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 16th July 2017, 02:02 PM   #3481
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,126
Thumbs down Sol88: Links to and quotes deluded and ignorant Thunderbolts lies

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
'Cause ol mate
17 July 2017 Sol88: Links to and quotes deluded and ignorant Thunderbolts lies about "evidence for electrical activity".
The link is to Franklin Anariba "my theoretical framework of electron-stripping" fantasy that has popped its ugly head up yet again!

17 July 2017 Sol88: His over 8 year old delusion that comets are rocks.
Still in denial of the real world fact of the measured density of comets, e.g. 67P, being less than that of water and many other physical facts about comets !

143 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 27 February 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 7 years!)
  1. 10 May 2017 Sol88: Lies about Thunderbolts delusions explaining the O2 observed on 67P.
  2. 10 May 2017 Sol88: A lie about his comet delusions being supported by a real mechanism for O2 production on 67P (even as a joke).
  3. 10 May 2017 Sol88: A delusion about cracks in the ranks.
  4. 6 July 2017 Sol88: An implied lie about a "mostly rock" quote meaning that comets are rocks.
  5. 6 July 2017 Sol88: Looks like a repeat of the 8 year old delusion of x-rays from electrical discharges from comets made of rocks blasted from the planets in recent times.
  6. 6 July 2017 Sol88: Makes an implied lie into an explicit lie. Michael F. A’Hearn never stated that comets are rocks as in your delusion.
  7. 6 July 2017 Sol88: Derails from his comet delusion with irrelevant and ignorant questions and insults!
  8. 7 July 2017 Sol88: Idiocy of yet another link to the deluded Thunderbolts cult.
  9. 7 July 2017 Sol88: Thunderbolts cult web page basically lies about water ice expected on the surface of 19P/Borrelly.
  10. 7 July 2017 Sol88: Thunderbolts cult web page lies about Wild 2 and the Stardust spacecraft not finding surface water ice.
  11. 10 July 2017 Sol88: Ignorant reply to a Stardust post from 11 April 2017!
  12. 11 July 2017 Sol88: A "mainstream point of view" lie by linking to the deluded Thunderbolts cult.
  13. 11 July 2017 Sol88: Yet another post irrelevant to your delusion that comets are rocks.
  14. 11 July 2017 Sol88: A delusion about a "discharge" from the comet to the solar wind.
  15. 11 July 2017 Sol88: A lie about "YOU need solar photons/infrared energy to do all the "work" again?"
  16. 11 July 2017 Sol88: Abysmal ignorance or a lie in highlighting of text from the Wikipedia article on comets!
Deafening silence emphasizing the complete ignorance of science behind the comets are rocks delusion:
11 July 2017 Sol88: What did your comets are rocks delusion predict abut the observation of cold and warm electrons at 67P?
6 July 2017 Sol88: What does a rotating charged body do (so far a display of complete ignorance of basic electromagnetism!)?
7 July 2017 Sol88: What did your comets are rocks delusion predict about the impact of Rosetta on 67P?

Two years and counting of fear of doing basic physics: 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.
The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 8 years of delusions from Sol88 and Haig!).
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.

Last edited by Reality Check; 16th July 2017 at 02:14 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 16th July 2017, 06:44 PM   #3482
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,161
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
They sure do, they sure do!

Very much looking forward to the tail excursion paper

predicting some interesting findings in there I bet.
What are you predicting, Sol? Not cr*p like this, surely:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2441

From a certain person called David Talbott (zero scientific qualifications). Care to tell us how it gets better than this? Surely it can't get worse? Yep. Not gone well, has it? Perhaps dear old Dave can ......ohhhh no I'll get banned for calling out...blah, blah, blah.
Perhaps we could concentrate on the idiot Thornhill. Yes? Now, who came up with this crap about solar wind creating water (lol)? Who thought that up? Eh? Must have taken a genius, yes? Can you tell when I'm being sarcastic? Eh, Sol? Care to explain it to us? Perhaps the cretin Thornhill is reading, and would like to defend himself from accusations of being scientifically illiterate. Un-bloody-likely, I know.
So, Sol, given that this whole mission has been a complete kick in the ar*e for the EU cretins, what would you suggest next? See if Wal & Dave might not have been lying about asteroids? Carry on believing the rubbish because you have never been to college? I give up, seriously I do. Because there is no point in talking to people like you. You believe in fairytales, but you can't do science. Eh? How many years will it take of no results? Forever, eh, Sol? Sad.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo
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 16th July 2017, 07:25 PM   #3483
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,126
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
What are you predicting, Sol? Not cr*p like this, surely:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2441
I had forgotten about that bunch of sometimes abysmal ignorance touted as predictions back in December 2014 by David Talbott.
For example, Rosetta was not equipped to find "stardust" ! The Stardust mission needed the return of grains back to Earth where actual "stardust" was found.
His electric discharge fantasies failed.
The idiocy of "rocky debris" failed.
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 16th July 2017, 07:39 PM   #3484
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,126
We have unthinking parroting again of an ignorant Franklin Anariba, so:
10 May 2017 Sol88: How Anariba is deluded about O2 at 67P (dismisses 8 scientific mechanisms in a Thunderbolts web page).
10 May 2017 Sol88: Lies about Thunderbolts delusions explaining the O2 observed on 67P.
18 March 2017 Sol88: We are saying that you and Dr Anariba have no idea what a bow shock in astrophysics is.
13 January 2017 Sol88: Ignorant about an ignorant or deluded electric universe supporter he has cited before !
8 January 2016 Sol88: That transcript implies that he has fallen for the cult dogma of comets being rocks because he ...
7 January 2016 Sol88: Dr. Franklin Anariba has zero published astrophysics papers or qualifications (the equivalent of relying on a plumber for medical advice!)

