The Electric Comet Theory /SAFIRE Part V

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Snipped.

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 !

struck out text not applicable at this time. So just strawman. The two unstruck are valid points.

Actually, it's not scientifically IMPOSSIBLE, just need charge separation and another source of ionisation other than photoionisation, say energetic electron impact ionisation. Along those lines. Sublimation not observed or needed at 3AU.

Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus
of comet 67P during periods of low activity

Quote:

We have investigated through simulation the electrostatic charging of the nucleus of Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko during periods of weak outgassing activity. Specifically, we have modeled the surface potential and electric field at the surface of the nucleus during the initial Rosetta rendezvous at 3.5 AU and the release of the Philae lander at 3 AU. We have also investigated the possibility of dust acceleration and ejection above the nucleus due to electrostatic forces. Finally, we discuss these modeling results in the context of possible observations by instruments on both the Rosetta orbiter and the Philae lander

Quote:

We have shown that charged dust grains with radii o50 nm may be electrostatically ejected from the nucleus at most SZAs. Using profiles of the cometary outgassing rate at the surface scaled to the actual observations of cometary activity by Rosetta, we have provided an estimate for the flux of charged nanograins ( agrain .2 nm) that are emitted from the surface. While these dust particles are too small to be observed by the dust instruments on the Rosetta orbiter, we have shown that the flux of charged nanograins above the dayside and near-terminator nucleus is sufficiently high to be detected by the RPC–IES instrument. We have also shown that the flux of charged nanograins from the shadowed areas within the comet’s plasma wake is insufficient to yield a significant count rate in RPC–IES instrument.

So not impossible, per se. Just not reconcilable with the dirtysnowball model.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Due to being scientifically impossible??

Why?

Religious belief in scientifically impossible woo??

How?

Everything you post is religious belief in scientifically impossible woo.

The fact that everyone even slightly involved in actual science in space disagrees with you does not make you the lone visionary, even though you think it does.

[Sol88]

^^^^^

How exactly are the only two unstruck sentences above of reality check’s any different from, jonesdave116, you and blow me, down with a feather, tusenfem.

Explain more betterer.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

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

Unless the EC proponents are willing to put forward their ideas in a real paper, I know nothing (Jon Snow)

Originally Posted by Sol88

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

There is a matrix of meteoritic material in your beloved dirty snowball.
Skorov is most likely wrong, as he got some of the coefficients in his work wrong, something that was pointed out by experimentalists of his own group in Braunschweig. And then that kite does not fly.
And it is of absolutely non-importance if you want to call the meteoritic material rock or not. The surface of old comets is covered in sintered dust. That is why we will fly to a new fresh comet with ESA's comet interceptor mission.
Nevertheless, all the phantasies of the EC proponents are nice in words, but as soon as you put actual numbers to it, they fail staggeringly.

Originally Posted by Sol88

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????

It is you who keeps on bringing up the old Whipple model of the 50s and then in the misunderstood version. I quoted in my review paper directly from the horse's mouth about what Whipple's model is. Read it again.

Originally Posted by Sol88

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

Anywhoo...

Yes, anywhoo indeed, I have no idea what this last thing is supposed to say. If you would read the actual papers you would know what the ratio of neutrals vs plasma is (it is a wee bit larger than 1, he said sarcastically).

This is such a useless discussion, no wonder we need hundreds of pages and are still nowhere on the eufemistically called "Electric Comet Theory" (in the title, I call it an idea). Every little thing in mainstream papers are grabbed on to say "See, EC!!" but usually it is just bad reading by the EC proponent. So, I am already regretting again, getting into the discussion. It is time to move on, EC is dead, and BepiColombo is flying to Mercury. Other work is calling.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

Actually, it's not scientifically IMPOSSIBLE, just need charge separation and another source of ionisation other than photoionisation, say energetic electron impact ionisation. Along those lines. Sublimation not observed or needed at 3AU.

Yes it is scientifically impossible. I have asked you once already. For avoidance of doubt, answer the following questions, or go away with this idiocy;

1. What charge separation?
   
2. What does charge separation have to do with impossible and unobserved EDM (lol) woo?
   
3. How does it relate to the observation the the jets, that the idiot Thornhill thinks are electric discharges, are in fact just cold, neutral gas and dust. With ice sometimes thrown in?
   
