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 15th November 2017, 07:29 PM   #561
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Thumbs down Sol88: Idiotic repeat of an uncited quote after a source is asked for

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Mmmmm...wake up!
16 November 20107 Sol88: Idiotic repeat of an uncited quote after a source is asked for
jonesdave116 wrote yesterday: So, where are you getting dust grains of umpteen hundred microns lifted off of a comet? Please answer, with references.
(my emphasis added)

And of course: 16 November 20107 Sol88: Lies about what he quotes as an answer to a question.
The above question is in the context of dust being ejected through electrostatic charging. The previous Where is the paper saying that dust grains of many hundred microns can be levitated off of a comet? post makes this clear.

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
is not "0.14–0.50 m range" objects being electrostatically ejected ! This is nano dust hitting larger objects with no lifting or ejecting mentioned.
The source is Acceleration of ions and nano dust at a comet in the solar wind

Last edited by Reality Check; 15th November 2017 at 07:46 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 16th November 2017, 12:46 AM   #562
tusenfem
Illuminator
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,197
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
I don't think anyone in the community uses "complex plasma" when they mean "dusty plasma".
Anywho, at the moment their is nothing in the RPC data that shows that dust has any significant influence on the plasma dynamics around 67P.
So I might as well claim (tongue-in-cheek) that around 67P there is lots of gas and plasma and no dust.
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes
twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist

Last edited by tusenfem; 16th November 2017 at 01:02 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 Back to Top
Old 16th November 2017, 12:48 AM   #563
tusenfem
Illuminator
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,197
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Ha ha ha...ice
Ice ice, everywhere.
Here the latest paper by Colin Snodgrass et al. on "The Main Belt Comets and ice in the Solar System".
__________________
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 16th November 2017, 12:55 AM   #564
tusenfem
Illuminator
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,197
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
But not accepted yet?
Well duh! NO.
Submission ... editor looking for reviewers ... at least 2 weeks if not more time for writing the review ... then make revisions and reply to reviewers ... check by editor and reviewers ... possible second round ... typesetting ... proof reading ... publication
My paper is now at step 3 (at referee)

This is how the real scientific world works. It is not like what your EU buddies do, just write something, dump it on their blog and claim to have a publication.
__________________
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 16th November 2017, 01:03 AM   #565
tusenfem
Illuminator
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,197
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Tusenfem may be able to comment on this extract from the paper:



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.
I will have to take a look at the paper (remember having seen a presentation about the hopping dust). I can get you the pdf probably.
__________________
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 16th November 2017, 04:54 AM   #566
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,837
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Are you saying gas drag can accelerate 10nm dust to 10km/s?

Ahh of course the "rocket" effect... hah aha ha little dust rockets
And what has any of that got to do with lifting dust from the surface? The paper you are quoting is based on a simulation for charged nanograins once they are already in the coma, outside the diamagnetic cavity. It has nothing whatever to do with electrostatic levitation of dust.
And the dust speeds measured in the Agarwal paper are nothing like 10 km/s! Why don't you actually read the papers, instead a skimming them, looking for buzzwords to cherry pick completely out of context?
From the Agarwal paper:

Quote:
The peak of detections occurred around ut 09:00, and the particle speeds were typically <3 m s−1
So, of course, none of this helps you to explain how dust, from a very localised area, is being electrostatically levitated (explosively!). And it doesn't help you to explain the large amount of dust in the coma around perihelion, when a diamagnetic cavity is in place, and electrostatic levitation cannot happen. And where do you think all the gas in the coma is coming from, if not from sublimation of the observed ices?
__________________
“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 16th November 2017, 05:01 AM   #567
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,837
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
I will have to take a look at the paper (remember having seen a presentation about the hopping dust). I can get you the pdf probably.
Cheers. I actually downloaded the paper, but wasn't sure about the applicability of the process at comets. Then I noticed that Eberhard Grün was a co-author, so figured that he would be well aware of the cometary environment, and that the mechanism is applicable. As he was also a co-author on the Agarwal paper, and that didn't mention any of Sol's impossible explosive levitation, I'm figuring that we can 100% consign that idea to the dustbin of loopiness, with the rest of EUs ideas.
__________________
“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 16th November 2017, 12:09 PM   #568
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
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.
The mechanism is bait, switch, arm wave and a bunny picture
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th November 2017, 08:55 PM   #569
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
AND NONE OF THESE QUOTES STATE THAT COMETS ARE DIRTY SNOWBALLS; OR ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF READING COMPREHENSIVELY?????????????
Quote:
Cometary nuclei are small, irregularly shaped “icy dirt balls” left over from the dawn of our Solar System 4.6 billion years ago and are composed of a mixture of ices, refractory materials, and large organic molecules [1–4]. When a comet is sufficiently close to the Sun, the sublimation of ice leads to an outgassing atmosphere and the formation of a coma, and a dust and plasma tail.

