IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

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


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Closed Thread
Old 14th November 2017, 07:17 PM   #521
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,837
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Acceleration of ions and nano dust at a comet in the solar wind

...

you asked, you were told!
Sorry, where was this stuff lofted by any sort of electric woo? Please link me to the papers.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 07:17 PM   #522
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
??what "we" do believe in is hidden pockets of ice and gas!

Ask Tusenfem, is the "dirty snowball" a valid model still?
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 07:22 PM   #523
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,837
It is really very sad to see an electric comet woo believer reduced to having to rely upon electrostatic levitation (which will not work with these grain sizes), after all the promises and predictions of a certain David Talbott. Pathetic. N'est-ce pas?
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 07:25 PM   #524
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,837
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
??what "we" do believe in is hidden pockets of ice and gas!

Ask Tusenfem, is the "dirty snowball" a valid model still?
Sorry? Ask the fraudster Thornhill if his electric comet woo is still valid. Yes? Please present the evidence if you think it is.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 07:41 PM   #525
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,837
Let me just leave this here, for the hard of thinking; guess what? Ice was ejected from Tempel 1 by the impact of a copper projectile. Yes? Ice was seen being entrained by CO2 jets at Hartley 2. There are some very pretty photos of such, if one cares to seek them out. Ice has been seen numerous times at 67P. Including subsurface after a landslide.
Bizarrely, some cretins would have you believe that all this ice is make believe, and we must head off into the world of woo to understand what is going on!
Errrrr, no. That garbage is long over. They lost. End of story. Bon Soir.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 07:52 PM   #526
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Thumbs down Sol88: The repeated lie of "ice"

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
and whats ....
What it is: 15 November 2017 Sol88: Insult and stupid irrelevant question to detail from his comet delusions.

15 November 2017 Sol88: The repeated lie of "ice" when we have over 60 years of evidence that comets are made of ices and dust.

Last edited by Reality Check; 14th November 2017 at 08:31 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 08:04 PM   #527
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Thumbs down Sol88: Another lie in a question to derail from his comet delusions

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Ask Tusenfem, is the "dirty snowball" a valid model still?
Continued "hidden pockets of ice and gas" idiocy followed by
15 November 2017 Sol88: Another lie in a question to derail from his comet delusions.

Nothing in the last 60 years has shown that comets are not made of ices and dust. Thus the "dirty snowball" model of comets made of ices and dust is still valid. What has changed is that we have expanded the model to cover a wider range of ices to dust ratios because that is what we have observed. This does not include Sol88 and his cult delusion of no ices at all or comets are rocks (the least of their 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 Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 12:59 AM   #528
tusenfem
Illuminator
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,197
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Thank you Tusenfem.

We are on the same page!

When can we read your tail excursion paper?
I doubt we are on the same page, because I still have no idea what "complex plasmas" are, and you apparently are not going to define that.

The tail excursion was submitted three weeks ago.
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes
twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 02:15 AM   #529
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Continued "hidden pockets of ice and gas" idiocy followed by
15 November 2017 Sol88: Another lie in a question to derail from his comet delusions.

Nothing in the last 60 years has shown that comets are not made of ices and dust. Thus the "dirty snowball" model of comets made of ices and dust is still valid. What has changed is that we have expanded the model to cover a wider range of ices to dust ratios because that is what we have observed. This does not include Sol88 and his cult delusion of no ices at all or comets are rocks (the least of their delusions about comets).
Reality Check, please contact Samuel P. D. Birch,1‹ Y. Tang,2 A. G. Hayes,1,2 R. L. Kirk,3 D. Bodewits,4 H. Campins,5 Y. Fernandez,5 R. de Freitas Bart,2 N. W. Kutsop,2 H. Sierks,6
J. M. Soderblom,7 S. W. Squyres1,2 and J-B. Vincent6,8
and tell them they are incorrect.

Quote:
The surface of 67P/C-G is generally broken into rough and smooth terrains (e.g. Auger et al. 2015; La Forgia et al. 2015; Giacomini et al. 2016; Pajola et al. 2016b). The rough terrain is predominantly exposed bedrock, while the smooth terrain repre- sents disaggregated, transported remnants of formerly consolidated bedrock (Sierks et al. 2015).
Geomorphology of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko

Bedrock is not fluffy dustyiceysomething with, what 75% porosity.

