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 18th April 2018, 05:31 AM   #2281
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
As this is new thread with new lurkers, maybe you could give a layman’s rundown on the above equation?
__________________
“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 online now   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 April 2018, 05:45 AM   #2282
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
I was browsing astro-ph last night, as I often do, and came across A Majority of Solar Wind Intervals Support Ion-Driven Instabilities.

Seems to me this deals a death blow to the Electric Sun (ES) idea, and shows the SAFIRE experiment to be total codswallop (hattip to ferd; lovely word).

But I'm not the expert on ES or SAFIRE that you so obviously are, Sol88. So I'd like you to take a look at this and give me your professional opinion: do you agree that it makes mincemeat out of ES?
Where the death blow, Jean Tate?
__________________
“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 online now   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 April 2018, 05:49 AM   #2283
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
As this is new thread with new lurkers, maybe you could give a layman’s rundown on the above equation?
Let me have a go ...

It says that if you've done some physics at university undergrad level, you'll immediately recognize that
a) Sol88 has ~zero understanding of electricity,
b) the Sun is not powered by giant Birkeland currents,
c) SAFIRE (and plasma balls) have nothing to teach anyone except an EU zealot/acolyte (at least, not about the Sun).

How'd I do?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th April 2018, 05:52 AM   #2284
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Quote:
I was browsing astro-ph last night, as I often do, and came across A Majority of Solar Wind Intervals Support Ion-Driven Instabilities.

Seems to me this deals a death blow to the Electric Sun (ES) idea, and shows the SAFIRE experiment to be total codswallop (hattip to ferd; lovely word).

But I'm not the expert on ES or SAFIRE that you so obviously are, Sol88. So I'd like you to take a look at this and give me your professional opinion: do you agree that it makes mincemeat out of ES?
Where the death blow, Jean Tate?
What?!?!

Didn't you read it?

Sorry Sol88, I'm not your servant, and I have no desire to even try to be your teacher ... unless and until I see some evidence of a serious intent to learn something about electricity.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th April 2018, 06:05 AM   #2285
tusenfem
Illuminator
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,197
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
As this is new thread with new lurkers, maybe you could give a layman’s rundown on the above equation?
no, same audience, educate yourself, get some real electrodynamics and plasma physics books
__________________
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 18th April 2018, 07:21 AM   #2286
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 20,891
We know hydrogen fuses in conditions of sufficient heat and pressure (such as occur in the sun).

If something other than fusion powers the sun, something must be preventing fusion from occurring in the sun. But, what?
__________________
"*Except Myriad. Even Cthulhu would give him a pat on the head and an ice cream and send him to the movies while he ended the rest of the world." - Foster Zygote
Myriad 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 April 2018, 07:43 AM   #2287
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Originally Posted by Sol88
Allright, let her rip sport. Tell us all about the magnetic fields and the intense flow of electric current inside coronal loops.
Maxwell-Ampère's Law

curl(B) = mu0 J + c-2 dE/dt
Originally Posted by JeanTate
Originally Posted by Sol88
As this is new thread with new lurkers, maybe you could give a layman’s rundown on the above equation?
Let me have a go ...

It says that if you've done some physics at university undergrad level, you'll immediately recognize that
a) Sol88 has ~zero understanding of electricity,
b) the Sun is not powered by giant Birkeland currents,
c) SAFIRE (and plasma balls) have nothing to teach anyone except an EU zealot/acolyte (at least, not about the Sun).

How'd I do?
Sol88, I've been a bit harsh with you on this, my apologies.

I'd like to help you understand electricity, which you need to do before you can understand plasmas.

So, in the equation ("Law") tusenfem posted, what do each of the letters (symbols) stand for?

To help you out, here is an informative webpage (and site): Ampere-Maxwell. Note that what tusenfem wrote has only letters from the standard 26-symbol alphabet (52 if you count capitals), plus two numbers and two math symbols; on the webpage I provided a link to there are several Greek letters, and some symbols that are neither Greek nor standard alphabet (including at least one diacritic). Also note that whether something is written in bold font or not has important meaning.

Looking forward to seeing you take your first steps to understanding electricity!
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th April 2018, 08:25 AM   #2288
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
haha ha good one sport!

You may have noticed my interest in the electric comet thread? Once the data proves it’s not a sublimating dirtysnowball and they HAVE to look at a new model and that PLASMA plays a far more important role than previously believed.
You have your priorities backwards. The power source for the sun is far larger, and far more significant, than any comet. Figuring that out should be easier to do, and is more important as well.

