|
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. |
9th August 2020, 12:55 PM | #241 |
Scholar
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 103
|
Answering the (rather simple) questions I asked would help us all understand such answers differently than "That Sol guy likely understands nothing in advanced maths, so his only escape route is to make fun of it".
As a reminder, my questions were: 1 - Why do you think maths cannot be used as a formal descriptive language for the EC theory; 2 - What makes the EC theory different from other papers you're constantly quoting, that makes mathematics an acceptable descriptive language for all those papers, but not for the EC itself; 3 - What other symbolic language would you propose to describe the EC theory, given that you consider mathematics to not be suited for it. And again, none of those involve complex answers relying on random research papers that are not talking about ECT; answering would merely involve sharing your conclusions and thoughts on the topic of maths wrt ECT. Or should I conclude, by your lack of answers so far, that you never even thought about it? That would rather weird, to criticize mathematics so harshly while not even be able to say why! |
9th August 2020, 02:20 PM | #242 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 7,259
|
|
__________________
Steen -- Jack of all trades - master of none! |
|
9th August 2020, 02:34 PM | #243 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
12th August 2020, 01:58 PM | #245 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
|
1 - sure it can, why not? Whichever maths blows the wind thru your hair. MHD? PIC?
2- Nothing. Mainstream are still coming to terms with comets are rocky bodies discharging in the solar plasma. 3- Your math seems fine, just very complicated when electrons are treated as particles... This one paper has introduced a new term in the math of cometary physics... This makes comets an electrical phenomena We now understand comet nuclei to be more hard surface of consolidated dust than before... |
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator |
|
12th August 2020, 02:08 PM | #246 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
|
Quote:
Sorry, the “figures” don’t copy and paste so well. Incredibly well tested you say? Point me in the direction where the above application of math is used with regards to comets. Cheers. |
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator |
|
12th August 2020, 02:09 PM | #247 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
|
|
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator |
|
12th August 2020, 04:16 PM | #248 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
12th August 2020, 07:07 PM | #250 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
|
Quote:
Space charge, important, steenkh. Maths, with figures, if you like, though I’m happy either way... |
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator |
|
12th August 2020, 07:13 PM | #251 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
|
What math do we use to prove the dust is electrically charged ( - and +), being removed from the rocky like consolidated, dusty surface via electrostatic charging from suprathermal electrons, accelerated by a field aligned ambipolar electric field.
How do we put figures to those words? |
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator |
|
12th August 2020, 07:17 PM | #252 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
|
Feel free to use any math you’d like to describe the above. Or Read each individual paper yourself and come to your own conclusions... Very easy, if you remember in the ELECTRIC COMET, the nucleus is a charged rocky body discharging in the solar plasma. Not, a dirty snowball melting in the Sun... |
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator |
|
12th August 2020, 08:06 PM | #253 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
12th August 2020, 10:42 PM | #254 |
Scholar
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 103
|
Well, that's exactly what I'm also wondering: why not? You are calling those using the symbolic language of mathematics to describe their theories as "mathemagicians", so you seem to have some sort of grudge against them. i'd like to understand what it is.
Besides that, if it is fine to use the language of mathematics to describe the ECT, why has this not been done yet? Is there a specific reason to avoid doing it? BTW, you seem to understand "maths" as "theories described by mathematics" (hence, I guess, the references to MHD and PIC). I am only talking about the mathemtics as a symbolic representation of a given physical phenomen. Thus, it means that pre-existing theories on which ECT possibly rely (like MHD) would only be a workbasis for a mathematical description of ECT itself.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Thus, here are my new questions, summarized: 4. If using the mathematical symbolism to describe a theory is fine, why has this not been done for ECT yet? 5. You called scientists "mathemagicians", obviously not in agreement in how they used mathematics. What is the difference between their use of that tool and the use ECT makes of it? |
12th August 2020, 10:47 PM | #255 |
Scholar
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 103
|
There is no such thing as "any math". Mathematics is merely a form of symbolic language with its own set of rules, allowing to describe physical phenomens in a quantifiable way.
Quote:
I'm not asking about my opinion; I'm asking about yours. And I'm not asking your opinion about the validity of ECT; I'm asking your opinion about the use of mathematics in ECT, and how it is better than in other theories. |
12th August 2020, 10:51 PM | #256 |
Scholar
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 103
|
Is what you are describing above one of the claims made by ECT?
