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.
Reply
Old 11th December 2017, 02:59 PM   #961
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,167
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
It is hard to know what exactly you misunderstand, it is so much.

Is there any reason why currents and quasi-neutrality cannot occur at the same time?



Well, I guess your understanding is flawed to say the least.




Well I guess you are going to explain why that makes more sense.

You can google how much current is flowing, which has nothing to do with charge separation and all about inductive currents (in a simplified way like Alfvén's unipolar inductor)
Well, all the above WELL known plasma physics as a direct bearing on this

Quote:
Unlike the freely sublimating surface, the temperature of a dust covered nucleus surface (layer of 10 cm in thickness is depleted of ice at the equator) is significantly higher (see the two plots in figure 2 at right) and approaches the black body radiation equilibrium. This is due to the assumed low heat conduction of the porous dust layer: 0.1 W m–l K–l. However, in this case the remaining heat available for sublimation is significantly lower than in the first case, As a consequence, the outgassing rate for water is several orders of magnitude lower than in the case of a freely sublimating surface and doesn’t compare favorably with observations of comet P/Wirtanen (figure 7). The results for the dust covered case are not discussed further in this paper.
Temperature and Gas Production Distributions on the Surface of a Spherical Model Comet Nucleus in the Orbit of 46 P/Wirtanen

With the observed fact of granular plains with “dunes”, large boulders with layered bedrock and cliffs with fractal fracturing.

With the summary here of a dust to ice ration of 6

Quote:
11 CONCLUSIONS The classical model of comets as dirty ice balls (Whipple 1950)has focused most models of comets on ices. The more we visit comets, the dustier they appear. With 67P’s dust-to-water ratio of 6 (and possibly larger), it is now necessary to spend much more time in modelling the non-volatile matrices with a modest content of ices inside. Jean-Pierre Bibring proposes a new word naming this stuff, ‘organic(e)s’, where the modest content of ices (within brackets) well summarizes the dominant non-volatile component. Between the sizes of 0.1 and 1 mm, 99 per cent of the dust mass is in the form of compact particles, denser than the nucleus. This implies that much of the nucleus mass is in the form of mineral aggregates (silicates and suldes), so that a better denition may be ‘mineral organic(e)s’. The balanced analysis of ices, minerals and organic matter will help us to understand these objects and their origin. The Rosetta Mission conrms that 67P is an extreme mixture of volatile ices formed in very cold regions, and of minerals partly coming from the inner hot proto-solar nebula. The observed structure of the nucleus of 67P has already allowed us to better constrain how the scattered disc wasformed.ThedustparticlesdetectedbytheRosetta Missionareforcingustoarealchangeofparadigm,regardi ngwhich collisions really occurred during the accretion of the Solar system in and beyond the Uranus–Neptune region.
Unexpected and significant findings in comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view

Which has to do with Argwals paper on sub surface energy powering the “jets”

Which if you follow Skorov makes the the whole above ‘dirtysnowball’ theory falsified.

Quote:
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. Awayoutof this impasse requires revision of the most common model assumption employed by the cometary community.
Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

But on the ELECTRICAL COMET the plasma effects are just coming into focus!

So there is a point to all your work with the RPC team.


The model I’d dead right there, it can not be saved not matter how much ‘ice’ jd116 uses to justify whipple’s icy conglomerate!
__________________
"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; 11th December 2017 at 03:11 PM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2017, 03:31 PM   #962
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,176
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Nope, I don't see plasma physics as having any "bearing" on the paper. At a quick glance it seems to be purely a thermodynamic model.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
With the observed fact of granular plains with “dunes”, large boulders with layered bedrock and cliffs with fractal fracturing.

With the summary here of a dust to ice ration of 6

Unexpected and significant findings in comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view

Which has to do with Argwals paper on sub surface energy powering the “jets”

Which if you follow Skorov makes the the whole above ‘dirtysnowball’ theory falsified.



Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

But on the ELECTRICAL COMET the plasma effects are just coming into focus!

So there is a point to all your work with the RPC team.


The model I’d dead right there, it can not be saved not matter how much ‘ice’ jd116 uses to justify whipple’s icy conglomerate!

The section you quoted clearly states that particular case referenced in the quote "doesn’t compare favorably with observations of comet P/Wirtanen"

ETA: For added quotes

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Unexpected and significant findings in comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view
Dust to water ratio doesn't support EC claim of a, well, rock to whatever ratio. Nor does the paper in general, citing "proto-solar nebula" as the source of the material in the comet.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

Again from the paper...

Quote:
"the gas drag is not sufficient to remove dust grains of sizes <1 mm"
So again that paper simply says their model of the forces involved (gas drag vs cohesion) is insufficient and then only for "dust grains of sizes <1 mm".

