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 22nd February 2015, 08:00 PM   #81
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,201
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Lying about glow discharges in images you cannot comprehend is not good either, Sol88. What you see is pixel saturation from bright sources, e.g. surface ice.

Sol put a grinning smiley at the end of his comment so I think we must assume it was an attempt at humor. Sol wouldn't present a zoomed-in, cropped image with no attribution and claim seriously it's evidence.

ferd
__________________
Chicken is a vegetable-James May, vegetarian
A target doesn't need to be preselected-Jabba
ferd burfle 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 22nd February 2015, 09:13 PM   #82
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,126
Originally Posted by ferd burfle View Post
Sol put a grinning smiley at the end of his comment so I think we must assume it was an attempt at humor. Sol wouldn't present a zoomed-in, cropped image with no attribution and claim seriously it's evidence.

ferd
Unfortunately Sol88's track record shows that he would do "present a zoomed-in, cropped image with no attribution and claim seriously it's evidence", ferd burfle (with or without a grinning smiley). Look at the previous ridiculous attempt to turn a boulder into a crater.

The last 5 years of this thread probably have other "I see electric comet fantasies in images" posts from Sol88.
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 23rd February 2015, 01:34 AM   #83
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by ferd burfle View Post
Sol put a grinning smiley at the end of his comment so I think we must assume it was an attempt at humor. Sol wouldn't present a zoomed-in, cropped image with no attribution and claim seriously it's evidence.

ferd
Yeah, so many smileys, no need to take anything Soll88 says seriously, nor the effort to actually respond anymore.
__________________
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 24th February 2015, 09:54 AM   #84
Haig
Graduate Poster
 
Haig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,635
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Still no quantification, I see.

"I'm seeing more of a sprite pattern in the jet with the densest part a bit away from the surface"

It looks like a bunny!

Tell me, Haig, how does Rossim infer density from that JPEG picture? Well, he can't, and he doesn't. He's just making **** up. He's got no idea what the density is, he's got no idea if it actually conflicts with the standard model, and just as importantly, he's got no idea if it conflicts with the ECH. Why? Because (again), just like everyone else on the ECH side, he can't quantify anything. Ever.

What "standard comet model" Ziggurat ? The Electric Comet 67P has left it in tatters

Rosetta reveals a complex comet
Quote:
It’s time to stop thinking of comets as dirty snowballs. The Rosetta spacecraft’s first look at comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko shows a diverse, complex world, shaped by eruptions and erosion, that may hint at what the solar system was like 4.6 billion years ago.

A panoply of textures and structures shows that comet 67P is not a loose collection of ice and dust, the prevailing image of comets for decades.

“Rosetta has blown the dirty snowball idea out of the water,” says Nicolas Thomas, a planetary scientist at the University of Bern in Switzerland and member of the Rosetta team.

Previous missions had already hinted that comets were more complex than that. But the Rosetta mission, the first to orbit a comet and follow it as it approaches the sun, shows a patchwork of terrains weathered by blowing dust and gas eruptions.

The "Impossible" Dunes of Comet 67P | Space News
Quote:
Published on 22 Feb 2015
The comet 67P has provided an avalanche of astonishing discoveries that may puzzle scientists for years to come. And one problem that will simply not go away is the seemingly impossible dunes, or dune-like ripples at the comet’s neck. At its first observation, the feature drew virtual gasps of disbelief from scientists and science media. More recent, close-up images of the “impossible” dunes have only deepened the mystery. How does the electric universe explaining this baffling feature?

Watch this space in the coming months for more astonishing discoveries that may is certain to puzzle mainstream scientists
Haig 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 24th February 2015, 11:07 AM   #85
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,982
most important part repeated anb bolded:

Previous missions had already hinted that comets were more complex than that.

(yawn)
being an ec proponent must be so boring without any new discoveries and/or surprises
__________________
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 24th February 2015, 11:43 AM   #86
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,201
Originally Posted by Haig View Post

Haig, quoting ScienceNews:

It’s time to stop thinking of comets as dirty snowballs.


Haig, please retire this dishonest canard. You know full well the comet scientists posting in this thread have stipulated on a number of occasions that this model is outdated. To keep repeating this strawman after they have done so amounts to a lie.

