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 17th October 2019, 03:11 PM   #201
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,917
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
There is ice. As proven. Enough to stop the solar wind in its tracks. And Patzold is likely wrong. As pointed out by Fulle. And nobody has claimed that comets are mostly ice for decades. That is your own pathetic strawman, which you have been told about repeatedly. Continuing to lie about it is not going to make it come true.
You have no model. It failed. You are grasping at straws of your own making to cover up your embarrassment of the electric comet woo having been totally falsified by observations. You have nowhere left to go.
If comets are little different to asteroids, why do comets develop comae, when the vast majority of asteroids don't? You have no answer. You ran away when Indagator asked you about it. I repeat - YOU HAVE NO MODEL.
There is ice. As proven. Enough to stop the solar wind in its tracks.




Really dude? Stop the solar wind?


Bugger me... ay tusenfem?

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

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


Ice, eh?
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator

Last edited by Sol88; 17th October 2019 at 03:14 PM.
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 17th October 2019, 03:40 PM   #202
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,757
Thumbs down The usual lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
....
The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.
The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn by Sol88 linking him with demented dogma, etc.
Sol88's lies about the demented SAFIRE experiment about the Sun and a scientific experiment about the solar wind and Parker spiral
Yet more propaganda from the Thunderbolts cult on the insane SAFIRE project.
That conversation with Monty exposed that the already insane SAFIRE project is even more insane than collapsing the Sun to a white dwarf
Plasma has been explained to Sol88 many times over the last 10 or more years but he is too interested in drinking his cult's poison to understand that plasma is a partially ionized gas that is quasi-neutral. !

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

Last edited by Reality Check; 17th October 2019 at 03:41 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 17th October 2019, 05:00 PM   #204
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,917
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post

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

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

Right, got it now.

Cheers, i was confused.
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator

Last edited by Sol88; 17th October 2019 at 05:01 PM.
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 17th October 2019, 05:14 PM   #205
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,810
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
There is ice. As proven. Enough to stop the solar wind in its tracks.




Really dude? Stop the solar wind?


Bugger me... ay tusenfem?

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

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


Ice, eh?
Another example of pure ignorance. Those fields don't just spring into being. They are caused by the interaction of the solar wind with the cometary coma. Which contains shed loads of volatiles from ices. And I guess you are too much of a coward to email Patzold, yes?
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
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 17th October 2019, 05:17 PM   #206
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,810
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
I mean you’re the expert, so if you say so.

jd116.

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

Martin Patzold is wrong?

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

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

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

Seems it’s know reared it’s ugly mug in this paper.
No the RSI measurements are not being called into question. You made that up. And you still have no model.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
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 17th October 2019, 05:55 PM   #207
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,757
Thumbs down The usual lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So Fulle called Patzold wrong and this was agreed by JD116 along with tusenfem.
The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.
The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn by Sol88 linking him with demented dogma, etc.
Sol88's lies about the demented SAFIRE experiment about the Sun and a scientific experiment about the solar wind and Parker spiral
Yet more propaganda from the Thunderbolts cult on the insane SAFIRE project.
That conversation with Monty exposed that the already insane SAFIRE project is even more insane than collapsing the Sun to a white dwarf
Plasma has been explained to Sol88 many times over the last 10 or more years but he is too interested in drinking his cult's poison to understand that plasma is a partially ionized gas that is quasi-neutral. !

Sol88's usual insanity.
My post was that Sol88 lied about jonesdave116's post by removing that Fulle pointed out that Patzold is likely wrong.
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Sol88's usual insanity and lies about posts and posters.
jonesdave116 wrote "There is ice. As proven. Enough to stop the solar wind in its tracks. And Patzold is likely wrong. As pointed out by Fulle." My emphasis of Sol88's lie by quote mining.
The Nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko – Part I: The global view – nucleus mass, mass-loss, porosity, and implications by Pätzold, et. al published 26 November 2018.

