The Electric Comet Theory /SAFIRE Part V

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Sol88 persists with demented questions unrelated to his demented cult's dogma.
Sol88 persists with insane lies about comets which have real neutral gases from sublimating ices.

Sol88 has an new insane delusion that he can mandate what scientific models contain (even with a ).
Rational people know that the solar wind and comet coma plasma have ions and electrons so there will be electric fields in them, thus that is included in the mainstream comet model but not Sol88's demented dogma!
Rational people know that the solar wind can electrostatically charge dust on the surface of comets when they do not have a shielding coma, thus that is included in the mainstream comet model but not Sol88's demented dogma!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

And more nonsense. High activity is not the dirty snowball model. It is the OBSERVED behaviour of comets. Do you understand the meaning of that word?

Love it, so blind to the NEW data right in front of you BECAUSE it must comply with the only theory you have, the dirtysnowball!

P.S you said the dirtysnowball is dead, so the NEW mainstream theory...what is it then?

No one except Reality Check has made an attempt to answer anything, and only came up with the Icydirtball.

Which is still the condensation/sublimation model!


again...

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Love it, so blind to the NEW data right in front of you BECAUSE it must comply with the only theory you have, the dirtysnowball!

P.S you said the dirtysnowball is dead, so the NEW mainstream theory...what is it then?

No one except Reality Check has made an attempt to answer anything, and only came up with the Icydirtball.

Which is still the condensation/sublimation model!


again...

And more lies and nonsense. When I said it is observed, I mean it is OBSERVED. Understand? Sublimation is observed. Ice is observed. Gas is observed. Dust is observed. The density is observed.
I repeat - do you know what observed means? Yes or no?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

More of almost 11 years of insanity: The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma (updated 13 Feb 2020).

Sol88 replies with an insane rant when jonesdave116 states the real world fact that the main activity of comets is observed to happen when ices are sublimating !
An insane lie that we do not consider new data.
Usual demented questions.
An insane lie that I came up with a "Icydirtball" model. There were a few articles that said that comets can be described as icy dirt balls. That may or may nor be accepted as the name of mainstream ices as and dust comets if it is found that the majority of comets have more dust than ices. For now the mainstream ices as and dust model is still called the dirty snow ball model. This is even stated in Sol88's insanity about A'Hearn.
The quote that is the basis of Sol88 spews out his insane insult of M. A’Hearn and all astronomers yet again ! is A’Hearn saying astronomers are evolving more toward (i.e. have not reached yet!) comets being made of mostly of rock, where rock is not Sol88's demented rock but the ices and dust we detect on comets.
Usual insane ignorance of the actual name applied to Whipple's 1950's model which was "dirty snow ball".

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

Love it, so blind to the NEW data right in front of you BECAUSE it must comply with the only theory you have, the dirtysnowball!

No, that is just you lying about what the model is and what it says. You continually lie that we are still back in the 50s, with no further knowledge of comets since then. Lying is all you seem to do. There sure as hell is no science forthcoming.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

No, that is just you lying about what the model is and what it says. You continually lie that we are still back in the 50s, with no further knowledge of comets since then. Lying is all you seem to do. There sure as hell is no science forthcoming.

So what model are you using?




No answer, again....

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Sol88's persists with an insane obsession with the name of a model that is not his demented dogma about comets or the Sun.
The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma (updated 13 Feb 2020).

Say we call the model Fred. It will still be a rational scientific model backed up with a century of empirical data !

The name of the rational scientific model that people use for comets is the dirty snowball model. In a few decades with more data we may rename it to the icy dirt ball model or maybe the "less dirty more snowball" model if the data goes the other way!

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

So what model are you using?




No answer, again....

Exactly the same model that all the scientists are using. Do you not understand the written word? I would estimate that there have been > 1000 papers on the Rosetta mission by now. Countless thousands more on other comet observations. Why don't you read them? More to the point, why don't you avail yourself of an education that renders you capable of understanding them? Instead of making up unscientific crap, and lying about a whole bunch of other stuff.
In short, the model used is the one that is confirmed by OBSERVATION.