From tusenfem
13 January 2016: dranariba has zero knowledge about the sun, the solar wind and comets (as states Tusenfem, PhD, and mine is in plasma astrophysics)
16th November 2015: How interesting that Dr. F. Anariba only has papers on BiFeO3 and nano fibers and zilch about cometary physics.

Last edited by Reality Check; 16th July 2017 at 07:59 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 17th July 2017, 12:10 AM   #3485
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,994
Quote:
4.3. Cold plasma filamentation The LAP probe current pulses presented in Section 3 were found to be due to localised plasma regions of high density and low electron temperature. Such density variations are not unexpected since they developed in the hybrid simulations for 67P at 1.3 AU by Koenders et al. (2015). Figure 6 of that study, which used spherically symmetric outgassing, shows a relatively consistently varying density in the innermost coma, out to some 30-50 km, where the expanding plasma breaks up into filaments or "spikes" of thickness less than 10 km, possibly down to the simulation grid resolution of 2.2 km.
My bold.

My PREDICTION those filaments or "spikes" will be found to be charged sheathed vortices!

Like little "dust devils" or "dust vortex"

There still flapping round in the dark on just why there is so much charge contained within those filaments or "spikes". Not a problem if the nucleus itself was "charged"!

Almost like it has a more negative charge with respect to the solar wind (charged particle stream)!

Tusenfem knows a little about magnetic flux ropes, I think.

If not Birkeland Currents: A Force-Free Field-Aligned Model or in a neat little video HERE

Will point you in the right direction.

Still up there with one of the best papers (Cold and warm electrons at comet 67P) yet on the finding from Rosetta and I bet Tusenfem tail excursion will be BETTER.
__________________
"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 17th July 2017, 12:29 AM   #3486
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,994
Quote:
4.3. Cold plasma filamentation The LAP probe current pulses presented in Section 3 were found to be due to localised plasma regions of high density and low electron temperature. Such density variations are not unexpected since they developed in the hybrid simulations for 67P at 1.3 AU by Koenders et al. (2015). Figure 6 of that study, which used spherically symmetric outgassing, shows a relatively consistently varying density in the innermost coma, out to some 30-50 km, where the expanding plasma breaks up into filaments or "spikes" of thickness less than 10 km, possibly down to the simulation grid resolution of 2.2 km.
My bold.

My PREDICTION those filaments or "spikes" will be found to be charged sheathed vortices!

Like little "dust devils" or "dust vortex"

There still flapping round in the dark on just why there is so much charge contained within those filaments or "spikes". Not a problem if the nucleus itself was "charged"!

Almost like it has a more negative charge with respect to the solar wind (charged particle stream)!

Tusenfem knows a little about magnetic flux ropes, I think.

If not Birkeland Currents: A Force-Free Field-Aligned Model or in a neat little video HERE

Will point you in the right direction.

Still up there with one of the best papers (Cold and warm electrons at comet 67P) yet on the finding from Rosetta and I bet Tusenfem tail excursion will be BETTER.
__________________
"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 17th July 2017, 04:17 AM   #3487
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,994
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
What are you predicting, Sol? Not cr*p like this, surely:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2441

From a certain person called David Talbott (zero scientific qualifications). Care to tell us how it gets better than this? Surely it can't get worse? Yep. Not gone well, has it? Perhaps dear old Dave can ......ohhhh no I'll get banned for calling out...blah, blah, blah.
Perhaps we could concentrate on the idiot Thornhill. Yes? Now, who came up with this crap about solar wind creating water (lol)? Who thought that up? Eh? Must have taken a genius, yes? Can you tell when I'm being sarcastic? Eh, Sol? Care to explain it to us? Perhaps the cretin Thornhill is reading, and would like to defend himself from accusations of being scientifically illiterate. Un-bloody-likely, I know.
So, Sol, given that this whole mission has been a complete kick in the ar*e for the EU cretins, what would you suggest next? See if Wal & Dave might not have been lying about asteroids? Carry on believing the rubbish because you have never been to college? I give up, seriously I do. Because there is no point in talking to people like you. You believe in fairytales, but you can't do science. Eh? How many years will it take of no results? Forever, eh, Sol? Sad.
Talbott's, pretty much spot on...
Quote:
• relationship of comet flaring to arrival of charged particles from solar outbursts
See CME impact on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

from the paper
Quote:
We have observed how a CME impacts on comet 67P when the comet was at 1.41 au from the Sun (past perihelion). Rosetta was at this time on its inbound leg from the dayside excursion located at about 800 km from the nucleus. The plasma environment is significantly disturbed during the impact. The cold plasma density increases by as much as a factor of 10, to reach a maximum of 600 cm−3, the suprathermal electron flux (10–200 eV) increases by a factor of 5–10, and the background magnetic field increases by a factor of ∼2.5, from about 40 to 100 nT, while individual magnetic spikes reach above 200 nT.
sounds like a "flare" of the comet to me?

jonesdavid116, what say ye on Talbott's prediction?

