

Last edited by Reality Check; 10th August 2017 at 02:49 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 10th August 2017, 02:50 PM   #93
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,305
Thumbs down Solo88: Cites the ignorant about comets Franklin Anariba again

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Or as Franklin Anariba, PhD calls it, ...
11 August 2107 Solo88: Cites the ignorant about comets Franklin Anariba again making up a term for a 67 year old model !
17 July 2017 Sol88: Unthinking parroting again of an ignorant Franklin Anariba
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 10th August 2017, 03:00 PM   #94
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,305
Thumbs down Sol88: A lie about directly comparing mainstream and EU models of comets

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
We need to have this minor detail cleared up so we can directly compare models based on the new observations and data (and papers) now available.
11 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about directly comparing mainstream and EU models of comets.

For lurkers:
The EU has no comet model - just their ignorant and deluded stories about comets, e.g. blasted off Earth by electrical discharges in recent times. But they are not brave enough to state this clearly in any recent text. You have to waste your time and kill brain cells by watching their propaganda videos on comets! RationalWiki has the EU claim Planets give birth to comets.[12]. But deluded Wal Thornhill has blog articles where electric comet delusions are explicitly stated, e.g. The Deep Impact of Comet Theory has comets blasted from planets + are rocks + coma/tail = "plasma sheath" + electric arc discharges + electric discharge machining delusions.
Sol88 hides this by not linking to any actual comet theory pages on the Thunderbolts cult web site!
Sol88 has known the mainstream model of comets for 8 years. There is no "minor detail" - it is a major derailing attempt to hide the his delusion that comets are rocks.
Sol88 has been denying all of the observations of comets that there have ever been and ditto for the papers (e.g. their measured density of less than water) for 8 ye4ars now! As for new observations and papers - these include the measured density of 67P being not rock, none of his electrical discharges detected, etc.
Sol88 knows that the Thunderbolts cult have lied about and are totally deluded about comets but links to Thunderbolts web pages confirming those delusions !

11 August 2017 Sol88: Links to a new (July, 2017) lying Thunderbolts "History of Electric Comet Theory: An Introduction" page.
The Thunderbolts electric comet delusion starting with them being blasted of Earth is not related to a cherry picked list of sometimes irrelevant historical astronomers speculating about comets.
William Gilbert, Otto von Guericke, Stephen Gray had no electric comet theory.

11 August 2017 Sol88: Links to a new (July, 2017) lying Thunderbolts "History of Electric Comet Theory: Part 2" page.
The Thunderbolts electric comet delusion starting with them being blasted of Earth is not related to a cherry picked list of sometimes irrelevant historical astronomers speculating about comets.
There was a speculation for a couple of centuries that comet tails were bright for the same unknown reason as aurora. This list lies by including
  • Joseph Priestley (no electric comet theory).
  • Johann August Donndorff (no electric comet theory).
  • Karl Gottlob Kühn (no electric comet theory).
  • Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (no electric comet theory).
  • Ernst Chladni (no electric comet theory).
  • Jean André de Luc (a chemical decay comet theory!)

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.
The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 8 years of delusions from Sol88)
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.

Last edited by Reality Check; 10th August 2017 at 03:50 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 10th August 2017, 03:07 PM   #95
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,305
Deafening silence emphasizing the complete ignorance of science behind the comets are rocks delusion:
  1. 11 July 2017 Sol88: What did your comets are rocks delusion predict abut the observation of cold and warm electrons at 67P?
  2. 6 July 2017 Sol88: What does a rotating charged body do (so far a display of complete ignorance of basic electromagnetism!)?
  3. 7 July 2017 Sol88: What did your comets are rocks delusion predict about the impact of Rosetta on 67P?
  4. 27 July 2017 Sol88: Did the Stardust mission sample the subsurface composition of comet Wild 2?
  5. 27 July 2017 Sol88: Where is the EU prediction of subsurface composition in the "Subsurface composition" paragraph or linked web page?
  6. 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
  7. 4 August 2017 Sol88: How is electric woo is turning granite, for example, into fluffy dust with a density of ~ 1kg/m?
  8. 4 August 2017 Sol88: How is electric woo is turning granite, for example, into fluffy dust that is not granite?
  9. 10 August 2017 Sol88: Give the electric comet theory explanation for "Jets types I,II,II"?