Electron and Ion Dynamics of the Solar Wind Interaction with a Weakly Outgassing Comet


Just one of many.

Dirty snowballs,icy dirt balls,deepfriedicecream ;0

from 2017 mate
__________________
“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; 16th November 2017 at 09:00 PM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th November 2017, 10:32 PM   #570
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,837
Quote:
Cometary nuclei are small, irregularly shaped “icy dirt balls” left over from the dawn of our Solar System 4.6 billion years ago and are composed of a mixture of ices, refractory materials, and large organic molecules [1–4]. When a comet is sufficiently close to the Sun, the sublimation of ice leads to an outgassing atmosphere and the formation of a coma, and a dust and plasma tail.
And what is wrong with that quote? Looks damned accurate to me. There is ice and there is 'dirt', as in dust.
__________________
“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 17th November 2017, 12:58 AM   #571
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
And what is wrong with that quote? Looks damned accurate to me. There is ice and there is 'dirt', as in dust.
Oh, nothing.
__________________
“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 17th November 2017, 01:07 AM   #572
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
All right, let’s back up down the track here. This new, for me anyway, paper answer a question I had asked aways back in the thread.

Quote:
Cometary electrons eventually end up neutralizing the solar wind protons, and solar wind elec- trons eventually neutralize the cometary ions.
Electron and Ion Dynamics of the Solar Wind Interaction with a Weakly Outgassing Comet

Seems that’s answered that! faintly remember Jonesdave116 and I getting in a bit of a quibble over it.

Now, I am really interested in your paper Tusenfem. Going to have any kind of that action going on?

More cherry picking and buzz words on the way...

PS whoever makes the final connection between this amount of Electrical, more specifically PLASMA activity and the dust being electrodynamicaly ejected from the rock, gunna look like a complete and utter idiot, ay you mob!

Fondly looks at signatures below
__________________
“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 November 2017 at 01:14 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 17th November 2017, 01:23 AM   #573
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
And I think me ‘ol mate Tusnefem and I can have, now, a Mano on Mano discussion on comets and DOUBLE LAYERS.

Quote:
Solar wind electrons accelerate FIG. 4. Solar wind, cometary, and total (solar windţ cometary) electron energy distributions along a cut in the terminator plane [(a)–(c), respectively]. The cut is indicated in Fig. 1(e). The white band represents the comet location. towards the comet [Fig. 4(a)] under the influence of an ambipolar electric field that is generated by the large electron pressure gradient in the inhomogeneous cometary plasma [50], which further enhances the separation of the solar wind electron and ion flows.
same paper as above

And bugger me dead, sorry Tusenfem. Mainstream would have known since the discovery of the “singing” comet.

You are coy sorta chap,
Quote:
hese fluctuations are probably due to a beam-plasma interaction outside the double layer, which excites plasma turbulence. Their observations are consistent with experiments on electromagnetic radiation emitted by double layers in a double plasma machine by Volwerk (1993),[50] who, however, also observed radiation from the double layer itself.
wiki

So plasma boundaries can now be called their correct term, double layers, current carrying at that to.

Ummm pretty well much what the EU mob binbanging on about for what 8-9yrs now for me a least.
__________________
“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 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 17th November 2017, 01:33 AM   #574
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
Question for you jd116, using your vast knowledge of plasma and indeed the electric comet theory, what happens at a strongly outgassing comet, say comet 17P Holmes?

How much area in m2 is that for the outside visible coma/plasma boundary, or the double layer sheath?

