Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum Merged: The Electric Comet Theory Part III/SAFIRE

 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.
 13th August 2018, 03:05 PM #3961 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 22,263 __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 13th August 2018 at 03:07 PM.
 13th August 2018, 03:12 PM #3962 Sol88 Illuminator     Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,147 Originally Posted by tusenfem and diecussed is not a typo, it's been discussed to death sol comes again and again and again with the same questions, statements, whatever claims to calculate somethng, but then needs others to do it for him how about that help from thunderdolts, solly, did they give you any? Yeah good idea. Who would won’t to bring up the whole super duper space plasma physicist and MHD being totally inadequate for application at comets. And that CRANK sol88 banging on about charge separation in space plasma’s! Yeah that WAS embarrassing. Now are you shore those electrons and ions are eventually neutralising BEFORE the end of the computational domain at 1500km? And your absolutely positive that there are NO DOUBLE LAYERS at comets accelerating, trapping and deflecting ions and electrons? The internet never forgets. __________________ "Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116] "No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem] Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]
 13th August 2018, 03:17 PM #3963 Sol88 Illuminator     Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,147 Originally Posted by jonesdave116 Have a look at figure 7 in the paper. It'll be sod all, relatively speaking, and is irrelevant, as it is not a charge on the nucleus. We know what that needs to be, and it is physically impossible. Seems we have a another “ions and electrons eventually neutralise each other” argument???? Please show the figure in V/m for the ambipolar electrical field centred on the nucleus? You know the one that’s expected to be significant close to the nucleus Some numbers please. Because “sod all” and significant mean different things , don’t they jd116? __________________ "Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116] "No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem] Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]
 13th August 2018, 03:22 PM #3964 jonesdave116 Master Poster     Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 2,011 Originally Posted by Sol88 Seems we have a another “ions and electrons eventually neutralise each other” argument???? Please show the figure in V/m for the ambipolar electrical field centred on the nucleus? You know the one that’s expected to be significant close to the nucleus Some numbers please. Because “sod all” and significant mean different things , don’t they jd116? We know that it isn't particularly large, don't we? Remember, Philae, and eventually Rosetta, landed on the thing, and were not ripped apart into their constituent atoms, as they would have been had there been ~ 100 gigavolts on the surface. And that is what you need. Philae even had detectors in its feet and elsewhere to measure current. A current created by the spacecraft itself to test the electrical permittivity of the surface material. What did they measure? Sod all would be a fairly accurate (albeit unscientific) description. __________________ “There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin Last edited by jonesdave116; 13th August 2018 at 03:27 PM.
 13th August 2018, 06:00 PM #3965 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 22,263 Back to his deluded "MHD being totally inadequate for application at comets" lie Originally Posted by Sol88 Yeah good idea. Who would won’t to bring up the whole super duper space plasma physicist and MHD being totally inadequate for application at comets. 14 August 2018: Back to his deluded "MHD being totally inadequate for application at comets" lie. MHD is adequate for comets for the cases for which is MHD is appropriate as explained many times . When we are looking at details of plasma around comets then MHD is appropriate. When we are looking at the big picture then we can neglect the "magneto" part of MHD. Sol88's comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, a "hard shell of refractory +material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers. Totally inane delusions about charge separation doing magic. Stupidly thinks that a ambipolar electric field is a double layer. + a repeated "MHD being totally inadequate for application at comets" lie. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 13th August 2018, 08:49 PM #3966 jonesdave116 Master Poster     Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 2,011 Quote: Some numbers please. Because “sod all” and significant mean different things , don’t they jd116? Well, Vigren and Eriksson modelled the comet around perihelion with an ambipolar field. They used 5V and 10V. Sounds pretty modest to me. A 1D Model of Radial Ion Motion Interrupted by Ion–Neutral Interactions in a Cometary Coma Vigren, E. & Eriksson, A. I. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...81/aa6006/meta __________________ “There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin Last edited by jonesdave116; 13th August 2018 at 08:52 PM.
