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 20th July 2017, 06:26 PM   #3521
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,818
Came across the list of speakers for the EU2017 conference and it is a familiar collection of mostly deluded cranks lying about science.

See 14th July 2014 Haig: How can you believe in the competence of the EU proponents when the speakers at their 2014 conference was a collection of cranks, actual deluded people and some electrical engineers? that links to my analysis of those speakers in 2014 .
For EU2015: EU2015 will be yet another collection of mostly cranks

For the 2017 conference:
  1. Wallace Thornhill: shows that he has really gone off the deep end with gravity is electromagnetic !
  2. David Talbot: the delusion that his fantasies about myths leads to science.
  3. Donald Scott: His fantasies about Birkeland currents.
  4. Jim Ryder: keynote speaker.
  5. Gerald Pollack: A biomedical engineer profoundly ignorant about the atmosphere, e.g. he does not know how clouds float!, talks about his "EZ water" delusion.
  6. Montgomery Childs : talking about the about 4 year old SAFIRE project that has only produced 1 paper.
  7. Ben Davidson: talking about his delusion of the Sun causing earthquakes making them predictable.
  8. Jacqueline Greenfield: More on the EZ Water delusion from a "Naturopathic and Oriental Medical Physician" !
  9. Garrett Hill: will advertise "a company and some of their research into coherent structures in rotating plasmas and self-assembly in electric fields" maybe (or not) with EU delusions mixed in.
  10. Eileen McKusick: will describe her crank "Biofield Anatomy Hypothesis".
  11. Andrew Hall: looks like the stupidity of electric discharges creating geography.
  12. Franklin Anariba: repeating his ignorance about comets and astrophysics.
  13. Jerry Tennant: a rather deluded surgeon which is worrying (memory stored in magnetic fields!) !
  14. Stephen Crothers: is obviously going to be deluded about the 3 detections of gravitational waves with an added bonus of a special relativity delusion !
  15. Bill Mullen: a talk by a Velikovsky crank on Velikovsky.
  16. Irving Wolfe: a talk by a Velikovsky crank on Velikovsky.
  17. Andrew Fitts: a talk by a Velikovsky crank on Velikovsky.
  18. Peter ‘Mungo’ Jupp: will present a delusion that petrification is "instantaneous".
    Has an obviously deluded [url="http://www.ancientdestructions.com/"]web site[/URL "Mankind has been repeatedly destroyed and reborn from time immemorial."!) with a blog that looks like incoherent ranting about basically unassociated events and myths.
  19. Edwin Kaal: will present a deluded atomic "model", e.g."neutrons are redefined as a connection between protons and electrons".
  20. Johnny Godowski: a talk by a Velikovsky crank on Velikovsky.
  21. Peter Moddel: a talk on philosophy seemingly based on EU delusions.
  22. C.J. Ransom: looks like the idiocy of surprising results in the past = the science will be shown to be wrong.
  23. Ev Cochrane: will talk on the Venus was a comet fantasy and that Mars was named after the god Mars by the Latin believer in the god Mars - wow !

Last edited by Reality Check; 20th July 2017 at 06:46 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 22nd July 2017, 03:16 PM   #3522
SelfSim
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 363
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Came across the list of speakers for the EU2017 conference and it is a familiar collection of mostly deluded cranks ... {snip}..
A gathering of cranks! Thanks RC, for taking the time (and effort) it must've taken to review that so-called 'conference'. There are some new names on that list I hadn't seen yet, and it always helps to expand one's crank detection horizons!

By the way, I notice there is now a TBolts ad-hom attack thread, for which the poster has been chastised for launching (in a TBolts kind of way). Beats me why the mods there didn't can it altogether(?) (The offender is also continuing his tirade at his usual abode).
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 23rd July 2017, 04:51 PM   #3523
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,123
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Great. So we have a starting point. Please show where any of the many instruments detected;
a) Rock
b) electrical discharges.

