ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events 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 11th August 2017, 07:28 PM   #121
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,781
Originally Posted by ferd burfle View Post
Here's a link for Sol's second quote

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...8205/802/1/L12

Note that the "equivalent bulk density" figure missing from his quote is "< 1 kg m-3"

Sol still wants us to think the barest mention of dust or charge implies rocks or lightning bolts. Sad.
Did they mention how they arrived at that figure? <1kgm-3?

Quote:
particle crosses a laser curtain, and is detected by photoelectric sensors (GDS, grain detection system) registering a signal (proportional to the particle cross section times the albedo) and the time at which the laser curtain is crossed. Then the particle hits the impact sensor (IS, with the same GDS cross section, A=10−2m2), which registers the individual particle impact momentum and its travel time from GDS to IS. The combination of GDS and IS measurements (GDS+IS particles) provides the particle mass and velocity, and constrains the particle bulk density by means of calibration curves (Della Corte et al. 2016) derived on the ground using cometary analogues (Ferrari et al. 2014). If the particle is too small to be detected by the GDS system, it may be detected by the IS sensor only (IS particles): in this case the particle momentum is converted to the mass assuming the mean value of the velocities of the GDS+IS particles in the same momentum bin, or assuming the velocities predicted by tail models (Fulle et al. 2010) if Ngds+is =0 in that mass bin. The spacecraft velocities listed in Table 1 are always much lower than the dust velocities measured by GIADA.
Quote:
3. PARTICLE CHARGEThe charge carried by a fluffy particle of radius R and equilibrium potential U iswhere is the vacuum permittivity, for spheres and for non-spherical or fluffy grains (Auer etal. 2007). The potential of the Rosetta spacecraft was measured at V (Nilsson et al. 2015). Weassume that this value was measured in the expected plasma density of m and energy of 100 eV.Dust charging models were computed taking into account currents provided by cold solar wind ions andelectrons, photoelectrons, coma electrons, and the secondary electrons induced by hot and cold plasmacomponents. These simulations (Figure 3) show that the dust equilibrium potential is set by the electroncollection current from the ambient plasma and by the secondary electron current emitted by the dust,which depends on the yield parameter (Mukai et al. 2001), for compact grains of olivineor graphite (Lin & Joy 2005; Balcon et al. 2012). The yield parameter decreases in time due to surfaceaging effects (Davies & Dennison 1997). In fluffy particles is lower than in compact grains
because most secondary electrons with an energy of a few eV are ejected toward other parts of the same particleand reabsorbed. Here we consider as a free parameter, and we fix its value according to the assumedplasma parameters and the measured U value.
sorry bout the cut n paste

DENSITY AND CHARGE OF PRISTINE FLUFFY PARTICLES FROM COMET67P/CHURYUMOV–GERASIMENKO

So maybe <1kgm-3 may be off
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2017, 07:34 PM   #122
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,781
Quote:
If their flux will significantlyincrease, fluffy particles of equivalent density kg m could be invoked to explain the nucleusdensity of 470 kg m (Sierks et al. 2015).
True?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2017, 07:43 PM   #123
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,781
Quote:
The cross sections of fluffy aggregates and compact particles are similar. Since the spacecraft spent mosttime at the terminator, there is a bias due to Lorentz forces enhancing the flux of charged aggregates. Thesingle particles detected by the OSIRIS cameras (Rotundi et al. 2015; Sierks et al. 2015) have a 15% probabilityof of being fluffy (45 fluffy aggregates versus 262 compact particles).
How does that jive with the assumed bulk density? Most of the fluffy particles (dust) are <1kgm-3 and the compact particles up to 3x103m-3. (Rotundi et al. 2015)

Not too sure, but it would have to say something about it?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]

Last edited by Sol88; 11th August 2017 at 07:46 PM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2017, 07:52 PM   #124
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,781
So if the dust is being charged even in the diamagnetic cavity, how's that come about?

Jets are quite active around perihelion and when Rosetta would have been inside the diamagnetic cavity?

Super volatiles or not there's the very fine dust on a surface which looks hard and "felt" hard even if it was "ice" presumably and overlayed with course granular un-consolidated material
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2017, 10:58 PM   #125
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,016
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
<snip>

by the way, the above was predicted and expected in the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE!
Really?

Got a paper or three you can cite to back up your claim?

Quote:
just maybe COMETS are an electrical phenomena <snip>
Just maybe pig will fly ...