Of course, the ech folks want to play this both ways. They'll throw up the canard and then in the next breath, when the real scientists present the latest model, say "look, look, they changed their model, they must not know what they're talking about!". All the while, still not presenting any real evidence of their own.

ferd
__________________
Chicken is a vegetable-James May, vegetarian
A target doesn't need to be preselected-Jabba
ferd burfle 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 24th February 2015, 12:09 PM   #87
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,190
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
What "standard comet model" Ziggurat ?
The model that most people working in the field actually use.

Quote:
A panoply of textures and structures shows that comet 67P is not a loose collection of ice and dust, the prevailing image of comets for decades.

“Rosetta has blown the dirty snowball idea out of the water,” says Nicolas Thomas, a planetary scientist at the University of Bern in Switzerland and member of the Rosetta team.
I see you're still trying to do science by press release. Yes, the "dirty snowball" image was the prevailing image of comets for decades. But that period of decades didn't just end, it ended quite some time ago. Rosetta doesn't finally reveal that this old model was wrong, it merely confirms what we already knew, which is that it's more complex than that. There's a bit of self-puffery in that quote, but it's far less significant than you seem to believe.

So all you've really done is prove (again) your own ignorance of the topic. And you also still have nothing quantitative from the ECH side. Nor will you ever, because they're all cranks, every single one of them. That's my model of ECH proponents. It's a scientific model which is quite falsifiable. But I'm confident that you won't falsify it.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 24th February 2015, 01:08 PM   #88
Haig
Graduate Poster
 
Haig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,635
Originally Posted by ferd burfle View Post
Haig, please retire this dishonest canard. You know full well the comet scientists posting in this thread have stipulated on a number of occasions that this model is outdated. To keep repeating this strawman after they have done so amounts to a lie.

Of course, the ech folks want to play this both ways. They'll throw up the canard and then in the next breath, when the real scientists present the latest model, say "look, look, they changed their model, they must not know what they're talking about!". All the while, still not presenting any real evidence of their own.

ferd
ferd it's not dishonest and it's not a story, most of mainstream media and scientists are still using it and so it's fair to point out it's many failings.

The "real" scientists are a little confused, it would seem. Care to give a clear concise version of the latest mainstream comet model hypothesis ?


Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The model that most people working in the field actually use.
And that would be what, exactly ? I'm sure tusenfem can help you if your stuck!


Quote:
I see you're still trying to do science by press release. Yes, the "dirty snowball" image was the prevailing image of comets for decades. But that period of decades didn't just end, it ended quite some time ago. Rosetta doesn't finally reveal that this old model was wrong, it merely confirms what we already knew, which is that it's more complex than that. There's a bit of self-puffery in that quote, but it's far less significant than you seem to believe.
This was an actually a recent quote. "Nicolas Thomas, a planetary scientist at the University of Bern in Switzerland and member of the Rosetta team"

Are you saying he doesn't know what he's talking about ?

Maybe I was having a little fun

Quote:
So all you've really done is prove (again) your own ignorance of the topic. And you also still have nothing quantitative from the ECH side. Nor will you ever, because they're all cranks, every single one of them. That's my model of ECH proponents. It's a scientific model which is quite falsifiable. But I'm confident that you won't falsify it.
Sure I can, it's just another of your straw men, obviously falsified. What good did the hundreds of peer reviewed quantitative papers do the "dirty snowball idea"

The Electric Comet hypothesis has longevity and fits the facts

Haig 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 24th February 2015, 01:38 PM   #89
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,190
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
This was an actually a recent quote.
Yes, I know. But the simplistic "dirty snowball" model is not recent. Mainstream comet science has progressed past that some time ago. The quote is just PR, it's not science.

Quote:
Sure I can, it's just another of your straw men, obviously falsified. What good did the hundreds of peer reviewed quantitative papers do the "dirty snowball idea"
First, it's not a straw man, it's my own argument that ECH proponents are all cranks. You can't straw man yourself. Second, none of the papers you refer to are for the ECH. Disproving 1950's models of comets doesn't prove the ECH, or even quantify it.