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

Last edited by Reality Check; 17th October 2019 at 06:21 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 17th October 2019, 07:17 PM   #208
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,917
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
No the RSI measurements are not being called into question. You made that up. And you still have no model.
RSI experiment confirms comets are highly porous? Is this correct jonesdave116?
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 17th October 2019, 07:43 PM   #209
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,757
Thumbs down The usual lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
RSI ...
The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.
The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn by Sol88 linking him with demented dogma, etc.
Sol88's lies about the demented SAFIRE experiment about the Sun and a scientific experiment about the solar wind and Parker spiral
Yet more propaganda from the Thunderbolts cult on the insane SAFIRE project.
That conversation with Monty exposed that the already insane SAFIRE project is even more insane than collapsing the Sun to a white dwarf
Plasma has been explained to Sol88 many times over the last 10 or more years but he is too interested in drinking his cult's poison to understand that plasma is a partially ionized gas that is quasi-neutral. !

Sol88's usual lies about posts and posters.
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
No the RSI measurements are not being called into question. You made that up. And you still have no model.
That is a reply to Sol88's deluded "Do you think the RSI experiment holds any merit?" question.

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

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

Last edited by Reality Check; 17th October 2019 at 07:52 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 17th October 2019, 08:00 PM   #210
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,810
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
RSI experiment confirms comets are highly porous? Is this correct jonesdave116?
What? It measures the gravity. Which gives us a mass which, divided by volume gives a density.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
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 17th October 2019, 08:41 PM   #211
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,917
Quote:
The nucleus mass combined with the new very precise nucleus volume of 18.56±0.02 km3 yield a bulk density of 537.8 ± 0.6 kg/m3. This low bulk density suggests that the nucleus is highly porous.
So we all agree the RSI experiment is infallible!
Quote:
(The total mass loss M puts hard constraints on the models of interpretation of the observations from other instruments on Rosetta.)
Great, so where has Patzold gone wrong in the following statement. Remember you agreed the RSI experiment is solid gold (otherwise Einstein is wrong).

Quote:
The porosity is constrained by the observed bulk density, the density of ices, mostly water ice, and the density of compacted nucleus dust material. For a range of compacted dust material density from 2000 to 3500 kg/m3, the porosity varies between 65% - 79% when the dust-to-ice mass ratio Fnucleus for the nucleus body lies in the range 3 ≤ Fnucleus ≤ 7.
Joensdave116, please point out where you think Patzold is in error.
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 17th October 2019, 08:52 PM   #212
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,917
Otherwise

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

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

otherwise...

Suck it up butter cup!

comets are not dirtysnowballs!!!

and mainstream have been caught with their pants down!

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


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


Maybe M.A'Hearn really meant stony agglomerations!

So lets have a look again

Quote:
Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the first quantitative
model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock highly porous stony agglomerates, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high as 6 have been cited
Would A'Hearn's statement be more correct then?
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator

Last edited by Sol88; 17th October 2019 at 08:54 PM.
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 17th October 2019, 08:53 PM   #213
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,757
Thumbs down The usual lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...
The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.
The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn by Sol88 linking him with demented dogma, etc.
Sol88's lies about the demented SAFIRE experiment about the Sun and a scientific experiment about the solar wind and Parker spiral
Yet more propaganda from the Thunderbolts cult on the insane SAFIRE project.
That conversation with Monty exposed that the already insane SAFIRE project is even more insane than collapsing the Sun to a white dwarf
Plasma has been explained to Sol88 many times over the last 10 or more years but he is too interested in drinking his cult's poison to understand that plasma is a partially ionized gas that is quasi-neutral. !

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

Last edited by Reality Check; 17th October 2019 at 08:55 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 17th October 2019, 08:57 PM   #214
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,757
Thumbs down The usual lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...
The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.
The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn by Sol88 linking him with demented dogma, etc.
Sol88's lies about the demented SAFIRE experiment about the Sun and a scientific experiment about the solar wind and Parker spiral
Yet more propaganda from the Thunderbolts cult on the insane SAFIRE project.
That conversation with Monty exposed that the already insane SAFIRE project is even more insane than collapsing the Sun to a white dwarf
Plasma has been explained to Sol88 many times over the last 10 or more years but he is too interested in drinking his cult's poison to understand that plasma is a partially ionized gas that is quasi-neutral. !

