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 14th April 2015, 04:15 AM   #281
The Moog
Scholar
 
The Moog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 102
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Tusenfem, how do us mere mortals get in on the action?
...
Have you considered going back to school and attempting to learn something?
The Moog 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 14th April 2015, 12:43 PM   #282
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,161
Quote:
Whoops, that's electric and on the moon it produces OH! but not a comet
Yawn, and it then goes on to say that these are caused by sputtering. That is the impact of the heavier ions of the solar wind on the dust particles. The heavier ions make up only around 1% of the solar wind. This is a well known and expected phenomenon, and has been tested in the lab.
The statement also talks about the changes in sublimation and sputtering on a seasonal and diurnal basis. To be expected that there isn't much going on on the part of the comet not facing the solar wind, or heated directly. Pretty much, once again, as one would expect from the standard model. As opposed to the electric woo woo which must somehow turn itself off, coincidentally, when that part of the comet isn't sunlight. Argues more against EU, so once again, thanks for the link, but not sure why you highlighted it.
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 Back to Top
Old 14th April 2015, 03:13 PM   #283
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So how's the hunt for "ice" and confirmation of the sublimation theory going??

Not so good from what I can see.
Obviously you need glasses and a better memory, Sol88, because we have detected ices on comets (even water ice), comets are made of ices and dust and every comet jet is made of sublimating ices and dust !
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 14th April 2015, 03:26 PM   #284
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Whoops, that's electric and on the moon it produces OH! but not a comet
Whoops, that is the idiocy of thinking that comets are made of rock like the Moon, Sol88 !
Dust particles also splutter as you would have found out if you understood what you read.

Solar Wind sputtering from the surface of Comet Churyumov-Gerasimenko is not support for the delusions that you support about
  • Earth once orbiting Saturn
  • Planets colliding
  • Magical thunderbolts between planets
  • Comets being blasted from planets
  • Comets being rocks despite their measured density
  • etc.

Lying about Solar Wind sputtering from the surface of Comet Churyumov-Gerasimenko is bad. It is about the observed species from sublimation and observed species from spluttering.
Quote:
Most of the observed species in the coma are volatile material that are released from the comet’s surface by sublimation, for example H2O, CO, CO2 and many others. ...
In addition to the volatile material we detected atoms of Na, K, Si, S, and some more, which cannot or only partially be set free via sublimation.Again, we project these measurements down onto the surface of the comet.
These maps for the sputtered atoms differ significantly from the maps for volatile species, like the water map, in some cases they are almost the opposite. Our present understanding is that these atoms are the result of solar wind sputtering of refractory material, i.e. of dust located on the cometary surface.
Interesting points that authors make is that
  • the maps of the origins of sublimated species vary with seasonal variation, i.e. what we would expect from sublimation caused by heat.
  • and are different from the maps of origins of sputtered species.

Last edited by Reality Check; 14th April 2015 at 03:28 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 15th April 2015, 09:48 AM   #285
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Tusenfem, how do us mere mortals get in on the action?

Do they do webcast's? Release papers?

or all sit behind closed doors stroking each others beards nodding in agreeance with sublimation theory?

Solar Wind sputtering from the surface of Comet
Churyumov-Gerasimenko




Whoops, that's electric and on the moon it produces OH! but not a comet
they write papers, give press conferences ( e.g. the unmagnetizedness of the comet from rpc and romap) there are blogs from esa etc etc

no sputtering is not electric it is the impacting of sw ions on the surface and mechanically kick out particles from the surface. no ec there at all.
and maybe it does create water, but as you keep on forgetting or more likely ignoring the production rate is what is important. show us the production rate and then we can talk further.
__________________
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 15th April 2015, 02:50 PM   #286
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,994
Show me the "ice"


not inferred, t he actual "ice".
__________________
"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 15th April 2015, 03:11 PM   #287
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Thumbs down Sol88: Continued unthinking support for the Thunderbolts delusions

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Show me the "ice"
What an astounding delusion, Sol88: We do not have samples of ice from any comet to show you !

