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 24th November 2017, 05:16 AM   #681
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,837
And I'll repeat, for the terminally stupid - what the hell has ionisation got to do with lifting dust from the surface??????? And what has the quote from Deca et al got to do with anything? They are talking about the situation in the coma at a weakly outgassing comet. All of this is nothing whatsoever to do with why the coma is dustiest at peak outgassing. As already explained umpteen times, it CANNOT be electrostatic levitation. You need solar wind electrons for that. Hence why Nordheim only posits it at large heliocentric distances. If it were a serious player, then all near Earth asteroids would be sporting a coma just like comets. Why don't they? Because they haven't got ice. And the vapour from the sublimating ice is seen by a number of instruments in the coma, close to the surface. This argument is long dead. As dead as the electric comet 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

Last edited by jonesdave116; 24th November 2017 at 05:18 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 24th November 2017, 05:22 AM   #682
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,837
Diamagnetric cavity = double layer! Lol. Tell us Sol, who were quite keen on invoking DLs before the Halley mission? Mendis and Alfven, right? Check the literature. Were they around for the Halley results? Yes they were. Did they think the predicted diamagnetic cavity was a DL? No, they didn't. Only one person on the planet thinks that, and they are wrong. As usual.
__________________
“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 24th November 2017, 05:56 AM   #683
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,837
Quote:
As Tusenfem says, photo-ionization is the main player, even when the coma is optical thick to incoming EUV!
Yes. And? You have some electrons and ions created. Not many compared to the neutrals. And they are cold. And therefore not very energetic. And they really aren't going to do much at all in the absence of a magnetic field, are they? They'll just head on up, away from the comet, towards the pile-up region. Where some of the electrons will recombine with ions to form neutrals. They aren't going to reverse direction and go looking for dark places on the nucleus! This is all getting too silly for words, and goes to show the psychology of woo believers, in how they try to hold on to their quasi-religious beliefs, even in the face of a mountain of evidence against them, and zero evidence in favour of them.
__________________
“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 24th November 2017, 06:43 AM   #684
tusenfem
Illuminator
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,197
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
and further, seems the DIAMAGNETIC cavity seems to coincide (@170 km First detection of a diamagnetic cavity
at comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
) if not inside the double layer where the distance from the nucleus were charge separation is occurring in this simulation at around 500km from the nucleus? Electron and Ion Dynamics of the Solar Wind Interaction with a Weakly Outgassing Comet
and where is the problem, exactly?
(apart from the fact that is is not a double layer, but we will let that go)

I guess you are talking about this
Originally Posted by Deca et al. [2017
]
We observe a spatial separation of the cometary electrons with respect to the cometary ions, and of the solar wind electrons with respect to the solar wind protons. Cometary electrons eventually end up neutralizing the solar wind protons, and solar wind electrons eventually neutralize the cometary ions.
Which basically says that the electrons and ions (either C or SW) move into different directions, which they should, from basic electrodynamics. And then later:

Originally Posted by Deca et al. [2017
]
Solar wind electrons accelerate 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.
Basically, the electron pressure gradient, in Jan's model is over 500 km, from looking at the figures and he links back to Erik Vigren

Originally Posted by Vigren et al. [2015
]
As the neutral number density drops as r−2, the electron number density drops as 1/r. Neglecting the solar windʼs convective electric field (and ion-neutral momentum exchange) and assuming further that the electron temperature is constant (at a high value of Te ∼ 10^5 K roughly corresponding to 10 eV), this gradient in electron number density sets up an outwardpointing ambipolar electric field, Er, that (by neglecting the motional electric field) is inversely proportional to r. The relation is given in Appendix B (Equation (14)).
There is no reason why the diamagnetic cavity and the ambipolar field cannot exist together as the two have nothing to do with each other.
__________________
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 24th November 2017, 06:47 AM   #685
tusenfem
Illuminator
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,197
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
As Tusenfem says, photo-ionization is the main player, even when the coma is optical thick to incoming EUV!
Where have I ever said that the coma is optically thick???????
__________________
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 24th November 2017, 06:54 AM   #686
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
Houston we have a problem...

Quote:
. The spacecraft is not moving significantly in relation to the nucleus of the comet. It is therefore reasonable to assume that all the diamagnetic cav- ity observations presented here happened due to extrusions mov- ing over an effectively stationary spacecraft. We propose that all our observations took place in bulges, and that currents are run- ning through these protuberant parts, generating current-driven ion acoustic waves. The nature of the wave environment deeper inside the diamagnetic cavity will have to be determined by future space missions.
Plasma waves confined to the diamagnetic cavity of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko

Mmmmm.....
__________________
“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 24th November 2017, 06:56 AM   #687
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
and where is the problem, exactly?
(apart from the fact that is is not a double layer, but we will let that go)

I guess you are talking about this


Which basically says that the electrons and ions (either C or SW) move into different directions, which they should, from basic electrodynamics. And then later:



Basically, the electron pressure gradient, in Jan's model is over 500 km, from looking at the figures and he links back to Erik Vigren