Quote:
Hello SAFIRE and the electric Sun!

Then we can move on from there and find the power source.


Though if your interested on the best lead and can stomach a little more thunderbolts, thev’e got a good lead going!
The thunderdolts crowd are clueless. They still think Juergens' model (which trivial calculations show would cause the sun to explode) is valid.

Quote:
You know what ENA stands for? Energetic Neutral Atoms. By definition, that's not going to carry a current. Furthermore, which direction are these atoms moving? Away from the sun. To the extent that they transmit power, they transmit it away from the sun, not to it. They are, therefore, powered BY the sun, and cannot be even a small contributor of power TO the sun.

This is so completely wrong one wonders why you ever thought it would help your case. I suspect you just did a google search for some random plasma/electric terms, and threw up a result without actually understanding anything about it.

Quote:
Kinda looks familiar. Your smart i’m Sure you’ll get the picture
The question is, will you figure it out? Signs point to "no".
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 April 2018, 08:33 AM   #2289
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
We know hydrogen fuses in conditions of sufficient heat and pressure (such as occur in the sun).

If something other than fusion powers the sun, something must be preventing fusion from occurring in the sun. But, what?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 April 2018, 08:49 AM   #2290
kmortis
Biomechanoid
Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
 
kmortis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Texas (aka SOMD)
Posts: 32,151
Mod WarningA whole mess of general EU posts were moved off to AAH. Please keep to the topic of SAFIRE here. There are plenty of EU/EC threads to discuss the more general aspects of that school of thought.
Responding to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By:kmortis
__________________
-Aberhaten did it
- "Which gives us an answer to our question. What’s the worst thing that can happen in a pressure cooker?" Randall Munroe
-Director of Independent Determining Inquisitor Of Crazy Yapping
- Aberhaten's Apothegm™ - An Internet law that states that optimism is indistinguishable from sarcasm
kmortis 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 April 2018, 04:44 AM   #2291
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
Effect of the convective field on weakly outgassing comets A. Beth 1⋆ and M. Galand 1

Quote:
In reality, the convective electric field does not act alone but is combined with the ambipolar electric field which counteracts its effect. Indeed, in order to ensure the quasi-neutrality of the plasma, the ambipolar electric field is set up to prevent electrons from escaping the cometary ionosphere. Further investigations should be carried out to assess the combined effect of both electric field on the cometary ionosphere. For instance, the kinetic modelling of the coma, solving the Vlasov-Maxwell equations through a particle-in-cell approach as presented by Deca et al. (2017), could improve our understanding in such a situation.

Pretty much the death knell for the dirty snowball model. What do you think Jean Tate?
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

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

Last edited by Sol88; 19th April 2018 at 04:50 AM.
Sol88 is online now   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 April 2018, 05:55 AM   #2292
tusenfem
Illuminator
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,197
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Effect of the convective field on weakly outgassing comets A. Beth 1⋆ and M. Galand 1

Pretty much the death knell for the dirty snowball model. What do you think Jean Tate?
you quote has nothing to do with your "dirty snowball"
it has everything to do with a weakly outgassing comet
__________________
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 19th April 2018, 07:09 AM   #2293
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
Suprathermal electrons near the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko at 3AU: Model comparisons with Rosetta data H. Madanian1, T. E. Cravens1, A. Rahmati1, R. Goldstein2, J. Burch2, A. I. Eriksson3, N. J. T. Edberg3, P. Henri4, K. Mandt2, G. Clark5, M. Rubin6, T. Broiles2, and N. L. Reedy


Quote:
Three processes must be operating near the nucleus: (1) collisional cooling of suprathermal electrons through electron-neutral collisions, (2) confinement of the electrons near the nucleus by an ambipolar electric field, and (3) enhancement of the fluxes due to compression of the electron gas near the nucleus. We also showed that at 3 AU within 100 km from the nucleus, cooling of suprathermal electrons through electron-neutral collisions becomes significant and a population of cold thermal electrons begins to build up, which is also confined by the ambipolar electric field.
Are you able to tell the lurkers a little on ambipolar electric fields wrt comets, tusenfem?