Should we ask the scientific expert, Tusenfem?


Gentle tapping of nails into the dirtysnowydustyball of frozen icecream coffin.
__________________
"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; 17th July 2017 at 05:16 AM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 05:30 AM   #3488
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,994
Also another question a plasma physicist maybe able to answer is why call a Diocotron instability a Kelvin–Helmholtz instability when you are talking ONLY about plasma?

Quote:
We suggest that these could possibly be formed by magnetic reconnection processes in the coma as the magnetic field across the CME changes polarity, or as a consequence of strong shears causing Kelvin–Helmholtz instabilities in the plasma flow.
__________________
"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 17th July 2017, 05:40 AM   #3489
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,994
Quote:
• no ice at the source of jets, not even where the most energetic jets are active
So how is the mainstream coming along trying to explain the "jets"?

anything new?

or are YOU still relying on "cliffs collapsing'?
__________________
"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 17th July 2017, 01:51 PM   #3490
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,126
Sol88: A ignorant and deluded fanatsy about "charged sheathed vortices"

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
My bold.
Followed by
18 July 2017 Sol88: A ignorant and deluded delusion about "charged sheathed vortices"

Last edited by Reality Check; 17th July 2017 at 02:00 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 17th July 2017, 01:54 PM   #3491
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,126
Thumbs down Sol88: Abysmal ignorance about plasma, Birkeland currents and 67P

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
If not Birkeland Currents: A Force-Free Field-Aligned Model
18 July 2017 Sol88: Abysmal ignorance about plasma, Birkeland currents and 67P!
We expect plasma to form filaments.
Birkeland currents are caused by the solar wind encountering a strong planetary magnetic field and are hard to detect, e.g. the only known occurrence is around the Earth and we had to put a spacecraft inside them to measure the specific configuration that identifies them.

What makes this ignorance abysmal: 67P has no magnetic field !

Last edited by Reality Check; 17th July 2017 at 02:00 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 17th July 2017, 03:44 PM   #3492
SelfSim
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 364
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Originally Posted by Sol88
If not Birkeland Currents: A Force-Free Field-Aligned Model
18 July 2017 Sol88: Abysmal ignorance about plasma, Birkeland currents and 67P!
We expect plasma to form filaments.
Birkeland currents are caused by the solar wind encountering a strong planetary magnetic field and are hard to detect, e.g. the only known occurrence is around the Earth and we had to put a spacecraft inside them to measure the specific configuration that identifies them.

What makes this ignorance abysmal: 67P has no magnetic field !
That paper by Donald Scott and his similar (pre-print?) one here, effectively demonstrates Scott's ignorance of the Physics of Birkeland Current fields!
The second paper was reviewed here. After reviewing the paper at length, (in Mozina's chosen realm), it was difficult to escape the conclusion that the bulk of the core technical content was entirely Lundquist's and not Scott's. In fact, Scott then went on to completely misinterpret the original fundamental physical definitions/models, resulting in his subsequent analysis going rapidly downhill thereon.

RC's above reference to 'abysmal ignorance', therefore, is not limited to mere 'EU enthusiasts'! (Ie: it clearly covers the popular EU 'theorist' (Scott) reference as well).
SelfSim 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 17th July 2017, 04:29 PM   #3493
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,126
Thumbs down Sol88: Links to a lying video from the deluded Thunderbolts cult

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
or in a neat little video
18 July 2017 Sol88: Links to a lying and deluded video from the deluded Thunderbolts cult.

This is the ignorant Donald Scott of the Sun is basically a externally powered light bulb fantasy and delusions of neutron stars do not exist, magnetic reconnection does not exist, etc.
The web page starts with advertising a 2017 conference probably with the usual EU crackpots. Then the first lie !
Scientists have recognized the role of Birkeland currents in Earthly auroras and other atmospheric phenomena for many decades. In theory since Birkeland first proposed them over a century ago! They were ignored for some decades in favor of an alternative theory until Hannes Alfvén wrote about them. Birkeland currents were first detected in 1967 (60 years ago!) and have been studied since then.

"New Evidence for Cosmic Birkeland Currents" is lies and delusions. The video is an ad for the conference.
A lie of a unique signature of the currents being a "counter rotation" being visually verified with images of spiral galaxies in the background. The EU delusion of cosmic Birkeland currents powering galaxies.

Scott is honest about Birkeland currents being solar and planetary phenomena but then we get into what looks like crackpot science - his "model" of Birkeland currents as if 100 years of science did not exist! Asserts that they have a "totally unique" structure of a collection concentric cylinders that counter rotate.

Then comes his version of pareidolia. The counter rotating cloud banks at the north poles of Jupiter and Saturn become corroboration of Birkeland currents !

Argument from ignorance. His inability to explain the weather patterns on Jupiter and Saturn does not mean that actual astronomers and planetary scientists cannot explain them.

He claims that Earth's auroras exhibit counter rotation but that is not support for Birkeland currents because they indirectly cause aurora by accelerating electrons.