Starting to get into some real numbers here now, jd116. Care to have a go at your calculations for that no h2o can be made as the EU has said?

Shall we wheel out old Franklin Anariba, PhD for another show round the block? What’ya Reckon Captain Swoop, Dancing David? Round 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; 17th November 2017 at 03:31 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 17th November 2017, 01:47 AM   #575
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
@Tusenfem

So if, hypothetically, the nucleus itself was at a more negative potential than the surrounding sw plasma, what would be the effect we should see, especially in regards to the suprathermal electron population and the ambipolar electric field/s and dust “jets’ powered from below?

i’d Hazard a guess and there'd more than one double layer. The electrons appear ‘spiky’ or filamentary, the dust ‘jets’ are filamentary and fine structured along with being highly collimated.

How’s sublimating ‘ice/s’ do that capper?

Sorta acting in a electrical circuit analogy, as a transformer.
__________________
“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 November 2017 at 02:33 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 17th November 2017, 03:48 AM   #576
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
Hell, why not
Quote:
In this line of thinking, of utmost interest is the paper by Clark et al titled “Suprathermal electron environment of comet 67P/ Churyumov-Gerasimenko: observations from the Rosetta ion and electron sensor” [5]. The term “suprathermal” implies highly heated electrons possessing high kinetic energy. In the manuscript, according to the authors, suprathermal or fast-moving electrons are “accelerated by an unknown mechanism from a few eV upward to 100 s of eV and play an important role in the electron-neutral chemistry as well as in dust grain charging.” Moreover, previous studies showed that these accelerated electrons are ubiquitous, but could not agree on a particular mechanism. Several accelerating electron mechanisms have been put forth:

1. “Suprathermal” electrons are likely associated with upstream cyclotron wave fluctuations convecting tailward. In other words, the accelerating energy is provided by mass-loaded ions traveling from the direction of the sun towards the tail of the coma.
2. “Suprathermal” electrons are accelerated in a similar manner as electrons behind interplanetary collision-less bow shocks.
3. The Active Magnetospheric Particle Tracer Explorer (AMPTE) satellite showed that lower “hybrid” cyclotron waves from mass-loaded ions were responsible for the electrons. “hybrid” refers to cyclotron frequencies in between a proton and an electron.
4. Some studies ascribe “suprathermal” electron acceleration to photoionization, while other studies indicate the role of photoionization to be negligible.

It is then clear that there is no agreement on the dominant mechanism behind suprathermal electron acceleration, more so for comet 67P, which has a 100 times more tenuous coma density than comet Halley. In this context, the authors inform:
LINK

Seems its not so unknown now! from the paper
Quote:
The observation of two different types of DLs in the low- altitude aurora, the observation of DLs in the magnetotail, and the implication of DLs in Jupiter ’ s and Saturn ’ s magnetospheres suggest that the DL is truly a universal process. With significant gaps in our understanding of DL, this area of research will continue to be important
A Double Layer (Ambipolar electric field), are we getting to at least reading from the same book Tusenfem, even if we are not on the same page!
__________________
“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 November 2017 at 03:56 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 17th November 2017, 05:49 AM   #577
tusenfem
Illuminator
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,197
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
All right, let’s back up down the track here. This new, for me anyway, paper vanswer a question I had asked aways back in the thread.

Electron and Ion Dynamics of the Solar Wind Interaction with a Weakly Outgassing Comet

Seems that’s answered that! faintly remember Jonesdave116 and I getting in a bit of a quibble over it.
And what question is answered here, exactly? I hope you realize that "neutralize" here does not mean you are getting neutral atoms, this means charge neutrality.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Now, I am really interested in your paper Tusenfem. Going to have any kind of that action going on?
As my paper only deals with the magnetic field, I don't think so. Then again. I don't know what "any kind of that action" is supposed to be.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
PS whoever makes the final connection between this amount of Electrical, more specifically PLASMA activity and the dust being electrodynamicaly ejected from the rock, gunna look like a complete and utter idiot, ay you mob!
huh?
__________________
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 17th November 2017, 05:54 AM   #578
tusenfem
Illuminator
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,197
[quote=Sol88;12080128]
And I think me ‘ol mate Tusnefem and I can have, now, a Mano on Mano discussion on comets and DOUBLE LAYERS.
[quote]