Just maybe sol88 will publish a paper, in Icarus, showing that comets are an electrical phenomenon ...
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 11th August 2017, 11:03 PM   #126
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,016
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
We need to have this minor detail cleared up so we can directly compare models based on the new observations and data (and papers) now available.

For those lurkers who are unaware of the history of the ELECTRIC COMETS idea and think it's just from a bunch of, as JD116 bangs on about, Velikovskian woo merchants and dismissed out of hand, then arm yourself with real knowledge.

Here a little history on the ELECTRIC COMET.
  1. History of Electric Comet Theory: An Introduction
  2. History of Electric Comet Theory: Part 2
Interesting set of material, sol88.

Do you plan to update this by including the Velikovskian woo merchants', um, contributions?
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 11th August 2017, 11:11 PM   #127
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,016
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
I don't know.

Same token, why do some asteroids show comas DD?
More pertinent, surely, is DD's question ... per the EC "theory", why do some asteroids have tails but most do not?

After all, this thread is about the EC, is it not?

And anyway, as an enthusiastic Comet Hunter, you already know the answers to your own question, don't you sol88? No need to be coy ...
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 12th August 2017, 04:36 AM   #128
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,455
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
And the dust is charged!

DENSITY AND CHARGE OF PRISTINE FLUFFY PARTICLES FROM COMET67P/CHURYUMOV–GERASIMENKO
Well that should not be a surprise, as that is what dust does in a plasma, which is veeeeeeery mainstream.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
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 12th August 2017, 04:38 AM   #129
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,455
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Did they mention how they arrived at that figure? <1kgm-3?
Read the paper and you may find out.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
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 12th August 2017, 04:39 AM   #130
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,455
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
True?
you tell us, we have no idea where that quote comes from
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
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 12th August 2017, 04:40 AM   #131
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,455
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So if the dust is being charged even in the diamagnetic cavity, how's that come about?
diamagnetic cavity has no magnetic field, but still has a bucketload of plasma
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
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 12th August 2017, 04:46 AM   #132
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,455
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
More pertinent, surely, is DD's question ... per the EC "theory", why do some asteroids have tails but most do not?

After all, this thread is about the EC, is it not?

And anyway, as an enthusiastic Comet Hunter, you already know the answers to your own question, don't you sol88? No need to be coy ...
Oh but we cannot ask questions about the EC, EC is true, and you know it!
To question is to doubt, to doubt is sinfull and the thunderbolts of the gods will smite you!

This thread started on 6 July 2009, and since then we have obtained not one direct answer of any of the EC (EU, ES) proponents on how things work in their version of the universe. I guess if you are not part of the incrowd you are not allowed to know. And I am not sure if Sol belongs to the incrowd, because he does not seem to be able to explain anything either, or he has signed a non-disclosure agreement with T&T.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
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 12th August 2017, 04:53 AM   #133
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,455
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post


No, the new assumptions are volatiles, including supervolitiles, can not remove the ubiquitous "dust' that we see in the COMA! On the nucleus we see granular material down to instruments resolution under that was impervious the MUPUS probe (well consolidated material)
This is a claim that Skorov makes, however, reading the conclusions of that paper, makes me wonder.

Originally Posted by skorov et al.
A way out of the impasse requires focusing on a revised common model assumption listed at the beginning of this section.
At the beginning of that section, however, are no common model assumptions listed, only what they calculated, but anywho.

This is a model, which has to be verified, not something to be taken as gospel as you seem to be doing right away.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
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 12th August 2017, 05:39 AM   #134
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,781
Jeantate, your questions are in this instance are irrelevant.
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th August 2017, 05:45 AM   #135
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,781
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
This is a claim that Skorov makes, however, reading the conclusions of that paper, makes me wonder.



At the beginning of that section, however, are no common model assumptions listed, only what they calculated, but anywho.

This is a model, which has to be verified, not something to be taken as gospel as you seem to be doing right away.
A few of those other papers mentioned further up also come to the same conclusion!
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th August 2017, 05:48 AM   #136
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,781
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Oh but we cannot ask questions about the EC, EC is true, and you know it!
To question is to doubt, to doubt is sinfull and the thunderbolts of the gods will smite you!