Quote:
The Electric Comet hypothesis has longevity and fits the facts
It doesn't fit the facts, and if longevity of a theory was a virtue, then we should all be creationists. Plus, of course, still no quantification.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 24th February 2015, 02:21 PM   #90
Haig
Graduate Poster
 
Haig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,635
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Yes, I know. But the simplistic "dirty snowball" model is not recent.
Yet, it still gets dragged out !

Quote:
Mainstream comet science has progressed past that some time ago.
Progressed to what Ziggurat ? Care to pin a tail on that donkey ?

Quote:
The quote is just PR, it's not science.
So why do it ? Don't the tax paying public deserve to know what the latest mainstream comet science actually is ?

Quote:
First, it's not a straw man, it's my own argument that ECH proponents are all cranks. You can't straw man yourself.
It's a load of rubbish and you know it. Your setting up your opponents as something they are not, that's a straw man.

Quote:
Second, none of the papers you refer to are for the ECH. Disproving 1950's models of comets doesn't prove the ECH, or even quantify it.
Your hobby horse is "qualitative" I just showed you it's a flawed argument. Get the data first before going that far

Quote:
It doesn't fit the facts, and if longevity of a theory was a virtue, then we should all be creationists. Plus, of course, still no quantification.
Round and round we go ... roll on the summer and the very active Electric Comet 67P

Jets on Electric Comet 67P
Haig 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 24th February 2015, 02:45 PM   #91
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,190
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
Yet, it still gets dragged out !
Yeah, by you.

Quote:
Progressed to what Ziggurat ? Care to pin a tail on that donkey ?
It's been sufficiently detailed in this thread already.

Quote:
So why do it ?
Because it sounds good.

Quote:
Don't the tax paying public deserve to know what the latest mainstream comet science actually is ?
The public doesn't really care about the latest mainstream comet science, but more importantly, science reporters are not generally capable of conveying such information anyways. If you want the actual science, you don't go to the press reports.

Quote:
It's a load of rubbish and you know it. Your setting up your opponents as something they are not, that's a straw man.
No. You do not understand the terminology. A straw man is when you make a false representation of your opponent's argument. I'm making a claim about ECH proponents themselves. This is not a "straw man".

But that's pedantry. The more important issue is whether or not my claim is correct. You say that it is not. But you cannot provide evidence that it is not. Evidence that would disprove my claim is rather easy to specify: quantitative models from ECH proponents. Such modeling is standard fare in legitimate science. Yet it is completely absent from the ECH.

Quote:
Your hobby horse is "qualitative"
No, it's not. In fact, your own recent claim about all those quantitative papers in peer reviewed journals contradicts this claim.

Quote:
Round and round we go ... roll on the summer and the very active Electric Comet 67P
Still nothing quantitative. But I am amused to see the name Michael Mozina pop up. He used to be a regular here, had some rather strange notions about the sun being an iron shell, it was all quite silly.

Quote:
It looks like a bunny!
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 24th February 2015, 03:29 PM   #92
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
Yet, it still gets dragged out !


Progressed to what Ziggurat ? Care to pin a tail on that donkey ?

So why do it ? Don't the tax paying public deserve to know what the latest mainstream comet science actually is ?


It's a load of rubbish and you know it. Your setting up your opponents as something they are not, that's a straw man.


Your hobby horse is "qualitative" I just showed you it's a flawed argument. Get the data first before going that far



Round and round we go ... roll on the summer and the very active Electric Comet 67P

Jets on Electric Comet 67P
Can you tell us please what specific features of those pictures are indicative of electrical activity and mutually incomparable with the mainstream explanation? Don't be afraid to get technical, I can take it.

