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.
Reply
Old 27th February 2019, 04:12 PM   #2961
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,801
Thumbs down Usual insanity emphasizes Sol88's electric comet insanity

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So again we are all agreeing
Sol88's insane electric comet playbook of ignorance, delusions, idiocy (god of the gaps/false dichotomy/irrelevant mainstream citations), insults (an insane one of Michael O'Hearn), lies

No one here is agreeing with Sol88's electric comet insanity of actual rock blasted from Earth recently.

Rational people agree that comets Tempel 1 and 67P have low measured ratios of ices to dust. That "very little ices" for comet 67P is ~15% ices.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2019, 04:17 PM   #2962
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,801
Thumbs down Usual insanity emphasizes Sol88's electric comet insanity

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...just enough ice to account for Q?
Sol88's insane electric comet playbook of ignorance, delusions, idiocy (god of the gaps/false dichotomy/irrelevant mainstream citations), insults (an insane one of Michael O'Hearn), lies

Sol88 insane stupidity of not knowing that a comet nucleus has a surface and an interior!
Sublimating ices outgassing with a gas production rate Q are on the surface of the comet. There are enough ices on the first few meters of the surface of a nucleus to produce Q.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2019, 04:19 PM   #2963
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,801
Thumbs down Usual insanity and lies from Sol88

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Because we observe a minute amount of water and interpret this as absolute shed loads of “ice”?
Sol88's insane electric comet playbook of ignorance, delusions, idiocy (god of the gaps/false dichotomy/irrelevant mainstream citations), insults (an insane one of Michael O'Hearn), lies

Sol88's persistent and insane lie of "ice" when we have detected ice.
We have observed "absolute shed loads of ice" !
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2019, 04:38 PM   #2964
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,801
Exclamation More insanity added to Sol88's insane playbook since he asked for it

Sol88's insane electric comet playbook of ignorance, delusions, idiocy (god of the gaps/false dichotomy/irrelevant mainstream citations), insults (an insane one of Michael O'Hearn), lies

46. Sol88's insanity of citing the Stardust return of only dust grains after a quote about ices/dust ratios.

47. Sol88's insane lie that a "surprise" from the Stardust mission supports his electric comet insanity.
As explained again and again and known since 2006, most of the dust grains had formed at low temperatures and a few dust grains had formed at high temperatures. All of the dust grains formed in space in the early solar system.
Stardust mission
Plucking comet dust from Stardust collectors (December 14, 2006)
Quote:
In particular, the comet dust analysis identified a few grains that contain calcium/aluminum-rich inclusions (CAIs) similar to those found in meteorites known as chondrites. Thought to be the oldest objects in the solar system, chondrites have always been a puzzle because they contain minerals that formed at low temperatures as well as minerals, like CAIs, that must have formed at high temperatures.

This discovery supports a theory of chondrite formation proposed 10 years ago by UC Berkeley astronomers Frank Shu and Hsien "Sienny " Shang in collaboration with Typhoon Lee, an astrophysicist and geochemist at the Academia Sinica's Institute of Earth Sciences in Taiwan. This theory, referred to as the X-wind model of chondrites, says that stars like the sun recycle some of the dust falling into them during formation of the system, melting it and throwing it out from the center in a fiery spray that condenses into small "chondrules," or beads of melted rock. These beads are pushed by the strong solar wind, called an X-wind, out of the solar system disk and settle into the distant reaches of the solar system, where they eventually combine with colder material to form chondrites, asteroids and planets.
A repeat of his insane cult's dependence on press releases that gave rise to:
25. A deluded lie that we have detected clays and carbonates on comets [as found on planets].
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2019, 11:15 PM   #2965
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,201
Refractory minerals, go look it up champ and stop being so ignorant.

Remember what A'Hearn said?
Quote:
(c) What are comets made of? At the simplest level, a very basic question is whether comets are mostly ice or mostly rock/dirt/refractory material. Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the first quantitative model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high as 6 have been cited [3,4].
Quote:
These beads are pushed by the strong solar wind, called an X-wind, out of the solar system disk and settle into the distant reaches of the solar system, where they eventually combine with colder material to form chondrites, asteroids and planets.
Pure fantasy!