[jonesdave116]

A very short observation on the difference between what Sol believes, i.e. pseudoscience, and real science;

Real science - observe comets. Make a very reasonable hypothesis, long before we had ever visited one, or had any data of note on them, that they must be formed at least partly of ices. And that the sublimation of those ices causes the dust tails that we see. Continue to observe and visit comets. Adjust parameters of the model as required based on new information.

Pseudoscience - claim, 20 years after the first definitive detection of water vapour at comets, that it isn't there. Refuse to alter that stance, despite umpteen observations confirming it since then. Make up scientifically impossible woo to try to explain things that cannot possibly happen, and were already shown not to happen 20 years prior to writing aforementioned woo. Base the whole of this belief system on lies and obfuscation, due to not understanding any of the relevant science. Attempt to monetise this woo by selling books and DVDs on it to equally scientifically inept, gullible fools.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Exactly the same model that all the scientists are using. Do you not understand the written word? I would estimate that there have been > 1000 papers on the Rosetta mission by now. Countless thousands more on other comet observations. Why don't you read them? More to the point, why don't you avail yourself of an education that renders you capable of understanding them? Instead of making up unscientific crap, and lying about a whole bunch of other stuff.
In short, the model used is the one that is confirmed by OBSERVATION.

So the dirtysnowball model, FFS

for instance

Quote:

1. Introduction
Comets are small solar system bodies consisting of a mixture of volatile and refractory materials, which were left over after the formation of the outer planets. The volatiles are dominated by H2O, CO, and CO2
[Bockelée-Morvan et al., 2004; Hässig et al., 2015], partly released from the nucleus when insolation increases as a comet enters the inner solar system . This gas, and the refractory dust that it entrains, forms a coma enveloping the comet nucleus.

Photoionization of the neutral gas by solar extreme ultraviolet radiation, as well as charge exchange and electron impact reactions with the solar wind and high-energy electrons, combines to
produce a cometary ionosphere [Combi et al., 2004], with a dust component charged by the competing effects of photoelectron emission and attaching plasma electrons.

Evolution of the plasma environment of comet 67P from spacecraft potential measurements
by the Rosetta Langmuir probe instrument


Edgeamakate my self on incorrect model, good one sport!


Again when the very papers say otherwise, (no dirtysnowball) they are poo pooed by you!

Smells funny to me, educated or not!

for instance

Quote:

Photoionization of the neutral gas by solar extreme ultraviolet radiation

how does this happen when the coma is optically thick?

It doesn't, electron impact ionisation does not photoionization, this is the dirtysnowball model still... which you have already stated is WRONG!

Trouble in the camp buttercup!

[Sol88]

moot point anyway.

All the EC needs are ROCK, CHARGE SEPARATION and ELECTRIC FIELDS the rest is just standard garden variety of plasma physics!

None of this in the dirtysnowball!

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Annnndddd....

I’ve asked a quizzillion times what model ARE you using?

Crickets is all I’ve heard, ergo you have no model.

You are still use sublimation and heat from the Sun as your main drivers, this is Whipple Dirtysnowball model.



Which model are the mainstream using now than tusenfem?

You would know what model I use if you read my papers.

My model is plasma physics, I don't need Whipple's model, I look at the data and I see what happens, e.g. the boundaries passing over Rosetta as the IMF is draping around the nucleus during the dayside excursion (https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201935517), or I look at what the near-tail looks like (https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201832198), or look at current sheets in the (nested) draped magnetic field region near the cometn (https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JA023861).

And yes, when I write a review paper, then indeed I need to mention Whipple, but that is not my work (Currents in Cometary Comae, in: Electric Currents in Geospace and Beyond, Geophysical Monograph 235, Ch 30).

Naturally, we do see the water and the CO2 coming off the comet (and from different locations on 67P), and as all comets, activity started to increase after the boundary of Jupiter's orbit was crossed. That is the location that solar irradiation should be enough to start sublimation and the nearer the comet gets to the Sun the more active it becomes. Well this could be "electric" of course, if it were not for the fact that the greatest activity of the comet is after perihelion, because of thermal inertia.
And then again, Whipple's model was never a "Dirty Snowball", that is what people started to call it. If you would actually going to the beast's mouth you would find that:

Originally Posted by me

In the early 1950s, some important insights about
comets were obtained. Whipple [1950] combined all
spectral observations and published the now well‐known
“dirty snowball” model of comets. In this model, the
nucleus of the comet is seen as a conglomeration of
volatile ices (such as H2O and CO2) bound in a solid rocky
body of meteoritic material.