An ignorant "why not no Saturn, Jupiter and the other planets" question. For a start because the solar wind is much weaker for Saturn, Jupiter, etc. (a thing called the inverse square law).

Repeats the "rotating cloud belts" delusion.

Next is a delusion about "strings of Birkeland currents" connecting galaxies.

A lie that counter rotating belts of stars would be strong evidence for Birkeland currents based on the ignorance of a retired electrical engineer (Scott)!

A flash of honesty - his "evidence" does not prove Birkeland currents cause the rotation of galaxies.
A flash of argument from ignorance - he cannot think of a reason for the rotation. It sounds like he is ignorant of the existence of scientific literature or unable to do literature research !

EU fantasies and ignorance about hurricanes and some tornadoes here on Earth "may involve Birkeland currents".

Scott thinks that a probably crank web site about the "mysterious" (not!) ocean currents is a valid source of science. The very ignorant question of "what drives them". Maybe Scott needs to learn about Wikipedia, e.g.
ocean current and Gulf Stream

A "dynamos inside the Earth" fantasy for an explanation.

A delusion of driving by Birkeland currents.

Last edited by Reality Check; 17th July 2017 at 04:33 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 17th July 2017, 04:45 PM   #3494
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,126
Thumbs down Sol88: A lie about a prediction of a "comet flaring" being supported by no flaring

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Talbott's, pretty much spot on...
18 July 2017 Sol88: A lie about Talbots prediction of a "comet flaring" being supported by no flaring!
A rational person reading CME impact on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Quote:
We have observed how a CME impacts on comet 67P when the comet was at 1.41 au from the Sun (past perihelion). Rosetta was at this time on its inbound leg from the dayside excursion located at about 800 km from the nucleus. The plasma environment is significantly disturbed during the impact. The cold plasma density increases by as much as a factor of 10, to reach a maximum of 600 cm−3, the suprathermal electron flux (10–200 eV) increases by a factor of 5–10, and the background magnetic field increases by a factor of ∼2.5, from about 40 to 100 nT, while individual magnetic spikes reach above 200 nT.
will read nothing about a "flare" from the comet. This is about the coma. Rosetta is about 800 km from the nucleus !

Last edited by Reality Check; 17th July 2017 at 05:00 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 17th July 2017, 04:50 PM   #3495
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,126
Thumbs down Sol88: Another attempt to derail form his delusion that comets are rocks

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Also another question a plasma physicist maybe able to answer is ...
18 July 2017 Sol88: Another attempt to derail form his delusion that comets are rocks.

Keep to the topic of the thread which is the EU and your persistent delusion that comets are rocks 8 years after you were told the physical facts about comets (density less than water!).
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 17th July 2017, 04:51 PM   #3496
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,126
Thumbs down Sol88: Yet another attempt to derail form his delusion that comets are rocks

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So how is the mainstream coming along trying to explain the "jets"?
18 July 2017 Sol88: Yet another attempt to derail form his delusion that comets are rocks.
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 17th July 2017, 04:56 PM   #3497
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,126
Thumbs down Sol88: A lie about relying on "cliffs collapsing' for jets

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
or are YOU still relying on "cliffs collapsing'?
But I will continue to document when you lie about the mainstream working science on comets.
18 July 2017 Sol88: A lie about relying on "cliffs collapsing' for jets.

A single outburst of dust and gas which is not a jet was linked to a collapsing cliff: Collapsing cliff reveals comet’s interior
Quote:
Rosetta scientists have made the first compelling link between an outburst of dust and gas and the collapse of a prominent cliff, which also exposed the pristine, icy interior of the comet.

Sudden and short-lived outbursts were observed frequently during Rosetta’s two-year mission at Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko. Although their exact trigger has been much debated, the outbursts seem to point back to the collapse of weak, eroded surfaces, with the sudden exposure and heating of volatile material likely playing a role.

Last edited by Reality Check; 17th July 2017 at 04:59 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 17th July 2017, 11:10 PM   #3498
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Also another question a plasma physicist maybe able to answer is why call a Diocotron instability a Kelvin–Helmholtz instability when you are talking ONLY about plasma?
Because there is an extra necessary ingredient for the diocotron instability (not mentioned in this abysmal wiki page, but you could find it in Peratt's book), which is not there for the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability.
__________________
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; 17th July 2017 at 11:18 PM.
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 17th July 2017, 11:17 PM   #3499
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by SelfSim View Post
That paper by Donald Scott and his similar (pre-print?) one here, effectively demonstrates Scott's ignorance of the Physics of Birkeland Current fields!
The second paper was reviewed here. After reviewing the paper at length, (in Mozina's chosen realm), it was difficult to escape the conclusion that the bulk of the core technical content was entirely Lundquist's and not Scott's. In fact, Scott then went on to completely misinterpret the original fundamental physical definitions/models, resulting in his subsequent analysis going rapidly downhill thereon.