While EC remains insufficient at any consideration without projected values to apply to any model.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 11th December 2017 at 03:49 PM. Reason: Edit of quoted post
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2017, 04:37 PM   #963
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,261
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Nope, I don't see plasma physics as having any "bearing" on the paper. At a quick glance it seems to be purely a thermodynamic model.




The section you quoted clearly states that particular case referenced in the quote "doesn’t compare favorably with observations of comet P/Wirtanen"

ETA: For added quotes



Dust to water ratio doesn't support EC claim of a, well, rock to whatever ratio. Nor does the paper in general, citing "proto-solar nebula" as the source of the material in the comet.




Again from the paper...



So again that paper simply says their model of the forces involved (gas drag vs cohesion) is insufficient and then only for "dust grains of sizes <1 mm".

While EC remains insufficient at any consideration without projected values to apply to any model.

Yup, once again Sol brings the failed “asteroid-of-the-gaps” false dilemma argument. He thinks if real scientists can’t explain something yet, it somehow provides support for his Velikovskian non-theory.

Since everyone participating in this thread except Sol sees the fatal flaws in the EC idea, I’m not sure to whom he’s preaching.
__________________
Chicken is a vegetable-James May, vegetarian
A target doesn't need to be preselected-Jabba
ferd burfle 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2017, 04:50 PM   #964
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,726
Thumbs down Sol88: Plasma physics has no relevance for his many comet delusions

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Well, all the above WELL known plasma physics as a direct bearing on this
12 December 2017 Sol88: Plasma physics has no relevance for his many comet delusions.

12 December 2017 Sol88: Lies about a paper on an ice and rock comet being about rock, etc.
[url="https://trs.jpl.nasa.gov/bitstream/handle/2014/19427/98-0801.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y"]Temperature and Gas Production Distributions on the Surface of a Spherical Model Comet Nucleus in the Orbit of 46 P/Wirtanen

12 December 2017 Sol88: Repeated lie about Skorov falsifying the fact that comets are made of ices and dust.

12 December 2017 Sol88: Repeated lie about his comet delusions including any plasma or other physics.
The electric comet delusion has at least 45 years without a scientific electric comet model or observations to support it !

12 December 2017 Sol88: Repeated 'ice' lie when he knows of the many observations of ices on comets.

His 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; etc. etc.

Also:
12 December 2017 Sol88: Persistent idiocy of citing ices and dust comet papers to derail from his comet delusions.

Last edited by Reality Check; 11th December 2017 at 04:53 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2017, 05:05 PM   #965
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,726
498 items of ignorance, idiocy (citing irrelevant mainstream papers), delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 7 December 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)

The electric comet delusion has at least 45 years without a scientific electric comet model or observations to support it !
  1. 8 December 2017 Sol88: Idiotic and irrelevant post to derail from his comet delusions.
  2. 8 December 2017 Sol88: Lies about tusenfem's paper with "no such thing as charge separation" idiocy.
  3. 8 December 2017 Sol88: Lies about tusenfem's paper with "Nothing electrical" idiocy.
  4. 8 December 2017 Sol88: Idiocy about what he quotes and highlights (field-aligned currents is not charge separation - !).
  5. 8 December 2017 Sol88: Idiocy about what he quotes and highlights (energetic electrons is not charge separation - !).
  6. 8 December 2017 Sol88: Idiocy about what he quotes and highlights (magnetic reconnection is not charge separation - !).
  7. 8 December 2017 Sol88: Lies again about tusenfem's paper with "no charge separation" idiocy
  8. 8 December 2017 Sol88: Lies about plasma physics.
  9. 12 December 2017 Sol88: The ignorance that the size of a magnetic field sets the strength of currents.
  10. 12 December 2017 Sol88: Ignorant fantasies to derail from his comet delusions.
  11. 12 December 2017 Sol88: Stupid "quasi neutral" question to derail from his comet delusions.
  12. 12 December 2017 Sol88: Lies about his understanding of space plasma when he is mindlessly parroting Thunderbolts cult dogma.
  13. 12 December 2017 Sol88: A lying "plasma physics " post.
  14. 12 December 2017 Sol88: A lie that any of his "electric woo happened" (was detected) at Comet 67P as jonesdave116 correctly stated.
  15. 12 December 2017 Sol88: Delusions about Hannes Alfvén to derail from his comet delusions.
  16. 12 December 2017 Sol88: Plasma physics has no relevance for his many comet delusions.
  17. 12 December 2017 Sol88: Lies about a paper on an ice and rock comet being about rock, etc.
  18. 12 December 2017 Sol88: Repeated lie about Skorov falsifying the fact that comets are made of ices and dust.
  19. 12 December 2017 Sol88: Repeated lie about his comet delusions including any plasma or other physics.
  20. 12 December 2017 Sol88: Repeated 'ice' lie when he knows of the many observations of ices on comets.
  21. 12 December 2017 Sol88: Persistent idiocy of citing ices and dust comet papers to derail from his comet delusions.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2017, 05:48 PM   #966
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,282
Quote:
The model I’d dead right there, it can not be saved not matter how much ‘ice’ jd116 uses to justify whipple’s icy conglomerate!
Anybody want to translate that into English for me? Sounds like crap to me.
__________________
“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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2017, 06:53 PM   #967
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,726
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Anybody want to translate that into English for me? Sounds like crap to me.
Just the usual lies.
"The model I’d dead right there" is his persistent lie that the "Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko" paper by YV Skorov et. al. means that there is no ice on comets.
Rational people know that this paper is a model of dust being ejected from sublimating ices via a gas drag force as stated in the abstract . None of the authors are so abysmally deluded to think that comets are rock. If the paper is correct (a slightly big if for a paper cited once in the last year) then all it means is that other mechanisms lift up "dust grains of sizes <1 mm", maybe little things called comet jets !