And after "many" missions to comets, this all developed, first to the "Snowy Dirtball" and then on from there.

But, you may just stick to your strawman dirty snowball, if you like. Hey, it's a free country with freedom of speech.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

moot point anyway.

All the EC needs are ROCK, CHARGE SEPARATION and ELECTRIC FIELDS the rest is just standard garden variety of plasma physics!

None of this in the dirtysnowball!

Then I am sure that you and your cronies can write an actual paper about the EC idea. All the data is there, you can easily download it and work with it.
Garden variety plasma physics should not be a problem for a real EU proponent.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

So the dirtysnowball model, FFS

for instance Evolution of the plasma environment of comet 67P from spacecraft potential measurements
by the Rosetta Langmuir probe instrument


Edgeamakate my self on incorrect model, good one sport!


Again when the very papers say otherwise, (no dirtysnowball) they are poo pooed by you!

Smells funny to me, educated or not!

for instance how does this happen when the coma is optically thick?

It doesn't, electron impact ionisation does not photoionization, this is the dirtysnowball model still... which you have already stated is WRONG!

Trouble in the camp buttercup!

What the hell are you lying about now? Whipple didn't mention anything about plasma physics. And you wouldn't recognise science if you fell over it. That is why you are in a state of permanent befuddlement, whenever science is actually discussed. You don't understand enough about it to have an opinion, let alone criticise others that do understand it. Stick to mythology woo. Far safer.
Photoionisation obviously happens. For it not to happen, the coma would have to be so optically thick as not to permit any light to reach it at all! Do you know what the prefix photo- refers to? Learn a little Greek. It refers to light. All that is need for photoionisation to occur is for light to be incident upon the gas. It is. As any idiot would know and can see. You see, the nucleus reflects light. If it didn't we wouldn't bloody well see it! So, we know it is getting that far, don't we?
Now go away, and write "I don't understand what 'optically thick' means", 1000 times.

An Easy-to-Use Model for the Optical Thickness and Ambient Illumination within Cometary Dust Comae
Müller, M. et L. (2002)
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10...-017-1088-6_10

And nothing you have quoted is at all at odds with the models used for comets from Whipple's day, until now. And none of it is any help to your failed, unscientific woo.

And I have not stated anything is wrong with Whipple's model. Only that the ratio of dust to ice is better known now than it could possibly have been then. His model still works as far as everything else is concerned. As I said, he didn't trouble himself much with the plasma physical effects in the coma. Biermann and Alfven started that, iirc.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Then I am sure that you and your cronies can write an actual paper about the EC idea. All the data is there, you can easily download it and work with it.
Garden variety plasma physics should not be a problem for a real EU proponent.

Against the mainstream? Never going to happen. It will though happen exactly like this

Quote:

The German physicist Max Planck said that science advances one funeral at a time. Or more precisely: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

What the hell are you lying about now? Whipple didn't mention anything about plasma physics. And you wouldn't recognise science if you fell over it. That is why you are in a state of permanent befuddlement, whenever science is actually discussed. You don't understand enough about it to have an opinion, let alone criticise others that do understand it. Stick to mythology woo. Far safer.
Photoionisation obviously happens. For it not to happen, the coma would have to be so optically thick as not to permit any light to reach it at all! Do you know what the prefix photo- refers to? Learn a little Greek. It refers to light. All that is need for photoionisation to occur is for light to be incident upon the gas. It is. As any idiot would know and can see. You see, the nucleus reflects light. If it didn't we wouldn't bloody well see it! So, we know it is getting that far, don't we?
Now go away, and write "I don't understand what 'optically thick' means", 1000 times.

An Easy-to-Use Model for the Optical Thickness and Ambient Illumination within Cometary Dust Comae
Müller, M. et L. (2002)
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10...-017-1088-6_10

And nothing you have quoted is at all at odds with the models used for comets from Whipple's day, until now. And none of it is any help to your failed, unscientific woo.

And I have not stated anything is wrong with Whipple's model. Only that the ratio of dust to ice is better known now than it could possibly have been then. His model still works as far as everything else is concerned. As I said, he didn't trouble himself much with the plasma physical effects in the coma. Biermann and Alfven started that, iirc.