An ambi-polar electric field is not a double layer.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
And bugger me dead, sorry Tusenfem. Mainstream would have known since the discovery of the “singing” comet.
Could you be a little bit more obscure?
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post

So plasma boundaries can now be called their correct term, double layers, current carrying at that to.
Whatever you say ...
I guess you mean the current driving the singing comet instability?
Too bad that the ambi-polar electric field is radial, whereas the current is perpendicular to the magnetic field.
You see, Sol, just putting words together does not mean you have a sentence, let alone a physical theory.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Ummm pretty well much what the EU mob binbanging on about for what 8-9yrs now for me a least.
Uhhh, no
__________________
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 17th November 2017, 05:55 AM   #579
tusenfem
Illuminator
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,197
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Question for you jd116, using your vast knowledge of plasma and indeed the electric comet theory, what happens at a strongly outgassing comet, say comet 17P Holmes?

How much area in m2 is that for the outside visible coma/plasma boundary, or the double layer sheath?

Starting to get into some real numbers here now, jd116. Care to have a go at your calculations for that no h2o can be made as the EU has said?

Shall we wheel out old Franklin Anariba, PhD for another show round the block? What’ya Reckon Captain Swoop, Dancing David? Round again?
My god, it hurts, the stupid
__________________
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 17th November 2017, 06:03 AM   #580
tusenfem
Illuminator
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,197
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So if, hypothetically, the nucleus itself was at a more negative potential than the surrounding sw plasma, what would be the effect we should see, especially in regards to the suprathermal electron population and the ambipolar electric field/s and dust “jets’ powered from below?
you would most likely see nothing in the supra themal electrons. you will see that the cold/thermal electrons and ions would re-arrange in order that there is no potential difference between the two

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
i’d Hazard a guess and there'd more than one double layer. The electrons appear ‘spiky’ or filamentary, the dust ‘jets’ are filamentary and fine structured along with being highly collimated.
What the frak is so special about double layers? Not every electric field in a plasma is a double layer. I cannot fathom EU's fascination in putting in double layers everywhere, it must be that Alfven came up with them.

Which electrons appear "spiky"? In Jan's paper there is filametation in the electron density. Those filaments are 10s of km in size, so hardly spiky, most definitely not when compared to the size of the comet.

What all that other stuff is supposed to tell me, I have no idea.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
How’s sublimating ‘ice/s’ do that capper?
You forget ionization my dear.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Sorta acting in a electrical circuit analogy, as a transformer.
The what in the how now?
__________________
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 17th November 2017, 06:20 AM   #581
tusenfem
Illuminator
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,197
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
A Double Layer (Ambipolar electric field), are we getting to at least reading from the same book Tusenfem, even if we are not on the same page!
An ambi-polar electric field is not a double layer.
Am ambi-polar electric field can create a double layer if it can detach itself from the cathode and move into the plasma proper. I think Raadu (1989) explains this.

The ambi-polar electric field at the comet is created by electrons that want to move out, and because they are lighter they move more quickly than the ions, and this creates an ambi-polar electric field in order to keep the electrons at bay.
__________________
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 17th November 2017, 07:49 AM   #582
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,837
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Question for you jd116, using your vast knowledge of plasma and indeed the electric comet theory, what happens at a strongly outgassing comet, say comet 17P Holmes?

How much area in m2 is that for the outside visible coma/plasma boundary, or the double layer sheath?

Starting to get into some real numbers here now, jd116. Care to have a go at your calculations for that no h2o can be made as the EU has said?

Shall we wheel out old Franklin Anariba, PhD for another show round the block? What’ya Reckon Captain Swoop, Dancing David? Round again?
More idiocy. You seem to forget that the H2O is measured close to Halley and 67P. It doesn't matter what is going on thousands of kilometers away. The solar wind at a strongly outgassing comet is getting nowhere near the nucleus. ~ 4500 km at Halley. It would have been much further at Hale-Bopp.
There is nowhere near enough H+, and no O-. So, your mechanism is impossible.
And we know what is causing the outgassing at 17P Holmes, because it had an outburst, after which ice grains are detected. So, your mechanism is not only impossible, but unnecessary. As has been explained numerous times.