Over 8 years of lying about ice being found on comets (Deep Impact was in 2005!) by putting ice in quotes.

Last edited by Reality Check; 11th December 2017 at 07:00 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2017, 09:50 PM   #968
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,167
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Nope, I don't see plasma physics as having any "bearing" on the paper. At a quick glance it seems to be purely a thermodynamic model.




The section you quoted clearly states that particular case referenced in the quote "doesn’t compare favorably with observations of comet P/Wirtanen"

ETA: For added quotes



Dust to water ratio doesn't support EC claim of a, well, rock to whatever ratio. Nor does the paper in general, citing "proto-solar nebula" as the source of the material in the comet.

Again from the paper...

So again that paper simply says their model of the forces involved (gas drag vs cohesion) is insufficient and then only for "dust grains of sizes <1 mm".

While EC remains insufficient at any consideration without projected values to apply to any model.
Yeah, so we agree then the standard Whipple’s model from the 50’s is 🌵?
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2017, 10:38 PM   #969
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,167
Originally Posted by ferd burfle View Post
Yup, once again Sol brings the failed “asteroid-of-the-gaps” false dilemma argument. He thinks if real scientists can’t explain something yet, it somehow provides support for his Velikovskian non-theory.

Since everyone participating in this thread except Sol sees the fatal flaws in the EC idea, I’m not sure to whom he’s preaching.
Not sure I quite see it that way.

From these papers comes the general assumption solar heating can not explain the observed properties of any comet!

Forget about your fear of Velikovsky for a moment and realise Whipple all those years ago was wrong, no surprise as we had not long ventured into space but EVERYTIME we get data back from comet missions, the dirtysnowball is becoming more and more untenable!

Leaves us again with the little thing reality check and I like to call
Quote:
If the paper is correct (a slightly big if for a paper cited once in the last year) then all it means is that other mechanisms lift up "dust grains of sizes <1 mm", maybe little things called comet jets !
Mmmmmm....other mechanisms you say, please tell us all more, we are all ears!
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2017, 11:00 PM   #970
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,167
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Just the usual lies.
"The model I’d dead right there" is his persistent lie that the "Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko" paper by YV Skorov et. al. means that there is no ice on comets.
Rational people know that this paper is a model of dust being ejected from sublimating ices via a gas drag force as stated in the abstract . None of the authors are so abysmally deluded to think that comets are rock. If the paper is correct (a slightly big if for a paper cited once in the last year) then all it means is that other mechanisms lift up "dust grains of sizes <1 mm", maybe little things called comet jets !

Over 8 years of lying about ice being found on comets (Deep Impact was in 2005!) by putting ice in quotes.
Poor old Skorov not in the good books is he? ball'sn up a perfectly good story!

The official story is much the same as the mainstream have done all there modeling from!
Quote:
Comets: The Basics

Comets are cosmic snowballs of frozen gases, rock and dust roughly the size of a small town. When a comet's orbit brings it close to the sun, it heats up and spews dust and gases into a giant glowing head larger than most planets. The dust and gases form a tail that stretches away from the sun for millions of kilometers. Comets may not be able to support life themselves, but they may have brought water and organic compounds -- the building blocks of life -- through collisions with Earth and other bodies in our solar system.
NASA