RC's above reference to 'abysmal ignorance', therefore, is not limited to mere 'EU enthusiasts'! (Ie: it clearly covers the popular EU 'theorist' (Scott) reference as well).
I think somewhere in this thread or another EU thread, this paper was discussed, and the some of the flaws were pointed out. (I am not going to search for it).
However, those kind of posts are "useless", because they don't stick in the minds of the EU proponents.
__________________
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 17th July 2017, 11:24 PM   #3500
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
What are you predicting, Sol? Not cr*p like this, surely:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2441

From a certain person called David Talbott (zero scientific qualifications). Care to tell us how it gets better than this? Surely it can't get worse? Yep. Not gone well, has it? Perhaps dear old Dave can ......ohhhh no I'll get banned for calling out...blah, blah, blah.
Perhaps we could concentrate on the idiot Thornhill. Yes? Now, who came up with this crap about solar wind creating water (lol)? Who thought that up? Eh? Must have taken a genius, yes? Can you tell when I'm being sarcastic? Eh, Sol? Care to explain it to us? Perhaps the cretin Thornhill is reading, and would like to defend himself from accusations of being scientifically illiterate. Un-bloody-likely, I know.
So, Sol, given that this whole mission has been a complete kick in the ar*e for the EU cretins, what would you suggest next? See if Wal & Dave might not have been lying about asteroids? Carry on believing the rubbish because you have never been to college? I give up, seriously I do. Because there is no point in talking to people like you. You believe in fairytales, but you can't do science. Eh? How many years will it take of no results? Forever, eh, Sol? Sad.
Talbott's, pretty much spot on...
Quote:
• relationship of comet flaring to arrival of charged particles from solar outbursts
See CME impact on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

from the paper
Quote:
We have observed how a CME impacts on comet 67P when the comet was at 1.41 au from the Sun (past perihelion). Rosetta was at this time on its inbound leg from the dayside excursion located at about 800 km from the nucleus. The plasma environment is significantly disturbed during the impact. The cold plasma density increases by as much as a factor of 10, to reach a maximum of 600 cm−3, the suprathermal electron flux (10–200 eV) increases by a factor of 5–10, and the background magnetic field increases by a factor of ∼2.5, from about 40 to 100 nT, while individual magnetic spikes reach above 200 nT.
sounds like a "flare" of the comet to me?

jonesdavid116, what say ye on Talbott's prediction?

Should we ask the scientific expert, Tusenfem?


Gentle tapping of nails into the dirtysnowydustyball of frozen icecream coffin.
So no word then...
__________________
"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 18th July 2017, 12:42 AM   #3501
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,994
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Because there is an extra necessary ingredient for the diocotron instability (not mentioned in this abysmal wiki page, but you could find it in Peratt's book), which is not there for the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability.
Ahhhh...the secret ingredient!
__________________
"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 18th July 2017, 12:50 AM   #3502
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,994
Originally Posted by SelfSim View Post
That paper by Donald Scott and his similar (pre-print?) one here, effectively demonstrates Scott's ignorance of the Physics of Birkeland Current fields!
The second paper was reviewed here. After reviewing the paper at length, (in Mozina's chosen realm), it was difficult to escape the conclusion that the bulk of the core technical content was entirely Lundquist's and not Scott's. In fact, Scott then went on to completely misinterpret the original fundamental physical definitions/models, resulting in his subsequent analysis going rapidly downhill thereon.

RC's above reference to 'abysmal ignorance', therefore, is not limited to mere 'EU enthusiasts'! (Ie: it clearly covers the popular EU 'theorist' (Scott) reference as well).
So you also believe in "magnetic reconnection" then too I 'spose

Another mainstream "lemming"....

Seems your "review" ended in a dead end, much like mainstream cosmology.

You have much to learn young padiwan!
__________________
"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 18th July 2017, 01:42 AM   #3503
SelfSim
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 364
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So you also believe in "magnetic reconnection" then too I 'spose
Nope .. I don't have to "believe" in anything! Do you?

Originally Posted by Sol88
Another mainstream "lemming"....
Nice to meet you too, bro! ..

Originally Posted by Sol88
Seems your "review" ended in a dead end, much like mainstream cosmology.

You have much to learn young padiwan!
The 'dead ends' were EU Acolytes ... and my learning is my business (and none of your concern).

Stick to addressing the topic! (Otherwise Fr. Mozina might accuse you of not being honest in a mainstream 'debate' and initiating ad-homs!)
SelfSim 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 18th July 2017, 05:05 AM   #3504
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,994
Don't wont to hop of on te wrong foot but are we disagreeing? There are no such things as force free field aligned currents?

I'm confused Seflsim, are there?
__________________
"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 18th July 2017, 05:17 AM   #3505
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,994
Don't wont to hop of on te wrong foot but are we disagreeing? There are no such things as force free field aligned currents?

I'm confused Seflsim, are there?
__________________
"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 18th July 2017, 07:23 AM   #3506
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Ahhhh...the secret ingredient!
Yes, if you would actually take the time to learn something or look something up in a *gasp* book you would find: (quoting your friend Peratt)

Quote:
The instability leading to the filamentation of the beam is know at the "slipping stream" or "diocotron" [instability] and occurs when charge neutrality is not locally maintained, for example, when electrons and ions separate.
This instability can occur, but usually in extreme conditions, e.g. in pulsar magnetospheres (Petri, 1997).

There is nothing extreme in a comet's induced magnetosphere, and quasi neutrality holds very well, and thus the term (ne - ni) in Peratt's Eq. (1.13) is basically 0. And thus we speak of the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability in the plasma and not of the diocotron instability when we have plasmas that stream relatively to each other, because it is the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability which is triggered by the plasma and not the diocotron instability.