What the images look like to me is plumes of particles of some kind exiting the comet at low kinetic energy and gradually diffusing as they move farther away from source points. Please explain how I'm wrong.
Jrrarglblarg 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 24th February 2015, 04:00 PM   #93
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,126
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
What "standard comet model" Ziggurat ?
We have
* the insanity of a Google search, Haig!
* the electric comet delusion
* ignorance about science (what a surprise ).
Puzzling observations are good. They allow scientists to explain the real world using actual physics.
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 24th February 2015, 04:07 PM   #94
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,126
Thumbs down Haig still believes in the Thunderbolts ignorance, delusions and lies

Originally Posted by Haig View Post
The Electric Comet hypothesis has longevity and fits the facts ]
Sorry, Haig, but that is a lie.
There is no "Electric Comet hypothesis". There is the base delusion that comets were blasted from planets and the delusional conclusions from that, e.g. that comets are rocks despite their measured density.
The "Electric Comet hypothesis" fits no facts about comets because all the Thunderbolts authors have are fantasies based on their ignorance of physics.
]The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site and videos
The "Electric Comet hypothesis" is basically a decade old from the Thunderbolts authors ! Unless you really want to start with the Velikovskian delusions (1950's) or the Jurgen fairy stories published in his journal (1970s?).

Last edited by Reality Check; 24th February 2015 at 04:09 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 24th February 2015, 04:10 PM   #95
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,126
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
Here we go again with the idiocy of a Google search as if it was science, Haig !
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 25th February 2015, 03:22 AM   #96
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
ferd it's not dishonest and it's not a story, most of mainstream media and scientists are still using it and so it's fair to point out it's many failings.

The "real" scientists are a little confused, it would seem. Care to give a clear concise version of the latest mainstream comet model hypothesis ?
Want to know everything about mainstream comets, knowledge before Rosetta? Then read Comets II, eds. Festou, Keller & Weaver.

Unfortunately for Haig this book does not come in press release format.

And yes it is dishonest, because the EC crowd keeps on insisting that mainstream still sees a dirty snowball where actually in your own quote, Haig, Nick Thomas also says:

Previous missions had already hinted that comets were more complex than that.

But hey, who cares about such small details?

Originally Posted by Haig View Post
... snip
Sure I can, it's just another of your straw men, obviously falsified. What good did the hundreds of peer reviewed quantitative papers do the "dirty snowball idea"

The Electric Comet hypothesis has longevity and fits the facts
Please link to an actual published paper by the EC crowd, that would maybe strengthen your babbling.

Searching the pdf of the Comets II book, I notice that there are 5 mentions of "dirty snowball" and they are all in the "history sections" of a few papers, indicating that this was the idea of Whipple in the late 1950s.

But hey, why bother about what mainstream is really saying in its scientific papers, when you can cherry pick from press releases?
__________________
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

Last edited by tusenfem; 25th February 2015 at 03:47 AM.
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 25th February 2015, 09:55 AM   #97
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 12,438
Quote:
The Electric Comet hypothesis has longevity and fits the facts
Seems to me that those pushing it claim it fits every fact they come across even when some are mutually exclusive.
Captain_Swoop 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 25th February 2015, 11:54 AM   #98
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
 
dasmiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 5,715
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Seems to me that those pushing it claim it fits every fact they come across even when some are mutually exclusive.
That's the power of EC: whatever you observe can be interpreted to be consistent with your retroactive predictions.

Smooth surface on a comet? That's what you'd expect because EDM would destroy any outcroppings!
Rough surface on a comet? That's you'd expect because it's rock!

No water vapor? That's what you'd expect because it's rock dust!
Water vapor? That's you'd expect because solar hydrogen is reacting with comet oxygen!

Bright pixels? That's what you'd expect, it's EDM!
No bright pixels? That's what you'd expect because there wasn't an EDM happening at just that instant.

Jets combine into one big jet? That's what you'd expect because of double layers!
Jets diverge? That's what you'd expect because the particles are still charged!

High measured density? That's what you'd expect because it's rock!
Low measured density? That's what you'd expect because the net charge messes up the density measurement!

Comet goes quiet at perihelion? That's what you'd expect because the charge has equalized!
Comet is most active at perihelion? That's what you'd expect because the charge takes longer to equalize!
Comet activity is similar during inbound and outbound legs despite what must be wildly different charge states? That's what you'd expect because (some bizarre sun-charge-plasma words)!


Meanwhile, in the EC version of mainstream theory:

Smooth surface on a comet? Aha! The dirty snowball theory is wrong because the comet would have exposed dirt and it wouldn't be smooth!
Rough surface on a comet? Aha! The dirty snowball theory is wrong because the comet would have a smooth surface due to all the melting!