Just so we are all reading from 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
Sol88 is online now   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 April 2018, 07:11 AM   #2294
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Effect of the convective field on weakly outgassing comets A. Beth 1⋆ and M. Galand 1




Pretty much the death knell for the dirty snowball model. What do you think Jean Tate?
The most important thing I think about your post is this: I really do not know what you mean by "the dirty snowball model".
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2018, 07:22 AM   #2295
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
The most important thing I think about your post is this: I really do not know what you mean by "the dirty snowball model".
As in the widely accepted mainstream model proposed by Whipple.



Quote:
In 1950, Fred Lawrence Whipple proposed that rather than being rocky objects containing some ice, comets were icy objects containing some dust and rock.[153] This "dirty snowball" model soon became accepted and appeared to be supported by the observations of an armada of spacecraft (including the European Space Agency's Giotto probe and the Soviet Union's Vega 1 and Vega 2) that flew through the coma of Halley's Comet in 1986, photographed the nucleus, and observed jets of evaporating material.[154]
See COMETS
__________________
“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 online now   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 April 2018, 07:27 AM   #2296
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
As in the widely accepted mainstream model proposed by Whipple.




See COMETS
Thanks.

Just so that I'm quite clear on this: you mean what Whipple proposed in his 1950 ApJ paper (ADS link)?

As a matter of curiosity, have you read that paper? If so, how well would you say that you understood it?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2018, 10:45 AM   #2297
tusenfem
Illuminator
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,197
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Suprathermal electrons near the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko at 3AU: Model comparisons with Rosetta data H. Madanian1, T. E. Cravens1, A. Rahmati1, R. Goldstein2, J. Burch2, A. I. Eriksson3, N. J. T. Edberg3, P. Henri4, K. Mandt2, G. Clark5, M. Rubin6, T. Broiles2, and N. L. Reedy

Are you able to tell the lurkers a little on ambipolar electric fields wrt comets, tusenfem?

Just so we are all reading from the same page.
you mean "can i explain stuff to you"
read the paper, it is explained was an ambipolar electric field is
__________________
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 19th April 2018, 02:03 PM   #2298
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Thumbs down Still deluded about the "Unexpected and significant findings" comet paper

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Unexpected and significant findings in comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view
20 April 2018: Still deluded about the "Unexpected and significant findings" comet paper
What he quotes again () is the past focus on comets made of more ices and dust, the last decade or so observations of comets with more dust than ices and a suggested name for the material made of more dust than ices.

20 April 2018: Lies about the MUPUS-PEN results.
He has read the abstract of the results: A sintered near-surface microporous dust-ice layer with a porosity of 30 to 65% is consistent with the data. !

20 April 2018: A "well consolidated material, bedrock" lie about the return sample from Wild 2
Stardust collected dust from the comet coma.

Sol88's comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, a "hard shell of refractory material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.

Last edited by Reality Check; 19th April 2018 at 02:11 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 April 2018, 02:10 PM   #2299
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Thumbs down Lies again about an ices and dust comet paper (Beth and Galand)

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Effect of the convective field on weakly outgassing comets A. Beth 1⋆ and M. Galand 1
20 April 2018: Lies again about an ices and dust comet paper (Beth and Galand)

This is a paper on the "dirty snowball model" and the effect of the convective field on the gases emitted from sublimating ices on weakly outgassing comets.

The only relevance is that these lies make the insane electric comet delusions even more insane.
Sol88's comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, a "hard shell of refractory material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock.
+ an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers
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 April 2018, 03:19 PM   #2300
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
you mean "can i explain stuff to you"
read the paper, it is explained was an ambipolar electric field is
All double layers are electric fields.
__________________
“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 online now   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 April 2018, 03:43 PM   #2301
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Thumbs down A "All double layers are electric fields" lie

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
All double layers are electric fields.
20 April 2018: A "All double layers are electric fields" lie when replying to a "ambipolar electric field" post.

For others:
Double layers have electric fields produced by separated layers of charges in plasma..
Ambipolar electric fields are the electric fields produced by not "separated layers" of charges in plasma. Ambipolar diffusion means that electrons diffuse with different velocities then ions, volumes of positive charge density can be left behind and thus electric fields.

Last edited by Reality Check; 19th April 2018 at 03:58 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 April 2018, 03:53 PM   #2302
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Thanks.

Just so that I'm quite clear on this: you mean what Whipple proposed in his 1950 ApJ paper (ADS link)?

As a matter of curiosity, have you read that paper? If so, how well would you say that you understood it?
Yes, i’ve read the paper and understand it well.