Last edited by Reality Check; 10th August 2017 at 03:08 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 10th August 2017, 03:18 PM   #96
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,013
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
11 August 2017 Sol88: A fantasy and insult about me commenting on a phys.org article that I have never even read !
It looks like Sol88 thinks that everyone with the username RealityCheck on the Internet is me!

I have now read the article which is about real science, not his delusions about comets.
Magnetic fields in massive star formation cores

11 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about hypocrisy.
That RealityCheck asks another commenter to address the science.
Which is exactly what I have been doing.
Your "science" stated 8 years ago was a Thunderbolts claim that comets are rocks.


The science with supporting evidence for the last 67 years is that comets are ices and dust. Thus stating that comets are rocks once is a mistake. Repeating that comets are rocks after been told their density (less than water) is an error. After being told the Deep Impact results (water + dust) it is bordering on delusion. After 8 years and especially the Rosetta mission to 67P we have a documented history of you parroting the Thunderbolts delusion.


When you lie I will document that you lied. Thus that list and the additional items here.
174 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 10 August 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)
In the same post: General Thunderbolt cult stuff + Deafening silence emphasizing the complete ignorance of science behind the comets are rocks delusion.

11 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about "magnetic fields support the cores" being predicted by EU.
EU is a bunch of fairy stories from the ignorant and deluded Thunderbolts cult who start with the stupidity of Velikovsky and add their own inane fantasies to his, e.g. this entire thread! EU has no predictions about the real world.
But just in case this is not yet another delusion:
11 August 2017 Sol88: Cite the EU prediction that during mainstream star formation, "magnetic fields support the cores against the collapse induced by self-gravity".

This is not the EU fairy story about z-pinches and Birkeland currents crushing gas cloud to create a star. This is the mainstream model of a molecular cloud collapsing to form stars.

11 August 2017 Sol88: The persistent 8 year old delusions about comets..

Not you? Sure whinged like you do.

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

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
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 10th August 2017, 03:43 PM   #97
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,013
You are aware that the 'dirtysnowball' model YOUR model or the icy conglomerate model cannot account for the jets of dust?

Fatal for the dirty snowball model or even the icydirtball and reading the papers that force fit the observations to the model is hilarious!

So it's going to be quite the enlightenment to hear from where the fine dust is coming from.


Started way back with JD116's favourite comet.

Water Ice and Dust in the Innermost Coma of Comet 103P/Hartley 2

Quote:
The strong correlation between the water ice, dust, and CO2 spatial distribution supports the concept that CO2 gas drags the water ice and dust grains from the nucleus. Once in the coma, the water ice begins subliming while the dust is in a constant outow. The derived water ice scale-length is compatible with the lifetimes expected for 1-µm pure water ice grains at 1 AU, if velocities are near 0.5 m/s. Such velocities, about three order of magnitudes lower than the expansion velocities expected for isolated 1-µm water ice particles [Hanner, 1981; Whipple, 1951], suggest that the observed water ice grains are likely aggregates.
And

Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko


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. Awayoutof this impasse requires revision of the most common model assumption employed by the cometary community.
So someone is wrong, but who?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]

Last edited by Sol88; 10th August 2017 at 03:44 PM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 03:52 PM   #98
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,305
Thumbs down Sol88: Repeats a lie of a 'dirtysnowball' model existing

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
You are aware that the 'dirtysnowball' model ...
11 August 2017 Sol88: Repeats a lie of a 'dirtysnowball' model existing.
11 August 2017 Sol88: The usual irrelevant derailing away from your delusion that comets are rocks.