What we have is the detection of water ice on the surface of Tempel 1 that you already know about. So you can stop lying about no having ice "shown to you".
ETA: But this is not likely since this you have known about this since 4th August 2009 Sol88: Deep Impact found ice on the surface of Tempel 1.
What we have is the measured density of comets that tells any rational person that they are made up of ices and dust not rock.
What we have is the detection of sublimated ices being emitted from comets.
What we may have is the insanity of thinking that we have samples from inside comets! One of the Rosetta experiments is to use radio waves to investigate the interior of 67P but I think that needs the lander to be working.

Sol88: Are you going to continue to display the mindlessness of supporting the Thunderbolts delusions about
  • Earth once orbiting Saturn
  • Planets colliding
  • Magical thunderbolts between planets
  • Comets being blasted from planets
  • Comets being rocks despite their measured density
  • Comets having no ice despite ices being detected on their surface (even water ice on Temple 1)
  • etc.

There is no point in citing actual science to you, Sol88, given that you have been totally taken in by the obvious Thunderbolts delusions. But I will point you to the 313 abstracts about "detection of ices on the surface of a comet" in ADS.
This includes: Exposed Water Ice Deposits on the Surface of Comet 9P/Tempel 1

Last edited by Reality Check; 15th April 2015 at 03:27 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 15th April 2015, 04:09 PM   #288
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,994
Reality Check, you have found no ice but it is REQUIRED for mainstreams sublimation theory!

and I don't mean the trivial amounts of frost found on temple 1. How much "ice" did we find on Borelly? Wild2?.....NONE but why stop a good story from continuing ay!

Tell the truth, 'ol mate NO ICE FOUND but inferred and sublimating ice invoked to save prior theory!!!

AND


the absolute contempt to produce made up evidence presented as fact is outstanding!!!

e.g
Quote:
Based onthe comparison between OSIRIS observations and laboratory results, our favoured interpretation of the observed
features is that the bright spots are exposures of water ice, resulting from the removal of the uppermost layer of
refractory dust that covers the rest of the nucleus. Some of the observations of clusters of bright spots are very
indicative of a formation process, which involves the breakage and collapse of brittle layers of ice to form fields
of large boulders, some of them showing bright spots on part of their surface.

You've got your hand on it again!
__________________
"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]

Last edited by Sol88; 15th April 2015 at 04:15 PM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th April 2015, 04:47 PM   #289
Matthew Cline
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 844
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Show me the "ice"


not inferred, t he actual "ice".
What would count? The probe taking a core-sample and doing analysis on the sample? Would anything short of that count?
__________________
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 15th April 2015, 05:07 PM   #290
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 Sol88 View Post
Show me the "ice"


not inferred, t he actual "ice".
Show me the electric arcs. Not inferences from petroglyphs, not occasional overexposed pixels, show me the actual arcs that are doing the EDM.

Show me the galactic current flows that power the sun. Not youtube videos about Birkeland, not speculations about solar neutrinos, show me the actual galactic current flows.

Show me some numbers that make sense. Not complaints about mainstream science, not speculations about density measurements, simply show me some numbers that make sense - "If the solar system had an electric field with X strength centered on the sun, and 67P is made of typical silicates, then 67P would need to discharge Z coulombs during its inbound leg . . . etc, etc."

Show me a lightning bolt that would eject a hundred cubic kilometers of rock (more-or-less intact!) from the surface of the earth. Don't show me an odd scar on someone's arm, don't give me speculations about solar hydrogen, show me a lightning bolt than can eject a hundred cubic kilometers of rock.