No water vapor? Aha! It can't be a dirty snowball, then!
Water vapor? Aha! It still can't be a dirty snowball because of (some bizarre rationale involving the sun's corona)

Bright pixels? Aha! Dirty snowball doesn't predict any bright pixels!
No bright pixels? Stuck pixels, transients, etc, should be causing some bright pixels regardless of the subject, so they're hiding data, and they wouldn't be hiding data if it supported dirty snowball!

Jets combine? Aha! Dirty snowball must be wrong, because there's no reason that sublimation jets from a dirty snowball would combine!
Jets diverge? Aha! Dirty snowball must be wrong, because on Earth, if you boil water in several pans, the steam all goes the same direction, so subliming ice on a comet should cause jets that all go the same direction!

High measured density? Aha! Dirty snowball predicts low density.
Low measured density? Aha! They have no good way of measuring density, so they're simply making up data to support their discredited dirty snowball theory, those ignorant money-grubbing hypocrites who're willing to sacrifice any shred of scientific integrity to cling to unscientific dogma established by the big-science priesthood. They're probably socially awkward and kick dogs, too.

Comet goes quiet at perihelion? Aha! Dirty snowball is wrong because it says the comet should stay active at perihelion.
Comet is most active at perihelion? Aha! Dirty snowball is wrong because (some bizarre misconception involving solar wind).

round and round we go . . .
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt

Last edited by dasmiller; 25th February 2015 at 11:58 AM.
dasmiller 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 25th February 2015, 06:47 PM   #99
Matthew Cline
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 841
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
So why do it ? Don't the tax paying public deserve to know what the latest mainstream comet science actually is ?
Do you think that scientists are letting down the public by failing to ride herd on the PR people?
__________________
The National Society for Oh My God What IS That Thing Run and Save Yourselves Oh God No No No No No: join today!
Matthew Cline 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 25th February 2015, 07:43 PM   #100
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,126
Originally Posted by Matthew Cline View Post
Do you think that scientists are letting down the public by failing to ride herd on the PR people?
Actually Haig's statement is just wrong. He quotes from a news article about the latest mainstream comet science:
Rosetta reveals a complex comet (January 22, 2015)
and then claims that it does not contain the latest mainstream comet science !

What is really happening is that Haig has no idea what an idea is .
So he thinks that the phrase "dirty snowball idea" is referring to the scientific model of comets as being made of ice and dust. But the phrase is referring to the description of comets as "dirty snowballs" dating from the 1950's and out of date since at least Deep Impact on Tempel 1. Comets are more complex than that. So a new description is needed. Maybe "dirty icy snow/dirt balls"?
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 26th February 2015, 12:35 AM   #101
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 12,438
accretion balls
Captain_Swoop 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 26th February 2015, 01:17 AM   #102
asydhouse
Master Poster
 
asydhouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Swansea in the UK
Posts: 2,368
Originally Posted by ferd burfle View Post
Only in your imagination, Sol. Real scientists see contradiction as an opportunity to do a definitive experiment that will advance our understanding. There's a timeless Niels Bohr quote: "How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress."

You claim to know how to breed a more beautiful and hardy orchid; why do you just stand outside the greenhouse throwing rocks at the glass?


Nominated! That last sentence is a beauty.
__________________
asydhouse art website http://www.asydhouse.co.uk/asydhouse...Syd_house.html
asydhouse 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 26th February 2015, 07:43 AM   #103
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 7,521
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
Shame about the old thread I guess 99 pages did strain the forum a bit ...
Don't worry, I can summarize that whole thread:

"deedledey dee, electric comet!"

[links to sources repeating ""deedledey dee, electric comet!" and its variations]

[a bunch of flies thumping on a window glass]

[highly cognitive beings trying to explain those flies the glass is not air and they should find their way around the glass]

[highly cognitive beings expecting this will suffice]

[THUMP!]