 13th August 2018, 11:20 PM #3967 tusenfem Master Poster     Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,363 Of course the ambipolar electric field cannot be very strong, like Sol's requested 100 V to 100 kV, and why not? Because the electric field is limited to the energy difference between the ions and electrons, see also Vigren & Andersson, magnitude kB Te / q, see figure 4 with a value of 10 V. The energies of the electrons seem to agree with the measurements of LAP (section 5.6) __________________ 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
 13th August 2018, 11:22 PM #3968 jonesdave116 Master Poster     Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 2,011 Originally Posted by Sol88 Guess we’ll have to wait Size of a plasma cloud matters. The polarisation electric field of a small-scale comet ionosphere Hans Nilsson Did you even read that paper? Can you not see where they model the polarization electric field? I would suggest looking at figs. 5, 6 & 7. We are talking about something comparable to, or less than, the solar wind electric field. In figs. 5 & 6 they use log10 values for some reason. The highest value is log10 (4.5). That is ~ 65% of the solar wind E field strength. The top panel of fig. 7 shows values for the net E field in the mV/ m range. Not that it has anything to do with any unobserved enormous charge on the nucleus. Size of a plasma cloud matters The polarisation electric field of a small-scale comet ionosphere Nilsson, H. et al. https://www.herbertgunell.se/pdfpape...son_etal18.pdf __________________ “There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin Last edited by jonesdave116; 13th August 2018 at 11:31 PM.
 13th August 2018, 11:50 PM #3969 tusenfem Master Poster     Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,363 Originally Posted by Sol88 Yeah good idea. Who would won’t to bring up the whole super duper space plasma physicist and MHD being totally inadequate for application at comets. Looks like we see a strong inferiority complex here. MHD is perfectly fine for comets, look for example at the Giotto tail crossing of comet 21P/Giacobini-Zinner as presented by Slavin et al. [1986]. Of course it depends on what you are looking at (mmm how many times have I said that now already?) To look at the large structure of the tail (like in Slavin's paper) which is much larger than the ion gyro radius at 21P, MDH very well describes the observed magnetic structure of the tail, see the nice two lobes of oppositely directed magnetic field. If one, however, wants to look at the fine structure, as small scales, at 67P or at 21P or at 1P, then any plasma physicist will tell you that you cannot use MHD. Like I say, you don't use general relativity to calculate how long it takes for the apple to fall onto Newton's head. Originally Posted by Sol88 And that CRANK sol88 banging on about charge separation in space plasma’s! Yeah that WAS embarrassing. Yes, it was embarrassing for you, because the charge separation that you want simply does not occur. You want strong strong fields, which just simply cannot occur. You grab every straw, every notion of electric field or charge separation, without actually knowing anything about it. You see electric field mentioned in a paper and you see "strong discharges machining the surface of the comet" whereas the electric fields are limited. The strongest field will be the convection electric field, because of the moving magnetic field. This is the field that accelerates newly created ions and make them gyrate around the magnetic field. This is about 2 mV/m. The other fields, basically are limited the by energy of the electrons and ions, which are on the order of 10 eV or so, over large distances of kilometers, leads to fields of less then 1 mV/m. Also your beloved double layers can only have a strength that is related to the energy difference between the electrons and ions, unless you can find a driver that will enhance them, like in the Earth's magnetosphere, where density cavities create strong electric fields because the current that is already flowing must be maintained, and this is not the case at the comet. So, there might be a bit of charge separation, creating some weak electric fields, but there are no electric comet electric fields and charge separations that can machine the surface of the comet. If they would be there, then LAP would have measured them, and if machining would happen, definitely MAG would have measured signatures of that. Therefore, I denied all of your "charge separation" claims, as they have to be seen in context. Originally Posted by Sol88 Now are you shore those electrons and ions are eventually neutralising BEFORE the end of the computational domain at 1500km? Jezus ******* christ man, are you really incapable of comparing two panels in a figure? Originally Posted by Sol88 And your absolutely positive that there are NO DOUBLE LAYERS at comets accelerating, trapping and deflecting ions and electrons? I have no evidence that any have been measured, but you can, of course, go to PSA and download the data and search for yourself. Originally Posted by Sol88 The internet never forgets. Yeah, won't your children be happy about that. __________________ 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
 Yesterday, 01:03 AM #3970 steenkh Philosopher     Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Denmark Posts: 5,321 Sol88, what happened to your calculations of Coulomb's and Newton's laws? You started out, an error was pointed out for you, and then you changed subject. Why? What was your conclusion? Can you correct your calculations and show that you are right, or are you conceding that these laws are contradicting your arguments? __________________ Steen -- Jack of all trades - master of none!