If so, then it means that it is precisely the job of any scientist believing ECT is correct to translate those words into equations (note that it is different than just "putting figures"), then enter experimental "figures" in those, and see if they match experimental results. did they already do it? If that's not one of the claims made by ECT, then it is meaningless and off-topic, since the discussion is about ECT. |
12th August 2020, 10:52 PM | #257 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,265
|
SO once again you refuste to actually answer how a negatively charged body can discharge AWAY from a positively charged body. Because that is what your theory currently 'explains'.
I'll ignore all the other inconsistencies and outright errors in your theory so you'll only have to explain that little fact. So far you have given a lot of hot air and no substance. It's almost as if you cobbled partial explanations together without every linking them or extrapolating what that would mean. |
13th August 2020, 04:37 AM | #258 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 7,259
|
That is OK. It is a mainstream paper anyway, so it is not relevant here. When I said "without figures you have nothing", it was of course figures relevant to the OP, especially the parts that are in conflict with science, which I believe this article is not.
Quote:
|
__________________
Steen -- Jack of all trades - master of none! |
|
13th August 2020, 09:21 AM | #259 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,197
|
What is "math"? Of course the language of physics is mathematics, i.e. in oder to describe physical phenomena we use the language of mathematics.
What is plasma physics "math"? Well, it consists of a conglomerate of electrodynamics and particle dynamics equations, part of which are shown in the image below. Here "f" is the particle distribution function of ions "i" and electrons "e" and the first 2 equations tell us how the particle distribution function changes in time, they are the total derivatives Df/Dt, basically the equations of motion of the i's and e's. The next four are Maxwell's equations. Added to these can be the continuity equation and others that may be needed. As they deal with particle distribution functions, this is a kinetic description. Now "MHD" is not "a math", it is an approximation of the plasma physics equations where the particle motion around the magnetic field (gyration) is averaged over. Thereby, the particles turn into a fluid in this approach, and thus the name magnetoHYDROdynamics. (Alfvén's Nobel Prize discovery, a (less than) 1 page paper!!!) Of course this comes with the knowledge that you cannot look at phenomena that are smaller than the gyro radius of the heaviest particle, nor those that are faster than the lowest gyro period. Neither is "PIC" a "math", even less than MHD. PIC = Particle In Cell, is a programming method where the whole volume that is studied is split up into boxes (not necessarily of equal size) then per box the particles are being influenced by the E/B fields and collisions and what-have-you-nots for a specific time interval (which can vary also) and then one looks at what a certain particle does, did it move in the delta-t into another box, or did it stay, did it go faster or slower, etc. etc. When the whole volume has been evaluated, then that is the next starting point, and the next time step is taken. If the mass of the particles is very different, e.g. electrons and protons, then the time step needs to be very small, as the electrons react much more actively to forces. That is why often instead of the 1/1836 mass factor, a 1/36 (the square root) is used (and of course you have to be aware of this fact and its consequences). Sometimes, the electrons are only used as a massless neutralizing fluid. Why do we do MHD or PIC? Not because the math is "too difficult" (although I cannot call it easy either, lol) there are books and books full of "full math" to call it like that, on of my favourites is still "Instabilities in space and laboratory plasmas" by Don Melrose (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/19.......M/abstract). But if you want to study some phenomena, then you just use what is necessary, if you look at large scale physics you probably switch to MHD, with its famous "frozen in" magnetic field. One of the consequences of MHD is that the electric field in the plasma is given by E = - v x B, and yes a very nice colleague of mine checked whether this frozen in condition is valid in the Earth's magnetotail: Breakdown of the frozen-in condition in the Earth's magnetotail, A.T.Y. Lui et al. (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/20...4215L/abstract), and as one would expect, it does break down in certain regions. And believe it or not, checking satellite data where E, v and B are measured with that equation is important to understand the phenomena that you are looking at. If you do numerical simulations you turn to PIC (or some other techniques) in order to save calculation time on the very expensive super computers. Yes, you could calculate it fully and in real time, but then you better be patient and rich. I have written this already several times, but it cannot hurt to do it again. |
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist |
|
13th August 2020, 09:38 AM | #260 |
Scholar
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 103
|
This is why I like reading those forums and similar websites: there are a lot of high quality informations being explained with a great deal of details and clarity. That's the best way to fight religious beliefs masquerading as 'science'. Thanks a lot for this great explanation, tusenfem.
|
13th August 2020, 11:49 AM | #261 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
|
Dude, so simple. Comets are charged rocky bodies discharging in the solar plasma...