So, a Dirtysnowball.

Quote:

Photoionisation obviously happens. For it not to happen, the coma would have to be so optically thick as not to permit any light to reach it at all! Do you know what the prefix photo- refers to? Learn a little Greek. It refers to light. All that is need for photoionisation to occur is for light to be incident upon the gas. It is. As any idiot would know and can see. You see, the nucleus reflects light. If it didn't we wouldn't bloody well see it! So, we know it is getting that far, don't we?

And what is stoping the solar wind reaching the surface? You misunderstood diamagnetic cavity or the magnetically field aligned ambipolar electric field?

I know what my moneys on....

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

You would know what model I use if you read my papers.

My model is plasma physics, I don't need Whipple's model, I look at the data and I see what happens, e.g. the boundaries passing over Rosetta as the IMF is draping around the nucleus during the dayside excursion (https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201935517), or I look at what the near-tail looks like (https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201832198), or look at current sheets in the (nested) draped magnetic field region near the cometn (https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JA023861).

And yes, when I write a review paper, then indeed I need to mention Whipple, but that is not my work (Currents in Cometary Comae, in: Electric Currents in Geospace and Beyond, Geophysical Monograph 235, Ch 30).

Naturally, we do see the water and the CO2 coming off the comet (and from different locations on 67P), and as all comets, activity started to increase after the boundary of Jupiter's orbit was crossed. That is the location that solar irradiation should be enough to start sublimation and the nearer the comet gets to the Sun the more active it becomes. Well this could be "electric" of course, if it were not for the fact that the greatest activity of the comet is after perihelion, because of thermal inertia.
And then again, Whipple's model was never a "Dirty Snowball", that is what people started to call it. If you would actually going to the beast's mouth you would find that:



And after "many" missions to comets, this all developed, first to the "Snowy Dirtball" and then on from there.

But, you may just stick to your strawman dirty snowball, if you like. Hey, it's a free country with freedom of speech.

So which bit stops you from understanding the electric comet?

Rock?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

moot point anyway.

All the EC needs are ROCK, CHARGE SEPARATION and ELECTRIC FIELDS the rest is just standard garden variety of plasma physics!

None of this in the dirtysnowball!

Lol. More rubbish. You have no charge separation. You have no rock. Fail. Please detail the scientific process whereby any charge separation could cause EDM (lol). Step-by-step. With the requisite equations. Please show what electric fields have got to do with the aforementioned, and why they are not doing anything visible at asteroids. In fact, why not concentrate fully on asteroids. What is failing to make them behave like comets? You want real rock? Asteroids are the place to go. So, why aren't the vast majority of them lit up like the 4th of July? This will be the same question that indagator asked, and you chickened out of answering. Have another go.

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Against the mainstream? Never going to happen.

Why not? After all, you explained that it was easy, and using garden variety physics. Surely, you do not need to wait for funerals for something as simple as that?

Strange that your favourite quote about science advancing on funeral at a time, when in fact the only funeral we are looking at here is of one scientist who you happen to quote in your support. This funeral thing is not working the way you want it?

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

And what is stoping the solar wind reaching the surface? You misunderstood diamagnetic cavity or the magnetically field aligned ambipolar electric field?

I know what my moneys on....

I don't care what your money is on, as it is bound to be a certain non-runner. We know what stops the solar wind reaching the nucleus. Mass loading from cometary ions. As observed. As predicted before it was seen. Probably by Biermann, again. There is nothing else it can be.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

So which bit stops you from understanding the electric comet?

Rock?

Far be it from me to reply on Tusenfem's behalf, but I suspect it is due to you not actually having a scientifically valid model to assess. The people who dreamed up this rubbish are completely ignorant of cometary science in general, and plasma physics in particular. They are Velikovskian mythologists. No wonder that their woo makes no scientific sense, and is only believed by a handful of equally scientifically challenged acolytes.
Whatever it is, it is not science.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Sol88

So which bit stops you from understanding the electric comet?

You mistake us, my lord. We understand it. It's just not true.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

So, a Dirtysnowball.