... part 3 ... / iterate
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!
These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN 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 26th February 2015, 08:27 PM   #104
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,201
Well, gosh , thanks.
__________________
Chicken is a vegetable-James May, vegetarian
A target doesn't need to be preselected-Jabba
ferd burfle 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 28th February 2015, 02:41 PM   #105
Haig
Graduate Poster
 
Haig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,635
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
Don't worry, I can summarize that whole thread:

"deedledey dee, electric comet!"

[links to sources repeating ""deedledey dee, electric comet!" and its variations]

[a bunch of flies thumping on a window glass]

[highly cognitive beings trying to explain those flies the glass is not air and they should find their way around the glass]

[highly cognitive beings expecting this will suffice]

[THUMP!]

... part 3 ... / iterate

That sums your shortcomings nicely

You forgot to say Electric Comets operate in an Electric Universe

Haig 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 28th February 2015, 03:04 PM   #106
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
That sums your shortcomings nicely
I would only reluctantly poke that particular tiger with a stick. What he lacks in stealth he makes up in ferociousness.
Jrrarglblarg 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 28th February 2015, 05:05 PM   #107
Haig
Graduate Poster
 
Haig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,635
Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon View Post
I would only reluctantly poke that particular tiger with a stick. What he lacks in stealth he makes up in ferociousness.
So what your saying is "he likes to dish it out but can't take" ?


Electric Comets for numpties
Haig 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 28th February 2015, 06:04 PM   #108
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
How about an answer to my question a few posts back?
Jrrarglblarg 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 28th February 2015, 07:01 PM   #109
Haig
Graduate Poster
 
Haig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,635
Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon View Post
How about an answer to my question a few posts back?

If you mean this post of yours HERE the answer is in the last line of my post that you quote !

"Round and round we go ... roll on the summer and the very active Electric Comet 67P"

Wait until the summer! get it now ?

Have you seen the latest pictures of Ceres ?

What do you think the enigmatic bright spot, which has now separated into two bright spots are being caused by ?

Could that be EDM like action on a asteroid ? and what about those hexagonal flat bottomed craters with central peaks ! very EU like

Mainstream speculate too ...

At last, Ceres is a geological world
Quote:
The bright spots generally seem to have an association with craters, so I'm going to assume that they resulted from an impact exposing subsurface, brighter material until I see evidence to the contrary. I won't speculate on what that material is until Dawn gets closer. But we still don't know what is happening on Ceres yet, and have to keep open the possibility that they are volcanic.
Volcanic action on a asteroid ... imagine that !

My money is on EDM like action

you know like Electric Comets ...

Quote:
The evidence suggests that comets are highly negatively charged with respect to the Sun. As they rush toward the Sun, the voltage increases until at some point the comet nucleus begins to discharge. Electrons are stripped from a few points on the comet surface where the electric field is strongest. These "spark discharges" finely machine rocky material from the surface to form a "cathode jet" of negatively charged dust together with surface matter that has been torn apart to release ionized atoms and molecules
Haig 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 1st March 2015, 08:56 AM   #110
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 15,095
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
If you mean this post of yours HERE the answer is in the last line of my post that you quote !

"Round and round we go ... roll on the summer and the very active Electric Comet 67P"

Wait until the summer! get it now ?

Have you seen the latest pictures of Ceres ?

What do you think the enigmatic bright spot, which has now separated into two bright spots are being caused by ?

Could that be EDM like action on a asteroid ? and what about those hexagonal flat bottomed craters with central peaks ! very EU like

Mainstream speculate too ...

At last, Ceres is a geological world


Volcanic action on a asteroid ... imagine that !

My money is on EDM like action

you know like Electric Comets ...
What do you think would flow from a volcano on an icy dwarf planet?
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)

Last edited by LSSBB; 1st March 2015 at 09:00 AM.
LSSBB 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 1st March 2015, 10:47 AM   #111
Lukraak_Sisser
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,925
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
What do you think would flow from a volcano on an icy dwarf planet?
But but.... that would imply ice volcanoes!!

If only we'd ever observed such things in our solar system.

Oh wait, we have, but those observations are from the late 80's onward, so my guess it the EU proponents have never actually looked at such recent mainstream publications.
Lukraak_Sisser 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 1st March 2015, 01:07 PM   #112
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,126
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
"Round and round we go ... roll on the summer and the very active Electric Comet 67P"
Yes Haig, around and astounds we go with your inability to comprehend the delusion that is that electric comet idea after 5 years !