This thread started on 6 July 2009, and since then we have obtained not one direct answer of any of the EC (EU, ES) proponents on how things work in their version of the universe. I guess if you are not part of the incrowd you are not allowed to know. And I am not sure if Sol belongs to the incrowd, because he does not seem to be able to explain anything either, or he has signed a non-disclosure agreement with T&T.
Oh please Tusenfem, I've known you long enough to know that you know what the ELECTRIC COMET model is and what the implications are.
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th August 2017, 06:04 AM   #137
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,781
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Well that should not be a surprise, as that is what dust does in a plasma, which is veeeeeeery mainstream.
Oh wait, how is the energy getting there to charge all the dust up?

Oh, I see
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th August 2017, 06:09 AM   #138
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,781
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
diamagnetic cavity has no magnetic field, but still has a bucketload of plasma
which includes a complex dusty plasma?

And are you're the full bottle on current sheets, draped magnetic fields, flux ropes(in relation to comets), hell even double layers!

So let's talk about how that all comes together and works under the common cometary model...
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th August 2017, 09:15 AM   #139
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,455
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
which includes a complex dusty plasma?

And are you're the full bottle on current sheets, draped magnetic fields, flux ropes(in relation to comets), hell even double layers!

So let's talk about how that all comes together and works under the common cometary model...
Uhhh ... no, I don't think so.

Over the last 8 years you have learned zilch about basic mainstream plasma physics. If you come up with weird questions like:

Oh wait, how is the energy getting there to charge all the dust up?

Goodness! YOU are the expert on the electric comet, so you tell us!

It is all quite easy in the mainstream (dusty) plasma physics, and I am sure it has been explained already a few times in this thread. So, the answer is still no, because it does not do any good, we can discuss, and I (and others) can explain, and you will say you "understand" and two pages on you will come up with the same question or the same debunked argument.

Why not ask T&T how it works and come back and explain it to us.

Have a great weekend.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
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 12th August 2017, 09:25 AM   #140
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,455
Rosetta RPC just tweeted that:

Originally Posted by @Rosetta_RPC
Cool, Cyril Simon Wedlund et al. just published a paper in A&A: Hybrid modelling of cometary plasma environments I tinyurl.com/yao4zjkw
Full title is:
Hybrid modelling of cometary plasma environments
I. Impact of photoionisation, charge exchange, and electron ionisation on bow shock and cometopause at 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
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 12th August 2017, 12:29 PM   #141
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,016
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Jeantate, your questions are in this instance are irrelevant.
And may I ask, would you be so kind, please, to explain why they are irrelevant?

In some detail please.
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 12th August 2017, 12:33 PM   #142
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,016
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Oh but we cannot ask questions about the EC, EC is true, and you know it!
To question is to doubt, to doubt is sinfull and the thunderbolts of the gods will smite you!

This thread started on 6 July 2009, and since then we have obtained not one direct answer of any of the EC (EU, ES) proponents on how things work in their version of the universe. I guess if you are not part of the incrowd you are not allowed to know. And I am not sure if Sol belongs to the incrowd, because he does not seem to be able to explain anything either, or he has signed a non-disclosure agreement with T&T.
Thanks tsf.

I've been reading along for some time, and it does seem that Sol88 comes across are rather ignorant of just what the EC theory is.

However, we did get a post or two by David Talbott, did we not? Maybe that was a difficult thread?
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 12th August 2017, 12:38 PM   #143
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,016
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Oh please Tusenfem, I've known you long enough to know that you know what the ELECTRIC COMET model is and what the implications are.
Tsf may - or may not - know what this thing is, and he may - or may not - know what "the implications" are.

However, I do not (not much anyway). And I'm pretty sure most readers don't either ... so why not take some time to give us all a summary of what you understand it to be?
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 12th August 2017, 02:31 PM   #144
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,455
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Thanks tsf.

I've been reading along for some time, and it does seem that Sol88 comes across are rather ignorant of just what the EC theory is.

However, we did get a post or two by David Talbott, did we not? Maybe that was a difficult thread?
Talbott appeared for about 2 weeks in december 2014

So I asked DT three questions and this is the non-answer that I was getting from the supposedly electric comet expert. Instead of getting an explanation, I got a list of what Rosetta scientists should be finding out for DT. Not ONE word that actually answered my simple questions. Something JeanTate also pointed out in post 2122.

Of course the best part is in post 2180, where DT tells us that: Seems to me that the point should be pretty clear by now. There is no electric comet model, just a hypothesis that deserves more than you've granted it so far.