Seems you’ve got it wrong again.
__________________
“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; 15th November 2017 at 02:36 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 Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 02:17 AM   #530
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
I doubt we are on the same page, because I still have no idea what "complex plasmas" are, and you apparently are not going to define that.

The tail excursion was submitted three weeks ago.
May we have a link, please?

Does the plasma around the comet contain dust?

Tip

What is Complex Plasma?

Quote:
Plasma, the fourth state of matter, is consisted of neutrals, ions (positively charged) and electrons (negatively charged). The neutrals and the ions are relatively bigger and heavier. So they tend to be less mobile. On the other hand, the electrons are relatively smaller and lighter. So they tend to be highly mobile. If we introduce dust particles (directly or chemically with the use of reactive gases) into plasma, the electrons will interact and charge up the dust particle. The dust will then levitate above a confinement electrode due to the balance of electric force and gravitational force. This is the story of the making of complex plasma.

Different people use different names for complex plasma, such as dusty plasma, plasma crystals, colloidal crystals, fine particle plasma, coulomb crystal, etc.
Because the dust particle are highly negatively charged, their presence will dramatically change the properties of the plasma. So complex plasma give us a unique opportunity to study strongly coupled system.

Moreover, unlike classical plasma system where we consider the charge to be constant on each particle, the charge of the dust particles in complex plasma system varies with time and position. And so complex plasma opens up an unexplored and facinating field in plasma physics.
Knock yourself out champ!
__________________
“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; 15th November 2017 at 02:21 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 Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 02:29 AM   #531
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Let me just leave this here, for the hard of thinking; guess what? Ice was ejected from Tempel 1 by the impact of a copper projectile. Yes? Ice was seen being entrained by CO2 jets at Hartley 2. There are some very pretty photos of such, if one cares to seek them out. Ice has been seen numerous times at 67P. Including subsurface after a landslide.
Bizarrely, some cretins would have you believe that all this ice is make believe, and we must head off into the world of woo to understand what is going on!
Errrrr, no. That garbage is long over. They lost. End of story. Bon Soir.
Ha ha ha...ice
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 02:52 AM   #532
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
So, where are you getting dust grains of umpteen hundred microns lifted off of a comet? Please answer, with references. Otherwise, STF...... GET THE IDEA?
Crickets! As usual.
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 03:24 AM   #533
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,837
Why are we still talking about this nonsense? For most sane people, 2+ years at the comet, with a whole suite of instruments, and nary a sign of any of the electric woo predicted by David Talbott, would be enough to end the discussion of this scientifically impossible woo. I guess it's a demonstration of how strong faith can be in some people.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 03:37 AM   #534
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,837
And, if I remember correctly, Sol has still yet to give us a mechanism for this outburst. So what are we even discussing?
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 03:47 AM   #535
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,837
Quote:
Ha ha ha...ice
Yep, ice.





Plenty of ice, and too many papers to list. They've all been linked before, anyway. Yet still not the tiniest indication of any 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 Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 03:49 AM   #536
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
 
Andy_Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
Cheese Shop.

It's important to keep the thread churning, while people reply there is life in the place and it justifies his position.

Standard CT tactic, see any 9/11 or Apollo Hoax thread.
Andy_Ross is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 04:43 AM   #537
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Cheese Shop.

It's important to keep the thread churning, while people reply there is life in the place and it justifies his position.

Standard CT tactic, see any 9/11 or Apollo Hoax thread.
Why are you here?
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 04:52 AM   #538
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
And, if I remember correctly, Sol has still yet to give us a mechanism for this outburst. So what are we even discussing?

What we are discussing is "jets" on a cometary surface and the failure of sublimation to produce ANY of the observed effects on a comet nucleus, in particular this "jet" Rosetta finds comet plume powered from below

Acceleration of ions and nano dust at a comet in the solar wind

lH.GunellaI.MannbcC.Simon WedlunddE.KalliodM.AlhodH.NilssoneJ.De KeyseraF.DhoogheaR.Maggioloa

Keep up champ

No "PRESSURISED GAS" needed!
__________________
“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; 15th November 2017 at 04:58 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 Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 05:31 AM   #539
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
Dust charging and transport on airless planetary bodies