There is no reason why the diamagnetic cavity and the ambipolar field cannot exist together as the two have nothing to do with each other.
But the diamagnetic cavity is after the double layer, sonwhats stopping the solar wind? Diamagnetic cavity or electric double layer?
__________________
“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 24th November 2017, 07:02 AM   #688
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,837
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Diamagnetric cavity = double layer! Lol. Tell us Sol, who were quite keen on invoking DLs before the Halley mission? Mendis and Alfven, right? Check the literature. Were they around for the Halley results? Yes they were. Did they think the predicted diamagnetic cavity was a DL? No, they didn't. Only one person on the planet thinks that, and they are wrong. As usual.
I should clarify this somewhat. The main suggestion for DLs came from Ip and Mendis. Such as in the paper:

The generation of magnetic fields and electric currents in cometary plasma tails
Ip, W-H. & Mendis, D. A. (1976)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...1910357690110X

Alfven merely mentions their proposal in his double layers paper. And Ip and Mendis were only ever talking about their possible formation in the tail. They most certainly were not suggesting that the diamagnetic cavity was a DL! Both of those authors continued to publish papers on comets for some years, and Ip, from memory, was an author on at least one of the 67P papers. They both knew the difference between a DL and a diamagnetic cavity.
__________________
“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 24th November 2017, 07:05 AM   #689
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,837
Quote:
But the diamagnetic cavity is after the double layer, sonwhats stopping the solar wind? Diamagnetic cavity or electric double layer?
Wrong. There is no double layer. It would have been seen.

ETA:
The diamagnetic cavity isn't stopping the solar wind. It is piling up the IMF. The solar wind is nowhere to be seen. In October, two months after perihelion, the spacecraft had a sunward excursion out to 1500 km. The solar wind was missing all the way out.

EETA:
The birth and growth of a solar wind cavity around a comet – Rosetta observations
Behar, E. et al
https://research.aalto.fi/files/1573...al_stx1871.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; 24th November 2017 at 07:43 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 24th November 2017, 10:21 AM   #690
tusenfem
Illuminator
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,197
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Houston we have a problem...

Plasma waves confined to the diamagnetic cavity of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko

Mmmmm.....
Not really
__________________
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 24th November 2017, 10:23 AM   #691
tusenfem
Illuminator
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,197
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
But the diamagnetic cavity is after the double layer, sonwhats stopping the solar wind? Diamagnetic cavity or electric double layer?
So frakking what?
Why would the ambipolar electric field have anything to do with the diamagnetic cavity. They are created by completely different processes.
And I am not going to edumacate you.
__________________
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 25th November 2017, 04:29 AM   #692
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
I should clarify this somewhat. The main suggestion for DLs came from Ip and Mendis. Such as in the paper:

The generation of magnetic fields and electric currents in cometary plasma tails
Ip, W-H. & Mendis, D. A. (1976)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...1910357690110X

Alfven merely mentions their proposal in his double layers paper. And Ip and Mendis were only ever talking about their possible formation in the tail. They most certainly were not suggesting that the diamagnetic cavity was a DL! Both of those authors continued to publish papers on comets for some years, and Ip, from memory, was an author on at least one of the 67P papers. They both knew the difference between a DL and a diamagnetic cavity.

Interesting, ay! So they COULD be there.
__________________
“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 25th November 2017, 04:48 AM   #693
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
So frakking what?
Why would the ambipolar electric field have anything to do with the diamagnetic cavity. They are created by completely different processes.
And I am not going to edumacate you.
RPC-LAP Electric Field Signatures at the Diamagnetic Cavity of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

2.4.3 Diamagnetic cavity (DC)

Quote:
The diamagnetic cavity is thought to be the innermost region of the cometary coma and is characterized by an exclusion of the solar wind magnetic field. It is separated from the cometosheath by the contact surface at the point where the magnetic field magnitude reaches zero. The gradual decrease in the magnetic field magnitude happens within the DCBL just outside the contact surface. Prior to the Rosetta mission, the cavity has been observed only once, i.e. during the Giotto flyby of comet 1P/H (Neubauer et al., 1986). The relatively small cometocentric distances of orbits close to perihelion has made the Rosetta spacecraft cross the contact surface of comet 67P more than 600 times, giving the possibility of further studies on the dynamical features related to this region (Goetz et al., 2016b).
Further

Quote:
When ions moving with a finite speed radially from the comet penetrate into the boundary layer, the movement of the ions will be disturbed by the presence of the solar wind magnetic field BSW . This leads to an ion gyration of gyroradius rL perpendicular to the magnetic field lines. After half a gyration, the ions have returned to the magnetic field free cavity, continuing their motion radially towards to comet. This gives rise to a current JDCBL within the boundary, but no current in the cavity itself, as illustrated in Figure 2.7 (Israelevich and Ershkovich, 1994). Similarly, the free electrons produced by the ionization of cometary neutrals in the cavity will be affected by the presence of the magnetic field at the boundary layer. The gyration of the electrons is in the opposite direction of the ion gyration, due to the difference in the sign of their charges. Hence, both species add up to the same effective current in the cavity boundary. Since the gyroradius is proportional to the mass of the gyrating particle (see Eq. (2.18)), the electron and ion gyroradii will differ from each other. Ions will therefore penetrate deeper into the boundary than the electrons, leading to a charge separation within the boundary layer. This results in a polarization electric field, in addition to the DCBL current.