(I'll stop there, but I think you get the gist)
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt
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 15th April 2015, 05:11 PM   #291
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 15,120
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Show me the "ice"


not inferred, t he actual "ice".
What happens to water below the freezing point? You know, H2O.
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
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 15th April 2015, 06:13 PM   #292
Matthew Cline
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 844
Originally Posted by dasmiller View Post
Don't show me an odd scar on someone's arm,
I must have missed that one.
__________________
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 15th April 2015, 08:12 PM   #293
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Exclamation Sol88: Do not repeat a lie about no ice being found (ice found on Tempel 1)

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Reality Check, you have found no ice ..
Sol88, that is a lie as you know that ice has been found on a comet.
The scientific truth is:
A Thunderbolts delusion that you support is that comets are rocks. Sol88: Continued unthinking support for the Thunderbolts delusions

Which reminds me: 16 April 2015 Sol88: Do you share the Thunderbolts delusion from David Talbott that Earth used to orbit with Saturn in recent times (recent enough to be a myth)?
Quote:
2. "…He claims, with complete assurance, that Venus, Mars, Saturn, and Jupiter traveled very close to Earth within human memory. He says that together these planets presented a stupendous form in the sky, at times peaceful and at time violent." Parsons, Steve (2005). ...
P.S.
19th January 2010 Sol88: Do EC comets switch off at perihelion?
22nd December 2014: Questions about the origin of electric comets
From August 2009 Sol88: List of 19! outstanding questions[/quote]

ETA: Your denial of the real world since 2009 is well documented, Sol88: Electric comets still do not exist!

ETA2:
Sublimating gas being emitted from a pit on 67P: Active pit
Quote:
Active pit detected in Seth region of Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko. This is an OSIRIS narrow-angle camera image acquired on 28 August 2014 from a distance of 60 km. The image resolution is 1 m/pixel. Enhancing the contrast (right) reveals fine structures in the shadow of the pit, interpreted as jet-like features rising from the pit.
This is an image from last year and from a fair distance away. Rosetta has taken many more images from closer in and of an increasingly active comet. It is probable that better images will emerge in the next few months.

Last edited by Reality Check; 15th April 2015 at 08:57 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 Back to Top
Old 15th April 2015, 09:54 PM   #294
Lukraak_Sisser
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,929
Originally Posted by dasmiller View Post
Show me the electric arcs. Not inferences from petroglyphs, not occasional overexposed pixels, show me the actual arcs that are doing the EDM.

Show me the galactic current flows that power the sun. Not youtube videos about Birkeland, not speculations about solar neutrinos, show me the actual galactic current flows.

Show me some numbers that make sense. Not complaints about mainstream science, not speculations about density measurements, simply show me some numbers that make sense - "If the solar system had an electric field with X strength centered on the sun, and 67P is made of typical silicates, then 67P would need to discharge Z coulombs during its inbound leg . . . etc, etc."

Show me a lightning bolt that would eject a hundred cubic kilometers of rock (more-or-less intact!) from the surface of the earth. Don't show me an odd scar on someone's arm, don't give me speculations about solar hydrogen, show me a lightning bolt than can eject a hundred cubic kilometers of rock.

(I'll stop there, but I think you get the gist)
I would second this. Sol88, you complain about mainstream science not producing any results (mostly by ignoring all results you don't agree with/ understand), yet you've never shown the electric universe model is even plausible in any way.
Not a single shred of experimental evidence has ever been given or found. In fact all theories proposed so far go against what we know about how electromagnetism works.
So, show us those experiments, the mathematical theory underlying them and the predictions made with it.
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 15th April 2015, 09:54 PM   #295
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,161
Somebody who is more clued up on magnetic field propagation than I can comment on the following. I lifted it from the Rosetta blog, posted by Harvey, who is the same Prof. Harvey Rutt I referenced some posts back. It was in relation to a non-magnetised comet:

"There is something else this rules out (not that it needed to.)

Lets take a *really feeble* discharge current, say 1mA/cm^2 or 10A/m^2. That is very low by Lab standards & certainly wont do anything dramatic, let alone shift masses of neutrals & dust.
Take, say, a 50m radius carrying 1mA/cm^2, and say 1km away.

The resultant field is around 2*10^-5T
The reported field is <2*10^-9T, some ten thousand times weaker.
You can mess with the assumptions as you like; no way willl you drop the field by 10^4 - and the current density I've used is extremely low, you could argue for a thousamd or more times that.

So maybe Philae was at the exact centre, or several fields *exactly* vector cancelled at both craft, or whatever; there is certain to be an explanation."