Quote:
Our dust experiments showed that the size distributions of lofted dust particles are much broader than the sizes of individual particles (38–45μm in diameter) (Figure S2b), covering small residues down to 7μm (limited by the image resolution) to large aggregates up to 140μm in diameter (~3 times larger than the individual particles). The lofting of aggregates is likely attributed to the enhanced charge collection due to the porous structures formed by the interparticle cohesion, according to our patched charge model. This is also another indication that the cohesive force has a large variation for irregular-shaped particles as described in the previous section. Large aggregates formed by small particles due to strong interparticle cohesion can have weak cohesion with their neighboring particles, leading to the lofting of the large aggregates rather than the individual particles. Similar processes may be responsible for the Rosetta detection of fluffy dust particles released from the surface of Comet 67P at its relatively low activity level [Schulz et al., 2015]. Ourlaboratory observations also showedthesmootheneddustysurfacesasaconsequenceofdu stmobilization (Figure S2c). This process may lead to the formation of dust ponds on asteroid Eros [Robinson et al., 2001] and on Comet 67P [Thomas et al., 2015] and unexpectedly smooth surface of Saturn’s icy moon Atlas [Hirata and Miyamoto, 2012].
Sublimation? Gas drag?
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 05:39 AM   #540
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
I doubt we are on the same page, because I still have no idea what "complex plasmas" are, and you apparently are not going to define that.

The tail excursion was submitted three weeks ago.
But not accepted yet?
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 08:05 AM   #541
tusenfem
Illuminator
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,197
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Why are you here?
why are you here?
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes
twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 08:15 AM   #542
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,837
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Dust charging and transport on airless planetary bodies



Sublimation? Gas drag?
You will note that this is a process that is being invoked for the lunar horizon glow. It is not, nor has it ever been suggested to be, capable of causing an outburst in a very localized area! An area that just happens to resemble a vent, and is icier than its surroundings. Why would it? How would it? That is what you can't explain. And you never will be able to explain it, because nobody would be silly enough to write a paper suggesting such a thing, when we already know that previous outbursts have been caused by gas release.
So, no, you haven't got a mechanism that makes any scientific sense.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 08:26 AM   #543
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,837
Tusenfem may be able to comment on this extract from the paper:

Quote:
We report the results of a series of comparative experiments of dust transport with and without secondary electron or photoelectron production. In the first set of experiments, dust particles were exposed to a thermal plasma with an electron temperature of ~2 eV or a plasma and a 120 eV electron beam by placing the hot filament below or above the dusty surface, respectively. Note that the observations of dust transport and the measurements for the vertical electric field (Figure 2b) and horizontal potential (Figure 2c) profiles were all carried out in exactly the same plasma with the bottom or top filament setup. Dust transport including the hopping motions was only recorded when exposed to both the plasma and electron beam (Figure 3a), while exposure to plasma alone did not result in the mobilization of the dust particles, consistent with previous experiments [Flanagan and Goree, 2006]. The vertical electric fields generated in the plasma sheath above the dusty surface were kept approximately constant (~16 V/cm) in both experiments (Figure 2b).
Dust charging and transport on airless planetary bodies
Wang, X. et al
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...6GL069491/full (paywalled)

In particular whether the experimental set up is applicable to a comet at ~3.5 AU.
Not that it matters, as this will not do what Sol wants it to. Particularly when we consider that the bulk of the outgassing occurs when the solar wind has no access to the nucleus.

ETA:
I just noticed that Eberhard Grün was a co-author on the above paper. He has been involved in a number of papers related to 67P, and was lead author of the Feb 19 outburst paper. He also was a co-author on the Agarwal paper that has got Sol so exercised! So, if he's not suggesting explosive, localised electrostatic levitation, we can be pretty damn sure that it isn't an option.
__________________
“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; 15th November 2017 at 08:44 AM.
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 12:43 PM   #544
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Thumbs down Sol88: A lie that Birch et. al. are incorrect.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Reality Check,...
16 November 2017 Sol88: A lie that Birch et. al. are incorrect.