Hell we’ll even get into a bit of critical ionisation velocity (CIV) again, watya reckon Tusenfem?

We’ve been here before if you care to remember.
__________________
“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 25th November 2017, 04:57 AM   #694
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
The above paper introduces some new problems for the mainstream!

Seems your assumptions for radial ‘outgassing’ is a fair way out.

2.2 Generation of cometary boundaries When illuminated by the Sun, energy from the solar radiation causes sublimation of ice from the comet surface. The amount of sublimated ice per time unit is described by the cometary outgassing rate Q, on which the activity level of a comet and the extent of the comet -solar wind interaction region depend on. It is, therefore, highly relevant to estimate Q when doing in-situ observations of the cometary environment. By assuming spherical symmetry and negligible gravitational pull on the cometary neutrals, the observed neutral number density nn at a distance r from the comet nucleus is related to the outgassing rate Q by
__________________
“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; 25th November 2017 at 05:17 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 25th November 2017, 04:58 AM   #695
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
You may be able to fill the lurkers in here a bit Tusenfem.

Quote:
Oblique Langmuir waves are thought to be related to energy transfer from ions to electrons (Galeev, 1989). The wave detections and sudden increase in ion density makes Savin et al. (1986) conclude that the observed region is subject to so-called critical ionization velocity (CIV) events. The reason for this conclusion is explained in the following. ACIVeventis the ionization of neutrals moving with a speed greater than a critical speed (u > uc) relative to a magnetized plasma (see Figure 2.9). It was originally proposed by Alfv´en (1954) as an explanation to the formation of planets in the solar system, but now additionally serves as an explanation for events in the cometary environment. The process converts mechanical energy of the moving neutral gas into electrostatic energy through interaction with the plasma and its electromagnetic eld. By that the density of the plasma increases. For this to happen, the required kinetic energy of the intruding neutral gas has to equal the ionization energy Eionize. Hence, for neutrals of mass m, the CIV is uc = 2Eionize m (2.38) However, keep in mind that this is only true if the energy transfer processes are optimal. If not, an ef ciency term with a value between 0 and 1 can be introduced on the right hand side of the equation. This would yield a greater critical velocity of the neutrals (Galeev et al., 1986). The CIV mechanism is poorly understood, and several models have been proposed to explain the phenomenon. Some of the models are reviewed by Brenning (1992), who concludes that none of the proposed models fully explains the observed features in experiments and, hence, that several processes must play a role in the complex mechanism of CIV events. However, it is widely accepted that the main source of ionization of the neutrals in CIV events is impact with energetic electrons (Lai, 2001). To explain the origin of the electron energization, Alfv´en (1960) suggested that the intrusion of a moving neutral gas in a plasma displaced ions causing inhomogeneities in the plasma. The magnetic eld does not allow the electrons to follow the ions, and hence a voltage difference will occur. Eventually, the electrons are accelerated by this voltage difference making them energetic enough to ionize the neutral gas. The LH instability is often mentioned as an important factor in the CIV mechanism (Formisano et al., 1982), and a peak in the spectrum corresponding to the LHF has often appeared in experiments (Brenning, 1992). In the comet -solar wind interaction region, the solar wind stagnates upstream of the contact surface. This does not inuence the speed of the cometary neutrals signicantly causing the neutrals to travel with a nite speed relative to the plasma, suggesting that CIV events could be accountable for some of the ionization of outgassing neutrals in the inner coma of the interaction region. Hence, an excitation of the LHF along with an ion density increase and anisotropic distributions of suprathermal electrons, as observed by Savin et al. (1986) and Galeev et al. (1986) during the Vega 2 ybys of comet 1P/H, are good indicators of the CIV process.
paper as above

What’s going on 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 25th November 2017, 06:26 AM   #696
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
 
Andy_Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,041
Sol88. Have you considered joining the Cosmoquest Forum and starting a thread over there in the Q&A section?
It is for asking questions on astronomy and cosmology. You will get a number of very well informed answers.
Be aware though it is for asking questions and receiving mainstream answers, not advocating your own theories but it will get you answers to your mainstream questions and help you understand the papers you quote.

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/forumdi...ns-and-Answers

Last edited by Andy_Ross; 25th November 2017 at 06:31 AM.
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 25th November 2017, 07:49 AM   #697
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,837
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
The above paper introduces some new problems for the mainstream!

Seems your assumptions for radial ‘outgassing’ is a fair way out.