Comet 17P/Holmes in Outburst: The Near Infrared Spectrum
Yang, B. et al.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.1317.pdf
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

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

Last edited by jonesdave116; 17th November 2017 at 08:11 AM. Reason: add link.
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 17th November 2017, 08:06 AM   #583
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,837
I'll ask Sol this again: if electrostatic levitation is the main driver of dust release, how come the coma is at its dustiest (around perihelion) when the solar wind is getting nowhere near the nucleus? This is the time when EL cannot happen, but also happens to coincide with the highest outgassing rates. Kills it dead right there, doesn't it?
And let's see what the idiot Thornhill and his sidekick have to say about the dust:

Quote:
The primary distinction between comet and asteroid surfaces is that electrical
arcing and “electrostatic cleaning” of the comet nucleus will leave little or no
dust or debris on the surface during the active phase
, even if a shallow layer
of dust may be attracted back to the nucleus electrostatically as the comet
becomes dormant in its retreat to more remote regions.
And yet we have more dust during the active phase. And no possibility of electrostatic levitation. Strange, don't you think?

Please explain.
__________________
“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 18th November 2017, 03:19 PM   #584
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
I'll ask Sol this again: if electrostatic levitation is the main driver of dust release, how come the coma is at its dustiest (around perihelion) when the solar wind is getting nowhere near the nucleus? This is the time when EL cannot happen, but also happens to coincide with the highest outgassing rates. Kills it dead right there, doesn't it?
And let's see what the idiot Thornhill and his sidekick have to say about the dust:



And yet we have more dust during the active phase. And no possibility of electrostatic levitation. Strange, don't you think?

Please explain.
Ya bloody drongo

Am I understanding you correctly, jonesdave116, when I say the sublimation from the heat, (long wave infrared radiation),of subsurface ice and the subsequent release of neutral molecules into the coma to be ionised by EUV light, has the power to trump the ambipolar electric fields set up and sustained via the mechanism explained in the paper.

So we have energetic electron and ions doing all sorts of wonderfully complex, for the mathmagicians, behaviours that surprise scientists according to the “Ivey dust Ball”. This is achieved thru the ambipolar double layers set up that ARE coupled to the solar wind.

The ELECTRIC COMET is trying to charge equalise by getting rid excess electrons, very much like in the mechanism described in the paper.

The solar wind is not needed to reach the surface. These double layers very much throw a spanner into the sublimation works.

This has implications for your other question jd116.
__________________
“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 18th November 2017, 03:22 PM   #585
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
More idiocy. You seem to forget that the H2O is measured close to Halley and 67P. It doesn't matter what is going on thousands of kilometers away. The solar wind at a strongly outgassing comet is getting nowhere near the nucleus. ~ 4500 km at Halley. It would have been much further at Hale-Bopp.
There is nowhere near enough H+, and no O-. So, your mechanism is impossible.
And we know what is causing the outgassing at 17P Holmes, because it had an outburst, after which ice grains are detected. So, your mechanism is not only impossible, but unnecessary. As has been explained numerous times.

Comet 17P/Holmes in Outburst: The Near Infrared Spectrum
Yang, B. et al.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.1317.pdf

Tail excursion paper is going to be a very interesting read.

So still a ways off then Tusenfem?
__________________
“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 18th November 2017, 03:25 PM   #586
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
An ambi-polar electric field is not a double layer.
Am ambi-polar electric field can create a double layer if it can detach itself from the cathode and move into the plasma proper. I think Raadu (1989) explains this.

The ambi-polar electric field at the comet is created by electrons that want to move out, and because they are lighter they move more quickly than the ions, and this creates an ambi-polar electric field in order to keep the electrons at bay.
And you thought that not important to share with our lurker friends after we spent bloody pages arguing over them existing at comets?