4. How does charge separation account for thousands of tonnes of ice blasted out of Tempel 1?
   
5. How does charge separation account for the complete lack of rock at comets?
   
6. How does it account for the measured density?
   
7. How does it account for the gases observed?

That'll do for now. So, get on with it, and start explaining your impossible idiocy with some actual science.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Where is the demarcation line?

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

Positively. How is that fitting into your woo? Remember Nordheim's paper (that you still don't understand)? What does sunlight do to the dust? Which side of the comet is the vast majority of the dust coming from - sunlit side, or dark side?

Quote:

What stops the dust being charged when the coma forms?

The observation that it is not being affected until already a ways out from the comet? What, pray tell, is charging it once the solar wind is getting nowhere near the comet? And a diamagnetic cavity forms? Sunlight is all there is left. And to what sign is sunlight charging the dust? You really need to think about these things, before asking stupid questions.

Quote:

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.

You know nothing about any of that. So you are incapable of having any meaningful discussion about it. Your fields are p*** weak, and pointing the wrong way. And any surface fields will be strongest when the solar wind has access to the surface. Which just happens to coincide with the period when the comet is at its most quiescent. So, another dumb idea, yes? And these fields will be present on a permanent basis at asteroids. Why are they not turning into comets? A question you keep running away from. Because it falsifies your woo in one fell swoop, n'est-ce pas?

Quote:

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

Just as it is at asteroids. And the Moon. See above.

Quote:

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

It is nothing to do with your woo. And has long been investigated by real scientists. For avoidance of doubt, answer the following question;

Why are asteroids not turning into comets?

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by 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???.

Wrong, once more de "dirty snowball" (because you love it so much)

Quote:

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. Actually, this model was
developed to explain the non‐Keplerian behavior of
comets (specifically comet 2P/Encke).

And then, if you would actually READ Whipple [1950, Astrophys. J., 111, 375, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/19....375W/abstract, open access through ADS] you would find a 20 page paper filled with math.

You do know it is a mortal sin to lie, don't you?

Basically, you have no knowledge of basic history and development of space plasma physics.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Due to being scientifically impossible??

Why?

Religious belief in scientifically impossible woo??

How?

Errrrm, due to EDM (lol) not being possible in any astrophysical setting? Due to the impossiblity of the solar wind creating water in the way the idiot Thornhill claimed? Due to the impossibility of the comet having its measured density, and claims that it is rock? Due to the impossibility of impossible electric woo blasting chunks of Earth (or wherever) into space?
I could go on. Therefore, given its scientific impossibility, the only reason to carry on believing such idiotic nonsense is purely as part of a quasi-religious belief system. It has nothing to do with science.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

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

Which King? Willem Alexander?

nano grains: from LLera et al.: Gombosi et al. (2015) estimated that a 1 nm grain could be composed of the equivalent of 200 water molecules (~6 × 10⁻²⁴ kg), and a 10 nm grain would contain 10⁵ molecules (3 × 10⁻²¹ kg).

So they are 200 to 10⁵ times as heavy as the ions that I consider, and even heavier if they are not water only but also contain silicates. This means they have so much inertia that they basically play no role in any of the dynamics that I am interested in.

But why do I tell you? You're not interested in any reasons I may have.

Originally Posted by Sol88

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.

Well no, never lots of 'spare electrons" whatever these may be, be they king or not.

Originally Posted by Sol88

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.

Again, no, comprehensive reading and actual understanding of plasma physics would bring a lot, instead of purposely cherry picking parts of sentences and give your own interpretation to them.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Errrrm, due to EDM (lol) not being possible in any astrophysical setting? Due to the impossiblity of the solar wind creating water in the way the idiot Thornhill claimed? Due to the impossibility of the comet having its measured density, and claims that it is rock? Due to the impossibility of impossible electric woo blasting chunks of Earth (or wherever) into space?
I could go on. Therefore, given its scientific impossibility, the only reason to carry on believing such idiotic nonsense is purely as part of a quasi-religious belief system. It has nothing to do with science.