What is your obsession with having to label any model? Caught that from the idiot Thornhill, haven't you? He lied about it enough times, as well, the clown.
Whipple envisioned a comet that was a mixture of dust and ice, with the latter predominating. What we have now, is a mixture of dust and ice, with the former predominating. It is still a mixture of dust and ice. Of that there is no doubt.
I haven't read Whipple's paper in ages, but I'm pretty sure he did not even address the physics of the interaction of the coma with the solar wind. Studies of the solar wind were in their infancy, and nobody knew if it even existed.
Alfven's 1957 paper dealt with the draping of the magnetic field around the comet, following Biermann's suggestion of a solar wind, based on the observations of comet tails, outlined in a paper in 1953. Whipple's first paper was in 1950. The subsequent theory of cometary interaction with the solar wind was written upon by others. For instance;

The interactions of the solar wind with a comet
Biermann, L., Brosowski, B., & Schmidt, H. U. (1967)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1967SoPh....1..254B

We knew sod all about the solar wind for quite a few years after Whipple wrote his papers. Its existence wasn't even confirmed in-situ until 1959.

So, let's see what Biermann et al suggested in 1967;

Quote:

The flow pattern always contains a widely detached bow shock and a contact discontinuity separating a cavity with purely cometary plasma from the transition region containing also solar wind ions.

And what did we see in 1986 when we went and had a look at Halley? That Biermann was right.

So, what about others? Did they think Biermann was correct prior to the confirmation in 1986? Was his plasma physical description up to scratch?

Quote:

THE presence of magnetic fields in the plasma tails of comets is suggested by the rayed structures and helical features observed in them1. According to the present picture of the solar wind-comet interaction (see, for example, ref. 2) it is, however, not at all clear how the interplanetary magnetic field could mix with the cometary plasma in the tail because the solar wind and the associated interplanetary field is separated from the cometary plasma by a contact surface.

Magnetisation of comets
Mendis, A. & Alfven, H. (1974)
https://www.nature.com/articles/248036a0#

So, yep, nobody thought he had made an obvious error. Alfven wrote little more on comets, but Mendis wrote a lot.

So, to cut a long story short, the solar wind not reaching the surface is a natural expectation from sound plasma physics, as attested by decent scientists, even before it was confirmed.
Quite why the electric wooists are so keen to diss the likes of Whipple, Biermann, Alfven et al, is beyond me. They certainly have no plasma physicists to compare to them. In fact, they have no plasma physicists full stop.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

So which bit stops you from understanding the electric comet?

Rock?

As there is no electric comet theory, I think it is pretty obvious what stops me from understanding it. There is nothing there to even remotely understand.

A huge electric field from the Sun, comets and other stuff having to equilibrate with it, huge discharges, water is created by proton impact. All very entertaining ideas, but there is nothing in actual spacecraft data that shows these things.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Far be it from me to reply on Tusenfem's behalf, but I suspect it is due to you not actually having a scientifically valid model to assess. The people who dreamed up this rubbish are completely ignorant of cometary science in general, and plasma physics in particular. They are Velikovskian mythologists. No wonder that their woo makes no scientific sense, and is only believed by a handful of equally scientifically challenged acolytes.
Whatever it is, it is not science.

Well, that was a good interpretation of what I would have written, and did write above :-)

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

As there is no electric comet theory, I think it is pretty obvious what stops me from understanding it. There is nothing there to even remotely understand.

What also stops anyone from understanding the electric comet is that Sol88 has spent years lying about it here! It is much more than "comets are rock" which would be just an absurdly ignorant statement.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

As there is no electric comet theory, I think it is pretty obvious what stops me from understanding it. There is nothing there to even remotely understand.

A huge electric field from the Sun, comets and other stuff having to equilibrate with it, huge discharges, water is created by proton impact. All very entertaining ideas, but there is nothing in actual spacecraft data that shows these things.

Mate, you’ve been round the traps bloody long enough to know what’s what now.

What if Patzold, Skorov even old mate A’Hearn ARE not wrong?

Forget the Velikosky/creatationist malarkey. Data’s in.

We all can agree on one thing, the Dirtysnowball has been assigned to history.

So that leaves a revised dust to ice ratio more dirty less snowy sorta thing ‘cos it’s on the rather light side, Dirtysnowball model????

Ie Neutrals sublimating from insolation, model, just more dust less ice...

Anywhoo...