Last edited by Reality Check; 10th August 2017 at 04:01 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 10th August 2017, 03:58 PM   #99
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,305
Thumbs down Sol88: Insults rather than stopping digging into a pit of denial about comets

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Sure whinged like you do.
11 August 2017 Sol88: Insults rather than stopping digging deeper into a pit of denial about comets.
You have known for 8 years about comets being measured to be less dense than water, etc. making "comets are rocks" into one of many delusions about comets.
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 10th August 2017, 04:12 PM   #100
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,305
Thumbs down Sol88: A lying comparison between Protopapa, et. al. and Skorov et. al.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Water Ice and Dust in the Innermost Coma of Comet 103P/Hartley 2
11 August 2017 Sol88: A lying comparison between Protopapa, et. al. and Skorov et. al.
I would say ignorant but 8 years of the comets are rocks delusion + the total irrelevancy of the papers to this thread suggest a lie. If Sol88 owns up to the ignorance of the comparison and irrelevancy of the papers then I will change this to a ignorant, irrelevant comparison.

Water Ice and Dust in the Innermost Coma of Comet 103P/Hartley 2 Protopapa, et. al. (2014).
Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko Skorov et. al. (2017)

These are papers about two different comets at two different distances from the Sun (1.06 AU and 1.3 AU).
Protopapa, et. al. (2014) is measurements of Comet 103P/Hartley 2 at a heliocentric distance of 1.06 AU. Those measurements support "the concept that CO2 gas drags the water ice and dust grains from the nucleus".
Skorov et. al. (2017) is a theoretical 1D model of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko at a heliocentric distance of 1.3 AU.

Last edited by Reality Check; 10th August 2017 at 04:15 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 10th August 2017, 06:02 PM   #101
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,013
Ah so Skorov et. al. (2017) is wrong cause it's only a model! Thanks for the clear up RC.


Ummm....
Quote:
A way out of the impasse requires focusing on a revised common model assumption listed at the beginning of this section.
So what where the common model assumption listed at the beginning of this section, let's take a look,
Quote:
Dust lifted from a comet nucleus provides enough surface to scatter sunlight, which is the defining characteristic of these small bodies that have attracted our attention for millennia. Although the discussion of dust ejection from cometary nuclei was the focus of many researches starting from the pioneering article of Whipple (Whipple 1950), even today our understanding of this process is far from complete in many respects. The results obtained during the Rosetta mission brought new puzzles and questions.
oh the dirtysnowball rears it's ugly head AGAIN.


Co2 gas can drag out h2o ice and dust at
Quote:
The dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko (67P)
has been detected at surprisingly large heliocentric distances
(~4.3 AU)
Quote:
We list below the main results that are connected with the topic of this paper. From the OSIRIS instrument results we learned that 1) dust activity is observed everywhere, it is not localized only in jets and/or active regions (hence dust is most likely released from the surface);
So what's lifting the dust again RC?


Quote:
Summary and Conclusions Comet 103P/Hartley 2 differs in many ways from 9P/Tempel 1 and is an ideal example of hyperactive comets, ones that produce more H2O per unit time than should be possible by sublimation from the small surface area of their nuclei. Supervolatiles, specifically CO2 in the case of Hartley 2, are the primary drivers of activity. The supervolatiles drag out chunks of nearly pure water-ice, which then sublime to provide a large fraction of the total H2O gaseous output of the comet. Other hyperactive comets include 46P/Wirtanen and 21P/Giacobini-Zinner.
EPOXI at Comet Hartley 2

How much dust measured on the surface of 103P/Hartley 2?

or for that matter 67P by Philea?

How hard was the "supposed" ice layer that MUPUS found based on Whipples model, the common model.
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
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 10th August 2017, 07:00 PM   #102
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,305
Thumbs down Sol88: A fantasy that Skorov et. al. (2017) was wrong because "it's only a model"

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Ah so Skorov et. al. (2017) is wrong cause it's only a model!
11 August 2017 Sol88: A fantasy about me writing that Skorov et. al. (2017) was wrong because "it's only a model".