EDM (lol) not being possible in any astrophysical setting? I’ll have to chew on that for awhile.

[JeanTate]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Unless the EC proponents are willing to put forward their ideas in a real paper, I know nothing (Jon Snow)
<snip>

This.

Unless and until there is an EC Model/Theory/Hypothesis - a quantitative one of course - it’s all a waste of time and electrons.

Sol88 knows this.

So how do his posts differ from trolling?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

....

Sol88 lies about jonesdave116's post, his demented question and my post answering that demented question.

jonesdave116 wrote Try again. With some actual science. No rock. No discharges. Your woo was dead before it started. Due to being scientifically impossible.
This is the fact that the electric comet is scientifically impossible as shown close to the start of this thread 11 years ago !
That is a part of why the electric comet is demented dogma. The complete lack of any science is why it is demented dogma. Sol88's insane rants also show that it is demented dogma because eSol88 cannot support it with scientific evidence and so has to resort to lies, delusions, insults, etc.

Sol88 asked a demented question about why his woo is scientifically impossible when that has been explained for over 10 years and is even in my signature .

I listed why Sol88's demented dogma is scientifically impossible:

Originally Posted by Reality Check

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 !

For the umpteenth time:
No sane person would state that comets are actual rock when 70 years ago their measured densities are less than water. Thus we have Sol88's demented cult with insane prophets spewing out dogma believed in by gullible fools.

[JeanTate]

Originally Posted by Sol88

EDM (lol) not being possible in any astrophysical setting? I’ll have to chew on that for awhile.

Indeed.

But invisible pink fairies are all over the place!

Forget Electric Comets, Sol88, and embrace the truth!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Actually, it's not scientifically IMPOSSIBLE,....

Sol88 usual insane rant about "Sublimation not observed or needed at 3AU"

Sol88's demented dogma has no electrostatic lifting of nanograins via the solar wind when comets are beyond the snowline. That is mainstream ices and dust science. Doubly insane because everyone knows that comets do not stay at 3 AU! Once they are inside the snowline their ices will sublimate, a coma will form and shields the nucleus from the solar wind. Electrostatic lifting of nanograins stops.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Explain more betterer.

Done: Sol88 lies about jonesdave116's post, his demented question and my post answering that demented question.

For others
Consider "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 !"
Sol88 and his demented cult have never asked the basic question of what is the total mass of comets and what happens when we remove that from rocky planets!
Oort cloud (outer part): "Its total mass is not known, but, assuming that Halley's Comet is a suitable prototype for comets within the outer Oort cloud, roughly the combined mass is 3×1025 kilograms (6.6×1025 lb), or five times that of Earth.[3][18]"
Thus Sol88 has the scientifically impossible delusion that Mercury + Venus + Earth + Mars used to be up to 5 Earth masses heavier.

Restricting ourselves to just the known comets still leaves Sol88 with still scientifically impossible delusion. Now we are talking about removing a surface layer maybe kilometers thick from rocky planets over time. Removing a mass of a single comet such as 67P would release energy perhaps equivalent to the dinosaur killer asteroid. Where are the thousands of mass extinctions on Earth?

Sol88's scientifically impossible delusions are still there if we ignore rocky planets and/or life not existing. Orbital mechanics tells us that no comet has ever originated at a rocky planet . We trace comets back to the outer solar system beyond Jupiter.

Sol88's scientifically impossible delusions are still there if we ignore rocky planets and/or life not existing and orbital mechanics. No comet has been observed to be actual rock ! Their densities average out to 0.6 g/cc.

Sol88's scientifically impossible delusions are still there if we ignore rocky planets and/or life not existing and orbital mechanics and measured densities.
Deep Impact ejecta was measure to have 20-50% water. 67P has calculated dust/ices ratios of at most 6, i.e. at least 17% ices.

Sol88's scientifically impossible delusions are still there if we ignore rocky planets and/or life not existing and orbital mechanics and measured densities and measured amounts of ices. We have samples of cometary dust from the Stardust mission ! Not one grain of rock that can only come from rocky planets was found. No limestone. No sandstone. No granite. No basalt.