but

Quote:
2.4 Note on literature

The dusty ice model has been frequently adopted in studies
of cometary activity and evolution,
though numerical treatment
varies greatly with different works. References can be found in
Smoluchowski (1981), Weissman & Kieffer (1981), Froeschle,
Klinger & Rickman (1983), K¨uhrt (1984), K¨uhrt (1999), among
numerous others.
It is conclusive that exposure of water ice over cometary nuclei
is limited
(Filacchione et al. 2016). The effect of this dust mantle
on heat transport and gas diffusion through the nucleus as well
as the conditions of dust activity has been studied in great detail.
On this matter, the reader is referred to Mendis & Brin (1977),
Brin&Mendis (1979), Brin (1980), Fanale&Salvail (1984),K¨omle
& Steiner (1992), K¨omle et al. (1992), K¨uhrt & Keller (1994),
Skorov & Rickman (1995), Davidsson & Skorov (2002), Davidsson
& Guti´errez (2005), Kossacki & Szutowicz (2008), Skorov
et al. (2011), Gundlach et al. (2011), Gundlach & Blum (2012) and
Keller et al. (2015),
if only for just a partial review of the immense
literature.
What some might consider to be a drastic simplification with
both the dusty-ice and dust-mantle models is the implicit assumption
that the sublimation occurs from a surface of pure solid ice, in
contradiction with cometary nuclei being porous objects in reality.
How much "ice" on the surface of comet 67P, reality check?

Does the nucleus have enough "ice/s" below the assumed "dust" mantle to sustain the observed discharging "outgassing" from solar isolation alone, even when the coma become optical thick?

If it's not the assumed "dust mantle" but
Quote:
Layered bedrock units that represent the exposed nucleus of 67P/C-G are dominant at southern latitudes, while topographically smooth, dust covered regions dominate the Northern hemisphere.
say Samuel P. D. Birch,1‹ Y. Tang,2 A. G. Hayes,1,2 R. L. Kirk,3 D. Bodewits,4 H. Campins,5 Y. Fernandez,5 R. de Freitas Bart,2 N. W. Kutsop,2 H. Sierks,6 J. M. Soderblom,7 S. W. Squyres1,2 and J-B. Vincent6,8 in there paper Geomorphology of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko how does the sublimation of subsurface ice happen then?

I mean The Man totatly missed the point because he got his knickers in a knot but read it again slowly.

Also remember this was the original target for the Rosetta mission.

Quote:
Abstract

A multidimensional comet nucleus model is used to estimate the temperature and gas production distributions on the surface of a comet nucleus in the orbit of 46P/Wirtanen. The spherical model nucleus is assumed to be made up of a porous dust-ice (H2O, CO) matrix. Heat and gas diffusion inside the rotating nucleus are taken into account in radial and meridional directions. A quasi-3D solution is obtained through the dependency of the boundary conditions on the local solar illumination as the nucleus rotates. As a study case, we consider a homogeneous chemical composition of the surface layer which is assumed to contain water ice. The model results include the distributions of temperature and gas production on the surface. For the chosen test case of a nucleus spin axis perpendicular to the orbital plane we found that the CO gas production on the surface is quasi-uniformly distributed in contrast to the nonuniform water outgassing. The mixing ratio at a specific point on the comet nucleus surface is not representative of the overall mixing ratio which is observed in the coma.
Temperature and Gas Production Distributions on the Surface of a Spherical Model Comet Nucleus in the Orbit of 67P/Wirtanen

and so on!
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2017, 11:16 PM   #971
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,060
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
But on the ELECTRICAL COMET the plasma effects are just coming into focus!
Nope, there is NO ELECTRICAL COMET, unless you can show us the papers in which you and your kind clearly explain the model and the observations, including the math.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:35 AM   #972
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,261
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Not sure I quite see it that way.

From these papers comes the general assumption solar heating can not explain the observed properties of any comet!

Forget about your fear of Velikovsky for a moment and realise Whipple all those years ago was wrong, no surprise as we had not long ventured into space but EVERYTIME we get data back from comet missions, the dirtysnowball is becoming more and more untenable!

Leaves us again with the little thing reality check and I like to call

Mmmmmm....other mechanisms you say, please tell us all more, we are all ears!

QED
__________________
Chicken is a vegetable-James May, vegetarian
A target doesn't need to be preselected-Jabba
ferd burfle 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:43 AM   #973
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 13,645
If the comet is rock how do the EC advocates get round the lack of density?
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:01 AM   #974
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,736
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
If the comet is rock how do the EC advocates get round the lack of density?
handy wavy, look at something else
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:59 AM   #975
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,176
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Yeah, so we agree then the standard Whipple’s model from the 50’s is 🌵?
Nope, since I don't know what "🌵" means nor that Whipple's reference to a 'dirty snowball' would actually be considered either a "model" or "standard". Certainly some variations in accreted aggregate content would be expected and if by "Whipple’s model" you simply mean comets as an accreted aggregation of dust and ices form the stellar nebula, then that is still the prevailing model even exemplified in those very papers you've quoted.