11 August 2017 Sol88: A (probably) lying comparison between Protopapa, et. al. and Skorov et. al.
My post says nothing about whether any of the papers are wrong. The post is that it is ignorant to the point of lying to compare a paper on comet measurements on comet 103P at 1.06 AU to a paper on a ices/dust model of 67P at 1.3 AU.

If I did not think that your response would be yet more derailing from your delusion, I would give my opinion about the papers. Hint: The comets are not the same comet !

11 August 2017 Sol88: Usual derail from his comets are rocks, etc. delusions.
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 10th August 2017, 07:13 PM   #103
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,305
Time to document more posts to be visible for eternity !
174 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 10 August 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)
  1. 10 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about "dirtysnowball was bust" and was a fairytale.
  2. 10 August 2017 Sol88: Usual ignorance about science - the first flyby of a comet was of Halley's Comet which happens to fit the description of a dirty snowball!
  3. 10 August 2017 Sol88: A lie of there being a electric comet model - delusions are not scientific models.
  4. 10 August 2017 Sol88: Emphasizes over 8 years of ignorance and delusions about comets with a small lie about a paper.
  5. 10 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about a quote mine from the Skorov paper.
  6. 11 August 2017 Sol88: A fantasy and insult about me commenting on a phys.org article that I have never even read !
  7. 11 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about hypocrisy.
  8. 11 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about "magnetic fields support the cores" being predicted by EU.
  9. 11 August 2017 Sol88: The persistent 8 year old delusions about comets.
  10. 11 August 2017 Sol88: Repeats his delusions about his imaginary "dirtysnowball" model.
  11. 11 August 2017 Sol88: Derails yet again from his delusion that comets are rocks blasted from the Earth by electrical discharges from Venus as recorded in myths.
  12. 11 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about an irrelevant Gooding and Allton paper.
  13. 11 August 2017 Sol88: Cites the ignorant about comets Franklin Anariba again making up a term for a 67 year old model!
  14. 11 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about directly comparing mainstream and EU models of comets.
  15. 11 August 2017 Sol88: Repeats a lie of a 'dirtysnowball' model existing.
  16. 11 August 2017 Sol88: The usual irrelevant derailing away from your delusion that comets are rocks.
  17. 11 August 2017 Sol88: Insults rather than stopping digging deeper into a pit of denial about comets.
  18. 11 August 2017 Sol88: A lying comparison between Protopapa, et. al. and Skorov et. al.
  19. 11 August 2017 Sol88: A fantasy about me writing that Skorov et. al. (2017) was wrong because "it's only a model".
  20. 11 August 2017 Sol88: Usual derail from his comets are rocks, etc. delusions.
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 10th August 2017, 10:27 PM   #104
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,013
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
11 August 2017 Sol88: A lying comparison between Protopapa, et. al. and Skorov et. al.
I would say ignorant but 8 years of the comets are rocks delusion + the total irrelevancy of the papers to this thread suggest a lie. If Sol88 owns up to the ignorance of the comparison and irrelevancy of the papers then I will change this to a ignorant, irrelevant comparison.

Water Ice and Dust in the Innermost Coma of Comet 103P/Hartley 2 Protopapa, et. al. (2014).
Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko Skorov et. al. (2017)

These are papers about two different comets at two different distances from the Sun (1.06 AU and 1.3 AU).
Protopapa, et. al. (2014) is measurements of Comet 103P/Hartley 2 at a heliocentric distance of 1.06 AU. Those measurements support "the concept that CO2 gas drags the water ice and dust grains from the nucleus".
Skorov et. al. (2017) is a theoretical 1D model of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko at a heliocentric distance of 1.3 AU.
Haha kneeslappn fun there RC!

You (mainstream) have a fatal problem for the icy conglomerate model.