 Yesterday, 07:43 AM #3971 jonesdave116 Master Poster     Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 2,011 Quote: In figs. 5 & 6 they use log10 values for some reason. The highest value is log10 (4.5). That is ~ 65% of the solar wind E field strength. Whoops, should be 45%. __________________ “There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
 Yesterday, 10:19 AM #3972 tusenfem Master Poster     Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,363 Originally Posted by jonesdave116 Did you even read that paper? Can you not see where they model the polarization electric field? I would suggest looking at figs. 5, 6 & 7. We are talking about something comparable to, or less than, the solar wind electric field. In figs. 5 & 6 they use log10 values for some reason. The highest value is log10 (4.5). That is ~ 65% of the solar wind E field strength. The top panel of fig. 7 shows values for the net E field in the mV/ m range. Not that it has anything to do with any unobserved enormous charge on the nucleus. Size of a plasma cloud matters The polarisation electric field of a small-scale comet ionosphere Nilsson, H. et al. https://www.herbertgunell.se/pdfpape...son_etal18.pdf i have to correct here, the contour lines denote the number of data points that fall into the parameter region, not the electric field, for the e field you need the colourbar. the two white lines show the 10% level if the solar wind electric field, but is also in log10 (for whatever reason) __________________ 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
 Yesterday, 11:50 AM #3973 jonesdave116 Master Poster     Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 2,011 Originally Posted by tusenfem i have to correct here, the contour lines denote the number of data points that fall into the parameter region, not the electric field, for the e field you need the colourbar. the two white lines show the 10% level if the solar wind electric field, but is also in log10 (for whatever reason) Ye Gods! I well and truly misread that, then! Should have stuck to Fig. 7. Mind you, the conclusions give a pretty good indication of the field strength, when they say: Quote: (1) Once activity rises enough, the electric field of the comet ionosphere to a large extent cancels the solar wind electric field inside the comet ionosphere. There the ambipolar electric field likely dominates. (2) The cancellation is not perfect, which results in a significant anti-sunward directed electric field with a strength of the order of 10% of the magnitude of the solar wind electric field That indicates to me that the ambipolar field is comparable in strength to the SW E field. __________________ “There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
 Yesterday, 02:19 PM #3974 Sol88 Illuminator     Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,147 Originally Posted by steenkh Sol88, what happened to your calculations of Coulomb's and Newton's laws? You started out, an error was pointed out for you, and then you changed subject. Why? What was your conclusion? Can you correct your calculations and show that you are right, or are you conceding that these laws are contradicting your arguments? Well I’m gettting 22.10uC for Rosetta 10km = distance .3 Newton’s of force Gives me 151 coulombs After all I’m not replacing Newton’s with Coulombs law just “modifying” gravity... Quote: We maythough conclude that the magnitude of the forces that would be involved already at a 20kV surface potential levels are interesting, especially for small asteroid in the range of r<100m,andcanbe used to “control”, to different extents, the asteroid gravity. ELECTROSTATIC TRACTOR FOR NEAR EARTH OBJECT DEFLECTION And Quote: Prospects of Using a Pulsed Electrostatic Tractor With Nominal Geosynchronous Conditions Along with some background Asteroid electrostatic instrumentation and modelling Electrostatic forces on grains near asteroids and comets And indeed if jd116 MASSIVE charge happens upon a comet, they will disintegrate or “blow like an over charged capacitor” Electrostatic disruption of a charged conducting spheroid So a tiny little .3 Newton’s of force does not need jd116, Tom or Harvey’s wild claims of 30000 coulombs needed to “discharge” the nucleus and to appear to make to comet on 533kg/m3! __________________ "Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116] "No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem] Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018] Last edited by Sol88; Yesterday at 02:24 PM.