Basically DT keeps on claiming, without any evidence of published papers, that: which is why comet scientists are moving increasingly toward an electrical understanding of this behavior. (e.g. post 2343)

Basically DT left us with the following message:
Okay I see this thread has now exploded into hopeless excess. However, my sketchy list of electric comet predictions has led to a number of comments and challenges that will be well worth integrating into the predictions themselves. Won't try to keep up with all the polemic excursions, but some of the comments on the wording of the predictions will be useful.

Is it appropriate to describe an active comet as "hot and dry? Yes, in the words of comet investigators responding to the Borrelly findings in 2001 (Deep Space 1 probe)

"The spectrum suggests that the surface is hot and dry. It is surprising that we saw no traces of water ice." Dr. Laurence Soderblom, U.S. Geological Survey

"No traces of water ice" is of course the reason why standard theorists were so surprised. And no sublimating ice is the background FACT leading to the "hot and dry" finding.

While I may change a few words in the predictions listed, my plan is to supplement each prediction with examples and a few illustrations. I expect to begin the Thunderbolts report this week, as a continuing blog. Of course, the excess of postings here of late did indeed slow me down a couple of days.

I can promise that, as the report continues, I will not ignore criticisms posted on this ISF thread.


A few more posts with little substance follow and on 10 December he is gone, without answering my three simple questions, nor anybody elses. Well, to be honest, he did answer some questions, but never the specific ones on the electric comet model hypothesis.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
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 13th August 2017, 06:36 AM   #145
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,781
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Uhhh ... no, I don't think so.

Over the last 8 years you have learned zilch about basic mainstream plasma physics. If you come up with weird questions like:

Oh wait, how is the energy getting there to charge all the dust up?

Goodness! YOU are the expert on the electric comet, so you tell us!

It is all quite easy in the mainstream (dusty) plasma physics, and I am sure it has been explained already a few times in this thread. So, the answer is still no, because it does not do any good, we can discuss, and I (and others) can explain, and you will say you "understand" and two pages on you will come up with the same question or the same debunked argument.

Why not ask T&T how it works and come back and explain it to us.

Have a great weekend.
And that's the crux of the matter here is it not Tusenfem?

Sublimation is not required and indeed seems can not work as REQUIRED under the common model!
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 07:13 AM   #146
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,455
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
And that's the crux of the matter here is it not Tusenfem?

Sublimation is not required and indeed seems can not work as REQUIRED under the common model!
Then please enlighten us how we get the outgassing water H2O and carbon(di)oxide CO and CO2 in the coma of the comet if sublimation is not required.
I guess some aliens just turn open the water taps?
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
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 13th August 2017, 07:31 AM   #147
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,455
For those really interested in the science of comets, if there is "no sublimation required" at the comet, then there will be no H2O, CO or CO2 around the comet.

If they are not around, then there can be no pick-up of newly formed ions in the solar wind magnetic field, which will slow down the solar wind (concervation of momentum) and hang-up the magnetic field lines around the comet, creating the cometary ion tail, as already explained by Alfven in 1957.

Apparently, there is a model now that discusses whether gas drag can remove dust particles from the surface of the comet or not. The authors claim that particles of 0.001 to 1 mm cannot always be removed from the surface by gas drag (I think because of cohesion, but this is not my specialty area, and i would have to read the paper better but not on a sunday).

Now, this seems to be, I guess, for Sol a confirmation that the electric comet hypothesis is correct. Not that any of the Rosetta instruments have actually observed the electric discharges that the EC needs, but hey, as we have seen from the Talbott discussion above, the EC is about making hypotheses and not about looking for evidence in any data.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
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 13th August 2017, 08:35 AM   #148
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 13,371
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
For those really interested in the science of comets, if there is "no sublimation required" at the comet, then there will be no H2O, CO or CO2 around the comet.

If they are not around, then there can be no pick-up of newly formed ions in the solar wind magnetic field, which will slow down the solar wind (concervation of momentum) and hang-up the magnetic field lines around the comet, creating the cometary ion tail, as already explained by Alfven in 1957.
Exactly, even an assertion of "no sublimation required" does not necessitate an assertion of 'no sublimation present or expected'

Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post

Apparently, there is a model now that discusses whether gas drag can remove dust particles from the surface of the comet or not. The authors claim that particles of 0.001 to 1 mm cannot always be removed from the surface by gas drag (I think because of cohesion, but this is not my specialty area, and i would have to read the paper better but not on a sunday).
That's the impression I got from a quick read of the paper. Which is certainly not making an assertion of "no sublimation required", present or expected but simply that the gas drag appears insufficient in some modeling because of cohesion for larger (but detected) particles. Thing is, to address this particular aspect a quantitative EC model (if there ever is one that can at least in any way agree with observational evidence) would have to overcome the very same cohesive forces (provided those cohesive forces are themselves accurately modeled in this instance) for those larger particles.


Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Now, this seems to be, I guess, for Sol a confirmation that the electric comet hypothesis is correct. Not that any of the Rosetta instruments have actually observed the electric discharges that the EC needs, but hey, as we have seen from the Talbott discussion above, the EC is about making hypotheses and not about looking for evidence in any data.
Yep, why bother actually doing the quantitative work to compare with observational evidence when it just demonstrates the glaring lack of evidence.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 03:06 PM   #149
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,128
Thumbs down Sol88: A lie about a imaginary "fatal problem" for the mainstream model

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
You (mainstream) have a fatal problem for the icy conglomerate model.
14 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about a imaginary "fatal problem" for the mainstream model.
A lying reply to 11 August 2017 Sol88: A lying comparison between Protopapa, et. al. and Skorov et. al.

Last edited by Reality Check; 13th August 2017 at 03:14 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 13th August 2017, 03:11 PM   #150
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,128
Exclamation Sol88: Deep ignorance about what he quotes as usual

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
And the dust is where?
14 August 2017 Sol88: Deep ignorance about what he quotes as usual!
Water Ice and Dust in the Innermost Coma of Comet 103P/Hartley 2.
Quote:
One can compare the icy grains in comet Hartley 2, a hyperactive comet from which icy grains are apparently dragged out continuously by gaseous CO2, with the icy grains mechanically excavated from 10-20-m depths in the low-activity comet Tempel 1 [Sunshine et al., 2007], and with the icy grains excavated by the infrequent but large natural outbursts of comet Holmes [Yang et al., 2009]. In all three cases, the icy grains are relatively pure and dominated by particles of order 1 µm in size. Taken together this suggests that in most comets the ice in the interior of the nuclei is in the form of aggregates of relatively pure ice and that intimate mixtures of ice and refractories are rare. Furthermore, this implies that nuclei are commonly very porous, as suggested by the few bulk densities that have been determined and that aggregation models [e.g., Greenberg and Li, 1999] that call for grains with refractory cores, organic mantles, and icy crusts are generally inappropriate for comets.
This is a quote about icy grains so we do not expect the word "dust" in it! However "refractories" at the end of the quote is that dust! For example Refractory materials in comet samples is about the Stardust dust grains.

Last edited by Reality Check; 13th August 2017 at 03:13 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 13th August 2017, 03:28 PM   #151
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,128
Thumbs down Sol88: Another lie about the Skorov et. al. (2017) paper.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
No, the new assumptions are volatiles, including supervolitiles, can not remove the ubiquitous "dust' that we see in the COMA! ...
14 August 2017 Sol88: Another lie about the Skorov et. al. (2017) paper.
Skorov et. al. (2017) does not assume that volatiles cannot remove the dust we see in the coma. Skorov et. al. (2017) uses a computer model to show that for
  • 1 comet (67P)
  • at a close distance to the Sun (1.3 AU)
  • for 1 mechanism (gas dragging),
their model's cohesion between dust and ice "is not sufficient to remove dust grains of sizes <1 mm". What make this post into a lie is that we have observed dust jetting from the surface of 67P which Sol88 knows (read the thread!).
There is also empirical evidence that gas dragging did move dust into the coma of Comet 103P/Hartley 2.
11 August 2017 Sol88: A lying comparison between Protopapa, et. al. and Skorov et. al.
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 13th August 2017, 03:35 PM   #152
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,128
Exclamation Sol88: A ignorant citation of Hess et. al. which is obviously about Philae

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
SIMULATION OF THE ELECTROSTATIC CHARGING OF PHILAE ON 67P/CHURYUMOV-GERASIMENKO AND OF ITS INTERACTION WITH THE DUSTS.
14 August 2017 Sol88: A ignorant citation of Hess et. al. which is obviously about Philae and its dust environment, not comet coma.
In addition this is a conference presentation, not a published paper: Simulation of the electrostatic charging of Philae on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko and of its interaction with the dusts.
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 13th August 2017, 03:41 PM   #153
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,128
Thumbs down Sol88: An ignorant fantasy about Skorov et. al which is not about outbursts