2.2 Generation of cometary boundaries When illuminated by the Sun, energy from the solar radiation causes sublimation of ice from the comet surface. The amount of sublimated ice per time unit is described by the cometary outgassing rate Q, on which the activity level of a comet and the extent of the comet -solar wind interaction region depend on. It is, therefore, highly relevant to estimate Q when doing in-situ observations of the cometary environment. By assuming spherical symmetry and negligible gravitational pull on the cometary neutrals, the observed neutral number density nn at a distance r from the comet nucleus is related to the outgassing rate Q by
Nothing in that quote is the least bit relevant to what I said. The neutrals will head out. A small number will be ionised before they reach the pile up boundary. The lifetime against photoionisation for H2O is of the order of 106 seconds. The molecules are travelling at ~ 600 m/s. To reach the boundary at, say, 200 km would take ~ 300 s. Any ions and electrons formed within the cavity are not subject to a magnetic field. There is no reason for them to go wandering off to dark parts of the nucleus. Spherical symmetry is assumed in many models to make them easier to compute. It just means in those models (Haser model?) that the comet is modelled as being a sphere. The speed of the sublimating gases means that gravitational pull can be ignored. The gas will still head up and out.
__________________
“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 25th November 2017, 07:56 AM   #698
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,837
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Interesting, ay! So they COULD be there.
Theoretically, yes. In the tail. And nothing to do with the diamagnetic cavity boundary. All the processes we have been talking about happen in the sunward coma. Where they have not been proposed to occur. And, chances are, they won't have been seen in the tail, either. Even if they were, what do you think they are doing that affects the sunward coma?
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th November 2017, 08:34 AM   #699
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
You may be able to fill the lurkers in here a bit Tusenfem.

paper as above

What’s going on here?
Very basically, what the quotation suggests is that incoming neutrals displace the heavier and slower ions which, eventually, draws the electrons with them (maintaining quasi-neutrality) against the impedance of the magnetic field resulting in "critical ionization velocity (CIV) events" from those electrons ionizing the neutrals and thus increasing plasma density.

What exactly does the electric comet theory suggest is "going on here"?

In reference to your assertion of excess electrons before, generally how many excess electrons does the electric comet theory propose such a comet has?
__________________
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 25th November 2017, 09:51 AM   #700
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,837
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Very basically, what the quotation suggests is that incoming neutrals displace the heavier and slower ions which, eventually, draws the electrons with them (maintaining quasi-neutrality) against the impedance of the magnetic field resulting in "critical ionization velocity (CIV) events" from those electrons ionizing the neutrals and thus increasing plasma density.

What exactly does the electric comet theory suggest is "going on here"?

In reference to your assertion of excess electrons before, generally how many excess electrons does the electric comet theory propose such a comet has?
I'm not sure that this has got anything to do with the 'electric comet theory' any more. Given the predictions on this site by David Talbott, and the pdf poster he co-wrote with Thornhill. it is blindingly obvious that that has failed to eventuate. No electric discharges, no EDM (lol), no rock, plenty of ice, etc.
He appears now (insofar as I can follow his twisted logic) to be claiming that electrostatic charging is responsible for dust jets! This despite the fact that said jets are associated with an increase of gas. Such as:

Comet's firework display ahead of perihelion
http://sci.esa.int/rosetta/56325-com...of-perihelion/

And:

The 2016 Feb 19 outburst of comet 67P/CG: an ESA Rosetta multi-instrument study
Grun, E. et al.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/artic...1/S220/2633359

Then there seems to be some stuff about double layers and CIV. I have no idea where this is meant to be going. It just seems to be distraction tactics, as one would expect from a woo believer whose beliefs have been well and truly debunked by real science and observation.
__________________
“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 25th November 2017, 10:00 AM   #701
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
I'm not sure that this has got anything to do with the 'electric comet theory' any more. Given the predictions on this site by David Talbott, and the pdf poster he co-wrote with Thornhill. it is blindingly obvious that that has failed to eventuate. No electric discharges, no EDM (lol), no rock, plenty of ice, etc.
He appears now (insofar as I can follow his twisted logic) to be claiming that electrostatic charging is responsible for dust jets! This despite the fact that said jets are associated with an increase of gas. Such as:

Comet's firework display ahead of perihelion
http://sci.esa.int/rosetta/56325-com...of-perihelion/

And:

The 2016 Feb 19 outburst of comet 67P/CG: an ESA Rosetta multi-instrument study
Grun, E. et al.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/artic...1/S220/2633359

Then there seems to be some stuff about double layers and CIV. I have no idea where this is meant to be going. It just seems to be distraction tactics, as one would expect from a woo believer whose beliefs have been well and truly debunked by real science and observation.
Exactly, the introduction of a neutral gas into the plasma would seem to be at odds with the EC portrayal of the jets as electrostatic discharges or the result of EDM. Again it seems just an attempt to find anything stated as electrodynamic in nature in relation to comets regardless of if it directly opposes basic EC assertions.