Not gone well, has it? In fact, it has been, as predicted, a complete failure. The idiot Thornhill thinks H+ from the solar wind will combine with (presumably) O-, or OH-to form water. Yes? Trust me, this does not work. Not in science, anyway. When are his scientifically illiterate acolytes going to figure this out? Not happening. Doesn't work. Eh? It is such a shame that such scientifically illiterate people with so much (seemingly) time on their hands, don't use it to tell us what will happen the next time Mars is in Uranus. You know - astrology? I'd love to know what happens next time Mars is in Uranus. This is stuff I need to know about. It might hurt. Fair warning, please.
__________________
“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 23rd July 2017, 04:59 PM   #3524
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,123
Quote:
The impact/electrical discharge will be into rock, not loosely consolidated ice and dust. The impact crater will be smaller than expected.
Which was horribly wrong, yes? So, your point of bringing up the idiot Thornhill's failed prediction, is what? Exactly?
May I remind you that the impact threw up a bunch of SOLID ice? Which was detected? May I also remind you, that the idiot Thornhill failed to comment (due to lack of a relevant degree) on the Hartley/2 findings? What a tosser. Want a picture?



Now, what did the scientifically illiterate Aussie burke have to say about this? Zip, far as I can see. Know why? Because he is scientifically illiterate. Anybody disagree? No, thought not.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

Last edited by jonesdave116; 23rd July 2017 at 05:20 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 23rd July 2017, 05:07 PM   #3525
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,123
Dup. I see this site is working as well as usual!
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

Last edited by jonesdave116; 23rd July 2017 at 05:31 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 23rd July 2017, 05:23 PM   #3526
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,123
Quote:
Came across the list of speakers for the EU2017 conference and it is a familiar collection of mostly deluded cranks lying about science.
Christ. Now there is a meeting between the clueless and the mythologists (same thing). Deary me. And they wonder why nobody takes them seriously!
__________________
“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 23rd July 2017, 05:39 PM   #3527
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,123
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post

You have much to learn young padiwan!
And you are, by your own admission, scientifically illiterate. Yes? How many times do you need to get owned by the likes of Tim Thompson, MV, RC, et al, before you realise that you are out of your depth? Give up. Your stupid electric comet nonsense was predictably wrong. EU is predictably wrong. Go do something useful. Write astrology columns for a WA newspaper, yes? As close to science as you are likely to get, woo boy.
__________________
“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 23rd July 2017, 06:32 PM   #3528
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,818
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
And they wonder why nobody takes them seriously!
The increase of ignorance and delusion in these conferences is another reason that that nobody takes EU seriously.
Last year Thornhill was just a deluded Velikovsky follower with documented lying about the Deep Impact mission. Now Thornhill shows even more delusion by presenting a 1946 Velikovsky monograph "Cosmos Without Gravitation" and idiotic statements such as "Goodbye big bang and the mathematical nonsense masquerading as modern science"!
The last time Crothers was at an EU conference, he was had the delusion that black holes could not be predicted by GR. Now Crothers is even deluded into thinking that SR is wrong.
Scott used to just have an absolutely ignorant idea that the Sun was powered by currents from space. Now he seems deluded about Birkeland currents, his "model" for them, and is lying about new evidence for them in space (18 July 2017 Sol88: Links to a lying and deluded video from the deluded Thunderbolts cult.).

P.S. A lie about Thornhill at that list of speakers:
Quote:
He has spoken at numerous international conferences and authored or co-authored papers ranging from the Martian “blueberry” phenomenon to the “plasma focus” at the centers of galaxies.
No sign of that range !
There are 2 obscure Thornhill "papers" in a 2007 IEEE special issue which has valid science but also fantasies, e.g. petroglyphs with evidence of "high-current Z-pinches". SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) gives those 2 papers with Thornhill, W as an author (as well as what looks like an another Thornhill, W working on actual Z-pinches).

ETA: Here is that 1946 Velikovsky monograph "Cosmos Without Gravitation". Basically a list of his ignorance, cherry pickling outdated quotes, expressions of incredibility, e.g. clouds cannot exist!