ETA: Sol88's scientifically impossible delusions include that Earth is a magical, special place that their "laws of physics" do not apply to!
Sol88 and his demented cult have the planets whizzing around the solar system. Except obviously Earth which has had life for billions of years with a relatively stable temperature which requires a stable orbit.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

EDM (lol) not being possible in any astrophysical setting? I’ll have to chew on that for awhile.

Sol88's at least 10 year long delusion about EDM! Anyone who can understand English can understand that Electric Discharge Machining is electrical dicahcarges thru a dielectric liquid between metal electrodes and a metal surface.

I had foolishly thought that the proposers of the electric comet idea knew a bit about electrical discharge machining. It seems that they do not. 20th August 2009 a couple of posts later Sol8 writes complete ignorance about what EDM is!
Sol88's demented dogma wants the insanity of a dielectric liquid surrounding a comet + metal electrodes (the magical solar electric field that Sol88 denies is in his dogma) + a metal nucleus !

The truly demented nature of EDM from Sol88 and his cult is revealed when we find "The observed jets of comets are electric arc discharges to the nucleus, producing “electrical discharge machining” (EDM) of the surface".
Sol88 believes in the scientifically impossible insanity that jets are electrical discharges! A child can tell this is insane when they see images of jets vanishing into shadows (jets reflect light, not emit light). We know this is insane because we do no detect any appropriate radiation, jets are traced back to low lying features, we have images of jets from inside pits, they have the spectrum of gases and dust, etc.
Also "The jets and surface topography of comets are consistent with EDM erosion of a cathode surface" is Sol88 and his cult "I see bunnies in the clouds" idiocy. The jets bit is an insane delusion as before. The surface of comets even before 67P's varied terrain of comets are nothing like the smooth surface produced by EDM. Tempel 1 had cliffs, etc.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by JeanTate

Indeed.

But invisible pink fairies are all over the place!

Forget Electric Comets, Sol88, and embrace the truth!

Just ‘ cos then?

[JeanTate]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Just ‘ cos then?

Dude!

Face facts!!

The EC has passed on. Ceased to be. Is no more. Expired and gone to meet its maker. Bereft of life. Kicked the bucket. Shuffled off the mortal coil. Run down the curtain. Joined the choir invisible. (Etc; hat tip to Monty).

And it never even had beautiful plumage.

[Indagator]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Page 34 of Part V? Really? What a WASTE!

Sol88! You are NO 'electric comet' expert!

I still see NO science! NO math! NO model! NO evidence!

Just more of the same tired lies, errors, misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and hatred! In over a decade on the ISF, you've failed to present anything of value regarding an 'electric comet' model! Pathetic show, Sol88! Truly pathetic!

On the flip side, I'm genuinely flattered ... and howling with laughter!!!

Thank you for citing me in your signature line (which you will no doubt change in short order)!

I record here, for future reference, the quotation Sol88 was using up to this point ...

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

Apparently, you have no clue how damning this quote is to your silly, anti-science religion, so let me restate in a way that might be more palatable to you! Perhaps you'd rather use one of the following ...!

"The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream plasma physics! PERIOD! True story! End of story!"

"The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using garden variety plasma physics! PERIOD! True story! End of story!"

"The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using kinetic particle-in-cell codes! PERIOD! True story! End of story!"

In my world, Sol88, we have a saying! "If it can be measured, it can be modeled!"

To that end. there are whole archives of data waiting for someone in the 'eu/es/ec' to explore! Never going to happen, is it?

The 'electric universe' is nothing more than a scam religion!

Remember, Sol88! The internet never forgets! And I hope to spend a little more time on here reminding you of that very fact!!! Have a nice day!

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

EDM (lol) not being possible in any astrophysical setting? I’ll have to chew on that for awhile.

Really? Anybody that is qualified beyond moron level can see that such a claim is idiotic. Why can't you? Taken in by the idiot Thornhill and his lies, were we? You do realise that the aforementioned cretin knows the square root of zero about science, don't you?
Sol, you have been conned. By a complete fruitloop. He is a moron. With zero scientific understanding of any relevant science. Or any sort of science whatsoever, as far as I can see. He is a con artist. And you have been conned.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by JeanTate

This.