Cheers 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
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 19th November 2017, 08:16 AM   #587
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,837
As quoted by Sol:
Quote:
Am I understanding you correctly, jonesdave116, when I say the sublimation from the heat, (long wave infrared radiation),of subsurface ice and the subsequent release of neutral molecules into the coma to be ionised by EUV light, has the power to trump the ambipolar electric fields set up and sustained via the mechanism explained in the paper.
Would somebody kindly translate that sentence into understandable scientific English, so that I might understand what it means? TIA.
__________________
“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 19th November 2017, 08:41 AM   #588
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 18,384
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Ya bloody drongo

Am I understanding you correctly, jonesdave116, when I say the sublimation from the heat, (long wave infrared radiation),of subsurface ice and the subsequent release of neutral molecules into the coma to be ionised by EUV light, has the power to trump the ambipolar electric fields set up and sustained via the mechanism explained in the paper.

So we have energetic electron and ions doing all sorts of wonderfully complex, for the mathmagicians, behaviours that surprise scientists according to the “Ivey dust Ball”. This is achieved thru the ambipolar double layers set up that ARE coupled to the solar wind.

The ELECTRIC COMET is trying to charge equalise by getting rid excess electrons, very much like in the mechanism described in the paper.

The solar wind is not needed to reach the surface. These double layers very much throw a spanner into the sublimation works.

This has implications for your other question jd116.
"The ELECTRIC COMET is trying to charge equalise by getting rid excess electrons, very much like in the mechanism described in the paper."?

Nope, the Ambipolar electric field is a result of quasinutrality, that the, solar wind, plasma and comet system are overall neutral. Expressed by your own quote from that paper earlier.

Quote:
Cometary electrons eventually end up neutralizing the solar wind protons, and solar wind elec- trons eventually neutralize the cometary ions.
That's not "getting rid excess electrons" as you assert, as that would take "excess", well, ions. By all means please show how the solar wind has "excess" ions for your asserted "trying to charge equalise by getting rid excess electrons"?

Generally how many "excess electrons" does "The ELECTRIC COMET" notion propose such a comet has? Exactly how does the solar wind produce the correct number of "excess" ions to "charge equalise" such a comet as you assert?

from the cited and quoted paper..

https://physics.aps.org/featured-art...ett.118.205101

Quote:
The solar wind is mass loaded by cold cometary ions as a consequence of the outgassing cometary neutral atmosphere that is ionized as it expands [39].
Starting with a neutral solar wind and neutral comet, thus "outgassing cometary neutral atmosphere", you can get "Cometary electrons eventually end up neutralizing the solar wind protons, and solar wind electrons eventually neutralize the cometary ions". Overall neutrality is critical to "the mechanism described in the paper" as it is to the simulation the paper represents.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man 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 19th November 2017, 08:51 AM   #589
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 18,384
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
As quoted by Sol:


Would somebody kindly translate that sentence into understandable scientific English, so that I might understand what it means? TIA.

Basically translate to "Sol88 doesn't understand the paper nor "the mechanism explained in the paper"".

Apparently not understanding that the ambi-polar electric field simply means the fast moving electrons tend to drag the slower moving ions with them. Just as those slower moving ions tend to slow down the fast moving electrons. As a result of, and maintaining, overall quasineutrality it actually goes against the EU or just EC (and Sol88's own) assertions.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man 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 19th November 2017, 09:31 AM   #590
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,837
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Basically translate to "Sol88 doesn't understand the paper nor "the mechanism explained in the paper"".

Apparently not understanding that the ambi-polar electric field simply means the fast moving electrons tend to drag the slower moving ions with them. Just as those slower moving ions tend to slow down the fast moving electrons. As a result of, and maintaining, overall quasineutrality it actually goes against the EU or just EC (and Sol88's own) assertions.
What I figured is that Sol still wants to invoke some sort of electric woo to explain the dust in the coma. My question, which he refuses to answer, was what sort of electric woo is he proposing, when the coma is at its dustiest? Given that the solar wind is not reaching the nucleus at that time, then levitation is out of the question.
As for the ambipolar field proposed by Deca, et al; that is for the coma when the comet is outgassing weakly. It is not a surface effect, and therefore cannot be used as a method for lifting grains from the surface. It certainly is of no relevance to the surface once a diamagnetic cavity forms.