Last edited by Reality Check; 23rd July 2017 at 06:39 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 23rd July 2017, 06:51 PM   #3529
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,123
Well, RC, as Tim Thompson said years ago, Thornhill has a BSc degree. In physics, allegedly. Whooppee. I might have a couple myself. He does not have a PhD. He is a Velikovskian. Self confessed. Nobody, surprisingly, is taking the slightest bit of notice of what he, or his loony followers, are saying. Why they keep on with this charade is beyond me. Every time they are challenged about putting something in the literature, it is always "just around the corner." Has been for a couple of decades. I simply do not understand their mentality. Do they honestly think anybody is taking a blind bit of notice? Of course not.
We have seen Scott misidentifying a planetary nebula as a Z-pinch! He wrote on his woo site that "positive ions are expelled by the Sun" (or words to that effect). It seems he was unaware of the electrons; and when that was pointed out, Juergens garbage has turned into even more garbage, as they tried to rescue it from a morass of ignorance. It is beyond a joke. At the end of the day, if you believe in Velikovsky, you are not doing science. Eh, Wal? Eh, Don? Eh, Dave? Waste of space, the lot of them. Irrelevant.
__________________
“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 25th July 2017, 01:36 AM   #3530
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,880
Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity
on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko


Quote:
In summary, within the framework of the widely used thermophysical
models that account for the relevant physics, dust removal
by a gas-lifting force is not possible. Even a super-volatile
ice (i.e., CO) situated close to the surface (strongly unphysical
assumption) cannot remove dust grains even for perihelion-like
flux conditions, except for a very narrow range of conditions
(Fig. 3). A way out of the impasse requires focusing on a revised
common model assumption listed at the beginning of this
section. It is evident that models in which the cohesion is ignored
do not provide a consistent physical picture of the real dust activity
on 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 25th July 2017, 09:18 AM   #3531
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,140
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity
on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
How about a citation?
__________________
Chicken is a vegetable-James May, vegetarian
A target doesn't need to be preselected-Jabba
ferd burfle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2017, 10:00 AM   #3532
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,421
Originally Posted by ferd burfle View Post
How about a citation?
yes here here
__________________
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 25th July 2017, 11:00 AM   #3533
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,935
It is a paper by Skorov et al., which is pubished in A&A behind a paywall, and can be found
here
__________________
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 online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2017, 11:03 AM   #3534
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,935
It is a paper by Skorov et al., which is pubished in A&A behind a paywall, and can be found
here.
__________________
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 online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2017, 01:57 PM   #3535
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,818
Thumbs down Sol88: The delusion that comets are rocks is not supported by a delusion on a paper

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity
on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
27 July 2017 Sol88: The delusion that comets are rocks is not supported by the delusion that a paper is about comets being rocks.

The question asked in the paper is whether an assumption of cohesionless dust in previous models of near-surface ice driving dust activity is correct. Specifically they model an ice layer covered by a dust layer with cohesion between the grains and find that the model does not produce lifting of dust.

Any knowledgeable or rational person will know that a rock layer cannot drive any lifting of dust maybe even with the addition of idiocy such as an undetected electric field!

Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko by Skorov, Rezac, Hartogh and Keller.
Quote:
Abstract

Context. Mainly for historical reasons, nearly all of the current thermophysical models of dust activity rely on the poorly justified assumption of cohesionless dust lifted by a gas drag force against the weak nucleus gravity. The interpretation of Rosetta data and our understanding of comet activity is particularly sensitive to this assumption.

Aims. We investigate the role that cohesion forces among the dust grains play in the evolution of temperature and pressure at the ice-dust interface and the resulting dust activity (lifting).

Methods. We used a 1D thermophysical numerical model that provides a realistic description of cohesion forces among dust aggregates. Several conditions of solar illumination on the nucleus are investigated for the H2O, CO, and CO2 ices below the dust layer. We examine a wide range of dust grain sizes.