Interestingly, he posted it two days ago, and hasn't had a response as yet!
So never mind "where's the ice"; where's the electricity?

http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2015/04...ot-magnetised/

Last edited by jonesdave116; 15th April 2015 at 09:56 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 Back to Top
Old 15th April 2015, 10:30 PM   #296
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post

the absolute contempt to produce made up evidence presented as fact is outstanding!!!

!
Unsupported assertion. Pancake bunny says your argument is invalid.
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 15th April 2015, 11:41 PM   #297
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Show me the "ice"


not inferred, t he actual "ice".
it is there it is being measured by varous instruments
__________________
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 16th April 2015, 06:54 AM   #298
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,530
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
it is there it is being measured by varous instruments
He won't believe it until you cut out piece and drop it in his drink.
phunk 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 16th April 2015, 08:14 AM   #299
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,512
Originally Posted by dasmiller View Post
Show me the electric arcs. Not inferences from petroglyphs, not occasional overexposed pixels, show me the actual arcs that are doing the EDM.

Show me the galactic current flows that power the sun. Not youtube videos about Birkeland, not speculations about solar neutrinos, show me the actual galactic current flows.

Show me some numbers that make sense. Not complaints about mainstream science, not speculations about density measurements, simply show me some numbers that make sense - "If the solar system had an electric field with X strength centered on the sun, and 67P is made of typical silicates, then 67P would need to discharge Z coulombs during its inbound leg . . . etc, etc."

Show me a lightning bolt that would eject a hundred cubic kilometers of rock (more-or-less intact!) from the surface of the earth. Don't show me an odd scar on someone's arm, don't give me speculations about solar hydrogen, show me a lightning bolt than can eject a hundred cubic kilometers of rock.

(I'll stop there, but I think you get the gist)
Muwahaha
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 16th April 2015, 02:06 PM   #300
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Missed this rant from Sol88:
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
the absolute contempt to produce made up evidence presented as fact is outstanding!!!
The absolute contempt that I (and maybe other posters) have is for blind unthinking support for the "made up evidence presented as fact" by the Thunderbolts authors, Sol88.
Here you are lying about "made up facts" from scientists when you support the various delusions that the Thunderbolts authors have stated, e.g. the fantasy that comets are rocks!.