ETA:

As tusenfem alludes to up thread I don't recommend trying to read much actual meaning into Sol88's mainstream paper spamming. As I've seen many times from crank science supporters It's often beneficial for others to try to find the, tenuous if any, connections between their mainstream citations and the alternate notion's assertions for them. If Sol88 can't make clear how this directly supports EC assertions then the indications from the quoted citation and those EC assertions are that they are in direct opposition.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 25th November 2017 at 10:09 AM. Reason: ETA
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 25th November 2017, 10:42 AM   #702
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,837
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Sol88. Have you considered joining the Cosmoquest Forum and starting a thread over there in the Q&A section?
It is for asking questions on astronomy and cosmology. You will get a number of very well informed answers.
Be aware though it is for asking questions and receiving mainstream answers, not advocating your own theories but it will get you answers to your mainstream questions and help you understand the papers you quote.

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/forumdi...ns-and-Answers
That would be unlikely! See the status of the first poster in this thread:
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...lectric-Comets
__________________
“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; 25th November 2017 at 10:44 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 25th November 2017, 12:20 PM   #703
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
 
Andy_Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,041
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
That would be unlikely! See the status of the first poster in this thread:
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...lectric-Comets
Yes, I remember now, Banned in 2014.

Sorry Sol88 Didn't remember you already had a go round Cosmoquest.
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 25th November 2017, 06:07 PM   #704
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Nothing in that quote is the least bit relevant to what I said. The neutrals will head out. A small number will be ionised before they reach the pile up boundary. The lifetime against photoionisation for H2O is of the order of 106 seconds. The molecules are travelling at ~ 600 m/s. To reach the boundary at, say, 200 km would take ~ 300 s. Any ions and electrons formed within the cavity are not subject to a magnetic field. There is no reason for them to go wandering off to dark parts of the nucleus. Spherical symmetry is assumed in many models to make them easier to compute. It just means in those models (Haser model?) that the comet is modelled as being a sphere. The speed of the sublimating gases means that gravitational pull can be ignored. The gas will still head up and out.

Ummm....yes it is!

Quote:
2.4NoteonliteratureThedustyicemodelhasbeenfrequent lyadoptedinstudiesofcometaryactivityandevolution,t houghnumericaltreatmentvariesgreatlywithdifferentw orks.ReferencescanbefoundinSmoluchowski(1981),Weis sman&Kieffer(1981),Froeschle,Klinger&Rickman(1983) ,K¨uhrt(1984),K¨uhrt(1999),amongnumerousothers.Iti sconclusivethatexposureofwatericeovercometarynucle iislimited(Filacchioneetal.2016).Theeffectofthisdu stman-tleonheattransportandgasdiffusionthroughthenucleus aswellastheconditionsofdustactivityhasbeenstudiedi ngreatde-tail.


Bloody apple have to wait till I’m home

Not enough ‘gas’
Too much dust
Gas can’t remove dust
Model used in diamagnetic gas production rate flawed
The dust is charged at the nucleus already
Suns infrared can’t penetrate
No surface ice
Dust is colimated
__________________
“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 25th November 2017, 06:42 PM   #705
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,837
Quote:
2.4NoteonliteratureThedustyicemodelhasbeenfrequent lyadoptedinstudiesofcometaryactivityandevolution,t houghnumericaltreatmentvariesgreatlywithdifferentw orks.ReferencescanbefoundinSmoluchowski(1981),Weis sman&Kieffer(1981),Froeschle,Klinger&Rickman(1983) ,K¨uhrt(1984),K¨uhrt(1999),amongnumerousothers.Iti sconclusivethatexposureofwatericeovercometarynucle iislimited(Filacchioneetal.2016).Theeffectofthisdu stman-tleonheattransportandgasdiffusionthroughthenucleus aswellastheconditionsofdustactivityhasbeenstudiedi ngreatde-tail.

***** is that? Judas Priest. Please make a point. You are wasting everybodies time. It is complete sh*te. What on Earth are you on about?
Stop wasting everybody's time with your idiotic 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

Last edited by jonesdave116; 25th November 2017 at 06:46 PM.
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th November 2017, 11:57 PM   #706
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
At the moment just a hastily written "list" of points that need clarifying.
I will add links to the relevant paper when I've finished fishing!



1. Comet appears hard(Mupus) Thermal and mechanical properties of the near-surface layers of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko and Rocky (Osiris) (Bedrock) Geomorphology of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko

2. Not enough ‘gas' from sublimation, comet too weakly outgassing to form any sorta mechanical/physical barrier.

3. Comet would form a langmiur sheath anyhow.

4. Too much dust for "ice" to release gas

5. Gas can’t remove dust "explosive" dust releases with no 'gas' increase.

6. No chambers or nozzles found

7. Model used in diamagnetic gas production rate flawed, nucleus does not evenly radially expand it's "atmosphere".

8. The dust is charged at the nucleus already

9. Suns infra-red can’t penetrate dusty surface, sublimation of pathetic amount of surface ice hard to detecte.

10. Dust is charged, filamentary, fine structured and collimated.

11. Nested draping, "frozen in" magnetic field and magnetic reconnection wrong.
Quote:
I sincerely hope that the increased interest in the study of double layers -- which is fatal to this pseudoscience -- will change the situation. Whenever we find a double layer (we hammer a nail into the coffin of the "merging" pseudo-science. H. Alfven
12. Constant electric field in side diamganetic cavity "spikes", zero/low magnetic field because constant electric field in DMC "spiky" nature of cavity probe flew through because not true cavity. analogues to a parallel plate capacitor.