So far we can tick mostly rocky and with the discharge involving the dust removing mass from the mostly rocky like... it’s a given it would be charged to the ambient plasma potential. So, knock your sock off with the math that describes that reality. So far the above points have all been either verifiable or raised as head scratching conundrums in mainstream papers. In relation to the accepted Dirtysnowball model. The opposing model. I will continue to “mention” papers by the mainstream mathamagicians that would strongly suggest that in the ELECTRIC COMET, Comets are charged rocky bodies discharging in the solar plasma... |
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator |
|
13th August 2020, 11:58 AM | #262 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
|
Awesome, as usual tusenfem! I hope people read and understood what you wrote, as we are currently there again, explaining it, again.
But And just expedite the point I’m tying to make to the less well informed here is...
Quote:
Further and I believe very important for the electric comet is,
Quote:
Can the DUSTY plasma be thought of as just VERY heavy electrons? If not which math do we use and were to capture this fact? As I’m clearly no expert and there are some more “mathie” people here, perhaps you could point them to the correct “math” to use in relation to comets being charged rocky bodies discharging in the solar plasma. Would stop the merry go round, again. |
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator |
|
13th August 2020, 12:06 PM | #263 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
|
|
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator |
|
13th August 2020, 12:19 PM | #264 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
|
|
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator |
|
13th August 2020, 12:25 PM | #265 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
|
Well and maybe with tusenfem’s pointers in the correct “math” so as to make it true. Why don’t the ions just neutralise the electrons just on the other side of the field aligned ambipolar electric field of Divin’s then? By your reasoning we know that a negatively charged object does not discharge away from a positive pole Yet here are - & + right next door to each other? You are still in the pith ball and gold leaf science champ.... |
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator |
|
13th August 2020, 12:42 PM | #266 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,197
|
|
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist |
|
13th August 2020, 01:06 PM | #267 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
|
No, I got it. After all these years.
Now, the HARD STUFF... Dusty plasma....in you own time. Let everyone also catch up on the electric comet being impossible because the “math” says so... And square one, again. Which maths do we use for the above? Or all sorts of math? Little bit of this little bit of that.... Also, its ok if you just don’t know. |
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator |
|
13th August 2020, 01:09 PM | #268 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
|
We see comets as rocky bodies and we see mass being electrically removed from the nucleus.
Electric fields, electric currents all part and parcel as well... So moot point really anyway but there are the math freaks here too tusenfem, so set ‘em straight on which math to use when.... |
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator |
|
13th August 2020, 01:23 PM | #269 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
|
You like to play games. Let’s play.
Comets are CHARGED rocky bodies discharging in the solar wind. Let’s take to very first premise, CHARGED. tusenfem, can a object attain a floating potential when all currents (mostly those pesky light electrons) sum to zero at the body in question? And therefore by definition when those currents do not sum to zero the object is either charging or discharging. Simple, easy application of maths. Possible, tusenfem. |
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator |
|
13th August 2020, 01:25 PM | #270 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,197
|
The "math" does not say anything, it's the actual observations that have been made that disprove the EC ideas as originating from Thornhill and Talbott.
I say ideas, because there is no such thing as an EC theory, and yes, I know, you grab on any paper that mentions electricity or electric field as prove that the EC idea has merit. It does not. |
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist |
|
13th August 2020, 01:27 PM | #271 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,197
|
|
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist |
|
13th August 2020, 01:38 PM | #272 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
|
|
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator |
|
13th August 2020, 01:42 PM | #273 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
|
|
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator |
|
13th August 2020, 01:46 PM | #274 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
|
|
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator |
|
13th August 2020, 01:53 PM | #275 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
|
|
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator |
|
13th August 2020, 01:56 PM | #276 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
|
|
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator |
|
13th August 2020, 01:59 PM | #277 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
|
We could keep going but my point is made.
Maths is subservient to observation. |
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator |
|
13th August 2020, 03:07 PM | #278 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
13th August 2020, 04:14 PM | #280 |
Scholar
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 103
|
So the answer of ECT to "how do you formalize things using mathematical symbolism?" is "Do it yourself dude!" ???
Quote:
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|