Now you add to the incomprehension with your personal fantasy that Ceres (an asteroid!) undergoes EDM
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 1st March 2015, 02:45 PM   #113
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
If you mean this post of yours HERE the answer is in the last line of my post that you quote !
.
What, you think results of a google image constitute a specific answer to my question? It seems to me you don't actually understand the question.

I'll ask specifically. Try not to answer with obfuscation or a Gish gallop this time:

What specific features of the "jets" are explicitly and exclusively characteristic of some form of electrical phenomena? What specific features of diffuse gas venting from a sublimating object are absent from the "jets?"

Citations other than your biblethumper link, please. Actual electrical or plasma feature are what I'm asking about, not vague and squishy "looks like" criteria.
Jrrarglblarg 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 1st March 2015, 03:16 PM   #114
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,126
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
...Now you add to the incomprehension with your personal fantasy that Ceres (an asteroid!) undergoes EDM
P.S.
What has happened is that Dawn has got closer to Ceres and is seeing more details. So a bright spot in a crater seen by Hubble has been resolved into two bright spots. On in the center of the floor of the crater, another to one side of the center. N.B. that is relatively bright since these are actually dull spots against a dark background in images that have their contrast tweaked to show details.
Emily Lakdawalla states a scientifically obvious origin for the spots - a couple of impacts have exposed ice that Ceres is known to probably have. But she does not rule out volcanic activity as she explains:
Quote:
The bright spots generally seem to have an association with craters, so I'm going to assume that they resulted from an impact exposing subsurface, brighter material until I see evidence to the contrary. I won't speculate on what that material is until Dawn gets closer. But we still don't know what is happening on Ceres yet, and have to keep open the possibility that they are volcanic. Why do I prefer the crater interpretation to the volcano interpretation? It's about my geological bias. it would be much more exciting for the bright spots to be volcano-related than crater-related; I really want it to be true that they're volcanic, because then there'd be a more exciting geologic history story to tell. So I have to calibrate my interpretation by dialing down my suspicion that they're volcanic, and insisting mentally that they must be impact-related until someone shows me incontrovertible evidence that they are volcanic. And then I will let myself be excited about volcanism on an asteroid!

This is not terrestrial volcanoes, Haig - this is ice volcanoes.
Could these bright spots on Ceres be ice volcanoes?
Water Found on Dwarf Planet Ceres, May Erupt from Ice Volcanoes
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 1st March 2015, 04:55 PM   #115
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 12,438
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post

Now you add to the incomprehension with your personal fantasy that Ceres (an asteroid!) undergoes EDM
So it's a Comet then?
Captain_Swoop 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 2nd March 2015, 10:53 AM   #116
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 7,521
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
You forgot to say Electric Comets operate in an Electric Universe
I didn't; it was included in the deedledey-dee part. But for your peace of mind, I agree the Electric Universe works backwards and produces amazingly precise hindsight predictions. Velikovsky showed the path.

Also amazing, Ceres a dwarf planet having a geology and presenting slightly different aspect when photographed from different angles at different times! Whowuddathunkit!?

But be sure that -in these fora, almost exclusively driven by the Principle of Pleasure- it's not going to be me who will deprive most posters here from enjoying while they dissect your verbal produce and linkage.

And about the Electric Universe, there will be countless generations of flies thumping on the window glass and that won't make air of it.
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!
These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN 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 2nd March 2015, 12:07 PM   #117
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
 
dasmiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 5,715
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
So it's a Comet then?
Well, sure! It's an eccentric orbit, right?

We can do a little math here. Ceres' aphelion is ~16% greater than its perihelion, so the sun's E field should be ~35.5% stronger at aphelion (r^2). Suppose we need 1M volts for a good EDM; that means we'd want the aphelion voltage to be at least 1M volts higher than the perihelion voltage.

That's what we get if we assume the sun's E field is ~25 million volts at 1 AU.