Results. The simulations confirm an increase in temperature and pressure at the ice boundary between the two model layers with respect to exposed pure ice. Furthermore, we show that a non-monotonic behavior of temperature and pressure versus layer thickness is expected at the ice-dust interface for fine aggregates (of sizes ≤30 μm), but not for the larger grains. The ratio of vapor pressure to the physically determined tensile strength for various agglomerate sizes and layer thicknesses provides further evidence that the gas drag is not sufficient to remove dust grains of sizes <1 mm, which is a result of taking cohesion forces among the particles into account.

Conclusions. In the framework of the presented model, which can be considered common in terms of assumptions and physical parameters in the cometary community, the dust removal by a gas drag force is not a plausible physical mechanism. The sublimation of not only water ice, but also of super-volatile ice (i.e., CO) is unable to remove dust grains for illumination conditions corresponding to 1.3 AU. A way out of this impasse requires revision of the most common model assumption employed by the cometary community.
That gas-driven dust activity in comets is not solved fully yet seems to be a well known issue. There is at least one paper that resolves the issue for larger grains on 67P:
What drives the dust activity of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko? by B. Gundlach, J. Blum, H. U. Keller, Y. V. Skorov (June 2015)
Quote:
Conclusions. Our model can explain the large grains (ranging from 2 cm to 1 m in radius) in the inner coma of comet67P/ChuryumovGerasimenko that have been observed by the OSIRIS camera at heliocentric distances between 3.4AU and 3.7AU. Furthermore, the model predicts the release of decimeter-sized aggregates (trail particles) close to the heliocentric distance at which the gas-driven dust activity vanishes. However, the gas-driven dust activity cannot explain the presence of particles smaller than ∼ 1mm in the coma because the high tensile strength required to detach these particles from the surface cannot be provided by evaporation of volatile ices. These smaller particles can be produced for instance by spin-up and centrifugal mass loss of ejected larger aggregates.
The model here is that the surface of comets initially consist of a mixture of ices and dust. Sublimation when comets get close to the Sun form a layer of weakly cohesive dust on the nucleus surface.

Last edited by Reality Check; 25th July 2017 at 02:21 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 25th July 2017, 05:20 PM   #3536
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,123
Yep. Do I need to link Talbott's list of failed predictions? Again? Now, tell us Sol, how is H2O being created? Just once more, for s____ and giggles! Do you, personally, believe that is possible? How many times do we need to show that T & T are scientifically illiterate? Hardly surprising, is it? Neither of them are relevantly qualified, eh? Now, let's go through it again; how is H2O created? Lol. What was all the white stuff around Hartley 2? What did the idiot Thornhill have to say about it? Strangely, nothing. Pretty much gave up on posting about comets after that, didn't the old con artist? Wonder why that was? Guess.
__________________
“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 25th July 2017, 05:59 PM   #3537
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,818
We also have Thornhill's now 12 year old () web page with lies about confirmed Deep Impact predictions!
Apparently no one in the Thunderbolts cult is able to comprehend English, e.g. the meanings of the words "before" and "after" which make the flashes prediction into a lie! More likely they are so afraid of T & T that they will not suggest that the lies be removed in case they are booted out of the cult.

The lies, failures and successes "successes" of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2017, 06:27 PM   #3538
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,880
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Yep. Do I need to link Talbott's list of failed predictions? Again? Now, tell us Sol, how is H2O being created? Just once more, for s____ and giggles! Do you, personally, believe that is possible? How many times do we need to show that T & T are scientifically illiterate? Hardly surprising, is it? Neither of them are relevantly qualified, eh? Now, let's go through it again; how is H2O created? Lol. What was all the white stuff around Hartley 2? What did the idiot Thornhill have to say about it? Strangely, nothing. Pretty much gave up on posting about comets after that, didn't the old con artist? Wonder why that was? Guess.
Everything ok JD116?
__________________
"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 25th July 2017, 06:34 PM   #3539
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,880
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
27 July 2017 Sol88: The delusion that comets are rocks is not supported by the delusion that a paper is about comets being rocks.