Unless and until there is an EC Model/Theory/Hypothesis - a quantitative one of course - it’s all a waste of time and electrons.

Sol88 knows this.

So how do his posts differ from trolling?

They don't. However, one is seemingly allowed to get away with that on this forum. Calling people out for being the idiots that they are, however, will get you suspended. Incoming...................

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Really? Anybody that is qualified beyond moron level can see that such a claim is idiotic. Why can't you? Taken in by the idiot Thornhill and his lies, were we? You do realise that the aforementioned cretin knows the square root of zero about science, don't you?
Sol, you have been conned. By a complete fruitloop. He is a moron. With zero scientific understanding of any relevant science. Or any sort of science whatsoever, as far as I can see. He is a con artist. And you have been conned.

Occasionally I look at Thornhill's blog to see what physics he is purposely lying about and how Wal is lying about his demented dogma.

"Wal Thornhill: Big Bang – Time to Wipe the Chalkboard Clean" is a rather insane video on cosmology.
The Hubble constant tension is that we measure that the universe is expanding but we are not sure which of the rates are correct. The Thunderbolts cult has the universe is not expanding at all!
The narrator's stupidity of non-cosmology discoveries about stars, galaxies and quasars. The narrator hints at a deluded rant from Wal on about a New Scientist "17 More Things You Need To Understand" article which lists textbook physics, e.g. the first is the theoretical and empirical fact of the constant speed of light in vacuum. Wall delivers !

• Wal whines about that the article starts with math, not the cosmology model, when the next section is the Big Bang.
• Gibberish about observing a "balance" for the Solar System, etc.
• Wal lies that there is no gravitational explanation for spiral galaxies.
• Some "something equivalent to an explosion" stupidity.
• Wal's delusion that some unnamed philosopher is a scientist! Gravity being an "unbalanced force" gibberish.
• An insane lie that gravity only works (is attractive) within the solar system.
  Basically every star only exists because gravity works!
  The structure of the universe from galaxy groups upward is evidence that gravity works.
• Wal brings up and lies about Halton Arp's work (no gravity is attractive and repulsive in Arp's work!).
  Arp had the bad idea that some alignments meant that quasars were ejected from other galaxies. Arp believed in a "variable mass hypothesis" so quasars start with low enough mass to be ejected.
  Arp had a blog article describing him looked at "Le Sage” Gravity but Le Sage's theory of gravitation is not repulsive (as in the opposite of an attractive force) gravity. It is bodies being pushed together by hypothetical particles.
• Delusions and lies about the Big Bang being explained by electric universe fantasies.
• A "just expand to a point and just sit there" delusion as a problem for the Big Bang.
• Wal lies that there is a lack of real physics in how the Big Bang originated.
  The Big Bang is applying real physics to the current universe and running time backward as far as we can. The origin of the Big bang is unknown because there is n real physics that works there!
• Wal insanely lies about the Wikipedia article on the Big Bang while showing it!
  The singularity is "an infinite density and temperature", not a "very hot and dense state".
• "physically meaningless" insanity about the hot dense state of the early universe in the Big Bang.
  Wal wants this hot dense state to contain stars, planets, etc. !
• Back to his insane lie that that a hot dense state is a singularity.
  Also some abysmal ignorance about the nature of infinity. If you treat infinity as a number, then you can add, subtract, multiple and divide infinity and numbers including infinity. But you get infinity back!
• At last some truth!
  The singularity at t = 0 does say that GR, etc. have failed at t = 0. But nothing has failed for t > 0.
• Back to his insane lie that that a hot dense state is a singularity.
• Delusions about GR and energy, observers being at the center of their own universe, absolute reference frame madness "required by all great physicists" insiatiy as if Einstein,, Hawking, etc. did not exist !

This is as far as I got before I getting absolutely disgusted with his continuous delusions and lies.

[SelfSim]

Just a passing update .. finally, after years of persecution by MM, CFs has decided to 'reclassify' its handling of EU nonsense ... Thank goodness!
(.. Maybe there is a 'god' after all? ):

Quote:

Non mainstream science is a broad spectrum term ranging from the non application of science/mathematics resulting in conspiracy theories and pseudoscience, to the use of science/mathematics which is not currently supported by experiment and observation such as protoscience and fringe science.