13. Cold calm electrons down to on the nucleus.

14. Plasma tail will show a nested Birkeland current structures,(concentric cylindrical current sheet surfaces) This will be evident in the the pitch angle of the helical total magnetic field B vector encircling a field aligned current changing continuously with increasing radial distance r from the central axis of the current. As Don Scotts described in the model D E Scott has presented http://www.ptep-online.com/2015/PP-41-13.PDF this was also found in the ULYSSESS ION TAIL OF COMET McNAUGHT data.

15. New papers on the plasma physics around a weakly charged comet are only just starting in earnest, late 2017

16. Diocotron instability incorrectly called Kelvin-Helmholtz instability

Electric comet still has legs
"dirtysnowyiceball" digs itself s a deep/er hole
__________________
“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; 26th November 2017 at 01:53 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 26th November 2017, 12:21 AM   #707
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
Sorry but to keep continuity for me at least i'll keep adding to the above list.

It may pop up now and again, and 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
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 26th November 2017, 02:36 AM   #708
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
15. New papers on the plasma physics around a weakly charged comet are only just starting in earnest, late 2017 Interaction of the solar wind with comets: a Rosetta perspective

Quote:
There are further interesting and exciting observations made by the Rosetta Plasma Consortium [51] in the innermost interaction region of 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko. For example, multiple entries into a magnetic cavity have been observed in the interaction region [ 52]. However, their distance to the nucleus deviates significantly from those theoretically expected, which has caused an ongoing interesting scientific discussion. Other interesting observations on November 25, 2017 concern electrically charged nanograins in the inner coma, indicating a possible connection between dust at the surface of the nucleus and the comet’s plasma environment [ 53]. Aeolian ripples (figure 20 ) on the surface of the nucleus of 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko [ 54]maybe another hint of a pronounced impact of the plasma environment on the nucleus morphology. The ripples observed exhibit a wavelength of about 10 m, which is comparable to the wavelength of ion acoustic waves in that environment [ 55]. Such ‘plasmaeolian’ structures would demonstrate the importance of a deeper understanding of the cometary plasma environment, if the conjectured relation can be confirmed.
For you 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

Last edited by Sol88; 26th November 2017 at 02:37 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 26th November 2017, 02:52 AM   #709
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
17. Current carrying double layer being called anything but their correct name, same with FAC's. They are indeed Birkeland currents.

and despite whet Tusenfem says and mainstreams stubbornness to acknowledge them, double layers play a very important role.

Quote:
DLs not only separate plasmas or regions of plasma with quite different characteristics [12], they are found within a wide variety of plasmas from discharge tubes to the Birkeland currents supplying Earth’s aurora (see [11]), and most likely plasmas in interstellar and intergalactic space. They are especially common within current-carrying plasmas, where they form current-carrying DLs. Compared to the sizes of the plasmas that contain them, DLs are very thin, typically ten Debye lengths, ranging from a few millimetres for lab plasmas to thousands of kilometres for astrophysical plasmas. (A Debye length in plasma physics is the distance over which charge separation can occur. In space plasmas, where the electron density is relatively low, the Debye length is correspondingly large.) Ions and electrons that enter the double layer are accelerated, decelerated, or reflected by the electric field. A double layer is said to be relativistic if the potential drop is so large that the total gain in energy of the particles is larger than the rest mass energy of the electron or the ion. The rest mass energy of the electron is 511 keV and that of proton is 938 MeV, and those of other ions even larger.

Of special interest for applications to astrophysics is the acceleration of charged particles traversing the DL by the net potential difference across the DL. A detailed treatment of the DL is given by Peratt, who devoted a long chapter to it in his book [2].
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
__________________
“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 26th November 2017, 08:04 AM   #710
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,837
Quote:
1. Comet appears hard(Mupus)
Already addressed. Not rock, for the millionth time.

Quote:
Shear modulus scales with velocity squared, so when taking into account the formal uncertainties arising from the arrival time inversion, the shear modulus may easily be as large as 10 MPa. This is still low compared to solid rock or monocrystalline ice, but is compatible with highly porous materials.
Constraints for the subsurface structure at the Abydos site on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko resulting from CASSE listening to the MUPUS insertion phase
Knapmeyer, M. et al.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AGUFM.P42A..04K

Quote:
2. Not enough ‘gas' from sublimation, comet too weakly outgassing to form any sorta mechanical/physical barrier.
Complete dross. No references to back it up. The comet quite obviously has a barrier, as the spacecraft flew through it multiple times. And was also seen at Halley.

Quote:
3. Comet would form a langmiur sheath anyhow.
Rubbish. Why? References? More dross.

Quote:
4. Too much dust for "ice" to release gas
Rubbish. Why? References? More dross.