Remember the DUST IS CHARGED.
__________________
"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; 28th February 2019 at 12:30 AM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2019, 04:35 AM   #2966
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,201
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Sol88's insane electric comet playbook of ignorance, delusions, idiocy (god of the gaps/false dichotomy/irrelevant mainstream citations), insults (an insane one of Michael O'Hearn), lies

46. Sol88's insanity of citing the Stardust return of only dust grains after a quote about ices/dust ratios.

47. Sol88's insane lie that a "surprise" from the Stardust mission supports his electric comet insanity.
As explained again and again and known since 2006, most of the dust grains had formed at low temperatures and a few dust grains had formed at high temperatures. All of the dust grains formed in space in the early solar system.
Stardust mission
Plucking comet dust from Stardust collectors (December 14, 2006)


A repeat of his insane cult's dependence on press releases that gave rise to:
25. A deluded lie that we have detected clays and carbonates on comets [as found on planets].
Interestingly
Quote:
The Stardust results are consistent with this jet flow model, which may provide a potentially coherent and predictive framework for understanding the formation and transport of rocky material in the solar nebula.
Remember the dust is charged.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2019, 04:36 AM   #2967
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,146
Quote:
Because we observe a minute amount of water and interpret this as absolute shed loads of “ice”?
Another lie. Getting tedious.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2019, 04:39 AM   #2968
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,146
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Ice?
Thousands of tonnes excavated at Tempel 1. 13+ years ago. That is when your idiocy died. Why are you still here?
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2019, 04:51 AM   #2969
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,146
Quote:
Remember the dust is charged.
And what the hell has that got to do with anything?
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2019, 01:07 PM   #2970
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,801
Thumbs down Usual insanity, lies and insults from Sol88

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Refractory minerals, go look it up champ and stop being so ignorant.
Sol88's insane electric comet playbook of ignorance, delusions, idiocy (god of the gaps/false dichotomy/irrelevant mainstream citations), insults (an insane one of Michael O'Hearn), lies

An insane lie and insult because we know that refractory minerals are created in the early solar system when comets formed.

Sol88 is doubly insane in this post because when we look up refractory we get Refractory (planetary science)
Quote:
In planetary science, any material that has a relatively high equilibrium condensation temperature is called refractory.[1] The opposite of refractory is volatile.

The refractory group includes elements and compounds like metals and silicates (commonly termed rocks) which make up the bulk of the mass of the terrestrial planets and asteroids in the inner belt. A fraction of the mass of other asteroids, giant planets, their moons and trans-Neptunian objects is also made of refractory materials.[2]

Last edited by Reality Check; 28th February 2019 at 01:10 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2019, 01:10 PM   #2971
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,801
Thumbs down Usual insanity emphasizes Sol88's electric comet insanity

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Remember what A'Hearn said?
Sol88's insane electric comet playbook of ignorance, delusions, idiocy (god of the gaps/false dichotomy/irrelevant mainstream citations), insults (an insane one of Michael O'Hearn), lies
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2019, 01:11 PM   #2972
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,801
Thumbs down Usual insanity emphasizes Sol88's electric comet insanity

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Remember the DUST IS CHARGED.
Sol88's insane electric comet playbook of ignorance, delusions, idiocy (god of the gaps/false dichotomy/irrelevant mainstream citations), insults (an insane one of Michael O'Hearn), lies

Insanely irrelevant because we know that dust and ice groans are charged.

Last edited by Reality Check; 28th February 2019 at 01:17 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2019, 01:13 PM   #2973
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,801
Thumbs down Usual insanity emphasizes Sol88's electric comet insanity

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Pure fantasy!
Sol88's insane electric comet playbook of ignorance, delusions, idiocy (god of the gaps/false dichotomy/irrelevant mainstream citations), insults (an insane one of Michael O'Hearn), lies

Insane stupidly denying the existence of solar radiation pressure, etc. !