Quite simple, actually.
__________________
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 18th July 2017, 07:42 AM   #3507
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Don't wont to hop of on te wrong foot but are we disagreeing? There are no such things as force free field aligned currents?

I'm confused Seflsim, are there?
Those words don't go together, or at least not in that way.

Force free magnetic fields, from Kivelson & Russell "Introduction to Space Physics"

Quote:
MHD equilibria, waves and instabilities

Equilibria of sunspots, prominences, coronal loops and other solar structures are described by the force balance:

j x B - grad(p) + ρg = 0 (3.11)

Along the magnetic field there is no contribution form the magnetic force, ans so we have a hydrostatic balance between pressure gradients and gravity. In places such as active regions, where the magnetic field dominates, (3,11) reduces to the disarmingly simple form:

j x B = 0

and the fields are said to be force-free, where

j = curl(B / μ)

and

div(B) = 0.

Thus the electric current is parallel to the magnetic field, and so

curl(B) = α B (3.13)

where α is a scalar function of position. Taking the divergence of (3.13) gives

B • grad(α) = 0

so that α is a constant along a field line. If α is uniform, the curl of (3.13) yields

(nabla2 + α2) B = 0.

Solutions to this are known as linear or constant-α fields and are well understood. The particular case α=0 gives potential fields with zero current. ...
(I could not find the nabla symbol)

So, here you have it, force free fields with or without field aligned currents.
__________________
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 18th July 2017, 02:43 PM   #3508
SelfSim
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 364
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Don't wont to hop of on te wrong foot but are we disagreeing? There are no such things as force free field aligned currents?

I'm confused Seflsim, are there?
Just like Scott, you also need to get your terminology aligned with your meaning.

Tusenfem's post did it for you (this time) ..
SelfSim 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 18th July 2017, 07:05 PM   #3509
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,994
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Ahhhh...the secret ingredient!
Yes, if you would actually take the time to learn something or look something up in a *gasp* book you would find: (quoting your friend Peratt)

Quote:
The instability leading to the filamentation of the beam is know at the "slipping stream" or "diocotron" [instability] and occurs when charge neutrality is not locally maintained, for example, when electrons and ions separate.
This instability can occur, but usually in extreme conditions, e.g. in pulsar magnetospheres (Petri, 1997).
Quote:

There is nothing extreme in a comet's induced magnetosphere, and quasi neutrality holds very well, and thus the term (ne - ni) in Peratt's Eq. (1.13) is basically 0. And thus we speak of the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability in the plasma and not of the diocotron instability when we have plasmas that stream relatively to each other, because it is the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability which is triggered by the plasma and not the diocotron instability.
Quite simple, actually.
The instability leading to the filamentation of the beam is know at the "slipping stream" or "diocotron" [instability] and occurs when charge neutrality is not locally maintained, for example, when electrons and ions separate.

So no charge separation happening around/on a comet then?

Oh, also PULSARS are a mathematical fictitious ad hoc the mainstream, just like Black Holes, Magnatars etc etc...
__________________
"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 18th July 2017, 07:18 PM   #3510
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,994
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Ahhhh...the secret ingredient!
Yes, if you would actually take the time to learn something or look something up in a *gasp* book you would find: (quoting your friend Peratt)

Quote:
The instability leading to the filamentation of the beam is know at the "slipping stream" or "diocotron" [instability] and occurs when charge neutrality is not locally maintained, for example, when electrons and ions separate.
This instability can occur, but usually in extreme conditions, e.g. in pulsar magnetospheres (Petri, 1997).
Quote:

There is nothing extreme in a comet's induced magnetosphere, and quasi neutrality holds very well, and thus the term (ne - ni) in Peratt's Eq. (1.13) is basically 0. And thus we speak of the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability in the plasma and not of the diocotron instability when we have plasmas that stream relatively to each other, because it is the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability which is triggered by the plasma and not the diocotron instability.
Quite simple, actually.
The instability leading to the filamentation of the beam is know at the "slipping stream" or "diocotron" [instability] and occurs when charge neutrality is not locally maintained, for example, when electrons and ions separate.

So no charge separation happening around/on a comet then?

Oh, also PULSARS are a mathematical fictitious ad hoc the mainstream, just like Black Holes, Magnatars etc etc...
__________________
"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 18th July 2017, 07:33 PM   #3511
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
What are you predicting, Sol? Not cr*p like this, surely:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2441

From a certain person called David Talbott (zero scientific qualifications). Care to tell us how it gets better than this? Surely it can't get worse? Yep. Not gone well, has it? Perhaps dear old Dave can ......ohhhh no I'll get banned for calling out...blah, blah, blah.
Perhaps we could concentrate on the idiot Thornhill. Yes? Now, who came up with this crap about solar wind creating water (lol)? Who thought that up? Eh? Must have taken a genius, yes? Can you tell when I'm being sarcastic? Eh, Sol? Care to explain it to us? Perhaps the cretin Thornhill is reading, and would like to defend himself from accusations of being scientifically illiterate. Un-bloody-likely, I know.
So, Sol, given that this whole mission has been a complete kick in the ar*e for the EU cretins, what would you suggest next? See if Wal & Dave might not have been lying about asteroids? Carry on believing the rubbish because you have never been to college? I give up, seriously I do. Because there is no point in talking to people like you. You believe in fairytales, but you can't do science. Eh? How many years will it take of no results? Forever, eh, Sol? Sad.
Talbott's, pretty much spot on...
Quote:
• relationship of comet flaring to arrival of charged particles from solar outbursts
See CME impact on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