Sol88's usual insane lies.
This quote from Patzold et.al.
Quote:
The porosity is constrained by the observed bulk density, the density of ices, mostly water ice, and the density of compacted nucleus dust material. For a range of compacted dust material density from 2000 to 3500 kg/m3, the porosity varies between 65% - 79% when the dust-to-ice mass ratio Fnucleus for the nucleus body lies in the range 3 ≤ Fnucleus ≤ 7.
Is not this quote from Patzold et.al. !
Quote:
The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice.
And not this quote from Patzold et.al. !
Quote:
(ii) upper porosity bound: if ice = 0, then Fnucleus = ∞ and dust (1-poro)-bulk = 0 in (11) and, not so unrealistically, the nucleus would be a highly porous stony agglomerate, essentially devoid of volitiles.
This is the obvious fact that if there is no ice then ..there is no ice ! More exactly, if a comet did not outgas from ices sublimating then the nucleus should have close to no volatiles. This is not 67P.

Sol88 insane ignorance includes not understanding the word "if" !

Last edited by Reality Check; 17th October 2019 at 09:03 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 17th October 2019, 09:13 PM   #215
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,917
Quote:
As a reminder, the upper bound on the porosity is 73% to 85% for a highly porous stony body without ice for the selected dust material density range.

Remember Fulle used 72.1% +14.3 - 11.7%

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

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

According to the RSI experiment any way!

ROSINA and MIRO data has been incorrectly modeled.
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 17th October 2019, 09:13 PM   #216
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,810
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So we all agree the RSI experiment is infallible!

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



Joensdave116, please point out where you think Patzold is in error.
Given that all the instruments, including ground based and those on other spacecraft all have the water production rate within a factor of a few, then he is obviously doing something wrong. Probably underestimating the fallback mass. And I fail to see what this has got to do with your failed 'model'. Assuming there is a model? I don't think there is. I don't think anybody associated with EU has got the foggiest clue about any of the relevant science. And you cannot explain the water production rates. As measured. By multiple instruments. You don't even have an explanation for why there is water being produced at all. Do you? Your woo is dead. Why are you still here?
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
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 17th October 2019, 09:18 PM   #217
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,810
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post

ROSINA and MIRO data has been incorrectly modeled.
No it has not. Nor has the VIRTIS data. Nor has the observations from a Japanese spacecraft. Not those made from the ground. They are all within a factor of a few.
And you have no model, nor any explanation for the volatiles.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
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 18th October 2019, 02:52 AM   #218
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,548
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So Fulle called Patzold wrong and this was agreed by JD116 along with tusenfem.
I have not said anything about "fulle vs pätzold" so don't put my name in your ridiculous claims.
__________________
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; 18th October 2019 at 02:56 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 18th October 2019, 05:39 AM   #219
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,810
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
I have not said anything about "fulle vs pätzold" so don't put my name in your ridiculous claims.
I'm not 100% sure it was Fulle. I'll have to check. I'm sure that whoever it was said that the mass loss may have been underestimated, or that the fall-back dust mass had.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
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 18th October 2019, 12:41 PM   #220
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,917
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
I have not said anything about "fulle vs pätzold" so don't put my name in your ridiculous claims.
My apologies.


Quote:
The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice. The total mass loss M puts hard constraints on the models of interpretation of the observations from other instruments on Rosetta.
The Nucleus of Comet 67P/ChuryumovGerasimenko - Part I: The Global View – nucleus mass, mass loss, porosity and implications Martin Pätzold

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

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

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

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

So, now you have dry dusty and highly porous comet. How does that fit with, say Tempel 1?
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator

Last edited by Sol88; 18th October 2019 at 12:57 PM.
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 18th October 2019, 01:03 PM   #221
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,810
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
67P is not a Dirtysnowball, this is the implications part of the paper.

Seems a few staunch dirtysnowballlers are have trouble coming to terms with the inevitable fact comets are not mostly ice.
Lying again. Strawman again. Do you ever give up with this dishonest crap?
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
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 18th October 2019, 06:19 PM   #222
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,917
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Lying again. Strawman again. Do you ever give up with this dishonest crap?

Lying again, ay.


