|
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. |
15th August 2020, 04:01 AM | #321 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
|
Point in case!
Aurora mysteries unlocked with NASA's THEMIS mission
Quote:
Classic. This is why MHD is used and has been used at comets to inform me that double layers (field aligned ambipolar electric fields) are impossible at comets and in space in general. The maths led the way and mainstream followed.... Just like the radial outgassing (Haser model)... So the electric comet cannot be true because even the gun mathamagicians will need very big supercomputers! I rest the “Show me the math” confabulator is now dead. |
__________________
“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 |
|
15th August 2020, 04:05 AM | #322 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
|
We can also add objects charging and discharging in flowing plasma to list of non arguments.
|
__________________
“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 |
|
15th August 2020, 11:08 AM | #323 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
|
Site is back up, yay! I’ll wait a while before I try to post anything substantive.
|
15th August 2020, 11:28 AM | #324 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
|
Sol88, did you read tusenfem’s posts from yesterday (may be day before, I guess)?
Combining your copious commentary with tusenfem’s, it seems you two are in different universes! You seem to have a great fondness for “ripper quotes”, tusenfem seems to dig more into the actual content, the observational data, the quantitative analyses, the carefully designed and caveated models. Your approach seems well designed for cherry picking for religious propaganda, but unsuited for any kind of science. In particular, your approach cannot reveal inconsistencies between the content of T07 and the various papers you rip quotes from, for example, not least because you never make any quantitative evaluation, much less examine models. So, how about it? Any chance you could consider starting to quantitative analysis? |
15th August 2020, 01:30 PM | #325 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
|
|
15th August 2020, 01:52 PM | #326 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
|
Quantitative analysis? Not a hope, even the mainstream gunna struggle unless they use a very big Supercomputer...
Are you not keeping up? We now know that comets are not Dirtysnowballs or even icydirtballls for that matter. Comets being charged rocky bodies should be as easy to observe as the dust being charged and removed from the nucleus. Mainstream still dicking round to to make the quantitative analyses, of the carefully designed and caveated models. Models? Mainstream have more than just the Dirtysnowball/icydirtball model? Please do tell, I’ve not seen it. I have asked various people that have said the Dirtysnowball was no longer valid (comets dustier than expected) but have not replacement. They just keep refining the dust to ice ratio until the ice disappears (using maths). So....not sure where that leaves you, jean tate. Just good to remember in the ELECTRIC COMET, co,ets are charged rocky bodies discharging in the solar plasma. Ps Mainstream are now just starting to quantify the discharging part. They have come to the conclusion comets are far More dustier than once commonly believed some time ago now. |
__________________
“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 |
|
15th August 2020, 02:03 PM | #327 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
|
|
__________________
“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 |
|
15th August 2020, 02:11 PM | #328 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
|
|
15th August 2020, 02:29 PM | #329 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 7,259
|
|
__________________
Steen -- Jack of all trades - master of none! |
|
15th August 2020, 02:33 PM | #330 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
|
|
__________________
“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 |
|
15th August 2020, 02:38 PM | #331 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
|
Predict comet behaviour??? Why? Comets are charged rocky bodies discharging in the solar plasma. This we observe. But to get the maths working to prove it to people like you, ya gunna need a bigger computer. Shouldn’t be hard with the all the funding scientists burn thru. Surly, you coulbum some time off the very big supercomputers at somewhere like CERN, LIGO etc... |
__________________
“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 |
|
15th August 2020, 02:47 PM | #332 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
|
Just to reiterate that it is believed in the electric comet that they are charged rocky bodies.
Quote:
Further
Quote:
So, do we understand now that in the ELECTRIC COMET we believe the nucleus to be a charged rocky body, jean tate? Clear? |
__________________
“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 |
|
15th August 2020, 02:53 PM | #333 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
|
Thanks.
Could you expand on this please? T07, the bit you quote, says that comets are unable to charge to the ambient plasma potential. And your gloss, “comets are charged rocky bodies discharging in the solar plasma“ is a cop-out, an attempt to bridge a direct inconsistency. |
15th August 2020, 04:05 PM | #334 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
|
It’s assumed from standard object charging in a flux of electrons, blah blah blah,nblah blablaba.
We call this the solar wind. Why do think they would be unable to, according to standard garden variety plasma process in relation to charging and discharging?. I’m confused. Do you not understand, jean tate? Comets are charged rocky bodies. |
__________________
“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 |
|
15th August 2020, 04:30 PM | #335 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
|
Thanks.
I think it’s important to pause a bit, and ask you to clarify some simple words. With explicit reference to T07, what do the following mean: solar wind plasma, and what its “ambient potential” is weak electrical field (centered on the Sun) Part of my confusion is that in T07, there are only hints of “plasma processes”, and no “standard garden variety plasma process in relation to charging and discharging” at all. In a while I’ll return to a somewhat different apparent inconsistency: why do comets have tails pointing the ~same way (~away from the Sun) both coming and going? At perihelion it seems comets have ~the same charge as at aphelion. |
15th August 2020, 04:37 PM | #336 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
|
Really? Solar wind, like that the electrons are hotter and faster than the ions? Stick a rock body into that little thing we call the solar wind! Plasma? Again, really? You fair dinkum, or what? An electric field is not a double layer (plasma, see above) but a double layer is an electric field. I have that from the best authority. Not sure where your coming from, jean tate. You still seem to be stuck on outdated models and math? |
__________________
“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 |
|
15th August 2020, 04:50 PM | #337 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
|
Thanks.