So, I'll ask again; what is lofting dust into the coma once a diamagnetic cavity forms, Sol? Electric pixies?
__________________
“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 19th November 2017, 09:53 AM   #591
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 18,384
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
What I figured is that Sol still wants to invoke some sort of electric woo to explain the dust in the coma. My question, which he refuses to answer, was what sort of electric woo is he proposing, when the coma is at its dustiest? Given that the solar wind is not reaching the nucleus at that time, then levitation is out of the question.
As for the ambipolar field proposed by Deca, et al; that is for the coma when the comet is outgassing weakly. It is not a surface effect, and therefore cannot be used as a method for lifting grains from the surface. It certainly is of no relevance to the surface once a diamagnetic cavity forms.
Naw, Sol88's SOP appears to be just find some mainstream paper that simply mentions electro-magnetic interactions in relations to comets and then simply portray it as supportive EC and EU even if it directly refutes them (overall neutrality). Same thing with the dust assertions, find something that says dust can be levitated and assert it as supportive regardless of the specific conditions involved.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man 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 19th November 2017, 11:12 AM   #592
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,837
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
And you thought that not important to share with our lurker friends after we spent bloody pages arguing over them existing at comets?

Cheers champ.
Personally, I don't recall anybody arguing about the existence, or otherwise, of ambipolar fields in the cometary ionosphere. Had they done so, I would have referred them to the fact that this is old news.

The role of electric fields in the cometary environment (1984)
Cravens, T.E.; Gombosi, T.I.; Gribov, B.E.
https://inis.iaea.org/search/search...._q=RN:15060349
This is a conference abstract. Note that this date is prior to the Halley encounter. So they are not only known about, but were predicted.

The field is also mentioned in this paper:
The electron density and temperature in the tail of comet Giacobini-Zinner (1986)
Marconi, M. L. & Mendis, D. A.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...004p00405/full (paywalled)

And also here:
Magnetohydrodynamic Models of Comet Halley (1994)
Lindgren, C. J.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994PhDT........50L

You will note that the ambipolar diffusion in that abstract is, quite obviously, happening outside the diamagnetic cavity.

An ambipolar electric field is also invoked in this paper, discussing the AMPTE artificial comet experiments:

Dynamics of the AMPTE artificial comet (1986)
Haerendel, G. et al
https://www.researchgate.net/profile...1430c807cf.pdf

So Tusenfem has hardly been keeping a state secret. All the above information could have easily been found by anybody who bothered to do a search on Scholar, using the appropriate terms.
__________________
“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 19th November 2017, 11:52 AM   #593
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,837
Methinks that Sol is getting confused between ambipolar electric fields and double layers. Probably a safe assumption on my part. As Tusenfem explained in post #574, they are not the same thing. In post #569, Sol links to this paper:

The Search for Double Layers in Space Plasmas
Andersson, L. & Ergun, R. E.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/mop/fi...2Andersson.pdf

Here is what they say about the formation conditions for DLs:

Quote:
In collisionless plasma, there are surface, current, and gradient types of DLs. A surface DL is created by currents to and from the surface, which results in a sheath between the surface and the plasma that may carry a net potential. Examples of surface DLs are probe/sensor interaction wit plasmas [Langmuir, 1929], spacecraft interaction with space plasmas, and the Moon’s interaction with the solar wind [Halekas et al., 2003]. A gradient DL (or currentless DL) is associated with strong magnetic and/or density gradients resulting in charge separations [Charles, 2009;Scime et al.2010]. This type of DL is being studied actively as a potential application to ion thrusters. Finally, the current-driven DL is a result of interaction between two different plasma regions with a strong, field-aligned current. If the drift between the electrons and ions is large enough, two stream [e.g.,Buneman, 1959] instabilities can develop, which can lead to DLs. In this chapter, we focus on the last of these types of DL.
So, surface DLs require a current to and from the surface. On the moon it is due to the interaction with the solar wind. Not happening at a comet at the time of highest outgassing. Refer to 'diamagnetic cavity' and '0 nT', if the reason for this escapes you.