Last edited by Reality Check; 28th February 2019 at 01:17 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2019, 01:16 PM   #2974
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,801
Thumbs down Usual insanity emphasizes Sol88's electric comet insanity

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Interestingly
Sol88's insane electric comet playbook of ignorance, delusions, idiocy (god of the gaps/false dichotomy/irrelevant mainstream citations), insults (an insane one of Michael O'Hearn), lies

Sol88 stupidly quotes Stardust results that make his electric comet insanity even more insane !
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2019, 01:23 PM   #2975
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,801
Thumbs down Usual insanity emphasizes Sol88's electric comet insanity

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Remember the dust is charged.
Sol88's insane electric comet playbook of ignorance, delusions, idiocy (god of the gaps/false dichotomy/irrelevant mainstream citations), insults (an insane one of Michael O'Hearn), lies

Remember that Sol88 is deluded:
We do not have any measurement of the charges of dust grains from the early solar system ~4.6 billion years ago !
Sol88 is commenting on Stardust results that debunk his electric comet insanity.
Sol88's insanity that merely stating that dust is charged supports his electric comet insanity.
Sol88's usual insane lie - we detected that dust and ice grains around comet 67P were charged.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2019, 03:06 PM   #2976
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,146
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Correct, jonesdave116!

Now it’s claimed...


Or so little ice and so much DENSE dust they’ve also been called and

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

Martin Pätzold1, Thomas P. Andert2, Matthias Hahn1, Jean-Pierre Barriot3, Sami W. Asmar4, Bernd Häusler2, Michael K. Bird1, Silvia Tellmann1, Janusz Oschlisniok1, Kerstin Peter1





Absolute blasphemy for the Dirtysnowball camp and it’s adherents.



Define stony agglomerate, jonesdave116.
So let's put another episode of cherry-picking and lying to bed, shall we?

Quote:
Reasonable porosities are within 65% (for dust = 2000 kg/m3; Fnucleus = 3; dust = 20%; ice = 15%) to 80% (for Rho dust = 3500 kg/m3; Fnucleus = 7; dust = 13%; ice = 7%), corresponding to a highly porous dusty nucleus. Larger porosities (> 80%) require very high dust-to-ice ratios (Fnucleus >> 7), where the ice content decreases rapidly from a few percent to ultimately zero, representing a highly porous dusty nucleus with little to no ice. This is probably unrealistic in the case of 67P, but not unreasonable because it is the ultimate fate of a comet nucleus at the end of its "active life".

The Nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko – Part I: The global view – nucleus mass, mass-loss, porosity, and implications
Pätzold, M. et al.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/artic...2/2337/5210098
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin

Last edited by jonesdave116; 28th February 2019 at 03:16 PM.
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2019, 07:27 PM   #2977
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,201
Cool, so your ready to have a go then champ!

Lets ask the expert shall we?


Reality Check, whats the porosity of the comet 67P?
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2019, 07:31 PM   #2978
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,201
I'd like to cherry pick this quote from the paper by Patzold.

The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice

Along with this ripper

and, not so unrealistically, the nucleus would be a highly porous stony agglomerate, essentially devoid of
volitiles
.
__________________
"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; 28th February 2019 at 07:50 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2019, 04:12 AM   #2979
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,146
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
I'd like to cherry pick this quote from the paper by Patzold.

The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice

Along with this ripper

and, not so unrealistically, the nucleus would be a highly porous stony agglomerate, essentially devoid of
volitiles
.
Lying again. Learn to read. From the summary and conclusions;

Quote:
Larger porosities (> 80%) require very high dust-to-ice ratios (Fnucleus >> 7), where the ice content decreases rapidly from afew percent to ultimately zero, representing a highly porous dusty nucleus with little to no ice. This is probably unrealistic in the case of 67P, but not unreasonable because it is the ultimate fate of a comet nucleus at the end of its "active life".
The part you cherry-picked was from a list of possible porosities. They dismiss this in the summary. Comprehension gone walkabout again, hasn't it? They suggest that is the ultimate fate of comets, which may well be correct, especially for short period JFCs.
However, I suspect Patzold et al have got something wrong in their assumptions. Fulle's contemporaneous paper presents no such problems, and includes extended sources for the outgassing, which would explain the differences between ROSINA measurement at the spacecraft location, and those of VIRTIS and MIRO sampling the coma from much closer distances. All measurements of the outgassing rate are way too high for a dry body, regardless of who did the measurements, and how they did them.
The impact ejected ice at Tempel 1 killed your woo 13 years ago. Why are you still here?
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2019, 04:37 AM   #2980
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,146
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Cool, so your ready to have a go then champ!

Lets ask the expert shall we?