from the paper
Quote:
We have observed how a CME impacts on comet 67P when the comet was at 1.41 au from the Sun (past perihelion). Rosetta was at this time on its inbound leg from the dayside excursion located at about 800 km from the nucleus. The plasma environment is significantly disturbed during the impact. The cold plasma density increases by as much as a factor of 10, to reach a maximum of 600 cm−3, the suprathermal electron flux (10–200 eV) increases by a factor of 5–10, and the background magnetic field increases by a factor of ∼2.5, from about 40 to 100 nT, while individual magnetic spikes reach above 200 nT.
sounds like a "flare" of the comet to me?

jonesdavid116, what say ye on Talbott's prediction?

Should we ask the scientific expert, Tusenfem?
Did Talbotts prediction turn out to be correct or not?
__________________
"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 18th July 2017, 10:36 PM   #3512
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,994
Quote:
(c) What are comets made of?

At the simplest level, a very basic question is whether comets are mostly ice or mostly rock/dirt/refractory material. Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the first quantitative model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high as 6 have been cited [3,4].
Comets: looking ahead
Michael F. A’Hearn
Department of Astronomy, University of Maryland, College Park,
MD 20742-2421, USA
The impact/electrical discharge will be into rock, not loosely consolidated ice and dust. The impact crater will be smaller than expected.

Tap tap...
__________________
"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 18th July 2017, 11:16 PM   #3513
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
The instability leading to the filamentation of the beam is know at the "slipping stream" or "diocotron" [instability] and occurs when charge neutrality is not locally maintained, for example, when electrons and ions separate.

So no charge separation happening around/on a comet then?

Oh, also PULSARS are a mathematical fictitious ad hoc the mainstream, just like Black Holes, Magnatars etc etc...
Yeah, go fish!
__________________
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 18th July 2017, 11:20 PM   #3514
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
There is still no evidence whatsoever of the discharges that Talbott would need.
__________________
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 19th July 2017, 12:48 AM   #3515
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,994
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
What are you predicting, Sol? Not cr*p like this, surely:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2441

From a certain person called David Talbott (zero scientific qualifications). Care to tell us how it gets better than this? Surely it can't get worse? Yep. Not gone well, has it? Perhaps dear old Dave can ......ohhhh no I'll get banned for calling out...blah, blah, blah.
Perhaps we could concentrate on the idiot Thornhill. Yes? Now, who came up with this crap about solar wind creating water (lol)? Who thought that up? Eh? Must have taken a genius, yes? Can you tell when I'm being sarcastic? Eh, Sol? Care to explain it to us? Perhaps the cretin Thornhill is reading, and would like to defend himself from accusations of being scientifically illiterate. Un-bloody-likely, I know.
So, Sol, given that this whole mission has been a complete kick in the ar*e for the EU cretins, what would you suggest next? See if Wal & Dave might not have been lying about asteroids? Carry on believing the rubbish because you have never been to college? I give up, seriously I do. Because there is no point in talking to people like you. You believe in fairytales, but you can't do science. Eh? How many years will it take of no results? Forever, eh, Sol? Sad.
Talbott's, pretty much spot on...
Quote:
• relationship of comet flaring to arrival of charged particles from solar outbursts
See CME impact on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

from the paper
Quote:
We have observed how a CME impacts on comet 67P when the comet was at 1.41 au from the Sun (past perihelion). Rosetta was at this time on its inbound leg from the dayside excursion located at about 800 km from the nucleus. The plasma environment is significantly disturbed during the impact. The cold plasma density increases by as much as a factor of 10, to reach a maximum of 600 cm−3, the suprathermal electron flux (10–200 eV) increases by a factor of 5–10, and the background magnetic field increases by a factor of ∼2.5, from about 40 to 100 nT, while individual magnetic spikes reach above 200 nT.
sounds like a "flare" of the comet to me?

jonesdavid116, what say ye on Talbott's prediction?

Should we ask the scientific expert, Tusenfem?
Did Talbotts prediction turn out to be correct or not?
Just a yes no will do.
__________________
"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 19th July 2017, 01:07 AM   #3516
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Just a yes no will do.
no
__________________
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 19th July 2017, 03:56 PM   #3517
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,126
Thumbs down Sol88: Swallows the Thunderbolts magnetic reconnection "Kool-Aid"

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Another mainstream "lemming"....
20 July 2017 Sol88: Swallows the Thunderbolts magnetic reconnection "Kool-Aid" - what a surprise!
Drinking the Kool-Aid
We will ignore the Thunderbolts stupidity of lying about Hannes Alfven's opinion back in the 1980's (he mentions the valid and known concerns of using the frozen in magnetic filed approximation a few times).