16 November 2017 Sol88: The abysmally deluded idea that "bedrock" means Birch et. al. are saying comets are rock.

16 November 2017 Sol88: Usual idiocy of citing a paper (Birch et. al.) about comets made of ices and dust.

Geomorphology of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko
Quote:
AbstractWe present a global geomorphological map of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko (67P/C-G) using data acquired by the Rosetta Orbiter’s OSIRIS Narrow Angle Camera. The images used in our study were acquired between August 2014 and May 2015, before 67P/C-G passed through perihelion. Imagery of the southern hemisphere was included in our study, allowing us to compare the contrasting hemispheres of 67P/C-G in a single study. Our work also puts into greater context the morphologies studied in previous works, and also the morphologies observed on previously visited cometary nuclei. Relative to other nuclei, 67P/C-G appears most similar to 81P/Wild 2, with a topographically heterogeneous surface dominated by smooth-floored pits. Our mapping describes the landscapes of 67P/C-G when they were first observed by Rosetta, and our map can be used to detect changes in surface morphologies after its perihelion passage. Our mapping reveals strong latitudinal dependences for emplaced units and a highly heterogeneous surface. Layered bedrock units that represent the exposed nucleus of 67P/C-G are dominant at southern latitudes, while topographically smooth, dust covered regions dominate the northern hemisphere. Equatorial latitudes are dominated by smooth terrain units that show evidence for flow structures. We observe no obvious differences between the comet’s two lobes, with the only longitudinal variations being the Imhotep and Hatmehit basins. These correlations suggest a strong seasonal forcing on the surface evolution of 67P/C-G, where materials are transported from the southern hemisphere to northern hemisphere basins over multiple orbital timescales.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 12:47 PM   #545
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Thumbs down Sol88: Yet another lie - over 60 years of data on comets made of ices exists

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...Seems you’ve got it wrong again.
16 November 2017 Sol88: Yet another lie - over 60 years of data showing that comets are made of ices and dust does exist.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 12:50 PM   #546
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Thumbs down Sol88: Stupid post when shown the evidence for ice yet again

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Ha ha ha...ice
16 November 2017 Sol88: Stupid post when shown the evidence for ice yet again.
An honest person would reply "whoops I forgot about all of this evidence - comets do contain ice".
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 12:59 PM   #547
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Thumbs down Sol88: The delusion of ""jets" on a cometary surface"- jets exist

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
What we are discussing is "jets" on a cometary surface and the failure of sublimation to produce ANY of the observed effects on a comet nucleus, in particular this "jet" ...
16 November 2017 Sol88: The delusion of ""jets" on a cometary surface"- jets exist and are seen above the surface (emitted from on or below the surface).

16 November 2017 Sol88: A lie that the plume or outburst in the ESA blog and paper is a jet.

16 November 2017 Sol88: A lie that sublimation fails to explain the outburst.

16 November 2017 Sol88: A lie that Gunella et.al describe a mechanism for the outburst or even any jets.

Last edited by Reality Check; 15th November 2017 at 01:25 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 01:22 PM   #548
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
362 items of ignorance, idiocy, delusion and lies from 29 Aug 2016 to 16 Nov 2017

A spate of delusions and lies from Sol88 over the few days. For example, Negatively charged nano-grains at 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko is about grains 150 kilometers from the comet and Sol88 lies abut the paper being about the comet surface. 8 years ago that would have been a mistake but now we gave
331 items of ignorance, idiocy (citing irrelevant mainstream papers), delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 13 November 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)