The question asked in the paper is whether an assumption of cohesionless dust in previous models of near-surface ice driving dust activity is correct. Specifically they model an ice layer covered by a dust layer with cohesion between the grains and find that the model does not produce lifting of dust.

Any knowledgeable or rational person will know that a rock layer cannot drive any lifting of dust maybe even with the addition of idiocy such as an undetected electric field!

Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko by Skorov, Rezac, Hartogh and Keller.

That gas-driven dust activity in comets is not solved fully yet seems to be a well known issue. There is at least one paper that resolves the issue for larger grains on 67P:
What drives the dust activity of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko? by B. Gundlach, J. Blum, H. U. Keller, Y. V. Skorov (June 2015)

The model here is that the surface of comets initially consist of a mixture of ices and dust. Sublimation when comets get close to the Sun form a layer of weakly cohesive dust on the nucleus surface.
What else could be removing dust I hear you say RC? Well....Electrostatic forces on grains near asteroids and comets
Quote:
Abstract. Dust on and near the surface of small planetary bodies (e.g. asteroids, the Moon, Mars’ moons) is subject to gravity, cohesion and electrostatic forces. Due to the very low gravity on small bodies, the behavior of small dust grains is driven by non-gravitational forces. Recent work by Scheeres et al. has shown that cohesion, specifically van der Waals force, is significant for grains on asteroids. In addition to van der Waals cohesion, dust grains also experience electrostatic forces, arising from their interaction with each other (through tribocharging) and the solar wind plasma (which produces both grain charging and an external electric field). Electrostatic forces influence both the interactions of grains on the surface of small bodies as well as the dynamics of grains in the plasma sheath above the surface. While tribocharging between identical dielectric grains remains poorly understood, we have recently expanded an existing charge transfer model to consider continuous size distributions of grains and are planning an experiment to test the charge predictions produced. Additionally, we will present predictions of the size of dust grains that are capable of detaching from the surface of small bodies.
Hey maybe, just maybe...
__________________
"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 25th July 2017, 06:50 PM   #3540
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,123
Yep. Do I need to link Talbott's list of failed predictions? Again? Now, tell us Sol, how is H2O being created? Just once more, for s____ and giggles! Do you, personally, believe that is possible? How many times do we need to show that T & T are scientifically illiterate? Hardly surprising, is it? Neither of them are relevantly qualified, eh? Now, let's go through it again; how is H2O created? Lol. What was all the white stuff around Hartley 2? What did the idiot Thornhill have to say about it? Strangely, nothing. Pretty much gave up on posting about comets after that, didn't the old con artist? Wonder why that was? Guess.
__________________
“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 25th July 2017, 06:57 PM   #3541
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,880
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
27 July 2017 Sol88: The delusion that comets are rocks is not supported by the delusion that a paper is about comets being rocks.

The question asked in the paper is whether an assumption of cohesionless dust in previous models of near-surface ice driving dust activity is correct. Specifically they model an ice layer covered by a dust layer with cohesion between the grains and find that the model does not produce lifting of dust.

Any knowledgeable or rational person will know that a rock layer cannot drive any lifting of dust maybe even with the addition of idiocy such as an undetected electric field!

Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko by Skorov, Rezac, Hartogh and Keller.

That gas-driven dust activity in comets is not solved fully yet seems to be a well known issue. There is at least one paper that resolves the issue for larger grains on 67P:
What drives the dust activity of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko? by B. Gundlach, J. Blum, H. U. Keller, Y. V. Skorov (June 2015)

The model here is that the surface of comets initially consist of a mixture of ices and dust. Sublimation when comets get close to the Sun form a layer of weakly cohesive dust on the nucleus surface.
As imaged by ROLIS and CIVA? Righto
__________________
"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 25th July 2017, 07:00 PM   #3542
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,123
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
What else could be removing dust I hear you say RC? Well....Electrostatic forces on grains near asteroids and comets