Do you think Whipples model still holds?
__________________
“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 online now   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 April 2018, 03:56 PM   #2303
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
20 April 2018: A "All double layers are electric fields" lie when replying to a "ambipolar electric field" post.

For others:
Double layers have electric fields produced by separated layers of charges in plasma..
Ambipolar electric fields are the electric fields produced by not separated layers of charges in plasma. Also see Ambipolar diffusion.
Is this correct 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 online now   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 April 2018, 04:02 PM   #2304
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Thumbs down A dumb question showing his inability to read and understand science

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Is this correct tusenfem?
20 April 2018: A dumb question showing his inability to read and understand science.
I give the definition of double layers and a couple of references to ambipolar electric fields and he cannot understand that they do not have the same source of electric fields (layers versus volumes)!
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 April 2018, 05:51 PM   #2305
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
20 April 2018: A dumb question showing his inability to read and understand science.
I give the definition of double layers and a couple of references to ambipolar electric fields and he cannot understand that they do not have the same source of electric fields (layers versus volumes)!
That’s great! We now have a new plasma expert I can ask questions of with out having to annoy tusenfem all the time.

So do the double layers found at Halley fill your criteria for double layers, rc?

As found by Laakso in Electric Fields and Cold Electrons in the Vicinity of Comet Halley
__________________
“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 online now   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 April 2018, 06:41 PM   #2306
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Thumbs down "plasma expert" and "As found by Laakso" lies

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
That’s great! We now have a new plasma expert....
20 April 2018: A "plasma expert" lie.
It is English that shows that he is lying about ambipolar electric fields being caused by double layers.

20 April 2018: Repeats his "double layers found at Halley...As found by Laakso" lie.

Sol88's comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, a "hard shell of refractory material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.

826 items of ignorance, idiocy (citing irrelevant mainstream papers), delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 13 April 2018 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)

Last edited by Reality Check; 19th April 2018 at 06:42 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 April 2018, 07:18 PM   #2307
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Not necessarily but that they are NOT dirtysnowballs any more either as stated here (again):
And?

The relatively simple concept which you have failed for years to grasp is that disproving one model doesn't prove your alternative. You still need evidence in favor of your model. And you don't have that.

The internal structure of comets isn't exactly what people once thought, though that isn't shocking since we had never previously studied one up close. But we've known for a very long time, and these recent probes only confirm, that comets have a gas tail created by sublimating ices. We also know from these recent probes that they have low mass densities. These facts are incompatible with your model. Comets cannot be rocks blasted off the earth by lightning from Venus, because they aren't made of rock.

The standard model of comets will be adjusted and refined as we gather more data with greater detail and precision. But none of it will make your model correct. We already know it's wrong, because we already have enough data to prove it's wrong. It won't magically stop being wrong.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 20th April 2018, 12:36 AM   #2308
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
And?

The relatively simple concept which you have failed for years to grasp is that disproving one model doesn't prove your alternative. You still need evidence in favor of your model. And you don't have that.

The internal structure of comets isn't exactly what people once thought, though that isn't shocking since we had never previously studied one up close. But we've known for a very long time, and these recent probes only confirm, that comets have a gas tail created by sublimating ices. We also know from these recent probes that they have low mass densities. These facts are incompatible with your model. Comets cannot be rocks blasted off the earth by lightning from Venus, because they aren't made of rock.

The standard model of comets will be adjusted and refined as we gather more data with greater detail and precision. But none of it will make your model correct. We already know it's wrong, because we already have enough data to prove it's wrong. It won't magically stop being wrong.
Ok, I agree some what but...

NEW mainstream model coming up.

Leaning to be more non-volatile (dusty, organics, consolidated) than volatile (icy).

Plasma plays a dominate role.

Way I see it, if Whipple’s model was not used as the basis for designing the Philea lander capture/restraining system and had, at least, the data from the MUPUS-PEN before hand for the designers...hindsight now.

Deal’d be done.

Anywhoo, we prod along with establishing the previously unexpected and somewhat surprising findings from the RPC team.