Nearly every Sol88 post lately contains at least 1 lie, mostly about comet science.
  1. 13 November 2017 Sol88: Lies about what he replies to - what a surprise!
  2. 13 November 2017 Sol88: An inane remark since he and his cult have been in denial of basic arithmetic for over 8 years now!
  3. 13 November 2017 Sol88: Lies again about yet another 67P paper.
  4. 13 November 2017 Sol88: An "ice" lie when comets are made of ices and dust.
  5. 13 November 2017 Sol88: A "non existent (CONCERT) chambers thru vents (not observed)" delusion.
  6. 13 November 2017 Sol88: A "Leaves mechanical cliff collapse and crack propagation as your ONLY plausible means" lie.
  7. 13 November 2017 Sol88: Looks like the insanity that we do not know 100% about comets so his delusions about comets are correct.
  8. 14 November 2017 Sol88: The 5 November 2017 deluded, lying video from his cult (one of many).
  9. 15 November 2017 Sol88: Lies and delusions about scientific papers in jonesdave116's post.
  10. 15 November 2017 Sol88: A lie of "collimated" dust in the Nordheim paper.
  11. 15 November 2017 Sol88: A lie about electrostatic surface charging of comets causing jets.
  12. 15 November 2017 Sol88: The lie and delusion that a single outburst is dust jets.
  13. 15 November 2017 Sol88: His new delusion that we could detect "pressurised gas pockets" inside 67P.
  14. 15 November 2017 Sol88: A new delusion of "DARK ICE"
  15. 15 November 2017 Sol88: The usual lie about there being no ice on comets.
  16. 15 November 2017 Sol88: An inane post to avoid addressing his comet lies and delusions.
  17. 15 November 2017 Sol88: Lies abut yet another paper (Gunella et.al)
  18. 15 November 2017 Sol88: Yet another irrelevant question to derail from his comet delusions
  19. 15 November 2017 Sol88: A lying question to derail from his comet delusions and other lies.
  20. 15 November 2017 Sol88: Insult and stupid irrelevant question to detail from his comet delusions
  21. 15 November 2017 Sol88: The repeated lie of "ice" when we have over 60 years of evidence that comets are made of ices and dust.
  22. 15 November 2017 Sol88: Another lie in a question to derail from his comet delusions.
  23. 16 November 2017 Sol88: A lie that Birch et. al. are incorrect.
  24. 16 November 2017 Sol88: The abysmally deluded idea that "bedrock" means Birch et. al. are saying comets are rock (I recall seeing this idiocy before).
  25. 16 November 2017 Sol88: Usual idiocy of citing a paper (Birch et. al.) about comets made of ices and dust.
  26. 16 November 2017 Sol88: Yet another lie - over 60 years of data showing that comets are made of ices and dust does exist.
  27. 16 November 2017 Sol88: Stupid post when shown the evidence for ice yet again.
  28. 16 November 2017 Sol88: The delusion of ""jets" on a cometary surface"- jets exist and are seen above the surface (emitted from on or below the surface).
  29. 16 November 2017 Sol88: A lie that the plume or outburst in the ESA blog and paper is a jet.
  30. 16 November 2017 Sol88: A lie that sublimation fails to explain the outburst.
  31. 16 November 2017 Sol88: A lie that Gunella et.al describe a mechanism for the outburst or even any jets.

Last edited by Reality Check; 15th November 2017 at 01:26 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 02:41 PM   #549
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
You will note that this is a process that is being invoked for the lunar horizon glow. It is not, nor has it ever been suggested to be, capable of causing an outburst in a very localized area! An area that just happens to resemble a vent, and is icier than its surroundings. Why would it? How would it? That is what you can't explain. And you never will be able to explain it, because nobody would be silly enough to write a paper suggesting such a thing, when we already know that previous outbursts have been caused by gas release.
So, no, you haven't got a mechanism that makes any scientific sense.
Quote:
Gaseous counterparts in 67P dusty outbursts. VIRTIS did not detect any increase in the H2O and CO2 column densities during the 13–14 Sept. outbursts. This means that the trigerring mechanism is not related to a large internal gas pressure, a mechanism proposed by Prialnik et al. (1993) for explosive outbursts. As already discussed, these outbursts were very likely caused by cliff collapse as for the one studied by Pajola et al. (2017). The lifetime of 0.11 µm icy grains is ∼ 300–800 s for dirty grains, and > 104 s for pure ice grains (Beer, Podolak, & Prialnik 2006; Gicquel et al. 2012). These long lifetimes may be one of the reasons why H2O vapour was not detected in the VIRTIS-H outburst spectra. On the other hand, abundant release of organics is suggested by the detection of the 3.4 µm band in outburst spectra, possibly related to the thermal decomposition of complex organics present in grains, or to volatile organics originating from the collapsed wall.
Comet 67P outbursts and quiescent coma at 1.3 AU from the Sun: dust properties from Rosetta/VIRTIS-H observations

That’s another one where lots of dust and no gas, JD116!

So are we going to go down the same road again?

Mainstream are very quickly running out of plausible excuses.
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 02:51 PM   #550
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Thumbs down Sol88: A lie that Bockelée-Morvan et. al. states there was no gas in the outbursts

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Comet 67P outbursts and quiescent coma at 1.3 AU from the Sun: dust properties from Rosetta/VIRTIS-H observations
Here we go with the same road of multiple lies in a short post!
362 items of ignorance, idiocy (citing irrelevant mainstream papers), delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 13 November 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)

16 November 2017 Sol88: A lie that Bockelée-Morvan et. al. states there was no gas in the outbursts.
Comet 67P outbursts and quiescent coma at 1.3 AU from the Sun: dust properties from Rosetta/VIRTIS-H observations
D. Bockelée-Morvan, G. Rinaldi, S. Erard, C. Leyrat, F. Capaccioni, P. Drossart, G. Filacchione, A. Migliorini, E. Quirico, S. Mottola, G. Tozzi, G. Arnold, N. Biver, M. Combes, J. Crovisier, A. Longobardo, M. Blecka, M.-T. Capria