No explicit reference to T07. Why not? Could you please actually answer the questions? Note that the “plasma” question is tied to what its ambient potential is. Note: there seems to be no solar wind/plasma in T07; certainly you’ve not pointed to it yet (so how can we discuss any of its features?). |
15th August 2020, 07:21 PM | #338 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
|
One more clarification, with explicit reference to T07.
Discharging, charging, “charged body”: I guess you, and T07, always mean the same thing, right? Charging-> net flow of charge from {what?} to {what?} Discharging -> net flow of charge in the opposite direction A “charged body” can discharge, but it cannot further charge. Right? Can you confirm please? |
15th August 2020, 09:53 PM | #339 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
|
Actually we meant asteroids... same thing.
A body immersed in a flowing plasma, such as the solar wind will try and attain a situation were net flow of charge either to or from the body, is no longer achieved. Do you understand now, jean tate? Or would like like me to draw a picture in big crayons for you? A “charged body” can discharge, but it cannot further charge. Right? A body can attain a floating potential compared to the ambient plasma. Relative if it’s charging or discharging. Seems from the data somethings going on... A Sheath has formed around this particular object immersed in the solar wind. Now a double layer...around this rocky object. The ELECTRIC COMET Would you care to ask an expert about the currents involved here? Tusenfem has a few papers on such a thing. Though they in need of an update. In light of the new “math” required to solve the plasma situation around comets. Or indeed plasma any were in space as neatly summed up here in a recent paper on just such a problem in plasma physics...
Quote:
Not much hope fore us more pen and paper mortals, is there now? |
__________________
“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 |
|
16th August 2020, 05:17 AM | #340 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,197
|
|
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist |
|
16th August 2020, 08:53 AM | #341 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,197
|
|
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist |
|
16th August 2020, 08:55 AM | #342 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,197
|
|
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist |
|
16th August 2020, 09:13 AM | #343 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,197
|
No, Birkeland did not prove anything, he could not, because the technique was not there yet.
Birkeland had the idea that the aurora had something to do with electric currents or electrically charged particles, that might come from the Sun. In order to check this, he and his assistants went up north in Scandinavia, in 1902 - 1903, where each person was in their own little hut somewhere with a compass needle. Whenever there would be aurora overhead, they would record the movement of the needle. With that he was able to show that when the aurora was stronger the needle would move more. All the results can be seen in his publication "The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition 1902–1903 (158 MB) https://ia802700.us.archive.org/21/i...01chririch.pdf Birkeland concluded that there should be a stream of corpuscules coming from the Sun which would interact with the Earth's magnetic field, create currents which would drive the aurora. This, unfortunately, was not accepted by a prominent physicist of the time, Sidney Chapman, and thereby the idea got buried. It took until the beginning of the space age, that indeed magnetic field aligned currents in the Earth's polar magnetic field were found. About 60 years after Birkeland's death these currents were mearused. Sato, T.; Iijima, T. (1979). "Primary sources of large-scale Birkeland currents". Space Science Reviews. 24 (3): 347–366. Bibcode:1979SSRv...24..347S. doi:10.1007/BF00212423 Potemra, T. A. (1978). "Observation of Birkeland currents with the TRIAD satellite". Astrophysics and Space Science. 58 (1): 207–226. Bibcode:1978Ap&SS..58..207P. doi:10.1007/BF00645387.) |
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist |
|
16th August 2020, 09:52 AM | #344 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,197
|
And this comment clearly shows that Sol has no idea of what space physicists are doing. Numerical modelling is only done by a small group of the space physics community. And they are strongly bound by actual observations made by in-situ instruments or "long range" instruments (like telescopes).
The only way of finding out what is happening, e.g. at comets, is to use DATA and physics to explain what is going on. As an example, at the beginning of the Rosetta mission at 67P/CG we found strong quasi-monochromatic waves in the magnetic field, the singing comet, an using the physics of the Modified Ion Weibel Instability, we could explain how these waves were excited. There was no need for supercomputers, just pencil and paper and then later a small program to make calculations of the whole parameter space, which is a wee bit easier that making like 10.000 calculations by hand. Another example, unfortunately not at 67P/CG, but it could be done at Halley. Again magnetic field measurements (kind of a professional hazard from me) find upstream of Venus's bow shock proton cyclotron waves. Again, just using plasma physics, the theory of particle and field dynamics when the temperature of the ions is higher perpendicular to the magnetic field than along it, one can explain these waves. Not only explain them, but use their amplitude for example to calculate the density of the ions that generate these waves. And lo-and-behold fits very well with the exospheric neutral hydrogen density profile (of course over an order of magnitude less, because not all hydrogen gets ionized) (Delva et al., 2009) And yes, numerical modelling can help, and sometimes find things that we do not know, as they have not yet been found in the data. The other way around, numerical modelling can also help interpret observations that are difficult to interpret without a larger view. So, no, space physics does not need "supercomputers" to get actual results. |
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist |
|
16th August 2020, 02:52 PM | #345 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
|
As good as any to reply to...