Magnetic reconnection is a measured physical process with a solid theoretical background. The concept is easy enough for anyone to visualize. Magnetic field lines are undefined when there is a point with a magnetic field of B = 0 (a null or neutral point) because there is no way to draw a line from a null point passing only through other null points. There may be only one null point and it is surrounded by non-null points! Magnetic fields can easily have a null point, e.g. two parallel, equal currents have a null point between them in 2D (null line in 3D). Move the currents apart and the magnetic field lines will sweep across the null point. They are undefined at the null point (they break) and defined again after the null point (the reconnect). Thus magnetic reconnection.
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 July 2017, 04:06 PM   #3518
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,126
Exclamation Sol88: Fatally ignorant about magnetic reconnection

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
There are no such things as force free field aligned currents?
20 July 2017 Sol88: Fatally ignorant about magnetic reconnection which is not force free field aligned currents!

SelfSim posted about Donald Scott's paper on Birkeland currents and the plagiarism of Lundquist's work, etc. in it. That other forum thread has SelfSim quoting the definition of a force-free magnetic field followed by a Scott plagiarised it in his 'study' without disclosing its original source post.
Quote:
S. Lundquist, 'Magneto-hydrostatic fields', Ark.Fys. 35, 361 (1950);
S. Lundquist, 'On the Stability of Magneto-Hydrostatic Fields', Phys.Rev. 83, 107 (1951).
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 July 2017, 04:13 PM   #3519
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,126
Thumbs down Sol88: A lie about a Thunderbolts lie about Deep Impact

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
The impact/electrical discharge will be into rock, not loosely consolidated ice and dust. The impact crater will be smaller than expected.
20 July 2017 Sol88: A lie about a Thunderbolts lie about Deep Impact.

Removed the link to the Thunderbolts web pages that Sol88 has to know is lying !
The impact crater was bigger than an impact into rock, 150 meters across as opposed to the 7 meters that an impact into rock would predict:
Two years and counting of fear of doing basic physics: 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.

So we have yet another ignorant parroting of a Thunderbolts lie by Sol88:
The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 8 years of delusions from Sol88 and Haig!).
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.

Last edited by Reality Check; 19th July 2017 at 04:15 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 19th July 2017, 07:30 PM   #3520
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,126
More Birkeland currents Thunderbolts dogma has popped up as in 18 July 2017 Sol88: Links to a lying and deluded video from the deluded Thunderbolts cult.
YouTube has a feature of recommending videos so I got a recommendation to another video from another and new to me ignorant and deluded Thunderbolts follower. The title is "Why Do Stars and Planets Have Magnetic Fields" (and why do they rotate) and the answer is ignorance and fantasies about Birkeland currents.

I will start with looking at Richard K Moore who is an IT person who retired in 1994 and has been publishing about history, politics, and economics. He has a "background in math, physics, and systems" but seems to have forgotten all of the physics at least because he has fallen for the EU (Thunderbolts) delusion hook, line and sinker. He has an ignorant and lying "cosmic climate model" (2014).
  • He asks "What drives Earth’s pattern of climate variation?" and then practically ignores the drivers of climate variation!
    Ice ages are an example of long term climate variations and have little to do with the short term observed global warming. The ice age "pattern" goes back billions of years and is not "fractal" or even periodic. There are gaps.
  • Misleading by data mining.
    He only graphs Greenland and Vostok data. There are reconstructed temperatures for other places which leads to the hockey stick graphs.
    He stops plotting data at 1800 AD, maybe to avoid showing the non-ice age spike of current global warming.
  • Deep ignorance in a "The past 200 years – the industrial age" section.
    Greenland is not the entire northern hemisphere. Vostok is not the entire southern hemisphere. His guesses about temperatures when he knows the results are not science.
  • A lie of the EU model of comets being "overwhelmingly confirmed".
    He obviously cannot recognize the lies and non-predictions on the Thunderbolts web site about confirmed predictions.
  • The lie of "The Standard model’s explanation of stars does not stand up to scrutiny" when it is relatively simple physics.
    To have a stable star we need a balance of pressure and gravity which leads to a temperature increasing with depth, i.e. a power source at the core of a star. The coronal heating problem has physically valid explanations.
  • A lie of the solar wind being a current when it is neutral.
  • A lie of a current from the Sun flowing from the Earth’s pole to the equator (image of what looks like the Earth's magnetic field pushing the solar wind away).
  • An ignorant "Why solar radiation is constant" question - it is not!
    There is the ~11 year sunspot cycle. There is the current 40 year long decrease in solar intensity. There is the billions of years of increase in solar radiation.
The overall delusion is that the Earth is heated by the delusion of "current surges on the filament that powers the Sun".

The first fantasy in the video is that there is a "ferric" Sun acting as an electromagnet with Scott's probably imaginary counter rotating current in very imaginary Birkeland currents. The Sun
  1. is mostly hydrogen and helium with small traces of other elements.
  2. does not have the magnetic field of an electromagnet.
    For example, in March 2000 the Sun had two north poles and a south pole "smeared" around the equator!
The next fantasy is that the same mechanism causes the Earth's magnetic field. We have measured the Earth's Birkeland current and no scientist thinks that causes the Earth's magnetic field. The main reason is that the field dips into the ground at the poles, e.g. its origin is below ground.
Then comes a parroting of the Thunderbolts delusion about stellar systems forming from Birkeland current and pinches.

Last edited by Reality Check; 19th July 2017 at 08:26 PM. Reason: Added video fantasies
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 01:44 PM.
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.