This is analysis of dust properties from Rosetta/VIRTIS-H observations ! The authors explicitly state that comets emit gas to form their coma: "inner coma gases and dust". There is an entire section in the paper on the gaseous counterpart to the dust component.
Quote:
5 SPECTRAL SIGNATURES: H2O, CO2 AND ORGANICS
...These numbers set an upper limit to the contribution of a possible gaseous counterpart to these dusty outbursts. The determination of upper limits on the gas loss rates is beyond the scope of this paper.
...We postpone the analysis of this band to a future paper, when data with an improved calibration will be available. The VIRTIS data suggest abundant release of organics during 67P outbursts. In 9P/Tempel 1 Deep Impact ejecta, enhanced C2H6 infrared emission was observed, higher than for CH3OH and H2O lines (Mumma et al. 2005; DiSanti et al. 2007).
This is Bockelée-Morvan et. al. postponing analyzing any gas in the outbursts to a later paper.

16 November 2017 Sol88: Lying highlighting in a quote from Bockelée-Morvan et. al.
Him and his cult might be ignorant enough to think that every outburst from every comet has the same cause but other people know that a variety of mechanisms will be responsible for outbursts. Bockelée-Morvan et. al state that one of the mechanisms is not evident in these 2 outbursts, and that another mechanism is likely.

16 November 2017 Sol88: Usual idiocy of citing a paper on comets made of ices and dust.

16 November 2017 Sol88: Extra idiocy of citing a paper stating "Gaseous outbursts with no dust counterparts were also observed (Feldman et al. 2016)"!

16 November 2017 Sol88: Lie about working comet science failing.

Last edited by Reality Check; 15th November 2017 at 03:16 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 03:20 PM   #551
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Some good science as a break from cult comet delusions.
Surface changes on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko suggest a more active past by Pajola M., et al.
Quote:
Abstract
The Rosetta spacecraft spent ~2 years orbiting comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, most of it at distances that allowed surface characterization and monitoring at submeter scales. From December 2014 to June 2016, numerous localized changes were observed, which we attribute to cometary-specific weathering, erosion, and transient events driven by exposure to sunlight and other processes. While the localized changes suggest compositional or physical heterogeneity, their scale has not resulted in substantial alterations to the comet's landscape. This suggests that most of the major landforms were created early in the comet's current orbital configuration. They may even date from earlier if the comet had a larger volatile inventory, particularly of CO or CO2 ices, or contained amorphous ice, which could have triggered activity at greater distances from the Sun.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 03:24 PM   #552
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
You will note that this is a process that is being invoked for the lunar horizon glow. It is not, nor has it ever been suggested to be, capable of causing an outburst in a very localized area! An area that just happens to resemble a vent, and is icier than its surroundings. Why would it? How would it? That is what you can't explain. And you never will be able to explain it, because nobody would be silly enough to write a paper suggesting such a thing, when we already know that previous outbursts have been caused by gas release.
So, no, you haven't got a mechanism that makes any scientific sense.
Quote:
We have shown that charged dust grains with radii o50 nm may be electrostatically ejected from the nucleus at most SZAs. Using profiles of the cometary outgassing rate at the surface scaled to the actual observations of cometary activity by Rosetta, we have provided an estimate for the flux of charged nanograins (agrain 2 nm) that are emitted from the surface. While these dust particles are too small to be observed by the dust instruments on the Rosetta orbiter, we have shown that the fluxof charged nanograins above the dayside and near-terminator nucleus is sufficiently high to be detected by the RPC–IES instrument. We have also shown that the flux of charged nanograins from the shadowed areas within the comet’s plasma wake is insufficient to yield a significant count rate in RPC–IES instrument.
Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity

Not levitated but ejected, JD116! Electrostaticly at that
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 03:49 PM   #553
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Thumbs down Sol88: The idiocy of citing a paper not about comet outbursts (Nordheim et. al.)

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity
16 November 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of citing a paper not about comet outbursts (Nordheim et. al.) in reply to a post about comet outbursts.

16 November 2017 Sol88: An implied lie that Nordheim et. al. is the detection of electrostatically ejected dust.

16 November 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of citing a paper on comets made of ices and dust (Nordheim et. al.).