A Tom Thumb squib (firework) goes bang! So does a supernova. Yet the two differ in more than just the energy generated in <1second, say. In your posts, Sol88, it seems you take little account of such ... a discharge could be 1 electron a second, or 1030, for example. Among other things, this, um, reluctance to consider quantities makes it impossible to discuss science, including The Electric Comet Theory T07. At least that’s what I think. |
16th August 2020, 02:58 PM | #346 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
|
Thanks.
Among other things, I was hoping to get Sol88 to realize, by himself, that T07 is just as toast as B24, in terms of being consistent with what we know, today, about the solar wind, how it interacts with comets, etc. And that’s not even considering the internal contradictions and inconsistencies. Queue a return to religious slogans and propaganda in 3, 2, ... |
16th August 2020, 03:21 PM | #347 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues
An enormous spate of lies from Sol88 over teh weekend needs 2 posts
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
16th August 2020, 04:24 PM | #348 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues
Continuing with Sol88's lying "Aurora mysteries unlocked with NASA's THEMIS mission" post"
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
16th August 2020, 05:11 PM | #350 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
|
What do “we” know, fill me in, in terms of being consistent with what we know, today, about the solar wind, how it interacts with comets, etc.
How’s the solar wind interacting with the field aligned ambipolar electric field and is this consistent with sublimation theory (the Dirtysnowball) in the loss of mass thru plasma process’s? Seems fairly new to me. But as you are now an expert on the standard dirtysnowball model... |
__________________
“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 |
|
16th August 2020, 05:16 PM | #351 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
|
Ahhh, the singing comet, quite the surprise, was it not?
Also a surprise at that distance (outgassing level) was the plasma sheath... Almost like the rocky body was charged as compared to the ambient plasma. You kinda dodged the question a few pages back now, tusenfem but can an object such as a comet attain a floating potential in a plasma stream such as the solar wind? And if this potential is of a level that a plasma sheath would form around such an object, as seen in the RPC data? Maths seems pretty standard in this regard. |
__________________
“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 |
|
16th August 2020, 05:19 PM | #352 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
|
So after that little post tusenfem, which math are we going to use to capture the solar winds interaction (The Sun), the field aligned ambipolar electric fields, the electric currents and the removal of dust via the above plasma processs, as the model that should be used instead of the dubious sublimation (Dirtysnowball) model.
|
__________________
“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 |
|
16th August 2020, 05:22 PM | #353 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
|
|
__________________
“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 |
|
16th August 2020, 05:24 PM | #354 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
|
|
__________________
“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 |
|
16th August 2020, 05:48 PM | #355 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
|
Sigh
2+2 != 3 That does not mean 2+2 = 5, no matter how hard Big Brother works to convince Winston Smith otherwise. No matter how dirty snowballs are, or aren’t; no matter how icy dirt balls are, or aren’t, T07 is toast. The solar wind/comet interaction does not include EDM originating in the wind and producing “collimated jets”. The solar-wind plasma is not accelerated by a radial electric field centered on the Sun. And so on. Focus, Sol88, focus! This thread is about The Electric Comet Theory, T07 in particular. So unless you have yet a different Electric Comet Theory, we’ve reached a conclusion of sorts, haven’t we? |
16th August 2020, 05:53 PM | #356 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
|
|
16th August 2020, 06:57 PM | #357 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
|
Why, I wonder, would you think there are no intense electric fields? Especially, intense surface electric fields.
To be expected in the sunlight/shadow boundaries. Funnily enough, we also see “sublimation” here too. So, I contend, jean tate, you are incorrect. Think asteroid/comet continuum here. All a question, as the electric comet states, charge equilibrium and the maintenance there of. We now see this in the removal of charged dust... via the mechanism now proposed by Divin. Surface, including intense, electric fields will have an influence on this process as well. Mmmm...electric fields nice, double layers...majik! |
__________________
“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 |
|
16th August 2020, 07:04 PM | #358 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
|
Toast??
I think they call this the “Patched Charge” model, as per Experimental Methods of Dust Charging and Mobilization on Surfaces with Exposure to Ultraviolet Radiation or Plasmas That require electrons, that can now, as we now know, be quite energetic (suprathermal) via the mechanism now proposed by Divin et al (electron acceleration in an electric double layer) So, what say ye in relation to the facts presented, jean tate? Still not sublimation, now is it. You know, the generally accepted theory of comets. What theory would you suggest best matches the data above? Considering also, that the nucleus appears to be rocky? |
__________________
“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 |
|
16th August 2020, 09:15 PM | #359 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Sol88's lies of repeating his questions about mainstream physics
Sol88's is trolling the thread with repeated, irrelevant, already answered, lying questions about mainstream comets. These are lies because this is a thread abut his cult's deluded dogma.
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
16th August 2020, 09:50 PM | #360 |
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! |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|