How's all the dust ending up in the coma REALITY CHECK?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
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 10th August 2017, 10:54 PM   #105
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,013
Quote:
One can compare the icy grains in comet Hartley 2, a hyperactive comet from which icy grains are apparently dragged out continuously by gaseous CO2, with the icy grains mechanically excavated from 10-20-m depths in the low-activity comet Tempel 1 [Sunshine et al., 2007], and with the icy grains excavated by the infrequent but large natural outbursts of comet Holmes [Yang et al., 2009]. In all three cases, the icy grains are relatively pure and dominated by particles of order 1 µm in size. Taken together this suggests that in most comets the ice in the interior of the nuclei is in the form of aggregates of relatively pure ice and that intimate mixtures of ice and refractories are rare. Furthermore, this implies that nuclei are commonly very porous, as suggested by the few bulk densities that have been determined and that aggregation models [e.g., Greenberg and Li, 1999] that call for grains with refractory cores, organic mantles, and icy crusts are generally inappropriate for comets.
Water Ice and Dust in the Innermost Coma of Comet 103P/Hartley 2

And the dust is where?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]

Last edited by Sol88; 10th August 2017 at 11:02 PM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 11:38 PM   #106
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,990
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So someone is wrong, but who?
No, why does every comet has to do the same?
It has been shown that H2O and CO2 on comet 67P/CG are spatially differentiated, so you cannot compare Hartley with 67P if at the former the two species are mixed.
Kind of obvious.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2017, 04:24 AM   #107
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,013
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
No, why does every comet has to do the same?
It has been shown that H2O and CO2 on comet 67P/CG are spatially differentiated, so you cannot compare Hartley with 67P if at the former the two species are mixed.
Kind of obvious.


No, the new assumptions are volatiles, including supervolitiles, can not remove the ubiquitous "dust' that we see in the COMA! On the nucleus we see granular material down to instruments resolution under that was impervious the MUPUS probe (well consolidated material)

AND.. it's HARD, really hard!

It was presumed that it shall be ice

Doesn't matter how far from the sun the nucleus is or WHERE the jets are located on the nucleus.
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2017, 04:32 AM   #108
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,013
So Skorov et al are on the money

Though there is one alternative that's on offer...

SIMULATION OF THE ELECTROSTATIC CHARGING OF PHILAE ON 67P/CHURYUMOV-GERASIMENKO AND OF ITS INTERACTION WITH THE DUSTS.

And

Electrostatic forces on grains near asteroids and comets

Charged particle signatures of the diamagnetic cavity of comet 67P/Churyumov)–Gerasimenko

Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity


I was thinking they may have something to do with it..
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]

Last edited by Sol88; 11th August 2017 at 05:21 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 11th August 2017, 05:43 AM   #109
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,013
The Skorov papers model puts an interesting new spin on the The 2016 Feb 19 outburst of comet 67P/CG: an ESA Rosetta multi-instrument study paper.

Where all the dust come from, one would wonder?

And such fine dust
Quote:
The area of the target scanned to date is 90 880 μm2 and 135 particles have been identied with an areal coverage of 4.2 per cent. The particle count does not attempt to separate impact fragments from individual particles since the coverage is not yet suf cient to determine this, and thus represents an upper limit. For this reason, a true size distribution of the particles prior to collection cannot yet be established. Instead, some limits are given based on the effective diameters (the diameter of a circle having the same projected area as the particle) of the collected particles or fragments. Ninety per cent have an effective size less than 9.3 μm and 50 per cent less than 3.7 μm.
from the paper
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]

Last edited by Sol88; 11th August 2017 at 05:48 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 11th August 2017, 02:44 PM   #110
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,573
So Sol88,
Why don't Apollo objects show comas?
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2017, 03:31 PM   #111
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,013
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
So Sol88,
Why don't Apollo objects show comas?
I don't know.