Non mainstream science topics would include the following:

Global Warming as a hoax, Apollo moon landing as a hoax.
Electric universe, Flat Earth Theory
Astrobiology, String Theory
Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND), Abiogenic Petroleum origin.​

Non mainstream science is not to be discussed in the mainstream science forum as it is off topic and will be moved.

The 'Universe scale Birkeland Currents' thread was one of the first to be moved to the new sub-forum, after being classified as pseudoscience.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by SelfSim

Just a passing update .. finally, after years of persecution by MM, CFs has decided to 'reclassify' its handling of EU nonsense ... Thank goodness!
(.. Maybe there is a 'god' after all? ):



The 'Universe scale Birkeland Currents' thread was one of the first to be moved to the new sub-forum, after being classified as pseudoscience.

Hahahahaha! Brilliant. Poor old Michael (not)! He is in the process of avoiding a poster on reddit called NGC(something or other), who is extremely scientifically literate. That's in the PU sub, from which I was banned. By Michael!
Heck, even Graham Hancock's forum kicked the stellar metamorphosis crap into 'conspiracy theories', as it doesn't count as science. Sadly, the denizens of ISF still have to put up with such idiocy.

[jonesdave116]

Yikes, this interweb thing is scary, isn't it? I think I sent JT a link to something, via a PM. If it hasn't worked, and JT is around, here we go;

https://np.reddit.com/user/NGC6514

Scroll down to replies to the idiot Mozina. Among other wooists.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Occasionally I look at Thornhill's blog to see what physics he is purposely lying about and how Wal is lying about his demented dogma.

Sorry about the snip, RC. However, didn't the same cretin claim that gravity must act faster than light? Based on his belief in another cretin? Was it van Flandern (?sp). Some loon, anyway. The guy is a cretin. Hasn't got the brains he was born with. Assuming he was born with any.
No wonder the clueless idiot sikked David Talbott on us. The coward.

[jonesdave116]

Oh, and if anybody is still interested, I am putting the finishing touches to a letter to the IRS in the U.S. regarding the funding of the SAFIRE woo. Stay tuned, pop pickers.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Sorry about the snip, RC. However, didn't the same cretin claim that gravity must act faster than light? Based on his belief in another cretin?

Thornhill supports the insane idea that gravity is electromagnetic ("Electric Gravity in an ELECTRIC UNIVERSE"). He cites a nutter called Ralph Sansbury with a fantasy about atoms. Then comes Thornhill's insanity of "Gravity is due to radially oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the Earth’s protons, neutrons and electrons.", etc. The speed of gravity is his own delusion ("Gravity must act instantly for the planets to orbit the Sun in a stable fashion") followed by a madder delusion of a near infinite speed for the electric force at "our cosmic scale, as it must inside the electron" (the less mad part highlighted since there is no evidence that an electron has an inside). We do know that the electric force propagates at c.
"Einstein’s postulates are wrong" insanity when the constancy of the speed of light is an experimental fact. The laws of physics being the same for all observer is a reasonable assumption and supported, e.g. the Voyager spacecraft sill work according to Earth's laws of physics, main sequence stars work like the Sun.
Deluded lies about the Michelson-Morley basement experiment and a more vigorous Miller experiment. There were 15 MM type experiments from 1881 to 1930 of which 13 gave null results, even 1 from Miller! The 2 outliers were by Miller and later analysis "found Miller's apparent signals to be statistically insignificant".
Thornhill has a delusion that "a plenum of neutrinos forms the aether": By this point the mechanical qualities of the aether had become more and more magical: it had to be a fluid in order to fill space, but one that was millions of times more rigid than steel .... Filling space with neutrinos that hardly interact with each other is not a fluid more rigid that steel!

And it gets more insane in this quote from Thornhill: "Magnetism, gravity and the nuclear forces are all different manifestations of the electric force at vastly different scales," !