The lie is that you quote scientists comparing laboratory measurements (the Holy Grail of the electric universe !) to actual measurements and concluding that the actual measurements are compatible with the detection of water ice. That is not "made up facts" - that is science! The usual bad scholarship is missing out the source of what you quoted, Sol88. Luckily there is Google.
Metre-size bright spots at the surface of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko: Interpretation of OSIRIS data using laboratory experiments (PDF)
Quote:
Analysis of the results of past and present laboratory experiments with H2O-ice/dust mixtures provide interesting insights about the nature and origin of the bright spots. In particular, recent sublimation experiments conducted at the University of Bern reproduce the spectro-photometric variability observed at the surface of the nucleus by sequences of formation and ejection of a mantle of refractory organic-rich dust at the surface of the icy material. The formation of hardened layers of ice by sintering/re-condensation below the uppermost dust layer can also have strong implications for both the photometric and mechanical properties of the subsurface layer. Based on the comparison between OSIRIS observations and laboratory results, our favoured interpretation of the observed features is that the bright spots are exposures of water ice, resulting from the removal of the uppermost layer of refractory dust that covers the rest of the nucleus.
And here is how science works, Sol88 - they have a hypothesis (the bright spots look like water ice) and a test that can falsify their hypothesis:
Quote:
These surface exposures of water ice must be more recent than the last passage at perihelion, as they would rapidly sublimate at short heliocentric distance. The hypothesis formulated here will thus easily be tested as the comet approaches the Sun, by checking if and how fast the bright spots vanish and disappear.
From the same conference:
Solar Wind sputtering from the surface of Comet Churyumov-Gerasimenko (PDF) includes the detection of sublimated species from 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 Back to Top
Old 19th April 2015, 02:53 PM   #301
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,161
Well, I've been waiting for somebody to do some number crunching on the observed and measured density of 67P, and what the EU woo merchants claim it should be, given that it is made out of rock. And how their "electrostatic repulsion" relates to this to give a false gravity reading, and how much charge there would need to be on the comet to account for it.
It's beyond me I'm afraid, but the Prof. Harvey Rutt I referenced in posts #263 & #295, posted something on the Rosetta blog on the 15th, which I've only just seen.
I won't copy the whole thing here, but he uses G m1m2/r^2 = ke q1q2/r^2 to do the estimate.
Guess what? We've been swindled! Rosetta has totally failed to notice that there must be a charge of 175 GV on the comet! Astonishing. I want my money back! Unless EU is all just a pile of horse manure, of course. On reconsideration, the latter is more likely the case.
Third post from the end (currently): http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2015/04...y-dust-grains/
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 Back to Top
Old 20th April 2015, 05:49 AM   #302
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,982
Actually, I am not really sure what Harvey wants to calculate there.
__________________
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 20th April 2015, 09:07 AM   #303
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,161
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Actually, I am not really sure what Harvey wants to calculate there.
As I said, it's beyond me, regarding the electrical calculations, but I believe is based on the fact that ESA reported that Rosetta had a charge of -5 - -10 V. I think the intention was then to calculate from that what the charge on the comet would need to be, assuming it to be rock, to produce a density measurement that was 4-5 times lower than one would expect from rock. Electrostatic repulsion is the spurious claim made by the EU woo merchants as the reason why the density is showing as being so low. Complete bobbins of course, but a verified density of ~ 470 kg/m^3 kind of blows their nutty hypothesis out of the water at a very early stage.
As I say, electrical equations, and which ones are relevant, are not my bag, so don't know if he's used the right ones, or plugged in the right figures.
I do remember Tom Bridgman did some calcs on his blog a while back, but didn't have any figures to plug in at that stage. Plus it was in Coulombs from memory, and I wouldn't have a scooby how to start messing around with Volts and Coulombs.
Given that we now have three of the variables, that is the mass of Rosetta and the charge on Rosetta, as well as the mass(es) of 67P, I'm assuming there must be some way of calculating the missing variable, i.e. the charge on the comet.

EDIT: This is the link to the Tom Bridgman article I mentioned: http://dealingwithcreationisminastro...vs-charge.html

Last edited by jonesdave116; 20th April 2015 at 09:51 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 20th April 2015, 12:05 PM   #304
ben m
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
It's interesting to watch an actual EUer attempt an actual argument in those comments. Around here we're down to "driveby EU trolls" and no one even attempts the arguments "THOMAS" is posting there any more. I'd half forgotten what it looked like.

The argument style seems to be:
  • ESA professional: <presents some result from a standard dusty plasma model>
  • EUer: I'm not convinced. Lookit how complicated that was. Epicycles everywhere probably. Therefore I will ignore your conclusion.
  • ESA professional: <uses Maxwell's Equations to show some orders of magnitude>
  • EUer: I'm not convinced, we all know electricity is extremely complicated and that calculation looked simple. Therefore I will ignore your conclusion.
  • ESA professional: <uses basic law of physics>
  • EUer: That law of physics is probably wrong, EUers ignore it all the time and look how well it works.

Last edited by ben m; 20th April 2015 at 12:07 PM.
ben m 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 20th April 2015, 06:01 PM   #305
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,994
Sublimation in action!

Quote:
Surprisingly, the new-born jet arises from a shadowed area on the underside of the comet, close to the centre of the Imhotep region. So far cometary activity has only been observed on the comet’s day-side.

Imhotep is covered in "Ice" because we see jets! Oh wait...
Quote:
The onset of activity could also be the result of a different type of more explosive activity. That is, the outburst could have been triggered by a wave of heat reaching ices trapped in a deeper layer beneath the surface.
......what?

Sounds like, according to the above posts, mainstreams maths is in serious trouble...again!