Same token, why do some asteroids show comas DD?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]

Last edited by Sol88; 11th August 2017 at 03:37 PM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2017, 03:36 PM   #112
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,013
Quote:
According to the model, the sublimation temperatures in the source area could well exceed the minimum of 175 K needed for sustaining the outgassing flux of 1 × 10-6 kg m-2 s-1. However, 1 Pa is an order of magnitude higher than the maximum vapor pressure achieved. Additional numerical simulations with particle sizes up to 1 cm (still assuming a low thermal conductivity of up to 0.1 W K-1 m-1, to account for the timescale of conduction of ~1 h) suggest that water vapor pressure is unlikely to overcome the tensile strength of a homogeneous dust layer up to a few centimeters in thickness, as noted by Blum et al. (2014) and Gundlach et al. (2015). This work is not meant to address this rather profound issue in cometary physics, and certainly not to discuss a sufficient condition for dust activities. The more realistic scenario of a nonuniform dust layer composed of particles with a certain size distribution and packing structure may be worth considering (Skorov et al. 2011). In addition, the role of super-volatiles, such as CO and CO2, in facilitating, or driving, the observed dust activities will be investigated in future studies.
Sunset jets observed on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko sustained by subsurface thermal lag

And the dust is charged!

Quote:
AbstractThe Grain Impact Analyzer and Dust Accumulator (GIADA) instrument on board ESA's Rosetta missionis constraining the origin of the dust particles detected within the coma of comet 67 P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko (67P). The collected particles belong to two families: (i) compact particles (ranging in sizefrom 0.03 to 1 mm), witnessing the presence of materials that underwent processing within the solarnebula and (ii) fluffy aggregates (ranging in size from 0.2 to 2.5 mm) of sub-micron grains that may be arecord of a primitive component, probably linked to interstellar dust. The dynamics of the fluffyaggregates constrain their equivalent bulk density to kg m. These aggregates are charged,fragmented, and decelerated by the spacecraft negative potential and enter GIADA in showers offragments at speeds m s. The density of such optically thick aggregates is consistent with the lowbulk density of the nucleus. The mass contribution of the fluffy aggregates to the refractory component ofthe nucleus is negligible and their coma brightness contribution is less than 15%.
DENSITY AND CHARGE OF PRISTINE FLUFFY PARTICLES FROM COMET67P/CHURYUMOV–GERASIMENKO
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2017, 06:01 PM   #113
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,212
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Sunset jets observed on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko sustained by subsurface thermal lag

And the dust is charged!

DENSITY AND CHARGE OF PRISTINE FLUFFY PARTICLES FROM COMET67P/CHURYUMOV–GERASIMENKO

Here's a link for Sol's second quote

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...8205/802/1/L12

Note that the "equivalent bulk density" figure missing from his quote is "< 1 kg m-3"

Sol still wants us to think the barest mention of dust or charge implies rocks or lightning bolts. Sad.
__________________
Chicken is a vegetable-James May, vegetarian
A target doesn't need to be preselected-Jabba

Last edited by ferd burfle; 11th August 2017 at 06:05 PM. Reason: Typo
ferd burfle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2017, 07:28 PM   #114
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,013
Originally Posted by ferd burfle View Post
Here's a link for Sol's second quote

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...8205/802/1/L12

Note that the "equivalent bulk density" figure missing from his quote is "< 1 kg m-3"

Sol still wants us to think the barest mention of dust or charge implies rocks or lightning bolts. Sad.
Did they mention how they arrived at that figure? <1kgm-3?