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

__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 18th October 2019, 06:20 PM   #223
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,917
Truth is comets contain very little to no ice.....

Burns a little, ay jonesdave116!

__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 18th October 2019, 08:08 PM   #224
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,810
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Truth is comets contain very little to no ice.....

Burns a little, ay jonesdave116!

Wrong. As observed. Thousands of tonnes of it excavated at Tempel 1 by a teeny little impactor. That is when your woo died. Wal just forgot to inform his gullible acolytes.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
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 18th October 2019, 08:18 PM   #225
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,810
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Lying again, ay.


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

https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/...866/352ima.jpg
No, you lied, yet again, about claims that the comet is mostly ice. You continually lie about it. Lies are all you have left. No model, no explanations, you run away from questions about your idiotic woo, yet you are still here making a fool of yourself. Why? You lost, remember? No electric woo.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
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 18th October 2019, 10:00 PM   #226
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,917
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Wrong. As observed. Thousands of tonnes of it excavated at Tempel 1 by a teeny little impactor. That is when your woo died. Wal just forgot to inform his gullible acolytes.
Well, one of these comets is an enigma.

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


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


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

Two camps forming. Trouble in academia.

RPC team knows what’s the score is.
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 18th October 2019, 10:01 PM   #227
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,917
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
No, you lied, yet again, about claims that the comet is mostly ice. You continually lie about it. Lies are all you have left. No model, no explanations, you run away from questions about your idiotic woo, yet you are still here making a fool of yourself. Why? You lost, remember? No electric woo.
What lie dude?


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

Implications, implications...

Quote:
The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice.
No lie.
You ok?
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator

Last edited by Sol88; 18th October 2019 at 10:03 PM.
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 19th October 2019, 03:44 AM   #228
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,810
Quote:
One when we thought comets were mostly ice......
.

Is another lie.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
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 19th October 2019, 03:46 AM   #229
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,810
Quote:
Talking about no model, you’ve agreed the Dirtysnowball snowball is dead. This IS the standard model.
Is another lie. Want me to link, yet again, to the paper I have linked before to you, to show that you are lying?
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
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 19th October 2019, 03:57 AM   #230
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,810
Quote:
The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice.
And as Tempel 1 was of similar dimensions to 67P, and had a similar outgassing rate, the same applies. Still managed to excavate thousands of tones of the stuff from one tiny little area.
All of which means your 'model', if such you have, has failed. Long since.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
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 19th October 2019, 06:42 AM   #231
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,548
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
67P is not a Dirtysnowball, this is the implications part of the paper.
the dirty snowball was the FIRST model of a comet build in the 1950s with NO close encounter with a comet, and from the ground one can only see the huge coma.

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

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

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

if you want "fulle vs pätzold" then YOU take all the papers, read them, and then make a consize summary of both and discuss the merits of either paper, maybe then there will be a usefull discussion in this thread THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT THE ELECTRIC COMET IDEA and not mainstream bashing.
__________________
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; 19th October 2019 at 06:48 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 19th October 2019, 04:52 PM   #232
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,917
Quote:
since then the "dirty snowball" developed further into the "snowy dirtball" and on and on as we get more data
Ok then...

Quote:
At the simplest level, a very basic question is whether comets are mostly ice or mostly rock/dirt/refractory material. Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the first quantitative model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high as 6 have been cited [3,4].

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

It’s what started this whole thread.

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

Patzolds paper reinforces A’Hearns above statement.

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


Comets are NOT Dirtysnowballs this is from mainstream science. The Dirtysnowball ... this IS the mainstream model.
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator

Last edited by Sol88; 19th October 2019 at 04:53 PM.
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 19th October 2019, 08:15 PM   #233
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,810
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Ok then...




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

It’s what started this whole thread.

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

Patzolds paper reinforces A’Hearns above statement.

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


Comets are NOT Dirtysnowballs this is from mainstream science. The Dirtysnowball ... this IS the mainstream model.
Complete nonsense. It has just been explained to you. That has not been the model for a long time. And no rock has ever been found on a comet. Nor has any EDM (lol). Nor any electric discharges. So, it looks like you need to get your own house in order, as the mainstream model is doing just fine.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
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 19th October 2019, 11:41 PM   #234
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,917
Quote:
the mainstream model is doing just fine.
Mmmmm.....