The maths is leading you down the garden path...again.
__________________
"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 20th April 2015, 06:16 PM   #306
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Sublimation in action, Sol88, despite your continued ignorance of comets and physics leading to the delusion about this is the mainstream in trouble !
You lied (quote mined) by not quoting both scientific explanations for the jets appearing from shadows, Sol88, so:
OSIRIS catches activity in the act (20/04/2015)
Quote:
Rosetta’s scientific imaging system OSIRIS has witnessed a new jet of dust emerging from the surface of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. The image was presented during the European Geosciences Union General Assembly, EGU, in Vienna last week.
...
Surprisingly, the new-born jet arises from a shadowed area on the underside of the comet, close to the centre of the Imhotep region. So far cometary activity has only been observed on the comet’s day-side.

“In these images we see Imhotep on the brink of dawn,” OSIRIS scientist Jean-Baptiste Vincent from the MPS explains. “It is possible that the first rays of sunlight hit some cliffs or outcrops that remained hidden to Rosetta due to the orbital position at the time.”

The onset of activity could also be the result of a different type of more explosive activity. That is, the outburst could have been triggered by a wave of heat reaching ices trapped in a deeper layer beneath the surface.

OSIRIS could not continue to observe the new feature after 07:17 CET because Imhotep was soon fully illuminated, making it impossible to discern individual jets in the overexposed coma. It is therefore not clear whether Rosetta witnessed the birth of a continuous jet or a short-lived outburst.
(my emphasis added)
So we have either direct heating (sunlight on cliffs or outcrops) or indirect heating (the heating of the body of 67P reaching ices).

ETA: More ignorance - no one thinks that Imhotep is covered in ice for the simple reason that the Philae lander found that 67P where the lander ended up is covered in a layer of dust and then ice. There is no reason to think that Imhotep is any different. On the other hand that is in the process of changing. The dust jets are blowing at least some of the dust away and will get more active with the more heating as 67P approaches the Sun..


Ignorance and blind belief in the electric comet delusion has lead you down the garden path again !

Last edited by Reality Check; 20th April 2015 at 06:52 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 21st April 2015, 01:40 AM   #307
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
It's interesting to watch an actual EUer attempt an actual argument in those comments. Around here we're down to "driveby EU trolls" and no one even attempts the arguments "THOMAS" is posting there any more. I'd half forgotten what it looked like.

The argument style seems to be:
  • ESA professional: <presents some result from a standard dusty plasma model>
  • EUer: I'm not convinced. Lookit how complicated that was. Epicycles everywhere probably. Therefore I will ignore your conclusion.
  • ESA professional: <uses Maxwell's Equations to show some orders of magnitude>
  • EUer: I'm not convinced, we all know electricity is extremely complicated and that calculation looked simple. Therefore I will ignore your conclusion.
  • ESA professional: <uses basic law of physics>
  • EUer: That law of physics is probably wrong, EUers ignore it all the time and look how well it works.
It is the same-old-same-old, the solar wind is positively charged (what happened to the electrons?) and thus is a current, there are discharges (from what to what? and don't discharges go to the extremities and not to the low-lying areas?) etc. etc. too tiresome to try to teach people real (plasma) physics.
__________________
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 21st April 2015, 04:51 AM   #308
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,994
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Sublimation in action, Sol88, despite your continued ignorance of comets and physics leading to the delusion about this is the mainstream in trouble !
You lied (quote mined) by not quoting both scientific explanations for the jets appearing from shadows, Sol88, so:
OSIRIS catches activity in the act (20/04/2015)

(my emphasis added)
So we have either direct heating (sunlight on cliffs or outcrops) or indirect heating (the heating of the body of 67P reaching ices).

ETA: More ignorance - no one thinks that Imhotep is covered in ice for the simple reason that the Philae lander found that 67P where the lander ended up is covered in a layer of dust and then ice. There is no reason to think that Imhotep is any different. On the other hand that is in the process of changing. The dust jets are blowing at least some of the dust away and will get more active with the more heating as 67P approaches the Sun..


Ignorance and blind belief in the electric comet delusion has lead you down the garden path again !