Quote:
5. Gas can’t remove dust "explosive" dust releases with no 'gas' increase.
Nonsense. ALICE didn't detect gas. As it has previously failed to do when gas has been detected by other instruments. Dumb argument.

Quote:
6. No chambers or nozzles found
Err, because they would be subsurface. Plenty of circular features (including the one in the Agarwal paper) that could easily be vents.

Quote:
7. Model used in diamagnetic gas production rate flawed, nucleus does not evenly radially expand it's "atmosphere".
Complete nonsense. You don't even understand what you are talking about here. The gas is directly measured. The diamagnetic cavity is seen. End of story. For instance:

Spatially resolved evolution of the local H2O production rates of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko from the MIRO instrument on Rosetta.
Marshall, D. W. et al
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pd...aa30502-17.pdf

Quote:
8. The dust is charged at the nucleus already
Hardly at all when there is a diamagnetic cavity. Won't do anything. We already know that dust outbursts have been accompanied by an increase in gas.

Quote:
9. Suns infra-red can’t penetrate dusty surface, sublimation of pathetic amount of surface ice hard to detecte.
Huh? We see the gas from the sublimation! Where else is it coming from? We see the ice at the surface. Therefore the solar heating is quite obviously reaching the ice.

Quote:
10. Dust is charged, filamentary, fine structured and collimated.
The dust gets charged once it is in the coma. And then it is only nanograins. It is not all collimated. If the gas is released in a collimated manner, then so is the dust. And we know that collimated releases are associated with an increase in gas. As I've already posted.

Comet's firework display ahead of perihelion
http://sci.esa.int/rosetta/56325-com...of-perihelion/

Quote:
11. Nested draping, "frozen in" magnetic field and magnetic reconnection wrong.
Lol. And then quotes Alfven, who came up with the nested draping scenario! And he was wrong about MRx. As observed. And the frozen-in concept is also more applicable than he realised.

Quote:
12. Constant electric field in side diamganetic cavity "spikes", zero/low magnetic field because constant electric field in DMC "spiky" nature of cavity probe flew through because not true cavity. analogues to a parallel plate capacitor.
Complete gibberish. Have a look at the Halley data. I'll leave Tusenfem to deal more thoroughly with that particular waste of pixels.

Quote:
13. Cold calm electrons down to on the nucleus.
Really? And? More pixels wasted.


Quote:
14. Plasma tail will show a nested Birkeland current structures,(concentric cylindrical current sheet surfaces) This will be evident in the the pitch angle of the helical total magnetic field B vector encircling a field aligned current changing continuously with increasing radial distance r from the central axis of the current. As Don Scotts described in the model D E Scott has presented http://www.ptep-online.com/2015/PP-41-13.PDF this was also found in the ULYSSESS ION TAIL OF COMET McNAUGHT data.
No Birkeland currents seen. Quotes a Don Scott paper, in which he embarasses himself by equating a planetary nebula with a z-pinch!

Quote:
15. New papers on the plasma physics around a weakly charged comet are only just starting in earnest, late 2017
There have been plenty of papers on a weakly OUTGASSING comet. And on a highly active comet. The comet is not charged.


Quote:
16. Diocotron instability incorrectly called Kelvin-Helmholtz instability
Wrong. This is a quasi-neutral plasma. Therefore it isn't a dicotron instability. As Tusenfem has already explained to you.


Quote:
Electric comet still has legs
"dirtysnowyiceball" digs itself s a deep/er hole
Lol. The electric comet is long dead. There is not a jot of evidence to support it. And a whole load against it. Where is the rock? Where are the electric discharges? Where is the predicted EDM? It couldn't be deader.
__________________
“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; 26th November 2017 at 08:06 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 26th November 2017, 08:11 AM   #711
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,837
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
17. Current carrying double layer being called anything but their correct name, same with FAC's. They are indeed Birkeland currents.

and despite whet Tusenfem says and mainstreams stubbornness to acknowledge them, double layers play a very important role.

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
Laughable. Tries to back up the EU nonsense by quoting a crank!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mae-Wan_Ho

Quote:
Ho has been criticized for embracing pseudoscience
Yup, that'll make people sit up and take notice. Not.
__________________
“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 26th November 2017, 08:46 AM   #712
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,837
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
15. New papers on the plasma physics around a weakly charged comet are only just starting in earnest, late 2017 Interaction of the solar wind with comets: a Rosetta perspective



For you jd116.
So, the nature of the diamagnetic cavity was not totally as predicted. Wow! Considering that we had only encountered one at a comet before (not counting artificial comets), this is not all that surprising. EU said nothing about the cavity. Indeed, the idiot Thornhill was telling his intellectually challenged followers that the solar wind was creating the water! Even though it isn't reaching the nucleus for some time, as we'd known since 1986.
As for your electrically charged nanograins; you should have read the paper that was referenced in the one that you quote mined:

Quote:
The lower energy particles came from roughly the direction of the comet; the higher-energy particles came from approximately the solar direction. These particles are interpreted as clusters of molecules, most likely water, which we refer to as nanograins because their inferred diameters are less than 100 nm.
Observation of charged nanograins at comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Burch, J. L. et al.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...5GL065177/full
__________________
“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 26th November 2017, 12:39 PM   #713
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Thumbs down Sol88: Lies about double layers yet again

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
yup, double layers...
27 November 2017 Sol88: Lies about double layers yet again with a paper on the 67P diamagnetic cavity .