[Sol88]

You happen to ummm, notice no maths was used to get the general idea that comets sublimate in the heat of the Sun and wham bam thank you ‘ma’am....the Dirtysnowball???

We still observe the coma and tail from a variety of comets on this little blue ball whipp’n thru space (Sol’s plasma stream)’ ergo still must be a shed load of water to see what we see...the Dirtysnowball.

Not one of your answer has suggested otherwise...

There are papers starting to join the dots, seems academica is reluctant to go full retard. We all know you never go full retard. Velikosky may be ridiculed but that should be no impeadment to moving forward.

On the electric comet...

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma (updated 13 Feb 2020).
Stupid demand to educate a decades long follower of a demented cult that has not learned what we have tried to tell him in almost 11 years.
An insane lie that any paper says that comets are not ices and dust (dirty snowball).
Usual demented questions.

Next post:
Sol88 repeats insane lies about So88's demented dogma.
Sol88 repeats insane lies mainstream comets that do have charge separation and electric fields as in the many papers Sol88 has cites !.

Next post:
Sol88's insanity about scientific publishing and his quote from Max Planck.
If his demented cult prophets could write a scientifically valid paper on comets, they would get it published.
What Max Planck said was that new valid science (not demented dogma) progresses by the funerals of scientists upholding the previous scientific truth.

Quote:

The German physicist Max Planck said that science advances one funeral at a time. Or more precisely: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

Next post:
Sol88's usual demented question when the fact that the coma blocks the solar wind has been explained to him many times.
Sol88 insanely lies about about a "misunderstood" diamagnetic cavity or the magnetically field aligned ambipolar electric field that are textbook physics.

Next post:
Sol88's usual insane lies about his demented dogma which is not just the obviously deluded "comets are rock". What makes his dogma completely demented is where his "rock" comes from (blasted from planets, etc.) and what Sol88 insanely believes his delusion does (discharges in a massive solar electric field, etc.).

Next post:
Sol88's insane lies about Patzold, Skorov and A’Hearn.
Patzold, Skorov and A’Hearn have never wrote about (or even heard of!) Sol88's demented dogma. If Patzold and Skorov were not wrong than comets comae would sill be comet comae A’Hearn wrote only on comtes made of ices and dust but then we have: Sol88 spews out his insane insult of M. A’Hearn and all astronomers yet again !
Sol88 wants to hide how demented his cult prophets are! Talbott and Thornhill are Velikosky cranks . Maybe Scott too.
Persistent insane "Data’s in" lie from Sol88 when there is no data about his demented rock being found on comets.

"We all can agree on one thing, the Dirtysnowball has been assigned to history." is Sol88 persists in insane lying about posters when we have been stating for years that the dirty snowball model is still correct .
What has changed is the scientific progress that Soll88 hates! As we have learned more about comets that model has been upgraded, e.g. the addition of electrostatic lifting of dust in the 1980's. We have some evidence that comets may have more dust and ices: 2 out of billions of comets (Tempel 1 and 67P).

Next post:
Sol88 goes completely insane and lies about no math in the dirty snowball model for "comets sublimate in the heat of the Sun" !
Insane gibberish and lies are the rest of the post. Sol88 seem to believe the insanity that we only observe comets from Earth's surface when we have orbiting telescopes and have sent many spacecraft to them !

Next post: Sol88's usual insanity, demented questions and lies about a tusenfem post.
Next post: Sol88's usual insanity, demented questions and lies about a tusenfem post.
Next post: Just Sol88's usual insanity, demented questions and lies.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

You would know what model I use if you read my papers.

My model is plasma physics, I don't need Whipple's model, I look at the data and I see what happens, e.g. the boundaries passing over Rosetta as the IMF is draping around the nucleus during the dayside excursion (https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201935517), or I look at what the near-tail looks like (https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201832198), or look at current sheets in the (nested) draped magnetic field region near the cometn (https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JA023861).

And yes, when I write a review paper, then indeed I need to mention Whipple, but that is not my work (Currents in Cometary Comae, in: Electric Currents in Geospace and Beyond, Geophysical Monograph 235, Ch 30).