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
The Skorov papers model puts an interesting new spin on the The 2016 Feb 19 outburst of comet 67P/CG: an ESA Rosetta multi-instrument study paper.
14 August 2017 Sol88: An ignorant fantasy about Skorov et. al which is not about outbursts.
With:
14 August 2017 Sol88: The bad act of not giving a link to his source again!
The 19 Feb. 2016 Outburst of Comet 67P/CG: An ESA Rosetta Multi-Instrument Study

11 August 2017 Sol88: A lying comparison between Protopapa, et. al. and Skorov et. al.
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 13th August 2017, 03:47 PM   #154
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,128
Thumbs down Sol88: Debunks his comet are rocks delusion by citing a thermal lag paper

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
14 August 2017 Sol88: Debunks his comet are rocks delusion by citing a thermal lag paper !

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
And the dust is charged!
14 August 2017 Sol88: A "surprise" lie that dust from 67P is charged.
This has been in several papers that he knows about and explained with the basic physics that sunlight charges ice and dust grains.
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 13th August 2017, 03:55 PM   #155
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,128
Thumbs down Sol88: A lying question exposing his comets are rocks delusion yet again

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
How does that jive with the assumed bulk density?
14 August 2017 Sol88: A lying question exposing his comets are rocks delusion yet again.
The "assumed" is a lie. The measured mean density of 67P is 0.533 ± 0.006 g/cm3. 67P is not rock as in your delusion. The measured densities of comets are less than that of water and much less than that of rock. Comets are not rock as in your 8 year long delusion.
The density of dust grains alone says nothing about the bulk density of 67P.
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 13th August 2017, 04:05 PM   #156
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,128
Thumbs down Sol88: A derail from his comets are rock delusion to his ignorance about comets

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So if the dust is being charged even in the diamagnetic cavity, how's that come about?
14 August 2017 Sol88: A derail from his comets are rock delusion to his ignorance about comets!
No effect on sunlight charging dust.
I suspect that the diamagnetic cavity could enhance dust charging. It is caused by the solar wind but no magnetic field implies less to stop the solar wind from interactions with dust and charging it.

Yes - Jets were quite active around perihelion and the irrelevant situation of when Rosetta would have been inside the diamagnetic cavity.

14 August 2017 Sol88: The repeated lie of putting ice in quotes.
14 August 2017 Sol88: The "MUPUS tried to hammer into rock" delusion raises its ugly head again!
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 13th August 2017, 04:18 PM   #157
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,128
Question Sol88: Comets are rocks so where did that rock come from

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Jeantate, your questions are in this instance are irrelevant.
Oh dear:
14 August 2017 Sol88: A delusion that questions about the electric comet theory are irrelevant to a thread about the electric comet theory.
You are the one wanting to directly compare models. The first step is not to link to lying Thunderbolts pages about history. The first step is to fully cite the electric comet "model".

A simple question for you about the EC theory:
14 August 2017 Sol88: Comets are rocks so where did that rock come from?
Real scientists look at comets and measure their density to be less than water.
Real scientists look at comets and measure that they originate in the outer solar system.
Real scientists have scientific models for the formation of solar systems. They note that there is a lot of "left overs", especially in the outer system. These will be made of ices and dust. If they are perturbed so that they fall into the inner system then we have comets.

Are Thunderbolts real scientists or deluded cranks? Do they have a rational explanation for the origin of comets as rocks?

Last edited by Reality Check; 13th August 2017 at 04:21 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 13th August 2017, 09:46 PM   #158
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,781
Just don't look thru the telescope Reality check and it'll all be good cobber!
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]

Last edited by Sol88; 13th August 2017 at 09:48 PM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 09:52 PM   #159
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,781
Reality check, question just for you old mate.

How much ice did Philes find? Specifically from the MUPUS experiment?

Please feel free to link to the relevant paper.

__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 10:02 PM   #160
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,128
Thumbs down Sol88: Gibberish about not looking thru the telescope

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Just don't look thru the telescope Reality check and it'll all be good cobber!
14 August 2017 Sol88: Gibberish about not looking thru the telescope.
Is this his ignorant fantasy that comets are rocks because he imagines images of comets to be rock?
Or an inability to read? My post before his was:
14 August 2017 Sol88: A delusion that questions about the electric comet theory are irrelevant to a thread about the electric comet theory.
14 August 2017 Sol88: Comets are rocks so where did that rock come from?
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

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 02:27 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.