Tom Van Flandern was a believer in some pseudoscience (Sage's theory of gravitation , the Face on Mars, Steady State cosmology), indulged in the fallacy of false dichotomy (problems with the Big Bang does not support any other models), and that the speed of gravity was enormously than light or infinite. Unfortunately he died in 2009 before the detection of gravitational waves measured the speed of gravity to be c to within small limits.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Errrrm, due to EDM (lol) not being possible in any astrophysical setting? Due to the impossiblity of the solar wind creating water in the way the idiot Thornhill claimed? Due to the impossibility of the comet having its measured density, and claims that it is rock? Due to the impossibility of impossible electric woo blasting chunks of Earth (or wherever) into space?
I could go on. Therefore, given its scientific impossibility, the only reason to carry on believing such idiotic nonsense is purely as part of a quasi-religious belief system. It has nothing to do with science.

So the Dirtysnowball is the correct model then

Quote:

EDM (lol) not being possible in any astrophysical setting?

Why? You still hung up on charge separation? Electric fields maybe? For sure, double layers...

Both can be quite variable.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Indagator

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Page 34 of Part V? Really? What a WASTE!

Sol88! You are NO 'electric comet' expert!

I still see NO science! NO math! NO model! NO evidence!

Just more of the same tired lies, errors, misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and hatred! In over a decade on the ISF, you've failed to present anything of value regarding an 'electric comet' model! Pathetic show, Sol88! Truly pathetic!

On the flip side, I'm genuinely flattered ... and howling with laughter!!!

Thank you for citing me in your signature line (which you will no doubt change in short order)!

I record here, for future reference, the quotation Sol88 was using up to this point ...

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

Apparently, you have no clue how damning this quote is to your silly, anti-science religion, so let me restate in a way that might be more palatable to you! Perhaps you'd rather use one of the following ...!

"The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream plasma physics! PERIOD! True story! End of story!"

"The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using garden variety plasma physics! PERIOD! True story! End of story!"

"The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using kinetic particle-in-cell codes! PERIOD! True story! End of story!"

In my world, Sol88, we have a saying! "If it can be measured, it can be modeled!"

To that end. there are whole archives of data waiting for someone in the 'eu/es/ec' to explore! Never going to happen, is it?

The 'electric universe' is nothing more than a scam religion!

Remember, Sol88! The internet never forgets! And I hope to spend a little more time on here reminding you of that very fact!!! Have a nice day!

So, just physically impossible then? Or we have not measured it? Or we still use the Dirtysnowball and can’t reconcile the anomalous data?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

So the Dirtysnowball is the correct model then



Why? You still hung up on charge separation? Electric fields maybe? For sure, double layers...

Both can be quite variable.

Is a complete bunch of gibberish. I have asked you - how is any of that causing EDM (lol)? Can we have a scientific explanation, step-by-step, of how it would cause such a thing as this;

https://www.etmm-online.com/what-is-...work-a-689686/

Where has this been detailed by somebody who understands any of the relevant science? Hint: it hasn't. Nobody with such knowledge would be stupid enough to suggest such nonsense.
I repeat - it is scientifically impossible in an astrophysical setting.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

So, just physically impossible then? Or we have not measured it? Or we still use the Dirtysnowball and can’t reconcile the anomalous data?

Physically impossible. And none of the data is irreconcilable, only Patzold's data based on his estimation of the fallback rate. Which no other team seems to agree with. And has zero relevance to the failed electric comet woo.

[JeanTate]

Originally Posted by Sol88

So, just physically impossible then?

What's "physically impossible"?

Per the EC, EDM on comets?

Yep.

Quote:

Or we have not measured it?

What's "not measured"?

EDM on comets?

Yep.

Quote:

<stuff irrelevant to the EC snipped>

So, theoretically impossible and empirically not observed.

The EC is doing great, 0 for 2!

In simpler terms, the EC would be pushing up daisies if you hadn't nailed it to the perch, Sol88.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Physically impossible. And none of the data is irreconcilable, only Patzold's data based on his estimation of the fallback rate. Which no other team seems to agree with. And has zero relevance to the failed electric comet woo.

Physically impossible is a bit strong!