One wonders if you could agree that EC currently lacks any projected values to apply to any model?
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:36 PM   #976
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,726
Thumbs down Sol88: A lying question to detail from his comet delusions

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Yeah, so we agree then ...?
13 December 2017 Sol88: A lying question to detail from his comet delusions - he knows that the standard Whipple’s model from the 50’s was updated to be todays model of comets.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:48 PM   #977
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,726
Thumbs down Sol88: More lies to derail from his comet delusions

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Not sure I quite see it that way. ...
13 December 2017 Sol88: More lies to derail from his comet delusions - none of the papers state that comets are not ices and dust.

13 December 2017 Sol88: Idiocy that anyone is afraid of the ignorant and deluded Velikovsky who is the crank who is the start of his comet delusions

13 December 2017 Sol88: A lie that Whipple was wrong - comets are still made of ices and dust as more and more comet missions have shown.

13 December 2017 Sol88: Stupidity that anyone would include his delusions as mechanisms to lift dust from comets.

13 December 2017 Sol88: Total idiocy expecting I would reply to yet another pathetic derail from his comet delusions.

His 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; etc. etc.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:00 PM   #978
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,726
Thumbs down Sol88: Poor old Sol88 cannot stop lying to derail from his comet delusions

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Poor old ...
13 December 2017 Sol88: Poor old Sol88 cannot stop lying to derail from his comet delusions.
I did not write not "Skorov" - it is YV Skorov et. al. - there are multiple authors, i.e.. Yu. V. Skorov, L. Rezac, P. Hartogh and H. U. Keller.
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Just the usual lies.
"The model I’d dead right there" is his persistent lie that the "Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko" paper by YV Skorov et. al. means that there is no ice on comets.
I did not say that the YV Skorov et. al. paper was in my "bad books" - that is his lie.
The paper may be correct in which case there are physically possible mechanisms to also eject the smaller dust grains (jets, outbursts, etc.). The paper may be wrong and there is no problem for grains of any size - gas drag ejects them all. What makes the paper a bit dubious is that a paper that should be ground breaking has only been cited 1 time in the last year and that paper includes Skorov and Keller as authors.
Seasonal mass transfer on the nucleus of comet 67P/Chuyumov–Gerasimenko by H. U. Keller et. al.
Quote:
We collect observational evidence that supports the scheme of mass transfer on the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko. The obliquity of the rotation axis of 67P causes strong seasonal variations. During perihelion the southern hemisphere is four times more active than the north. Northern territories are widely covered by granular material that indicates back fall originating from the active south. Decimetre sized chunks contain water ice and their trajectories are influenced by an antisolar force instigated by sublimation. OSIRIS observations suggest that up to 20 per cent of the particles directly return to the nucleus surface taking several hours of traveltime. The back fall covered northern areas are active if illuminated but produce mainly water vapour. The decimetre chunks from the nucleus surface are too small to contain more volatile compounds such as CO2 or CO. This causes a north–south dichotomy of the composition measurements in the coma. Active particles are trapped in the gravitational minimum of Hapi during northern winter. They are ‘shock frozen’ and only re-activated when the comet approaches the sun after its aphelion passage. The insolation of the big cavity is enhanced by self-heating, i.e. reflection and IR radiation from the walls. This, together with the pristinity of the active back fall, explains the early observed activity of the Hapi region. Sobek may be a role model for the consolidated bottom of Hapi. Mass transfer in the case of 67P strongly influences the evolution of the nucleus and the interpretation of coma measurements.
13 December 2017 Sol88: Idiocy of "official story" from a person who has drunk the deluded Thunderbolts Kool-Aid !

His 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; etc. etc.

13 December 2017 Sol88: Usual lie of no ices on comets (surface this time).

13 December 2017 Sol88: Usual lie of "discharges" on comets

13 December 2017 Sol88: More pathetically obvious attempts to derail from his comet delusions.

Last edited by Reality Check; Yesterday at 01:14 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:30 PM   #979
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,726
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
If the comet is rock how do the EC advocates get round the lack of density?
That is easy - just read Sol88's posts where ignorant delusions and lies "beat" basic science every time !
In this case it is the delusion that electricity magic makes different techniques for measuring comet mass and thus density wrong all in the same way (measured density too low). My post Comets have measured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids) list 2 general techniques (Kepler's laws + orbit perturbation by jets), Deep Impact ejecta plume trajectory, 2 measurements for 67P.