Naturally, we do see the water and the CO2 coming off the comet (and from different locations on 67P), and as all comets, activity started to increase after the boundary of Jupiter's orbit was crossed. That is the location that solar irradiation should be enough to start sublimation and the nearer the comet gets to the Sun the more active it becomes. Well this could be "electric" of course, if it were not for the fact that the greatest activity of the comet is after perihelion, because of thermal inertia.
And then again, Whipple's model was never a "Dirty Snowball", that is what people started to call it. If you would actually going to the beast's mouth you would find that:



And after "many" missions to comets, this all developed, first to the "Snowy Dirtball" and then on from there.

But, you may just stick to your strawman dirty snowball, if you like. Hey, it's a free country with freedom of speech.

thermal Charge inertia.

The Plasma sheath acts to limit the amount of charge than can be lost per unit of time/movement thru the solar wind. I’m sure there is some funky +- flipping thing going on that messes up the magnetic field data from Rosetta and is extremely hard to reconcile with any sublimation model.

Quote:

Naturally, we do see the water and the CO2 coming off the comet (and from different locations on 67P), and as all comets

Well, natuurlijk.

Some, lots?? appears to be hydrocarbons in the form of that elephant in the room, organics...

And if in the electric comets there ARE cathode arcs eroding ROCK and some of this rock was in the form of a carbonate, natuurlijk.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

I will do nothing with those grains, as they have absolutely no influence on the things that I am discussing. They are to sparse and too heavy to have any influence on the results of my published papers.

So, how about the EC published papers?

How heavy compared to the ions are king model that you use?

Deca et also have really only just started looking into electrons, which are king by the way, along with the dust being negatively charge close to the nucleus and becoming positive further into the coma.

Lots of spare electrons.

Charges seem to be spatially separated, ergo there seem to be enough seperation to cause all the funky electric field stuff going on.

So it may influence your future papers is my guess. The dust natuurlijk, plays a huge part in this electric comet gig.

[Sol88]

Notice, no maths to get a general philosophy across.

With the correct interpretation of all the a papers so far on the NEW findings, plasma and dust wise at 67P and a coherent summery there of, will be quite an interesting read though.

Be nice to throw The Nucleus of Comet 67P/ChuryumovGerasimenko - Part I: The Global View – nucleus mass, mass loss, porosity and implications

Part II into the mix.

Hypothetically tusenfem, what if Poor old Patzolds on the money and the fall back calculation is correct, now that we know the dust is negatively charged and after losing quite a bit of charge, electrons, in the process of becoming a positive charge and acting like a massive ion?

You are saying, no effect? Nix? In relation to your published papers?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Notice, no maths to get a general philosophy across.

With the correct interpretation of all the a papers so far on the NEW findings, plasma and dust wise at 67P and a coherent summery there of, will be quite an interesting read though.

Be nice to throw The Nucleus of Comet 67P/ChuryumovGerasimenko - Part I: The Global View – nucleus mass, mass loss, porosity and implications

Part II into the mix.

Hypothetically tusenfem, what if Poor old Patzolds on the money and the fall back calculation is correct, now that we know the dust is negatively charged and after losing quite a bit of charge, electrons, in the process of becoming a positive charge and acting like a massive ion?

You are saying, no effect? Nix? In relation to your published papers?

Zilch. Patzold is wrong. Not a single instrument team agrees with him. And I don't think he is saying what you are lying about him saying. Want me to email him? Grow a pair, yes? Email or not? And why does it have to be me? Why don't you do it? Because you have no understanding of any of the relevant science. Correct (rhetorical)?
You really are rather pathetic.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

How heavy compared to the ions are king model that you use?

Deca et also have really only just started looking into electrons, which are king by the way, along with the dust being negatively charge close to the nucleus and becoming positive further into the coma.

Lots of spare electrons.

Charges seem to be spatially separated, ergo there seem to be enough seperation to cause all the funky electric field stuff going on.

So it may influence your future papers is my guess. The dust natuurlijk, plays a huge part in this electric comet gig.

Your 'guess' is no more worthy of attention than the ramblings of a tabloid astrologist. Lern to scienz. Yes? And stop polluting this forum with idiotic woo.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

thermal Charge inertia.

The Plasma sheath acts to limit the amount of charge than can be lost per unit of time/movement thru the solar wind. I’m sure there is some funky +- flipping thing going on that messes up the magnetic field data from Rosetta and is extremely hard to reconcile with any sublimation model.



Well, natuurlijk.