In the case of the other two types, these could only occur in the coma, and so have nothing to do with dust lifting. They would also be detected by the instruments on 67P. And Tusenfem, who knows a thing or two about DLs, tells us that they weren't.
__________________
“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 19th November 2017, 02:08 PM   #594
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Thumbs down Sol88: The repeated idiocy of writing the title only of a paper

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post

Electron and Ion Dynamics of the Solar Wind Interaction with a Weakly Outgassing Comet
20 November 2017 Sol88: The repeated idiocy of writing the title only of a paper.

20 November 2017 Sol88: The repeated idiocy of citing papers on comets made of ices and dust.
Electron and Ion Dynamics of the Solar Wind Interaction with a Weakly Outgassing Comet (paper) (PDF)

20 November 2017 Sol88: The insanity yet again that a description in quotes is a model.
The first paragraph in the paper is:
Quote:
Cometary nuclei are small, irregularly shaped “icy dirt balls” left over from the dawn of our Solar System 4.6 billion years ago and are composed of a mixture of ices, refractory materials, and large organic molecules [1–4]. When a comet is sufficiently close to the Sun, the sublimation of ice leads to an outgassing atmosphere and the formation of a coma, and a dust and plasma tail. Historically, this process revealed the existence of the solar wind and the interplanetary magnetic field [5–8]. Comets are critical to decipher the physics of gas release processes in space. The latter result in mass-loaded plasmas [9,10], which more than three decades after the Active Magnetospheric Particle Tracer Explorers (AMPTE) space release experiments [11] are still not fully understood.

Last edited by Reality Check; 19th November 2017 at 02:16 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 19th November 2017, 02:21 PM   #595
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Thumbs down Sol88: A part truth - more "cherry picking and buzz words" and lies and delusions

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
More cherry picking and buzz words on the way...
20 November 2017 Sol88: A part truth for once - more "cherry picking and buzz words" and lies and delusions on the way and already added to his signature.
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 19th November 2017, 02:30 PM   #596
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Thumbs down Sol88: Ambient electric fields lies about the mainstream and his comet delusions

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
same paper as above
20 November 2017 Sol88: Electric fields lies about the mainstream and his comet delusions.
The mainstream know that comets have electric fields.
His comet delusions do not include any electric fields for the comet.

20 November 2017 Sol88: Deluded "double layer" lie about Deca et. al.
There are no double layers in Electron and Ion Dynamics of the Solar Wind Interaction with a Weakly Outgassing Comet (paper) (PDF).

20 November 2017 Sol88: Double"plasma boundary" lie - not a double layer, not in the paper.
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 19th November 2017, 02:34 PM   #597
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Thumbs down Sol88: Question derailing yet again from his comet delusions

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Question for you jd116,
20 November 2017 Sol88: Question derailing yet again from his comet delusions.

20 November 2017 Sol88: A link to the insanely deluded Thunderbolts cult.
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 19th November 2017, 02:37 PM   #598
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Thumbs down Sol88: A question to derail from his comet delusions but with his DL delusion

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So if, hypothetically, ...
20 November 2017 Sol88: A question to derail from his comet delusions but with his ignorant double layer delusion.

20 November 2017 Sol88: The usual "ices" in quotes lie.
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 19th November 2017, 02:44 PM   #599
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Thumbs down Sol88: Idiocy and lies about highly collimated dust jets, etc

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...The electrons appear ‘spiky’ or filamentary, the dust ‘jets’ are filamentary and fine structured along with being highly collimated.
20 November 2017 Sol88: Idiocy and lies about highly collimated dust jets, etc.
Electron and Ion Dynamics of the Solar Wind Interaction with a Weakly Outgassing Comet (paper) (PDF) by Deca et. al.
The electrons are not 'spiky’ or filamentary.
The electrons are not related to dust jets.
A lie of 'jets" when they are jets.
Dust jets are not "highly collimated".

Last edited by Reality Check; 19th November 2017 at 02:52 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 Back to Top
Old 19th November 2017, 02:50 PM   #600
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Thumbs down Sol88: Confirms how gullible he is by linking to the totally insane Thunderbolts cult

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Hell, why not ...
20 November 2017 Sol88: Confirms how gullible he is by linking to the totally insane Thunderbolts cult again.

20 November 2017 Sol88: Lies again about an ambipolar electric field being a double layer.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
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 12:35 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.