27 November 2017 Sol88: Stupid question to derail from his comet delusions.
If there is one diamagnetic cavity then 2 detections of it will find it in abut the same place
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 26th November 2017, 12:42 PM   #714
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Thumbs down Sol88: A lie that ionization has "everything" to do with his cult comet delusions

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Ionization has EVERYTHING to do with the ELECTRIC COMET.
27 November 2017 Sol88: A lie that ionization has "everything" to do with his cult comet delusions.
Those idiots at Thunderbolts have insane delusions about comets that do not involve ionization of the comet coma. For those who do not know how insane the electric comet is:
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
11 October 2017 Sol88: Abysmal ignorance about his comet delusions which have nothing to do with this post.
No totally insane delusion that comets are rocks blasted from the Earth by electrical discharges when other planets wandered by including recently.
No abysmally ignorant delusion that comet jets are electrical discharges between the comet nucleus and the Sun.

Last edited by Reality Check; 26th November 2017 at 12:47 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th November 2017, 12:52 PM   #715
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Thumbs down Sol88: The idiocy of the title of a paper about comets made of ices and dust

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Houston we have a problem...
of multiple idiocy
27 November 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of the title of a paper about comets made of ices and dust.
Plasma waves confined to the diamagnetic cavity of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko by Gunell, H. et. al.

27 November 2017 Sol88: The idiocy that a diamagnetic cavity is empty (not magnetic field does not mean no plasma!)

27 November 2017 Sol88: The repeated idiocy that a diamagnetic cavity is anything to do with his comet delusions.

Last edited by Reality Check; 26th November 2017 at 12:55 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th November 2017, 12:59 PM   #716
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Thumbs down Sol88: A lie and delusion about a double layer

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
But the diamagnetic cavity is after the double layer, sonwhats stopping the solar wind? Diamagnetic cavity or electric double layer?
27 November 2017 Sol88: A lie and delusion about a double layer and a stupid diamagnetic cavity question.
He been told many times that it is the comet coma that stops the solar wind from reaching the surface of the comet nucleus.
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 26th November 2017, 01:03 PM   #717
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Thumbs down Sol88: A lie about his irrelevant delusion of a coma double layer

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Interesting, ay! So they COULD be there.
27 November 2017 Sol88: A lie about his irrelevant delusion of a coma double layer.
The 1976 paper included the possibility and never detected double layers in comet tails.
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 26th November 2017, 01:06 PM   #718
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Thumbs down Sol88: Idiotic, irrelevant citation of a paper on the diamagnetic cavity of Comet 67P

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
27 November 2017 Sol88: Idiotic and irrelevant citation of a paper on the diamagnetic cavity of Comet 67P (made of ices and dust!)
The idiocy includes that he probably picked this paper because of "Electric Field" in the title.

27 November 2017 Sol88: Stupid promise to derail from his comet delusions by returning to a previous derail.

Last edited by Reality Check; 26th November 2017 at 01:08 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th November 2017, 01:26 PM   #719
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Thumbs down Sol88: Lies about a paper being a problem for the mainstream of ices and dust comets

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
The above paper introduces some new problems for the mainstream!
27 November 2017 Sol88: Lies about a MSc thesis being a problem for the mainstream of comets made of ices and dust.
The author, Birgitte Madsen, stated the obvious that has probably been known since the 1950's. Ices sublimate. This creates gas. The rate of outgassing Q is important!

27 November 2017 Sol88: Idiocy of highlighting the paper describing sublimating ices !
RPC-LAP Electric Field Signatures at the Diamagnetic Cavity of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Quote:
2.2 Generation of cometary boundaries When illuminated by the Sun, energy from the solar radiation causes sublimation of ice from the comet surface. The amount of sublimated ice per time unit is described by the cometary outgassing rate Q, on which the activity level of a comet and the extent of the comet -solar wind interaction region depend on. It is, therefore, highly relevant to estimate Q when doing in-situ observations of the cometary environment. By assuming spherical symmetry and negligible gravitational pull on the cometary neutrals, the observed neutral number density nn at a distance r from the comet nucleus is related to the outgassing rate Q by ...
An estimate for Q is calculated ("Rearranging Eq. (2.22) provides an estimate of the outgassing rate as seen by a spacecraft in the vicinity of a comet")

Last edited by Reality Check; 26th November 2017 at 01:31 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 26th November 2017, 01:33 PM   #720
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Thumbs down Sol88: Yet another pathetic attempt to derail from his comet delusions

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
You may be able to fill the lurkers in here a bit Tusenfem.
The lurkers understand that this is:
27 November 2017 Sol88: Yet another pathetic attempt to derail from his comet delusions with an irrelevant question.
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 04:04 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.