Some, lots?? appears to be hydrocarbons in the form of that elephant in the room, organics...

And if in the electric comets there ARE cathode arcs eroding ROCK and some of this rock was in the form of a carbonate, natuurlijk.

Dom. Try again. With some actual science. No rock. No discharges. Your woo was dead before it started. Due to being scientifically impossible. Not a single scientist is involved with such idiocy. How come, Sol? Why is it only Velikovskian idiots, with no scientific qualifications? Idiots who only want to sell DVDs and books to equally idiotic cretins, with no understanding of any relevant science? For that matter, any science whatsoever?
Tell us Sol - how far to the left of the IQ Bell Curve do you need to be to be accepted by these cretins? I am thinking that the next postcode is not close enough. What say you?

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

Hypothetically tusenfem, what if Poor old Patzolds on the money and the fall back calculation is correct, now that we know the dust is negatively charged and after losing quite a bit of charge, electrons, in the process of becoming a positive charge and acting like a massive ion?

Is gibberish, whatever language one speaks. The dust, as we now know, is charged to both + and - in the coma. The dust is neutral when it leaves the nucleus. Want me to quote the relevant passages, before you lie some more about what people who are infinitely more intelligent than you are actually saying? Of course you don't. You'll run away. Yet again.
Give up. If you are trying to prove that you have some sort of religious belief in scientifically impossible woo, then assume that we already understand that. What we also understand, is that science is waaaaaay beyond you.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Dom. Try again. With some actual science. No rock. No discharges. Your woo was dead before it started. Due to being scientifically impossible. Not a single scientist is involved with such idiocy. How come, Sol? Why is it only Velikovskian idiots, with no scientific qualifications? Idiots who only want to sell DVDs and books to equally idiotic cretins, with no understanding of any relevant science? For that matter, any science whatsoever?
Tell us Sol - how far to the left of the IQ Bell Curve do you need to be to be accepted by these cretins? I am thinking that the next postcode is not close enough. What say you?

Due to being scientifically impossible??

Why?

Religious belief in scientifically impossible woo??

How?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Is gibberish, whatever language one speaks. The dust, as we now know, is charged to both + and - in the coma. The dust is neutral when it leaves the nucleus. Want me to quote the relevant passages, before you lie some more about what people who are infinitely more intelligent than you are actually saying? Of course you don't. You'll run away. Yet again.
Give up. If you are trying to prove that you have some sort of religious belief in scientifically impossible woo, then assume that we already understand that. What we also understand, is that science is waaaaaay beyond you.

Where is the demarcation line?

It's charged AT the surface when "weakly outgasing" no question there.

What stops the dust being charged when the coma forms?

Love to talk about the diamagnetic cavity along with magnetic field aligned ambipolar electric fields, or polarization electric fields maybe the Hall electric field but we know about them. The new science, your scientifically impossible woo, is the small scale intense surface electric fields.

Found mainly on the terminator line at the junction of light/shadowed areas.


Is this, impossible scientific woo, jonesdave116? or just not applicable to sublimating icy cometary bodies?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Sol88's usual demented questions. Sol88's demented dogma that been shown to be scientifically impossible for maybe a century .

We have had at least 70 years of measurements of comet densities and the average density is less than water. Comet 67P has a density of 0.533 ± 0.006 g/cm3, a high porosity (70%?) and at least 17% ices. That fact alone makes any person believing that comets are actual rock deluded.

The blatant dementia and insanity is revealed from the rest of Sol88's demented cult's dogma.
Scientifically impossible for enough actual rock to be removed from planets since just observed comets are a sizable fraction of planetary masses. In Sol88's demented dogma, we probably do not exist !
Scientifically impossible for Sol88's demented dogma of planets departing their orbits ands whizzing around to fit his delusions.
Scientifically impossible for Sol88's demented dogma of electrical discharges between planets.
Scientifically impossible for Sol88's demented dogma of EDM shaping comet nuclei.
Scientifically impossible for Sol88's demented dogma that jets are electrical discharges.
Scientifically impossible for Sol88's demented dogma to be correct because all Sol88 has is the deluded fantasies of a cult. No published physics at all on comets !

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

....

Sol88's usual demented questions, insanity about comets, and lies about posts and posters. Just more of The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma (updated 13 Feb 2020).