He is parroting his heroes at the Thunderbolts cult. David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill are ignorant and deluded Velikovsky followers who have expanded on his imaginary worlds. Wallace Thornhill is a documented liar. The electric comet delusions are the tip of the iceberg of delusions that is the Thunderbolts dogma. For example, they believe that
  • The Grand Canyon was blasted out by electrical discharges between the Earth and Venus.
  • Black holes cannot exist so no gravitational waves have been detected.
  • Neutron stars do not exist (ditto for the latest gravitational wave detection!).
  • The Sun is powered by electric currents from outer space (first year astronomy students work out that a star has to have an internal heat source in order to be stable).
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)
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.

Last edited by Reality Check; Yesterday at 01:35 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:45 PM   #980
SelfSim
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 378
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
... And circuit modeling is just the long-wavelength approximation of plasma physics.
Its almost OT for the way this thread has panned out, but your above comment has been stuck in my head since you posted it.
I'm intrigued and curious .. would much appreciate a little more on the concept(s) you're alluding to here, (if possible)?

Cheers & Rgds.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:54 PM   #981
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,726
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Which reminds me of the collection of ignorant cranks that is the EU conferences. The last one I commented on was EU2015 will be yet another collection of mostly cranks
EU2016 had
Wallace Thornhill: the chief liar for Thunderbolts (it is now 12 years of lying about confirmed Deep Impact predictions) is the keynote speaker.
David Talbott: touted his deeply deluded book The Saturn Myth, etc.
Donald Scott: ignorant about astronomy delusions about an electric sun.
Montgomery Childs: delusion of fusion and "CME like" eruptions in an unpublished plasma experiment.
Ben Davidson: a lawyer's delusions about the electric universe.
Subhon Ibadov: an actual astrophysicist goes nuts about electrical discharges on comets.
Tom Wilson: musing on the geocentric Ptolemaic system passes into what looks like stupidity about dark matter.
Michael Clarage: A lie that SAFAIRE is about "how electricity manifests in solar systems" (it is a fairly standard plasma experiment) and then Clarage exposes his ignorance of astrophysics - his experiment will not reveal anything about astrophysical processes..
C.J. Ransom: Looks like lunacy about crank "catastrophic models".
Kongpop U-yen: Yet another electrical engineer going off the deep end! This time it is that space weather can predict earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and storm formations.
Eugene Bagashov: the delusion of electric comets.
Alexander Fournier: looks like an "electricity of life" cancer cure crank.
Andreas Otte: an IT guy with electric geology delusions.
Bruce Leybourne: a geologist with a crank "Platonic solids", etc. presentation.
Gary Schwartz: A professor of psychology, medicine, neurology, psychiatry and surgery idiotically goes on about the Hubble Ultra Deep Field image.
Ev Cochrane: Stupidity of a "green” or turquoise-colored sun in former times" based on ancient pictographs.
Chris Reeve: Looks like a delusion about the Apollo missions.
A.P. David: Tries to make an inane connection between Homer’s poetry and cosmology - as if Homer knew what we know about the universe!
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:14 PM   #982
SelfSim
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 378
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Which reminds me of the collection of ignorant cranks that is the EU conferences. The last one I commented on was EU2015 will be yet another collection of mostly cranks
EU2016 had
Wallace Thornhill: the chief liar for Thunderbolts (it is now 12 years of lying about confirmed Deep Impact predictions) is the keynote speaker.
David Talbott: touted his deeply deluded book The Saturn Myth, etc.
Donald Scott: ignorant about astronomy delusions about an electric sun.
Montgomery Childs: delusion of fusion and "CME like" eruptions in an unpublished plasma experiment.
Ben Davidson: a lawyer's delusions about the electric universe.
Subhon Ibadov: an actual astrophysicist goes nuts about electrical discharges on comets.
Tom Wilson: musing on the geocentric Ptolemaic system passes into what looks like stupidity about dark matter.
Michael Clarage: A lie that SAFAIRE is about "how electricity manifests in solar systems" (it is a fairly standard plasma experiment) and then Clarage exposes his ignorance of astrophysics - his experiment will not reveal anything about astrophysical processes..
C.J. Ransom: Looks like lunacy about crank "catastrophic models".
Kongpop U-yen: Yet another electrical engineer going off the deep end! This time it is that space weather can predict earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and storm formations.
Eugene Bagashov: the delusion of electric comets.
Alexander Fournier: looks like an "electricity of life" cancer cure crank.
Andreas Otte: an IT guy with electric geology delusions.
Bruce Leybourne: a geologist with a crank "Platonic solids", etc. presentation.
Gary Schwartz: A professor of psychology, medicine, neurology, psychiatry and surgery idiotically goes on about the Hubble Ultra Deep Field image.
Ev Cochrane: Stupidity of a "green” or turquoise-colored sun in former times" based on ancient pictographs.
Chris Reeve: Looks like a delusion about the Apollo missions.
A.P. David: Tries to make an inane connection between Homer’s poetry and cosmology - as if Homer knew what we know about the universe!
Ahh RC .. you're priceless matey!