Hey maybe, just maybe...
So please point me to where the idiot Thornhill predicted that electrostatic forces were responsible for ice laden dust grains leaving the comet. That would be interesting to read. In the meantime; where was the electric discharge machining (lol) as predicted? Where were the electric jets? Where was the lack of ice and water, as predicted by the aforementioned geniuses?
Sorry, Sol, it is dead. Deader than a very dead thing. Kaput. Truth be told, it was dead before Rosetta ever reached 67P. See the pretty picture, above. Like I say, the idiot Wal went quiet after that, didn't he? Unsurprisingly.
__________________
“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 25th July 2017, 07:13 PM   #3543
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,818
Thumbs down Sol88: Repeats his delusion that scientific papers are about his delusion

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
What else could be removing dust I hear you say RC?
26 July 2017 Sol88: Repeats his delusion that scientific papers are about his delusion that comets are rocks.

With an added bonus delusion that conference presentations are published, peer-reviewed literature! In this case a presentation by aerospace engineers at a non-astronomy conference ("Powders and Grains 2017 – 8th International Conference on Micromechanics on Granular Media"). One bit of ignorance - the author have the interaction with the solar wind charging grains but comets are shielded by their coma from the solar wind !
The paper Sol88 cited (see 27 July 2017 Sol88: The delusion that comets are rocks is not supported by the delusion that a paper is about comets being rocks) is on 67P when it is closest to the Sun (1.3 AU) with no solar wind at the nucleus.
The paper I cited in that post explains all except the smaller dust grains for 67P for a bigger distance from the Sun (~ 3 AU).

Last edited by Reality Check; 25th July 2017 at 07:23 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 25th July 2017, 07:26 PM   #3544
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,880
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
no
Tusenfem says no, comets do not "flare" with the arrival of a CME.

I think the term "flare" may need to be defined because the comet most certainly responded to the CME and I'd say it in fact flared from it's "normal" state to a more active (electrically speaking) state.
__________________
"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 25th July 2017, 07:41 PM   #3545
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,123
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Tusenfem says no, comets do not "flare" with the arrival of a CME.

I think the term "flare" may need to be defined because the comet most certainly responded to the CME and I'd say it in fact flared from it's "normal" state to a more active (electrically speaking) state.
Really? I think I've read all the papers relating to CMEs at 67P. Which one are you referring to? Electrically speaking.
__________________
“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 25th July 2017, 07:46 PM   #3546
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,123
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Tusenfem says no, comets do not "flare" with the arrival of a CME.

I think the term "flare" may need to be defined because the comet most certainly responded to the CME and I'd say it in fact flared from it's "normal" state to a more active (electrically speaking) state.
Responded to? Wow. A comet, surrounded by neutrals and ions 'responded' to a shed load of incoming ions from a CME. Well, I'll be darned. How did it respond, Sol? And how would you expect it to respond. In detail.
__________________
“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 25th July 2017, 09:29 PM   #3547
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,880
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Responded to? Wow. A comet, surrounded by neutrals and ions 'responded' to a shed load of incoming ions from a CME. Well, I'll be darned. How did it respond, Sol? And how would you expect it to respond. In detail.
Ahhh... you've got it!
__________________
"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 25th July 2017, 09:32 PM   #3548
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,818
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Ahhh... you've got it!
Got that your delusion that comets are rocks is also abysmally useless and has the idiocy of redefining scientific terms to fit?
A flare in science is a solar flare.

Last edited by Reality Check; 25th July 2017 at 09:45 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 25th July 2017, 09:39 PM   #3549
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,818
Duplicate

Last edited by Reality Check; 25th July 2017 at 09:43 PM. Reason: Duplicate
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2017, 10:18 PM   #3550
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,818
Thumbs down Sol88: Ignorance about what tusenfem wrote "no" to