Hold in there, we are nearly down to the surface. Presently at the “diamagnetic cavity’s” double layer, the one directly above the nucleus.
__________________
“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; 20th April 2018 at 12:55 AM.
Sol88 is online now   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 20th April 2018, 12:37 AM   #2309
tusenfem
Illuminator
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,197
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Is this correct tusenfem?
Sweet dreams are made of this, who am I to disagree?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeMFqkcPYcg
__________________
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 20th April 2018, 12:56 AM   #2310
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Sweet dreams are made of this, who am I to disagree?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeMFqkcPYcg
Great song! We’re an awesome duo
__________________
“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 online now   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 20th April 2018, 01:19 AM   #2311
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
Your paper “A Tail Like No Other” will be an interesting new piece of the pie wrt what we have observed closer to the nucleus.

I’m very much looking forward to it being published so we can start fitting the pieces together.

You know the bigger picture.
__________________
“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 online now   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 20th April 2018, 05:57 AM   #2312
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Yes, i’ve read the paper and understand it well.
Cool!
Quote:
Do you think Whipples model still holds?
Hmm ... not really sure what you mean by "holds", but judging by the large number of citations to the 1950 paper in the last decade or two, I'd say that at least some aspects of the "model" (why the scare quotes? I'm not sure you're using the word in the same way I would, or as would the authors of the >500 papers which cite Wipple's) are still quite useful today.

Anyway, I think Ziggurat's recent post is highly pertinent ...
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 07:22 AM   #2313
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Ok, I agree some what but...

NEW mainstream model coming up.

Leaning to be more non-volatile (dusty, organics, consolidated) than volatile (icy).
That may vary from comet to comet, and will obviously change over the comet's lifetime.

Quote:
Plasma plays a dominate role.
What does this mean? Their orbits are not dominated by plasma, but by gravity. Heating isn't dominated by plasma, but by ordinary light from the sun. Sublimation isn't some weird plasma effect, it's ordinary thermodynamic phase change. So what, exactly, is dominated by plasma?

The gas tail of a comet will exhibit plasma effects, but this has been known for a long time from spectroscopy. I'm sure there's lots to discover about the details, but that requires data, and the EU folks aren't any help in this regard. Nor do these plasma effects support the EU comet theories over mainstream ones.

Quote:
Anywhoo, we prod along with establishing the previously unexpected and somewhat surprising findings from the RPC team.
Some of the findings are unexpected. Lots of them are not. Most of the focus is on the unexpected findings rather than the expected ones because, well, duh.

And frankly, if you don't have any unexpected findings, the mission was probably a waste.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 20th April 2018, 11:33 AM   #2314
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Cool!

Hmm ... not really sure what you mean by "holds", but judging by the large number of citations to the 1950 paper in the last decade or two, I'd say that at least some aspects of the "model" (why the scare quotes? I'm not sure you're using the word in the same way I would, or as would the authors of the >500 papers which cite Wipple's) are still quite useful today.

Anyway, I think Ziggurat's recent post is highly pertinent ...
From your understanding of Whipples paper, jean tate and the data returned from the majority of missions to comet nuclei to date, would it be fair to say the majority of ice is of the subsurface type?

I.e under some form of non volitile refractory/organic’s 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 online now   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 20th April 2018, 11:40 AM   #2315
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That may vary from comet to comet, and will obviously change over the comet's lifetime.



What does this mean? Their orbits are not dominated by plasma, but by gravity. Heating isn't dominated by plasma, but by ordinary light from the sun. Sublimation isn't some weird plasma effect, it's ordinary thermodynamic phase change. [b[So what, exactly, is dominated by plasma?[/b]

The gas tail of a comet will exhibit plasma effects, but this has been known for a long time from spectroscopy. I'm sure there's lots to discover about the details, but that requires data, and the EU folks aren't any help in this regard. Nor do these plasma effects support the EU comet theories over mainstream ones.



Some of the findings are unexpected. Lots of them are not. Most of the focus is on the unexpected findings rather than the expected ones because, well, duh.

And frankly, if you don't have any unexpected findings, the mission was probably a waste.
Ummmm.....those “plasma effects” comprise electrical circuits not just “local” to the nucleus! Like in the ELECTRIC COMET

If we start adding up some of the spatial scales involved including the data from Ulysses, Vega 1-2, and Rosetta...

No doubt gravity/mass/momentum is at play here but the very paper jean tate referenced above is comets don’t all ways play the gravity game nicely. And it’s pretty clear from the data returned the “little rockets” (cometary “jets”) have no cards in the game.
__________________
“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; 20th April 2018 at 11:45 AM.
Sol88 is online now   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 20th April 2018, 11:48 AM   #2316
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That may vary from comet to comet, and will obviously change over the comet's lifetime.