Quote:

We showed that in the few (• 5 m) meters high vicin- ity of the comet the dust particles and the surface are oppositely charged; therefore this region is void of dust.

. Charged dust dynamics above the surface of a comet far from the Sun

Dusty plasma... tell me about this sheath they talk about in the above paper in relation to the diamagnetic cavity you are dead set certain is caused by increased “outgassing” stoping the solar wind.

This stops sol88’s electric fields that are in play at the time of a threshold to the sublimation model...the Dirtysnowball... for what of a better term of the new model mainstream are now using, coming into play.

This increased outgassing stops the solar wind, correct jonesdave116?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Physically impossible is a bit strong!

. Charged dust dynamics above the surface of a comet far from the Sun

Dusty plasma... tell me about this sheath they talk about in the above paper in relation to the diamagnetic cavity you are dead set certain is caused by increased “outgassing” stoping the solar wind.

This stops sol88’s electric fields that are in play at the time of a threshold to the sublimation model...the Dirtysnowball... for what of a better term of the new model mainstream are now using, coming into play.

This increased outgassing stops the solar wind, correct jonesdave116?

Huh? None of that has the least bit of relevance to your woo in general, and EDM (lol) in particular. Whatever makes you think it does?
And outgassing deflects the solar wind. It ain't getting near the nucleus for months. As observed, and as predicted. We also saw the same thing in artificial comet experiments. Sans comet.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

Charged dust dynamics above the surface of a comet far from the Sun

Whoops, I see that your comprehension skills have gone walkabout. Again. Let me highlight the relevant part of that title;

far from the Sun

[jonesdave116]

I alluded to the AMPTE artificial comet experiments, in post #1355. These were a set of experiments carried out in the solar wind, back in 1984-5. There were plenty of papers written on these experiments. They are still available, and mostly free access. Their existence would seem to be unknown to the electric comet authors, and those who follow them.
So, why are they relevant to what Sol is suggesting about the outgassing not being responsible for the solar wind and diamagnetic cavities? Well, all they consisted of was lithium or barium gas being exploded from a canister, and the effects of that being observed by spacecraft in the vicinity. As we can see here;

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

Therefore, this has been common knowledge to all who have an interest in the subject of comets, for nearly three and a half decades. Plenty of time for it to have sunk in, one would have thought.
So, what do they say in the above paper? Well, it is scanned from a journal, so I cannot copy/ paste tracts of it here. And I am not going to write it out, word for word. However, we can summarise as follows;

A diamagnetic cavity was formed.

Wasn't difficult that, was it?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Whoops, I see that your comprehension skills have gone walkabout. Again. Let me highlight the relevant part of that title;

far from the Sun

How far from the sun before your Dirtysnowball model takes over, ie sublimation from the heat of the sun.

2.0AU. 1.5AU?

I postulate it never stops.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

I alluded to the AMPTE artificial comet experiments, in post #1355. These were a set of experiments carried out in the solar wind, back in 1984-5. There were plenty of papers written on these experiments. They are still available, and mostly free access. Their existence would seem to be unknown to the electric comet authors, and those who follow them.
So, why are they relevant to what Sol is suggesting about the outgassing not being responsible for the solar wind and diamagnetic cavities? Well, all they consisted of was lithium or barium gas being exploded from a canister, and the effects of that being observed by spacecraft in the vicinity. As we can see here;

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

Therefore, this has been common knowledge to all who have an interest in the subject of comets, for nearly three and a half decades. Plenty of time for it to have sunk in, one would have thought.
So, what do they say in the above paper? Well, it is scanned from a journal, so I cannot copy/ paste tracts of it here. And I am not going to write it out, word for word. However, we can summarise as follows;

A diamagnetic cavity was formed.

Wasn't difficult that, was it?

From the increased outgassing from sublimation you mean? The Dirtysnowball model?

Or

I’ve said it’s the electric field doing the work, ie the electric comet.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

How far from the sun before your Dirtysnowball model takes over, ie sublimation from the heat of the sun.

2.0AU. 1.5AU?

I postulate it never stops.

You can postulate what you like. You are wrong, and have zero science to back it up. I have told you before - the distance at which water ice starts to sublime is ~ 3.5 AU.