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Tusenfem says no, comets do not "flare" with the arrival of a CME.
26 July 2017 Sol88: Ignorance about what tusenfem wrote "no" to.
You asked "Did Talbotts prediction turn out to be correct or not? ". Talbott wrote ""relationship of comet flaring to arrival of charged particles from solar outbursts".
The answer is obviously no because
  1. A vague fantasy is not a prediction.
  2. Comets do not flare.
    There are outbursts from the nucleus. There are jets from the nucleus.
    The mainstream working science of comets is that their coma will react to changes in the solar wind (a well Duh moment!).
  3. The EU delusion is about electrical discharges from the nucleus so that fantasy is very probably about the nucleus, not the coma.
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 Yesterday, 03:59 AM   #3551
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,123
As has been pointed out by RC,, the flaring mentioned by Talbott is (presumably) to do with an increase in the non-existent electrical woo that he believed (surely he can't still believe it?) causes the jets at comets.
We already knew before Rosetta that the jets aren't any kind of electric woo. I point the interested reader to some of the papers on the Hartley 2 mission. CO2 gas and ice, was the outcome in that particular case. So, Sol discussing particular aspects of perfectly mainstream science, regarding what happens in a cometary coma during a CME, is a totally pointless discussion. Interesting, but totally unrelated to any of the woo dreamed up by T & T.
For what it's worth, we know that solar wind heavy ions are responsible for the x-ray emission seen at comets. So, an increase in the solar wind flux should see an increase in x-ray production. Want to call that a flare? Fine, if you must, but it's a perfectly mainstream one. The whole of the sunward coma will be compressed. There has been a paper on this. Again, very interesting, but nothing to do with EU woo.
Given how vague the predictions of Talbott were, it is hard to know exactly what he was on about. Which is the whole ethos of EU; keep it as vague as possible, so that you can later claim to be right. A bit like tabloid psychics.
__________________
“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 Yesterday, 04:21 AM   #3552
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,123
What Sol needs to concentrate on are the core claims of T & T, regarding their lunatic 'electric comet' idea. That is;

1) The jets are electrical discharges to (from?) the nucleus: Either way, that has been 100% debunked by observation and measurement. Or lack thereof.

2) The comet is a rock: Yet again, 100% disproven. By the impact at Tempel 1, and the results from MIRO and CONSERT at 67P.

3) The comet charges up due to a radial electric field around the Sun: Zero evidence of any such thing.

4) The H2O at comets is not H2O, but is OH, that stupid scientists mistake for H2O (I kid you not!): Well that was dead long before T & T wrote their horrific poster on electric comets. From 1985, in fact. And many observations since. Definitively, unarguably, 100% H2O. Solid and gaseous.

5) Said OH will be caused by solar wind H+ striking O- ions, which have been electrically machined from the non-existent rock of the comet (deary me): Not going to happen. SW H+ is far too energetic to combine with anything. There is naff all O- for it to combine with anyway, even if it were possible. And, when you do the sums, it turns out that even if every H+ ion was somehow involved in production of OH (or H2O, or magic fairy dust, whatever), then there ain't anywhere near enough of it to account for even 1 litre of water production. By many orders of magnitude. So, all in all, a really dumb idea. And very unscientific. Which is not at all surprising, given who dreamed it up.

So, Sol, how do you think all that has gone? Not well, really, eh? Console yourself by having another look at all those pretty pictures from Hartley 2, back in 2010, of all that fluffy ice floating around the comet. And then ask yourself, "why are we still discussing this woo?"
__________________
“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 Yesterday, 05:59 AM   #3553
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,935
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Tusenfem says no, comets do not "flare" with the arrival of a CME.

I think the term "flare" may need to be defined because the comet most certainly responded to the CME and I'd say it in fact flared from it's "normal" state to a more active (electrically speaking) state.
No there was no "flare", it was just the CME arriving, compressing the magentic field, the higher density of SW particles interacting with the neutrals (ionization) and the ions (charge exchange) and other processes.