16 November 2017 Sol88: A lie about his cult comet delusions being about electrostatic dust charging.
It is working mainstream science that is researching the electrostatic charging of dust by the solar wind and the possibility of cometary dust being ejected from nuclei by this mechanism.

Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity ()15 December 2015) was model results about dust being ejected from the surface of 67P.
Quote:
We have investigated through simulation the electrostatic charging of the nucleus of Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko during periods of weak outgassing activity. Specifically, we have modeled the surface potential and electric field at the surface of the nucleus during the initial Rosetta rendezvous at 3.5 AU and the release of the Philae lander at 3 AU. We have also investigated the possibility of dust acceleration and ejection above the nucleus due to electrostatic forces. Finally, we discuss these modeling results in the context of possible observations by instruments on both the Rosetta orbiter and the Philae lander.
ETA: Hypocrisy from ignorance or just laziness?
Sol88 has citing Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko by Skorov, Yu. V.; Rezac, L.; Hartogh, P.; Keller, H. U. That paper cites Nordheim et. al. !

Last edited by Reality Check; 15th November 2017 at 03:59 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 05:47 PM   #554
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,837
Quote:
We have shown that charged dust grains with radii o50 nm may be electrostatically ejected from the nucleus....
Ahh Jeez Sol. Stop making an eejit of yourself. Eh? What do you think nm means? Just for a clue, try nanometers. Yes? Then look at the Agarwal paper. How many times do you need to show your ignorance in this thread? It doesn't bother me, but it ought to bother you, I'd have thought.
Just for a laugh, tell me how the outgassing is happening at perihelion. When there is a shed load of dust around? Remember the diamagnetic cavity, dear? And where was the solar wind? Well, not within 1500 km. Eh? So, what is your mechanism? Let's hear it.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 05:55 PM   #555
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
 
Andy_Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Why are you here?
I look in now and again just to see how you are getting on.
Andy_Ross is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 06:08 PM   #556
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,837
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
I look in now and again just to see how you are getting on.
Not well, would be the answer to that.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 06:19 PM   #557
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Ahh Jeez Sol. Stop making an eejit of yourself. Eh? What do you think nm means? Just for a clue, try nanometers. Yes? Then look at the Agarwal paper. How many times do you need to show your ignorance in this thread? It doesn't bother me, but it ought to bother you, I'd have thought.
Just for a laugh, tell me how the outgassing is happening at perihelion. When there is a shed load of dust around? Remember the diamagnetic cavity, dear? And where was the solar wind? Well, not within 1500 km. Eh? So, what is your mechanism? Let's hear it.
Mmmmm...wake up!

Quote:
Another possibility is the impact of nano dust on very large grains, such as the objects with diameters in the 0.14–0.50 m range observed by the OSIRIS
I assume you do know the difference between nm and m?
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 06:21 PM   #558
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
Are you saying gas drag can accelerate 10nm dust to 10km/s?

Ahh of course the "rocket" effect... hah aha ha little dust rockets
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 06:40 PM   #559
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
 
Andy_Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Not well, would be the answer to that.
Getting nowhere would be more accurate, round and round.
All we get is cherry picking from reports and papers but nothing presented from the 'Electric' side.
Andy_Ross is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 07:22 PM   #560
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Thumbs down Sol88: Irrelevant question to detail from his comet delusions

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Are you saying gas drag can accelerate 10nm dust to 10km/s?
16 November 2017 Sol88: Irrelevant question to detail from his comet delusions.

16 November 2017 Sol88: Lies with a gas drag question that he knows the answer to.
Acceleration of ions and nano dust at a comet in the solar wind
Quote:
Abstract
A quasi-neutral hybrid simulation of the interaction of the solar wind with the atmosphere of a comet is used together with a test particle simulation of cometary ions and dust to compute trajectories and velocity distribution functions of charged particles, starting outside the diamagnetic cavity at 150 km cometocentric distance. The simulations are run with parameters suited to make predictions for comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko when it is at a heliocentric distance of 1.45 AU. It is found that the shape of the ion trajectories depends on the location of the source, and that a velocity distribution that is observed at a given point in space is influenced by the spatial structure of the source. Charged dust grains with radii in the 1 – 10 nm range arerated from the nucleus to a distance of 2.9 × 10 4 km in between 15 minutes and 2 hours approximately. Dust particles smaller than 10 nm in radius are accelerated to speeds over 10 km/s.

Last edited by Reality Check; 15th November 2017 at 07:44 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

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

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 12:08 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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.