What does this mean? Their orbits are not dominated by plasma, but by gravity. Heating isn't dominated by plasma, but by ordinary light from the sun Sublimation isn't some weird plasma effect, it's ordinary thermodynamic phase change. So what, exactly, is dominated by plasma?

The gas tail of a comet will exhibit plasma effects, but this has been known for a long time from spectroscopy. I'm sure there's lots to discover about the details, but that requires data, and the EU folks aren't any help in this regard. Nor do these plasma effects support the EU comet theories over mainstream ones.



Some of the findings are unexpected. Lots of them are not. Most of the focus is on the unexpected findings rather than the expected ones because, well, duh.

And frankly, if you don't have any unexpected findings, the mission was probably a waste.
Infrared heat, the only tool in your kit to tinker on Whipples sublimation model!

Far more than good ‘ol sunlight going on with comets and the Sun!
__________________
“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; 20th April 2018 at 11:50 AM.
Sol88 is online now   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 20th April 2018, 11:50 AM   #2317
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
From your understanding of Whipples paper, jean tate and the data returned from the majority of missions to comet nuclei to date, would it be fair to say the majority of ice is of the subsurface type?

I.e under some form of non volitile refractory/organic’s layer?
Really interesting question, Sol88!

Let's make sure we're on the same page, OK?

"the majority of missions to comet nuclei to date" - Rosetta and 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko, sure. What other missions, and comets, did you have in mind?

"the majority of ice is of the subsurface type" - "majority": By mass? volume? something else? "ice": as in H2O? or all ices, which would include CO2? something else?

"of the subsurface type" - gonna need help here! Ice is ice (unless you're referring to things like crystalline, amorphous, etc; are you?), so maybe you mean ~is not within {some distance} of the surface?

"under some form of non volitile refractory/organic’s layer" - that seems to make the "subsurface" term clearer (I assume "volitile" is a typo, you mean "volatile", right?) But ... is a film of ~a few molecules' thickness such a layer? or does it have to be, say, ~100m?

Oh, and why is Whipple's paper relevant?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 11:58 AM   #2318
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Ummmm.....those “plasma effects” comprise electrical circuits not just “local” to the nucleus!
So what? Their spatial extent may be huge (depending on what you want to include), but that's hardly the only measure of their importance, is it?

Quote:
No doubt gravity/mass/momentum is at play here but the very paper jean tate referenced above is comets don’t all ways play the gravity game nicely.
Yeah, who would have thought that ejecting gas could push an object in space?

Quote:
And it’s pretty clear from the data returned the “little rockets” (cometary “jets”) have no cards in the game.
I don't believe you.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 20th April 2018, 12:08 PM   #2319
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Infrared heat, the only tool in your kit to tinker on Whipples sublimation model!

Far more than good ‘ol sunlight going on with comets and the Sun!
Why would I be stuck with only Whipple's 1950 paper? That makes no sense.

But even in regards to that paper, you're confused. The full spectrum of light coming from the sun acts to heat the surface of the comet, not just infrared light. It's the subsequent transfer of heat from the surface to the interior which relies upon infrared radiation, since the surface isn't hot enough to radiate in the visible or above.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 20th April 2018, 12:11 PM   #2320
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Really interesting question, Sol88!

Let's make sure we're on the same page, OK?

"the majority of missions to comet nuclei to date" - Rosetta and 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko, sure. What other missions, and comets, did you have in mind?

"the majority of ice is of the subsurface type" - "majority": By mass? volume? something else? "ice": as in H2O? or all ices, which would include CO2? something else?

"of the subsurface type" - gonna need help here! Ice is ice (unless you're referring to things like crystalline, amorphous, etc; are you?), so maybe you mean ~is not within {some distance} of the surface?

"under some form of non volitile refractory/organic’s layer" - that seems to make the "subsurface" term clearer (I assume "volitile" is a typo, you mean "volatile", right?) But ... is a film of ~a few molecules' thickness such a layer? or does it have to be, say, ~100m?

Oh, and why is Whipple's paper relevant?
Ok, we’ll narrow the scope. What was the percentage of surface ice on 67P?

Yada Yada yada....

Therfore all the rest of the “ice” required of whipples model is subsurface. Under some form of consolidated non-volatile/organicly layer and ,at least visually, the consolidated “stuff” is very rocky like, so we could call it rock?


__________________
“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; 20th April 2018 at 12:16 PM.
Sol88 is online now   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 01:11 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.