Quote:
particle crosses a laser curtain, and is detected by photoelectric sensors (GDS, grain detection system) registering a signal (proportional to the particle cross section times the albedo) and the time at which the laser curtain is crossed. Then the particle hits the impact sensor (IS, with the same GDS cross section, A=10−2m2), which registers the individual particle impact momentum and its travel time from GDS to IS. The combination of GDS and IS measurements (GDS+IS particles) provides the particle mass and velocity, and constrains the particle bulk density by means of calibration curves (Della Corte et al. 2016) derived on the ground using cometary analogues (Ferrari et al. 2014). If the particle is too small to be detected by the GDS system, it may be detected by the IS sensor only (IS particles): in this case the particle momentum is converted to the mass assuming the mean value of the velocities of the GDS+IS particles in the same momentum bin, or assuming the velocities predicted by tail models (Fulle et al. 2010) if Ngds+is =0 in that mass bin. The spacecraft velocities listed in Table 1 are always much lower than the dust velocities measured by GIADA.
Quote:
3. PARTICLE CHARGEThe charge carried by a fluffy particle of radius R and equilibrium potential U iswhere is the vacuum permittivity, for spheres and for non-spherical or fluffy grains (Auer etal. 2007). The potential of the Rosetta spacecraft was measured at V (Nilsson et al. 2015). Weassume that this value was measured in the expected plasma density of m and energy of 100 eV.Dust charging models were computed taking into account currents provided by cold solar wind ions andelectrons, photoelectrons, coma electrons, and the secondary electrons induced by hot and cold plasmacomponents. These simulations (Figure 3) show that the dust equilibrium potential is set by the electroncollection current from the ambient plasma and by the secondary electron current emitted by the dust,which depends on the yield parameter (Mukai et al. 2001), for compact grains of olivineor graphite (Lin & Joy 2005; Balcon et al. 2012). The yield parameter decreases in time due to surfaceaging effects (Davies & Dennison 1997). In fluffy particles is lower than in compact grains
because most secondary electrons with an energy of a few eV are ejected toward other parts of the same particleand reabsorbed. Here we consider as a free parameter, and we fix its value according to the assumedplasma parameters and the measured U value.
sorry bout the cut n paste

DENSITY AND CHARGE OF PRISTINE FLUFFY PARTICLES FROM COMET67P/CHURYUMOV–GERASIMENKO

So maybe <1kgm-3 may be off
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2017, 07:34 PM   #115
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,013
Quote:
If their flux will significantlyincrease, fluffy particles of equivalent density kg m could be invoked to explain the nucleusdensity of 470 kg m (Sierks et al. 2015).
True?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2017, 07:43 PM   #116
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,013
Quote:
The cross sections of fluffy aggregates and compact particles are similar. Since the spacecraft spent mosttime at the terminator, there is a bias due to Lorentz forces enhancing the flux of charged aggregates. Thesingle particles detected by the OSIRIS cameras (Rotundi et al. 2015; Sierks et al. 2015) have a 15% probabilityof of being fluffy (45 fluffy aggregates versus 262 compact particles).
How does that jive with the assumed bulk density? Most of the fluffy particles (dust) are <1kgm-3 and the compact particles up to 3x103m-3. (Rotundi et al. 2015)

Not too sure, but it would have to say something about it?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]

Last edited by Sol88; 11th August 2017 at 07:46 PM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2017, 07:52 PM   #117
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,013
So if the dust is being charged even in the diamagnetic cavity, how's that come about?

Jets are quite active around perihelion and when Rosetta would have been inside the diamagnetic cavity?

Super volatiles or not there's the very fine dust on a surface which looks hard and "felt" hard even if it was "ice" presumably and overlayed with course granular un-consolidated material
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2017, 10:58 PM   #118
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,417
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
<snip>

by the way, the above was predicted and expected in the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE!
Really?

Got a paper or three you can cite to back up your claim?

Quote:
just maybe COMETS are an electrical phenomena <snip>
Just maybe pig will fly ...

Just maybe sol88 will publish a paper, in Icarus, showing that comets are an electrical phenomenon ...
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2017, 11:03 PM   #119
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,417
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
We need to have this minor detail cleared up so we can directly compare models based on the new observations and data (and papers) now available.

For those lurkers who are unaware of the history of the ELECTRIC COMETS idea and think it's just from a bunch of, as JD116 bangs on about, Velikovskian woo merchants and dismissed out of hand, then arm yourself with real knowledge.

Here a little history on the ELECTRIC COMET.
  1. History of Electric Comet Theory: An Introduction
  2. History of Electric Comet Theory: Part 2
Interesting set of material, sol88.

Do you plan to update this by including the Velikovskian woo merchants', um, contributions?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2017, 11:11 PM   #120
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,417
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
I don't know.

Same token, why do some asteroids show comas DD?
More pertinent, surely, is DD's question ... per the EC "theory", why do some asteroids have tails but most do not?

After all, this thread is about the EC, is it not?

And anyway, as an enthusiastic Comet Hunter, you already know the answers to your own question, don't you sol88? No need to be coy ...
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
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 10:09 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.