 Yesterday, 02:28 PM #3975 Sol88 Illuminator     Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,147 Originally Posted by jonesdave116 Ye Gods! I well and truly misread that, then! Should have stuck to Fig. 7. Mind you, the conclusions give a pretty good indication of the field strength, when they say: That indicates to me that the ambipolar field is comparable in strength to the SW E field. Quote: We conclude that the simple cloud model we used can point towards the relevant physics involved in the interaction between a small comet ionosphere and the solar wind and provide some relevant quantitative estimates of the electric eld strength and direction in the vicinity of the comet. For more detailed studies a proper simulation model is still needed, and our results indicate that important physics will be missed unless electrons and charge accumulation are taken properly into account. Why is everyone scared of electrons? __________________ "Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116] "No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem] Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]
 Yesterday, 02:54 PM #3976 Sol88 Illuminator     Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,147 Originally Posted by steenkh Sol88, what happened to your calculations of Coulomb's and Newton's laws? You started out, an error was pointed out for you, and then you changed subject. Why? What was your conclusion? Can you correct your calculations and show that you are right, or are you conceding that these laws are contradicting your arguments? So,yeah, game on! __________________ "Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116] "No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem] Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]
 Yesterday, 03:14 PM #3977 Sol88 Illuminator     Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,147 Originally Posted by Sol88 Well I’m gettting 22.10uC for Rosetta 10km = distance .3 Newton’s of force Gives me 151 coulombs After all I’m not replacing Newton’s with Coulombs law just “modifying” gravity... ELECTROSTATIC TRACTOR FOR NEAR EARTH OBJECT DEFLECTION And Along with some background Asteroid electrostatic instrumentation and modelling Electrostatic forces on grains near asteroids and comets And indeed if jd116 MASSIVE charge happens upon a comet, they will disintegrate or “blow like an over charged capacitor” Electrostatic disruption of a charged conducting spheroid So a tiny little .3 Newton’s of force does not need jd116, Tom or Harvey’s wild claims of 30000 coulombs needed to “discharge” the nucleus and to appear to make to comet on 533kg/m3! Also interesting to note the effect would be the most pronounced with a terminator orbit. Wonder where Rosetta orbited the most? __________________ "Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116] "No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem] Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]
 Yesterday, 03:19 PM #3978 Sol88 Illuminator     Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,147 You still here Indagator? __________________ "Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116] "No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem] Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]
 Yesterday, 04:02 PM #3979 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 22,263 An insane "Why is everyone scared of electrons?" question Originally Posted by Sol88 Why is everyone scared of electrons? 15 August 2018: An insane "Why is everyone scared of electrons?" question to derail from his many electric comet delusions. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 Yesterday, 11:05 PM #3980 steenkh Philosopher     Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Denmark Posts: 5,321 Originally Posted by Sol88 Well I’m gettting 22.10uC for Rosetta 10km = distance .3 Newton’s of force Gives me 151 coulombs It seems to me that you are ignoring the comments on your calculations. It was pointed out that the distance did not matter, but you still actually as if it matters. Can't you show the calculation that you make where the distance is not factored out? Although I am dead certain that you are wrong, I still think is instructive for everyone if you could point out errors in the calculations that the others have shown, rather than skipping the subject to head down a new argument. __________________ Steen -- Jack of all trades - master of none!
 Today, 02:59 AM #3981 tusenfem Master Poster     Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,363 Originally Posted by Sol88 Why is everyone scared of electrons? Who is afraid of electrons? __________________ 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
 Today, 03:00 AM #3982 tusenfem Master Poster     Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,363 Originally Posted by Sol88 Also interesting to note the effect would be the most pronounced with a terminator orbit. Wonder where Rosetta orbited the most? Please explain Please put links in to the papers you think are important __________________ 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
 Today, 03:37 AM #3983 tusenfem Master Poster     Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,363 So Solly wants to equate the "missing force" with electrostatic effects, because the comet is solid rock and not porous. As already discussed, the distance to the comet does not matter, we just search for the missing force, which would be: $ F_{mis} = \frac{G \Delta M_{67p} M_{ros}}{R^2} = \frac{k q_{ros} q_{67p}}{R^2}$ So we take the mass of Rosetta as 1250 kg, and the missing mass, according to Solly is about 401E12 kg. We take the charge of Rosetta as 1.e-8 Coulomb and the charge of 67P as unknown. Wonder, wonder, the R2 falls out at both sides of the second = sign. So we get that $ q_{67p} = \frac{G \Delta M_{67p} M_{ros}}{k q_{ros}}$ G = 6.67E-11 and k = 9.0E12, and then nicely all the powers of 10 disappear if you write it out (and I did not make a mistake) and you get: q67p = 6.67 * 401 * 1250 / 9 = 371481 C Okay, but now, we know that Rosetta can have both positive and negative voltage, which means different charge, and thus 67P will have keep track of that, by varying in a similar way, so unloading and uploading about 700000 Coulombs, just in order to keep Rosetta in its orbit. __________________ 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

International Skeptics Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Reddit