Quote:
So we have either direct heating (sunlight on cliffs or outcrops) or indirect heating (the heating of the body of 67P reaching ices).
Ha ha ha....show me the maths on how this works!!! How the proverbial does the heat penetrate the well insulated dust layer to heat the imaginary "ice" to sublimation temperature to be expelled in a highly collimated jets through no existent "nozzles/orifices"????


Yeah I believe that!!!


Seems you've believe in fairedust


No ice on the surface of comet 67P or any comet yet visited (except for the trivial frosty dusting on Tempel 1, as noted) but don't let that stop a good yarn(story)
__________________
"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 21st April 2015, 05:51 AM   #309
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Sol88's absurd notions wear thin and fail to amuse me. So how is the real science going, tusenfem? Any juicy hints of upcoming papers you can reveal?
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 21st April 2015, 06:38 AM   #310
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,994
Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg View Post
Sol88's absurd notions wear thin and fail to amuse me. So how is the real science going, tusenfem? Any juicy hints of upcoming papers you can reveal?
Apologies.

but what is good for the goose....show me the equation that PROVES heat transfer into the coldest shadowed region would have enough energy to make ice sublimate...not sure if it's even possible.

but when you only have square holes to work with...mainstream will keep bashing those round pegs till they fit!

Tusenfem is only confirming what mainstream already know, me old mate Holger Sierks on the other hand...well he's got the keys!


so again sorry to bore you but the actual peer reviewed science on 67P is well, tiresome and the sublimation theory has worn so thin you can now see straight thru it.

Remember the dirtysnowyballofdust is DEAD. So where does that leave the mainstream? Comets did not seed Earth's water and they're not dirty snowballs..there goes two large pillars prior theory were resting on!

Now something contrived in the lab to explain "bright spots" when the thunderbolts mob PREDICTED them....along with copious amounts of dust and NO ICE .... as observed on ALL comets
__________________
"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 21st April 2015, 06:41 AM   #311
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg View Post
Sol88's absurd notions wear thin and fail to amuse me. So how is the real science going, tusenfem? Any juicy hints of upcoming papers you can reveal?
Sol88 asking for math, priceless

As for the real science - Papers I am on:
  • The singing comet paper has been revised and resubmitted
  • A paper on the spatial distribution of low energy plasma has been submitted

Then there are a few papers from the IES instrument that have been submitted, but I don't know the titles. I think about charge exchange of He++ to He+ and something with H-.

Erik Vigren published a simulation paper on "ON THE POSSIBILITY OF SIGNIFICANT ELECTRON DEPLETION DUE TO NANOGRAIN CHARGING IN THE COMA OF COMET 67P/CHURYUMOV-GERASIMENKO NEAR PERIHELION" in the Astrophysical Journal (ApJ 798, 130, 2015, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/798/2/130)

And there was the Hans Nilsson paper in Science: "Birth of a comet magnetosphere: A spring of water ions" (Science, 347, 6220 (2015))

And there is the Ulli Auster paper on "The non-magnetic nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko" which is in preview format online at Science (but not freely available).

For the rest look at the EGU session on Rosetta
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.o...15/orals/17358
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.o.../posters/17358

Maybe more later, the peeps from MAG, MIP, ICA, IES and LAP are working hard to get their data analysed.
__________________
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 21st April 2015, 06:43 AM   #312
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,982
Still have not seen any papers from the EU bunch, nor even a hint of a quantitative prediction. But with so many sheeple at thunderdolts they have many many hands they can wave with.
__________________
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 21st April 2015, 07:14 AM   #313
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
but what is good for the goose....show me the equation that PROVES heat transfer into the coldest shadowed region would have enough energy to make ice sublimate...not sure if it's even possible.
I've done enough heat flow equations to satisfy my own curiosity. I suggest doing your own to actually prove the energy is insufficient rather than waving the Magical Incredulity Wand.
Quote:
Remember the dirtysnowyballofdust is DEAD.
An unsupported assertion in the absence of data is a sloppy speculation. An unsupported assertion that contradicts verifiable data is a lie.
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 21st April 2015, 08:48 AM   #314
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 10,794
We can certainly add heat transfer to the list of phrases and words nobody in the EU camp can define...
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn 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 21st April 2015, 04:05 PM   #315
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Thumbs down Sol88: Repeated delusions about comets do not reflect well on you

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Ha ha ha......
That ignorance actually hurts my brain, Sol88 !
Apparently you have never been in the real world where heat transfers. You have never cooked anything to see heat from an oven element transfer itself to the food! You have never seen a melting ice cube!