If it works for Ceres, why not for Mercury? Mercury's much closer to the sun, and has a larger eccentricity, so Mercury would see a field variation of ~150 M volts over the course of an orbit. And of course, Mercury's orbit period is much lower, so the voltage changes are not only larger, they're much more rapid.

Plus, Mercury has about 367X the mass of Ceres.

Stacking it all up:
Voltage range per orbit: 149.4X Ceres
Orbit rate: 19X Ceres
Mass: 367X Ceres

So we'd expect Mercury to experience 149.4 * 19 * 367 = 1.05 milllion times as many EDM events as Ceres. If Ceres is experiencing 1 EDM event per earth year, Mercury should be experiencing roughly 2 per minute.

To my knowledge, we haven't observed anything like that.

But let's not stop there. Due to Earth's orbital eccentricity, the moon's distance from the sun varies from 0.98 to 1.02 AU. It should see 1.7X the voltage variation of Ceres, and Earth's orbit period is 4.6X shorter than Ceres', and the moon's mass is 82X Ceres; stacking them up, we'd expect the Moon to have ~630X as many EDM events as Ceres.

Odd that we haven't observed those.

Note that the relative EDM rates (630 X Ceres, 1.05 million X Ceres) are independent of the actual EDM voltage, as long as that voltage is consistent for the 3 bodies.

ETA: Maybe one could make the Ceres/Mercury/Moon thing look consistent if the EDM events were strongly dependent on the local plasma parameters so that the Moon and Mercury are experiencing constant, tiny discharges that we wouldn't notice. I'd think that would turn off any comets, though, and I don't have the attention span to try to come up with a combination of plasma density and ionization level that would make it all look consistent, particularly since whenever I've dug into this sort of thing, the numbers have said that the sun and comets should instantly explode. And if they didn't explode, all of the orbits would be wildly non-ballistic.
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt

Last edited by dasmiller; 2nd March 2015 at 12:46 PM.
dasmiller 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 3rd March 2015, 06:59 PM   #118
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,994
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
I didn't; it was included in the deedledey-dee part. But for your peace of mind, I agree the Electric Universe works backwards and produces amazingly precise hindsight predictions. Velikovsky showed the path.

Also amazing, Ceres a dwarf planet having a geology and presenting slightly different aspect when photographed from different angles at different times! Whowuddathunkit!?

But be sure that -in these fora, almost exclusively driven by the Principle of Pleasure- it's not going to be me who will deprive most posters here from enjoying while they dissect your verbal produce and linkage.

And about the Electric Universe, there will be countless generations of flies thumping on the window glass and that won't make air of it.
With Hexagonal craters and all!!!
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
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 3rd March 2015, 07:08 PM   #119
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,994
Notice all the "ice' in the new image from OSIRIS camera!! HERE

ice ice everywhere dirtydeepfriedicecream confirmed, nothing to see here, move along.

Well at least we are not looking at rock, just rocky like stuff with bright stuff shining thru!!!
Quote:
Holger Sierks said, “Higher strength material that was a surprise to us.” “With this picture of dust falling back to the surface forming high porosity layers, we failed to explain the rebounds.” “It’s rocky-like stuff, but not rock.” “We also see this stuff shining through where the dust layer is wiped away or fallen off following the gravitational field and exposing a higher-strength material and this is something we could consider be the reason for the rebound.”
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
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 3rd March 2015, 09:04 PM   #120
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,126
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Notice all the "ice' in the new image from OSIRIS camera!! ...
No, Sol88 - we know that you are incapable of knowing what you see in astronomy images from your pervious bad attempts to do so. So you noticing anything correctly is highly improbable.
Comet flyby: OSIRIS catches glimpse of Rosetta’s shadow
Notice absolutely no mention of ice at the blog, Sol88!
Notice bright spots on the surface of 67P, Sol88.

Notice that it is a (Thunderbolts?) lie to say that scientists expect to see ice in OSIRIS images now that they have evidence that the surface of 67P is covered in dust !

The ignorance of depending on descriptive terms rather than science with "dirtydeepfriedicecream" confirmed.

Yes, Sol88, a mixture of dust and ices is "rocky-like stuff" especially in low gravity when they can more easily adhere.

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd March 2015 at 09:08 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
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 04:36 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.