Reality Check, whats the porosity of the comet 67P?
On RC's behalf;

Quote:
The Rosetta CONSERT experiment, which studies the propagation of radio waves in the VHF-band (~100 MHz) between the Rosetta orbiter and the Philae lander through the nucleus, has concluded that at least the interior of the ‘head’ of the duck-shaped nucleus is homogeneous down to scales of 3 m and that the porosity is 75% to 85% (ref. 19). As stated above, we consider the lower-porosity value to be more likely because porosities larger than 75% unrealistically constrain the nucleus material to mostly dust with very little ice. The porosity of about 70% to 75% inferred from the mass and the bulk density must therefore be considered an inherent property of the nucleus material.
A homogeneous nucleus for comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko from its gravity field
Pätzold, M. et al. (2016)
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature16535
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 12:50 PM   #2981
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,801
Thumbs down Usual insanity and lies from Sol88

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Lets ask the expert shall we?

Reality Check, whats the porosity of the comet 67P?
Sol88's insane electric comet playbook of ignorance, delusions, idiocy (god of the gaps/false dichotomy/irrelevant mainstream citations), insults (an insane one of Michael O'Hearn), lies

I am not an expert. Unlike Sol88, I can read and understand English and science and have a memory. The porosity of 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko. is in several of the papers that Sol88 has cited !

For example, Sol88's current insane obsession with the ices and dust comet paper: The Nucleus of Comet 67P/ChuryumovGerasimenko - Part I: The Global View – nucleus mass, mass loss, porosity and implications
Quote:
For a range of compacted dust material density from 2000 to 3500 kg m−3, the porosity varies between 65–79 per cent when the dust-to-ice mass ratio Fnucleus for the nucleus body lies in the range 3 ≤ Fnucleus ≤ 7. The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice.
That agrees with other papers. Comet 67P has a high porosity, low density (537.8 ± 0.6 g/m3) and is made of dust and some ices but I would not label ~17% as "very little ice".

Sol88's insanity is that the porosity of the comet 67P supports Sol88's electric comet insanity. That is insane because a porosity of ~75% tells anyone with two brain cells that 67P is not rock.

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd March 2019 at 12:57 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 01:10 PM   #2982
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,801
Thumbs down Usual insanity emphasizes Sol88's electric comet insanity

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
I'd like to cherry pick this quote from the paper by Patzold.
Sol88's insane electric comet playbook of ignorance, delusions, idiocy (god of the gaps/false dichotomy/irrelevant mainstream citations), insults (an insane one of Michael O'Hearn), lies

Sol88 repeats insane lies about the paper by Patzold !
The range of ratio of dust to ices is stated in the abstract of the paper.
The Nucleus of Comet 67P/ChuryumovGerasimenko - Part I: The Global View – nucleus mass, mass loss, porosity and implications
Quote:
For a range of compacted dust material density from 2000 to 3500 kg m−3, the porosity varies between 65–79 per cent when the dust-to-ice mass ratio Fnucleus for the nucleus body lies in the range 3 ≤ Fnucleus ≤ 7. The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice.
Patzold et. al. are describing 67P as a comet made up of 33% to 14% ices by mass. Other results suggest the high end of the range, e.g. Fnucleus ~ 6.

jonesdave116 posted before that Sol88 lied by quote mining the paper by Patzold: So let's put another episode of cherry-picking and lying to bed, shall we?

So we have that old adage: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results". Sol88 is repeating his lies again and again and expecting us not to point out that Sol88 is repeating his lies .
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 01:15 PM   #2983
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,801
Another spate of an estimated 1025 items of ignorance, idiocy (citing irrelevant mainstream papers), delusion, derails, insults, and lies from 27 July 2018 to 4 March 2019.
(~5 pathetic delusions or lies a day)

Sol88's insane electric comet playbook of ignorance, delusions, idiocy (god of the gaps/false dichotomy/irrelevant mainstream citations), insults (an insane one of Michael O'Hearn), lies

Sol88's electric comet insanity (comets are rocks blasted from planets by electric discharges, etc.).

18 November 2010: The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions by Wal Thornhill
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.
13 April 2018: A couple of the delusions in Scott's Birkeland current paper.

The electric comet delusion has at least 45 years without a scientific electric comet model or observations to support it!

Over 3 years of abysmal fear of doing basic physics: 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.

SAFIRE insanity in addition to his electric comet insanity.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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 12:40 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.