Repeated delusions about comets are even worse, Sol88. You need to try to learn some science rather then blindly believing in the Thunderbolts delusions and adding your own:
Of course the problem is that in that last 6 years you have not bothered to learn anything about the science of comets. So all you have left is spamming us with posts containing expressions of incredulity based on ignorance.

Last edited by Reality Check; 21st April 2015 at 04:22 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 21st April 2015, 04:31 PM   #316
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...me old mate Holger Sierks on the other hand...well he's got the keys!
Do you think that Holger Sierks has evidence that supports the electric comet delusion that comets are rocks, Sol88?

But: 5th March 2015: Sol88 agrees that there is no rock detected on 67P by quoting Holger Sierks stating that there was no rock ! and would make that assertion a lie.
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 21st April 2015, 04:46 PM   #317
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Thumbs down Sol88: The fantasy that Earth is a comet + "dirty snowballs" fanatsy

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Comets did not seed Earth's water and they're not dirty snowballs..there goes two large pillars prior theory were resting on!
That is a couple of fantasies about the pillars of comet theory, Sol88.
Comet theory does not predict that Earths oceans were formed by comets. Earth is not a comet ! The theory of the formation of Earth includes that its oceans were formed from comets and/or asteroids. We already knew that oceans coming only from comets was unlikely given the existing measurements of the D/H ratio of comets compared to what we calculate the D/H of the early oceans was. The measurement of the D/H ratio in 67P is essentially the nail in the coffin of that theory. That still leaves the physical fact that asteroids and comets must have impacted the Earth in its early history (we see that on moons). So the oceans were formed from asteroids + some comets.

There is no theory that says that comets are "dirty snowballs". Dirty snowballs is a description of comets. Comet theory states that given enormous evidence for it, comets are ices and dust.
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 21st April 2015, 05:05 PM   #318
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Thumbs down Sol88: The delusion that Thunderbolts predicted the 67P bright spots

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...when the thunderbolts mob PREDICTED them
Wrong Sol88 - they have fantasies based on their ignorance of electromagnetism and other science.
They start with the delusion about planets colliding. They add a delusion about comets being blasted by lightning bolts from planet surfaces. From that delusion they conclude that comets are rocks - denying the actual density of comets and measure composition! They add the delusion about lightning bolts to their imaginary comets. You then add the delusion that they predict bright spots based on their delusions.

Here is actual science where observations are compared to experiments, Sol88 !
Metre-size bright spots at the surface of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko: Interpretation of OSIRIS data using laboratory experiments (PDF)
The observations that there are bight spots that
  • have typical sizes are of the order of a few metres
  • often observed at the surfaces of boulders of larger dimension
  • have clusters in the vicinity of cliffs
  • have isolated members "without clear structural relation to
    the surrounding terrain"
  • have no significant change over a period of months
There is no Thunderbolts predictions that match the actual observations. Their fantasy would be electrical discharges that are meters wide, have been in place from the same points for months and magically cannot be seen!

Last edited by Reality Check; 21st April 2015 at 05:07 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 21st April 2015, 05:53 PM   #319
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Rosetta update: Two close flybys of an increasingly active comet Posted By Emily Lakdawalla
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 21st April 2015, 06:02 PM   #320
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 15,120
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
From the blog referred to in that article:

Quote:
Tracking variations in brightness along the jet, the researchers estimated the velocity of the dust grains to be at least eight metres per second. This is compatible with measurements made with Rosetta’s GIADA instrument on other occasions, for dust particles emitted from the comet’s surface.
Say, Sol88, what velocity in variations of the jet does EC predict?
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
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
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 08:54 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.