You lie,


A’Hearn said
Quote:
Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the first quantitative model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock
You spat the dummy not me...
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 20th October 2019, 02:40 AM   #235
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,481
Let's see, there are according to Sol88, two theories.

Mainstream and the EU one.

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

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

Tough choice.
Lukraak_Sisser 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 October 2019, 02:45 AM   #236
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,548
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post

It’s what started this whole thread.
no, that is NOT what started this thread, whether comets are ice or rock, if you go back 5 threads yiu will see that thus is about the electric comet idea, which you have not added anything towards, apart from cherry picking sentences from e.g. rpc papers without understbanding them or checking whether they would fit in your electric ideas (which the don't because the electric fields that are there cannot possibly do what you want them to do and often point in the wrong direction).
__________________
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 20th October 2019, 06:53 AM   #237
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,810
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Mmmmm.....

You lie,


A’Hearn said

You spat the dummy not me...
And again, you are lying. Get this through your thick head; Whipples's model was what was thought to be a reasonable model before we had visited a comet. Understand? Need it in pictures? Shall I write it in crayon for you?
Having visited a comet for the first time, in 1986 (nineteen eighty six) 33 (thirty three) years ago, ideas started to evolve based on information we did not have previously, and therefore could not have known. That is, we did not know it before. Understand? Not going too quickly, am I? Words aren't too long, are they?
Having visited more and more comets over the decades that came, and acquiring (getting) more information, they could therefore refine the model based on those observations. They did.
Then, in 2006, a couple of Velikovskian clowns wrote a bunch of scientifically impossible crap, believed only by the mentally afflicted, in which they set up the dirty snowball model from the 50s as a strawman, so the unqualified clowns could attack it. Only idiots believed them, and were conned by them. You seem to be the last of the aforementioned. Clear now?
__________________
“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; 20th October 2019 at 07:04 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 20th October 2019, 01:37 PM   #238
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,757
Thumbs down The usual lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
....
The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.
The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn by Sol88 linking him with demented dogma, etc.
Sol88's lies about the demented SAFIRE experiment about the Sun and a scientific experiment about the solar wind and Parker spiral
Yet more propaganda from the Thunderbolts cult on the insane SAFIRE project.
That conversation with Monty exposed that the already insane SAFIRE project is even more insane than collapsing the Sun to a white dwarf
Plasma has been explained to Sol88 many times over the last 10 or more years but he is too interested in drinking his cult's poison to understand that plasma is a partially ionized gas that is quasi-neutral. !

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

Last edited by Reality Check; 20th October 2019 at 01:48 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 20th October 2019, 01:38 PM   #239
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,757
Thumbs down The usual lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...
The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.
The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn by Sol88 linking him with demented dogma, etc.
Sol88's lies about the demented SAFIRE experiment about the Sun and a scientific experiment about the solar wind and Parker spiral
Yet more propaganda from the Thunderbolts cult on the insane SAFIRE project.
That conversation with Monty exposed that the already insane SAFIRE project is even more insane than collapsing the Sun to a white dwarf
Plasma has been explained to Sol88 many times over the last 10 or more years but he is too interested in drinking his cult's poison to understand that plasma is a partially ionized gas that is quasi-neutral. !

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

Last edited by Reality Check; 20th October 2019 at 01:48 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 20th October 2019, 01:39 PM   #240
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,757
Thumbs down The usual lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...
The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.
The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn by Sol88 linking him with demented dogma, etc.
Sol88's lies about the demented SAFIRE experiment about the Sun and a scientific experiment about the solar wind and Parker spiral
Yet more propaganda from the Thunderbolts cult on the insane SAFIRE project.
That conversation with Monty exposed that the already insane SAFIRE project is even more insane than collapsing the Sun to a white dwarf
Plasma has been explained to Sol88 many times over the last 10 or more years but he is too interested in drinking his cult's poison to understand that plasma is a partially ionized gas that is quasi-neutral. !

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

Last edited by Reality Check; 20th October 2019 at 01:47 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
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 12:54 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.