What a classic list of a gaggle of inmates, presumably let out for a day's excursion!
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:11 PM   #983
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,726
Originally Posted by SelfSim View Post
What a classic list of a gaggle of inmates, presumably let out for a day's excursion!
The Thunderbolts web site is even worse than you can imagine. Starts with selling a video of the ignorant and deluded presentations at the 2017 conference !
There is the idiocy of argument by crank YouTube videos (black holes do not exist delusions, etc.). Picture of the day stupidity from ignorance that high cliffs cannot be created by geological processes and so must be created by electrical discharges. Argument from incredibility and probably ignorance here that desert mounds are created by lightning.

Last edited by Reality Check; Yesterday at 08:23 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:29 PM   #984
SelfSim
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 378
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
The Thunderbolts web site is even worse than you can imagine. Starts with selling a video of the ignorant and deluded presentations at the 2017 conference !
There is the idiocy of argument by crank YouTube videos (black holes do not exist delusions, etc.). Picture of the day stupidity from ignorance that high cliffs cannot be created by geological processes and so must be created by electrical discharges. Argument from incredibility and probably ignorance here that desert mounds are created by lightning.
Here's a goody ... (How's the caveat at the end of the page containing the 2017 Conference YouTube):
Quote from the Thunderbolts ProjectTM site:
Quote:
The ideas expressed in videos presented on The Thunderbolts ProjectTM YouTube Channel do not necessarily express the views of T-Bolts Group Inc or The Thunderbolts ProjectTM.
.. err .. well ... ok then ...
Exactly who's views do they represent, and why are they on the Thunderbolts ProjectTM website in the first place, then?
(Sort of like the caveated interviews with actors one gets when one buys a DVD movie, then, eh?)
But this tripe is intended to be taken seriously ...
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:48 PM   #985
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,060
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Nope, since I don't know what "🌵" means nor that Whipple's reference to a 'dirty snowball' would actually be considered either a "model" or "standard". Certainly some variations in accreted aggregate content would be expected and if by "Whipple’s model" you simply mean comets as an accreted aggregation of dust and ices form the stellar nebula, then that is still the prevailing model even exemplified in those very papers you've quoted.
To quote myself from my review paper that will appear (hopefully) in the first half of next year:

Originally Posted by me
Whipple [1950] combined all spectral observations and published the now well-known “dirty snowball” model of comets. In this model the nucleus of the comet is seen as a conglomeration of volatile ices (such as H2O and CO2) bound in a solid rocky body of meteoritic material. Actually, this model was developed to explain the non-Keplerian behaviour of comets (specifically comet 2P/Encke);
Whipple, F. L. (1950), A comet model I. the acceleration of comet Encke, Astrophys. J., 111, 375 – 394. (freely available)

Actually Whipple published another paper in 1999: Note on the structure of comet nuclei, of which I unfortunately do not have a pdf.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:14 AM   #986
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,060
circuit model (a short OT digress)

Originally Posted by SelfSim View Post
Its almost OT for the way this thread has panned out, but your above comment has been stuck in my head since you posted it.
I'm intrigued and curious .. would much appreciate a little more on the concept(s) you're alluding to here, (if possible)?

Cheers & Rgds.
Basically, if you have a plasma system with magnetic fields and currents etc. you can simplify stuff.

One of the great achievements of Alfvén was to see that for ideal plasmas (i.e. with infinite conductivity) you can average the plasma physical equations over distances larger than the largest gyro radius and over time scales longer than the longest gyro period. Thus he developed MHD.

Now, you can go even a step further, which can be rather useful.
I will demonstrate it with an example, because that makes it more visible. Let's take the Io flux tube magnetically connecting Io with Jupiter. The plasma in Jupiter's magnetosphere is near corotation, and the length scales of Io and other stuff is large and even though Jupiter rotates rather fast, the time scale to pass by Io is still relatively long. So we could actually describe the interaction using MHD (when we neglect ion pick-up processes and slowing down, which we will do in this case).
Still to model the connection between Io and Jupiter, even with MHD, is not an easy task, if e.g. you only want to know the total power that is delivered into Jupiter's ionosphere to create the auroral footpoint of Io.
So, if you are not really interested in the gory details of the interaction, you can argue the following way:
  • The magnetic field moves by Io at a velocity v, inducing an electric field over the moon given by vxB, this is a power source or battery
  • This will of course drive a current along, and we assume that that current uses the magnetic field lines as current wires, going up at the Jupiter side of the moon and going down at the other side
  • Along the field lines there is probably no resistivity
  • The Jovian magnetosphere, however, is "dense" and the currents have to close across the field lines, giving a certain resistivity R
  • Now you have all the ingredients for a circuit description

Naturally, you can do this more complicated, e.g. at the Sun, or even better for a connection between an accretion disk and a black hole with a magnetic loop where you may define an induction L of the loop.