Has absolutely noting to do with T's flaring electrically speaking.
__________________
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 online now   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 Yesterday, 08:47 PM   #3554
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,818
Thumbs down Sol88 : The persistent delusion that there are images of comets that are rocks

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
As imaged by ROLIS and CIVA?
27 July 2017 Sol88: The persistent and irrelevant delusion that there are images of comets showing that they are rocks.
ROLIS and CIVA were cameras on the Philae lander. During the decent they took images of a comet nucleus made up of ices and dust.
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
The model here is that the surface of comets initially consist of a mixture of ices and dust. Sublimation when comets get close to the Sun form a layer of weakly cohesive dust on the nucleus surface.
A layer of dust was detected by the Philae lander. Underneath that layer of dust was a layer of ice. The MUPUS instrument that you know about found that this ice layer was harder than expected.
The CONSERT instrument in the Rosetta orbiter used the Philae lander to measure the density of the interior of 67P which was not the density of rock as in your delusion as you already know.

We have been through EU abysmal ignorance of astronomical images leading to the delusion of "I see rocks in images of comes made of ices and dust" a few times before. for example, 16 February 2016 Sol88: a follower of the deluded Thunderbolts cult who has the insane idea that he can look at an image of a comet and tell what it is made of
That composition is hard to establish from images is illustrated by Ziggurat's earlier post I've asked this of EU advocates before, I'm going to give it another shot. Here are two photographs. What kind of material are we looking at in each picture?

I am surprised that we did not see that delusion applied to jonesdave116's image in this post a few days ago on of Tempel 1! Look at all of the "rocks" on the surface ! We would see yet again denial that Deep Impact ejected water and dust. And ...
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.

Last edited by Reality Check; Yesterday at 09:10 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:20 PM   #3555
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,818
Question Sol88: Did the Stardust mission sample the subsurface composition of comet Wild 2

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
We also have Thornhill's now 12 year old () web page with lies about confirmed Deep Impact predictions
My previous analysis of the lies, etc. on this web page did not include the Stardust fantasies from Thornhill.

The "Subsurface composition" paragraph is several lies, starting with the title ! Let us see if Sol88 can understand this:
27 July 2017 Sol88: Did the Stardust mission sample the subsurface composition of comet Wild 2?
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 Yesterday, 09:25 PM   #3556
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,818
Question Sol88: Where is the EU prediction of subsurface composition

27 July 2017 Sol88: Where is the EU prediction of subsurface composition in the "Subsurface composition" paragraph or linked web page?

Last edited by Reality Check; Yesterday at 09:31 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 Yesterday, 09:45 PM   #3557
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,818
Question Sol88: What does a deluded denial of Solar System formation have to do with comets

27 July 2017 Sol88: What does a deluded denial of the formation of the Solar System have to do with the EU subsurface composition of comets
Their delusion is that planets whizz around the Solar System to match their fantasies.

We have had measurements of the subsurface composition of Tempel 1 since 2005 (the Deep Impact mission) and from 2017 there is 67P (Rosetta mission).
The ages of the planets and Sun match, i.e. they formed together.
Planets have not "remained in their present orbits ever since". The Moon was probably formed by a planet colliding with the Earth. The Nice model has Jupiter starting close to the Sun and migrating outward.
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 Yesterday, 11:40 PM   #3558
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,935
From the @Rosetta_RPC tweet:
A paper on the expanding ionosphere of the comet

Vertical struct of the near-surf expanding ionosphere of comet 67P probed by Rosetta by Heritier et al. in MNRAS without any EC woo :-)
__________________
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 online now   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 Today, 03:19 PM   #3559
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Moderator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 11,380
Mod InfoPlease head to this thread to continue the discussion.
Posted By:Agatha
__________________
London, Hamburg, Paris, Rome, Rio, Hong Kong, Tokyo; L.A., New York, Amsterdam, Monte Carlo, Shard End and...

Vodka kills salmonella and all other enemies of freedom for sure - Nationalcosmopolitan
Agatha 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 Today, 03:20 PM   #3560
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Moderator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 11,380
Mod InfoPlease head to this thread to continue the discussion.
Posted By:Agatha
__________________
London, Hamburg, Paris, Rome, Rio, Hong Kong, Tokyo; L.A., New York, Amsterdam, Monte Carlo, Shard End and...

Vodka kills salmonella and all other enemies of freedom for sure - Nationalcosmopolitan
Agatha 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 11:56 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.