So, basically, getting the large scale properties of your system, V, R, L, possibly a double layer, you can build an circuit model of the plasma system. Naturally, you will have to go into the gory details as some point, to calculate e.g. the resistivity R (see the appendix of the black hole paper, freely available).

So, that are the basics of circuit theory in a nutshell.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:01 AM   #987
SelfSim
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 378
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Basically, if you have a plasma system with magnetic fields and currents etc. you can simplify stuff.

One of the great achievements of Alfvén was to see that for ideal plasmas (i.e. with infinite conductivity) you can average the plasma physical equations over distances larger than the largest gyro radius and over time scales longer than the longest gyro period. Thus he developed MHD.

Now, you can go even a step further, which can be rather useful.
I will demonstrate it with an example, because that makes it more visible. Let's take the Io flux tube magnetically connecting Io with Jupiter. The plasma in Jupiter's magnetosphere is near corotation, and the length scales of Io and other stuff is large and even though Jupiter rotates rather fast, the time scale to pass by Io is still relatively long. So we could actually describe the interaction using MHD (when we neglect ion pick-up processes and slowing down, which we will do in this case).
Still to model the connection between Io and Jupiter, even with MHD, is not an easy task, if e.g. you only want to know the total power that is delivered into Jupiter's ionosphere to create the auroral footpoint of Io.
So, if you are not really interested in the gory details of the interaction, you can argue the following way:
  • The magnetic field moves by Io at a velocity v, inducing an electric field over the moon given by vxB, this is a power source or battery
  • This will of course drive a current along, and we assume that that current uses the magnetic field lines as current wires, going up at the Jupiter side of the moon and going down at the other side
  • Along the field lines there is probably no resistivity
  • The Jovian magnetosphere, however, is "dense" and the currents have to close across the field lines, giving a certain resistivity R
  • Now you have all the ingredients for a circuit description

Naturally, you can do this more complicated, e.g. at the Sun, or even better for a connection between an accretion disk and a black hole with a magnetic loop where you may define an induction L of the loop.

So, basically, getting the large scale properties of your system, V, R, L, possibly a double layer, you can build an circuit model of the plasma system. Naturally, you will have to go into the gory details as some point, to calculate e.g. the resistivity R (see the appendix of the black hole paper, freely available).

So, that are the basics of circuit theory in a nutshell.
Thanks kindly for that very considered explanation on the high level approach to circuit modelling in an astronomical context there, Tusenfem. 'Tis the Alfvén ideal plasma context (your second paragraph) which I think I need more time to ponder (and follow up on).

If I were an enthusiastic EU Acolyte, mind you, (), I would make full use of all that to follow up on the type of questions you suggest: Ie: 'what might be the total power that is delivered into Jupiter's ionosphere to create the auroral footpoint of Io?', or better still, maybe even use it to quantify just what might be needed to make some fantasies, such as those related to the sci-fi story of the EC, actually 'work'!?

(Actually, in thinking about what you wrote, I came across this diagram of the Faraday disc (induction) generator in Wiki, here, which I'm sure could be adapted to give a visual model along the guidelines you mention, for the Jupiter-Io example(?)).

Thanks again .. its a privilege to be able to gain a glimpse (or some insight) into how you folk translate all of this physics into practical models that can actually make a difference in leading towards real scientific understanding.

Rgds
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:17 AM   #988
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,176
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
To quote myself from my review paper that will appear (hopefully) in the first half of next year:



Whipple, F. L. (1950), A comet model I. the acceleration of comet Encke, Astrophys. J., 111, 375 – 394. (freely available)

Actually Whipple published another paper in 1999: Note on the structure of comet nuclei, of which I unfortunately do not have a pdf.

Exactly, the point Sol88 seems to be missing or perhaps just deliberately ignoring and supported by all Sol88's quote mined citations. Is that these models and formulations, even the thermodynamic one where the case referenced in the quote didn't match well with observations. Still match observations better than any EC models and formulations. Simply because EC has no projected values to model and no formulations to obtain or relate to anything. Heck, even now after all these years just guessing at values is more accurate than EC speculations that still, again most likely deliberately, lack any quantitative values to apply to any models and formulations whatsoever. Fact remains that while EC proponents may feel that without quantitative projections they can't be proven wrong. However, without such quantitative projections they can't even be as close to being right as any quantitative projection that is demonstrably wrong. So they are even worse than wrong or as Wolfgang Pauli is thought to have put it "Not even wrong".
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; Today at 07:25 AM. Reason: Typo
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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 03:33 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.